{
\
19
M
*$$»■
s^fe^
i|Oi
&ft£^l^^^
{ffj&*(
•^^vjB
*3»^te^ ^/j«^
1
fe*
■ 3 A.
fV /, veil I
LONDON:
BKADEURY, AGNEW, & CO., PRINTERS, WH1TEFRIARS.
5*
&5V
PREFACE.
A narrative of the rise and progress of Greek
sculpture involves many questions on which there are
now differences of opinion, and, much as a continuous
statement of results would have been preferable, it
has at times been necessary to enter into argument.
Where the argument is based on less important details,
I have endeavoured to confine it to foot-notes. But
there are also questions on which the opinion com-
monly received has seemed to me erroneous, and here
again some degree of discussion has been unavoidable,
the details being as far as possible consigned to smaller
tvpe. In a history of Greek sculpture notes and refe-
rences are indispensable, and may be said to need no
apology. What I wish to defend is the extensive use
I have made of them, partly, as has just been said, to
relieve the narrative, and partly also to show my con-
stant indebtedness to writers who have worked out one
or other of the numerous problems of Greek art.
It may be said that in devoting the earlier chapters
to an explanation of certain main principles in imagi-
native and in industrial art, with many instances of the
earliest condition of handicraft, I have overstepped the
limits of a reasonable introduction to the subject of
2033798
viii PREFACE.
Greek sculpture. But sculpture is an art which even
in its highest phases, as well as in its rise and early
progress, cannot, I am convinced, be fully appreciated
otherwise than by a preliminary study of these questions.
Recent years have added largely to the material of
illustration, and rendered necessary a number of new-
drawings. These have been made with special care.
Yet this increase of material has been more in the way
of enriching than of superseding the standard examples
of former times, and accordingly most of them have
been reproduced. In this occasionally use has been
made of publications not widely known, and to the
authors of them it is a pleasure to express my thanks
here.
In restoring the Shield of iVchilles as described by
Homer, the process was first to make a tracing of each
scene from an authoritative publication of the ancient
work of art selected to illustrate it, and next to draw
from these tracings the various scenes on a uniform
scale. This was done by Mr. W. Harry Rylands,
with a friendship that made light of the laborious task.
A. S. MURRAY.
British Museum,
iSSo.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION. — THEORY OF ART.
PAGE
The theory of imitation in art. — The view of Lessing. — Limits set by material. —
Artistic inspiration. — Opinions of Aristotle, Bacon and others. — Art as an
imitation of nature. — Realism. — Idealism. — Selection of types. — Influence
of public taste. — Theories of beauty. — Expression and its development. —
The aim of imitation ........... I
CHAPTER II.
FIRST STAGES IN TECHNICAL SKILL.
Handicraft as a preparation for fine art. — Earliest forms of ornament. — Drawings
on bones from the caves of France. — Influence of material. — Principles of
ornament.- Conflicting- theories. — Industrial art in the Homeric Poems —
Available material. — Handicraftsmen not professional. — Homeric decora-
tion. — Influence of the Phoenicians. — What the Greeks learned from them. —
Construction in stone. — Decoration by means of plates of copper or bronze.
— Ornaments on earlv vases ......... 21
CHAPTER III.
Ill K sill! Il> I il \< HII.I.KS.
I low far a poetic creation, Based on ancient legend. — I k>w far based on ancient
worksofart.- Contrast with chesl ofKypselos. Comparison with Ass)rian
sculptures.— Early Greek relief-. Bronze shields. Form of the shield.—
I', vidence of imitation of work > of art. Ai rangemenl "l i In- \ ai i>ms si c-ir-s. —
The shields ol tferakles and flinea . The chesl ofKypselos. In arrange-
ment.— Sculptured lions of Mycenae. Legendar) builders and sculptors.
Construction in stone. Dsedalos. Sculpt u/e in wood . . . • i l
X CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IV.
BUTADES, THEOBOROS. R.HCEKOS AND GLAUKOS.
PAGE
Modelling in clay.— Earliest Corinthian workers in clay.— Casting in bronze.—
Theodores and Rhcekos of Samos. — Relations of Theodores with Egypt. —
Soldering iron. — Glaukos of Chios ........ 71
CHAPTER V.
EARLY SCUI PTURE IN MARBLE, IVORY, AND GOLD, AND FINE WOODS.
Melas, Mikkiades, Archermos, Bupalos and Athenis, Dipoenos and Skyllis,
Partnership of sculptors. — Dontas and Dorykleidas. — Klearchos of Rhe-
gium.— Smilis of ^Egina. — Endceos of Athens. — Gitiadas of Sparta. —
Bathykles of Magnesia .......... 8
CHAPTER VI.
ARCHAIC SCULPTURE.
Oldest metopes of Selinus. —Details peculiar to early sculpture. — Apollo of
Tenea. — Thera. — Orchomenos. — Apollo in the British Museum. — Two
similar statues in the Louvre. — Strangford Apollo. —Fragmentary reliefs
from Ephesus. — Sensuous expression in sculptures of Asia Minor. — Statues
from Branchidre. — Harpy tomb. — Subject of its reliefs. —Artistic features. —
Other archaic reliefs from Xanthos. — Connection with Persian art. — Sculp-
tures from Cyprus, Assos in the Troad and Samothrace . . . -99
CHAPTER VII.
EARLY SCHOOLS OF ARCOS, SIKYON AND /EGINA.
Public prosperity and activity. — Ageladas of Argos. — Chariot group at Olympia.
— Statues of athletes. — Infant Zeus at Ithome and /Egion. — Young Herakles.
— Argeiadas and Atotos. — Aristomedon. — Sculptures dedicated at Olympia
by Smikythos. — Kanachos of Sikyon. — Apollo of BranchidK;. — Copies of
it. — Aphrodite in Sikyon. — Boys riding race-horses. — Muse. — Aristokles,
brother of Kanachos.— Sculptors of ^Kgina. — Kallon. — Onatas. — Group at
Olympia. — Chariot of Iliero. — Apollo at Pergamus. — Hermes at Olympia.
— Demeter at Phigaleia. — "The /Eginetan manner." — Glaukias and other
sculptors of iEgina ...........
CONTENTS. XI
CHAPTER VIII.
THE SCULPTURES OF .E.G1XA, NOW IX MUNICH.
PAGE
Difference between the two pediments. — West pediment. — Colour. — Composi-
tion. — Theories of arrangement. — Explanation of subject. — Types of figures
derived from study of athletes. — Details of figures. — Objections to general
opinion of central group. — Identification of the other figures. — East pedi-
ment. — Subject. — Sculptures more advanced in style than in west pediment.
— Eiyure of Herakles. — Composition. — Theories of difference between the
two pediments. — The finding of the sculptures ...... 151
CHAPTER IX.
ARCHAIC S< ULPTURE IN ATHENS.
Statues of Harmodios and Aristogeiton by Antenor — Copies by Kritios an 1
Xesiotes. — Statues in Naples. — Kalamis : His chariot group of Hiero. —
Statues of Sosandra. — Boys. — Amnion. — Apollo Alexikakos. — Colos-al
Apollo. — Hermes Kriophoros. — Dionysos. — Asklepios. — Nike Apteros. —
Race-horses. — Characteristics of his style. — H'S position in Athens.—
Supposed connection with Temple of Victory at Athens. — Copies of his
Apollo Alexikakos.— Stele of Aristokks — Stele of Lyseas. — Archaic relief
from Hekatompedon. . . . . . . . . , .170
CHAPTER X.
PYTHAGORAS OF RHEGIUM.
Progress towards idealism. — Metope of wounded giant from Selinus. — Its artistic
qualities. — Pythagoras. — His statue of Philoktetes. — Technical innovations.
— Statues of atheleles. — Europa. — Chariot group. — Statues of Kleon,
Mnaseas, Eteokles, and Polyneikes, Perseus, Apollo, Dromeus, Protoiaos,
Pancratiast at Helphi .......... 200
CHAPTER XI.
MYRON AND THE SCULPTURES OF Ills SCHOOL.
' haracteristics of Myron mentioned in ancient writers. — Statue of Vfarsyas in
the Lateran. — Other representations of same motive.— Observation of details
of natural form and life. — Figures of animals and subjects from daily life.
Statues of athletes. I.adas. The Discobolus. Statues of Apollo. —
Inlluence of Myron on the sculpture of hi^ time. -The friezes and metopes
f the Theseion at Athens. — Comparison with metopes of Parthenon.
Metopes from Temple of Hera al Selinus . . . . . . . 213
xii CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XII.
POLYKLEITOS.
PAGE
Relation of Polykleitos to Pheidias and Myron, characteristics of his style
mentioned in ancient writers. — Compares with Myron better than with
Pheidias. — Chryselephantine statue of Hera. — Imitations of it on coins. — ■
Hera Girgenti. — Hera Ludovisi. — The canon of Polykleitos.— Statues of a
Diadumenus and a Doryphorus. — Statue of Amazon. — Group of Astragali-
zontes. — Statues of athletes ......... 257
CHAPTER XIII.
THE SCULPTURES OF NORTHERN GREECE.
Pseonios of Mende. — His sculptures at Olympia. — His relation to Alkamenes. —
Polygnotos and the pictorial element in sculpture after his time. Brunn's
theory. — Thasos relief. — Pharsalos relief. — Influence of painting in technical
matters. — Comparison between the Harpy Tomb and an archaic monument
from Thasos. — Necessary connection between sculpture in relief and paint-
ing. — No proof that the sculpture of Northern Greece was other than an
extension of that of Asia Minor ......... 286
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
Scenes in a Sculptor's Studio. From a Greek Vase in Berlin.
Frontispiet
Sphinx, in Ivory. From Tumi: at Spata, in Attica ....
Lion devouring a Bull, in Ivory. From Tomb at Spata, in Attica
Spiral Ornament on Stone, from the Treasury ok Atreus, at
Myckn.k
Ornament in Stone, from ihe Treasury of Atreus, at Mycenae .
Restored Design ok Pilaster, from the Treasury ok Atreus, \i
Mvn.Ni.
The Shield ok Achilles
Shield of Herakles
Lions in relief above Gateway at Myckn.k ....
Cyclopean Wall ok Myckn.k:
Cy( lopean Wall of Cadyanda, in Lycia
Tomh ok Midas ai Dogan-Lu, in Phrygia
Terra-cotta Figure of Athena. From Sicily
Marble Stele, foi nii at Sparta
Head in Ivory, From Tomb at Spata, in Attica .
Perseus cutting okk Head of Medusa. Metope ok Oldest Templi
at Selinus
Coin of Euboea, Head of Gorgon
Marble Statue found a i 0r< homenos ......
Marble Figure in the British Museum. From Greegi . .1
Strangford Apollo. Marble Figure in the British Museum. .)
Bronze l igi ri of Apollo in the Louvre
Marble Head in Relief, in the British Museum. From Fphesus .
Archaic Marble Relief, in the British Museum. From Ephesi - . 112
Part 01 Archak Marble Relief in iiii. British Museum. From
Fi'in l 11;
Marble Head. From Athens ii|
28
38
39
40
pi. i.
60
65
65
66
67
73
94
97
100
106
,1. ii.
1 10
1 1 1
XIV LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
I'AGE
Slab of Harpy Tomb. In the British Museum .... pi. iii.
South Side ok Harpy Tomb 117
West Shu. of Harpy Tumi: 118
North Side ok Harpy Tomb 119
East Side of Harpy Tomb] 119
Slab ok Marble Frieze in the British Museum. From Xanthos
in Lycia pi. iv.
Slab of Marble Frieze in the British Museum. From Xanthos
in Lycia pi. v.
M \r.ble Frieze in the British Museum. From Xanthos in Lycia pi. vi.
Slabs ok Frieze in the Louvre. From Assos in the Troad . . 128
Marble Relief from Samothrace. In the Louvre . . . . 130
Bronze Statuette in the British Museum. Supposed Copy from
the Apollo by Kanachos 139
/Egina Pediments pi. vii.
IIarmodios and Aristogeiton. Reliek on Marble Chair, at Athens 172
Harmodios and Aristogeiton. Two Marble Statues in Naples
Museum, arranged as a group 175
Marble Statue, Hermes carrying Calf, in Museum on the
Acropolis ok Athens 188
Marble Head in the British Museum. From Cyrene . . . . 190
Marble Statue in Athens . \
! . . . . . pi. viii.
Marble Statue in the British Museum)
Stele ok Aristokles, in Athens 193
Marble Relief. Female figure stepping into Chariot. In the
Acropolis Museum, Athens 196
Marble Statue ok Athena. In the Acropolis Museum, Athens . 197
Relief on upper part ok a Marble Stele, in the Barbakeion
Museum at Athens 198
Coin ok Athens. Head of Athena 199
Metope from one ok the Temples at Selinus, in Sicily . . . 202
Coin of Cela in Sicily. River God 203
Marble Group of Europa riding on Bull, in the British Museum.
From Crete 209
Marble Statue of Marsvas, in the Lateran Museum, Rome . . 218
Marsyas and Athena. Reliek on Marble Vase in the National
Museum, Athens 220
Bronze Figure ok Marsyas, in the British Mi sum. From Patras 221
Bronze Statue of Boy picking Tiiokn from his Foot (Spinario),
in the capitoline museum, rome 228
Discobolus. Marble Statue in the Palace Massimi, Rome . . 232
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
XV
Discobolus. Bronze Statuette in the British Museum
East front ok the Theseion at Athens
Metope of the Theseion. Theseus killing Kerkyon .
Metope of the Theseion. Theseus killing Skyron .
Part of East Frieze of the Theseion
Zeus and Hera. Metope from Temple at Selinus in Sicily .
Marble Head of Hera, in the British Museum. From Agrigen
Hera Farnese. Marble Head in the Naples Museum .
Marble Statue of a Diadumenus in the British Museum. F
the Farnese Collection
Marble Statue of a Diadumenus in the British Museum. F
Vaison, in France .........
Marble Statue of a Doryphorus in Naples ....
Marble Statue of wounded Amazon. Berlin Museum .
Marble Head of Amazon, in the British Museum
Statuette of Aphrodite
Marble Relief in the Louvre. From Pharsalos
Marble Reliefs in the Louvre. From Thasos
PACE
• • 234
. 236
• • 239
• 239
. . 242
• 253
tum 26S
. . 269
ROM
pi. ix.
R( >M
. pi. X.
pi. xi.
277
280
283
291
293
/$
A HISTORY
GREEK SCULPTURE.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION. THEORY OF ART.
The theory of imitation in art — The view of Lessing — Limits set by
material — Artistic inspiration — Opinions of Aristotle, Bacon and
others — Art as an imitation of nature — Realism — Idealism — Selec-
tion of types — Influence of public taste — Theories of beauty — ■
Expression and its development — The aim of imitation.
The imitation of nature, whether in sculpture or
painting, encounters to a degree the difficulties which
beset translation from one language to another. In
language a thought, and the form in which it is ex-
pressed, must be conveyed through a new medium ;
while in art the essential character of the object is
reproduced in a new material. For both there must be
freedom, yet not without these limits : on the one
hand a perfect knowledge of the original, and on the
other a complete command of the new element. To
keep to these limits unfailingly, was the constant
struggle of substantive art in ancient Greece ; and if
the history of this struggle be broadly divided into two
parts, it will be found that in the earlier stage progress
was paramountlv in the direction of acquiring facility
and command of material, while in the later stage
all effort was to gain a fulness of knowledge of the
original.
j HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. I.
Suppose the figure to be imitated is that of a living
man, and the material to be employed, marble. It is
not necessary that the knowledge of the original should
be perfect in a general sense ; it is sufficient if it be
exact and complete from the aspect under which the
figure is to be viewed ; and so far as that aspect is at
the choice of the artist, he is free to determine it in such
a way as will suit best his knowledge for the moment.
But in certain particulars he has no choice. Marble is
an immovable inorganic substance, and it cannot be
employed to imitate a living organic body, unless the
artist seizes a particular aspect presented by this body
during so short an instant of time that it may practically
be considered as lifeless like the marble. If the figure
is to be represented in action, the instant at which it
must be seized will be that at which the action is most
expressive, or, as it may better be stated, at its highest
point. For instance, in a combat between two heroes,
the highest point of the action will be the moment im-
mediately before the one antagonist has felt the blow of
the other. When once the blow has been felt, a second
action sets in, and if the artist prefers to represent it, he
must again take it at its highest moment, when the
effect has reached its climax. This is the view admir-
ably set forth by Lessing, 1 and it will frequently be seen
how, from ignorance of this principle, the earlier Greek
1 Laokoon. xvi. The distinc- the other hand actions must have
tii m which he draws between material, and accordingly poetry,
poetry and formative art is that which represents progressive action,
the one consists of tones in time, must encroach on the domain of
other of figures and colours in art. As art can seize only one
space. Things exisl not only in moment of action, so poetry ought
hut in time, and maypresent to seize only so much of material
at any moment a different aspect as is momentarily involved in the
in coi collie action. action. Compare also W. von
Art ought then to he able to .it Humboldt's ^Esthetische Versuche,
least indicate these changes. On p
Chap. I.j INTRODUCTION. 3
artists fell into the snare of representing practically two
actions at one and the same time. Progressive action,
as Lessing points out, is the province of poetry, which
also is in itself a thing of time and progression, of parts
without substantial coherency. Nor could he, perhaps,
have found anywhere a more striking illustration of his
statement than in the choice which he made of a com-
parison between Homer's description of the shield of
Achilles and Virgil's account of the shield of /Eneas.
The Greek poet follows the progress of the making of
the shield bv the god. Virgil describes it after it is
made bit by bit, and all the beauty of his language fails
to give the impetus which naturally arises from Homer's
lines.
Thus, at the outset, it appears that the very material
which a sculptor employs, imposes on him this con-
dition — that his figure or figures must represent in their
whole attitude that moment which immediately precedes
the transition from one action to another, and at which
the figure is momentarily not living ; if it be allowed to
express by such a contradiction of fact, the truth that
the moment available for the artist is too short for even
a single pulsation of life. To say that a sculptor must
find his figure in the marble block, as the phrase goes,
is a different thing. Yet there underlies the saying, in
reality, the principle just stated. When it happened
that a triangular piece of marble, thrown into the hands
of M. Rude, 1 suggested to him the conception of his now
celebrated Neapolitan boy playing with a tortoise, that
was perhaps a mere accident. But a distinctive part
of the artistic success of the figure consists in its
remaining true to its nature as inert marble ; while,
consistent with this, it attains all that is possible of
truthfulness to the nature of the subject represented.
' I [amerton's Modem l-'ivm hmen, \>. 1 <;;,.
_l HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. I.
If, then, the material in which a sculptor works must be
treated so as to remain true to itself, as well as true to
the object of which it is to be a representation, there is
thus an obvious set of limits to realistic imitation
which the mere sense of congruity will enable the artist
to observe.
It is a different question when a sculptor is employed
to decorate with reliefs the long narrow band of the
frieze of a temple, and finds himself confronted with
obvious material necessities. He must preserve in his
design the long continuity and the evenness of the
frieze. If it is to be a procession, the movement must
be continuous and calm, with the flow of a stream ; and
it will depend upon his genius whether he makes it
sluggish and dull, or full of the bright variety of surface
in a sparkling current. Or if it is to be a battle scene,
it must again carry the eye along by its movement,
steady and calm in the main. What is true of the
frieze of a temple in respect of the material conditions
which it imposes, is true of all decorative art. The
form of the surface or space to be operated on, cannot
be interfered with by the design without danger.
Innumerable instances of the vividness with which this
was appreciated by the Greeks, will be seen among
their artistic remains. Strictly this is a wider question
than that which concerns the limits imposed on the
sculptor by the mere inertness of his material, and it
has been introduced here chiefly to strengthen the im-
pression that the nature of the substance employed by
an artist must never be lost sight of by him. It is to a
contrary practice that we owe almost all that is truly
detestable in art, however wonderful much of it may be
in technical skill.
It has already been said that the earlier stage of
Greek art was occupied in acquiring a knowledge of the
capabilities and limits of its material ; not, however,
Chap. I.] INTRODUCTION. 5
exclusively so, since very considerable progress was also
made in obtaining a true sense of the nature of the
objects which it undertook to represent, though this,
broadly speaking, was the function of the second stage.
To discharge this function adequately, it was not
required that the knowledge should be general, but
rather that it should be special, always with a view to
the capabilities of the material. If the figure to be
represented were that of a man, it was not necessary
that more of him should be known than could be
expressed in the marble or bronze. Indeed, what was
and is still most needful is to ignore everything about
him that cannot be so expressed. Place a living man
on a pedestal, and it will instantly be seen how impos-
sible he is as a monument. He must, so to speak, be
translated into marble or bronze, and the translation,
like that from one language into another, must be true
to the nature of the new medium, while true so far as it
can go to the nature of the man as indicated in his
forms. Since, then, the artist is bound to ignore every-
thing about his figure that does not fit in harmoniously
with the attitude of the moment which he chooses to
represent, he has before him a course which is direct
enough, though at the same time obviously opening up
a wide field for experiment. He may think, for instance,
and not impossibly with justice, that there is nothing
even in modern costume which may not under
correctly artistic circumstances be rendered consist-
ently. On the other hand, it is equally clear that the
difficulty to be encountered will naturally lead him to
avoid such experiments, and to fall back as frequently
as possible on the approved examples of the ancients.
But in theory he has only to attain the simple end of
perfect harmoniousness.
It will be within the recollection of everyone accus-
tomed to look at sculpture, ancient and modern, that
f) HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. I.
he has frequently seen specimens which appeared to
have no fault, but equally exercised no proper influence
on him. These are instances where the artist has
undoubtedly attempted nothing beyond his powers of
skill, and where a fairly perfect harmoniousness is the
result. Yet obviously there is something very essential
wanting. Apparently it does not arise from want of
knowledge, either of the capabilities of his material or
of the nature of the subject from his point of view. It
is easy to say that the something absent is artistic
inspiration. But then artistic inspiration is not known
to be a thing of strictly definite compass, found always
in the same degree in this or that man, whatever his
country or time. So far as it is knowable, it would
seem to share the progress which attends other human
gifts. Those who have been most highly endowed with
it, whether poets or formative artists, have been ob-
served to live in times when the particular arts of which
they were masters had by long development reached
what is regarded as their perfection. So Homer, so
Pheidias, and so Raphael. Before and after each of them
have been many instances of inspiration, for the most
part of a lesser degree, but still welcome to mankind.
Perhaps it should be understood as a quality of mind
superadded to the strictly technical qualities which may
be said to lie in the nature of the artist, which qualities
are capable of complete development without neces-
sarily inducing inspiration. It would thus correspond
to a power of abstract thought compared with the
faculty of direct and practical observation, and, indeed,
the never-failing impression produced by a work truly
described as of the inspired order, is that it had been
fashioned under the control of a powerful mind. It is
the mind which controls and selects. Without it
technically artistic gifts are only squandered, as we
know by abundance of illustrations.
Chap. I.] INTRODUCTION. 7
In the progress of art, then, there must be developed
a mental power of controlling the impulse for imitation,
and it would be an instructive pursuit if its course could
be followed. If it could be assumed that the impulse
to imitate knows no limits beyond those imposed by this
mental faculty, and, of course, those of material, which
are bought by experience, then it could be imagined
that the dawn of this faculty will be coeval with the
dawn of the imitative impulse. The facts of early
history do not determine the question either way,
though the probability may well be that an instinct of
selection accompanies the earliest efforts of imitative art.
It is certain, however, that before a nation reaches the
stage of what is called high art, it must pass through
several long series of efforts in which the one object is
to decorate a given surface. At first, the limits that
beset it are those of mere space, and the result is a
system of decoration which consists of pure geometric
lines, ultimately worked into a variety of patterns.
With advancing skill figures of animals are introduced
among the patterns, but the geometric influence con-
tinues to be very marked in the flow of outlines. Next
follow figures of men, but again with clear evidence of
the geometric sense. Here, however, the process of
thought and sympathy begins. Nor could it have
begun earlier. Art enters on a new life, without being
able to shake off what it has been learning throughout
the long period now passed, and accordingly it retains
conspicuously a decorative character until absolute
freedom has been gained. Such was its course in
Greece. To argue from that, however, that no other
course is possible, would be to ignore the fact that the
Greeks were preceded by the older civilizations of Assvria
and Egypt with which they came in contact, and from
which they may have received impulses not in keeping
with what their natural development might otherwise
8 HISTORY OF (.KEEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. I.
have been. These difficulties seem impenetrable, and
for the present purpose it may be taken that true art
begins with the imitation of the human figure, whether
this was suggested by an instinct or by mental choice.
Here only is the full swing of sympathy and mind pos-
sible. Here begins selection and controlling power, and
here opens the question of the ideal in art.
The impulse of art is to imitate nature, by which
is meant not natural objects only, but the various
phases as well of natural and human life. Aristotle
thought so, and since his day many have agreed with
him, while others have arrived at different results. To
some it has appeared that Bacon could not have ac-
cepted this definition when he assigned the practice of
art to the faculty of imagination, since it would hardly
seem as if the faculties of imagination and imitation
could be identical, or, if not identical, yet capable of
working harmoniously together. On the whole, how-
ever, there has been a very general agreement as to the
theory of imitation. But on going into the subject
beyond this point of agreement a remarkable difference
of opinion has arisen. On the one side it is argued
that every imitation of nature is a work of art, that a
faithful imitation is good art, an inaccurate imitation
bad art, and that it is permissible to imitate any object
or phase of nature the artist may choose — always, of
course, with reference to the scope of his material. If
his choice falls on an object or phase of nature which
is repugnant to the notions of his fellow men, he will
be vilified for his production ; but it will still be a work
of art if faithfully executed. This is not improperly
called the realistic view, since it requires that every
artistic production should convey the real presence of
the object imitated. On the other side stands idealism,
according to which the practical impossibility is main-
tained of imitating nature, since nature is a whole, and
Chap. I.] INTRODUCTION. g
cannot be isolated into this or that part at the wish of
an artist, except on the condition that he infuses into his
reproduction of the isolated part that which really
connects it with the whole. It would seem as if to re-
present the natural life of the object imitated would be
sufficient to meet this objection, and supporters of
realism do not hesitate to affirm that this natural life
can be reproduced by careful observation of the in-
dividual object. The idealists deny this emphatically,
and declare that the nearest approach to the truth of
nature in representing an isolated phase of it is to be
obtained by bringing to bear on the representation
the result of an observation of all objects or phases of
nature of the same class as that undergoing imitation. 1
An artist cannot represent an object of nature truthfully
unless he has in his mind an image drawn from ob-
servation of the whole class to which the object belongs.
This seems to have been also the opinion of Aristotle,
who says that a part can only be rightly rendered in art
bv a knowledge of the whole. If, then, a choice is to
be made between say a realistic and an idealistic painter,
of whom the former sits down to copy exactly what he
sees before him, while the other approaches the object
of imitation, with a wide range of study and thought,
it will be felt that the latter, the idealist, is at least the
1 Compare W. von Humboldt's In tin's last phase the imagination
/Ksthetische Versuche, p. 21. is the principal force, and what-
Again, at p. 8 he points out that ever it produces must have two
the mind, according to its faculties, characteristics: (i) it must he a
is employed either (i) in collect- pure product of imagination, and
ing, arranging, or applying the (2) it must possess a certain ex-
results of experience, or (2) in ternal and internal reality : since
following out thoughts indepen- without the first the imaginative
dent of all experience, Or (3) deal- power would not be supreme, and
■ it 1 1 distinct and definite since without the second the other
re.dities, in Mich a way that they faculties of the mind would not he
become indefinite and limitless, in simultaneous action with it.
10 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. 1.
wiser man, and if supported by skill, the better artist.
A work idealised in this manner is a work of truth for
all time. No doubt in art as in seienee there will
always be, besides the right method of procedure, two
other courses — the empiric, in which the right end is
gained by chance means, and the automatic, in
which instinctively means are employed suitable to
bring about the right end without any distinct con-
ception of that end in the mind of the person employ-
ing them.
In a sense, artists should follow Nature in her selection
of types fittest to endure and to be essentially true in
aspect to their works so long as these works last. How
far from this point of view there should be a difference
of selection between the sculptor and the painter, or
whether there should be any other than that which is
imposed by the different capabilities of their material, is
a question on which it is difficult to decide. But it is
an obvious remark, that among the objects or phases of
nature peculiarly adaptable to the painter's brush a
greater proportion are subject to the changes of time
than is the case with the objects or phases of nature
specially akin to the art of the sculptor. Nor is
it to be forgotten that the work of the painter is
singularly ephemeral in its material compared with
that of the sculptor. No specimen of the achieve-
ments of the great Greek painters survives, and yet
how is it with the works of their contemporaries, the
sculptors, who, as a rule, were behind them in the
fame of the day ?
To some extent public taste will act as a guide in the
selection of types, and on this point the following is the
opinion of a modern writer: 1 "A poet may choose
1 Mr. Sully in Mind for October, stance of this and the two pre-
1 may add that the sub- ceding paragraphs has been taken
Chap. I.] INTRODUCTION. II
to extol an ignoble type of sentiment, or a painter to
beautify subjects drawn from the lower and sensual
region of human life. But the question still remains :
does not this moral blemish constitute at the same time
an artistic blemish ? To answer this question we must
clearly go back to some fundamental conception of art.
Now psychological inquiry, taken in the large sense,
tells us that art is essentially the production of a social
and not a personal gratification; that it can only appeal
to emotions which are common to society, and which,
moreover, express themselves in mass — that is, in a
public and sympathetic form ; and that since no im-
moral, that is anti-social sentiment can permanently
utter itself in this concreted form, art has to avoid
the immoral as one branch of the inartistic." It is
certainly a rule that the better artists have always
appealed to the strong guiding influence of the times in
which they lived, but, unfortunately, there have been
periods when this influence was, in the main, despicable,
and in these periods the productions of art have been
equally reprehensible. It is therefore to be wished that
the view of the artist should be clearer than is here
indicated, and that he should appeal to a standard of
high taste such as can be collected from the history
of civilization — that, in short, he should select subjects
or types which nature, or as it may be said, the march
of civilization, has stamped as the nearest approach to
perfection of their kind.
Much has been said of a law in force in Greece,
which, so far as it went, relieved the artist from
the task of selecting his type, inasmuch as it declared
that no victor in the games could have a strictly
portrait-statue of himself set up unless he had been
from articles of mine in the Archi- Contemporary Review for August,
led for October 28, 1876, and the 1874.
12 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. I.
successful in all the five forms of contest, since anything
short of success in all the five would leave open the pos-
sibility of certain parts of his body having been developed
at the expense of others, owing to which it could not
at the first glance present, as a perfect figure ought
to present, that perfection of adaptability in all its parts
to work together harmoniously towards one end. That
is to say, his figure would not be beautiful ; for it is in
this perfect adaptability of all the parts to work together
towards one end that the definition of beauty founded
on Aristotle and accepted by Winckelmann and Lessing
consists. Certainly the practice here referred to would
justify this definition of physical beauty. So, in fact,
would also the method of Zeuxis, 1 who when painting
a figure of Helena, had before him five maidens of the
town of Croton where he was working, selected by him-
self for their beauty. Not that we suppose him to have
copied from one a limb, from another a head, but rather
that from them all he generalized one type of perfection.
Physical and moral turpicude being so closely allied in
the judgment of the Greeks, and both equally detestable,
while the opposites of them, no less closely identified,
constituted the ideal of life, it is not to be wondered
at that the remains of their art should have produced
the impression that its grand characteristic was the
pursuit of beauty of form, to the neglect of all the
varied beauty that may lie in moral expression. It is
difficult to avoid this conviction when we see, for instance,
how constantly in cases where the passion of love is to
be represented, the resource of the artist is to intro-
duce into his scene a small figure of Eros. Other-
wise the sensual evidence of the passion is extremely
slight. It is true also that Greek remains largely justify
this impression, though far less so now than in the days
1 Cicero, De Invent, ii. i. i.
Chap. I.j INTRODUCTION. 1^
of Winckelmann and Lessing, when little had been ac-
complished in the recovery of the really great works of
the Greek sculptors. To begin with, there are even now
comparatively few heads left to the sculptures which
exist, and considering how far facial expression must be
involved in the question, it will be admitted that the
means of comparison with the achievements of modern
art in this direction are still such as to be unequal to a
very unfair degree. No doubt the expression of powerful
emotion is not confined to the face, but communicates
itself to the entire body, and so far it ought to be
possible to argue whether or not the Greeks were
deficient in this respect. But besides actual monu-
ments, there are literary traditions from which it may be
gathered, for instance, that Philoktetes with the cruel
wound in his foot was the subject of a statue by a cele-
brated sculptor. 1 This subject occurs in several minor
works where the details of expression could not be
expected, but where nevertheless it can easily be seen
from the attitude that his pain is intense. The story
goes that Parrhasios, the painter, a friend apparently of
Socrates, purchased an Olynthian captive, and put him
to torture to be a model for his picture of Prometheus.
It may be untrue, as many stories of painters then and
since appear to be, but there need be no doubt of the
existence of the painting, and the expression of physical
pain which it conveyed. Then there is the incident of
Telephos, who, after suffering long from a wound in his
leg, caused by the spear of Achilles, and learning that it
could only be cured by some rust scraped from the spear
which caused it, went to Agamemnon, and, seizing the
infant Orestes, refused to give him up till the remedy
was granted. That subject we know also in works of
1 On this subject of expression of mine in the Architect \ Oct. 8th,
I have followed largely an article ' s 77-
\A HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. I.
art. Kresilas, a contemporary, and to some extent,
according to tradition, a rival of Pheidias, made a statue
of a wounded warrior in which it was just possible to see
that there was life left in him, and this same Kresilas, it
is reported, executed also a figure of a wounded Amazon,
apparently in competition with Pheidias and Polykleitos.
The several existing copies of the wounded Amazon are,
not without some reason, traced to this original. It is
true that thee have not an expression of abject pain, if
that is what is wanted, nor would that be consistent
with the high tone of character in an Amazon. But to
judge from the head of one of those wounded Amazons
in the British Museum (fig. 54), it is obvious that the
face, though entirely free from distortion, is yet searched
through and through with pain.
So far we have considered mainly " expression "
arising from bodily pain, as to which, indeed, no serious
complaint can ever be made, since it cannot well be
defended as a legitimate subject of high art at any time
or in any country. But the real weight of the charge
against the Greeks is understood to refer to their de-
ficiency in the expression of spiritual emotions. It is,
of course, no answer to this — though it may be to some
extent an explanation of the circumstance — that most of
the deities who occupy so large a space in Greek sculp-
ture were beings of too serene a nature to be subject to
noticeable emotions ; and again, there may be some
confirmation of the charge in the fact that when the
Greek did render a display of fierce passion or of excited
)o\ he frequently chose such abnormal beings as centaurs
for the one and satyrs for the other, as if such feelings
were only proper to a lower order of creation. The
centaurs in the Phigaleian frieze are wild with rage.
Those of the Parthenon metopes have a brutal or a
sensual expression, according to their purpose for the
moment. Further, there is the well-known tale of the
Chap. I.] INTRODUCTION. 15
picture by Timanthes, in which Agamemnon, called to
sacrifice his daughter Iphigeneia, was represented as
turning away his head to hide his grief. Nothing,
under the circumstances, could have been more natural.
Yet it maybe admitted as an instance of avoiding the open
display of emotion which probably many modern painters
would have attempted — hardly, however, with success.
On the other hand we know that Aristotle objected to
the character of the painting of his time on the ground
of its fondness for the representation of the emotions,
of pathos, as he called it, and urged in preference the
old style of Polygnotos with its ethos, or high ethical
character. What he says of painting must have applied
then to sculpture also, since Scopas and Praxiteles had
become celebrated through their rendering of the pas-
sions and emotions. Had we their works now we
would probably hear little of the want of expression
in Greek sculpture. As it is, we have various late
copies of, and studies from, the destruction of the
Niobides, by Scopas, and these alone, in particular the
figure of Niobe, should go far to upset the common
charge. There is also in the British Museum a marble
statue of Demeter, from Knidos, a town in the neigh-
bourhood of Halicarnassus, where Scopas is known to
have worked on the sculptures of the Mausoleum. We
do not go so far as to say, with Brunn, that her face
may be compared to that of a Madonna ; or that its
expression entirely reveals her maternal feelings of sor-
row at the loss of her daughter Persephone, mingled
with gladness at the conviction that in due time she
would return to her again in the sunshine of the fields.
To a skilled eye such as Brunn's there may be all that
in the Demeter, but to take only the opinion of the
ordinaiy observer it may safely be assumed that the face
of this figure will convey to him invariably an expression
of' pathos.
if) HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. I.
That these instances of Demeter, Niobe, and the
Niobides, which survive from the school of Scopas and
his contemporaries, must be regarded as inadequately
representing the pathetic character of that school, is
clear from the literary notices of it which have been
handed down in ancient writers. Equally certain is it
that the pathetic character of works of art in the time
of Aristotle was highly objectionable to him, and this
fact, while in a measure justifying the charge of want of
expression, since it shows that in the art previous to
Aristotle such deficiency was a conspicuous feature, cuts
away at the same time all ground for a general charge
of this kind against Greek sculpture, even if we limit it
to sculpture of the highest order, in which the figures
were of an ideal character. If, on the other hand, we
take it as applving also to minor works of art, there will
be found a considerable variety of examples to prove
that the Greek was a master of expression when he
chose, though undoubtedly these very examples, by
being exceptional, show that as a rule, taking his work
from first to last, his tendency was to avoid the display
of feeling or passion. That, however, is not the charge
against him, which is rather that he was incapable of
rendering spiritual emotions, or had not discovered the
beautv which is inherent in the expression of certain
conditions of mind.
In avoiding all temporary and passing phases of mind
in his ideal representations the Greek only obeyed a law
of idealization, since the rendering of such phases would
have the effect of individualizing his figures, or at least,
have a tendency in this direction. But while in the best
period of his art obeying this law generally, it is obvious
that he was neither unacquainted with the beauty of
emotional expression nor deficient in the facility of
rendering it.
On the other hand, it must be admitted as true, that
Chap. I.] INTRODUCTION. \-j
the Greek — however good his reasons may have been — ■
avoided many opportunities of expressing pain which
more recent sculptors would have seized, and so far the
charge of deficiency in expression may be allowed to
stand, since it conveys no blame. But there are other
cases where it seems impossible to set up any defence
except that of incapacity in this direction. Of this the
best example is furnished by the JEgina. sculptures in
Munich, where the combatants, whether victorious or
vanquished, have each and all the same gentle smile on
their faces. With all its excellence the art of sculpture
had not then arrived at the stage of perfect freedom and
mastery which it attained under Pheidias, and from the
analogy of the development of painting in more modern
times, it need not surprise us that in Greek sculpture
the power of expressing emotion was one o( the last to
be acquired previous to its culmination. But it is one
thing to charge the want of this power upon an early
stage of the art, and another thing to charge it on the
art altogether.
As regards humour, there may have been more of it
tli an appears as yet from the remains. An example
worthy of notice is that of a painted vase in the British
Museum, on which is Achilles sulking and sitting im-
movable, wrapped closely in his mantle. His mother
Thetis and her attendant Nereids arrive with the new
armour. She places an arm round his neck, and while
she is thus in the act of coaxing him to rise and gird
himself, one of the Nereids who stands behind looking
on cannot control her sense of the ridiculousness of the
situation, and has to put up her hand over her face to
hide this feeling. Of what may rather be called fun
there is an abundance, but it is mostly allotted to the
Satyrs, a class of beings who served the Greek artist at
even- turn when he had strong but pleasurable emotions
to express.
l8 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. I.
The aim and end of a work of imitative art is to give
pleasure to the spectator, that pleasure consisting in the
first plaee in the identity which he recognizes between
the imitation and the original. To take the example
employed by Aristotle ; a portrait does not awaken the
same delight in a person who is unacquainted with the
subject of it, as in one who is familiar with him. But
even then the unfamiliar spectator will recognize touches
of feature indicating this or that human characteristic
which he knows, and from this will proceed one source
of pleasure. Hence, for the benefit of the spectator,
imitative art should endeavour to evoke from him the
noblest feelings which it can realize with the material at
its command. With skill a base work may be made to
please base men, and if all the world were no better
than they, the art might so far be called perfect. But it
is the duty of the artist to search for what is best, and it
is in this that he shows the wisdom which Aristotle
associates with the highest gifts in art. In this respect
he speaks of Pheidias and Polykleitos as aKpifBeararoi.
At the same time it need hardly be said that no efficiency
in selecting the good can be of any avail unless supported
by the faculty which has already been spoken of as in-
spiration, and which in ancient, no less than in modern
times, has been referred to as a species of madness or
"fine frenzy," whether in the poet's or the artist's eye.
In speaking of the essential difference between history
and poetry, Aristotle l points out that the historian relates
what has occurred, while the poet tells what like the
things occurred or how they occurred, and thus he is
naturally thrown into the attitude of identifying himself
with the several actors in his poem. He can identify
1 Poet. i\\ ed. Dindorf. The collected and discussed with great
passages of Aristotle bearing on clearness in Doring's Kunstlehre
the theory of art will be Found des Aristoteles, [ena, 1876.
CHAP. I.J INTRODUCTION. ig
himself with their words and actions, but not with their
personal forms. These he can at most touch but lightlv,
following the example of Homer, 1 who could only de-
scribe the beauty of Helena by saying it was not strange
that for such a woman two nations endured ills so lono-
a time. The formative artist, on the other hand, w r ould
in such a case have to do above all with the beauty of
Helena; and if Aristotle's distinction ' 2 is to include him
along with the poet, of course with special differences,
it would follow that he also must render the qualities
displayed in the action which he chooses to represent,
and must identify himself with the persons of the action
while exhibiting these qualities.
So far, in speaking of imitative art, we have thought
chiefly of sculpture, though undoubtedly the term in-
cludes also both painting and poetry, each, however,
with certain special characteristics, upon which, so
far as poetry is concerned, nothing need here be said.
As regards painting, excluding the modern practice of it,
and referring only to that of the Greeks, it may be
observed that everything said of the theory of sculpture
applies equally to it. 3 The field of subjects may have been
wider. Still, in the main, it was bounded by the limits
of rendering the human figure momentarily engaged in
some action or attitude which expressed the character
of the being, for the moment at least. That the Greeks
did not perceive in a landscape the charms which it now
1 Iliad, iii. 156. they arc, and just as they are.
- Il would seem that this must :i That is to saw the application
he so from die way in which he holds good as far as form is con-
illustrates what he has just said of ccrned. The effect produced by
(Poet, ii., ed. Dind.) by re- colour is confined in die sensual
ferring to the works of three organs, and corresponds broadly
painters, Polygnotos, Pauson, and t<> the indications of fie h, For ex-
Dionysios, of whom he says that ample, in sculpture. Onthispoint
they respectively painted men compare W. von Humboldt's
better than they an-, worse than /Esthetische Versuche, p. 80.
1 .■
20 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. I.
generally exercises, may be admitted. But that they
saw oilier, and perhaps more profound charms in it is
manifest from their personifications of the phenomena
of Nature. Their imagination was naturally intensive,
concentrative, and finally plastic (evTrXao-Tos) . With
this against them, it is not surprising that they never
developed the technical skill and command of material
necessary for landscape painting.
CHAPTER II.
FIRST STAGES IN TECHNICAL SKILL.
Handicraft as a preparation for fine art — Earliest forms of ornament — ■
Drawings on bones from the caves of France — Influence of material
— Principles of ornament — Conflicting theories — Industrial art in
the Homeric poems — Available material — Handicraftsmen not
professional — -Homeric decoration — Influence of the Phoenicians —
What the Greeks learned from them — Construction in stone —
Decoration by means of plates of copper or bronze — Ornament on
early vases.
When handicraft and art exist side by side, the
difference between them is obvious and essential ; but
when, as in the early history of Greece, only handicraft
is to be seen in the course of its development, there is a
strong temptation to enquire whether and how far it
may have led up to the origin of fine art. For this
limited purpose it is not necessary to consider more
than the decorative element in handicraft.
There is not, it may be said, any work of man's
hands so rude and primitive in fashion as not to display
to some extent a result of the great human desire to
decorate, and we may say also that the earliest form
which it assumes, setting aside such instances as the
mere selection of costly and rare materials, is a simple
pattern of parallel lines. From this the decorative in-
stinct advances to complicated schemes of geometric
lines, then to figures of Mowers, of animals, and finally
of men. Such appears to be its course so long as it
proceeds in constant subordination to handicraft. But
in the meantime, what strictly artistic experiments may
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE
Chap. II.
not have been made, in the shape, for example, of
rudely scratched figures of animals or men, it is impos-
sible to saw when it is remembered that animals are
often drawn with spirit by the people who lived appa-
rently in a primitive condition in the caves of France. 1
Nor, again, is it possible, as regards the Greeks, to
determine how far foreign intercourse may have sug-
gested sehemes of ornament out of their proper place in
the natural development of the spirit of decoration.
Against all such influences the handicraftsman was
compelled to hold himself in cheek. Whatever others
might accomplish in mere waywardness, he was bound
to keep always in view the necessities of his special
occupation. If a potter, he had to learn gradually, and
by experience, the capabilities of his clay to receive and
preserve ornament, and the conditions imposed by the
spaces available for it. Similarly, if a worker in wood,
metal, or textile fabrics, he must acquire a mastery of
the limits set by his material, and by the forms into
which it was first of all necessarv it should be fashioned.
1 In the Revue Archeologiquc,
1874 (X. S.. xxvii.), pi. 10, are
given two views of the singularly
artistic figure of a reindeer, in-
cised nn a piece of reindeer horn
and found in the cave of Thaingen
in Switzerland, in 1874, speaking
nf which M. A. Bertrand (p. 306)
says that it upsets the speculative
theory of a regular development of
man according to fixed stages
equally applicable to all races.
Among several other examples
given in an article in the Revue
Arch^ologique, X. S. ix. (1864),
one (p. 26] ) is remarkable for the
skill with which the figure of the
animal is accommodated to the
natural form of the piei e of bone
on which it is carved. The writers
of the article, MM. Lartet and
Christy, point out (p. 264) that
so much skill is not easily recon-
ciled with an age of primitive
antiquity till we compare the fact
that Swiss mountaineers living in
a state of perfect simplicity and
without tools exhibit no less skill
in producing figures of their fa-
vourites, the chamois. On the
other hand, the simplest Swiss
mountaineer in our day must at
some time of his life have seen
some artistic imitation of natural
life produced among a more ad-
vanced race, and the mere sight of
such a thing would suggest to his
mind a possibility which otherwise
would most likely never have oc-
curred to it.
Chap. II.] EARLIEST STAGES IN TECHNICAL SKILL. 23
If the material were costly, as gold and ivory always
were, it might speak for itself in large masses, and in
such a case the decoration could be relegated to striking
points in the construction of the article ; or if the mate-
rial were poor, as in woven cloth, the entire surface
might call for decoration. In short, the variety of con-
siderations was infinite, always, however, within the
bounds of certain simple leading principles, and doubt-
less it was due to the fixity of these principles, to the
severity with which a successful result once obtained
was handed on, and to the fact that no beginner could
give way to mere fancy until he had first become
entirely acquainted with all that had been done by pre-
decessors in his own special field, that there arose the
singular uniformity which characterises Greek decora-
tion as compared with the mobility and freedom of
design in modern times. 1
It is true that there have been two different ways of
regarding these principles. According to the one autho-
rity, 2 the proper duty of ornament when applied to con-
struction of any kind, is to illustrate or reveal the idea
embodied in the construction, by means of an analogy
from some object in nature which may be familiarly
observed performing a like function. Thus, the fluting
of the column of a temple will suggest the static func-
tion of the column to any one who notices the analogy
between it and the stem of an umbelliferous plant.
But a stem of this kind suggests only the fluting, not
the idea of the column itself, which is a thing to be
thought out on mathematical principles. It is then
argued that the constructive design and its illustrative
form and ornament came into existence in the designer's
' This will be found stated more \>. 119.
fully by Count de Gobineau in the " Botticher, Tektonik der llcl-
Rev. Arch. 1874 (X. S. xxvii.) lenen,
24 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. IT.
mind simultaneously. It is no matter from what
kingdom of nature he may borrow his ornament so long
as it illustrates or expresses the constructive function ol
the object. The only condition is that it must not be
realistic, since then its purpose, which is to attract
attention to itself only as an analogy, would be
defeated.
In opposition to this view of the question is the theory
of Semper, 1 which sets forth as its preamble, that how-
ever aptly the earliest known forms of ornament may
express the constructive functions of the objects to
which they are applied, it is yet clear that their origin
is not to be sought for in connection with these objects
of construction, since the earliest of them present a
combination of elements which, in a still earlier phase
of handicraft, must have existed separately as distinct
forms of ornament applicable to a different set of con-
structive objects. In this respect the primary elements
of ornament are compared to the roots of a language.
New words, new forms of ornament there are none ;
every appearance of novelty in both cases is but a new
combination of the old elements. But though the origin
of the primary elements of ornament is to be assigned
to a period of civilization of which there are no remains,
it is still possible to estimate the conditions which
attended their origin, by considering the needs of primi-
tive man and the raw materials at his disposal to meet
those needs. The materials may be classed according
as they are — (i) flexible, tough, and of great absolute
strength ; (2) soft, plastic, capable of hardening, of
taking any variety of shape, and of retaining it when
hardened ; (3) column-shaped, elastic, and with special
relative strength, i.e, along their length ; (4) solid,
aggregate in its nature, capable of resisting pressure,
1 Der Slil odcr praktische ^sthetik, Munich. [86 3
Chap. II.] EARLIEST STAGES IN TECHNICAL SKILL.
-3
and suited to be cut into pieces, which may be combined
for the purpose of resisting pressure. With each of
these specific qualities of the material originated one of
the four primitive arts : with the first textile art, i.e.
weaving, &c. ; with the second, pottery ; with the third,
construction (tectonic) ; and with the fourth, masonry. 1
In time one of these arts would find suited to its pur-
pose in some degree a material strictly proper to
another. For example, a wicker-basket must be
classed as regards its form with pottery, but as regards
its process of manufacture, with the textile art ; while
clay, which is the proper inheritance of the potter, is
serviceable also to the sculptor for modelling, though a
clay figure so modelled cannot be classed as pottery.
With this interchange of material took place also inter-
changes of ornament, as when the early Greek potter
adapted for his vases the patterns of wickerwork.
Again, metal was a material serviceable to all four
arts. Of these four, it seems highly probable that man
applied himself first to textile fabrics and to pottery, with
perhaps a precedence in favour of the former.
To take now the condition of the technical arts, as it
may be gathered from the oldest Greek records, the
Homeric poems, it will be remarked as having been in
all probability conducive to their better development that
the exercise of them instead of being relegated to special
classes corresponding to the fiavavcrov irXfjOos of Aristotle,
' A.s an instance of the way in of a railing is to resist pressure
which the conditions of material from all points, but especially from
muIs- being neglected, the sides. Hence they should be
there may be mentioned the not composed of a material capable of
uncommon pattern of metal railing a solid resistance, and no doubt
in which the upright bars are made the bars in question arc so capable,
to imitate ropes. Hut the trui The fault is that their appearance
hiiK tion of a rope is to r< I pn rai i a I tlse impression, as if like
sure along its whole length, where- ropes they might easily yield to
as ili' luii' lion of tli il bars pre isure from the sides
26 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. 11.
was shared in by princes and queens. It may well have
been rare to find among princes such varied skill as had
been shown by Ulysses when he built for his bride,
Penelope, a new chamber of stone, and made for it a
couch of wood, ornamented with gold, silver, and ivory. 1
Yet obviously his rank could have suffered no deroga-
tion from an exhibition of that skill of handicraft which
formed the greatest characteristic of one of the principal
deities, Hephsestos; and if few followed his example, that
would be due perhaps rather to the urgency of warlike
occupation in those days. Again, so long as the god-
dess Athena was regarded as the type of excellence in
spinning and weaving, nothing but honour could attach
to the same occupation when conducted by the queen of
the Phaeacians or bv princesses like Helena or Andro-
mache. Under these circumstances, and since there is
no other fact to the contrary, it may be concluded that
the skilled workmen or demiurgi then enjoyed general
respect and consideration. Some few are specially
cited bv name, 2 as if the mention of them would recall
a wide reputation. That more of them are not men-
tioned, considering the great number of articles that
are specified in the poems as remarkable for the skill of
their workmanship, is difficult to explain ; unless on
the well-founded presumption that these workmen
generally stood in a relation of feudal inferiority to their
several princes, and for this reason were not in the
1 ( >dyssey, xxiii. 190 fol. So aoxoos), whom Nestor summoned
also Paris constructed his own to gild the horns of the ox for
• in Troy himself, with the sacrifice, and who brought with
help of skilled workmen, t^tovcs him his anvil, hammer, and tongs,
dvftpts. Odyss. iii. 425, cf. Od. vi. 232.
: Ikmalios, who made the throne Besides these are mentioned Pol y-
of ivory and silver for Penelope, bos,aworkerinleather,Oi].viii.373;
Odyssey, xix. 56. Tychios, who and Phereklos, son of Harmonides,
made the shield of Ajax, Iliad, vii. both father and son being tectones,
22 . Laerkes the goldsmith (\pv- Iliad, v. 59.
Chap. II.] HANDICRAFT IN HOMERIC TIMES. 27
position of men free to offer their skill wherever there
were persons to bid for it. In short, there could not
then have been many of the class of independent trades-
men, 1 a class to which apparently belonged Tychios,
the shield maker, of Hyle in Bceotia ; and altogether
there can be little doubt that the Greeks at this time
were greatly behind the Phoenicians in the business of
selling and dealing in articles produced by themselves
or in their own workshops.
As regards the supply of raw material, it is again
illustrative of a certain feudal relationship to find
the Taphian prince Mentes 2 going himself to
Temessus in Cyprus to exchange his iron for copper.
That in most towns, such as they were, there existed
places and people to facilitate this exchange of one
article for another may be inferred from the remark of
Achilles, 3 to the effect that the winner of the piece of
iron offered as a prize in the games would not for a
long time require to send to the town for more. It may
be remembered also that a night of hilarity was spent
in the Greek camp at Troy following on the arrival of
the ships from Lemnos with wine sent by Prince Euneos,
for which the Greeks bartered bronze, iron, hides, oxen
and slaves. 4 Such materials as ivory and amber could
only be obtained through commerce with foreign nations,
while even in articles which the Greeks themselves
could produce, the older civilizations of Assyria and
Egypt supplied them, through the medium of the Phoe-
nicians, with more skilfully executed specimens, as, for
1 ' )n this question sec Riede- winner himself, perhaps with the
nauer, Handwerk und Handwerker help of itinerant smiths, would
in den Homerischen Zeiten, p. 9 make' the iron into ploughshares,
fol. or that lie sent it to the town to be
- Odyss. i. i8ofol. so manufactured. See Buchholz,
•'' Iliad, wiii. 826-835. This Homerische Realien, pt. ii.
■: m iy impl\ either that the ' Iliad, vn. 467 fol.
28
HrSTOR"S "I GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. II.
example, the splendid robes ' brought by Paris from
Sidon, or the silver crater which Achilles offered as a
prize, the work of skilled Sidonians, and far excelling in
beauty everything of the kind in the world. It had
been brought by Phoenicians over the sea.'-' The
Egyptians would have practically a monopoly in the
I i.— Sphinx, in ivory. From tomb at Spata, in Attica.
supply of ivory, and it would be curious if they had
been content to export it as so much raw material
instead of for the most part in the form of manufactured
articles of luxury. This much is certain, that among
the large number of objects in this substance discovered
by Layard in Assyria, a very considerable part are
manifestly Egyptian in design and in the method of
1 [Had, vi. 289. These robes
are called the work of Sidonian
women, perhaps to he consistent
with Greek usage, but the pro-
bability is that this class of work
; erformed in Phoenicia, as in
Egypt, by men. It is true that
lotus (ii. 35) calls this a
peculiarity of the Egyptians ; hut
in Cyprus, which was nearly as
Phoenician as Sidon itself, the
- of two men, Akesas and
Helikon, famous for their textile
fabrics, have been handed down
(Athen. ii. p. b.) ; while in the
Supplices /Eschylus represents Pc-
lasgos as surprised at the Lybian
costume of the daughters of
Danaos, with its Cypriote character
and its evidence of being the work
of male hands (Supp. 270 2X4).
