V^"a '-O i CX CL. u?"> ^fVM?Tn-t z^ ire? <^ iiTn/f-AV #V^ tSSS-.£i!ia>«' I. Sto.fiic of jlilicna. DRESDEN. MASTERPIECES OF GREEK ♦ ^ ^ SCUEPTURE ^ A SERIES OF ESSAYS ON THE HISTORY OF ART * BY ADOLF FURTWANGLER ♦ EDITED BY EUGENIE SELLERS ♦ WITH NINETEEN FULL-PAGE PLATES &" TWO HUNDRED TEXT ILLUSTRATIONS LONDON : WILLIAM HEINE M A N N : M DC C C X C V Rkhard Clay ami Sons, Limilcd, LontioH ami Huttf^uy. t ,, '■ To HEI\'RICH BRUXN Is ERNST CURTlVa In Respectful Devotion 85S282 AUTHORS PREFACE A^ XV unprejudiced attempt to form, from the text-books now in use, an estimate of the state of our knowledge of the histor\- of art among the Greeks will force us to own with shame that we appear to know and to utilize the monuments far less than did W'inckelmann in his da\-. Winckelmann's History of Art is wholly based upon a fresh and personal observation of the monu- ments, of which he makes a constant and extensive use. Our more recent histories of art are wont to take into consideration only one and the same small group of monuments, an accidental section of the mass of what has been preser\-ed. Ever since Brunn laid with a master hand the foundation for the history and the characterization of the Greek artists, so far as these can be gathered from the traditions of the ancients, writers have for the most part been content to repeat what he established, only perhaps adding an occasional ' selected ' monument to trim, as it were, the fabric of his weaving. Still it was quite justifiable to be thus prudent and cautious in dealing with the monu- ments, so long as we only painfully groped our wa\- amidst the wealth of remains, without knowing how the\- should be utilized : it was certainly better to limit investigation to the little which was ascertained, than to venture without stay or support upon the ocean of what actually exists. Modern science, however, has afforded us a sta\- which enables us to keep steadily in the direction of our goal. Any one who understands how to observe the monuments, and who is willing, with indefatigable ardour, to test afresh and compare all forms, may nowada}-s, b\- means of photograph)-, which helps to fix the indi\-idual objects, obtain a picture of Greek art far more richly coloured than the pale and meagre image we have hitherto possessed. I know that many fellow-scholars are engaged upon these lines, and it is only by combined effort that we shall be able to advance. Each must bring what contribu- tions he can. The investigations which I publish here are all closeh" interconnected ; their ultimate object is to gain from the monuments a new and solid foundation on which to build a history of statuarj- among the Greeks, for, before undertaking to vill AUTHOR'S PREFACE draw from the moniiincnts — as has loni;' been my ambition — a new presentment of tliis histor)-, the way must be smoothed bj' isolated inquiries. The first of the essays, that on Pheidias — containini; tlie identification of the Lemnia — was the external inducement to the jniblication of the other sections, most of which had been written pre\iousl}-. Startini^ from the Lemnia, the inquiry extends to the whole circle of I'heidias and to the Akropolis. the chief scene of his activit\- ; thence it passes on to his more independent contcmporar_\- Krcsilas, and from him harks back to Myron. Myron affords a transition to Peloponnesian art, and the inquirj- passes naturally on to Polyklcitos. The powerful effect exercised by the creations of the latter upon the Attic artists of the fourth century leads accordingly to Skopas, Praxiteles, and Euphranor, and finally to a glance at Lysippos. Some special tendencies of Skopas and Pra.xiteles arc followed out more in detail in the next section on the Venus of Milo, wiiile the chapter on the Helvedere Aprillo reverts from the creations of the fourth century- to tho.se of the Phcidian epoch. The method of investigation is throughout the inducti\'e, which jjas.ses step b\- step from one conclusion to another. Much which belonged together has thus inevitabl}- been wrenched apart ; but this fault may be rectified b)- the index, which will enable the student rcadih- to put the material together in its systematic historical order. The muscographic index will also be welcome to the reader. The material treated in this book consists for the most part of antique copies, since, except for the well-known few though splentlid exceptions, the best creations of antiquity survive onlj' in copies. True, to the number of the.sc exceptions — original works of first-rate artists — I add one at least (Plate XVII.) ; yet the multitude of other masterpieces whose traces are here followed arc still known only at second hand. The increasingly rich discoveries of original works on Greek soil have lately somewhat thrown into the shade the study of the copies, for which we are mainly indebted to Italy, not to the advantage of our science. The original sculptures from Greece are, with those rare exceptions to which 1 have already alluded, works of the second or even inferior rank. The Roman copies, on the other hand, have preserved that pick from the masterpieces of the classical epoch which jjleased ancient taste and connoisseurship in the times of highest culture. It is the pick of the best and the most famous that antiquity possessed. Among these copies it is that we must look for the masterpieces mentioned by the authors, for the statues that made epochs or initiated movements. Were we to possess onlj' copies of the noble creations of a Raphael, a Michelangelo, or a Rembrandt, these would certaini)- be better worth one's study than the hosts of other originals of the time. It is manifest from this that our first duty is accurate examination and criticism of the extant copies. This kind of study is as yet only in its infancy ; but it is precisely here that photography is of invaluable assistance, and by its aid we may hope to make rapid progress. Above all, an almost painful accuracy is required. The older works dealing with our store of copies suffer almost throughout from obscurity as to what is to be really regarded as a copy. No adequate distinction is drawn between copies and adaptations or even figures which are merely similar. Formerly, indeed, relatively little was known of the existence of actual close copies, and for the AUTHOR'S PREFACE ix most part only few late reproductions or variants were believed in. Two mistakes in particular were very frequently made : cither actual copies of one and the same- original were taken for different modifications or variants of one 'type'; or else copies of quite different originals were taken for later copyists' variations of one original. As regards principles and method in the criticism of copies, many rules might be laid down — yet I have never been able to see any use in talk about method, much less in boasting about it. Rules would never embrace, even remotely, the whole range of possibilities presented by reality. Method can be shown only by application. The researches in this book show by numerous instances what are the requisitions I think necessary for the criticisms of copies, and how I think copies should be dealt with (cf Index under COPIES). Just a few remarks may however be in place. In the more delicate appreciation of the copies, all of course depends on a right discrimination between what is derived from the original and what is added b\- the copyist. This point will always be a rich mine of error in inquiries of this kind ; yet a long familiarit)' with the monuments, and a sense sharpened thereby, will preserve one from at least gross mistakes. Further, it is above all important that the monuments should not be torn out of their setting. Any inquiry concerning the masterpieces of antiquity must, if we would avoid error, be made only in a wide connexion. The individual work must be replaced in the environment which conditioned it, and through which alone it can become intelligible ; and in our inquiry concerning any single monument we must keep all the others to which it is akin steadily in view. This procedure alone can guard us from the errors which must necessarily arise from the dilettante habit of isolating works, and connecting them arbitrarily with the names of artists. Finally, I may add, I have made it my first and most natural rule to discuss only those works of art which I have myself examined. In the relatively few cases where this was not possible I have specially noted the fact. Ocular examination can, however, be at times replaced by good photographs ; but the illustrated works, and the large one by Clarac in particular, are as good as useless for our purpose. It is of course my wish that my readers should be in a position to compare for themselves as many originals, casts, and photographs as possible. The illustrations in the book reproduce the most important and least accessible monuments. At first many will doubtless think 1 have been too bokl in my attributions of extant works to celebrated artists. But on deeper familiarity with the actual objects these doubts will vanish more and more. I can at any rate say for myself that I have, I believe, been sufficiently critical of my own conjectures, and that I have scarcely allowed one to stand that has not been practicall)- laid aside and tested by repeated trials, and has approved itself in a wider connexion. But it may be further objected that it is not j-et time, while we arc still so behindhand in the knowledge of the general development of the separate forms, to inquire into the individualities of the several artists. The study of these forms, however— in so far as it touches upon the efflorescence of plastic art and so soon as it enters into more delicate distinctions — is inseparable from — nay, even identical with — the inquiry into the individualities to b X AUTHOR'S PREFACE whom precisely this or that particular development of form is due. On!)' the general pervading features of this development must be assumed throughout as the solid basis of the inquiry. It were indeed much to be desired that this basis should be effectively laid down once and for all in some special treatise, since unanimity even in this respect is still lacking among scholars. The more deeplj- we penetrate into that selection of anticjuc masterpieces which undoubtedly survives in our extant copies, the more forcibly are wc impressed by the individuality of the great artists of the best period. I venture to hope that, beyond the circle of specialists, the general reader — for the book is intended for him also — will see reason to modify his conception of the antique, and will grant that it includes a far greater range of individual dc\elopmcnt than has hitherto been supposed. It is true that the great distinction between ancient and modern culture still holds good : the untrammelled, free individuality, at once the strength and the weakness of modern artists, was quite foreign to antiejuit)-. The ancient artist clung to established types of far-reaching influence. He obeyed laws and rules in his treatment of bodily forms and of attitude — and for this the book affords evidence step by step — which he modifies and alters, extends and fashions after new inspiration, but which yet impart to his whole production a something inevitable, typical, known b_\- rule. It is this that brings about that unique effect of the antique which Goethe sums up in the words, ' These great works of art have been brought about in the same wise as the operations of nature. Everything arbitrary, everything self-conscious, disappears : there is Necessit)^ there is God.' But to penetrate into the whole mystery of indi- viduality, and to learn to recognize there also the divine necessity— this was reserved for the moderns. A. FURTWANGLKR. BiiRLl.v, Oitoher 1893. EDITOR'S PREFACE T 'I IK task of editing a book like the present, which has been received almost with ac- clamation by scholars of all schools, has been a responsible one, and I am quite conscious that I may have succeeded after all in satisfying neither the student nor the general reader. The one, preoccupied with detail, will perhaps complain of the omissions, while the other, in search only of a vivid impression, may be repelled by the length and depth. Two main alterations in the plan of the book must be noted at once : the two passages treating of archaic art (pp. 675 — ^732, pp. 250—257) have been omitted, partly owing to their fragmentary nature, and partly because the author contemplates the publication of a series of essays upon the archaic art of Greece in which these his first sketches will be worked up and expanded. In the second place, the long and difficult chapter on the temples of the Akropolis (for the scholarly translation of which I am indebted to Miss Margaret Alford) has been printed as an Appendi.x, for it seemed best not to interrupt the sequence of the artistic inquiry with an Essay which, though it bears closel}- upon Pheidias, is mainly of historical and topographical interest. For the rest, I have made it my aim, as far as possible, to disengage the author's arguments from all such controversial matter as might cumber or obscure them. For instance, it seemed to me that the claims of scholarship would be fully satisfied if the numerous theories put forward from time to time to discredit the Pheidian authorship of the Parthenon sculptures, or the fluctuations of opinion with regard to the Kresilaian Diomedc or the Myronian Perseus, were relegated to footnotes which should proxide the learned and the curious with all necessary references. On the other hand, when Professor Furtwiingler cro.sses swords with champions like Dorj:>feld on the subject of the ' Opisthodomos,' or Loschcke on the date of the Trial and Death of Pheidias, we feel that contact with such opponents' arguments strikes fire from his own, so that all passages of this kind have been faithfull)- preserved. The same may be .said of the chapters on the 'Venus of Milo' ami the 'Apollo of the Belvedere,' and above all of the whole Essa)- on the Akropolis temples, for here xii EDITOR'S PREFACE again argument ami controvers)' arc so closel\- interwoven tliat to shorten the latter would be materially to weaken the former. In these chapters, therefore, the only alterations are those that have been introduced by the author himself. These and a number of smaller omissions and additions made by him throughout the whole of the book call for no special comment ; they will be easily detected and appre- ciated by the reader acquainted with the original. The majority were necessitated either by subsequent literature or by sub.sequent discovery. The portions of the German edition that were printed as ' Nachtnige ' have been inserted in their proper place in the text, while every effort has been made to give references to the literature that has appeared since the publication of the German book a year ago. In my revision of the translation generally, I have ventured upon compression wherever this was possible without injury to the sense, while in one or two instances I have left rather more to the imagination of the reader than is usual in a German work of this nature. Thus, after the exhaustive analysis of the forms peculiar to M\-ron given on pp. 165 — 202, it seemed unnecessary to repeat them in detail, in the case of each single statue or head which the author in a concluding section (XIII.) has grouped about this artist. Professor Furtwangler has him.sclf found time in the midst of his various occupations to bestow a general supcr\-ision upon the English edition ; nor is it necessary to say that no editorial alterations have been introduced without his express sanction, while not a few have been planned in consultation with him. The number of illustrations, which in the portion chosen for translation was only 162 (including the plates), has been rai.scd to 207. These 45 fre.sh illustrations have been selected on the same plan as that alrcad>- pursued by the author, to bring into notice new or almost forgotten monuments. In their arrangement I have tried to convince the reader of what great results might be achieved with the help of a collection of casts, comprising not merely a few representative works, but all or near!)- all the extant products of classical art whatever their period, and supplemented by a complete series of photographs. From the three statues reproduced side by side on page 87, it must surely appear that their attribution to one and the same artist is no matter of guess-work or of facile intuition, but the reasoned result of such a compara- tive study of form as is possible onl)- in some comprehensive collection of casts as at Dresden or Munich. In like manner I trust that the full illustrations in the chapter on the Amazons (pp. 128 — 141) will enable the reader to take in at a glance less obvious but essential differences which, when we ha\-c only memory to trust to, are apt to become merged and hidden in external resemblances of t)'pe and dress. In this connexion my thanks are due to the Marquis of Lansdowne and to Mr. Astor for allowing the finest copy in existence of the Polykleitan Amazon to be worthily published (Plate VIII.) The very few illustrations which in the German edition were still repeated from former publications have now been replaced from photographs — of the originals, where\"cr this was possible, or at an\- rate of casts when, as in the case of so many Italian galleries, bad lighting and other causes often make photograph)- impossible. The Bologna head (Plate III.) has again been reproduced onl}- from the cast, for in spite of the trouble so courteously taken by the Director of the Museo Civico, Professor Brizio, the stained condition of the marble has made it impossible to obtain a negative EDITOR'S PREFACE xill sufficiently good for reproduction in photogravure. I had also hoped to replace the poor illustration of the once celebrated Hope Athena at Deepdenc by a plate from the original. Having failed, however, to obtain from the present occupant of Deepdenc so much as an answer to m}-"^applications for permission to photograph the statue, there was nothing for it but to repeat the illustration taken from the Ancient Specimens (Fig. 27). In the matter of illustration generally, I have to thank Mr. A. S. Murray for the special facilities accorded to mc for photographing in the British Museum, Mr. Barclay V. Head for his assistance in the preparation of the plate of coins (V'l.), Dr. Paul Herrmann of Dresden for the fine new negatives of the Lemnia (Plates I., H.*, and HI.) In addition, Herr F. Bruckmann of Munich and I\I. A. Giraudon of Paris have generously allowed me to reproduce a number of their photographs. Of the new plates there are three to which I should like to call special attention : the superb head from Beneventum in the Louvre fPlate XIV.\ which should rouse us to a sense of what precious relics of the ancient statuaria may still lie hidden in our museums ; the ' Aberdeen head,' that exquisite fragment in our own British Museum which escaped so curioush- long the e\-e of both connoisseurs and archaeologists, and in which I think it not too bold to recognize an original from the hand of Praxiteles (Plate XVIII.) ; finally, the grand and presumably original head of the Skopasian Meleager, which, though it has already been well reproduced in \.\\z Antike Deukmdler, deserves to become known amid the grace of its Roman surroundings (Plate XV.) By the courtesy of the author and of his English translator, Mr. James F. Muirhead, I have been enabled to refer throughout to the English edition of Professor Helbig's Museums of Classical Art in Rome, and I trust that this book, which will appear almost simultaneously with the present one, will give a fresh imjjulse to the unprejudiced stud\- of the treasures of those Roman galleries to which, as Professor I'urtwangler shows, we must still go if wc would find or restore the ancient 'master- pieces.' The late Bishop Wordsworth, during his travels in Greece, likened the countr\-, from the point of view of what remained and did not remain, to a manuscript torn indeed and defaced, but ' not yet, like Rome, a palimpsest.' Xow it is precisely this fact that it is a palimpsest that still secures to Rome its archaeological pre- eminence, for, with the exception of a fragment recovered of late years here and there, the record which we are tr)-ing to decipher has been forgotten or destroyed in its native land. The very beauty and uniqueness of these fragments as works of art blind us to their incompleteness as evidence, but if we wish to gain some idea of the whole storj- it is to Rome that we must go, and there accustom ourselves to spell it out through the mistaken interpretations and ignorant glosses of the copyists. Per casus varios, per tot discrimina renim Tendimus in Latiuni. But it would be an error to suppose that Ilal\-, la mere savantc ife toute Renaissance, is onl)- fruitful in copies. There is the Ludovisi throne — in which the infant art of relief seems to have reached at a bound the limit of its accomplishment — and now at last we are in a position to place side by side with the Hermes itself an original from the hand of the master whom the consent of ancient connoi.s.seurs ranked with Praxiteles. In archaeology, unfortunately, wc cannot pick and choose ; xiv F.DITOR'S PREFACE all that we can do is to make the most of what has been thrown up from the wreck of Time, but ' where are the)- painted that arc lost ? ' It was therefore only natural that for a time at least we should regard the Hermes as supreme, if only because he was solitary ; yet whoever will compare him— soft, self-involved, with lips just parting as vague voluptuous languors steal over him — and the Mcleager of Skopas, with that look all outward and upward of some inspired ' pilgrim of eternity,' will gain some idea of what we must have lost through the accidental eclipse of this great genius. Lastly, it is hoped that this book, as it exhibits a picture, will also discover a process. Of the exact nature of that process it would hardly be necessary to speak, but for the fact that the copiousness and brilliancy of the achievements of a single critic in the more popular field of Italian art have thrown us in England into a state of naiVc commotion akin to that of the ancient Mexicans, when, having never seen a horse, they mistook the troopers of Cortes for a new species of animal. For, as the critic in question never appears without his hobby, the two coalesce, as it were, in our imagination, until we think and speak of that which is nothing but the course and condition of all fruitful inquiry as if it were the honorific appendage of a particular name and the abnormal product of a particular field. On the contrary, the present book is from first to last an example of the inductive method, which, though it has never been applied before on so extensive a scale to the art of Greece, is, in principle at least, as old as Winckclmann. But here observation and com- parison do not end in themselves ; they rest upon a basis of history and philology, and the result is that we have the reproduction of a development, not merely the recension of a catalogue. It cannot he denied. howc\'cr, that the strengtli and flexibility of our instrument are often strained to the full by the ver\- nature of the material it works in. That material is, as we have seen, not only fragmentary but secondary, while the limitations of sculpture as an art betray themselves in an external uniformity which always impedes, and sometimes baffles, our analytic research of variet)-. If observa- tion comes upon a gap, theory leaps ahead, like a man's shadow that gets in front of him as soon as he begins to move away from the light. Then there is the constant temptation to explain too much, to impose a large significance upon minute features, as to which we might say in words borrowed from Johnson, ' the dull utterly neglect them, the acute see a little, and supply the rest with fancy and conjecture.' So much for the defects of our ' method.' They know them best who use it most diligently and most skilfully ; nor would there be any occasion to insist upon them at all, were it not for the numbers of those to whrnn, if we ma\- judge from their attitude of barren negation, ' willing to wound but yet afraid to strike,' it would seem as if discretion were the better part of discovery. It is therefore in a double aspect as matter and method that these Essays are now offered to the English reader, in confidence that what is not final will \-et be found fruitful ; and — IVas fruchtbar ill, allein ist wahr. E. S. November 19, 1894. ADDITIONAL NOTES. I. P. 95 sqq. : Dioscuri of Alonte Cavallo. In a letter which I received a few days ago, Professor Furtwangler quotes an interesting statement made by Julius Lange (Thorioaldsen, Fremstilliug af Mennesket, p. 9), to the effect that Canova said of the Elgin marbles in 1803 that only one single antique in all Rome was conceived in their grand style — namely, the finer of the two Colossi of Monte Cavallo. I also find it stated by Memes, Memoirs of Canova (Edinburgh 1825), p. 291, that ' of the latter (/.c. the Colossi), even at a subsequent period of life, he (Canova) made a constant morn- ing study for years, in relation to his own improvement, and to establish the style of Phidias in the Elgin Marbles' — E. S. II. r. 132, I. To the replicas of the Kresilaian Amazon should be added a head in the Jacobsen Collection (1073 a), poor and much restored, but of \'alue as having on the right side, in the line of the ear and near the crow-n, the remains of a rectangular support, which once connected the head with the right wrist ; this confirms the restor- ation proposed on p. 132. The head may possibly be identical with Michaelis 0. III. 1'. 346^-6'^. : The Aberdeen Head. Lord Stanmore has the kindness to inform me that it is certain the head came direct from Greece, and adds ; ' All the fragments my father brought with him from thence were placed together by themselves, and this head was among them.' — E. S. ERRATA. Page 39, line 4 from foot of page (text), /or ' 473 ' read • 470.' „ 42, lines 7, 10, and 17, for ' archaic ' read ' archaistic' „ 78, line 9, for ' Romani ' read ' Romano.' „ 84, note I, line j,/or 'bust ' read 'best.' CONTENTS I'AGK I'HEIDIAS . . I I. Discovery ok this Lemma.n Athena 4 II. Site ok the Lemnia on the Akropolis. — Date and Dedication 8 III. Comparison hetween Lemnia and 1'artiienos lo IV. Analysis of the Lemnia ij V. Drapery and Pose oe itie Lemnia 21 VI. Monuments related to Lemma and 10 I'arthenos. — The Athena Promachos . 26 \'1I. The Oly.mpian Zeus. — Trial and Death of Piieidias 36 \T1I. Other Works related to the Lemnia. — The Master of Piieidias. — Early PiiEiDiAN Works. — The Anakreon. — Pheidian Eros and Aphrhdiie . . , , 50 I\. I'llKIDIAS and his I'l'PILS. — -Alkamenes AND Agorakritiis 73 .\. The Dioscuri of Monte Cavallo, and the Elder Praxiteles . 95 XL Pheidian Influences in Sicily and Macna Graecia.— Coins and Vases ... 104 KRESILAS and MYRON " 113 I. Literary and Epigraphical Evidence for the Life of Kresilas 115 11. The Portrait of Perikles 117 III. The Diitrephes 122 IV. The .\mazon - '28 V. The Athena from Velletri i4> VI. The Diomede 146 VII. The Medusa Kondanini 156 VIII. Statue of an Athlete at Petvvortii ... 161 l.\. Relation of Kresilas to Myron. — The Riccardi Head. — The Diskohoi.us and KINDRED Heads. — Pythagoras of Rhegium. — Myronian Portrait-heads . . 165 X. Statues by Myron. — Diskobolos and Marsyas compared. — Kindred Works . . i8o XL The 'Cassel Apollo.'— Argive Influences traceable in Myron 190 XII. The Perseus i97 .XIII. Myronian Female Head.— The Herakles .Altemps and Kindred Works.— Asklepios in the Uffizi 202 XIV. The Munich Zeus and the First Argive School 212 CONTENTS XVII PAGE POLYKLEITOS 221 I. HlSTORICAI, AND ElMGRArHICAL EVIDENCE 223 11. The DoRvriioRos 226 III. The niADUMENOS 23S IV. The Amazon 247 V. The Basis of the Statue of Kyniskos. — Statue of a Boy placing a Wreath ON HIS Head, and Kindred Works 249 VI. The Basis of the St.\tue of Pvthokies. — Statue of a Boy in Dresden: its Adapt.\tions and Derivatives 262 VII. The Basis of the Statue of Xexokles — The Idolino 279 VIII. The Basis of the Statue of Aristion.—Tiie later Polvkleitan School. — The Beneventum Head 287 SKOPAS. PRAXITELES. EUPHRANOR 293 I. Skopas.— Lansdowne Herakles.— Hermes from the Palatine.— St.vi'ues with foot raised. — Ares Ludovisi.— The Meleager. — Athena 296 11. Praxiteles.— I ).\TE of the Hermes.— Works of the .\rtist's Early and Middle Period. — Figures Leaning on a Support. — The Satyr and the EuBouLEUs. — Works of the Artist's Later Period ; the Hermes and Kindred Statues 307 III. Euphranor.— Imitation of Polykleitos and of the older Argive Types.- Bonus Eventus ; Dionysos ; Apollo Patkoos ; Paris and AniKornTE ; Athena. — Lysippos 34^ THE VENUS OF MILU S^S I. The Lost Inscribed Fragment: Discussion of the St.viue's Provenance . . 367 II. Restoration of the Statue 37^ HI. Influences that affected the Akiist of hie 'Venus.' — Skopas. — IIisioricai. Position of the Venus 3^4 THE APOLLO OF THE BELVEDERE • 4^3 APPENDIX- THE TEMPLES OF ATHENA ON THE AKKOPOLIS 413 I. The 'Old Temple' of Athena 4' 5 H. The First Parthenon t''-" HI. The Parthenon of Perikles 4-3 IV. The Erechtheion 43- V. The Temple of Athena Nike 442 VI. The Meaning of the Pedimental Sculptures of ihe Parthenon 45' VII. The Earth Goddess entreating for Rain, near the Parthenon 46S INDEX 473 Note. — A number of the plates of the German edilioii are noiv reprodiieed as text-Hocks, while for some of the texl-illuslrations of the German book plates have here been substituted. Those illustrations, tfhether plates or text-blocks, which are completely foreign to the German edition, and now appear for the first time, are marked by an asterisk ('). LIST OF" FULL-PAGE PLATES PLATE fACE I. Statue of Athena, Dresden (Giisecke uiid Devriatt, Leipzig) Froiilispiecc. II. Statue OF Athena, WITH Cast OF Bologna Hkai), Dresden (/A'.) S *II*. Statue l Dcviient, Leipzig) 96 *VI. Greek Coins {Autotype Co.) 106 I, 3, 5, 6. Thurii. — 2. Sybaris. — 4. Neapolis. — 7. Terina. — 8, 10. Pandosia. — 9. Hyiia. — II. Neapolis. — 12-15. Syracuse. — 16, 17. Na.vos. — 18. Herakleia. — 19. Pholiaia. — 20. Lokri Epizephyrii. — 21. Roman dcnarim. — 22,23. I^''^- — 24,25. .\iiipliipolis. — 26. Miletos. — 27-29. Klazomenai. — 30, 31. Athens. — 32, ^"s,. Argos. — 34, 36. .Alexandria Troas. — 35. Heraia. — 37. Coin of Antoninus Pius, — 38. Corinth. VII. Portrait of I'erikles, British Museum {Giisccl:c and Dcvricnt, Leipzig) 118 *VIII. Amazon, Lansdowne House {Do.) 134 IX. Head of Perseus, British Museum {Do.) 138 X. Head of a Diadumenos, Dresden (Full Face) {A. Frisih, Berlin) 240 XI. Head of a Diadumenos, Dresden (Profile) {Do.) 242 XII. Statue of a Boy, Dresden {Do.) 266 XIII. Bronze St.'^tuette, Louvre {Gicscckc and Dcvricnl, Leipzig) 2S0 XIV. Bronze Head of a Boy, Louvre {Maison A. Braun, Ch'nicnt &' C/V., Paris and Dnrnach) 290 'XV. Head of Meleager, placed upon a Praxitklean Apoi,h>, Vii.i.a Medici {/Jo.) 306 *XVI. Head of Eubouleus, .•\thens {Do.) 330 XVII. Aphrodite, Collection of Lord Leconfiei.d {F. Hollya-, London) .... 344 XVIII. The 'Aberdeen' Head, British .Museu.m {Gicsioke and Devriait, Leipzig) 346 LIST OF TEXT ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE PAGE 1. Athena on Gem (Cades, i. H, 17) . . . . 6 2. Athena from an Attic vase {£/i/e Ct'raiii. i. So) . 14 *3. Profile of the Bologna head. (From a photograph after the original) .... iS *4. Athena on a relief from the Akropolis . 22 *5. Statuette of Athena from the Akropolis. (From a drawing) 23 6. 'Torso Medici.' (Ecole des Beaux-Arts, Paris) 28 *7. Niobid from the disc in the British Museum. (From a drawing) 44 *S. Statue of Apollo in Museo delle Terme (Rome) 50 *9. Head of Apollo in Museo delle Terme . . 51 10. Bronze Apollo of the Mantuan type from Pompeii, Naples ... 52 11. Terminal bust in the Capitoline Museum : a, from the original ; /', from the cast . 54 12. Head in Palazzo Barberini, Rome .... 56 13. Terminal bust in the collection at Broad- lands 58 14. Head in the Collection Barracco (Rome). (By permission of Messrs. Bruckmann, Munich; 59 15. Head in the Hermitage 59 16. Terminal bust of Athena from Hercula- neum (Naples) 61 "17. The ' Anakreon Borghese ' (Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek, Copenhagen) 63 *l8. Head with winged fillet, Museo Torlonia, Rome. (From a drawing) 64 19. Head in the Museo Chiaramonti (Vatican) 65 20. Double terminal bust in Madrid 67 21. Profiles of the double terminal bust ... 68 22. Cameo in Berlin 69 23. Statuefonnerlyin Pal. Cepparelli(Florencej 70 *24. Statuette of Aphrodite (Berlin) 71 25. Two heads of Athena from casts in Dresden: a, from a lost original ; /', head of Athena Farnese (Naples) 72 26. Athena Farnese (Naples) 74 27. Hope Athena in the collection at Deep- 1 dene, Surrey. (From Spec, of Aiir. | Sculpture) 75 28. Profile of the head of Athena (a, 25) .77 29. .Athena in the Villa Albani, Rome ... 79 i FIGUl .30. 34- *35- *36. *37. 3S. 39- 40. 41. 42. 43- 44- 45- ♦46. 47- 48. 49- 50. 5i. *52. 53- 54- *SS- *56. 57- *E PAGF Head of Athena Albani. (From the cast) So Head in Munich 81 HeadofHerakles (Berlin) 83 Torso of Herakles, Louvre. (From a pho- tograph by A. Giraudon) 85 Head of a goddess (Berlin) 86 ' Ceres ' in the Rotonda of the Vatican . . 87 Apollo Barberini (Munich) 87 -A-thena in Capitoline Museum 87 Conjectural restoration, showing the torso in Cassel combined with the head of the Hephaistos Chiaramonti 88 Head in Brescia. (By permission of Messrs. Bruckmann, Munich) 91 Head of Arcs, Louvre. (From a photo- graph by A. Giraudon) 93 Ares in the Pal. Borghese (Rome) .... 94 The Dioscuri of Monte Cavallo. (From the cast) 9S Head in the Jacobsen collection at Copen- hagen. (By permission of Messrs. Bruckmann, Munich) loi Head in the Louvre 103 'Jupiter de Versailles ' (Louvre) .... 104 Terminal bust of Perikles in the British Museum. ( From the original ) . . . . 119 Head of a rf;-(7/i!o-Di (Berlin) 121 White-faced Lekythos (Bibl. Nat., ParisI . 124 Gem in Berlin (slightly enlarged) .... 124 ' Gladiatore Farnese' in Naples. (The restorations are omitted) Alkibiades in the Vatican. (Attempt , at a reconstruction ; old restorations omitted'i 127 Amazonin Villa Doria-Pamfili. (Wrongly restored as an Artemis) 129 Amazon of the Capitoline type. (Re- stored) 132 Amazon head of the Capitoline type, wrongly placed on the Mattei statue in the Vatican. (From the cast ) .... 133 Head of Amazon in Lansdowne House. (From the original) 135 .\mazon type. (Attempt at a restoration) 138 Bronze terminal bust of an Amazon from Herculaneum (Naples). (By permis- sion of Messrs. BrucKmann, Munich) . . 139 XXII LIST UF IKXr ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE I'AGK 58. ' Pallas dc Velletri ' (Paris) 142 59. Mead of Athena from Velletri 14.1 60. Diomede in Munich. (From a cast with the modern restorations omitted) . . 147 61. Head of the Munich Diomede. (From the cast) 150 62. Cast at Dresden of a replica of the Dio- mede. (Original presumably in Eng- land) 151 63. The Medusa Rondanini (Munich) . . 157 64. Profile of an athlete (Petworlh Coll.) . . 162 65. Head of an athlete (Petworth Coll.) . . 163 66. Head of a hero (Palazzo Riccardi, Florence) 166 67. Replica of the Riccardi head (Berlin) . . 167 68. Head of DisUoholos (Catajo) tO') 69. Head of Diskobolos (Berlin) '7" 70. Head from Perinthos (Dresden) .... 171 71. Head in the collection at Ince Blunclell Hall (Lancashire) 172 72. Head in Brescia. (By permission of Messrs. Bruckmann, Munich) I74 73. Portrait-he.ad in the Villa .Mbani. (From the cast) 176 74. Portrait-head in the 1 Icrmilage. (From the original) 177 75. Heraliles in the Briiisli Museum - . 179 76. Mercury in the Vatican 1S3 77. Statue restored as Neptune (Vatican) . . 185 78. Hend of a god (Berlin) 187 79. Statue restored as Asklepios (Hermitage) 1 89 So. Apollo of the 'Cassel type ' (Louvre) . . 192 81. Head of Apollo 193 82. Apollo head of ' Cassel type ' in Barracco Collection (Rome) 195 83. Head of Perseus (Rome) 198 84. Female head in Giardino Boboli (Florence). (By permission of Messrs. Bruckmann, Munich) 203 85. Head in Museo Chiaramonli 205 86. Head in the British Museum 206 87. Asklepios in the Uffizi (Florence) . . . 207 88. Asklepios and Hygieia in Palazzo Barl)erini (Rome) 208 89. Terminal bust in the British Museum . 211 90. Statue in Munich 213 91. Head of statue in Munich 216 92. Replica of the head of the statue by Ste- l^hanos 217 93. Bronze statuette in British Museum . . 232 94. Mercury, Coll. Oppermann (Bibl. Nat., Paris) 233 95. Head of Herakles. From Herculaneum (Naples) 234 96. Head of Herakles. From the collection at Broadlands (Hampshire) 235 97. Polykleitan statue in Coll. Barracco(Rome). (By permission of Messrs. Bruckmann) 237 98. Diadumenos in Madrid 241 99. .Statue of a boxer (Cassel) 246 100. (Jreek gem 248 loi. Carnelian in St. Petersburg 248 FIGURE 102. 104. 105. 1 06. 107. loS. 109. no. 1 1 1. 1 12. I'j- 114. "5- 116. 117. 118. 'ng. 120. 121. 1 22. ■23- 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. *i30. 131- 132. '33- ■34- 135- 136. ■37. 138. 139- 140. *I4I. *I42 143- 144. '45- 146. 147. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153- •154. PAGF. Statue of a victorious boy placing the wreath on his head. (Restored) . . . 250 Head of boy (in possession of Sir Edgar \'incent) 251 Head of a boy (Hermitage) 252 Back of the Westmacott athlete (Britisli Museum) 253 F'igure from Ildefonso group (Madrid) . . 256 .\thlete in the collection at Petworth House 258 .\])oxyomenos on a gem 261 Apoxyomenos on a gem (Hermitage) 262 Basis of the statue of Pythokles in Olympia 263 .\thlete in the Braccio Nuovo (Vatican) 264 Head of the boy's statue in Dresden. (From the cast) 267 Statue of a youth (Hermitage) 269 Vouthful Pan (Leydcn)! 271 The ' Narkissos ' (Berlin) 273 Bronze statuette (Bibl. Nat., Paris) . . . 276 Gem (Cades, ii. D, 16) 277 Basis of Zenokles in Olympia 279 Bronze statuette in the Louvre (back) . . 280 Athlete in Galleria delle Statue (Vatican) 281 Bronze head from Herculaneum (Naples) 284 Mead of the Idolino (Mus. Naz., F"lorence) 285 Basis of Aristion in Olympia 288 Hermes in Lansdovvne House 289 Herakles in Lansdownc House .... 297 Heroic statue (British Museum) .... 298 Statuette of Zeus (British Museum) . . . 299 Bronze statuette of Asklepios (Carlsruhe) 300 Hermes from the P.alatine (Museo delle Terme) 301 Statue of Athena in the Uffizi 306 Satyr in Dresden 310 Head of Satyr in Dresden 311 Eros from the Palatine (Louvre) .... 313 F'ros in Naples 314 Head of Eros of Ccntocelle (Vatican) . . 315 ' Venus d'Arles ' (Louvre) 320 The 'Townley Venus ' (Brit. Mus.) . . . 321 Statue in Louvre. (From Clarac, yT/«,f. di Sc. PI. 341) 323 Artemis in Dresden 324 Head of Artemis (Dresden) 325 Statuetteof Artemis, from Kition in Cyprus 327 Attic statuette vase 333 Head in Pal. Pitti (Florence) 335 Hermes in the Uffizi 339 Herakles in Villa Albani ..... 340 Herakles with Telephos (Mus. Chiara- monli) 341 Head of Herakles (Chiaramonli) .... 342 Profile of Aphrodite in the collecticm of Lord Ijeconfield 344 Carnelian in the British Museum ... 350 Dionysos from Tivoli (Museo delle Terme) 351 Bronze statue of Apollo (Brit. Mus. ) . . 352 Statue in Dresden 352 Apollo (' .\donis'), Vatican 355 Paris in Lansdowne House 358 LIST OF TEXT ILLUSTRATIONS FIGL'RE PAGE j FIGURE *I55. Torso of Aphrodite (Naples) 358 *I74. *I56. 'The Faun of Winckelmann ' (Munich). 360 ' *I57. Athena Giustiniani (Braccio Nuovo, 175. Vatican) 362 176. 158. Venus of Milo (with plinth unrestored) . 370 159. Drawing by Debay showing the inscrilied I 177. block adjusted to the plinth 371 *I78. 160. Ground-plan and projection of the plinth, with restorations indicated 372 *'79- 161. Side view of the extant plinth 373 162. Side view of the plinth. (Restoration "iSo. indicated by dotted lines) 374 181. *i63. Proposed restoration of the Venus of Milo 380 164. Aphrodite on a gem (Berlin) 380 165. Bronze Aphrodite (Dresden) 381 182. 166. Statue in Dresden 382 167. Bronze coin of the island of Melos (Berlin) 382 *i83. 168. Relief from a column in Melos 383 169. Aphrodite with the apple. Terracotta from Myrina (Berlin) 383 *iS4. 170. Venus of Capua (Naples) 385 171. Head of Venus of Capua 389 172. Head in Palazzo Caetani (Rome) . . . . 390 1S5. *I73. Head in the Capitol. (From the cast) . 393 | 186. l'.\GE Head from Tralles in Smyrna. (From the cast at Bonn) 397 Statue in Pal. Valentini (Rome) .... 398 Statue in Pal. Valentini. (Restorations omitted) 399 Head of Apollo (Brit. Mus. ) 411 The four great temples of Athena on the Akropolis 417 Kalathiskos dancers on either side of Pal- ladium. Terra-cotta plaque (Berlin) . 438 Archaistic Artemis from Gabii (Munich). 440 Left-hand corner of the south frieze of the Temple of Athena Nike. (From Lebas, l^oyagc ArcJit'oi.) 446 Portion of the north frieze of the Temple of Nike. (From Lebas, Voyage Arc/u'ol.) 447 Western pediment of the Parthenon, show- ing the traces on the floor of the pedi- ment 454 Eastern pediment of the Parthenon, .show- ing the traces on the floor of the pedi- ment 464 Attic seal 469 Two bronze coins of Krannon 469 INITIAL AND TAIL-PIECES. P.\GE Profile of 'Venus d'Arles" (Louvre) . lille-page Bronze Pan (Bibl. Nat., Paris) vii Profile of Skopasian Meleager (Villa Medici . . xi Eros on Parthenon frieze 3 Marsyas in Lateran 115 Doryphoros in Naples 223 Satyr in Capitol Head of Venus of Milo . . . . Apollo of Belvedeie . . . . - Ganymede in Vatican .... Reliefs from Ludovisi throne (Rome) 295 367 405 4l5 487 PHEIDIAS PHEIDIAS O' F the works of those sculptors whom antiquity esteemed as its greatest, one masterpiece, the Hermes of Praxiteles, has come down to our times in the undoubted original, while others, such as the Doryphoros of Polj-kleitos and the Apoxyomenos of Lysip- pos, are known to us in good and faithful copies, executed probably on the scale of the originals. But Pheidias, most famous of all who wrought the images of the gods, is represented so far neither by any ascertained original nor by any efficient copy. For of only two of his works, the Olympian Zeus and the Athena Parthenos, do we possess reproductions acknowledged to be such : the Zeus is reproduced chiefly on coins, and the Athena in statues and statuettes, so much reduced in size that they are rather abstracts or n'sm/u's than real transcripts ; they differ totally from the faithful copies alluded to above. Though sufficient to give a general notion of the composition, of the arrangement and fall of the draper}', they are inadequate for all finer dis- tinctions. Above all they give no exact idea of the head, which, as being the seat of intellectual life, is naturally of the highest interest. The various replicas exhibit differences so marked as to convey the impression that not one of them is accurate. And this is very natural, for the head of a colossal statue in ivory and gold must have offered unusual difficulties to the copyist. Those who had access to the original itself could only make drawings or small models, and in so doing each artist would follow his own style. Other and freer imitations of widely varying dimensions were derived from these sketches. It is small wonder, then, that the finer modelling of the head of the Parthenos has been lost to us in spite of its numberless reproductions. Yet even if we possessed an exact copy of the head of the Parthenos or of the Zeus in the original size, I do not believe that we should thus gain a complete conception of the best that Pheidias could achieve. An artist cannot show the finest and most spiritual qualities of his treatment of form in a colossal head. Besides, the complicated ivory and gold technique must have placed many obstacles in the way of free artistic conception. An artist was much less trammelled in executing the clay model for a bronze statue, and even Pheidias must have found in this technique a purer and more exquisite medium for his genius. Bronze statues by famous artists were usuall}', when of normal dimensions, copied in the original size. The copyists probably made use of casts,' which was of course ' The passage in Lucian(yK/. Tra^. 33) concerning the Hermes Agoraios in Athens shows that it was quite usual for artists to take casts of famous works of art. 4 PHEIDIAS impossible in the case of gold and ivory images. Yet even so copyists allowed them- selves a freedom which occasionally amounted to almost complete remodelling of details. Nevertheless, copies exist which can be proved to be perfectly accurate. Such a copy of a bronze work by Pheidias would be the fust step towards an exact appre- ciation of his artistic personality. I. Discovery of the Leinnian Atlieiia. It is this need — this deficiency in our knowledge — which, I believe, I have been able to fill. The two statues reproduced on Plates I. and II. can be shown to be faith- ful replicas of a bronze work by Pheidias — a work which ancient connoisseurship preferred to all others by the artist, which roused the enthusiasm of the subtle critic Lucian, and which even the matter-of-fact Pausanias admits to be the best worth seeing of all the creations of Pheidias. This loork is the Lcuinian Athena. The two statues belong to the Dresden Museum, and have long been known : one of them had a head foreign to it, while the head of the other, though genuine, was disguised by inaccurate restoration. The statue given on PL I. is published in Becker's Aiigiisteiiin, i. PI. 14, and in Clarac's Miiscc de Sculpt. PI. 464, 868. The head is antique, but has been broken and put on again. The whole upper part of the head, from the fillet, is restored ; an ugly modern helmet was formerly placed upon it. In 1894 Becker pronounced that it was impossible to decide with certainty whether the head belonged to the statue or not.* On the other hand, L. Schorn (1822)," while acknowledging that the head had been joined on again and the face worked over, added that there was nothing to prove that it might not have belonged to the statue. Hettner, in his catalogue of the Dresden antiques,^ declared that the correspondence of the marble, and the fact that the turn of the head fitted the remaining portion of neck, showed the head to be genuine. More recently it was recognized by Flasch that the head was a replica of the beautiful Bologna head which Conze ■* had published as that of a young man, while Flasch '' had interpreted it as an Amazon. It was accordingly taken for granted that the head did not belong to the statue," and therefore, when Trcu began his admirable and useful task of freeing the Dresden statues from their modern restorations, he removed the head from the statue, set it up separately, and restored it from the Bologna replica — i.e. he took away the helmet, and supplied the place of the missing upper part of the head by a cast taken from the Bologna head. The statue and the head were thus separated when I saw them in 1891. At first it did not occur to me that they might belong together. It was only in the course of a protracted inquiry into the type of head appropriate to this statue of Athena that, to my own great astonishment, I came to the conclusion that the head which had been removed actually did belong to the statue, and that consequently the Bologna head also represented Athena, and came from another replica of the same statue. The portion of neck still attached to the torso and turned vigorously to the right, as well as the shape of the nude part of the chest, answered down to the minutest details to the corresponding parts of the Bologna bust. Further, head and torso are of the same marble. Probability became certainty when Treu, at my request, placed the ^ Augusteuin, i. p. 95. - In BuUicher's Amalthea, ii. 206 sqq. ' Bildwerlie d. Koniglichen Antikensammlung, 4th ed. No. 69. '' Beitrdge zur Gescliichte d. Criediischen Plastik, Taf. I. p. i. Cf. Friederichs-Wolters, Gipsabgiisse, 519. ^ Bull. d. Inst. 1872, 66. Brizio declared the head to be modern {ibid. p. 65 ; cf. Heydemann, Mitlheiliingen aus den Antikensammlungen, in Ober- ti. Mitlelilatiens, p. 60, 206), but was immediately refuted by Flasch. * Cf Puchstein mjahrb. d. Insl. 1890, p. 96, note 36. DISCOVERY OF THE LEMNIAN ATHENA 5 liead upon the torso ; the two fitted together fracture for fracture, of course not in front where the edges arc broken off, but in the core of the neck. PI. I. .shows the statue in its present state. The missing parts in fronj. of the neck, the nose, mouth, and upper part of the head arc restored in piaster. The face, as Schorn correctly noticed, has been worked over, and has lost much of its beauty in the process ; but the hair, as far as it is preserved in the marble — i.e. the portion under the fillet — is uninjured, and corresponds exactly to the hair of the Bologna head, except for a few variations in the curls, which show that the copyist in this case was rather less careful. Yet the correspondence between these two copies is more exact than is usual in antiquit}-, and goes to prove that each is a fairly accurate rendering of a common original. The other statue (PI. II.) is published by Clarac, PI. 464, 866. ^ The head was not made in one piece with the body, as in the preceding example, but was worked separately and inserted, with the nude part of the breast, into the draped torso. The head has been restored by using up an antique fragment of a replica of the head of the Farnese Athena in Naples,- which, placed on a hideous thick neck, looked curious enough when set upon the statue. This restoration has now been removed, and a cast of the Bologna bust has been inserted into the empty space cut out in the torso. PI. II. represents the statue thus restored. The Bologna bust fitted into the hollowed torso, as exactl}- as if it had been made for it, hardly a millhnetre of alteration being necessary. This bust is wonderfully well preserved,^ the only injury it has suffered being the loss of the eyes, which were inserted separately. The exact correspondence of the hair with the Dresden head, and indeed the remarkably careful execution of the whole work, show the accurac}- of the cop)\ Rather less care has been bestowed upon the hair above and behind the right car, the head being so much turned that this part comes at the back. The right breast and right shoulder of this statue were lost, and have now been restored by a piece cast from the other figure ; the left arm-stump, likewise, has been added, in accordance with the other figure where it is antique. The bodies, except for a few unimportant variations,-* arc exact replicas. On the whole, however, the statue reproduced in PI. II. deserves the preference for its fresher and more refined workman- ship, though it is evident from the close resemblance of the body to that of PL II. and of the head to the Bologna head that the statue on PI. I. is also a very careful copy. A third replica in the Museum of Cassel contributes nothing to our know- ledge of the original, in spite of its careful workmanship. The head is missing (it is replaced by a replica of the Athena Giustiniani), and the body is not a copy, but a complete transformation of the original of the two Dresden statues. ■ Hettner, Bildw. No. 72. A cast of it is in Berlin, Fried. -Welters, Gipsahg. 47S. I'ulilished in S.indr.irl, Teiilsche Academie, ii. (1679), 2, ee, as being in the Palace Caesii in Rome. - Published in Becker's Augusleitm, i. cap. 15. B. Graf (Aiis der Anomia, p. 65) has already noticed that it belongs to a replica of the Athena Farnese. ^ It has been supposed that the face was worked over in modern times (Fried. -Wolters, Gipsahg. 519) (cf. Heydemann, Mitt, atis d. Antikens. Ober- u. Mittelitaliciis, p. 50). After repeated examination of the original I am able to state that this is not the case, though it is true that in certain parts acid has been used in order to remove incrastation (this was noticed by Brizio, Bull. d. I. 1872, 65), but without injuring the face in the least. ■* Slight differences are to be observed in the hair and tongue of the Gorgoneion. The scales of the aegis also differ slightly : in the one statue (PI. II.) they are lighter, flatter, and all turned downwards, while in the other (PI. I.) they are harder, more plastic, and do not all follow the same direction. The first rendering (PI. II.) is the more severe, and certainly the most correct. The ends of the snakes knotted in front also varj- somewhat in arrangement in the two statues. [PI. II.* shows the left side of the statue : it is taken from the cast exhibited in the Pheidian room of the Dresden Cast Museum ; the body is that of statue PI. I., on which has been placed a cast of the Bologna head.— E. S.] 6 I'HEIDIAS The artist's aim c\i(lcntl}- was to get rid of the severe siinpUcity of the folds, and to substitute for them a rich mass of pett)' details more suited to later taste.^ This copyist shows himself unable to a])preciate the greatness of the older manner ; he tried to correct and to ini[)rove, and oidy succeedcil in becoming feeble, futile, and artificial. There is still another copy of the heatl alone (probably part of a fifth replica), in the Vatican. The head is set on a female statue, to which it does not belong ; it was once a good copy, but it is now so broken and restored as to be almost unrecognizable.'- The position of the arms in the original can be made out from the Dresden statue (PI. I.) The left upper arm is raised horizontally. The goddess must have held with her left hand a lance that rested on the ground. The right upper arm is lowered, but it is plain that the right forearm must have been extended somewhat forwards and sideways, so as to bring the right hand into the ilirection towards which the goddess is looking. It would be impossible to say what this hand held, were it not for another copy of the original, which is fortunately preserved on an engraved gem (Fig. i), ^ and which confirms in the most satisfactory manner our reconstruction of the Dresden statues. It is quite evident that both statues and gem are derived from the same original. The gem-cutter has copied, as faithfully as was possible within so small a space, the bare head with the short knotted-up hair, leaving the ear free, the fillet. Fig. I.— Athena the neck, the opening of the drapery on the breast, even the folds Th,™). ■' "'' falling over the left breast, the transverse aegis, and the raised left upper arm. He chose to represent the left side of the statue, so that the breast appears somewhat foreshortened, and the head in jjrofilc (cf PI. II.) In the field in front of the left shoulder is a helmet. Such objects on gems arc never mere ' s)'mbols ' as they are on coins, therefore I think it quite certain that the artist, who had not room in the picture for the right arm, wished at least to indicate that the goddess bore a helmet in her right hand. This trait completes our conception of the original statue. The composition which we have thus won hack had been brcjught into connexion with Pheidias even before its design was thoroughly clear. L. Schorn'* was the first to associate the statue with the Athena Parthenos of Pheidias, of which at that time no copies were known. This was no vague hypothesis, but the result of a careful and penetrating appreciation of the ' grand style ' ^ of the Dresden statue. He describes the simple treatment and rich effect of the drapery ; the transverse aegis seems to him to indicate peaceful possession, the tranquil watch over the beloved city. And of the head he says that it has ' the features and solemn expression appropriate to the maiden goddess,' and that the beautiful turn towards the right completes the ' exalted image, which captivates the beholder as much by its godlike majesty as by ' Cf. Schreiber, Athena Parthenos, p. 583 ; my article in Roscher's Lexikon, i. 699 ; .tnd Puchstein's remarks mjahrb. d. Inst. 1890, 93. Wolters's view {Gipsahg. 477, 478) is obviously incorrect. - Vatican, Gall, de/le Statue, 400. ' According to Raspe, No. 1651, a nicolo, 'a beautiful engraving'; the owner is not named; badly reproduced on Plate 25 of the same work. A cast is in the Cades Collection, i. H, 17, from which our illustration is taken. To the left is the inscription HEIOT, b.idly written and certainly modern, which made me formerly doubt the genuineness of the gem (Jahrb. d. Inst. iv. 1889, p. 71). But the inscription has nothing whatever to do with the stone, which is beyond suspicion, and is a beautiful and carefully executed work of about the time of Augustus. -i Botticher's .4/«<2///;ot, ii. (1822), 206 sqq. '■' VV. G. Becker (Atigiisteiim, i. p. gj sqi;.\ h.is likewise well appreciated this style. DISCOVERY OF THE LEMNIAN ATHENA 7 the freedom and naturalness of the pose.' What judgment would he not hav^e passed could he have seen the head freed from the ugly modern helmet and the statue completed by the finer head from Bologna ! Recently the extraordinary likeness of the torso to the Parthenos caused Puchstein ^ to reckon it as distincth^ Phcidian. The head belonging to it was unknown to him ; but since an Athena from Pergamon (see p. 27) which he showed to be dependent on the Dresden type was bareheaded, he concluded that the Dresden statues also had worn no helmet, and pronounced it not impossible that we have in them good copies of the Lemnian Athena by Pheidias.- The discovery of the head gives to this h}'pothesis a certainty which is only less than absolute in a case where there is neither the evidence of provenance nor of inscription to shut out the last doubts. The premises which lead to the conclusion that our statues are copies of the Lemnia consist in the following observations. The original must have been a famous work of classical antiquit}', witness the marble replicas which have been enumerated and the small accurate copy on the engraved gem. Again, the body of the statue comes nearest in style, of any known work, to the Parthenos of Pheidias, and possesses all its most characteristic and personal qualities : this has already been pointed out by Puchstcin, and we shall presently prove it more in detail. If any work is to be taken as Pheidian, surely this must be. Now the famous Lemnian Athena of Pheidias also wore no helmet, and was moreover the only famous bareheaded Athena known to literary tradition. And what is said of this work^ corresponds in the most striking manner to our marbles, in fact has been made clear by them. The Lemnia was noted for exceptional charm ; Lucian describes her as undoubtedly the masterpiece of Pheidias, and borrows for his ideal beauty the outline of her face, the delicacy of her cheeks, and the fine proportions of her nose {Iinngincs, 6). Applied to the Bologna head these words are no empty phrases (indeed, so far as we can verify, Lucian is never a mere phrase-maker) : on the contrary, they emphasize peculiar merits which must strike any one who looks at this head and which distinguish it from other works of antiquity. The exiinia pukliritiido of the Lemnia of Pheidias is possessed in a very high degree by the head which belongs to the statue acknowledged as Pheidian. Penally, the Lemnia was a work in bronze, and, as nothing is said- to the contrary, it was probably life-size. Now it is from a life-size figure that our statues derive, for, since they accurately reproduce their original in other respects, they presumably also reproduce its scale. It seems likely from the great distance at which the arms are held out from the body, and from the treatment of the hair, that this original was in bronze, while the extraordinary wealth of motive in the separate locks and the subtlety of the execution point emphatically to the same conclusion.'' True, artists bet"ore Pheidias employed for marble the same technique that we consider characteristic of bronze — as for instance in the Aegina marbles and in the boy's head from the Akropolis •'' — i.c. they imitated bronze technique in an inferior material ; but within the circle of Pheidias we can no longer suppose that this was the case, although the complete separation between marble and bronze technique, which manifested itself especially in ' Jahrb. d. Iitst. 1890, p. 93 sqq., 96, note 36. - Michaelis, Atheit. Mitt. 1876, p. 287, had previously tried to refer this type to the Athene Hygieia of Pyrrhos ; his theory was however refuted by the discovery of the footmarlj-lc and perhaps in origin. In Attic art proper the bound-up hair occurs almost exclusively in the bareheaded Athena, just in the period immediately preceding the Lemnia, but the mass of hair is richer and fuller than in the Lemnia."' The coiffure of the Lemnia in its extreme simplicity and restraint recalls the plain roll of hair of Peloponnesian art. In the period after the Lemnia the bareheaded Athena with bound-up hair sometimes occurs.* The short hair, not rolled up, worn by the goddess on the Parthenon frieze, is practically unique.^ Another emblem of peace is the transverse aegis of the Lemnia : it is not intended as a protection, and therefore leaves part of the breast free. The girdle passes above it. Pheidias found the essential part of this arrangement ready to hand : it occurs more especially in the artistic cycle to which the Olympian sculptures belong ; on one of the Olympian metopes, for instance, representing Athena, bareheaded, seated on a rock and receiving from Herakles the birds he has slain," the goddess wears the transverse aegis fastened, just as in the Lemnia, on the right shoulder. The only difference is that the aegis on the Olympian metope covers the left shoulder and the left arm, which is pressed close to the body, while in the Lemnia the left arm is raised and the aegis passes under it. The same transverse aegis and manner of wearing it occur on an Athena rather under life-size lately found in Rome ; the work is an original belonging to the same cycle as the Olympian sculptures." The transverse aegis frequently appears in later art, but only in the narrow contracted form which it assumed in the second half of the fifth century. Even the Parthcnos no longer wears the mighty aegis retained by Pheidias for the Lemnia, while the Athena on the west pediment of the Parthenon wears a very narrow transverse aegis. Thus the external characteristics of the Lemnia — the uncovered head, the closely bound-up hair, the festal fillet, the helmet carried in the hand, and the transverse aegis — ' I. Staters fiom Corinth ; severe style. A poor example in Brit. Museum, Catalog. Corinth, PI. 2, 20; three better in the Berlin Cabinet. — 2. .Staters from .Side; fine severe style, hair short and curly or rolled up (Berlin) ; Hunter, PI. 49, 3, quoted by Head, Hist. Num. p. 586, is a different type. — 3. Bronze statuette from M-igna Graecia in the British Museum, Coll. Castellani, badly reproduced in Mon. d. Inst. Stippl. Tav. 26, 6 ; good .severe style ; Athena striding. —4. Small silver coin of Kyme in Italy ; severe, not fine (illus. Brit. Miis. Catal. Italy, p. 88). — 5. Relief from the Akropolis (infra. Fig. 4). In all these monuments the helmet has the Corinthian sh.ipe. The same simple roll of hair, but with the Attic helmet, is seen on 6, the Olympian metope. Augean stables [Ausgr. von Ol. ii. 26 A), and 7, Athena head of severe style, wrongly placed on a statue of the Capitol (Jalirb. d. Oesterr. R'unsls. xii. p. 73). - Cf 50th Beri. Winckelmannsprogramm (1890), p. 12S. ■< Cf i:iite C'ram. i. 75, 80, 82 ; Mon. d. Inst. x. 38 ; Overbeck, Gallcric, Taf 10, 3 (Berlin, 2536) ; Ijcnndorf, VasenHlder, Taf 27, 3 (Berlin, 2251) ; also Berlin, 2378 ; /. H. S. xi. Taf. ii. ■* Cf. the coins already referred to Herakleia and Tarentum, the Kodros Kylix, the Kyknos vase, the Ficoroni Cista, the gem in the Brit. Museum Catal. 649, the similar one in Berlin, 4651, and the Pergamene statue, Jahrh. d. Inst. v. 1890, p. 95 (infra, p. 27). The Berlin carnelian (Tdlken, iv. 245), showing head of Athena (not Achilles) wearing helmet, with hair rolled up behind, is influenced by an earlier work. * The hair, now much defaced, is wound roun- years of age when he created the Lemnia, so that not only his jouth but the prime of his manhood, as well as the greater number of his works, must have fallen within the preceding period. Were we to judge only from the monuments, we .should rather take the Lemnia to be a work of the artist's prime. This seems confirmed on the one hand by the bold freshness which even in the Parthenos had already somewhat faded, and on the other by that fidelity to earlier traditions which has been observed in sundry particulars. \T. Monuments rclalcd to Lemnia and to Partlicnos. — The At/iena Proniachos. At this point it becomes important to note the existence of a number of monuments which may be grouped with the Lemnia and the Parthenos. Some are of the same date or only a vcrj- little earlier ; others again are later, but they all bear more or less distinct traces of the personal style of Pheidias: thus it is about n.C. 450 — though not earlier — that we come upon Pheidias everywhere. A statue of Artemis^ in the Villa Albani, of which the head is unfortunately missing, may serve as an example of a work closely akin to the Lemnia, though of slightly earlier date. The coarse woollen stuff is treated with the same vigour and naturalness, but the folds arc still convex and show no depression. The majestic figure is clothed in the Doric peplos girt in the Attic manner. The peplos is closed at the side, and the part folded over is unusually long, falling below the knee. The right arm was raised, and the left hand carried a young roe, in archaic fashion. The leg in action is placed to one side, as in the Lemnia, though its movement is rather less energetic. Two heavy folds fall perpendicularh- from the knee. Another work very closely related to the Lemnia has been preserved in a torso ' For the apparcnlly contemporary introduction of the ' wallcing ' motive in Peloponnesian art, see below, at the end of the chapter on Myron. Cf. also Winter, Die jiiiig. All. Vascn. ' Brunn, A'. G. i. 164 ; after him Overbeck and others. ' No. 662. Gerhard, AnI. BiliJw. Tf. 12 ; Roscher's Lcxikon, \. 562 ; Clarac, 678 F, 1 62 1 B. ; Helbig, Museums, ii. 856. The head, right arm, and right foot are restored. The right arm was raised. ATHENA PROMACHOS 2^ of the Louvre^ and a replica in Madrid. It also represents a young j^irl wearing the peplos girt above the diplo'is. The simple, firm, almost rough treatment of the drapery recalls the Lemnia, especially in the folds under the girdle. The attitude is ev-en more vigorous than that of the Lemnia, owing to the feet being very much turned out ; further, the left foot, although not drawn back, is placed more to the side. The girdle consists of a wide band of stuff tied in a bow in front. The whole figure is so unconventional, so full of fresh individuality and natural simplicity, and through these qualities so closely allied to the Lemnia without yet being in the smallest degree an imitation, that I imagine it to represent another creation of Pheldias. A statue of the Capitol ^ akin to the work of Pheidias but not bearing the stamp of his individualit)' may be placed, owing to its pose and the treatment of the folds, somewhere between the Lemnia and the Parthenos. A small statue in the Latcran ^ corresponds very closely to the Parthenos, and the same ma\- be said of a beautiful statue in St. Petersburg,^ in which, however, are to be seen some slight indications of a later style. This figure also represents a youthful goddess ; she wears an Ionic chiton under the peplos. Many more examples might be added,-' such as a whole scries of statues which reproduce the main features of the Parthenos combined with all sorts of later traits : in most of these one foot is drawn back in the walking position.^ It is not however my intention to discuss these statues here. Mention need only be made of an Athena from Pergamon which is very closely related to the Lemnia. The statue has wrongly been taken for an original," whereas it is merely a copy executed in the loose Pergam.cnian manner after an original by some artist of the fifth century, who utilized the Lemnia for the bod}^ of his Athena, but in the treat- ment of the head betra\-cd his affinities with the school of Kalamis, which we shall have to discuss in detail later on (p. 8i). We turn from this ugly Pergamenian Athena to a work which has ever)- claim to be mentioned in the present connexion — namel\-, the Torso Medici in the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris (Fig. 6).® Its peculiarly Pheidian character has been generally recognized,^ and it has been rightly placed in close relation to the Parthenos ; its affinities to the Lemnia are no less marked. It may be said that a common character closely unites all three works. They represent the same conception of the maiden goddess, with the narrow hips of a boy, and the broad though undeveloped breast of a young girl. In all three the folds of the peplos, which is girt, are rendered with ' (a) Louvre, Gal. Denon. No. 2903, rather under life-size. Pentelic marble ; head and right shoulder were put on separately, and are now lost, (b) Madrid No. 70, Hiibner No. 43. - Capitol, Salone No. 29, restored as Hygieia ; the portrait head is foreign to the statue. Weight on the left leg, the right leg to the side and a little drawn back, the foot flat on the ground. ^ Benndorf-Schone, Catal. No. 6. (Phot, in the Gernian Institute at Rome.) ■• Slephani, Compte Rendu, 1881, PI. VI. p. 130. Cast in Dresden. Cf. Wochaisthrifl f. Klas;. Vhilo!. 1SS5, p. 292 ; Jahrb. d. Inst. Anzeiger, 1SS9, p. 10. The head does not belong to the statue. ^ Thus a statue in the Villa JIattei (Matz-Duhn 1375) is very similar to the Parthenos, though the weight is thrown on the left leg. * Some instances are mentioned by K. Lange, Arch. Ztg. 18S1, 197, n. 2. ' Conze, Silzungsberib. d. Inst. 1886, p. 14 ; cf. infra, chapter on Kresilas, j). 128 sqq. •■' Puclistein, lot. cit., is of the same opinion. ■• Moreover the marble seems actually to be Italian, as Nibby first noticed. '■> Von Sybel, Ath. Mltth. 1880, 102, Taf. 5. '' Both arms and the head were made of separate pieces. " Just the contrary of what Wolters maintains in the note to Friederichs's Bauslciiic, 82 (Fried. -Wolters, 476). It is impossible to suppose that there was nothing here but a nude forearm and a lance. ATHENA PROMACHOS 31 moreover is much more turned out than in either of the other statues, and in harmony with this movement the head is turned to the right. This point, not visible on the coarse and mutilated reUcf, is made quite clear b\- the small torso in Athens ' and by the Torso Medici. In both the bunch of hair at the back of the neck is pushed towards the left shoulder, and in the large torso the hollow for the insertion of the upper part of the knot of hair (now lost with the head) plainly proves that the head was turned to the right.- On the head rested, as the relief shows, the helmet with its splendid triple plume, similar to the one worn by the Parthenos. Thus restored, the statue, although standing so firmly and tranquilly, becomes instinct with life and almost with animation. An Athenian coin, struck in Imperial times,-' shows that the right hand did not lean on the lance, but grasped it low down as if to raise it for the attack. The similar pose of the figure, the raised shield, and the turn of the head prove beyond a doubt that this coin reproduces the original of our torso."' This conception of the goddess is quite different from that of the pacific Lemnia who grasps the spear high up in order to lean on it, gently bending her head and carrying her helmet in her hand. It differs also from the stately festal Parthenos who has laid aside her lance and shield and grasps a figure of Nike. The Athena of the torso is the warlike maiden looking about her with courage and resolve, ready for defence or for battle. Finally we have to remember that the original of the torso INIedici must have been of colossal size. All the premises adduced point to the conclusion, bordering on certainty, that this original was the statue of the Akropolis known as the Promachos, an opinion which Konrad Lange expressed long ago/ The Pheidian style of the work, the warlike conception of the goddess, the presence of the traditional attributes of the Promachos such as lance and shield, the position of restrained activity testified to by the coins,'' the colossal size, and the fact that the statue stood in Athens, seem to me, when taken altogether, absolutely convincing. Final confirmation is found in the turn of the figure, which, as Lange has pointed out,^ is appropriate to the place occupied by the Promachos on the Citadel ; the figure towered high above the Akropolis wall and looked towards the city, while its front was turned in the direction of the great gates. Like the Lemnia, this statue also was constructed with careful appreciation of the spot it was to occupy.'' According to Pausanias, the Promachos was a work of Pheidias. Neither Pliny, ' Ath. Mitth. iSSo, Taf. 5, 2 ; p. no. - Curiously enough K. Lange did not observe this confirmation of his theory ; cf. Anh. Ztg. 1S81, 203. 