{ \ 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/xov 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, . ( 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^