See Gazette Arch^ologique, 1877,
p. 119. In another instance
Homer speaks of a Sidonian vase
as the work of a Greek god Ile-
phaestos, obviously to be conform-
able to Greek usage (Odyss. iv.
617)-.
2 Iliad, xxiiii 743.
Chap. II. ] HANDICRAFT IN HOMERIC TIMES. 2CJ
execution. It has been usual to trace these articles to
the workshops of the Phoenicians, who, it is well known,
frequently imitated Egyptian designs with surprising*
exactness to the spirit, though, perhaps, rarely without
essential errors in detail. But in the present case there
would seem to be less necessity for recourse to them. 1
That foreign workmen were ever imported, it would be
rash to infer conclusively from the instance of the legen-
dary Cyclopes from Lycia, who built the walls of Tiryns
and Mycenae, but doubtless captives in war were com-
pelled to work at occupations profitable to their masters,
and by this means certain foreign elements may have
been introduced.
The various handicrafts prosecuted by the Greeks in
Homeric times include spinning, weaving and embroid-
ery, pottery, saddlery, carpentry, masonry, working in
gold, silver, copper, kuanos, iron, tin and lead. Some
of the designations of metals are confessedly vague.
Chalkos, originally the name of copper, still continued
to be applied when the copper alloyed with a small per
centage of tin, came to be what is now called bronze, but
whether this alloy was actually known in the Homeric
times is more than open to doubt. The chalkeus, 2 or
smith, was a worker in all metals. Again, it has been
questioned whether the term kassiteros, as emploved by
the poet, properly corresponds to the qualities of tin,
though ancient authority is in the affirmative. But the
chief difficulty is in determining the nature of kuanos,
which, according to some, judging from the epithets
applied to it, must mean steel, while others would prefer
to identify it with bronze.' 5 Certainly it would seem
1 Such ivory as was used for 2 Compare Riedenauer, Hand-
inlaying would be imported un- werk, &c , p. 103.
worked perhaps. Iliad, iv. i.p, : ' Gladstone, [uventus Mundi,
speaks of Carian and Lydian p. 531, for the bronze theory: for
■ who tain ivory with the the other, Buchholz, Homerische
purple dye. Realien ( Leipzig, 1 8; 1 ). In pt. ii.,
^ HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. II.
that if one metal more than another could be compared
for its brilliant colours with a rainbow and with serpents,
as is the kuanos in the armour of Agamemnon, that
metal is steel. Nor can it be forgotten that a process
of making, if not actually steel yet something very like
it, was known, since it is attested by an incident the
memory of which can never be effaced (Od. ix. 391),
Ulvsses, recounting how he and his companions thrust
the red-hot point of a stake into the one eye of Poly-
phemus as he lay overcome with wine and sleep, says
that the blood hissed as when a smith dips a great axe
into cold water to harden it, for in that is the strength
of iron.
From a just observation of the qualities of these
metals were drawn numerous metaphors to distinguish
the endurance, hardness of heart, or other characteris-
tics of men. Of silver 1 little is said compared with
the splendour of description into which gold leads the
poet. Every person and everything that need be is
rich in this metal to such a degree that we are driven
to recollect that all this poetic gold could never have
been justified by the actual possessions of Homer's
time, even admitting to the full extent the active com-
merce with the East indicated in the poems. 2 In
Greece proper it is known that in the earliest historic
period gold hardly existed, while so late comparatively
as the 70th Olympiad it was a great rarity. 3 As
p. 323—5, he quotes the various &c, and we know of the process of
epithets of chalkos and the uses to gilding silver from the Odyssey, vi.
which it was applied. In a subse- 232.
quentchapter he deals similarly with - This view is urged by Scho-
kuanos, believing it to he steel. mann.Griech. Alterthumer, i. p. 75.
1 Iliad, ii. 857, mentions Alybe 3 Boeckh, Economy of Athens,
(on the Pontos) as a place whence Eng. transl., i. p. 13. Compare
silver was obtained. We hear of Schumann, Griech. Alterth., i.
silver vases, tables, work-baskets, p. 7^.
Chap. II.] HANDICRAFT IN HOMERIC TIMES.
3*
reerards ivory, which also was a favourite material of
decoration, it has already been suggested that it may
have been imported chiefly in a manufactured state, and
the likelihood of this is confirmed by the fact of the
poet's being to all appearance entirely unacquainted
with the animal from which it was obtained. This
point is referred to by Pausanias (i. 12, 4), who remarks
Fig. 2. — Lion devouring a bull, in ivory. From tomb at Spata, in Attica.
that had Homer known about the elephant he would
have made poetic use of him in preference to the com-
bats of pygmies and cranes. False dreams issued
through a gate of ivory, 1 Penelope's complexion was as
of ivory, and not a few were the works either made of
or decorated by it.
It could hardly be expected that any detailed descrip-
tion of the tools then employed by workmen would be
found in the poems. We know only in general terms
that the smith used tongs, hammer, anvil, a block for
' ( »(]_\ ss. xix. 562 ; xviii. igt
32
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE
Chap. II.
the anvil, and bellows -, 1 the carpenter had his axe,
chisel, and drill, 2 and the potter his wheel moving like
a quick dance; 3 while the spindle, distaff, and loom, 4
were reach- to the service of well-trained ladies and their
handmaids.
It will he seen from this general review that a con-
siderable degree of technical skill had existed among: the
Greeks of the Homeric age. Equally clear, however, is
it that this skill was not as yet concentrated in the hands
of professional classes of workmen, since even princes
of high station worked for themselves or conducted their
own business. The professional workmen of those days
wherever great skill was needed were the Phoenicians,
and it was to commerce with them that the Greeks
appear to have turned when they desired to procure
articles of this higher order. They had themselves only
learned as vet what has been called the alphabet of
art. 5 On the other hand, it must he obvious that the
poet has not unfrequently attributed to objects a splen-
dour which it may be presumed not even the Phoenicians
could have lent them, as, for example, in the palace of
Alkinoos, 6 with its walls of copper, doors of gold,
threshold of silver, figures of dogs in gold and silver
at the entrance, and of youths of gold within, acting
as torch-bearers. Less gorgeous, but on a similar
model, is the palace of Menelaos," rivalling that of
1 Iliad, xviii. 468-477.
> Idyss. xxiii. 196-8.
3 Iliad, xviii. 600.
* On weaving see Hertzberg in
the Philologus, 1876, p. 6, and
Ahrens, ibid. p. 385 fol. Com-
pare Bliimner, Technologie, &c,
]). 107. tor spinning, and p. 120
for weaving.
:. •: I lie Kunst bei
Homer, Miinchen, 1868, and com-
pare my article in the Contem-
porary Review, 1874. p. 224.
6 Odyss. vii. 8i fol.
7 Odyss. iv. 71. Within the
historical period we know of the
temple of Athene Chalkicekos in
Sparta, in which copper or bronze
appears to have been applied in a
similar manner for mural decora-
Chap. II.] HANDICRAFT IN HOMERIC TIMES. 33
Zeus himself in Olympos. With every allowance for
poetic embellishment, we may argue that since a poet
cannot create out of nothing, there must have been here
also some foundation in reality. So far as the walls of
shining metal are concerned, such a foundation is dis-
covered in the fact that the walls of the so-called Trea-
surv of Atreus at Mycenae, a building probably of near
the Homeric date, were plated with copper. With this
to start from, the poet would be free to add whatever
splendour or effulgence he could conceive, always, how-
ever, keeping within the range of the known qualities of
the materials. But when he speaks of figures of dogs
or of youths sculptured in precious metals, the difficulty
assumes a graver aspect, not that there is anything im-
probable in assuming the poet to have seen such
objects, if different in scale and less ambitious, pro-
duced by the Phoenicians, but because there is some
temptation to think that it might be within the power of
imagination to conceive living beings, like the golden
handmaidens of Hephaestos, fashioned of gold instead
of flesh and blood, without any previous knowledge of
the existence of such a thing as a sculptured figure. 1
tion, while as r-^rds sculpture "Even if he had never seen any
we find Pausanias (iii. 17. 6) representations of life, his imagina-
speaking of a statue of Zeus, in tion might have conceived them."
Sparta, made of plates of bronze Again, "That Homer had seen
nailed together, as one of the his shield of Achilles is in my
figures he knew, and thus belief just as true as that Dante
confirming the early use of plates had seen his Paradiso." But on
of diis material for decoration. p. 56 we read. "All line art in
From the ruins of Assyria there is Homer is foreign in its associa-
now a considerable amount of tions," which when compared with
nee shewing the very general the following from Inventus Mundi,
employment of bronze or copper p. 123, that "the most importanl
plates for the coating or decoration works 1 if arl named in the poems
of structures in wood. are obtained from Phoenicians,"
1 Mr. Gladstone, Homeri< Syn- shows that Mr. Gladstone was
chroni m, p. 59, says ol Homer, himself one of the first, if not the
34 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. II.
Such an opinion will hardly be maintained, for, in the first
place, the mere possibility of it is open to question, and
in the second place, the poet would not be intelligible to
the degree so characteristic of him elsewhere. On this
view of the question it is necessary to enquire how far
the Phoenicians may in fact have furnished him with at
least the main elements from which he constructed those
ambitious works of art. It would be enough if we dis-
covered only the elements, though some of the examples
may have existed in a slightly different form. It would
be unpardonable to suppose that he had ever beheld
a shield comparable in variety of design and material
with that which he describes as the work of the Greek
god Hephaestos, and as made for Achilles. Nor need
we imagine that the most princely armour of his day
equalled that which was presented to Agamemnon by
Kinyras, the king of Cyprus, an island which from the
earliest times was associated with Phoenician skill in
metal working. But we may stop to consider how far
what is at present known of the art of the Phoenicians
and the other ancient nations with which they were
in contact, confirms the theory that the designs on the
shield of Achilles, though ascribed to the Greek god
Hephaestos, were founded, not perhaps altogether upon
actual works of art, but on a true knowledge of the capa-
city of art which could only have been derived from the
sight of extensive and ambitious sculptures.
In contrast with the clearness of the fact that in the
Homeric times all the choicest and best examples of
technical skill possessed by the Greeks had come to
them from the Phoenicians, there has been a consider-
able degree of difficulty in obtaining exact and conclu-
first, to point out the true direction as concerns works of art is to be
in which the inspiration of Homer found.
Chap. II.]
PHOENICIAN WORKMANSHIP.
35
sive evidence as to the essential features of the art of
this people at this period. On the other hand, through
the fortunate circumstance that of late years this sub-
ject, greatly enlarged by successful explorations l on
ancient sites, has occupied the almost undivided
attention of several distinguished investigators, it is
now possible to recognize the main elements 2 of
1 Of these explorations men-
tion should be made of (a) Delia
Marmora, Voyage en Sardaigne,
with his excavations at Tharros,
Sulcis, and Cagliari. From Phoe-
nician, or it may be Carthaginian
sites in Sardinia the British Museum
possesses a series of gold orna-
ments, engraved scarabaei and
terra cotta figures, all characteristic
of what is set down as Phoenician
art. (/>) M. Renan, Mission de
Ph&iicie, in which attention should
be drawn to the stele, pi. 4, fig. 8,
where the design of two gryphons
corresponds singularly with that of
two sphinxes on a stele found by
Cesnola at Golgoi in Cyprus
(Cesnola, Cyprus, p. 117). Again,
Renan, pi. 4, fig. 7, gives a stele
the upper part of which is sculp-
tured with a pattern identical with
tii ii mi the borders of the sarco-
us from Amathus in C) prus
(Cesnola, pi. 14). Kenan's two
stelae are engraved also by Long-
perier in his Mus£e de Napoleon
III., pi. 18, figs. 3-4. (c) Cesnola,
Cyprus, its Ancient Cities, Tombs,
and Temples, w ho, from the ex-
traordinary extent and succe
his discoveries on spe< ially Phoeni-
cian sites, has contributed most
rial for the study,
time there have
1 ibtainei 1 from various lot di-
th hi< h the Pho n •
were known or presumed to have
traded, the following specimens of
richly decorated silver or silver-
gilt bowls : two from Citium in
Cyprus, Longperier, Mus. Napol.
III., pi. 10-n; four from the
Regulini-Galassi tomb at Caere,
Mus. Etrusco Vatic, i. pi. 63-6 ;
one from Salerno, Mon. d. Inst.
Arch. ix. pi. 44 (cf. Annali, 1872,
p. 243) ; from Praeneste two bowls,
Mon. d. Inst. Arch. x. pi. 31, fig. 1,
and pi. 32, fig. 1, one of them (en-
graved also Gazette Arch., 1875,
pi. 5) having a Phoenician inscrip-
tion. Besides these, numerous
other articles of Phoenician work-
manship were found in the
Regulini-Galassi tomb and at
Praeneste.
! Before all, Helbig, in the
Annali d. Inst. Arch., 1876, p. 1-
60. Previous to him the subject
of Assyrian influence on early
Greek art, through the medium of
the Phoenicians, had been fully
discussed from the Homeric point
of view by Brunn in his Kunst bei
Homer, and partly !>v me in an
article in the Contemporary
A' 1 ..', 1 S74. p. 218. The
evidence as to the mixture of
Egyptian and Assyrian elements of
design in the Phcenic ian produc-
tions is exceedingly extensive, but
now here 1 le irer than in die silver
bowls ahead) < ited.
i> j
}6 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. II.
Phoenician design with certainty as they existed as far
back at least as the early part of the seventh century B.C.,
and with every probability for some centuries earlier. It
has been ascertained that the principal element con-
sisted of an imitation and partial blending of designs
borrowed directly from the two separate and distinct
systems of artistic decoration peculiar to the Assyrians
and to the Egyptians. No doubt at a later stage, when
Greek art became independent, it also furnished models
for the skilful Phoenicians, or their kinsmen the Car-
thaginians, to copy from. But before this took place,
it appears to have been exclusively from the two nations
just mentioned that they drew the sources of their
artistic skill. Although, then, none of their artistic
remains, as at present known, can be proved to reach
farther back than about B.C. 700, speaking roundly, it
will be fair to conclude that during the previous period,
backward to the Homeric times, they were still equally
characterised by their imitation of Assyrian and Egyp-
tian designs. This conclusion, reasonable in itself, is
further warranted by the existing descriptions of the
works of art in Solomon's Temple (nth cent, b.c.) to
which the Phoenician artists and workmen sent by
Hiram, King of Tyre, largely contributed. Its costly
decoration with figures of bulls, lions, cherubim and
palms, vividly recalls the now familiar examples of early
Phoenician work on the one hand, and on the other the
facts which have been presented by the discovery of
palaces in Assyria. That these palaces in any one
instance date back so far as the nth cent, b.c, that is
to sav, the Homeric age, may not be capable of proof.
Yet it can be seen from sculptures still remaining from
certain of them, with an ascertained date of the gth
cent, b.c, that the condition of art obviously implies
centuries of development, a fact otherwise rendered
incontestable bv numerous isolated objects, which from
Chap. II.] PHOENICIAN WORKMANSHIP. 37
inscriptions on them are judged to belong to times as
early as even 2200 b.c. 1 There is thus a chain of cir-
cumstances tending to prove the existence of a decided
community in the spirit of design between the artistic
productions of Assyria and of Phoenicia in the days of
the poet. The presence of articles of Phoenician manu-
facture in the ruins of Assyria, 2 and in particular the
discovery of a series of bronze weights inscribed in
duplicate for the use of both nations, show that a con-
siderable commerce had existed between them, and that
this was in operation at a remote period may be
gathered not only from the character of these objects,
but still more from the statement of Herodotus (i. 1)
that the beginning: of the conflicts between Greece and
the East was to be traced to Phoenician traders, who,
having gone to sell Assyrian and Egyptian 3 wares at
Argos, had carried off from thence, among other
women, Ino, the daughter of the legendary king
Inachos.
It is, however, to be remembered that with whatever
success Homer may be shown to have had before him
in some form works of Assyrian or Phoenician art when
1 This is the date assigned to of as found along tin' known or
two small figures in bronze or presumed tracks of Phoenician
iring an inscription, now trade. Sec Layard, pi. 61 and 06
in the British .Museum. There is in particular.
;i coarse realism in th e figures J As to the influence of Egyp-
which, if it shows want of skill, tian designs, we shall, perhaps,
•■hows at the same time a certain be fully justified in concluding that
aid natural vigour in the th >ugh it had undoubtedly pre-
vation ,,f life. vailed largely with the Phoenicians
- p, >si les the lai • of th seen in numerou
ivorie et of bronze weights instancesof silver howls and sculp-
already mentione I, the bronze bowls turesfrom< lyprus, yet the Egyptians
discovered by Layard should 1".' did not materially succeed in corn-
ally cited, siin c they present municating the spiril ol th e
parallel to the 1 e n 5 to the Grei
and silver-gill
38 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. II.
describing costly or ambitious designs, the fact thereby
gained is only of secondary importance, inasmuch as
it would not necessarily follow that these articles of
foreign importation exercised any direct influence on
the development of Greek art. It would only suggest
the extreme likelihood of such an event, and there
remains therefore the task of considering the evidence
Fig. :. Spiral Ornament on stone, from the Treasury of Atreus, at Mycenae.
in favour of this primary question. In an artistic sense,
to use the phrase in its wide significance, the influence
may have been slight, but in certain technical processes,
and in the forms of decoration evolved from them, it
must have been very considerable. As regards copper
or bronze, for example, the oldest traditions and the
oldest remains in Greece, 1 speak of its employment in
thin plates for the covering and decoration of objects
constructed in less valuable material. So, also, in
Assyria, much remains to testify to this method in the
case of copper, and here there would seem to be no
1 Semper, Der Stil, i. p. 234, and marking that the friezes of Greek
p. 432-6. where he dis< usses the temples were sphyrelaton (that is,
influence of bronze working on the bronze hammered into designs in
transition from the primitive wood relief) metamorphosed into stone,
to the later stone constructions, re-
Chap. II.] INFLUENCE OF THE PHOENICIANS.
39
question that Assyria in this matter presents a far higher
antiquity than Greece, while, as has been seen, the
latter country had frequent opportunities of learning
from the former. That the younger country had, in
fact, learned from the older, may be demonstrated from
the circumstance that whereas in Assvria the habit of
Fi.;. 4. — Ornament in stone, from the Treasury of -Vtreus, at Mycense.
plating wooden structures with copper was founded on
utility and doubtless was evolved under necessity, from
the scarcity of a durable and resisting material like
marble or stone; in Greece, on the„ other hand, copper
plating was applied to walls of stone, 1 which, from
1 The so-called Treasury of
Atreus at Mycenae is an example
of this. Though none of the
( opper plates remain, the nails by
which they had been fastened to
the walls have been found. In
historical times (middle of 7th
try, B.C.) the treasury built at
Olympia for the Sikyonians had
bronze chambers, by whi< h
nias doubtless means cham-
bers lined with bronze (Pausanias,
vi. iq. 1). So also the temple
of Athena Chalki<;ckos at Spuria,
said by tradition to have been
begun by Tyndareus and his sons,
and to have been many years after
completed by Gitiades, was of
bronze, but probably also in the
sense here contended for (Pausa-
nias, iii. 17. 2, and x. 5. 1 1). Mr.
Rassam has recently discovered at
Balawat, in Assyria, the ri< hly de< 0-
rate I copper platings from the
wooden gates of two large monu-
ments, constructed b) hialmaneser
II., the date of them being B.C.
859-824.
4o
HISTORY OF CREEK SCULPTURE
[Chap. II.
their massiveness and durability, have fairly withstood all
the effects of time and barbarism from near the Homeric
times till now. There was thus no obvious utility in
the process, and for this reason no sufficient motive for
the independent invention of it in Greece. In the
matter of ornament, the forms which most naturally
Fig. 5. — Restored design of pilaster from the Treasury of Atreus, at Mycenae.
arise from copper working are spirals and circles, into
either of which a thread of this metal when released at
once casts itself. Next to these come zig-zags and
other simple geometric patterns. Here, again, we find
in the so-called Treasury of Atreus at Mycenae, 1 that a
1 Semper, Der Stil, i. p. 439, the earliest pottery from Athens,
points out also how the same Cyprus, and possibly wherever the
method of ornament largely pre- art had been encouraged and per-
vails in the fragments of pottery fected. Among the antiquities
found at Mycenae, and indeed in excavated at Praaneste in 1862 was
Chap. II.] DESIGNS TRANSFERRED TO STONE. 4 1
form of ornament consisting of spirals, circles, and zig-
zags, strictly proper only to metal, has been adopted for
the stone work, thus showing a certain conflict between
a system of stone construction developed by the Greeks
themselves, or at any rate independently of Assyria,
which had not a national system of stone building, and
a system of metal construction which they had borrowed
from another country. It may be, as has been sug-
gested, that Greece derived the original impetus to
stone construction from Egypt, and to metal from
Assyria. That she transferred forms of ornament from
one to the other has just been seen, nor is it unlikely
that the same process was followed in more ambitious
designs. It is, for instance, in a high degree probable
that the original idea of long narrow strips of bas-relief,
such as are associated chiefly with the friezes of Greek
temples, grew out of the system of covering and orna-
menting walls with plates of copper. 1 It is not an idea
which stone itself, or any of the methods of working it,
would have suggested, while on the other hand it is
precisely such an idea as would be suggested by the
a vase of thin sheet copper, with Sardinia, a habit which descended
rows of animals beaten up in low also, if in a less measure, to the
relief (engraved An haeologia, xli., Greeks.
pi. 6), very much resembling the ' The series of copper platings
pottery here in question. From already mentioned as discovered
une source was obtained the by Air. Rassam in Assyria, present
silver plating which had been long belts of warlike actions and
applied apparently to a vase made other incidents precisely alike to
of wood and again ornamented the reliefs in alabaster obtained by
with similar rows of animals bayard from the; walls of the
(Archaeologia, xli. pi. to). In palaces, and it should be remem-
COnnection with this should be bered that these alabaster slabs
lered the custom very pre- were themselves employed as facing
valentin Phoenician metal york of material upon walls of brick, so
plating metal with a costlier that in this their primary purpose
"lie, ;i S seen in the silver-gilt vases they are consistent with an origin
and in jewellery from Tharros in from bronze similarly employed.
42 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. II.
facility with which figures are beaten up to a slight
extent on plates of metal. In Assyria bas-reliefs pre-
dominate over all other forms of art. Among existing
remains there are only some few examples of sculpture
in the round, and of these not one can be called a fair
attempt at rendering the human figure. Similarly, in
Homer ! there are no statues, unless as such may be
counted the figure of Athene at Troy, the rudeness of
which may be conjectured from its being described as
having actual drapery put upon it. The earliest histo-
rically known works of Greek art are in relief, and the
oldest bronze figure which Pausanias (iii. 17. 2) knew
of, representing Zeus at Sparta, was made of plates of
bronze nailed together. 2
To take another example of the Greek, but not exclu-
sively Greek, manner of transferring a plan of decora-
tion originally characteristic of one material to objects
of a different substance, it may be observed that in the
history of Greek vase painting what is now called the
second period is known by the constancy with which it
presents us with concentric rows of animals. Not only
are these creatures, where they represent real life,
natural denizens of the East, and mostly unknown to
Greece, but the conventionality of form and attitude
assigned to them very distinctly suggests an Assyrian
origin, while in the cases where the animals are purely
fabulous, nothing could justify our denying to them an
original source, mainly in Assyria and partially in
Egypt. Such is the general state of the question, and
1 Iliad, vi. 302. which were discovered several
2 The most conspicuous instance porcelain vases bearing incorrect
of this process at present known is imitations of Egyptian hierogly-
a bronze bust found in the Polle- phics, and a porcelain scarab with
drara tomb at Vulci in Etruria, and the cartouche of Psammetichos I.
now in the British Museum, with (early part of 7th century B.C.).
Chap. II.] PHOENICIAN INFLUENCE. 43
as regards details, there will be found amonsfst the
bronze bowls discovered by Layard specimens with
entirely similar rows of animals. That these bronze
bowls were Phoenician productions made for an Assyrian
market is admitted. No less certain is it that it was
this race again which furnished to the Greek potter of
the second period the Asiatic features of his designs.
But while it may be admitted from this evidence that
the Greeks had acquired through the Phoenicians a large
practical knowledge of artistic procedure in Assyria and
Egypt, it is equally a duty to recognize in the errors they
committed when at first applying this new knowledge,
the fact that they had not obtained from these countries
a vital artistic impulse. It was not till afterwards, when
they had slowly eliminated everything fabulous and un-
reasonable in the designs set before them by other
nations, that their own true gifts of art came into full
play, and entered on that career of artistic creation
which has conferred glory on their name.
CHAPTER III.
THE SHIELD OF ACHILLES.
Hon far a poetic creation — Based on ancient legend — Mow far based on
ancient works of art — Contrast with chest of Kypselos — Comparison
with Assyrian sculptures — Early Greek reliefs — Bronze shields -
Form of the shield — Evidence of imitation of works of art — Arrange-
ment of the various scenes — The shields of Herakles and .Eneas —
The chest of Kypselos — Its arrangement — Sculptured lions of
Mycenae — Legendary builders and sculptors — Construction in stone
— Daedalos — Sculpture in wood.
The occupation of the gods of Olympos was from
their serene height to watch, control or interfere in
whatever transpired on earth. They saw the rising and
setting of the sun, moon and stars, they observed the
seasons, and above all, they shared a profound interest
in the affairs of mankind, whether living in cities, in
peace or at war, whether ploughing the fields, gathering
in harvest and vintage, or tending cattle. When, there-
fore, the divine artificer, Hephaestos, undertakes to pro-
duce a new shield for Achilles, and profusely embellishes
it with artistic designs setting forth this comprehensive
view of the world, it is evident that nothing could have
been more consistent with his vocation and exalted
position. But the gods also created the earth, with
everything on it, and who shall say whether there may
not have been known to Homer some such tradition of
the successive stages of creation as has been preserved
in the Chaldean and Biblical accounts of the Genesis ;
and whether on that view the shield of Achilles may not
John Murr»y, Albemnrle Stmet
Chap. III.] ORIGIN OF THE SHIELD. 45
represent a tradition of this kind under the guise of a
work of art produced by a god ? That the mind of the
poet was working on some ancient legend is probable
for various reasons, and equally reasonable is it to
suppose that the origin of that legend is to be traced to
a nation inhabiting a great inland country in the East,
such as Assyria. It will be observed, for example, as a
curious circumstance, that a Greek poet so well aware
as Homer was of the importance of shipping among his
countrymen, should yet in his view of human affairs on
the shield give no place to ships. That would be natural
enough to the Assyrians, practically shut out as they
were from the sea. Or again, it is not a little remark-
able that on the shield no place is assigned to the
sacrificial and religious ceremonies of the Greeks. 1
On the other hand, dancing and music, while appro-
priately associated with the marriage festivities of the
city at peace and in the vintage scene, are again intro-
duced at the close of the narrative, without any direct
occasion for them, unless simply as a festive culmination
for the whole shield, in the form of a jubilant chorus.
Nor is it to be overlooked that the incident alleged in
the poems to have brought about the need of a new
shield, that is to say, the folly of Achilles in lending his
armour to Patroklos to personate him with, has all the
appearance of an incident naively invented to introduce
a more or less familiar episode.
At all events the idea of such a shield is the thought
o
of a poet living at a time when religious conceptions
had arrived at a definite form through long stages of
development, which can only be estimated by comparing
the periods that must have elapsed before the language
employed to express these conceptions had readied its
1 'This suggestion as to the communication from Mr. Glad-
religious ceremonies I owe 10 .1 stone.
4 6
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. III.
special form in the poet's time. He no more made the
gods than he made the language of his verse, though in
regard to both he may have largely expanded what his
predecessors had left. Similarly he could not have con-
ceived the thought of a god executing a piece of imita-
tive art, had no imitative art existed within his knowledge.
The point to be determined is, from how little of this he
may have been able to build up his imaginary structure.
He himself, in connection with the shield, speaks of the
artist Dsedalos, who made for Ariadne a chorus resem-
bling that of Hephsestos ; and granting even that the
personality of Daedalos may also have been a creation
of the poet's, it is yet clear from the meaning of the
name that he represented the artistic skill of the day.
The chorus or dance here attributed to the Cretan
sculptor exhibits a scene from present daily life, not
from the past ages of legend or mythology, except from
Homer's point of view. So also when he describes
Helena as occupied in embroidering a robe with scenes
from the war going on around her, he is obviously think-
ing of scenes which to him were of the past and there-
fore suitable for artistic representation, while, in fact,
they were scenes of the present in his narrative. 1 Yet
this is entirely consistent with the nature of the designs
on the shield, with their sights and incidents of present
daily life. Equally consistent is it with what is known
1 Iliad, iii. 125. Brunn, Kunst
bei Homer, p. 12, sees no reason for
suspecting this passage of the
[Had, as Overbeds had clone. The
robe worn by Demeter in a scene
at Eleusis on a painted vase in
the British Museum (Mon. d. Inst.
Arch. ix. pi. 43), is covered with
us, among which can be made
out races in chariots and on foot,
and probably is meant to convey
an idea of high antiquity. Com-
pare Bullet, d. Inst. Arch. 1872,
\k 41. On the robe annually em-
broidered at Athens for the ancient
statue of Athena was figured the
war of the Gods and (.bants, the
design of which, it can hardly be
doubted, had been handed down
with the image itself from an an-
tiquity as remote perhaps as the
time of I fotner.
Chap. III.] COMPARISON WITH CHEST OF KYPSELOS. 47
of Assyrian art, where the office of the sculptor was
mainly to glorify the deeds of the reigning monarch and
to render events from his daily life.
It will be seen that between the shield as described
bv Homer and the oldest historical work of art in
Greece, the chest of Kypselos, a change has intervened
which cannot well be explained if the shield be regarded
as essentially Greek in its conception. On the chest of
Kypselos the numerous subjects that are figured are
drawn from legend and mythology. The names of all
the personages are written beside them to convey ex-
plicit information. But on the shield we know none of
the figures, and have no interest except in the action
going forward. So also in the wide range of Assyrian
sculptures it is in the main only incidents, not particular
persons, that are exhibited to view, and in general terms
this is the broad distinction which exists between the
oldest known work of art in Greece on the one hand,
and the shield of Achilles, together with the sculptures
of Assyria, on the other. In one respect there is no
change. For the figures on the chest of Kypselos are
still disposed in long parallel bands. Nor is it in this
matter an isolated example, since from the description
of the throne of Apollo at Amyklae, and from a series of
existing remains of early Greek art, it is evident that no
characteristic is more prevalent than this distribution of
the figures in long parallel bands. That Homer had in
view a similar distribution of his subjects, but in con-
centric bands, is rendered still more probable by the
fact that this principle of decoration is seen to be carried
out in detail on actual bronze shields found at Caere,
and of an undoubtedly high antiquity. 1
' Mn . 1 num, i. pis. [8 in the Mon. d. [nst. Arch. viii.
lield from Praenestc pi. 26.
48 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. II!.
On this analogy a shield of a circular form has been
proposed, and commonly accepted, with a boss in the
middle and four concentric bands. 1 For various reasons
I have chosen a different form, no less ancient. It is
enlarged from a shield carried by Achilles on an archaic
Greek vase found at Kameiros in Rhodes, now in the
British Museum, and is identical in shape with the
shield which Hephaestos hands to Thetis on a vase in
Berlin. But apart from that, it will be admitted that the
form of shield here adopted has not only the advantage
of allowing a distribution of the subjects better calcu-
lated to bring out their contrasts, as from peace to war,
or from agricultural to pastoral life, but it offers at the
same time a series of natural in the place of arbitrary
divisions between the various scenes.
As regards the illustrations on the accompanying
Plate, selected as they have been from works of art of
Phoenician, Assvrian, Egyptian and early Greek origin,
it may be argued, that being on the whole just such works
as Homer was most likely to have been acquainted with
through the Phoenician commerce of his day, they might
on that account constitute a sufficient reason for assum-
ing that the poet in his description of the shield started
with an artistic basis for each of his scenes, whether or
not he had a poetic tradition for his conception of the
entire design. But besides this, there is a certain
amount of direct evidence on the point. For example,
in the cattle scene, where two lions attack and devour a
1 First proposed by Welcker in tain whether some of the subjects
his Zeitschrift, i. p. 553, and after- may not have been rendered by
wards fully detailed and discussed means of personifications instead
by Brunn in his Kunst bei Homer, of realistically. On his frontis-
This arrangement in concentric piece is figured, from a vase,
hands was accepted also by Mr. Hephaestos giving Thetis a shield
Watkiss Lloyd in his Shield of of exactly the form adopted by
Achilles (1854) : hut he is uncer- me.
Chap. III.] CONCEPTION OF THE SHIELD OF ACHILLES. 40,
bull, there is every indication of the incident taking
place bv daylight, perhaps early in the morning, whereas
in fact, the lion seizes his prey at night usually. Nor
is there any ground for making an exception in this
instance when it is remembered how frequently the
scene of two lions attacking a bull occurs in Phoenician
art, and thus all discrepancy vanishes if we admit that
the poet had combined two separate scenes from works
of art — the one illustrating what he may have been
perfectly conversant with, the driving of cattle out to
pasture, and the other illustrating what he could not
well have known except from hearsay — the attack of
lions on a bull.
Again, to convey to our sense of sight the happiness
of a town in peace, with its marriages and feasts, in con-
trast to a different stage in the history of that town when
it is at war, an artist is compelled, however much the
force of the contrast may lose by it, to represent appa-
rently two separate towns, while in fact he gives only
two views of one. An instance of this, very much to
the point, will be found • on a Phoenician bowl from
Praeneste, where the successive stages of a day's hunt-
ing are given with the same figures repeated. 1 Had
Homer not been influenced by some such work of art, it
seems probable that he would have spoken of Hephaes-
tus as representing one and the same city in two con-
trasted moments of its history, instead of, as he does,
two cities. It may be remarked also that in the city at
war the two armies are on both sides of the town, as
they would be most naturally in a relief, not surrounding
' See the article on this wise third, killing it ; fourth, resting and
with its interpretation, by M. Cler- feeding the horses; fifth, preparing
mont-Ganneau, in the Journal a meal; sixth, attack by a huge
Asiatique, » s 7 s . 1 > ■ 247. The first ape; seventh, pursuit of the ape;
scene is the departure from the eighth, death of the ape ; and ninth,
castle; second, stalking the deer; return to the ca tie,
1
50 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [CHAP. III.
it, as would he the ease in a real or purely poetic
event.
Homer is not making a catalogue, or he might equally
well have begun from the outer edge of the shield. He
is stating how and by what stages certain scenes were
rendered on it so as to form an organic whole, and for
this purpose he may naturally be supposed to have
beirun with the centre or umbo. On it would come
earth, sea and sky, the sun, moon and stars. As regards
the heavenly bodies, it will always be a question whether
the merest indications of them were sufficient, or whether
the poet does not distinctly lead us to expect personifi-
cations of them from the way in which afterwards in
the battle scene he speaks of Eris, Kudoimos and Ker as
such. In either case he must be held to have been free
to attach, if he chose, to the simplest sign or indication
those epithets which contemplation of the original phe-
nomena would suggest. On the umbo of the shield I
have placed a design from a bronze bowl of Phoenician
workmanship found in Assyria, 1 giving a bird's-eye view
of the earth's surface, with mountains, plains, verdure
and animal life. Set around the centre are four heads
of Egyptian type, strongly suggestive of personifications
of deities of the heavens, while the star-shaped arrange-
ment of small knobs might well indicate the firmament.
It is true there is no sea, but we are here merely proposing
to identify the class of objects from which the poet drew
the basis of his conception, not the very objects them-
selves. By its shape such a bowl is peculiarly well
adapted for the umbo of the shield, though it might be
objected that by this arrangement we have all the earth
on the centre of the shield, while the scenes afterwards
described as enacted thereon are placed in effect beyond
1 This howl is engraved in pi. 66, with a similar view of the earth.
Layard, ii.. pi. 61, and compare ii. Both arc in the British Museum.
Chap. III.] ARRANGEMENT OF THE SHIELD OF ACHILLES. 51
it. To be completely realistic, no doubt it would be
necessary to give up the distribution of the subjects in
concentric bands and to substitute a scheme on the
model of this bronze bowl, assigning the separate
subjects to the plains left in the spaces round the moun-
tains, where the trees and animals now are. But the
bronze bowl, since it also has a band of figures outside
the earth, may teach us that a realism perfect in all
details is not to be looked for in the circumstances.
In dealing with the other scenes on the shield I have
found it convenient to appropriate the two halves of
the outer circle for the two cities, for the sake not only
of greater space but also of contrast and effect. In the
city at peace the walls and interior are indicated by a
view from an Assyrian sculpture, 1 as is also the feast. 2
The dancers next to the feast are from a very archaic
vase in the British Museum, found with objects in bronze
and other material of Phoenician workmanship in a tomb
at Vulci. 3 But the other scene of music and dance is
Egyptian in design. 4 The fortified city at war, with the
attacking figures on the left, are from a Phoenician silver
bowl found in Cyprus, excepting the two figures of
greater proportions next to the walls. 5 They have been
introduced from Assyrian sculpture to give an idea of
the size of Ares and Pallas Athene on the shield com-
pared with the figures of mortals. To make an assault
on the walls is not what occurs in Homer, where the
' The view of the city with 4 This dance is from Wilkinson's
iggestive of the trial scene, Egyptians, new ed. The 1st fig.
from Layard, Monuments of from i. p. 490, 2nd and 3rd figs.
Nineveh, i. pi. 63. from i. p. 501 ; 41I1, 5th and 6th
• I he feasl is from Botta, pl.64 li,L, r s. from i. p. 440; 71I1 fig. from
65; Bonomi, p. [91. a group in i. p. 439.
3 This chorus of dancing figures, " Engraved in Cesnola, Cyprus,
■ live of leading the brides, is pi. 19. The two figures intended
engraved in Micali, Mon.Ined.pl. 4, to show the greater size of the two
fig. a. deities are from I . <\ aid. i. pi. 21 1.
1 2
52 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. III.
forces rather issue from the town, but for the present
no more exact illustration seems to exist. The battle
scene on the right is from Assyrian sculpture, and
gives a reasonably vivid realization of the horrors of
wur. 1
It is undoubtedly strange that at so early a period as
that of Homer the town should take precedence of the
country. Yet here is the fact that a divine artificer
begins his picture of mundane life with a view of two
cities, and from them proceeds to rural occupations.
Whether, in fact, there existed at all in Greece at that
time large towns such as are implied by the poet's
description may well be disputed, and on this point the
authority of Thucvdides 2 cannot be overlooked when
he savs that in the age of the Trojan war the Greeks
lived scattered in villages — a circumstance which he
considers not unfavourable to their having equipped
great expeditions, though it was the cause of a discre-
pancv between the ancient renown of places like Mycenae
and their actual remains. In Assyria there is no ques-
tion of the great size of cities.
In the rural scenes Homer begins with Spring, as
indicated by ploughing, for which I have taken an
illustration from an archaic Greek vase found in the
Homeric town of Kameiros in Rhodes, 3 and here, as in
other instances, one ploughman must stand for the many
whom the poet, with his licence of numbers, has intro-
duced. Next comes Summer, with its harvest opera-
tions, the busy reapers and the meal prepared apart
under a tree. The harvestwork is from an Egyptian
1 Layard, ii. pi. 46. numbered). The birds are added
2 i. 10. Kara Kco/zns- is his expres- from a Phoenician bowl. For other
sior. ai\haicvases,\vithscenes of plough-
3 Published in Salzmann's Xe- ing, see Jahn, Berichte d. k. sachs.
cropole de Camirus (plates not Gesell. d. Wiss. 1 S^» 7. pi. 1. p. 75.
Chap. III.] DESIGNS OX SHIELD OE ACHILLES. 53
design, 1 but the preparation of the ox for the feast
is Assyrian. 2 Summer is followed by Autumn, with
its vintage, for which a Phoenician model has been
taken ; 3 it is a subject which occurs on Greek vases
also. 4 These three seasons have been assigned to one
half of the inner circle of the shield, and naturally to
that half on which we have already the city at peace.
For between its occupations and those of Spring,
Summer and Autumn, there is a harmoniousness of
gaiety, activity and rejoicing, while on the other hand
there is an appropriateness in placing such scenes as
that of the cattle attacked by lions on the side of the
shield on which is the city at war. The cattle scene
is partlv from a Phoenician bowl and partly from
Assyrian sculpture; 5 the dogs are Egyptian and the
sheep Assvrian. 6 *\s in several other cases we have
found no illustration of the sheepfolds and pens.
As regards the chorus, it has already been said that
its position in the poem is that of a jubilant culmi-
nation of all the preceding scenes. It stands by itself
without anv occasion being assigned for its existence,
and on this account I have taken to represent it the con-
tinuous, self-sufficient, circle of a chorus on a Phoenician
bowl from Cyprus. 7 Among other instances of a chorus
may be mentioned the one already introduced in the
1 Wilkinson: ist and 2ml figs. B The cattle before reels are
from ii. p. 424 ; 3rd and 4th figs, from Rawlinson, Anc. Monarchies,
from ii. p. 419, and 5th fig. from 4th ed. i. p. 351 ; the reeds being
ii. p. 422. taken from i. p. 40. The bull at-
- Layard, i. pi. 30. Theslaughter tacked by lions, and the cattle at-
of an ox oi 1 urs also on the bronze tended by two herdsmen, are from
from the monument of Shal- Mon. d. Inst. Arc h. \. pi. 33, fig. 5,
maneser 11. (b.c. 859 824). except two herdsmen from Layard,
3 This S( ene o< 1 urs on the howl j. pi. 58.
from Praeneste, engraved Mon. d. " The dogs are from Hoskins'
Inst. Ari h. x. pi. 33, fig. 5. I 1 ivels in Ethiopia, pi. 46, and the
' fahn, Berichte d. k. sachs, sheep from Layard, i. pi. 58.
Gesell. d. Wissen. [867 pi . 2, 3- ' Cesnola, Cyprus, p. 77.
54 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. III.
scene of the city at peace from a vase found at Vulci,
and another on the Francois vase at Florence. 1 In
both cases it is curious that the chorus, as in the Iliad,
is distinctly associated with other scenes in the legend
of Ariadne and Theseus, and that the dancers appear
to be composed of intended victims whom Theseus had
saved from the Minotaur.
Round all Hephaestos placed the Okeanos, and for
this we have chosen the usual representation of water
in Assyrian sculptures in preference to the conventional
wave pattern in Greek art, which though of very early
origin would not so well realize the might of the ocean
of which the poet speaks. The following is a translation
of the passage in the Iliad (xviii. 478, fol.) where the
making: of the shield is described: —
First he made a huge strong shield, with ornament
all over, and he set round it a triple edge, bright and
glittering. It had a handle of silver. The shield itself
was five-fold, and with experienced skill he made on it
many adornments : — ■
(1.) On it he formed earth, sky and sea, the unwearied
sun, full moon and all the signs with which the sky is
crowned, Pleiads, Hyads, the might of Orion and the
Bear, which men also call the Wain ; it turns there and
watches Orion, nor dips it into the ocean.
(2.) On it he made two fair cities inhabited. In the
one were marriages and feasts.
They were leading brides from their homes through
the town, with blazing torches, and ever the wedding
song arose. Youths wheeled in the dance, while flutes
and lyres gave out music. Women standing at their
doors looked on pleased.
1 Mon. (1. Inst. Arch, iv. pis. 54-58,
Chap. III.J DESCRIPTION OF SHIELD OF ACHILLES. 55
A crowd of people were in a market-place, and there
a dispute arose. Two men were quarrelling about com-
pensation for the death of a man. The one declared he
had paid all, referring to the crowd. The other denied
he had received anything. Both were ready to abide by
the judgment of an umpire. The people, taking sides,
encouraged them. The heralds kept the people back.
The elders sat in solemn circle on polished seats of
stone, and held in hand the sceptres of the clear-voiced
heralds. To them the disputants turned, and both laid
clown their case. In the middle were two talents of
gold to be given to him who best proved his right.
(3.) On both sides of the other city were two armies
glittering in arms. They could not agree either to
destroy or to share in two all the property of the pleasant
town ; the defending army had not yet submitted, but
was preparing a surprise. Their dear wives and tender
children were standing on the walls, watching, with the
old men.
They marched out, and Ares and Pallas Athene led
them, both wrought in gold, with golden dress, beautiful
and large in form, both conspicuous, with their armour
like deities : the people were smaller.
When they reached the spot where they meant to make
the ambush, beside a river where was a watering-place
for all cattle, then they sat down, concealed with shining
metal. Apart from them were two scouts, watching
when they might see sheep and horned oxen.
They soon approached, and two herdsmen came with
them playing gaily on the panspipe ; they foresaw no
snare. Hut the others getting sight of them rushed in
and soon cut oft" the herds of oxen and fair flocks of
white sheep. They slew the herdsmen.
Then when those who were seated at the assembly
perceived a great disturbance among the cattle, they at
56 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. |('h.\i\ I II.
once set out, taking to their high-stepping horses, and
quickly arrived. Stopping by the banks of the river
they fought a battle, attacking each other with brazen
weapons. There were Strife and Tumult in the throng,
and cruel Fate, holding one man newly wounded,
another still unhurt, and dragging by the feet a third
man, dead, through the ciowd. Her dress about her
shoulders was stained with human blood. The tumult
and lighting was as of real men, and on both sides they
were carrying away the slain dead.
(4^?.) On it he placed a rich fertile field, broad and
thrice tilled. In it were many ploughmen driving across
and across, turning their yokes. When after turning
they reached again the edge of the held, a man advan-
cing handed them a cup of sweet wine. They kept
turning up and down the furrows, eager to reach the
edge of the broad field. The ground became black
behind them, and looked as if ploughed, though really
it was of gold. The workmanship was a wonder.
(4/;.) On it he placed a large cornfield. Reapers
were reaping, with sharp sickles in their hands.
Here grain fell thick to the ground along the furrows;
there binders were gathering it in sheaves. Three
binders were going on, and boys behind were collect-
ing the grain, and, bearing it in their arms, carried
continuously. Among them a king in silence holding
his sceptre, stood at the furrow, glad at heart. At a
distance, under a tree, heralds were preparing a feast.
Having slaughtered a large ox they were busy. The
women were sprinkling much white barley as a dinner
for the reapers.
(4c.) On it he placed a vineyard much laden with
fruit, lovely and golden, but the grapes were black.
Everywhere the vines were supported on silver poles.
Chap. III.] DESCRIPTION OF SHIELD OF ACHILLES. 57
On each side he made a dark trench, and all around
a fence of tin. There was but one pathway to it, by
which the gatherers went when thev gathered the
vintage. Maidens and youths making merry were
carrying the sweet fruit in wicker baskets, and among
them a boy, with a clear-toned lyre, played sweetly
and sang with skill a lovely song. They accompanied
him, keeping time with sound and shout and whirl
of feet.
(5*7.) On it he made a herd of straight-horned oxen.
The oxen were fashioned of gold and tin. With lowing
they hurried from byre to pasture beside a murmuring
river among waving reeds. Four herdsmen of gold
went with the cattle, and nine swift dogs followed.
Two terrible lions, among the foremost of the oxen
seize a bellowing bull, and he, roaring loudly, was
being dragged down. Dogs and youths ran in on
the scene. The lions having torn up the hide of the
great bull devoured its entrails and black blood, though
the herdsmen pressed in, urging on the swift dogs.
But they kept back from attacking the lions ; gathering
very close they barked, yet stopped aloof.
(56.) On it far-famed Hephaestos made a large
pasture for white-fleeced sheep, in a lovely glen, folds,
roofed-in sheds and pens.
(6.) On it far-famed Hephaestos wrought a chorus
like that which once in wide Knossos Daedalos pro-
duced for fair-haired Ariadne. There youths and rich
maidens danced, holding each other by the wrist.
The maidens wore thin dresses, but the youths had
well-woven chitons glistening as with oil. The maidens
had lovely wreaths, but the youths had golden swords,
with belts of silver. Now they wheeled with practised
step in perfect ease, as when a potter, sitting with
-S HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. III.
wheel in hand, tries if it will run. Now again they
turned to each other in lines. A large crowd stood
round the happy dance, delighted. Among them two
tumblers whirled in the midst, beginning the song.
(7.) On it he placed the great might of the river
Ocean, beside the outer edge of the thick-made shield.
The idea of a shield picturesquely adorned with scenes
of human interest, whether it originated with Homer or
was not rather only developed to its highest by him,
was certainlv an idea which after his time stirred
the emulation of more than one poet. There is the
shield of Herakles, ascribed wrongly, no doubt, to
Hesiod, and there is Virgil's shield of /Eneas. Both
are the work of the god Hephaestos, or his Roman
counterpart, Vulcan. But though it might be possible
to make a harmonious composition out of the descrip-
tion of the shield of Herakles, 1 there is yet a distinct
absence from it of a leading idea, such as that which
gives complete unity to the Homeric shield. With
Virgil, 2 on the contrary, the poetic thought which binds
the whole in a manner worthy of the divine artist, is
the thought that every scene on the shield is a prophetic
conception of incidents that were afterwards to be
of the highest importance in Roman history, of course
only down to the poet's own time. He begins with the
she-wolf nursing the twins, Romulus and Remus, in a
cave, and of his lines at this point it is not too much to
sav, that a more accurate description could not be given
of the typical artistic representation of this subject
which abounds in Roman remains, 3 though no doubt
1 Hesiod, Scut. Here. 139-320. statue in the British Museum ; but
- .b.neid. viii. 625-728. the usual representation shows the
3 This subject of the she-wolf wolf and twins within a cave, as in
and twins occurs on the cuirass of the reliefs on the Ara Casali.
a Roman emperor on a marble
Chap. III.] THE SHIELD OF .ENEAS. 5g
there is a certain degree of poetic freedom in the phrase
" Mulcere alternos, et corpora fingere lingua," since
that would convey a progressive action which would
be beyond the limits of substantive art. In the
figure of the Nile he seems clearly to describe, if not
the statue as it now exists, a work of art of some sort,
or again, when at the battle of Actium Augustus is
described (v. 680), stans celsa. in puppi, the words corre-
spond with the design of a Victory standing on the prow
of a ship. For an illustration of the operations of war
so conspicuous on the shield, or of the long line of
captives who attended the triumph of Augustus (722 —
728), reference maybe made to the varied and extensive
reliefs on the arches of Titus and Constantine, and on
the Column of Trajan, which though of a later date, yet
are admitted to present a true picture both of the method
and of the subjects of artistic representation in earlier
times. 1 Thus, though it may not be possible to adduce
an artistic equivalent for every scene of the poet, it will
be justifiable to conclude from what has already been
said, that Virgil had throughout obtained very definite
suggestions from actual works of art.
Deficient as it is in a leading poetic thought, the
description of the shield of Herakles now existing under
the name of Hesiod, still shows that its author, though
largely a slavish copyist of Homer, was capable of in-
troducing new scenes, and in distributing them had for
some reason adopted the process of strong contrasts
observable on the shield of Achilles. With him, how-
ever, the order is partly inverted, peace following war,
1 The habit of representing con- republican period; but at that time
temporary historical events, espe- the representations appear to have
cially victories and triumphal pro- been of a more temporary nature,
ons, as now s«-en chiefly in consisting at times of pictorial dis-
works of art of the time of the plays. Sec Helbig, Campanische
Empire, i.-xisn.-i] also in the earlier Wandmalerei, pp. 45-49.
6o
HISTORY OV GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. III.
not war peace. Rural operations, which in Homer are
picturesquely described, are here dismissed in language
which, from its brevity, would hardly have any meaning
unless through the comparison which it recalls with the
Homeric shield. They are introduced apparently as
Fig. 6 — Shield of Herakles.
accessories to the city at peace and to counterbalance
the battle scenes which attend the city at war, rather
than as independent views of mundane affairs. The
accompanying diagram, in which the form of shield
proposed for that of Achilles has been preserved, gives
a distribution of the subjects in which the two halves
contrast very distinctly, the one presenting an aspect of
war throughout, the other peace. In the mind of the
poet there was a clear intention of conveying a respon-
sion of this kind, though, no doubt, his idea of arrange-
Chap. III.]
THE CHEST OF KYPSELOS.
6l
ment may have been very different. It will be seen also
that the form of shield here, as in that of Achilles,
affords an opportunity of separating those contrasted
scenes which could not be obtained on the circular '
shield hitherto adopted.
The Chest of Kypselos, known now only through the
description of it in Pausanias, 2 has been accepted as
illustrating to some degree the artistic features of the
shield of Achilles or of Herakles, and as proving, from
its relation to subsequent works of the historical period,
a continuity of that method of arrangement and design
which appears to have been introduced among the
Greeks from Assvria in the first instance. It has
alreadv been observed that the subjects represented
on it indicate a remarkable change, inasmuch as the
nameless persons of the Homeric designs are replaced
bv definite heroes and events with which were asso-
ciated the current legends of the day
It might be
imagined that such a change in the direction of a
definite conception of persons and incidents would
imply an advance in artistic conception and design
also. But to silence a conjecture of this kind it is
1 The circular arrangement was
fully discussed and approved by
Brunn in the Rhein. Museum, N. S.
v. 240, and again in his Kunsl bei
1 Iorner (Abhandlungen d. k. Layer.
Akad., xi. pt. 3) p. iy. In Brunn's
theory the shield of I lerakles, like
the< liest of Kypselos and the throne
at Amyklae, are adduced as argu-
ments for the existence of a similar
\ stem of dei oration in earlier
times and of its continuity. Over-
beck in his Geschichte d. Griech.
Plastik, 2nd ed., p. 47, follows
Brunn. But Friederichs, Philo-
strat. Bilder (p. 225; objects to the
circular form, the first proposer of
which was Welcker in his Zeit-
schrift f. a. Kunst, p. 553.
2 v. 17. 5. Brunn, Kunst bei
Homer, p. 21, discusses the orna-
mentation of this ( 'best of Kypselos,
pointing out how certain of the
subjects are the same as occurred
on the shield of Herakles, and
arguing generally that its system
of decoration was a survival from
earlier times approaching at least
those of Homer. See also Over-
beck, Geschichte d. Griech. 1'Ias-
tik, 2nd ed., p. 63, where an
arrangement of the subjects will
he found w hii h we have in the
main follow ed.
62 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. III.
only necessary to look at many of the representations
on the early vases to see that without the names of
the heroes, usually added, there would be little or no
means of identification. Similarly with regard to the
Chest of Kvpselos, the benefit that had been derived
from the names of the persons figured on it being
inscribed beside them can be readily appreciated. But
besides its importance in the early history of art,
this richly decorated box played a curious part in the
records of the ruling house of Corinth. It had be-
longed to the mother of Kypselos, and in his infancy
had served to conceal and preserve him from those *
to whom his existence was obnoxious. Afterwards, on
becoming ruler of Corinth, he attested his gratitude
by dedicating the chest in the ancient temple of the
goddess Hera at Olympia, where centuries later
Pausanias saw and described it in detail. In round
numbers its date may be assigned to B.C. 700.
As evidence of the artistic progress of Corinth at
this age, the costliness of the material and the
variety of the designs speak highly, and yet it is
impossible to forget that the person whose life was
thus saved is better known to tradition 2 as a
persecutor of aitists than as anything else. As to
the actual degree of skill attained in the execution of
the figures there is no evidence, unless it may be
allowed to draw an unfavourable conclusion from the
want of connection or association among the indivi-
dual groups as they are given by Pausanias, who ex-
pressly indicates their order and sequence.
This wonderful chest was made of cedar, and orna-
mented with figures partly of ivory, partly of gold,
1 The family of the Bacchiadae, Diopos, and Eugrammos were
who claimed the succession. expelled from Corinth, after which
- It was by him. as tradition they settled in Etruria.
5, that the artists Eucheir,
il.X I i IF THE I [OUR] - i IN I'lll. CHEST I >F KYPSELI
:
■i
=
1"
eS_
|
i
|-3
3
-,
,
J r
X
^
i 1 1
sj
i -~
■gj
2
:
:
i
-
*
=-
<
- -
°
-
< -> C i.
o
1
J
3
"
5
■
7
8
■
11 13 13
LI
!
io right.)
(Flfilir
!. 1, |
=11.)
„
^
"■ m
1
|
|
J
=-sl
»
1
!
\
ii
:
I
a
^
!