3 Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, Num. Comm. PI. 2, I. II., p. 128; Anh. Ztg. 18S1, 197; Collignon, Pheidias, p. 15. * The omission of the under chiton and of the cloak and the simpler form of the helmet are mere simplifi- cations introduced by the coin-engraver. ' Arch. Ztg. 1881, If)"] sqq. ; Studniczka, Verm. :. Gr. A'linstgesch. p. 10. ° The tranquil attitude of the Promachos is plain from the coins which give the view of the whole Citadel, though, as K. Lange {.4rch. Ztg. 1881, 198) and Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner (Num. Comm. p. 129) have already shown, these coins are no guide to the actual composition of the statue. ' loc. cit. 200. * This remains true whether the statue stood upon the basis whose existing remains were formerly supposed to belong to it (Loschcke, Tod d. Phidias, p. 45, is of contrary opinion) or close beside it (Lolling, Geogr. Griechenl. 343, 352). ^ The attempt lately made by W. Gurlitt (Analecta Graeciensia, Festschrift z. Wietier Philologenversamml. 1893, P- 10' ^^l-) 'o obtain certain knowledge of the ' Promachos' from Byzantine sources rests on absolutely untenable suppositions. — The zealous Byzantine scholar Arethas, writing in the ninth or tenth century A.D., made the following marginal note in his copy of Aristeides opposite the passage referring to the ivory and bronze Athena of the Akropolis — ' This is probably the Athena which stands in the Forum of Constantine.' Niketas 32 PHF.iniAS linwcvcr, nor an)- otiicr ancient authority mentions it amongst the works of tliis artist.' A scholion to Aristcidcs (()\crbeck, Sclirift. Qud/cii, 640), on the other hand, ascribes it to one Praxiteles, exiM-cssly (Ustinguishing it from the I'arthenos of Phcidias. If \vc wish to criticize the (juestion impartially, \vc must not, as is usuall)' done, neglect this last testimon}' as worthless. The scholion doubtless goes back to some authoritative source which carefully distinguished the three most important statues of Athena on the Akropolis — viz. the old Polias, the Parthenos, and the Promachos, giving in each instance the material, the size, and the artist's name.- Now there are three other known instances in which Pausanias assigns to Pheidias himself statues ascribed by Pliny and others to pupils or assistants of Pheidias. Such is the case with the Nemesis at Rhamnus, the Mother of the Gods at Athens, and the Athena at Elis : in all these instances I'ausanias gives, as every one acknowledges, the less trustworthy tradition. We must therefore allow for the possibility that the information of Pausanias, in the case of the Promachos also, may have been incorrect, and that one of the pupils or colleagues of Pheidias ma_\- have been called Praxiteles ; further, that common tradition wrongly assigned the statue to Pheidias, while it was in reality by another artist, perhaps even that the name of this artist was inscribed on the statue, as in the case of the Nemesis of Rhamnus. At any rate it seems evident that the Promachos was not signed by Pheidias, from the passage of Lucian ^ in which it is related as something remarkable that Pheidias thought the Athena Lemnia worthy of being inscribed with his name. This state- ment would be quite meaningless if the name of Pheidias could have been read clo.se at hand on the Promachos. The copies of the Promachos do not help us to a decided answer to this question. They, however, make it absolutely clear that the statue bore a very close relation to the authentic works of Pheidias. If a Praxiteles made it, it is evident that he worked in the manner of Pheidias. The differences which mark off the Promachos from the Parthenos and the Lemnia arc of such a kind as may (thirteenth cenluiy) states that this Athena was represented dr.awing up her drapery with her left hand. Gurlitt concludes therefore that the figure which Niketas saw was an archaic one in the Ionic costume of the well- known ' pre-Fersian ' maidens of the Akropolis, and that, like these, the left hand held the drapery. More than this, he gives unlimited credence to the suggestion of Arethas, and identifies this figure with the so-called 'Promachos' of Pheidias. He bases this opinion on the presupposition, which we have already shown to be false, that Pheidias was a semi-archaic artist, who soon after 480 B.C. was in a position to be intrusted with the most important commission the Athenians had in their gift. Now the hypothesis of Arethas appears entirely groundless and without .authority. But even supposing him to be right, it is still doubtful, first, whether Niketas understood correctly the motive of the left arm, and, secondly, whether Gurlitt was right in identifying this motive with that of the archaic statues. The motive, which is very r.ire for .Athena (it occurs only in quite archaic art, and apparently never in statues), contradicts the tnadition.al type and character of Athena in the periods preceding and following the Persian wars. Therefore we must assume either that the statue seen by Niketas was an archaic work, and th.at Arethas was mistaken, or else that the Byzantine scribe of the thirteenth century misunder- stood, not only the movement of the right arm (as Gurlitt admits), but also th.it of the left. Nor is it necessary to suppose that the dainty archaic motive g.ave rise to the description of Niketas. Just as the right hand had lost the lance it once grasped, so too the left hand may have lost a shield. If there was any drapery hanging over the left arm, Niketas might easily mistake the outstretched left hand, robbed of its shield, for a hand holding drapery. — But we need neither the confused account of Niketas nor the hypothesis of Arethas ; the evidence for the Promachos derived from the monuments themselves is infinitely more reliable than any conclusions based on these Byzantine writers. Petersen {Kom. Mi/t/i. 1893, 350) also opposes Gurlitt's hypothesis ; he supposes that the statue seen by Niket.as m.ay have been an Alexandrine work in the style of the archaistic Athena published by him ibui. ' It is not likely that the Clidttchiis (Plin. xxxiv. 54) is identical with this statue. - The Scholion to Demosthenes c. Aiidrot. 13, p. 597 (Ov. S. Q. 642, 646), goes back to the same source : the artists' names only are omitted. ' Imagines, 4. DATE OF THE PROMACHOS 33 be regarded as necessary developments of the style of Pheidias. Only the tendency to greater restlessness and animation and the lack of severe simplicity could out- weigh these considerations and make it possible to assign the figure to any other than to the creator of the Parthenos. Before discussing this question further, the date of the Promachos must be fixed more exactly. The work, as we have seen, is probably later and certainly not earlier than the Parthenos. If this be so, then the usual assumption that the Promachos was a monument of the Kimonian period must be false. The assump- tion is indeed a pure conjecture which must be abandoned in face of more e.xact knowledge. If the torso Medici is a copy of the Promachos, the Promachos can- not belong to the Kimonian epoch. K. Lange rightly drew the same conclusion. From the earliest testimon}- concerning the Promachos, that of Demosthenes {Fals. Leg. § 272), it follows with certainty, as I believe, that the statue, which he only calls the large bronze Athena, was a votive gift for the Persian war. He describes it as apiarelov tov irpo^ rov<; jSap^iipovi; TroXe/xov, and the stele with the curse upon Arthmios, who had brought the money of the great king, was set up beside the Athena, according to Demosthenes, precisely because the Athena was the monument of the Persian war. The further assertion that the statue was erected out of the money contributed by the Hellenes is obviously mere rhetorical exaggeration and inaccurac)-.* Now supposing that the Promachos was a votive gift for the Persian war, there is still a large margin within which to date it. It has long been acknowledged that the assertion made by the late authors, such as Pausanias, Aristeides, and the Scholiast to Demosthenes, to the effect that the statue was a votive gift from Marathon, cannot be relied on.'- Probably the dedicator)- inscription described the statue merely as a votive gift utto TlepaMv or «7ro Mr'jBcov. A shortened inscription of this kind would be quite in the fifth-century manner,^ and would best explain the comprehensive wording of Demosthenes. The extant copies show the Promachos to be later than the Lemnia and the Parthenos. The design for the latter must have been executed about 447 B.C. ; * and as we need allow only a short interval before the making of the Promachos (which is earlier than the frieze and the pediments of the Parthenon), we thus obtain the years 445 — 440 B.C. as the approximate date of this work. Now it .seems to me far more likely that the statue was erected about this time than during the administration of Kimon. The career of Kimon was one long conflict with the Persian power ; any monument therefore celebrating the close of the national struggle would have been unsuitable to the spirit of his time, for it was his aim rather to keep animosity alive. Memorials of isolated exploits, such as the gilt Athena and the bronze palm- tree dedicated at Delphi after the battle on the Eurymedon,= were appropriate, but ' Otfried Miiller {£>e Phidiae Vita, i. § 10) .suggests that there is also an allusion to the tribute of the allies. Preller, Phidias, p. 165 (Hall. Encycl. iii. vol. 22), suggests the distribution of the booty after Plataia. But if Demosthenes, as Waehsmuth {Sladt. Allien, i. 542) assumes, really means the money which w.as brought by Arthmios, his statement is a purely rhetorical invention ; the general connexion of the statue with the Persian wars was a well-known fact which Demosthenes takes for granted and works up into a rhetorical period. ^ So already by Otfried Miiller, De Pliid. Vita, i. par. 9.— For the inscribed fragment C. I. A. i. 333 which Kirchhoff referred to the Promachos, cf. Michaelis, Atli. Mitth. ii. 92, and Waehsmuth, Stadl. Allu-n, i. 542. It probably comes from a smaller anathema erected in the lower city soon after the battle of Marathon. ' Cf. especially the inscription of the golden shield in the temple of Delphi, 'Afl7)ro?oi oiri M^5w^ koX @n0alwv (Aeschin. i/i Ctesipli. 116), also the existing inscriptions, 'Afliji'ai'oi airii neAoiroJ'i'TjiTiaii' (Rohl, hncr. Atit. 5), eoupioi airi laLfiavTlvav {ih. 548 seq. ), t\(96,vioi airb AaKeSatiiovluv (if>. 46), etc. '' Cf. U. Kohler, Silziiiii^sher. d. Berl. Akad. 1S89, p. 225. " Paus. X. 15, 4. F 34 PHEIDIAS if wc are to trust Demosthenes the rmmachos was not an offering of this kind, and the indirect testimony of the later witnesses confirms the account of Demosthenes, for they would never have given Marathon as the occasion of the offering had the inscription mentioned any other victor)'. It was not until the death of Kimon that the foreign policy of Pcrikles com- pletely asserted itself Its first aim was to bring the Persian war to a close so as to concentrate cverj- effort on the attainment of Athenian supremacy in Greece. Negotia- tions for peace were accordingly begun. Kallias brought the Athenian proposals (a record of which was probably set up on the Akropolis) to Susa. This occurred about 445 B.C. Although it is unlikely that the peace .so triumphantl)- celebrated by the orators of the fourth century ever took the shape of a formal treat)-, )-ct the practical result of the negotiations was a complete cessation of hostilities between Persians and Greeks for a long period.' It would naturally be to the interest of the Pcriklcan policy not to let the close of the Persian war pass unrecorded, and no better means of commemorating it could be imagined than a colo.'^sal votive gift to the patron goddess of Athens bearing some such inscription as 'AOijvaloi airo Mi;'S&)i'.'- This votive gift was, I believe, the Athena Promachos. The period (445 — 440) to which, for stylistic reasons, we have assigned the statue thus becomes probable on historic grounds also. Just such a gift is what wc should expect from Perikles, and certainl)- Phcidias from his relation to Perikles would have some share in the work. Perhaps he made the first sketch., and handed over the execution of the large model and the casting in bronze to one of his assistants — in a word, to the Praxiteles named as the artist b)- a tradition which was probabl)- derived from the actual inscription on the statue. According to Pausanias, the reliefs on the shield were made by Mys from drawings b)' Parrhasios. At least one ancient inscription must have testified to the fact that these two artists worked together. This inscription, which may actually have been on the shield of the Promachos, gave rise at a later date to the epigram preserved in Athenaeus (p. 782 B).* From what we know of Parrhasios independently (the date of Mys depends on his) it is by no means impossible that be was working as early as 440 B.C., and if so the reliefs on the shield would be, as is most natural to suppose, contemporary \\ith the erection of the statue.* The statement of Pausanias as to the reliefs not being by Pheidias affords further proof that the statue was by another artist, for Pheidias appears to have always executed the reliefs on his large works with his own hand, and, having himself been a painter, to have dispensed with the aid of painters or engravers. The main reason for the widespread belief that the Promachos belonged to the period of Kimon lies in the assumption of a ' Kimonian Pheidias.' ■''■ The only evidence however for the assumption is that of Pausanias, who says that the group dedicated ' For the so-called ' Kimonian treaty ' cf. Busolt, Gr. G,:v/i. ii. 512 s,j,j. ; Holm, Gr. Gesch. ii. 201 sqq.; Curtius, G>: Gesth. 6th ed. ii. 183, 832; Stadtgesch. v. Allien, 205 ; Kojip, in Khciitisches Museum f. Philol. vol. 48 ('893). P- 485- The date of the embassy of Kallias is to be found in Siiidas, stih voc. KaWlas (in the year of the invasion of I'lcistoanax). Krateros incorporated the decree in his collection. The theory of Curtius, Stac/Zgese/i. 205, that at the beginning of the fourth century a fictitious inscription was cut in stone and set up on the Akropolis, is scarcely tenable ; Isokrates at least in 380 11. c. considered the record genuine. [Cf. Grote, v. 195] - Cf. s!i/>m, p. 33, note 3. •• Preger, /user. Gr. Melr. No. 185, dates the epigram either in the first century B.C. or in the first century a.d. Cf. Brunn, K. G. ii. 97 seq. lie supposes that they are contemporary, allhough he places the Promachos in the period of Kimon (i. 165). = See especially I.oschcke, To,/ des P/iiJias, p. 45, n. i. THE 'KIMONIAN' PERIOD OF PHEIDIAS 35 by the Athenians ^ in mernor\' of Marathon at Delphi was by Pheidias. But this statement, given only by Pausanias, must surely be wrong, even if wc admit a Kimonian Pheidias. On the bathron of the group there was an inscription to the effect that it was a BeKuT-i] for the battle of Marathon ;- hence the group must have been set up very soon after the battle, at a time when Pheidias, even if we suppose him to have been born as early as 500 B.C., could not possibly have been at work. Every trust- worthy record of a monument dedicated as a tenth after a victorious battle shows it to have been set up immediatch- after the victory it commemorated.-' Only in cases where the votive gift was a building it might take longer to complete it.' The group at Delphi would certainly be dedicated and carried out immediately after the victory. In the da\-s of Kimon there would scarcely be any occasion for dedicating a SeKuTi] for Marathon, which had been thrown into the background by other important events. Finally, the character of the work, a scries rather than a group of separate figures standing together without any indication of action, is more suited to the older period, while the conception of Miltiades as the central figure surrounded by the patron divinities of Athens, Athena and Apollo, and the heroes of Attica, is quite in the spirit of the days when the name of Miltiades was in everybody's mouth."' It was also characteristic of that older period to place this large and magnificent bronze group in Delphi instead of on the Akropolis. No doubt Kimon wished to pay personal honour to his father's memory, but the customary way to do so was to set up some private dvd0)j/j,a or other work of art such as the historical painting dedicated in the Stoa Poikile by Kimon's brother-in law." The group sent as a tithe to the god of Delphi by the Athenians must have been made directly after the battle. When the Lakcdaimonians overthrew the power of Athens in B.C. 404 they set up in Delphi without delay a group designed to be in every particular the counterjjart and rival of the one offered by the hated Athenians. Lysander, like Miltiades, formed the central figure of a group of divinities. Strangely enough excess of pride brought about the downfall of both leaders, and the greatness of Lysander, like that ' It should be carefully noted that neither Pliny nor .\ny otiicr author s.ays anything of this, the most comprehensive work 1iy Pheidias. - Paus. .\. 10, I : T^ ^aBptji . . . (Tri-ypai^fxa liiv taTiv airo SeKarrj? tov MapaSau'i'ou (fyuv rtDtipat Tas eiKoi'as. Therefore Pausanias calls it dATjef? \6yip SeicaTT) Tf)s ^axJ?! in order to distinguish it from the votive gifts which were connected with the battle of Marathon not by an inscription but only by a legend. ' For a list of public votive offerings connected with events in war, cf. Ziemann, A- A)ialltciitaln Cr., Konigsb. Dissert. 1885, p. 10 siji/. * Yet the portico of the Athenians in Delphi, or e.sanjple, was built immediately after the naval victory over Acgina, probably in B.C. 488. Cf. Kohlcr, Khcin. Miis. 1891, p. i Siq. ■' The Pinax by Epiktelos with MiAticiStis koAu's must be older according to vase chronology ; it may refer to Miltiades as a irars or young man, but not as a victorious general in the prime of life ; in the same way the 'Barbarian' statue published by Sttidniczka, /a/trd. d. Inst. 1S91, p. 238, can have nothing to do with Marathon. Not because the style is too archaic, for this objection is no longer valid after the discoveiy of the metopes of the treasury of the Athenians in Delphi, but because it seems impossible that this proud mounted Persian should have served as a monument of his country's defeats. Stuilniczka compares the Mardonios which stood in front of the Persian porch at b'parta, but Pausanias (iii. 11, 3) says that the statues of Persians, Mardonios and Artemisia among them, stood on the pillars eTrl -ruv Kiivav of the porch ; they are usually, and correctly, supposed to have been supporting figures (Curlius, Avih. '/.Ig. 1881, 18, 20) ; they probably served as supports for the beams of the upper storey of the porch, and were evidently decorative. Pausanias further implies that this decoration belonged to a later period. In the Persian rider of the Akropolis I incline to see a votive gift belonging to the end of the period of the Peisistralidai, when these rulers were trying to come into closer connexion with the Persian king. Against Studniczka s view see also Hartwig, MdslerschaUn, p. 10, and Percy Gardner, Ashinokaii Vases, p. 31, No. 310. « The most probable hypothesis is that Peisianax erected the porch out of his own private means. Cf. Wachsmuth, Slatll. Allien, ii. 501. If he had only been ' Vorsitzender der Eaukommission,' as Robert assumes, Hermes, xxv. 422, the stoa would never have been called by his name. 36 PHEIDIAS of Miltiadcs, was already over a year after liis victor)-. It follows tliat each moiiumcnt must have been made directly after the victory for which it was a thank-offering.' It is not, however, surprising to find that in later times the Delphic group was supposed to be by Pheidias. It was known to commemorate Marathon, and Pheidias was held, at least by Pausanias and his informants, to be, by reason of the Promachos in Athens, the maker of Marathon votive gifts kut e^o')(fjv. We have shown above how little Pausanias is to be relied upon where Pheidias is concerned. In three instances at least Pausanias has ascribed to Pheidias works which were undoubtedly by other artists. The Promachos is a fourth such instance, and the Athena at Pellene is presumably a fifth, for the statement of Pausanias that this gold and ivory image was older than the similar images by Pheidias on the Akropolis and at I'lataia certainly arose ' from the archaic style of the image, and this simply means that the image was not by I'heidias, though it was a gold and ivorj- statue of Athena. Thus we arc led to be sceptical with regard to the Athene of Plataia also (a marble statue in gold-ivory technique which Pausanias again stands alone in ascribing to Pheidias, and again wrongly associates with Marathon).^ According to a reliable authority the temple and the image were erected with the eighty talents received by the Plataians after the battle.* Probably the building was begun at once, and the ornamentation of the Pronaos with frescoes by Polygnotos and Onasias would be left to the last. We know therefore of no ascertained work of Pheidias older than the Lcmnian Athena, and the ' Kimonian ' period of Pheidias is a mere myth. As a fact, literary tradition tells us only of the artist's relation to Perikles, and nothing of a relation to Kimon. Not only did he first become famous through the patronage of Perikles, but in an age where party opinion ran so high it is hardly likely that Pheidias, who, accord- ing to the most reliable tradition, was a close friend and, we may be sure, a political adherent of Perikles, should have previously belonged to the party of Kimon. VII. The Olympian Zeus. — Trial and Death of Pliculias. The immediate and most important result of the previous investigations is that the Zeus of Olympia cannot be earlier than the Parthenos. Since Pheidias had no 'Kimonian' period at all, and since no certain work of his can be proved to be earlier than the Lemnia, neither can his masterj)iece, the Oljinpian Zeus, be placed before 450 B.C. The Zeus would be unintelligible both on aesthetic and on historic grounds at so early a period. If the Eleians intrusted to an Athenian artist the most important commission that had ever been in their gift, it must have been because that artist had already won world-wide renown. Now Pheidias only won his fame through the works intrusted to him and to his colleagues by Perikles. The artistic achievements of Periklean Athens were, in fact, the conditions which necessarily preceded the call of Pheidias to Olympia. In the year 456 there was no Athenian art great enough to account for an Athenian artist being invited to ' Fulviiis Uisimis publishoil a terminal bust (now lost) insciibcil 'Miltiadcs.' 'I'lic hcail, which iiossibly iloes not belong to the term, can scarcely be referred to the Delphic offering, for it wears no helmet. Besides, it is certainly not older than the Parthenos. The beautiful head (Louvre, No. 1608) infra PI. IV. which Visconli calls Miltiadcs (honogr. Gr. PI. 13) is purely Pheidian in character, but it is impossible to name it exactly, for it resembles the Ursimis head in style only. A lion is seen opposite the bull on the neckpiece of the helmet, therefore the bull cannot be ' the bull of Marathon ' as Visconti supposed. - Klein, in Anh. Epigi: Mill, aits Ocslcrr. 1883, 69. •■ Paus. ix. 4, I. ■* Plut. Aristcitl. 20. Herodotos says nothing aliout it : cf. American Jouni. of Arch. 1S91, 400. OLYMPIAN ZEUS AND THE TRIAL OF PHEIDIAS 37 make the temple statue itself, especially when we remember that the Lakedaimonians had just been allowed to celebrate their victory over the Athenians by erectintj an akroterion over the completed temple. The only direct ancient tradition we have about the date of the Olympian Zeus places it, as is well known, after the Parthcnos. Yet the theory that the Zeus is older than the Parthcnos, and that the date of Pheidias as given by Pliny (Ol. 83=448 B.C.) refers to the unveiling of the Zeus, is one of long standing. It was held by Winckelmann,i though he afterwards abandoned it,'- and Chr. G. Heyne attempted to prove it in detail.^ Lately Loschcke revived the theory with great acuteness ; ^ and in spite of the lively opposition of other scholars he has again quite recently defended his point of view.^ We shall take Loschcke's thesis for a point of departure : he maintains that there were two ancient and contradictory traditions concerning the date of the Olympian Zeus between which we have to choose. This view is, however, inexact : we have only the one tradition mentioned above, for Plutarch's narrative, which, according to Loschcke, affords ' convincing ' although ' indirect ' proof that the Zeus was made before the Parthcnos, is no evidence for this at all, either direct or indirect. There is not a word in Plutarch to indicate that the trial of Pheidias, which he relates in detail, took place immediately after the dedication of the Parthcnos, so that Pheidias would hav^e no time to execute any other commission. On the contrary, the whole context, combined with the express statement that the trial of Aspasia took place about the same time, distinctly shows that Plutarch thought of the trial as taking place just before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian war. Thus Plutarch's narrative does not contradict the tradition that the Zeus was made immediately after the completion of the Parthcnos. It is not about the date of the Zeus that we have two traditions ; evidence is only divided as to the date of the trial and death of Pheidias. The narrative of Plutarch places the prosecution of Pheidias, as we have seen, just before the war, and makes Pheidias die in prison at Athens after his con- demnation. On the other hand, the account preserved in the Scholia to Aristophanes is based on the presumption that the trial with all its consequences occurred directly after the dedication of the Parthcnos, these consequences being that Pheidias escaped from prison, made the Zeus in Olympia, was accused a second time by the Eleians, and finally was put to death. It is between these two traditions that we have to choose. Philochoros, quoted by the Scholiast to Aristophanes," after giving the date of the dedication of the Parthcnos, adds some information about the fate of the artist, but by using the expression Xeyerai seems to decline being responsible for its veracit}-.'^ The Scholiast accordingly takes it for granted that the events which Philochoros relates concerning Pheidias, to. Trepl 'PeiBiav 'yevofxeva, i.e. from the trial ' In the first edition of the Gcschkhtc d. A'lnis/, 1764, p. J32. - Geschkhic d. A'liiis/, book 9, c.-ip. 2, § II (Weike, ed. Meyer and Schulze, vi. i, 39; ed. Eiselein, v. 358). ' Antiquarische Attfsiilze, i. (1778), p. 203 ; he dates the making of the Zeus Ol. 81, I — 83. •* Phidias Tod und die Chroiiologie des olymfisclun Zeus, in His/. Uii/crsm/i. A. Scliae/er, gewidmet. '- Feslschrift z. 50 Jdhr. Jitbil. d. Vereiiis v. Alterthumsfr. im Kheinlajid, 1S91, p. 16 sqq., where the latest literature on the subject is referred to. Curtius, Grkeh. Geseh. 6th ed. ii. 884, should be added to the list. * After the investigations of SchoU and von Wilamowitz it may lie considered certain that the long and tnistworthy scholion from *iAo'xopos to \4yovffi Se Tives is taken from Philochoros, and that nothing ought to be subtracted from it. Cf. also Loschcke, ioe. cit. 20 seq. ' This may be concluded from the word \«7€Toi, although it does not directly prove the uncertainty of the tradition. 35G26g 38 niF.IDIAS to the execution of the artist in Klis, took place in the same year as the dechcation of the Farthenos, to which they form the sequel in the narrative of Philochoros. From this passage the SchoHast concludes that the misfortune of Pheidias happened seven years before the Megarian Pscphisiiia and the outbreak of the war, and consequent!}- could ha\-e liad notliint^ to do with either. Now the Scholiast is evidently in error. Philochoros assigns a date to the dedication of the Parthenos only : what he adds about Pheidias, including the first prosecution, i.s undated, for, as he certainly does not place the completion of the Zeus and the second prosecution in the year of the dedication of the Parthenos, we need not assume that he wished to assign that date to the first prosecution cither. The fact is that he dates neither prosecution, but merely makes the ultimate results of an event follow immediately upon it, probably because he had nothing else to date them by.' Plutarch's chronology of the prosecution is confirmed by testimony from other quarters, and notably by vXristophanes himself. In V\\c Peace (605), Hermes, with that cunning of the townsman %\hich can trace below each event the personal motive hidden from the stupid peasants, Trygaios and the chorus, alludes to the calamity of Pheidias, and to the fear felt by Perikles lest he should be involved in it, as being the causes of the Megarian Pscphisma and of the Pcloponiicsian war. The pi)int of the witticism would be lost had Pheidias died six years before the Pscpliisina, at a time when Perikles stood at the zenith of his power without the slightest cause for fear of any sort.- On the other hand, as regards the death of Pheidias, we have the version reported with reservations by Philochoros, and the version of Plutarch. It is now almost universally acknowledged that the trial in Elis, ending with the execution, is only a 'reflection' of the first trial.^ It is due to rhetorical inventiveness, working upon the favourite theme of the world's ingratitude towards its great men and the ill luck which befalls them. In order that the story of the second trial might be coherent it was necessary to make Pheidias escape from the prison in Athens and flee to Elis. Plutarch, who gained his information, as is generally admitted, from the best sources, and from sources substantially older than Philochoros, ignores that version. His statement that Pheidias died in prison in Athens is incomparably more credible than the other story, and admirably fits in with the allusion in Aristophanes to the misfortune of Pheidias, an allusion which would certainly not be consistent with the escape from Athens and honourable reception at P^lis. Besides, no one would have dared to invent the story of the second trial, which must be at least as old as the third century B.C., if the Olympian Zeus had not been confessedly a more recent work than the Parthenos. Thus the only direct testimony to the date of the Zeus remains uncontroverted. We assume, then, relying solely on the best-accredited tradition, that Phcitlias began the Zeus immediately after the Parthenos in 438, and finished it for the eighty-seventh Olympic festival ; thereupon followed the trial and death in prison. There is nothing improbable in this assumption. If Pheidias could complete the Zeus in six years, though he required nine for the Parthenos, it was probably because, in making the Zeus, he had two assistants, Kolotes and Panainos. Nor is it necessary to suppose that Pheidias was at Olympia all the time: when once the design and the models were made, the master's presence was not always ' This is a common proceeding of Philochoros ; cf. Bcickh, Plan d. Allliis i(. Philochoros {Abli. Bci/. Akad. 1832), p. 7. - Cf. Nibscn, Hiilor. Zluhi: N. F. xxvii. 1SS9, 406. ^ Cf. Loschcl-ear 438, he continued to superintend the Periklean works, and more particularl)' the completion of the Parthenon.'^ Not till this temple was quite finished and the position of Perikles began to be insecure did the accusation of embezzlement, the particulars of which we do not know,-' take definite shape against Pheidias. His death in prison followed upon the trial. It was a most natural resolve on the part of the surviving members of his family to abandon their home and settle in Elis. There the mcmor)- of the great artist was held in reverence, and we have evidence, at least in later times, that his descendants were invested with the honourable office of ^aiSpvi'Tai ^ of the image of Zeus. This chronology of the Zeus fits in with everjthing else we know about the statue, and first with the legend of Pantarkes, which, when its tangled threads are once unravelled, jiclds the following facts. The stor}- must of course have arisen from some definite circumstance. This was the inscription on the finger of Zeus,* in real fifth-century Attic fashion, of the ' love-name ' IIavTdpKi]- in modern times that the statue of an Anadiiiiiciios, unnamed, which Pheidias made and set ' In the time of Pausanias this was still shown ; it may probably be identified with the long narrow building immediately south of the Byzantine church. At Epidauros too, as the inscription 'Eiprifi. dpx- 1886, 145 siji/., shows, was a carefully built ipyaaT/ifiiov for the temple, provided with Koviaai^. The building on the Akropolis south of the Parthenon may have been the workshop of Pheidias. There is no reason to doulit the Ergasterion in Olympia as Robert does (Hermes, xxiii. 453). - In the year 433 — 432 the works on the Parthenon were still going on ; in 434 begins the inventory of the contents of the interior, which must then have been complete. Cf. Foucart, B.C.H. xiii. x^^sqi]. It will be remembered that Plutarch reckons the Propylaia, which were erected between 437 and 432, among the buildings under the superintendence of Pheidias. ^ The reasons given by different authorities are at variance. .Scholl has shown that Plutarch's stories about the gold used for the Parthenos and the portraits on the shield are mere inventions ; what Philochoros says about the ivory, although it sounds more probable, is assuredly another invention ; Diodoros, who relies on Ephoros, only says voKKh. raif Upuv XP'OI^'^'''""' ; i' 's quite evident that the ancients had not mastered the numerous and complicated details of the accusation ; Ephoros gives the general drift, and his account is probably correct. •* Paus. V. 14, 5. " Cf. Robert in Hermes, xxiii. 447 ; von Wilamowitz, Comment. Gramm. iv. 16, i. The evidence is reliable and in itself quite credible ; the cathedrals of the middle ages afford examples of far greater licence. Clement of Alexandria, who usually derives his information from the best sources, has the story, and it is quoted as a well-known fact in the passage in Photios (which is probably derived from Polemon) about the Nemesis of Agorakritos. Pantarkes is here called 'Apycioj, but that is probably only a mistake of the person who made the extract, or perhaps of the copyist. The correct word is probably 'HAeios. There is no trace here of any ancient controversy about the native place of Pantarkes, such as has been imagined. The testimony of Gregorius Nazianzenus and of Libanius, who connect the inscription with other statues, is naturally valueless. ^ Paus. v. II, 3 : ^oiKivai rh eMos navTapKei \iyovaiv. 40 PHEIDIAS up in the .'Vltis, has been wrongly brought into connexion with this question. It is a separate work, and has nothing to do with I'antarkcs.' The presence of the ' love-name ' is best explained by assuming that the Zeus was still unfinished in 436, for it is extremely unlikely that such an inscription was added when the statue was once complete and dedicated for worship. More imi^ortant than the Pantarkcs question arc the observations made by Dorpfcld on the temple of Zeus and on the Parthenon.- A piece of very decisive evidence is afforded by the fact that the basis of the Zeus, as well as the pavement immediatcl}- in front of it, were made of black Eleusinian stone. This was well calculated to set off the surrounding pavement of white Pentelic marble and the golden reliefs of the basis itself. Dorpfeld lays stress on the circumstance that Eleusinian stone was employed in a similar wa}- in the construction of the Propj'laia and of the Ercchthcion, but not in an}- older buildings, and notably not in the Parthenon. He is no doubt right in considering the square space in front of the Zeus to be a conscious imitation of the similar larger space in front of the I'arthenos. The further observations that the Zeus and the Parthenos stood at the same distance from the cella door, that the cella at Olympia had to be altered before the image could be set up, and that the Zeus was too large in proportion to the cella in which it stood, while the Athena completely harmonized with its surroundings, in themselves neither prove nor disprove the priority of one or the other image. But it seems most natural to suppose that Pheidias imposed upon Olympia the conception which had belonged by right to the Parthenon, and that the Elcians submitted to such an alteration in their building at the hands of the celebrated artist of the Parthenos, because they were anxious to possess a statue as magnificent as the one in Athens. In the )-car 456, immediately after the completion of the temple, the date to which Loschcke assigns the beginning of the Zeus, all this would be quite unintelligible. Loschcke, however, thinks it strange that the temple should have been left eighteen )'ears without an image. True, if temple and image were planned at the same time, as in the case of the Parthenos, thcj- would naturall)' have been begun together, but if this was not so there is nothing to fi.x one date for the image rather than another. We cannot tell whether it was originall)- intended to set up a new cultus image, or an image at all, in the temple, In the temple at Delphi, for instance, which was built about the same time, no cultus image was erected so far as we know. Loschcke further lays stress on the circumstance that Plinj', in the \ery passage where he mentions a joint work of Panainos and Kolotes in Elis (xxxv. 54), assigns Panainos to the same Olympiad as Pheidias (Ol. 83). This date Loschcke concludes to be that of the completion of the Zeus. To my mind it is evident that Pliny, owing to the paucit)' of chronological material at his disposal, is dating Panainos not independently but mcrcl}' from his brother Pheidias. He was only in possession of the dates of a few leading artists, about whom he grouped lesser artists, according to the traditions of their connexion with one another. The whole passage containing the date of Panainos is one of Pliny's most characteristic and arbitrary pieces of ' Taus. vi. 4, 5. The usual idenlificalion of the avaSovfiei'os of Pheidias with the victor statue of Pantarkes, of which we know neither the artist nor the motive, must be rejected. Paiisanias says — and we have no reason to doubt his word — that the statues stood in difterent parts of the Ahis. The avaSouiievo! was a votive gift which only bore the name of the artist (cf. Gurlitt, Paiisanias, p. ^"jS sqq.) \ the name of the person represented was unknown, as Pausanias expressly says (cf. Schubart's translation). I shall attempt later to point to a copy of this Anadumenos. Cf. infra, p. 244. The three monuments — viz. the victorious athlete, the Anadumenos, and the figure on the throne — are all i|uite correctly distinguished by Dorpfeld, Olympia, Baudenkmiih-r, Tt-xlhi. ii. 21. - Olympia, BanJenlm. TcxtM. ii. 16, 20. DATE OF THE OLVMIMAN ZEUS 4I chronology-making.' It seems evident from a later passage'-^ that he found the date of Pheidias read}' to hand, and invented that of Panainos. Loschcke finds confirmation for the early date to which he assigns Panainos and the Zeus in Robert's hypothesis that the paintings of the Stoa Poikilc were finished about 460, and that the battle of Oinoc, there represented, happened about the same time;' But valitl objections to this theory ha\-c been brought forward b)- Judeich, * and the earlier view, the evidence for which has been carefully collected by Wachsmuth" — viz. that the picture of the battle of Oinoe did not belong to the original cycle of the Polygnotan paintings — is still the prevailing one. This picture was not painted, as the others were, on the large central wall, the name of its artist is not mentioned, nor did it enjoy the same celebrity as the other three. The group b}- Hj-patodoros and Aristogeiton (Pans. x. 4) in Delphi must assuredly, as Robert assumes, have been an older work, and the battle of Oinoc, with which Pausanias connects it, is certainly the same that formed the subject of the picture in the Stoa Poikile. Whether, however, Pausanias is right in connecting the battle with the Delphic group is another question. '' Again, according to Robert's h_\'pothesis, the Stoa was erected about the time of Kimon's exile, and was intended to celebrate the victory over the Lakcdaimonians, who favoured the Kimonian faction. This seems highly improbable, seeing that Peisianax, Kimon's brother- in-law, dedicated the porch. It is more likely that the building was undertaken after Kimon's return, i.e. after 457, and that in true Kimonian spirit it was designed to celebrate the great exploits of Attic heroes against the barbarian Amazons, Trojans, and Persians. We are not even sure that Panainos was employed on the Stoa at all. It is true that Pliny and Pausanias call him the painter of the battle of Marathon, but in other authorities the same picture is ascribed not only to Poljgnotos (which would mean little, considering the fame of Polygnotos), but also to Mikon.' Even if Panainos was engaged upon the Stoa that is no reason wh}- he should not have w-orked about 456 — 450 in Athens, and about 43S — 432 in Olympia and Elis. Finally, Loschcke calls attention to some purely aesthetic reasons for dating the Zeus in the older period. Of the ' archaic elements in the form and arrangement of the beard ' which he sees in the copies on coins I can discover no trace. The coins seem to me to show that the beard was similar to that of the seated Poseidon on the Parthenon frieze. The line of the profile is decidedly against Loschcke's theory. In all the copies it is very straight, corresponding to the profiles seen on the Parthenon frieze, so that the Zeus must be later than the Lemnia, whose nose, as we have seen, forms an angle with the forehead. ' Cf. my Essay in ix. Suppl. Bd. of Flcckchcn's Jahrh., ' Plinius ttini seine Qiiii/en,' p. 16 si/i/.; and Kuberl, Arch. Marcheii, p. 25. - Plin. 36, 15 . . . pitliiraiii aiil sla/iiariam, quariiin ii/iai/iie (iiiii P/iidia lOifit Oi/ogciisiiiia Icilia olympiads ; as regards painting, this refers to the passage on I'anainos in 35, 54. Cf. Robert, loc. iil, ' Robert, Hermes, xxv. 1890, 412. ■■ FUekeiseiCsJahrh. 1890, 757. ' Stadl. A then, ii. 502 s,}(/. Cf. also Benndorf, /n/«V'. : p. 160 seq.), andi is one of the most marvellous inventions of antiquity in existence. It was frequently copied in ancient times, especially on gems, and w-as 44 PHEIDIAS figures corresponds to a figure on the shiclil of the I'arthcnos. It is that of a Niobid who has fallen backwards over a rock. The heatl is down, the hands clasped behind it, while the legs, bent at the knees, still seem clinging to the rock above (Fig. 7). Just the same moti\c is introduced on the shield, but here the figure is that of an Amazon Fig. 7. — Niobid Trom ihe disc in the British Museum. (From a drawing.) dressed in a short chiton. Now we know that on the throne of Zeus, presumably along the sides of the seat, were represented Artemis and Apollo slaj-ing the Niobids ; we may therefore venture to recognize in the reliefs, whose conception we have seen to be Pheidian, echoes of those compositions. As we onl)- possess fragmentary portions of the original design, the arrangement of the separate parts remains uncertain. We may be sure, however, that the composition was a frieze, as the divinities are aiming straight in front of them.^ If our conclusions be correct, they afford a fresh proof that the Zeus was not a work of the sfevere style, for the Niobid composition has a markedly pictorial character, and its motives are full of consummate freedom and beaut)-. The authentic copies of the reliefs on the shield of the Parthenos show the same pictorial character, and the moti\'es are equall)' free and daring. This relief of the Ainazonoinachia is a priceless document ffir our knowledge of Pheidias ; it proves be}-ond a doubt that it is not, as some have supposed,'' vase-paintings of the se\-ere stj^le which will help us to recover the style of Pheidias. The designs of the shield recall a distinct class of vases, distinguished by a free and animated stj'le, and an essentially pictorial qualit)-, which Pol)-gnotos was apparentl}- the first to introduce.^ On these vases as on the shield the figures stand on undulating ground either above one another or side by side. The same vigorous action characterizes the figures on both — the long strides, the raising of the foot on an elevation, the fall, the headlong plunge, the brandishing of weapons, the interchange of back and front view — all these are to be found on the vases as on the shield. We have here a fixed standpoint adapted for other figures in different designs. Cf. the Attic vase (Millin, v. p. ii. .|9), whicli iiiriy l)e dated as early as 430 B.C., and the famous Semele niirror (r'"riederichs, Klciiie Kinist, 36). ' Ileydemann rightly emphasized this point. The arrangement on the disc cannot possilily lie the right one, for the divinities are shooting into the air. Note also that the female figure which was intended to be running to the right has been placed as if lying on the ground. " Tuchstein, Jalirb. d. Ins/. 1S90, 112 — 116. ' Cf. Saiiimlutii; Sahom-off, i. I'asfii, Einlcit. ji. 5; also Robert, Die Nchyia des Pofyaiio/, p. 42 siji^. Winter [D. Jiiiii;i->tii Altischcit I'aseii, p. 36) lightly saw in the Aryballos Fiorelli from Cunia (Not. dci I'asi Ciiiiiani, 8) the direct influence of the rartheiios shield. To the same series belong the 'Giant' vase of Melos {ll'ieiier I 'or/cx'c-i/. Ser. viii. 7), the .Aristophanes kylix in Berlin ('Eifuj/u. apx- 1883, 7), and the Xenophantos vase (Compte Keudii, 1866, 4) ; also Millin, Vases Peiiits, i. 56, 61 ; Naples, 3251 (Heydemann). All these are purely Attic vases of aliout 430 B.C. RASES OF THE PARTHENOS AND OF THE ZEUS 45 whence to meet a! I attempts to push back the art of Pheidias to an antiquated stage which it had long left behind. True, Pheidias could represent calm and religious repose in a masterly manner when it was fitting to do so. The assembled gods who assist at the birth of Pandora on the basis of the Parthenos were naturally conceiv^cd of in repose, as is shown bj- the copies.' The reason lies partly in the nature of the subject, partly in that of the place which the design was to occupy ; the ornamentation on the basis of a religious image must have a certain solemnity. Even on the bases of the Parthenos and of the Zeus, however, Pheidias did not limit himself to the represen- tation of divinities calmlj- looking on, but he bounded his composition on the one side with the animated figure of the rising Helios, on the other with that of the sinking Selene. The movement of the Helios on the Parthenos basis was, as the existing copy shows," of the fiercest, and the rearing horses were led b)- a figure whose impetuous stride recalls the attitude of the warriors on the shield. The cosmical frame thus formed b)- the sun and moon is a purch' pictorial inven- tion,-' which, if it be due to Pheidias, is due to Pheidias the painter. Phidian ipsum initio [^ictcrevi fiiissc traditiir cUpeuinquc Athenis ah eo pictuni, sa}'s Pliii}'. Pheidias began life as a painter ; the shield to which Plin)- alludes was presumablj- that of the Parthenos, on the inner side of which the Gigantomachia was probably not in relief, but painted.* One vase-picture would seem to afford a conception of this painting,^ which in its main lines apparently resembled the Amazonomachia. On the vase, however, the vault of heaven over-arches the whole, while the rising Helios and the set- ting Selene again frame the composition. There arc a few more Attic vase-paintings in which this same idea has been made use of To judge from their st)-lc they all belong to the period about 430, and are composed in the Polygnoto-Phcidian manner. At this point it becomes possible to answer more definitel}' the question of what was the share of Pheidias in the execution of the sculptures of the Parthenon. The metopes of the temple have been admitted to differ greatly in stj'le," and ' Cf. Puchslein, Jahrb. d. Inst. 1890, 114; also Hub. .Schmidt, Diss: Philol. Hal. xii. 131 sqq. In the Lenormant statuette, the three figures in the centre are intended to give an indication of the peaceful assembly of the gods, to which Helios and Selene form a kind of setting (cf. Schreiber, Parthenos, p. 57). This inter- pretation should never have been doubled, and is now confirmed by the Pergamene b.asis, which also only gives an extract from the original. - On the basis of the Lenormant statuette. ^ Cf. SaiiimL .Sahoiiroff, Text to Plate 63, p. 2. ^ It is true that Pliny reckons (36, 18) the Gigantomachia among the other ornaments in relief of the Parthenos, but this is a rhetorical passage (cf. Robert, Air/i. Miinhcn, p. 24) ; on the inside of the shield ornament in relief would be unsuitable, and finally the analogy of the Athena by Kolotes in Elis seems to point to painting. The shield at Athens which Phidias painted can hardly be other than that of the Parthenos (as Urlichs, Clircstoin. I'liii., already pointed out ; Robert, loc. cit., agrees with him). It is worthy of note that shields with painted ornamentation inside only occur on those vase-paintings which are nearly analogous to the pictorial orna- mentation of the Parthenos shield and to its style ; cf. for examjile the ' Giant ' vase of Melos, also 'E(p7ifi. apx- 1883, 7, and Overbeck, GaP. Her. Bihhv. Taf. 11, I (where the Athena seems to be inlluenced by the Promachos). = Moiuim. (/. Inst. ix. 6 ; Overbeck, At/as -.. A'. Myl/:. Taf. 5, S ; cf. Roliert, Anii. Zlx: 1SS4, 47 ; Kuhnerdt in Roscher's Lexitoii, i. 1659; M. Mayer, Gi:;aiitci! iiiul Titamii, p. 268, 353; Petersen, Koni. Milth. 1S93, I'- 23'- * The Judgment of Paris is framed in by Helios setting and Selene riding away and looking back : Wimey Vorlegehl. .Ser. E. 1 1 ; by Helios alone, on the hydria, Overbeck, Gall. II, I. The setting Helios on the Delphic pediment and on the vase [Coinpte Rendu, i860, 3) is probably influenced by Pheiilias. " The supposition that the metopes of older style had been made for the ' Kimonian ' Parthenon (Kekule, ll'eibllihe Gewands/atiie aiis dem Werkstatt dcr Parlhenongiehelfigiircn, p. 22) is inadmissible, because the general uniformity of the metopes, in spite of isolated variations, forbids referring any of them back to so remote a period. Between the older Parthenon and the Parthenon of Perikles a long interval must have elapsed (see below). The discovery of the treasury of the Athenians in Delphi can teach us what metopes were like at the date of the first Parthenon. liesides, it is most improbable that there were ever any finished metopes belonging to a temple which never rose beyond the lowest drams of the columns. 46 PHEIDIAS clearly show tlie influence of various persons, while frieze and pediments are homo- geneous throughout, expressing the spirit and manifesting the methods of a singlc artist. If we except a few instances of a transitional and less individual style, all the metopes exhibit two conflicting tendencies. The one, represented only by a small number of examples, is to harshness and angularity, both in bodily form and in move- ment, onl)' a ver}- feeble and clumsy use being made of drapery. This style resembles that of the metopes on the so-called Theseion ' and of the frieze on the temple at Sunium.- It is the direct successor of the st\-le known to us from the ' Tjrant- sla)-ers ' b)' Kritios and Nesiotes,'' and shows little essential adwancc on those masters. The other tendency is to greater softness, roundness, and flow in the forms of the body (the abdomen more particularl}' is ijuite different) ; with it motion becomes incom- parably more vigorous and ficr}-, and the treatment of drapery richer, with a certain leaning to the pictorial. The rendering of the woollen stuff is at the same stage as in the Lemnia and Parthenos, i.e. it is heavier and more solid than in the frieze and pediments ; where linen occurs it is sharply differentiated from wool, and is treated as in the Promachos, not as in the frieze and pediments. Hence the metopes, as seems natural from the history of the building, must have been made at the same time as the Parthenos. Now the relief on the shield of the Parthenos proves that of the two manners noted on the metopes, only the later and more pictorial (where the swing and rhythm of the attitudes correspond to the reliefs of the shield) can belong to Pheidias ; compare for example the figure rushing forward on the metope South \'ll. or the fallen man South XXVTII. with the analogous figures on the shield. We may conjecture that a small number of the earlier metopes were intrusted to pupils of Kritios, ami that afterwards Pheidias, who had at first been more exclusive!)' occupied with the Parthenos, turned his attention to this department of the work also, when the other artists employed on the metopes tried to suit their style to his. The frieze and the pediments, which, except for some trifling inequalities in execution, may be considered uniform, must from stylistic reasons be later than the metopes, while the pediments are somewhat later than the frieze. The frieze must certainly have been finished before the last roofing was put on, and this was probably done before the image was set up in 43S B.C.^ The figures of the pediments, which were completed in the round below, and fixed in their places afterwards, must have been made after 438 B.C.'' We have seen that Pheidias may ' I cannot consider the Theseion to be later than the Parthenon : I hold it to be just a little earlier. The arguments of Julius, Aim. d. lust. 1S78, 205 sqq., have not been refuted. The counter argument brought forward by Dorpfeld, .■llluii. Milth. 1884, 336, is not convincing. If the frieze on the cella of the Parthenon owes its existence to an alteration in the plan of construction, as Dorpfeld plausibly argues, it cannot be placed at the beginning of a new development. Dorpfeld could only urge this if the frieze with its regidae were pait of the original design (as was formerly held), for only in that case would the Doric regula be a sign of earlier date. The frieze on the Theseion corresponds in style to the P.arthenon metopes of the second manner. The fact that the two styles occur together on the Parthenos shows that it is not necessary to suppose that the metopes of the Theseion were taken from an older building. - Athai. Mitlh. 1881, 233 (Lange) ; 1882, 396(Furtw.) ; 1884, 338 (Fabricius) ; cf. 1884, 336 (Dorpfeld). It is quite certain that the style corresponds as closely to the metopes of the Theseion as it differs essentially from the frieze of the same building. If the architectural forms of the marble temple at Sunium do not admit of being dated at about 450 B.C., the frieze must be assigned to the older structure of poros stone. ^ In addition to the head, abdomen and breast are specially characteristic. I can detect nothing peculiarly Myronian in these works ; rather do they recall Kritios. ■* Dorpfeld has communicated to me his opinion that the frieze was finished about the same time as the cultus- image, though he believes that the question cannot be decisively settled. ^ Two fragments most probably belonging to the building records of the Parthenon contain the accounts which refer to the purchase of marble blocks for the pedimental figures {C.I. A. iv. 297 a.b.) Loschcke ( 7tfa' t^'J Phidias, p. 46) pointed out that, as in one fragment mention is also made of a purchase of wood, the account is probably to be dated after the making of the roof, i.e. after 43S B.C. THK PARTHENON SCULPTURES 47 have retained the superintendence of the building after 438. There is not the smallest reason for disputing the tradition which makes him overseer of all the works or for denying his authorship of its principal sculptural decorations, i.e. of the frieze and the pediments. The aesthetic quality of the work is all in favour of the tradition : the fiery attitudes of some of the pedimental figures, such as the striding Poseidon and the Hermes, can only be matched on the shield and basis of the Parthenos ; the pictorial touches, which in the pediments find expression in the rocky seats and the waves of Okeanos, are paralleled by the wavy ground lines on the shield relief, while the rising Helios and the sinking Night of the east pediment have been shown to be genuine Pheidian conceptions, which could be introduced in a shortened form because the artist had expressed them fully elsewhere.' In the rendering of form, and especially of drapery, the frieze and the pediments are the immediate outgrowth and development of the metopes of freer style. Compare for example the mantle of the recumbent Greek on metope South XXVIII. with that of the ' Theseus ' or the ' Kephissos ' of the pediments. The style is absolutely the same, though equally characteristic in both, the only difference being that the folds in front of the pedimental figures — not at the back, where the correspondence with the metopes is absolute — are cut more deeply in order to make the drapery look lighter. To ascribe the metopes to the artist and deny him the frieze and the pediments means a refusal to acknowledge that he was capable of development at all. Now the existence of the Parthenos and its relation to the Lemnia afford irrefragable proof that Pheidias was by no means an artist who remained wedded to a fixed manner, but one who developed decidedly and rapidly. The Parthenos differs from the Lemnia, as we saw, in the treatment of drapery, the artist showing a tendency to abandon simple characterization of woollen stuff and to give more attention to the effective arrangement of folds. Besides this, the stuff appears lighter and thinner, and clings more closely to some parts of the bod)-, which thus become more prominent in the design. The difference in drapery between the frieze and the pediments on the one hand, and the Parthenos and the metopes on the other, only represents a further stage in the same perfectly normal progress. To make his development close with the Parthenos and the metopes would be most unjustifiable. On the contrary, as the frieze and pediments were made in the lifetime of Pheidias, and as tradition tells us that he superintended the works on the Parthenon, we have every reason for ascribing the growth of style — not to the school — but to the master himself. Only in certain details of slight importance the assistants may quite possibly have gone beyond the master's orders, but in all essentials the design is emphatically his very own. That powerful and dominant personality which undoubtedl)- governed the frieze and the pediments can, on the evidence of st}-le and of tradition,- be none other than that of Pheidias himself His name is and remains closely associated with that flower of Attic art which continued unrivalled for all time. The decorative sculptures on the colossal images of Athena Parthenos and of ' The pediment, owing to lack of space, gives a shortened form of the composition on the relief; it contains no new elements, except that the rider Selene is replaced by Nyx in a chariot as filling more suitably the angle of the pediment. - Kekule (Weibliche Gewandstatue) has recently attempted to assign the pediments to Alkamenes and Agorakritos. As the basis on which his arguments rest is false, his whole theory falls to the ground. The supposed differences between the pediments do not exist ; Kekule mistakes differences in the characterization of stuff for differences of style (t-.^. in the case of the 'Iris'); the supposed statues of Alkamenes which Winter believed he could point to, and which Kekule uses as the basis of his contention, have no connexion whatsoever with Alkamenes (see infra, p. 84, note 8), and, even if they had, the pediments would none the more be by .\lkamenes. 48 I'llKlDIAS Zeus — the Amazonomacliia, the boundary motive of Helios and Sclcnc, tlic Niobids, the Anad)-omcnc, and ihc Gigantomachia — show how intimate was the artist's connexion with painting, and thus confirm the testimony of Pliny, who says that I'heidias began life as a ])ainlcr, and onl)- turned to scidiiturc later on. His brother Panainos rcinaincd a painter. I'heidias himself carried out the painting on the inner surface of the shield of the Parthenos, while the corresponding decoration of the Zeus was lianded over to liis brother. So far our conclusion is that the ascertained works of Pheidias are all comprised within a period of about twenty years. Pheidias, it is true, may have worked before this perit)tl, but the analysis of the Lemnia and its forerunners has shown, and will show us further still, that it is improbable his artistic career began further back than some ten years before the Lemnia, so that either he did not live to be old, or he was no longer young when he turned from painting to sculpture. Of the two hypotheses, the former seems to mc the more likely ; in that ca.se Pheidias would scarcely have lived to the age of sixty. This theory seems, however, to be contradicted by the tradition reported by J'lutarch, according to which Pheidias introduced on the shield of the Parthenos his own portrait as a bald-headetl oltl man. On the copy of the shield in the British Museum this figure is clearly to be seen. It represents an elderly man with hollow cheeks, short full beard, and bald head, save for some scanty locks at the back.' The man is brandishing a weapon with full fcjrce against an Amazon.^ A man of about forty (the age of Pheidias at the time of the Parthenos, according to our calculation) could very well, at least in our modern life, look like this figure, but in the art of the fifth century such a figure would be meant to represent a more advanced age. The short-cut beard and hollow cheeks especially are part of the conventional type of the ' old man.' To the question, then, whether I'heidias was an rilil man when he created the Parthenos I should incline to answer distinctly in the negative, for this .so-called portrait is probably as apocryphal as are the numerous portraits of artists, their friends and relations, which ciceroni identify in famous pictures of Christian art. The legend given by Plutarch, that the portraits of the artist and of Pcrikles were the occasion of the prosecution of Pheidias, is a foolish and meaningless invention, as SchoU ^ and A. S. Murray' have already shown. The information given by Plutarch about the portrait of Periklcs, and confirmed by the copy, shows what sort of likenesses we have to expect ; the arm of the figure was, it seems, raised and held in front of the face, so as to cover it. This is said to have shown the cunning of the artist, who wished to conceal the likeness. But it simply means that there was no likeness at all. The whole story probably arose from the rather individual characteriza- tion of the old man : he was supposed to be Pheidias, hence the warrior beside him must be Perikles, even if his face was almost covered. There is much evidence for be- lieving that the ' old man type ' was a general favourite in the cycle of Polygnotos. In combination with youthful figures he served to vary the design, and in the representa- tion of the Amazonomachia this active greybeard was appropriate as showing how all Athenians young and old imitcd in patriotic resistance to the invading enemy. ' For the whole shield see Collignon, Hhl. ik la Sailptiirc Grcajiic, p. 545. - A slone .iccoiding to Phil.-irch ; the same in the Lenormant slaluctte (Michaelis, Taf. 15, i li. ) ; a Imltlc- axe on the shield in the British Museum ; the figure of the Capitoline fr.agment on whieh Schreiber {Par/licnos, p. 600 (58) sqq. ) recognizes the ' Pheidias ' is a copy of some other figure of the original. ^ Silz. Ba: d: Miimhciur Aka,i. Phil. Hist. CI. 1 881, I. ■* Eiicycl. Bril., 'Phidias.' [Mr. Murray, however, supposes the Strangford shield to be wholly a later work, 'produced subsequently to illustrate some current story on which that description (i.e. of the ]iortraits) was founded.' The same view, only very slightly modified, in Hisl. of Cr. Sc. vol. ii. p. 121.— K. S.] OTHER WORKS KELATKD TO THE LEMMA 49 VIII. Olltcr Works related to the Leiiiiiin. — T/ie Af aster 0/ Plieidias. — F.arly Plieidian Works. — The Anakreou. — Pheidiaii Eros and Aphrodite. Hitherto \vc have discussed onh- tliosc works which arc in close relation to the Lcmnia, cither through the forms of the body or the treatment of the drapery. We must now take the head as starting-point for a further inquir)-. There exist a whole scries of heads really related, though in var_\'ing degree, to that of the Lemnian Athena. A complete list of these is not given, as it would be useless without illustrations. It must suffice to select a few of the more important. These fall into two groups, according as they are earlier or later than the Lcmnia. Foremost in the first group must be placed the Apollo recently found in the Tiber, and now in the Museo dellc Terme in Rome (Fig. 8 ; head alone, Fig. 9).' It is only a mediocre copy, of poor workmanship, yet it preserves enough of the original to produce a great effect ; magnificence combined with gentle beauty is its pervading quality.' This general characteristic, as well as the unusual pose of the head, which is energetically turned to the side, recalls the Lemnian Athena. The head, however, exhibits a somewhat older style, the hair coming from the crown of the head and h'ing flatter than in the Lemnia. A still closer relation between the two works makes itself felt in the spiritual expression of the refined face and in the peculiar beauty of the closed mouth. B\- way of contrast we may compare the head of the Capitoline Apollo, which has been grouped with the Apollo of the Tenner There is a superficial similarity between the two, and they belong to the same period, but those finer elements of form on which the spiritual expression depends differ totalh-."' Very different also is the Cassel Apollo {infra, Fig. 80), which reproduces another type of the same period. The only points it has in common with the Terme Apollo are the forehead broadening at the base, and the large open eyes ; but these are features individual to the god represented. We shall have to return to this point later on. Thus there is every probability that the Apollo is an earlier work by the artist of the Lemnia.'' The attribution is of special weight, as the Apollo, in spite of the individual character which distinguishes it from contemporary works, is still clearly limited by certain traditions of the older school, while the Lemnia at once takes its place as the creation of a finished and independent artist. Now the school traditions alluded to are those of the Argive Hagelaidas.'' In the first place the position is typical of that school, i.e. the body is supported on the left leg, ' Rom. Miltli. 1891, p. 302; 377 sqq. (Petersen), Taf. x. — xii. ^ Petersen is right in speaking of the ' indescrivibile espressione di dolcezza ' in the head. ' loc. cit. Taf. xi., xii., on the left ; Overbeck, Atlas Kunstmyth. Taf. 20, 22. ■* I cannot agree with Petersen in ascribing both statues to the same artist. The Capitoline head is much more nearly related to the charioteer in the Pal. Conservator!. It would be nearer the truth to say that the Capitoline Apollo must be by the same artist as the Cassel Apollo. In reality the original of the Capitoline figure was probably by an artist of the second rank, who was influenced by the artist of the Cassel type in the body of his statue and in the head by the artist of the T,-riiie Apollo (infra, p. 197). It is imjiossible to identify all the Apollo types of the period with the few which are handed down by tr.adilii'n, for the siniple reason that the existing number is far larger than the number reported in literature. '•' The first suggestion is due to Petersen, toe. cit. After what has been said on ]i. 35 it is of course impossible to identify this statue, as Petersen does, with the Apollo of the Delphic group ; nor is it likely that the Terme statue reproduces the Parnopios. We must always remember that only a very small fraction of the actual works, even by the greatest artists, is recorded by tradition. * .See 50th Bert. lVi}icl:etma!:i:sprogr.\Z<)0, p. 134 «/ry. The theories recently propounded by Kalkniann. 53rd Bert. IViticie/maiiiisfrogr. (1893), according to which the figure by Stephanos goes back to an miginal by Pythagora-s, seem to me completely to miss the mark. H I'lG. 8. — Statue of Apollo in Miiseo delle Terme (Kome). APOLLO OF THE TERME 51 the right leg is sHghtl}' bent at ease, but the foot is flat on the ground, the right arm hangs somewhat quietly down, the left is in action, the head is turned to the left and inclined. The figure has a broad firm pose, owing to the leg at ease being set well to the side. Fig. 9. — Head of Apollo in Museo delle Terme. This trait recalls the Apollo of Mantua,^ a work which I have already named as one of the forerunners of the Lemnia (p. 25). The Terme Apollo forms the link between them. Other marks of the school are the excessive breadth of the shoulders in proportion to the hips, the hard contour of the right shoulder, which as usual is 1 he. lit. p. 139 s,)q. 5: IMII'.IDIAS slic^htly niiscd, ami the closeness of the rii^ht upper arm to the body. The motive of the left arm too (which was raised very high, and no doubt originally rested on a laurel stem ') alreatly occurred in works from the school of Hagelaidas. Such are an Apollo, preserved in two small marble copies, unfortunately only torsos ;2 a statue turned into an Antinous by a copyist of the time of Hadrian ; '' and finally an admir- able bronze statuette of Apollo in the Louvre.' All these works, which are connected more or less closely with the school of Hagelaidas, show the same motive as our Apollo. The latter, however, differs from them all in the more decided and energetic bend of the head to the left, b\- which it gains in power aiul majesty; •'' and in the markedly individual modelling of the spare but powerful body. In spite of these differ- ences the connexion of this work with the school of Hage- laidas is evident even in the formation of the head. The Mantua Apollo is clearly its immediate forerunner, as may be seen more especially from the peculiar mouth." Thus the surpassing beauty of the mouth of the Lcmnia is not an isolated phenomenon, but the artist derived it from that older master to whom we owe the Mantua Apollo. The resemblance must impress any one who compares the two statues. In a former essay I tried to pnne that the artist of the Mantua Apollo, while belonging to the school of Hagelaidas, held his own definite position within that school." His type of head is not the con\entional type of the school, the mouth especially being formed in a manner entirely his own. Now this artist, as the facts we have just investigated reveal, must ha\e been the teacher of the artist who made the 'ferine Apollo — in a w'ord, of the young Pheidias. Fir.. H). — Bronze Apollo of the M:intu.in type from Pompeii, Naples. ' A very favourite motive on vases of the fiflli century ; similarly on coins and a gem, cf. Roscher's I.exikon, i- 457- - (a) Louvre, Gal. Mollien (No. 2955) ; (1';) torso in the Museo Chiaranionti, 199. ^ 50th ]Vin(l;£liiiaitnsproip\ p. 147 ; Bull. Coiiiiiniit. di Roma, 1SS6, 7. '' Longperier, Notice ties Bronzes Aii/iijiics, No. 439, ' Achille. ' This is not a Greek original bron7.e, probably not even an exact copy, but a free modification of the Augustan period. The head recalls the Zeus Talleyrand, the hair being dressed in the same affected archaistic manner ; the side curls are rendered as in the Munich Artemis of Gabii (cf. infra, Appendi.x) ; the body however is an example of the type under discussion. ^ Another difference consists in the strong growth of curled hair on the piibes, a detail traditionally absent from the other works of the Hagelaidas schoi>l. The front of the figure is much injured by the action of the water, but the back is in good preservation. " The different copies, the bronze of Pompeii, the marble statues of Mantua and Paris agree in their render- ing of this mouth, which means that they correspond to the original. On the relation of the copies to one another, see my article Bcrl. Phil. U'ochenschri/l, 1894, p. 81 .tr/r/. Fig. 10 gives the upper part of the bronze Pompeian statue from a photograph of the original. ' 50th />'(■;■/. M'inikclniaivisprogr. p. 140 sqq. THE MASTER OF PHEIDIAS 53 A bronze from the Akropolis ^ proves that this artist worked in Athens, or at least for Athens. The head appears to be earUer than the Apollo ; it is rather harder, and it should probably be dated in the period immediately preceding the year 480 B.C- By the help of tradition we can proceed a step further, and name this artist. It is Hegias whom we know as the teacher of Pheidias. An inscription on the Akropolis shows that he was working there shortly before the Persian sack.