*
i*
i
i
£
3-
- -
=
2 i
1
'M
!
s. »
'= 8
a "'""'"'
. s
i
I
- li
i-s
$ fc *
I
*
1
Chap. III.] THE CHEST OF KYPSELOS. 63
and partly carved on the cedar itself. Probably it
was oblong in shape, but whether the decorations
went all round it or were confined to three or even
to one side is next to impossible to determine. They
were arranged in five parallel bands, and it would
seem from the subjects on the first or lowermost of
the bands with which the description curiously begins,
that they would best admit of being disposed on a long
front and two short ends, though by no means excluding
the possibility of their forming one extended composi-
tion along the front only. That they may have been
spread over four sides is barely conceivable. For the
order of the figures, however, within each separate band
a clue is given by Pausanias when speaking of the in-
scriptions, consisting in several cases of explanatory
hexameter verses, ascribed by him to a Corinthian poet,
Eumelos. These inscriptions, he says, were in the
archaic manner called by the Greeks boustrophcdon, that
is, he adds, like a foot-race which turns at the end
of the course and goes back to the starting-place. If
his words are limited to the instances where two verses
occur, they would mean that one verse was written from
right to left, and the other from left to right ; and
in accordance with the more usual archaic manner,
the first verse would run from right to left. But there
is no reason for this limitation. On the contrary, the
mere fact of his stating expressly that his descriptions
of the second and fourth bands begin on the left, while
of the others nothing is said, would suggest that for
them he began on the right, and did so, no doubt, for
convenience in following the order of the written names.
Whether the movement of the incidents in the first
band is from right to left, or the reverse, Pausanias
follows it, as may be seen from the fact that in the race
of the bigae, and again in the loot-race, the winner,
that is the foremost, is the last mentioned in the list of
f>4 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. III.
competitors. He would thus have copied down their
names as his eve followed them. On the theorv of the
movement being from right to left, he would naturally,
after completing the first band, enter upon the second
from the left. On the other hand, it must be admitted,
that as there is no movement along either the second or
fourth bands, he would have been under the necessity of
stating" from which side he began, while in the others
the continuous order of incidents itself determines the
course of the description, and may thus have excused
him from indicating it. On the whole, however, and
especially if we adopt the theory of a three- sided deco-
ration, it seems preferable to believe that the account of
the first band ended on the left where that of the second
is said to begin, and that a similar boustrophcdon order
obtained in regard to the other bands (as in the accom-
panying Table), except in the middle one, where a
double arrangement would be the most suitable. It
should be added that the first, third and fifth bands have
been made broader than the others on account of the
chariot groups in them, and because such an arrange-
ment would otherwise be defensible on the ground of
taste in decoration.
To an early age, if not actually to that of Homer,
belong the lions standing heraldically above the gateway
into the Acropolis of Mycenae, 1 sculptured on stone in the
low flat relief characteristic of the system of decoration
evolved from working in bronze. Their heads had been
of separate pieces, and are now wanting, but whether
they had consisted of metal, as some have thought,
is at best uncertain. The attitude is no other than
that with which we are familiar from the art of Assyria,
a country whence it would seem the early Greeks had
drawn their artistic knowledge of this animal in general.
1 Friederichs, Bausteine, p. i.
Chap. III.] STONE CONSTRUCTION AT MYCEN.E. 65
There is, however, a bold spirit in the execution sugges-
tive of the dawn of an individual faculty for art in
Greece itself, and in connection with the massive
Fig. 7. — Lions in relief above gateway at Mycenae.
remains at Mvcense and Tirvns it is noticeable that
the oldest records of skill appear to be those which
M
Fig. 8.- I
Speak of building and construction in stone, such as
commanded admiration. With works of this kind are
associated the names of Trophonios and Agamedes,
who together built the temple of Apollo at Delphi and
66
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE.
[Chap. III.
of Poseidon at Mantineia, the Treasuries of Hyrieus
at Delphi, and of Augeias at Elis, and the Thala-
mos oi Alkmene in Thebes. 1 Doubtless these are
legendary names, yet they represent a purely Greek
activity in this direction when compared, for example,
with the Cyclopes, 2 who though working in Greece, at
Mycenae, and Tiryns, had brought with them their skill
of masonry from Lycia, according to the general belief.
Of these two eities the walls still remain in parts to
attest the proficiency of the workmen, whose names
Fig. c Cyclopean Wall of ( '.-ulyamla, in Lycia.
have been lost under the legendary appellation of
Cyclopes. An even more interesting witness is the
Treasurv of Atreus at Mycense, which, though not
traced to them, obviously represents a stage, per-
haps the most advanced stage, of that early activity
in construction. How far the principles applied in
it had been obtained from Egypt cannot well be
determined. But that Egypt also was essentially a
country of stone construction, that it had practised
the svstem of vaulting observed in the Treasury at
Mycenae, that its civilization, so far as records go, was
much older than that of Greece, and that means of
1 Overbeck, Ant. Schriftquellen, 2 Overbeds, Ant. Schriftquellen,
nos. 57 -66. nos. 1-24.
Chap. III.]
THE TOMB OF MIDAS.
67
communication existed, are facts which deserve to
be well weighed, even if they do not decide the ques-
tion. It should be added that though usually remem-
bered only as builders, the Cyclopes were also sculp-
tors, if the testimony of Pausanias is to be accepted,
~*«i& < -
Fig. 10 Tomb of Midas at Dogan-Lu, in Phrygia.
when he assigns to them the lions at Mycenae, 1 and
a head of Medusa at Argos. 2
Undertakings like these could not have been thought
of without such a previous advancement in the working
of metals as would have led to the production of tools
necessary for the chiselling of hard materials, and
accordingly, in the oldest traditions, the legendary
1 11. [6,
68 HISTOR\ OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. III.
Daktyls and Telchines ! are found to be representa-
tives of this department of skill. Here, however,
the activity is all outside of Greece proper — in Crete,
Rhodes and Cyprus, with which islands were associated
the Telchines, and in Phrygia, in which the Daktyls
are placed, except in some instances where the constant
epithet of " Idaean" has led to their being connected
with Mount Ida in Crete, instead of with the hill of that
name in the Troad. To both races the same skill is
attributed, and where tradition condescends to particu-
lars it bestows on them the familiar names of Kelmis,
Damnameneus, and Akmon, and assigns these names
to the Telchines as well as to the Idaean Daktyls,
whence it is inferred that both were but locally different
representatives of the same contemporary talent for
working in metals which had existed amid the mineral
wealth of the islands of Crete, Rhodes and Cyprus
on the one hand, and of Phrygia and the north on the
other.
From construction in stone, with more or less of
ornament, either executed upon it or by means of bronze
plating, the first transition to sculpture proper with
which a definite personality is connected, is that as-
cribed to Daedalos, 2 who while known as the constructor
of the Labvrinth in Crete was renowned for the im-
provements he had introduced in rendering figures
life-like. The comparisons made between him and his
predecessors 3 show that he could not have received
much instruction from them. It is to them probably
that we should ascribe the figure of Niobe hewn in the
rock on Mount Sipylos, of which Homer speaks (Iliad,
1 Overbeck, Ant. Schrift., nos. beck, Ant. Schrift. no. 56.
27-55. To this class of beings 2 Overbeck, Ant. Schrift., nos.
may be added the Heliadae of 74-142.
Rhodes, whom Athena taught every 3 Overbeck, Ant. Schrift., nos.
skill of handwork, according to 67-73.
Pindar, Olymp. vii. 93: cf. Over-
Chap. III.] DAEDALOS. 6q
xxiv. 613), and of which Pausanias (i. 21. 5) says, what
is still true, that seen from a distance it looks like a
woman weeping, but near at hand is only a rough-looking
stone. They had not got beyond figures having the
legs close together, the arms pressed firmly to the sides,
and the eyes without the light of life. In all these re-
spects Daedalos had worked changes, and that at a very
early period, as the reference to him in the Iliad (xviii.
590) implies. Even then the artistic effect must have
been small, or the sculptors of Plato's 1 time would not
have regarded it as laughable compared with the work
of their day. They could speak so, because the days
had long passed when a feeling of sanctity attached to
the wooden images of Daedalos. It was figures of
deities (xoana) that he made chiefly, and for them wood
appears to have been the favourite material. Indeed
his name, as now generally interpreted, means the
" wood carver," and from this circumstance he is re-
garded, not as a distinct person, but as the typical
sculptor to whom from the absence of definite records
all works of a particular class were traced back. Pau-
sanias, 2 however, distinguishes between the sculptures
so classed, and others known to him as actually the
work of Daedalos. Of these he gives a short list, in-
cluding among them the Chorus of Ariadne mentioned
by Homer, which still existed at Knossos in Crete, in
the shape of a relief in white marble, but probably, as
would now be judged, only in the form of a copy from
the original, the material of which is likely to have been
either wood or bronze, not stone. To these materials
correspond the tools said to have been invented by him,
the saw, axe and drill, and certain substances employed
as solder. Besides Daedalos, we have mention of
1 Plato, Hipp. Maj., p. 282; and Gricch. Plastik, 2nd cd., p. 5^.
Ovcrbcck, Ant. Schrift., no. [39, ~ i.\. 40. 2 Eol.
jo HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. III.
Peirasos, the sculptor of a very ancient image of Hera
in Argos, 1 where also was a figure of Aphrodite by
Epeios, to whose skill was due the famous wooden horse
o(" Trow 2 In many other cases the artists' names
had been forgotten or eclipsed under the greater fame
of those legendary heroes, such as Agamemnon,
Odysseus, Diomedes, Kadmos, Pelops or Kekrops, to
whom tradition ascribed the erection of this or that
sculpture venerated for its high antiquity. There was
an end to enquiry when it was said, as in the instance
of a bronze figure of Athena :5 at Amphissa, that it had
been brought back among the spoils from Troy.
1 Overbeck, Ant. Schrift., nos. 143-6.
2 Odyss. viii. .|t)2 ; Pausanias, ii. 19. 6.
s Pausanias. x. ?8. s-
CHAPTER IV.
BUTADES, THEODOROS, RHCEKOS AND GLAUKOS.
Modelling in clay — Earliest Corinthian workers in clay — Casting in
bronze — Theodoros and Rhoekos of Samos — Relations of Theodoros
with Egypt — Soldering iron — Glaukos of Chios.
Pliny, 1 looking back on an early age of art, when in
Etruria and in Rome the statues of deities were chiefly
made of clay, observes with an air of humility, that
there was no cause to be ashamed of people who wor-
shipped such gods. In defence of clay, he affirms that
the art of modelling in it was older than that of founding:
in bronze ; that it had been invented, as some said, by
Theodoros and Rhoekos of Samos long before the ex-
pulsion of the Bacchiadae from Corinth ; that from
Corinth it had been introduced into Etruria, whence it
spread to other districts of Italy; and that in Athens the
Kerameikos had been so named from its productions of
this class. So far he is speaking only of works made
and finished in clav. Of models in the strict sense
(proplasmata), he then cites those of Arcesilaus, which
were regarded by artists as more valuable than the
completed works of others, while Pasiteles, the greatest
sculptor of his day, was reported to have called model-
ling (plastice) the mother of sculpture, and to have
never executed any work without first making a model
of it. At the best this may be said to be but slight
3/
- 2 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. IV.
evidence of the practice of ancient sculptors, since the
examples quoted refer to late times. On the other
hand, no evidence is needed for the earlier artists.
They speak for themselves in this way, that bronze
casting was simply impossible without a model of the
figure to east from, and yet this art was introduced
or invented as early as the 7th century b.c. Then as
regards sculpture in marble, the figures of the Parthenon
require the aid of no ancient commentator to tell that
the freedom of hand which they display is a faithful
reproduction of the implicit yielding of clay to a great
master's will. Nor can it be supposed that this was
the first instance of the kind when it is remembered
how completely this plastic element had become a dis-
tinguishing feature of Greek sculpture. While thus
conspicuous by inference in the highest productions
of sculpture, the facility of working in clay as it existed
in the lower ranges of art is attested still by a vast
number of terra-cotta figures, reliefs and vases ; so
that on a general view of the remains of Greek art
compared with those of Egypt and Assyria, it will be
felt that while in these countries clay, whether terra-
cotta or porcelain, is used more as a cheap material,
the Greeks, in the first instance, employed it rather
as the most rapid means of fixing their conceptions.
Probably it was this broad contrast — the profusion of
work in terra-cotta and the influence of clay models in
Greece, compared with the absence of such influence
and the scarcity of such works in other ancient nations
— which justified the tradition that the art of modelling
in clay had been invented by the Greeks.
The daughter of a potter in Corinth, wishing to retain
the features of her lover as they appeared in the shadow
cast by a lamp light, drew in the outline of them on the
wall. Her father Butades, entering into the spirit of
the scheme, filled in the picture with clay, removed and
Chap. IV.]
EARLY WORK IN CLAY.
73
baked it with the other productions of his craft. Till
Mummius sacked Corinth this portrait was preserved in
the Nymphseum of that town, and with it was associated
this story l of the first invention of plastic art. From
Corinth the exiled artists Eucheir, Diopos, and Eugram-
mos carried the art to Etruria,
where it took root and flourished.
It may or may not be that these
traditions are strictly accurate, but
that thev are founded on fact may
be judged from the reputation of
Corinth and of Etruria as among
the earliest centres of successful
working in clay. Obviously the
daughter of Butades would not
have found a brush ready to hand
for her picture had it not been the
practice to combine painting with
modelling, and in truth this com-
bination is very evident in the
oldest works of clay, whether vases,
reliefs, or figures. 2 Greatly cele-
brated for this union of skill were
Damophilos and Gorgasos, who
jointly decorated the temple of
Ceres in Rome. 3 This was in
B.C. 493, that is to say, nearly two
centuries after the exile of the artists from Corinth,
b.c. 665. Butades would be even earlier, though it
l - ig 11 1\ 11.1 c otta figure ot
Athena. I - r< im Sicily.
1 Pliny, xxxv. 151. Britannica, 9th ed. viii. pi. 8;
" A.s in example of tin's manner Dennis, Etruria, 2nd ed. i. p. 227;
of working in Etruria may be cited Newton, Photographs of the Cas-
(1) the terra-cotta sarcophagus from tellani Collection, pis. 18-20).
1 in the Louvre (LongpeVier, :| Pliny, xxxv. [54. Previous to
Mus^e Napoleon III., pi. 80), this, adds Pliny, on the authority
and (2) the great terra-cotta arco ol Varro, all statues in Rome were
phagus from the same locality in of Etruscan origin, and doubtless
British .Museum (Em I in c lay.
74 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. IV.
would seem that he was associated with this event
in the mind of Pliny, in whose argument the ex-
pulsion of the Bacchiadae is a general equivalent
for the date of the invention of the Corinthian
potter. The other claimants, as has been said, were
Theodoros and Rhcekos of Samos, and in regard to
them there is this distinction in the faets, that
they being chiefly workers in bronze may well have
introduced the habit of making- preliminary models in
clay, while the figures modelled by Butades were, on
the other hand, final as to form, and when enriched
bv colour, complete works of art. It is true, as has
been pointed out, 1 that Corinth also was an early centre
of sculpture in bronze, but then it by no means neces-
sarily follows that Butades stood in relation to this
branch of art in that city as the inventor of modelling
in clay. As to Theodoros and Rhcekos this is one
point which is clear, and if the advantage then arising
to the art of sculpture was not rapid and great, the
fault must be looked for elsewhere than in the new
method. Previously figures of bronze appear to have
been made first in wood and then plated over with
metal, like the image at Thebes, 2 which having fallen
from heaven when Semele was struck with the divine
bolt, was afterwards enriched with bronze, and in this
way it is conceivable that the old £v\ol Sio7reret9 were
gradually changed into statues of bronze, till the intro-
duction of casting freed the hands of the artist for ever.
The records of what immediately followed may be
scarce, but this scarcity of records, when contrasted
with the perfection which the art had attained by the
6th century B.C., must be regarded rather as a failure of
history than as a sign that little had been done.
' Brunn, Geschichte der Griech. Kun>tlcr. i. p. .'4.
2 PausaniaSj ix. 1 2. 4.
Chap. IV.] THEODOROS OF SAMOS. 75
That a process so elementary as casting had till then
escaped a bronze-working race like the Greeks is highly
improbable. The difficulty was to employ it for statuary ;
and it appears to have been in having overcome this
difficulty that the fame of Theodoros and Rhoekos con-
sisted. It is said l that Theodoros had visited Egypt,
and had there learned certain artistic rules for the con-
struction of a statue, which, on returning to Ephesus,
he put in practice jointly with Telekles, who worked at
Samos, the one producing one half of a statue divided
vertically, the other, the other half. The two halves
were found to fit perfectly. This was a statue of Apollo
for the people of Samos, and possibly the result did not
greatly differ in aspect from the marble Apollo from
Greece, now in the British Museum (see PI. 2). No
doubt this statue cannot well be placed so early as the
time of Theodoros. But it obviously retains certain
of those early features which were characterised as
" Egyptian " by some ancient writers, and in modern
times have produced a strong impression that the be-
ginning of Greek art on a high scale had been largely
influenced by what was seen in Egypt when communi-
cations with that country were easy and many. Such a
feature, for example, is the extreme spareness of the
bod}', and it can scarcely be doubted that this aspect
of it would to the majority of spectators entirely control
the first impression. A closer examination will at once
show that the markings of the anatomy and the type of
face are distinctly not of an Egyptian character in any
sense. Nor is it likely that the statue of Theodoros
approached this type more closely than to produce a
similar first impression. At the same time he may have
gained much from Egypt. To have been shown for the
first time the mere possibility of making a statue in
1 I Ho lorus Siculus, i
7 6
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. IV
bronze, not to speak of seeing the aetual process, would
have given a powerful impulse to an artistic tempera-
ment. Had he been trained from boyhood in an
Egyptian studio, he would probably have introduced
into Greece an Egyptian style in the proportions,
attitude, and type, of his figures. But on these points
it is to be supposed that his manner was confirmed
before going to the land of the Nile, if, indeed, the story
of his visit was not the fabrication of Egyptian priests. 1
On the theory of its being true, the visit would pro-
bably have occurred during the reign of Amasis, who
not onlv encouraged intercourse with Greece generally,
but was himself specially befriended with Polykrates,
the ruler of Samos, and the patron of Theodoros — he
who on the advice of Amasis to take, if he wished to be
happy, the thing he most prized and cast it into the
sea, chose for that purpose an emerald seal made by
Theodoros, sailed to the open sea and threw it in ; but
in vain, as the fates would have it, for the seal was
again found inside a fish and taken back to him. 2
1 For an examination of the
differences in principle between
the sculptures of Egypt and of
Greece see Brunn, in the Rhein.
Museum, x. (1856) p. 153. and
( )verbeck (Griech. Plastik, 2nd ed.
p. 17). who similarly distinguishes
between Egyptian sculpture as
essentially architectonic, and Greek
sculpture as essentially naturalistic.
He shows also in detail how the
ges of Pausanias (i. 4.'. 5. and
vii. 5. 5) need not convey any more
than a first general impression.
The chief authority for the theory
of an Egyptian origin of Greek art
is Thiersch in his Epochen der
Kunst bei den Griechen.
h materials as ivory and ebony
had probably been imported mainly
from Egypt, ami sometimes no
doubt already in whit may be
called a manufactured state. Yet
from tins point of view it is curious
that Pausanias (i. 42. 5). though
believing the absurd story told him
by a casual acquaintance from
Cvprus about the finding of ebony,
mentions a figure of that material
at Megara, which he expressly says
was of the yEginetan style, in con-
trast to two other images in the
same place, which were much in the
Egyptian style. The ebony coming
from Egypt, and being in its colour
consonant with that of the majority
of Egyptian statues, would surely
have elicited any real Egyptian in-
fluence had it existed.
-' Herodotus, iii. 41.
Chap. IV.] THEODOROS OF SAMOS. 77
What the form of this gem may have been is not said,
but it is instructive to observe that Theodoros in the
bronze statue which he made of himself 1 was repre-
sented holding in one hand a scarab engraved with the
design of a quadriga, for such seems to be unquestion-
ably the sense of the passage in Pliny ; and it is
within the range of probability, first, that the gem thus
represented was no other than the famous seal which he
had made, and secondly, that the scarab itself had been
a present from Amasis included with those statues of
wood and the linen cuirass described by Herodotus,' 2
in which case the choice of it would be a delicate com-
pliment to the Egyptian king.
An ancient writer of authority begins with the Samian
sculptor a list of twenty distinguished men who had borne
the name of Theodoros, and the fact that no one of the
other nineteen is connected with art, might be taken as
proof that he was alone of the name, and supreme. But
it has been argued that there were two of them, the one
preceding the other by about forty years, and standing
in the relationship of uncle and nephew. 3 The grounds
are that the works ascribed to Theodoros cover a period
of time much too great for the artistic life of one man, and
that they fall into two classes, as if corresponding with
1 Pliny, xxxiv. 83. Theodorus 2 ii. 182.
qui Labyrinthum fecit, Sami ipse se 3 Urlichs, Rhein. Mus. x. (1856)
ex aere fudit, praeter similitudinem pp. 1-29, to whom Brunn replies
mirabilem fama magnae subtilitatis fully in [868 in his Kunst bei
celebratus. Dextra limam tenet, Homer in the Abhandlungen d. k.
tribus digitis quadrigulam Bayer. Akademie, xi. pt. 3. But
tenuit, translatam Prseneste, tantse in the following year (1869) Over-
parvitatis, ut to tarn earn currumque beck, Griech. Plastik, 2nd ed.
el aurigam integeret alis simul p. 69, adheres to the belief that
musca. The first to see the there were two or more artists of
real meaning of this passage was the nun'- of Theodoros, whose
Benndorf, Zeitschrift fur GEster- separate achievements have been
reich. Gymnasien, [873, p, \ 1 - confounded together in the ancient
1 1 1 . writers.
-S HISTORY OF CREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. IV.
the separate gifts of two artists. As to the latter ob-
jection, versatility of skill is not expressly claimed for
Theodoros, but when one and the same writer ] ascribes
to him the invention of bronze casting, sculpture in
bronze, and the construction of a building in Sparta
(the Skias), it is evident that the writer in question saw
no obstacle in this diversity of pursuit. Herodotus 2
sees nothing incompatible between an enormous silver
vase, and an emerald seal as the work of one man
Theodoros. Or again, a third writer, 3 who positively
reckons only one artist of the name, describes him as
having by an ingenious device laid the foundations of
the temple of Artemis at Ephesus. Altogether, the
fame of Theodoros rests on the following works : —
(i.) The introduction of sculptured statues cast in
bronze, as to which it is argued that he must have done
this previous to b.c. 630, since at that date, or imme-
diately after, the Samians are reported 4 to have placed
in their temple of Hera a large bronze vase ornamented
with Gryphons' heads, and supported by three colossal
figures bent on their knees. It does not follow, but it
o
is extremely probable, that these figures were cast, and
that therefore the invention had been completed some
time before. Consistent with this view is the statement 5
that Rhcekos, who was associated with him in the matter,
had been also the first architect of the temple of Hera
where the vase just mentioned was placed. Thus both
the temple and the invention of casting figures may
have been, it is contended, accomplished facts before
b.c. 630.
(2.) The laving of the foundations of the temple of
Artemis, in the neighbouring town of Ephesus, was the
1 Pausanias, viii. 14. 8: ix. 41. 3 D Laert., ii. 103.
1 ; iii. 12. 10. 4 I [erodotus, iv. 1 52.
- i. 51, and iii. 41. 5 Herodotus, iii. 60.
Chap. IV.] THEODOROS OF SAMOS. yg
work of Theodoros. But when Krcesos besieged that
city in b.c. 560, the columns of the temple at least had
been raised, if, indeed, the building was not further
advanced, since as early as B.C. 578-534, Servius
Tullius is found copying it in the temple which he
raised to Diana on the Aventine in Rome. From this
date backward, allowing a reasonable time for the
erection of so great a building, we again arrive at about
the date previously obtained, b.c 630.
(3-4). As already mentioned, Theodoros made the
seal of Polvkrates and a fjreat silver vase for Krcesos.
Now between the date of Polvkrates (b.c 560-522),
or his contemporary Krcesos, and the date pre-
viously obtained (b.c 630), there is plainly an interval
too long for the activity of one artist. On the other
hand it is always possible, if not very likely, that the
seal was made some time before Polvkrates was a ruler,
and similarly that the silver vase had not been ex-
pressly produced for Krcesos, but had been obtained by
him as an object of notoriety. But perhaps it would be
better to assume that Rhcekos and Theodoros, though
associated together as the inventors of bronze casting,
were not strictly contemporaries, but stood in the re-
lation of father and son, as by two ancient writers l they
are said to be, the one perfecting the invention of the
other. The more trustworthy authorities, Herodotus
and Pausanias, call Theodoros a son of Telekles ; but
failing the consanguinity, he may still have been in the
position of a young pupil to an old artist.
(5.) The Skias 2 at Sparta built by Theodoros appears
to have been a dome-shaped structure, resembling the
treasury of Atreus at Mycenae, and forming perhaps
the last development of this principle of construction
1 I m Laert.,ii. 1 3, and I >iodorus Si< ul. i. 98.
- Pausanias, iii. 12. 20; Botticher, Tektonik der Hellenen, ii. p. 19.
8o HISTOR\ OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. IV.
before it was superseded throughout Greece by the
architecture familiar to us from the ruins of temples.
(6.) The bronze statue of himself made by Theo-
doros, holding a seal in his hand, has already been
noticed. (7.) As his works are mentioned a vase
and palm-tree of gold, with clusters of grapes formed
of precious stones, which had belonged to a certain
Pythios, and had been presented by him to Darius,
the father of Xerxes. 1 (8.) Jointly with Telekles, as
already stated, Theodoros, while at Ephesus, and pos-
sibly while engaged on the foundations of the temple,
made a figure of Apollo according to the Egyptian
canon, (g.) Jointly with Rhoekos and Smilis he is said
to have made a labyrinth at Lemnos, but the description 2
of this work appears to be justly regarded as too fanciful
to be accepted as proving anything. (10.) It has been
already stated on the authority of a report cited by
Plinv that Theodoros and Rhcekos had invented model-
ling in clav many years before the expulsion of the
Bacchiadse from Corinth about b.c. 660. It has been
argued that in this instance Pliny must have mistaken
modelling in clav for casting in bronze. But this in
itself is hardly likely, considering that he introduces
the statement, not casuallv, but when expressly speak-
ing of the invention of modelling in clay.
Rhcekos, besides being the architect of the temple of
Hera at Samos, had made also a bronze statue which
was to be seen at Ephesus, and was called by the
Ephesians a figure of "Night." Pausanias :! speaks
of it as more ancient and ruder than the bronze statue
of Athena at Amphissa, which some, overlooking the
fact of bronze casting having been invented by Rhcekos
1 Herodotus, vii. 27; cf. Over- 2 Pliny, xxxvi. 90.
beck. Ant. Schriftquellen, nos. 286- 3 x. 38. 6.
291.
Chap. IV.] GLAUKOS OF CHIOS. Si
and Theodoros, 1 said had been brought among the
spoils from Troy. Rudeness in the art of Rhcekos
cannot, however, be well used as an argument for his
being the earlier of the two, since Herodotus seems to
have believed that the silver vase at Delphi was, as he
had been told, the work of Theodoros, chiefly because of
its want of excellence.
Another name famous in this early age to the degree
of beins: a svnonvm for a certain kind of skill is that of
Glaukos of Chios, 2 who invented the process of solder-
ing iron (cnhripov KoWrjcris) ; for such appears to be the
meaning of the phrase. Some will have it to be " weld-
ing," even though the word KoWa is not known to have
ever lost its original signification of a solder consisting
of a base metal or alloy of base metals, such as will melt
under a heat too low to affect seriously the pieces of
metal which it is intended to unite. An Athenian in-
scription 3 recording the making of certain large silver
hvdrise out of the metal melted clown from vessels
dedicated bv freed persons, gives the exact weight of the
silver handed over for each hydria, and at the same
time the amount of the kolla or solder allowed for each,
which in the case of a vessel weighing 1,500 drachmae
is from 3 to 4 drachmae. Of all the presents sent by
the kings of Lydia to the shrine of Delphi, says Pau-
sanias, 4 nothing remained in his time but the iron
stand of the vase presented by Alvattes. It was the
work of Glaukos of Chios, the man who invented the
1 i. 51. (pa. 156. who discusses it as would have to go into the fire.
• those who take it to mean
Chap. IV.] SCULPTURE IX BRONZE. 83
Berlin. 1 First, there is a furnace at which a boy is
blowing the bellows, while an old man sitting in front
rakes the fire. Lying about are a number of heads and
tablets with designs. A youth leans on his hammer.
A bearded smith is busy on the arm of a statue which
is lying on its back, and as yet has not had the head
attached to it. On the other side of the vase is the
statue of an armed warrior raised on a platform or
scaffold, and two workmen, small compared with it, are
engaged in finishing the surface. It will be observed
that in the centre the work has advanced considerably,
and that the two statues are now placed together in a
group representing a warrior fighting over the body of
a fallen friend or foe, as in the centre of the pediment
sculptures from /Egina. An engraving of this vase will
be found on the Frontispiece.
1 Engraved from Gerhard's Trinkschalen, pis. 12-13.
CHAPTER V.
EARLY SCULPTURE IN MARBLE, IVORY, AND GOLD,
AND FINE WOODS.
. Mikkiades, Archermos, Bupalos and Athenis, Dipoenos and Skyllis,
Partnership of sculptors — Dontas and Dorykleidas — Klearchos of
Rhegium — Smilis of /Egina— Endceos of Athens — Gitiadas of
Sparta- -Bathykles of Magnesia.
The necessity of colour to brighten figures modelled
in clay, and to render them more illusory, may be
thought to have been less imperative in the case of
marble, with its pure surface answering to every modu-
lation of form. But force of habit is to be borne in
mind, and with the Greeks, as with other nations, tra-
dition proves that the early stage of their art was
characterized by a love of resplendent materials l and
bright colouring. That such a habit would long ac-
company the practice of sculpture in marble is itself
probable in the highest degree, and is besides con-
firmed by actual remains ; for instance, those frag-
mentary reliefs found on the site of the temple of
Artemis at Ephesus, and retaining, though much
1 For instance, the chest of slabs of marble or other stones, as
Kypselos, with its figures of gold in the so-called Treasury of Atreus
and ivory on a ground of cedar ; or at Mycenae. Again, the same
;'. I I'uneric custom of staining and desire is seen in the habit, attested
colouring ivory, gilding the horns by Homer and continued into his-
of animals for the sacrifice ; or the torical times, of placing actual
use of variously coloured facing drapery on sacred images.
Chap. V.J EARLY SCULPTORS OF CHIOS. 85
diminished, their original colours of red and blue. The
style is clearly archaic, with sloping eves, flat folds of
drapery, and a position of the feet which, though meant
to indicate walking, yet gives both heels hard on the
ground in an impossible attitude (see figs. 18-20).
The continued use of colour in marble during the
best period of sculpture is a question to be deferred for
the present, except to point this contrast, that while
then it would be duly kept to subordinate functions, in
earlier times on the other hand it would more likely
have the effect of retarding the development of accuracy
in rendering in the marble those details which custom
had taught the artist to help out with colour. Ap-
parently the earliest school of sculptors of this class was
that in the island of Chios, consisting of Melas, his son
Mikkiades, his grandson Archermos, and two sons of the
last mentioned, Bupalos and Athenis, who according to
the genealogy, 1 were contemporaries of the poet Hip-
ponax (about B.C. 540), and owe a certain notoriety to
having made a portrait of him so true in its ugliness as
to have amused all but the poet, who in his vexation
composed certain verses on the sculptors, so biting as
to cause them, it was said, to hang themselves. Pliny
naturally did not believe the tale, and as proof that they
had survived pointed to works of theirs in other islands,
as for instance in Delos. But this perhaps implies
that they had left their native Chios, and the verses
which they attached to their sculptures show that they
had not forgotten it. These verses conveyed the in-
formation that Chios was not so famous for its vines
as for the works of the sons of Archermos. It might
thus be thought that the habit of versifying had not
1 Pliny, xxx vi, u. Sec also ing the adventure with Hipponax.
Overbeck, Ant. Schriftquellen, nos. Compare Brunn, Gr. Kunsller, i.
3 ' 5 3 1 9j for the pa sag< i 1 om ei n p, [9
86 HISTORY 01 GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. V.
been lost on them, hut this was a habit which, how-
ever it may have arisen, was common to early Greek
artists.
It it he true that many statues by Bupalos and
Athenis were brought together in Rome by the Emperor
Augustus, what is otherwise known of the taste for
archaic Greek sculpture prevailing in his day would be
confirmed, and it would be shown also that the artists in
question must have advanced considerably beyond the
rudiments of their art to have formed such an attraction.
An inscribed base ] found in the Campagna, declares
that the statue which it had supported was the work of
Bupalos, and though the writing is of the Roman
period, the fact may have been as stilted. Possibly
the source of attraction lay in such a combination of
colouring with sculpture as has just been referred to ;
for it is noticeable that the love of archaic art in
general is attended by a more vivid perception of colours
than of form, and that in particular the taste for it
existing in the time of Augustus seems to have led to
the production of such imitations as is found for instance
in the marble figure of Diana 2 in Naples, with the
bright and broad painted border on her drapery. When
it is said that Augustus plaeed in the fastigium or
pediment of the Palatine temple of Apollo, statues by
those artists obtained from Greece, it does not follow,
as has been supposed, that the statues in question had
been originally designed to form the composition of
a pediment, much less an extensive grouping of figures
into one subject, such as appears in known Greek
temples or even in the ancient representations of the
pediment on the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome.
For in the first place little is known of the compositions
' Brunn, Gr. Kunstler, i. p. 41.
I ngrave I in Muller, I >enkmaler, no. 38.
CHAP. V.] EARLY SCULPTORS OF CHIOS. 87
of pediments in the early temple?, either of Greece or
Rome ; and in the second place, the usual derivation of
aetos (fastigium, pediment) may reasonably be taken to
show that in times as late as those of Bupalos and
Athenis the wings of pediments had been filled in
with other decorations than that of statues, the centre
being oceupied with (me or perhaps three figures at
most. Attributed specially to Bupalos were (1) a figure
of Tyche * with a polos on her head and a horn of
plenty in one hand, in Smyrna, and (2) in the same
town golden statues of the Graces, 2 with this peculiarity
as compared with later art, that they were draped.
Thus, besides sculptures in marble, he executed also
figures in gold, and was otherwise known as an archi-
tect, 3 though what temples he built is not specified.
Of their father, Archermos, it is said that it was a dis-
puted claim between him and Aglaophon, the painter,
as to which of them was the first to make the figure of
Victory with wings. Previously both she and Eros had
been wingless. In Delos and in Lesbos were works
from his hand. But of the older members of the family,
Melas 4 and Mikkiades, nothing is known bevond their
having been sculptors in marble. With them and
with Glaukos producing his marvels of metal-working,
the island of Chios must clearlv have had a greatness
above that of its wines. Curiously, in this early age,
the islands generally excelled in the production of artists.
1 Pausanias, iv. 30. 6. ance of interval. The fact thai
J Pau sanias, ix. 35. 6. ea< Ltion of them le
■' Pausanias, iv. 3 . 6. art from the preceding renders it
4 When Pliny (xxxvi. 11). probable that in each case the sons
reckoning back from Bupalos and were horn during the early man-
Athenis in Olymp. 60 to their great hood of their fathers, and nol al
grandfather, Mela ■■• him to all improbable that the gn
beginning of the Olymp I 1 ma) have lived to -<
about b.c. 7- , he is obviously illustrious descendants Bupal
making an absurdly lai Athenis.
88 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. V.
In Naxos there was Byzes, 1 of whom little is said ; and
in Crete there were Dipcenos and Skyllis, 2 who worked
in a sort of partnership not unusual in those times ; and
Cheirisophos, who like them sought a wider fame in
Greece itself.
The name of Daedalos, and a long continuance of
skill in producing statues 3 (xoana) of the gods, had
conferred on Crete a certain glory, which followed its
early artists, and led to their being assoeiated in popular
fancy with Dajdalos himself, so much so that Dipcenos
and Skvllis were called not only his pupils but his
sons, 4 a mistake which the works executed by them in
ivory and ebony would be likely to perpetuate. Of this
kind was the monument in the temple of the Dioseuri
at Argos, 5 eonsisting of the Dioscuri themselves, their
sons Anaxis and Mnasinous, together with Hilasera and
Phoebe, who bore them these boys. Both the horses
and the figures were in great part of ebony, with some
additions of ivory. At first these two sculptors established
themselves in Sikyon fi about B.C. 580, finding there, it
appears, an artistic community, and obtaining a public-
commission for statues of Apollo, Artemis, Herakles,
and Athene, which the Sikvonians howe\er afterwards
withdrew from. Under this wrong, the artists removed
in .V.tolia. Meantime a famine visited the town of
Sikyon, and when the oracle at Delphi was applied to,
the response was "to have the images of the gods com-
pleted by Dipcenos and Skyllis." This at length was
done, but at great cost, whence it may be inferred that
! Pausanias, v. 10.5, says that nos, 321 -$2j,
li ■ live 1 in the lime of Alyattes, 3 Pausanias, viii. 53, 7,
and besides introducing roof-tiles * Pausanias, ii. 15. 1.
ead of in clay as 5 Pausanias, ii. 22. 5,
fi Pliny, xxxvi. i>,
: ' »•-■ . \n;. Schriftquellen,
Chap. V.] PARTNERSHIP OF SCULPTORS. Sy
the dispute had turned upon remuneration. 1 It is in
connection with their skill in marble that this story is
told. Probably, therefore, these statues should be
regarded as of this material, notwithstanding the
record 2 of similar statues by them made of bronze
gilt, which are said to have been carried off by Cyrus
from Lvdia. At Sikyon they made also an image of
Artemis, at Kleonse a figure of Athene, at Tiryns a
statue of Herakles, and in Ambracia were to be seen
sculptures from their hands. A colossal statue oi
Athene, executed in emerald, is ascribed to them on
very doubtful authority. 3
The instances of partnership between brothers, or
between father and son, not unfrequently occurring in
the early history of sculpture, may be explained partly
from the difficulty which must have existed in keeping
together the material and appliances of the art, and
from a desire to retain in the family a reputation once
established. It does not follow that the partners worked
jointly on each sculpture, and indeed in the case of
a marble statue this would hardly be conceivable. On
the other hand, where, as was perhaps mostly the fact,
the sculpture consisted of various materials, such as
wood, ivory and gold, it is not improbable that there
had been a division of labour according to the
special skill of each in the different technical methods.
Possibly also pupils were trained to particular branches.
1 Urlichs, Skopas, p. 219, pro- afterwards struck by lightning, is
to trace the interruption to no! included with those carried off
the political convulsions in Sikyon by Cyrus. Still it is difficult to
uent on the death of Kleis- sec how thej could have found
. b.c. 574. But his argu- their way to Lydia and into the
ment is not more than a possibility, possession oi Kroesos in the first
• In ' Iverbeck, Ant. S< hrifl - instani e.
quellen, no. 326. Compare Brunn, :i In Overbeck, Am. Schrift-
i. p. 4^. Curiously the figure ol quellen, no. 52J.
Athene. " lii< h I'lim sai - was
00 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. V.
Yet it would not be fair to say of Dontas and Dorykleidas,
the pupils of Dipcenos and Skyllis, that they had only
learnt to work in wood, ivory and gold because nothing
of theirs is mentioned in another material. They were
brothers, and natives of Sparta. Pausanias ' saw in
the Treasury of the Megareans at Olympia, a group of
figures by Dontas, representing the struggle between
Herakles and Achelbos in the presence of Zeus,
Deianeira and Oineus(?), with Ares assisting the river
god and Athene standing by Herakles. The figures
were of cedar, diversified with gold. Previously 2 he had
seen in the Herseum a statue of Hera, with another of
Athene by the same artist, and a statue of Themis by
Dorykleidas, all made of ivory and gold, and presenting
the appearance of being very archaic. In the same
temple was a group sculptured in cedar, consisting of
Herakles beside the Tree of the Hesperides, with Atlas
and his daughter. This was the work of Hegylos and
Theokles, 3 father and son, the latter being a pupil of
Dipcenos and Skyllis. Trained by the same masters
and apparently to the same branch of art were Tektaeos
and Angelion, 4 who together executed a statue of Apollo
in Delos, holding in his left hand the bow, in his right
three figures of the Graces, 5 doubtless in wood, ivory
and erold. A statue of Athene and another of Artemis
are also attributed to them. They were the masters of
Kallon of JEgina. Another pupil of Dipcenos and
Skyllis was Klearchos of Rhegium in Lower Italy, who
1 vi. 19. 12. The figure of 35. 3; cf. Overbeck, Ant. Schrift-
Athene, he says, had been removed quellen, no. 335. and Griech.
to the Herajum in Olympia. The Plastik, 2nd ed. p. 78.
figures he calls KtBpov £a>bui xp va <*> " The copies probably of this
8ir)<6«THfva. statue which occur on a gem and
2 v. 17. 1. Compare Brunn, on coins of Athens (Miiller, Hand-
Gr. KfnwVr. i. pp. p> 17. buch, § 86), are comparatively late,
Pausanias, vi. [9. 8, and v. 17. 2. and can only reproduce the general
* Pausanias, ii. 32. 5, and ix. motive.
Chap. V.] SMILIS OF JECl'NA. gi
also, though himself without any great fame, was the
master of the celebrated sculptor Pythagoras of the
same town. It is true that Pausanias 1 in another
statement gives a Corinthian, Eucheiros, as the master
of Klearchos, while again he reports the opinion that
he had been a pupil of Dsedalos, and appears to favour
it when he says that the bronze figure of Zeus bv
him at Sparta was the oldest bronze work he had seen,
being made of pieces hammered out and fastened
together with nails. It is true that nothing shows
Dipcenos and Skyllis to have worked in bronze, and
therefore to have been able to train Klearchos in the
sculpture of this material. On the other hand, a figure
of the kind described by Pausanias would be substan-
tially of wood over which the bronze plates would be
made to fit and be nailed together. Thus the technical
process would, in fact, differ slightly from the traditional
methods of sculpture which were traced to Daedalos in
their origin.
When it is said that the Seasons, 2 grouped in the
Herseum with deities of ivory and gold by Dontas and
Dorvkleidas, were from the hand of Smilis of JEgina,
the inference is that they ranged with the other figures
in material and were executed about the same time, that
is, apparently between B.C. 580 — 540 or nearly so.
But against this arguments have been urged, founded
partly on a passage of Pausanias/ 5 where Smilis is
described as a contemporary of Dsedalos, though less
famous, and partly on a belief that the early school of
sculpture in .Egina had depended on him as one of its
founders, and that its familiar characteristics of rigidity
were only possible in a considerably more remote period
than that just stated. A similarly very early date is
' iii. 17. 6; vi. 1. |. Compare ' Pausanias, v. 17. 1.
Hi nun. ' )i". Kun itlcr, I. p, | <>. 3 vii. 4, 4.
g2 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. V.
suggested by other combinations more or less unsatis-
factory in regard to the probably wooden figure of Hera
by him in the temple at Samos. It is, however, barely
conceivable, had the Seasons been much older than the
figures grouped with them, that the fact would have
escaped notice, and on this account we may be allowed
to accept the later date, which, it will be seen, introduces
Smilis immediately into the company of those others
who, like him, upheld the ancient renown of working in
wood, ivory and gold. With them should be reckoned
also Cheirisophos 1 from Crete, who made a statue of
Apollo for Tegea, possibly of wood, and at all events
plated with gold. Beside it stood a figure of himself in
marble — not the first instance in which a sculptor made
a statue of himself, — and an example of sculpture in
marble which will presently be seen to have been
followed on an enlarged scale.
Another pupil of Daedalos, by which, it need hardly
be repeated, is meant a sculptor who applied himself to
the production of sacred images of wood or ivory
chieflv for temples, was the Athenian Endceos, 2 who,
notwithstanding the account of his having escaped from
Athens with Daedalos, appears to have flourished about
ii. c. 550. It is said, and perhaps there need be no
question in the matter, that he made the image of
Artemis for her temple at Ephesus. But whether the
finished figure corresponded with the existing represen-
tations 3 of that goddess cannot be ascertained. A
figure of Athene Alea bv him was carried off to Rome
by Augustus, whose taste for archaic sculpture has been
1 Pausanias, \iii. 53. 7. 'Y.Trl\pv- Athenian inscription in which ihe
a-cs means plated with gold. Schu- name of this artist occurs.
hart. Rhein. Mus. i860, p. 95. 3 Cf. the statue in Naples; cn-
- Pausanias, i. 26. 4; viii. 46. 1; graved, Falkener, Ephesus and the
vii. 5. 9. Cf. Overbeck, Ant. Temple of Diana, p. 286.
Schriftquellen, no. ^2. for an
Chap. V.J GTTIADAS OF SPARTA. 93
referred to. It was of ivory. In Erythrae was an
Athene Polias ascribed to him, made of wood, and
large in scale, with a distaff in one hand and the polos
on her head. With it were figures of the Graces and
Seasons of marble. In Athens also was known
Simmias, the author of a statue of Dionvsos in
marble.
While as yet no definite promise of her future great-
ness in art was apparent in Athens, at Sparta and
the neighbouring town of Amyklae works of importance
besides those already mentioned, were in progress. In
the former city, Gitiadas, 1 a Spartan by birth, and a
poet, if perhaps not an inspired one, as well as a sculp-
tor, undertook the statue of Athene, of bronze like the
temple in which it stood. It has been explained that
what was meant bv this building beinsr of bronze was
that its walls were plated with this material, like the gates
erected by Shalmaneser II., and when Pausanias says
that on the bronze were numerous scenes from legend and
mythology, he may be supposed to convey the impres-
sion of their having been sculptured on the walls in
relief in the manner of the many scenes on these gates.
It has been thought, however, that the bronze statue
itself was thus decorated, and in favour of this view is
the representation of it on a coin of Sparta, showing-
bands of reliefs running round the pillar-like figure.
Still it is not probable that walls plated with bronze
would be left in the glare of that material without sculp-
tured decoration, nor is it well conceivable that a single
statue could have borne the numerous scenes referred
to by Pausanias. Among them he mentions specially
the deeds of Herakles, the Dioscuri carrying off the
daughters of Lykippos, HephaestOS freeing his mother
Hera from her bonds, Perseus receiving the helmet and
Pausanias, iii. 1 7. 2, and in. 18. ~ .
94
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE.
t'n \i'. V
sandals from the Nymphs, the scene at the birth of
Athene, Amphitrite and Poseidon. At Amyklae were to
be seen two bronze tripods by Gitiadas, the one sup-
ported by a figure of Aphrodite, the other of Artemis.
A third tripod, with Persephone or Demeter, was by
Kallon of JEgina., of whom more remains to be said.
But, however high may have been the eminence of
i Marble Steli . i mnd al Sparta.
local talent at Amyklse, it is somewhere about this early
time that there appear in that town a company of
sculptors from Magnesia on the Maeander, headed by
Bathykles, 1 and commissioned to execute an extensive
1 Pausanias, iii. iS. 9. The posed either by Quatremere de
gement of the subjects on this Quincy, Le Jupiter Olympien, pll.
throne of Apollo at Amyklae, pro- 6-7,01 b) Mr. Watkiss Lloyd in the
SCULPTURED DECORATIONS OF TUP. TIIRON1 OT VPOLLO AT A.MYKL/E.
D and F. [iitefn.il decorations of the Me rails. G
E. Internal decorations of the ■ ■ 11
I i>.. 01 ition tlif altai to i [)
Kyknos. Centaurs.
Bi
*3sw
' Hyt,''"'
":B
-ante
as ■-
i
;
E i
|
■
1
l.i
I
i
Chap. V.] THE THRONE OF APOLLO AT A.MYKL.K. g5
series of reliefs on the throne of the even then ancient
image of Apollo, a pillar-like figure of about 45 feet
high, and thus requiring a throne of considerable
dimensions. The figure stood on a base inside the
throne, surrounded by other bases, the precise place
or purpose of which has not been clearly explained in
any of the various attempts that have been made.
Pausanias describes the throne in detail, and the ac-
companving Table will show what it is hoped will
be regarded as a reasonable distribution and arrange-
ment of the subjects.
Incidents of crueltv and crime, whether related or
depicted, are said to have a charm for uncultured
minds, but it would be rash, even in the present day, to
assume of those who are attracted in this manner that
their natures are ignoble, be their minds however weak.
The same was true of the early Greeks, and that the
artists who appealed to them were fully conscious of
this may be seen in the representations on this throne
of Apollo. It has been attempted ] to explain a con-
nection between these scenes and certain rites per-
taining to the worship of Apollo at Amyklae and the
death of Hvakinthos, whose tomb was under the
throne. But although there may have been a partial
urn of Classical Antiquities, ii. engraved in the Arch. Zeitung,
p. 1 3 2, does not at all commend itself 1854, pi. 65, figs. 5 13. and de-
, The scheme of arran 1 scribed by Ross, p. 218. Abronze,
I have given is all bul identical found in the tumulus of Achilles
with that of Brunn, Rhein. .Mas. in the Troad (engraved, Gerhard,
v. 325, and Overbeck, Griech. Kl. Schriften, pi. 60, fig. 3), recalls
k, 2nd ed. p. S3. Restora- in a general waj part of the
of this throne will be found also description of Pausanias. The
in the Arch. Zeit. 1852, pi. 43, and figure, possibly one of the Graci .
pi. 70. Sonic rude figun stands on the horses of the Dioscuri,
id, found on the site of the and from her shoulders " run up "
Menelaion in Sparta, will give .1 sphinxes and two wild animals,
notion of what the /ery earl) art oi ' Brunn, Rhein, Museum, [847,
this town was like. They are p. 334.
cj6 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. V.
connection of this kind, the scheme, on the whole,
would both imply a choice from a much wider circle
of subjects than can well be accredited to this period,
and would prevent all application of the view just
stated, that early artists were well aware of the capa-
bilities of scenes of cruelty and crime to arrest the
general attention. The gods seldom appear. They
were largely protected by reverence. It was not till
the ruling taste had become educated so as to delight
in peaceful representations that they came to any great
extent within the horizon of the artist. Most of the
scenes on the throne exhibit killing or robbing, if not
of life, of honour, with here and there an incident of
peace or of humour. The theme is action, harrowing
and engrossing. The appeal is to human nature, not
to the thoughtful mind, and it may be well to remem-
ber that Greek art, with all its subsequent glory, had
passed through this natural stage.
The date of Bathykles and the artists who accom-
panied him from Magnesia and whose portraits appeared
on the top rail of the throne is uncertain, unless it be
accepted as a reasonable combination of records when
it is argued that the gold sent by Krcesos, at the request
of the Lacedaemonians, for their statue of Apollo
Pvthseus, but applied by them for the Apollo of Amyklae, 1
was in fact part of the material utilized by Bathykles,
who thus would be assigned to a period in the reign of
the Lydian king somewhere about B.C. 580. On this view
of the case, the proximity of Magnesia would suggest
that Krcesos had at the same time sent artists known
to him. There is, it is true, no specific statement
of gold having been employed in the designs of Bathy-
kles ; vet, to judge from the prevailing use of this
material in early art, it probably was an artistic feature
Pausanias, iii. 10. 8.
Chai\ V.]
EARLY SCULPTURE IN WOOD.
97
on the throne, notwithstanding the scarcity of it in
Sparta implied in the request to Krcesos.
The use of gold and ivory for early statues of deities
appears to have superseded an older custom of clothing
them in actual drapery, doubtless richly embroidered
with gold. For these figures various kinds of woods
were employed, such as ebony, cypress, cedar, oak, yew,
lotos, olive, fig and others, and from the pillar-like form
of these figures it would seem that
the trunk of the tree had been left
unadorned, with nothing more than
a head carved on it. Nor is it
unlikely that the images often stand-
ing in country places to represent
patron divinities consisted of trunks
of trees left with their roots in the
ground and with a slightly-fashioned
human head and arms. As such
appears the Dionvsos Dendrites
occasionallv figured on painted
vases. It may be remembered also
that Odysseus in utilizing the tree
in his court for a couch did not
remove it, but built his chamber
round it. Besides the statue or
xoanon of Athena, mentioned by ' - Head i
t'(inl< at Spata, in Attica.
lb iincr as being draped in real
drapery, four other archaic instances are recorded by
Pausanias. 1 The ivory was perhaps mostly stained to
imitate natural colours, an art which Homer knew as a
I' i. .'-. 3 a 1 1 '_ r 1 1 r . ■ worked in by Greek artists as
of Poseidon in E^lis ; ii. n. 6, hum Pausanias, Rhein. Mus. xv.
Asklepios in I ii. 23. 5, (186 ) p. 84. On gold and ivovj
ayia in .E^ium. an. I viii. 42. work e< Quatremere de Quincy,
4- the bin 1 1. I,e fupiter ( Hympien.
< omp ire Si hub irl on the m iterials
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. V.
specialty of the Carians. When sculpture in marble
succeeded, it was encumbered with this traditional use
of natural colours. But sculpture in marble had no
true opening till temples came to be built with splen-
dour, calling for the same plastic enrichment on a
colossal scale which previously had been developed, so
to speak, in miniature, on thrones and chests. The
old choice of designs followed it with such energetic
action and representations of cruelty as would arrest
the common spectator.
CHAPTER VI.
ARCHAIC SCULPTURE.
Oldest metopes of Selinus— Details peculiar to early sculpture — Apollo of
Tenea — Thera — Orchomenos — Apollo in the British Museum — Two
similar statues in the Louvre — Strangford Apollo — Fragmentary reliefs
from Ephesus — Sensuous expression in sculptures of Asia Minor — ■
Statues from Branchidae — Harpy tomb — Subject of its reliefs —
Artistic features — Other archaic reliefs from Xanthos — Connection
with Persian art — Sculptures from Cyprus, Assos in the Troad
and Samothrace.
The brief existence of Selinus in Sicily, from its
foundation in B.C. 651, or at the latest B.C. 628, down
to its ruthless destruction by the Carthaginians B.C.
409, presents a page of history to which the student
of Greek art turns eagerly. Not that artistic activity
is known or supposed to have been greater there or
of a higher quality than elsewhere, but because the
ruined temples of that city have yielded a series of
sculptured metopes which present in one case a pecu-
liar, and in another a fascinating phase of Greek art,
and in particular because these sculptures derive ad-
ditional importance from the fact that the possible
limits of their date are narrowly circumscribed.
Selinus was a prosperous colony from the beginning,
and it would not be reasonable to conclude otherwise
than that in its prosperity it did not overlook the first
duty of a colony, to raise a temple worthy of the
protecting deity of the mother town. That the oldest
"t the temples now visible among the nuns of the
IOO
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VI.
Acropolis is the building, which in accordance with
usage they first erected, is not within absolute proof.
But to judge from the rudeness of its sculptured me-
topes in comparison with those of a later temple on
what is called the East hill, it is necessary to allow
such an interval of artistic development as would reach
Fig. 14. — Perseus cutting off head of Medusa. Metope of oldest temple at SL-limis.
hack to nearly the period accepted for the foundation
of the colony. These later metopes are in a style of
sculpture which has justly been compared with that
prevailing at Athens about the time of Pheidias, and
would thus have been executed within a life-time
previous to the final destruction of Selinus.
W hile on these general grounds the oldest metopes
Chap. VI.] THE METOPES OF SELINUS. IOI
may be assigned to a period not perhaps later than
b.c. 600, they will be found on examination to present
both in spirit and in execution those principal features
which would be expected from the early records of art
already discussed. But first it should be stated that no
trace was found of sculptured figures in the pediments
of the temple in question, nor of metopes, except in the
front. Of these, three are complete. Fragments only of
some others exist. They are of a fine grey tufo still to
be quarried eastward of Selinus. The three metopes
represent (1) a quadriga driven to the front, (2) Perseus
cutting off the head of Medusa, and (3) Herakles carrying
the Kerkopes, bound by the heels, over his shoulder.