* And from the monuments we have learned that, though a pupil of Hagelaidas, he followed out his own artistic instincts, and gave to the head of his statues a new spiritual expression. The beaut}- he strove to embody was softer, fuller, and more sensuous than the ideal of the Peloponnesians, but it was left to his pupil to develop and idealize it. Of the two ancient traditions concerning the masters of Pheidias, the one, giving the name of Hegias, comes down to us on the excellent authority of the learned Dion Chrysostom,* who was specially interested in Pheidias. In the same passage he shows himself to be well informed about the master of Polygnotos and his brother. It is certain, then, in the opinion of the best ancient scholars, that Pheidias was the pupil of Hegias. The other account, in which the better known and more famous Hagelaidas was named,^ was however not entirely false, for the art of Hegias was derived from that of Hagelaidas, and the youthful works of Pheidias showed on the face of them their close connexion with the types of the school of Hagelaidas. The monuments have taught us that the two traditions are really in accordance. Hitherto we had not been able to form an exact notion of the style of Hegias, because the ancients only characterize him in the most general way along with Kallon, Kritios, and Nesiotes as a representative of the older and harder manner. We now perceive that there arc essential though subtle differences between the work of Hegias and that of Kritios. How radically Kritios differs from the school of Hagelaidas I have attempted to show elsewhere." I may here cite a work which on account of the subject — it represents Apollo — is appropriate for comparison, and which is in my view an excellent sample of the work of Kritios. The statue stands in the Pitti Palace, and though scared)- known is of capital interest for the historj- of art.' The slender form of the god is supported on the right leg, the left being somewhat advanced ; the small head (which is unbroken) is turned slightl)- to the left, but not bent ; the eyes look straight out, as in the statue of a bo)- from the Akropolis, which I consider to be likewise an early work b\- Kritios.* The formation of head is the same as in the boy, the hair too is similarly arranged in a roll subdivided into different masses ; but the Apollo wears in addition long curls falling over the neck, after the fashion of the Tcrnie Apollo. The lifelike and slightly rounded modelling of the body marks an advance on the Hagelaidas school, but seems severe and restrained in ' Musiles d'Athiues, PI. 16 ; for the discover)' cf. Atii. Millh. xii. 372. - Cf. 50th /?«•/. Wincke/iiiaiiiisprogr. 140 jtY/., 148. ' AeATioK opx. 1889, p. 37; C. I. A. iv. 373, 259. The stone is blackened by fire, ami therefore Lolling dates it before the year 480. ■* De Horn, el Socr. i. O. Midler's emendation of the HOOT of the MS.S. into HFIOT is scarcely an emenda- tion at all, whereas E. Gardner's suggested reading 'H^fXaSou {Classical Xci'if-c, 1894, p. 70) strays far from the traditional reading. " Only in the Scholia to Aristophanes (Frogs, 504), whence Tzetzes and Suidas derive their information. The statement in the same passage about the date of Hagelaidas had of course no connexion originally with the assertion that Pheidias was his pupil ; for whoever placed Hagelaidas in the period of the Peloponnesian War could not possibly suppose him to be the teacher of Pheidias. * 50th Bell. Winckelmannsprogr. p. 1 50 seq. ' Diitschke, ii. 4 ; Overbeck, Apollon, p. 1 70, 5. ' 50th Berl. Winckelmannsprogr. p. 150 ; cf pp. 7, 19. I PHEIDIAS AND KRITIOS 55 comparison with the so-called Omphalos Apollo, and corresponds to what we know of the manner of Kritios. The left arm is raised high/ just as it is in that Argive work which inspired the statue attributed to the young Pheidias, who must also have known the Apollo assigned to Kritios, since their statues are connected by the arrange- ment of locks on the nape of the neck. The Apollo of the Tervie must be dated about 460 — 455 B.C., some five or ten \-cars earlier than the Lemnia. We possess a whole scries of works belonging to the same period, and showing in all essentials the same tendenc}-, but only a very few of these can be said to have a connexion with the Lemnia direct and jjcrsonal enough to warrant us in ascribing them to Pheidias himself. The strongly plastic treatment of the hair in long lifelike curl)- waves, as we find it in the Apollo of the Teriite and, still more developed, in the Lemnia, is common to several heads of the time between 460 and 450, whose type of face however makes it impossible to attribute them to Pheidias. Such are a head in the liraccio Nuovo,- probably representing a horned river god, and a terminal bust of similar st}Oe in the Capitoline Museum (Fig. ii).-' In these examples curls fall on the back of the neck as the}- do in the Apollo of the Tcnne, but the whole expression, and especially the harder rendering of the lower part of the face, shows more analogy to the Capitoline Apollo * than to the Tenne Apollo or to the Lemnian Athena, and lead us to suppo.se that we have here two works b\- another artist. This was probably that contemporary' of the \-oung Pheidias whom we shall shorth' learn to recognize as the creator of the Athena Albani : the two heads just mentioned ccrtainK- appear more closely related to this Athena than to anj' other work. The forehead, the wa\- in which the front hair is parted over it, the e\-es, the mouth, and the furrow between nose and mouth correspond in a remarkable manner. A bearded head in the Palazzo Barberini (Pig. 12) '' seems to answer more nearl\- to what we should expect of the young Pheidias. The hair, in short curl\- rings, is treated in a thoroughly plastic and individual fashion. It is parted along the top of the head as in the Lemnia. The line of profile and the shape of the skull also correspond approximately to the Lemnia, but the head is somewhat earlier. In many particulars it represents a preparatory stage to an Asklepios in Dresden," which belongs to the circle of Pheidias, and is some twenty years later, and, like it, may have been intended for an Asklepios or some hero of kindred nature. The expression of the face is calm and dignified, the forehead — still ver\- low — is smooth and unruffled. The head of a j'outh from the Jacobsen collection (No. 1095^?) is of great interest because of its relation to the Lemnia. It is a small head, turned ener- getically to the right, with short full locks, into which a fillet pres.ses. Its connexion with the old Argive type, as we know it from the athlete by Stephanos, is still marked. ' The cloak falling from the upper ,-irm and the lyre below are additions of the copyist. In the original the left hand probably gra-sped a laurel staff, and the lowered right hand held a bow. - Bonner Stndien, Taf. 8, 9 ; Winter, lot. cit., interprets the head as lacchos ; A'l'iii. Milth. iSgi, p. 153 ; (Sauer, according to whom the head represents Aktaion) ; Helbig, 9. The head is wrongly set ; it was intended to be upright as in the cast in the Ecole des Beaux- Arts at Paris. ' Mus. Capil. i. 83. In the room of the Philosophers, No. 85. * Rom. Mink. 1891, Taf. 11, 12, to the left. * Matz-Duhn, Zerstr. Bildw. No. 1741. Cf. Graf, Aus der Aiiomia, p. 63, note; phot, in German Inst, at Rome. " Treu has lately identified a replica of this work in Olynipia (cf .Arch. .-hi:. 1890, 107 ; 1892, 66). His interpretation and restoration of it as a Zeus .seem to me at present quite unproved. TELEPHANES 57 Attempts have latcl}' been made to refer the Hermes Ludovisi ^ to the earlier period of Pheidias. It is certainly the work of a verj- great artist of the period in question, but its relation to the Lemnia is not close enough to warrant us in assigning it to Pheidias. The difference is plain, even in the fashion of the fillet, which lies flat on the hair, without pressing into it as in the Lemnia. The formation of the lower part of the face, the rather thin lips, and the picturesque boldness in the rendering of the cloak which is slipping off,"^ and even the bodily forms, are not in harmon\- with the style of Pheidias. There is an admirable replica of this head in the collection at Broadlands ^ (Fig. 13). The style is here rather freer than in the Ludovisi example, the copjist having made plentiful use of the drill, and put more modelling into the cheeks, but the winsome grace and the sweet roguish expression of the head must be due to the original. Ionic art is the onl\- possible source of such a work.* On a Phokacan electrum coin,' an eKTij f&w/fa/? (V\. VI. 19), occurs a head of Hermes very similar to that of the statue, wearing the same petasos and short curls, with the same profile, and evidently belonging to the same period. It seems admissible to bring this Hermes tj'pe into connexion with Telephanes of Phokis, who apparently lived about this time." The further analog}- between our Hermes and the head of a youth on a Thessalian relief '^ strengthens this theor}*, since Telephanes is known to have worked for Thessaly. There is a female type which may ver}- well have belonged to Pheidias's early period, and be regarded as a forerunner to the Lemnia. Its best replica is the beautiful head in the Hermitage (profile in Fig. 15).* The hair is dressed with the simplicity so much affected b\- the wider circle of Hagelaidas, and which the Lemnia retains, though in a richer form, ?>. it is waved back from the front and rolled up behind. The parting has not yet appeared ; the lines of hair come straight from the crown of the head. The way the hair frames the forehead, the line of the profile, the mouth with its full lips— all seem to me so many analogies to the Lemnia, and indica- tions that Pheidias is the artist. There is a variant of this head with less severe expression and more open mouth in the Coll. Barracco (Fig. 14).® Like the one in St. Petersburg, this head is distinguished by unusual dignity and beauty, and may also be referred to Pheidias. A small and slightly worked head of the same t\-pe is to be seen in the Braccio Nuovo, on an Artemis of more recent style, to which it does not * Cf. B. Graf in Aiis der Anomia, p. 69. In the Museo Boncompagni (Helbig, Museiiiiis, S71). - In the replica by Kleomenes, the so-called ' Gernianicus ' of the Louvre, the folds of the mantle are modified in Praxitelean style. ^ Michaelis, Am. Sculpt, in Gr. Bn'l. p. 219, Broadlands 9. The edge of the petasos is wrongly restored. The nose is uninjured and antique. The head is placed incorrectly in an upright position on a modern term. The length of the face m. 0-163 (the Ludovisi copy 0-165). To the list of replicas of the head should be added Uffizi Dutschcke 13 = Arndt-Brunckmann, Einzelverkauf, 83, 84. ■* 50th Berl. Winckelmaitiisprogr. p. 152, where I suggested Pythagoras of Samos as the artist. ^ The replica in the British Museum is illustrated in the Catal. Ionia, PI. IV. 23. The Berlin example (PI. VI. 19) is more severe in style and more like the statue. ^ The author who makes him work for Xerxes and Darius {apud Plin. xxxiv. 68) is of course thinking of Darius II., but forgets that this monarch was separated from Xerxes by an interval of forty-two years ; he probably only meant that Telephanes worked for the Persian kings of the fifth century B.C. The fact that Telephanes is grouped with Polykleitos, Myron, and Pythagoras shows that he must have flourished about the middle of the century. Cf. Julius Lange, Fremslilling af Menneskeskikkelsen, p. 133 seq. ~ Bull, de Corr. Hell. 1888, PI. VI. " Gaidionow, Sculp. Ant. No. 32, 'athlete.' Length of face 0-156; length of head c. 0-22. The propor- tions coiTespond to those of the Lemnia. Mouth to inner angle of the eye (64 mm.) = the length of the nose up to the arch of the eyebrows = the lower part of the face = twice the length of one eye ; width of the mouth (42 mm.) =height of the forehead. ' Coll. Barrtuco, PI. 36, 'tete d'ephebe,' and in the text 'tete d'athlete M The eyes are hollow. .\ small replica of the Barracco head in terra-cotta from a high relief is now in Dres-[)tothek '' shows how style can differ in spite of striking external similarit}-. It is a replica of a work belonging to the same period, but not by the same artist. To the period of the Parthenos itself belongs a superb work of Phcidias which survives, as I believe, in one complete copy and in various reproductions of the head. I mean the Anakreon standing in an attitude of rapt enthusiasm and declaiming his poems to his own accompaniment on the lyre (Fig. 17)." This work is now universally ' Ilclbig, J/itsctinis, No. 20; Clarac, 571, 1220. Anidt infurms iin; thai 11k: licail is put on witli a straight junction surface, that it does not belong to the statue, and that the whole back from the girdle upwards is new. The type of this torso, a fourth-century modification of the Parthenos, was also used to represent Isis (cf. Besihr. ct Antikcn Skulpt. in Berlin, p. 529, No. 60 a). The cjuiver band shows that the statue was originally intended to represent Artemis. The quiver itself is omitted. - It is interesting to note that the St. Petersburg and liarracco heads, like that of the Lemnia, were formerly supposed to be male. ^ Length of face 0-175. ' 'ii"' "" mention of this admirahle work in literature. (Cf. />'.'//. W'in.kilmanns- piogr. p. 130.) ^/. //. S. 18S4, Taf. 45. '^ (I) Naples, Itn\ 6322, Comparetli de Petra, Villa Enol. Tav. xx. I ; Jahrh. d. Inst. 1893, Taf. 3, pp. 174, 177 ; (2) Naples, Inv. (>z'i2,Jalirb. il. Inst. 1893, p. 176; (3) in the Philosophers' Room of the Capitol, No. 54: J/hj. Capitol, i. ^(>,Jahrb., loc. cit. p. 176. In all three instances the term is antique. In (2) and (3) the breast is covered with drapery which can hardly be copied from the original. The turn of the head varies, as is often the case in term copies (see term in Index). Wolters (yn/;/-/;., /a. (it.) attempts to trace back this type to Kephisodotos, the artist of the Eirene ; but the forms of brow, hair, eyes, ani mouth show by their style that the head belongs to the fifth centuiy and to the Pheidian epoch. " Placed on a statue (No. 86) which does not belong to it. ' The statue, formerly in Villa Borghese, and now in Copenhagen (Ny Carlsberg), is published Arih. Ztg. 1884, Taf. II; cf. Friederichs-Wolters, Gipsahg. 1305. I know three replicas of the head: (a) in Rome, Ilelbig, 599 ; (/;) in the Palazzo Riccardi in Florence, to the left of the entrance upstairs (Diitschke, ii. 200)^ the head is wrongly set ; [c] in Berlin, Jahrb. d. Inst. 1892, Taf 3. Kekule's notion, ibid. p. 119 m/., that the Berlin head is a fifth-centuiy original, is absolutely false : it is an ordinary Roman copy, in a bad state of l)reservation, and much restored. The head in the Louvre, 1946, seems to be a fourth, very poor replica. A fifth, badly preserved, in Glienecke, is mentioned by Kekule, p. 120. Fig. i6.— Terminal Inist of Athena fiom Herculaneuni {Naples\ 62 I'HF.IDIAS admitted to be of fifth-century date.^ Any one who comes fresh from the study of the Lcmnia cannot fail to he struck h}- a wonderful likeness between the two heads whicli can onl}' be explained b\- identit\- of authorsliip. Altliough rather short, the hair is parted as in the I.emnia, antl the fillet presses deep into it, while the refined forehead with its flat and restrained modelling, the eyebrows, and the thin eyelids are so many points of definite resemlilancc ; even the ear has the sha]ic characteristic of the ear of the Lemnia. The head, although conceived in an attitude of vigorous move- ment, yet produces as a whole that wonderful effect of combined dignit)', beauty, and repose which was peculiar to Phcidias. Moreover, the only complete parallel to the drapery occurs on the I'arthcnon metopes of free style, which are to be referred to Pheidias. Nowhere else do we find the peculiar clinging of the mantle to the nude forms, the broken folds, or the same true characterization of the soft yet heavy material.'- This fixes the date of the statue at about 445-440. The frieze and the pediments show a ilcfinitc advance in style. The waj- the short cloak hangs round the shoulders echoes archaic tradition and recalls the Oinomaos of Olympia. But the influence of the circle of Hagelaidas has long ceased to dominate the artist. The bodily forms arc nervous and fresh as in the metopes of free st)-le. The feet are placed on the ground in the old scheme, but the upper part of the body is turned, giving to the whole composition novelty, vigour, and exquisite freedom of rhythm.^ The Pheidian statue of Anakreon was doubtless identical with the one which stood on the Akropolis, and whose attitude, according to I^ausanias, was ' suggestive of a man singing in his cups.'* In ascribing the animated and inspired turn of the head to a liberal use of wine, Pausanias was making no unnatural supposition in the case of a man who was the poet par excellence of wine and intoxication, and who himself appears intoxicated in a work of art which, whether real or fictitious, is alluded to in epigrams.-^ Beside the statue of Anakreon, Pausanias saw that of Xanthippos, the father of Perikles and friend of Anakreon. It has long been rightly supposed that both statues were set up by Perikles." Of course they were not public monuments, but purely private dedicator}- gifts, meant to express the filial affection of Perikles for his father and his reverence for his father's distinguished friend. If the name of Perikles came first in the dedicatory inscription, it is easy to understand why Pausanias begins to speak of Perikles just in the very passage where he names these works, although the statue of Perikles himself, as he says, stood at some distance. The artist was probably not named. If wc remember Lucian's statement about the inscription of the Lemnia, we can hardly suppose that the name of Pheidias was to be seen on another statue of the Akropolis outside the Parthenon. Considering the artist's close relation to Perikles, his authorship would at that time appear so much a matter of course that his signature could be left out. The statue ' Cf. Winter, _/(!/; r(5. d. Inst. 1890, 159 ; Helbig, loc. (it. ; antl especially Kekule, he. (it. '' Cf. the metopes Micliaelis, .South ii., viii., xxviii. Cf. Kekule, p. 121. ^ The pubes with its thickly curled hair resembles that of the Tcrme Apollo. * [Tr. Harrison and Verrall, J\fyt/i. and Moil, of Am. Athens, p. 471.] ' Wolters (Anh. Ztg. 1884, 150) rightly doubts the existence of the work ; in any case there are no grounds for identifying it with the statue of the Akropolis. Cf. also Kekule, p. 119, note 4. ' Brunn in Ann. d. Inst. 1S59, 183. Brunn is wrong, however, in connecting the portrait of Perikles, which according to Pausanias stood in quite a different spot, with these two statues, and in ascribing them to Kresilas. The Perikles was a private anathema of Kresilas. Kekule, p. 125, follows Brunn, and, arguing from a supposed stylistic connexion between the Anakreon and the Perikles, suggests the Anakreon was also by Kresilas. There is, however, no stylistic connexion, except in so far as both works belong to the same epoch. Sal. Reinach, Chron. d' Orient, No. xxvi. p. II, comes nearer the truth in suggesting that the Anakreon might be by Kolotes. THE ANAKREON 63 was set up, as is proved by the st)lc, during the period when I'crikles was most powerful, and could without opposition place upon the Akropolis, eV €7nai'eaTdT(i) ToTTfo, images of his father and of Anakrcon, the friend of tyrants. The influence exercised on more recent art by this work of I'hcdias is sliown Fr;. 17.— The ' Anakreon Borghese ' (Ny Larlsberg e.lyplotliek, Copenhagen). in a beautiful bead in the Vatican,' a copy of a work of the fourth century K.C. : it represents a poet with inspired upturnctl look, and is visibl)- a development, even to the form of the beard, of the Anakreon of Pheitlias. A magnificent bearded head in the Museo Torlonia (Tig. 18) is closely analogous to the Anakreon, and must likewise be by Pheidias. The strikingly noble and elevated beauty of this head must dwell in the memory of all who have seen it. ' Helhig, Mustunis, No. 287. The old interprctaliun of the liead .^s Zeno, and llelhig's suggestion of .Aratos, are equally unproved and inappropriate. 64 PHKIDIAS I'or m\- own part, since I fust hchcld it in 1.S77, it has kept its place in my remem- brance as the gem of the collection.' The delicate forehead swells almost imper- ceptibly in the middle, and is low, just like that of the Lcmnia, to which the eyebrows and thin ejclids also correspond closely. The hair is attain bound by a diadem, broader in front, narrower behind, with short curls escapinc; from it. The general similarity to the Anakreon in hair and beard is striking, although many of the details are quite different. In turning to identif\- the head, we note that two small wings are attached— not to the head itself — but to the diadem. Analogies arc found in contemporary vases of the period ranging from 460 — 450, where daemonic attributes appear fast- ened to the diadem. Athena, for example, wears a diadem on which Pegasoi are seated,'- and Thetis a diadem adorned with small wings, to indicate her trans- formations."" More important still is the painting on a white Ickythos of the British Museum : the black outline drawing shows a bearded man with wings on his head rising from a wide fillet ; he rushes forward to meet an ad\'ancing warrior, and strikes him on the arm. Without attempting to interpret this vase-painting, I wish to point out that the art of the time ap- parentl)- had not the courage to effect an organic connexion between the wings and the head. Further, in the Torlonla head the wings are purposely kept small, in order not to break the fine outline of the skull. The wingctl diadem apparently- has much the .same signification as the wings attached actually to the head in later times: one might imagine the head to be that of a bearded Hermes, were it not that the t\-pe of features is absolutely foreign to that god. The similarit}- to the .Anakreon brings us seemingly nearer the truth : ma}- we not have here a head of Mousaios, the old god-inspired poet, who, according to Attic Icgand, had received the gift of flight — and therefore, we may suppose, the gift of wings — from Boreas .' * To the same group belongs a beautiful bearded head in the Musco Chiaramonti (Fig. ig),-'" which expresses marv-ellous elevation and distinction. It is nearly related to the last-mentioned heads, and also to the Lemnia, and must be referred, if not to Pheidias himself as I believe, at least to a master of his school and of the period about 450 — 440. The treatment of the wavy hair on the upper part of the head, the roll of hair on the neck, and the small curls escaping from it recall the Lemnia. Entirely Pheidian, too, are the finely modelled forehead, the thin eyelids, the spring of the nose, the arrangement of the beard, and the shape of the ear." It is difficult to form an\- conjecture as to whom the head represents. The tuft of short hair rising in front above the twisted fillet is quite unique, and the tangled hair ' No. 4S in llic Catalogue of 1876 ; now No. 50. Bcnndorf, AVw. Mitth. i. 113, imliccs the analogy to the Anakreon. - filile Ct'nxmogr. i. 29, and Millingen, Div. Coll. 49. ' Moti. il. Inst. i. 37. ■* Onomakritos, apud Paus. i. 22, 7. ° Mils. Chiaram. Tav. 33 ; Helbig, 71. The tip of the nose is restored. " The end of the nose has been distorted by the restorer, and too much curved. Fig. 18. — Head with winged fillet, Museo Torlonia, Rome. (From a drawing.) K 66 PHF.IDIAS about the chin is also probabh- a characteristic mark. The current interpretation as Dionysos is absokitcly groundless. It vcr)- probably represents a hero, but, until we know which hero, the finer intentions of the artist must remain a mystcrj-. Two female types still have to be mentioned in the present connexion : one is the head of a j'oung goddess,^ with a wide fillet wound three times round it and a bunch of hair behind tied up in a cdKKo<;. The type is of the same period as the Lemnia, and probably owes its existence to Pheidias. Closely allied to this head, although stylistically .somewhat later, is the ' Sappho,' of which so many copies have survived (Figs. 20 b, 2i b)r Here too we have the wide fillet wound several times round the head, although arranged in a slightly different manner. The forehead is freer and higher, the curls only escape freely above the cars. This is quite in the manner of the Parthenos,^ of which the head appears to be contemporary. The rich plastic waving locks on the upper part of the head arc genuinch' Pheidian. In front of and behind the ears (which again are shaped like those of the Lemnia) a few wisps stray from the mass of hair. The mouth is a little open, giving a glimpse of the teeth. * The head is slightly turned to the side, the expression fresh and gracious.^ The long narrow form of the eyes is characteristic. There can be no question of a portrait," but the rich fillet, the expres- sion of the face, and the form of the eyes are more appropriate to Aphrodite than to any other goddess. This interpretation, already suggested by Helbig,'' is strongly confirmed by a wonderful statuette from Syria, now in Paris in the Collection de Clerq. This work represents a nude Aphrodite binding a wide fillet round her head. Except for some few omissions and unimportant alterations, the head of the Aphrodite is of the tjjje under discussion. Although the body imitates forms of the fifth ccntur}' li.C, the whole conception is merely an invention of Hellenistic times, uniting the head-type of Pheidias with the motive of the Diadumcnos of Polykleitos.** ■ Four replicas of the head are known to me : (a) with inserted glass eyes in the Museum of the Capitol, ' riiilosophers' Room,' No. 55, Miis. Capit. i. 57 ; {h and c) in the Museo Torlonia, Nos. 54 and 5S (formerly 52 and 56) ; (ing, is to be seen on a cameo of the Berlin collection (Fig. 22), presumably of the Augustan period. It represents just such a terminal bust of Eros as the one in question, whose original may actually have been executed in this form. If our interpretation is exact, it is plain that Pheidias did not give to his Love-god, any more than to his Aphrodite, the expression of human longing which distinguishes him in the period of Praxiteles." There is another 'Sappho' t}'pe which should be noted here, as it belongs originally to the circle of Pheidias. On a statue formerly in the Palazzo Cepparelli in Florence (Fig. 23)° has been placed a head evidently of later Pheidian style, and an immediate forerunner of the well-known Albani head which has lately been again interpreted as Sappho.'' The close connexion of the two heads, evidenced by the coif, by the twisted curls in front of the ear, and by the general type of face, is unmistakable. Equally plain is the fact that the Florentine head, as shown by the style, especially by the treatment of the regularly undulating hair, belongs to the later Pheidian period. The body of the statue is of the same date as the head, but ^ Cf. the vase belonging to the period about 430, Stackelberg, Gniher, 29 ; Muller-Wieseler, Dcnl;m. 3rd ed. ii. 296 d. - The Madrid term p. ^ e.g. Museo Chiaramonti, 695 (nose and lips restored) ; in the Museo Torlonia, 44 (nose and lips restored) ; in Dresden, 32 (much defaced). Published in Becker's Aiigiisteinn, ii. 85 ; the Madrid copy is the best ; mouth and nose are antique ; the fillet hanging down is merely a decorative addition ; it is missing in the Chiaramonti he.ad. ■* The witticism of Phryne, recorded in Athenaeus, xiii. p. 585, would seem to prove the existence of an Eros by Pheidias ; it at any rate implies a play on the name *6i5ias (cf. Bninn, K.G. i. p. 187); and though this in itself is insufficient to prove the existence of an Eros statue by this master, there is no doubt that the ieu de mot would have been more pointed and appropriate had there been a well-known Eros by him. ° The Eros of the period, about 420 B.C., with which I identify a small head from Brauron [Ank. Stiidieii H. Brimn. dargehr. Taf. 3, p. 89) is less serious and more youthful. ^ Dutschke, Zerstr. Bildw. in Florenz, 413 ; now in the Museo Archeologico. '' Jahrb. d. Inst. 1890, Taf. 3 ; p. 151 sqq. (Winter). Two poor replicas in the Bigliardo of the Villa, Nos. 332, 333. The Pitti head published Ann. d. Inst. 1879, Tav. o, in which Gamurrini and Wolters {Gi/'sa/ig. 1609) recognize Sappho, is not a replica of the .\lbani head, as Winter {Av. (it. p. 152) affirms, but a dillcrent though related type. 70 I'HF.iniAS it is not certain that tlic\- Ixloni^' toi^cthcr.' 'I'lic narrow c)'cs arc characteristic of Apluiuhtc. In order to intei-pret thi- Alhani head, wln'ch, to judLje ljy the formation i-'in. 23. — Slalue furiiierty in I'al. Cepparelli (I'lorencL). of the eyes, was derived froin this older type, we must go to the group of figures representing Aphrodite, or divinities akin to her. For there is no evidence whatever ' According to n communication from Milani the head is of the same Parian marlile as the torso. But as the lower part of the neck is restored, and as the original head was probably inserted, the jnesent head can scarcely belong to the statue. APHRODITE OURANIA 7' that the head is a portrait, and nothing in the work itself to warrant u.s in calling it Sappho. The apparent coincidences found on coins arc deceptive. ^ Another Fheidian Aphrodite— the Ourania in Athens (Pans. i. 14, 7) I incline to Fig. 24. — Statuette ot Aphrodite (Berlin) think — has survived in a statuette from Corneto (Tarquinii), now in Berlin (Fig. 24),- which is evidently an original free adaptation made in the actual school of Pheidias. ■ Pollux (Oiwiii. ix. 84) says that the Mytileneans represented Sappho on their coins. This is the oldest testimony on the subject, for to see an allusion to it in Aristot. J'l/icl. 2, 23 is purely arbitrary. None of the extant coins of Mytilene with ascertained representations of Sappho (/.c. which give her name in the coin legend) are earlier than Imperial date, any more than the coins of Chios with the portrait of Homer, which are mentioned immediately after by Pollux. Now of these undoubted representations of Sappho, >ioi one shows the least resemblance to the Albani type ; they differ from it and from each other. They are as follows : (a) the Paris coin with i|.air(<(>)a>, Jahn, Darst. Gr. Dichtcr, Taf. 8, I ; (b) Sappho seated, with and without the name ; (c) the head inscribed 2a7r on coins of Eresos. The coin inscribed 2a rHKIDIAS modelling of ihc forehead, ihc curve of the e\-cbro\v.s, and tlie fornialion between eyebrow and iiiijier lid arc completely different in the two examples. The heat! 15 is still unbroken on its statue, the Athena Farnese in Naples. Head A, too, has a body belonging to it, for it is a replica of the famous Hope Athena (Fig. 27) at T^cepdene (Surrey), from whose priceless collection, unfortun- ately, students and public alike arc now' jealously excluded.^ This and the Athena Farnese were formerly looked upon as copies of the same original;' but more e.xact comparison will show that this is not the case. Head A, in all those particulars in which it differs from head B, corresponds exactly to the Hope Athena. In this statue the curls disfigured by restoration on head A are seen in their proper form. They split naturally into two wav}- ringlets falling down over the aegis. In spite of the remarkable external similarity between the two statues, they differ not only in the tj'pe of head, helmet, and side-curls, but also in other respects. To begin at the top, the opening in the middle of the aegis is wider in the Hope statue, and shows more of the chiton; the gorgoneion is of a distinct tj-pc with hair not raised on end but smoothly waved close to the head, as on the aegis of the Parthenos. The snakes on the aegis correspond on the whole, but they are arranged in less conventional circles, and although not so effective are more various and natural (note especially the second snake from the top on the left shoulder, which is so much more simply rendered in the Hope statue, and thus affords a better motive for the bend in the edge of the aegis). The folds of the chiton under the left arm and of the edge of the mantle next it are more broken, less schematic and more natural. The upper part of the sleeve on the left arm is shorter and simpler, the folds of the mantle itself are heavier and better defined at the edges, the abdomen is not so visible under the folds as in the Farnese Athena. In all these peculiarities of the drapery the Hope statue more nearly resembles the Albani Athena, which we shall study immediately. Further, the position of the feet is slightly different in the two statues. In the Hope statue the left foot is not drawn back quite so far as in the Farnese, which is really in the walking attitude. The assumption that these variations are all due to different copyists, and that there is only one original in the background, is not difiicult to refute. For these alterations are not arbitrary caprices intended to suit a later taste ; they are syste- matic, thoroughgoing distinctions, which manifest themselves most clearly just where the finest artistic feeling comes to light — that is, in the forms of the face.^ We next have to consider which of the two types is the older and more original, • I have not seen the statue, but the engravings [Spec, of Am. Sc. i. 25 and ii. 9) seem accurate and reliable. Cf. Michaelis, Anc. Sctilpt. p. 290. The head is inserted, not broken : only the nose is restored. On the head A the nose seems to be ancient. ° I did the same in Roscher's Lexiion, i. 700. ~' Of the Hope type I only know the one replica, now lost, of which we possess a cast. The Farnese type exists in five replicas : (a) fragment of head in Dresden, formerly placed on one of the Leninia statues, Becker, Aiigttstcum, i. 15 ; cf. supra, p. $ ; {b) statue in the Louvre, wrong head. Bouillon, iii. stat. Tl. 2, 4 ; Clarac, 320, 852 ; Frohner, 115 ; now No. 1650 ; (c) DemidofT statue, wrong head, Clarac, 470, 895 ; {d) Albani statue, now lost, Cavaceppi, Raccolla, i. i ; Clarac, 458, 901 ; a sketch of it in Quatremere de Quincy,/«/. Olymp. (1815), PI. 9, 4. The statue is exactly like the Farnese one, except that the eyes are hollow. Winckelmann expresses great admiration for this statue, and distinguishes it clearly from the Alliani statue with the skin helmet. When he speaks of the Pallas in hoheni SHI ai the Villa Albani, e.g. (Hist, of Anc. Art. Bk. viii. 2, § 4 ; tr. Lodge, ii. 133), he invariably means the Cavaceppi statue, not the one with the skin-helmet, as Friederichs, Bausteine, 86 ( = \Volters, 524), maintained. Cf. the Meyer-Schulze ed. vol. iv. p. 339, n. 331 =lr. Lodge, i. 476, and for the profile PI. XVIII. A of the latter work, .\ccording to the Specimens of Ancient Sculpture (on i. 25), this Albani statue was brought to Paris: it is, however, not to be found in the Louvre. — K head in Palazzo Torlonia is very similar to, but not quite identical with, the Farnese type. THE HOri-: ATHENA 71 and which is the dcrivatixe. After our enumeration of the separate distinctions the answer can scarcel}- be doubtful : the Hope type is the earlier. The position of the feet and the treatment of the drapery are evidences of an earlier stage of development ; the long curls on the breast and the lower forehead are equally certain marks of the same ; and in general the greater naturalness and simplicity which we have observed in this work imply a greater degree of originalit)-. Pheidias himself must be the author of the Hope t_\-pe. The head is another example not only of marvellous and peculiar beauty, but of a style purely Pheidian. In essential and personal characteristics its kinship to the Lemnia is so close as Fig 28. — Pruhic of liie head of Allicna (A. Fig. 23). to carry conviction. Quality of this sort is not easy to define in words ; all we can do is to lay stress on certain details. The forehead, slight!}- raised in the middle, is very delicately modelled ; the eyebrows are curved as in the Lemnia,' the line being more nearly horizontal than in the Athena P'arnese. Thus the part between eyebrow and upper lid is sparely modelled and slightly concave, a peculiarity which the Lemnia and the Hope types have in common, and which distinguishes them from the Farnese type. Again, the thin eyelids, the gentle transition between the under lid ' It was when I observed the analogy- between the Dresden cast A and the Bologna head iliat it tiist oceiirred to me that the latter was a copy of the Lemnia. /S PIIF.iniAS and the cheek, the narrow, finel}- cut nose forming a decided angle witli the forehead, are as many points that resemble the Lemnia and differ from the I'arnese head. Lastly, the mysterious beauty of the mouth may be compared to the Lemnia. The general contour of the face, too, with its slender and refined proportions, is similar. The hair recalls the style of the Lemnia ; it springs out in soft full masses, on which the separate lines arc vigorously but not deeply cut. Although the hair of the Farnese head is dressed in the same wa\-, the rendering is harder and more schematic. Compared with the Hope type the Farnese head seems rough, even coarse ; it is also beautiful, but its beauty is as the beaut}- of a bead by Giulio Romani beside one by Raphael. The master who made it was on less intimate terms with nature than the creator of the Hope type: he aims at more powerful effects, and, in doing so, becomes more coinentional and formal. The deeper mysteries of Pheidian beauty were unre\-ealcd to him ; his coarser sensibilities expressed themselves in ruder forms which pfissihl)' seemed l. 10, ■' Clarac, I'l. 462 C, 902 ; Villa Albani, No. 945. .Sphinx and griffins on the helmet arc restored. The alabaster figure is antique, but does not belong to the head. ■* WincUclmann, //isf. of Aitc. Art. vii. I, § 21 (Vol. v. 89, note 2, ed. Eiselein), calls it 'a glorious head of a lofty character ' (tr. Lodge, ii. 385) ; later critics seem to have overlooked it. (Cf. Koscher's Lex. i. 700, 23.) •'' Friederichs-Wolters, Ciifsahg. 524; Helbig, Miiscioiis, 78 1 ; Brunn-liriickmann, Dciihiii. No. 226. JJ'O'^ "' t iG 29 —Athena in ihe Villa Albani. Rome 8o PHEIUIAS ilraw a close analogy between the two. The drapery is essentially the same, except that here the (Uplois is longer, while the position of the legs differs only in so far that the left foot is rather less tlrawn back in the Albani statue than in the Hope. Indeed, all the earlier features which the Hope statue shows in contradistinction to the l-'arncse type appear in rather more pronounced form in the Albani statue. Another mark of older origin is the thick stiff edge of the aegis and the arrange- ment of the snakes. This work must be connected in some way with Pheidias. The idea that it may have been one of the prototypes from which he worked may be dismissed, for how should I'heidias at the highest point of his creative power have clung so closely to a type by another artist .' The head-type is another proof to the contrary (profile. Fig. 30) ; for it is remarkably severe in style, so that there is a certain incongruity between head and body. This is a mark, not of an independent creative artist of the fir.st rank, but of an inferior worker who failed in imity of conception.^ Fig. 30.— Head of Athen.i .Mlj;uii. (Fiuin the cast. ' The curious hide (cleavly that of a wolf or dog, and not of a lion) drawn over the head deserves elucidation. Winckelmann rightly observed that the muzzle was pointed, and called it a dog-skin, Hist, of Am. Art. ii. 2, § 21 ( = tr. Lodge, p. 184, and note, p. 428). A similar head-covering in ancient art occurs, so far as I know, only in the following instances : {a) on a youthful male winged figure on an Attic statuette-vase belonging to the end of the fifth century [.Ath. Millli. 1882, Taf. 12, p. 381 sqq. Mylonas) — the cap corresponds exactly to our statue ; (/') on two images of Hades in Etruscan tombs of the fourth century (Conestabile, /'///. -xi. ; Moii. d. Inst. ix. 15) ; (c) on a head on a coin of Amisos of the first century B.C. (Brit. Mus. Catal. Pontus, etc., PI. 4, 3, p. xvi., He.ad, Nist. Num. 425) ; {d) it is worn by Athena on two Roman monuments from the neighbourhood of Treves (Hettner, Kom. Steindciikmiikr, No. 27, d. ; 55) : the pointed ears show quite clearly that the head is that of a dog, and not of a lion. In {b) it is certainly the cap of Hades, the "AiSos nvviy] of the Epos, which, by a play on words, is represented as the skin of a dog (cf. Hclbig, Annali, 1870, 27) ; the type must be of Greek invention. The same interpretation is very likely correct for (a), and the daemon carrying oft" the girl may be Thanatos ; in a replica in Berlin (Vases, 2906) the figure wears an ordinary Phrygian cap, and the artist probably had some other intention. In the case of (c) also this interpretation seems the most likely, for the head, which I think is male, probably represents Perseus, so often celebrated on the coins of Amisos : he is wearing the cap of Hades. The corresponding head-covering for Athena can hardly have a diflerent meaning. The passage in the Iliad where Athena in the conflict with Ares puts on the cap of Hades (v. 845) seems to prove that in some cultus known to the poet Athena possessed the 'Ai'Sos Kvvii\ as an attribute. Such, for instance, might be the cultus of Athena Itonia, who was worshipped together with Hades in her old sanctuary near Koroneia (Strabo, p. 411); Foucart's proposal {Bull. d. Con: Hell. 1885, 427 sqq.) to read 'ApTjs for "AiStjs is made impossible by Pausanias, ix. 34, I, who calls the companion god Zeus ; Hades might be confused with Zeus, but not so Ares. It is instructive to note tliat the same Homeric singer who thinks of Athena as wearing the cap of Hades also gives her the surname ' h.\aKKO)i.ivr\i.i (II. iv. 8 ; v. 908) ; the ancient sanctuary at Alalkomenai was the nearest neighbour of the Itonian sanctuary (for locality see Bull, de Cory. Hell. 1894, 475) ; the group of Hades and Athena by Agorakritos, in the Itonian temple, probably survives on a gem (Gori, Mus. Flor. ii. PI. 72, i. ; Miiller-Wieseler, ii. 226 ; Overbeck, Zeus, isfi sqq. ; Gesch. d. Plastik, 3rd ed. i. 278) ; the two divinities are here enthroned. Now Athena Itonia was also worshipiied in .Athens, and in the fifth century she KALAMIS AND HIS SCHOOL 8i The other h\'pothesi.s, that the work is by a pupil of Pheidias, is disproved b}- the evidence of the head, which is of an carHcr t\'pe, and has features which entirely differ in style from the work of Pheidias. A third possibility remains, that the work is by a contemporary of Pheidias, who belonged to a school more dependent on early tradition, but who made use of the creation of Pheidias as a protot\pe for the body and drapery of his statue. \\hat this school was we shall be able to define more exactl)- if we look at the head of the statue ; for the head is in style the immediate successor of a closely connected group of monuments, of which the Hestia Giustiniani, the ' Aspasia,' ' the so-called Omphalos Apollo, and the ' Charioteer ' of the Capitol are among the most pronounced examples." The Albani Athena represents a later stage of the same style. \Ye have already assigned (p. 55) two heads of Pheidian period, the river god of the Braccio Nuovo and the Capitol head (Fig. 11), to the artist who made the original of the Albani statue. To these we may add, as nearly related, the so-called L}-sias of the Villa Albani (No. 62), and a beautiful head of a \-outh Fig. 31. — Head in Munich. in Munich (Fig. 3i),'* of somewhat freer style. These works form a close group sharply differentiated from other contemporary productions by the arrangement of the hair over the forehead, the formation of the lower part of the face, and the peculiar expression of the mouth. Now this school, whose earlier stage falls about 480 — 460, and whose later stage coincided with the career of Pheidias, about 460 — 440, may in my view be identified with the school of Kalamis, for this master oi quadrigae and bigae was very probablj- the author of the charioteer.* A work like the Albani statue would certainly be very appropriate to Praxias, the pupil of Kalamis and contemporary of Pheidias. There are many other traces of this Kalamidian influence which kept its own hail her own trcasiiiy there, and therefore perhaps also her own image (C. I. A. i. 210), of wliich the Albani statue may be a replica. On the vase-painting of the severe R.F. style {Mon. d. Inst. vi. 58, 2) there is a hint of Hades being associated to Athena in Athens ; Athena is placed — not beside Zeus, Hera, and Apollo, but — beside Poseidon and Hades, towards whom she turns her head. For a cult of Athena Itonia in Thessaly, cf. Pans. x. I, 10. ('/) would seem to prove that the cult of Athena Itonia made its way as far as the Roman provinces of Treves. ' There are two good copies : (a) Berlin, Shiilpt. 605 ; Arch. Zig. 1877, Taf. 8. (/') Louvre, No. 55S (phot. Giraudon, 1219). - Bull. d. Comiss. Commint. di Kama, 18S8, Tav. 15, 16; Helbig, Miisiii'iis, 597. ^ Glyptothek, 49. .\ very similar head in Palazzo Torlonia. * For the Omphalos Ajjollo as i^rcsumably a work of Kalamis cf. 50th Bui. W'iiukclinaiinspiogr. [1. 150. M 82 PHEIDIAS side by siilc with that of Phcidias. For example, in the interesting ' Demeter ' witli the veil 1 of the Berlin gallery pose and drapery has been influenced by Pheidias, and seems to be more recent than the Parthcnos. while the head is a direct successor of the ' Aspasia ' type. The Hcraklcs head of severe st}-lc, also in Berlin- (Fijj. 32), while bclont^int^ to this group, has a character and individuality of its own. I believe that the body corresponding to this type of head survives in a Herakles torso of the Louvre ^ (Fig. 33) which may be regarded as a direct development of the Omphalos Apollo. The position and attitude arc the same, the bodil}- forms also are similar, though rounder and freer. Herakles has tied the lion-skin round his neck, the end of it falls over his outstretched left forearm, the right hand rests on the club ; the hind at the left has certainly been added by the copyist. We must now return to Pheidias, and try to gain some more exact knowledge about the pupil who created the Farnese Athena type. The great number of existing copies justifies the conclusion that the artist was famous and distinguished. Here too we must be guided by the type of head, always the part of a statue on which personal style is most clearly impressed. The nearest parallels to the Farnese type arc three closely related heads, each of them preserved with its statue. These are the Capitoline 'Hera' or ' Demeter,'* the 'Venus Genetrix,'^ and the Barberini ' Hera' of the Vatican." The three are remarkably alike in arrangement and rendering of hair, and in the essential characteristics of the facial forms — such as the outline of the rather broad face, the form of the forehead, the attachment of the nose, the mouth, and the somewhat heavy cj-elids — except that the Aphrodite has been distinctly modified through stress being laid on the qualities of grace and charm. To these three sisters we may now add the Farnese Athena as a fourth. Many have agreed with me in identifying the ' Genetri.x ' with the famous Aphrodite of Alkamenes ; this point may now, I think, be considered fairly settled.^ In the Capitoline statue Petersen conjectures we have the Hera of Alkamenes.* I cannot feel quite sure that the work is a Hera," but it is certainly by the artist of the Aphrodite. Lastly, the Barberini ' Hera,' usually but incorrectly supposed to be of much later ' Skulfl. 83 ; Overbeck, Atlas d. Kiiiitsiiiylh. Taf. xv. 25. In a painting by Michelangelo Cerquozzi (1600 — 1660) in the Cassel gallery. No. 516, this statue is represented standing on a pedestal in a garden ; the arms are still unrestoi-ed. - Skulpt. 188. The bust seems to be identical with the one published in the Gall. Gtusliii. 2, 2(1. The head is antique only as far as the neck, which is of Tarian marble, while the restored bust is of coarse inferior bluish marble. The head was originally turned to the right, as may be seen by the fact that the right ear is carelessly worked, and the left ear well rendered. "* No. 1404, Salle des Caryatides. ■* Overbeck, Atlas d. Kmitsmyth. xiv. 13, 20; Antikc Dcnkm. i. 55, i ; Ik-Ibig, 507. ^ Antike Denkiii. i. 55, 2 ; Gaz. Arch. 1887, PI. 30. '' flelbig, Museums, 301 ; Overbeck, Atlas, ix. lo, x. ^l. • Cp. supra, p. 9, note 3. The doubts expressed by E. Reisch (Eraiios J'tHdalwncitsls, p. 18 j, Louvre. (From a photograph by .-\. Giraudon.) closely allied to those of Alkamenes. This is clear from the remaining figures of the basis of the Nemesis of Rhamnus : their type of face and the rendering of the thin transparent chiton ^ recall the works we assigned to Alkamenes. Among the statues ' Berlin, Skulpt. 608. Length of face 32 cm. The end of the nose is restored. Compare L. Mitchell, Hist, of Si. p. 321, and Roscher's Lexikon, i. 413, Z. i. .\ head on a statue in the cortik of the Pal. Borghese (Matz-Duhn, 1374) appears to be a replica. - In Roscher's Lexikon, loc. cit., I was misled by the stylistic resemblance of the head to the Genelri.x into thinking it an Aphrodite, but the forms are too massive and powerful, the carriage too vigorous and erect, for the ^ '£. 9, \=fahrb. i. 6, with the Hera Barberini and the Ephesian torso. In the Jalirh., loc. cit. p. 16, Pallat makes some coixect observation 8S PHF.iniAS leprescntcd b>- existing copies there are tlirce which, although the)- resemble the work of Alkamencs and arc certainly to be referred to a pupil of I'heidias, yet point to a different personality. They form a closely .^ compact group. The heads have been pre- served with the bodies. I mean the colossal ' Ceres ' in the Vatican (Fig. 35),^ the Barberini ;\pollo in Munich (Fig. 36),- and an Athena in the Capitol (Fig. 37).'' Fven external details, such as the peculiar wide girdle, the folds in the hem of the diploh, besides the rendering of other parts of the drapery and the attitude, prove that the three works are all by one man. I am inclined to name the ■ artist Agorakritos, and to sec in the 'Ceres' his famous Nemesis.* This artist conceives divini- ties otherwise than Alkamenes : his gods walk with solemn processional gait, looking straight out, with head erect. The artist aims at giving a general effect of majestic dignity rather than at individualizing like his fellow-pupil. Statues of male divinities by Alkamenes must certainly exi.st. I believe that the He- phaistos admired by Cicero survives in a beauti- ful statue at Casscl. Unfortunately it is only a torso, but the workmanship is unusually good (Fig. 38).'^ That it is a Hephaistos and a work of the Phcidian school seems to me self-evident. The torso wears the exoniis of the craftsman, girt with a leather strap. On the left shoulder lies a small cloak which fell down over the outstretched forearm.'' The chiton is treated in the style of the Parthenon frieze. '^ The torso stands in a specially close relation to the Orpheus relief, another monu- ment of this epoch. Here the clinging drapery, the fall of the folds between the Icgs,^ and the delicate folded hem on the thighs and l"lG. 38. — Conjectural i-esloralion, showing the torso Cassel combined wiih the head of the Hephaistos Cliiaranionti. on the lUlTcreriLC between the Ire.ilmcnl of dnipery still observed on the P.irllionon frieze and tliat uf llic Agorakritos basis and other later works. ■ Hclbig, Museums, 297; Britnn-Bruekmann, Dcnhiii. No. 172. - Munich, Glypt. 90. . Replica, Bull. Coiiiiiiun. 1S87, Tav. 20, 21. ^ In the lower hall, No. 3 ; Ckarac, 461, 858. An important work with a genuine head spoiled by the modern curls on the shoulders ; behind the cars arc remains of the original curls. The head is very like the Barberini Apollo. ■• The head seems to correspond with the original fragment (Brit. Mus. Cat. 460; cf. Rossbach, .-/M. J/////;. XV. 46) ; a large diadem formerly rested on it. The hair is simply taken up behind, the left arm is wrongly restored as raised. ^ Casscl, ii. 9. The statue was a short time in Paris, and is engraved by Bouillon, ii. slat. Tlu'sJc. The right interpretation as Hephaistos is hinted at in his text. The beautiful youthful head does not belong to the statite. Our sketch, Fig. 38, gives the antique parts without the restorations ; marble Pcntclic, workmanship fresh and good. •> The beginning of the elliow is still in existence. " Cf. north frieze, 133 ; west frieze, 23. =* Best example Villa Albani. 1031 — 1 lelbig, MusiUins, 790 ; other replicas in Louvre, Naples, etc. HFPHAISTCIS nv AI.KAMENES 89 upper arm' arc so surprisingly like the torso that one is inch'ncd to assign linth works to one artist. The pecuHar formation of the body pro\cs tliat tlic torso represents Hephaistos. The chest is broad and robust, and what is left of the arms (especially the right) shows a powerful muscular development. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that the remains of the legs — i.e. the knees and parts immediate!)- around them — are unusually small and slender. Now the combination of a strong body with weak legs is a characteristic of Hephaistos already established in the Homeric poems.- An Hephaistos from the school of Pheidias, as we have seen the Cassel torso to be, could hardly be any other than a cop)- of the famous statueofAlkamenes formerly in Athens. W'c know from Cicero-' that the figure stood with both feet planted on the ground. So did the torso ; the weight of the body is on the left leg, and the right foot is placed at ease a little to one side, but with the sole full on the ground. Cicero says the figure was draped, and in this point also the torso corresponds. The attitude of repose notw-ithstanding, Cicero professes to see the lameness of the god plainl}- indicated in the statue ; but he remarks that this is done without detracting from the bcaut\- of the figure. It seems clear from this that the figure must have resembled our torso. Like other authors who wish to say something witty and epigrammatic about a work of art, Cicero perhaps read rather more into the statue than the unbiassed observer will find there. Strictly speaking, a limp in the gait could not be expressed in a figure standing on both feet ; we may be sure that Alkamenes did not wish, any more than the Attic vase-painters, to make the god limp, but he suggested the characteristic peculiarity in a sufficiciitly true and natural manner by the contrast between the slender legs and the pow-crful bod}\ The head, now- lost, no doubt gave more effect to this contrast by its broad, strong forms. I believe that the hcad-t\-pe survives in the well-know-n term of the Vatican, so eloquently analyzed by Brunn.^ In order to show how well this head would suit the torso, I have combined them in the drawling.-'' The term is only a poor, shallow, and sketchy copy, worked with a plentiful use of the drill. Yet in the rendering of the curls of hair, in the mass)- arrangement of the beard, and in the large eyes it is easy to recognize the style of the later Pheidian epoch. The form of the hair rising on the forehead is very like the Asklepios head of the same school." We need hardly lay stress on the masterly way in which Alkamenes has individualized the head.'' The artist show-s himself no less great in the creation of his Arcs. The statue by Alkamenes in the temple at Athens is preserved to us, as I think we may now assume, in the famous Ares Borghcse and its replicas.* The head is stylisticall)- ' Cf. the striking agreement between the right upper arm of the Hermes on the Albani replica and the left upper arm of the torso. - Cf. Roscher's Lexihoit, i. 2039. ^ Cicero's words are : Vokanuiii . . . in quo stante in utroque vesligio atqiievcstilo Icvitcr afpaixt chutdicatu. non deformis. Reisch, loc. cit. p. 21, suggests that this Hephaistos was identical with the temple-image mentioned Paus. i. 14, 6, as standing together with Athena ; he further identifies these two statues with the two images named in C. I. A. i. 318, 319, which must have been completed in 421 — 420. His further attempt to recognize the Athena in the distinctly Praxitelean Borghese statue (Helbig, Museums, 935) is not so happy. * Man. d. Inst. vii. 81 ; Brunn, Giilta-idmk, Taf. ii. ; Profile, p. 23 ; Helbig, Museums, 89. Loschcke refers the head to Alkamenes. ■■^ The head of the torso was evidently turned as it is in the term. It is true that the neck of the term is thicker than the neck of the torso, to judge from what remains. But the copyist may easily have increased the size of the neck in order to adapt it to the terminal bust. The head is not broken, and the greater part of the term is antique. " Cf. especially the Palatine head, now in the Terme ; and the head of the Naples statue, Roscher's Lexikon, i. 634. ' The inequality of the two sides of the face (Brunn. !o(. eil. p. 25) is due to careless execution. * Conze (Beitriige, p. 9, note 2) already inclined to ascribe this work to .^^Ikamenes. The ring above the 90 PHEIDIAS analogous to the Hcphaistos, the body and the attitude are both purely Attic. The Diskobolos ' taking up position,' ^ long ago ascribed to Alkamenes, is its nearest parallel. It is also instructive to compare this Arcs with a helmcted and bearded head,'- of which the best replica is the so-called ' Miltiades' in the Louvre, a work belonging to the period of the I'arthenos, and so pronouncedly Pheidian in character that it may with some reason be ascribed to the master himself (Plate IV.) Alkamenes thus becomes a personality we can grasp.-' We have seen what his relations to Pheidias were, and how his creative instinct asserted itself independently. None of the works referred to him are earlier than the late period of Pheidias — i.e. than the epoch of the Parthenon frieze. What we otherwise know about his life shows that his activity must have extended to the close of the ccntur\-, when he executed the commission for Thrasybulos (Pau.s. ix. 1 1, 6i), about 403 B.C., and made the Dionysos for the new temple beside the theatre at Athens. According to Dorpfeld's observations of the material used in the foundations, this temple must be later than the Periklean buildings.* To return to the master himself — for we have not )-et enumerated all the works which may be brought into direct relation with him. Even among the Athena heads there is one more which is not, like so many others, a derivative from the Pheidian types, but apparently a new creation of the master's, belonging to the period when he was working on the Parthcnos. The magnificent head, intended to be inserted into a life-size statue, is at present in the museum at Brescia (Fig. 39).^ A helmet, presumably of metal, was placed on the head, the back of which was only roughly hewn out ; only the edge of the helmet is indicated just on the forehead. The curls escaping from under the edge of the helmet, and spreading as far back as the ears, are remarkably like those of the Parthenos, and are purely Pheidian in style.'^ The wavy hair which falls closely round the neck, although a new feature for Athena, is most appropriate to the maiden goddess, and occurs besides in two works of Pheidias — the Tcnnc Apollo, and the Zeus of Olympia. The profile of the forehead which slightly swells out below, the right ankle, which occurs only in the Boighese, not in the other replicas, must have been added by the copyist to illustrate the favourite story of Ares bound by Hephaistos. Immediately above the ring on the inner side of the leg is a hole (antique) filled with lead. This probably served to fasten some part of the fetter. The copyist wished to represent Ares in love, a favourite conception of later times. He did not understand that the melancholy earnestness in the face was appropriate to the god of w'ar, and had nothing to do with love- stories. 1 Helbig, Museums, 331. " Cf ji. 36, note I. Replicas of less importance in the Capitoline Museum (Helbig, 4S8) and in Pal. Colonna. The helmet resembles that of the Parthenos ; the beard, that of the Poseidon on the Parthenon frieze. ' The belief in the existence of an older Alkamenes is based on an old suggestion of mine (.-////. Milth. 1878, p. 194 ; cf Loschcke, Wesll. Gichclgr., Dorpater Progr. 18S7, p. 7). But the only testimony which could make this assumption necessary — that of Pausanias concerning the artist of the west pediment at Olympia — seems, like the corresponding information about the east pediment, to be a random statement. What Pausanias remarks in the same passage on the relations of Alkamenes to Pheidias is, as we saw above (p. 84), nothing but a jumbled reproduction of the anecdote respecting the rivalry of the two artists. Further, Kopp {Jahrb. d. Inst. 1S90, p. 277) has shown that the story of the destruction of the temple of Hera(Paus. i. i, 5) by the Persians is a mere invention : the Hera therefore is of no use as a date, any more than the Hekate, as we shall see later on (Appendix). ■" Kindly communicated to me by Dorpfeld ; cf. Jahrb. d. Inst. 1890, 276, note. A full exposition will be given in Dorpfeld's forthcoming w'ork on the theatre. Cf. E. Reisch in Eranos Vindob. 1893, p. i. He dates the Dionysos on historic grounds, B.C. 420 — 413. "' Diitschke, Ohcrilalicii, vol. iv. No. 335 ; Labus, Miisco Bresiiaiio, i. 44, 2. Length of face, o'l7. A good copy. " Diitschke, loc. cil,, compares this to the Bologna head {i.e. the Leninia). IV. Bearded Head. LOUVKE. 92 PHEIDIAS obtuse angle formed by nose and forehead, the slightl}' receding lower part of the face, the formation and expression of the full mouth and even the elongated ear — are, as is evident from a comparison with facts so far established, purely Pheidian in character. The head is decidedly later than the Lenmia, and perhaps even than the Hope Athena; the characteristic part between upper lid and c)-cbrow is, especially towards the temple, much softer and more naturally modelled than the same part in the Hope Athena : if the copies are trustworthy in this point, it follows that the Brescia head is the more recent of the two. The whole expression bears out this view. The quiet repose and restraint to be observed in the Lemnia and the Hope Athena are lacking here. The carriage of the head is freer and bolder, the face shows the power and full proportions which apparently were characteristics of the Parthenos. In this series may be further placed a beautiful head of a youth with a helmet, known from two copies in the Louvre (I" ig. 40) ' and the Museo Torlonia respectively .- In the latter replica the frontlet is adorned with a design in relief of a little Eros surrounded by sprays. This, although of course an addition of the copyist, enables us to determine the original meaning of the head. It must represent Ares, for Ares in love was a favourite theme of later artists ; the copyist's addition here is to be explained much in the same way as the fetters on the Ares Borghese (p. 89, note 8). The cars, swollen as from the bo.xing contest (especially clear in the Torlonia copy), are quite appropriate to the war god. I know no other copies of the head, and no torso which could belong to it. A hclmctcd head in the Latcran,'' placed on a statue that does not belong to it,* is closely analogous to the Lou\-re head ; but it is only a variant, and not a replica.^ A colossal Ares statue in the second cortilc of the Palazzo Borghese is another interesting work (Fig. 41).° The head, which has never been broken, shows many points of similarity with our Paris type, though it is not a replica. It is turned more decidedly to the left, the edge of the helmet on the forehead is different, and the hair, notwithstanding a general resemblance, varies in detail ; finall}-, slight whiskers have been added similar to those worn by the Arcs Borghese of the Louvre. The motive of the statue is much the same as that of the Munich Diomedc, a work to be assigned, as we shall try to show later, to Kresilas. The right hand is lowered, and doubtless held the sword, while the empty scabbard is suspended on the left side ; the left hand probably held a spear. The chlamys falls from the shoulder in perfectly simple folds. ' Louvre, No. 2986, in the same room as the .\res Boighese. Tliasian marble. First discussed by Treu, Anil. .III:. 1889, 57. He referred it to Polykleitos. I subsequently thought of Kresilas [.Irc/i. .-In:. 1891, 36). Restored in plaster : nose, left upper lip, most of left eyebrow, and left upper eyelid. - Miisco Torlonia, Tav. 26, No. 104. Gallcria Giiisliiiiaiii, ii. 45 (here tlie Eros in front is wrongly drawn as a sphinx ; on the helmet appear the antique remains of an animal couchant to serve as plume-bearer ; in the Museo Torlonia the figui-e has been restored). The nose and chin are restored. The points of hair over the forehead are broken away. ' Helljig, Miisciiiiis, 638. ^ Also observed by Overbeck, lici: d. .Siiclis. Gcs. 1861, ji. 80. A rcjdica of this torso in Lansdowne House (Michaelis, p. 453, n. 63) preserves the original head, whicli is that of Marcus -Vurelius. From the worknianshi]), which belongs approximately to the period of this Emperor, it is probable that the Lateran statue also rejiresented Slarcus Aurelius. ' As Treu had jMonounced it to be, he. cit. '' Matz-Duhn, '/.cislr. Bildw. No. 1338. The figure is much defaced, owing to exposure ; the head was never broken. Restored : nose and chin (lips formerly), right arm, the left hand, and the lower part of the body. The latter was probably made to replace a still existing but battered original. This seems evident from the complete correspondence in style, and from the fact that a piece of unl)roken drajjcry belonging to the antique upper part of the torso hangs down below the join, which would hardly be possible if the whole of the lower part of the body had not been originally preserved. 94 PHEIDIAS We possess, then, three variants of the same t\'pe : (- unknown ; {b) the Latcran variant, body unknown ; (r) the variant in the cortile Borghese, of which both head and torso are preserved. ^ I do not think that these variants arc merely due to the copyists. The Borghese statue and the Paris head give the impression of being essentially faithful copies from fifth-century originals. Of these originals we may suppose that one was a new creation by a distinguished artist, and the others more or less dependent conceptions -.\res in the Pal. Borghese (Rome). by inferior artists of the same period. Now there can be no doubt that of the three variants the Paris head has the best claim to represent the original creation. It is analogous to the Parthenos, and must be a product of the circle of Pheidias. The curls are bunched out in front of the ears and partly cover the edge of the helmet, in a manner marvellousl}' similar to that shown in the Parthenos and in the Brescia head ' The head of the so-called ' Theseus' at Ince Blundell Hall (Michaelis, p. 351, No. 43 ; Arch. Ztg. 1S74, Taf. I) may be a fourth variant. I have not seen the original, but Michaelis doubts whether the head belongs to the body ; or the latter, cf. infra, p. 359, n. 3. THE DIOSCURI OF MONTE CAVALLO 95 discussed above. The ' Aphrodite ' (p. 68) and the Anakreon should also be compared. The treatment of detail is somewhat freer than in the other works; the Ares must at an}' rate be later than the Parthenos. The helmet is another point of likeness : like that of the Parthenos, it has three plumes, the middle one supported by a sphinx,^ and turned up check-pieces decorated with griffins rampant.- I can see nothing to prevent our attributing the original to Pheidias himself Individuality manifests itself specially in the lower part of the face ; the distance between nose and mouth is rather longer than usual, and the lower lip recedes ; the mouth is close, the chin firm, the forehead broad and powerful. The head is held upright with an easy turn to the right. It conveys an impression of youthful defiance and brave resolution, of passion latent in sensuous beauty. And these are traits cminenti)- characteristic of Ares. The Ares Borghese of the Louvre, which we have attributed to Alkamenes and compared to a bearded and helmeted Phcidian head (Plate IV.), should now be compared with this Pheidian Ares : it is clear that the system of form common to the Parthenos and to the Pheidian Ares is very different from that affected by the \-ounger artist. Starting from the same principles, the later work has developed and emphasized the older conception, and brought in new elements. The Ares of Alkamenes seems restless and excited beside the other, and more stress is laid on the gloomy wildness of the god's personality : instead of the carefully dressed curls which belong to the style of the Parthenos, the hair hangs straitly, giving an effect of neglect and carelessness intended perhaps to indicate the Thracian origin of the ijod. X. T/w Dioscuri of Monte Cavallo, and the Elder Praxiteles. We have kept for the end a magnificent creation of Pheidias belonging to the last period of his activity. Not only is this work easily recognizable from the stj-le, but it has the additional advantage of being authenticated by an inscription. I refer to one of the two colossal figures on the Monte Cavallo in Rome — to the one holding the horse with the right hand, whose basis bore till 1589 the antique inscription^ opus Fidiae. Strangely enough, this work has been so misunderstood that even at the present day people are astonished if it is ascribed to the artist whose name is attested by the inscription. This inscription is of a kind of which there are many examples in Rome. They are preserved on the bases of statues, but the statues themselves are lost. These works, designated as op2is Polycliti, opus Bryaxidis, opus Praxitelis, opus Tisicratis, opus Tiinarchi,^ were, as no one disputes, either originals by the artists named, set up again in Rome, or copies from these originals. The similar inscription Xval-mrov epyoy on a copy is definite evidence for the last case,'' sometimes the formula o Seii'a ^ Cf. p. 92, note 2. ^ The legs of the griffin are still to be seen on the Louvre head. The cheek-pieces of the Borghese head are ornamented in the same way. ' It is well known that when the Colossi were set up again in the year 1589 the two artists' inscriptions were not only renewed but reversed. The antique inscriptions designated the figure holding the horse with his right hand as the work of Pheidias, the one holding the horse with his left hand as the work of Praxiteles. We keep exclusively to the antique designations. * Cf. L6wy, /. G. B. 489 seq. '' Lowy, 506 ; for the genuineness cf. Hermes, vol. xxii. 153. 96 I'llKiniAS iiroUi is used on the cop\- to designate the artist of the original.^ The fact that the Colossus of Monte Cavallo can as a matter of course not be an original by Pheidias is no evidence against the correctness of the inscription, since copies were marked in the same way. Nor should the date of the inscription (late Imperial epoch) - arouse any suspicion as to its exactness. The two Colossi originally formed the decoration at the entrance of a large building : ^ to judge bj- their workmanship, they cannot be later than the earliest period of the Empire. In more recent times they were placed as nearly as possible in their original positions on a massive pedestal of masonry into wliich were built older architectural fragments,'' probably belonging to the building at whose entrance the Colossi at first stood. The pedestal was faced with marble slabs, and on these stood the inscriptions in fine large letters.'' It is of course possible, though very unlikel)-, that the inscriptions were invented at that time. The fact that so much trouble was taken to re-crect the statues on large and handsome pedestals proves that thc\' were works of some note, and that the inscriptions were merely renewals of older ones. Such renewals must have been frequently necessary in ancient Rome, where works of art were constantly changing locality. The ascription of these two statues to their respective artists probably took place in the same early Imperial period to which the precisely similar inscriptions quoted above belong. There is no reason to suppose that any one of these was arbitrarily invented : on the contrary, all the facts seem to point to the conclusion that such inscriptions formed a storehouse of authentic material on which were based many of the literary notices of works of art in Imperial Rome. Only in one case could we be justified in rejecting the testimony of the inscription ■ — i.e. if the stj-Ie of the statue were absolutel}- at variance with the st}-le of the artist whose name it bears. Now it will not be difficult to show that exactly the reverse is the case. It has, it is true, been maintained that the style has nothing to do with Pheidias. Martin Wagner the sculptor, the first who made a close study of the style," confines himself to combating the opinion that the statue was an original by Pheidias : he misses the ' gcistreiche Auffassung der Natur' to be seen in originals, and finds here only a ' mehr systematischen, auf Regeln gegriindeten Vortrag ' ; according to him the works are Roman. Otfried Miiller" was more definite, and maintained the style to be not Pheidian but Lysippian — a theory which has found many adherents. It is strange that the ej-e can be so deceived ! For in the whole range of ancient art of the free style no stronger contrast exists than that between these statues and the works of Lysippos. Any one who will take the trouble to examine the matter for himself, even only through the medium of photographs, will I am sure be con\inced that this is so. The two Colossi of Monte Cavallo (quite irrespective of the inscriptions) can be accounted for historical!)