Altogether there were ten metopes, 1 of which the quadriga
and a companion group of similar aspect occupied the
two centre spaces. Next on the right is placed Perseus,
and next to him again Herakles, so that the movement
of these two figures is in a direction away from the
centre, and is thus the reverse of what would obtain
in a pediment where the movement of the figures is
towards the middle consistently with the triangular
space available. The ancient colours have largely
vanished, but enough remained on the discovery to
show that the background of the reliefs was red, that
green, blue and yellow had been employed in the
draperies and accessories, and that details of the fea-
tures had been picked out with a brownish black. The
i, I",,,- a r< - sketch referred to appears to be
of the front in Benndorf's the same as that given by A.ngell
on Selinunt, p. 38, where and Harris, who disoovered the
for the arrangemenl metopes in [823, in their work
of thi tneti i is fully 1. The S< ulptured M of the
also should here be Ancienl Cit) of Selinus, pi. 5,
this work of Benndorf's, which also contains" coloured illus-
both for the numerous details of '' he three olde 1 m
the l-an;- . I tor a "ii 1' '•
in of the s< ulpture , The
[02 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VI.
chariot is in much higher relief than the other metopes,
and this, together with its position directly to the front,
seems to express an artistic purpose of forming, by
means of the two chariot groups, a solid and conspicu-
ous centre for the whole range of metopes. The figures
in the other two metopes, while moving sidewards, have
their heads and shoulders turned full to the front, as if
in this way better to support the weight of stone-
above them, or perhaps, rather in accordance with a
traditional habit of early sculpture in which, as has
been said, a primary necessity was to produce a striking
if not a staring effect. An instance of this will be seen
on a sepulchral stele ' of grayish blue stone found in a
tumulus near Sparta and sculptured with two figures,
apparently Hades and Persephone, approached by two
diminutive suppliants bearing gifts. Hades, though
seated in profile, turns his face full to the front towards
the spectator. Like the columns of the temple itself,
the proportions of Perseus, Herakles and the other
figures are short, but whether that was a feature of early
Doric art as of architecture is open to doubt. As a
corrective to the general grossness of the forms,
drapery where it occurs is worked in flat delicate folds,
treated less with truth to nature than to produce a
scheme of graceful lines, and possibly this decorative
effect was in other parts enhanced by means of colour.
Similarly the face of Medusa is subdued by a graceful-
ness in its lines taken individually which, it is suggested,
may have become typical in the course of a longer prac-
tice in rendering this favourite subject, a suggestion
1 Engraved in the Mittheilungen From the photographs of the head
•eutschen Institutes in Athen, on pi. 21 of this volume, it may be
pi. 20. Compare the repeti- questioned whether the style is not
of the same subject, also from more developed than that of the
the neighbourhoo 1 of Sparta, in oldest metopes of Selinus,
tli'- same volume, pis. 22 _>;
Chap. VI.]
THE METOPES OF SELINUS.
I03
Fig. 15. — Coin of Euboca,
head of Gorgon.
which very justly implies that the development of early
sculpture in Greece, like that of painting in Italy, was
attended by minute carefulness in elaborating details
at the expense of true expression in the whole design.
The heels are not raised from the
ground, though the figures are striding,
and in striding are strained through-
out their limbs.
The subjects of Perseus and He-
rakles confirm the impression pro-
duced by the records of early sculpture,
that it appealed to the spectator
mainly by deeds of violence, not
unmixed with the ludicrous. He-
rakles, with the Kerkopes over his shoulder, looks like a
thing for rustics to stare at ; and if it be asked why the
Greeks chose such a subject for the decoration of a
temple, it may be answered that a Greek temple was less
a building for religious purposes than a treasure-house,
and secondly, that subjects of this kind had been rendered
familiar in every-day art illustrative of the common
legends of the country. According to analogy, the
female figure beside Perseus should be Athena, and
though neither her helmet nor her aegis is given to
complete the identity, it will, perhaps, be well to accept
her as such. The chariot group has been variously
explained as Pelops or G£nomaos, Helios, Selene, or
Phaethon, with a preference, however, for connecting it
witli a solar deity. Put a vague representation, as of
Helios or Selene, would ill harmonize with the direct,
decisive and obvious incidents of the other metopes
close by, while it would leave unexplained the action
of the two figures at the sides of the chariot, who have
each a hand raised as if holding on bythe tresses of the
figure in the car itself. One of them actually grasps ;i
tress of hair. The figure in the ear is of smaller and
[04
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE
[Chap. VI.
more youthful proportions than the other two, and as
such might personate Phaethon starting on his unwise
r, if that could he regarded as a sufficiently definite
and telling subject. With diffidence it may be suggested
that the scene is the return of Kore, accompanied by
Hades and Demeter, as on the base of the statue at
Amyklae, in which case the corresponding chariot group
would have represented the carrying off of Kore by
Hades. Both subjects were, so to speak, at home in
Sicily, and both by the violence of their action would be in
keeping with the other designs. In the Perseus metope
(fig. 14) it will be observed that though the winged horse
Pegasus did not spring into existence until the head of
Medusa was cut oil, it is already present and held at
her side. Obviously the sculptor, as not unfrequently
happened in early art, wished to render as best he could
two separate moments at one and the same time.
The strained action of the legs noticeable in Perseus
and Herakles is a constant feature of early sculpture,
even when the figure professes to be standing in repose,
as, for example, in the Apollo from Tenea or the Apollo
of Miletus. Nowhere is it more obvious than in the
sculptured stele found at Tanagra in Bceotia, with a
relief of Dermvs and Kitylos, 1 as the inscribed names
convey. These two figures are nude, and stand to the
1 Engraved in the Gazette
Archi pi. 29. A photo-
graph of this stele is pub-
I in the Mittheilungen des
chen Institutes in Athen,
pi. 14. with description at
p. 309. < )n th a metrical
inscription containing the 1
of Dermys and Kitylos. which again
are repeated ; each of the
figures. Compare in the same
Mittheilungen, pi. 1 ;,
the stele from Thespise in honour
of Gathon and Aristokrates, with
its tlat delicate relief. Much ruder
is the Spartan stele ( Annali d. Inst.
Arch. 1S61. pi. c), the hard tech-
nical treatment of which may he
due to practice in sculpturing
old xoana of wood. Cf. Mitthei-
lungen, 1.S77. p. 443, on this and
other archaic reliefs from
rta.
Chap. VI.] CHARACTERISTICS OF EARLY SCULPTURE. 105
front, each with an arm embracing the other. Resting
on their heads is a small entablature, and it might be
supposed that the straining of their limbs was purposely
produced to show that they perform a static function.
In Egyptian sculpture it is common to find figures
similarly employed, but though the limbs are there
displayed at full length, there is not in them this mani-
fest straining which seems rather to arise from an
artistic manner of conceiving the vitality or real life
of the subject to be sculptured peculiar to the early
Greeks. It seems to be in the natural growth of art to
attract attention by vivid, if very imperfect, realization,
and not till a reputation, so to speak, has been acquired,
does it venture on the search for types of ideal beauty.
There is beauty in the details of the Selinus metopes,
but no consciousness of it in the types of figure. The
bones of the knees and ankles, the muscles of the legs,
and the movement of masses of flesh on the upper arms,
are all indicated with a general knowledge and skill
which lias come from the study of the human figure
under exertion ; and when the character of the
legends, the exploits of the epic poetry, and even the
contentious activity of life in the early historical period
are taken into account, it will not appear strange
that the artists conceived only such types as have been
described.
It is to be borne in mind that Greek sculpture grew
up chiefly under the practice of working in relief, and
that under these circumstances the rendering of excited
or violent action presented none of the difficulties which
arise when a statue in the round is in question. A
statue must stand free on its own feet, and accordingly in
the earliest sculptures of this kind the artist, though
I essed of the common conception of a figure strained
throughout its limbs, has been compelled to adopt an
attitude of apparent repose. This will be seen in the
[o6
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VI.
three marble statues from Tenea, 1 Thera and Orchome-
nos, which, not so much because the name obviously
applies to them, as
because no better
title has been made
out, are known as
Apollo. They are
each nude, with the
legs close together,
and the arms by the
sides. The hair falls
in a long broad mass
down the back, the
eyes are inclined
downwards towards
the nose, the lips are
firmly closed, and the
construction of the
figure, mostly, how-
ever, as a thing of
bones, is freely dis-
played. Consider-
able differences of
detail exist. The
rudest is the figure
from Thera ; the
most advanced, even
to the extent of being
almost pretty, is the
statue from Tenea ;
while, on the other hand, the Apollo of Orchomenos
is the work of a vigorous hand and afresh mind, though
tatue found at Orchomenos.
Friederichs, Bausteine,nos. 2,3, was found in 1836, and is now
diat the figure from Tenea in the Museum at Athens. In
found in 1846. It is now in both he sees the effect of Egyptian
Munich. The figure from Thera influence in the position of the
Chap. VI.] APOLLLO OF ORCHOMENOS. 107
yet without much training. In it the hair across the
brow lies in spiral curls contiguous to each other and
rendered with a fine firm touch ; at the back it falls in
long tresses not quite detached. There is a sort of
geometric division of the torso. The chest is flat and
hard. The brow is narrow and the cheeks full. The
shoulders are quite square, and the head held stiffly.
The back is an excellent study of form in this ex-
tremely early age, showing the position of muscles,
and, in certain places, the movement of skin. In the
figure from Thera the curls over the brow are more
formal, the brow larger and the cheeks more spare,
with the bones pronounced, while the expression of
the mouth is more effective and more humanized.
The lines of the torso are softer and the arms less
vigorous. Whatever the purpose of these figures may
have been, it may be judged that a considerable
number of them had existed, and that among this
number some would be more in the nature of a copyist's
work than others.
It may be that the sturdiness in the Orchomenos
Apollo is, as has been said of the Selinus reliefs also,
a characteristic of Doric art, and on that view it will be
interesting to compare it with the marble Apollo from
Athens in the British Museum (pi. 2), which similarly
I hips and Conze and Michaelis. Of this
highly placed ears, <..; r .. in the same type of figure is a colossal
'I hera figure, which is I marble torso from Megara, now in
in Scholl. Archaol. Mittheilungen, the National Museum at Athens,
pi. 4, fig. 8. The other figure is in and two marble statues of small
the Monumenti d. [nst. Arch., iv. size from A.ctium, now in the
pi. 44, and in Overbeck, Gr. Plas- Louvre. These two statues from
tik, 2nd ed. p. 92. The Apollo of Actium compare closely with the
Orchomeni om the marble figure in the British
I ■ V r ch 1 ' i 1 1 1 1 . 1 ■ , Museum (pi.
ribed, p. 79 bj
[ 8 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VI.
has lost its legs from the knees downwards, owing,
doubtless, to their having been sculptured from the
same block as the base, to which on the breakage
they would remain attached.
Undeniably the whole aspect of this figure is more
refined than the others, and yet it by no means shows a
greater advance of artistic knowledge.. The attitude is
still rigid, the shoulders square, the hips small, and the
torso marked out broadly as if on a geometrical prin-
ciple. The eves slope, and are placed to be seen fully
when looked at in profile. They therefore do not stare.
The coiners of the mouth turn upwards slightly, and
the edges of the lips are incised with a line to mark the
junction of the finer with the coarser outer skin, as not
seldom in bronze heads, where the inner part of the
lips is made of a separate piece, and probably was
differentlv coloured. The chin is small and pointed ;
the line of the brow and nose is gently hollowed. The
ears are placed high and far back. The hair, instead
of being arranged in spiral curls over the brow and
pies, is twined as if round a concealed diadem, but,
as in the other figure, falls in a square mass down the
back, divided into chequers to indicate separate tresses
and horizontal waving. At the back the shoulder-
blades are rendered distinctly but softly. The same is
true also of the back altogether and of the muscles in
the thisfhs. But while the forms are all rendered with
attention and softness in their superficial aspect,
there is a want of real body in the figure which,
perhaps, may be due to practice in working in relief,
and in any case is suggestive of a tendency to
delicacv of appearance which may be described as
an Athenian characteristic.
A very considerable advance in art is to be seen in
the Strangford Apollo, a small marble statue also in the
British Museum (pi. 2). Where it was found and where
'..
UAKIfU KIGUK1 IN I 111
l.i'l I l-ll Ml Hi I M.
S I K VNOI ORD \1'< ill''
\| 'ill I h. 1,1 IN i ill LiKlTl ii ">l
Chap. VI.] THE STRANGFORD APOLLO. iog
it was made is unknown. But from an examination
of it in detail the conclusion has been arrived at ] that it
is to be classed with the sculptures of the west pediment
in the temple of /Egina, and in general terms to be
identified with the school of Kallon of that island. The
comparison is correct so far as concerns the minutely
studied points of anatomy. Yet, on the whole, there is
this difference, that the Strangford figure excels in close
attention to living form, with an excess of minute refine-
ment, while the ^Eginetan statues, though also scrupu-
lously attentive to actual form, attain a certain largeness
of style, and therefore show a broader artistic concep-
tion. Possibly the Strangford Apollo is a work of
Athenian sculpture, and if anvthing rather later in date
than the yEginetan sculptures of the west pediment.
The face is comparatively broad, with the eyes nearly
round and sloping a little outward. The curls of hair
on the brow and temples are rendered not in flat and
formal but in conical spirals. The hair lies over the
head in wavy tresses, with little modelling, and instead
of falling down the back is gathered up at the roots
behind. In the torso the skin lies very close to the
structure of bones. The mouth is small and compressed,
the chin pointed and the cheeks full, giving altogether
an expression of pleasure. The chest is deep, and
when looked at in profile has the appearance of athletic
strength. In this and the other earl}- statues in question
it is the left leg which is forward.
Again, an advance is to be seen in the bronze Apollo
in the Louvre, bearing on his left foot the inscription
1 Brunn, in the Berichte d. Prachov in the Mon. d. Inst. Arch.
haver. Akad. d. Wiss. phil. < 1. ix. pi. 41; cf. Annali, 1872, p. [8i
1.S72, p. z,2i), where an engraving 184, and a verj fine heliograph in
of the figure is given. A I Rayel and Thomas, Vlilel et le
very careful engraving of the Golfe Latmique, pi. 28.
Strangford Apollo is given by
I IO
HIS rORY OF GREEK SCULPT1 RE
[Chap. VI.
AH. \\A: .\ AEKATAN, and said to have been found at
Piombino in Tuscany (fig. 17). The shoulders are high
and square, with the chest thrown well up, the thighs full,
and not so flat at the sides as the preceding figure ; nor
are the muscles of the thighs and
bones of knees so minutely marked
as in the Strangford Apollo. On
the other hand the bones of the
feet, in particular of the toes, are
given with great exactness and
desire for truth. The bones of the
chest are in their outlines rounded
off and softened down to a degree
not to be expected in bronze, least
of all in early bronze sculpture.
The chin is small, and the lips lie
in a horizontal line in the main,
with the corners turned up only
a very little. The crown of the
head rises to an usual height.
The back of the whole figure is
more carefully modelled than is the
Strangford Apollo ; the muscles
of the left wrist are strongly pro-
nounced. The hair is indicated
Fi s . 1 7-Bronze figure of Apoiio, Dv masses broadly modelled, with
in the Louvre. J J '
incised lines on the surface. Seen
in profile this figure becomes animated in attitude and
throws out a very harmonious system of lines of com-
position. So that altogether it may be said to be nearer
in manner to the .Eginetan statues than the figures of
Apollo previously described. 1
A series of fragmentary reliefs in the British Museum
1 This bronze figure is very gravure in Rayet and Thomas'
beautifully reproduced in photo- Milet et le Golfe Latmique, pi. 29.
Chap. VI.]
RELIEFS FROM EPHESUS.
Ill
obtained from the site of the temple of Artemis at
Ephesus, and apparently related in some way to the
temple which existed before the time of Alexander,
afford an instructive comparison with the figures just
described in the rendering of the features and of facial
expression. One head (fig. iS), which though in relief and
Fig 18. Marble head in relief in thi British Museum. From Ephesus.
seen in profile, has the face represented nearly in full, so
high is the relief. It is, besides, life size. The lips are full
and strikingly sensuous, as are also the large projecting
eyes, which no eyebrows overshadow. The brow is flat,
and between the eyes the nose is very broad, suggestive
of the general difference in the relative position of the
eyes between man and the lower animals. The cheeks
are full and fleshy, and the chin projects. The hair
visible over the forehead is waved in line lines, only
partially modelled into the appearance of reality. Over
112 rORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VI.
the head and down the back it lies in long parallel
tresses, also partially modelled. A flat diadem encircles
the head, in the ear is a large circular ear-ring, and
round the neck has been a necklace. The surface of
the marble has a line grain, and has been polished to
almost the appearance of ivory. In addition, red colour
\ haic marble relief in the British Musi um. From Ephesus.
remains on the eves, in the hair, and on the ground of
the relief. The profile slopes backward towards the brow.
The sensuous type, here so obvious, recurs in three
other fragmentary heads of reliefs from the same quarter.
Among other fragments are the right shoulder of a figure,
possibly Artemis, wearing a panther's skin, the head
of the animal covering the shoulder; and (fig. 19) the
Chap. VI.]
RELIEFS FROM EPHESUS.
113
lower part of a draped figure striding, but with heels on
the ground, and having the legs bare up to the knees.
The legs are rendered in the flat manner of early relief,
and this is true also of the folds of the drapery, which
are indicated for the most part by gentle ridges only.
In a small fragment of similar drapery a minute maeander
pattern is painted in black on a red ground. This draped
Fig. 2 , marble relief in the British Museum. From Ephesus.
figure stands on a base-moulding like the figures on the
sculptured drum from the later temple at Ephesus, and
so far as can be judged from this fragment, which is
sculptured on a round surface, the original circumference
may have been nearly that of the drum just mentioned,
and on this view it may have been part of a column of
the older temple. Or it may have been a sculptured
altar or base. The base-moulding is coloured red.
That the strongly-marked sensuousness of expression
here referred to was a characteristic of the early sculp-
ture of Asia Minor would in itself be probable from
"4
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VL
what is known of the Greek settlements there, and it is
confirmed by the recurrence of the same features in
sculptures from other parts of that coast. Among them
may he mentioned the reliefs of the so-called Harpy-
tomb, which though unquestionably later in date still
Fia;. 21. — Marble head. From Athens.
preserve the full swollen lips and large shameless eyes.
This general aspect is noticeable again in the one fairly
preserved head from Branchidse, and doubtless it would
have been equally apparent in the heads of the seated
figures from that locality had they been preserved. Only
one remains attached to its figure, and it is defaced.
In a marble head (fig. 21) found at Athens 1 the type,
Engraved in the Monumens pi. 3-4. with article, p. 20, by
-. no. 6 (1877), with an article Brunn, who characterises it as the
byM. Rayet. Compare the archaic work of a Peloponnesian artist,
bronze head. Arch. Zeitung, 1877, ana " m l ^' s respect classes with it
CHAP. VI.] STATUES FROM BRANCHIDAE. 115
though the same, is treated with sensitiveness to refine-
ment and abhorrence of Asiatic excess, observable also
in the marble head in the British Museum obtained
from Lord Elgin, and presumably discovered at Athens.
Nine of the ten figures from Branchidae 1 may be said
to present only one distinctive type, with such differ-
ences of detail in the form of the drapery or in the
ornamental borders of it as imply no artistic variety.
In none of the nine is the figure more than blocked out,
and that in accordance with a conception still unaware
of the possibility of detaching the limbs. There is no
knowledge beyond that of a mere outline, even in the
folds of the drapery. But in the tenth statue a remark-
able attempt at reality is introduced, the sculptor having
been clearly over anxious to render emphatically the
limbs underneath the dress, without at the same time
being free, or perhaps prepared, to select an attitude in
which both dress and limbs would have been equally
displayed. That he was well skilled in drapery may be
seen in the folds on the shoulders, the excellence of
which renders his failure in dealing with those which
fall below the knees next to ridiculous. The legs and
the arms reveal not only a sense of life but of refinement,
and from these characteristics, together with the care-
lessness with which the chair itself is sculptured, it may
be taken that this figure belongs to a later and more
the Ludovisi marble head, Mon. d. presenting draped figures seated
Inst. Arch. x. pi. 1. which Kekuld on (.hairs, were removed from
Utic, not without Branchidae to the British Museum
apparently good grounds. A study by Mr. C. T. Newton in 1858.
of tli'.- progress in rendering the Three of them arc engraved by
human head, from the formal Overbeck, Gr. Plastik, 2nd ed.
archai* manner i<» the nobly con- p. 95. Six are engraved in New-
of the 1 1. m iv ton's Dis< overies al I falicarnassus,
'"• made on the series of terra Cnidus and Branchidae, pis. 74 7;,
10s in the w idi desi riptions, p. s \ \. hour
British Museum. re engraved in Miiller's Denk-
1 'I'll';-'.- ten marble statues, re- maler, no.
nG
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VI.
advanced stage of art than the others. On one, larger
than the rest, is inscribed the name of the artist, but
the fust letters have been lost. Another declares itself
to be the portrait of Chares, ruler of Teichioussa, 1
near Branchidae, and it has been argued from these
inscriptions, on grounds laid clown from the study of
epigraphy, that the statues in question belong to a
period about B.C. 540. If this be so, then they are
ruder than they might well have been, and in fact this
impression is conveyed among other points by the
manner in which in some cases the wavy texture of the
chiton is rendered, showing an acquaintance with and
regardlessness of better models, in which the effect is
gained not by grooved lines but by actual masses, as, for
example, in the Harpy-tomb, which stood at no great
distance from Branchidae on the Acropolis of Xanthos
in Lycia, and in its reliefs displayed significantly that
element of sensuousness supposed to have naturally
been developed from local circumstances in the art of
Asia Minor.
These reliefs, 2 now in the British Museum, sur-
1 The statue of Chares is well
given in Rayet and Thomas. Milet
ei Ie Golfe Latmique, pi. 25. From
Teichioussa is a marble relief in
the British Museum of the flat
archaic style with a series of draped
figures moving to the right some-
what as if in orgiastic excitement,
also published by Rayet and
Thomas, loc. cit. pi. 27. On their
pi. 21 is figured one of the marble
- in the Louvre, found in the
necropolis of .Miletus by Rayet and
Thomas, more advanced in style
than any from Branchidae.
grave 1 by Sir (/has. Fellows
in his Discoveries in Lycia, pi. 21,
and. not to mention other instances,
in the Arch. Zeitung. 18;;. pi. 73,
with an elaborate article 1>\ 1'..
Curtius on the signification of the
reliefs, p. 1. to which subject he
again recurs in the Arch. Zeitung,
1868, p. 10, tracing to an Egyptian
origin, with an accompanying illus-
tration, the belief of immortality
which he finds represented in the
Harpy tomb. But see Conze in
the Arch. Zeitung, 1869, p. 78;
E. Braun in the Annali d. Inst.
Arch. 1N44. p. 133; Friederichs,
Bausteine, p. 37; and more lately,
on the artistic style of the reliefs,
Brunn, in the Berichte d. k. Payer.
Akad. d. Wiss. 1S70, p. 205.
Again, in the Berichte just quoted,
PLATE III.
•I \l; mi 11 VRPY im\i i;
In thi I'. i ii ii Mi
■ /. 1 1".
Chap. VI.]
THE HARPY TOMB.
II 7
mounted a high square column, and apparently served
to enclose a tomb, an opening into which is left in one
of the sides. The scenes are obviously of sepulchral
import, but whether symbolic of a general religious
belief or indicative of some such sentiment embodied in
the shape of a special legend is a question on which
it is difficult to reconcile opinions. On the latter view
Fig. 22. — South side of Harpy tomb.
the Harpies which give a convenient name to the
monument, and on two sides of it appear carrying oft
the souls of departed beings, now in diminutive forms,
have been explained as carrying off the daughters of the
Lycian hero Pandareos. According to the other view they
appear merely as personifications of the rapacity of
death, and it would be consistent with this if the other
scenes represented only typical proceedings in the house
of Hades, without perhaps any particular reference to
the deceased person of the tomb. On the other hand,
for Nov. 1872, Brunn took up the monument, a reference to death in
; of the meaning of the the figures of the Harpies. His
ig the notion of their argument cannot be fairly described
ring to death and future life, as convincing, while it detracts
and endeavouring to prove that from the monumenl something oi
they represenl various stages of the poeti< thought which other
life from youth to age, including 1 tplanations see in it.
uatural on a epulchral
n8
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VI.
if tlusc scenes are all in the lower world, it is incon-
ceivable that some of the figures should be of dimin-
ished form, as customary in the ancient rendering of
souls, while the rest have the aspect usual in life, unless
it be that the latter were supposed to be restored to
this form to appear before the judges as suppliants.
The side with the opening in it faced the west, and
has been supposed to have formed the actual front
of the monument, striking with its melancholy design
Fig. 23 -West Mile 11I Harpy tomb.
the key-note of the whole representation. Facing each
other sit two goddesses, always associated in the Greek
mind with the fertile beauty and decay of Nature. On
the left, Demeter, large in form and lonely ; on the
right her daughter Persephone, youthful in figure, and
receiving the attention of three others of similar woman-
hood, who bring her rich fruits and flowers as tokens of
the ripeness of Nature, which in person they also dis-
play. Above the opening is a scene calculated to carry
the mind to fertile pasture lands — a cow suckling her
calf, and thus altogether it will not be denied that
this side of the tomb tells a simple and touching story.
It need not, however, have been the front on this
account, against which may further be urged the awk-
ward position of the door. If that scene is to be
Chap. VI.]
THE HARPY TOMB.
ng
the front which has the most direct connection between
daily life and death, then perhaps the north side would
Fig. 24. — North side of Harpy tomb.
be the most suitable, where a warrior lays aside his
arms, handing his helmet to the seated judge of the
dead, under whose throne sulks a bear, while on either
side flies a Harpy on her fatal occupation. On the
opposite or south side of the tomb are again these
Harpies, flanking a scene in which, this time, a woman
y
1 1 of 1 1. ip I'Y tomb.
approaches with propitiatory gift a female judge, Perse-
phone. This gilt is called a dove, but a hen would be
a better mate for the cock which, on the east side and
often in sepulchral reliefs, is offered by a suppliant to
the god (.! the lower world, from whatever motives the
[ 2 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VI.
explanation may be to be sought. Behind the sup-
pliant, on the east side, comes a young man, with
the dog of his daily rambles looking wistfully up at him.
Behind the enthroned god two draped figures bring
ripe fruits. On all sides is presented the contrast
between the beauty of full growth and the sudden
collapse of it in death. The bodies of the Harpies
are egg-shaped, and an cg ( ^ was one of the offerings
to the deities of the lower world. Their breasts are
lull, as if there had been some womanly kindness in
their grim functions.
Apart from the richness of the draperies, with their
weight of innumerable fine folds, the pervading fulness
of limb and the loose luxuriant tresses, there is strongly
marked in most of the faces the sensuous expression
already spoken of, and in figures which in one phase
of their character represented the varied fertility of nature
it was to be expected that such expression would find
a prominent place. 1 True to the archaic manner the
eyes are sloping 2 and set to the side, not in profile,
and the heels are down on the ground. It is true of
the seated deities generally, but specially so of the
goddess on the south side, that the limbs are com-
paratively on a colossal scale for the sake of contrast
with the mortals in their presence, and an effect of
this, not successfully reckoned against, is that they
have an oppressive squatness and heaviness, which,
with other points of detail, some have regarded as
evidence of the sculpture belonging to a late or
1 Compare, for example, the and perpetuated in early sculptures
perfectly animal expression of the in the round, may have originated
of Dionysos on the silver less as a study of actual living
c < >iii< df Naxos in Si< tly. types than from a desire to give to
- It is conceivable that the slop- a face in profile something of an
:s, so constant in expression of looking round to the
early reliefs and vase paintings, front towards the spectator.
Chap. VI.] THE HARPY TOMB. 121
decadent stage of the archaic manner ; while others, 1
arguing that progress in this period took the direc-
tion of defining exactly and incisively all the details
of the figure, conclude that these reliefs belong to an
early stage, when this proceeding had not sensibly
begun to operate, and that therefore they may be
assigned to somewhere between B.C. 540-500. The
dresses, consisting of a chiton of thin texture wrapped
tightly round the limbs, and a mantle, or peplos, of
thick cloth for outdoor wear, thrown with massive
folds about the shoulders, are suggestive of ceremonial
rather than of daily costume, and hence some allow-
ance is to be made for the severe regularity which
pervades most of them, inconsistently with study from
reality. Xo doubt also the three figures approaching
Persephone on the west side present little variety,
but it is to be remembered that in Greek sculpture,
and particularly in its earl}' stages, the most exclusive
restrictions were placed upon the artist as to the in-
troduction of accessories or symbols. The ancient
spectator, trained to appreciate these restrictions, would
see meaning in numerous points which now escape
attention. On the ground of the reliefs were remains
of blue colour, and in other parts traces of red at the
time of their discovery, 2 and it may be taken that the
whole design was liberally enriched with colours. The
roof was square, forming on each side an entablature of
three members, each projecting some distance beyond
the other. Altogether, the monument may be com-
pared with the tomb of Cyrus at Passargadae. 3
Illustrative of the archaic art ofXanthos, and deserv-
ing 0!' study in immediate comparison with the Harpy-
1 Brunn, Berii hte d. I., ba •'' See en of the ruins ai
I'- 219. I' trg idae identified with the
rf, in ill- Alu .him of tomb oi ( yrus by Fergusson,
Antiquities, i. p. 2 Nim
1 22
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. Vf.
tomb, are several reliefs brought to the British Museum
at the same time by Sir Charles Fellows, and apparently
also originally intended for the decoration of sepulchral
monuments. First is an angular slab of marble, with
a fluted Ionic column in the centre, surmounted by a
Harpy with wings spread and arms extended, still empty
of their victim. Her body is altogether draped, and girt
with a girdle. On the ground at each side of the
column sit sadly two figures, their drapery and massive
forms recalling the deities of the Harpy-tomb. The
figure on the right is a man with long beard and sceptre
or staff. Opposite to him the figure is that of a woman,
also with a staff or sceptre. The type of face, the deli-
cate treatment both of the drapery and of the nude
forms, as in the arms and hands, and the sentiment
of the design, are clearly of the same school of sculpture
as that which produced the Harpy-tomb.
Next may be introduced the slabs of a monument on
which is sculptured a procession, 1 (pll. 4-6) consisting of
a chariot with two horses, followed by a horseman at his
horse's side, again a chariot with two horses, and again
a horseman, this time mounted, preceding a group, so
far as it exists, of five draped figures on foot. It is not
certain that this was the original order, but from a frag-
ment not yet mentioned, with two figures standing at
the foot of a bier, which is broken off so as to leave only
the feet of the occupant visible, it is clear that the whole
ceremony was of a sepulchral nature. Another frag-
ment retains one draped figure on foot. As regards the
1 Engraved in Prachov's Anti-
quissima Moptfmenta Xanthiaca,
pi. 3 and pi. (1 is. fig. h. Engraved
in a sketchy manner in Cesnola's
Cyprus, pi. [6, with details on
pi. 17. Sonic of the figures are
engraved by Fellows. Dis-
ies in L_\cia'. pp. 173 and 1 77.
I have here reproduced the en-
graving of C'esnola. hut haveadded
new drawings from the best pre-
served groups, viz., one of the
chariot groups, and a horseman.
Among the figures one is added to
the enLrraviiiLr in Cesnola's work.
X 2
v,
SLAI1 "1 MARBLE KRIKZE IN THE I5RITISH MUSEUM.
I in Lvci
w Plaie IV, iimii
Chap. VI.] EARLY SCULPTURE FROM LYCIA. 123
human figures, their dress, forms, attitudes and types,
little is to be said, except to class them directly with the
sculpture of the Harpy-tomb. But in the horses there
is a characteristic element in the form and in the trap-
pings nothing less than identical with certain fragmen-
tary reliefs of horses from Persepolis in the British
Museum. Nor is this surprising when it is remembered
that at the time in question not only was Lycia a pro-
vince of Persia, but the Persian kings were successively
raising in the seat of their empire palaces, which from
their ambitious designs, must have developed an activity
of sculpture likely to extend most of all to a half-Greek
dependancy such as Lycia. But although in this way
a necessarily intimate contact with Persia well accounts
for these horses and doubtless also for much of the
sensuousness and rich draperies of the archaic reliefs of
Lycia, with much else in the matter of architecture, it
is still true that what is most attractive throughout
these works is essentially and inalienably Greek. 1
Without leaving Lycia, with its obvious connection
between Persia on the one hand and Greece on the
other, attention may further be drawn to the broad
marble frieze with reliefs, 2 exhibiting, besides other
animals of the chase, a group of a lion attacking a
stag, in which not only the subject itself but the manner
of rendering it is justly to be traced to an Assyrian or
Persian model. Yet the art is not Oriental ; still less
1 While admitting to the full bore, not a generically, but a speci-
thc wide gulf between the pure fically different fruit.
art of Greece and that of Assyria, ~ Engraved by Prachov in his
Fergusson (Nineveh and Persepolis, Ant. Mon. Xanthiaca, pis. 6a, 6b.
p. 34 lins as indisputable Very similar to the group of the
that "all that is Ionic in the arts lion attacking a stasis the design
of Greece is derived from the on a m.si.il scaraboid in the
valleysof the Tigris and Euphrates." British Museum, or in a ruder
Hut it should be understood thai form on the coins ol I u bus and of
he here m Citium in 1 5 prus. More a. 98. Compare Friede-
Mus^ede Sculpture, pi. 116, no. 238; richs, Bausteine, p. 18.
Millingen, I fne 1. Ainu. ii. pi. 1 ;
K
I -o HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VI.
to the names inscribed beside the figures, Agamemnon
seated, with his herald Talthybios, and Epeios, the artist
of the wooden horse, standing behind him. The beard
of Agamemnon is pointed, and projects almost horizon-
tally as on early Greek coins; the eyes of all the figures
arc set in the side of the face, the heels are firm on the
ground, the forms are spare, and no display is made of
Fig. 27. — Marble relief from Samothrace. In thi 1
drapery beyond what is necessary, while the relief is very
flat. It has been said that the ornamental border along
the top, and the manner of the attendants standing
behind the king's throne, are to be traced to an origin
in Assyrian art, and this is true so far as it applies to
a remote origin.
CHAPTER VII.
EARLY SCHOOLS OF ARGOS, SIKYON AND /EGINA.
Public prosperity ami activity — Ageladas of Argos — Chariot group at
Olympia — Statues of Athletes — Infant Zeus at Ithome and JEgion
— Young Herakles — Argeiadas and Atotos — Aristomedon — Sculp-
tures dedicated at Olympia by Smikythos — Kanachos of Sikyon —
Apollo of Branchidae — Copies of it — Aphrodite in Sikyon — Boys
riding race-horses — Muse — Aristokles, brother of Kanachos — Sculp-
tors of .Egina — Kallon — Onatas — Group at Olympia — Chariot of
Hiero — Apollo at Pergamus — Hermes at Olympia — Demeter at
Phigaleia — -" The .Eginetan manner"' — Glaukias and other sculptors
of i^Egina.
Such was the relationship between master and pupil
in the early days when sculpture was a rapidly advancing
art, and such apparently also was the public interest in
the fact of this relationship, that when mention of it was
omitted on proper occasion, as in the inscriptions on
bases of statues, a tinge of grievance ! was felt, and
' Pausanias, when he knew it, victory it commemorated was won.
give the name of the master. The other would he later, since it
When he could not learn it he represented a son of the former
records die fact. In the case of athlete. As to the general question
Eutelidas and Chrysothemis of whether, when the father of a
Argos, he cites from two athletes' sculptor is mentioned, the father
3 of theirs at Olympia an also is to he held as having been
epigram (vi. 10. 4), which says in the same profession, there is
that they learned their art from pre- considerable affirmative evidence,
decessors, re^vav elSorts (K irporepav. which, were it absolute, would,
Brunn (Gr. Kiinstler, i. p. 61) when applied to the case just cited,
thinks the_\- meant by thi 1 pi convey that the "predecessors"
sion to contrasl themselves with (irpdrepoi) were al the same time
novelt) hunters. The date ol one the immediate ancestors of the two
of these statues would I" after artists.
2 1 . the year in w hi< h thi
I >2 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [CHAP. VII.
indeed the amount of attention generally devoted to the
subject o( artistic activity is otherwise abundantly clear
from the extraordinary variety and extent of undertakings
of this nature, no less than from the distant quarters
whence artists were commissioned with an alacrity
and openness suggestive of the whole of Greece having
been a free arena of competition. The principal towns
were then prosperous, chiefly by commerce, in the
extension of which colonies widely spread had become
rich and powerful, maintaining the art, poetry, philoso-
phy and institutions of the mother land. All over
Greece was known the splendour of what had been
achieved in art and in public buildings by Egypt and
Assyria. Nor was this knowledge neglected by the
Tyrants who ruled the several States of Greece. The
activity then initiated was continued when the last of
the Tyrants had been dethroned, and as a consequence
the material prosperity of the country soon presented
that most obvious sign of its existence which is conveyed
by a wide patronage of architecture and art. The
public games at Olympia had successfully appealed
to the strong national passion for rivalry in excellence,
not alone physical but also in mental capabilities. To
stamp this excellence with approval nothing could be
more appropriate than a statue of the winner, and from
the existing descriptions of these statues as they stood
at Olympia, the light of imagination has long been
directed to throw up a picture which modern excavations
on the spot have already largely aided in realizing.
The records extending over the period just sketched
begin with Ageladas of Argos, whose honour it is to
have been remembered in antiquity as the master of
Pheidias and 'those other two equalled in renown,'
Myron and Polykleitos. From the diversity of manner
accredited to these pupils when they in turn became
masters, and from the absence of any specially assigned'
Chap. VII.] AGELADAS. 133
quality to the work of Ageladas himself, it is argued
that his success may have been due to a high average
of excellence, the example of which was perhaps the
best training for a gifted pupil. Conspicuous in the
descriptions of works by him is (1) the chariot group l
at Olympia commemorating a victory of Kleisthenes of
Epidamnos in the year B.C. 517. In the chariot appa-
rently were the winner himself and his driver. Each
horse had its name written on it, the two attached to
the yoke being called Phoenix and Korax, while the two
outers were, on the right Knakias, and on the left
Samos. An inscription in elegiac verse on the chariot
recorded the victory. At Olympia also were two statues
of athletes by him, the one (2) of Anochos, a native of
Tarentum, who had won the long race in B.C. 521, the
other (3) of Timasitheos from Delphi, who had won the
pancration twice at Olympia and thrice at the Pythian
games, yet who by joining in the memorable attempt of
Kylon to seize the Acropolis 2 of Athens had paid for
the deed with his life, and had tarnished a name famous
for bravery as well as for athletic skill. This event
occurred in B.C. 507, but no date is assigned to his
victories in wrestling, for which the statue was raised,
and whether, in fact, the erection of a statue to him
after this would have been acceptable may be doubted.
As to the chariot group, if not also the two figures, it is
to be assumed that they were of bronze, like the horses' 5
1 Pausanias, vi. 10.6. no obstacle to the statue having
- Herodotus, v. 70, who de- been commissioned by his friends
scribes Kylon as an Olympian after his death.
victor, says nothing of Timasitheos, :i Pausanias, x. 10.6. Later mi
whom it is not unlikel) thai (x. 13. to) Pausanias describes, as
Pausanias may have got his in- at Delphi also, a kindred but mure
formation from the base ol the extensive subject executed by
still, on that view of the Onatas to celebrate a victory of
11 would not follow that the the Tarentines over others of their
inscription was not put on the base barbarous neighbours, the Peuce-
the statue w a dan
Brunn (' Jr. Kim >tler, i. p, 71) s&
!34 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VII.
and female captives made by him for the Tarentinesto be
set up -in Delphi as a token of victory in war against the
barbarous Messapians. Nothing is said of the skill in
either ease, but it maybe permitted to indulge the fancy
that in the workshop of Ageladas at this time originated
that conception oi' equine beauty which afterwards in
innumerable forms decorated the frieze of the Par-
thenon.
At Ithome was preserved (4) a figure of Zeus '
by Ageladas, which remained in the house of a priest
annually chosen to take care of it and to produce it
at the yearly festival. From the belief of the Messe-
nians in Ithome that the infant Zeus had been there
tended and nursed by two local nymphs, it is to be
supposed that the figure in question represented him in
infancy, and this is the more likely when the carrying of
it from house to house is considered. In the town of
JEgion existed this same belief, and here too was a figure
of Zeus, similarly looked after by annually elected priests
in their own dwellings. In this case it is distinctly
described 2 as a figure of the infant Zeus, and again
the work of Ageladas. With it, and from the same
hand, was a youthful Herakles, cared for in like manner
by a chosen priest. But as regards the Zeus at Ithome,
tradition affirmed 3 that it had been originally made for
those of the inhabitants of that town who survived the
surrender to the Spartans in b.c 455 and were then
transplanted to Xaupaktos, where afterwards, as " the
Messenians of Xaupaktos," they rendered active ser-
! Pausanias, iv. 33. 2. nearly twenty years after the events.
usanias, vii. 24. 4. No doubt there was often a delay
3 Brunn. Gr. Ki'mstler. i. p. 72, of years, but it is hardly likely
places the artistic activity of Age- "that sucessful athletes did not
ladas from B.c.sooto 45 5, assuming think of statues till, getting old,
that the statues by him commemo- they abandoned the contest "
rating victories as earl) as b.i . 521 (Brunn. i. p. 71).
and 517 had not been erected til]
Chap. VII. J ACE LA DAS. 135
vice against their old enemy. How long the town of
Ithome remained in ruins is not known. Pausanias
found it repeopled, and engaged, as if from ancient
custom, in worshipping the Zeus of Ageladas ; and
when he states that this figure had been executed for
the Messenians in Naupaktos, he may be held to mean
simply that it had been made for the original inhabi-
tants of Ithome, who finally were transplanted to Nau-
paktos. There is nothing strained in this interpreta-
tion, contrary though it is to the common opinion '
that the date of this figure must be placed after B.C.
455, the year of the capture of Ithome. It is neces-
sary to draw attention to this point because, accepting
it as a fact that xA.geladas was alive and active after
this year, it has been found necessary to argue that
the statues which have already been said to have been
won in b.c 521 and 517 could not have been executed
for many years after, unless the career of the artist
had lasted well over a century, which, of course, is
impossible. Yet even a later period than b.c 455 is
assigned to a statue of Herakles Alexikakos' 2 by
Ageladas, in the Attic Deme of Melite, erected to
stay the great plague in b.c 430. There is no reason
to doubt that such a statue was made by him, but it
has been shown to have been a not uncommon cus-
tom to identify any previous plague that had occurred
with the great plague, and on this rational view the
statement is worthless as to date. It is untenable on
other grounds, since it would make Ageladas still
active as a sculptor after his pupil Pheidias had died
1 Overbeck, Griech. I'la^tik. b.c. 500 to 460 or 450.
2nd ed., |». 1 i- accepts the J This statement occurs in the
common view as laid down by st6uovii(i'0) tovs fia^i^- his art from his father, Sostratos.
divras i{i(> \v,\ atra toltov fiadijrfjs. I hus we have (1) Aristokles, ( _• )
According to Pausanias, vi. 9. 1, Synnoon, (3) Ptolichos, (1 5) un-
the firsl pupil of Aristokles was known, (6) Sostratos, (7) Pantias.
Synno< econd Ptolichos, a Cf. Brunn, Gr. Kiinstler, i. p. 81.
144 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. (Chap. VII.
have instructed them, is a fact which illustrates again
a wide-spread acquaintance with, if not a strong feeling
for, the works of special artists. Under no other cir-
cumstances but these is it conceivable that Greek sculp-
ture should in so short a time have eliminated from its
ideal the innumerable eccentricities of detail which
must have originated in local isolation.
Fortunately, in dealing with the early sculpture of
/Kgina there is more than mere literary record to go by.
There are the marble statues from the pediments of a
temple discovered in 1811, and now preserved in Munich.
The name of the artist is nowhere given, nor was the
existence of the temple itself to be suspected from
ancient writers, unless the words of Herodotus l could
be held to apply to it, when he says that the /Eginetans
dedicated in their temple of Athene the prows of the
galleys captured from Kydonia. This was in b.c. 523.
But while there is every reason to believe that the
temple now in ruins had been devoted to the honour of
that goddess, it is justly argued on the other hand that
the sculptures from it exhibit a mastery of art which
could not be expected till half a century after that date.
To meet this discrepancy, there are instances 2 of delav
greater than this in completing the sculptured decora-
tions of a temple ; so that if the grounds be satisfactory
1 iii. 59. Wis npoipas TjKporrjplaa-av observed also that the dedication
Kiu avidtaiu is to ipbv rhs 'A6r]i'air]s of the prows mentioned by Hero-
ti/Alyivrj. dotus (iii. 59) need not have taken
- See Brunn, Uber das Alter place immediately after B.C. 523, or
der /Eginetischen Bildwerke, p. 4 asanalternativeitcouldbesupposed
(Berichte d. k. bayer. Akad., 1 867), that the temple mentioned by Hero-
where a full discussion of the dotus may have been subsequently
question will be found, his conclu- rebuilt. Overbeck, who previously
sion bein^ that these sculptures had adopted an earlier date for the
form a kind of mythical parallel sculptures, fully agrees with Brunn.
to the bravery of the /Eginetans at See his Griech. Plastik, 2nd ed.
Salamis, and that they are to be p. 132.
dated after this battle. It may be
CThap. VII.] THE SCULPTURES OF J'.UIXA. 145
on which the sculptures are from artistic style assigned
to immediately after the battle of Salamis, where the
.Eginetans obtained the prize of bravery, 1 there would
thus be presented an admirable opportunity of filling
the pediments of the temple with statues, which by
their action indirectly illustrated the deeds done at Sala-
mis, b.c. 480. In the west pediment the goddess Athene
mysteriously appears to stay the combat oyer the dead
Patroklos, 2 the foremost fighter on the Greek side being
A] ax, whom the iEginetans regarded as an ancestral
hero. In the east pediment, incomplete as it is, a
similar incident is represented, which in this case
seems best explained as belonging to the expedition
against Troy, led by Herakles, with the aid of Telamon,
the father of Ajax, whose exploits also had shed a
legendary glory on /Egina.
But now, if it be asked who, among the recorded
artists of /Egina, is the most likely either to have exe-
cuted or to haye influenced the execution of these sculp-
tures, there can only be one answer. It could not have
been Kallon ; for he is associated with the preyious
generation, being a contemporary of Gitiadas, 3 and the
sculptor of a figure of Persephone supporting a tripod at
Amyklas. Again he is generally described as coeval with
Kanachos, 4 while elsewhere 5 his statues are compared in
hardness of style with Etruscan sculpture. The same
impression would be gathered from the only other sculp-
ture of his of which a record survives, the image (xoanon)
of Athene in Troezeri. 6 Sostratos and his son Ptolichos,
1 Herodotus, vn'i. 93. 3 Pausanias, iii. t8. ~.
though! ill'/ fallen '' Pausanias. vii. iS. 10.
1 . here to be not ' Quintilian, [nst. < >rat. xii, 1 •.
Patroklos, but Achilles. Bui this 7. quoted by Overbeck, Ant.
is now generally given up. See Si hriftquellen, no. 1
Overbeck, Griech. Plastik, 2nd ed. Pan mia ii , •. 5.
p. 132.
146 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VII.
already mentioned as pupils of Aristokles, were doubt-
less capable of such a task, though no tradition to that
effect exists. There remains then the name of Onatas,
oi whose works two in particular are singularly sugges-
tive of the pediment sculptures in Munich. The first
was a group of ten statues at Olvmpia representing
Greeks during the Trojan War casting lots as to who
should meet the challenge of Hector to single combat, 1
and the second was a group of statues set up in Delphi
bv the Tarentines in commemoration of their victory
over the Peucetians, in which group the combatants
were ranged round the body of Opis, king of the
Iapvgians. Thus, in the one group the subject and in
the other the composition of the figures, obviously recall
the /Egina pediments. As to dates, it is to be observed
that the chariot made by Onatas for Hiero of Syracuse,
the father of Deinomenes, to perpetuate in Olvmpia the
fame of his victor}' there, cannot have been executed
later than b.c 466, and may have been as early as b.c.
477 ; that his bronze statue of Herakles, commissioned
bv the people of Thasos, was in all probability made
between the years b.c 481-465, the period in which
that island was free from Persian control, on the one
hand, and Athenian supremacy on the other ; and that
the Tarentine group of combatants just mentioned
appears to have been meant to celebrate a victory
gained soon after the defeat which they had sustained
from the same enemv in b.c 473. 2 The other sculptures
ascribed to him are a bronze Apollo 3 at Pergamus, won-
derful for its size and artistic skill ; a statue of Hermes 4
at Olvmpia, carrying a ram under his arm, in which
figure he was assisted bv Kalliteles, whom Pausanias
1 Pausanias. v. 25. 8; cf. Iliad, Kiinstler, i. p. 89.
vii. ]-;. 3 Pausanias, viii. 42. 7.
■ For details of this combina- 4 Pausanias, v. 27. 8.
tion of dates see Erunn. Gr.
Chap. VII.] ONATAS OF /EGINA. 147
thought to be his pupil or son, and a figure of the
"black" Demeter l at Phigaleia, so called because of
her black drapery. This curious figure, having the form
of a woman except the head, which was that of a
horse, with snakes and other creatures growing from it,
and holding with one hand a dolphin, with the other a
bird, is said to have been designed by Onatas partly
from a description or copy and partly through a vision
of the ancient image which had been destroyed by fire.
This was " a generation after the Persian invasion."
The reproduction was in bronze, and as far as is known,
he worked in no other material.
The onlv ancient opinion of the merit of Onatas is
conveved by Pausanias,' 2 in a passage which suffers
from obscurity. Speaking of the bronze Herakles at
Olympia, he says that he would place its author behind
no one of the followers of Dsedalos and of the Attic
school. From various other passages it is clear that
by the " ^Eginetan manner " he understood a rigidity
and spareness of form approaching that of Egyptian
statuary, and that generally " /Eginetan " was a cur-
rent equivalent with him for " archaic," whereas
"Attic" represented the highest art. In one place, 3
indeed, he distinctly classes the " so-called .Eginetan
sculptures " with the " oldest Attic." Elsewhere, 4
when describing the rams in Sardinia, he observes that
they were in form such as if an Eginetan sculptor
had made them, except that on the breast the hair
' Pausanias, viii. 42. 1. rav nirb A(ufi
Overbeck, Am. Schriftquellen, no. 'a.ttikS)p toU apxavtrarois ipfapi?,
424. I he words of Pausanias are el he ti Kal iiAXo, aKpifias >m'u>
(v. 2~. 7)' T6i» t>( , OviiT(iv tovtov Klyxmriov.
o/icos kcu T(x" T ]i fi tii dyaXpara ovra ' \. 1 ~. (i.
\iyivaias, avotvoi mrrepov ui](rop€v
1 2
148 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VII.
was too shaggy for ^Eginetan art. To judge from
what remains of the sculpture of Mgina., this com-
parison can only mean that the rams in question
were slender and spare in form, and it will be seen
that this explanation is confirmed by the qualifying
remark that the hair on their breasts was too shaggy.
While then it would seem that he employed the term
Attic for Greek sculpture from the time of Pheidias,
and that by /Eginetan he understood generally archaic
art, there still remains the difficulty of fathoming what
he wished to express by the phrase " followers of Daeda-
los." The reference might well be to the school of
Sikvon, founded by Dipcenos and Skyllis, who though
not the only, were yet to all appearance the greatest of
the Daedalides, and thus Pausanias would be held to
place Onatas not behind any sculptor of the Sikyonian
or Attic schools. 1 This would be high and perhaps
unreasonable praise, were there any grounds for
supposing that Pausanias was capable of appreciating
Athenian art as it is still to be seen in the sculptures of
the Parthenon. Of them he has scarcely a word to say,
and certainly no word of commendation. Besides, it is
nothing unusual now, and was not more so in antiquity,
to find writers who preferred the spare, finely elaborated
forms of ^Eginetan statues to the perhaps less accurate
superficially but more grandly conceived beings of the
school of Pheidias. But in fairness it must be admitted
that the work of Onatas may have greatly transcended the
surviving sculptures of ^gina. His name is associated
1 It is true that according to the ing "the followers of Daedalos " to
D los himself was have been specially Athenian
Ian by birth, and that tradi- sculptors, when so far as is known
tion mentions the Athenian En- of them they were mainly esta-
dceos as his pupil ; but in this there blished elsewhere in Greece, in
is no sufficient reason for suppos- particular at Sikvon.
Chap. VII.] GLAUKIAS OF /EGIXA. 149
with them only because he is known to have executed large
and similar compositions, while among his townsmen
and contemporaries, Glaukias, for example, though well
known as a sculptor, and doubtless more than equal to
the task, is passed over. The name of Glaukias sur-
vives to this day in Olympia. 1 It was he who made the
chariot group 2 to commemorate the victory of Gelo,
the king of Syracuse, in the races at Olympia, and it
may have been through his success in this undertaking
that subsequently Hiero, the brother of Gelo, when
requiring an artist for a similar purpose, turned to
/Egina and enlisted Onatas. Besides this there were to
be seen at Olympia three statues of victors from the
hand of Glaukias, of which one 3 bore on its base two
verses by the poet Simonides, telling that the person
represented was Philon of Corcyra, the son of Glaukos,
and winner twice- of boxing competitions at Olympia.
Another was the statue of Theagenes, 4, a Thasian, who
was victor twice, i-n b-.c. 481- and b.c. 477. The third
was Glaukos, 5 the Karystian,in the attitude of sparring,
in which he was proficient above all of his time. That
these sculptures were, all of bronze may be taken as
certain ; equally so that they were modelled, cast and
finished in /Egina, the fame of which for its bronze
1 Inscribed on a ba : found in the is otherwise known as the year
German excavations (Arch: Zeitung; when Gelo became king of Syra-
1878, p. 142) ma) be read in cuse-. Cf. Clinton, Fasti Hellenici,
archaic letters r^AAVKIAZ i under this year. Hiero succeeded
AIMNATAX i E[r]OIEZE. him b.c. 478.
2 Pausanias, viii. 42. 4, says thai ' Pausanias, vi. 9. 3. Simonides
this race of Gelo's was won in died b.c. 467, and the statue must
rid that, then fore, Gelo l1 " 1 ^ have been made before then,
was not then king of Syracuse, the ' Pausanias, vi. u.->. Part ol
th n.ne of which he did not obtain the base of this statue has been
till b.c. 485. The text says literally found. Arch. Zeit., 1879, P- 2I2 »
B .( . 491, bul that would render his " Pausanias, vi. 10. 1.
umentfutil< ,and \« 1 id< 1 B.c.485
1*0
IISTmKN OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VII.
work consisted, as Pliny ' says, not in its possessing
this material naturally, but in the skill with which it
was wrought. From the dates just quoted, compared
with that generally agreed on for the ^Egina sculptures
in Munich, it will be seen that Glaukias would then be
m the full swing of his activity. Contemporary with
him was Anaxagoras, whom the combined Greeks who
had fought at Platseae selected to make in memory of
this battle a colossal bronze statue of Zeus 2 to be set
up in Olympia and to bear on its base the names of the
several States so engaged. Possibly about the same
time lived also Aristonos, 3 who made for the Metapon-
tians a figure of Zeus, placed in the Altis at Olympia,
holding in one hand the eagle, in the other the thunder-
bolt, and wearing a wreath of lilies ; Serambos, 4 who
sculptured the figure of a winner in the games for boys ;
and Theopropos, 5 the sculptor of a bronze bull sent to
Delphi by the people of Corcyra.
xxxiv. y.
- Pausanias, v. 2.3 . 1 . The size of
the statue (10 cubits) and the fact
of its being of bronze are known
from Herodotus, ix. 81.
:; Pausanias, v. 22. 4, saws he
knew neither the date of Aristonos
nor his master.
1 Pausanias, vi. 10. 2.
5 Pausanias, x. 9. 2. A com-
panion figure of a bull, also in
! ronze, was sent by the Corcyraeans
to Olympia. It was the work of
Philesios, an Kretrian (Pausanias,
v. 27. 6). The base of it has been
found, and bears the name of this
artist in archaic letters belonging to
the beginning of the 5th century B.C.
(Arch. Zeitung, 1876, p. 226). If
the bull by Theopropos was made
at the same time, then he is rightly
placed here as a contemporary of
Glaukias,
CHAPTER VIII.
THE SCULPTURES OF JEGINA, NOW IN MUNICH.