^ and artisticalh- in no other way than by referring them to the circle of Pheidias, within which they more especially belong, to the epoch of the Parthenon friezes and pediments. Placed side by side with these originals, the Colossi at first naturally suffer by the comparison. They lack the spontaneity and refined execution which form the peculiar charm of first-hand work. While in the Parthenon figures the muscles seem to show naturally under the skin, in the Colossi ' Cf. e.g. Lowy, 488 ; /\dm. Milth. 1891, 323, etc. - Cf. Ldwy, p. 326. ' Kogelberg, Ann. d. Inst. 1842, 202. ■* From the testimony of Fl.nminio Vacc.i. " Cf. the engravings of Lafrerie. " k'tinslhlall, 1824, ji. 373 ii/'/-. 3^1 -fi"/- ' De PhiJiae Vila et Op. i. §8, note (Kunslanh. IVerie, ii. 13). ^ :^ A V ^W// THE DIOSCURI OF MONTR CAVALLO 9/ thc)- arc more dril\' rcndcrctl, • mchr schulgerecht,' as Wagner expressed it. Hut the same laws of stjle are obe\ed. The different parts of the body are marked off in large distinct planes — in direct contrast to the rounded modelling and fine transitions of fourth-centurj- technique, which reached their highest development under the influence of Lysippos. The structure of the mighty chest is specially characteristic. In the metopes of the Parthenon, even in those of freer stj'le, the chest is less developed than in the figures of the frieze and pediments, to which the Colossi correspond. Further, the manner in which the edge of the ribs projects, and the modulation of the abdominal muscles (cf. especially the deep depression between the straight and oblique muscles, and the inscriptiones of the former), are precisely the same on the Colossi and the torsos M and \\ of the west and H of the east pediment of the Parthenon. ^ The evidence of the heads is equally plain (Fig. 42). In this respect also the youths of the Parthenon frieze afford the nearest analog}- — the heads turned to the front and wearing a slightly excited expression, such as No. 2 of the west frieze (PL V.), are surprisingl)- like the Colossi. For the profile, No. 118 of the north frieze should be compared. The shape and modulation of the forehead, the sharp edge of the eyebrows, the wide-open c\cs. the complete absence of all those natural forms which art after Praxiteles and Lysippos gave to the parts around the lower eyelid both in the region of the nose and of the temples,- the formation of the mouth and chin, the characteristic wavy lines of the hair which frames the face as with a crown of rays, even the way the fillet cuts in and the hair rises on either side of it — all this is as genuinely Pheidian, and of the Parthenon period, as it is diametrically opposed to the style of L)'sippos. Each one of the forms anah'zed would be strong proof by itself; taken all together, the)' remove all possibility of doubt. Onl)- the difference in size, and the fact that the Parthenon frieze is original work while the Colossi are copies from bronze, make some variations inevitable ; in artistic essence and individual style they are the same. Again, it is striking how nearly the horses of the Colossi correspond with those of the Parthenon frieze, and how widely they differ from those of later art — compare, for instance, the sculptures of the Mausoleum and the basis of Bryaxis,^ or, as a stronger contrast still, the horses on the Pergamene reliefs. In the proportions of the bodies, in the relation in size to the human figures, in the details of form — especially in the head — in the shape of the eyes, the jaw, the nostrils, and particularly of the lower half of the mouth — these horses of the Colossi resemble those of the Parthenon frieze and pediments, except that they lack the fire and spirit of the originals. I say nothing of the armour and drapery. It has long been acknowledged that the coat of mail is an addition of the cop)-ist, who wanted a marble support for the outstretched leg of the figure. The piece of drapery hanging from the arms, which is evidently meant to serve the same purpose, is most likely another addition of the copyist.* It is not worked as clearly and definitely as the other parts of the figure. 1 Even the piibn is characteristic, and quite different from the Lysippian. - Precisely those peculiarities which Hugo Magnus {Die Darstel lung ties Aiiges in der Antikeii Plastik, 1892) dwells on are quite decisive in favour of assigning the works to the Pheidian epoch. They consist in the extremely sharp arch of the eyebrow and of the upper rim of the eye-socket, in the modelling of the space between that upper rim and the upper eyelid, and in the absence of any indication of the lower rim of the eye- socket. It is strange after this accurate analysis that Magnus (p. 76) should separate the figures of Monte Cavallo from the Pheidian epoch : he was misled by the deep hollowing out of the iris and the pupil ; but this is a most unessential detail ; the copyist added it because in such a colossal w ork he could not rely on the effect of a merely painted eye-pupil (cf Conze, Sitzungsbei: Berl. Akadeinie, 1892, Febr. , p. 49 seq.) ; the bronze originals had of course inserted eyes. 3 Bull, de Con: Hell. 1892, I'l. 3, 7. ■* Cf p. 56, note I. O THE ELDER PRAXITELES 99 Finally, the motive of the \^ouths with their horses and the rh\-thm of their movement are special to the Parthenon and its artistic circle. It has long been noticed that one group, the youth leading the horse with his right hand, reappears in very similar form on the west frieze of the Parthenon (No. 27).! And the same figure — the one designated by the old inscription as the work of Pheidias — occurs again in all its essential features on another authenticated work of Pheidias, the relief on the basis of the Athena Parthenos.- The only distinction is that the j-outh on the basis leads with his right hand not one horse but a team of four. The horses are rearing in both instances. If then it be admitted that Pheidias used the 'horse-taming' motive, the question next arises whether it was his own inven- tion or borrowed from another artist. All the evidence seems to be in favour of the former view. The motive in its principal features — a broad swinging stride to the right, the head thrown well to the left, one arm (usually) raised, the other bent at an angle — enters Greek art as a complete idea, and from the time of its entrance becomes a common property to be employed over and over again. It is quite unknown before the time of the Parthenos. It first appears in that free and animated style which we have learned to recognize as the style of Pheidias in his Parthenos epoch (cf. p. 44 scq.) Among the metopes of the Parthenon this ' horse-taming ' motiv'e is met with only in a few of the freest examples ; ^ on the ' Theseion ' it appears only in the frieze ^ (which is similar in style to the more advanced metopes of the Parthenon), and not in the metopes at all ; it is represented on the shield of the Parthenos as well as on the basis, it is quite familiar on Parthenon frieze and pediments, and in all works nearly related to the style of these sculptures, such as the reliefs of Phigaleia, a certain series of Attic vases, etc.5 We may, then, assume that Pheidias, if not actually the inventor of the motive, is principally responsible for its adoption into Attic art. Formal analysis has taught us that the Colossi of Monte Cavallo, irrespective of their inscriptions, must be referred to originals from the epoch of the Parthenon frieze and from the circle of Pheidias. This being so, we have no grounds for doubting the correctness of the traditional inscriptions, which give us the artists' names: Pheidias and Pra.xiteles. This Praxiteles is no longer unknown. He is of course identical with the artist of the Promachos (p. 32). This statue, we saw, was a work closely connected with Pheidias, perhaps partly invented by him, and we drew thence the conclusion that Praxiteles was an intimate colleague of Pheidias. This accords admirabl}- with the facts gathered from a study of the Colossi of Monte Cavallo and the inscriptions. The two figures are conceived in the same spirit, and there must have been a strong bond between the two artists. Such collaboration and division of labour were common enough in antiquity in the case of larger commissions involving several figures." It was a great mistake to imagine that the two different artists' names inscribed on the Colossi could not possibly both be correct. Yet if a work of this kind is to have any general uniformity of character, the root-idea must be the invention of one mind. In the present case we surely cannot be wrong in ascribing this root-idea to Pheidias, though in the working out of it and in the execution of the details each of the artists concerned would become alone responsible. ' Cf. also north frieze No. 58, and the Hermes on the Echelos relief, 'E^ij^. apx- 1S93, Uiv. 9. - In the portion given by the Lenormant statuette. Cf. supra, p. 45. 3 South xiv. xvi., East i.\. ■■ Cf. Overbeck, P/astik, 3rd cd. i. 348, Fig. 5. " Those named on pp. 44, 45. * For instances corroborated by inscriptions see Lowy, /. C. B. p. xv. In addition to tliese we have the examples handed down by literature. too PHF.IDIAS In spile of the great similarit}- between the two figures and the disappearance in the copies of many an indivichial and distinctive trait which no doubt existed in the originals, we can still detect differences in the artists. The work of I'raxiteles — the youth holding the horse with his right hand and turning his head to the left — shows more stress and fire in the attitude. This difference comes out most clearly in the heads (Fig. 42, i, Praxiteles ; 2 and 2 a, Pheidias). The head by Praxiteles has a more passionate, free, and enthusiastic expression, and on this account has been generally preferred to the other.' This is just the distinction which we found to subsist between the Promachos and the works of Pheidias : in the Promachos, too, we found a mood of greater excitement expressed by a more restless and animated exterior. We could however assert this only of the body, for the head of the Medici torso is lost. Yet the head of the Promachos, the work of I'raxiteles, seems to have been pre- served in one copy. This is a colossal head of the Jacobsen collection in Copenhagen (Fig. 43). We saw that the Promachos held her head turned to the right, and showed in her whole attitude defiant warlike excitement. The Copenhagen head corresponds admirably to such a conception, and I think every one must be struckby the similarity in style to the heads of the Dioscuri, especially to the one by Praxiteles. The vigor- ous movement, the expression, the forms of the individual features, more particularly of the open mouth and the chin, are wonderfully like. The angle formed by forehead and nose is rather more marked in the Athena, thus pointing to a slightly earlier date. The hair springs out in full masses in front of the ears, and recalls the Lemnia rather than the Parthcnos." If we imagine the Medici torso completed b\- this head ^ or one of its replicas, and the arms restored with lifted shield and lance held ready for the fray, we have a majestic and moving image of the war goddess gazing in joy of conflict and assurance of victory from her citadel away across city and country towards the quarter whence her worst enemies threaten — whence a few decades later was to come the power which crushed and overthrew her proud supremacy. The originals of the Monte Cavallo Colossi can hardly have stood in Athens. They represented, there is little doubt, the Dioscuri.* Hence it seems probable that the Colossi were set up in some cit}- specially devoted to the cultus of the Dioscuri, where ' Cf. Fricdcvichs, Bans/ciiw, p. 12S (= Wulters, p. 456), where the names have changed places according lo the modern mibtake. - The copyist has used the borer freely, and apparently not understood his original. Tlie work recalls the Parthenos copy in Berlin, An/. Deiikm. i. 3. On lips and nostrils and on the frontlet of the helmet are traces of red colour. The back and the upper part of the head are made of separate pieces. Holes in the ears for earrings. The teeth are indicated, the lower edge of the frontlet is broken, it originally ran downwards in a point, as in the Parthenos. ^ The face of the Jacobsen head is 31 cm. long. This would agree approximately with the dimensions required by the proportions of the Medici torso. There is a curious similarity between the shape and size of the hollow intended to receive the head on the torso Medici and the portion of bust which is jirepared for insertion in the Jacobsen head. Both form an ellipse narrowing into a point in front ; on the torso the length is 40 — 41 cm., its breadth 32 cm. ; on the head length and breadth are 43 cm. and 24 cm. respectively. It is certain, however, that the head does not belong to the torso Medici, but to a replica of it with a similar hollow for the head. ■* The coin of Maxcntius quoted by Donati shows, it is true, the Dioscuri standing (piiclly and tlie horses rearing. But the Dioscuri are represented in the motive of the Monte Cavallo group — on a sarcophagus now in the Museo delle Terme (in the centre a married couple, on each side a Dioscurus with his horse in the Monte Cavallo motive, but with the addition of pileus, chlamys, and sword ; workmanship of the third or fourth century a.d. ) The fact that the Colossi do not wear the pointed cap does not tell against the interpretation, as in the fil'th and fourth century is.c. this attribute was not yet given to them. (Cf. Koscher's Lex. i. 1 172.) I02 PHEIDIAS a huge voli\'c gift of tlic kiml wnuki be appiopriate. Such a cit)- was Tarcntum,' where bronze Colossi were in great fa\our, and whence the originals could easily have been removed to Rome. The copies arc adapted as decoration for a gate, but it does not follow that the originals served the same purpose. Nor is the sj-m- metry of the composition a proof of decorative intention. In ancient art, from the earliest to the latest times, symmetry was a necessary factor in the typology of the Divine Twins. The one is always the exact counterpart of the other. Originally the horses would be placed not at a right but at an obtuse angle to the figures, according to the more natural arrangement. Since the publication of Wagner's penetrating remarks on the subject it is generally and rightly assumed that the originals were of bronze, and if so they were probably not decorative, but intended to stand free. The Dioscuri belong to the time of the Parthenon frieze. The I'romachos, which we assigned to the years between 445 and 440, is therefore a somewhat older work of Praxiteles than the Dioscuri — a conclusion which we reached independently from a stud}- of the style. It remains to find out whether anjthing more is known about this Praxiteles. He is of course the elder Praxiteles, long acknowledged as a person distinct from his younger namesake." However, since all conjectures concerning this artist have hitherto been of extreme vagueness, it will be best to sum up what is really known, rejecting what is false or untenable. First of all we have the notice in Pausanias (i. 2, 4) about the ypafifiara uTTiKa on the group of Demeter, Kore, and lakchos, but this only gives us a general date before the time of Eukleides. More definite information is supplied by the statement that the temple image of Hera at Plataia was by Praxiteles, for the splendid large temple to which this ciyaXfia fieya belonged was built in 427 — 426 (Thuc. iii. 68). This would roughly give us the period from r..C. 445 to 425 for the activity of the elder Pra.xiteles, who accord- ingly would be a somewhat )-ounger contemporary of Pheidias, and would be still at work in the time of the Peloponnesian War.-' His works themselves have shown us that his connexion with Pheidias was a close one ; Pheidias must have held him in high esteem, and probably obtained for him the commission to make the Promachos. Very soon afterwards the two artists in collaboration made the group of the Dioscuri. No doubt the commission was intrusted to Pheidias, and he is responsible for the original design, but Praxiteles brings his individuality strongly to light in the figure which bears his name. Although standing in the shadow of one greater than himself, his own significance and importance cannot be concealed. The idea we have formed of the work produced by the elder Praxiteles is well illustrated by an interesting head (Fig. 44), of which there are two replicas,* representing ' The cultus of the Dioscuri at Tarentum is proved by numerous coins and terra-cottas ; it was derived from Laconia. - Cf. Klein, OcsUn: Mitth. 1S79, 8; Brunn, Bayr. Sitzhci: 1880, 443 ; Kroker, Gkichuatiiige Kihistlcr, 44; U. Kbhler, Ath. Mitth. ix. 78; Robert, Arch. Mirchcn, 62, 156. ' The Artemis on a kylix of about 480 cannot, as Robert, Atrh. March, p. 156, assumes, be referred to the Brauronia. I consider Studniczka's hypotliesis about the latter very probable (cf. infra on Praxiteles, p. 323). The head called 'lakchos' by Winter [Bonner Stnciien ; cf. sii/ra, p. 55) is too severe for our Praxiteles. If Praxiteles worked with Kalamis (Pliny, xxxiv. 71), it could only have been at the end of the period of Kalamis, and this does not justify the supposition that the style of Praxiteles was severe. ■* (a) Fig. 44 ; in the Louvre, No. 2547, from the Coll. Campana ; d'Escamps, Marbres Cam f ana, I'l. 63. The whole neck with the term, the lower part of the curls, the nose, the upper lip, and the back of the head are restored. (K) Vatican, Mns. Chiar. 145 ; Visconti, Miis. Chiar. i. 10; Miiller-Wieseler, Dcnkm. ii. 119 ; Overbeck, Apollo, p. 1 18 ; Ilelliig, Museums, No. 72. Poor late work. Brows and pupils plastic. Fillet in the hair (not in a). THE ELDER PRAXITELES '03 a delicate youth with rich curls falling over his forehead and down over his neck. The Pheidian manner is evident in the stylistic treatment of hair and face, particularly in the eyes and mouth. But a slight hint of inward excitement, the mouth open as if to ask an impatient question, and the intentional asyvimetria of the hair over the forehead, are signs of the artistic tendency \vc have already traced in Praxiteles. Movcover, the t\-pe of head is remarkably like the Euboulcus of the younger Praxi- teles (Plate XVI.) 1 — so like that there must be a bond of some kind between the two productions. The essential features are the same, but they are worked out in the one instance according to Pheidian tradition, in the other after the manner of later Praxitclean art. It is very instructive to notice how the same idea is expressed in the Fig. 44. — Head in the Louvre. forms of two widely different epochs. The hair lies in the same general scheme of arrangement, but the style of rendering is not the same. Forehead and eyes differ ; only in one detail the older head — if we may trust the Louvre copy — oversteps the Pheidian circle and touches on the newer formation — i.e. the lower eyelid is more definitely set off from the cheek, through the indication of the lower rim of the ej-e- socket, a nicety of modelling not customary in the fifth centur\-. As the ' Euboulcus ' of the great Praxiteles certainly represents an Elcusinian divinity, the interpretation of the earlier head must be sought for within the same ' The head in the Louvre is therefore also called Virgil, like the replicas of the Eubouleus in Rome and Mantua. Both the Louvre head and a head in the Villa Albani (No. 48, ' Alessandro"), which I also atlrilmte to the elder Praxiteles, have already been touched upon in connexion wiih the 'Eubouleus' by Benndorf in the Anzeiger il. Wiener Akad. 1887, l6th Nov. I04 I'llI'lDIAS in_\thnloL;ical circle. It is probably The delicate face framed in curb a CO]))' iif the lakchos of the elder I'raxiteles. would answer admirabi)' to the wpaio'; Oeu^ (Aristoph. luvgs, 395) whfj stood as torch- bearer beside Dcmetcr and Kore.' Tlie ele- vated beauty of this head accounts for its L^rcat popularit}- in Athens (Cic. /// ]'err. iv. 60, 135). First among other surviving works be- longing to the same series of Phcidian works as the Monte Cavallo horsemen may be placed the fragment of a colossal statue, the ' Ju])iter dc Versailles' in the Louvre (h"ig. 45).- The head is near akin to the Dioscuri, the strong undulating hair, the form of the forehead, the large eyes, and the open mouth being unmis- takable evidences ; even the hair on the upper part of the head and on the neck behind shows correspondence. The short curled beard, on the other hand, recalls the earlier Pheidian manner as exemplified in the Barberini head (Fig. 12). The majesty and energy of the whole conception have no parallel except in the Dioscuri. Unfortunately only the upper part of the body survives. A mantle passes behind from the right hip to the left shoulder, The short hair and the excited expression It is possible that this statue also may have its source in a work of the elder Praxiteles.-' At any rate it must have preceded from the school of Pheidias. I may mention in conclusion a female type with waving, fluttering hair and open mouth, known in different variants, and representing a goddess of animated nature.'' Fig. 45. — 'Jupiter de Versailles ' (Louvre). the right arm was stretched forward seem to me less appropriate to Zeus than to Poseidon XI. Phcidian hifluences in Sicily and Magna Graccia. — Coins and I'ascs. It is not, however, my intention to write an exhaustive treatise on the works of the Pheidian school ; I only aim at tracing a ground-plan for future investigation. I believe we have found in the Lemnia on the one hand, and in the Dioscuri on the other, two fi.xed points which represent the opposite poles of Phcidian art : here calm repose, there impetuous motion ; here manifold threads of connexion with old forms, there the full freedom of the new style. ^ This lakchos was certainly not represented with horns. The /SouKepois "laKXos (Sophol;les, frag. 871, Nauck) is not the lacchos of Attic cultus, but only a poetic name for Dionysos : it is expressly stated that he dwells on Ny.sa, which is true of the bull-Dionysos, but not of the Attic lacchos. The poetic blending of lakchos with Dionysos, which occurs from Sophokles downwards (cf. especially Aiilig. 1 1 15 seij.), does not prove that the mingling had taken place in Attic cultus and art of the fifth century. - Bouillon, i. I ; Miiller-Wieseler, Denkm. ii. 4; Overbeck, KuiistinylJi. Alias, Taf. 2, 15, 16 ; Zeus, p. 83, No. 14 ; Frohner, Not. No. 31. — Our illustration omits the restorations. ■' There was a Neptune by Praxiteles, possibly the elder, in PoUionis Asiiiii Mominienlis, Plin. xxxvi. 23. ■* Head on a statue in St. Petersburg (Coniple Reudii, 1881, PI. \'I. 1, 2). Similar, but iioi ideiuic.il, is the head of the Vatican Artemis (Helbig, A/usetims, 37). COINS OF THL'RIl 105 But in order to make our notion of these two consecutive clcvclopniciits of Pheidian art still more complete and definite, we must see how they were reflected and reproduced in coins. And first we must emancipate ourselves from the current dating adopted for the coins in question. When coins can only be dated from their style, this should only be done by reference to the fixed points gained by a study of the aggregate of other monuments, and especialh- of sculpture. It is true that in this way onl\- the date when any given type arose can be discovered, and not the period of its duration, which, as Athenian coins show, is sometimes disproportionately long. From the point of view of art, however, it is just the period of the rise of the coin- type that is the most significant. In B.C. 445 ten ships sailed westwards from Athens to found Thurii, wliich in B.C. 443 was strengthened by immigrations from all parts of Greece. The new colony naturally had the same patron goddess as Athens, and on its coins was stamped a head (Pi. VI. i, 3) whose typical features — form of helmet, wreath of olive, arrange- ment of hair — were taken straight over from the Athenian coins of the period.' The severe style however, which had been retained in Athens from external reasons, was abandoned on the coins of Thurii ; they follow the style of the time. Only in the rendering of the hair on the forehead with regularly waved contour and parallel inner lines is there an echo of the older protot\-pe. The establishment of this t\-pe with the wav\- front hair ma}^ certain!)' be assigned to the earliest period of the colony.- From the existence of numerous dies with slight variants it seems clear that the type held its own for a considerable time, but its place in the history of art is fixed by the fact that it is an Attic creation of the period when Pheidias was working at the Parthenos. Its clcse relation to the art of Pheidias is quite evident. This earlier type of Thurii most definitely recalls the Lemnia. The undulating front hair of the Lemnia (cf. p. 19), the line of her profile, with the low forehead and the nose at a slight angle to it, the restful beauty of the full closed mouth, and the finel}- wrought transitions in modelling — all this has no such close parallel on coins as the earlier type of Thurii. Somewhat later there appears in the same city a type corresponding to the later st\'le of Pheidias and his circle ; the hair above the forehead flows back over the edge of the helmet nearly as it does in the Parthenos, and the expression is more animated and restless than in the other coins (Plate VI. 6).'' Among the dies of the older type those signed are specially fine. Among these arc found both staters (the helmet with simple olive-wreath)* and distaters with Sk\-lla on the helmet (PI. VI. 5).-'' These dies are most probably the work of the artist who signs with a in Terina, and whose personality makes itself so distinctly felt on its ' Cf. Head, Guide, PI. 13, 21, 23, 30, and the imitations of this type in Lykia, ibid. PI. II, 3S, 20, 39. On the Phokaian electnini hektai the type is very similar (Berlin Coll.), but without olive-wreath. - This is most clearly proved by the small coins of New Sybaris, which was founded immediately after Thurii ; the Athena head is exactly the same as on the older Thurii type (Gan-ucci, Le Moiiete, Tav. 108, 23, 25 ; Gardner, Types, PI. I. 31, 16, 18 = our PI. VI. 2). Further imitations of that Thurii type, which are to be traced in Kyme, must be dated before 420 B.C., in which year Kyme was destroyed. Head (Hisf. Num. p. 71) follows the majority of numismaticians in dating the coins of Thurii after 420 B.C. ; and the type with Skylla on the helmet he places after 390, although, as the style of face and hair proves, it must have arisen vei'y soon after the type with the olive-wreath. Gardner (Types, p. 103) estimates the dates more correctly. [.A. beautiful early coin of Thurii (Brit. Mus. Cat. TImr. i.), belonging to the series referred to by Prof. Furtwiingler, but still earlier than any of the examples he cites, has been pointed out to me by Mr. G. I". Hill. It is now [mblished for the first time, PI. VI. i.— E. S.] ' E.g. Gardner, Types, PI. V. 18 ; Garrucci, Le Moiele, Tav. 106, 9, 10, 14 ; P'ricdlander u. .Fallot, D. Kgl. MUnzcabinet, Nos. 739 (pub. ibid, on PI. VIII. but marked by mistake 736), 743. * Head, Guide. PI. 15, 7. '•' Friedlander u. Sallet, Das Miimcah. No. 741 ; the head as in Head, Guide, 25, i 7. V I06 PHKIDIAS coinage.! His style, in the design of the seated Nike of the reverse (PI. VI. 7), for instance, bears so surprising and unmistakable a resemblance to that of the Parthenon frieze- that he must have stood in the closest relations to the artist of the frieze — in other words, to Pheidias. His activity in Terina is evidently somewhat later than his Thurii period, for the Thurii work recalls the style of the Lemnia, while the head of the n)'mph on the coins of Terina is, like the reverse, in the manner of the Parthenon frieze. These coins of Terina, following, as they do, closely on coins of the period in which the trammels of archaic convention are still felt, must from evidence of style be dated in the same time as the Parthenon frieze — i.e. between 440 and 430 B.C. It is highl}' probable that the same artist's hand is to be traced in the reverse of a coin of Pandosia,^ also signed . The young huntsman seated is quite in the manner of the Parthenon frieze (PI. VI. 10). The obverse {ibid.) is even more striking, for it bears a head of Hera facing, with wavy hair fluttering out to the sides — another instance of the more recent Pheidian tendency, which we saw brought to expression in certain figures of the Parthenon frieze (PI. V.) and in the Dio.scuri of Monte Cavallo. The whole scale of gradation from the Lemnia to the Dioscuri, which we traced in the large monuments, is exactly reproduced, step by step — and this is a confirmation of the results attained so far — in the works of a die-cutter. The remarkable fact that the Pheidian style in its different phases was carried straight from Athens to Lower Italy comes to light nowhere more clearly than on the coins just discussed. But the influence which transplanted art exercised on native work, principall}- through the agency of the colonists of Thurii, is to be traced in a number of other circumstances. The types of the Athena heads of Thurii, especially the one with the regularly waved hair, were rapidly and widely adopted in Lower Italy. More particularly in the Greek towns of the Campanian coast, Kyme,' and Neapolis (PI. VI. 4),-'' we find exact copies of the oldest type of the staters of Thurii. About the time when Thurii w-as founded, Athenians seem to have settled in Neapolis : " at all events it became a second centre from which Attic art spread to other places. The neigh- bouring Italians — not only the Campanians, but the inhabitants of Hyria, Nola, and Pliistelia ^ — stamped on their coins the head of the Attic Athena. Other Greek ' Compare .Stuart Poole, Num. Chr. 1S83, 269 sqq. PI. 11, 12. Poole was the first to emphasize the purely Attic style of these coins. In Terina the artist * distinguishes himself very clearly from his much less important contemporary and imitator, the artist who signs P'. — Poole's attempt (p. 273) to identify the artist * with the artist who signs *i, *i\is, *i\i(rTi, ♦lA.iirTitoc has been refuted by Evans, Tareiitiiie Horsemen, p. no, note. The Terina coin with *iAis is quite different in style from those with *, and considerably later : it is by the same I'hilistion who worked for Velia, Tarentum, probably also for Metapontum and Herakleia, at the end of the fourth century(cf. Evans, !o(. til. 106 sqi].) Gardner's hypothesis (Types, p. 121), that the artist* might be Phrygillos, who made the bull for the reverse of the coin of Thurii, cannot be entertained, as this artist's style is quite different. - The correspondence between Num. Chron. 1883, PI. 1 1, 4, and the Athena of the Parthenon frieze is specially striking. ■' Cf. Poole, lo(. cit. p. 276, PI. 11,14; Head, GuiJc, PI. 25, 22. — In the series of coins of Pandosia the type follows immediately on a head of severe style ; Head, Guide, PI. 15, 11 ; Hist. Num. p. 92, fig. 60. The coin of Vclia with *, which Poole, PI. 11, 13, ascribes to the .same artist, must, I think, be later. ■• Poor CNample, Brit. Mus. Cat. Italy, p. 86, No. 6 ; a better one Berlin, e.sact imitation of the oldest staters of Thurii. Garrucci, Le Mouete, Tav. 83, 27 — 29. Cf. supra, p. 105, note 2. 5 Head, Guide, PI. 15, 3; Garrucci, Tav. 84, 19, 85, 14. " Cf. Busolt, Gr. Gesch. ii. 591. ' Imhoof-Blumer ( JF/tv/f/- jV««/««. Ztschr. 1886, p. 226) has shown that these coins of Campania were struck in Neapolis : the Athena head is identical on both. Among the coins of Hyria (cf. Imhoof Blumer, loc. cit. p. 206 sijij.) there occur exact imitations and freer modifications of the older Thurii type. The same Thurii die appears in Hyria and in Nola. As the nymph's head of free style on the coinage of Neapolis and Nola appears to be from the same die, it is ])robable that the Athena heads of Hyria and Nola were also stamped in Neapolis. — Small silver pieces of Phistelia with the older Thurii type in Berlin (not mentioned by Head, Hist. Num.] — Allifa : Garrucci, Tav. 88, 20. VI. Greek Coins. ,5,6. Thurii.— 2. .SyK-ivis.— 4. Ncapolis.— 7. Terin.-i.— S, 10. P.xndosi;!.— 9. Ilyii;!. — 11. Xeapolis.— 12-15. .Syiacuse.— 16, 17. Naxos.— 18. Ilcrakleia.— 19. HioUai.i.— 20. I,ol7]. We must also remember that in the days of Perikles artists left off representing the gods with long abundant locks, and gave .short close hair even to the most august of the Olympian gods. The helmet, as noted long ago, marks the office of stratcgos, which Perikles filled without a break from about 445 i;.C. It would be absurd to suppose — with later classical authors — that the artist represented Perikles wearing the helmet in ' CoU. Barraico, I'l. 39, 39 a. The head in Munieh, called Perikles (Brunn, Glypt. 5th ed. 157), evidently represents quite a different person, as Friederichs (Bausl. p. 125) had already observed. - In the Vatican head the characteristic form is somewhat weakened, but the London head reproduces it with evident fidelity. VII. Poiirait of Pcriklcs. mtrnsH museum. P-.r.t^l) ly Gifit." "^ 1 0-1 PORTRAIT OF PERIKLES 119 order to hide the long shape of his head, for, as we sec from the Vatican replica, he evidently tried to make this characteristic obvious even through the open eyeholes. The inscription from the Akropolis, as noted above, is approximately dated at 440 — 430 B.C. Within this period there is no event so likely to have occasioned the dedication of the portrait in the sanctuary of Athena Polias as the return of the ^^^^^H^^^^^^^^^ .^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B^^^^^^ ^B^ N WU ^^^L^ ^ ^ ^1^1 ^^^^V^^^im ^^^1 ^^^y%;%^t|H. ^^1 -: ^ ^ '^'^\,,,^0^'-^ ^Wt-V-A Fic. 46. — Terminal bust of Perikles in the British Museum. (From the original.) victorious general from the most difficult and glorious of his campaigns — the one undertaken against Samos in B.C. 439. Gratitude for his successful return would afford a specially suitable occasion for his friends to dedicate his portrait to the goddess who had lent him her aid. The work would thus have been executed at a time when Perikles had roused immense popular enthusiasm by his funeral oration over those who had fallen in the war — an occasion on which the women adorned him 120 KRESILAS with crowns and chaplcts (I'liit. I\-r. 28). Maybe that the image of Pcrikles as he stood there before the people on that day inspired the artist at his work. In turning to consider the formal pecuHarities of the work, we note first that the eye is very long and narrow, and, although the glance is inclined upwards, it yet seems scarcely opened, while the lid has a heavy droop. The lids are very strong and full, and the lachrymal glands are prominent. The distance between the inner corners of the eyes is not great, and the root of the nose is narrow.' The face is, in the manner of the time, represented with the smooth skin tightl}' drawn over and without any lines, except that on either side of the root of the nose, at the birth of the eyebrows, the artist has introduced a little vertical wrinkle, and below it, to mark off the nose, two little horizontal cuts. These lines are of course appropriate to the serious thoughtful man, no longer in his first )'outh, but the way in which they arc introduced and executed must certainly be peculiar to the artist. The distinguishing quality of the hair is its plastic fulness, indicated in spite of its shortness. It is not arranged symmetrically, but is composed of a maze of little curling locks. Similar locks occur here and there in the beard,- though the hair of the beard is on the whole still shorter, and instead of curling merely turns up at the ends. It is scarcely likely that this portrait of Pcrikles was the onl)' work of the kiml undertaken by Kresilas, — and, among the many similar helmeted heads preserved, it is not unreasonable to hope for some trace of his hand. The Berlin collection, for instance, possesses a marble head,^ which — allowance being made for the differ- ences of copyists — resembles in the highest degree the peculiar style of the Pcrikles (Fig. 47). It has been placed on a term that does not belong to it ; the neck below the beard and the hair at the back are modern. Nothing else is restored except the lower half of the nose, the top of the helmet, and the point of the visor. The head is turned a little to the right. The copyist has made great use of the drill both in hair and beard. In the general conception of the individual, a quality more easily felt than described, there is singular coincidence between the two portraits, as may be seen by comparing them to other contemporary works. The separate features, however, are in some respects completely different. The Berlin head has long hair, parted in front and smoothed away behind the ears, at the back falling loose upon the neck, thus affording no opportunity for the little close curls of the Perikles. But for all that the treatment is closely allied ; as in the one the little curls, so in the other the larger strands, cross and intertwine — perhaps just a trifle mechanicall)-. The beard, too, in the Berlin head is longer than in the Pcrikles, but has the same round outline, and is composed of similar little meshes of hair with curling ends. As the beard is thicker, these meshes do not lie close to the chin and cheeks in the same wa_\-, )-et the resemblance would be materially greater had not the copyist, b}' using the drill freely, introduced an element quite foreign to the original. The likeness to the Perikles is enhanced by the manner in which the beard grows from the check antl by the cut of the moustache, which leaves the line of the lip quite free. The hair is kept well away from the under lip, another point in which the head resembles :s ' The proportions, measured on the London head, are as follows: clear length of eye = 36 mm.; without lachrymal gland = 32 mm.; height = 12 mm. ; distance between inner corners only 28 — 29 mm. instead of a whole eye-length as elsewhere. The length of mouth, according to a very usual proportion = it times the length of the eyes (54 mm.) ; it seems that the length of the mouth (a feature peculiar to the man pourtrayed) brought the unusually long eye in its train. - At any r.ite in the Vatican head, which in this respect is the more faithful ; cf. p. WJ. ^ Shdpt. No. 311. 122 KRESILAS the Feriklcs. Then in the eyes we have aijain the heavy cych'ds and pronounced lachrj'inal glands — just a Httlc altered by the hand of the copyist — together with the relatively narrow nose.' It is especially instructive to find that the Berlin head displays, upon an otherwise smooth skin, precisely those same stylistic little lines at the root of the nose which in the Pcriklcs were seen to be treated in a manner quite personal to the artist. The helmet differs slightly from that of the Perikles in having just above the ears what seems to be the turned-up entl of a broad leather strap. The l^erlin head, then, may be accepted as a copy of another portrait of a Greek general from the hand of Kresilas, rather later than the Perikles, for in spite of substantial agreement the treatment of hair and beard gives an imj)ression of greater freedom and of technical advance.- Wc may think of it, therefore, as executed somewhere about the beginning of the Peloponnesian War. 111. The D lit replies. Another celebrated work of Kresilas mentioned by Pliny (xx.xvi. 74) represented a wounded man on the point of death. An ingenious theory connects this work with the bronze statue of a certain Diitrephes pierced with arrows, noted b)' Pausanias'' in his description of the Akropolis as standing close to the Athena II}-gieia the basis of which ma)- still be seen on the eastern side of the Prop)-laia. In the j-ear 1839 a square basis inscribed 'E/a/LioXii/co? AieiTpe(f)o<; airap'^ev KpealXat; eTroeaev* was found built between the Propylaia and the Parthenon ; and, since this basis might easily have got shifted farther eastwards from its original position for later building purposes, L. Ross at once suggested that it had belonged to the statue of Diitrephes mentioned ' Tlic head is life-size, like the Perikles ; the nose and lower part of the faee have the same proportions; the eyes are shorter (33 mm. ), but the mouth is also of normal width. The distance between the inner corners of the eyes is a full eye-length. - There also exist copies of two beautiful heads of slralegoi by a master closely related to Kresilas, though he is quite distinct from him both in general conception and in the treatment of details. The first is the so-called ' Themistokles' in the Vatican (Helbig, 4S2) ; the second is the Pastoret head (Fr.-Wolters, 484), of which the Munich head in the Glyptothek, 157 (F.-W. 483), is only a mutilated replica, though valuable on account of the careful execution of what remains ; a third replica of the same portrait is in the Villa Albani, 40. It is especially in the peculiar treatment of the beard that the same hand becomes apparent for both heads. The ' Themistokles ' is probably the earlier work ; the Pastoret strategos has very disordered hair, and sundry realistic details, especially in the neck. An immediate development of this tendency in portraiture is the Archi- damos {Rihii. Mitlli. iii. I'l. 4), in whom I recognize the Archidamos of the Peloponnesian War (cf. infra, p. 321). It is not impossible that tlie personality at the back of these works (with which many others may be grouped) is that of Demetrios, the famouj orS/ianroiroiiis, who worked at the time of the Peloponnesian War and at the beginning of the fourth century. In later antiquity it was a commonplace of the rhetors (as appears from Quinctilian and from Lucian, F/ii/ofs. 18) to find fault with Demetrios as a realist. Probably this merely goes back to some exaggerated statement in an Attic comedy (it is only necessary to remember the sentence passed by the older comedy on the realist Euripides) ; for no artist can go beyond the limitations of his time, and actually realistic portraits, as understood in later days, would be out of the question at that epoch. The caricatured description in Lucian is moreover put into the mouth of the lying philosopher Eukrates, and cannot in the least imply what the moderns have taken it to mean. •' From the wording it might be only the statue that was struck by arrows, but both internal and external evidence are against that supposition. Moreover, arrows shot at the statue could not stick in the bronze but would glance off, and the marks that they would leave would not be of a kind to show what they came from. "■ Lowy, /iisi/ii: Gi: Bildh.'Ho. 46, where see all the older literature. For the latest discussion of the question, Jakrh. d. Inst. 1892, p. 185 sqij. (J. Six), cf. infra, p. 123, n. 2. My earlier opinion (.J//;, ^^lth. v. p. 28), that— as Bergk first supposed — the inscription referred to the statue of Hermolykos (Paus. i. 23, 10), and that Pausanias was mistaken in identifying him with the Pankratiast of Ilerodotos, I now withdraw as improbable ; for Pausanias could scarcely have overlooked the difference of the father's name. Cf. still more recently \^e\i.ii.<:^sx m Fleckcisen' s Jahrb. 1886, p. i6itY. DIITREPHES 123 b)- Pausanias. Certainl\- the son of Uiitrephcs would be the most Ukely person to have set up the statue, since Diitrcphes, who w^as represented as dying, could not well have done so himself. Further, Ross also identified this Diitrephes pierced with arrows, which the inscribed basis showed to have been a work of Kresilas, with the wounded man by Kresilas mentioned in Pliny. The one serious objection to the theory is that the information given by Pausanias about Diitrephes is impossible to reconcile with the date of the inscription. According to Pausanias, he was a general in 414 B.C., while the characters of the inscription belong to a considerably earlier date. Kirchhoff accordingl)- {C.I.A. i. 402) rejected the whole identification. There is, however, no definite proof that the information of Pausanias really applies to the Diitrephes of the Akropolis statue. Pausanias has evident!}' no personal knowledge of the matter, and is merely drawing from Thucydides (vii. 29, 30), where it is narrated how Diitrephes led back the Thracian troops in the j-ear 414 and took Mykalessos by the way. This same general is again mentioned by Thucydides (viii. 64) in connexion with the events of the year 411: we know nothing about the manner of his death. Clearly this man cannot be the Diitrephes of the Kresilas basis. Thucydides, however, also mentions another and earlier Diitrephes as being the father of a certain Nikostratos (iii. 75 ; iv. 119, 129), who was an Athenian general at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War ; and it is not impossible that this father of Nikostratos was also father of Hermolykos, and therefore identical with the Diitrephes pourtrayed by Kresilas. Like his son Nikostratos, and like his later namesake, he ma)' have been an Attic stnitcgos, and have been slain by arrows in some engagement of which the record is lost to us. Con- sidering the scantiness of tradition concerning the Pentcko)itactia, it is not surprising that so little should be known of him ; but we at any rate do know that just about the time when this elder Diitrephes would be active there took place the last bloody campaigns against the Persian hosts and those great expeditions to Cyprus (459 — 449 B.C.), in all of which the Attic troops would be brought face to face with Oriental bowmen. It is certainly not difficult to believe that Pausanias only remembered the Diitrephes whose exploits were recounted at greater length by Thucydides, and knew nothing of his earlier namesake.^ The death of Diitrephes, whose statue was dedicated to Athena by his son, probably in fulfilment of a vow, must have been an episode well known at the time. The general, holding out to the very last, may have secured privileges to his family b)- his heroic death, and would thus well deserv'e the honour of a statue at their hands. Pliny's description shows that the man was actually represented as dying — besides, any less serious situation would have cheated the sympathies of the spectators.' Pausanias could not gather from the e.xtant inscription that Diitrephes was the name of the wounded man : he cither learnt it from older literar\- sources, or, as seems more probable, the name of the person pourtrayed was inscribed on the actual statue.^ The statue of the older Hermolykos, the hero of Mykale (Herod, ix. 105), was on a different spot of the Akropolis, nearer to the Parthenon and next to the hoplitodrome Epicharinos (Paus. i. 23, loj. He was probably represented as a victorious athlete, and his prow'ess in the pankration was probably known to Herodotos from his statue on the Akropolis. ' Lowy, loc. cit. p. 37, has already hinted at this possibility. " The purely arbitrary theories propounded by J. %\x, Jahrh. d. Inst. 1S92, p. 185 scq., have been successfully refuted by A. GtrcVe, Jahrh. d. lust. 1893, p. 113 seq. ^ So MjTon inscribed his name on the thigh of his Apollo (Overbeck, S. Q. 537). Since the Diitrephes dates about the middle of the fifth century, it would still come within the limits of the period in which it was usual to set inscriptions upon the statues themselves. Cf. R. v. Schneider, Erzstatiic voiii ffe/ciieiilmr:;^, p. 20. 134 KRESILAS I'"rom the actual basis of the Diitrcphcs \vc learn ^ that the figuie was not lying but standing,^ and further that the main weight rested probably upon the ball of the right foot, which was drawn back and fastened with a strong peg, while the left, with the sole on the ground, must have been ad- vanced. A vase-painting from a white-faced Attic lekythos (Fig. 48)^ shows that the attitude was not an impossible one for a wounded man. This single figure can well be conceived of as a statue. The warrior, pierced by two arrows, is falling backwards ; he is naked, as beseems the idealizing treatment of .sculpture ; he only wears a helmet, and carries shield and lance. The latter he holds still raised, although it is evident that he can never drive home another shaft. As it is precisely among the class of vases to which this lekythos belongs that reproductions of statues have been found,* it is reasonable to suspect one here. The lekythos, to judge from its shape, is almost contcmporar)- "' with the red-figured vases of the fine period, and cannot therefore be much earlier than about 450 B.C. Therefore it perhaps really gives us a free render- ing of the actual statue of Kresilas KlG. 49 — Gem in i'.erlin (srighlly enlarged). directly after it was set up." The sculp- turesque nudity of the figure and the uniqueness of the representation ' both favour this supposition. I know of one similar figure only (Fig. 49);*^ it occurs on a gem. Here the warrior is pierced in the breast by an arrow, the knees give way, the left hand holds the shield, the right not a lance but a sword. The gem belongs to a special kind of later Italian product, closely connected with the severe scarab st_\lc (about the fourth to the third 43.— White-faced Lekythos, (Bibl. Nat., Paris.) ' Michaelis, Ath. Mitth. i. 289; Six, he. ell. 187. - Weizsacker, he. cit. 3 Original in Paris, Cabinet d. Med. ; Liiyncs, I'ases J'cints, PI. 16 ; photugraph in Vases Peints dti Cak d. MMailles, PI. 1 1 1 A. Poor illustration (with tlie lightly incised inner lines left out), Jahyh. d. Inst. 1892, p. 185. Gercke's objections {Jahrb. d. Inst. 1893, 113 «/(/.) against using the vase-painting for the recovery of the statue are not valid, still less so is Kekule's remark {Arch. Ztg. 1893, 76) that the vase was too archaic" to be compared. ■■ Cf. Loschcke in the At/i. Mitth. v. p. 3S1 ; PI. 13 //'/,/. gives the statue of a hoplitodrome on its basis, which Liischcke supposes may be that of Epicharinos on the Akropolis. '■• Shape and decoration are those of the red-figured lekythoi of the style mentioned. The eye is approximately oval. Helmet and shield are only indicated in outline. Just at this time purely outline designs first make their appearance on lekythoi. The incision of the muscles is thin and light. Cf. Ath. Millh. 1891, Taf. ix. (Mayer), p. 307 seq. ^ Benndorf made this suggestion some time ago, but without publishing it. In the meantime Six expressed the same hypothesis. " The wounded warrior falling backwards, a favourite figure of Duris and his school (cf. Robert, .Sanen d. I lias II. Aelhiopis, p. 6 sijq.), is similar and yet very different : it shows what Kresilas had to work upon. * Tolken, P'crz. der Geschn. Steine, iv. 257 ; Winckelmann, Descr. iii. 230. DIITREPHES 125 century B.C.), and it also may give an indirect echo of the statue by Kresilas. The position of the legs on gem and vase corresponds roughly with the requirements of the basis of the Diitrephes. We may further expect to find traces of the statue among the marble copies of Fig. 50. — ' Gladiatore Farnese ' In Naples. (The restorations are omitted.) later times, since it is mentioned by Pliny among celebrated works, and since it stood in so accessible a spot. It has been shown (p. 115) that the statue must be the earliest of the works of Kresilas known to us, and must be dated about 450, so that it doubtless retained a certain severity of treatment. All the required conditions are met with in a torso at Naples, there restored as the so-called Farnese Gladiator 126 KRF.SILAS (^'S- 50)-' 't represents a man wnimdcd to death, still standing iipriglit on both feet ; the left is advanced antl flat on the groimd, the right is drawn back, and rested probabl)- only on the ball. In order to preserve his equilibrium, the man places his legs as far apart as possible, )el it is apparent from the bending knees and the backward inclination of the trunk tliat he is already losing his strength: he will soon grow faint, and in another moment he must fall, for the principal wound is near the heart. Thus the breath is already leaving him ; the heaving breast and contracted abdomen show that he pants for air. In effect, here is a volueratus deficiens, in quo posstt iiitellegi (/KaHtiint restet aniiiiae, and the muscular man, almost exaggerated in his strength — there is a fine heightening of effect in so representing him — is the sure prey of death. The small but fast-bleeding wounds on two corresponding places in the right and left breast favour the supposition that they are inflicted by arrows. In the bronze original actual arrows were doubtless inserted. The equipment of the warrior may be pictured approximate!)- from the vase and gem : he would wear the shield on his left arm, and carry either the lance or, more probably, the sword, as on the gem, in his right hand ;" on his head he would wear a helmet. The supporting tree-trunk was, of course, absent in the original, and the position of the legs would in consequence produce a much more direct effect. A certain hardness and severity of style at once strikes the eye.-' The pro- minence of the lower edge of the ribs and the straining of the whole trunk are true and correspond to the situation, thougli the divisions effected by the straight abdominal muscles are rather harshly indicated ; the transition from the deltoid to that portion of the large pectoral muscle that adjoins the clavicle is also character- istic, and not less hard arc the nipples with their sharp rim (in the original they were doubtless inserted). Other noticeable features are the stream of blood, which is represented plastically and truthfully, the swollen veins at the birth of the arm, and the rendering of the navel with the little skin round it. In all these things, as also in the working of the flesh, we recognize an artist striving, within certain limitations of style, rcgardlessly after realism, and expressing himself with force and energy ; the feeling for measure and repose is still quite foreign to him. The statue gives a hint of the master to whom the j-outhful artist must have attached himself in Athens. Not only does it recall the descriptions of the Ladas who lost his breath,-* but also the Mars)'as of Myron, which, in the instantaneous attitude with legs wide apart and trunk thrown back, offers a close parallel to this wounded man. We shall enlarge upon these resemblances in a wider connexion. A \\-ork of decided!)- later date presents so much affinity to the one just described that it must be mentioned here. It is a statue in the Vatican (Fig. 51)' ' Aluseo Barhoii. vii. Tav. 25 ; Clavac, 870, 2210; 872, 2210. Cf. Gerhard and I'anofka, Neapch Aniike Bilihu. i. 14, No. 30. - The gem is also more faithful th.in the vase in indicating the situation of the wound ; on the vase the arrows are sticking only in the leg, because tliey could not well introduce tlicm into the crowded upper half of the picture without coming into collision with arm, shield, or lance. ^ It is especially marked in the working of the little tight curls of the pubes ; they recall the hair of the I'erikles, but have a still more archaic quality. ■' Brunn, A'.G.i. 264, relying on Tliny's description, laid stress on the resemblance between the wounded man and the Ladas. Cf. J. Six, loc. (it. 1S8. ' Sala della Biga, from the Villa Mattel ; Helbig, 329 ; first published in Venuti, Moii. Malth. i. loi (here with an older restoration ; right forearm stretched forward, right foot placed on a flat rocky elevation, the support draped ; the left arm unrestored) ; then in Visconti, Mus. Pio-Clcni. 2, 42; Pistolesi, I'ath. 6, lo, I ; Clarac, 837, 2099 (the present restorations indicated) ; Brunn-Bruckmann, Denkiiidley, No. 129. Cf. Brunn, Bayy. Sil:iiiii;sl>en'thle, 1892, ji. 660. STATUE OF A RUNNER 127 which passes as Alkibiaclcs. It resembles the wounded man in a number of characteristic points, such as the contracted abdomen, the powerful chest that expands in the act of fetching a deep breath, the position of the upper arm, and the sharp marking off of the deltoid from the large pectoral muscle. Also, so far as the indiflerent copy permits us to judge, the indication of the veins on the upper arm and the treatment of the flesh are similar, though more harmonious and less hard.' The head is fortunately un- broken, but the greater part of the face (almost the whole right side, the nose, mouth, chin, and the front part of the left jaw) is restored. What remains shows unmistakable indications of being a portrait. The beard on the left cheek is very similar to that of the Ferikles, the stylistic treat- ment of the little locks being the same. The hair has a very individual character; it is not crisp and curling as in the Ferikles, but smooth and straight, and in life was ap- parently worn cut short, not parted but combed down o\-er the forehead. These peculiari- ties the artist has rendered clear!}', without however sacri- ficing any plastic quality : on the forehead, for instance, the hair lies full and massive, while all over the head the separate locks tangle in and out in life- like confusion.'- The forehead, which is prominent above the eyes (with a flat depression in the middle), the eyes (the lids unfortunately are much damaged),-' and the rather thin cheeks are somewhat less stylistic than in the Ferikles, and bear accordingly a more individual stamp, though the difference is not vital. The short strong neck, too, must be a feature characteristic of the person pourtrayed. The restorer has ccrtainl)- not been happy in placing a helmet under the right foot. A warrior actually fighting may be expected to have his helmet on his head. Fig. 51. -Alkibiades in the Vatican. (Attempt .it a reconstruction ; old restorations omitted.) ' The realistic detail of the navel is likewise modified, and the pubes is less stiong : theie are, however, the same little curls, but lying somewhat smoother and formed more freely. - The hair at the back of the he-id is peculiarly fine and sharp, consisting of Hat meshes, curved now upwards, now downwards. ^ The left eyelid wholly ancient, the right partly so ; the eyelids were rather heavily formed. 128 KRESILA.S From the strongh- inflated chest, however, it seems more probable that a runner is represented,' and that the body was originally bent more forwards so that the right foot would rest on the ground. The glance is directed towards the goal. The turn of the head is amazingly fresh and lifelike. The arms from the elbows were probably both extended ; the right certainly so, as is proved by a puntello above the hip. The original was of ccjurse of bronze, and did not require the hideous support between the legs. To find a statue of an athletic victor which is purely a portrait is very note- worth}-. W'c know from I'liny that, in Olympia at any rate, those only who had won three times were allowed the privilege of a portrait-statue.' Now at the time to which the original of this statue must be referred occurred the three Olympian victories of the celebrated runner — known to Plato, and through him to later writers — Krison of Himera, w'ho won in the three successive Olympiads 83, 84, and 85 (B.C. 440). It is quite possible that his portrait has survived in this statue, which must in an\- case have been made soon after the date of Krison's third victory, or only a trifle later, since its style is nearly allied to that of the Perikles. In the whole range of fifth-century art there are no works with which this Vatican statue is more closely and narrowly connected than with those referred to Kresilas. We must therefore be bold to rank it among them, and to recognize in it, as compared with the wounded man, an advance on the part of the artist in the direction of harmony, repose, and a softer technique. IV. T/ie Amazon. Besides the Perikles and the wounded man, the wounded Amazon, the third of the celebrated works by Kresilas mentioned in Pliny, also survives in copies. Among the several Amazon t}'pes preserved in statues, there arc two which represent the heroine as wounded. One of these has been generally attributed to Polyklcitos, for reasons so sound that they need not be even discussed ; the second tj'pe however needs to be studied all the more closely, inasmuch as the wound in this case is in a far higher sense the fundamental motive of the statue, and accounts for the title volnerata. O. Jahn had claimed this — the so-called Capitol type — for Kresilas, and it is an error of later times to have diverged from his view. The external probability that in the numerous copies of this type we ha\c the volnerata of Kresilas is increased almost to certainty — to such certainty as is possible in these matters — by comparisons of style. First, however, a few words must be said concerning the much-debated question of the ' Ephesian Amazon statues.' Polykleitos, Pheidias, Kresilas, and Phradmon were the four sculptors who, according to the well-known passage in Pliny, simul- taneously and in competition made each an Amazon for the temple of Artemis at Ephesos. This statement has met with undeserved contempt, though it should rather be considered as confirmed from the fact that copies of precisely four statues of standing Amazons still exist, which on the one hand are clearly to be referred to four different artists, and, on the other, are evidently closely connected by identical ' Cf. the .statues of the Pal. Comei-^at. Bull. Munic. 1876, Tav. 9, 10 (Helbig, Miiseiiiiis, 573—575), which seem to me to represent runners, not wrestlers. The prominent edge of the chest shows the hard breathing. ^ Slaliiac iconicac, rightly referred by Scherer to portrait features of the face, Dc Olyiiipioiiic. Slatuis, diss. Got I. 1885, p. 9 scq. THE AMAZONS 1 29 measurements/ by a general similarity of conception and of dress, and by their belonging to the same period of art. This important fact is in my opinion beyond all doubt. In the first place, four t\'pes are preserved, and not three only, as is generally supposed. True, the fourth type Fig. 52. — .Amazon in Villa Doria-Pamnii. (Wrongly restored as an Artemis ; the right arrtt, the left Irom the middle of the upper arm, the legs from the knee downwards, the dog, are modem. ) exists only in one copy, and that a mere torso (Fig. 52) ; it stands in the Villa Pamfili, and has been commonly and erroneously ranked among the replicas of the Polj-kleitan type,"' from which, however, it is absolutely distinct. It certainl\- comes nearer to that ' Length of foot in the three types = 30 cm. - Michaelis, ya//'-A. d. Inst. i. 16, II. .S I30 KRESILAS type than to anj- of the otlicrs, but it is somewliat severer, and designed with more uniform symmetry.' This would be in favour of an attribution to Thradmon, who, being an Argivc, must naturallj- liavc had points of contact with Folykleitos. The fact that only one copy of Phradmon's Amazon has survived, and that this shows his statue to have been the weakest and least original of the four, not only bears out the judgment recorded by Pliny — according to which his name figures last in the list of competitors — but also explains the exiguity of his fame. It has further been denied that these four types could have arisen in one and the same period, but so far as I can see without a shadow of proof. The Mattci type is said to be distinctly later than the others, yet the treatment of the dress with its girding, as well as of the body, brings it on the whole within the same stylistic period, while it bears every mark of fifth-century art. In fact, we have already noted (p. 30) that the stylistic treatment of the dress is very closely related to that of the torso of the Medici Athena, i.e. of the Promachos. Unfortunately, none of the copies of this type presei-ves the original head ; for the head of the Pctworth replica, which Michaclis took to belong to the statue, is undoubtedly foreign to it,- and may not impossibly belong to the Phradmonian Amazon. It has also been denied^ that Pheidias and Polykleitos could have been working at the same period, although we have the classic testimony of Plato to the fact.* In the Protagoras (p. 311 C), as is well known, he brings in Polykleitos and Pheidias as con- temporaries, and in another passage in the same dialogue (p. 328 C) he speaks of the sons of Polykleitos, and says expressly that they are of the same age (i)\iKia)Tai) as the sons of Perikles, who, as appears from p. 319 E, is thought of as still living. There is no doubt therefore that, in the eyes of Plato, Polykleitos belonged to the age of Perikles, and that his life and activity coincided with that of Perikles and Pheidias. Now Plato, it is true, was not unfrequently guilty of anachronisms in matters of detail ; he seems to have confused the first and the second stay of Protagoras in Athens, and not to have known the exact time when a certain comedy was performed. But it is impossible that he should have placed a celebrity of the first order like Polykleitos in quite the wrong period. The supposition of Robert,-'' that Polykleitos worked about 435 — 390, and that Plato in this dialogue, written probably before and certainly not much later than 390,'' referred the sons of a still living man back to a remote age, is still less conceivable. No stronger witness than that of Plato could be required to prove that Polykleitos was a contemporary of Pheidias, even though he doubtless survived him. Therefore, far from there being any grounds for doubting Pliny's story concerning the Amazons, the copies preserved of the four types show that there is every reason to believe it. The only improbable part of the anecdote is the statement that the artists worked competitiv^ely, and, as self-constituted judges, determined the respective merits of their work. It is however easy to see how such a story may have arisen : ' This is especially clear in the folds between the legs and the compact kolpos with its straight lines. The motive was so far similar to that of the Polykleitan Amazon that the right upper arm was raised, the left lowered. But she certainly is not wounded, and the left hand does not seem to have rested on anything. The chest, which is quite covered by the chiton, corresponds in its broad outlines to the Polykleitan. - As Loschcke and I ascertained at Petworth in 1S8S. Cf. An/i. An:. 1890, p. 164. The fillet corresponds to the remains of the head of the Pamfili statue. The character of the head (Michaelis, Jahrb. d. Inst. i. p. 27, 'Typus III.') would well suit the Argive Phradmon and the Pamfili statue. Michaelis lays stress on the severe but not melancholy expression of the face. ^ Robert, Arcti. Marctien, p. 100 seq. ■* Cf. Scholl, Sitziiiigsbericlile d. Bayr. A/iad. 1888, i. 42, note I. "^ Arcli. Marctien, p. 98 seq. " Bergk, Griecti. Littemiwg. iv. 440, dates the dialogue as early as 407 n.c. Christ, Platon. Sind. p. 46, as late as 387 B.C. THE AMAZONS 13I the four statues probably formed together one suiglc offering, and, Hkc similar groups of the fifth century and even later times, ^ they presumabh- stood side by side upon one large pHnth, although each was a work complete in itself In addition to the general inscription referring to the whole set, the artist's inscriptions would be placed under their respective statues. The names being celebrated, there was only a step to the invention of the anecdote of the certamen, which was possibly based on some earlier verdict, current in the Argivc school, ascribing artistic pre-eminence to Polykleitos. This offering would scarcely be made by the Ephesians themselv-es, but by some rich man who tried to get the most prominent artists of the day. The subject, single figures of Amazons, is fully explained by the great importance of these heroines in the legends of the Ephesian temple. According to the earlier tradition, it was they who founded the sanctuary,- who set up the miraculous image of the goddess, and celebrated her in the dance.^ Later a particular Amazon, Otrera the wife of Ares, was named as founder of the temple.'' Since two of the Amazons are represented as wounded, it was thought that the commission must have stipulated for the heroines to be represented as fugitives and seeking refuge in the sanctuar\-. thereby recalling the tradition that the Amazons pursued by Dionysos, and later bj- Herakles, fled as suppliants to the temple and there obtained quarter. Not only however are two of the Amazons represented unwounded,^ which would alone suffice to disprove the proposed theory, but even the statues of the two wounded Amazons can scarcely be reconciled with the supposed situation, for they have not in the least the character of suppliants ; whereas it is the seeking refuge with the goddess that is the kernel of the tradition : the Amazons were imagined as actually seated upon the altar in the manner customar\- with suppliants.'' Finally, that legend seems to be quite late ; it is only found in historians of Imperial times," and the story of the pursuit of the warlike Dion\-sos, on which especial stress has been laid, was probabh' merely elaborated from the story, originating after the campaign of Alexander, of the exploits of Dionysos among the Indians ; by analogy the god was made to fight with other wild races also, such as the Tyrrhenians, L\-dians, and Iberians. The commission seems only to have stipulated for single figures of Amazons, not on horseback, but standing ; they were to be an offering to the goddess, whose cult and sanctuary the Amazons had founded. With regard to such externals as size and dress, the artists probably came to an agreement among themselves, in order to avoid any great want of harmony. The question was how to make an Amazon, composed as a single figure, charac- teristic. Legend invariably represents the Amazons as courageous combatants ; but — after a brave resistance — they are always the vanquished. To give effect to these two essential features, nothing could seem better adapted than to represent an Amazon with a wound in the breast, as becomes a brave fighter. Another main characteristic, in the conception of the fifth century at any rate, is that ' Cf. the monuments commemor.-itive of battles set up by Att.-ilos I. in Peigamon. ^ Pindar makes the Amizons who fought against Athens found the sanctuary of the Artemis of Ephesos (Pans. vii. 2, 7). ^ Kallim. Hym. in Diaii. 237 ; the Amazons set up the biclas. * Hygin. Fab. 223, 224. ' The figure referred above to Phradmon is certainly not wounded. " Tacitus, Aim. 3, 61. " The Ephesians themselves refer to it before the senate in the reign of Tiberius (Tacitus, .Inn. 3, 61). Pausanias cites the same legend in order to refute Pindar, who had ascribed the founding of the sanctuary to the Amazons (Paus. vii. 2, 7). In Plutarch's account (Qii,rst. Gr. 56) the .\mazons, pursued by Dionysos, flee from Ephesos, where they had settled, and betake themselves to Samos. 132 KRESILAS they are daring horsewomen. Though the terms of the commission evidently cxchided representation on horseback, this characteristic could still be suggested : hence the ' Mattel type ' — the Amazon preparing to leap. The artist remembered doubtless the epithet TroXva-Kapd/xo^, the strong leaper, applied in the Iliad (ii. 814) to the Amazon Myrine. Kresilas, as Pliny informs us, represented his Amazon as wounded. Let us now examine more closely the 'Capitol type,' which must be his' (Fig- 53)- The restoration of the statue proposed by Michaelis may, it seems to me, be improved upon in one important respect. Michaelis restores the figure as grasping the spear high up with the right hand, the elbow being only slightly bent.