Difference between the two pediments — West pediment — Colour —
Composition — -Theories of arrangement — Explanation of subject — ■
Types of figures derived from study of athletes — Details of figures
— Objections to general opinion of central group — Identification pf
the other figures — East pediment — Subject — Sculptures more ad-
vanced in style than in west pediment — Figure of Herakles — Com-
position — Theories of difference between the two pediments — The
finding of the sculptures.
The marble statues surviving from the temple of
Athena in JEgina. stood grouped in the two pediments
or gables, principally in the one facing the west, which,
at the back of the building, and therefore of secondary
importance, appears to have maintained even in its
sculpture a character in some degree consistent with its
position. The difference lies not merely in artistic
merit, but may be seen in the more obvious points of
scale and proportions in the figures. Meantime, with-
out following out the comparison, it may be well to look-
to the West pediment (pi. 7) alone for the sake of certain
general observations which arise on examining each
and all of the groupings ' of it that have been proposed.
1 Cockerell, The Temples of bending forward to seize the fallen
JEgina. and Bassae, on pi. [5, gives warrior. Both, however, are placed
the usual restoration with eleven behind tin- foremost warrior mi
: bul 'in pi. 1 f> Ik; gives cab side. In the vignette to his
another view in which two figures work onh one of these figures
are introduced, one on 1 I appears, but two additional com-
1^2
HISTOR\ 01 GREEK SCULPTURE. ICiiac \ 1 1 1.
In the first place, while the warriors on the left carry
their shields in the background and so present a full
form to the spectator, those on the opposite side, pre-
serving a strict truthfulness to tact, wear the shield on
the left arm, and in this way conceal themselves largely
from view, the immediate effect of which is that the
whole composition stands unpleasantly divided into two
not sufficiently uniform parts. On painted vases, 1
where scenes of a similar spirit occur, many devices are
employed to obviate such a result. But the ingenuity
of the vase painters need not have heen a law to the
sculptor, for this reason especially, that he was free
to brighten and enrich the now objectionable shields
with any variety of colours he chose. That he did so
is abundantly proved from the remains of colouring 2
observable when the marbles were found. But as no
brightness of colour could ever have made these shields
transparent, nothing remains to be imagined except
that in the svstem of colouring introduced throughout
the composition, the shields of the other warriors,
though now in the back ground, were brought promi-
nently forward so as to produce a general effect of
balance and uniformity. The Athena of the west pedi-
ment had colour on her asgis, red on the foot of her
drapery, and colour of some kind on the straps of her
hatants are added, one on each
towards die centre. Midler,
Denkmaler, pi. 6 ~, gives this pedi-
1 idi the usual eleven figures,
as does also Clarac, Muse
'ture, pi. Si 5. and Overbeck,
h. Plastik, fig. 1 j.
1 Such designs occur most
frequently on the shallow kylikes
nt a severe red-figure style, the
rounded surface of which, with the
vanishing from sight, pre-
sented just Mich a limitation of
design as in the triangular pedi-
ment of a temple, where also all
,dn must concentrate on the
middle point.
- For the remains of colour and
of additions in metal, such as spears
and helmets, or parts of helmets,
see Brunn, Beschreibung tier Glyp-
totek, Munchen, 1873. Blouet,
Expedition de la Moree, iii. pi. 55,
gives a coloured view of this pedi-
ment,
CHAP. VIII.] WEST 1'EUIMENT OE .EGIXA TEMPLE. 153
sandals. On the Athena of the east pediment was a
cherry-red colour. Some of the helmets had hlue,
with red on the crests. The interiors of the shields
were dark red, and from the remaining concentric
circles on them, it would seem that colours had been
applied in contrasting bands. The plinths of the
figures were red. The flesh appears to have had only
a faint tint, while such details as eyes and lips are
picked out with colour. But no colour was found on
the hair. A very large number of small holes remain
to show that by their means bronze weapons had been
made fast to the figures. On the aegis of Athena in
the west pediment had been a gorgoneion of metal,
while what remains of the corresponding Athena in
the east pediment shows that she had worn metal
earrings.
The composition of the West pediment as a whole tells
a simple story- A warrior, foremost in the fight, has fallen
with a mortal wound. On the one side is a rush to save,
on the other a rush to seize him, and at the critical
moment, when both forces almost meet, the goddess
Athena appears, not to part them in terror as Zeus
might have clone, but probably to throw over the fallen
hero and his friends a sudden mist, which the successful
enemy could not penetrate. The wounded warrior has
fallen backwards in the direction of the Greeks on the
left. For this and other reasons, including the interven-
tion of Athena, he is clearly a Greek, and that his body
was saved is expressed by her presence. With these facts
indirectly conveyed, there remained as the chief task of
the artist to show how critical was the occasion, by com-
bining the forces on both sides so as to express a terrific
onset, and it may be said that whatever arrangement of
the statues is most consistent with this point of view
must be the best. The greater the masses of armed
men, and the more impetuous the charge, the better.
154
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VIII.
As regards the masses on each side, the latest restora-
tion ' of this pediment has the advantage of introducing;
a larger number of combatants than had ever before
been proposed, and proceeding as it does on the basis of
measurements made from the existing fragments, it
carries with it a degree of probability which can only be
lessened by a more successful appropriation of these
fragments than has yet been made.
At first and for a long time, notwithstanding the fact
that one of the discoverers 2 spoke to there being parts
of no less than thirty distinct statues to be distributed in
the two pediments, it was usual to be content with only
twenty-two, of which eleven were theoretically allotted
to each. Altogether, however, only fifteen complete
figures had been restored (by Thorwaldsen and Wagner),
1 Konrad Lange, Die Composi-
tion der JEg'meten (Berichte d. k.
sachs. Gesell. d. Wiss. 1878). The
arrangement proposed by Lange
has been strongly objected to by
Dr. L. Julius (Fleckeisen's Neue
Jahrbucher, 1880, pp. 1-22), who
prefers to limit the figures much
as Prachov had done. On the
other hand Overbeck. in the new
e 1 it ion (3rd) of his Griech. Plastik,
takes up the defence of Lange's
isal. As regards the corro-
sion of the surface of the statues,
and the question whether it was
1 by exposure to weather
during the time when the figures
stood in the temple, or whether it
is the effect of lying in the soil, I
may remark that anyone who visits
/Egina will see that the intensely
corrosive atmosphere has reduced
much of the stone of the island to
the appearance of cinders, and that
die present condition of the temple
is such a> to suggest an action of
the weather so impartial as to
render doubtful any theory of
arrangement based on it unless
supported at the same time by
other circumstances.
; Cockered, Temples of A
and Bassae, p. 34, who says also
that from the manner in which the
sculptures were scattered among
the ruins, it was impossible to judge
from the place of rinding whether
a statue belonged originally to the
west or the east pediment. It may
here be said that the various designs
for a restoration proposed by
Cockered in the work in question
differ too much from each other to
be acquitted of being all to some
degree fanciful. It should be said
however that in the Journal of
Science and the Arts, vi. p. 328,
he speaks of there being little
doubt of the correctness of the re-
storation, since the figures were
found in positions suggestive of
their original places.
Chap. VI 1 1.] RESTORATIONS OF .ECIXA COMPOSITIONS. 155
and of these ten showed themselves to belong" to the
west, the other five to the east pediment. In both sets
there was a fallen warrior for the centre, and from
unquestionable remains it was evident that the goddess
Athena had appeared on his behalf in the east pediment
as well as in the west, and that in both, the composition
of the groups must have, in the main, resembled each
other. When, therefore, among the five statues of the
east pediment there was seen to be one in the act ol
bending forward to lay hold of the fallen hero in the
middle, it was accepted as a necessity that there must
have been a similar figure in the west pediment, though
there were not remains enough for its reconstruction.
Thus, on the theory of a strict uniformity between the
two ends of the temple, there were one figure on the west
and six on the east to be restored out of the fragments,
or failing them, from imagination. But a few years
ago ! it was proposed, on the ground of a fresh investi-
gation of these numerous limbs, to introduce two more
figures, one for each pediment, in the act of bending
forward to seize the fallen hero, who would then appear
to be receiving exactly the same attention from both
sides. Were not this question to be decided by the
actual fragments, the natural feeling would be to regard
such a proposal as carrying uniformity too far, and even
with all respect for the laboriousness with which they
have been measured, it would scarcely be possible to
take an attitude of complete acquiescence. Since then,
however, four additional - combatants have been added
1 Prachov, Annali d. Inst. Arch., troduced two additional combatants;
1873, PP- 140-162, pis. o and p, q, but, as Lange justly observes, with-
and Monumenti d. Inst. Arch., i.\. out assigning an) reason except
pi. 57. such as may be gathered from his
1 Lange, Die Composition der belief that there had been altogether
/Egineten, pi. 3, figs. 2 3. In the al leasl thirty statues. His design
tte to liis work showing the was thus merel) an effort to intro-
pediment 11 al in duce as manj oi them as possible
is6
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VIII.
by the process, to describe it in general terms, of prov-
ing the existence of one and, from a law of uniformity,
inferring the other three.
Apart, however, from the uncertainty which will
always exist as to whether these measurements have
been correctly reasoned upon, and whether the further
inferences are in all cases justifiable, it is not to be
denied that this, the latest restoration of the west
pediment, presents a scene of animation and impetus
fairly suited to illustrate the last rush in of the
forces on both sides, as compared with the previous
arrangement of only eleven figures. It may be that
in this respect it is overdone, if the still archaic cha-
racter of the work be considered, and apparently it
was from caution on this point that for so long a time
no attempt was made to increase the number of the
combatants. Nothing farther, in fact, had been pro-
posed than to change the archer on both sides to the
second place from the end instead of the third, 1 which
was previously assigned to him. Yet this simple change,
when once proved to be not only admissible but more
accurate, rendered conspicuous the inclination and fol-
consistent with artistic effect.
Much has been said of late on the
question whether and how far the
worn surface of the marbles can be
made to determine their respective
in the pediments, some de-
claring the wear to be that of
■v. others the effect of lying in
the earth. Asregardsthe weather,
the temple as it stood in January,
1880, when I saw it, showed that
a air bites into the stone with
more effect than would well suit
the theory of ISruim.
1 Miiller, Denkmaler, pis. 6, 7 ;
Clarac,Mus ' de S< ulpture, pi. 815 :
Blouet, Expedition tic la Moree,
iii. pi. 58, and Cockered, in photo-
graphic plate (1) to his work,
Temples at ^Egina and Bassae.
Friederichs, Bausteine, p. 50, was
the first to propose this change, on
the ground that the proper place
for the archers was at the extreme
ends of the combat, and that in
fact these two figures, if correctly
restored, would lit into the narrower
space. Brunn, Berichte d. k. bayer.
Akad. d. Wiss., 1869, followed,
arguing that the change was not
only practicable , but an immense
gain to the artistic effect of the
whole composition.
Chap. VIII.] WEST PEDIMENT OF /EGIXA. 157
lowing up of the combatants towards the centre, which
before had been greatly reduced in effect bv the inter-
position of the archers. It was then seen that the
figures which on each side appear to have fallen on
one knee, are to be understood as arriving with a rush,
and making a last thrust with such force as to bring
them down to this position. Therefore thev must be
as near the centre as possible. It was felt also that
this crowding in of armed men on each side mi^ht
be intensified with advantage, and hence fresh searches
were made among the broken limbs, with the result,
as has been said, of introducing first an additional
figure on the left, bending towards the fallen hero, and
secondly an additional warrior rushing in at full length
on each side. To make space for them the statues
must be moved closer together, and, what is a very
obvious improvement, the fallen hero must lie more
in front of the goddess, though still with his head
towards the Greeks. Not so much, however, can be
said for the crowding of the figures, which, in fact, is so
great that they advance nearly two lines deep, an
arrangement which requires to be justified bv better
analogies than those that are drawn from painted vases.
Nor is the author of it entitled to defend the excessive
and monotonous uniformity between the two sides of
his design by proclaiming the poverty of the sculpture
compared with the statues of the Parthenon ' as suffi-
cient excuse, or by assuming, as regards his line of
figures two deep, that the idea may have originated
under the influence of painting in perspective, an art
which must first be proved to have existed then. Under
these circumstances many will doubtless adhere to the
older grouping, with its more simple and obviously
more beautiful flow of lines, of which the principal ones
1 Lange, Composition der /Egineten, \>. <<*>.
i 5 8
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VII
converge strongly towards the centre, while a secondary
scries, arising mainly from the position of the legs of
the figures, connects the combatants into a scheme of
composition which may be compared to an organic
growth. 1
It has already been stated that according to the most
probable explanation, the subject of the West pediment
represents a stage in the great combat between Greeks
and Trojans over the body of Patroklos, described in
the Iliad.- An accurate illustration of Homer it is not
by any means ; for he, it will be remembered, describes
Patroklos as being spoiled of his borrowed armour early
in the light, and long before the goddess Athena, wrapped
in a winter cloud, joined the Greeks to stir them in
another effort. For this purpose she assumed the form
of the aged Phoenix, but in the sculpture she appears as
a goddess, and Patroklos retains his armour. Making
too much of these discrepancies, some have thought
the fallen hero to be Achilles. 3 But taking into account
that on the eve of their greatest battle the Greeks, 4
after praying to their gods, sent solemnly to Salamis for
images of Ajax and Telamon to support their courage ;
that in this battle the palm of bravery was awarded to
1 Brunn (Composition der JEgi-
netischen Giebelgruppen, in the
Berichte d. k. bayer. Akad., 1868)
develops with great fulness and
beauty of expression the artistic
principle of the composition. PI. 7
is lure reproduced from Cockerell,
Journal of the Royal Institution,
who says, vi. p. 333, "There is a
fine contrast in the attitudes and
the crossing of the different limbs."
- xvii. The appearance of
Athene on the scene is described,
v. 544-555-
J Welcker, A he Dcnkmaler, i.
p. 44, following Thiersch, Amalthea,
i. ]). 156, who appears to have first
drawn attention to the death of
Achilles as described in the
/Tuhiopis as the probable subject
of these sculptures. Cockerell,
Journal of the Royal Institution, vi.
]). 334, in support of the combat of
Hector and A j ax, gives an interesting
letter of Colonel Leake's with re-
ference to this and similar apparent
discrepancies between poets and
artists in Greece.
4 Hero. lotus, viii. ^4.
Chap. VIII.] WEST PEDIMENT OF /FXIXA. i^g
the soldiers of /Egina, 1 and that in all probability these
sculptures were executed immediately thereafter, the
opinion has been received with more general favour,
which describes the West pediment as illustrating the
bravery of Ajax conspicuous in the combat over Patro-
klos. Whether this interpretation be correct or not,
the scene is clearlv one in which mortals, or more accu-
rately, legendary mortals, are engaged. The goddess
Athena can hardly be called an exception, since she
presents more the appearance of an ancient image,
so much so, indeed, as almost to suggest that the
fallen warrior had in a manner not unusual in battle
scenes,' 2 sought the protection of such a figure, in which
case she would have corresponded to the draped. statue
of Athena 3 in Troy, and would thus indicate more defi-
nitely the locality of the combat. Analogy, however,
requires that for such a purpose the figure should stand
on a pedestal to be clearly recognisable as a statue, and
on the whole, perhaps, her position in the pediment
may be best described as a rendering of the divine
presence, which differs only in being more complete
from the representation of the presence of Apollo in this
same series of combats, 4 when Hector, urged by him,
fought Menelaos over the dead body of Euphorbos.
This scene occurs on an archaic painted vase 5 from
Kameiros in Rhodes, having the names of the heroes
inscribed, and all that is to be seen of the god is a pair
of eyes, almost concealed under volutes, looking down
on the battle.
1 Herodotus, viii. 93. (Bullet. Arch. Napol., 1858, p. 145).
- I he protei tion of such a figure ( >n the Meidias wise in the British
is sought by a Greek woman in Museum occurs a similar xoanon.
iit with the Centaurs on the 3 Iliad, vi. 90.
of Phigaleia (Museum * Iliad, xvii. 71.
Marbles, iv. pi. 10), and by Tro 5 Engraved in Salzmann's Ne*-
in thi from the war of Troy < ropole de < 'amiius, pi, 6.
on a vase in the British Museum
lf)0
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. fCHAP. VIII.
It will be remembered from the records and from
existing specimens, that early sculpture dealt mainly
with the legendary deeds of heroes, dreading apparently
the gods, and that it sought to present these legends
with a forcible, if not a coarse, realism, such as would
arrest the ordinary spectator. Advancing further, and
being largely occupied with statues of victorious athletes,
it necessarily lost much of the former realism of action,
hut retained the realism of form. In this stage of the
art came the sculptures of /Egina ; first of all those of
the West pediment, to which so far attention has been
almost exclusively directed. The sculptor's model has
been an athlete, 1 or rather an ideal type of athlete,
which in the process of idealizing has suffered from
that tendency to spareness of form which, as has already
been shown, caused the term " iEginetan " to be a
synonym in art for " archaic." \\ nerever possible there
is a desire that the bones may be seen through the
skin at the knee joints, in the chest and ribs, between
which and the upper part of the stomach is drawn a
markedly formal boundary line, recalling in this respect
the Strangford Apollo, 2 but showing a considerable
advance on the Apollo of Orchomenos and the smaller
marble statue of the same class in the British Museum
(pi. 2,) and fig. 16. The width across the hips is too small,
and in point of proportion the legs are, if anything, too
1 There would be no scarcity of
formed athletes in the days
when Pindar (born b.c. 518 and
alive in B.C. 487) sang so often the
victories of /"Kirinetans at the
Nemean, Isthmian, and Pythian
games, and the date of Pindar
would roundly coincide with the
period of these sculptures. See
his Nemea,iii. viii., celebrating six
different .K^inetans, die Isthniia,
iv.. v., and vii., and the Pvthia, Yiii.
Throughout these odes is constantly
to be heard the praise of the glory
of the ^Eakidae. The fifth Nemean
ode begins " I am not a sculptor,"
OVK dl>8pLtlVT01TOl6s iljJL.
- Brunn has pointed this out in a
very interesting analysis of the
structure of these figures in die
Berichte d. k. bayer. Akad., 1872,
Chap. VIII.] WEST PEDIMENT OF /EGINA TEMPLE. l6l
long, while the arms to the same minute degree err
in the other direction. The muscles are given with
studious attention to nature, and undoubtedly every-
where the aim is to be correct, precise and refined.
But the cost at which this is obtained is the loss of
that vitality which should breathe through every statue,
not to mention the higher element of ideal beauty of
form. In the head, the eyes are forward and slanting
a little, in correspondence with which the curves of
the mouth turn gently up, the lips are full, and the
chin strongly pronounced. Where beards occur they
are blocked out in the marble, and indicated as hair
only by superficial lines. The expression of face
varies little from a conventional type, suggestive of a
model athlete perhaps more than anything else. The
hair on the forehead is arranged in rows of spiral
curls, like the hair on the body of an Assyrian bull.
For the present it should be stated that these remarks
do not strictly apply to the figure bending forward on
the Trojan or right side, because it is merely a cast
from the figure on the opposite pediment, introduced
where it is on the ground of certain fragments and for
the sake of uniformity. Curiously he has no armour.
Nor has he the excuse of the two figures lying in the
extremities of the scene, since they have been struck
down and doubtless at the same time spoiled, consis-
tently with Homeric usage. Were his identity to be
determined from other ancient works of art, it might be
a question whether he is not Thanatos (Death), whom
Automedon 1 in this particular scene describes as reach-
ing for Patroklos, assisted by Moira (Fate). It is true
that in works of art where Thanatos and with him Ilypnos
(Sleep) appear, they are usually engaged in lifting the
1 Ili.i'l. xvii. .\jH. tivv 8' iv QiivuTos Kut Nlolpa ki%uv(i.
M
lf)2 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VIII.
dead warrior, 1 and that further they have wings, which
the statue in question had not apparently possessed.
There are thus difficulties on both sides, but in choosing
between them it should be borne in mind that if this
figure is an unarmed Trojan, he is at least advancing to
do precisely what elsewhere Thanatos does, and more-
over, must be regarded as attempting to perform an
action which would not add glory to the combat; that
is to say, to spoil the fallen hero of his armour, if not
to drag away his body. The figures lying in each
extremity are supposed to have been already spoiled,
though it must be confessed that on the whole they
have not much the appearance of warriors. They are
large of form, and represent a different type of being to
a creat extent. Both have their hair bound with a
o
narrow diadem, and falling in long masses down the
back. Possibly when a helmet was worn this mass of
hair was gathered up under it. In the manner of wear-
ing the helmet a difference will be observed among the
statues of this pediment. The two nearest the centre
have it set back on the head to show the hair over the
brow, while the next two, on both sides, wear it well
down over the forehead.
Although the entire scene is in all probability asso-
ciated with the death of Patroklos and the valour of
Ajax when opposed to Hector on that occasion, it is not
possible to identify positively any of the other figures.
Behind Ajax the supporting combatant may be Ajax
Oileus, and the bowman, Teucer, while behind Hector,
on the Trojan side, may be /Eneas, and as to the archer
there need, perhaps, be no hesitation in accepting him
as Paris, though the Iliad does not introduce him in
this particular scene. He wears a Phrygian cap and a
1 Sec, for example, a red-figure by Pamphaios. Vase Catalogue,
kylix in the British Museum, made no. 834.
Chap. VIII.] WEST PEDIMENT OF ^GINA TEMPLE.
163
dress of leather fitting close to his whole figure, reach-
ing to the wrists and ankles, and elastic enough to show
in places the prominent joints. He is young and beau-
tiful. Young also, if not so careless and beautiful, is
Teucer, the corresponding archer, whose dress is a
cuirass worn over a linen chiton, the skirt of which
is seen lying in plain folds of the same artificial and
unnatural formation as in the drapery of Athena. His
head is a modern restoration, 1 and doubtless ought to
have had a dress more suited to an archer, resembling in
o
fact the cap of Paris. The head of Athena is certainly
vigorous, and it may be noticed that her hair is not
arranged over the brow in spiral curls as in the male
figures, but is drawn in regular, wavy lines.
1 The following are the measure-
ments and restorations of the figures
in this pediment as given byBrunn
in the official Beschreibung der
( dvptothek, Miinchen, 1873, P- 85
fol. (1) Athena, ht. r68 metres
(nearly equal 5 ft. 6| in.) ; re-
stored are the nose, thumb, and
two tips of the fingers of left hand,
the whole right hand, parts of aegis,
crest, and shield. (2) Patroklos,
ht. 1 - 44 metres; restored are the
neck, right shoulder, part of breast,
fingers of both hands and toes,
excepting the great toes. (3) Ajax,
ht. 1*39 metres; restored are the
head, right shoulder, and part of
breast and ribs adjoining, fingers
of left hand, greater part of shield,
part of calf of left leg, toes of left
foot, and forepart of right foot.
(4) Ajax Oileus, ht. 0*935 metre,
Restored arc crest of helmet, right
hind, left forearm, lefl foot, and
forepart of righl foot, (5) Teua r,
ht. 1 '1 »3 metres ; restored at
left forearm, right arm from
middle of upper arm, most of the
straps in front of cuirass, and left
leg from below knee. (6) Wounded
Greek, 1. 1-59 metres; restored
are tip of nose, right forearm, left
hand, right leg from knee to ankle,
and toes of both feet. (7) He, tor,
ht. 1 -43 metres; restored are tip
of nose, crest of helmet, half of
right forearm, a third of shield, and
both legs entirely. (8) JEneas,
ht. 0-91 metre; restored are the
head, right shoulder, left arm from
middle of upper arm, left knee
with half of thigh and forepart of
foot. (9) Paris, ht. 1-04 metres;
restored are top of cap, nose, tip of
chin, part of fingers on both hands,
and forepart of left foot. (10)
Wounded Trojan, 1. 137 metres;
restored are the head, left arm,
several pie< es of righl forearm, and
both legs from knees downward'..
Theheight of ea< h of thetwo dr iped
figures w hi( h stood on die a< roteria
of the pediment is given at - '8 1
metre.
lG_| HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VIII.
As regards the East, or principal pediment of the
temple, two things are generally agreed upon. First,
that the subject represented was the war made upon
Laomedon, king of Troy, by Herakles, assisted by
Telamon, the father of the greater Ajax; and secondly,
that the sculptures are of an order of merit much
superior to those just described. Altogether five statues
with a number of fragments have been preserved, and
in determining the subject much importance, perhaps
too much, has been attached to the headdress worn by
the archer, which from its taking the form of the skin
of a lion's head, has been judged as sufficient to identify
him with Herakles, notwithstanding that the position he
occupies far from the centre deprives him of the promi-
nence which he holds in the legend. Accepting him,
however, as Herakles, and examining the figure by the
standard of art observed in the statues of the west
pediment, it will be seen at once that he is a finer
creation, both in form and in attitude, while a detailed
inspection will show a corresponding advance, nowhere
more obviously, perhaps, than in the rendering of the
linen chiton worn under his cuirass, especially where it
projects, all crumpled, under the arm. In the figure of
Teucer, who wears the same dress in the other pediment,
there is no sign of the chiton here, while, as has already
been said, the folds, where they are visible, are of a very
artificial form. Those of Herakles are by no means
perfect, but they clearly aim at reality with considerable
success. His cuirass itself is beautifully enriched, that of
Teucer is quite plain. Were there nothing to go by but
this greater perfection in details, that might be explained
away by assuming special care to have been directed to
the sculptures of the chief front. The superior excel-
lence ' of the forms is, however, general, bearing witness
1 Brunn has analysed very fully in the two pediments in the
the artistic differences of the statues Berichte d. k. bayer. Akad., May,
Chap. VIII.] EAST PEDIMENT OF .EGINA. 165
to a sculptor of higher gifts. Not that he is always
more advanced in details, since the helmet of the
warrior on the Trojan side, lying wounded in the corner,
is no more organically distinct from the head under it
than the helmets of the opposite pediment. The heads
of the warrior lying dead in the centre, and of the
Trojan striding towards him, are restored, and cannot be
used for this comparison. The rigid outline marking
off the bones of the chest and ribs from the stomach
has disappeared, the veins along the arms come into
view, the limbs are of a larger mould, and where a
beard occurs it is rendered more distinctly as a separate
mass, though doubtless still only superficial in the indi-
cation of the hair of which it is composed. In point of
facial expression it is not easy to detect the im-
provement observed by some, but a glance of compari-
son will show that the attitude of the warrior lying
in the left corner is singularly expressive of the deadli-
ness of his wounds, while the corresponding figures in
the west pediment are, as has already been said, barely
recognisable as wounded. The fallen hero in the middle
is again a figure of great beauty, and not less so he
who bends forward to spoil him of his helmet, if the
recent ! restoration be correct.
According to the arrangement just referred to, there
must have been another similar figure bending forward
1867, with the result that he would (Munchen, 1873), PP- 80-81, main-
ascribe those of the west pediment taining that the artists of both
to an older sculptor, corresponding pediments had worked simul-
to Kallon, and Uio.sc of the east taneously, and that shortly after
pediment to a younger artist, b.c. 480. Others had sought to
corresponding to Onatas, who account for the difference of the
with a fresh impulse had broken two pediments by supposing the
through the old traditional prin- s< ulptures of the one to have been
ciples developed through work- executed some time after those of
ing mainly in bronze, and had the other.
accommodated himself to the new ' Prachov, Monumenti d. Insi.
ial, marble. I his he repeats An h., ix. pi. ^7 and Annali, [873,
in his B< chreibung der Glyptothek pp. 1 1 [62, pis. o and p q
l66 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VIII.
on the left side. Further, the archer Herakles being
now definitely placed on the right wing, mainly owing to
a certain degree of carelessness in the sculpture of the
side of the figure thus withdrawn from view, it has been
found necessary to construct another archer to balance
him on the left wing. The statue striding to the centre,
if he could be made to stand on the right wing as an
ally of Herakles, would, no doubt, represent Telamon,
and is often so named. But if it be necessary, as seems
to be the case, to keep him on the opposite wing, then
he must be a Trojan hero, and a similar figure must be
made up to meet him in the great final combat. Beyond
this, actual restoration has not yet gone. But a blank
space has been left at each side, inviting the construc-
tion of two more combatants, corresponding with Ajax
Oileus and /Eneas in the west pediment. The dead
warrior in the middle lies to the Greek side and doubt-
less was a Greek, but his present attitude and the
restoration of his legs call for improvement. The
goddess Athena, again, looked down upon him. All
that remains of her, so far as has yet been pointed
out, 1 are the head, part of her left arm with traces of
the aegis, and part of her left foot. From these and
other fragments much may no doubt be done in the
way both of constructing new figures and in correcting
the restorations 2 actually made in the five statues.
1 Lange, Die Composition der ments and restorations of these
teten, p. 21, goes very fully five statues as given by Brunn in
into the identification of the frag- his official Bescheibung der Glyp-
ments of this pediment, and in- tothek (Mtinchen, 1873), P- $3-
deed of the fragments generally. Beginning at the left corner, (1)
Blouet, Expedition de la Moree, Trajan Warrior, lying wounded,
iii. de\otes pis. 58-64 to the east 1. 1 '68 metres; restored are the
pediment, the last three plates crest of his helmet, four fingers of
being occupied by fragments. To left hand, four toes of left foot,
the west pediment he assigns whole of right leg from middle of
pis. 65 ' thigh downwards, and a great part
1 The following are the measure- shield. (2) Trojan striding to
Chap. VIII.] DIFFERENCES OF THE TWO PEDIMENTS. 167
The clearly defined difference in the sculptures be-
longing respectively to these two pediments has led,
as has already been remarked, to various suggestions
for its explanation ; either that the statues had been
executed at periods sufficiently apart to admit of a
distinct but natural development of the art of sculp-
ture, and therefore necessarily by two separate artists,
as to which it may be observed that such a view of the
case involves the incredible postponement of the east or
principal sculptures after the less important west pedi-
ment had been complete. Or, it is argued, that one
sculptor may have executed both sets of statues, im-
proving as he went on, which again would imply that
he began with the back pediment. Others have supposed
that with one sculptor in the capacity of main designer
and superintendent, such as that exercised by Pheidias
with reference to the Parthenon, the actual execution of
the two pediments might have been left to artists less
gifted and, therefore, probably very pronounced in the
manner of the schools in which they had been trained.
No doubt in the Parthenon sculptures there are extra-
ordinary inequalities, often reflecting no great credit on
the sculptor, but here in the /Egina marbles, the differ-
ences of manner appear to be exactly characteristic of
the two pediments, and not the casual result of employing
here or there incompetent assistance. Lastly, there is
a theory 1 which up to a certain point proceeds, not
on conjecture, but from an examination of the stylistic
centre, lit. 1-47 metres; restored nose, both arms, greater part of
are his head, both hands, whole of right foot, and the whole of left foot.
left le.u r , right thigh, and almost (5) Herakles, ht. 0*79 metre; re-
ntire shield. (3) Dead Hero , stored are the tip of his nose, lefl
ntre, 1. 1-57 rrn ore I hand, right arm, part of right foot,
are his head, whole of right arm, lefl leg from below knee, several
lefl arm up to elbow, shield, right straps of his cuirass, and pan of
left leg from knee down, his back under the left shouldi
(4) Greek bending to nlre, ' Brunn's theory. See p, 164,
lit. o'97 metre; restored are his note 1.
j58 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. VIII.
di (Terences, and concludes that the statues of the west
or back pediment were from the hand of a sculptor who
had grown old and inveterate in a more or less rigid
manner, such as may be ascribed to the school of Kallon,
while those of the front were the work of a young fresh
artist imbued with new impulses, such as Onatas may
have originated in Mgina.. Both these artists may be
supposed to have worked simultaneously. Whether this
theory be strictly correct or not, there can be no question
but that the artistic differences are just such as would
arise under these circumstances, though not necessarily
under these circumstances alone. The pediment sculp-
tures of the temple of Zeus at Olympia offer an instance
in which two celebrated sculptors were employed, appa-
rently in competition with each other. A preference is
implied when it is said that Paeonios was chosen for the
front sculptures, while Alkamenes was relegated to the
back, yet this verdict, it may here be said, has not been
justified by the recently discovered statues. In /Egina it
is no less likely that two sculptors of different schools
were employed, with this reservation, that both schools
were essentially zEginetan, and both in operation till
about b.c. 480. That the temple was erected immediately
after this date to celebrate the great deeds of the Mgi~
netans at the battle of Salamis, has already been
described as highly probable, though it need not, at the
same time, be denied that it might well have been raised
some years before, during the period of the supremacy
of /Egina at sea, from b.c. 485-480. It stood on a
height from which Athens is clearly to be seen, and
was at some distance from any town, commanding a
prospect of unusual beauty and interest, which, on
festal days, when visitors thronged to it, must have lent
additional charm to the shrine itself.
It remains to be said that these sculptures were found
among the ruins of the temple in 181 1 by a party con-
Chap. VIII.] THE ACQUISITION OF THE SCULPTURES. i6g
sisting of Baron Haller von Hallerstein, Herr Linkh,
and the English architects Cockerell and Foster. Con-
siderable interest was excited at the time by the reported
excellence of the statues, and this was increased when
the discoverers, desirous above all of keeping the
marbles together, determined to offer them for public
sale in Zante, whither they had been conveyed. The
sale and its conditions were announced for November,
1812, but in the meantime, owing to fears of the French
making a hostile attack on that island, the sculptures
had been removed to Malta to be under British protec-
tion. Misled by this change, the agent sent by this
country proceeded to Malta to be ready for the sale, but
it, as originally advertised, took place in Zante in the
absence of the figures, the buyer being the then Crown-
Prince of Bavaria. Such was the degree of vexation
that for a time this sober account of the transaction l
by one of the principal parties was not accorded a
hearing in comparison with the rumours afloat.
1 Cockerell, p. ix. of Introduction ment (pi. 1) the archers are placed
to his Temples of ^Egina and third from the end, and in the east
Bassae. In 1819 Cockerell pub- pediment (pi. 2) Herakles is placed
lished, as the result of his observa- on the left wing, concealing from
tions on the restoration of the view the more highly finished side
figures by Thorwaldsen, an article of his cuirass. In vol. vii. p. 220
in the Journal of Science and Arts of the same Journal he gives a full
(published by the Royal Institution and very interesting statement of
of Great Britain), vol. vi. p. 327, the various restorations, and the
with two plates of the west and condition of the marbles when
east pediments. In the west pedi- found.
CHAPTER IX.
ARCHAIC SCULPTURE IN ATHENS. •
Statues of Harmodios and Aristogeiton by Antenor — Copies by Kritios
and Nesiotes — Statues in Naples — Kalamis: His chariot group of
I Hero — Statues of Sosandra — Boys — Amnion — Apollo Alexi-
kakos — Colossal Apollo — Hermes Kriophoros — Dionysos — As-
klepios — NikeApteros — Race-horses — Characteristics of his style —
His position in Athens — Supposed connection with temple of
Victory at Athens — Copies of his Apollo Alexikakos — Stele of
Aristokles — Stele of Lyseas — Archaic relief from Hckatompedon.
The laurels of Salamis, the lustre of supremacy at
sea, distinction in art, and the sweetest of Pindar's
praises, soon became things of the past for the islanders
of /Egina when, within sight, Athens leaping into power
could no longer brook a rival neighbour. First in
resources, this new leader of Greece aspired to be also
first in art, not content with the gifted skill of her own
citizens, but attracting others by rewards. Not much
had been heard before of a school of sculpture in
Athens, and this scarcity of annals, together with the
invitation to strangers, has tended to throw into the
shade the existence of such a school. Yet there had
been several sculptors, who though their names have
been handed down more from curiosity than through
lame, have become in consequence of modern research
entitled to places of honour. These are, on the one
hand, Antenor, on the other Kritios and Nesiotes.
Grateful for the murder of the tyrant Hipparchos,
and no less proud of the patriotism which, with cer-
Chap. IX.] HARMODIOS AND ARISTOGEITON.
I?*
tain death before them, had impelled Harmodios and
Aristogeiton to the deed, the Athenians raised in their
memory two bronze statues 1 from the hand of Antenor;
whether soon after the act, b.c. 510, or not is unknown,
but probably with no more than necessary delay.
Doubtless these figures were admirable for their day,
but it is easily conceivable that Xerxes, when he was
momentarily master of Athens, had other reasons than
those of artistic taste for carrying them off with him.
In Persia they remained till the time of Alexander,
Antiochos or Seleukos, as the varying authorities say,
when they were returned. Meantime the Athenians,
not hoping to see them again, had employed Kritios
and Nesiotes to replace the group in bronze. That
would be after b.c. 480, and it is to be presumed that
Antenor himself was no longer alive, or if still living,
1 Pausanias, i. 8. 5., cf. Over-
beck, Ant. Schriftquellen, nos. 443—
447. It is not positively stated
that the statues were of bronze,
but this, in itself probable, is con-
firmed by the fact of the statues
which replaced them being in this
material, as also by the considera-
tion that Xerxes would hardly have
carried off other than metal figures.
The figures of Harmodios and
Aristogeiton stood in a place called
the Orchestra, twos iirtxpa-fjs els
Trav!]yvf)iv ei'da A/j/ioStou (Cat ApiOTO-
yetTovos eiKouts. Kohler, in the
" Hermes," vi. p. 93, discusses
the site of the Orchestra, an 1
- the statues on the east cliff
of the Areop igus. ( lurtius, in the
"Hermes," 1880, p. 147, sup]
first that the- statues m ide by
Antenor belonged to the 1 1
fjpaxg iyx&pun, the ten Epoi
an 1 such like, having more of a
religious than an artistic character,
and, secondly, that the statues in
Naples, hitherto assumed to have
been copies of the group of Tyran-
nicides in Athens, are more likely
to represent, the elder of them
Miltiades, and the younger Kalli-
machos, leading the battle 0!
Marathon, possibly in the same
attitude as in the picture of them
by Panaenos in the Stoa Poikile at
Athens, in which the younger man
was in advance, calling on the
Soldiers (np^Tco yparjvaLirapaKakovvTt
rows (TTjxiTiuiTui, ^Eschines, Ctesiph.
186). On a Panathenaic vase in
the British Museum, the younger
in. in is in advance, with drapery
over extended right arm an 1
right leg advanced. The other
figure moves in the same way, hut
his right arm is thrown up over his
head to strike.
172
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. IX.
was unequal to the task. Under the circumstances,
when a more or less accurate reproduction may be
supposed to have been looked for, it would have been
natural, failing the original sculptor, to have selected
a pupil or pupils of his, if he had any, as the most
likely to succeed in the task. Nor is there any ob-
stacle to assuming that Kritios and Nesiotes stood
Fig 29. — Harmodios and Aristogeiton. Relief on marble chair, at Athens.
in this relation to Antenor, though so much is not
otherwise in evidence.
Neither the group which was returned from Persia
nor the statues which replaced it are known to exist.
But on a coin of Athens, on a marble relief 1 found
1 Stackelberg in 1835 engraved
the coin and the relief, which
occurs on one side of a marble
chair, in his Graber der Hellenen,
]>. 33, recognising the true im-
portance of both objects. His
judgment was confirmed in 1836
by Welcker, in the Rhein. Mus.
iv. p. 472, who returned to die
suhject in 1850 in his Alte Denk-
maler, ii. p. 213. The coin is a
tetradrachm, and bears the names
of the magistrates Mentor and
Moschion, whose dates have not yet
been determined. The story of
Harmodios and Aristogeiton will
be found in Grote, iii. p. 95.
Chap. IX.] HARMODIOS AND ARISTOGEITON. 173
there (fig. 29) , and on a prize vase 1 from the games at
Athens unearthed from a tomb in Cyrene, is to be seen
a design clearly representing the two tyrannicides
advancing as if to their victim. These designs are
worthless in themselves, but when it was recognized
that they must have had a common origin as copies
of some celebrated work of art in Athens where they
were produced, and that this work could not well be
any other than the group of Harmodios and Aristo-
geiton, then it became possible to conceive at least
the attitude of these figures. Proceeding from this
point, an accurate and accomplished judge 2 of ancient
sculpture observed, in regard to two marble statues
in the Museum of Naples (fig. 30), that if stript of
their incorrect restorations and placed side by side they
would correspond with the missing Athenian group,
except that being of marble while it was of bronze,
they would necessarily be regarded as copies. The
archaic manner evident in the sculpture showed them
to have been executed about the date assigned to
1 This vase was discovered by Arch. viii. pi. 46) ; but few even of
Mr. Dennis, and is engraved by those who accept this identification
him in the Transactions of the will go so far as to agree that the
Royal Society of Literature, ix. Naples figures represent the older
2nd sex. pi. 1. It cannot be said group of Antenor, and that the
to differ, in any material point from Florence figures are copies of the
the other Panathenaic vases found later statues by Kritios and Nesio-
by him in the Cyrenaica, which tes. Overbeds (Griech. Plas-
range in date from B.C. 367-328. tik, 2nd ed. p. 118) records his
- Friederichs, first in the Arch, dissent, and since then a thorough
Zeitung, 1859, p. 65, j)l. 127, and examination of the Florence statues
afterwards in his Iiausteinc, p. 31. has shown so little of them to he
Compare the observations of really ancient, that it is impossible
Michaelis, Arch. Zeitung, [865, to say whether or not they were
j). 13. Since then it has been originally copies of the Athenian
proposed to identify as further group. The two Naples statues
copies of the Athenian group two are engraved in Clarac, Alusee de
marble statues in the Garden Sculpture, pi. 869, nos. 2202 and
Boboli in Florence (Mon.d. Inst. 2203A.
174 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [CHAP. IX.
Kritios and Nesiotes, while the prize vase, the relief
and coin agree in indicating a stage of art subsequent
to the time of Alexander the Great, whence it is in-
ferred that the return of Antenor's group, whether by
Alexander, Antiochos or Seleukos, was the occasion of
making these reproductions. If this were the case, as
in all likelihood it was, then the identity of attitude
between them and the marble statues, confirms the
belief, reasonable in itself, that the later group was a
more or less faithful revival of the work of Antenor.
Much has been said, and with truth, about the
beauty of the Naples statues in the composition of lines
presented by them when placed, as in the relief, the
one a little before the other, and no doubt the fiercely
advancing movement is thereby strikingly accumulated,
with the effect also of knitting both statues into a cohe-
rent representation of an onset. But it should be
observed at the same time that the group must have
been intended to be seen from both sides, as might
be inferred from the reversed attitude in which it
appears on the marble relief as compared with the vase
and the coin, if indeed this were not a fact to be taken
for granted. When looked at from the side opposite to
that from which they are here drawn (fig. 30), it will be
seen that the extended drapery, true as it is to the his-
torical description of the incident, partly conceals the back
of the more advanced figure, and thus to an extent suc-
cessfully relieves the spectator from the natural sensation
arising at the sight of a statue with its back turned full
upon him. It is not here argued that the back view of
a figure was in itself a thing strictly avoided in Greek
art, instances of it in drawing, as for example the beau-
tiful figure so placed on the bronze cista from Prasneste
in the British Museum, representing the slaughter of
Trojan captives, occur not unfrequently, and further,
the single statues of victors at Olympia, which stood in
Chap. IX.] HARMODIOS AND ARISTOGEITON. 175
the open air, must obviously have been visible from the
back, and the same must have been the case with
almost countless others. But the question here is
merely whether what is done for the back of one figure
was not also done for the other, the more so since it
Fiy. 30.— Harmodios and Aristogeiton, Two marble statues in Naples Museum, arranged as a group.
would the better have illustrated the particular incident
to celebrate which the group was made. In the usual
view from the near side, as the figures are at present
restored, there is no such relief. No doubt the extended
lelt arm of the near figure acts in this manner, but not
i-() HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. IX.
adequately, nor at all in a manner to be compared with
the effect of the drapery from the opposite side. This
left arm is, however, restored, and though hitherto
accepted as a correct restoration, the suggestion may be
ventured that in the original a piece of drapery had
flown back from it so as to break the view of the farther
figure, and at the same time be true to the incident.
The variety obtained from the one figure having drapery,
the other not, is only an imaginary advantage, notwith-
standing the praise it has received. The head of the
second figure (Aristogeiton) does not belong to it, and
besides, gives a false impression of youthfulness, whereas
of the two he ought to appear the elder, and in fact, in
the relief is said to be bearded. The motive of the
group then is that the younger and more impulsive of
the conspirators leads the advance, and for this position
he is in other respects also represented as better fitted. 1
His torso is more powerfully developed, and like the
head has a ruggedness about it strongly characteristic
of an archaic stage of sculpture preceding that of the
/Egina statues. Unfortunately both his arms, the right
lee altogether, and the left from the knee downwards,
are modern. In the second figure (Harmodios), the
head and arms of which are to be deducted, this archaic
ruggedness does not appear, and from the contrast
which arises in consequence between the two statues,
it is possible to perceive not only a difference of age in
1 E. Petersen (Arch. Epigraph. standing close together ; but that
Mittheil. aus (Esterr., iii. pi. 6, and Harmodios, the younger of the
p. 9) justly remarks (p. 10) that two, should be placed a little farther
both figures are treated broadly in back than the older Aristogeiton,
the manner of reliefs, each to face not only for effect, but, as Petersen
an opposite side ; that the one must thinks, for consistency with what
be placed a little in advance of the Thucydides says (vi. 57. 3), con-
other, if for no other reason than to trary though this is to the general
avoid the accumulation of arms opinion,
which would result from both
Chap. IX.] KRITIOS AND NESIOTES. 1 77
the two men, but also a difference of hand in the artists
who sculptured them. On that view the more archaic
figure would fall to Kritios, if it is right to conclude
from his name always occurring first l that he was the
elder of the two. Or if this, the foremost figure, was
really the leader, then again it would be properly
assigned to Kritios, since it is clear from the fact ot
Pausanias 2 citing the group under his name only, that
he was the principal artist. As an interesting example
of the same ruggedness of torso and of expression
which characterise this statue, may be quoted a small
bronze statuette from Greece in the British Museum,' 5
and in particular the great disproportion of the body
and the rendering of the hair in short round curls
should be obseryed. For the present these artistic
features serve well to illustrate what Lucian 4 meant
when, in speaking of the early rhetoric as not easy to
imitate, terse, sinewy, harsh and intensely brief, he
compares it with the sculpture of Hegesios and the
school of Kritios and Nesiotes. Whether or not
he here alludes specially to the group of tyranni-
cides, it is certain from another passage, 5 that he was
acquainted with it, and must therefore at least haye
included it. Of the other works by these two artists to
which this criticism doubtless was applied, one was a
statue of an armed runner, named Epicharinos, on the
1 ' >verbe< k, Ant. Schriftquellen, Gr.Plastik, 2nded.p. 1 [9, take th :se
nos. 457 4 n 2. lasl words dnoTfTafiira -(us ypap-
- i. 8. 5. fials, to refer to the outlines of the
:i Engraved in Encycl. Brit, figures, but though the words stand
nth ed. s. v. Archaeology, fig. 3. in direct context with the sculp-
1 Rhetor. Didaskalos, 9 : ot pq8ia tures, the phrase scnus rather to
pifKtcrdat 01a ra ti^ 7T2. Another inscrip- 8 Diogenes Laert. ix. 49; Pliny,
tion, with the name of Nesiotes xxxiv. 87, ami on an inscribed
alone, an 1 probably referring to the base, Brunn, Gr. Kiinstler, i. p. 106.
artist, though he is not directly so 9 Overbeck, Ant. Schriftquellen,
described, will be found in Brunn, nos. 448-451.
Chap. IX.] KALAMIS. 179
the memory of one who, though faithful to Harmodios
and Aristogeiton in spite of torture, could not from her
social position be publicly honoured with a statue. Her
name was Lesena ; and advantage of this was taken to
represent her in the form of a lioness wanting its tongue,
to express her secrecy. To this still archaic and hard
school of Athens belonged also Hegesios, or Hegios,
mentioned as the sculptor of figures of Castor and
Pollux, to be seen in Rome, and of statues of boys
on racehorses. 1 Lucian, in the passage just quoted,
places him with Kritios and Nesiotes.
In regard to the ancient records of artists, with
their brevity which has no compensation and no ex-
cuse, unless in the extraordinary amount of material
to be somehow or other touched on, it is often felt
that the celebrity of an artist cannot be argued from
the fact of his being mentioned by a number of
writers, the more so since the extent to which these
writers copied from each other is familiar in many
instances. Or again, it would be a mere truism to
say that in the haste of compiling, this or that artist
of undoubted talent may have been passed over with
a single word, as for example, Diodoros and Skymnos,
of whom there is only the statement 2 that they were
pupils of Kritios. Or, to take a different instance,
mention is repeatedly' 5 made of a bronze statue of
Hermes Agoraios in Athens belonging to this archaic
period, and yet nowhere is the artist's name recorded.
On the other hand, until the recover}- of ancient sculp-
tures in Athens shall have proved much more success-
ful than hitherto, it will be necessary to be largely
guided by the impressions which the literary records
produce. In the case of Kalamis the impression thus
(1 erbeck, Vnt. Schriftquellen, : ' Overbeck, Ant. Schriftquellen
110s. 452 i : 6 110s. 17 17 1.
1 1 n\ . xxxiv. 85.
iSo HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. IX.
conveyed is one of acknowledged greatness in his
art, though obviously also with a reservation as to his
work being still stiff and archaic. " Who,." says Cicero, 1
" docs not know that the statues of Kanachos are too
rigid to be true to nature ; that those of Kalamis, while
still hard, are yet softer than those of Kanachos ? "
His characteristics were those of Athenian art just
before its culmination in the sculptures of Pheidias, and
admitting the want of positive evidence as to where he
came from and by whom he was trained, it seems
reasonable to assume that he was a thorough Athenian. 2
From a skilful combination of circumstances it has
been conjectured, if not positively affirmed, that he be-
longed to the aristocratic party in Athens, and along with
Polvgnotos, the painter, stood in much the same rela-
tion to Kimon as did subsequently Pheidias to Perikles. 3
So far as dates can with certainty be made out from his
works, he was clearly a contemporary of Kimon. To
besfin with, it is stated by Pausanias 4 that at each side
of a bronze chariot group at Olympia stood a racehorse
with a bov rider; that these sculptures, apparently all in
bronze, had been set up to commemorate victories at
Olympia bv Hiero of Syracuse, about b.c. 468 ; and that
while the chariot group was the work of Onatas, the
racehorses were by Kalamis. Again, his statue of
Aphrodite, otherwise called Sosandra, at the entrance
to the Acropolis of Athens, was placed there by the
wealthy Kallias, known for his having saved Kimon
1 Brutus, 18. 70. This opinion curious want of distinction he
is confirmed by Quintilian, Inst, compares Isocrates both to Poly-
< >rat. xii. 10. 7. and to some extent kleitos and to Pheidias.
1 by Dionysios Halicar., de 2 Praxias the Athenian was a
[socrate, iii. p. 522, when, agree- pupil of his.
ably to the fashion of comparing 3 Benndorf, Festschrift (Wien,
oratory to sculpture, he likens 1879), p. 46.
Lysias to Kalamis because of his 4 vi. 12. 1 ; cf. viii. 42. 4.
polish and grace, while with a
Chap. IX.] THE DATE 01 KALAMIS. i8l
from debt bv paving' 50 talents, and for having therebv
secured the hand of the proud and beautiful Elpinike.
Similarly as to the bronze statues of boys by him,
dedicated at Olympia by the town of Agrigentum from
the spoils of a victory over the Phoenician and Libyan
population of Motya in Sicily, it is argued that this
victory probablv coincided in time with the success of
Gelo against the Carthaginians in B.C. 4S0, and that
the sculptures ' were executed soon after this date. His
statue of Amnion, made for Pindar, who died at an
exceedingly advanced age in b.c 439, may have been
executed forty years before then for anything known to
the contrary, while his figure of the Delphic Apollo in the
Kerameikos at Athens, though surnamed " Alexikakos "
in reference to some plague, is not to be supposed to have
been executed after the time of disaster in b.c 430. The
words of Pausanias 2 neither state nor imply anything
of the kind. When Pliny, 3 speaking of Praxiteles, says
that he made a charioteer for a chariot group of Kalamis
in order that the figure of the driver might be in keeping
with the perfect beauty of the horses, it is highly probable
that he had mistaken the older Praxiteles, who lived
about the time of Kimon, for the more celebrated sculptor
of the same name, possibly his grandson.
On this evidence the artistic activity of Kalamis has
been assigned to a period lying between b.c 500 and
b.c 460. The following sculptures bv him are men-
tioned in ancient writers : 4 (1) Apollo Alexikakos in
the Kerameikos at Athens ; (2) a colossal statue of
Apollo in bronze, thirty cubits high, at Apollonia on
the Black Sea, whence it was conveyed to the Capitol
or the Palatine in Rome by Marcus Lucullus ; (3) Zeus
1 Brunn, ;i [opting ;i conjecture :| x.wiv. 71.
<>f Meyei . Griech. Kunstler, i. ' Overbeck, Ant. Schriftquellen,
p. 1 2^. mi . 5 »8 - 26.
[82
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE.
Chap. IX.
Amnion in Thebes, erected by Pindar; (3) Hermes
Kriophoros at Tanagra in Boeotia ; (4) Dionysos also
at Tanagra and sculptured in Parian marble ; (5) As-
klepios, beardless, holding" a staff in one hand and a pine
cone in the other, in Sikyon, executed in gold and ivory;
(6) Aphrodite or Sosandra at the entrance to the
Acropolis of Athens; (7) Nike Apteros at Olympia ; (8)
Alkmene ; (9) Hermione at Delphi ; (10) the praying boys
at Olympia; (11) the two racehorses, with riders at
Olympia, in honour of victories by Hiero ; (12) the qua-
driga for which Praxiteles was said to have made the
driver, and (13) other chariot groups, as to which all that
is said by Pliny is, that the horses were always unrivalled
(equis semper sine aemulo expressis). It has been sup-
posed ] that the quadriga of which Pliny here speaks (12)
without citing where it stood, may have been the famous
bronze chariot which stood on the Acropolis of Athens,
apparently between the Propvlaea and the Erechtheum, 2
commemorating a victory of the Athenians over Chalkis
in Euboea. To have been chosen to execute such a
monument on a spot the most conspicuous in Greece,
would amply justify the expression of Pliny regarding
the horses of Kalamis, and might also, perhaps, be held
to account for his oversight of the place where it stood,
or the purpose it served. The Alkmene (8) is uncertain
because of the corrupt state of the text of Pliny at this
point, but whatever figure he may have meant, it is not
to be forgotten that he cites it to prove that in human
1 Benndorf, Festschrift. 1879,
I'- 46.
• Michaelis, Mittheilungen des
Arch. hist, in Allien, ii. ]>. 95,
quoting from Pausanias, i. 18. 2,
ii t )jj.a kcitcii xciKkovv cma Hoiwrwv
fttxuTrj Ka\ XnkKibtav tu>i> iv llvftnla,
and again Herodotus, v. 77. ndi
Ta>v ^ovtj)(uv Ti)v htKtiTfjv avidrjxav
TTOirjO-ii/jLfVOt TtfiplTTTTOV \U.\k(01>' TO §6
apKTTeptjS \(ip
KldlifltlU it 77'/< s KM To II j VpOV ""> KllKlW
kiu aWa pvpm Kti6iin(i> tijv KaKa.fj.cBos
in>o'av8jMv imuvwv. Cf. Overbeck,
Ant. Schriftquellen, no. ^20, and
Benndorf, Festschrift (1879), p. 45-
The base of a statue found beside
the Propylaea and inscribed
KAVV • ML HinnONIKO A
NE0 lias been identified with this
oi Aphro lite or Sosandra,
( '( >ij > . tnst. Ann . i. no. 392.
; De [soi rate, iii. p. 522, com-
paring him with the orator Lysias,
n,$ MITTOTtjTOi tVtKQ. Kn 1 T>j^ %aplT0S.
i8 4
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE
[Chap. IX.
Thus the verdict of antiquity has ascribed to him
a subdued and refined gracefulness in his female figures,
unrivalled excellence in his horses, and withal a certain
remainder of archaic stiffness. Modern opinion is
divided according as it attaches more or less importance
to this last point, and undoubtedly it is a point which
ought to receive full attention when it is remembered
that both Cicero and Quintilian, on whose authority it
survives, were well capable of forming a judgment in
the matter. On the one hand, it has been decided *
that he is not to be regarded as having created a new
epoch in sculpture, but as one who, while adhering
to the principles in which he had been trained, developed
a more natural, finer and higher conception of what
was beautiful in human expression and in physical form,
in this way rather preparing the way for his successors
than opening it himself. On the other hand, without
distinctly controverting this opinion, much greater
praise is evidentlv implied when he is assigned a place
in Athens during the administration of Kimon ' 2 similar
to that held by Pheidias under Perikles, and when, in
fact, it is suggested that the sculptures of the temple of
Victory at Athens are to be associated with his fame.
To this question it will be necessary afterwards to
return. For the present it may be observed that the
argument starts from the statue of Nike Apteros (7),
commonly called Wingless Victory, but more correctly
Athena Nike, set up at Olympia by the Mantineans,
and made by Kalamis in imitation, it was said, of an
archaic statue or xoanon 3 of her in Athens, holding
1 Brunn, Griech. Kunstler, i.
pp. 12S and 132 : < Kerbeck,
h. Plastik, 211 1 ed. p. 196.
Benndorf, Festschrift ( 1879 ■'•
1». 46.
:i This description of tin- xoanon
is preserved in Harpocration, s. v.
Nikij 'Adrjvci. AvKovpyns iv tw Trep\ rrjs
Itpeias. ort be Ni'kjjs Acrjvas £6avov
anTefjOV, e\av iv pef rrj 8s£tq poav, iv
he 77/ eiiawfuo icpavos, iriparo nup
AOrjvalois, hehi]Xd)Kev HAtdScopoj 6
Trep.rjyTjTrjS iv a nep\ (iKpoTTc>\eo s. C t.
Benndorf. Festsehrift (1879) P- 2I -
Chap. IX. J STATUE OF ATHENA NIKE. 185
in her right hand a pomegranate and in her left a
helmet. No representation of Athena with these at-
tributes has yet been found, except on the coins of
Side in Pamphylia, a town at no distance from the
mouth of the Eurvmedon, the scene of Kimon's famous
victory over the Persians by sea and land, B.C. 466-
465. From the rich spoils of this battle the Athenians
fortified the south wall of the Acropolis x and erected
at Delphi a gilded statue of Athena standing on a
bronze palm tree, 2 of which the artist is not mentioned.
No doubt there must have been in Athens itself some
very definite monument of so splendid a victory, and
from the position of the temple of Athena Nike with
reference to the south wall, it is argued that the erec-
tion of this building should be included in the state-
ment about the fortifying of this wall, 3 and that the
xoanon which Kalamis copied was no other than the
sacred statue of this temple, the pomegranate in her
hand not only indicating, as did the palm tree at
Delphi, a victory over Orientals, but having special
allusion to the town of Side, the symbol of which was
a pomegranate, and which from its nearness to the
scene of the battle, if not from some now unknown
active part in it, would naturally have been associated
with the event. Had the temple of Athena Nike been
1 Plutarch, Cimon, 13. Sec 3 This view is strengthened by
Michaelis, Mittheilungen d. Arch, the phrase of Cornelius Nepos in
Just, in Athen, i. p. 300. his life (if Cimon, 2. 5, his ex
• Pausanias, x. 25. 4. The manubriis arx A.thenarum qua ad
goddess held a spear, and was meridiem vergit est ornaia, since
attended by her owl. Plutarch, munita would have been the ex-
5, 13. 3, and De Pythiae Orac, pression had nol sculptured or
vii. p. 564 (Reiske). These autho- architectural decoration been im-
rities agree in stating thai during plied. The temple of Nike was
the preparations for the Sicilian the only decoration of the south wall,
expedition mows picked the fruit Benndorf, Festschrift (1879), p. 38.
on the palm.
l86 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. IX.
erected underthe superintendence ofKalamis, there would
be every reason from analogy to believe that the sacred
image within had been the work of his own hand,
and that, therefore, when he eopied it for the Man-
tineans lie merely, as Kanachos had done before, re-
peated his own design. It is curious that a statue
executed by him should be called a xoanon, unless he
had studiously taken an older image of the goddess for
his model, and it is still more remarkable, if it really
represented specially the victory at the Eurymedon,
that the Mantineans should have had a copy of it, since
there is no proof of their having been engaged in the
battle. That they were so engaged is, of course, not
impossible.
Had this argument been more conclusive, it would
have been proper to introduce here the sculptures of
the temple of Victory at Athens as in a greater or
less degree witnesses of the artistic gifts of Kalamis,
notwithstanding that the general impression which they
convey is one of a more highly developed order of sculp-
ture than on other grounds is assigned to him. This
it is sought to explain away by those who maintain the
argument, but with whatever success it may ultimately
be possible to vindicate his title to these sculptures, it
will be admitted that as works of art they are consider-
ably in advance of the stage of Greek sculpture at
which the present narrative has arrived. While, for
this reason, the description may and ought to be
delayed, it is gratifying to find that at least two of his
statues may, with due allowance for the ancient copyists,
be recognized in existing sculptures. The one is his
Hermes Kriophoros, at Tanagra, copied on a coin of
that town, and reproduced in a small marble statue in
Wilton House, and in an archaic terra-cotta statuette 1
1 The coin of Tanagra is en- no. 12 ; the Wilton House statue in
graved Arch. Zeit. 1849, 1 ( '- 9> Clarac, Mus£e de Sculpt., pi. 658,
Chap. IX.] STATUE OF HERMES KRIOPHOROS. 187
from Gela in Sicily, now in the British Museum. A
similar figure occurs occasionally, forming the handle of
a bronze patera, for which purpose the rigidity of the
limbs renders it highly suitable. There may have been
less of this quality in the original, but yet enough to
make it a noticeable feature. On the other hand, it
would seem that he was not the inventor of this motive,
since a fragmentary marble ] figure, found in 1864 on the
cast side of the Acropolis at Athens, represents Hermes
in the same attitude, but carrying a calf instead of a goat
on his shoulders, and belonging to a stage of sculpture
considerablv more archaic than that of Kalamis. In
this statue it is to be remarked that the sculptor has
entirely failed in producing the necessary effect of inde-
pendence between the Hermes and the calf which he
carries, the result of this failure being that the calf
appears, so to speak, to grow out of the Hermes, instead
of conveying the illusion of a distinct object carried on
his shoulders and held with his hands. Similarly his
arms are not free from the body in reality, nor ren-
dered in such a way as to convey this impression. At
the same time it is uncertain how far these characteris-
tics of feebleness may not have been overcome by
means of colour skilfully employed, and it is only fair
to bear this in mind, since clearly the rough treatment
of the hair and beard implies in the original a finish of
colour. So also the now hollow eyeballs could not well
have been inlaid with ebony or other material without a
no. 1545^. Compare Conze, Arch, ing to M. Piol (1879) nas the
Zeit. 1864, p. 201;*. The terra- same motive. According to
cotta in the British Museum has Pausanias (\\. 22. 1) Hermes had
not yet been publishe I. In the driven off a plague from Tanagrn
British Museum also is a terra- by conveying a ram round the
cotta relief from Locri, with Hermes walls, and it was for this that
Kriophoros in profile, Ian with Kalamis male ln's statue carrying
draper) over his arm and a | the ram on his .shoulders.
on his head. A terra-cotla belong- ' Arch. Zeit, 1864, pi. 187.
iSS
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. IX.
corresponding degree of colour in the rest of the face.
In the same way the drapery which now follows the
varying surface of the body, might have derived from
colour an appearance of being detached and indepen-
dent. The back of the figure is carelessly blocked out.
1 ig (i. Marble statue, Hermes carrying calf, in Museum on the Acropolis of Alliens.
The front of the body is rendered with remarkable
delicacv, but without much real intelligence. Yet with
every allowance it must be doubted whether this statue
could have been the work of other than a copyist,
though doubtless a copyist living before the time of
Chap. IX.] STATUE OF APOLLO. l8g
Kalamis. Possibly at Tanagra also had been an older
figure which he supplanted, and to this original it would
be permissible, if necessary, to trace the rigidity of
existing copies. For Tanagra he made another statue,
which Pausanias mentions as exceptionally worth seeing.
It was a figure of Dionvsos, of Parian marble, and
from its being placed in the temple of that god it may,
perhaps, be taken to have retained something of the
archaic nature of a xoanon, and still more probably to
have been a draped figure.
But the second statue by Kalamis which has been
recognized in modern times is his Apollo, surnamed
Alexikakos, at Athens, erected in gratitude to the god of
Delphi for having stayed a plague. In Athens there is
still a marble statue, standing on an omphalos, which can
be no other than the Delphic Apollo (pi. 8) . In the British
Museum (pi. 8), and in the Capitoline Museum : in Rome,
are two other marble statues, which when measured and
compared together prove to have been all ancient copies
from one original, and if it be added that there exist at
least two marble heads,' 2 broken from statues, one of
which corresponds accurately in its measurements, it
will be granted that the original in question must have
been a work of acknowledged celebrity, either for some
religious reason or as a piece of sculpture, or possibly
from a combination of both motives. Of unusual
interest is it that two, if not all three of these figures,
1 Conze, Beitrage zur Ges< h. d. British Museum, thelatter (fig. 32)
ii. Plastik (1869), pi. 3 6, having been found in excavations
gives tlie.se statues. On p. 19 he atCyrene. Wr\ like it in expression
concludes, "Whether we have here and in the manner in which the
really an Apollo according to hair falls on the brow is the head in
mis or not, I am convinced front view on an archaii silver coin
thai the original of these statues of Cyrene, which naturally would be
belongs to the region of Kal imis." tra< ed to Apollo from his position
J The two marble heads are in as the greal deity of Cyrene.
the Berlin Museum and in the
i go
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE
Cll VP. IX.
instead of being copies made in comparatively later
times, seem to belong as nearly as possible to the elate
of the original. Especially so is this the case with the
statue in Athens, which has the advantage of having
escaped the hands of the restorer. It retains still the
careful finish bestowed on the face, and indeed over
the whole figure. The hair has attained exquisite
mi
I >. Marble head in the British Museum. From Cyrene.
beauty. The same distinctly archaic character is con-
spicuous also in one of the marble heads, that in the
British Museum (fig. 32), which shows in the rendering
of the lips that it has been made from a head in bronze,
with the inner parts of the lips of separate pieces. No
less distinctly modelled according to the manner of early
bronze work, is the hair as it falls forward in two masses
on the brow. It falls so in all the copies, and at the
back is in each plaited into a long plait, which is wound
round the head like a diadem. The statues of the
British Museum and of the Capitoline Museum closely
resemble each other, while that of Athens has far more
PLATE VIII.
M \l'l:l I. STATUE l\ VTHF.NS
MARBLE STAT1 I IN I HE BR] dSH
MUSI I'M.
'/',< face /•. tgo.
Chap. IX.] STATUE OF APOLLO. igi
of freshness and even decisiveness in details, as if nearer
the original if not the original itself. As regards its
identification with Apollo it has been doubted, but with-
out satisfactory reasons, whether the statue and the
omphalos really belong together. The original statue
may have been of bronze, but it is not necessarv to
assume this to account for the characteristics just
observed, because they could be satisfactorily explained
as survivals from a stage of sculpture in which metal
was the predominant material, just as in the case
of Myron, whose treatment of hair is charged with
being inferior to the truthfulness to nature pervading
the rest of his figures. This possible explanation it is
important to bear in mind, since on examining the
statues in question, that of the British Museum in par-
ticular, it will be seen that the indications of anatomical
details, for example at the ribs and throughout the
torso, are too slight, or rather, too much toned down to
have been distinct and appreciable in bronze. In
marble they may be said to be perfect. Nor is it likely
that the copyist was equal to the delicate task of trans-
lating so skilfully from the one material to the other.
That Kalamis, while working in bronze perhaps chief! v,
and in gold and ivory also, showed his hand in marble,
is known from his statue of Dionysos already spoken of.
Besides, it is largely the toning down of what in older
sculpture were strongly marked anatomical details, that
shows wherein the special advance of art in this figure
consists. That is to 'say, it consists to a large extent in the
softening of the hard outlines of archaic forms rather than
in the creation of a new massive and broad style, such,
lor example, as pervades the statues of the Parthenon.
This is not by any means the whole truth. For it will
be seen on comparing this statue with older sculptures,
that the artist has in some particulars followed a new
ideal, one feature of which appears to have been to
[g2
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. ["Chap. IX.
avoid the pinched and knotty knees and ankles, and the
strong contrasts between the breadth of the shoulders
and hips as compared with the waist and across
the thighs, which characterised archaic art, and neces-
sarily conveyed an impression of realism. Not only
has he avoided these points, but he has adopted a certain
excess in the opposite direction, with the result of ob-
taining' a beautiful ideal form, without, however, being
able to swell it with the deep breath of genius. The
knee-joints and ankles are broad and thick, the torso is
oi' an even width, its lines down the sides flowing on
alon<2' the outside of the thighs and still unbroken to
the feet. The shoulders, though stiff and square, have
rather too little than an excess of breadth. In short, if
along with the obvious approach to the highest ideal of
sculpture in this figure it is remembered also that the
horses of Kalamis were rendered in a way to attract
great fame in antiquity, it will be admitted that he above
all had prepared the way for Pheidias.
In following the Athenian school up to this point,
some artists of lesser note have been overlooked, among
these Kallimachos, 1 who for his gracefulness was classed
with Kalamis, and enjoyed the bvname of " Katatexi-
technos," apparently to indicate the fineness and labori-
ousness of his work. He is mentioned as the inventor of
the Corinthian capital, and as having first employed the
drill in marble sculpture. Usually he has been assigned
to a later date, from the circumstance of his having made
the gold lamp for the Erechtheum, surmounted by a bronze
palm inverted, the stem reaching to the roof and acting
as a funnel for the smoke. 2 But as it may have been
1 Overbeck, Ant. Sehriftquellen, who wishes to show that the palm
nos. 531-532. tree was here, as in the monument
2 Pausanias, i. 26.6. See Benn- at Delphi, an allusion to the victory
dorf, Festschrift (1879), P- 4°> at the Eurymedon.
Chap. IX.]
THE STELE OF ARISTOKLES.
193
finished before the Erechtheum
was built, and possibly in-
tended for a different place,
his being classed with Kala-
mis has been properly held
to mean that he was a con-
temporary, and a sculptor of
greater talent than would be
inferred from these instances
of his workmanship. Again,
of the elder Praxiteles al-
most nothing has been handed
down except the fact, as it
appears to be, of his having
made the charioteer for the
quadriga of Kalamis. But as
regards Aristokles it was a
fortunate circumstance which
in 1832 brought to light at
Velanideza in Attica a marble
stele sculptured in low relief
with the figure of an armed
warrior, and bearing the
name of this artist, with the
addition of his father's name,
Aristion (fig. 33), ] who also, it
API*TIOfO$
1 i . . 5t< l< • Vristokles, in \
1 Engraved with a reproduc-
tion of the ( olours of 1 h
in the Museum oi ( lass. Antiq.
i. p. 2*2. See also Laborde, Le
Parthenon, i. pi. 7. an I ( )verbe( k.
( Jr. Plastik, 211 I eJ. p. 14. who
adher n on thai Aris-
tion is the name of the person re-
presente I. Th on im-
ben -a:li the rcliel 1
EP/*ONAPIZTOKV£OZ, an I
is 1 ontinuc I on 1 he plinth in
APIITIONOZ.
Bui
this separation is .1 mere n ■
ot' spai e, .in I besides, had " Aris-
tion ' referred to the person of the
it would surel) ha\ e < ome
first. It in true that in anoth
ound in Attk a, with
of the same * harai ter, .1
sculptor At oc< urs w ithout
mention of his father's name : but
that proves no ithcr way.
Brunn, Gr, Kiinstler, i. p. 1 6
194
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [ Cn \i\ IX.
appears from an existing inscription, 1 was a sculptor.
The original colours have been largely preserved, red on
the ground of the relief, on the drapery, and on the end
of the shoulder strap. The armour was of a bronze or
blue tint, having the decorative patterns picked out in
other colours that are now vanished ; on the hair were
remains of a dark colour ; the flesh was not painted ;
the crest of the helmet seems to have been added in
metal. On the question of colour it is to be remarked
that recent investigation has shown it to have been a not
uncommon practice during the archaic period in Attica
to decorate marble stelae of this description with re-
presentations of the deceased persons entirely in colours,
and an exquisite example of this is the stele of Lvseas, 2
lately restored to nearly its original beautv. It was
not, however, an exclusivelv archaic practice, as may
be seen from the marble slab in Naples painted with
a group of the Xiobides, 3 by an Athenian artist, Alex-
andres, of a comparatively late period, and for this
reason it cannot be said that the stele of Aristokles,
because less archaic than that of Lvseas, presents a
transition from painting to relief. What it does pre-
sent is a combination of these two processes, and in this
combination the pictorial element being at its best
when rendering delicate and minutely circumscribed
details has distinctly influenced the sculptured element
in this direction also, though perhaps not to the degree
that would be expected. The right hand and wrist, for
fol.j and Overbeck, Ant. Schrift- - Loeschcke, Mittheilungen d.
quellen, nos. 355-356. Arch. Inst. Alhen., iv. pi. 1. Cf.
1 Overbeck, Ant. Schriftquellen, Kekule, Bildwerke in d'heseion,
no. 3_"4- This inscription seems no. 363.
also to have belonged to a stele :< Overbeck, Ant. Schriftquellen,
(crij/na) in honour of one Antilochos, no. 2392, and engraved in the
whose name an; 1 epithets precede Antich. dErcolano I. pi. 1.
the name of the arl
Chap. IX.] ARISTOKLES AND KLEOITAS. 195
example, have received less attention in modelling
than they deserved. But the face and hair are very
careful, and the toes long, with the hones studiously
rendered. The whole figure conveys an impression
of delicacv in detail rather than of force in the con-
ception ; and yet it is in form large and massive, as
of a time when the high ideal was being approached
or prepared for. On the other hand the attitude, with
the heels close to the ground, and the one leg before
the other for no other purpose than that both may be
seen, the folds of the drapery, the eve placed to the
side, and the form of the beard, are all signs of a tra-
ditional archaic manner. 1 As a son and pupil of
Aristokles, possibly the Athenian artist of this name
just spoken of, is mentioned Kleoitas,' 2 who is praised
on the one hand for the mechanical ingenuity of the
fence made by him for the Hippodrome at Olympia,
and on the other for a figure of a warrior at Athens,
as to which Pausanias remarks, that those should see
it who prefer the advanced to the archaic sculpture.
The nails, he adds- apparently meaning those of the
toes and fingers — were inlaid with silver, a proceeding
which in itself shows the work to have been of an
archaic order, if not, indeed, actually recalling the
warrior of Aristokles with his metal plume. At Olympia
Kleoitas made a group of Zeus and (ianvmedes.
Of a higher order of art than the stele of' Aristokles
are the fragmentary reliefs which it is supposed had
belonged to the metopes of the Hecatompedon, as the
temple was called, which after the Persian occupation
of the Acropolis had to be rebuilt under the grander
form and the new name of the Parthenon. Of these
fragments the principal one represents ;i draped female
'I ! ne, |i. 26. nos. i ; i i ; , nd < Jr. Plastik,
Brunn, < rr. Kunsiler, i. p. i 7; 211 I c
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. IX.
figure stepping into a chariot (fig. 34) - 1 Tne folds of the
drapery are artificial in a high degree, and studied more
for decorative effect than from reality, with this differ-
ence, that in the chiton or under garment the archaic
fig. 34. — Marble relief. Female figure stepping into chariot. In the Acropolis Museum, Athens.
thin material and fine folds are given by wavy lines,
while in the upper himation the thicker material is more
strikingly defective from the flatness of the folds. The
chariot is large, and perhaps more in proportion than in
later sculptures, where accessories of this kind are as
1 Overbeck, Gr.Plastik, 2nd ed.p. 142 ; Friederichs, Bausteine, p. 25.
Chap. IX.] ARCHAIC STATUE OF ATHENA.
ig 7
far as possible repressed. But in the attitude and in
the forms ancient restraint has been flung aside and a
new spirit allowed full sway. The tails of the horses
are rendered on the system of close wavy lines, which
again is to be seen in a delicate piece of relief repre-
senting the upper part of Hermes or a herald in the
Museum on the Acropolis of Athens.
There remains to be noticed, as illustrating this archaic
stage of sculpture in Athens, a marble figure of Athena
(fig. 35) * found on the north side of
the Acropolis, seated in a chair and
wearing the aegis on her breast,
but wanting the head and both
hands. It has been proposed to
identify this statue with the figure
of Athena on the Acropolis, re-
corded to have been set up by
Kallias, who, as has been seen, was
a contemporary of Kimon and of
the sculptor Kalamis. But it can
scarcely belong to this time, since
it is, in fact, an admirable example
of a considerably earlier Athenian
school. Another difficulty arises
from the statement that the statue erected by Kallias
was the work of Endoios, who otherwise is de-
scribed as a pupil of Daedalos, and as having made a
wooden image of Athena for Erythrae, 2 both of which
circumstances leave the impression of his having been
>g- 35- — Marble statue of
Athena (in the Acropolis
Museum, Alliens).
1 ( 1 , I I . .mi I 1 id. a spin lie in one hand, and wearing
p. 1 ?-. and compare p. [14 ; en- the polos on her head. An in-
: also in '!i ; - Vluseum of scription with his name (Overbeck,
. Antiq., i. p. [9 . Am. [uellen, no. 352) is
Pau in. is, i. 26. 4, an I \ ii. assigned, on phical
5, 9. Both figure i ol A.lhen 1 rounds, to aboul b.< 500.
[g8
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. IX.
considerably earlier and apparently contemporary or
nearly so with Dipcenos and Skyllis. But this date is too
early for the Athenian statue, inwhich though the archaic
manner is very strongly pronounced in the rendering of
the tresses and of the drapery, there is yet in the varied
Fig j6. Relief on upper part of a marble stele, in the Barbakeion Museum at Athens.
position of the legs and arms, and in the treatment of
the right foot, an obvious advance towards a larger style.
Were sculpture of this description executed as late
as the time of Kimon, it could only have been to repro-
duce in some degree a more ancient figure. In the
Museum of the Acropolis is to be seen also the lower
part of a female figure, seated and draped — but the
treatment of the drapery, and the disproportionate
smallness of the hands and feet, give it a certain appear-
ance as if of an imitation of the archaic manner, not-
withstanding a degree of freshness in the general design.
The borderland between what is really archaic and what
is skilful imitation of it is again seen in the marble base
Chap. IX.] ARCHAIC SCULPTURES IN ATHENS. igQ
or altar, with the figure of a deity on each of its four
sides, sculptured in low flat relief. 1 Two of them
represent Hephaestos and Athena. The others appear
to be Hermes and Dionysos. On the other hand a good
example of the archaic manner is to be seen in the upper
part of a marble stele in the Barbakeion (fig. 36), show-
ing a head in profile, with what appears to be a disc,
forming: a background to the features ; the nose being
rinelv modelled, the chin massive, the corner of the
mouth turned up and the cheek pursed back. Vet,
notwithstanding the skill of the execution and a degree
of force in the conception, there is clearly an absence
of a true sense of beauty. In the National Museum at
Athens are also to be seen two fragments of stelae, the
one having the upper part of a warrior in profile and
the lower the lower part of another warrior, both of
which pieces belong to the same stage of art as the
Aristokles stele already described.
1 Engraved as archaistic or imi- base is in the Museum on the
tative by Overbeck, Griech. Plas- Acropolis of Athens.
tik, 3rd ed. p. n)2. This marble
I -1 [ Atheu 11
CHAPTER X.
PYTHAGORAS OF RHEGIUM.
Progress towards idealism -Metope of wounded giant from Selinus tts
artistic qualities Pythagoras His statue of Philoktetes— Technical
innovations Statues of athletes — Europa — Chariot group— Statues
of Kleon, Mnaseas, Eteokles, ami Polyneikes, Perseus, Apollo,
Dromeus, Protolaos, Pancratiast at Delphi.
The elimination of realism is not all that is needed
to attain the ideal of seulpture, for even when that
has heen done the result may be altogether paltry. But
in describing the progress of sculpture from its early
stages to its highest development it is convenient to
speak of it as a gradual elimination of realism, although
such a description manifestly leaves out of consideration
the efficient cause, that is to say, the new force of a
higher conception and the steady introduction of an
ideal truthfulness to nature, not only in the place of
realism but in details, such as the rendering of the
hair, where conventionalism had crept in from incapa-
citv and was perpetuated from carelessness. These are
points which come into prominence among the records
of the period we are now entered upon, where of one
sculptor it is said that he was the first to represent
sinews and veins, or that he rendered the hair more
carefullv than others; of another, that he left the hair in
the rude treatment of older times, and while excelling
in bodily forms neglected the expression of mental
emotions. Without here discussing these and similar
CHAP. X.] METOPE FROM TEMPLE AT SELINUS. 201
phrases, it may be observed that though intelligible
enough in a general sense they cannot be made to
convey an adequate notion of the facts unless in con-
nection with an accurate knowledge of what may be
called the efficient cause of them, the higher conception
which forced them on. To some extent this may be
perceived in certain sculptures which have survived,
particularly in the metopes of one of the temples of
Selinus in Sicily.
In the group of temples on the eastern hill of Selinus
is one the ruins of which have yielded two metopes, 1
both, to judge from where they were found, having
been placed on the principal front. The one much
deteriorated over the whole surface and wanting the
upper part represents a draped figure, whether goddess
or god, overpowering a warrior, who has sunk on the
ground with one knee and one hand. The other metope
(fig. 38) is occupied by a goddess, apparently Athene,
giving the last blow to a fallen warrior, usually supposed
to be one of the mythical giants who rose in arms against
the gods. Here the sculpture is better preserved, and
there is no difficulty in forming an estimate of its
original appearance, notwithstanding the breakage of
the upper part and the absence of the colours, 2 red,
blue and green, traces of which were visible at the time
of the discovery in 1X23. The hair on the face of the
giant, his open mouth with the lips forced back, show-
ing the close rows of teeth, is an exhibition of deadly
1 Vi:.'-'- • belong to the most recenl sourcej Benndorf, Die
temp] lated as Temp I . Metopen von Selinunt, |>ls. ^ h.
and were found in [823 by Harris PI. 6 of Benndorf corresponds to
and A.ngell, in whose work. The pi. 3 of Harris and Angell, bul
Sculptured M( op of Sdimis gives some additions discovered
(London, 1826), they are engraved, since their time. PI. 5 of his work
pis. 3 4. Since then they have corresponds to pi. 4 of theirs,
been repeatedly published ; Inn it Harri .ml A.ngell, p. 41 ; cf.
will he Miiii ere th I lenndorf, p.
202
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. X.
anguish on which artistic force has been concentrated
successfully, but within certain limits. The helmet is
falling off as it would fall under the circumstances, but
the beard is trim and undisturbed, as if nothing were
wrong near it. Thus conventionalism remains intact in
the closest proximity to the most forcible realism, and
both must be modified before the ideal can be attained.
Towards that end the artist who sculptured this metope
was in a fair way. The forms both of the giant and
W m
Fig. 38. -Metope from one of the temples al sicily.
the goddess are large and broadly conceived. The
action, if it were not restrained by the bondage of
the times, would set free the draper} - , which, singu-
larly beautiful as it is, wants little to reach the ideal
standard. So long as that step remains to be taken, so
long will artists be content in this or that detail to
repeat conventionalisms, and to intensify reality. There-
fore, while these two specific forms of shortcoming
exist, separately or together, it would seem as if they
must always be accompanied by an incompletely de-
veloped ideal in the main part of the design, and if
this is the case, we must be guided accordingly in
dealing with the records of such sculptors as Pytha-
goras of Rhegium and Myron. That the metope just
Chap. X.]
PYTHAGORAS OF RHEGIUM.
203
described is the work of an artist contemporary with
them is to some extent a conjecture, which those 1 would
not accept who have assigned it to the middle of the
sixth centurv b.c. On the other hand, a comparison-
between it and the statues of Mgina would justify a
considerably later date, closely approaching" that of the
artists in question, if not in fact the same.
It is with Pythagoras in particular that we are here
concerned, not so much because of his proximity in
Rhegium as because of a statue by
him representing a man 3 "with a
sore in his foot, the pain .of which
the spectators seemed to feel." Al-
most the same may be said of the
Selinus giant, whose expression of pain
must haunt everyone who has seen it.
This statue was in Syracuse, and ap-
parently it was a figure of Philoktetes, 4 a subject
which in ancient art is found to haye been realized
. 39. — Coin of Gela in
I
1 Benndorf, Metopen von Seli-
nuntj assigns the temple F. in this
date on architectural groun Is
(p. 2')). His description of the
metope, on artistic grounds, occurs
on p. 65, hut he seems not to allow
sufficient difference between it an 1
the four 1 of the older
temple (C.) on the A.< ropolis of
Selinus, already described.
- Harris and Angell (p. 40 1 1 ;
makes this comparison, adding
that the giant's face has •'perhaps
rather more of ex] an 1
they support the comparison by
quoting th m to the same
Phorwaldsen, w ho, how-
though perfectly familiar with
I. IP-'. i1h.
US onl) from the draw it
. which, 1!
fairly characteristic of the si) 1
execution, new he held to have
been inadequate to form a ju Ig-
ment by. * )n the other hand I
think more accurate drawings
would only have confirmed this
judgment of Thorwaldsen's.
3 Pliny, xxxiv. 59. Syracusis
autem Claudicantem cujus ulceris
dolorem sentire etiam spectantes
\ identur.
' Mr. VVatkiss Lloyd, in his
II orj of Sicily, p. 315, tl
that un ler the disguise of Philok-
was an allusion to 1 hero an 1
his sufferings from gout and stone.
But tli" allusions of Pin lai
those open to a si ulptor have su< h
ver) differenl limits thai this
hypoth 1 hardl) be enter-
tained.
204
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [CHAP. X.
in two wars in accordance with the different require-
ments of painting and sculpture. In the one set of
designs Philoktetes appears lying on the ground, and
suffering excessive pain from the wound in his foot.
This is the pictorial representation. In the other he
is limping on foot in such a manner as would be con-
venient for a sculptor who wished to exhibit his pain 1
in a statue. In limping from a footsore the suffering,
as has been justly remarked,' 2 is even more evident
from the contorted attitude in which every movement
is seen to be concentrated on sparing the injured
part, than from the expression of the face. But
the face must wear a corresponding expression all
the same, and for the present it may be doubted
whether a better illustration could be found than the
head of the giant of Selinus. The beard and the
hair may be too formal for the praise awarded to
Pvthagoras of having improved on his predecessors in
this direction; 3 yet even here it is impossible to be
certain of the meaning of words applied relatively to a
ruder stage of art, and apart from that, it is not argued
that the metope in question was his work, but rather
that of a sculptor likely to have been familiar with his
statue of Philoktetes in the neighbouring town of Syra-
cuse. So powerful a rendering of pain could thus be
defended by appeal to the example of an acknowledged
master.
Generallv it has been understood that to render suc-
1 An extensive series of these ' Brunn, Gr. Kunstler, i. p. 139.
designs of both classes has been Lessing, Laokoon.c. ii. (ed. Blum-
collected in Dr. Milani's memoir on ner, p. 27), was the first to point
Philoktetes. As the work of a great out that the Claudicans of Pliny
master in the pictorial class may was to be taken as referring to a
be mentioned the Philoktetes of statue of Philoktetes.
the painter Parrhasios. Compare 3 Pliny, xxxiv. 59: capillumque
also the painting of Philoktetes de- (e.xpressit) diligentius.
scribed by Philostratus Junior, xvii.
Chap. X.] STATUE OF PHILOKTETES. 205
cessfullv the concentrated movement of a limping figure
implies just that special artistic excellence which one
ancient writer '- has recorded of Pythagoras as compared
with his predecessors, that is to say, excellence of
rhythmus and symmetria. These phrases, proper to
rhetoric, are more or less vague when applied to sculp-
ture, and there is this to be said against them in the
present instance, that had the statue of Philoktetes
been conspicuous for an effect of this kind, it would
have lost by so much its power of conveving the im-
pression otherwise ascribed to it, that of compelling
the spectator to sympathise with the pain. For obviously
these qualities of rhythm and symmetry are cited as a
general characteristic of his works, and if thev apply to
such of them as are known from their attitude and move-
ment to have been perfectly free and natural, then it can
only be supposed that they applied in the lowest degree
to the Philoktetes, whose attitude and movement were the
reverse of free and natural. The record does not, in
fact, say directly that his works were characterised by
these qualities. Taken simply it means that he was the
first who endeavoured to reproduce them when he found
them existing, that is to say, in the models from which
he worked. That, it will be seen, is an entirely different
matter, and leaves the Philoktetes to be made an
exception of.
When again it is said that Pythagoras was the first
1 Diogenes Laertius, viii. 4^) : for effecl would properlj be de-
TTf>6)T<>v boKoivra (nOjxov kcu av/ipcTpi s- scnhc. I as exhibiting rhythmus an I
ioroxaoBcu. SeeBrunn,Gr. Kiinstler, symmetria. Bui that is equivalenl
i. p. 1 ^j. an I k, Gr. Plas- to saying thai there is a beauty in
tik, 2nd ed. |>. 1^4. Brunn re- deformity. There maybe 1 beaut]
cognises fully that the distortion of art in rendering what i deformed,
of limping would upset the natural bul there could scared) !><■ a
harmon) of a walking movement, rhythmical an in rendering what
but argues that the new system of is unrhythmical,
ntrated movemenl nei essary
2 of>
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE.
[Chap. X.
to express sinews and veins 1 in his statues, the meaning
may either be supposed to be that his was the first com-
plete and intelligible system of the kind which had been
seen in sculpture, there being no question but that these
details, whether rightly or wrongly, were frequently
given before his time; 2 or it maybe taken that the
record refers to him as the first sculptor in bronze who
had rendered sinews and veins, the difficulty being
here irreater than in marble and more likely to have
been longer evaded. 3 In either case his skill is attested
in reproducing" these finer details, and this, together
with his improvement in rendering" the hair, leads to the
conclusion that he was a close student of the living form.
That he was acknowledged to be a great master would
be inferred from the commissions which he obtained,
and is expressly stated by Pausanias 4 in the words,
" if anyone, he was excellent in the plastic art." This
writer proceeds, without indicating" that Pythagoras was
a native of Samos, to say that he was a pupil of Klear-
chos of Rhegium, who again had been a pupil of
Eucheir of Corinth. This Eucheir had studied under
the Spartans Syadras and Chartas, but of them or of
Eucheir nothing farther is known. Klearchos, on the
other hand, was celebrated among the earliest sculptors
in bronze, when the technical process of working in this
material still consisted in making a figure of many
1 Pliny, xxxiv. 59 : hie primus
nervos et venas expressit.
- Brunn, Gr. Kunsiler, i. p. 139,
an 1 ( >verbeck, Gr. Plastik, 2nd c.l.
p. 183. both adopt this view as
sary from the fact that older
sculptures exhibit sinews and veins.
Sinew.-- as the equivalent of nervi
is Brunns explanation.
rhis is the view of Blumner in
the Rhein. Mas., xxxii. p. 603,
n :ral argument is that in
this and a number of other •
merits. Pliny was quoting from a
history of bronze sculpture.
vi. 4. 2'. Uvoayopas 6 Prjyivns
(i7Tfp T19 kcu oAAoy ayad >s ra f's ifKacr-
tlki}v. Again, vi. 6. 2. he speaks
of a statue by him as &'n? is ra
ji.(i\iaTn u^tnrs.
Chap. X.] SCULPTURES BY PYTHAGORAS. 207
separate pieces and fastening them together with nails. 1
Some called him a pupil of Dipcenos and Skyllis, or
even of Dsedalos. Otherwise there is no means of
determining his date, and it cannot be denied that the
air of great antiquity which surrounds him from these
traditions renders it not a little marvellous that from his
instruction Pythagoras should have risen to so high a
place, as to have not only deserved the praise just
mentioned, but to have even surpassed Myron with the
statue of an athlete at Delphi. 2
The commissions executed by Pythagoras were, so
far as is known : — (1) At Olympia a statue of Astylos
of Crotona, a runner who in three successive seasons
had won the races of the stadion and diaulos. This
appears to have occurred in B.C. 488, 484 and 480. 3
On the last two occasions he entered himself as a
native of Syracuse to please Hiero, whereupon his
townsmen of Crotona in their anger took clown his
statue from its place beside the Hera Lakinia and
converted his house into a prison. Probablv he had
abandoned Crotona altogether, and left his house to
be done with as seemed good. But even assuming
that he had gone of his own free will, there was still
enough of severity in the public treatment of him to
show with what pride a town looked on the victory
of one of its citizens at Olympia, and what honour
they attached to the artist whom they employed to
make his statue. Possibly the statue at Crotona had
been a cast from the same mould as that of Olympia.
' . p. 91. xxxiv. 59. It is unlikely that ihe
- Pliny, xxxiv. 59: vicit eum statue had ! so late as
(Myronem) P) Rheginus ; ond or third vi< ories, be-
ll ;. pancratiaste I > either oi those dati
hmenl oi \ y\o$ to Hiero
1 ■ G i tik, 2nd ed. w oul I be know 11.
i . 1 3 . 1 ; P
2o8
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE
[Chap. X.
At all events Pythagoras, so far as is known, worked
only in bronze, and the mould could be used for both,
not only as a saving of expense, but also for the sake
of having an exaet copy of the statue at Olympia,
whither naturally pride would carry the thoughts of
the Crotoniates. As a runner he would not necessarily
appear in the aet of sueeess, but the probability is
that he was so represented if we hold that the phrases
rhythm and symmetry as applied to natural action and
movement should be extended to it. A figure in the
aet of running, if faithfully rendered, would at once
suggest these characteristics. One of the favourite
statues of Myron was a runner in full swing.
(2) At Olympia a statue of Euthymos, 1 a boxer of
Locri in Italy, who had been victor first in the year
B.C. 484, and again in B.C. 476 and 472. In the inter-
vening Olympiad, b.c 480, he had been wrongly
worsted in boxing. A copy of this statue existed at
Locri, and both, it appears, were in one day struck
with lightning, if such a statement is to be believed,
when it is found in connection with so much that is
miraculous. For the story goes on to say how through
a legendary adventure in some unknown place called
t
1 Pausanias, vi. 6. 2. is theautho-
rity for the statue and the dates,
after which he relates the adventure
in Tamesa, with the story of im-
mortality, which he does not ere lit.
Pliny, vii. 152. speaks of Euthymos
as semper < llympise victor et semel
viaus, confirms the legend of his
immortality on earth, an 1 adds the
statement about the two statues
being in one day struck with
lightning. The marble base of
this statue has been discovered at
Olympia, and bears the following
inscription :
'Ejovfios A.OKOOS ArrTi'/cAtoi'v rp\-
OXv/nn iviKuDV,
Y/lkovu 5 'earrrjaev Ttjvbe fi^nrtJis
etropav,
concluding with two lines in which
Pythagoras, the sculptor, is called
a Sam.an :
FtVpvpos AoKfKi? nno Zetpvpiov ui>et y i]Ke,
Uvduynf)a<> 2.1/iioj enoirjcrev,
whence it is argued (Arch. Zeit.
1878, p. 82) that he had been 1 orn
in that island.
Chap. X.]
STATUES BY PYTHAGORAS.
20g
Tamesa, Euth vinos obtained the power of living for
ever, and still, many centuries after his triumphs at
Olvmpia, had been seen there by old men. This was
the statue said by Pausanias to be very well worth
] '.j, 40. —Marble group of Europa riding on bull, in the I irUi-^h Museum. From Crete.
(3) At Olvmpia a statue of the wrestler Leontiskos, 1
of Messene in Sicily, whose practice was not the usual
one of throwing his opponent, but of breaking his
fingers. He had several times been victor. These
statues, together with (4) the Philoktetes at Syracuse
.i. |. > : ( I". Pliny, h - I the p 1 age oi I'
xxxiv. 59. nias.
■2io HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [CHAP. X.
already described, and (5) a figure of Europa (fig. 40) 1
riding on a bull, at Tarentum, were local commissions,
and may, reasonable conjecture, be assigned to an
earn- stage of bis career, before bis fame bad spread.
As regards Europa, that is a subject of frequent occur-
rence in ancient art, mostly, however, in pictorial
designs, where the one-sidedness of the group tells with
effect. This feature may have been altered in works of
sculpture in the round, though a marble group 2 from
Crete is, so far as it goes, evidence to the contrary;
There Europa sits sideways, turned full to the spectator
on the side ; towards him the bull also looks straight,
bending round his head. On the other side the work is
roughly executed, and by this indicates that it was
removed from sight. In the figure of the bull and
in the composition of the group there is much of a true
archaic stamp, which might be traced to the time of
Pythagoras, but along with this there is a degree of
clumsiness and inexperience such as would be accounted
for if the group were a considerably later copy of the
famous original in bronze at Tarentum, made for the
Cretans of Gortvna, who above all honoured Europa.
No doubt it is equally open to conjecture either that
Pvthaeroras had taken his motive from a design already
familiar from the works of minor hands, or that in fact
he had carried out an entirely different rendering of the
subject. But this at least remains — that Europa,
by being necessarily a draped figure, must have led him
far out of the usual track of statues of athletes, while
again the figure of the bull would open a new region of
1 Overbeck, Ant. Schriftquellen, coins of which town present a
nos. 502 r similar subject in an archaic
- In the British Museum — en- manner. See Admiral Spratt's
graved in Jahn's Denkschrift der Travels in Crete, ii. p. 30; Over-
Wiener Akademie, 1870. pi. 40. beck, Kunstmythologie, ii. p. 430,
It was found in fragments on the and Stephani, Compte-rendu pour
of the theatre at Gortyna, the l'annee 1866, p. 1 9.
'."imp. X.J SCULPTURES BY PYTHAGORAS. 211
study. Not that in either respect this group stands
alone among his works. In the chariot ' of Kratisthenes
(6) both features recur, the horses representing his skill
in animal life ; Nike, the goddess of Victory in the
chariot, would be draped like Europa, and Kratisthenes
himself would wear the dress of a driver. So also the
statue (7) of the bard Kleon - at Thebes, comes into
speeial notice for its drapery, since the folds of it once
served to conceal for thirty years some monev hid in
them by a fugitive when Thebes was taken bv Alexander.
For one reason or another the proper costume of a
citharist was the same as that worn bv women, and
in the time of Pythagoras the upper garment would
cross the breast, with a large oblique fold from the
left shoulder to under the right arm. Somewhere
there the hiding could have been accomplished.
With these instances of drapery may be compared
that of the goddess of the Selinus metope alreadv
introduced in connection with Pythagoras — not that it
is to be taken as more than a general illustration of
the manner of his period in one particular direction
to which he applied himself, and in which there was
perhaps more need of improvement than in am- other.
The constant demand for statues of athletes led art
in another way, and obviously it speaks for the wider
scope of his artistic faculty that Pythagoras entered
upon such subjects at all, even if he did not advance
them, a point on which it must be confessed there is
no direct evidence. There is only the surmise that
this piece of sculpture from Selinus belongs to about
1 Pau anias, \ i. 1 8. 1 . I ,\ . xxxiv. 51/. tells the
a I. nui/- i Rtoi \ 1 of a Cilharcedus,
iia. K 1 Mini imed the I ust, a fining
nl appeal s to the w ork ol l'\ thagoras, while
11 hariol ra< e. Both he \thcn ens i. p. 19, b.c, tells it of
aii'l \ 00 I in the < hariot. 1 1 1< • 1 tiu< ol Kleon in Thebes.
212
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE.
[Chap. X.
his time, and coming from a neighbouring district may
have shared the influence of so great a master.
From Cyrene he had before had a commission to
execute for Olvmpia (8) a statue of Mnaseas, 1 the father
of the Kratisthenes for whom the chariot group was
made. Mnaseas had won in the armed race, and appa-
rently was represented holding apples in one hand to
indicate the country of his birth. For Thebes also
Pythagoras executed, besides the figure of Kleon,a group 2
of Kteokles and Polyneikes (9) in their desperate com-
bat. Other legendary or mythical subjects by him
were (10) a bronze statue of Perseus, :i and (11) a figure
of Apollo 4 slaving the serpent with his arrows. Finally
he made for Olvmpia statues of (12) a runner well-
named Dromeus, 5 who had been victor twice, and (13)
of Protolaos, 6 a boy who had won the prize for boxing ;
for Delphi, (14) the pancratiast 7 with which he surpassed
Myron ; (15) a group of eight figures to be seen in the
Temple of Fortune at Rome in Pliny's time.
1 Pausanias, v. 13. 4, and com-
pare vi. 18. 1, where he calls
Mnaseas the father of Kratisthenes,
and says he was known among
die Greeks as the "Libyan," an
expression which must be taken
along with the words of Pliny
(xxxiv. 59), in recounting the
sculptures of Pythagoras : et
Libyn puerum tenentem tabellam
eodem loco (Olympise) ct mala
ferentem nudum. A youth hold-
ing apples in his hand would thus
indicate characteristically his
Libyan origin. The tablet would
perhaps tell of his victory. But
Pliny's description of the figure as
that of a youth docs not coincide
with Pausanias, who calls the
statue of Mnaseas that of an armed
man (o-XiV?;? avqp). i'\. Brunn,
( Jr. Kunstler, i. p. 1 $$.
~ Overbeck, Ant. Schriftquellen,
no. 501. Pliny (xxxv. 59) speaks
of a Pythagoras of Samos, whom
he accredits with seven nude
figures and one old man ; but the
inscription from ( Mympia shows that
he has made two artists out of one,
and that this group also should be
added to the list of his works.
:! Overbeck, Ant. Schriftquellen,
no. 500. This figure is said to have
had wings, and when Brunn (Gr.
Kiinstler, i. p. 134) explains them as
attached to his heels and petasus,
that does not necessarily follow in
a case of archaic art, where wings
were of much more frequent oc-
currence than in later art
' Pliny, xxxiv. 51).
5 Pausanias, vi. 7. 3.
6 Pausanias, vi. 6. 1.
7 Pliny, xxxiv. 59.
CHAPTER XI.
MYRON AND THE SCULPTURES OF HIS SCHOOL.
Characteristics of Myron mentioned in ancient writers — Statue of
Marsyas in the Lateran— Other representations of same motive —
Observation of details of natural form and life — Figures of animals
and subjects from daily life — Statues of athletes — Ladas— The
Discobolus — Statues of Apollo — Influence of Myron on the sculp-
ture of his time — The friezes and metopes of the Theseion at
Athens — Comparison with metopes of Parthenon — Metopes from
Temple of Hera at Selinus.
The impulse which, towards the end of the 6th
century B.C. and the early part of the 5th, evoked in
Greece the highest forms of poetic and dramatic ability,
must from the nature of the circumstances have stirred
deeply at the same time those who were occupied with
sculpture, so far as it was their ambition also to illus-
trate and magnify the deeds of the past. To a great
extent this had always been the ambition of artists, but
at this period there was much to draw their observation
closely on the present life around them. Art had
advanced so far that the living model was necessarily
under constant study, and everything animate which
most nearly approached to man in its movement, or in
its individual forms, was a source of attraction. It
was, therefore, to be expected that in some cases this
side of the artistic faculty would he indulged to the
detriment of the higher side of ideal creation. Possibly
from a wider view it was no detriment, since it may be
too much to hope of one sculptor lh.il lie should
combine all the gifts of his profession. Yet it counts
214
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XI.
against Myron, fully admitting his excellence in other
respects, that he had not entered on the higher walk
with the success which attended some of his contem-
poraries. Broadly, it may be said that he was wanting
in imagination, but gifted with keen observation, and
that the indulgence of this faculty separated him in a
degree from the governing impulse of his time. Entirely
free from it he was not. For it will be seen, on the one
hand, that sculptures of an ideal order occur among his
works; and on the other, that the one charge urged
against him in antiquity is inconsistent with his having
been exclusively an observer of nature. That was the
charge of being in the rendering of hair not in advance
of rude early times : capillam et pubem non emendatius
fecisse quam rudis antiquitas instituisset. 1 That is to
say, he rendered the hair according to the conventional
manner of treatment which had long been in use, as
may be seen in numerous instances of archaic sculpture,
where, instead of freelv modelled masses, we find gene-
rally long wavy lines slightly marked on the surface, and
ending in formal curls. Not only is there no sign of
real observation or study, but, on the contrary, there is
a positive conventionalism capable of exercising an
attraction by itself; and, doubtless, it was this attrac-
tion that led to its prolonged existence in art. Thus it
would be incorrect to say that Myron, though a faithful
observer of the human form, had neglected the hair,
when, in fact, he purposely accepted the traditional
treatment of it, as the words of Pliny convey. Rudis
antiquitas instituisset, clearly refer to a definite con-
ventional manner, and that manner may be seen in
man\' existing sculptures.
It is important to bear this in mind, because of the
1 Pliny, xxxiv. 58. Brunn, when he compares Myron's render-
Aimili d. inst. Arch. 1858, p. 381, ing of the hair with the mannei
irs to he nn the whole right prevailing just before Pheidias.
Chap. XI.] CHARACTERISTICS 01 MYRON. 215
effect it may have in modifying our judgment of certain
other characteristics assigned to Myron ; for example,
ipse tamen corporum tenus curiosus animi sensus non
expressisse. Here it may be said that Pliny 1 contradicts
himself, having just ascribed to Myron a Satyr admirans
tibias, since admirans in the ordinary sense would imply
sensus animi. On the other hand, it is conceivable
that the astonishment of the Satyr was wholly expressed
in the attitude, the face remaining unmoved, not to the
rude degree of the oldest metopes of Selinus, but still in
a manner not unknown in more advanced art.' 2 A Satyr
with unmoved face, starting back at the sight of the
flutes, would perfectly express admirans, and at the
same time would by his movement give excellent scope
for the artist's faculty of studious attention to the forms
of the body. The difficulty is to determine the extent
to which he succeeded in rendering these forms true to
nature. But this much appears certain, that he could
not have attained the truthfulness generally noticeable
in sculpture after the time of Praxiteles. A statue with
the forms of that type, or even nearly approaching it,
and with hair of the kind just described, would be a
combination contrary to all feeling. We must, there-
fore, be satisfied to conclude that whatever the diligence
of his observation of nature may have been, it was still
accompanied by a severity of style consistent with
archaic rendering of the hair.
1 xxxiv. 57. anima would appear in the fa< e of
- Mninii, Annali, 1858, p. 382, the Satyr, and in fact finds it strongly
cites Petronius as saying of Myron, expressed in the Lateran statue ol
paene hominum anim imque Mai va , But its being there (which
aere comprehendit, an I very I 'In nol admit) isno argument for
pro].. n tl of Myron, since in the
anima and animi in such a Lateran tatue the conditions re-
li.it Hi- pre 1 n< e of the foi hm t he treatment of thi
• nt. with the ab em e oi have been changed, and ha
tin- latter. 1 1'- uppo 1 thai thi r< n lerc I poi iiblc .1 1 hange oi fai e.
2 I f)
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XI-
Then it is said : Primus hie multiplicasse veritatem
videtur numerosior in arte quam Polycletus et in
symmetria diligentior. 1 In thus speaking of Myron
after he had spoken of Polykleitos, Pliny seems to have
thought him the younger of the two, and to have sur-
passed his predecessors in the variety of his productions
and in attention to symmetry (of movement ?) : that in
fact, "he was the first of whom it could be said that he
had extended the truthfulness of art to a greater number
of subjects and with more variety of symmetry than
Polykleitos," whose works Pliny had already charac-
terized as psene ad unum exemplum. 2 Other explana-
tions have been given of this passage, and apparently a
general agreement is impossible, except on the meaning
of the words multiplicasse veritatem, 3 " to extend the
truthfulness " of art, a phrase which is justified by the
variety of his known productions, even in statuary, and
may have been still more applicable in the eyes of those
who knew the minor work which he bestowed on chased
metal vases ; not to include, perhaps, many sculptures
1 Pliny, xxxiv. 58; Brunn, Annali.
. p. 379, and compare his
Gr. Kunstler, i. p. 151. Recently
Bliimner, Rhein. Museum, xxxii.
O877) p. 596, discusses at length
the arguments used for the dif-
ferent explanations of this passage,
prim ipally those of Brunn, on die
one hand, and of Overheck on the
other. He comes nearly to the
v ime < onclusion as Brunn.
2 This in effect is the meaning
adopted by Brunn. Obviously it
relies on a connection between
multiplicasse and numerosior et
ntior, which brunn puts in
this way : "He w as the first who
I Jied the truthfulness of art,
more varie I in his sul
and more diligent in his symmetry."
I have read the passage rather as
if we had in the text numerosius
and diligentius. The opposite
theory of Overbed-:, Gr. Plaslik,
2nd ed., p. 192, and more fully
Zeitschrift fur die Alterthumswis-
liaft, 1857. starts by taking
numerosior in a technical sense, as
an equivalent of " eurhythmus ; "
but this is to overlook the fact that
both words, numerosior and dili-
gentior, in their plain and ordinary
sense have just that direct connec-
tion of ideas with multiplicasse
which is expected.
:: The best MS. i^ives this reading
instead of the common varietatem,
which is now fairly set aside.
Chap. XL] CHARACTERISTICS OF MYRON. 217
of high ambition of which there is now no record. But
"to extend the truthfulness of art" is an expression
which, even taking it as not employed in a comparison
with Polykleitos, is still necessarily comparative in its
nature.
With all his success, there are no grounds for supposing
that he had attained the truthfulness of a perfectly free
stage of art, and there is no reason against assuming
that in all cases his style was accompanied by a marked
degree of severity, which was not completely overcome
till Pheidias overcame it. As regards symmetria, it
may be translated as "balance" when applied to
a figure in active movement, such as the Discobolus
or the Ladas. Polykleitos seems to have attempted
nothing so bold in movement, and so much requiring
balance.
In discussing these characteristics of Myron it has
been usual to refer frequently to a marble statue in the
Lateran (fig. 41), which it may be well to notice here before
proceeding to the more definitely accredited works of
that sculptor. The attitude of this figure is at first sight
that of a dancing Satyr. 1 While some still maintain that
view of it, others have recognized in the movement that
of a Satyr who has been rushing forward to seize an
object lying on the ground, but has been suddenly
arrested in this action, and is represented by the artist
at this particular moment of arrest.' 2 Next it is remem-
1 Benndorf and Schoene, Ant. s G. Hirschfeld engraves the
Bildwerke des lateranensischen statue in his Winckelmannsfest
ims, no. 225, contrary to the Programm, 1872, an I di
opinion of Brunn and be-
scribe of dancing tween the two opposite movent]
(p. 144). Norisit to lih.it the right leg exhibiting the
the right foot is twisted to the in- the forward movement, while the
ward as ii would be in posture left leg an I lefl arm show the
making, but not in from backward movement just coin-
fear.
2l8 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XL
bered that on the Acropolis of Athens was a group of
li.^'. 41. — Marble statue ofMarsyas, in the Lateral] Museum, Rome.
sculpture in which Athena appeared in the act of
' striking ' the Satyr Marsyas because he wanted to
Chap. XL] [GROUP OF ATHENA AND MARSYAS.
2 1 (J
take up the flutes she had east away. 1 According to
Pliny, if read one way, Myron made a statue of a Satyr
wondering at flutes, or if read another way, wondering
at flutes and at Athena.' 2 In the one case we have two
independent statues, and in the other a group. Proba-
bility is in favour of the group, for this reason, that a
statue of that goddess alone is an unlikely subject to
have come from the hands of Myron, while Athena in a
group with Herakles and Zeus oeeurs among his works.
Besides, the motive of sudden astonishment which the
group yields would suit him better for a Satyr than a
single figure looking in wonder at his flutes. If he then
made sueh a group, it is not altogether unreasonable to
suppose that what Pausanias saw on the Acropolis was
no other than it, although his silence as to the sculptor
is a little singular. Vet the sculpture which he saw must
have been remarkable ; for with more or less variety
it is found to have been reproduced on the relief of a
marble vase at Athens (fig. 42), on a coin of that city, and
on a painted vase obtained there. 3 To some extent the
Satyr may be said to correspond in his attitude with the
1 Pausanias, i. ^4. 1 : 'Adtjva
r.iTiuuiTai t<>v SeiAr/yoe Mapavav naiox era,
on 87 rows avXovs dveKoiro, ep/jtfj.dut
o. 382.