- He is guided in this by the Louvre copy, in which the right arm seems to be for the most part antique. On looking at the original, however, it seems more than doubt- ful whether the pieces out of which this supposed antique arm is made up really belong to the statue ; while, on the other hand, the familiar gem which is the basis for the restoration of this type gives a different position of the arm, bringing the right hand quite close to the head instead of far above it. It becomes evident, on experimenting with a model, that the attitude reproduced on the gem is not a caprice of the engraver, but must have been the original motive. It is infinitely more natural, and affords a real sup- port, at the same time producing a much finer and more self-contained rhythm than the restoration pro- posed by Michaelis. In the gem however, for want of space, the right hand is placed rather too low ; to corre- spond with the traces of the upper arm left on the Worlitz torso, the hand must have had hold of the spear a little above the head (Fig. 53). There is thus presented a wounded combatant, leaning heavily upon her spear, for the left leg on which she stands does not suffice to support the body ; with her disengaged hand she draws away her dress from the smarting wound, and her head is inclined wearily to that side. ' The replicas have been c.iix-fiilly collected by Michaelis (/<;/»•*. i. p. 17); to his list should be added a head, which he excludes, in St. Petersburg (iii,l p. 18, note 3) ; it has little interest, except as showing the extent to which a fine Greek original can be disfigured at the hand of a wretched copyist. There is at Dresden also an old cast of a head of this type, the original of which I am not acquainted with (perhaps = Michaelis m. ; cf. c). It is a fair replica. Finally the head of the term in the Villa Albani (No. 76) deserves notice ; it is nothing but an adaptation of this type of Amazon to a decorative purpose ; in these terms long hair on the shoulders was popular, and is accordingly added, little as it suits the head ; the turn of the head is also completely changed (cf. siip-a, p. 66, note 5). A similar transformation is seen in a head of the Barracco collection, also probably from a term. One of the best of the copies, Michaelis '1,' is given in Fig. 54 from the cast ; the head is wrongly set upon a statue of the Mattel type. It is unfortunately not perfect, the nose, part of the under lip, the chin, and the neck being restored, but even so it is decidedly better than the head of the torso in Worlitz, which hitherto is the only one well published. The best copy I know is n (Michaelis), in the Conserv.tPal. ; Helbig, Museums, 579. - See the drawing mjahrb. d. Inst. i. p. 28; Helbig, Museums, 503. ' Remains of a support on head o (Michaelis, loc. cit. p. 18, 33) show that head and hand were connecte '. I have not examined the original. Fig. -Amazon of the C.ipitoline type. (Restored.) 134 KRESILAS The stylistic qualities most emphatically confirm the attribution to Kiesilas. They readily catch the eje on a comparison of the head with the I'crikles. Above all, the eye has the same characteristic shape, elongated and narrow, with thick heavy lids and strongly marked lachrymal glands, met with neither in Pheidias nor in I'olykleitos. The only difference is that the distance between the two eyes is greater ^ and the root of the nose rather broader. The replica given in Fig. 54 has preserved in the little folds, which run along the rims of both lids,- an interesting detail, which is slurred over in most of the copies. In the hair is .seen the same principle of plastic fulness as in the Perikles. If the attribution of this ' ("apitol type' to Kresilas be accepted, its special qualities may be next applied to the further characterization of that artist. They arc most clearly seen by a comparison with the Polykleitan statue. The contrast, the profound gulf that separates them, is well emphasized by Michaelis.^ Kresilas has selected the attitude and posture of his Amazon, not with an eye to mere beauty, but primarily because he felt them to be true and appropriate to a wounded person, while Polykleitos is entirely concerned with the beauty of the motive.^ Kresilas enters into the feelings of the wounded woman, and works from the spirit to the form. Polykleitos aims primarily at a beautiful pose and pleasing drapery. That this contrast exists is undoubted ; at the same time, we must not go too far, and regard Polykleitos as giving his Amazon a wound on the right breast (Fig. 55)^ absolutely without thought. Certainly the wound would be fretted by the raised arm, and the pain only increased ; yet the artist may have had in his mind the true Doric ideal, an heroic maiden heedless of pain ; he may have intended to give expression to the constant KapTepelv united with the fullest KocTfjii6Ti]<; in bearing and dress. It would thus be his special conception of the subject which induced Polykleitos to give a beautiful position to his wounded Amazon, making her support herself as if merely tired,'' with one arm on her head regardless of her wound. Besides, in the position adopted, resting on the right leg and with the head turned to the right, the artist has scarcely left himself an option except to place the wound on the right side, leaving the left completely secondary in importance. _ Polykleitos represents the self-controlled masculine woman, retaining her brave bearing even when wounded. Kresilas represents only the wounded woman, natural and human, giving way to her pain and trying to lessen it. In the details of the statues the contrast is strongest in the dress. The Polykleitan Amazon wears only a short tunic, which leaves the powerful breast as free as possible ; but this tunic is disposed in the most elegant pleats, and the portion below the hips is treated quite decoratively. In contrast to this elegance, the simplicity of Kresilas is conspicuous. 1 The distance is 34 mm., a full eye-length. - These small folds have nothing to do with the ' bronze technique ' of the original, but are a mark of style. On the other hand, the fine groove round the lip represents the edge which in the bronze separated the inserted lips from the rest of the face. ' Jahrh. d. Inst. i. p. 41 seq. * Cf Kekule, IdoUno^ p. 12. ^ The existence of the wound, as Michaelis correctly infers from the material at his disposal, can no longer be doubted. For the agreement of the copies makes it impossible to regard the wound, identically introduced in all, as a capricious addition of the copyists. That some of the copies omit the drops of blood is assuredly only because these were indicated by painting. In the bronze original they must have been rendered plastically. The bronze statue of the Chimaira at Florence, whose antique Greek origin can now scarcely be doubted, has a wound- cut plastically indicated with drops of blood, precisely like the two wounded Amazons (on the lion-body a drop of blood was even especially let in ; it has now fallen out). Cf. also Fig. 50 and p. 126. ^ Michaelis is right in supposing the supporting pillar to be part of the original. The copies bear him out. The whole attitude of the figure requires a support ; without one it would fall. VIII. All/a son. 1,ANSP]v eTrepeiSofievrjv tm hoparlw. Now, as a fact, the Mattel Amazon leans upon a lance,! preparatory to swinging herself upon her horse. It is true that the ' Capitol type ' also leans on a spear, but in this statue the wound is so evidently the leading motive that it would naturally giv^e the descriptive title, while in the Mattel type, on the contrary, it is precisely the strong anticipatory leaning of both arms upon the lance that first strikes the eye and is the most noticeable feature. It has indeed been said - that the lance of the Mattel type could not be described as a SopciTiov ; but is that term any more applicable to the spear of the ' Capitol type ' ? And could a spear on which an upright figure would lean be anything materially smaller than that required by our Mattel Amazon .'' By Bopanov, then, Lucian must have meant a lance of this kind ; and this is not very surprising, for he was probably mentally contrasting it with the Macedonian lances si metres long. Nor can an\- exception be taken to the expression eTrepeiSo/xevij ; for the Mattel Amazon is IciDiing just as much as the wounded Amazon, and is on the point of leaning yet more heavily for the spring, employing moreover both hands in the action. The Amazon of Pheidias differs from all the others in its distinctive motive ; even the Amazon of Kresilas, resting as she does on one leg with the other drawn back, has less affinity with the Pheidian than with the Polykleitan type. ^The Pheidian Amazon is preparing to leap, and holds the spear almost as required for the actual spring, but the left hand has not yet tightened its grasp, and will have to take a little higher hold of the spear. The right arm is restored by Michaelis at rather too high an angle ; it would be more natural for it to come more forward ; the spear, as the Mattel gem indicates, was held obliquch', so that the point came farther to the front. The left foot rests lightly on the ground, as if feeling for a firm footing. On this foot the run would be started, and from it the spring be made on to the horse — whose head must be thought of as facing — the right leg being passed over the horse's back as she swings herself into the seat.^ In a similar way the ' Diskobolos taking up position ' * stands on the left leg and feels tentatively with the right before transferring to it his whole weight. And as in the Diskobolos a whole series of movements must intervene before the throw, so in the Amazon before the leap. She must first raise the spear, tighten the grasp of the left hand, and take the run ; then set the spear on the ground again and make the spring. Her attention is naturall}- ' Michaelis should have emphasized what he says only dubiously {loc. dl. p. 45); a lance is proper to the warlike Amazon, and not a leaping-pole, such as the boys used in the gymnasium and palaestra when learning to ride (as on the Attic Kylix, Arch. Zg. 1885, Taf. 1 1, 'p. 183 ; cf. also Hohverda, Jahrh. d. Inst. iv. p. 39). On the Natter gem the rim cuts off the design immediately above the hand, so that the point of the lance does not appear. The reproduction in Overbeck, Plastik, 3rd ed. i. 393, is wrong, for it gives the staff as ending off at the top ; in the Natter design it is cut through by the rim, and thus incomplete. This gem, a convex root- emerald {plasma di snieraldo), seems moreover, according to Natter's statement, to belong to a certain class of stones especially in favour at the time of Caesar and Augustus, affording far and away the most numerous and faithful reproductions of statues. This class of stone was, so far as I know, never counterfeited in the last century. On these grounds, though I know the gem only from Natter, I feel able to answer tpiite positively for its genuineness. It is and remains the solid basis for the reconstniction of the statue. .■V recently unearthed bronze statuette in the Museum at Verona is known to me only through a photograph (Arndt-Bruckmann's E. V. No. 8) ; this suffices to show that it is an unmistakable forgery ; it is one of a whole series of forgeries known to me, which display just such defects in the casting as the statuette ; the head belongs to no definite style, and is quite without the character of the antique : in the right hand the forger has copied the restored remains of a bow from the Mattel type. - Cf Michaelis, he. (il. p. 47. 3 Cf. the Kylix, Aich. Ztg. 18S5, Taf. 11. -■ Helbig, Museums, 330; cf. siifira, p. 90. T 138 KRESILAS wholly tlircctcd to the left. With this accords the carriage of the head, which is not to the right, as iVIichacIis was dcccivetl into thinking b)- the head wrongly placed on the Pctworth statue, but a little to the left. This is fully proved by the antique piece of the neck remaining on the Pctworth statue,^ and also by the half-neck preserved in the Turin replica.- Directly it is restored with the correct carriage of the head, the statue gains extraordinarily in life and ani- mation (Fig. 56). As regards the lost head, I cannot refrain from a con- jecture which has been gaining upon me, although sundry external circumstances are against it. May not this type be preserved in that well-known bronze term which at one time stood in the Villa at Herculaneum as companion to the Dor}-phoros term (Fig. 57).'' The carriage and turn of the head are not, it is true, those required, for the head turns a little to the right and is set too straight on the neck : we know however that the copyists were not over particular about preserving the carriage of the original, when they adapted heads of statues to the term-form. The Herculaneum head passes indeed as a replica of the Polyklcitan Amazon,'* though it is sufficiently extraordinary that it should ; in reality the heads have scarcely a superficial likeness, and are fundament- ally distinct, both in the facial forms and in the arrangement and treatment of the hair. On the bronze head the hair does not, as in the Pol}-klcitan Amazon, lie smooth upon the skull, but forms a thick, heavy, waving mass. The hair about tlie forehead, too, is not rolled back, but simply combed to either side The arrangement at the back is like that of the Polykleitan head, but the execution is quite different. On the other hand, we find that nowhere can the jiair be better paralleled than in the works which we have referred to Pheidias : the way it grows from the parting is similar to the Lemnia. We may also recall in this connexion the girl's head (Figs. 14, IS, p- 59) i" which we recognized a youthful work of Pheidias ; both the hair and facial forms make it clear that this is only an earlier stage of the t}-pe given in the bronze term. In the latter the facial forms, though imperfectly and coarsely rendered by the copyist,^ have a distinct Pheidian character ; the full mouth, with the strongly arched lips, is especially noteworthy. Such a mouth explains why Lucian went to the Amazon of Pheidias for the cjTo/iaTo? ('ip/j-oyij of his ideal beauty. In this particular the term may be compared with the KlG. 56. — Amazon type. (At tempt at a restoration.) ' Cf. Jn/i. Aiizeiger, 1890, p. 164. " In the Turin statue (Michaelis, t) the lower lialf of the neck is antique, and shows a sliglit turn to the left. The statue — only the torso is antique — was a careful copy executed on a reduced scale, about three-quarters, because of the costly material (green basalt). This is exceptional, for most copies of statues, other than colossal works, are either of the same size as the original or quite small statuettes. In the other copies the neck is missing. The supporting figure from Luku in Athens (Exp. dc la JMorde, iii. 88; v. Sybel, Catalogue, 442; Dunn, Gr. Baiiktiust, 2nd ed. p. 259), which adapts the type to a decorative purpose but copies it badly, makes the head look almost straight out, but keeps a slight turn to the left. ' Michaelis, loc. cit. p. i6, I. Cf. P. Wolters, Gipsabg. p. 233. '' The term is probably by an artist inferior to the one who signed his name on the shaft of the corresponding term. The hair is good, but seems to have been cast and put on separately. The face is poorer. The eyeballs are restored, as is the case in most heads from Herculaneum. IX. Head of Perseus. IiRTTI?lI MUSEUM. I40 K RES I LAS two heads in which \vc conjectured an vXphrodite and an Eros by Pheidias (Figs. 20, 21, p. 67 scq.) The facial forms arc entirely different from the Polykleitan type: there arc, for example, none of the retreating planes so characteristic of both the Amazon and the Doryphoros of Polyklcitos. Now, if the stylistic qualities of this bronze term point to Pheidias, it is probable that it reproduces his Amazon, to whom the powerful structure of the face (the Lemnia looks quite soft and delicate by contrast) is eminently suitable. The Mattel type may then be conjccturally restored with a head of the t}-pc of the Herculaneum bronze, and in it may be recognized a work of Pheidias (Fig. 56). The dress of the Mattel type has certain definite features that mark its period. As was seen above (p. 30), it Is especially closely related to the Promachos (li.C. 445 — 440), a work of the I'hcldian school. The attribution to Pheidias Is thus con- firmed. But now the possibility of more exactly dating the Amazons is brought within our reach. Taking the Parthenon as standard of comparison, we find that they coincide, not with the figures of the pediments, but with the later metopes. The Amazons all display a manner of indicating fine linen by parallel folds which is not seen either in or after the Parthenon pediments. Kresilas adheres most to the bare defining of the material ; Polyklcitos lets this fall into the background, and aims rather at beautiful though over symmetrical folds. The Mattel type, on the other hand, contrives to unite the folds Indicatlv^e of the stuff with genuine folds. In a rich but natural manner which recalls the linen chiton of the woman on the Parthenon metope, South XXIX (Michaells). The Ephesian Amazon statues would thus date roughly about 440, that of Kresilas coming close to his Perikles. For Polyklcitos the date is especially significant, for it gives us a work by him twenty years earlier than his gold-ivory Hera. The Amazon of Pheidias was a brilliant achievement of the most brilliant period of the master's career. The wealth of motive in the dress, which finds a parallel only In the Parthenon, and seems to anticipate the pediments; the original arrangement of the garment — the more lifelike and natural because quite unsymmetrical — so well adapted to the situation ; the framework of the body, so free from stumplness or heaviness ; finally, the clear and freshly conceived motive — all tend to give to the work the bold and untrammelled note which has erroneously been taken as sign of a later origin. Finally, as to the way in which the four statues stood in the temple at Ephesos, no more satisfactory arrangement can be devised than to place the Amazon of Pheidias next to that of Kresilas, and on its left ; the supporting legs of each statue would thus be on the outside, the two spears on the inside, and both heads would be turned inwards. The Amazons of Polyklcitos and Phradmon, too similar to look well side by side, would then come at either end. Assuming this arrangement to be correct, it might almost be suspected that the anecdote of the evaluation of tlie statues by the artists merely grew out of the order in which they were placed : first, to the left, would come Polykleito.s, then Pheidias and Kresilas, and last of all Phradmon. We know of only one other figure of an Amazon famous in antiquity — the statuette of Strongylion, so dear to Nero. It too appears to be preserved in a copy ; for the attribution ' of a bronze statuette of an Amazon on horseback to Strongylion is extremely probable, since that artist was celebrated for his horses, while the stj'le of the bronze points clearly to a late fifth-century orlginal.'- ' .-Xpparenlly first expressed l.y M. Hofl'maiin, /'/;//,//. 1S65, 402 ; cf. also Overbcck, Plastik, 3rd eil. i. 476, note 114. 2 Kspecially in lieail, hair, and drapery. ATHENA FROM VELLETRI I4I The fact that there are more reph'cas of the Amazon of Kresilas than of any of the others speaks highly for the appreciation in antiquity of the qualities peculiar to this work. It has, in effect, a directness of sentiment and force of conception lacking in the others. Kresilas, living at a time when Pheidias dominated the artistic life of Athens, was yet able to preserve a perfect independence and indi\iduality. V. Tlic Athena from I'cllctri. In presence of the head of the Amazon attributed to Kresilas, Michaclis ' felt reminded of that famous type of Athena preserved in the Albani bust in Munich, and in the statue from Velletri in Paris. He is right ; for this work also may be brought within the range of Kresilas. The admirably preserved colossal statue found in a Roman villa at Velletri, and now in the Museum of the Louvre (Figs. 58, 59),- is the one complete copy remaining of a magnificent composition which is generally taken as the most perfect expression of the character of Athena.^ The goddess stands in a majestic attitude ; she rests upon the left foot and draws up the right, which she has moved rather to the side. This side- ways position of the free leg constitutes a difference between her attitude and the simple walking motive of the Polykleitan Doryphoros. The same pose, designed apparently to give greater breadth to the lower portion of the body, and to lend a certain repose in the movement, was seen in the Farnese Athena in Naples (Fig. 26), referable to Alkamenes. The garment, as in the Lemnia and the Parthenos, is the Doric peplos, and it is similarily girt with a snake : it is not however open at one side, but sewn up ; the gorgoneion on the aegis is almost exactly similar to that in the best copies of the Parthenos, though the actual aegis is much narrower in front, and resembles rather that of the Athena on the west pediment of the Parthenon. The border of snakes has of course that richer form introduced witli ^ JahrK d. Inst. 1SS6, i. 27. "- Frohner, Notice de la Sculpture, No. 114. The two hands and the lower half of the right forearm are restored ; the rest of the right arm is antique, but has been twice broken ; at the right elbow there seems to be a bad join, the forearm was certainly more bent. The arm with the nude part under the armpit is antique, made in a separate piece. The nose is intact. The statue is made of coarse-grained ' Thasian ' marble. There are two copies of the torso in the form of statuettes: («) Broadlands (Michaelis, p. 225, No. 31) ; (b) in the Pal. Conservat. Rome. The head by itself is preserved in several replicas : (a) the famous Albani bust at Munich (Glypt. 92), the head of which is thought to be better than that of the Palis statue ; certainly the work is rather more animated and less dry, but for fidelity in detail the statue may claim the advantage. This appears from a comparison even of the accessories ; such as the aegis, which in the statue displays a much richer trimmmg of snakes, and the gorgoneion, which in the statue is more severely and evidently more faithfully modelled. In the form of the eyes and of the mouth too the Velletri replica is the more reliable ; the mouth is more austere and less soft and fleshy than in the Albani bust ; (h) in the Berlin collection (Skiilpt. 79) ; it is of inferior workmanship, yet it agrees in the main with the statue in the formation of eyes and mouth, and in this respect is better than the Albani bust ; (c) poor and hastily worked replica in St. Petersburg (Guedeonow, Mus. de. Sc. 176 ; (rf) in Lans- downe House (Michaelis, p. 469, No. 93) ; (<•) Brit. Mus. (Anc. Marbles, i. i) ; (/") in Madrid (Hiibner, No. 92). Finally there is a seventh reproduction, without value for the knowledge of the original, but interesting in another respect— z'.e. (g) it is the head from the monument of Fubulides in Athens (-•///;. Mitth. 18S2, Taf. 5), originating therefore somewhere about the middle of the second century B.C. It is not a copy in the same sense as the others, for the artist intended the work to pass as his own, and only fell back upon an older original from w.int of inventive faculty. Incapable however of entering into its special character, he brought in contributions from his own style, and his reproduction is thus only a travesty of the original. At that period real copying, as understood in Roman times, was unknown, as is proved by the Pergamene imitations of older statues (cf. p. 27) : these are never close copies. For the monument of Eubulides cf. the researches of Milchhofer, which settle the question ^Arch. Stud. H. Brunn dargeb. 1893, p. 44 se-ed, while in the present instance the artist (as will prescntl\- appear) submitted, in the whole arrangement of the close-cropped hair, to the influence of an older heroic type On the ground of the treatment of the hair, the Diomcde should be placed in the same period as the Perikles, the ' Alkibiades,' and the Amazon, i.e. circa 440. Yet other considerations— the dress, the structure, and the modelling of the various facia! forms — would suggest it to be perhaps somewhat earlier. The dress — abstrac- tion always made of the modernized details in the Munich replica — is clo.scly related, in its simple true defining of the thick woollen material and in the singular force with which the folds are rendered, to the Velletri Athena. The body seems at first sight to resemble the I'olyklcitan canon ; and it docs .so, both in the broad outline and in the details ; ' yet a close inspection brings marked differences to light. The whole body is more compact and more strained ;^ all the forms display more tension, more readiness for the energetic manifestation of force. In I'olyklcitos, for instance, the lower line of the chest is graduated more gently and harmoniously — one might sa>', more schematically — than is the case in the Diomedc, where its projections and depressions produce far richer modulations. In the Diomedc also, as in the other works attributed to Kresilas, is to be found the harsh pa.ssage of the deltoid into the shoulder. The straight and oblique abdominal muscles, too, arc rather more hardly marked off than with I'olj-kleitos, and even the navel, notwith- standing its general similarity, is less flat and more substantial. All these differences bear witness, however, to the indisputable connexion with the characteristics observed in the earlier of the works attributed to Kresilas. The Diomedc continues their tradition, tending in the direction towards I'olykleitan forms. The modelling in the face of the Diomedc is singularly rich, even allowing for the fact that in the Munich copy it is probably exaggerated. The bony eminences of the brow are strongly emphasized. Their junction with the nose has already been cited as especially Kresilaian. The interciliary region also is perceptible though faint, since the whole lower half of the forehead projects strongl)-. The root of the nose, /.('. the point where the frontal bone and the nasal bone meet, is treated with especial delicacy and richness, and is carefully marked off from the adjoining parts. The treatment is similar in the Perikles, though not so advanced. The bridge of the nose is narrow.- The delicate, natural shape of the noie affords a good contrast to the schematic shape affected by Polykleitos. The nostrils are of singular energy in their swollen cartilaginous formation. Finally, the spare cheeks and the parts about the mouth are richly modelled. On the other hand, in the strong emphasizing of the oblong, angular shape of skull may be recognized a tendency towards the Polykleitan canon. All these observations tend to prove that the Diomcde most probably originated in the period circa 440 — 430. This is the epoch to which we referred the Velletri Athena, a work with which the Diomede corresponds in every respect. It will be remembered that in the Athena the Polykleitan influence was apparent in the walking attitude. This result admirably fits in with the required condition, that the artist of the ' E.g. the formation of navel, abdomen, and pubes. - In the Munich copy the nose is antique. A characteristic point is that the dist.ance between the inner fornersof the eyes corresponds not to the full eye-slit length, but only to the length without the tear-glaml, THE DIOMEDE 155 Diomede made in Athens a statue destined for Argos. The later removal of Kresilas to Argos, which we dated after 430, would thus be prepared for by earlier relations with that town, attested both by the fact of the commission and by the influence of the Argive school. Finally, it is sufficient to indicate in what a pre-eminent degree the Diomede exhibits that Kresilaian power of individualization which characterized the Amazon. Of the facial forms, the thinness of the cheeks is especialh' to be noted, as well as the unusually broad and powerful chin, the strong structure of the lower jaw, and the hard prominence of its corners, which it had been customary to conceal under a fatty stratum of skin. All these details express the rough obstinate force of the son of Tydcus. The cropped hair and the sprouting whiskers ^ serve to define the powerful youth, so do the ears swollen from the boxing-match (this detail undoubtedly belonged to the original : the Munich and Dresden replicas exhibit it, and only the indifferent Paris copy omits it. This allusion to skill in the roughest and most dangerous of sports is as appropriate to our hero as it is to Herakles).- The ear is for the rest very carefully modelled : it has a long thin lobe, clearly separated from the rest of the ear. It was natural that so forcible a creation as the Diomede should make a strong impression on its own and on later times. The earliest monument derived from it, the Attic vase, has already come under our notice. A statue of Ares, referred to in an earlier connexion (p. 94, Fig. 41), would appear, from the whole attitude and bearing, the arrangement of the garment and the sword, to be also derived from the Diomede. The reverse is certainly not the case ; for in the Diomede ever\- detail has its reason in the situation represented, while in the Ares we only get a beautiful motive used without special significance — whence also the less emphatic turn of the head. The dull and meaningless drapery of the Ares likewise denotes an artist of the second order. It will be seen presently that the Diomede seems to have stirred up emulation even in the circle of Polykleitos. To later, perhaps onI\- to Roman, times pertains the transformation (preserved in a charming bronze statuette found at Ziirichj of the Diomede into a Hermes.* The winged cap and shoes denote Hermes ; but the entire motive, down to the garment on the left shoulder, is borrowed from the Diomede ; even the close- cropped hair, the shape of skull, and the expression retain something of the prototype. On the other hand, a larger, much mutilated bronze statuette in Berlin appears to be an original of the good Hellenistic period.^ The Diomede forms the basis for a portrait conceived heroically. The garment is omitted ; but the prototype can be traced not only in the motive but also in the forms of the body, and — notwithstanding the portrait-character and the different hair — even in the countenance, which has the same angular jaw and slight whiskers. Finally, the Diomede, like so many celebrated Greek statues, had to serve as model for portraits of the Roman emperors. A good instance is a statue of Augustus ' Cf. Brunn, Bayr. Si/siii2gsber. 1S92, 654 seq. - As far as I know, the first dated representation of Herakles with swollen ears appears on the coins of Euagoras I. (410—374) — cf. Roscher's Lexikon, i. 2163, 5 ; yet there are many instances which may be earlier. ' Mitth. il. Antiqu. Gesellsch. in Zilriih, Bd. xv. Taf 5, 23. and xvii. 7, p. 133, No. 57 (Benndorf). * Antiquarium, Itiv. 7419, height o"20, from Asia Minor. The figure is cast hollow with thin walls ; square patches are let in, as often occurs on larger Greek bronzes. Arms and legs were cast separately, and are now missing. The surface is much rubbed. 156 KRESILAS in the Vatican ;' the garment is there altered to suit the Roman fashion. Lastly, it seems to have been present to the mind of the artist of the superb bust of Caracalla in Berlin,*- which recalls it in bearing and expression, in chlamys and sword-belt, and even wears the same whiskers. VII. The Medusa Rondaniiii. To the sur[)rise doubtless of many, the Medusa Rondanini — that noble and unique creation which once so inspired Goethe in Rome — does not belong, as has been supposed, to later Greek art, but is inseparably linked to the series of works now under discussion and associated with the name of Kresilas. The Rondanini mask, now in Munich^ (reproduced from the cast in Fig. 63), is admirabl}- preserved ; save for some insignificant bits of the snakes and of the hair, only the extreme point of the nose and the edge of the left nostril are modern. The mask is cut straight off at the back, and has been fastened in modern times upon a square plaque. The existence of two replicas preserved in Rome, now in the Museo Torlonia,* witnesses to the celebrity of the work in antiquity. They have no background ; in modern times they have merely been placed upon busts. Two Medusa masks in the Vatican ^ and a colossal one in Cologne** are similarly cut off at the back and unprovided with a background : they have however at the most only a very distant dependence on the Rondanini mask, imitating it in externals but trans- lating it into the late half-cffeminatc and half-pathetic manner. The circumstance that these masks were worked without a background suggests that they were intended to be fastened by the purchaser against a wall — that is to say, to hang simply against the wall of a house. They certainly could not, as has been suggested,'^ have stood in any definite relation to the architecture, for in that case they would have been worked into the architectural member they were intended to adorn, and it would be difficult to explain the existence of exact replicas. The latter suggest rather a famous Greek original, copied for its own sake and absolutcl}- independent of varying architectural surroundings. This original must have been cast in bronze, to judge from the network of snakes, so little suitable to marble, and from the smoothness of the surface of the face. It will be felt, too, how much more effective the work would be in bronze than in marble. The best (No. 294) of the two Torlonia replicas is significant, because it renders the hair generally without the deep undercutting of the Rondanini replica, and is rather more severe and evidently more faithful in the details. Thus the little curling lock at the side near the left eye is formed quite in the archaic manner with a tightly rolled end. In other respects the faces show that the Torlonia replicas are both inferior works. The general place of the Medusa in the history of art, notwithstanding the gross error of judgment in which I had mj-self concurred,* is unmistakable on a close ' Gall, delle Statue, No. 262 ; Bernouilli, liom. Ikoiiographic^ ii. i, Taf. 3, p. 5S. The lieaJ unbroken. '^ Skitlpl. 384; Mitchell, Select, from Am: Sculpt. PI. 20. ^ Glypt. No. 128; Brunn-Bruckmann, Denkm. No. 239 ; Bninn, Gotferuiea/e, p. 60. ■* Miisco Torlonia, Taf. 74, Nos. 294, 296. ^ Pistolesi, Vatic. Descr. iv. 13 ; Helbig, Museums, 10. ^ Friederichs-Wolters, Gipsahg. 1598. ' Biunn, loc. cit., and Verhandl. d. Philologenversammluitg in Dessau, p. 76 ; Goltcriiteale, p. 60; Dilthey, Annali d. Inst. 1871, p. 228; K. Bbtticher, Erkl. Verz. d. Abgiisse, No. 793. * In Roscher's Lexikon d. Myth. i. 1724. The coin of Seleukos (Gardner, Types, PI. 14, 6) compared by J. Six, De Gorgone, p. 73, is quite different, and is probably at the most a distant Hellenistic derivative of the Rondanini type. The hair is Lysippian. IJS KRESILAS inspection of the replicas. The stylistic ti-catmcnt of the e\-cs anil their adjoinint; parts (such as the sharp edges of the eyebrows), of the hair, and of the mouth is never met with at all so late as the fourth century. The work is of the free style of the fifth century — a result to which the development of the art type of Medusa does not in the least run counter. The Medusa head with beautiful, undistortcd features appears on an Attic vase as early as about the middle of the fifth century,^ not it is true in the form of a mask or of a gorgoneion, but as a .severed head with the neck, in the hand of Perseus. A great artist must be at the back of this conception (cf. infra, p. 200). Following on this come several gorgoneia with the severed neck ; they exhibit the same type of liure beauty, ami from their st\'lc they must be dated in the second half of the fifth century.^ The endeavour was to dispense with all external tokens and to define the Medusa by the expression alone, mostly by wide-opened eyes and bristling hair. l^ut now our artist invested the old traditional gorgoneion with beauty of feature. In doing so he did not entirely give up the severe character of the mask: he also retained the two snakes which encircle the head and twine into a knot under the chin, and which had been a familiar feature in the distorted gorgoneia of the type immediately preceding ; ^ and he adds to the head the further attribute of two wings, similarly borrowed from more archaic art, though it was not common there,'' and had still a certain air of innovation. For the rest he is in substantial agreement with the other works of the epoch that represent the new 'beautiful ' type of Medusa.-'' He too gives her big wide-opened eyes and short bristling hair. Onl\% to give full effect to the wings and snakes, he had to let the motive of the hair fall more into the background, whereas other artists of the tinic lay chief stress upon it. He too, like most of the others, lets the hair lie smooth and well arranged in the centre over the forehead ; but he makes it stand out at the sides and frame the countenance as far as the region of the ears ; the cars themselves he omits, as is usual in the 'beautiful' type. On the other hand, the character he strives to give to the mouth seems to be peculiar to himself. He throws into it the chief expression. While the others cither make the mouth beautiful though quite ordinary," or else recall the older type in a mechanical and discordant way by introducing into the face the projecting tip of the tongue," our artist has contrived, without impairing the beauty, to retain something of the older conception, b}- making the mouth unwontedly broad and with parted lips, showing the upper teeth. The discovery cjf the place occupied b)' our Medusa in the development of the type affords a key to the right understanding of the intention of the artist. Above all, it exposes as false the ordinar\' notion that the Medusa is conceived as d}-ing. Goethe it was who first discovered in the mask 'the agonized stare of ' Annali d. Inst. iSSi, Tav. F. Style of llic Orpheus vase (50tli /kr/incr WiiukcliiiainnpiVi;!: iSyo, 'I'af. ii.) For the date sec ibid. p. 162. '■^ Thus the tcrra-cotta relief, Anh. Anz. 1891, p. 122, Fig. 17 a ; the I'anofka tile, Tcnak. v. Ihrlin, 'I'af. 62, I ; lironze masks in Berlin Antiquariuni, No. 74S4. ■' Frequent on the gorgoneia of the 'mitklle' type; so on the shield of the Parthenos (British Museum copy) and on the shield of the Athena of the NiUe balustrade ; on the aegis of the Albani Athena (Fig. 29, p. 79) and of the Munich Athena ( Brunn, Glypt. No. 86). ■* Cf. Roscher's Lcxikon, i. 1722 scj., where several certain examples of the older fifth. century type arc given. ' See Roscher's Lcxikoii, i. 1721 seq. For the gem with Solon's name cf. Arch. Jahrh. 1888, p. 310 ; the monuments which in Reseller I placed in the beginning of the fourth century should probably be dated in the fifth. For important new evidence cf. the tcrra-cotta in ./;-(/;. Attz. 1891, p. 122, Fig. 17 a. ° E.g. the bronze attachments for the handles of pails, Berlin Antiquarium, /«i'. 7484, and Roscher, 1722. ' Cf. the terra-cotta mask, .Arch. Anz. 1891, p. 122, Fig. 17 a. MEDUSA RONDANINI 159 death.' ^ He was followed by many others— f.^. Fricdcrichs,- O. Jahn,^ Dilthey,* and Kekulc,-' who expanded on this theme. The representation of a dying, defeated woman stiffening in death is, however, far removed from the intention of the whole series of works with which the Rondanini mask must historical!)- be ranked. What these works really do is to substitute for the wild brutality of the older type" a tranquil human conception ; for the grim look of fury, a fi.xcd wide-opened eye that fascinates the beholder by its daemoniac power — and this effect is heightened b)- the bristling hair. By the powerful chin and the broad open mouth our artist has depicted yet more intimately the wild force and constraining strength of the daemon," and at the same time has suggested the powerful voice which tradition attributes to the gorgons. Above all, he alone has known how to invest the whole expression with a freezing horror. It was not till a much later date — till the epoch after Alexander — that the type was created of the agonizing gorgon, looking out with blank despairing gaze.** Yet not even at this time is she ever represented as exhausted or dying, and those gorgoneia still preponderate which depict the force, the wrath, and the wild anger of the grim daemon, though in the pathetic and realistic fashion of the time. This historical survey exposes what was incorrect in Brunn's " interpretation of the Rondanini mask. Brunn did not, certainly, fall into the error of seeing in it a dying creature : he describes the general expression admirably as a ' cold stare,' but he attributes this fixity to an ' architectonic petrcfaction of the form,' the mask having, according to him, served an architectonic purpose. The objections to this view have already been raised. But the so-called tectonic character of the mask, its severely symmetrical composition within an outline of almost geometrical simplicity — an inverted triangle — is notMng more than one of the proofs for the relatively earl)' date of the work. For this character is common to all earlier gorgoneia without exception. It is most strongly marked in the earliest period, and is afterwards gradually modified,^" till it completely disappears in the Hellenistic epoch, when the severe full view is also commonly given up. It is true that our mask is distinguished from among works of the same time and epoch by its severe lineal structure : this structure is however not selected for an)- external purpose, but only as lending itself to the mental expression. The mask has only to be compared with others to appreciate how considerably the severe structure contributes to the daemon iacal expression : even as the serried ranks of an army produce more effect than the same troops in loose arra)- — so it is with art-forms. ^ Schriflen der GiithegescUsch. Bd. ii. Tageh. iihcy Bi-iefe Go/he's aiis Italicn, p. 240 = /.'i?/. Riisc, Rome, 25 Dec. 1786. Cf. April 1788, where he notes 'the discord between death and life, pain ami deliglit {' Zwiespalt zwischen Tod und Leben, zwischen Schmerz und Wollust '). - Baus/ei?i,;tio. 672 ( = Fried. -Wolters, Gipsahg. 1597). 'At the moment of turning to stone' ('ini Moment des Erstarrens'). ' Ans der Alterthumswissenschaft. p. 27S ('im Tode erstarrend ' ; 'eine lahmcnde Kalte . . . losch den letzten Lebensfunken aus'). ■" AiniaU d. Inst. 1S71, p. 220 sc,;. ' Ents/chiiiig dcr Gotterideale, p. 25 set].: 'unterliegt in Trotz und Schmerz.' " Dilthey, Annali, 1871, 220, takes for granted that the archaic gorgon was represented as dying. It is however easy to prove that the old type came into existence without any thought of death. On the contrary, the type was, although inappropriate, adopted for the scene in which Perseus kills the gorgon. Cl'. Ruscher's Liwikon, i. 1 701 scq. ~ Meyer noticed (on Winckel man's Geschichle d. A'liiist, v. 2, § 20) that the forms incline to the wild ana\/], according to ancient conception,! ^^(j ^ ghostly existence in the underworld and was subject to Per- sephone, the Medusa mask might well be set up in a sanctuary of the goddess of the lower world. It has been seen that the mask was intended to be fastened to any wall. Pausanias (i. 2, 5), in the description of a Temenos of Dionysos at Athens, reports that the mask of the Dionysiac daemon Akratos was attached to the wall of the sanctuary; and, according to Pliny (xxxvi. § 13), there was a mask of Artemis, an archaic work of Boupalos and Athenis, on the wall of her temple in Chios. The creation of Medusa also influenced succeeding art, were it only by its external scheme, which was repeated with more or less similarity in so many later gorgoneia ; as to its spiritual character, that could only be copied, never imitated. \TII. Statue of an Athlete at Peticort/t. As last and latest link in the personal growth we have been stud)'ing, there remains to be added the head of a youth adorned with the victor's chaplet, which is preserved in four copies. The finest is at Petworth, in the collection of Lord Leconfield ;- it is reproduced in Fig. 65 from a photograph taken from the original by permission of the owner ; Fig. 64, from an old cast in Dresden be- longing to the Mengs collection, shows the profile. Nothing is restored in the head except the tip of the nose. The neck is almost entirely preserved, but it is cut sharply off and set on to a coarse modern nude bust. The head is probably identical with one published by Count Caylus in 1736.-^ This youth with the curling hair has wound about his head the victor's chaplet, taenia or mitra.* The ears, which are not swollen, and a certain refinement and gentleness in the whole form, would indicate that he is no hero of the glove and the pankration, but has conquered in a different way — either in a running match or in the combats of the Pentathlon, where skill rather than brute force was required. The chaplet is not twisted in a knot at the back, but wound round the head, with the ends tucked in and pushed through the fillet on either side above the temples. This method of fastening, though very practical and doubtless often employed in real life, is yet nowhere else represented in plastic art. The artist ' Nekyia of the OdyssQ', xi. 634 ; .\iistoph. Frogs, 475. Cf. Roscher's Lcxikoii, i. 1703 ; Max. Mayer in fahrb. d. Insl. 1S92, p. 201. - No. 24, Michaelis, Aiu. Marb. in Gi: Brit. p. 609 ; Spaiiit. of Am. Siulpt. i. 30. The marble is fine in grain, the nude parts polished. ■* Caylus, Rec. d'Aiit. il I'l. 48, 2; p. 142. The engraving (reversed) certainly gives a head of this tyjie. According to Caylus, the neck was cut off below and fitted on to a Roman draped bust which he severely criticizes. He s.iys further : ' Ce buste t'.'a^V dans le cabinet de M. le chancelier de Pontchartrain.' Probably il had been recently sold and sent to England. The Petworth collection was being formed at the time Caylus wrote (1750 — 1760 ; cf. Michaelis, loc. cif.) For the new possessor the Roman bust may have been replaced by a nude Greek one. The other replicas are : (a) a poor copy, lately at the art dealer Abbati in Rome — see Bull. d. Inst. 1867, 33 (Helbig) ; Moil. d. Inst. ix. 36 ; Annali, 1871, 279 (Conze) ; Brunn-Bruckmann, Denkin. No. 84 (from the cast), (h) A fragment of the right half of the head, found at Treves — see Hettner, Die Rom. Steiitdcnkindlcr dcs Provinz. Mns. zn Trier, No. 695. According to LoschcUe, (r/»(/ Hettner, loc. cit., the head comes rom a relief. Loschcke informs me that the relief belonged to the incrustation of the Thermae, where famous athlete statues had been copied in relief on the scale of the originals. (< ) In the Pal.-izzo Riccardi in Florence, left of the doorway leading to the staircase — Diitschke, ii. 182. ^ The woollen fillet which was given to the victor in addition to the wiealh was called ^iVpa in the earlier period (cf. Pind. Ol. 9, 84 ; Istli. 4, 62 ; Bockh, Expl. p. 193) ; as was also the similar fillet used in symposia and worn by Dionysos (cf. Sanun. Sabouroff, Taf. 23). Y 1 62 MYRON here evidently desired to vary for once the ordinary arrangement. The locks of hair fail so freely over the chaplct that at the back they almost conceal it. On the crown of the head and also on the left side above the chaplet is a rectangular broken surface, which proves the right arm to have rested on the head with the hand hanging over on the left side.' The head is slightly inclined to the left. The expression is one of complete re- pose, to which the motive of the arm on the head, as in the famous statues of Apollo and of Dionysos, would further contribute. In an athlete, it is true, this attitude is open to another interpre- tation. It occurs in representations of athletes cleaning themselves with the strigil : the youth places one hand above his head in order lo scrape himself under the arm with the other, as for example in a statuesque figure from a fifteenth- century Attic grave-relief- But the tranquillit)- of this head, and above all the festive wreath of the victor, exclude the notion of a youth scraping or anointing him- self, and still more of course the idea of a \outh exercising. The in repose, in which case the left The leaning attitude, adopted for IiG. 6^-— Profile of iithlele. (PeUvortli Coll.) victor must therefore have been represented arm would also require a certain support. the gentler divinities, would of course be quite out of keeping for an athlete. It might therefore be suggested that, resting firmly on the right leg, he supported himself lightly with the left hand upon an athletic weapon, the akoiition or short spear, something in the manner of the young athlete on a Spartan relief^ This would denote him a pentathlete or conqueror in the fiv'e combats, as already hinted. In the relief the athlete is further characterized as a pentathlete by the ' This brukcn surfaci; occurs botli on tlic IVtuurlli ami .\l)l);ili copies. Conzc was the first to interpret it Correctly. " Friederichs-Wolters, Gihsahs;. 1017 ; for the date cf. Samiii. Salwu>off,i. Introd. p. 41, note 9. Here the left hand is laid on the head ; cf. Annali, 1862, Tav. M. Note also the cojiy of a statue on a wall in Pompeii, Rom. Mitlh. 188S, p. 200, fig. 2, wheie the right arm lies on the head ; the action is Lysippian in character. The motive of the Skopasian head of an atlrlele in .\thens (Aiumli d. Ins/. 1876, Tav. G ; Friederichs-Wolters, Gipsabi;. 1300) is not quite clear ; the right hand rests on the head, and the left, which probably held the strigil, is close to the head. In the head we are now discussing this cannot be the motive, as in that case the rough surface on the top of the head would have to be much larger. Cf. a relief on a marble seat in Turin (Diitschke, iv. 311) : between Ionic pillars is a figure (evidently in imitation of a statue) of a youth holding his right arm over his head and slinging round his neck a sword, the belt of which he holds in his right hand. (Diitschke took the sword for a bow. ) ' Anh. Zcil^. 1S83, Taf 13, 2; p. 228 (Milchhbfer). ■IHE PETWORTH ATHLETE 163 addition of the springing weights in the right hand, as the spear alone might in this case be open to misinterpretation. Of this there would be no danger in a statue with the victor's chaplet, and bearing besides its appropriate inscription. An athlete statue thus reconstructed would be briefly described in the late Greek art jaro-on Fig. 65 — He.id of .in athlele. (Iii'the "collection of Lord Leconfield, .it Petworlh.) as a • doryphoros,' hke the famous athlete of Fol\-klcitos, who also carried the short spear, the akontion and not the dor2(. in his left hand.' ' This is evident from the careful copy on the Berlin gem, Tolken, Kl. \\. 249. It belongs to the same class of stones as the Xatter Amazon gem. In Alh. 3/i///i. iii. ]-. 292, note 2, 1 laid stress on the incorrectness of calling an athlete a Dorj^phoros, but I now think that the interpretation of the Doryphori of Pliny as statues of victorsis too probable on other grounds to be invalidated by these considerations. Cf. infra on Polykleitos, p. 22S. — The length of the athlete's casting spear was, as we know from the Spartan relief and many vase-paintings, about the height of a youth. 1 64 MYRON Now, nlthoiit^h Pliny' mentions a Doryphoros amon^j the celebrated works of Kresilas, it would be presumptuous to ascribe this work to Krcsilas solely on this ground ; it is the style which definitely points to his authorship. This style has been generally described as fourth-century Attic- But the head is ccrtainl)- not of the usual Attic type — its fellow would be looked for in vain on the numerous Attic reliefs— and, more than that, it has all the marks not of fourth- but of fifth- century work. This may be recognized in the treatment of the hair alone, with its separate tight curls and the arrangement over the ears, and is seen still more decisively in the ej-cs and adjoining parts. Comparison with the fourth-century Attic type of youth, so admirably .shown on grave-reliefs, or with the Skopasian athlete-head in Athens, who also rests his hand upon his head, brings home the complete contrast of epoch more forcibl)- than words can describe it. Everything is different, but the most readily appreciable difference lies in the stylistic treatment of hair and eyes. The familiar indications are easy to recognize : the eyes arc long and hcav}'- lidded,^ with strongly marked lachrymal glands; the two vertical depressions'* start upwards from the angle formed by eyebrows and nose ; the root of the nose has the formation more especially pointed out in the Diomede and the Medusa, but its modulations are more delicate ; the nose has the narrow rounded bridge with the rise in the centre like the Diomede ; the modelling of the forehead is almost identical with that of the Diomede, but somewhat flatter and daintier. We recognize Kresilas again in the lower part of the face with its rich modelling, though he makes it softer and more refined, and also a little shorter in proportion to the nose, than he had done hitherto. All these forms are but the direct continuation of what was observed in the Amazon. Since however in the Riccardi replica {supra, p. i6i, note 3 {c)) the checl;s and the parts about the mouth'present a much simpler, harder, and severer appearance, owing to the absence of the detailed modelling of the flesh given in the Petworth head, and the bony structure is more prominent, it is just possible that the Petworth head, like the Munich copj- of the Diomede, represents a slight intensification of the original. The ear with the long narrow lobe is similar to that of the Diomede. Finally, the hair again envelops the skull in plastic abundance;'' its main motive consists in the little tight curls with twisted ends already studied in the Perikles. In some places, as for example in the chaplet above the left temple, may be recognized the old severe primitive form ; but the hair as a whole has become more mobile, freer and more elegant, and its tangled irregularity is yet more natural. In the centre above the forehead the hair is slightly parted ; but this only serves to accentuate its capricious character, for it falls quite uns)-mmetricall}' over the chaplet, and the ' Cf. p. 115. Only one other Doryphoros is named, that of Aristodemos, probably a Peloponnesian artist who stood in close relation to Lysippos, and who seems to have enjoyed a general reputation for his statues of athletes (Overbeck, S. Q. 1605). - Michaelis, /or. (it.: ' Attic ... no doubt of the fourth century.' He recalls the Diadumenos which Kalli- stratos describes and assigns to Praxiteles ; but, apart from the fact that this (K While the personal style of Pheidias carried all before it to the farthest corners of the Greek world, the art of Kresilas remained an individual art, confined within narrow limits. It docs however point backwards ; the st)-lc of those works attributed to Kresilas hangs on by a thousand threads to earlier manifestations, and it is at once an attracti\c and fruitful task to examine the soil in which the individuality of the Kresilaian works had its rise. The inquiry must start from a work that is unmistakablj' to be recognized as the forerunner of the Diomede. Only head and breast are preserved, in a cop)- in the Riccardi Palace at Florence, which is of bust-form (Fig. 66).' Like the Diomcdc, this youthful hero wears a garment on the left shoulder, falling in perfectly simple folds. He also has the close-cropped curling hair and the swollen cars, though, as the garment proves, he is no athlete, but, again like the Diomede, a hero noted for his ' A signal instance of this kind of imitation is afforJed by the famous rourtales Apollo and the Apollo from the Baths of Caracalla, now both in the Brit. Mus. (Overb. Apollo, p. 141, Nos. 5, 6; cf Brunn, Golteiiilcale, p. 84 seq. ) From the similarity in their proportions and main features, there can be no doubt that the two heads are merely different versions of one and the same original, while from the qualities common to both it is evident that this original was not materially earlier than Alexander. Now the copy from the Baths of Caracalla displays exclusively the forms proper to that period : the eye is deeply recessed and exceedingly pathetic (the god is supposed to be sunk in musical inspiration), the hair aims dexterously at the most realistic treatment. In a word, there reigns complete harmony between the conception and the stylistic forms. The fidelity of this copy to the lost original is attested by the existence of an exact replica in the Palazzo Giustiniani (Ov. Apollo, p. 142, No. 7 ; until the statue on which this head is, is properly cleaned, it is impossible to tell whether they belong together or not). In the Pourtales head, on the contrary, we note an irreconcilable contradiction between style ami conception : an artist enamoured with the style of Kresilas has evidently attempted to introduce the formal qualities of that master into a head of totally different style. Accordingly, the deeply recessed and pathetic eyes have been transformed into Kresilaian eyes with strong prominent lids and overshadowed by sharp angular brows ; in the hair conventional little curls with twisted ends replace the naturalistic fall of the loop of hair over the forehead, and the loop itself hangs moi'e over to the front , further, the mouth is sharply outlincil, and the brow has touches that recall the Amazon. ^ Diitschke, Zerslr. Bildw. in Florenz; Heydemann, Millh. aiis Obcr- 11. Mittelitalicns, Taf. 6, p. lOl ; Friederichs-W'olters, Gipsahg. 458 ; Brunn-Bruckmann, Dciikiii. 361. The adaptation as bust is ancient ; right side of the breast with the sword-belt is new. The original is now in one of the rooms of the p.-ilace ; its place in the cortile has been taken by a cast. There are two replicas of the head: {a) in the Pal. Conserv. (No. 5) in Rome — poor, restored, and worked over ; (h] in Berlin, Skidpt. 472 (Fig. 67 on p. 167) — better, though superficial copy ; modelling of the forehead good ; the whole of the back of the head is restored. In addition to these two, Arndt thinks that a bust in the Loggia Scoperta of the Vatican wliich lias been turned into a Hermes is a further third replica. THE HERO RICCAKDI 167 strength. There is a further resemblance in the broad, forcible chin, in the slightly opened mouth, the heavily lidded eyes, in the modelling of the forehead and the manner in which it is framed by the hair. Yet all these forms are essentially harder and more archaic: the hair, for instance, still lies upon the skull like a heavy cap, tlG. 67, -Kepli^a ot tile RiLC.irili head (Ueriili). instead of growing from it ; no depression as yet indicates the actual crown, and the separate masses, unnatural in their extreme smallness, are only as it were carved on the surface, almost without relief ; it is only in the mass that the hair has any plastic effect. Moreover, the skull is higher at the crown, and its outline is rounder — not so angular as in the Diomede. Finall\-, the hero's attitude and bearing was simple and 1 68 MYRON constrained, as compaicil w itli that of the Diomcilc, which vibrates witli energy. He stood quictl}', with his upper arm lowered, and his head turned sUghtly to the right ; the conception lacks that expression of conscious energy and mental strain which animates the Diomedc. Krcsilas must have known the original of this work, certainly twenty to thirty years older than his, and must have stood in close relation to a master whose creation he was further to develop. Now by the help of the extant copies of the Myronian Diskobolos it becomes possible to determine with comparative certaint)- who this older master was : it was Myron.^ The head of the Diskobolos of Myron is known to us, not only from the Massimi statue,- in which it is attached to the body, but from at least three separate copies. The first of these three heads is the one that has passed from Steinhauser's possession to the Museum of Bale ;^ it has been considerably restored ; the second head, in the collection at Catajo, is intact save for the front part of the nose, which is modern (Fig. 68) ;* the third head, which is at Berlin (Fig. 69),^ though much worked over and restored, is yet of considerable value. A comparison of these four replicas of the head shows that the copyists allowed themselves great freedom in the execution of detail, and especially so in the case of the hair. It is evident that in this respect the Berlin head presents by far the closest and most faithful copy of the original : the elaborate detail of the hair is obviously intended to imitate the chiselled bronze locks of the severe period, and cannot possibly be explained as an invention of the copyist. On the other hand, the greater freedom and lightness of treatment in the case of the other heads is doubtless to be ascribed to carelessness or neglect on the part of the copyist. The case is identical with that of the two replicas of the Riccardi type mentioned above. The copyist of the Catajo head has treated the original of Myron with the greatest freedom, keeping only to the general character of the close- cropped hair, and indicating the detail boldly and openly according to his own ideas. He has even chosen to modify the characteristic wavy dent, made by the outline of the hair over the forehead. The Massimi cop)-ist was more careful, though he too has for the most part dispensed with the delicate little fringed curls which encircle the hcatl, or has at any rate simplified them to a great extent. It is only about the forehead that he has represented them at all elaborately ; and even here he is content to suggest them without working them out. Behind the car and on the neck he has omitted them altogether, and substituted simpler motives. In this one respect the Stcinhauscr head, which reproduces the little tight curls behind the ear and in the neck, is almost as faithful a copy as the Berlin head. With the help of the latter it becomes possible to realize what care Myron must have bestowed on the hair of his Diskobolos. On the upper part of the head the individual locks only slightly turn up at the ends, while on neck and brow they form a fringe of tightly twisted curls. In the Riccardi bust the hair is treated in precisely the same manner, and produces the same singular effect of a cap fitting close to the head — similarities that lead one to infer that Myron was the artist of both works. In the case of the ' Wolters (Gipsa/i!;. 45S) w.is llic first to lecognize this, though lie certainly went too far in speaking of ' vollstandiger Uebereinstimmung,' and in considering the Riccardi he.ad to be almost a replica of the Diskobolos. - Reproduced from the old well-known photograph, CoUignon, His/, de la Sculp. Gi: i. PI. xi. ; Brunn- Bruckmann, Dcnkiiiiilci: An excellent small plaster reduction of the original can be purchased in Rome. The .Munich Bronze (F. -W. 453) is late Konian ; only the motive — not the head — derives from Myron's statue. " The head was first recognized by Ilelbig, /ji/iK d. Inst. 1870, 12. Cf. Kalkmann, Prop, dcs Ccsiclils, V- 74- ■* Dutsehkc, No. 6yy ; .\rndt-ljruckniann, Eiir^clvcrkaKf, Nos. 54, 55. '' Bcsdii. d. .-Inl. Skiitpl. 47.|. THE DISKOBOLOS OF MYRON 169 Riccaidi head, however, the hair is richer and more plastic in its effect ; the curls of the fringe are somewhat larger ; and the line of hair upon the foreheafl falls quite simpi}- and naturally without forming the dent noted in the Diskobolos. In the shape of the face there is considerable agreement among the different replicas of the Diskobolos, and if we compare them further with the Riccardi head the general resemblance of the two types is very striking. It lies especially in the formation and modelling of the forehead, in the straight, sharply defined, and projecting eyebrows, Fig. -Head of Diskobolos (Catajo). in the spring of the no.se and its naturalistic formation, and in the full lines of the lips. Such points of difference as are worth noticing rest chiefly on the obvious endeavour to give a different character to the two personages represented. The pentathlete who is hurling the discus is of comparatively slight build, and consequently the lower part of his face is less powerful and more rounded than that of the confident hero, with the swollen ears, pourtrayed in the Riccardi bust. Other differences show, as do those noted in the treatment of the hair, that the hero is a somewhat later work by the artist of the Diskobolos ; for instance, whereas the lips of the Diskobolos, though not tightly set, are closed, in the Riccardi head the lips are parted ; further, the expression 170 MYRON of the Diskobolos is still constraiiicxl, while that of the boxer is more open. Again, the cars in the Riccardi head are placed somewhat lower ; the skull is somewhat less high, its upper line inclining" more to the horizontal, and the head when looked at from above appears a trifle longer and narrower than that of the Diskobolos. These differences are after all insignificant, and in the main the two heads are very similar. Final!}', we must notice the eyes. Even the Diskobolos has somewhat heavy thick lids, tliat lie in a natural manner on the eyeball ; still, the Riccardi head shows considerable advance in the attcini>t to gi\-c substance and a natural look to the upper lid. If the Riccardi head is a copy of an original by M)-ron, executed at a somewhat later tlate than the Diskobolos, it folknvs that Mx'ron must have been the master who influenced Krcsilas in his Diomcdc. And it further becomes evident that Kresilas, J f IG. 69.— Head of Diskobolos (IJerlin) both in the representation of detail, such as the eye and hair, and in his attempts at expressing individuality, merely developed what M\-ron had begun. It has, however, been lately urged by 1". Herrmann that the Riccardi head differs from the Myronian type, and is to be classed with the head of a \-outh from Perinthos, now at Dresden (Fig. 70).! The only point I can admit in this contention is that the I'crintlios head can have nothing to do with Myron. I*. Herrmann quite correctly points out that it differs from that of the Diskobolos in having a shorter crown, which when seen from above appears rounder, but he should ha\c also noticed that the Riccardi head has a still longer crown than the Diskobolos, and, further, tliat the two last works arc linked together, as we saw, by a thoroughly characteristic treatment of the hair, while in the Dresden hcatl the locks ' .;///. Millh. 1891. y. 313,1,,/. Y\. W. \. of PYTHAGORAS 171 hair arc curled all over the head with considerable uniformit)', in a manner differing totally from the I\I\-ronian, and recalling on the whole the hair of the Lapith, who is being bitten b)- a Centaur, from the west pediment of Olympia (a comparison made b\- Herrmann himsclf,i. Another still more essential difference between the Riccardi and Dresden heads consists in the formation of the eyes. Herrmann rightly criticizes the prominent angular lids of the Dresden head, which produce a wholly unnatural effect, ' as though they possessed no power of move- ment.' This is precisely the manner characteristic of the art of Kritios and Nesiotes, and of the sculptors of the Olympia pediments ; and one of the most precious results obtained from studj'ing the extant copies of the Diskobolos is the knowledge that M}-ron treated the eyes in quite a different way. The lids of the Myronian statues lie naturally on, the e\-eball, and their edges are/ neither prominent nor broad nor angular, as in the Dresden head. In this respect the Riccardi head marks a further advance upon the Disko- bolos. We find a similar treatment of the eyes to the Myronian in the works ascribed above (p. 54) to Hegias, the master of Pheidias, and to Kalamis (p. 81). Finally, the lifeless ' perfectly horizontal line' of the mouth of the Dresden head offers a complete contrast to the life- like modelling of the mouth of the Riccardi bust, which in this point too is so clearly in Myron's style as we know it from the Diskobolos. The Perinthos head belonged to the statue of a victorious pankratiast, and there are a few heads of athletes which arc really allied to it ; fust among these is the boxer in the Louvre ;i next, and in a somewhat later manner, an athlete of the Giardino Boboli, formerly erroneously taken for Harmodios ;- and, lastly, a statue of an athlete in Lansdowne House.^ The expression, as well as the round, rather short crown, the hair, the flat eyes, and the wide horizontal opening of the mouth common to all these heads, seem to me to link them together indissolubly, and to mark them 1 Moil. ,1 Insl. X. 2; Aiina/i, 1S74, Tav. I ; pilot. Giiaucloii, 1207. Cast of tlic luad in tlic F.cc.lc ties Beaux-Arts and in Bonn. - Mo>i. d. Insl. viii. 46 ; .\rndt-Bnickmann, Eiiizchyrk. 96—98 ; DutsclilvC, Zcislr. Bilu'u: in J-/on>iz, Jso. 77. Cf. Berlin, riiilol. WochcnsJirift, iSSS, 1418. Separate casts of tlie head and of the torso in tlie Kcole des Beau.\-Arts, at Paris, No. 2844. 3 Michaelis, ji. 446, 36. Tlie head belongs to the statue, and lescnibles that of the I.ouvre boxer, especially in the eyes and forehead, though the statue itself is later in style. Fig. 70.— Head from reriiuh?b (Dresden). \T2 MVRON off sharply fiDin the type created by Myron. The statues in the Louvre and the Giardino l^oboh ' apparently belong to the heads set upon them : they represent the athletes in violent movement. The artist, who evidently was a man of note, since his statues were afterwards copied, must have been a contemporary of Myron, inasmuch as he vied with him in representing athletes in violent exertion • but his s}-stem of forms has more in common with Kritios and the sculptures of Olympia than with Ilegias and Mj'ron. There is no artist to whom all the characteristics noted would apply so well as to P)thagoras ; the I'erinthos head possibly gives us a copy of one of his earlier athletes, produced about li.t'. 4S0.- Thus wc should at last have obtained approximately reliable material for recovering the style of this remarkable master, of whose celebrated athletes some copies must have survived. In the whole range of Greek sculpture, how- ever, the series of statues just discussed seem to me the only ones that can be brought into connexion with him.'' It follows that the well- known head from the I nee Blun- dell collection (Fig. 71) must be classed, not with the Perinthos head as Herrmann had it, but with the Riccardi head, and is therefore also Myronian.* The hair agrees minutely with that of the Riccardi bust, even the little tapering locks about the forehead being practically iden- tical in both. The eyelids are also thoroughly Myronian, and differ totally from those of the Dresden head ; indeed, they already have some- thing of the manner of Kresilas. Further, the formation of the part between uppci' lid and brow deserves close attention, as it marks an advance upon the ' The neck in botli i-- a nioilcrn ^(.•^tolatiun ; yet the maible and the workmanship of head and body seemed lo me, after repeated examination, to coirespond exactly in character and movement. Moieuver, on the left-hand side of the u|iper part of the head of the Louvre athlete is a great square puntello which indicates that the left arm was raised above the head ; this same motive is displayed by the torso. Tlie Boboli statue too is naturally that of an athlete in active movement ; the left arm is parrying, the right striking out. '- Herrmann and Arndt also thought of Pythagoras in connexion with the Perinthos head {Alh. Mitth. '89I> III)- Concerning the athletes of Pythagoras and the probability of their attitude being one of movement, cf. Reisch, WcihgcsiJumhc, p. 44. '^ Further, a nnich-mutilated statue of a youth in Olympia [Anh. Zcit. iSSo, 51, erroneously descriljed as .\pollo — solely because of the headdress) may, I think, be regarded as a Roman copy after Pythagoras. It belongs to the close of the severe style ; the upper part of the body is slightly twisted, the head inclined towards the side of the free leg ; the drapery is falling from the left arm. In close relation to it comes a torso of a youth in the Lateran (No. 52). ■* Arch. Zig. 1874, Plate 3. Kekule was the lirst to [ironounce the head Myronian. Cf. Friederichs-Wolters, Gi/'sal>g. 459. Fig. 71.— He.id i llection M bicf BIuikIuII H.ill (Lancashire ) MYRON'S TREATMENT OF HAIR 173 Diskobolos, and is far more realistic than in the Dresden head. Quite different from the latter also is the full sensuous mouth. Yet just as the Riccardi head, although it recalls the manner of Myron, differs totally from the Diskobolos in expression and character, so does the Ince Blundell head differ in certain particulars from both. The features are more closely packed, the modelling throughout is rounder, and the cheeks fuller.^ The shape of the head resembles the Riccardi head, though when seen from above it presents a longer, narrower ellipse. On the forehead the transitions between the different planes are effected with peculiar softness and delicacy. The full mouth indicates a powerful and sensuous nature, but the expression of the face is sombre and gloom\-. This is accounted for by the swollen ears : the man is a boxer, and, as I have shown elsewhere, it was a favourite device to represent this class of athletes with a sombre look.'