Chap. XL] REPRODUCTION OF ARCHAIC DESIGNS. 223
having been a native of Eleutherse in Bceotia and a
pupil of Ageladas. With one exception his statues
were of bronze. Tradition assigns to him also great
excellence in the chasing of vessels in silver. 1
How far the sculptors of an earlier period, such for
example as Bathykles of Magnesia or the artist of the
Chest of Kypselos, had succeeded in conceiving and
rendering the great variety of subjects which they intro-
duced from legend and mythology, it is impossible to
realize. But from the circumstance that many of the
subjects sculptured by them are again found, at the date
at which we have now arrived, engaging the skill of artists
like Myron, it may be concluded that these older represen-
tations had acquired popular favour, and that it was their
insufficiency in po'int of execution rather than in artistic
conception which gave occasion to these new designs.
Badness of execution would not retard the success of a
well conceived group, while, on the other hand, badness
of conception would not have saved an exceptionallv
well sculptured design. Hence it is reasonable to sup-
pose that Myron in some of the works assigned to him
may have only engrafted upon a traditional conception
bis own peculiarities of working out details. The
wooden statue of Hekate (1) for instance, which he is
said to have made lor /Egina, could hardly have been
other than a work of this kind. It was a xoanon, and as
such played a part in religious services.' 2 Hekate as
1 Overbeck, Gr. Plastik, 2nd ed. the vessels of silver with ch ed
p. 1 S 5 , reje ts thi ■ oi pis u hi< li are as< ribe I to him
. that Myron flourished in the an 1 to other artists of great I
90th Olympiad, as in an 10 itmaybequi tioned in most cases
I [e - .1 a rival of Pj thagoras the authority is to be
of Rhegium in one in t; :, and relied on, though of course such
the on to be oc< upation is not in itself im-
' j .nil -.'. ha! is recorded oi po ible.
him is thai he musl have belonge I Pai .2.
ic S( hool. \ regards
224 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XI.
a triple figure, was a later invention of Alkamenes.
Again, the statue of Dionysos (2) on Mount Helicon,
beside Apollo and Hermes, in the company of Muses
and poets, though much praised, may have been in the
general conception no advance on the traditional type, 1
perhaps a draped figure such as has descended in the
form of the Indian Bacchus. The Erechtheus at
Athens (3), compared in excellence with this statue,
may have represented that ancestor of the Athenians
characteristically with legs from below the knees formed
of serpents as in a sculpture now in Athens, 2 and in
that case it is possible that Myron had derived his
model broadly from the older designs of Tritons,
Tvphos and Echidna on the throne of Apollo at
Amyklae, 3 on which also were to be seen Perseus
cutting off the head of Medusa, Athena leading
Herakles into the presence of the gods of Olympos,
and Athena pursuing Hephaestos. Perseus and
Medusa no doubt were common in archaic art. Nor
is it argued that the other two subjects here cited were
directly used as models by Myron. The intention is
only to suggest that in his colossal bronze group of
Zeus, Athena and Herakles at Samos (4), he may have
1 Pausanias, ix. 3°- * : r( * <^ Ek irvpos, v Mvpavos 6eas paXiO-Ta 'E^(p,'wr S , yeverjv dpe Mvpav iripijv.
agiov peTt'i ye tov , i\6i)vr]o-iv 'Epe^^'a. - Engraved in Lebas, Voyage
Sulla had carried it off from the Archeologique, pis. 28, 29, and
Orchomenian Minyae and had set called Erichthonios. Whoever
it up on Helicon. It seems to be the artist may have been, it is un-
to this statue that the verses of the doubtedly a very able conception,
Anthology (< Iverbeck, Ant. Schrift- the figure seeming to rise from the
quellen, no. 539) refer, the allu- earth just as an autochthon would
sion being to the second birth be thought to rise. Yet from the
of Dionysos from the thigh of style of art it cannot be contended
Zeus, with which is compared this that this figure goes back even
other birth from the furnace of near to the time of Myron.
Myron: :i Pausanias ; iii. iS. 7.
Chap. XI] CHARACTERISTICS OF MYRON, 225
followed in the scheme of his composition some older
conception, such as that of Bathykles. At all events it
is probable that in the grouping of these three figures
the object was to illustrate the presentation of Hera-
kles to Zeus as the head and representative of the
gods of Olympos. 1 They stood together on one base.
Similarly the curious subject of Athena pursuing
Hephaestos may have suggested Myron's group of
Athena threatening Marsyas (5), already described. Of
his Perseus and Medusa (6) there are no details, 2 except
that it stood on the Acropolis of Athens.
If these observations are just, it may be urged that
they ought also to apply in some degree to all the
other works of Myron, since in his statues, whether of
gods or athletes or even of animals, he must have
found in older art an abundance of examples to adopt.
Most likely this was the case, not only with him but
also with the other sculptors, who before the time of
Pheidias may be said to have carried the representa-
tion of single figures to its highest excellence as com-
pared on the one hand with the still older artists,
distinguished for their power of creating designs or
compositions, and on the other with Pheidias and his
followers, who revived this power in combination with
excellence in single forms. There is nothing to show-
that Myron belonged to this latter class. So to speak
he was a creator of species, who accepted the genera
of his time. Or, to vary the comparison, he adopted
certain stocks and sought to perfect the breeds. Even
in a stricter sense this seems to have been true ; for
it is impossible to explain the quantity and extrava-
gance of the praise awarded to his bronze figure of
1 Strabo, xiv. p. 637, says that turned bj Augustus, who, however,
the e thr< ed ofl retained the Zeus and erected foi
bj Antony, bul thai two of them, it a < nape! on the I 'apitol.
Athena and II were re- -' Pau ani 1 . i. 23. 8.
2 2C)
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XI.
a cow (7), except on the theory that she represented the
perfection of breed. Thirty-six Greek epigrams on it
exist, not to mention other allusions in verse and
prose, 1 and there is nothing in them that does not
confirm this view. No doubt the style and manner
of a great artist can ennoble the commonest subject,
but only by means of a subtle observation of points
of real beauty which common eyes had failed to see,
and therefore in this general sense, if not otherwise,
Myron's cow may have been a refinement of species.
So also it would be consistent with what is known of
him to say of his statues of athletes and of deities, that
they were the work of a sculptor whose aim was to
make them perfect within the limits with which they
had been handed down from older art. To carry out
this aim there was need of that faculty of obser-
vation of and svmpathy with the life of man and of
animals which we have seen was a characteristic of
Myron. The other animals accredited to him are four
oxen (8) and a dog (9) 2 .
With such a character, it is to be expected that there
would be mixed some degree of humour, and curiously
1 Overbeck, Ant. Schriftquellen,
nos. 5 50-5 91a. Brunn, Gr. Ki'inst-
ler, i. p. 147, quotes from Goethe
the following analysis of these
epigrams: "All unanimously praise
the cow for its truthfulness ami
naturalness, and cannot enough
emphasize the possibility of its
being mistaken for a living animal.
A lion may perhaps tear it to
pieces, a bull spring on it, a calf
suck it, a herd of cattle gather
round it, a herdsman throw a stone
at it to make it move away or strike
it and whip it. a ploughman may
bring his plough to yoke it, a thief
may try to steal it, a fly may
settle on its hide, even Myron him-
self might confound it with the
other beasts of his herd." To this
we have only to add that no repre-
sentation of a common bred cow
could ever have met with such
applause, while on the contrary a
faithful rendering of a highly bred
cow would rightly attain this end.
The point of my argument is that
in all cases Myron sought out the
most perfect available type of the
subject he had in hand.
- Propertius, ii. 31.7; Overbeck,
Ant. Schriftquellen, no. 5^2, and
Pliny, xxxiv. 57.
Chap. XL]
SENSE OF HUMOUR.
227
enough the desire to associate this faculty with him,
instead of noting it in the group of Athena and Marsyas,
where it underlies the conception, appears to have
been unfortunate in assigning to him the statue of a
drunken old woman, 1 which, in fact, was the work of a
sculptor named Maron. Possibly that would have pre-
supposed too coarse a humour. There remains what
Pliny 2 calls Pristae, a term which, according to modern
interpretation, means genre figures of one kind or
another. If this is correct it would establish the fact of
his possessing the faculty in question, although it does
not make much clearer the decree to which he indulged
it. On the other hand, some have endeavoured, start-
ing with his production of genre figures as a certainty,
to derive a more or less definite notion of his style from
a comparison of a bronze statuette in the Capitoline
Museum (fig. 44), representing a boy picking a thorn from
his foot, a subject which, with different treatment of
details, recurs in a marble figure found in Rome, and a
small bronze said to have been found in Sparta. 3 But
1 Pliny, xxxvi. 33, is the autho-
rity for ascribing this statue to
Myron. But an epigram in the
Anthology (Anth. Pal. vii. 455)
quoted first by Schoene, Arch. Zeit.,
1862, p. 333, and afterwards dis-
cussed by Benndorf, Arch. Zeit.,
1 -'op. 78, describes the statue and
gives the artist's name as Maron.
'-' xxxiv. 57. Brunn, Gr, Kunst-
ler, i. p. 145, explains this word .is
meaning sea-dragons. Hut see
Petersen, Arc h. Zeit., 1 865, p. 91.
( )verbeck, ( ir. Plastik, 211 1 <• I.
p. 1 16, a< 1 epts the word as re
ferring to genre figures, without
going farther. Petei en takes the
word as Greek, from ■n i >irT>j\, a
■ r, an I re< ognizes in the
balanced movement of two men
occupied sawing, a characteristic
of the art of Myron.
3 Thehead of the bronze Spinario
in the Capitoline .Museum is pub-
lished Mon. d. Inst. An h., x. pi. 2.
Compare Annali, i S 7 4 . pi. m, with
the marble Spinario in Florence and
with an article by Brizio, p. 49,
« ho 1 ompares the treatmenl of the
nude in a figure in the I .ou\ re re-
stored as Pollux, engraved in Vis-
conti, Mon. Borghe iani, pi. 1 7.
fig. 2. The Spinario now in the
British Museum is engraved Art h.
Zeit., [879, pi. 2, 3, and VTon.
d. rnst. Ao h., x. pi. 31 \ and
Ami. oh. 1 876, pi. M, with .mi .otic le,
p. [24, by Robert, \\ ho
228 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XI.
first an objection lias been raised to the mere possibility
of a work of this nature being executed at the stage of art
I i pinario), in ihe Capitoline Museum,
in which Myron lived, since no example of it is recorded,
except the group of boys playing at knuckle-bones by
to the Capitoline bronze that it is
of the late school of Pasiteles, an
opinion shared also by Kekule,
Kunst. Museum zu Bonn, p. ioo.
The small bronze from Sparta be-
longs to the Duke of St. Albans,
and is not published. Friederichs,
Bausteinej p. 289, points out the
archaic character of the bronze
Spinario of the Capitol as against
Brunn, Gr. Kiinstler, i.p. 511, and
others, who assign it to a later
period. Brizio, as above quoted,
sees in it certain characteristics of
Kalamis. while Furtwangler iden-
tifies it with the style of Myron, in
his article on the Dornauszieher in
Virchow and Holtzendorffs Samm-
lung Gemein. Wissen. Vortrage,
vol. xL, Berlin, 1876.
Chap. XL] SUBJECTS FROM DAILY LIKE. 220,
Polykleitos. At the same time it is to be remembered
that statues of victorious athletes were to an extent
subjects taken from daily life, and that this was espe-
cially the case with the Discobolus, whose statue by
Myron still exists in marble copies, which show how
acutely he had observed the actual living movement of
the athlete. There is nothing' of the victor in it, such
as may be supposed to have been made a feature in
other statues of athletes. It is a study from life, as
much as is the Spinario of the Capitol, though, no
doubt, there is this difference between them, that the
Discobolus may easily be understood to have been an
ordinary commission, while, as regards a genre figure
like the Spinario, it is difficult to imagine where a patron
could have been found in the days of Myron. Generally
demand regulates supply, in art as elsewhere — not, how-
ever, without exceptions. The demand for artistic
representations of scenes from daily life did not prevail
till long after. Yet the group of boys by Polykleitos may
have been an exception, and possibly also the Pristie of
Myron were a group of figures engaged in some daily
occupation. His son and pupil, Lykios, was distin-
guished in this direction. Obviously the Spinario in
question does not come within the strict meaning of this
word. But the way in which the motive is seized as
compared with the Discobolus, the formal archaic
rendering of the hair, and the vivid realization of the
forms, illustrate what is handed down of Myron ; while
the beautiful type of face and figure confirm what has
just been said of him as a sculptor, who in this, respect
displayed subtilty of observation of, and keenness ol
sympathy with, beings not endowed with mind.
• The statues of athletes assigned to Myron are, besides
those at Delphi, 1 ol' which no description is given, at
1 Pliny, x.wiv. 37.
2jo HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XI.
Olympia the figure of a boy boxer (10) named Philippos, 1
from Pellana, (n) Timanthes 2 of Kleonae, who had
won as pancratiast, (12) Lykinos 3 from Sparta, who
had won the chariot race, and had two statues, (13) the
Lacedaemonian Chion, 4 (14) the runner Ladas, and (15)
the Discobolus. The story of Ladas was that in swift-
ness of foot he had no equal, but that falling ill immedi-
ately after his victor}' at Olympia, he was conveyed
thence, and died on the way home to Argos, where,
afterwards, in the temple of Apollo Lykios a statue of
him was seen by Pausanias. 5 This was not necessarily
the statue by Myron, since, had it been so, the omission
of this writer to mention the fact would be strange.
Besides, Ladas would have been entitled to a statue at
Olympia, and considering his fame it is unlikely that he
was neglected in this respect. Probably it was it
which was the work of Myron ; and probably, also, the
reason why Pausanias did not see it there was that the
Romans may have carried it off before his time. Ladas
was a figure well known to Roman poets. 6 Non Ladas
ego pennipesve Perseus, says Catullus, 7 and though his
knowledge of both may have been derived from literature
rather than from art, it is still a fact available for our
purpose that Myron sculptured also a Perseus, and for all
that is known to the contrary may have represented him
at the moment of overtaking Medusa through his speed,
rather than at the later moment of cutting off her head.
1 Pausanias, vi. 8. 3. that the statue may also have been
2 Pausanias, vi. 8. 3. raised in times as late as those of
,; Pausanias, vi. 2. 1. Myron.
4 Pausanias, vi. 13. 1, objects 5 Pausanias, iii. 21. 1, gives the
that this statue could not have incident, and ii. 19. 6, mentions
been of Chion. because he lived the statue without stating the name
long before Myron. Hut as lie of the artist.
proves that the inscription in ° Overbeck, Ant. Schriftqucllen,
honour of Chion on a stele beside no. 543.
the statue must have been a later ' Iv. 25.
invention, so it mav be argued
Chap. XI.] THE DISCOBOLUS OF MYRON. 23I
In that case the motive of his Perseus would have
approached broadly to that of the Ladas, as gathered
from the ancient epigrams, where the latter 1 statue is
described as that of a runner straining- with his last
breath to the goal, and appearing to leap from the
pedestal. Such a description answers to a frequent
attitude of Perseus in works of art, and if it could he
proved, instead of remaining only a probability, that
he appeared so in the group in question, that would be
another confirmation of what has been said as to
Myron's having belonged to that class of sculptors who
took the general conceptions of their predecessors, but
raised them into a higher sphere of art. 2 At all events
the statue of Ladas must have resembled a Perseus in
motive, whether the Perseus of Myron or not.
More celebrated was the Discobolus, and fortunatelv,
from the references of Lucian and Quintilian, 3 there is
no doubt regarding the general aspect of the statue. It
was that of an athlete who has gathered together the
whole of his strength to hurl forward his disc, and to
gain the last impetus has sent it back in his right hand
with all his might. The marble statue of a disc thrower
in the British Museum 4 answers this description, except
that the head, if original, is put on the wrong wax-
since, according to Lucian, it was turned backward, as
it naturally would be, towards the disc. Correct in this
and in other respects is the marble Discobolus in the
1 Overbeck, Ant. Schriftquellen, '' Lucian, Philopseudes, 18;
no. 542. Quintilian, Inst. Orat., ii. 13. 8, says
: Brunn, Or. Kunstler, i. p. 148 Quid tam distortum el elaboratum
and p. 150, quotes the Ladas as quam est ille discobolos Myronis?
an illustration of .Myron's gift of 4 The marble in the British
rendering physical life in a « on- Museum has had its surface much
centrated moment, when the last polished away, but lias evidentl)
breath was on the lips of the runner, been a careful copj from the same
., Overbeck Gr. Plastik, source as tin' Massimi statue.
.'ip I ed. p.
-3-
IIISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XI.
Palace Massimi (fig. 45)' in Rome, which it is usual to
accept as preserving largely even the style of the bronze
original of Myron.
It has been assumed that the statue by Myron was
Fig. 45. —Discobolus. Marble statue in the Palace Massimi. Rome.
that of a particular athlete, on the ground that the only
ancient writers who mention it were more or less in
the habit of naming a figure according to its charac-
teristic action or attitude, rather than by specific names,
1 The Massimi statue is engraved 2nd ed. p. 190, and is here repro-
also by Overbeck, Gr. Plastik, duced from Schnaase,
Chap. XL] THE DISCOBOLUS OF MYRON. 233
which in the lapse of time had lost their significance. 1
On the other hand, it may equally well have been either,
as already suggested, a genre figure or a legendary
subject such as that of Perseus, 2 who is said to have
introduced disc throwing, and who, while exhibiting his
skill in it, accidentally caused the death of Akrisios.
However that may have been, it is clear that the motive
has been taken from real life, and has been treated in a
manner as far removed from ideal treatment as was
probably possible at the time. Compare, for example,
the other well-known type of a discobolus, who, as seen
in two statues in Rome, 3 stands with one foot drawn
back in the act of beginning to collect his impulse for
the throw. Here the motive also is real, but the treat-
ment is true to the ideal manner, which imparts a
dignity not likely to have been preserved on the occa-
sion. He is precisely what would be expected in the
statue of a successful athlete, executed according to the
usual conditions ; and although the motive of this figure
is perhaps with justice ascribed to the later sculptor
Naukydes, there is no reason to suppose that he had
greatly departed from a traditional type, since several
1 Furtwangler, Der Dornaus- characteristic epithet. At the same
zieher (in Yirchow and Holtzen- time his theory does not neces-
dorffs Sammlung Gemein. sanly exclude them from being in
Wissen. Vortrage, xi.), p. 31, col- some cases genre figures: for he
lects a number of instances from himself admits into this category
Pliny, such as Doryphorus, Diada- the hoys playing with knuckle
menus, Sacrificantes, and others hones by Polykleitos, though it is
where an epithet appears to have possible to conceive that they may
been chosen in place of the real have been a legendary subject,
name of the persons represented. '-' Pausanias, ii. 16. 1.
On this account he do< not accept :i Engraved in Visconti, Mon.
them as instances of genre, and on Borghesiani, pi. 4, fig. 1, and Mus.
the whole he be right, Pio-Clementino, iii. pi. 26. For
since statues carried off to Rome, the marble statue in the Vatican
probably in n without of the ..one type as the \la imi
their I would statue, see Friederi< lis, Bau
naturally become known by Mime p. 120.
234
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [CHAP. XL
archaic bronze statuettes of Etruscan origin, m the
British Museum, maintain with some variety the upright
attitude of an athlete preparing to throw his disc. One
of them (fig. 46), at least, appears to be of a date earlier
than Myron ; and if, as is not
improbable, it represents the
archaic type of disc thrower, we
can see how great was the in-
novation which he introduced.
It was an innovation in the
direction of genre, which at
present appears irreconcilable
with what is known of the con-
ditions imposed on the sculptors
of statues for victorious athletes.
Nor is it inconsistent with this
that a noble severity should
pervade the attitude and form
of the Massimi statue ; for that
is a quality which none of the
great masters of Myron's time
is likely to have been without.
It is a quality which we have
seen markedly pronounced in
the Spinario of the Capitol.
How well it harmonizes with
the formal archaic rendering of
the hair need not be said.
But we may affirm that the one
feature is necessary to the
other. It was a quality,
further, which enabled him to sculpture gods as well as
men on occasion. Besides the statues of deities already
mentioned, there are two figures of Apollo (16, 17)
attributed to him, of which the one is said 1 to have
Fig. 46. Discobolus. Bronze
statuette in the iiriti^h Museum.
1 Pliny, xxxiv. 58, and Cicero, in Yerr., iv. 43. 93.
Chap. XI.]
INFLUENCE OF MYRON.
235
been carried off from Ephesus by Antony, but to have
been returned by Augustus, through the admonition of
a dream. The other formed part of the plunder of
Verres, and is generally known from the statement of
Cicero concerning its great beauty, and from the fact
that the name of Myron was inlaid on its leg in small
letters of silver. Lastly he made a statue of Herakles
(18), which also had been seized by Verres, and is
greatly praised by Cicero. 1 The group of a Satyr and
Athena (ig) has already been discussed.
It has been seen that Myron was not of the class of
sculptors who, like Pheidias and his successors, were
gifted with the power of creating new and large com-
positions. His faculty was rather for the perfecting of
single figures. Yet the influence which such a faculty,
employed with success, must have exercised in Athens,
need not have been confined to artists working exclusively
in the same direction. That influence has been traced
in the sculptures of the Theseion, on grounds which
render it necessary to examine them now in detail.
The Theseion, or Temple of Theseus, lying to the
north of the Areopagus, at Athens, is still generally known
by that name, notwithstanding the many arguments 2
1 In Verr., iv. 3. 5. With this
has been identified the statue of
Herakles by Myron, said by Pliny,
xxxiv. 57, to be in the house ol
Pompey beside the Circus Maxi-
mus in Rome. See Stephani, Der
Ausruhende Herakles, p. 193.
- Principally, L. Ku^, Das
Theseion, Halle, 1852, which is an
expansion of his memoir in modern
Greek, To Of/r/fiw, Athens, 1838.
Most re< '-nil}-, Gurlitt, I>as Alter
der Bildwerke de innten
ion, Wien, i s 75- Ross
thought (p. 34) the- Theseion n
icen a mere monument with
a statue, and having paintings of
the deeds of Theseus on the peri-
bolos wall, and lie argued that
die building now known as the
Theseion was a temple of Ares.
Gurlitt is content with arguments
1st its being the Theseion.
On the other side see Leake's
Topograph} of Athens, i. p. 4.98 ;
( Irichs, Aunali d. Inst. Arch., [841,
p. 74, replying to Ross's memoii
in modei n ( rreek ; Brunn, Berichte
der bayer. Akad., 1874, p. 51 . and
St hulze, I JeTheseo, 1874. Wa< hs-
mulh, He Sladt Allien (1874),
p. 21'', treats tin- question of
236
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XI.
that have been brought against it as regards its local
situation, its inconsistency with the description of
Pausanias, and the improbability of a monument in
honour of Theseus having taken the form of a temple,
not to speak of the question whether the architecture
and the existing sculptures on it belong to the time
when his bones were brought back by Kimon from the
island of Skyros, and were received at Athens with
great ceremony. This was in b.c. 469-8. No doubt
Fig. 47. — East front of the Theseion at Athens.
the idea of a temple to a hero is unusual. On the
other hand, the hero Erechtheus shared with Athena
Polias the temple on the Acropolis, in which was his
tomb ; and on this analogy it is not impossible that the
building erected over the bones of Theseus may at the
same time have been associated with some deity. In
that case the attempt to prove that what is called the
site as uncertain. Bursian, Geo- and therefore contends that Ross
graphie von Griechenland (1862- must be wrong, since the Theseion
i I72), i. p. 285, assigns the temple is some distance away,
of Ares to a site near the Areopagus,
Chap. XI. j THE THESEION AT ATHENS. 237
Theseion was, in fact, the Temple of Ares 1 mentioned
by ancient writers, and as yet not otherwise identified,
may be held to be so far successful. A temple to Ares,
containing a chamber with the bones of Theseus, could
be spoken of as the Theseion with the same justice with
which the temple of Athena Polias was called the
Erechtheion. This would meet also the objection that
Pausanias 2 describes the decorations of the Theseion as
paintings ; and therefore, it is to be presumed, internal
decorations executed on the walls, which, as the remains
testify, had been prepared with stucco for such a
purpose. Further, this theory would explain why the
existing sculptures assign only a secondary position to
Theseus, while the paintings described by Pausanias
were directed to his special glory. It is true that in the
sculptures it is not Ares, but Herakles, who holds the
first place, so far as their meaning has been made out.
Still it is to be remembered that in decorations of this
kind Athenian pride in their ancient traditions was of
as much, if not more, account than the particular
service of a deity. Nor can it be contended that such
scenes of combat as those of the Theseion were not
strictly appropriate for a temple to Ares in the fust
place, and to Theseus in the second. The question oi'
its local situation 3 is so slight as to be of little conse-
quence either way, while as regards the date of the
architecture, 4 authorities are divided, apparently without
1 I,. RosSj Has Theseion, as pari. The word o-ijkos employed by
Pausanias would verj w ell express
- i. i~. 2. These paintings the internal room of the cella.
(ypaa!) } which by the time of :i Pausanias, i. 17. 2, says, irpU
had Suffered a great he tw yvfiuaxri^ Bijaeas ftrrlv itpui;
deal, were mostly by the painter but th ion is still indefinite,
Mikon. They represented the as is alsothat of Plutarch (Tb
comba 1 the Am id when he says the Theseion mItm
entaurs, in both of pip iv picrji rjj irSKtu
which Theseus took the leading ' Gurlitt, as above quoted, ai
238 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XL
hope of agreement. It remains then to be seen whether
the sculptures can properly be assigned to a period
immediately after the year B.C. 469-8.
These sculptures consist first of a series of eighteen
metopes, so arranged that ten of them occupy the east front
of the building, while the others, so to speak, turn round
the corners, and are placed four on the north, and four
on the south side. The metopes round the rest of the
temple were left empty. On the front pediment are
holes to show that figures had been disposed in it,
and thus altogether the east front was strongly em-
phasized by the accumulation of sculpture upon it,
and by the neglect shown to the rest of the temple.
Secondly, there were two friezes, one on the east, and
the other on the west end ; but here again there was a
distinction in the relative importance of the two, since
that of the east front is considerably longer, extending
as it does on each side across to the epistyle, while the
frieze of the west does not extend beyond the antce.
There is a distinction also in the relative importance of
the subjects represented, for in the east frieze there
are two groups of deities. On the other there are no
beings of this order. All these sculptures were executed
in Parian marble. The temple itself was built of Pen-
telic marble. On the interior of the cella have been
observed remains of stucco, with which, as has been
said, the walls had been prepared to receive paintings.
On the sculptures were found traces of colour, blue
forming the ground, and red, green, and blue being
applied to drapery, with the addition of bronze or
bronze-coloured weapons. 1
that the architecture affords proof found in the Parthenon, still be-
of its being later than the Parthe- licves the Theseion to he the older
nun, while Iulius, Annali d. Inst. building of the two.
Arch., 1S78, p. 205, though ad- ' Leake, Topography of Athens,
Chap. XL]
METOPES OF THE THESEION.
239
The ten metopes on the east front are devoted to the
labours of Herakles, as follows, beginning from the south :
Herakles (1) strangling the Nemean lion, (2) slaying the
Fig. 48.— Metope of ihe Theseion. Theseus killing (Cerkyon.
Lernean hydra with the aid of Iolaos, (3) capturing the
Keryneian stag, (4) seizing the Erymanthian boar,
I _ : , Metoj if the Tl I us I il tin ; Skyi
(3) overpowering the horses of Diomedes of Thrace,
{()) bringing Cerberus from Hades, (7) taking the girdle
from the Amazon HippoJyte, 9) combat with Geryon
240
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XT.
in two stages, (10) in the garden of the Hesperides. 1 So
much, however, have these sculptures been injured that
they no longer present satisfactory evidence of the
original style. It has gone better with the other metopes
at the ends of the north and south sides. They are eight
in number, as has been said, and they represent deeds of
Theseus as follows : on the south side, Theseus (1)
slaving the Minotaur, (2) capturing the bull of Marathon,
(3) slaying the robber Sinis, (4) punishing Prokrustes ;
and on the north side, Theseus (5) overpowering Peri-
phetes, (6) wrestling with Kerkyon, (7) punishing Skiron,
(8) capturing the sow of Krommyon. 2
In lower relief are the two friezes, of which the west, 3
or secondary one, is occupied with the combat of Greeks
against Centaurs, on the occasion of the marriage-feast
of Peirithoos, when Theseus was present, and by his
valour added an immortal incident to his fame in the
minds of the Athenians. There is no need to say how
often this had been the subject of ancient art. Witness
the Parthenon, the temples of Apollo at Phigaleia and
of Zeus at Olympia ; or, to include painting, there was
the Stoa Pcekile with Theseus fighting against the
Amazons, and the battle of Marathon, at which he was
seen to rise out of the ground. 4 Evidently the legends
1 Leake, he. cit., gives for (8)
the combat of Herakles with
Kyknos, and for (9) his wrestling
with Antaeus. Overbeck, Gr. Plas-
tik, 2nd ed. p. 260, agrees as to
Kyknos, but explains (9) as
on. The authority here fol-
lowed is Iulius, who gives the ten
metopes in the Mon. d. Inst. Arch.,
x. pis. 58-59, with an article in
the Annali, 1878, p. 193, to which
reference will afterwards be made.
They are engraved also in Stuart's
Antiquities of Athens, iii. c. 1,
pi. 13.
2 The eight Theseus metopes
are engraved in the 'Mon. d. Inst.
Arch., x. pis. 43-44, with text by
Iulius in the Annali, 1877, p. 92.
They are engraved in Stuart, loc.
cit., pi. 13. Overbeck, Gr. Plas-
tik, 2nd ed. p. 261, gives two of
them.
3 Engraved in Stuart's Antiquities
of Athens, iii. c. 1. pi. 14, and part
of it in Overbeck, Gr. Plastik,
2nd ed. p. 263. Described by
Friederichs, Bausteine, p. 138.
4 These paintings were the work
of Mikon (who executed most of
Chap. XI.] THE FRIEZES OF THE THESEION. 241
of Theseus were in the full tide of their popularity in
the period immediately after the battle of Marathon.
It is a proof of popularity when the same artistic
motives are found in such different buildings as those
just mentioned and in the Theseion; and it may be
said that the more closely they resemble each other
in any two of these temples, the nearer do they
approach the time when the creation of them was
first installed as a work of the highest art. To say
that the motives of these scenes had been produced
under the impulse of public pride in the deeds of
Theseus, precisely at the moment when his bones were
brought to Athens, would be unwarrantable, since they
had long before existed in a more or less rude and
undeveloped state ; and it may be doubted whether this
is not equally applicable to those representations of the
eight labours of Theseus in the metopes, which, though
obviously invented on the model of the labours of
Herakles, have not yet been proved to have come first
into existence along with the red-figure vases, as they
are called. 1
The subject of the east frieze of the Theseion has
been a source of perplexity, except as regards the two
groups of seated figures towards each extremity ; they
undoubtedly are deities looking on at a combat. The
group on the left consists of Athena, 2 Hera, and Zeus.
the paintings of the Theseion) figure vases may go back to the
of Polygnotos (according to time of Polygnotos.
Suidas, s. v. iioAiVyi'UTos-) an I of -' Athena is drawn by Stuarl as
Panaenos. Pausanias, 1. 15. 3; wearing a helmet, and is thus
v. 11. ( K 1 .nun 1 Antiquities of Athens, hi.
1 Gurlitt, Zoc. ' //., pp.42 44, gives 1 . i.pl.i 4); nor is there an) reason
list of red-figure vases with the to be doubtful about the other two.
cyclic labours of Th I See Overbeck, Gr. Plastik, 2nd ed.
argues that previously Theseus p. 267, and Friederichs, Bausti n
figured mainly in his adventure in p. [37. Here it should be I
Crete with the Minotaur or with thai in Stuart's engraving ihi
Ariadne. But these earlj red- with the three deities on the right
242
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XI.
Hie group on the right, with a symmetrical corres-
pondence in the position of the figures, represents, it
may he, Poseidon and two deities, whose names are not
known with certainty, perhaps Demeter and Apollo.
These six deities are to be regarded as invisible ; other-
wise, it would seem, for example, that one of the
combatants is in the act of rushing in among them
without producing any concern on their part. Neither
group has any share in the action. Both are clearly
Fig. 50. — Part of east frieze of the Theseion.
interpolated, and, doubtless, were readily recognized as
such by the Greeks. Then it may be asked why the
gods sat apart, as if in rivalry among themselves ; the
one group favouring the one set of combatants, the
other the other set, as in the Trojan war. There is,
however, no reason to suppose any such rivalry ; for it
will be seen by reference to the east frieze of the
Parthenon, that the gods there also sit in two distinct
groups, though they have only one common interest as
spectators; and in this instance it has been shown 1 that
is moved one place too far to the
left, an error which Ulrichs set
right in the Annali d. Inst. Arch.
[841, pi. f. Curiously Leake had
nut observed this, and praises the
want of symmetry, which in fact
did not exist (Topography of
Athens, i. 506).
1 I published this view of the
Parthenon frieze with an explana-
tion in detail, and a plate showing
how a painterwould havetreated the
subject, that is to say, giving a
realistic conception of the subject,
in the Revue Arch£ologique, 1879,
p. 139. pi. 21.
Chap. XL] EAST FRIEZE OF THESEION. 243
the separation of the deities into two groups is nothing
more than a sculptor's device to represent an assemblage
of figures seated in the background, possibly in the form
of a semicircle, and in reality constituting only one body,
such as a painter would easily have rendered by means
of perspective. If this result be applied to the gods of
the Theseion frieze, they will necessarily be conceived as
constituting one group of six figures seated in the
background, and looking on with equal interest on the
combat.
With the gods thus removed, there remains a battle
which for a time was believed to be a gigantomachia, or
war of Gods and Giants. But this belief rested mainly
on the huge stones which some of the combatants
employ as weapons of attack. There is no sign of a
deity in the fight itself, as there should have been.
Nor did that war concern Theseus. Hence it has been
urged that a more appropriate explanation of the frieze
might be found in the war of Theseus and his Athenian
allies against the rival family of the Pallantidae, or in
the battle fought in the rocky district of the demos
Pallene against Eurystheus j 1 who, when Herakles had
been translated to Olympos, seized the opportunity of
pursuing his descendants into Attica, whither they had
fled for protection from Theseus ; or lastly, the war of
Theseus with his Athenians against Eurystheus with
his Peloponnesians, and specially the battle at the
rocky Skironian pass, where Pausanias afterwards saw
the tomb of Eurystheus. 3 According to this view, the
1 This is the view of Qlrichs, in then ruler of Attica, he takes
the Aim ili (I. Inst. Anli. i,s. ( i, Theseus himself on the strength of
j). 76. He supports it by reference oilier traditions. Leake, Topo-
to the legend as given in the jjraphy "' Athens, p. 5 5, calls il
Herakh ida of Euripidi ■ omai hia.
that where the poet gives Demo J This is the theor) of Brunn,
phon, the son oi Theseus, as the Berichte der bayer. A.kad., 1 (.,
1: .t
244 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XI.
encounter with rocks took place in the Skironian pass.
Besides this we have a battle, attended by the flight of
the Peloponnesians, and at either end the final scene :
on the left Eurystheus is being bound prisoner ; on the
right the group is too much injured to be made out,
farther than that the fighting is over. In the legend
Eurystheus was bound and slain. So far there would,
perhaps, be no obstacle raised to this explanation, if it
were not for the presence of the gods, for which it
is to be wished that some more definite solution could
be obtained.
From an artistic point of view the figures of this
frieze may, perhaps, be pronounced more advanced
than those of the metopes of the Parthenon. 1 But, as
has already been said, if a comparison is to be made, it
must be frieze against frieze, and on such terms it
cannot fail to be interesting. In both there are seated
deities, whose attitudes, forms, and drapery may be
contrasted. In the Parthenon every action has its
motive in peace. In the Theseion also are scenes of
comparative quiet, but even in the combat there are
figures to be found resembling in form, attitude, armour
and dress, the apobatse, who leap on to their chariots in
the Parthenon frieze, and from among whom we may
select one in the north frieze (Michaelis, No. 57 — Brit.
Mus. No. 41) for its resemblance in these respects to
the warrior No. 16 in the Centaur frieze of the Theseion. 2
p. 58, who so far shares the opinion ferring to the Herakleidce, where he
of Ulrichs, but declines to follow is led prisoner to Alkmene (v. 929).
with him the authority of Euripides 1 Gurlitt, loc. cit., p. 56, afler
(cf. Pausanias, i. 44. 10). Brunn admitting that the sculptures of d.e
here discusses the legend with Theseion are all from one han 1 or
^reat detail. At p. 61 he admits one school, maintains his opinion
the difficulty of identifying Eurys- that they are later than the Parthe-
theus in the figure which is being mm, an I were executed by pupils
boun 1 prisoner, but contends that of Pheidias. Cf. also p. 21.
it can be no other. Ulrichs also : In numbering the figures of the
lentified him as Eurystheus, re- Theseion friezes. I have counted
Chap. XL] FRIEZES OF THESEION. 245
In beauty there is no comparison between these figures.
For the soft flesh and supple limbs of the Parthenon
apobates, the easy movement of his neck, the skilful
perspective of his left arm, the subordination of his
shield and his drapery, and the enjoyment of bodily life
reflected in every movement, are contrasted in the
Theseion figure by formal movement, decorative effect of
shield, and partly also of draperv, stiffness of neck,
hardness of anatomical forms made according to rules
rather than from the inspiration of life. Or we may
take from the west frieze of the Theseion the Greek
No. 12, and compare him with an apobates (Michaelis,
No. 74) of the south frieze of the Parthenon, because
of the attitude and armour, if not quite so well on the
question of drapery ; or again, the Greek No. 7 of the
Theseion (west frieze), turned to the front and firmly
planted to deal a blow, may be placed side by side with
two marshals on the north frieze of the Parthenon
(Michaelis, Nos. 44 and 58). In all three figures the
forms, attitudes and draperv are the same in appearance,
but in reality the Theseion figure differs from the others
with precisely the same results as have just been noticed.
Nor are these the only instances that could be adduced. 1
They are chosen as characteristic examples from a
considerable number, and here it may be repeated that
from left to right each figure as of frieze will find comparison
given by Stuart. among the standing figures on the
1 As' additional examples on west frieze of the Parthenon; and
the east frieze .of the Theseion, (4) on dial same frieze the figure
(1) the warrior apparently rush- stooping to bind his sandal is to be
ing into the group of deities on compared with the figure stooping
the right maybe compared with to bind Euryslheus in the Thi
anyoi ^r oi the Parthe- 01 course these comparisons exist
also the warrior on the only in mi tive and general appear-
alle I Eurystheus is am e. In beauty oi form, vitality
similar to an apobates; (3) the of mo ind freedom of treat-
ling figure "ii extreme Left end ment, the < omparison fails.
246 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XI.
in the Theseion, but not in the Parthenon frieze a
deirree of decorative effect, such as was common to
archaic sculpture, is to be found in the conspicuous-
ness of the shields, and in certain examples of drapery,
where it does not follow the forms underneath, but is
treated rather for its independent beauty of folds. Less
obviously, perhaps, the same effect may be seen in
the hard correctness of forms, and the stiffness which
accompanies even the most energetic actions, but tells
most in the figures standing at rest, or nearly so. These
features are the result of traditional training, which the
sculptor has been unable to shake himself free from,
and, therefore, they are a sound argument that he had
lived and worked at Athens previous to, and not after,
the time when the frieze of the Parthenon introduced
perfect freedom in these respects.
It has been said that the two temples which represent
with the greatest resemblance to each other the combat
of Greeks against Centaurs, may most reasonably be
assumed to have been nearer than the others to the
time when the various groups of the battle were origin-
ally inspired in the sphere of high art. These two
temples are the Parthenon, with its southern metopes,
and the Theseion, with its western frieze. The difficulty
is to judge which is the older of the two, and for this
purpose only artistic reasons can be made available,
since, as has been seen, it is still a question whether
the Theseion is or is not properly so-called. Had its
name been certain, it would naturally have been older
than the Parthenon by some years, 1 and this is, in fact,
what is argued on the one side. But first as to the
1 The Theseion may not have been begun b.c. 454-3, according
finished till some years after to Michaelis, Der Parthenon, p. 9,
the bones of Theseus were brought as against the older opinion that
back. B.C. 469-8. The Parthenon it had been begun B.C. 443.
was completed b.i md had
Chap.XI.] COMPARISON WITH PARTHENON SCULPTURES. 247
resemblance of artistic motives, on which there need be
no difference of opinion ; ' group 1 of the Theseion
compares with the 4th metope of the Parthenon, group 2
with the 24th metope, group 3 perhaps with the 5th
metope, group 4 shows too many figures for a metope,
group 5 with the 7th metope, group 6 with the 1st
metope, group 7 with the 30th metope, and group 8
with the nth metope, which, however, exists now only
in Carrey's drawing. Further it may be admitted that
there is a want of unitv in the frieze altogether as com-
pared, for example, with that of the Mausoleum, and
that it lends itself readily to be broken up into a series
of distinct groups, whence it is supposed 2 that the
motives of them had been taken from the Parthenon
metopes, and by means of connecting figures utilized
for the purpose of a frieze. But this is equivalent to
forgetting that the great drawback to the Parthenon
metopes consists in their representing by isolated groups
what everyone must feel ought to have been exhibited
in a continuous scene. The natural inference would
therefore be that the partial separation of the groups
on the Theseion had suggested the utilizing of the same
motives for the metopes of the Parthenon. That
the groups should be thus partially separated on a
frieze is a result of that principle of violent and mur-
derous action which we have seen pervading archaic
sculpture. The Mausoleum frieze shows how in time
all this was changed, and how death blows could be
given without the exhibition of excited passions. Yet
this is to be said for the Theseion as compared with
the Parthenon metopes and the frieze of Phigaleia,
1 The comparison of the southern Pheidias, p. 221, and with the
metopes oi the Parthenon with the oppo ite view by Gurlilt, loc. cii,
ol the llr ivour p, 11.
of th mtiquit) ol the latter ' ' >ui I 11. /•>• , ci/.p. 1
i> made by I des
248 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XI.
that there are no women dragged into the scene to be
exposed to the violence of the Centaurs.
Next it is urged, in point of artistic execution, that the
frieze of the Theseion is more advanced than the
metopes of the Parthenon in the expression of pathetic
situations, more effective in the rendering of drapery,
and bolder in its action. 1 That is a matter of opinion,
which may be of little consequence either way, when it
is remembered that the metopes in question retain on
purpose a stateliness and severity of movement notice-
able also in a less degree on the frieze, which, compared
with the other sculptures of the Parthenon, has been
described as archaic, while the sculptor of the frieze of
the Theseion, much as he may have desired to break
through the older traditions of severity and stateliness
of movement, has far from succeeded. His archaism
is there by force, and marks a stage in the development
of sculpture. The archaism of the metopes of the
Parthenon is unaccountable unless retained by choice. 2
Again, if the Theseion is to be proved to be later and
more advanced than the Parthenon, the comparison
must be not with the metopes of the latter, but with its
best sculptures, or at least with its frieze, because,
even had the principal motives of the Theseion frieze
been derived from these metopes, the same increase
oi freedom and boldness would have been expected
which is found in the frieze of Phigaleia. But it is not
so. There is no indication on the Theseion that the
1 Gurlitt, loc. cit. p. 20. difference of style is so striking,
- On the archaism of the Parthe- that is a suggestion not to be
non metopes see Michaelis, Der entertained. Brunn also recognizes
Parthenon, pp. 127-9, who supposes in some of the metopes an influence
thai Pheidias in so great an under- which he would trace to Myron
taking may well have employed (Annali. 1858. p. 381), and Peter-
culptors who had been sen. Kunst des Pheidias, p. 227,
trained in the older schools of admits the same.
Myron or Kritios. But where the
Chap. XL] PICTORIAL INFLUENCE. 249
conflict arose at a marriage feast, there are no women
present as on the Parthenon, and no drinking vessels,
as there, freely used instead of rocks. Possibly these
facts constitute no argument either way. But this
at least is admitted, that the group (4) with two Centaurs
combining to force Kaineus alive down into the ground
with a huge rock on his head, and with a Greek
advancing on either side to the rescue, could not have
been obtained from the Parthenon ; and if that is an
impossibility, it would be reasonable to trace the motives
of the other groups to the same source, wherever it
may be. It has been observed that the friezes of the
Theseion have a certain pictorial effect, and to make
this observation more definite it may here be pointed
out that in groups (3) and (5) on the west frieze the
Centaurs turn their backs towards the spectator, and
that in the east frieze several figures present a similar
attitude. That this is the device of a painter it is
unnecessary to remark. 1 A sculptor who adopts it could
not have been led to take advantage of this resource
from his ordinary practice of working in the round. In
the Parthenon metopes all the Centaurs are turned round
to the front, more or less, but the necessity of this is
1 On the subject of pictorial school of Northern Greece, as
effect I may here call attention to represented by Pseonios of Men le.
the theory of Brunn, Berichte der I not say that the friezes of the
Layer. Akad. 1876, p. 315. on the Theseion present the special tea-
early sculpture of Northern Greece, tures which he recognizes as com-
and (p. 337) especially its influence ing from the north, but if Polyg-
on Athens, whither ii had been notos introduced a pictorial in-
broughl by Polygnotos, who, it is fluence into the sculpture of
to be remembere I. is said to have A.thens,as seems probable enough,
worked with Mikon on tin,- paint- I ma) be allowi part
of the Theseion. Compare of it in the invention of motives,
also his article on tin- Sculptures which in fad is \\\ ■ mosl likely
of ( Hympia, Berii hte der bayer. direi tion th tl pii torial influeni
I. 1877, p. 1. where he de ils would have taken,
more fullv with the fe Ltui
250 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XL
apparent when it is observed that the human body of
the Centaur, if seen in profile, would have presented a
von- meagre and unpleasant continuation of the equine
body. On the Theseion the human body of the Centaurs
is small in proportion to the rest of the figure ; in the
Parthenon metopes it is large and imposing, while in the
Phigaleian frieze it is distinctly the dominant feature.
Whether this change represents a regular progression in
the rendering of Centaurs is perhaps uncertain. But as
to the pictorial effect of the Theseion frieze it may well be
that it was derived from the paintings of Mikon and
Polygnotos, who painted the same subjects in the
course of the generation preceding Pheidias, and painted
them in the Theseion.
An examination of the Centaur frieze as a piece of
composition shows that the group at either end forms
a boundary to the scene, intimating at the same time
the stage at which the combat has arrived. On the left
extremity a Greek has fallen, and can scarcely escape
the impending blow. On the right a Greek is in the
act of driving his sword into the body of a Centaur, who
also, it may be expected, will succumb. Proceeding
from the left we meet next two Greeks attacking a
fallen Centaur, to whose aid another Centaur hastens,
armed with a strong branch of a tree. It may be
doubted if his succour is not too late, since he is
followed by a Greek likely to defeat his object. Then
we have the group of two Centaurs trying to bury
Kaineus alive under a great rock. To his assistance
a Greek strides forward from the right. But might
is against him apparently. Next are two pairs of
combatants. In the one the Greek has the better
prospect, in the other, the worse. Lastly, a Greek
has fallen helpless under the Centaur's attack. His
companion may slay the Centaur, but will never revive
his friend.
Chap. XI.] SCULPTURES OF THE THESEION. 251
In regard to the metopes of the Theseion, so far as
they represent the deeds of Theseus, it is urged 1 that the
habit of representing him in scenes conceived on the model
of the labours of Herakles did not, with one or two excep-
tions, such as his encounter with the Minotaur, exist till
after the building of the Parthenon, and that from this
time onward they contributed a favourite subject of vase
painters. But the latter half of the argument, while
true enough, does not compensate for the negative
character of the other half, which any day may upset.
On the other hand it has been observed 2 that the purely
physical qualities of the figures are rendered with extra-
ordinary skill, not only in the multitude of anatomical
details, but also in the action and expression. Further,
the knowledge of animal forms and movements is true
to nature, and extensive. Thus there is altogether a
concentration of talent on the exhibition of bone, flesh,
and muscle. Skin is hardly indicated, and this is a
contrast to the metopes of the Parthenon. Hair is
neglected, and there is a singular absence of drapery.
From these characteristics it is contended that the
sculptor of the metopes was either Myron himself or
some one directly under his influence, because, as has
been seen, the same artistic peculiarities are attributed
to him by ancient writers, because such copies as exist
of his works justify this attribution, and because the
date of his residence in Athens would coincide with that
1 Gurlitt, Joe. cit. p. 35, starts those in question, are clearly
with the theory of Gerhard, that on archai< in style, or sufficiently so
the archaic or black-figure vases to be assigned to the period imme-
the labours of Herakles arc of diately before Pheidias. Therefore,
common occurrence, while on the even on its own ground, the theory
later or red-figure vases the deeds as to the vases is particularly
of Theseus are- frequent, and pro-
ceeds with list of vase having the a tulius, A moil i .1. [nst. Arch,
lattei ubjei 1-. Bui many 1878, p. [93
of the red-figui rv luding
252 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XL
most generally accepted for the erection of the Theseion.
What is true of the metopes must, it would seem, be
true also of the friezes, and if the former are more
severe and more openly archaic, that may have arisen,
as has already been suggested, from their architectural
isolation and the consequent necessity of preserving in
them compactness and self-sufficiency of subject, qualities
the expression of which archaic severity was admirably
adapted to assist. As regards Mvron himself it cannot
well be supposed that these sculptures are from his
hands. They may have his faults and his pecu-
liarities, but they have not the style of so great a
master. A pupil could have executed them, and it
may reasonably be doubted if any but a pupil of his
could have arrived at the result which still survives on
the Theseion.
Another subject of discussion in this period of sculp-
ture, in which the archaic manner had not yet finally
disappeared, is formed by the metopes of the temple of
Hera at Selinus in Sicily. Of the three temples there
from which sculptures have survived, this is the most
recent. Later, however, it cannot be than B.C. 409, the
year in which the town was destroyed. Nor, indeed,
is it probable that a work of such dimensions could
have been carried out in the immediately preceding
years back to B.C. 415, when the Athenian expedition
against Syracuse and Selinus began. 1 But the sculp-
tures require a date considerably earlier than this.
They consist of, apart from a very much injured metope
and certain fragments, four metopes, of which three are
from the front or pronaos, representing (1) Herakles
fighting with an Amazon, (2) Zeus and Hera, (3) Arte-
mis and Aktaeon ; the fourth is from the posticum, and
Benndorf, Die Metopen von Selinunt, p. 69.
Chap. XL]
METOPES OF SELINUS.
253
exhibits Athena striking down a giant. 1 In matters
of detail it is to be observed that in the female figures,
the faces, feet, arms and hands, that is to say, wherever
the flesh is visible, are sculptured of separate pieces of
white marble, and fitted to their places on the coarser
local stone in which the rest of the design is executed,
Fig. 51.- Zeus and Hera. Metope from temple at Selinus in Sicily.
thus producing the effect constantly observed on archaic
vases where the flesh of female figures is painted
white, an effect possibly sought after in imitation of
the older statues of gold and ivory, in which the latter
material took the place here assigned to the white
1 These metopes are engraved
in I; mndorf, loc, 1 it. pis. 7 10, the
fragments in pi. 1 1. The mui h
injured metope is engraved by
lifal* 0, ii. pi. 30. The three
metopes ol ihepronaoi were found in
made by
the Duke of Serradifalco, and were
published by him in 1 834, in his
Amic hita della Si< ilia, vol. 2 ;
pi. 3 1 gives Athena and < riant ;
pi, 32, Artemis and Aktaeon ; pi.
1 1 1 1 I [era ; pi. 34, I [ei
and Amazon.
254 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XI.
marble. Yet this greater preciousness of material in
the metopes, instead of being accompanied with greater
artistic skill, is, on the contrary, treated with compara-
tive neglect, as may best be seen by comparing the face
of Hera with that of Zeus seated opposite to her (fig. 50).
She betrays no particular emotion. Her resistance,
such as it is, is expressed by the backward movement
of her arms. But no doubt for a moment remains
about what the face of Zeus may mean. It wears
the look with which on Mount Ida he confessed his
burning love for Hera above all. 1 It is true that the
face of Zeus in this respect surpasses the other male
figures ; yet with this allowance they will be found to
be distinctly more advanced in expression than the
female figures. Then there are inconsistencies to be
considered as between the beard of Zeus, which is
free in treatment, and his hair, which is formal and
archaic in manner. Apparently also the drapery of
Zeus is freer than that of Hera, which is archaic not
only in the treatment, but also in the fashion and
manner of wearing it. The under chiton of ribbed
material seen on her left breast and shoulder is a
garment which seems to have been discarded in sculp-
ture, at least by the time of the Parthenon. Artemis
and Athena also wear it. The upper chiton of Athena
has the fringed edge 2 noticeable on the sculptures of
1 Iliad, xiv. 315 : Cf. Benndorf, loc. cit. p. 55, and
Overbeck, Gr. Plastik, 2nd ed.
Ot> yap ttu> noTf p. coSe 6eas (pes, ovde nnc\
yvvaiKos „,,«., " benndorf, loc. cit. p. 69, cites
Qvuov evi arnOeaai TT(i>i-iJ(>yvu- v S HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. X 1 1.
Nothing is more conspicuous in the character of
Polykleitos than the fact that he was a sculptor who set
himself against the tendency of his time. That ten-
dency was towards freedom, which in the case of Myron,
as has been seen, extended itself to the selection of such
types as Nature presented to his eyes, or, as in the case
of Pheidias, permitted ideal conceptions of a scale
hitherto unknown. But here arose an artist who him-
self made a statue which should be, and was, a model
for sculptors in future ages. More than that, he wrote
a defence of his proceeding. 1 It may have been that
his aim was less at the two sculptors who had shared
the same master, Ageladas of Argos, with himself, than
against others who followed indifferently in their train,
or possibly for the most part in the train of Myron.
But the incident remains incapable of other explanation
than that he set himself firmly against the tendency of
his time, and in favour of a special study of the human
form under such conditions as would bring out all its
natural features simultaneously in perfection. There
was no absolute novelty in such a course. Kalamis
had made a similar endeavour, and, in fact, the rapidity
with which the art of sculpture was then seeking to
exhaust its resources was likely to exercise on a calm,
thoughtful temperament a sense of the necessity of
restraint. Naturally the range of his subjects was
narrow. From a broad point of view he may be said
to have repeated himself. For in regard to two of his
much famed statues it is recorded that they differed
from each other as a manly youth differs from a youth-
like man. Yet such subtlety of distinction was clearly
Gr. Plastik, p. 10, says, "1 cannot et doryphorum viriliter pueruin
think that the usual mode of plac- fecit et quem canona artifices
ing Polykleitos after Pheidias in vocant liniamenta artis ex eo
the history of Greek art, is right."' petentes veluti a lege uuadam.
1 Pliny, X. II. xxxiv. 55 : idem See also infra, nos. 2, 3.
CHAP. XII.] CHARACTERISTICS OF POLYKLEIT'OS. 259
in keeping with the character here assigned to him.
Again, he was singular in making statues which
stood resting on one leg. 1 That he invented this
attitude is in itself unlikely, though the phrase of Pliny
bears this construction. It may mean solely that this
attitude recurred in his statues to the extent of justify-
ing the remark that it was a peculiarity of his. It was
consistent with his aim ; or, as it may rather be said
now, the consistency with which he adhered to a
particular motive, adds further proof that his aim really
was subtlety and delicacy of distinction within narrow
limits, as opposed to the freedom of others. His
statues, adds Pliny, were almost all of one tvpe, and as
we should say, square-built (quadrata). Notwithstand-
ing this they lacked weight and dignity. As an ancient
critic puts it : he failed in attaining the grandeur of
divine forms, but with mortal figures he surpassed all that
was known of natural grace ; and well aware of his own
capacity he avoided, it is told, gravity and seriousness
in a subject, on the principle that smooth checks were
more within the compass of his art.- To Cicero's mind
his statues showed the perfection of art, not in an
absolute sense as the phrase could be applied to a work
of Pheidias, where there might be shortcomings of
execution, but in a technical sense. For it is to be
remembered that Cicero is making a comparison which
turns on the development of the art of sculpture from
rude stages onwards, and in Polykleitos he finds the
1 Pliny, N. II. xxxiv. 56: pro- ne nihil detrahatur, deesse pondus
prium ejus est uno crure ut insis- putant. Nam ut humanse forma;
terenl signa exco See decorem addideril supra verum,
infra, nos. 2, 3. iii non explevisse deorum au< tori-
Quintilian, Inst. Or.it. xii. tatem s'idetur; quin set at em quo-
[o. 7: dil decor in Poly- que graviorem dicitur refugisse
cui quamquam nihil au us ultra leves gen as.
:t plerisque tribuitur palma, tamen,
2 (3o HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [CHAP. XII.
culmination. 1 No wonder that with such a master an
elaborate finish of details was a matter of the highest
moment. Hence, apparently, the saying attributed to
him that the most difficult part of his work was when
the clay model came to the nail. 2 The precise mean-
ing of the words may not be quite clear, but the context
refers to exactitude ; and, on the other hand, it is
interesting to know that he was an artist who not only
found difficulties, but knew how to express them epi-
grammatically — a phase of character which, after what
has been already said of him, cannot be unexpected.
He worked chiefly in bronze, using that of Delos as
compared with Myron, who used the bronze of ^gina.
What the difference may have been is unknown, though,
probablv, it was some fineness of quality such as may
have assisted Polykleitos in earning the reputation of
having perfected the art of casting in this material.
Thus his skill did not end with the clay model. Instead
of that, he was even distinguished in chasing in metal,
so much so as to have surpassed Pheidias in this
branch of art. 3 It may be that on this latter point the
statement is inexact, first, because otherwise there is no
good reason for associating the Athenian sculptor with
work of this class, and secondly, because the statement
assigns to him the merit of having opened up a new
field in art of this order prior to its being taken up by
Polykleitos. So far as can be made out, chasing in
metal was one of the oldest arts in Greece. In all
respects it was an art that would attract Polykleitos.
1 Cicero, Brut. 18.70: pulchriora analogous the remark of Poly-
etiam Polycleti (signa) et jam plene kleitos, xa^nvTaTov elviu roepyov Stop
pcrfecta, ut mihi quidem videri h owxi 6 mfkos yevrjTat. Thisexpres-
solet. sion he quotes again in De Profect.
- Plutarch, Quaest. Conviv. ii. inVirt. 17. The Roman expression,
3. 2, speaking of the formation of factus ad unguem, seems to refer
a bird as being complete when the to a similar idea.
shell round it is formed, quotes as :t Pliny, N. II. xxxiv. 56.
Chap. XII.] CHARACTERISTICS OF POLYKLEITOS. 261
In the higher sphere of symmetry, that is, in the
concentration of the action of a figure on one expressive
motive, Polykleitos was noticeably less successful than
Myron ; though, at the same time, specially famed in
this direction. Nor will this, probably, popular judg-
ment seem strange when it is recollected that the
vigorous action selected by Myron would admit a far
more telling application of symmetry than would the
calm and placid statues of his rival, penetrated with
this artistic quality as they must be assumed to have
been. With this gift in a high degree, it is not
singular that he was often named along with Pheidias,
or that in the case of his statue of Hera he found a
passable equivalent for the grandeur of a deity ; such
an equivalent, for example, as stateliness and reserve of
expression. But this or a similar suggestion must be
taken into account, if due authority is to be given to
the ancient criticism that he failed in attaining the
conception of divinity in his forms of deities. For a
direct charge of this kind is not to be met by the more
general observation of others who merely classed him
with Pheidias, nor even by the remark of one ancient
writer in particular, who ascribes to him along with
Pheidias the quality of grandeur and dignity in his
divine forms, in contrast with other sculptors, who, by
their grace and refinement, excelled in statues of human
and inferior beings. 1 A statement so contrary to the rest
of the evidence about Polykleitos, with his supremacy of
grace and refinement, might be dismissed as a random
association of two great contemporary artists, were it
Dionys. II llicar. de . pi8"s Kai KaAAt/xa^ou Ti)« \(TTT<'>rr}Tos
3. p. " \ 1 : 8 iku di fim firj arr!) vkoitov tutna ki Kara rb atpvbv ki it tv toU /wtfoo-i tea) Btiortpoti
Kiu a^iitpartKitv rrjv it \wiov rp K.iXu otfcuortpm k.t.X.
26j HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap., XI I.
not for the impression, contained in the suggestion just
made, that the more than mortal grace of the statues of
Polykleitos gave them a standing in antiquity which
fairly justified his being classed with Pheidias, as the
writer in question has classed him. A modern historian 1
thus distinguishes between them : " With Pheidias the
ruling power was the ideal in his mind, and in the
statue of Zeus he seized the highest ideal of which
Greek art was capable. Physical form was to him first
ol all only the means at his disposal for realizing
artistically his ideal ; and, accordingly, beauty of form
was of use to him only so far as it coincided with the
grandeur of his ideal. But Polykleitos proceeded from
the opposite or physical point of view. By study of the
proportions and laws of the human form he avoided
every blemish, and succeeded in producing statues
which transcended ordinary nature, and attained a
higher truthfulness of organic form. Thev expressed
an ideal of perfection in the human form, and with this
ideal as the end and aim of his art, the range of subjects
to which he could apply it was clearlv limited. He-
could not, for example, choose a figure of Zeus, with
whom were associated age and bearing, inconsistent
with the highest purity of form." True and just as this
comparison of two artists may be, a comparison equally
true and just could be instituted between Polykleitos
and Myron, and there would be this gained by it, that
the perfection of form aimed at bv the one, instead of
being altogether a natural choice, would appear to have
been deliberately settled on and maintained to counter-
act the tendencies towards freedom for which the other
was distinguished. Besides, both artists chose to an
extent subjects of the same nature, so that, whether
intentionally or not, the opposition of their methods
Brunn, Gr. Kunstler, i. \> zzb.
Chap. XII.] STATUE OF HERA. 263
must have been obvious. That Polykleitos worked
partly with this motive we have already inferred from
the statues he made to be models for the future.
Doubtless, there was cause to impede the rapid tide of
art when Myron was at his best. Against Pheidias
such an effort would have been absurd. Nor does this
view of the case lessen the reputation of Polykleitos.
On the contrary, by assigning his desire for perfect
human form to a settled purpose of this kind, instead ol
identifying it as his all-absorbing faculty, we are left free
to admit in him the possession of other and even hio-her
gifts.
His fame centred largely on the gold and ivory statue
of Hera at Argos, the town where he had learned his
art under Ageladas, and where he had established
himself as a master. The occasion which called for
this new statue is generally assumed to have been the
erection of a new temple to that goddess, rendered
necessary by the burning 1 of the older Hera^um in
b.c. 423, through a fault of the aged priestess Chrvsis ;
who, after fulfilling her high office for a period of fifty-six
and a half years, yielded once, or perhaps only once too
often, to the influence of sleep when her lamp was
burning. She fled, and the Argives, sensible of their
loss, thought it best not to remove the statue which
existed in her honour, but to place it in front of the
ruins which the}- allowed to remain. A new priestess
was appointed, and a new temple built on lower ground
near the old one. It might be thought, considering the
1 Thucydides, iv. [33, tells how According to Thucydides, ii. 2,
the temple was destroyed in the Chrysis was in the forty-eighth year
9th year of the Peloponnesian war, of her priesthood when the Pelo
and ill'- incidenl i I by ponnesian war began, and (iv. 133)
ii. 17. 7, who adds the she Ii id - :i ■ I eighl .in 1 a half
fact about the statue ol of the war when the fire took
and the ruin s <>t the burnt temple, pi
2f>4 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XII.
distance of the Heraeum from the town of Argos, that
very little could have been saved from the fire. Yet
Pausanias describes in the new building several objects
of art and veneration which must previously have stood
in the older temple ; not only because they were of
greater antiquity than the conflagration, but, also,
because from their nature they could not have been
placed elsewhere than in a Heraeum. 1 That the same
should have happened to the great statue of the goddess
by Polykleitos, and should have passed without record,
is, doubtless, improbable, and it is a possibility which
would not have been here suggested but for the com-
paratively late date (after B.C. 423) assigned to this
work of sculpture in the usually received view of the
question. It is true that Pliny 2 assigns him a still later
date (b.c. 420 — 416), but there are no means of knowing
to what period of his life this may refer, or whether
there is any exactitude at all in a statement which
otherwise appears to be a mere confusion of names
(1). The statue of Hera, as has been said, was of gold
and ivory, one of the most beautiful of all ancient works,
yet yielding in splendour and size to those of Pheidias. 3
1 ii. 17. 5. These objects in- the burning of the temple B.C. 423,
elude what he calls an archaic and concludes that Polykleitos was
image of Hera on a pillar ; a very from sixteen to eighteen years
archaic image of her made from younger than Pheidias. • It might
the wood of a pear tree; ii. 17. 3, be urged also that Strabo, viii.
the couch of Hera and the shield p. 372, when speaking of the
which Menelaos took from Euphor- Heraeum, in which was the statue
bos at Troy, and archaic statues of by Polykleitos, says that this temple
the Graces, who were associated was common to Argos and
with the worship of Hera. Mycenae. Yet this could not have
- X. H. xxxiv. 49, classes as been true after b.c 468, for in that
flourishing in the 90th Olympiad year the Argives took and de-
(b.c 420-416), Polykleitos, Phrad- stroyed Mycenae.
mou, Myron, Pythagoras, Scopas, 3 Strabo, viii. p. 372; Overbeck,
&c, obviously a mere jumble of Antike Schriftquellen, nos. 932-
names. But Overbeck, Or. Plas- 939. Pausanias, ii. 17. 4, gives a
tik, 2nd ed. p. 340, allows weight detailed description of it.
to this statement, coupling it with
Chap. XII.] STATUE OF HERA. 265
She was seated on a throne of gold, white-armed, sweet-
faced, queenly On the hroad diadem which she wore
were designs of the Graces and Seasons, for she was a
goddess who cared for the growth and ripening in
nature. In one hand was a pomegranate, the symbol
of something which it was not right to divulge ; in the
other she held a sceptre surmounted by the figure of a
cuckoo, in allusion to the belief that, when she was
young, Zeus had transformed himself into such a bird
to win her. It would follow reasonably from this that
the statue had represented her in the stage of life just
passed maidenhood, but yet with a reference to that
period, and, in fact, it was one of the peculiarities of
her worship at Argos that she was supposed annually
to renew her maidenhood by bathing in the local spring
of Canathus. 1 It was for this ceremony that the couch
in her temple existed. No doubt it was always a
feature of her character to resent every trespass against
the rights of marriage ; but to suppose her to have been
so sculptured here, must mean also to suppose her in
the position cf one who is constantly harking back to
the time when she was won by an innocent ruse. That
could not have been an agreeable reflexion, and it may
be dismissed. 2 Consistently with this view of her
youthful appearance, two coins of Argos, 3 which though
of the Roman age are evidently copied from the statue
1 Pausanias, ii. 38. 2. Leake, pearance with justice : so also when
Morea, ii. p. 360, could not find he adds, she was not virgin, nor
•ring. mother, but a wife. There is no
- Overbeck, Gr. Plastik, i. reason, however, for his continuing
p. 343, thinks she was represented thai from a sense of her dun
as the worthy consort of /ens such she had attained an almost
above all the protei tor of mai riage. sour 1 hara< ter.
He does not noti< e her ' ivthologie,
virginal character at Argos. Brunn, iii. ; Munztfl., iii. figs. 1, 2. In
(jr. Kiinstler, i. p. 229, when he one is a coin oi [ulia Domna, the
he was the ideal of womanli- other ol A.ntoninu 1
nes ■ nerally her ap-
266
HISTORY OV GREEK SCULPTURE. [CHAP. XII.
by Polykleitos, present her without the veil, which in
the frieze of the Parthenon and elsewhere, indicates her
matronly position. Similarly the head of Hera on
the autonomous silver coins of Argos wears a deep
ornamented crown, hut no veil ; and it is not denied
that in this instance the die-sinker had reproduced to
the hest of his ability the type of the goddess as
rendered by Polykleitos, though he may not have
directly copied it. 1 His ability was indifferent, vet not
so poor as to entirely conceal the fact that he had
before him a noble example of a beautiful goddess in
the prime of maidenhood. The same head occurs on
silver coins of Elis, but with such skill as could not well
be surpassed. Nor is it strange that this masterpiece
also should have been thought to have been derived
from the famous Hera of Argos. For the people of
Elis were to an extent free to adopt ideas from the rest
of Greece, and could take their Hera from Argos just
as thev took their Zeus from Athens.' 2 Thev were on
good terms with the Argives.
Thus the coins and the description of Pausanias
agree in representing a Hera at the stage of her
marriage, with special reference to it as the myth of the
iepos ya/xo at Argos required, and graced with the
1 Overbeck, Kunstmylhologle,
iii. p. 44. and Gardner (Numism.
Chronicle, N. S. xix. p. 239, pi. xii.
fig. 2) deny that die-sinkers at this
period copied directly from works
of statuary. According to < rar Iner,
he. cit. p. 238, some of the coins
of Argos are older than B.C. 400.
- For a silver coin of Elis with
the head of Zeus in an unmistake-
ably Athenian type an 1 of extraor-
dinary power. Gar Iner, Nu-
mism. ChronU le, X. S.. xix. pi. xii.
fig. 1. As regards the silver coin
of Elis with the head of Hera,
Overbeck and Gardner remain
doubtful as to its being a direct
copy from the statue hv Polykleitos.
According to Thucydides, v. 43,
Elis and Argos were allies from
B.c. 421 for a period of years (die
alliance was to he for 100 years),
and it may have been to inaugurate
this alliance that Elis struck the
coin with the head of I [era : hut that
of course affords no date as to the
anterior period at which the Statue
l>v Polykleitos was m tde.
Chap. XII.] STATUE OF HERA. 267
beauty which entitled her to enter the lists against
Aphrodite and Athena for the judgment of Paris. But
a question has been raised whether a type of the goddess
created under specially local influences could have
attained national acceptance in Greece, and whether
in effect certain marble heads of her sufficiently prove
this to have been the case. These heads are in parti-
cular the well-known Juno Ludovisi in Rome, the Hera
Farnese in Naples, and the Hera from Agrigentum in
the British Museum. There exist between them differ-
ences of style and in detail such as an ancient artist
indulged in while remaining true to what was great in
the original, and the question is, whether that original
corresponds with the conception of Hera as a bride and
Parthenos, which we maintain was the conception
adopted by Polykleitos from its sanctitv in Argos, or
whether it corresponds with another ancient conception
of her as a powerful Homeric goddess, the mother
of Hebe. 1 In this latter capacity she wears a veil, and
on that account this view of her character might be left
out of consideration, since neither the marble heads
nor the coins of Argos have a veil. On the other hand
it is always possible that in the reproductions of her
1 Overbeck, Kunstmythologie, answers to the Homeric &u5>ins
iii. p. 37 (luit compare |>. [97), not 7rori/ia "H/jq, and in this I agree, bill
thinking of the possibility of there as there was in fact no reason at
being two national types an 1 ac- all why Polykleitos in making a
cepting only one, pr fers to accredit specially Argive goddess should he
the invention of it to Pheidias. He influenced by Homeric traditions,
argues that in the national type tin' an I as it is quite possible that this
influence of Homer must have ally Argive goddess became a
been recognisable, since it was national type, nothing is gained b)
Pheidias had been so in- searching for poetic influence,
fluenced in creating his Zeus, and In Argos Hera was always ai-6ti»,
poetr) along with an I on the lepht y'/ios, see Helbig,
' : aril) acted on the Annali, 1864, p. 276, and the mural
in 11 1 of ili'- artist. I [e will not paintin ■ \Iu >. Hoi bon. ii. pi
a Imit with I'.imiii, \1111ah d. Inst., ( 1. V Pau an 1 . ii. 22. 1.
1 864, i' 29 L the Hera Fan
268 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XII.
head in after times something of the older and more
matronly features may have become blended with the
younger type, the more so if, as may fairly be presumed,
the matronly Hera was a strict development of the
creation of Polykleitos. Thus it will be seen that there
Fig. 52. — Marble head of Hera, in the British Museum. From Agr'jentum.
may be difficulties when it is asked whether these
marble heads present a style of artistic conception
consistent with what is known of the Argive master.
To begin with the Hera of the British Museum 1 (fig.
1 This head is published by 1869, p. 144, in which he compares
Helbig in the Mon. d. Inst. ix. it as holding a place midway be-
pl. 1 (from which it is here repro- tween the Farnese Hera previously
duced) with text in the Annali, (Annali, 1S64, p. 297) identified
Chap. XII.] HEAD OF HERA IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 269
52), it must b e explained that this head has suffered con-
mese. Marble head in the Naples Museum.
siderably, first, from a polishing clown of the lips, which
by Brunn with the type ,3 wms
woTvta "Hpt], an 1 the funo Ludovisi
which Brunn had declared to be a
jrorvta "Hpt) without the quality of
(SoSmis. Overbeck, Kun tmylho-
i 1 - that the
British Museum Hera expn
better than the Farnese head the
totality of the idea of I [era, not
only ti
of the gods, but also the lovel
I wife of Zeus. I telbig
hing of the < hara< ter ol
(Sowrtj in her eyes, but in that it
in iv be doubte I ii he is right. As
Is the theory of Brunn that
the quality of fioams is absent in
the Ludovisi head, it should be
rem irke ! thai then n to be
an allusion to this in the fillet
whi< h passes in from of her < rown
and talis ,u e ti h side, sini e pre-
ime fillet is found
similarly place 1 over the head of
an o\ on silver < oins of Eubcea,
an 1 o< . ins also un the heads of
Hera on copper < oins of Eubcea.
( >verbe< k, Kunstmythologie, iii.
il the fillet,
ha ■ ii"' ob ei ved tins analoev.
270 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XII.
have not only lost their liner and necessary lines, but
now appear almost to gape, and, secondly, from a cutting
down of her crown (stephanos) at both sides, which
destroys the comparison of the head with the coins, if it
docs not materially injure the effect. This reduction of
the crown, and especially the want of ornament on
it, tend to exaggerate the demureness of the expression,
while the destruction of the lips gives a heaviness to
the lower part ol the face at variance with her character
as a bride. It may be also that something of the
matronly type was imported into the face by the ancient
copyist. Vet when seen in three-quarter view, where the
injuries and defects are less appreciable, the face has a
charm of natural beauty, not free and rejoicing in its
own loveliness, but controlled by a fascinating reserve,
in fact, uniting the more than mortal grace of Poly-
kleitos with his unrivalled power of deducing a
characteristic type from elaborate observation and
thought, tending always in the direction of reserve in
expression.
Between the Farnese head (fig. 53) and that of Hera
in the British Museum, though the type is evidently the
same, there are minor differences. In the former the
crown which she wears is smaller, and sets off the peculiar
shape of the head with an effect partly lost in the other
head. The eyelids extend farther over the eyes, giving
them a marked expression, and the lines of the mouth
and face, with one important exception, are well pre-
served. This exception is the tip of the nose, which is
modern, while this feature in the Museum marble is not
only complete, but a very distinct element in the beauty
of the face, through its long and refined form. In point
of expression also there is a difference ; for it is true,
with some allowance for impulse in the spectator, that
the features of the Farnese Hera possess a certain wild,
untamed, natural force and a degree of supernatural
Chap. XII.] HERA FARNESE. 271
power suitable to the goddess whom, in her anger, even
the God of Thunder feared. 1 But that her eves are
cow-like, and answer to the Homeric epithet, is a matter
of imagination. She looks rather younger than the
Museum Hera, perhaps owing to the greater vitality
of the features.
The Juno Ludovisi, with her rich crown and softened
expression, still preserves the same type, but is an
undoubtedly later copy, apparently, with justice, assigned
to the period after Alexander the Great. 2 All three
heads are of Greek marble and Greek workmanship.
But, curiously enough, the Farnese Hera appears to
have been made as a bust, while the other heads may
have been broken from statues. Notwithstanding
this, it is with nearly general consent that she is
regarded as not later in date than the middle of the
5th century B.C., and as the most beautiful existing
example of the manner of Polykleitos ; :i not only of his
manner generally, it may be added, but especiallv of
his conception and rendering of Hera as a bride. To
be proved true to his general manner, these three heads,
or at all events the two first, should correspond with
1 Kekul£, Hebe, p. 67. Helbig - Helbig, Annali, 1869, p. [54;
also, Annali, iS6u,p. 149. confesses Overbeck, Kunstmythologie, iii.
to a something strange, if not p. 83; Kekule. Hebe, p. 69, de-
supernatural in her look, and scribes her as nut before the age
regards her as the Homeric Hera. ol Praxiteles, and gives an en-
Both writers agree that from the graving of it, and for comparison
form of her eyes she may be de- also the head of Hebe belonging
s< ribed as /^own-ir. Overbei k, to Madame Stieglitz in St. Peters-
Kunstmylhologie, iii. p. ~i : Frie le- burg.
richs, Bausteine, p. 106. Published :i Kekule\ Hebe, p. 66; Friede
in the Mon. d. Inst. viii. pi. i, and richs, Bausteine, p. 107; Helbig,
first assigned to the conspicuous Annali, [869, p. [46; Conze,
place it now holds by Brunn, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Gr.
Bullet, d. lust.. [846, p. [22, and Plastik, p. 10, would probably
Annali, [864^.297. Friederichs place her at a rather earlier date.
does not agree with him as to the Hut Overbeck, Kunstmythologie,
epithet of (JoSmis. iii- p. 72, demurs to this.
272 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XII.
the surviving copies of two other statues ascribed to
him, if in fact these copies, representing a Diadumenus
and a Doryphorus, can fairly be held to convey the
impress of his hand.
(2 3). Ancient writers celebrate two statues by Poly-
kleitos, one an athlete in the attitude of binding a
diadem on his head, Diadumenus, the other an athlete
holding- a spear, Doryphorus, and they speak also of a
figure by him, passing under the name of the Canon, or
model from which artists derived their rules of art. It
is not, however, clear whether this Canon was a statue
distinct from one or other of the two just named. 1
Some prefer to identify it with the Doryphorus. Be
that as it may, there exist now certain ancient statues
in marble, statuettes in bronze and other representations
plainly answering to figures of this description, and the
question which has been the subject of repeated and
prolonged inquiry is, how far these works of art reflect
the style of Polykleitos. As a rule they make no pre-
tension to the excellence of Greek work which charac-
terises the Farnese and Girgenti heads. They are
mostly later productions, and though they may prove
admirably that succeeding sculptors took their model
for statues of athletes from Polykleitos, it does not,
at the same time, follow as probable that they would
be strictly exact in reproducing his type of head. The
attitude and the proportions, with a more or less
general approach to individual features, would satisfy
them. 2 Yet it is only fair to say that in some instances
1 Pliny, N. II. xxxiv. 54. The Gr. Kiinstler, i. p. 215, inclines to
passages from other writers are the opinion that the Canon was a
collected in Overbeck's Antike distinct figure.
Schrift([iiellen, nos. 954-961. Conze, z Kekule, Hebe, p. 64, gives the
Beitrage zur Gesch. d. Gr. Plastik, measurements of the head of the
]>. 6, maintains the identity of the Doryphorus statue in Naples as
Doryphorus and the Canon. Brunn, compared with the Farnese Hera
PLATE IX.
MAKI'.I I iTATUK Ol \ 1 >l \ I >l M I M - l\ I III IJRITISH MUSEUM
I i Mil I \i: i .
net A .-;•
PLATE X.
M \i-|;l.l 5TATU1 "I \ Dl VD1 MENI [N I III BR] I I H Ml El M.
I I
I '
Chap. XII.] THE DIADUMENUS OF POLYKLEITOS.
-73
the type of head has been distinctly retained. Further,
the peculiarity of Polykleitos, that his statues stood
resting on one leg, is repeated.
On the other hand a difficulty arises with the words
of Pliny, that of these two statues the one represented
a young man of soft forms [juvenis molliter), while the
other was a bov of manlike forms (puer virihtcr),
doubtless an instance of the subtle distinctions in which
the art of Polvkleitos excelled. But by no ingenuity
can these characteristics be found in the existing
copies. 1 Perhaps the nearest approach is the Farnese
Diadumenus of the British Museum (pi. 9), if he be
taken as an example of a boy with manlike forms. The
torso is strongly marked, as of an athlete, though the
outline of the chest bones is softened down. The calves
of the legs and the feet are softly covered with flesh
and rounded. The thighs also are fleshy rather than
tn show from their similarity that
Friederichs was right in identifying
the Naples statue as a copy of the
Doryphorus of Polykleitos. It is
published by Friederichs in the
Winckelmanns Programm for 1863.
See also his Bausteine, p. 118.
But Conze, Beitrage, p. 6, maintains
that there is no such similarity, and
that the head of the Doryphorus in
Naples, with other heads of the
same type, are to be refi
(p. 1 1 j to a change introdui e I
under Athenian influence, su< h a
change as Furtwangler, Mitthei-
i) d. deuts< h. tnst. zu Athen,
iii. p. 2i)2, finds in the Paris
statuette, which he publishes in
pi. 12. But an opposite view is
taken by Benndorf, Zeitsi hrift f.
Q err. < r) mnas., [869, p. 26 .
. Bullet, d. Inst., 1869, p. ;-.
and Kekule a train in Fle< keisen -
[ahrbiicher, 1869, p. 84.
1 Michael is gives in the Mon. d.
Inst., x. pi. 41J, three views of the
Vaison Diadumenus, and in the
Annali, 1878, pi. a. two views of
the Farnese Diadumenus, both of
which are in the British Museum.
The former was published by me
in the Encyl. Britannica, 9th ed.
s. v. Archaeology, fig. 7. In the
Annali, 1S78, pi. is, he gives two
views of the l)e Janze bronze
statuette in the Bibliotheque at
Paris. In pi. 50 of the Monumenti
he gives two views ol die Naples
Doryphorus, fig. I, ,i />, the 1 )or\ -
phorus in Florem e, fig. -\ til'*
Doryphorus on a gem in Berlin
\lu eum, fig. 3. and two views <>!
the Anne v hr.ni/e statuette,
fig. 4, /'. < Mir engravings are
here reprodm ed from Mi< ha<
-^74
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. ["Chap. XII.
muscular, while down the back of the left thigh (the
other is invisible) runs a sharp muscle, as in the leg
of a bov rather than a man. Again, the face J is soft
and young, in spite of the diadem and the large de-
velopment of the skull, which, however, does not rise
to a height at the top of the crown, as in the type of
head usually associated with Polykleitos, and found
in the portraits of Augustus, doubtless one reason why,
in Roman times, heads of this form occur frequently.
But the Vaison Diadumenus (pi. 10), also in the British
Museum, while strictly preserving this peculiar type of
head, runs to extreme in the athletic development of
the torso, the powerful and muscular legs, and the
strong bonv feet. Nor does he stand quietly resting
on one lesr, as he should do in the act of binding his
diadem on ; his attitude is impulsive, and may repre-
sent, as has been suggested, 2 the act of changing from
one foot to the other, simultaneously with the raising of
the diadem with both hands. Yet that this concen-
tration of action existed in the original of Polykleitos
may be doubted on account of its absence in the Farnese
figure, which altogether has much more the appearance
of a copy from a statue, with much less of the influence
of study from life, than the companion figure from
Vaison. The De Janze bronze statuette approaches
more to the Vaison than to the Farnese Diadu-
menus. The Museum of Cassel possesses a head
1 Michaelis, Annali, 1878, p. 19, rum corpora, &c. Cf. Friederichs,
recognizes in general terms that the Arch. Zeitung, 1864,}). 149.
Diadumenus is more soft in form, z Michaelis, Annali, 1878, p. 28,
an 1 owing to the inclination of his quoting Pliny's words about Poly-
head, more 50 in expression kleitos : proprium ejus est uno
than the Doryphorus, of which crure ut insisterent signa excogi-
Quintilian, 5. 12. 21, said: Dory- tasse, thinks the phrase refers
phorum ilium aptum vel militia' to die act of changing from one
vel palaestrae, aliorum quoque foot to another. See also Peter-
11 m bellicosorum et athleta- sen, Arch. Zeitung. 1864, p. 131.
PLATE XI.
MAKULI STATUE O] V DOW PHORl IN N \\
■A -71
Chap. XII.] THE DORYPHORUS OF POLYKLEITOS.
-/ D
of a Diadumenus in Parian marble, much praised
for its beauty. 1
As regards the Doivphorus, it was for a time not
quite clear to everyone that the statue in Naples (pi. 1 1) -
had necessarily, when perfect, held a spear, though
comparison with a gem in the Berlin Museum went
far to prove it. Lately, additional evidence has been
brought forward in a marble relief found at Argos itself,
with a youth standing in the familiar attitude of the
statues of Polvkleitos and carrying a spear over his
shoulder. 3 As a copy it is not materially affected bv
the circumstance that the youth stands beside a horse.
But again, though the statues in Naples and Florence
might represent a Doryphorus, it was sometimes doubted
whether they could fairly be traced to the original by
Polvkleitos. Much must depend on how far they agree
with the copies of the Diadumenus, and how far both
sets of copies coincide first of all with the records and
next with the style of art traceable in the heads of
Hera already discussed. After what has been said,
there remains only the question of their similarity to
the statues of the Diadumenus, and on this point there
is no need of details, since recent investigation has
settled it affirmatively. 4 Attention, however, may be
called to a bronze statuette in the British Museum,
which is a very beautiful example of Greek workman-
' Engraved in < !onze's Beitrage
zur Ges< h. d. Gr. Plastik, pi. z.
See ]\li< haelis, Annali, 1878, p. 23.
- Michaelis, Mbnumenti,x.pl. 50,
fig. 1. a />. ( lompare the Floren< e
le in his fig. - 7 . the Berlin
in his fig. 3, and the A.nne< 5 bronze
statuette, ti;_ r . 4. a b.
:i Mittheilungen d. deuts< h.
Inst, zn Athen, iii. pi. 1 3, with an
arti< le 1 13 Furtv angle 1 cho a
it to the middle of the \\X\ « entur)
B.C., as a vivid produ< 1 of its o\\ n
nine, in whii h nevertheless the type
of Polvkleitos \\ .is the i an< »n,
though in details his hardness and
severity were given up (p.
In pi. u he gives a bronze
statuette in Paris \\ hi< h ( orresponds
11 the main with the i\ pes of the
Doryphorus, though it actuallj
represents a young Pan ( p. 292 1.
' \Iu li teli . in his elaborate
le in the Annali, 1 878.
2jC) HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XII.
ship, and ought not to have been overlooked. 1 It stands
resting on the left leg, not the right as usual. The
head is of the type of Polykleitos, and is inclined
towards the left, just as that of the Vaison Diadumenus
is inclined towards his right. In the proportions the
torso is long compared with the legs, and is, as a whole,
very massive and powerful, without any special display of
individual parts. Everywhere the modelling is of great
excellence, completing the effect of quiet dignity in the
attitude. Yet there is in it a distinct degree of the
archaic manner, such as, apart from any question of
Polykleitos, would cause it to be assigned to the early
part of the 5th century b.c. Still more archaic is a
bronze statuette of a Doryphorus in the Louvre, as may
be seen from the treatment of the hair, in short curls
over the brow, long tresses on each shoulder, and a
mass at the back tied up in a knot.
(4.) The passive beauty of Polykleitos, admirably
suited to the youthful goddess Hera, or to an athlete
triumphant through the perfection of his form, was,
it may well be thought, the one quality which would tell
with most effect in the statue of an Amazon — that legen-
dary- race which, whatever its prowess in deeds of war,
was above all known for the suppression of its feminine
instincts, for its passiveness in respect to these instincts.
In the Amazons the womanly element existed in a high
degree, but was kept under rigorous control, and it was
the duty of an artist in representing them to accent
this conflict between a settled purpose in their character
and an exuberance of natural adaptability for an opposite
1 It was published by me in the in the Louvre, referred to in the
Encyl. Britannica, 9th ed. s. v. text as distinctly archaic, is about
Archaeology, fig. 6. The forms 1 ft. high. In the same collection
are those of a man, and vet it is another bronze statuette of a
might be called the figure of a Doryphorus, resembling in type the
manlike boy. The bronze statuette Vaison Diadumenus.
Chap. XII.]
STATUE OF AMAZON.
277
life. If he figured one of them wounded he placed the
wound close to her full breast, as ancient statues plainly
I 1 Berlin ilu
show. Here then was an opportunity for Polykleitos,
with his skill in subtle distinctions of form and expres-
sion. The story runs, and it must be r< ad 1 unnin •..
278
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XII.
with little criticism, that at Ephesus there was once
a competition of famous sculptors for the statue of an
Amazon. The terms of the competition were simple
but ingenious. When the artists were all present, each
was to say which of the statues he thought best next to
his own. The verdict fell to the statue by Polykleitos. 1
The artists were, besides him, Pheidias, Kresilas and
Phradmon. As a rule no tale is so ridiculous as to be
without one grain of truth, and in this case it may fairly
be taken that the nucleus was provided by some success
of Polykleitos in producing a statue of an Amazon
which, according to public opinion, surpassed all that
could be done by the great masters of his day. If this
be a just interpretation, it will follow that there is no use
in searching among the existing statues of Amazons for
such differences as may be apportioned to Pheidias, Poly-
kleitos, Kresilas or Phradmon. They must be treated
simph as copies or variations of the type of Polykleitos,
and if in any instance the variation be too great, the
statue can be assigned to an independent master without
reference to this story.' 2 That she was wounded is
■ Pliny, N. II. xxxiv. ^} : tenei :
autem in certamen laudatissimi
quamquam diversis aetatibus geniti
quoniam fecerant Amazonas quse
cum in templo Dianae Ephesiae
di( arentur placuit eligi probatis-
simam ipsorum artificum qui
praesi ates erant judicio, cum
apparuit earn esse quam omnes
secundam a sua quisque judicas-
sent ; h.ec est Polycliti, proxuma
al. ea Pheidiae, tertia Cresilae, &c.
For aetatibus Miiller's conjecture
of i. ivitatibus has been adopted, but
if the passage gains little
by it; Miiller, Kl. Schrift. ii. p. 369,
an 1 see < >. Jahn on the Ephesian
Amazons in the Berichte d. k. sacks.
Gesell. 1850. p. 32, pis. 1 () ; and
Overbeck, Gr. Plastik, 2nd ed;
ji. 345, fig. 69, a d.
- Overbeck, Gr. Plastik, 2nd ed.
p. 346, recognizes in the existing
statues three separate types of
Amazons, which vet in style and in
the motive resemble each other in
such a wav as would happen from
a competition where the motive
was chosen beforehand. But
there is no reason whatever to sup-
pose such a choice to have been
made. Admitting this, however,
it would follow from the fact of
the Amazon by Kresilas being
wounded, that the others wen' also
■ 1 tunded. So that 10 separate oft
Chap. XII.]
WOUNDED AMAZON.
279
highly probable, for this reason, that the wound would
supply a motive which otherwise a single statue of an
Amazon could not well possess. Besides, it may be
taken that the statue was made on commission from
Ephesus, where it was an important tradition that the
Amazons when pursued had found refuge at the altar of
Artemis. 1
To begin with the marble head in the British Museum
(fig. 55), which, while preserving the type familiar in
the other heads and statues, may justly be said to
far excel them as a work of art. The treatment of
the hair, with its flicker of light and shade, unsuitable
for marble, shows that it has been copied from a bronze
original. More than that, it shows that the copy has
been faithful as compared with not a few of the other
heads of Amazons, where the original treatment peculiar
to bronze has degenerated into mere ropes of hair,
without truth to the original or to anything else. The
shape of the head, high in the crown, Hat on the sides
and on the cheeks, but massive and long in the front
aspect, is such as has been seen to have been a shape
of head adopted by Polykleitos, if not created by him.
The expression is that of a wounded Amazon not such
su< li of the exi sting statu
a wound to Kresilas is not, under
lli>; cil
be( k 1 on< .1 the ty,
Pheidias and Polyl
■11 identified definitel) .though
he atta< hes most weight to the
probability <>f the Amazon in the
; ccio Nuovo of the Vatii an being
ij of the statue bj I'
owing 10 the resemblam e be
n I the hea
phora
1 Si
An h. 1869, p
will be found an artii le on the
Berlin Amazon (fig. raved
in the Mon. d. Inst. An h. ix. pi.
i2, whi< h he thinks (p.
back to tl
For other figures of ^m 1 :on
, f ahn , B < I . k .
nd ( 'larac,
Mus^e d< S( ulpture, pis.
and
no. 2038A, pi. 809, no.
pi. 811, no. 2 331, an I 2 .'
no. 2 $2, pi. [2A B,
1 1 and
I . ■■ ■
280
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XII.
an expression as might be discovered in this or that
feature, in the mouth or the eyes, but one which per-
vades the whole face, and belongs to the order of ideal
creations that defy analysis but yet haunt the spectator
as perfect types. 1
Next may be taken one of the statues in the Capito-
line Museum, which, though having a head that does
not belong to it, and though on the whole poor in the
Marble head of Ami
thi I >i itish Museum.
rendering of the drapery, can yet be recognized as
retaining more of the original impress than the others.
In particular, the vertical folds hanging down in front
are given with great beauty and in a slightly archaic
scheme, not to be found in the other statues. Altoge-
ther the skirt of her chiton is cleverly rendered, though
sharing with most of the other statues that peculiar
1 This head is engraved in the show that originally it had resem-
Museum Marbles, x. pi. 5. The bled the nose of the Girgenti Hera
tip of the nose is restored, but in the British Museum in tin'
enough of the nostrils remain lo pe< uliarity of being long.
Chap. XII.] GROUP OF ASTRAGALIZONTES.
28l
treatment in the smaller folds of the drapery, which
doubtless was derived from a bronze original, but is
now unintelligible through the degradation of the
copyists. For even the Vienna Amazon, though it
professes to give a definite archaic scheme of drapery,
can scarcely be other than an example of affected
archaicism. 1
(5.) A group of two boys playing at knuckle-bones
(Astragalizontes) would, at first sight, be ranked as one
of those subjects from daily life which a not ill-grounded
prejudice assigns to a lower order of artistic capacity,
such as, from want of a high conception, seizes on the
strongly-expressed characteristics of face, form and
action displayed in incidents of common life. On the
other hand, a group of boys playing at knuckle-bones
might well present to a sculptor not so much a general
subject of this kind as an example of concentration of
action on one moment. It was not necessary to observe
and to realize individual features. But, in fact, there is
no real necessity for assuming, as has constantly been
clone, that the group in question was meant to represent
a scene from daily life. When Polygnotos, a perhaps
slightly older contemporary of Polykleitos, painted a
similar subject with girls for the players, he called them
by the legendary names of Kameiro and Klytie, and no
doubt idealized them in his own manner. 2 So, again,
1 Friederichs, Bausteine, p. 115, is given by Jahn, Berichte d. k.
adopts the Mattei Amazon in the i-achs. Gesell. 1850, pi. 6. The
Vatican as the best and the severest over-refinement, and at the same
in style of the existing .statues. It time luxuriance of the folds, to-
did not strike me as such. Over- getherwith tin' expression oi senti
heck, Gr. Plastik, 2ml ed. ]>. 347, mentality in the figure, go to prove
fig. 69c, accepts her conjecturally it to he a work oi later, imitative
rived from Pheidias. I he
( lapitoline Amazon desc ribed in
the text is engraved in ( 'larai .
\| 1: >'< d< S< ulpture, pi. 81 2B,
■ j2A. I h< Vii ini.i Amazon
times.
- This group 01 1 urred among
his paintings in the Les< he at
I Iclphi, Paui ania ■. x. 3 .2.
282
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XII.
in a beautiful terra-cotta group in the British Museum,
the players are recognized, from a comparison with an
ancient painting in Naples, to be daughters of
Niobe. 1 There is nothing of real life except in their
action. But the sons of Niobe were equally famous
■with her daughters, and it is not too much to suppose
that two of them may also have been represented as
Astragalizontes. Nor is it an obstacle that Pliny 2
should have omitted their names. For it was a
common practice with him to describe sculptures ac-
cording to their predominant action, as Apoxyomenus,
Dorvphorus, Discobolus, Sauroctonus, Claudicans, and
many others. Under these circumstances it may well
have been that the Astragalizontes of Polykleitos
formed a group of two boys familiar to the Greeks in
legend, and idealized in a due degree. Part of a
marble group of boys thus engaged exists in the British
Museum, but in the style of the art there is no trace
of the great Argive sculptor.
(6.) It has been thought also that the two bronze
Kanephori mentioned by Cicero 3 may have to some
extent been in the nature of genre, though the com-
parison of them with Athenian maidens in the attitude
well known from ideal art is admitted to be against
' This terra-cotta group was
published by me in the ( lazette
Arch^ologique, ii. p. 97. See also
Heydemann in his Winckelmanns
Programm (Halle), i- s 77. pi. 2,
fig. 1.
- N. H. xxxiv. 55. Duosque
pueros I fe< it Polycletus) item
nudos talis ludentes qui vo<
astragalizontes et sunt in Titi im-
peratoris atrio— hoc opere nullum
absolutius plerique judicant. On
tlie habit of Pliny in naming
statues from their characteristic
n see Furrwangler in Virchow
an 1 Holtzendorff's Sammlung
Gemein. Wissen. Vortrage, xi.p. 20
fol., an 1 compare Overbeck, Gr.
Plastik, 2nd el. i. ]>. 344. Furt-
wangler, he. n't. p. $$, claims for
Polykleitos the introduction of
genrt sculpture, and natural!',
his point of view adopts the
ontes as convincing proof.
It is the best proof he gives, an I
yet, as we have seen, it need not
l>e any proof at all.
' In Vcrr. iv. j
Chap. XII.]
APHRODITE AND ATHLETES.
28
such a view. These figures were comparatively small
(non maxima), and in thinking of them it is natural
to call to mind the following piece of bronze sculpture,
also by Polykleitos.
(7.) A figure of the Aphrodite of Amvklae, as she was
called, supporting a tripod, 1 and apparently, since she
was thus particularized, different from
the Aphrodite of one of the other
tripods which Pausanias saw at
Amyklae. What the difference may
have been is uncertain. Yet the
mere fact that she formed the sup-
port of a tripod suggests in itself
a resemblance to the attitude of the
Kanephori. It may have been some
such type as in the accompanying
figure.
(8-9.) Two statues of athletes, the
one as an Apoxyomenus, the other
talo incessentem, whatever that may
here mean. The names are suggestive
of Polykleitos, and there is no dif-
ficult}- in admitting these sculptures
to have been his work. It is other-
wise, however, with the statue of
Artemon called Periphoretos, not
only from the mere improbability of
his having ever taken such a subject,
but specially from the fact of Artemon being an Athenian,
and therefore not likely to have entered into the
thoughts of Polykleitos. 2 Again, when statues distinctly
l ig. 56 Statuette of
Aphrodite.
' Pausanias, iii. 18.5: noXuxXftTos and the Artemon whose appear-
KT7)pia as
the pediments, an 1 in this Brunn
agrees, Berichte d. barer. Akad.
1876, p. 340, though his theory
includes the metopes also of the
east front as the work of Poeonios,
Berichte d. barer. Akad. 1 S 7 7 ,
P- 13-
- v. 26. 1.
Chap. XIII. j SCULPTURES OF OLYMPIA. 287
that Paeonios executed the sculptures of the east front,
while those of the west were by Alkamenes, it has been
inferred that these two sculptors, possibly with others,
had been in this case competitors, and that the
precedence had fallen to Paeonios. 1 On the other hand
it is curious of Pausanias to remark that Alkamenes
was of the time of Pheidias, unless he meant to convey
that Paeonios belonged to a different generation, either
before or after. He might naturally be supposed to
have been the earlier of the two, since his sculptures
occupied the east, or principal, front of the temple, and
indeed, this has been suggested to account for the
apparent relegation of a sculptor so distinguished as
Alkamenes to the west pediment. 2 On that view he
might have obtained through competition the sculptures
of both pediments, and been deposed when his work
was half done on the arrival of Alkamenes. At the
same time these considerations can now only be of
importance so far as they agree with the recently found
works of Paeonios — his statue of Nike and his sculptures
from the temple, that is to say, the statues and metopes
of the east front. These metopes, no doubt, are not
directly ascribed to him or to anyone else bv Pausanias,
but it is reasonable to suppose that all the sculptures of
one front would, if possible, be given to one artist. 3
1 Pausanias, v. 10. 2. bull, an 1 a nymph seated on a
■' This suggestion was made by rock, to show their agreement in
Urlichs as quoted by Brunn, style with his idea of Paeonios.
Berichte d. bayer. Akad. 1876, These Louvre metopes were from
p. 316. the west side of the temple. After-
■ : Brunn, Berichte <1. bayer. wards, when the Atlas metope from
Akad. [876, p. 320, claims it as the east front came to light, it was
probable thai Paeonios, before or necessary for Brunn to confronl
while executing the statues of Ihe if with what he had before said.
east front, had been engaged on The result of this comparison was
the metopes, and he proceeds lo that the new metope was strikingly
examine the two metopes in the different in style and exe< ution,
Louvre, H overpowering a belonging in fact to the Peloponne
288 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. | Cn \i\ XI 1 1.
At present, however, it is certain that from a historical
point of view neither the Nike, nor the statues or
metopes of the temple of Zeus, can be duly appreciated
until a full and minute acquaintance has been made
with the sculptures of the Parthenon, and accordingly
this is not the place to enquire into their artistic features.
They are here introduced solely because of a recent
theory which traces to Athenian sculpture in the period
immediately before Pheidias a marked influence from
the pictorial practice and traditions assumed to have
been brought to Athens by the painter Polygnotos,
which practice and traditions, it is argued, had been
learned by him in his native land of Thasos, and had
been in his time the common property also of artists in
the adjoining mainland of Northern Greece, whence
came Paeonios.' This pictorial element, unknown in
the older Athenian sculptures, becomes conspicuous in
works of the time of Pheidias. Equally conspicuous is
it in the Nike and other sculptures of Paeonios, but
with this difference, that they represent an older and
entirely independent phase of this special artistic
development. Thus it appears that in Northern Greece
is to be sought some, at least, of those seeds of art
which, to the astonishment of posterity, reached their
brightest bloom in Athens and Olympia.
Possibly there would have been little or no objection
to this theory if, when explaining it, greater emphasis
had been laid on what seems to be in reality its
strongest point — the relation existing between the coins
sian school ; so that we have here ' This is the theory of Brunn in
the phenomenon of Paeonios exe- his article on Paeonios und die
cuting the metopes not of his own Nordgriechische Kunst in the
side of the temple, but on the side Berichte d. bayer. Akad. 1S76. See
ned to Alkamenes. See specially p. 337, and Berichte.
Berichte d. bayer. Akad. 1877. 1S77. p. 27.
p. 13 fol.
Chap. XIII.] SCULPTURES OF NORTHERN GREECE.
289
and sculptures of Northern Greece on the one hand, and
the early artistic remains of Asia Minor on the other. 1
In earl)' times there was abundance of intercourse be-
tween these districts, and in these early times it was in
Asia Minor that art lifted her head highest. She developed
painting, and above all, she discovered the resources of
metal for artistic purposes. In Northern Greece there
may have been no inclination for the display of colour, but
metal working was, so to speak, the daily bread of the
people. Therefore there is no natural impediment to
the view that the early art of Northern Greece was but
an extension of the art of Asia Minor. How far it is con-
firmed or reversed must be judged by existing remains.
In the first place the peculiarities of style in the
sculpture of Northern Greece are attested, apart from
the coins, mainly by two marble reliefs in the Louvre,
the one being the upper part of a funeral stele, found at
Pharsalos, and representing two female figures standing
face to face (fig. 57) ; the other a stele, with a female
figure, called Philis, sitting in profile to the right, from
Thasos. 2 As regards Philis, nothing could be more
complete than the identity of her lull lips and prominent
eyes with those of the figures on the Harpy tomb from
Lycia, nor anything more satisfactory than the way
1 Brunn, Berichte, 1 8 7 r> , p. 325,
s] iraki 1 i.lt of the coins, points out
the details which show the
Influence of Asia, ex< essive breadth
in the general type, and decorative
treatment not only of the hair, hut
also of anatomical details. Again,
peaking of the relief from
Pharsalos in theLoin re, he traces its
de< orative treatment to an origin
in \-i;i .Minor, adding that the
northern artists had rem
quietly in the po 1 ion of the
traditions the} had rei eived (from
Asia Minor), while in Greece
proper all were striving for pro-
gress. Yet on ]». 334 he says
expressly that Northern Greeo
has the merit ^\ having introdu< ei I
a new element into the art of sculp
inre. 1 (Verbeck, < rr. Plastik, 3rd ed,
rejects the theory of a school of
North' in Greece,
'-' The Pharsalos reliei ispublished
by 1 lell/e_V, Mission ell Ma< eiloille,
pi. _' ;, and the Tha sos reliei in the
Amiali tl. Inst. An h. 1 X;_>. pi. I..
HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap.XIII.
in which, in both sculptures, these features suggest
the richness and ripeness of nature in Asia Minor.
But in Philis all the features are larger and finer in
style, while in the draper}- not only is every fold clear
and expressive, but even in such places as the turn of
the mantle behind her neck or in the folds above her
breast there is a successful effort to produce an effect of
fascination. In her hair there is this peculiarity, that
the ends which escape behind are modelled freely in
masses, while in the fine ringlets arranged over her brow
and temples is preserved a scheme of spiral ornament,
recalling, except for its exquisite delicacy, the archaic
treatment of hair. In her face also an archaic expres-
sion is conveyed, distinctly at variance with her attitude,
her large full form, and her drapery. She must, there-
fore, be assigned to a period of transition, probably in
the time when Thasos came under Athenian influence.
The attitude, the forms, and the drapery are alike
suggestive of Athens. The art is undoubtedly that of a
master.
In the relief from Pharsalos there is again a striking
identity with the Harpy tomb, and with the earlv
sculptures of Asia Minor so far as they are known, in
the form of the eyes, lips, and nose ; but the type of
face is not so fine as that of Philis. Yet the forms are
large and soft as with her; the draper}', too, is simple in
its main lines, and strongly suggestive of Attic influence.
The ribbons or bands wound thrice round the head
have been pointed to as in a measure realizing the
habit of Polygnotos to adorn the heads of his figures
with bright-coloured bands, and whether that be so or
not, it is undeniable that both here and in the Philis
relief there is observable a decided pictorial influence,
even alter allowing for the fact that sculptured stelse of
this kind were in earlv times more or less helped out
with colour, and on that account were likely to adopt
Chap. XIII.]
RELIEFS FROM THASOS.
2QI
as far as possible the traditions of painting, not without
harm, as may be seen from several instances of what
from the point of view of sculpture can onlv be called
contortions. 1 As regards the drapery in both reliefs, it
is not intended in describing it as Attic in character, to
convey the meaning that its breadth of treatment may
fig- 57- — Marble relief, in the Louvre. From Pharsalos.
not have been inspired by the example of a more
advanced style in painting. What is meant rather is
that such a treatment does not owe its origin to the
imitation of any strictly technical proceeding in the art
of painting, and it was necessary to call attention to
this because an important feature in the Harpy tomb,
as representing the sculpture of Asia Minor, and in
another well-known monument from Thasos (fig. 58), is
the rendering of the draper}' by means of parallel wavy
' Brunn, ' d.b lyer. Akad. here a detailed examinal ion of
for the insli js these two reliefs,
irtion, p. 329. I [e ■.;. i'es
2i)2 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XIII.
lines, running vertically and only very slightly cut, as if
in direct imitation of a painter drawing in the shadows
with his brush without modelling. Take, for example,
an archaic painted vase from Kameiros in Rhodes, with
the figure of a bull, and it will be seen that the neck of
the bull is rendered by a series of wavy lines to give the
effect of shadows. The same effect precisely is produced
on the necks of the bulls on the silver coins of the Edoni,
where the shadows are obtained by incised wavy lines.
So also in the more advanced vases, and doubtless, in
the painting of Polygnotos himself, the rendering of
shadows in line material by means of wavy lines presented
a strong temptation to indolent or incapable sculptors
to imitate so simple a method. No doubt this is a
feature to be found in archaic sculpture elsewhere. So
well, indeed, was it known in the later ages of imitation,
that in what are called archaistic sculptures it is always
conspicuous beyond measure. Yet the fact remains
that in the Harpy tomb and in the Thasos sculptures
here referred to, it is present in a high degree.
What the monument here in question (fig. 58) may
have been is unknown, unless it may have served the same
purpose as the Harpy tomb, with which it has already
been compared. 1 First there is a long slab with an imi-
tation doorway in the centre, recalling the real opening
in the Harpy tomb, and having on each side reliefs. On
the left is a Citharist with his lyre being crowned by a
female figure behind him. On the right three female
figures advancing, bringing him more decorations. On
another slab are three more female figures, still carrying
1 Engraved in the Revue Arch, of the Thasos monument, but
pi. 24-2;. un I Overbeck, notes also that on the other hand
Gr. Plastik, 2nd ed. p. 152. Over- the sculptures of the Harpy
beck, p. 154. ]>oinis out the un- tomb have affinities with Athenian
mistakeable similarity of the figures art.
of the Harpy tomb with Ll
Chap. XIII.]
RELIEFS FROM THASOS.
293
presents, and on a third is Hermes advancing with out-
stretched hand and followed bv a female figaire. The
Citharist may be Apollo, and the nine female figures
may be Nymphs and Graces, to whom, according to
the inscription, the monument is dedicated. Most of
Fig. 58 Marblerelii ;, in thi Louvre. From Thas
the figures have worn wreaths of metal, the bronze pins
for attaching them being still in the marble. Traces of
colour in the chlamys of Hermes show also that this
element has been employed, perhaps largely. Yet for
sculpture of such extraordinary delicacy it is hard to
see how colour could have been added with effect,
unless in subordinate details. The drapery is exceed-
ingly rich in most carefully studied folds, considerably
2Q4 HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE. [Chap. XIII.
finer than in the Harpy tomb. The figures also are
taller and lither. There is more variety in the com-
position, and, indeed, the female figure crowning Apollo
may be selected as in reality one of the most beautiful
motives in Greek sculpture. It should be noticed that
with her the sculptor has forgotten the tradition observ-
able in his other figures, that the heels must all be firm
on the ground. Her right heel is raised. Another of
the female figures shows markedly the treatment of
drapery by fine wavy lines to which reference has been
made. The beard of Hermes is identical with the
beard of Hades in the Harpy tomb ; the attitudes of
the female figures, and to some extent, the gifts they
bring, are also the same. The large himation of Apollo
has the fringed edge characteristic of this garment in
the sculptures of the Parthenon.
It is in the nature of things that in early art sculpture
in relief and painting should largely present the same
effects. Artists in both kinds began with a plain flat
surface, and in carrying out their designs they necessarily
utilised this flat surface as far as was allowable. For
example, in the treatment of drapery they preserved as
much of it as they dared, and endeavoured to hide the
unreality of the proceeding by exquisite schemes of folds.
For sculptors in the round no such temptation existed —
they worked into their material, not along its surface,
and when they had sufficiently advanced their art, it was
necessary for sculptors in relief to abandon their former
habit, and to relegate the flat surface on which they
began to the mere background of their work. Thus it
happens that when there is nothing but reliefs to judge
by, it is extremely hazardous to found on them a theory
of a local school of sculpture, and this is the case with
the theory of a school of Northern Greece. 1 More can
1 The people of Pharsalos were, most idle and luxurious of men.
says Athenaeus, xii. c. 6. 33, the He adds : " The Thessalians were
RELIEFS FROM THASOS.
295
hardly be said than that the sculptures from that region
exhibit a strong pictorial influence, which they share in
common with those of Asia Minor, and that this effect
was probably due to the more cultivated practice of
painting* than of sculpture at the time in Asia Minor as
compared with the preponderance of sculpture over
painting in Greece itself during the same period.
confessed to be of all Greeks the
most luxurious both in food and
in dress: and this was the reason
of their leading- the Persians
against Greece." Again, Athenasus
(x. c. 4. 12) speaks of the Thessa-
lians as polypKagi, and appears to
include the Thasians (x. c. 1.4)
by quoting Theagenes, the athlete
of that island, who ate a whole
ox. He cites also a line from
Aristophanes, in which Lydian and
Thessalian banquets are classed
together for their luxury. Thus
there was clearly a strong associa-
tion of manners and customs be-
tween these northern Greeks and
their kinsmen in Asia Minor, such
an association as would bring with
it a community of artistic taste.
THE END.
:
* &
%
I
'
.• ^am^m^mmim^