- The head has doubtless retained much of a real model. The Ince Blundell and Riccardi heads belong together to the same period, but are later than the Diskobolos. The strikingly different individuality of the three heads need not perplex us ; for from what artist should we expect such variety sooner than from Myron, who viultiplicasse veritatem videtur ? It is specially interesting to learn from the Ince Blundell head that, side by side with the usual broad type of face, Myron also had a narrower type with a more delicate root to the nose, inasmuch as we discovered that the works of Kresilas also exhibit both types. We are now in a position to understand an adverse criticism which I'liny passed upon Myron : capilluin quoquc ct pubcm non ciiieiidatius fccissc qiiain rndis aiitiqiiitas instituisset. The Berlin copy of the Diskobolos bears witness to the archaic cha- racter of the hair in this famous masterpiece, and we cannot wonder that the critic, judging from his Lysippian standpoint,'^ should have viewed with contempt this manner of treating the hair, and merely seen in it a sign of ntdis autiquitas. The criti- cism recorded by Pliny has, however, generally been taken to mean that Myron bestowed no care or pains upon the hair — an interpretation which is entirely contradicted by the Berlin head. As a fact, in comparison with the artists of his time, Myron treats the hair with exceptional richness and naturalness. How keenly he appreciated its varying effects is evident from the trouble he has taken to distinguish between the little curling fringe of hair and the masses on the top of the head.^ Closely bound up with this ancient criticism upon Mj-ron's treatment of hair is another that accused him of neglecting to express the ' sensations of the mind ' : corponnn teiuts curiosus aniini sciisns non cxpressit. This is perfectly intelligible in the case of the Diskobolos : the quiet impassive expression of the head clashes with the violent movement of the body. The critic was quite justified in his remark, judging, as he did in the case of the hair, from the standpoint of the full}- developed art of Lysippos. But he would not have been justified had he wished to criticize from the historical standpoint; for the absence of emotional expression was merely a characteristic of all 1 This difference comes out clearly in the measurements : in lioth heads (the Jncc and tlie Kiccarili) tlie length of the lids (34 — 35 mm.) and of the lower part of the face, and the distance from nose to brow (70 nun. in each case), are identical ; but the distance between the inner corners of the eye differs markedly (Rice. 34, Ince 29 mm.), as also the width of the mouth (Rice. 51 — 52, Ince 44^ mm.) - Cf. Olynipia, vol. iv. Die Bronwii, text j). 10 sci]. ' Cf. my treatise Pliiiitis 11. seine Qiielleit, p. 69 .^y. (ix. Suppl. vol. of Flcekeiseii' s Jahrhueh), ■* The pubes of the Diskobolos is treated with just the same care : it is arranged in four rows of small, llal curls, elaborately worked in a manner suggestive of the most careful chiselling ; those of the upjicr rows arc comparatively larger and less curled than those of the lower ones. The pubes seems most accurately rendered in the torso of the Capitol (Ilelbig, Miiseiuiis, 446). The afiinity to the hair of the Berlin head is striking in tliis case. Next in accuracy comes the London copy ; the Vatican statue is less exact. PORTRAIT-HEADS BY MVROX 175 work of the earlier part of the fifth century, though it was less striking in the case of figures in repose than in those represented like the Diskobolos in violent movement. Yet if we compare the head of the Diskobolos to other works of about the same date, such as those athletes we saw reason for attributing to Pjlhagoras, or to the so-called Apollo on the Omphalos, or to the sculptures of Oh-mpia, we shall indubitably find that a more refined and spiritual life pervades it than is the case in an\- of those other works. But it is preciseh" because this head transcends by its spiritual refinement that wc realize the limitations that separate it from works of the free style — that we realize all the more keenly a certain fi.xcdness and dulness in its expression. And this anomal)- may have influenced in some measure that unjust ancient criticism. W'c shall see, however, that Myron himself at a later stage rose beyond his own earlier limitations (see p. l8i). Before passing to works which lead us gradually away from the Diskobolos to a somewhat later period in the artist's career, we must consider one head which exhibits the stage of art that immediately preceded the Diskobolos. It is the head of a youth in Brescia (Fig. 72),! whose affinities with the head of the Diskobolos seem to me unmistakable, although everything about the head points to a cruder and an earlier artistic phase. The origin of the characteristic dent formed b\- the hair on the forehead of the Diskobolos is explained in the Brescia head, where it forms an angle instead of a curve, and practically amounts to a parting over the forehead. The treatment of the hair itself is very similar in both heads : on the raised, modelled masses the individual masses are delicately carved ; they represent short, tangled hair, with a tendency to curl thickl)- at the ends ; a narrow circlet presses into this soft mass. Moreover, the head in its general outline, especiall}' in the powerful development of the skull at the back and in the line from the circlet to the neck, resembles the head of the Diskobolos, except that it is not quite so high. On the other hand, the head is inferior to that of the Diskobolos in the modelling of the forehead (which is also lower), in the rendering of the eyelids (especially of the part between the upper lid and the e\-ebrow), of the mouth, and of the whole lower part of the face. The form of face so vividly recalls the t}-pe of Hagelaidas as it appears in the figure copied b}- Stephanos,- that in spite of the difference of expression it appears to derive from it. The points of affinit\- with the Diskobolos would lead one to suppose that the Brescia head is a cop)- of an ear/j' icork belonging to Myron, in which he combined the type current in the Hagelaidas schools with the treatment of hair, the shape of head, and the expression individual to himself This result is specially interesting, because it seems to confirm the tradition that Myron was a pupil of Hagelaidas — a question to which we shall have to return. Fig. 73 reproduces a head in the Villa Albani.'^ It is obviously a portrait, the unu.sually wide mouth and thin parted lip.i * being distinct traits of individu- alitj-. Hair and beard are short. All the.se characteristics, joined to the erect ' Diitschke, Oberital. vol. iv. No. 336. Length of face 0'I4. Earlier notices : Conze, Arch. Aiiz. 1S67, loS (who calls the beautiful head 'a wretched copy') ; Kekule, Aiiitali, 1865, 62 ; Grtippe tv/. l\'imhelmannsprograiiim,\i. 134.^1/.; supra, p. ^2 seq. • Cf. Jul. Lange, Frstiislilliug af Memieskeskikkchen (Abk. d. Kopeiihag. Akad. 1892), pp. 394, 397, 462. ' Cicero and Quinctilian in the oft-quoted pass.ages (Overbeck, S. Q. 600 — 602). ■* Lolling, Af\Tlov, 1S89, 181 seij. ° I should not like however to bring either these or the metopes of the Theseion into direct relation with Myron himself. Cf. supra, p. 46. " Brunn, A'. G. i. p. 613. ' Vat. Call, delk Slatiie (Not. 417) ; Miis. Vio-Cl. iii. 41. The head had been severed from the body, but certainly belongs. Nose, both forearms, and the jiiece of hanging drajiery are restored. ' Unfortunately not visible on the photoginjih from which our illustration is taken. Fig. 76.— Mercur>' in the Vatican. 184 MYKON has succccilcd best — sIkhv in tlicir vigorous slia[)cliiicss, ami the realism with which even the veins are indicated, a special affinit)' t(j the feet of the Diskobolos.' On the other hand, the chlamws, which is fastcncil on the rit^^ht shoulder with a great roinid button, cannot liaxe been \rdrl of the original statue, and was evidently added by the copyist ; for the character of the folds is purely Roman — indeed, it may be definitely stated that the addition of the chlamys is a favourite device of a certain group of copyists of the later Empire. l"or instance, it was given to the later replicas of the famous 'Mcleager' after Skopas ; the earlier copies are without it.'-^ Some copyists also gave a chlamj's to a statue of ;\pollo of which the original must have been very like the bronze Apollo Sabouroff in Berlin.-' These instances could easily be multi- plied ; the last one is particularly interesting, because the chlamys of this Apollo agrees so closely with that cjf our Hermes that one might almcjst assume both statues to have been executed in the same workshop at the end of the second or the beginning of the third century A. I).' l-'urther, the wings on the head,'' which are attached in a manner both thoroughly inorganic and thoroughly non-Greek, are certainly an addition of the copyist, just like the wings that appear from time to time on heads imitated from I'olykleitos. In Roman times it was not uncommon to turn Greek figures of youths into statues of I\Iercur)\ It is now impossible to determine whether the original by Myron represented a hero, a mortal, or Hermes (without the wings on the head). Pose and attitude have the merit of being natural and unstudied. The youth stands at ease, though not at rest ; ready at any moment for energetic action. This is quite a contrast to those attitudes of rest that seem to have been the ideal of the art of the I'elo- ponnesos. A few other statues may be grouped about the Vatican Mercury. In the very same room of the Vatican — unfortunately, in a ver\' unfavourable light — is a statue of a bearded man (Fig. y/)'' restored as a Poseidon ; in pose and in attitude, as also in the spare, attenuated forms of the body, it agrees very closely with the Mercury. Both arms hang in the same way, and the head has the same turn. Although the copyist, who belonged at the earliest to the age of the Antonines, has, like the artists of the sarcophagi executed at that time, worked the hair elaborately by means of the drill, it is still clear that the type of head is of the fifth century, and on close examination traits may be detected which recall the technique of Myron. Hair and beard, in spite of the modernized appearance due to the drill, still bear witness to the ' Tile pubes is also identical. - List of replicas, A'om. Mitlh. 18S9, p. 219 (Graf). The copies with the chlamys (which moreover vaiies in each) all belong, so far as I can tell, at the earliest to the later Kmpire ; the Vatican and the Borghese statue in particular are characteristic works of the age of the Antonines. The beautiful Berlin torso without the chlamys is undoubtedly older. ' Skitlpl. No. 51 ; Overbeck, Afolloii, p. 226, 5. For the Sabouroff bronze see Salwuroff Coll. PI. 8 — 11 ; Overbeck, loc. nients of the type under discussion. Cf. also coins, Miiller-Wieseler, D. A. K. 3rd ed. ii. 72 d. " Beschi: d. Ant. Skulpt. No. 15S. ^ Guedeonow, Miis. cle Sailpl. Aiil. 314; d'Escamps, Maybrcs de la Coll. Campana, PI. 14. The head had been severed from the body, but my examination of the statue has convinced me that it belongs. There aie only trifling restorations at the point where it joins on : the left side of the head, the right arm, together with the staff of Asklepios, the left forearm with the flat cup, are restored. I iSS MYRON invaluable foi- our purpose, inasmuch as body and head belong together. The general pose is much the same as that of the Mercury, and the same spareness is conspicuous in the bod)-, though the copyist has evidently tried to modify it. The god — for there can be no tloubt that it is a god we have before us — wears sandals, and a mantle, which is ilung over the left shoulder and covers the whole lower part of the botly, but in such a wa_\- as to leave the origin of the thighs free. This whole arrangement of the mantle, ami especial!}- the portion of it that falls from the shoulder, bears witness to the se\erity of the original. The simple straightforward lines recall the drapery of the Riccardi bust. The depth of the folds between the thighs may be due to the copyist, who alteretl the shallower forms of the original, to suit the taste of his time. In the arrangement of the drapery about the lower part of the body we recognize the hand of the artist on whom Kresilas modelled himself, when he executed the mantle of the Athena of \'cllctri. On the other hand, drapery like that of the Zeus from the eastern pediment of Olympia (a statue which in other respects is intimately related to the one under discussion) leads to the pictorial draperies of the I'artiienon. So we may recognize two contemporary tendencies, and we now understand that Kresilas's treatment of drapery was historically a development of the Myronian manner. The most probable interpretation of the statue is that it represents Zeus — a view biought home to us by comparistm with the afore-named Zeus from the eastern pediment of ()l)-mpia. Both statues agree so well in their main features that one is templed to conjecture that our type, with its quiet, simple lines, was known to the artist of the Olympia pediment. The line formed by the mantle on the right hip is just the same in both, the principal difference being that in the Olympian Zeus the mantle has slipped off from the left shoulder and has been wound round the arm. The interpretation as Zeus is further confirmed by the great likeness to a statue in the Louvre,^ which is known to represent Zeus by reason of the eagle sitting below and of the recurrence of a similar type on coins.' In conclusion, the attitude of the statue is favourable to the view that the left hand which hangs down grasped the sceptre, while on the right, which is extended, was held the thunderbolt or the eagle. It must be owned, however, that an examination of the other replicas does not at first favour the Zeus theor}-. Of the eleven replicas of the Hermitage statue that are known to me, four certainly, and a fifth probably — to judge from the remaining attributes — represented Asklepios ; while the others, though without the attributes of Asklepios, are equally without those of Zeus.'' Still, in my opinion, it is not probable that the original represented Asklepios : statues of this god were relatively still ' Froliner, Notue, p. 65, No. 34; phot. edit. Giiaiidon, 1224. - Cf. the coin of I.aodikea, Overbeck, Zeus, Afihntaf. 2, 29 ; p. 138. ' Tlic replicas consist partly of statues of the same proportions as the Hermitage statue, partly of statuettes of varying dimensions. The statues are : i. Berlin, Besc/ir. d. Ant. Skiilp. 290 (probably intended for an Asklepios rather than a Zeus). 2. Capitol, lower hall, 41 : feet, arms, whole of the right breast new ; the head of Zeus does not belong : the flatness and rigidity of the body, especially about the navel, is characteristic. 3. Louvre, Gall. Mollien, No. 2936 : lower part of the legs new, head does not belong ; the left arm as far as the middle of the forearm preserved. 4. Rome, Palazzo Altemps : Clarac, 560 A, 1160 D : Matz-Duhn, 58 : head does not belong : the lower part of the serpent staff is old : on the feet Roman shoes in place of sandals : the copyist regarded the stouter covering for the feet as more appropriate to Asklepios : in the body the severity of the forms is well preserved. 5. Pacetti : Clarac, 545, U46 : not known to me in the original : the serpent staff is stated to be restored. The statuettes are : 6. Mus. Chiaramonti, 113 : Clarac, 549, 1 157. Undoubtedly Askle- pios from the votive inscription, serpent staff restored : head does not belong. 7. Mus. Kircheriano : feet and arms new : Iiead does not belong : poor. 8. Cassel, ii. 15 : head does not belong, forearms new : the severity of the style is well preserved. 9. Mils. Torlonia : Visconti, Tav. x. 39 : serpent stafT old, head modern. 10. Giustiniani : Clarac, 552, 1167 A: the serpent below reporteil to be ancient. II. Rome, in the market, noted by me 1892 : head foreign. I'"iG- 79-- Statue restored as Aiklepios (Hcinulage), 190 MYRON rare towards tlic middle of the fifth century, though in the period of the copyists representations of him were in great demand. Considering that at this late period there was a rage for old types, it is conceivable that the copyists, for want of old originals of Asklepios, should sometimes have seized upon originals pourtraying Zeus, and I))- a change of attributes have turned them into statues of Asklepios. The restful conception that marks the older type of Zeus exactly suited the mild cliaracter of Asklepios. Anyhow, the erect, kingly pose of our statue ; its gesture, better suited to grasp the roj-al sceptre than to hold the healing staff; its analogies to other statues of the god ; and, finally, the tj-pe of head, to which we shall have to return, make it clear, in my opinion, that a statue of Zeus was the original from which the Hermitage statue was derived. The number of replicas found in Rome ' shows not only that the original was famous, but that it was probably to be seen in Rome ; our analysis of the statue has led us to Myron as the artist ; and a Zeus by Myron actually was in Rome in an acdiaila, erected by Augustus on the Capitol.- Another point of special interest about our statue, and one which further confirms its interpretation as Zeus, lies in the fact that the head exhibits in the arrangement of the hair and the modulation of the brow all the fundamental characteristics which were to develop into the famous type of Zeus known from the Otricoli bust. An historical study of the S)'stem of forms of this celebrated hcatl show^s it to belong not to the circle of L}-sippos, as was formerly maintained, but to that of Praxiteles.-' Thus, even as the Hermes of Praxiteles marks the culminating point of a line of development that begins with the heads of Myron's athletes,^ so it would seem that the bust from Otricoli is the Praxitelean development of a type of Zeus created in the days of Myron. XI. The ' Casscl Apollo! — Argivc Influences traceable in Myron. The three statues which we have considered so far and have referred to Myron have the same position and attitude. In all probability the statue from which the Riccardi bust {supra, Fig. 66) is copied formed a fourth in the series. The common characteristics of this attitude are found in the main in all statues in repose of the first half of the fifth century. Still, among these works, all of which have the free leg placed slightly forwards, and the head turned a little to one side, there are .several sharply defined groups.'' Those ascribed to Myron are most closely allied as regards the pose to the so-called Apollo on the Omphalos, which I refer to ' To the twelve statues and statuettes mentioned above, of whicli only the Petevsburg example preserves the original head, must be added the Berlin head (our Fig. 7S) and two replicas of the same : (: i. p. 465) thinks that the Zeus of Myron may be recognized on the coins of Augustus which were struck after the dedication of the temple of Jupiter Tonans (Cohen, Muproi;r., shows that at a later date, circa B.C. 460, the- old Argive canon was improved in Argos also: the head was made larger, an,l tlic hips broader. K[G. 80.— Apollo of the ' Ca«;sei type' (Louvre). MYRONIAN APOLLO 193 energetic than in this latter school ; the prominence of the collar-bone just under the neck dimple recurs on our Mj-ronian statues and in the Diskobolos, though it is not usual in the flat quiet treatment of the early Argive statues.^ The head seems to afford definite proof of the Myronian authorship. W'c recognize in it the characteristic lower part of the face with the slightly open mouth and the form of the mouth - itself, not to speak of the chin, which accords very closely with that of the Riccardi bust. Then the modelling of the forehead and the well- defined arch of the eyebrows are very like the Diskobolos, while the peculiar parting Fio. Si.— Head of Apolio. of the locks in the middle of the forehead is the same as in the ' Neptune ' after Myron. Further, the heavy tresses curling at the ends in the Apollo are identical with those of the ' Peisistratos ' (Fig. 73), while the plastic treatment of the beard must be compared to that of the Marsyas. ' It is further ch.iracteri5tic that the pubes is fully and powerfully formed, as in the Diskobolos .ind the Myronian ' Mercury ' ; in the circle of Hagelaidas it was invariably left out in the case of youthful beardless figures. The pubes of the Apollo is interesting in itself : it consists of two parts — an upper row of smooth, scarcely turned up, and very regularly disposed hair, and a lower row immediately about the membrinii, consisting of the same full plastic locks that appear on the brow. I know of no e.xact parallel to this method of representing the pubes, though the nearest analogy occurs on Myronian statues : the upper smooth row of hair is found on the best copies of the Diskobolos, and the lower curled part of the pubes resemliles that of the Marsyas. - Next to the Cassel head the mouth should be studied in the Louvre head {supra, p. 191, note i, No. 2), which is very careful in this point : the lips are defined here too by incised lines in imitation of bronze technique. C C 194 MYRON The points in tlic Apollo that dc\iatc from the usual Myronian head arc only such as ma\- well have been chosen to suit the character of the god (Fig. 8 1). The most striking of these is the great length of the lower part of the face, which is not other- wise found in Mjron, though it is found in Kritios and Ncsiotes ' (with whose work, liowcver, the Apollo has in other respects absolutely nothing in common). Now, as the length of the lower part of the face together with the slightlj- open mouth, in which the teeth are visible, contributes matcriall}- to produce the impression of an e.valted and unapproachable divinity, I incline to think that the artist chose it solely on that account. Indeed, the head betrays in every point a studied adaptation of the facial forms to the production of a definite expression. The shape of the brow is especially notable in this connexion : it is high in the middle, and broadens out \cr3- considerably at the base towards the temples, where it attains its greatest width in the strongly projecting eyebrows above the outer corners of the ej-es. This formation is continued b)- the wide cheek-bones and the broad round skull, which .M)-ron, as we ha\e a!rcad\- seen, was wont to make characteristic, and not after a conventional pattern. The eye is correspondingly large, with a long narrow slit. As the brow is given a overhanging shape, the slant of the eyeball from top to bottom is very considerable. The art of later days kept to the leading traits of this creation : the broad scheme of the upper part of the face becomes henceforth characteristic of Apollo, just as we noted that the later ideal of Zeus was based upon the t_\-pe created by Myron. The treatment of the hair is also turned to account to express divine majesty and power. We have already noticed the ample crown of hair in the Neptune and the Zeus of Myron. In the Apollo it has a somewhat stiffer character, owing to the work being on the whole somewhat earlier. This rich crown, consisting of individual locks treated in a very natural manner, was something new, and our Apollo .seems to afford the earliest example of it. It took the place of the sober roll of hair worn b\- the earlier Apollo of the school of Hagelaidas, which has been ascribed to Hegias (p. 52). Doubtless this Argive Apollo was known to our artist, for he reproduces the main features of the hair : in the Myronian statue, as in its predecessor, we get the two twisted locks at the side falling to the upper edge of the breast, together with the trim coiffure at the back and the part above the forehead. But the favourite - roll of hair of the Peloponnesian artists, with its stiff, smooth regularity, is here dispensed with, and replaced in front by a wealth of natural curls, at the back b\- the plait that was in vogue in the Attico- Ionian school.^ One may indeed prett}- confidentl\- suppose that an Apollo b}- M\-ron exists among the marble copies that arc preserved to us of older originals. For the inscription AttoWcov Mvpcovoi; on a headless term in RomC* shows us that an Apollo of Myron was known in Roman times, and that its head was highly enough valued to be copied alone apart from the body. Pliny (xxxiv. 58) also mentions an Apollo by ^I\-ron, which remained for a long time at Rome, until Augustus restored it to the Ephesians. Moreover, as Ycrres had despoiled Agrigentum of another Apollo of Myron, there was cvidentl}- more than one statue of this god b\' this artist, and those that are known to us in copies need not necessarily be identical with cither of the two which happen to be mentioned in literary tradition. The provenance of the copies affords no clue whatever to the place where the ' Cf. the Harmotlios and llie Boy from the Akropolis. - Cf. SOth Berl. M'iiickelmaiiitsprosy. p. 128 seq. ■■ Cf. Ath. Mitth. 1883, 246 seq. (Schreiber). ■• Kaibel, Inscr. Cr. Ital. p.^698, 1256 a. 196 MYRON original stood. These copies all belong to Roman times, and as usual with copies doubtless served to decorate private houses, baths, and the like. The same hokls good for the head and torso from Athens ; both came in all probability from the Roman ruins of the city of Hadrian around the Olympieion ; ' and \vc should not be justified in concluding from this circumstance that the original was in Athens.- AU that vvc can say positively about this Apollo, which is avowedly one of the grandest ideal creations of Greek art, is that it must have been highly prized in antiquity, seeing the many copies of it which have survived. On the other hand, it becomes possible to throw light on Pliny's statement (xxxiv. 57) that ]\I)'ron was a pupil of Hagclaidas, now that wc have clearly detected in the Apollo the influence of the old Argive canon. Wc have seen that the artist of the Apollo was thoroughly acquainted with the epoch-making creations of the old Argive school, even though his work is at the same time widely different from them ; in addition to this, we have detected a certain Peloponnesian influence in Myron's whole treatment of the bodily forms, and, in the case of the Marsyas, even in his treatment of the head. It is, however, no longer possible to ascertain whether Myron was really a pupil of Hagelaidas or whether the tradition arose, as in the case of Phcidias (cf. p. 54), owing to some ancient art critic's observing in Myron traces of the master's influence. The latter seems to me the more probable. The tradition, for which Pliny is responsible, is derived from the same good old source (probably Xenokrates) as that which says that Polykleitos also was a pupil of Hagelaidas^ — an impossible relationship in its literal sense, since Polykleitos, even dating him as far back as possible (cf supra, p. 130), is still too widely separated from Hagelaidas to admit of it : his master must have belonged to the intermediate generation — a generation that was however soon forgotten, inasmuch as it achieved no renown ; in time therefore the head of the later school was made to follow close on the famous head of the old. All the same, it is true that the canon of Polykleitos was developed from the old canon of Hagelaidas, as we too may still recognize,* but the actual teacher of Polykleitos must have been some artist like that Argciadas (Lowy, /. G. B. 30) who was proud to be known in Olympia as the pupil of Hagelaidas. If the story of the pupilship of Polykleitos is not literally true, it is unlikely that the similar story about ?.1yron should be any the more true, though in his case chrono- logical considerations do not stand in the way. The traditions must have had their source in those works which reveal a point of contact between Myron and Hagelaidas ; who it was that transmitted this influence remains unknown to later ages. It is however quite certain from monuments such as the Apollo that the story is no mere capricious invention. The Apollo enables us to look not only backwards but forwards. It again proves how entirely Myron was the forerunner of Kresilas. In order to be once more convinced of this it sufifices to consider the stylistic treatment of the hair of the Apollo ' The statue of a boy, Jahrb. J. Inst. 189J, I'l. 4, in which Mayer [ibid.) sees a cojjy of the Splanchiwplcs of Styppax, was also found in the same region. - Nor do the coins of Athens afford any certain clue. The tyjic of Apollo on coins — luihoof- Gardner, Num. Coiiiiii. PI. CC, XV., XVII. ; OverbccU, Apollo, Miiiizlaf. iv. 33 — shows close agreement in the general scheme with our type (left leg bearing weight, left forearm extended with bow, right hanging) ; another Athenian coin (Imhoof, etc., hi. (it. I'l. CC, XVI. ; Overbeck, iv. 29) shows much the same Apollo, only seen more from the front, and for this reason with the supporting leg reversed. I formerly tried to identify this with tlie Omphalos Apollo (Roschcr's I.e.xi/ioii, i. 456) ; it could also be referred to our Cassel type (cf. also Winter in the Jahrb. d. Insl. 18S7, 235, note). But this too is quite uncertain, and there is yet another possibility open to us, which I shall discuss in connexion with Euphranor {infra, p. 356). ^ Plin. 55, 9. Cf. Robert, Anli. Mdrclioi, p. 92. * Cf. 50th Bcrl. Wincliclinaiuisprogr. ji. 149. THE PERSEUS 197 (compare the form of the little curls with those of the Pcrikles), the shape of the eyes (in the better copies, such as the one in Cassel), and of the mouth with the teeth, which reminds us at once of the Medusa. In conclusion, the Apollo invites comparison with the other statues of Apollo of the same period — i.e. of the years ranging from about 475 to 460. First and in notable contrast come the two statues, in which we recognized the style of Kritios (p. i,i\seq.) and of Hegias respectively (p. 52 seq) The one referred to Hegias is under the immediate influence of Hagclaidas : it is a beautiful work, though somewhat heavy and dull in tone ; the other is quite independent of that master, and in many respects — especially in the pose — less perfect, though fresher in conception. Somewhat later follows the so-called Omphalos Apollo, attributed to Kalamis,' also independent of Argos ; the body is a magnificent creation, teeming with force, while the head scarcely rises as yet above a human type ; it even relinquishes the attempt made in the two preceding statues to mark the god at any rate by the headdress. It is very different with the two approx- imately contemporary works that follow — an earlier work of Pheidias (supra, p. 49), still somewhat constrained and recalling his master Hegias, and the work executed by Myron at the highest point of his development. Both try to go deeper than their predecessors, both try to mark more clearly the character of the god and to raise it above the human type, )-et both works are absolutely different. M)-ron's assuredly deserves the prize. The genius of Pheidias is still under the constraint of youth, and his attempt to express the spiritual element in the god proceeds rather on the lines of a gentle beauty, while Myron creates with sure hand true Apolline grandeur and majesty. In close proximity to these two works we must note finally another Apollo that proceeds from some second-rate artist" who copied the body of Myron's statue, and for the head modelled himself superficially at least upon Pheidias, though he either could not or would not adopt the special forms that lend the face its expression. The form he employs seems to indicate that this otherwise insignificant artist belonged to the school of Kalamis. XII. T/ic Pel sens. A head of Perseus, which is preserved in two replicas, will be found to afford the final external proof that the original of the Cassel Apollo and its replicas was a work by Mjron. The general characteristics of the Perseus show that its original must have been an older work of the fifth century. Now we are acquainted through literature with one famous statue of Perseus belonging to this period, and with one alone,^ that of Myron. It stood on the Akropolis of j\thens, and is mentioned by Pausanias (i. 23, 7), and also by Pliny (xxxiv. 57) in his short list of the most famous works of Myron. Since this statue was undoubtedly copied, there is every probability that, if we can point among extant copies to a Perseus of the fifth century, it will be to the statue of Myron. The two extant copies are a head in the British Museum (Plate IX. J, which A. S. ' Cf. siipni, p. Si icq. ; the attributes preserved in llie replic.is establish this statue as undoubtedly an .\pullu. - The statue of the Capitol mentioned above, p. 49; Ovcrbcck, Apollon, p. 275, 4; 112, i ; Atlas, I'l. 20, 22. ' It is true that an anonymous writer — probably Favorinus — in a passage quoted in the CoitiilJiitua of Dion Chrys. (p. 106, R. ii. ) speaks also of a Perseus by Pythagoras; but it seems more than probable that this rhetorician of the later Empire substituted for the name of Myron that of his rival Pythagoras, who is so often named in conjunction with him. Cf. \V. Klein, Anh. Epi^r. Mittk. aus Ocstcnxicli, iSSj, p. 68. L. Urlichs (Uclier Grieck. Kunslschriftsldler, p. 48) attributes to the same rhetorician yet another confusion, between Alkamcnes and Euphranor. 198 MYRON Miirra}- idcnlit'icd and published as a I'crscus/ and its recently discovered replica in Rome (Fig. 83).'- The interpretation as Perseus may be accepted as certain, since Ilermcs, who alone could also come into question, might perhaps have worn a petasos or a winged pilos, but not the distinctive cap covered with scales or little feathers, and doubtless intended for the wonderful tarn cap of Hades.^ The head of I'erseus on an electrum coin of Cyzicus of the early fifth century^ also wears a similar close-fitting round cap, passing at the back into great wings. On the coin the hair, though treated more severely, escapes in short curls from under the close edge of the cap, just as in the marble heads. One might say that the artist of the head of the statue had modellctl himself on a type of beardless Perseus wearing a round winged cap, already current in the art of Ionia. KlG. 83.- Head of Pen . (K. The original can be recovered from a study ot the two copies of the head. The London replica is rather harder, though at the same time it is in some points more accurate; the Roman one is a hast)- yet intelligent piece of work. The London copy gives the cap more accuratel}', but the hair, which is much injured, seems less good ; the Roman head represents the forms of the face with more delicacj' and roundness, and the lips are closed, while in the other the)- are slightly open ; the last is likely to be more correct. The connexion between the Per.scus and the Cassel Apollo is striking and quite V- H. s. iSSi, PI. IX. p. 55. - Bull, dalla Coiiiiii. Anh. Comiit. di Roma, .wiii. (1S90), Tav. 13, with Klein's text. [An interesting view of the Brit. Mus. Perseus, both facing and profile, is given by Kalkmann, Proport. dcs Gesichts, p. 77.— E. S.] ' On the top of both the Roman and Brit. Mus. heads some further object, not of marble, v\'as attached ; cf. Murray and Klein (loc. ill.) Unfortunately the objects visible on the cap of the kneeling Perseus on a Cyzicene coin of the free style (Num. Citron. 18S7, PI. III. 26, p. 89), which comes next in point of time, are not clear. ■• Num. C/tioii. 1887, PI. III. 24, 25 (p. 88). THE PERSEUS 199 undeniable. Since in the case of the Perseus tradition is in favour of Myron,' we gain at the same time a piece of external support for referring the Apollo to this master. This connexion is all the more weighty and convincing in view of the differ- ence of the characters represented — in the one case a calm divinity, in the other a strong hero. The two works cannot have been far apart from each other in point of time. There is a special affinitj- between them in the treatment of the arch of the eyebrows, with their powerful development towards the sides, and in that of the eyes themselves ; the forehead presses heavily above the eyes, the upper lid comes prominently in front of the lower, and the ej-eball slants back. The longer side locks of the Perseus have the same wa\)' form with curled ends noticed in the Apollo. The shorter locks over the forehead and in the neck present the un.^ymmetrical tangle so often noted as genuinely Myronian, except that thc\- seem handled with greater freedom than in those older heads after M\-ron that have already been dealt with. The receding lower part of the face, with the full, slightly opened mouth and the strongl}- curved lines of the lips, are all equalh- characteristic. The points of difference between the Perseus and the head of Apollo serve simplj- to express character. To begin with, the Perseus lacks that unusual length of the lower part of the face ; in the Perseus this part is of normal Myronian proportions, inas- much as its length is the same as the distance between the nose and the arch of the brows.- The close stylistic resemblance between the Perseus and the Apollo confirms the view that the length in the lower part of the Apollo's face was mercl)^ a means of expressing character. The forehead is especially interesting. The modelling, which in the head of Apollo is so slight that most of the copies ha\-e ignored it, is here exceptional!}- marked.-' From cither side of the root of the nose strongly marked swellings rise upward in an oblique line in the direction of the points where the wings are attached, reaching their highest point in the middle. The wings in tliis way are, as it were, counterpoised bj- the powerful forehead, and the expression of extreme energy is secured. This same end is served also by the broad, bony chin, and the powerful muscles of the cheeks. A long train of stylistic development undoubtedly lies between the Diskobolos with his impassive countenance, his severe, flat hair, and the marked angle of brow and no.se, and the Perseus with his full, flowing locks, straight profile, and rounder, freer modelling. Yet the Diskobolos contains all the essential forms of the Perseus. It must also be remembered that the close-cropped hair of the athletes and kindred figures b}- M\-ron must nccessarih' appear different from the clustering curls — not long, it is true, but \er\- thick — that MjTon gave to the Perseus. This Perseus must ha\-e been a work full of grandeur and energy, as can be best realized in the London head, in which the whole neck and a piece of the breast have been preserved. A. S. Murray, with fine insight, inferred a powerful original, and appositely said of this head that the sculptor had in view ' a first impression not of form but of action.' The total effect however must have been greatly enhanced by the wings, now ' Klein now rejects the Myronian authorship, and takes refuge in the theory of a Perseus by Pythas^orns — a work which he had himself proved to be apocryphal (siij>ni, p. 197, n. 3) ; evidently the only statue he thinks of in connexion with Myron is the Diskobolos, and he forgets the distance that separales its head from that of the Marsyas. Not only does tradition afford no adequate grounds for assigning a Perseus to Pythagoras, but the statues of athletes which we have felt obliged to assign to him bear a totally different character to the heads under discussion. - Namely 72 — 73 mm., twice the length of the lids from corner to corner, 36 — 37 mm. Wiilth of moiilh 55 — 56 mm. ^ The Perseus head on the coins from Amisos of the time of Milhradates Kupator also exhibits a remarkably prominent forehead and large eyes (Brit. Mus. Caial. Poii/iis, PI. 3, 12). 200 MYRON missincr, whicli to judge from the attachments must h;i\c been of considerable size, and have given a supernatural expression to the head. According to Pausaiiias, Myron's Perseus on tlic Akropolis was represented as TO e(? yieSova-av epyov elpyaafiei'o<;. The deed was accomplished. The view formerly entertained was that lie was represented as in flight, running, with the wallet {Ki^ic7Ls:) slung about him. The head teaches us now that he was standing quietly, probablj- holding in his hand the severed head of the Medusa. Even without the help of monumental evidence we must have known that these would be the main lines of the M}-ronian conception ; a Perseus running through the air with his winged shoes might prove an attractive subject for archaic sculpture, which likctl to pourtray Nike in a similar manner, but could never have been so for Myron. The running Perseus is an archaic t}'pe, and moreover one not easily presented without the pursuing Gorgons. On the other hand, the Perseus at rest is admirably attested as a t_\'pe in statuary of the free st)"lc. For instance, a similar statue has been repro- duced on a scries of Imperial coins from Argos, which explain the \-iolent turn of the head to the left.' Perseus held in his right hand the newly severed head of the Medusa, and turned his head in horror and alarm towards the other side, to protect himself from the pctrif\-ing glance. The kneeling Perseus too, on a vase of Cyzicus of the free stjdc of the fifth centur}-,'- and on an Attic vase of the time about 450,'' displays this same motive, though with a change of sides, so that the weapon is in the right, the head of Medusa in the left, and the head of the hero consequently- turned towards the right. Since the turn of the liead on the Argi\-e coin coincides with the head after MjTon, we may imagine the whole statue restored in its leading features on the lines of this coin. The hero would be represented standing on the right foot, holding the weapon in the left hand, and the head of Medusa in his right hand stretched to the side. On his feet were natural!)- the winged shoes. Possibl)- the statue of the Argive hero was not erected at Athens without reference to Argos: it might almost be surmised that it bore some allusion to the close relations between Athens and Argos, which began with tlic treat)' of 461 T>.C.* In an)- case the statue on the Akropolis of this Argive hero, to whom the goddess of Athens owed her Gorgon's head,'' and in w-hom accordingly the tie between Argos and Athens found mythical expression, would have been a ver)- fitting offering at a time when politics were emphasizing this tie. To judge b)- the st)'le, we must imagine the Perseus to have been created about 450 rather than 460. The statue in Argos, which is attested b)' the coins, must have been a replica of the Myronian statue, which may have been alread)- set up at that date, or perhaps onl)- later. ' Iiiihoof-Blumer and P. G.iidner, A'hw;. Coniiii. V\. I. xvii., xviii. p. 35. The type appears unchangcfl from Hailrian to Seinimiiis Sevenis ; a variant, which practically only reverses the sides, appears in a single instance at Argos on a coin of Sept. Sevenis (//'/(/. PI. FF, xxii. p. 159) and at Asine on a coin of Julia Donina (ibid. PI. GG, xxiii. p. 163). Similar type on the autonomous bronze coins oflkonium. Another ruder type, also based on some statue, occurs on the coins of the Pontic towns of Amisos, Amastris, Sinope (Brit. Mus. Calal. Ponttts, PI. 3, 13 ; 19, 8 ; p. 99). [The type appears without variation from Hadrian to Lucius Verus, and also under Valerian (Brit. Mus. Cal. Pclopov. p. 153); the variation on another coin of Septimius Severus, in which the head of Perseus is not turned away, is probably due to the cajirice of the copyist (supra, PI. VI. 33). I regret that, owing to an oversight which I only noticed after PI. VI. had been photographed, this coin was reproduced instead of one belonging to the series mentioned by Furtwangler. — E. S.] - Num. Chron. 1 887, PI. 3, 26 : cf. supra, p. 198, n. 3. 3 Millin, I'ases Peiii/s, ii. 3. For a second vase illustrative in this connexion, cf. iii/ra, p. 201 seq. * Concerning the significance of this treaty cf. latterly Robert, Hermes, 1890, 412. ■'' In Athens quite old vases already attest the connexion between Athena and Perseus as the slayer of the Medusa. The saying in Euripides, /on. 987, which has found no expression in art, can never have been popular in Athens. THE PERSEUS 20I The motive of the Perseus, so far as we have proved it, was certainly the pattern for the Diomede of Kresilas ; in this case also it was MjTon on whom Kresilas modelled himself The essential character of the effective attitude and pose of the Diomede had alrcad\- been invented by I\I)-ron for his Perseus, though Kresilas no doubt treated this motive with still greater effect. What can have been the appearance of the head of the Medusa which Perseus held in his hand ? This was no gorgoneion, no mask, but in all probabilit>- a solid head worked in the round with severed neck, as it is represented also on the Argive and Cyzicene coins of the latter half of the fifth century.^ RIyron was accordingly free from the severe mask type. On an Attic vase of the middle of the fifth century - the head of Medusa in the hand of Perseus is represented as that of a beautiful woman free from any distortion. This led us to conclude {siipm, p. 158) that Medusa must have been so represented at Athens in the greater arts even previous to this vase, for the vase-painters never invent such bold novelties for themselves. Since the vase- painting which represents Perseus with the severed head of the Medusa in his hand agrees with Myron's statue, and since the motive of the Perseus on the vase is the same as that which we have recovered for the statue {i.e. Perseus standing on his right foot with the Medusa head in his extended right hand and turning his head in the opposite direction), we can have no doubt that the vase-painter was condi- tioned, not only in the whole figure but especially also in the Medusa, by Myron's work ; that Myron's Medusa represented, not a hideous mask, but a beautiful head worked in the round. A. S. Murray, in commenting on the remarkable similarity between the profile of the Perseus and a type of Medusa that appears on Roman gems, is apparcntl)- refer- ring to that type best preserved in the gem of Sosos,'^ and less well in the cameo of Diodotos,* and other unsigned replicas. The similarity to the Perseus is striking throughout, not only in the way in which the head and neck are rendered, but also in the whole line of the profile, and especially in the forehead and eye. Courage, power, and beauty are expressed here in the same forms as in the Perseus. It is the .severed lifeless head of the IVIedusa, and no mask ; it has undistorted, beautiful traits ; it is just such a head as we have conjectured for Myron. On the one hand, the type has nothing to do with the pathetic representation of the Medusa, common in a later age ; on the other hand, it is an individual, powerful creation, which cannot be referred to the gem-cutters, but must be traced to some older original. Therefore it seems to me probable on all grounds that the original was the Medusa of Myron, held in the hand of the Perseus on the Akropolis. And so again M)Ton appears as the forerunner of Kresilas in his representation of the lifeless head of the Medusa. Myron had the courage to cut himself entirely adrift from the traditional type of the wild-e}-cd Gorgon. Kresilas also has bestowed on the actual gorgoneion mask a delicate beauty of feature. Our inquiry into Myronian statues has enabled us to form a very different view of the artist from that generally in vogue. He is no longer the one-sided sculptor of athletes, interested only in violent momentary exertion, and caring nothing for the spiritual elements of his figures. Myron has created gods and heroes too, which 1 Num. Chron. 1887, PI. 3, 26. = Ann. d. Inst. 1881, Tav. F.— The early Lower Italy vase, Millingen, Vases - is spare ; the pose is majestic, with a fine, energetic swing, but still somewhat hard and angular. The hero sits upright, the left arm is raised ami supports the club, the right is stretched straight out. The original probably stood in Rome, for it was turned to account in the time of Trajan for the representation of a Ilcraklcs seated amid trophies of weapons and holding an akrostolioii in his hand.' It is quite po.ssible that this original was the very Ileraklcs by Myron that was set up near the Circus Maximus in acde Pompei Magni (Pliny, xxxiv. § 57). The second statue which we must name here is the .so-called Uiomcde of the Palazzo Valentini at Rome,- in which the stooping posture, as has often been remarked, recalls the Diskobolos.-' Probabl\- it represents a hoplitodrome, not only on account of the likeness in the attitude to the Tiibinger bronze,'' but also on account of the helmctcd head, which has usually been taken to be foreign to the .statue, but which .seems to me to belong to it. This head, which is much restored and wrongly .set,''' shows kinship to the Perseus. Among heads belonging to the period of the Perseus maj- be named an athlete in the Capitol:'' the youth was apparently winding round his head a curious contrivance of thongs. On the other hand, the statue in Munich of an athlete dropping oil into his hands,' the beautiful P^jorentine athlete,** and the types akin to these, must be kept (juite distinct from Mjuon, for thc>' have no immediate connexion with any of his works. The>' must belong to other Attic artists of the generation after M)-ron — i.e. of the .second half of the fifth century." Among bearded types of Myron's later period may be mentioned a beautiful head of the Mu.seo Chiaramonti (iMg. 85).'° The braid of hair at the back, reaching only from ear to ear, resembles that of the Apollo, The longish hair, coming from the crown of the head, is brought without a break towards the front, where it rolls up into little curls and mingles with the short ringlets that surround the forehead. This rich tangle is repeated in the beard, where the moustache alone flows in smooth lines, as in the older heads of Myron. The eyelids are strong and marked with a little crease in the manner so often observed in the Myronian lieads. The root of the nose is narrow. The mouth is slightly open, the expression is exceedingly- distinguished — yet it is not quietly indifferent, but full of vivacity. The head is rather the representation of a noble hero than a portrait. I can imagine the ' Cf. Ptloisen, Koiii. Mi/Ik. 18S9, 331 sijij. The Altemps statue represents the Greek prototype, and is not, as P. thinks, a replica of what he calls the Trajan type. The weapons of the latter are wanting, the arms are different, and head and body alike betray a considerably older style. The replicas of the statuette of the Trajan type display the usual Mellenistic-Roman character. ^ Matz-Duhn, 1097 ; Clarac, S30, 20S5. A cast of the torso alone in the Ecole des Beaux-Arts (No. 3836). ' Also interpreted as a ' Diskobolos' by Matz-Duhn. ■* Hauser rightly points this o\i\.,Jahrb. d. Ins/. 1887, p. lOl, note 24, but on account of the tree-stem he dissents from the restoration as a hoplitodrome ; this stem however could scarcely constitute an impediment to the attachment of a bronze shield. ' Restored : whole neck, back, upper, and front part of helmet, nose, and a part of the lips. The serpent on the helmet is ancient. The head is set on with far too violent a turn ; still it was slightly inclined to the left : the relation of the marble of the head to that of the body could only be decided after a thorough cleaning. " Helbig, /v>7;;-iv, No. 415: curiously interpreted as 'Juba,' and by Helbig as 'Barbarian chief with ' negro blood.' The so-called Juba head at Athens has not the faintest likeness to this. " Moil. (I. /lis/, xi. 7. Cf. Kekule, Kopf des Praxil. Hermes, pp. 13, 18. " Diitschke, Uffizi, 72 ; Rom. Mi/lh. 1892, p. 81 seij. " Cf infra, under I'olykleitos. '" Miiseo Chiaram. No. 287 A. The terminal busl and tlic nose are modern. Mentioned as a jiortrait by lichreiber, .•////. .Mil/h. 1SS3, \<. 255. BEARDED MYRONIAN HEADS 205 Erechthcus of M_\'ron, so much admired by Pausanias fix. 30, i), and whicli no doubt lurks somewhere among our copies, conceived somewhat after this fashion.' Akin is a head in the British Museum (Fig. 86),- evidently by an artist of the second rank, who, working about 450, comes between the earlier manner of Thcidias and the later one of Myron, Fig. 85. — Head in Museo Chi.iramonti. Another bearded type that we come to last takes us back again to the earlier time of Myron. The beautiful Asklepios of severe style in the Uflizi at l<"lorencc (Fig. 87) ■' was always in my opinion one of the most attracti\'c statues of that ' As the Evechtheus of Myron was highly esteemed by connoisseurs, to jiulge from the words of Pausanias, it seems to me more probable that it was a single figm-e, identical with the statue of the eponymous hero in the Agora (Paus. i. 5, 2), and not a member of the fighting group on the Akropolis (Paus. i. 27, 4), in which Eumolpos must have looked very like his opponent. The eponymous hero, however, was certainly conceived as a quiet and exalted figure : cf. the Erechthcus on the vase contemporary with Myron, JMoii. d. Inst. .x. 39. Statues of eponymous heroes probably came into existence in the time of Kimon ; cf. Wachsniuth, SladI Allien, \. 509 ; Curtius, Stadtgesch. 117. — For the question of Erecththeus see latterly Kalkmann, Paiisniiias, p. 192, 2 ; Sauer, An/dnge d. Gruppe, p. 60. - Acquired with the Castellani collection 1873 ; place of discovery unknown. The term restored. At the back of the head a piece that had been separately attached is missing. Fully life-size. A head known to me only through the engraving in Cavacejipi (Raccolta, iii. 23) seems very like, especially in ihc arrangement of the hair on the forehead. ' Diitschke, l^ffi-i. No. 19S ; C'larac, 547. I152 ; Miiller-Wieseler, Denkm. a. K. ii. 771. Cast in the Eeole des Beaux-Arts. 2o6 MYRON collection. 1 formerly tlioiif;Iit to discern in it a creation of the earl_\- Arfjivc school,^ on grounds whicli will immediately he made clear ; but the Myronian character of the head seems to me now bej-ond doubt. The head is unbroken, antl only the nose restored ; on the other hand, the whole of the riL^ht arm with the shoulder is modern, as well as the left hand with the serpent staff, both legs including the whole of the right knee and the portion of the drapery that flows freely out behind. The restorer committed the great mistake of letting the right leg appear drawn back as in the act of walking. The ancient portions show that the disengaged F[G. S6.— Heal in the liritish Museum. right foot was far more probably planted lightl)- on the flat of the sole next to the supporting left. On the drapery of the left shoulder are seen the remains of a hand ;'- the drapery too on the left side is less finished than elsewhere : evidently a second figure, now lost, -Stood on this side. A small replica in the I'alazzo Barberini (Fig. 88),'' of careless workmanship but well preserved, puts us in perfect possession of the group. It is Hygieia who thus la\-s her right hand on the left shoulder of Asklcpios. ' Sahoiiroff Coll. i. PI. 24. Text, p. 2. - Erroneously taken by Diitschke for the remains of a sculptor's point, although the mark had long been recognized as that of a hand — viz. by the editors of the Galleria di Firettze, ser. iv. vol. i. p. 72 ; after them by Clarac in the text to No. 1 152 ; further liy Wieseler in the Denhm. a. Kinnt to ii. 771, ami in the official Calal. clella a: Gall. rl. Uffi-J, No. 209. ^ Matz-Dnhn, 51 ; cf. Matz, Bull. i7/i. apx- 1890, PI. 7. ' Cf. Sabouroff Coll. i. In/rod. p. 22. A votive relief of the fourth century in the Peiraieus represents Zeus Meilichios (name inscribed) enthroned with a horn of plenty and a bowl; the sacrificial victim which is being offered to him is a pig. P E 2IO MYRON gentleness ami goodness. The action is abo\c all characteristic, in that the god pays no heed to himself, but feeds his snake, seemingly wholly absorbed in the occupation. In this we see the tenderness and care he bestows on all that trust in him ; the nature of the healing god is thus accentuated, and at the same time the snake, which is his attrilnite, is brought into close and actual union with him. Only an artist of exceptional originality can have created this characteristic figure, which differs from most of the statues of gods of the time in the fact that the god is rciM-c.sented as engaged in some action. We believe that Myron may have been this artist. Let us examine the figure more closely. The pose is evidently borrowed from the canon of Ilageiaidas ; the left supporting leg with the right leg placed clo.se to it, the drooping left shoulder, and the inclination of the head to the same side, the left forearm horizontally extended and holding some object, the upper part of the arm lying close to the body, and the broad shoulders, are all traits that recall this canon. At the same time we. can also observe great differences ; quiet and dull rcpo.se are replaced by action and concentrated attention. The head and the upper part of the body are not simply inclined to the left side, but turned that way ; and the right arm does not hang down but is in active movement — in a word, everything combines to represent a definite action. The fidelity to the canon of Hagclaidas, together with the bold dci^arturc from it in certain respects, alike jioint to Myron. The head decides the question. The forehead, the eyes -with their rather pronoiuiccd lids, the full mouth with the slightly parted lips, the tangled profusion of curls, and the shape of the head, arc all distinctly Myronian. For criticism of detail, two heads in the British Muscinn (Fig. 89)^ and in the Louvre '^ respectively are of weight: the original which they reproduce'' must have resembled our Asklepios so closely that it almost seems as if the two heads were merely variants, due to the hand of the copyist.* Both are quite erect ; the one is furnished with a terminal bust, and the other probably terminated in the same way. It is conceivable that both reproduce our 'Asklepios' head, but altered and posed erect in order to suit the exigencies of a terminal bust. Still, if a different original did actually underlie them, it certainly proceeded from the same artist and had substantially the same significance as our ' Asklepios.' In both heads the stylistic treatment of the hair and of the moustache produces an impression of far greater fidelity to the original than in the Florentine statue, where the fiiu'cking character of the work reveals the mannerism of the age of the Antonines. Both the heads also display to perfection Myron's modelling of the forehead : the eyelids are pronounced, and the full mobile mouth allows the teeth to show as in the Cassel Apollo.'' The delicate root of the nose and the line of the bridge of the nose — preserved in the London copy — are all quite in Myron's manner. Further, in the last- named head the hair of the eyebrows is indicated ; this detail, which we also noted in the bearded Heraklcs (p. 179), may possibly be referred to the original. The treatment ' Spec, of Aiic. Sculpt, i. 16; Am. Marbles, ii. 29; Brunn-Bruckm.inn, Denkin. No. 229. Term with head, preserved without .-iny restoration. - Louvre, No. 2055, belong to the Campana Collection, unfortunately very unfavourably placed at present in the Salle du Mars Borghcse. The head is broken at the point where it joins the neck ; term restored : otherwise only the nose is modern. The beard and the locks of hair about the middle of the forehead are much damaged ; workmanship good and careful. ' The heads are replicas, the hair agreeing lock for lock. There is a third very po(5r replica in the I'al. Orlandini in Florence. Dvitschke, ii. 503; .\rndt-13ruckmann, Einzelv. 240, 241. ■* The chief difference is in the hair at the sides falling over the ears, ^ The teeth arc plain in the Paris head. 212 MYRON of the moustache with its lont;; flowing hnes that pass into tlic beard, and the \va)- in which the locks of liair arc detached from the ground, recall the same bearded Herakles, the two works probably belonging to the same period of the artist's career. The hair falls over the middle of the forehead in a rich unstudied mass, which contributes in no slight degree to the sombre expression. A simple fillet cutting deep into the locks is the sole adornment. In spite of the severe style the head is perfect in its expression of character. The custom that prevailed in later days of emphasizing the under-world divinities' by hair falling low over the forehead is merely a develop- ment of what was begun in these heads. The drapery of the ' Asklcpios ' is arranged in a simple and appropriate manner, without regard to beautiful or effective motives. The piece brought down over the shoulder may be compared with the corresponding arrangement in the Riccardi bust. We cannot enter into details, for the copyist of the statue was in all probability as inexact in the drapery as in the hair ; he doubtless tried to add richness to the broad, severe traits of the original by the introduction of lesser intermediate folds ; we must probably subtract considerably from the number of folds, and conceive the main features of the drapery to have been treated more simply and severely.' Thus this statue of a god or hero of healing appears to be a copy after an earlier work by M)-ron, in which however he had already unfolded to the full the powers of characterization which we have learnt to admire in his later figures of gods and heroes ; among these the Florence Asklepios, in which a definite action is combined with the turn of the upper torso, deserves a special place. XIV. The Munich Zeus and the first Argive School. Another statue of extreme interest must be considered next, as much for its points of difference as of resemblance. We have seen that Myron, like Pheidias in his younger days, often employed the canon of Hagelaidas. It is therefore well to become acquainted at this point with a statue almost contemporary with the Myronian works, and which not only exhibits this old canon but seems to have been created in Argos itself. I refer to the familiar statue in Munich (Figs. 90, 91)^ which Brunn and Kekule refer to Polykleitos, but which differs widely from the undoubted Polykleitan works, and is plainly considerably earlier. It is quite clear that the type of Hagelaidas underlies this conception, and has only been so far modified that the right leg is drawn back in the walking motive. For the rest there is the same characteristic hardness so familiar in works of the old t}'pe, the same disproportionate width of the breast in comparison with the hips, and the same angular shoulders well drawn back.* The attitude of repose with the weight on the left foot, ' The type afterwards so frequently used for Sarapis must have come into existence by the end of the fifth century. A very well preserved and significant statue of the Louvre (Frohner, 33 ; Bouillon, iii. stal. I, 3 ; Clarac, 311, 681) represents Zeus (eagle and thunderbolt are in part ancient) quite in the style of the fifth century: the he.id has the wisps of hair falling over the forehead. It is probably a Zeus Meilichios, and its artist should perhaps be looked for in the school of Alkamenes. - The Cassel copy of the Lemnia is a clear example (supra, p. 5 ity. ) of the extent to which copyists remodelled the simple draperies of more ancient statues at times. ^ Hrunn, Glypt. 5, No. 160 ; Friederichs-Wolters, Gipsabg. 480 ; Kekule, Jahrh. d. [int. iii. 18S8, p. 37, I'l. i ; L. V. Urlichs, Reilr. z. Gesch. d. Glypt. p. 16; Brunn-Bruckmann, Dcnkm. No. 122. No replicas are known to me. ■• Cf 50th Btrl. \l'i)iikelmaniut'rOL;>-. pp. 138, 140, 143, 146. Fig. 90.— Statue in Munich. 214 MYRON the dmoi) of the left shoulder, tlie incHnation of the head to the same side, the han^- hv^ rit^ht arm, and the left forearm extendcil liorizontally — all these are familiar and unmistakable traits of the old scheme. The head shows also that the artist was com- pletely under the influence of Hagelaidas. This is especially evident in the profile : the whole outline of the head, the line of the neck, the fillet that lies flat on the hair, its shape, and the very way in which the hair meets it ; further, the form of the short thick curls themselves — all these accord so remarkably with the best copies of the head of the figure by Stephanos (Fig. 92),! and on the other hand present such marked contrasts to the other works of the same period, such as those of Myron, that there can be no doubt about the tendency of the artist. He must stand in direct relation to the artist of the Stephanos figure, whom we conjecture to have been Hagelaidas. As compared however with the style which we must assume for Hage- laidas, the artist of the Munich statue is considerably less hard ; he gives fuller, softer flesh to the body ; he indicates the veins and sets the eyes more deeply ; he opens the mouth and makes the lower part of the forehead project ; in a word, his system of forms shows a development equal to Myron's. Yet one has only to compare the modelling of the forehead or the treatment of hair and beard to find that he lacks all that character of individuality, that charm of real life, which stamps the Myronian works. The inclination to recognize in the Munich statue the manner of Polykleitos originates in a perception, which I fully share, that all the Argive works of the fifth century bear an inner relation to one another. In the head of the Munich statue, for instance, the first aim, as with Polykleitos, is to secure pure bright beauty of form, not, as with Myron, the expression of individual character. I myself some years ago conjectured this statue to be an early work of Polykleitos as pupil of Hagelaidas, and found a support for my theory in the oldest extant basis of Polykleitos, that of Kyniskos in Olympia, on which the traces of the feet point to a figure standing much like the Munich statue." But the stylistic divergences from Polykleitos are too pronounced, and the whole system of forms so strongly contradicts this artist's personal style,^ that I now consider my former theory quite untenable. On the contrary, the statue must belong to the generation of Argive artists who intervened between Hagelaidas and Polykleitos. It is often assumed — on the ground of the familiar passage in Pliny — that it was Polykleitos who introduced the walking motive. This opinion is however erroneous. Polykleitos borrowed this motive for his canon, and thereby won for it widespread favour and popularity ; but he did not invent it. The merit of the invention belongs to the Argive artists of the generation that preceded him, about the 80th Olympiad. Any doubts as to this point owing to the Munich statue being the work of a Roman copyist can be disposed of with the help of an original monument. This is a block of marble from the dedicatory ofl'ering of Smikythos in Olympia ; to judge from the perfectly plain footmarks, it once supported a statue which stood in just the same attitude as the Munich statue.^ The period of the offering is the same as that which ' Specially with the head in the Lateran, No. 356 (Fig. 92), aiul with the Orestes in the Louvie group : the last may be studied to advantage in the cast of the Ecole des Beau.x-Arts, No. 6757 ; 50th Ber/. IVimkel- iiiainisprop: pp. 136, 138. The Capranesi head in the British Museum {ibid. p. 148, note 82) may also be compared. The face measurements of the Munich figure come close to those of the Stephanos figure. Cf. Kalkmann, Gcsichtsproport. p. 60. ^ Cf. infra, under Polykleitos, p. 249 scq. * For instance, in the treatment of abdomen and pubes. ■* It is the block with the largest fragment of the dedicatory inscription. Liiwy, /. G. B. No. 31 a ; deep depression for the back part of the left foot, which stood firm. Close by, on the same level as the heel of the left foot, is the hollow for the ball of the right foot. On the Munich statue loo the ball of the ARGIVE STATUE 215 must be ascribed to our statue, about the 80th Olympiad (soon after H.C. 466) ; and its artist, Dionysios of Argos, belongs to the school of art to which the Munich statue must be ascribed. The first introduction of the walking motive was clearly a significant departure on the part of some individual artist. In the period preceding the basis of the work of Dionysios and the Munich statue there is no trace of it, and after them, even in the Argive school, the older attitude of repose remained long in favour. In the works of Myron, and above all in the older Attic works, the walking motive is wholly unknown. We may, then, conjecture that it was Dionysios of Argos or his contemporary Glaukos, the artists of the offering of Smikythos, who first introduced this innovation. And to them or to an artist of the same standing must also be ascribed the original of the Munich statue. This statue, while still keeping in everything else to the old type of Hagelaidas, shows what a powerful new impetus was derived from the introduction of the walking motive ; not but what the hard angular forms, in which this motive first appears, are separated by a long distance from the perfect rounded harmonies which Polykleitos imparted to it. We have still to consider an interesting find from Olympia, which shows that the statuary type of the master of the Munich figure was employed in this centre of Peloponncsian art activity, as we can prove to have been the case with the canon of Hagelaidas.'^ A colossal torso from the Olympia excavations - displays so close a resemblance to the Munich statue that it must be referred to the same artist. Unfortunately it is not an original, but evidently only a late copy, executed in Pentelic marble, possibly to replace a stolen bronze original, or possibly it was a new dedica- tion, copied from an older work. The torso accords with the Munich statue in all but trifling points ;^ in it too the shoulders are disproportionately wide,^ yet here again, as compared with the canon of Hagelaidas, the forms display the same full, round, fleshy character ; here too the veins on the arms are indicated. The torso of Olympia by reason of its size is in all probability to be referred to a statue of Zeus ; indeed, from the place where it was found, one might hazard the con- jecture that it was a Zeus named by Pausanias without mention of the material, which had no inscription, but which was described as a dedication of Mummius ; •' a statue of this kind might very well be copied from an earlier work. The Munich statue right foot is on a level with the heel of the left foot. The block belonged to the offering of Smikythos erected on the north side of the temple, assigned by Pausanias {v. 26, 2) to Dionysios. There are ancient footmarks on two other blocks of this offering ; in this case however both feet were resting with full sole. From these it is apparent that the figures were considerably less than life-size (length of the footmark 16 cm.) The Roman footmarks on the under side of two of these blocks are quite different. ^ Cf. in 50th Berl. Winckclmannsprogr. p. 146 seq. ' Perfectly nude torso in the museum at Olympia: the neck is altogether wanting, as also the legs fiom a little above the middle of the thigh ; a considerable part of the left upper arm is preserved ; smaller portion of right upper arm. From the hollow of the neck to the upper edge of the pubes 075, to the navel o'555. Distance between the nipples 0^40. Greatest breadth in the hips 0^49, in the shoulders 075. The statue was therefore considerably larger than the Munich one (where the distance between the nipples measures o'32). ^ The left upper arm of the torso is somewhat drawn back instead of forward, as in the Munich statue. Further, the left shoulder of the torso droops less : the forms are altogether somewhat less meagre. The Munich statue is considerably better in technique, and seems a more careful copy than the Olympian torso. * The pubes is sharply defined as in archaic work : the locks of hair are treated in the stiff style, but they are only lightly indicated, and not worked out. ^ The torso was found on the 12th of March i88o, between the western terrace walls and the western .Mtis walls, a little south of the southern line of the palaistra, lying free {i.e. not built into any construction) below the green deposit that came down from the Heraion, and according to all appear.ances in its original site. Treu, to whom I am indebted for the above information, is reminded of the Zeus of Mummius, which stood here near the west wall of the Altis facing towards the west (Paus. v. 24, 8): this identification seems to me very probable, ARGIVE STATUE 217 is interpreted by Kekule as Zeus, bearing in his left hand the eagle, in his right the lightning. This interpretation satisfactorily explains the position of the arms, and also the whole majestic, kingly personality of the figure, and is now further cor- roborated by the kindred Olympian torso.^ Yet how comes Zeus to have quite close- cropped hair? We certainly can only then interpret this figure as Zeus, when this strange and wholly unwonted mode of treatment is attested for the epoch and school to which our statue belongs. And this actually appears to be the case. It is true that among the numerous representations of Zeus on monuments of every kind I can only point to two examples with the same close-cropped hair, but these are sufficient. Shortish hair is quite common in representations of Zeus : on Attic vases the type Fig. 92. — Replica of the head of the statue by Stephanos. appears first in the period about 403 B.C. (cf. S7ipra, p. 42), and at a later date becomes very popular ; quite in accordance with these Attic vases is the type on the familiar Eleian coins of the fourth century.- But this type of hair, in which the locks though short are yet flowing, does not help us where the question is of hair close-cropped Uke an athlete's ; besides, it belongs to a considerably later period than that of our statue. On the other hand, an isolated example of the type in question occurs in archaic vase-painting in the Zeus engaged in combat with the Giants.^ On this follows a famous coin-t>pe of Elis ■• (PI. \T. 22), which howc\cr was onh- struck ' It must however be mentioned that a coin of Nicaea (Brit. Mus. Catal. Pontiis, PI. 32, 13 : p. 15^) ilru*:k under Commodus represents Hephaistos with a hammer in the right hand and a bar of metal in the left, m a scheme closely resembling that of the Munich statue ; the original must have been a work of the same school. - Head, Hist. Num. p. 355, fig. 234 ; Guide, PI. 23, 33. ' Overbeck, Kuitslmyth. Atlas, PI. 4, 6. * Only two specimens of the coin are at present known: (a) London (Head, Hist. Num. p. 354, fig- 230 ; Guide, PI. 14, 29 ; P. Gardner, 7>/«, PI. S, 6 ; Stephani, Complc Rendu for 1876, p. 224, PI. No. 5). Kb) Berlm K F 2l8 MYRON during quite a short period, and may probabl)- he dated circa 1!.C. 420 ; for it is the counterpart to the beautiful type of Hera, which according to a plausible conjecture of Percy Gardner's is to be referred to the League contracted in that >ear between Elis and Argos (PI. VI. 23). • In the head of Hera it is thought, and probably correctly, that we have the Polykleitan Hera of Argos ; the head of Zeus too must have been based on some famous work of art, but not on one of the period of 420, for the whole type — with the slanting profile, the massive beard, and the ear set rather high up — seems to me to point pretty clearly to the fact that we have on the coin a work of the severer style rendered with the freedom natural to the fifth century ; the obvious suggestion is that this was an Argive work, dedicated by the newly formed League, and highly prized by them. The next and last instance of a short-haired head of Zeus occurs on the coins of Syracuse- and of the Italian Lokri (I'l. VI. 20).^ It is merely a type which was stamped after B.C. 345 * on a portion of the coinage of these two cities (which were intimately connected both politically and commercially), after the expulsion of the tyrant Dionjsios from both, on the occasion of the restoration of the Democracy. This type is, however, evidently the free reproduction of an older work of the fifth century,^ for it has nothing in common with the types that reproduce the spirit and taste of the epoch circa B.C. 345. The inscription on the Syracusan specimens, which characterizes Zeus as 'EXei'^e'/aio?, leaves no room for doubting what this older work was : it was the colossal figure of Zeus Eleutherios — of Zeus the Deliverer — which the Syracusans had set up as an enduring memorial of that earlier expulsion of a tyrant and democratic revolution in 466.'' To this pledge of freedom the people had recourse on the similar occasion in the fourth century, when the festival and the great sacrifices in front of the statue were once more revived. Now it is an old conjecture of Haverkamp, approved by Eckhel," that a reproduction of this Syracusan Zeus Eleutherios has been preserved in a coin-type of the two consuls of the stormy year 49 B.C. — L. Cornelius Lentulus and C. Claudius Marcellus.® On these coins the type is associated with a design that is purely Sicilian — namely, with the //-/(/wt'/y-a, which appears on the reverse in its essentially Sicilian form." This must evidently have been selected with reference to the Consul Marcellus and his glorious ancestor the Conqueror ot Sicily.i" The conjecture has therefore everything in its favour. The figure of Zeus in (still unpublished) : from .1 different die to the London specimen, yet agreeing with it almost ex.ictiy ; the h.nir is somewhat better preserved. The little curls are very like the hair on the Munich statue ; it clearly imitates a work of this style. The moustache streams on either side over the beard. ' P. Gardner in the Brit. Mus. Calal. Peloponn. p. 36 sqq. PI. 12, 11. ''■ In Syracuse only in bronze : Head, Hist. Num. p. 157 ; Ntimisni. Chroii. 1874, PI. 7, 10, II ; 1876, PI. 2, 6 ; 3i '7 ; cf. Overbeck, Zeus, p. 213. On the electrum and silver coins of the same period is represented an ordinary free type of Zeus, corresponding to the taste of the time. ^ In Lokri in both silver and bronze : Head, Hist. Num. p. 86 scij. ; Guide, PI. 25, 21 ; Gardner, Types, I'l. 5, 14; Sallet's Numism. Ztsclt. xvii. I'l. 1,7; Overbeck, Zeus, p. loi. The finest silver specimen appears to be that in the Gotha collection. * For the date cf. Head {loc. cit.) * This is also Von Sallet's view, wliom I was able to consult on the point. " Diodor. xi. 72, 2. Cf. Kekule mjahrb. d. Inst. 1888, p. 43 ; Busolt, Giieclt. Gescli. ii. 292. " Doctrina Num. v. 182. ' Good reproduction in Head, Guide, PI. 66, 16. Cf. Babelon, Moiut. dc la K.'publ. Rom. \. 424 ; Jalnh. d. Inst. 1888, )). 43. " We find too as reverse the curly head of a youth, closely related to the Zeus Hellanios of the Syracusan coins (Overbeck, Zeus, Miinzt. 3, i, 2 ; p. 196), and therefore possibly connected with it : this is rendered however less probable by reason of the fact that a similar type — though at the same time less akin to the Syracusan —appears elsewhere on the coins of Roman families, where it is explained as Vejovis. "* So Eckhel (loc. cit.), who also remarks— and rightly — that these coins need not on this account have been struck in Sicily, which would be unlikely after the events of the year 49 ; this supposition has been made into a fact by many of the more recent authorities. ARGIVE STATUE 219 question — and this is what is of special interest to us — displays a decided likeness to the Munich statue. The design on the coin, in spite of the careless execution, reproduces as though intentionally just the same pose, particularly in the drooping left shoulder and the disproportionate width of breast. The lower part of the right leg seems to have been conceived as drawn back, though this is not very obvious, by reason of the front view which has been adopted. The sole divergence in the pose — the right hand stretched out sideways — may be explained from the impossibility of representing the thunderbolt from the front. The head is so slightly and carelessly indicated that we must not lay too much stress on the fact that it seems to wear the usual crown of hair. Thus it seems permissible to conjecture that the Munich statue is actually a copy of the Zeus Eleutherios erected in Syracuse in 466. This date would exactly accord with the style of the statue, and would not conflict with what we have ascertained about its school, for the Argive artists, Hagelaidas among the first, seem to have been employed on many occasions for the West, and the artists who worked for Smikythos might well have received commissions from S\'racuse as well. It is quite in keeping with the spirit of the Argive artists that they should have wholly divested the king of the gods of his characteristic adornment of hair, and formed him after the same pattern of manly beauty as the victorious athletes ; for, in their search after pure beauty of form, they got further away from the power of characterization. Still this type could only have a transitory duration. The characteristic creations which Attic art was producing about this time soon became the prevailing types in the representation of the gods. We have on several occasions tried to show that in this Myron pla\-ed a leading part ; we may recall by way of contrast the Zeus that we ascribed conjecturally to him ; there we found a deep understanding of the nature of the god represented ; it was the veritable Zeus, while in the statue we have just been studying we seem merely to behold a beautiful man. With this contrast we close for the time our inquir)' concerning Myron, and in the following chapter turn to Polykleitos himself, who follows immediately upon the stage of art with which we have just become acquainted. POLVKLEITOS POLYKLEITOS I. Historical ami EpigrapJiical Evidence. T HE preceding chapters have already taught us some- thing about Polykleitos, wliich it is well to bcMn by recapitulating. As regards his date, we saw 'p. 130) that there was no reason for doubting the evidence of Plato, who makes Polykleitos a contemporary of Pheidias. We next obtained B.C. 440 as the approximate date of his Amazon, a work which must naturally hav'e been executed at a time when he was already an artist of acknowledged position. The famous Doryphoros must belong to a still earlier period, partly because it anticipates the Amazon in many points, and partly because of the flat treatment of the hair. These considerations show that the artistic activit}- of I'ohklcitos began at least as early as ]!.C. 450, a date at which the walking motive must have been current in Arrive art, since, as we noted before, the Argive artist Dionysios employed it as early as about B.C. 460. We saw too (p. 196) that Polykleitos cannot have been, as ancient tradition had it, actually the pupil of Hagelaidas, for a whole generation of artists intervenes between him and the founder of the school. The ne.xt certain date in the life of Polykleitos is B.C. 420 (01. 90), when he made the gold and ivory Hera for the new temple at Argos, an event by which his whole career was dated in classical times (Plin. x.x.xiv. § 49). We can obtain a fair notion of the artist's style at this period ; for it seems certain that his Hera was the model for the majestic head of the goddess which makes its appearance on the coinage of both Argos and of Elis at the very time when the statue of Polykleitos was set up (Plate VI. 23).^ ' See supra, p. 218. It is scarcely necessary to remind the reader that there is no connexion what- soever between the Hera of Polykleitos and either the Farnese ' Hera ' (Conze, Beitriige z. Gcsth. d. Cric. Plaslik, p. I, and others) or the girl's head recently discovered during the .American excavations at the Heraion of Argos (see Arch. SInd. H. Brunn dargebr. 1893). As to the Farnese head, the affinities it presents to the Artemis of the Aktaion metope from the Heraion at Selinos, and the further affinities between these Selinuiitian metopes and the school of Kritios and Nesiotes, make me refer this ' llera ' — or more correctly this .Artemis to the latter school. 224 POI.YKI.EITOS Nothing is known as to the date of the death of I'olj-klcitos ; he ma)- have hved to extreme old age, and for all we know he may have been working up to the end of the fifth century. None of the works, however, known to be undoubtctlly by him can be dated later than B.C. 420. The Zeus Meilichios, which, according to an anecdote in I'ausanias (ii. 20, i), should be dated after 418, is really not a dated work at all, for the anecdote is only an explanation of the name Meilichios, and therefore has no chronolotfical value.^ It is not altogether impossible that the tripod with the figure of Aphrodite consecrated at Amyklai after the battle of Aigospotamoi (B.C. 405) was a work of the elder Polykleitos, though it is highly improbable ; for as Polykleitos passed on to his pupils the work on the more splendid votive offerings, put up in Delphi after the same battle, he would hardly have undertaken a comparatively unimportant commission for obscure Amyklai. It is more likely that the tripod was by the younger Polykleitos.'^ A number of bases inscribed with the name Polykleitos and belonging to statues of athletes have been found in Olympia ; but it is by no means always easy to decide to which of the two artists each basis should be ascribed. The basis of the Kyniskos has undoubtedly been correctly assigned to the elder artist (Lowy, /. G. B. 50). It is not so much the archaic character of the writing that proves this, for Arkadia was singularly con.seryative in this respect,^ as the way in which the words are distributed around the upper surface of the base. Next comes the basis of the Pythokles (Lowy, /. G. B. 91) on which the Argive Zaw^^rt occurs. Now on the well-known Polystrata relief from Argos — a piece of sculpture which from its style should be dated before rather than after the Pcloponnesian War •• — this same Argive Lmnbda appears together with the Ionic H. Thus it is safe to date the Pythokles as early as 430, since the Argive alphabet was falling into disu.se at a still earlier period. The basis of the Xenokles (Lowy, /. G. B. 90) follows closely upon those just mentioned, for, though the inscription is entirely Ionic, there are still all sorts of archaic elements about it. It should probably be dated about 420 ; for, as Ionic letters were already being introduced into Argos even before the Pcloponnesian War, it is quite likely that by 420 the Ionic alphabet was fully established. Both the Pythokles and the Xenokles may therefore be ascribed to the elder Polykleitos. On the other hand, the Aristion inscription (/. G. B. 92) has a totally different character;-' ' Cf. Robert, Anh. Mdnhen, p. 102. '^ The fact that the signatures of Polykleitos and of Lysippos (Lowy, /. G. B. No. 93. See also Robert, Aixh. Mdrchen, p. 103^^5'., and E. Vxe\mex m Bonner SlucUen,\i. 2\Tsc-i;.)af])e!Lrf,iiehy&\dec\xlmi(lLenl\ca.\c'hscr3.Q.iexs on one block of stone (found at Thebes) which supported two statues by these two artists, has given rise to the theory that this younger Polykleitos was a contemporary of Lysippos. But the character of the epigraphy shows that the Theban basis belongs to the period succeeding 316, when the city was rebuilt after its destruction by Alexander. It is evident that, as Preuner {loc. at. p. 220) has already hinted, two statues which were originally unconnected were now set up anew side by side and inscribed afresh. There are many examples of such renewals of artists' signatures. The basis is therefore no guide for recovering the date of the younger Polykleitos, and all the theories lately advanced by Robert {loc. cit. ) become untenable. Rather must we admit that works handed down with the name Polykleitos and belonging to the end of the fifth century may just as well be by the elder as bv the younger artist. The view propounded above accounts for the Boeotian form i-nU^aev that occurs on the basis. I note that in the latest publication of the inscriptions in C. I. Gr. Septentr. i. 2532, 2533, Dittenberger dates them on epigraphical grounds after 316. His further improbable conclusion, that the Polykleitos named here is an unknown artist, the third of the name, need not be discussed after what has been said above. 3 See K-irchhoff, Sliidieii, 4th ed. p. 159. ■* This is also the opinion given in the Bcsilir. d. ant. Skulft. in Ber/in, No. 682, where however the illustra- tion reproduces the inscription incorrectly with an E instead of the H wTiieh is clearly visible on the stone in the aviOriKf. Kirchhoff (Stndien, 4th ed. p. 100) assumed that the relief belonged to the period after the war, on the ground of the style, but it is just this that points to an earlier date. s It is also carelessly executed and not deeply graven. INSCRIBED BASES , 225 it belongs evidcntl_\- to the fourth century, and must be assigned to the younger artist. Pol\-kleitos was an Argive. Plato, our earliest authorit)- in the matter, calls him 'Apyeioi in a dialogue (the Protagoras) written in any case shortly after the death of the artist. To Plato, Argos was the home of Polykleitos in the same sense that Athens was that of Pheidias, to whom he applies the adjective Wdijvaloi; immedi- atel\- after calling Polykleitos an Argive. He is evidently citing the two most celebrated artists and leaders of the two schools '■ most in renown at the time in which the dialogue is supposed to have taken place. In the P\-thokles inscription, which, as we saw, there is good reason for assigning to the elder artist, Polykleitos expressly calls himself 'Apyt-ro?. It is true, however, that this epithet only occurs in the restored inscription of the first century B.C., and it is not quite certain if it was part of the original. The other Polyklcitan inscriptions mention no nationality, probablv because the artist was so famous and well known at Olj-mpia. The \-ounger Poh'kleitos, to whom the Aristion base must belong, signs simply IIo\vk\€ito^ eVon^ae, without an)' epithet. He does this probably with intention, for it was not to his interest to be distinguished from his famous elder namesake, who, as the Xenokles basis shows, signed his later works in this simple manner. Pausanias in various passages calls both elder and younger Polykleitos simpl\- 'Apydoi;. Moreover, Nauk)-dcs, whom Pausanias calls the brother of Polykleitos, meaning of course the younger, is also 'Apyeto?, as is proved by Pausanias (vi. I, 3) - and by his own signature on a basis at Athens. It is only the third brother, Daidalos, who in an inscription calls himself a Sikyonian (Lowy, /. G.B. 89), as he is also .styled by Pausanias (vi. 2, 8, etc.) He evidently migrated to Sikyon. P'rom Sikyon also came two of the artists employed on the great Delphic votive offering — Kanachos, a pupil of Polykleitos, and Alypos, a pupil of Naukydes. Among other later members of the Polj'kleitan school we must also reckon Kleon of Sikyon, who belongs to the fourth century. These facts seem to show that a branch of the Polykleitan school in Argos was established in Sikyon,^ probably by Daidalos, about the end of the fifth century. In the fourth century this Sikyonian offshoot gradually overshadowed the parent school, and Lysippos, its greatest outcome, eventually cast Argos and her artists completely into the shade. Its school of painting in the fourth century would in it.self have made Sikyon a leading art-centre ; but in the fifth matters had been very different, for sculpture was then in the hands of Aristokles and his pupils, who were absolutely insignificant as compared to the Argive school founded by Hagelaidas and developed by Polykleitos. The assertion, found only in Pliny (xxxiv. 55), that Polykleitos was a native of Sikyon, must in all probability be due to that same historian of art whose Lyslppian and Sikyonian bias can be so clearl\- detected at various points of Pliny's borrowed narrative (cf supra, p. 171 seq.) He was guilty of a sort of anachronism in transferring Polykleitos to Sikyon. There is however some excuse for his error in the later migration of the Polykleitan school to Sikyon, and in the eventual exclusive leadership exerted by the Sikyonian school in the Peloponnesos.* ' This passage does not necessarily imply (as Robert assumes, Airh. Marikcn, p. loi) that Polykleitos was resident in Athens. - The corrupt M(iflw>'os (Paus. ii. 22, 7) must for the present remain a mystery. Robert's last suggestion, vidrepos {Hermes, 1888, 429), is based on his untenable hypothesis concerning the family of Patrokles {Arili. Miinlieu, p. 107). ' Cf. also Brunn, Bayr. Silzungshei: 1880, p. 473. Lliwy, /. G. B. p. 67, No. 86. ^ It seems to me better to set aside the information of Pliny than to try lo combine it with the ascertained fact C C. 226 POLYKLEITOS l'()l\-klcitos was the head of a large school, and in liis actual famil\' were many artists, though his sons, according to Plato,' cannot have attained to any great distinction. It is likely, though not actually proved, that the younger Polyklcitos was related to the elder. As he was brother to Naukjdes and Daidalos, he must have been a son of Patrokles. Now the facts, we know, fit together best if we regard Patrokies as a somewhat younger brother of Polyklcitos, so that the younger Poly- klcitos, together with Naukydes and Daidalos, would be nephews of the elder. However much Polyklcitos maj' have been — as he indubitably was — the domin- ating personality in his circle, we must yet allow for the possibility that Patrokles may have kept at his side a certain independent style of his own, which he be- queathed to his sons. At any rate Naukydes and Daidalos, who mention their father in their inscriptions, very probably do so because he had been an artist of merit. The monuments will throw further light on this point. II. TItc Doryplwros. The Doryphoros of Pol)-kIcitos has been longer and better known than any other statue by this artist. It has, however, not yet been subjected to an exhaustive analysis based on a careful comparison of all its numerous replicas, nor has its great significance in the history of art been determined b)- reference to all other monuments. Though I am not in a position to undertake this task, a few modest contributions may yet be offered here. We have already assigned this work to the period circa 450 — 440 — the very time when Pheidias produced his Parthenos. Now the rise of Polyklcitos in Argos marked no less an epoch than that of Pheidias in Athens ; the Doryphoros is as decided an advance on its predecessors as the Lcmnia and the Parthenos arc on theirs. The Doryphoros may be compared with two works dating circa B.C. 460, which belong to the generation of Argive art immediately preceding Polyklcitos. The one is the Munich Zeus already described ; the other, the little bronze athlete from the Argolis now in the Berlin Museum.- In the Zeus, the walking motive is already introduced, so that Polyklcitos found it ready to hand ; some attempt is also made to represent the mu.sclcs and to indicate the veins. There is still, however, a wide gulf between this statue and the Dorj'phoros. The attitude is stiff and angular, and there are evidences throughout to show that the old canon of Hagelaidas has not been superseded : the shoulders are too wide, the hips too narrow, and the stomach flat and wooden. No attempt is made to show the effect produced on the muscles that Polyklcitos was an Argive, by means of such conjectures as — that Polyklcitos was made a citizen of Argos after his gold and ivory Hera had been set up (Lbschcke, Arch. Zig. 1S7S, p. II), a theory on which Robert (Arch. Marchot, p. loi) builds further improbable conjectures. ^ auhiv npiis Thv TTartpa eiV;-/. IViiiikelinaiiiisprogr. p. 142 jvi/. - The omission of the pubes is also a sign of the old canon. ' Cf. 50th Berl. Winckelmanitsprogr. p. 142 seq. 228 PolA'KI.KITOS of the supporting leg which is in full nuiscular action, wlicrc it harmonizes with the curving outline infinitely better than it did with the free leg, while the other arm, which is stretched out and holds some attribute ^ — in this case a spear — is of agreeable effect on the same side as the leg which is carelessly drawn back. In this manner activit}' and relaxation are equally distributed between the two sides of the bod\'. l"he liarmony of the whole is further heightened by the position of the head, which, following the okl canon, is turned to the side on which the weight is thrown ; it is not bent forward, but is set fairly straight.- The expression of the face is resolute and determined, but not very animated : it has however none of the heaviness and dulness that is so universal in the heads of the old t)-pe. The word ' Doryphoros,' as we saw before when discussing the statue of that name by Kresilas,'' is merely a vague term borrowed from the art jargon of a late period. Literall\- the name was given to 'an attendant bearing a lance,' and was not at all applicable to our statue, which not onl)- does not represent a servant, but in its original form, as we learn from a copy on a Berlin gem, carried a short spear or javelin.^ The original Doryphoros is much more likely to have been the statue of an Olympic victor, probabl)' of a pentathlete with his javelin. It must have been first set up in Argos, as we find it adopted there for a figure on a heroic relief' One proof that it is the statue of an athlete lies in the fact that a marble copy of the Doryphoros has been discovered in the Altis of Olympia," for a statue of this kind found on this site must also necessarily be that of an Olympic victor. The material, like that of all later statues at Olympia, is Pentelic marble. It was no doubt dedicated by an athlete of some later period, who preferred a copy of the famous figure of the Doryphoros to an original statue. Unfortunately only the torso survives, and that in a damaged condition. The execution, though rather mechanical, is on the whole less hard than in most of the Italian replicas. The copy probably belongs to the first century B.C. or A.D. There are many other replicas of the torso of the Doryphoros in different museums.'' Two of these are so superior to the others in execution that they have a real aesthetic significance. The first, which is in the Ufifizi at Florence, is executed in green basalt, and produces the effect of a bronze covered with an exquisite patina.** It is a fine bit of careful workmanship." The other torso, of equally good workman- .ship, is the Pourtales torso at Berlin.'" It is interesting to notice in it the veins on the abdomen. As they do not occur in other replicas, I cannot feel certain that they ' In ihc excellent Florence copy (.]/oi:. ,/. Iiisl. .\. 50, 2) llie riglit aim is (correctly) strclched liorizont.illy forward. - Michaelis points out {Aiiimli, 1878, p. g) that in the Naples copy the head is rather too upright, and that the other replicas are more correct in lliis respect. = Cf. p. 163 scq. ■* On the relief (Atli. Milth. 187S, Taf. 13) a short javelin appears, not a long l&pv. ■> Alh. Mitlh. 1878, Taf. 13. Collignon's view (His(. lie la Sni/fl. i. 490), that the Doryphoros was a decorative statue from one of the gymnasia at Argos, involves an anachronism, for such purely decorative statues were not in vogue till much later. " Still unpublished, and apparently unnoticed. " Thus in Mus. Chiaramonti, No. 293 ; //)/(/. in reduced scale, No. 484 ; both unrestored. Two with wrong restorations in Pal. Giustiniani, two in Pal. Massimi alle colonne, and others. One in Vienna was lately published by K. von Schneider, Die Krzslaliic vom Helcnciihergc, 1893, pji. 16, 17 (/a/irb. d. Kiinslh. Samml. d. Kaiserh. Bd. xv. ) " No. 307. Diitschke, I'fjh.. 535 ; .VnnIt-BriicUmann, Einz./ra-kaiif, Nos. 94, 95. The back is a^ is essential 1\- Roman. ■* Lastly, in a statue at Carlsruhe a later type of head has been combined with the body of the Doryphoros, though the action of the arms has been reversed.'"' Passing now to bronze statuettes of later date, we find that the largest and most important of all is in the closest possible connexion with the series we have just considered. This is the well-known Hermes from Fins d'Annecy,** at present to my knowledge in the possession of M. Dutuit at Rouen. For all the delicacy of the workmanship, this charming bronze, which was once gilt all over, must be considered as a Roman work of the Augustan age. The finely modelled body is evidently inspired by the Doryphoros ; the arms, howev^er, are too short, and, just as in the Carlsruhe statue, their action has been reversed.' Other variations from the model betray a late and imperfect style. The head is very similar to that of the Dor\-- by the unnatural rendering of the child, the simple flat modelling of the principal figure, the attitude, recalling a Peloponnesian Hermes type which rests on the left leg (to be discussed later), and finally the head with the parted hair. ' B. C. H. 1S92, PI. 2, 17 ; p. 165 scq. (Legrand). Poor Roman work: not an e.\act copy, but a free adaptation of a Polykleitan type. - The current identification with the ' Phrixos' on the Akropolis is quite uncertain. ' [a] Naples, Mus. Naz. No. 6102 ; measurements = those of the Dorj-phoros : portrait-head foreign. — (/') Villa Albani, 596 : the head is foreign, and appears to be a replica of the Ludovisi Hermes ; the bodily forms are somewhat softer. — (<) Mus. Torlonia, 343: head, left forearm, with sword and right arm, are modern. — Palazzo Valentini : restored as Pertinax.— (- one creation of Polykleitos ; but it has added nothing to our knowledge of the artist himself, since not one of the works described can be definitely referred to any actual work of his. The ' Height, 0-15. The left forearm raised, the left hand held the kerykeion ; remains of a purse in the lowered right hand. The left foot was slightly drawn back. Polykleitan characteristics in the head much weakened. Rich sandals; eyes and nipples of silver. = Cab. d. Medailles, 3351. Head much defaced, with traces of Polykleitan type. The lowered right hand empty, the extended left hand probably held the kerykeion. 3 Cf. Treu, Ank. Jn:. 1S89, p. 57. ■* Paris, Cab. d. Medailles, 3350.— Clarac, 666 D, 151 2 F. ' Sacken, Bronzen in Wien, Taf. 10, 4. " Paris, Cab. d. Medailles, Coll. Oppermann. Height, about o-20. The left hand evidently held the kery- keion ; the right has a hole, possibly for the purse. To judge by the colour of the metal, the figure seems to be from Gaul. ' The Naples copy comes from the Palaestra of Pompeii. Cf Nissen, Pompej. Shtdicii, p. 166. As the figure carried a lance, it cannot possibly be a Hermes. Hut the Ephebe statues with the lance, which according to Pliny {.xxxiv. 18) were called Achilleae, and were set up in the gymnasia, were very likely for the most part copies of the popular Doryphoros by Polykleitos. H 11 Fi.; -Mtrcury, Coll. Oi)perniarin (I'.ibl. N.U., ^.^rl^)- ^34 I'OLYKI.EITOS assumption that Polyklcitos often repeated himself by adapting the Doryphoros t>-pc to other statues is certainly not supported by the monuments themselves. On the other hand, our stuily of the Doryphoros will enable us to point among our copies to other original creations by Polyklcitos. There is, for instance, a type of head (Fig. 95) so like the l)or)-phoros that it is often confused with it.thciugh it differs Fn;. g5- — Ht;.nl uf Hcraklus. From Hcrcuhimjuiii (Naples). in a distinct detail, i.e. in the rolled fillet round the head, and also in size, being only life-size, while the Doryphoros is rather above. The rolled fillet is a well-known attribute of Hcrakles, and as at any rate one replica of the head in question shows an evident attempt to give the characteristics of that hero ^ (though it must be admitted ' The liend from llcrculaneiim in Naples, Comp.iretti ile I'etia, ]'illa Ercol. Tav. 21, 3 (our Fig. 95). B. GidS {Kdiii. Mi/l/i. 18S9, pp. 215, 202 .rj't/. ) had already conjectured a Polykleitan Herakles. He also mentions HERAKLES 235 that in so doing the artist abandoned the original and introduced traits belonging to a later type), it is quite possible that the head actually represents Herakles. In favour of this interpretation is the fact that almost all the replicas known to me originally belonged to terminal busts, which explains why so many heads and no statues belonging to them have been found ; for it was precisely terms of Herakles that were in great demand for palaestrae and gymnasia. The Skopasian Herakles likewise is found almost exclusively in the term-shape. Both t\-pes appear to have Fig 96. —Head of Herakles. From the Lolleclion at BruadlaiuK (HampshiieJ. been very popular for this purpose, and in both the inclination of the head varies from right to left,^ though the former is more common ; it is very slight cither wa}-, and in the original the head was probably set straight. two replicas — viz. Lateran, 896 = Bennd.-Sch6ne, 491, and Museo Chiaiamonti, No. 139 (Helbig, JMiisetiiiis, 69). In the second the neck is antique, the bust modern. The head might have belonged to a statue ; the ends of the fillet are missing. The work is sketchy and poor. Other replicas are : A term at Broadlands (Fig. 96 ; Michaelis, Anc. Sassage stress should be laid on ' beauty. ' 24 POLYKLEITOS especially on engraved stones,' testifies to the ailmiiation of the ancients for the head of the Diadumenos. I maj- also mention a bronze head of magnificent workmanship applied to a decorative purpose (De Clerq Coll. in Paris) which is simply a free replica of the Diadumenos head.- The one weak point about the statue is the motive. The pause in the act of walking is not appropriate to the principal action represented. No one walks along while tying a ribbon round his head. Polykleitos, as we saw in his Amazon statues, cannot identify himself with his subject sufificiently to create the motive from the centre outwards. The first consideration for him is the beauty of rhythmic movement: the meaning of the movement comes second. The result of this is that the movement is beautiful indeed, but appears unnatural, nay, even affected. In this respect the Farnesc Diadumenos in the British Museum far surpasses the Diadumenos of Polykleitos by the very simplicity and naturalness of the con- ception. The youth stands still and puts on the fillet just as he would have clone in real life. There is neither stride, nor bend of the head, nor forced attitude of the right elbow near the body. Nor is there — we must at the same time confess — the charming effect produced in the other statue by rhythmic motion and beautiful closed curves.^ The ' Farnese ' Diadumenos is almost universally designated as Attic,^ and a closer comparison makes it possible to define still more exactly its claim to rank as such. The head and the bodily forms, the whole appearance and bearing, are nowhere more closely paralleled than on the frieze of the Parthenon. If we compare it, for instance, to the standing youth on the west frieze (No. 9), we shall see that the forms in the abdominal region, the waist, and the lower edge of the ribs have the same characteristics in both. Now, since there is a tradition that a statue by Phcidias representing a boy, name unknown, winding the victor's fillet round his head,^ stood in Ohmpia, and since the Farnese figure not only answers to this description but belongs to the very style which we must assume to have been that of Pheidias in the period when he was working for Olympia, we are justified in expressing the opinion (held already, though on insufficient grounds, by Gerhard and Botticher) that the Farnese statue is a copy of the Pheidian Diadumenos in Olympia. The statue fits admirably into the series of Pheidian productions with which we have become acquainted. The attitude, with one foot set to the side and freed from the weight of the body, yet resting firmly on the ground (on the inner edge of the sole, at any rate), recalls the Lemnia and the Anakreon.'' The copyist has treated the ' E.};. Cades, iv. A, 112, 113 ; furlhur, Bcilin, T61kc-n, iv. 399 (= Cades, iv. A, 116 ; Jalirb. d. Inst. 18SS, Taf. 3, 16) ; paste in Copenhagen {Ddnischc Abdnuks. in Berlin, No. 929) ; an inferior stone in St. retersburg {Abdnicl;s. in Berlin, 23, 2). — For a good copy of the whole statue see Cades, cl. iv. F, 68 = Iinpronic dell' Instiltilo, 6, 73. It is an emerald-plasma of the same sort as those with representations of the Doryphoros (Berlin) and the Amazon (Natter). (Cf. p. 137, note I ; p. 163, note I.) An inferior copy on another gem of the same kind is published, J. H. S. ii. 352. - The neck of an oinchoe rises above the head, and the whole was used as a vase. The eyes are of silver. The head (called Alexander in the collection) is of extraordinary beauty. It comes from Syria. ^ Cf Kekule, Idolino, p. 13. ■* Only Brunn identifies it with the Polykleitan Diadumenos type {Annali, 1879, 218). Cf. for a contrary view Michaelis, Ann. 1S83, 154 seq. Kekule- {Idolino, p. 12) reckons the Farnese statue among the Myronian series. " Cf p. 39. " In common with the Anakreon, this statue has the closely curled pubcs defined by a horizontal line at the top, a peculiarity also to be seen in the Dioscuri of Monte Cavallo. BOXER 245 hair very carelessly ; it seems to have resembled the hair of another Pheidian head which we conjectured to be an Eros (p. 69).^ It is usually taken for granted that the Farncsc t\-pe is later than the Polykleitan : this opinion is founded on the presumption that Polykleitos, because his Diadumenos enjoyed the most fame, was the creator of the motive. Now it is clear from a con- sideration of form alone that the Farncse type is a pure product of the older style, as the attitude and the treatment of the hair show most clcarl}- ; further, the natural simplicity of the motive as it appears in the Farnese statue proves that we have it here in its original form. Polykleitos borrowed the motive from Phcidias, and gave it an artistic elaboration which never could have formed part of the earliest con- ception. This order of succession is confirmed by the chronology of the two statues gained from other sources ; the work of Pol)-kleitos was full fifteen years later than that of Pheidias. For the invention of the motive, then, Phcidias is responsible. We can well believe that he was pleased with his subject, since he repeated it among the figures on the throne of Zeus.'- We may connect with the Diadumenos on account of the similar motive a statue of a youthful boxer, also a creation of Polykleitos (Fig. 99). Unlike the Doryphoros and Diadumenos, which arc above life-size, this figure is rather under life-size. It represents a )"outh just out of boyhood — that is, with more undeveloped and less powerful forms than the other two. The motive is again a pause in the act of walking, the weight being supported on the right leg. The head is turned to the right. As in the Diadumenos, the arms are both raised and bent, but there is a more marked difference between the attitude of the two arms: the right is lower, the left higher. The forearms are wound round with the boxing straps, the right fist ready for attack, the left for defence. I know two copies of this work—one in Cassel, with the original head (Fig. 99), and one without a head in Lansdowne House.^ The second gives the body better than the first. The bodily forms correspond with those of the Dorj-phoros and Diadumenos in all essentials (the abdomen and navel are very characteristic), except that they are more )-outhful and boyish.* The head, which survives only in the feeble sketchy Cassel copy, has hair arranged as in the Dor)-phoros. The motive, in its fulness of dignity and balanced harmony, is incontcstably fine, though for a real and energetic expression of this brutal sport we must turn to those ' The head, which is wrongly placed on the Penelope of the Vatican {An/. Dcnkiii.), is apparently, as far as the hair is concerned, a more accurate replica of the head of the Farnese statue. The princip.al proportions (fillet to chin 134 cm.) correspond, although the eyes of the Tenelope head are smaller and flatter, and the mouth is narrower. In these points the Farnese head is the more correct, but it gives only a sketchy rendering of the hair, which is more exact in the ' Eros ' head. - Cf. p. 39. For a similar motive cf. a goddess on the frieze of the Athena Nike temple (No. 12, called Amphitrite by Sauer, Aiis der Anoiiiia, p. 94 scq. ) 3 The Cassel statue (il 17) is poorly illustrated in Bouillon, iii. Sla/iws, V\. 17, I. I'arian marble, the same in the head and body. The neck is restored, but the head seems genuine. The turn of the head is kno^^ n from the one piece of the neck attached to the torso, and another piece attached to the head. The head was probably a little more bent. The left arm and the right shoulder are restored, the right arm and hand are ancient; the legs and basis are modern. In the Lansdowne statue (Michaelis, p. 43S, 3 ; Clar.ac, S51, 21S0 A), only the torso .survives ; the head is foreign ; the left shoulder with the beginning of the raised arm is ancient ; the rest of the arms and the legs from the knees downwards are new. The proportions correspond with those of the Cassel statue; distance between nipples 3i cm.; neck-pit to navel 31 ; neck-pit to line between nipples 134 ; from the latter to navel 17;,. The head of the Cassel copy is 19 cm. high; face-length 13.J, nose and lower face each 5^ cm. •* The pubes is accordingly but slightly develojied. 246 I'OLVKLEITOS violently agitated statues of severer style which we have ascribed to Pythagoras (p. 172). A br(Mize statuette found on the Akropolis ^ repeats the motive without attempt- ing to be an exact copy. The right fist is clenched, but without the straps ; the left I'lG. i^y. — Suituu of a Lu.\er (Cas^el). is missing. The severe weathering the \vork has undergone has effaced most of the detail, but the back and the glutei recall I'oK'klcitos. The bronze should be dated about 400 11. C. ' Akrui)ulis Museum, among the uldcr discoveries, llciglit 12 cm. Left hand broken. Tliis bronze may be said to bear Uie same relation to the (,'assel bo.xer wliich tlic Janze statuette does to the Uiadumenos. THE AMAZON 247 A marble torso in Florence, on the scale of the Dorjphoros and analogous to it in modelling, is derived from a work the motive of which was vcr)- similar to that of the boxer. This was probably a more recent creation of the school of Polykleitos.^ Finally, the Roman artists made use of the Diadumenos, as the}- did of the Dorj'phoros, for portrait-statues.- A bronze statuette in Carlsruhc, with an l-Ltruscan inscription, evidently a derivative from the Diadumenos of Polykleitos, seems to me to be a forgery." In conclusion, and still in connexion with the Diadumenos of Polykleitos, we may mention a head which, although hitherto almost unknown, is one of the most beautiful antiques in existence. It is a head of a youth in the Turin Museum. The hair is full and curly ; a peculiar plaited fillet is imbedded deeply in the hair and tied behind.^ The head is turned to the right and slightly bent ; the mouth is a little open. The hair is parted in the middle in Polykleitan fashion, but the locks are much fuller than even in the Diadumenos.^ The ears arc covered by a thick mass of curls, but the curls on the nape of the neck which appear under the fillet are remark- ably like those on the Diadumenos, which the Turin head surpasses however in sweetness and serenity of expression. Whether it was Pol}-kleitos him.self who made this great advance on his own Diadumenos is a question impossible to decide. In any case, the original of the Turin head must have been the work of an artist of the first rank, who derived his inspiration from the Polykleitan statue.'' IV. The Auia.r-oii. The Amazon is the third of those works of Polykleitos which are universall\- acknowledged to exist in copies. We have already discussed this figure in connexion with Kresilas and Pheidias (p. 12S: seq.): it now remains to examine its relation to the other statues of Pol)-kleitos. In style the Amazon is nearer to the Doryphoros than to the Diadumenos : the head (supra. Fig. 55) shows this very clearly. The hard and prominent lower part of the face, the mouth projecting strongly in the middle and receding towards the sides, the simple flat-lying hair, connect the Amazon closely with the Doryphoros, and distinguish it from the Diadumenos. Even in attitude the Amazon is more like the former of the two, for the left forearm is bent and stretched forward hori- zontally, the thighs run parallel, the point of the left foot not being turned outwards. This conclusion is borne out by what we know from other sources as to the date ' Uffizi, 67 ; Dutschke, 76 ; Photo. Alinari, i. 1 179. The head is foreign ; both arms new ; the left was raised, the right hung down. The palm-stem indicates a copy of a ' victor ' statue. - The statue in Naples, /in: 6271, evidently makes use of the Diadumenos, yet the turn of the head (now replaced by a restored one) is altered, and the round chlamys is added on the left shoulder. A dolphin and a polypus on the stem. Plainly a Roman portrait. The statuette, Museo Torlonia 72, is influenced by the Diadumenos ; the arms wrongly restored ; neck modern ; the head resembling Tiberius is antique, and probably belongs to the statue. ' Schumacher, Beschr. d. Ant. Bronzcit, 932. From the style, especially of the head, and .some external technical signs, I am inclined to suspect that the figure is not genuine. * Dutschke (iv. 52), who describes it as a female head ! Marble Parian. The head is placed on an ugly nude bust. The nose, part of both lips, and the chin are restored. Face-length 19 cm. ; inner eye-comer to chin = hair to nostril 12 J cm. * The full curl with rolled end is one of the chief motives. On the top of the head the hair is only loosely indicated. * In presence of the original, Kresilas occurred to me, but I cannot prove the connexion by comparison, as I was unable to obtain a photograph. 248 POLVKLEITOS of the Amazons, falling about 440 B.C. Our Amazon would thus come near to the Dorj-phoros, and be separated from tlic Diadumenos by a considerable period of time. The Amazon of Polyklcitos, as we have seen, expresses in one figure the Doric KO(TftiuT})<; and the Doric Kaprepeiv. The wounded heroine is not mastered by pain : her attitude shows weariness only,^ Iter appearance and clothing arc faultless in beauty antl onlcr. The lines of her form arc rounded to a perfect harmonv. Here too the motives arc disposccl in a crossing scheme: the raised arm is balanced bj- the pillar on the other side ; the right leg and the left arm arc tlic carr^-ing, supporting parts, the right arm and tlic left leg the parts at rest. The motive which shows the left arm supported while the right is raised was a favourite in Praxitelcan times. Pol)klcitos seems to have invented it for his Amazon,- though the left arm leans but lightl)- and the rest of the bodj- is disposed as in the Doryphoros. We .should expect to find other instances in the Polsklcitan circle of this ' leaning ' motive, and there arc, in fact, some other traces of it. A Greek engraved stone of the fifth century, from the period of Polyklcitos himself (Fig. lOO),'' represents the youthful Ilerakles, in an attitude corresponding in all essentials to a Herakles torso of Pol)-kleitan character at Dresden.* The hero is naked and without the lion-skin ; the weight is supported on the right leg, while the left ^^ is drawn back in the walking motive ; the *U^'^^B I ' u^^^mB '^^"'^ '"^ shouldered and held by the right r\ivi^H ^^ V'^'^^yP^I hand, but the left forearm is supported, as in the Amazon, on a low pillar. The lion stands beside the hero as an attribute. The whole design is clearly taken from a statuary composition of the period — perhaps of the school — of Polyklcitos. A second gem, this time of Roman date (Fig. lOi),^ represents Hippolytosin the walking motive of the Doryphoros, but with the left forearm, just as in the Amazon, supported — in this case against a tree ; the lowered right hand holds a hunting-spear ; below is a dog. The figure is evidently derived from a statue : the heav\' forms of the body, the head with its large skull and close short hair, point to a work of the ]'ol)-klcitan circle. The liros standing on the tree behind and reading the love-letter on the diptyclion is of course an addition of the gem-cutter, who wished to make clear Fig. 100. — Greek gem. Fig. ioi. — Camelian i St. Petersburg. ' Wound and siijiport are certainly genuine. Cf. supra, p. 134, notes 5, 6. ^ Cf. Robert, An/i. Mdrchen, p. 109 ; but Polylileitos need not tlierefore be dated later. 3 Cades, CI. iii. A, 1 10. From the style, the above date is move likely to be too late than too early. Remnants of severe style ; a line round the edge. Species and owner unknown. ■* Recent purchase ; till lately in Rome ; Arndt-Bruckmann, Einzchcrkaiij, No. 184. Preserved till below the navel. The connexion with the Doryphoros is striking. I had myself imagined it might represent the statue, to which the type of Herakles' head (Fig. 95, 96) belonged ; the measurements, which are practically the same as in the Doryphoros, are however too large. It is more probably to be restored on the analogy of the ' Theseus term (of course no Theseus, but a Herakles) in the Mus. Boncompagni-Ludovisi (Helbig, Miiseuins,%6l ; jVou. d. Inst. X. 57, 2). The artist of the original had affinities to Kresilas, but was influenced by Polyklcitos in the bodily forms. Breast and abdomen are quite Polykleitan, though the transitions are rounder, the edge of the ribs less accentuated, and the flesh softer. The right hand shoulders the club, the left hangs down, the head (differing in this from the Doryphoros) was turned to the side of the free leg, according to the Attic fifth-centuiy scheme. Measurements : distance between nipples = 0'300 (Doryph. = o'303) ; neck dimple to centre of navel = o"455 (Dorj'ph. = 0'45o) ; brc.idth of hips, 0389 (Doryph. o'393). ^ Carnelian in St. Petersburg [Berl. Abdi: 19, 24 = Cades, i. K, 91). KYNISKOS 249 that the figure represented Hippolytos, and no common huntsman. The original statue probably stood in Troezene, for on coins of that city the same type, though roughly reproduced, occurs, the only difference being that the right arm is raised higher.' The motive of the supported left forearm was used in the circle of Pheidias combined — not, of course, with the stepping motive, but with the left foot set slightly forward and full on the ground. On p. 71 we have tried to prove the existence of an .Vphrodite by Pheidias represented in this motive. \'. Tlic Basis of the Statue of Kyiiiskos. — Statue of a Boy placing a Wreath on his Head, and Kindred ]]'orks. A sure foundation for the knowledge of Polykleitan statues is afforded b)- the discovery at 01\'mpia of the inscribed bases that supported some of his works, inasmuch as the extant footmarks on these bases enable us to recover the attitude in which the statues stood. Three of them belong, as we saw, in all probability to the elder Polyklcitos, one to the younger.'- What first strikes us on examining the footmarks on the Polykleitos bases is that in not one of them does the scheme of the ' canon ' occur — i.e. there is no single instance of a right foot bearing the weight of the figure combined with the left foot drawn back and resting only on the ball. Nor does this motive appear on the bases of works by Naukydes or by Daidalos ; only the Zan of Kleon (Ol. 98) ^ and the following Zanes, so far as the footmarks can be made out, illustrate this scheme. The obvious conclusion is that Polykleitos himseli as well as his school made use of other motives besides the one which we associate with the Doryphoros, the Diadumenos, the Amazon, and other analogous works. The basis of Kyniskos, the earliest of them all, shows that the left leg bore the weight of the figure, while the right foot was set back and rested on the ball ;* the statue represented a boy victorious in the boxing match. Now we actually possess numerous copies of a statue of PoU^klcitan st}-le repre- senting a boy victor, in an attitude that corresponds closely with the footmarks on the Kyniskos basis (Fig. 102). To identify the statue with the ' Kyniskos' of Polykleitos would be no far-fetched theor)-, and I have long thought it worthy of adherence : ■ Itnhoor-BUinier .ind Gardner, A'tiiii. Coinin. I'l. M. viii. - We should have a fourth inscription of the older artist, could we see grounds for accepting Benndorfs con- jecture {Ges. Slii-.lun zti KiinslgcscliklUc, Fcstsclirift f. Springer, 18S5) that the basis in the shape of an astragalos, found in Olympia, formerly supported the nudum talo iitccssentcnt of Polykleitos (Pliny, xxnIv. 55) ; there are, however, weighty reasons against this identification. Pliny's words mean literally 'a naked man advancing with a knuckle-bone.' Benndorf supposes that Pliny wrongly translated some Greek sentence such as yviLvo^ aaTpaydKii! iTriKfiiievos, and made nonsense of it. But even if a Greek sentence bearing the meaning supposed by B. ever existed (which seems doubtful), and if Pliny did understand 4wiKeiiJ.evos in the sense of 'advancing, pursuing,' he must have connected the word with aarpayihtf, and explained the whole phrase as ' advancing towards an astragalos. ' There is no hint of this meaning in the Latin talo inccssens ; talo must be the instrument, the weapon, ivitli which the nude man is advancing. As a knuckle-bone cannot be a weapon, there must be an error somewhere. If we read /f/o for talo (Benndorf 's own former suggestion) all difficulty disappears (cf. Ovid, JA/aw/. 14,402, saevisque paraiit incessere tells, 13, 566 ; tclorum lapiduinque incesserc iactu cocpit). The corruption of the passage is then explained by the talis ludentes immediately following, from which talo was transferred to take the place of telo ; the item niutos refers to the preceding nudus. The evidence, then, does not permit us to identify the bronze statue set up at Olympia on a marlilc astragal with a work of Polykleitos. The statue may, as Benndorf suggests, have represented Kairos ; but it was very possibly only the portrait of a human being who, by the shajie he adopted for the basis of his statue, recalled the particular stroke of good fortune which had moved him to bring a thank-offering to the divinity. As the attitude of the feet corresponds to the Kyniskos basis, the work belonged probably to the Polykleitan circle. ^ Lowy, Iiiscr. gr. Bildh. 95. ^ See drawing of upper surface of the basis, Ardi. /.tg. 1S82, 189 ; Lowy, /. G. 1'. p. 4ji ^'"- S"- K K 2SO POI.YKLF.ITOS lately both Petersen and CoUignon have expressed the same opinion.' Unfortunately, however, abso- lute certainty can scarcely be attained," as it is no longer possible to measure accurately the length of the foot of the Kyniskos figure ; in any case, it must have been more than 20 cm. ; ■' the length of the foot of the statue is 233 mm. ; the distance between the left heel and the ball of the right foot is, in the statue,^ 16 cm. ; the two correspond- ing holes on the Kyniskos basis are about 175 mm. apart. These measurements arc very nearl}^ alike in the basis and the statue. The boy Kyniskos, like the statue, was of life-size, and his feet were cxactl}- in the same position. Two replicas of this statue have long been known. One is the so-called ' Westmacott ' athlete in the British Museum, the other is in the Barracco collection.'' The London copy is undoubtedly the better of the two. The Barracco figure is dull and slight in workmanship ; the London replica re- produces the body more sharply and fincl)-, and the head especial!}' with much more exactitude. The hair in the Barracco copy is carelessly ren- dered by mere indications of superficial effect ; in the London copy there is plainly a conscientious imitation of the bronze original. To these two copies may be added a whole series of others. These are, it is true, mostly tor.sos and separate heads, but the very fact of their existence in such numbers proves that the original was famous and ' by a celebrated artist. The following are exact replicas : a statue in the garden of the Palazzo del Ouirinale in Rome ; the head has never been broken.'' It is not so good as the London cojjy, and Fig. )2. — Statue of a victorious boy placing wreath on his head. (Restored.) ' Petersen, Riiin. Miltli. 1S93, p. loi scq.\ Colligrioii, Hist, tie in Satlpt. i. p. 499. " Petersen {ioc. For discussion of these statues see Petersen, .4rdi. Zig. l86j, 131 ; llelbig, Bull. d. Ins/. 1885, 76; Winnefeld, Hypiios, p. 30 seq. ; Treu, Anii. Anzeigci; 1889, 57 ; Kekule, Idolino, p. 13 ; Welters in Lepsius, .Marmorsltidicn, p. 83, No. 164 ; Philios, 'E (11..,,,, ' \o. 474. Tile head is placed leaning too far back. - No. 597, Michaelis. I do not know where the original is. ^ Lateran, No. 498. Neck new ; head wrongly set on. Petersen (Rom. Mitth. 1S93, p. loi) mentions two farther replicas : (I) a lower part of the face from the Palatine ; (2) a torso at Marinangeli's. I have seen neither. * Michaelis, Ann. d. Inst. 1S78, p. 16. ' Cf. Michaelis, loc. . 255. ■' The recent suggestion that the boy is holding a strigil in his raised right hand (Sauer and Philios, /iv. cil.) is certainly wrong : the strigil would come just over the forehead .and in front of the hair ; looked at from below, it would .seem held even higher. Xow^ a strigil was never used for cleansing the hair. The Pompeian jiainting (Koni. Milth. i888, p. 199) on which the suggestion is based represents the athlete holding the strigil to his forehead ; moreover, the weight is on the right leg, the forms are more adult ; the whole attitude different. Still less happy is Ilelbig's most recent suggestion, that the hand is raised to shade the eyes from the sun. The lowered head speaks against this view. The motive of shading the eyes with the hand is only natural, and as far as I know occurs in ancient art only when the eyes are looking towards the light, i.e. towards the horizon or (he sky, and never when they are looking down to the ground as here. Nor is there any foundation for Uelbig's interpretation of the figure as Narkissos. The left hand is complete in the London statue : it was empty, and could never have held a spear as Helbig suggests. * Kekule (IdoKuo, p. 14) noticed this. s j^'ortf, frje^g, 131 (Michaelis). BOY CROWNING HIMSELF 255 A statue found within the sanctuary of Eleusis ^ seems to be an approximately faithful rendering of the body of the original, although on a somewhat smaller scale ; but the head, which seems less inclined, is rendered much more freely, in the Attic marble st\-le of the good period.- The left arm may have been in a different position, as the puntcllo at the usual place is missing. The statue could hardly represent a victorious athlete ; the provenance and the soft expression of the face suggest rather some divine boy, perhaps Triptolemos. A torso in the Museo Torlonia^ would be an exact copy, except for a large round fracture-surface on the right gluteus, indicating that some object either touched the bod\- or was connected with it b}- means of a support. A torso of the \'illa Albani * is another ordinary copy ; but an antique piece of a boar's head on the tree-trunk beside the left leg shows that the type was used for a youthful hunter — Adonis more probably than Meleager. The t)'pc was also adapted to Dionysos, as we learn from a torso of the Museo Torlonia ; this is an exact copy, with the addition of a nebris reaching from the left hip to the right shoulder, the ends of which probably fell over the arms.^ The statue has been made into a Hermes. A torso in the Tennc resembles the usual copies in all respects, except that a chlamys of good Greek fashion is laid on the left shoulder and falls down over the arm, while the left hand holds the ker\'kcion.'' Unfortunately in all these torsos onl)' enough is left of the right arm to show that it was raised. We do not know how the motive was accounted for ; the placing of a wreath would be appropriate only for a victor, and cannot be assumed for other subjects. One variant of the ' crowning ' motive is to be seen on a coin of Commodus ■ representing the youthful Herakles in the same position as our figure, but holding a club and a skin in the left hand. A coin of the Brettii ^ uses the motive for a joung hero who carries lance and chlamys in his left hand. The extant modifications in sculpture — for Triptolemos (.'), Adonis (.••), Dionysos, and Hermes — may be mostl}' referred to the good period of Greek art. Specially interesting is a coin of Troezene,'' which evidently reproduces a statue of the city. It supplies a much-needed restoration for the Hermes torso in Rome mentioned above. The motive is that of the victorious boy, only that chlamys and kerykeion are held in the left hand ; the right is brought close to the head, and is empty. The Eleusinian figure does not, then, stand alone as witness to the fact that the graceful motive of the victorious boy was adapted for representations of a religious character to be set up in Greek sanctuaries. Finally some gems show that the essential features of this beautiful motive reappear in other representations of the athletic circle. ^'^ 1 'E^rj^. i.fx- 1890, Taf. 10, II. (Philios, p. 207 scq.) The body was found on the piocession ilreet between the Propylaia and the Telesterion, the head a Httle farther away. - The statue is no Roman copy ; judging from the workmanship, it ajipeared to me to belong to tlie fourth century B.C. It may come from the Praxitelean circle, from the period in which tlie master was an enthusiastic follower of Polykleitos (cf. infra, p. 317). ^ Mus. Torlonia, 37. The torso unrcstored : the puntello for the left arm is at the usual place. * Villa Albani, 222, ' Meleagro.' Head foreign ; arms and neck restored. " Mus. Torlonia, 22. Only the torso (including the right thigh) is ancient : the nebris ib only indicated in low relief on the back. '' iluseo delle Ternie, in the cloister garden. Proportions of torso correspond with the other copies. Torso unrcstored, and the greater portion of the thighs remains. The attitude of the head and the right arm as usual. " Frohner, MAiailions Rom. p. 123. ' Garrucci, Lc Monde, Tav. 124, 13, 14. The youth is crowning himself. Ganucci\ explanation as Pan is wrong. ■•" Imhoof-Blumcr and Gardner, Num. Coiiiiii. PI. GG. xi. p. 162. lironzc coin of Sei)limivi> Severus. "' PasUii ill lialiii (pp. 2377 and 2378) : athlete holding discus in his lowered left hantoration — cf Bull. d. Ins/. \&Tl, 154. - Described bjpMichaelis, Am. A/ard. in Gt. Bi-il. p. 601, No. 9. The statue had been published before in Bracci, .Meiiwrie degli Indsori, i. PI. 26 to p. 293, ' Atleta in Londra.' ^ The only other restorations are the end of the nose with right nostril and the projecting finger of the left hand. The head has not been worked over. ■* The pubes is beginning to grow : it is formed of two symmetrical pairs of cmls on either side. The undeveloped pubes here only characterizes the youthful time of life, and is totally different from the small pubes which appears on adult figures of the fourth century. "' Michaelis, loc. lit. L L I'hi. 107. Aililcte in the culleciion at Petworth House (Sussex). ATHLETES POURING OIL 259 The abdomen with the tiat navel, the chest modelled in large planes, the hollowed gluteus — all are true I'olyklcitan traits. In the bronze the nipples would be inlaitl ; in imitation of this technique the copyist has surrounded them with a ring. The work- manship is poor on the whole, the hair is carelessly done, without detail. We may hope that a better copy will some day come to light. In order to appreciate the intention of the motive we must first look at the other extant statues representing athletes pouring oil. Hitherto they have been all incorrectly classed together as ' replicas ' or ' copies ' of the same original,^ although some of them have merely the essential features in common — features which are due more to the nature of the subject than to the invention of any one artist. Several red-figured vase-paintings of severe style,- earlier than any of the statues, show from their realistic representations of scenes in the palaestra that it was a well-established custom to hold the round arj-ballos high in the right hand and pour the anointing oil from it into the left hand, which was placed horizontally across the body. With regard to the attitude, accordingly, the statues, naturally enough, coincide. The action necessitates the weight of the figure being thrown on the left leg, for the left arm must be held as still as possible to catch the oil, and the head must be turned towards the left. Now all these common features simply grow out of the subject chosen. Given the subject, however, we may distinguish the following different renderings. First the Munich statue,^ of which there are three other replicas.'' The conception, though full of life, is expressed by a somewhat hard and angular movement. The upper part of the body leans back too straightly and stiffly, the definite forward bend of the head produces a harsh effect. The bodily forms arc simple, spare, and dry. Brunn noticed the analogy to the Marsyas of Myron,^ and this analogy undoubtedly exists not only in the conception of the swift, momentary action but in the separate details of the attitude. As the head-type, too, may be considered to be a development from Myron, we are justified in suggesting that Lykios, the son and pupil of Myron, was the author of this work. We know that he was working about 440 B.C.," and this is probably the date of the statue. An entirely different creation, not at all, as has been asserted, a remodelled copy of the preceding," has survived in the Dresden torso.* It has several replicas, some of them better and with the head preserved.'' Only those features characteristic of the ' e.g. Wolters, Gipsabg. Nos. 462 — 464. - Cf. those cited by Bloch, Rom. Mitth. 1S92, p. SS, and especially .-irch. Zig. 1879, Taf. 4; Ilartwig, Meisterschalcit, p. 570. ' Friedcrichs-Wolters, Gipsahg. 462; Bninn-Bnickmann, Dciikin. Nos. 132, 134, 135. * A restored torso in the cortile of the Palazzo Mattei (Matz-Duhn, 1025 ; Clarac, 940 I!, 2398 A). The spareness of the fomis is well reproduced, but not so well as in the Munich copy. A torso has lately come from Rome to Dresden which, although in bad preservation, is certainly an e.\act copy of the Munich statue — Arch. Am. 1S94, p. 26, 6. A third very much restored replica in the Pal. Pitti (Diitschke, 25). '' Ann. d. Inst. 1879, 204. * Klein's suggestion (O^/tw. Millh. 1891, 6 seq.) that the cmyinoiiicnos of Alkamenes (I'lin. xxxiv. g 72) was an cnchrioincnos (iyxpiiimfo!), and similar to the Munich Oil-pourer (it would have been better to say to the Dresden), is not tenable. Cf. Overbeck, Gcsc/i. d. Plait il;, 4th cd. i. 386. I cannot agree with Sauer {/-'rstsf/nift fiir Overbeck, p. 28) in seeing a resemblance between the head of the Aj)hrodite of .-Mkanienes and that of the Munich Oil-pourer. ' Brunn's assumption {loc. cit. 217 seq.) rests on a false notion of the character of the surviving copies. (Cf. above, on the Diadumenoi. ) * Friederichs- Wolters, 463 ; Brunn-Bruckmann, Denkiit. Nos. 133, 134. ' The Museo Torlonia contains a good torso (Plate 122, No. 476), with bad restorations ; the right leg is completely modern. There is a replica in the Palazzo Pitti (Diitschke, ii. 22), with unbroken head, although the whole figure is poor, and has been worked over. Both legs are preserved. In Rome, in front of the Villa 26o rOLYKLEITOS subject are the same as in the Munich type ; cNCiythiiii; else is different. The liard effect has disappeared. The attitude is quieter and more natural, but lacks the fire and energ)' that distinguish the other composition. The upper part of the body is inclined slightly forward, the head is less bent than in the Munich statue ; the legs are closer together and more in repose ; the weight of the body rests — as the subject requires — on the left leg,' the right leg is placed to the side and slightly advanced, the heel being somewhat raised.- The attitude thus becomes lighter and more graceful. The bodily forms are powerful and of adult growth, a great contrast to the spareness of the other work. The modulations of the whole muscular system are indicated by a number of finer details, altogether absent in the other statue. The head is covered with short curls, the flesh of the face is full and firm, the impression of power being heightened by the indication of whiskers and by the very prominent forehead, from which the hair is brushed upwards. Unfortunately there is no good coj)}- of the head ; its pure Attic character is however undoubted ; in spite of the coarser workmanship, it is allied to the standing Diskobolos ascribed to Alkamenes (p. 90). The full plump forms of the body also recall this Diskobolos, but the differences are such as to suggest another artist. Certain details like the formation of the chest and the navel, as well as the attitude, make me think that this work is b>' the artist of the Florentine athlete which we are shortly to discuss. This artist must be sought for among Attic masters of the end of the fifth or beginning of the fourth century. There are some few statues under life-size which are akin in motive and, generally, in style to the work last described,^ without being copies of it. The)- are to be referred to different unimportant originals derived from the one protot\'pc. Other repetitions of the motive on a small scale are to be found in terra-cotta statuettes from Rlyrina,^ on Greek reliefs,'' and on gems." These do not aim at reproducing any particular statue ; they arc simply instances of the general influence exerted by a widely known and famous plastic motive. As they are most nearl>- related to the Dresden type, we may conclude that this was the most popular. In contrast, then, to the Dresden and Munich statues, which are both derivatives of Attic art, we have a third new and significant creation of the Polykleitan school in the 'Oil-pourer' of Petworth. Unlike the Attic statues, the Polykleitan conception Borghese, on the righl, ib a ix-plica with an unbroken antique head in very bad preservation. The ehin and tlie upper part of the head with the pointed cap are new ; there is a breakage through the face. ' In the Dresden copy the back part of the left foot is ancient, but it is plain from the original that the left heel ought to be not raised but on the ground. (The remains of the old plinth are planed away under the sole of the foot.) - Thus in the I'al. I'itti copy, where the foot is old. In the Borghese and Dresden copies it is wrongly restored flat on the ground. 3 Statue in Turin, Friederichs-Wolters, 464 ; the head broken but antique. It differs from the Munich statue and from the other types; it is a poor, insignificant work. Further, statue in Cassel (ii. I) ; the head belongs to a replica of the Polykleitan ' Narkissos ' (cf //i//a) ; no piibes ; rounded forms ; left hand ancient. Finally, two of the small athletes in the Braccio Nuovo (Helbig, Museums, 41—45 ; Rom. Milth. vii. 93). The head of No. 99 is ancient, but belongs to a reduced replica of the Florentine athlete ; No. 103 has a modern plaster head. These two statues might be reduced ine.xact copies of the Dresden type. * B. C. H. 1S86, ri. 12 ; I'ottier and Keinach, Ncaop. dc Myriiia, I'l. 41, 3 ; p. 450 .dvy. A second copy (with reversed sides) in the Coll. Misthos. in the National Museum at Athens. '^ '&y\ift\,Calalogiu, 534 (Friederichs-Wolters, Gipsahg. 1798), grave-relief of the third to second century. The raised right hand is empty ; it was left to the spectator to supply an aryballos in imagination. The same motive occurs on a fragment of relief from the south slope of the Akropolis (only the upper part [ireserved ; the raised right hand empty ; the left lies flat on the stomach). 8 Stone of Cneius, Jahib. J. Inst. 1888, Taf. 10, 12, p. 315. Also Tolken, vi. 107, and Cades, iv. F, 73, and a stone in Dr. Dressel's possession. I no longer hold the opinion (Jahrh., loc. (it.) that the gems go back to the Polykleitan Petworth type. They correspond most nearly to the Dresden type. APOXYOMENOS 261 begins with the walking motive, although this is as little appropriate to the chief motive of the figure as it is to the representation of an athlete binding a fillet about his head or putting on a wreath. For pouring oil a firm steady position is indispensable ; to do it while walking along is not natural — though it is just what we should expect from Polykleitos. The youth is not giving his mind to what he is doing ; he bends his head gracefully and modestly, thus forming a harmonious flow of line as in other statues of I'olykleitan st\"le ; but he looks out into the distance instead of fixing his eyes on the hand into which the oil is dropping. The right arm is only raised halfway, much less than in the two other statues. We have seen that when PoI\-kIeitos does raise the arm high, as in the Amazon and in the ' boy crowning himself,' he makes the bowed head fill the empty corner formed by the arm ; this could not be done here, because the head had to look to the left, hence the arm must not be raised so high. It is true that this change takes away from the animation of the figure, but it was the only way to obtain a graceful flow of line. From the right elbow the line rises nearly straight to the crown of the head. Again, the whole arm is so placed that it falls as nearly as possible in one plane with the body, thus avoiding entirely the projection towards the front which the arm must have formed in the other statues. W'c noticed a similar intention in the Diadumenos of Polykleitos. Now pouring oil is an action far too energetic and requiring far too close attention to be appropriately rendered in the Polykleitan manner, and Polykleitos — if he and not one of his pupils is the author — seems to me to be less happy than usual in this figure. The material content of the motive is not satisfying, and the formal beauty is not, as in other statues, carried far enough to help us to forget the deficienc)-. Polykleitos is here entering a region familiar to Attic art, but completely strange to him. We may presume that he knew the older of the two Attic creations, and that he was perhaps attracted through it to the theme. The two statues we have assigned conjccturall}- to Lykios and Polykleitos must, however, have come close together in time ; the ' oil-pourer ' of Polykleitos is at any rate older than his Diadumenos. In speaking of the second Attic, /.e. the so-called Dresden type of ' oil-pourer,' we had occasion to cite the Florence athlete as being akin in st\-le. Before closing the present inquiry a few words must be said about this figure, as it has of late been interpreted as an athlete pouring oil from a lekythos held in his right hand into an aryballos Kn;.io3.-.\po- held in his left.^ Such an action is however unparalleled, unclassical, and, a gem. above all, absurd for an athlete to be engaged in. The left forearm lay close to the thigh, and the right crossed the abdomen diagonally in the direction of the left hand ; - now a gem reproduced in Fig. 108 ^ explains this attitude, and corresponds to it so closely that we may conclude it is an imitation of the original of the statue. Moreover, the gem belongs to that class of convex stones which has already afforded us so many exact copies of statues.* The figure on the gem holds a strigil in both hands, ' JHom. Mitth. 1892 (vii. ), p. 81 scq. (Bloch). The only possible- evidence for calling (he slatue an ' oil-pouiei" at all is the existence of a slatue in Paris (/c<'. cil. p. 87 ; cf. Ai 65 ; 44, 10, all of the so-called achatony.K or nicolo). Other replicas in Berlin, Tolken, vi. 99, loi, 102 ; in 103 the figure is seen more from the back ; also p. 2404 (convex emerald-plasma). From other collections cf. Improitle c/c/l' Inst. 7, 73 ; Cades, cl. iv. F, 65 ; in Paris (impressions in Berlin, 640), with the modern inscription rcoiou ; another stone, also ancient, with the same modern inscription, Bracci, Mem. d. /mis. i. 52 (cf. Ja/irb. d. Inst. iii. 317); stone of the Dressel collection ; paste of the Bergau collection ; and others. The motives of all these gem designs correspond. The figure also occurs in a few rare instances turned to the left, when the sides are also reversed (thus Tolken, vi. 106 ; Cades, cl. iv. F, 67 ; Impr. del/' Inst. 6, 72 ; Paste Ber^aii). 3 Draw^n by Lidjke from my plan uf the block. PYTHOKLES 263 restoration of the earlier one, and may be dated in the first century B.C., but in hax-inc; supported two different statues in succession. The feet of the earlier statue were riveted into circular holes. Behind its right foot, on the upper surface of the basis, was inscribed the name of the artist, on the front surface the name of the victor. This statue must have been carefully detached and taken awa>-. It was then replaced b)- another with a quite different standing motive, and the feet of which were fastened into hollows in the stone filled with molten lead. This second statue appears to have looked in an opposite direction to the first. The renewal of the inscriptions pro- bably took place at the same time that the new figure was set up, for the new inscriptions record- ing the names of the artist and of the victor start in a line with its right foot. Subsequently this later statue was roughl)- broken awa}% prob- ably at the destruction of 01)'mpia. From these facts we gather that the genuine statue by Pol}'- kleitos was taken awa)- from Oh'mpia as early as the first century B.C., and that it was replaced — not by a copy — but by an entirel}- different figure, which was then inscribed as a work by the famous artist. Now there has been lately found in Rome, and assigned to the period of Hadrian or the Antonines, a basis actually inscribed with the names of Pythoklcs the Olympian victor and of Poly- klcitos the artist.^ It is true that the footmarks on this basis fit neither of the statues that once stood on the ' I'ythokles ' basis at Olympia, but Petersen has shown that these footmarks arc due to some earlier use of the basis, and have nothing to do with P)-thoklcs. This P)-thokles statue in Rome ma}- possibl)- have been identical with the original statue by Polykleitos which disappeared from Olj'mpia in the first century B.C., and which was doubtless brought to Rome. It is, however, more likely that the existing basis with its statue was only a copy of the famous original by Polykleitos, and that this original was placed to more advantage in some other part of Rome ; for the basis with its statue was set up by a club of athletes, whose ambition was to ornament their curia with figures of victors in gj'mnastic contests, but who probably could not afford to buy originals. The genuine Pythokles of Polykleitos stood firmly on the right foot. The length of the foot, calculated from the circular holes, is about 24 cm. ; the left foot was set back and — herein is the distinctive trait — well turned out ; the left knee accordingly must also have been turned quite obliquel)" outwards.- This posi- tion is natural only when the whole attention of the figure is directed to the left side, i.e. when the head is turned to the left, and the left hand is occupied with something. Among the works represented by copies which could come into question there is one, surviving in two replicas in Rome and Munich, which best reproduces all the Basis of the statue of Pythokle'^ in Olympia. ' BuU.dilla Com miss. Comuii. di Roma, iSgi.p. 2S0 .t£7/. , Tav. x. I ; Petersen in Rom. Millh. 1S91, p. 304 Jty. - On renewed examination of the basis in the summer of 1S94, it seemed to me that, since the left foot also had a hole for the ball, it w.as more probable the statue stood firm on lioth solos ; in this case however the left must have been the supporting leg. 264 POLYKLKITOS conditions of the I'ythoklcs basis (Fig. iil).i It is a youthful athlete, who stands in the position required by the basis,"and whose feet correspond in scale to the foot- marks.- The head is turned to the left, the left forearm is stretched forward, while II. — Athlete in the I'raccio Niiovo (Vatican). the hand holds a globular arj-ballos. The right arm hangs simply down, and blends with the contour of the body ; the hand perhaps held a fillet.'' As regards the time of life represented, this youth is older than the ' boy crowning ' .4. In Rome, Vatican, Braccio Xuovo, No. loi (Fig. ill) ; cf. Helbig, Museums, on Nos. 41 — 45 — ' reveals a close kinship with the Doryphoros of Polykleitos.' Photograph in German Inst, at Rome. Legs and basis ancient ; arms and neck restored ; the head is ancient and belongs to the statue, only it is placed leaning a little too far back. — B. In Munich Glypt. No. 303 ; Clarac, 858, 2175 ; black marble ; left leg restored, and the foot is wrongly placed flat on the ground to the side, instead of lieing drawn back. The head, both arms, and the left hand with the oil-flask are ancient {.4 is restored from A'). - On A I measured 24 cm. ' The right hand which survives in B held some light rbject, probably n fillet ; in .4 the hand is wrongly restored ; it simply hung straight down. STATUE OF A BUY 265 himself,' and younger than the Doryphoros ;' he is very near in age to the ' oil-pourcr.' ' The comparison gives us some notion of how nicely the gradations from bo)hood to adolescence were shaded off in the Polykleitan school. This work stands very near the Doryphoros, not only in the stage of growth represented but in the style and mode of expression. The hair is treated in the same flat, spare, and restrained manner, divided into large strands which cling close to the head ; over the middle of the forehead is the same sj'mmctric parting.- The hair leaves the ears free. The forehead too, with its horizontal division, and the whole expression of the head, which is not bent but freely turned to the side, show a special likeness to the Doryphoros. The same may be said of the body, except that the forms are less powerful. We must assign the work to a period not far removed from the time of the Doryphoros. The motive of this statue, full of energy and character, reaches its most life- like development in the Diomede of Kresilas. The action of the Diomede is fully accounted for down to the smallest particulars by the nature of the subject. The like cannot be maintained of the athlete holding the aryballos. Hence wc may suppose that Folyklcitos, in this instance also, was under the influence of a creation of Kresilas. He saw an attractive motive (the Diomede, wc have shown, was made for Argos), and adapted it to the figure of an athlete without troubling himself to account for the attitude on internal grounds. I have already suggested that he may have used the Kresilaian Amazon in like manner (p. 254). Nor were the motives of Diadumenos and 'oil-pourer' his own. It was certainly not in invention that lay the special strength of our artist. A very close analogy to this Roman copy of a Polykleitan statue is afforded by an admirable small original work from Greece, a bronze statuette now in Athens.'^ It cannot be referred to the master himself, for it differs in too many respects from the works we know to be his, and is besides too insignificant in character, but it is an excellent specimen of school work from his earlier period. The hair is more uniform and restrained than in the statue we last discussed ; the head is pcculiarl)' heavy ; the time of life represented is that of the Doryphoros, but the forms arc drier. The motive is similar to the preceding, but shows more repose and simplicity. The head is not turned, but only bent to the side, and the left knee is not directed outwards. The left arm seems to have been raised, and was perhaps supported ; the right arm hung down A small marble figure of very poor late workmanship from Athens, in the British Museum,* markedly resembles this bronze. On the other hand, there is another admirable work which we ma)- trace to I'olykleitos himself, and which must have been one of his most beautiful creations. There is a well-preserved copy of it in Dresden (Plate XII. and Fig. 1 12).=' A replica, ' The pubes is not indicalecl. This is plain in ./ in spite of the plaster covering ; in B the ntcnibniiii is preserved intact. ^ The head of A is much better and more carefully worked tlian thai of />, but they are copies from the same original. A well reproduces the sharpness of the bronze. 3 Mon. d. Inst. viii. 53; Aiiimli, 186S, 5i6s,/i/. (Kekule) ; Brunn-Bruckmann, Dcnkm. No. 2Soa; presumably from Sikyon. The arms, now missing, were put on separately. — Lange {Fmiistiltiitg of li/ciitieskcsl.: 419) is, I think, wrong in supposing the figure to be earlier than Polykleitos. ■■ A. II. Smith, Cata/. 0/ Sculpt, i. 502, 'Doryphoros.' ' Becker, Augiisteum, Taf. 88 ; Xlarac, 948, 2437; Hettner, Catalogu,\ 4th ed. No. 90, 'Doryphoros.* Mentioned by Michaelis, Ami. 1S78, 8, among the ' variazioni ' of the Doryphoros; by Kekule, .-/««. 1S6S, 316, as a replica of the Athens bronze discussed above ; by Treu in Arch. Anz. 1889, p. 57. — The restored left arm is now taken away. Everything else is ancient except the left upper lip, the nose, and the iiicfiibruin. The M M 266 rOLVKI.HITOS foimcily belonging to Cavaccppi, is probably somewhere in England.^ Besides these there are two torsos in Rome,- and three replicas of the head alone ("in Berlin, the Vatican, and the Coll. l^arracco)."' Once more it represents a ^oulhrul viclur with the feet placed as on the rvlhoklcs basis, except that the left foot is not drawn so far back, and the toe is not so much turned out. In accordance with this modification the head is but gently turned to the left and inclined. The right arm again hung straight down beside the body ; ' the left upper arm is directed somewhat to the side, the left shoulder is a little raised and advanced, so that the front of the upper trunk is not all in the same plane ; this produces an animated crossing rhythm. The right shoulder is not drawn back, but held in a comfortable natural position ; from the attitude of the left upper arm and from the absence of any puntello on the left side we conclude that the left forearm was advanced. The )outh was holding some object on which he was looking down.-'' This was doubtless nothing but a victor's fillet or some simple instrument of the palaestra.'' The modest reserve expressed by the attitude of the head seems to speak for the fillet, h'or just this modesty and reserve on the part of the victorious athlete were dcmandi'd in- ancient custom, that the envy of gods and daemons might be appeased. The time of life represented is a new variant between boy and cphcbe. The 'Dresden athlete' — so we may call the type — is older than the ' boy crowning him- self The formation of the body is stronger and the chest is fuller, bearing the same proportion to the lower part of the body as it does in the Doryphoros. On the other hand, the Dresden athlete is more youthful and delicately formed than the figure, pre- sumably the Pythokles, which we discussed above, or than the ' oil-pourer,' It is a great mistake to imagine that the victor statues of Polj-klcitos were all made upon one pattern, and merely repeated the proportions and modelling of the Doryphoros ; the latter evidentl)- gave the 'canon ' for the full-grown male figure onl\-. The ' Dresden boy ' bears such unmistakable marks of the personal st\'le of Polj'klcitos that we may certainly ascribe it to the master him.self, and it probably belongs to his later period.' It stands midway between the Herakles (discussed above, p. 234) and the Diadumcnos, and is closely akin to both works. The hair resembles that of the Herakles, but is more developed in style ; the asyuiinctria of the head was never biukiin. Height of liead 19S 111111., leiigtli uf face 156, length of fool 253, distance between nipples 226. ' Cavaceppi, Kaaolta, iii. 5 ; Clarac, 866, 2204. According to Cav.iceppi, in the possession of ' Giuseppe ' NoUekens in lingland ; the aims and the armour as support are probably restorations ; in other respects the figure appears to be a replica. - a. in Musco Torlonia, No. 18. Legs and arms wrongly restored, head antique but not belonging ; the torso is a good replica of the Dresden statue. — b. in the Vatican, Miiseo Lapidario, 124. Torso. 3 a. in Berlin, Skulpi. 546. A very good copy. The hair corresponds exactly with tlie Dresden replica. The whole upper part of the head is restored. The sharpness of the bronze original is imitated ; the lips are slightly open, but do not show the teeth. — b. Vatican, Museo Chiaranionti, 507 (Helliig, Fiihrci; i. No. 100). A good careful copy ; nose and neck restored ; edge of lips sharp. Mentioned by Flasch, Verh. d. riiilologcnvci-s. 1874, ji. 163 ; by me in Aiiiia/i, 1877, 203. — 1. Co/l. Barracco (PI. 46). A good copy. ■* Remains of puntello on the right thigh of the Dresden statue. ■'' Ileltner assumed a spear, because formerly all Polykleitan figures were supposed to be variants of the ' Doryphoros.' ^ On a Panathenaic ]irize amphora of the fourth century an athlete occurs very similar to the Dresden type. He carries a discus in his left hand {Mon. d. /lis/, x. 48 g, 10). " Kalkmann (Proporlioncii d. Ccs. p. 55), in endeavouring to extract results from his rows of figures, places these and other statues to be subsequently discussed (such as the Pan, the ' Narkissos,' the ' Idolino') in the l)re-Polyklcilan period ; this is only one uf tlie many anachronisms into which Kalkmann has been induced by his figures. XII. Statue of a Boy. «• fVmied byA fnseh.BeriinW(Germaii/.) 268 I'OLYKLEITOS short wisps over the forehead, which occurs first in the Herakles, is here more pro- nounced. In the Herakles the hair already covered the upper edge of the ear; here the motive is accentuated, and the ends of the small curls veil with their rich variety the whole upper part of the ear. The fashion, here so charmingly elaborated, of separating the hair into numerous narrow strands with intertwining ends also made its first ap[)carancc in the Herakles.^ There is no trace of it in the Doryphoros. Tlic ' Drcstlcn boy' is associated with the Diadumcnos bj- the fuller plastic treat- ment of the hair. In both there is a depression on the crown of the head, while the bunches of hair radiating from the crown — three in each case — are so similar as to be almost identical ; a sure confirmation of our theory that ruiyklcitos is the master and that the ' Dresden boy ' comes near the Diadumenos. It is however ccrtainl}- the earlier of the two, for the hair still lies quite close to the skull, and the step which divides the Diadumenos from all earlier Polykleitan works has not yet been taken. Further, the expression of the head, and especiallj' the formation of the lower half of the face (Fig. 112), indicate a stage preparatory to the Diadumenos. The modelling here is softer, rounder, and more developed than in the earlier works of ]'ol)-kleitos ; the full lips, the folds near the corner of the mouth and nostrils, the some- what receding chin, and the expression of sweetness, satiety, almost of melancholy, mark a decided approach to the head of the Diadumenos. We can better understand the place of the latter statue in the development of Polykleitos now that we have found a connecting link leading up to it. In studying the Diadumenos we recognized the influence of v\ttic stj'lc on Polj-klcitos, and suggested Kresilas as its source (p. 243). In the 'Dresden boy' this influence is beginning to be felt, for it exactly explains the variations from the older I'olykleitan type. Not onl)- the formation and expression of the lower part of the face, but the way in which the ends of hair tangle together, are clearly inspired b}- works from the Myron-Kresilas circle, and more especially by the Diomcde. But Polykleitos has not altered the fundamental characteristics of his hair technique ; he entirely ignores the short, full crisp curls of Attic work ; in the ' Dresden boy ' he has arranged the hair on the upper part of the head practically in the same smooth layers as in the Doryphoros ; only in the Diadumenos does he break away to some degree from his old manner. The body of the ' Dresden boy ' is rendered in the style customary to Polj-kleitos : e.^., it has the characteristic flat navel with the deep groove below it and the hollow at the side of each gluteus. Compared with an earlier work, such as the ' boy crowning him.self,' the transitions are softer and more rounded ; this is more than usually noticeable in the divisions effected by the straight and oblique abdominal muscles which are still so harsh in the former statue. The ' Dresden boy' may be classed among the happiest efforts of Polykleitos. The attitude has more of nature and truth than his compositions usually manifest, without being the less beautiful or harmonious. The head has a charm of its own which makes the earlier works of the artist seem cold and formal, and which is unsurpassed except by the Diadumenos. With this work two others are nearl}- connected. One of these survives, as far as I know, onlj' in one cop)', now in St. Petersburg (Fig. 113);" it is a figure very like ' Ksjjccially behind the left eav in the Dresden copy of Herakles. - Guedeonow, No. 304, ' Mercuie ' ; also apparently cited as Hermes liy Treu (An/:. Aiiz. iSSg, 57). Legs YOUTHFUL ATHLETE 2 69 the Dresden boy. The position of the feet and the turn of the head arc the same, and here too the right arm hangs straight down, while the left forearm is extended. Yet the shoulders are well set back in the usual waj- ; the body- forms are somewhat more youth- ful and delicate. The head — to which the restorer has arbi- trarily added wings — is akin to the Dresden figure, but the hair is fuller and more curling ; the personal style of Polykleitos is missing ; the hair is not parted over the middle of the forehead, nor is it arranged in la\-ers. The ears are not covered by the hair. The figure undoubtedly repre- sents a boy victor ; in his lowered right hand is a fragment of an attribute. The restoration as a purse is quite ridiculous ; the fragment is a short straight piece not round in section but rect- angular ; it might ver}' well be the handle of a strigil. I am inclined to assign this work not to the master but to one of his pupils, who used the Dresden boy as his protot}'pe ; not only the head but the body shows a lack of the real personal manner of Pol)-klcitos, and of all the finer shades of individu- alization which we have learned to look for in his authenticated works. The second work survives in a great number of copies, and was clearly a favourite and widely known. Being only two thirds life-size, it was suited for the decoration of private houses. One copy shows distinct marks of having been used as a fiicure represents a divine boy FjG. -.St.itite uf a youtli (Htiiiiil.igt;). for a fountain in a Roman house. The statue Pan in almost human form, a subject we have already met with in an original of the Polykleitan circle (p. 229). I know four comjilete and feet, with the moulded basis, are mostly ancient ; left forearm is restored ; right hand with the remains of an attribute (wrongly restored as a purse) is ancient. The neck is mostly restored, the head genuine and set on almost in the right position ; the wings are a later addition placed on the hair, which is complete without them .and carefully worked. The workmanship is not older than the time of Hadrian. 2/0 rOLYKLEITOS copies, and six replicas of tlic head.' The statue in best preservation is the one in Lcyden (Fig. 1 14). Tile feet are placed exactly as in the two works just discussed, ami the head is inclined slightly to the left ; the left shoulder is rather more advanced than in the Dresden boy, and this produces a slight turn in the iij^pcr part of the bod)-. The right hand again hangs simply tlown holding the short knotted stick {Xaym^oXov) which was commonly used in hunting the hare,- and which constantl\- appears as an attribute of Pan, the zealous huntsman. The left forearm, as wc assumed in the case of the Dresden bo\-, is stretched forward, and holds the other chief attribute of Pan, the .syrinx,-' on which his lowered gaze seems to rest. Tlic motive so suitable to the modest victor is here simply transferred to Pan, apparently without a thought whether it is appropriate to him or not. The head .shows the closest kinship to the Dresden bo)-,^ as well in the form of the skull with the hollow in the nape of the neck, as in the face and its expression. The hair is rendered in the same narrow intertwining strands ; separate parts, such as the lock in front of the right ear, are strikingh- similar. Yet the whole mass is fuller and looser than in the Dresden bo}-, and more like the Diadumenos. The body'' also corresponds stylistically with the former, I'.f. the transitions are softer than in the 'boy crowning himself,' while the forms throughout are Polj-kleitan. Nevertheless, the artist has tried to characterize Pan ; the hair in front docs not, as in its protot}-pe, the boj- victor of St. Petersburg, fall over the forehead, but grows upwards as in figures of Satyrs ; in order that it may not break the beautiful contour of the skull, it must of course lie close to the head ; the two horns lie equally clo.se, their roots being skilfully hidden in the hair; the long pointed ears, almost like those of a beast, are set flat against the sides of the head. We have here most probably the production of a pupil who worked in immediate association with Polykleitos, and founded the conception of his own statue on that 'Dresden tj'pe' created b}- the master himself for the representation of a bo)- victor. His wnvk was certainh" not far removed in time from this t\-pe and from the Diadumenos. We can point to two more instances in which the beautiful Polj-kleitan creation of the Dresden athlete has been used for a m\-thological figure. One of these works exists, so far as I know at present, in one copy onl)-. It is a statue of a )-outh, resembling the Dresden boy in all particulars, even in the principal ' ir/io/e s/a/ues ^xi^h head, (a) in Leyden, Janssen, Catalogue, i. 62. Excellently preserved; the legs, the basis, the right arm with the pedum, and the left arm are genuine ; the syrinx in the left hand is at least partly ancient. On the head only the end of the nose is new. In 1883 I examined the statues {!>) and {c) — the two copies worked by Cossutius Cerdo, Brit. Mus. {Guide Graeco-Rom. Scu/ft. Nos. 18S, 190 ; Am. Marbles, ii. 33, 43 ; Brunn-Bruckmann, Dciikm. No. 47). The arms are wrongly restored ; in one the nose is complete and the hair carefully copied ; in (a) the body is better. — (- long curls falling on the shoulders, by a bunch of hair on the nape of the neck, and by a gracefully disposed nebris fastened on his right shoulder. For the source of the work we must certainly look to the school of Polykleitos. Another statuary composition, also two thirds life-size, belongs to this same series (Fig. 115).* Here the typical motive has become more pronounced, and expresses quiet and pleasant repose. It is true that the essential features — the attitude of the legs, the turn and inclination of the head, the boyish forms — are unaltered ; but in this instance the left hand rests on a pillar, and the weight of the body is partly transferred from the right leg to the left arm. The right hand, in ' (rt)in Dresden, Hettnev(4thed.), No. 163 ; Becker, Augus/cuni, ii. 74; Fried. -Wolters, Gipsabg. 1493. The lower part of the r. leg and the 1. leg from the middle of the thigh are new. Remains of a puntello in the right thigh show that the right arm was lowered. The neck and parts of the head — viz. right ear, piece of cheek, and hair above the ear— are ancient and unbroken. At the back, above the battered remains of a tail of hair of the simple, severe style, the restorer has placed a knot of hair of the usual late fashion. Everything else about the head is modern, ((i) Berlin, Sculpt. 89. Torso, badly restored, (c) Claiac, 6S4, 1603 A, Ince Blundell Hall; Michaelis, Sculpt, in G>: Brit. p. 347, No. 32. - Specially characteristic are the abdomen with the llat navel, the linea alba, and the sharply marked off pudendum. ' In a. In c the whole head might from the style possibly be ancient. I have not seen the statue. ■* The so-called Narkissos. \\'innefeld (Hypiios, p. 30) has collected a list of replicas, among which some few- variants that really do not belong to the series have crept in. I described several replicas in Bull. dclT Inst. 1877, 158. I know the following in the original : Statues with head: (a) Berlin, Beschr. d. Skulpt. 223 : stylistically faithful copy, not very detailed in the hair ; upper part given in Winnefeld, Taf. ii. = our Fig. 115. (h) Mus. Chiaramonti, 526 : only the upper part preserved, very good, (i ) Pal. Rospigliosi, Friederichs-Wolters, Gipsahg. 525 : poor. (d) Villa Borghese : upper part only. Cf. Bull. , loc. cit. 159, 6. (c) Mantua, 65, Diilschke, iv. 650 : holds an apple ; very poor, inexact, and rough copy. (/) Louvre, Coll. Canipana, phot. ed. Giraudon, 1295. (.:,') Carlsruhe, Winne- feld, Taf i. : style inexact, much softened down ; small wings added to the head ; workmanship of Hadrian's period. Kalkmann [Gcsichtsprop. p. 53) is wrong in thinking the head does not belong. — Torsos : (h) Mantua, 26 : right hand empty. (/) Genoa, Pal. Reale : an apple in the right hand, which is half antique, {k) Rome, Palazzo Colonna : head does not belong. (/) Pah Doria, Matz-Duhn, 223. (w) Pal. Barberini, Matz-Duhn, 975 : apple in the right hand. (u) Berlin, Shulpt. 224. (0) Naples, casually mentioned by Friederichs, Arch. Aiizeiger, 1S62, 309, and by other.s. Height without basis 0'6l, basis antique, lower part of legs restored to the ankles, he.ad missing. Both hands preserved : the right on the back holds an apple, the left is supported by a pillar on which lies drapery. In front of the pillar a female term, draped above ; the feet come out below ; free style, long shoulder curls, full face. — Heads : (/) Berlin, Skulpt. 263 ; much defaced, but gives the hair faithfully. () ' Cahiin:/ lies Mi'/ai/ks, Coll. J.inze, No. 50. Ilciyht c. o'25. lieautiful pale-gfcen patiii.i. The pupils were inserted. The left haml, now missing, was made sepaiately. Both feet are restored in wax. I discussed statuette and gem in the Archiiol. Cese/lsc/iaf/, Arch. Aiiz. 1891, p. 14I- ARISTAIOS 277 and a gem (Fig. 117) exactly corresponding to the statuette and evidently derived from the same original. ^ According to the evidence of the gem, the figure leaned with the now missing left hand on a staff round \vhich a snake was twined. Not only this attribute but the whole type is borrowed from Asklepios, for whom it had been already elaborated in Attic art at a period not much subsequent to the middle of the fifth century, as an interesting statue in Berlin shows.- Later, in the circle of Skopas and Praxiteles, the type was carefully fostered and intensified,^ an effective upward turn being now given to the head. Our figure goes back to the old formula of the type, in which the head is only turned slightly to the left, and the right hip only curved slightly outwards. A variation is introduced in the snake-wound staff, which is not propped under the left armpit, but supported between the forearm and the body and held by the hand. This brings the position nearer kig. m?.— Gem ^ ■' E> i (Cades, ii. D, the Fol)^kleitan scheme. 16). The modelling of chest and abdomen is clearly Polyklcitan, while the head also offers conspicuously Polykleitan characteristics — in its large surface planes, in the formation of nose, eyes, and forehead, and in the symmetrical parting of the hair in front. The noble simplicity of the drapery corresponds to the style of the rest. We may conclude, then, that the original is a work of the school of Polykleitos belonging — if we judge from the strongly plastic freedom of the hair — to the beginning of the fourth century, and based on an Attic Asklepios type of the fifth century. But whom does the statue represent 1 An unbearded Asklepios would be nothing out of the way, especially in the Peloponnesos.^ There is, for instance, a statuette from Epidauros representing an unbearded Asklepios whose forms indicate Polj'kleitan influence.'' But the mural crown on our figure points to another interpretation ; the person pourtrayed must be a protecting divinity, a hero allied in functions to Asklepios, and reverenced in a peculiar degree as guardian or founder of a city. The type of Asklepios was frequently transferred without alteration to heroes of the healing craft, witness the examples of Amphiaraos in Oropos and of Trophonios in Lebadeia ; even the statue by Timotheos in the tcincnos of Hippolytos in Troezene represented the hero according to a scheme borrowed from i\sklepios, but certainly unbearded.* More definite evidence for naming our statue is supplied by two marble replicas of it found in Kyrene. One of them, in the British i\Iuscum,^ is in excellent ' Cades, cl. ii. D, 16 : without mention of owner or of species ; probably an emerald-plasma. The gem belongs to the series which give exact copies of statues. The agreement with the bronze is striking. - Shtlpt. 68. Head Pheidian, like the Dresden Asklepios (p. 55, note 6). The original to be dated about 440 B.C., earlier than the Asklepios of the more recent Pheidian school (p. 89, note 6). ' Wolters, Ath. Mitth. xvii. p. i seq. Taf. ii. — iv. Among the fragments of reliefs from the -Asklepieion in Athens I noticed in 1877 three examples of the type. * Cf. Wieseler, Ciiltiiigey Nachrichten, 1888, p. 143 scq. ^ Marble statuette, Central Mus., Kabbadias, Cat. No. 270 ; copy of an older work; weight on left leg, left arm supported, mantle leaving right breast free, beautiful youthful head with falling curls of moderate length ; the head seems to belong to the statue, although the preservation of the surface differs in both ; the rolled fillet shows at any rate that the head is that of a beardless Asklepios. The snake is at the side, as we assumed for the Florentine .\sklepios (p. 208). " Paus. ii. 32, 4, who calls it simply an Asklepios, but adds that the Troezenians called it Hippolytos. The statue of Hippolytos with spear and dog, which occurs on coins of Troezene (Imhoof Blumer and Gardner, Num. Comm. PI. M. viii. ), is certainly not, as Wieseler (he. cit. 146) thinks, the Asklepios of Pausanias, but another Hippolytos statue. " Smith and Porcher, Hist of Disc, at Cyrcnc, p. 103, No. 74 ; for the discovery, p. 77. Newton, Guide Graeco-Kom. Sc. ii. No. 114. J. H. S. iv. p. 46 seq. (Wroth) with illustration. The statue was found in the same 2/8 l'Ol.VKLl-:iT0S preservation, except that the upper part of the mural crown is missing, whence the existence of the crown has hitherto passed unnoticed. The other replica, in Edinburgh, is known to me from illustration and description ; ' it is slightly modified in drapery and hair. Roth figures are inferior productions of the later Roman period. The one in the British Museum certainly does not preserve much of that Folykleitan st)-le which the bronze reproduces so well. Traces of this style are more visible in the bod\- of the marble replica than in the head, for, though the hair is fairly exactly copied, the mouth and the expression appear to be softened down. The drapery- answers, fold for fold, to the bronze. The discoverers suggested Aristaios as an interpretation, even without noticing the mural crown, and the existence of the crown only confirms their hy])othcsis. Aristaios, a divinity closely akin to Asklepios, guardian of Kyrene, institutor of the culture of the silphium, and by its means founder of the power and wealth of the city, son of the eponymous goddess Kyrene, satisfies all the conditions attached to the interpretation of our statue. Aristaios, son of Apollo in Kyrene, was also called son of Paion,'^ an epithet which designates him as a divinity of the healing craft like Asklepios. He was brought up by Cheiron the physician, and in K}rene, as Pindar's allusion proves,'' was considered to be a divinity allied in nature not only to Apollo but to Zeus. This may account for the head type of our statue ; the j-outhful age recalls Apollo, but the strong regal locks correspond to the t\'pe of Zeus, which was already fi.xed in the period to which we have assigned the statue. We suppose, then, that the original was made for K}-rene by an Argive artist. Afterwards the motive was repeated elsewhere. A late echo of it is given by a bronze bust found in Gaul, a faithful enough though rough reproduction of the youth wearing a mural crown.* Among other works belonging to the more extended circle of the Polykleitan school may be mentioned a beautiful bronze statuette of a youthful athlete in the Louvre ; it is in place here because its motive is allied to that of the Dresden 'boy victor.' The attitude of the feet, the turn and bend of the head, correspond ; the eyes, again, look down towards the outstretched left hand ; but the right arm is raised horizontally; the )-outh appears to be holding the fillet in his right hand and letting it glide over the open palm of the left hand. The rendering of form is in its ground- work Pol}-kIeitan, though later realistic traits have also crept in. I think it probable that work like this was done by remote followers of Polykleitos in the fourth century, and among them by Kleon of Sikyon. The bronze is apparently a Greek original.-' .small temple at Kyrene as the well-known ' Kyrene and Libya ' relief. Cecil Smith confirms my opinion that remains of a mural crown are to be seen on the head. ' Michaelis,_/.A''.5. v. 157. Cecil Smith had the kindness to obtain for me more exact particulars from Dr. Anderson : it seems that the broken portion on the head ' might very well have been a mural crown.' Under the crown is added the rolled fillet which belongs to the Asklepios type. Good illustration in the Archaeologia Scotica, Traiisaclions 0/ the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, vol. iv. Taf. 16, p. 337. The head is more softened down than in the British Museum copy, the curls are longer and fuller at the sides, but the symmetric parting over the forehead is the same. The drapery is stately ; a three-cornered piece falling over is indicated. The head is rather more raised. With these exceptions it agrees with the other replicas. ^ Pherekydes, frag. 10 (Mtiller). ^ Pind. Pyth. 9, 63 : Br^aovTui ri viv aSavarov Zrifa /tai a7t'fi;' 'AWaAoi^o. * Frohner, Co//. Gn'ait, Bronzes Ant. PI. 43, No. 1108. ^ Formerly in Coll. Pourtalcs, then Gn-aii ; well illustrated by Frohner, Co/i. GrAiii, Bronzes Ant. PI. 32, No. 964. Frohner's assumption that the figure is pouring oil is inconsistent with the position of the hands. For the above motive with the fillet cf. the Nike on a coin of Elis of severe style, Gardner, 7}fes, PI. 3, 42, XENOKLES 279 \'I I. TJic Basis of the Statue of Xcnokles. — The fdoliiio. The third Polykleitos basis at Olympia, which supported the statue of Xenokles, a boy victorious in the wrestling contest, is of great significance, for by its means we are able to connect with Polykleitos, in a more definite way than we could otherwise have done, a series of extant figures. The basis (Fig. 118)^ shows both footmarks in complete preservation ; round the deep cavity for insertion the outline of the foot itself is distinctl}' visible. Each foot was 23 cm. long ; hence the scale of the figure was the same as that of the ' boy crowning himself The attitude was one of repose ; the weight of the body was on the right leg ; the left leg was slightly advanced and set to one side, with the foot flat on the ground. The same motive in which Xenokles was repre- sented was also applied to another Polykleitan figure of a }outh at a more advanced stage of adolescence. This is proved by an admirable bronze statuette of the Louvre, which, as is plainly to be seen from external marks,- is an undoubted genuine Greek original.^ (PL XIII. and Pig. 119.) This work must belong to the immediate circle of the master's pupils, and have been directly inspired by the master himself, for it manifests his style in all its purity, and the execution is of marvellous perfection.* The forms correspond throughout to those of the Doryphoros and Diadumenos : the\- are strong and virile, and distinct from the forms that pertain to adolescent boyhood. W'e find here all the characteristics of the Polykleitan body: there is, in addition, an indication of veins on the lower part of the abdomen — a trait which we have frequently met with before, and which already occurs on some copies of the Dorj-phoros. The head is an excellent piece of work, the hair finely incised in the usual Pol)-kIeitan st)-le.^ The feet are placed flat on the ground side by side, the left foot, free from the weight of the body, being set slightly forward and to one side. One arm again follows the contour of the supporting leg, according to a favourite Polj^kleitan scheme. The position of the right hand, held with the thumb drawn in, corresponds to that of the Idolino, and is best explained if we imagine it to have held a k)-lix. The left hand, a little advanced, carried an attribute formed like a staff. The head is bent, and looks towards the supporting side. The bronze can hardly represent an athlete, as in that case the act of pouring libation which seems to be here represented would not be appropriate." Some heroic or divine person whom we have no means of naming must be represented here. It is precisely in the Polj^kleitan circle that athletic types would be likely to influence even the types of divinities. Fig. itS. — Basis of Xenokles 01 V ' Drawn by Liibke from my plan of the basis. ^ Longiierier, Notice dcs Bronzes Antiques, 214, ' Mercuro aptere.' The eyes of silver, inseiteil, the nipples of copper. Height o -2 1. C(. fakrb. d. Vereiiis d. Allerthumsfi: iiii Rtieiitl. Heft 90, p. 53. ' For instance, each foot is pierced by a bronze nail which fastens it to the basis, a process only finiiul in earlier Greek originals. The colour of the bronze, too, a splendid dark green, is peculiar to Greek, and more especially to Argive works (cf. 50th Wiiukelmannsprop-. p. 127). ■• The back is specially fine. ' The pubes is less carefully rendered. " I at least know no instance of an athlete pouring libation. Fig. 119. — Bronze .statuette in the Louvre. XIII. Bronze Statuette. y Gi-?s-^-:Kf-i D. XENOKLES 281 We must turn from this exquisite Greek bronze to some marble copies of the Roman period. These preserve to us a work of l'ol)-kleitos which in all essentials corresponded to the bronze and was probably its prototype. A youth i.s represented in the same simple attitude of repose seen in the bronze and witnessed to by the Xenokles basis. Both feet are flat on the ground ; the left foot, relieved from the weight of the body, is almost parallel to the other, being placed scarcely perceptibly forward and outwards. Both arms are lowered : the right forearm was somewhat advanced, and certainly held an object, the left hung straight down ; the head is turned to the side Vv-hich bears the weight of the body, and is inclined. The forms of Fig. 120. — Athlete in Galleria delle Statue (Vatican). the body are less full and powerful than in the Dor\-phoros and Diadumcnos ; the time of life chosen for representation lies between these two on the one hand, and the Dresden boy and the ' oil-pourer ' on the other : the figure is an ephcbe on the threshold of manhood.! In scale the statue is less than the Doryphoros and Diadumenos : it is just life-size. The statue survives with the head in a copy of the Vatican (Fig. 120) ;- the head • The pubes is indicated. = Gall, delle Statue, 251 ; Claiac, 856, 216S. Mentioned by Michaelis (./««. d. Iinl. 1S7S, 8, G) as a • variazioiie' of the Doryphoros ; by Helbig [Bull. d. Inst. 1864, 30), as a replica of the Doryphoros ; [modified view in Museums, i86 — 'betrays unmistakable kinship with the Doryphoros.' — E. S.] O O 282 I'OLYKI.I'.ITOS belongs to the statue, but has been hrokcn and put on again, and a small piece of the neck is restored. 'I'he heat! is in bad preservation, chin, nose, and almost all the mouth being new. The right arm is restored from the middle of the upper arm, the left from the middle of the forearm.' Tiic left thigh has been incorrectly turned outwards (a piece l^etween it and the trunk being new), and the shin has been wrongly restored. In another replica, without head, in the Vatican, both the feet are ancient.- Besidcs these two the V'atican possesses two replicas which arc only torsos.'' Two more torsos arc in the Museo Torlonia and in the Palazzo Colonna respectively.^ A replica in Naples corresponds perfectly, except that a chiamys is added on the left shoulder. In this case the original type was evidently used for a Roman portrait-statue.' The head alone is preserved to us in good replicas in the Museo Torlonia" and in the Hermitage," and in a much-defaced copy in Dresden.** With the help of this material we can form a judgment on the lost original. A work of Polykleitos which e.\ists in so many copies must have been famous ; probably it onl)- represented an athlete." The bodily forms manifest the manner of Polykleitos in its full purity, with new exquisite distinctions indicative of the period of life. The transitions, especially at the edge of the ribs, are less hard than in the Doryphoros, anil the head seems to indicate that we have to do with a somewhat later work of the master. The figure is closely analogous to the Heraklcs. Small locks of hair fall round the forehead : these are parted in the middle, and are not .symmetrical, but are arranged differently on each side.^" The hair does not yet cover the ears, but just touches their edge, without falling over ; it grows low down on the nape of the neck, ending in a curved, not in a straight line. The hair is altogether richer and more individual than in the Doryphoros, but is treated as a whole in the same flat, spare, and closely clinging manner.^^ The forehead projects decidedly at its base, and shows more variety of modelling than in the latter statue ; the mouth is slightly open. The bend of the head alone gives it an expression different from that of the Doryphoros, an expression of mild and serious character, with a touch of melancholy, that harmonizes with the tranquil attitude. The old ideal of Argivc sculpture, a resigned, self-sustained repose, has in this work become once again a living reality. '^ .\nciciit punlclli in the ihiglis show the position of the amis. Gall, delle Statue, 392, ' Septimius Severus.' The emperor's head does not belong to the figure. Palm- tree stem as support. Both forearms new ; one can still recognize that originally the right was slightly advanced and the left hung down. Both feet .ire ancient, the soles placed as on the Xenokles basis. Good workmanship. .Sala a crocc greca, 590. A wrong protrait-head has been placed on the torso, the whole neck restored, the left thigh incorrectly joined on (piece between restored). Pubes worked over. In the vestibule of the public entrance to the Museum, torso restored as Meleager ; head does not belong. Museo Torlonia, 76. Restored as a Diskophoros ; the head is a modern imitation of the Diskophoros of the Vatican. The right forearm to the wrist antique ; the left arm with the diskos new. Palazzo Colonna, Matz- Duhn, 16. Head not genuine; torso good ; right forearm extended forwards. The puntello is higher than in the fiist Vatican copy. Naples, Inv. 6055 ; Clarac, 925, 2351 ; Bcrnouilli, Koin. J/coiwx'r. ii. I, p. 172, 15. The Roman portrait- head appears not to be genuine. The feet are restored, but the left leg is ancient nearly to the ankle, which gives the attitude. Bodily forms and pubes are of purely Polykleitan style ; the round chiamys on the shoulder is evidently a Roman addition. « .Museo Tori. 469. Guedeonow, 83. Conze, Beilriii;c, p. 7, note 5. Good copy ; only the point of the nose restored. Hair on the top of the head carelessly rendered except at the ends. The lips have incised edges in imitation of bronze. Length of face 182 mm., chin to nose = nose to eyebrow = two eye-lengths (65 mm.); width of mouth 48 mm. " From Rome, lately presented by P. Arndt. The palm-tree as support on one copy is evidence for this. '" The copies match very exactly in the details of the hair. The pubes is rendered as in the Doryphoros, only the curls are still daintier and richer in detail. BRONZE HEAD 283 A bronze head from the same villa at Herculaneum(Fig. I2l,rtand i^)^ which gave us the beautiful bronze copy of the Doryphoros head by ApoUonios so strongly resembles the type we have just been discussing — which we shall call the ' Vatican athlete standing at rest ' — and corresponds to it so closely in scale, that one would be tempted to regard it as a copy from the same original, did not small differences, which cannot be due merely to the copyist, bear witness that its original is to be sought for in a distinct though somewhat similar work. The locks falling over the forehead are fuller, and the arrangement is more s\-mmetrical, while the treatment of the hair round the ears, as well as the full plastic rendering of the whole mass, show great similarity to the Dresden boy ; on the nape of the neck the hair ends in a straight line. All these are points in which the Herculaneum head differs from the Vatican t)-pe. Owing to a lack of skill on the part of the cop\-ist — for the face is slightly askew — the expres- sion is one of intense melanchol)-, amounting almost to grief and distress. But the forms are essentially the same as in the Vatican type, the forehead again projecting strongly at its base. The original must have been later in date than the Doryphoros. At this point we may mention two more Roman bronze statuettes. One, repre- senting a Mercury, is in the Museum at Spires ;'- it follows the type of the 'Vatican athlete standing at rest,' except that the head is not bent, but turned straight round to the right. Face and hair are clearly derived from Polykleitan types ; a purse is held in Roman fashion in the right hand, a kerykeion in the left. This is not a work based on a Hermes by Polykleitos, it is only another adaptation of a Polj^kleitan t\-pe to a Mercur}'. The same is true of a Hercules statuette," the head of which, however, has already lost its Polykleitan character, and shows that type of )'outhful Herakles which sprang from an Attic source and became current at a later period ; the body is a repetition of the Polykleitan figure standing at rest ; the lowered right hand held the club, the left has the apple. It is here that we must place the Idolino, the famous bronze statue of Florence,* for its motive connects it immediately with the series under consideration. The principal characteristics, the position of the feet, the attitude of the head and arms, are in essence the same, yet important differences are to be observed. The left leg, free from the weight of the figure, is placed much more to the side and outwards than in the Xenokles and kindred Polykleitan works. Again, the way in which the left hand hangs down, so that the arm forms an angle towards the leg, gives to the figure a special individual charm,-'' and is without parallel in any of the works we have assigned to the master himself. In this, as in the position of the legs, expression is given to a rhythmic feeling other than that which we found in the work of Polykleitos: a comparison with the Paris bronze, for instance (Plate XlII.i, which is in other respects so similar, will make this clear. In order to appreciate justly the bodily forms, we must decide the age of the boy. He is at a stage of growth midway between the 'boy crowning himself and the Dresden boy. The chest is broader and more developed than in the first, sparer than ^ Inv. 5610; Bronzi d' Enolano, i. Tav. 53, 54, p. 1S7 ; Couiparetli de Pctra, I'illa Enot. 7, 4. The measurements correspond to the St. Petersburg head above. Technique and workmanship are as in the Dory- phoros of ApoUonios ; the eyebrows are incised in the same manner ; the two works may be dated about the same time. ■■^ (W-MiXex) Katalog d. Histor. Ahl. d. Museums in Spctcr, 18S8, p. 25. ^ Known to me only from a cast in Dresden. '' Best illustrations in Brunn-Bruckmann, Deiikinalcr, Nos. 274—277. Cf. Ivekule, Ueher dif Bronzeslatiie di's sog. Idolino. ^ Kekule has remarked (p. 8) that this is a trait which, in the Renaissance, Donatello was the first to employ. THE IDOLINO 285 in the second. The same result is arrived at from the measurements : the figure is of Hfc-sizc, Hkc the two others ; the distance between the nipples and the length of the foot come exactly midwaj' between the corresponding measurements of the other two figures of bo}-s.^ On the whole the forms harmonize with Polyklcitan style ; the hips, the navel with the depression of the linea alba continued below it, the decided hollow at the side of the gluteus of the leg at rest — all arc Polyklcitan features. And \-et in this instance too there are differences of no slight importance. Above all, tlic abdomen runs down to a much more acute angle than it ever does in the work oi I'dh'klcitos.- FlG. 122. — Head of the Idolino (Mus. Naz,, Florence;. The modelling of the Idolino is still under the influence of old Argive tradition, such as would be handed on by the bronze of Ligurio and the Stephanos figure.-* Again, the Idolino lacks the lifelike and refined surface details such as we find them in I'cily- kleitos ; the serrated muscle, for instance, is not indicated. The forms as a whole are ' Distance between the nipples, 215 (in the boy crowning himself, 205 ; in the Dresden boy, 225) ; length of foot, 243 (in other two statues, 233 and 253 respectively). - It is drawn in towards the mcinhmm, while in I'olykleitan modelling the abdomen is always convex till it reaches the sudden division made by the line of the pudendum or the ptibes. ■* Cf. 5'ith ^iVr/. IVhukt'imanjispro^. \i. 137 j>7y. The roni|ieian bronze .A|)ollo has the same tV)rni ol abdomen, which in other copies is remodelled after the later fashion. 286 POLYKLEITOS wirier and less full tlian in tlic figures of boys by I'ohkleitos, and more intentional stress is laid on boyish spareness of flesh. If these facts forbid us to derive the work from the master himself, j-et we may look for its source at no great distance from him. This is made very plain b\- the head (Fig. 122), which bears the most immistakable marks of the circle of I'olyklcitos — more particularly of the period just preceding the Diadumenos. We sec the customary skull, elongated and angular, the characteristic hair, inclining to straightness, the various lajers of short locks arranged one over another on the upper part of the head, the symmetric parting of the small pointed strands over the forehead, the drawing of the hair on the nape of the neck as in the Doryphoros and elsewhere in Polykleitos, the position and shape of the narrow ear with its long lobe attached to the cheek, the same shape of nose and fiat nostrils — finally, the wonderful limpid puritj' and tranquillity, so proper to Polykleitos. The distinction which marks off this head from those assign- able to the master consists chiefly, as it does in the bod}% in a more abstract treatment, in a still more restrained and flat rendering of form. The Idolino is, from technique and execution, evident!}' a Greek original ; only the rouiul, moulded basis on which it stands must be of Roman date, since that sort of basis was not given to bronze statues at an earlier period. It is still plainl\' to be seen that the feet are hollow below, therefore they were formerl)- fastened with melted lead to a stone basis in the usual Greek fashion. Although the execution is of a kind characteristic of original work, yet we miss the degree of refinement which we have a right to expect in a master of the first rank. Our studies have shown that this statue cannot be by Polykleitos himself, but at most by an artist of his circle, who, however, seems to have followed a path of his own.i We may venture to remember in this connexion that side by side with Polykleitos the artist Patrokles, probably his younger brother, worked and taught (cf. p. 226) ; we conjectured that he had attained a certain independence of action within the general tendencies of st}'le prescribed by Polykleitos. All that wc can, however, positively assert about the Idolino is that it belongs approximately to the period of the Doryphoros, and is the later rather than the earlier of the two. The inner surface of the outstretched right hand is left rough, evidently because some object laj- upon it ; the fingers are in the same position- as in the Paris bronze,-' a position which can only be satisfactorily explained by restoring the statue with a kylix in this hand. The left hand is smooth inside, and was clearly empt)-. The boy was therefore represented pouring a libation. Now this does not fit in with the current interpretation of the statue as a victorious athlete, since, as we noticed above, the motive never, so far as wc know, occurs in statues of athletes. If not an athlete, then what is the nature of the boy represented here ? F"or although boys serve the libation — in fact, this is one of their special functions — yet I know of no single instance in all ancient art of a mortal boy performing the ritual act of pouring it.* In the same way they do not sacrifice, but only assist the celebrant. If then a boy be represented pouring a libation, he cannot be a mortal, he must be divine. Thus the youthful river god on coins of Selinos pours a libation over an altar. Wc have naturall\- no means of naming the god or daemon represented ' Cf. my remarks mjahrh. d. Ver. v. Alterthumsfi: im A'/uiii/. Heft 90, p. 53. '^ They are not in the slightest bent, as Kekiile (/oc. c;V. ) wrongly assumes. ' Cf the bronze published by me in Boniicr JaJirb. Heft 90, Taf. ii. and ihid. p. 53. ^ The material has been collected in Stephani's treatise on representations of libation in Comple Rendu, 1873. Cf. also Fritze, de libalioDe veterum Graecoriim, Berliner Disseit. 1S93. ARISTION 287 in our statue. That he should appear in the image of boy-victor is a genuine Argive trait. An entircl}- different view to the one put forward here concerning the style and origin of the statue is held by Kekulc,' who classes it with the Munich Oil-pourer and the standing Diskobolos, and pretends to detect in it the same Myronian qualities which caused Brunn to bring the other two statues into conne.xion with Myron. But there is no trace in the Idolino of just those \er)- characteristics which Brunn found in the two Attic statues. The concentration of the whole attention on one act which governs bj^ its own inner necessity every movement of the body, while beautiful!}- illustrated in the Oil-pourer and Diskos-bearer,- is entirely absent from the Idolino. His attitude is quite independent of his act — the libation ; he might hold any other object instead of a kylix in his right hand, and the effect of the whole would be unaltered. The principal features of the Idolino motive were fixed creations long before they were used for a boy making libation. We have seen that the motive was current in the cycle of Polykleitos ; we may now add that it was developed directly from the old Argive canon, and differs from it only in one important point — namely, in the reversal of the sides. The motives of the two Attic statues, on the other hand, are new creations, invented for the actions they represent. In the case of Argos the form is ready to hand, and significant content is given to it at the will of the artist ; in the case of Attica the significant content brings the form into being.^ A marble statue of the Palazzo Barberini in Rome (placed unfavourably high) * must be a copy of an original similar to the Idolino and belonging to the same artistic circle ; in fact, it might almost be a copy of the Idolino itself. The left foot is here placed rather more back, so that the heel is raised ; the forms of the body are harder and more restrained ; the head is verj' similar. The arms, so far as they are preserved, correspond. Vm. Tlie Basis of the Statue of Aristion. — The later Polykleitan School. — The Beneventuui Head. There is also evidence that the old canonical position of the feet cmplo\-ed b}' Hagelaidas and the Argive school ' was used in the cycle of Polykleitos : this is proved by the basis in Oh"mpia which once supported the Aristion, a work of the younger Polykleitos (cf p. 224, and Fig. 1 23)." The footmarks are here intact," and show that the figure stood on the left foot, while the right was placed flat on the ground to ' loc. (if. p. 10. ' And also e.g. in the boy pulling out a thorn, which in an early essay I accordingly referred lo Myron (Z)) Palermo. Placed on a torso to which it does not belong ; height 12 cm.; sketchy work. ' R. V. Schneider, Die Erzstattte vom Heleneiiheri;e, Wien 1S93 ( /(;/;;•/(. il. .Samml. d. Oestcrr. A'aiser/i. Bd. XV.) ■' The metal has the yellowish colour of the good Gallo-Roman bronzes of the first century A.n. ; the casting very thick, no fine chi,selling. The eyes are not inserted, as in all large Greek bronzes, but cast with the head ; all these are indications of non-Greek origin. " Inscription was originally only lightly cut ; it w.is worked over in the sixteenth century. XIV. Bronze Head of a Boy. BRONZE HEADS 291 taken from Greece.^ A wreath made of two sprays is worn in the hair : as these appear to be kotiiios twigs, the statue probabl\- once stood in Olympia." The essential elements in the structure of the face, which projects towards the middle and recedes in large surfaces to the sides, the mouth and nose with its oblique slope and flat nostrils, are characteristically Pol}-klcitan ; yet there is at the same time something alien to Polyklcitos and akin to Thcidias and the Lemnia in the infinite charm of this head. The hair is at the stage of the Diadumenos. A peculiarity is the asymnietria of the locks of hair over the middle of the forehead ; a similar treatment is to be seen in the Folykleitan Pan ; only at the sides does the arrangement become symmetrical. Clearly the artist, while deriving his inspiration from Polykleitos, was open to Attic influence. The no less magnificent bronze head of a boy wearing the victor's fillet in Munich is a kindred work, also a Greek original.-'* Here too the face, especially the nose and mouth, and the shape of the head, are closely analogous to the works of Polykleitos,* but at the same time we can trace, although less definitely, a certain foreign element probabh- due to Attic influence. A marble head in the Vatican, the production of an inferior cop\-ist, from its great similarity must, I think, be derived either from the Munich head or from an analogous work bj- the same artist.'' A basalt statue of a boy from the Palatine '" shows the same analogy in the head ; the body is still under the influence of the old Argive canon, but a slight turn of the head to the right (the side free from the weight of the figure), and a forward movement of the right shoulder, give a somewhat easier rhythm to the composition. The master to whose hand these works are due is interesting as being nearly related to the Argive school, without however belonging to it. In conclusion, we must mention a third bronze head, again an admirable original work — in Naples' — a boj- wearing a wreath or a fillet in his curly hair, and therefore probably a victor. Face, mouth, nose, forehead, and shape of head again show clear marks of Polykleitan influence ; but the hair and the expression are different. The same holds true of a marble head in Berlin.^ Thus the influence of Pohkleitos spread to wider circles. In his own immediate surroundings, however, he held almost absolute swa}-. Although we have succeeded in separating to a certain extent the activity of master and pupils, wc have found in this ■ Cf. p. iS, note I. Fiohner obtained the head from Beneventum. Casts aie to be had. The original shows that it was part of a statue. The technique is Greek, but the chiselling not very detailed : well published in Brunn-Bruckmann, Denkmcikr ; cf Mointiii. et Mi'moircs, fondalion Plot. PI. 10, 11, also good vignette in Kalkmann, Prop, ifi-s Gesichts, p. 27. - Remains of small leaves in front. ^ Glj-pt. 302 ; Friederichs-Wolters, 216. Brunn supposes it a later casting, but the technique shows that the work is a Greek original. ■* Polykleitan character has been recognized by Flasch (Philologeiivers. Innsbruck, p. 162) and by Brunn (Glypt. 5th ed. ; Bayr. Silzungsber. 1892, p. 658). Kekule sees here a further development of the style of the Olympia sculptures and of the Spinario (Arch. Ztg. 1S83, p. 246). I cannot see any analogy to these works, which bear the impress of a totally different individuality. '" Museo Chiatamonti, 475. The scale seems to be about the same. The hair differs slightly, the ear being left freer. ^ Now in the Teriiie. Photo in German Institute at Rome. Weight of the figure on left leg. The right hand hung down, the left held something shaped like a staff, the mark of which is visible on the bre.ist. Twig in hair, hence a copy of a victor's statue. ' Naples, /«<■. 5633; Broiizi iV Ercol. i. 73, 74; Rayet, Monuiit. de /' Art Aiitiijiie, ii. 67 ; Comparetti de Petra, ViHa Ercol. xi. i. The line of the wreath or fillet is quite visible. The technique seems to show that the work is a Greek original. The head has no connexion whatsoever with the ' Dancers ' of Ilerculaneum, wliich are only copies. ' Skiilfl. 479, where it is wrongly described as a replica of the Naples head discussed above. 292 rOLYKLEITOS inner group of workers comparatively little personal individualit\-. Only Patrokles and his kin seem to have shown some independence, although still in a very limited degree. In the circle of Pheidias we found much greater originality. But the severity of school tradition has ever been one of the essential conditions under which Argive art developed ; as indeed there was more that was capable of being learned in the Argive school than in the school of Pheidias. Pol)-kleitos did not e.xcel in invention or wealth of meaning ; in fact, he found his inspiration for a whole series of statues, as we have .seen, in foreign Attic creations, such as the Diadumenos of Pheidias, the Oil-pourcr of L)-kios, the Amazon and the Diomede of Kresilas. Wc, like the ancients, know no creations of Polykleitos except j-outhful, beardless figures. This springtime of life is chosen for divinities as well as for human beings whenever it is at all congruous — as in the case of Dionysos, Hermes, Arcs, Ilerakles, Pan ; the artist seems to have represented the Dioskouroi as bo)'s playing with knuckle-bones.^ But within these limits perhaps no artist has gone so far in repre- senting the more delicate shades of distinction between boyhood and adolescence. Nor is his choice of motives nearly so uniform as has hitherto been believed. Again, within the series of works of the artist himself we found a development leading gradually from the Doryphoros to the Diadumenos. It is true that the harmony of reserv'e and repose characterizes all his creations. Yet the Doryphoros, the Amazon, and kindred statues have more freshness and cnerg)-, combined with reasonable restraint, while the later works arc penetrated by a softer spirit and a greater degree of sentiment. In this second period the master even sometimes abandons the walking motive for the standing position of complete repose — a change for which Attic influence is no doubt partly responsible. We have already had occasion to verify many instances of the influence of Polj-kleitos on later art, and to trace many survivals of his style. But the most important researches in this part of the subject are still to come. ' That the piicri astragalizontcs, which would be inexplicable as a genre group by Polykleitos, represent the Dioskouroi seems probable from the Greek gem published in Roscher"s Lexikoii, i. 1 1 74, even if the gem is not dependent on the work of Polykleitos. SKOPAS PRAXITELES EUPHRANOR SKOPAS PRAXITELES EUPHRANOR T' 'HE succeeding ages of antiquity subsisted off the immense achicv^ements of the art of the fifth century. Our increasing knowledge points with c\-er-growing certainty to the concUision that the greater number of the most important types, both of men and of gods, had already been elaborated in the fifth century. In our previous inquiries we have been able to give some proofs of this, but it is in the fourth century more par- ticularly that the influence of the preceding period may be traced for a long time more clearly than is generally sup- posed, even as we can trace the current and the colour of a mighty river long after it has mingled with other waters. The Eirene of Kephisodotos affords a clear and well- known instance of this fact. This work by no means marks a normal transition between the st_\'le of two epochs; nor is Kephisodotos, as he is generally said to be, a ' forerunner ' of the great fourth-century masters ; he is one of them himself, and may very well have been the elder brother — though scared}- the father — of Praxiteles. The few extant dates relating to him belong to a period when Praxiteles must already have been at work,^ and there is nothing to justify the assumption that these dates coincide with the close of the career of Kephisodotos ; the contrary is far more likely.'^ A serious difficulty in the commonly received genealogy of the three successive generations — Praxiteles I., Kephisodotos, Praxiteles II. — is caused by the gap of half a centur\- which intcr- ' The Eirene of Kephisodotos should probably be dated after 375 to correspond with the institulion of the annual oftering to Eirene consequent on the victories of Timotheos (Isokr. xv. 109 ; Corn. Nepos, Timolli. 2 ; cf. Wachsmuth, Stadt Atken, i. 585, ii. 433 ; Ciirtius, Sladlt^isik. v. Allien, p. 206 ; Wolters \njahrh. d. In^t. '^93> P' 178). The statue was vowed in 374, and executed soon after, i.e. probably in 371 — 370, on the occasion of the festal Peace Congress in Athens (Von .Stern, Gesch. d. spartan, u. tlieban. Hegcinonie, p. 149). The date thus found would tally with that assigned by Pliny to Kephisodotos (01. 102). The large group in the temeiios of Zeus Soter in Megalopolis seems from the late character of the architecture to have been a work of the younger Kephisodotos (Dorpfeld in .-///;. Milth. 1893, 218). On the other hand, the groups of Praxiteles in Mantineia fall soon after the rebuilding of the town (370). Pliny's date for Praxiteles (Ol. 104) is probably fixed by the battle of Mantineia (B.C. 362) (cf. Liiwy, Unters. z. Kiinsller Gesch. p. 64). - Kephisodotos's sister was the first wife of Phokion. Kephisodotos was therefore a contemporary of Phokion and of Praxiteles. He too made a ' Hermes with the child Dionysos.' 296 SKOPAS vencs between the dates of the elder Praxiteles (cf. sit/nr, p. 102) and those of the two younger artists. Probably an intermediate member of tlie famil\- — father of the two younger artists — has been lost to tradition. The Eireneof Kephisodotos,'^ though belonging to the j-cars B.C. 375 — 370, follows in the treatment of the draperj' the manner which was in fashion some sixt}- years earlier : it goes directly back to Pheidias, and forms a strong contrast to the whole intervening development, /,c. to the style of drapery that obtained in the time of the Pcloponnesian War, such as we sec it in the 'Caryatids' of the luechthcion, the Nike temple, and the works of Alkamcnes, Agorakritos, and Kallimachos ; it abandons the thill, clinging, semi-transparent tissues, and turns to the earlier forms ; once more the folds fall perpendicularly from the knee of the ' free ' leg, and this leg is represented, not in the ' walking attitude,' but only, as in the Parthenos, set slightly to the side and very slightly drawn back. On the other hand, the infant Ploutos^ is so like the little Dionysos by Praxiteles, and the whole motive and spirit of the group so akin to Praxitelean works, that we at once feel that we are no longer on the thres- hokl of the new epoch, but completely within it, and that the artist is intentionally .striving after an earlier .style. In a monument of such political import as the liircne this was probably not a mere accident. The statue was set up in the early years of the new maritime confederacy which (so the Athenians hoped) was to revive the ancient glories of their cit}-. Thus the sculptor in his im.age of Eirenc — of the l^eacc for which the naval alliance was to be the pledge — reverted to the style of the brilliant period of the old confederacy under Perikles. I. Sh'/>ns. — Lansdoii<)ie Herakles. — Heniics from the Palatine. — Statues wit/i Foot raised. — Ares Liidovisi. — T/ie Meleager. — Athena. The influence of the Argive artists of the fifth century upon the Attic artists of the fourth was especially strong. I shall first let the monuments tell their own tale. The beautiful and excellently preserved Herakles in Lansdowne Hou.se (Fig. 125)* reproduces without a doubt an important original of the fourth century. The type of head is thoroughly Attic ; its predecessors are the Munich ' oil-pourer ' (Lykios t p. 289), the standing Uiskobolos (Alkamcnes .' pp. 90 and 260), and the Florence athlete (p. 26), while closely akin to it are the youth on the relief from the Ilissos,* two bronze heads from Herculaneum,''' and other analogous works." Now it is evident that the.se heads, and that of the Lansdowne statue more especially, form the basis for that t\-pe of Herakles which has been assigned to Skopas on good grounds," and which in reality is only the earlier type slightly intensified by an admixture of pathos. The motive ' Fiiederichs-Wolters, 1210, 121 1 ; Kabbadms, e'Bx. nova. 175. A replici of the Eirene, ve.stored as Niobe, in the Mus. Torlonia, 290 ; a good replica of the child Ploutos in Dresden, head antique. - On the Athens and Dresden copies the head survives, and strongly resembles the child Dionysos of Olympia, as do the body and the drapery. The little head from Ikaria is also very similar {.4meric. Joiini. of .Irch. 1889, p. 474). ^ Spec, of Am. St. i. 40 ; Clarac, 788, 1973 ; Michaelis, .4iu. Scii/pt. p. 451, 61 ; K.nlkmann, /'ro/. t/. C,-s/,/i/.<, p. 61. From Hadrian's villa. Very well preserved. .\ replica of the torso among the restored statues of the Palazzo Massimi alle colonne. Palazzo Pitti, Diitschke, 35, is a later modification, and so is the bronze Colossus of the Vatican, Roscher's Le.\. i. 2179. ■" Kabbadias, e'Si". /uoucr. No. 869 ; Wolters in .-////. .Mitlli. x\iii. p. 6 ; Von Sybel, Wcltgcschiclilc d. A'liiis/, big. 204 ; '/.eitsihr. fiir hild. A'liits/, N. F. ii. 293. ^ (a) Comparetti de Petra, Vil/a Enol. Tav. vii. 3 ; Friederichs-Wolters, 1302. (/<) Comparetti de Petra, loc. (it. Tav. X. 2. Probably a youthful Herakles with twisted fillet, olive-leaves, and fruit ; looking to the left like the Lansdowne Herakles. {a) is somewhat more severe in the hair, and goes back to an older original. " i-.i;. A good he.ad of an athlete in the Museum of the Peiraieus ; one in the Terme Museum, Rome (Rom. Mitlli. 1891, p. 304, 2, etc.) " By B. (Jriif, Rom. Millh. 1889, p. 199 seq. THE LANSDOWNE HERAKLES 297 of the Lansdowne statue is also genuine!}' Attic in tlic freedom and boldness of its attitude, with the left leg placed flat on the ground to one side, and the head turned in h'li;. 125. — H'jrnklcs lii Lan^tlownc Housed the same direction as the free leg. The right arm hangs down, and the Ictt forearm is extended, carrying some object. In this form the motive is pureh- Attic, and was ' [From the cast in Dresden. A good illustration from a photograph of the original is given by Kalkmann, Prop, des Gesichts, p. 61.— E. S.] 'I Q 298 SKOPAS elaborated in the fifth century. Krcsilas altered it by the introduction of the walkinj; motive, and by giving a more energetic turn to the head, and used it for his Diomcdc. Later, Polykleitos followed in his steps. As an example of the original Attic composi- tion I may cite the interesting statue of a young hero (Fig. 126),^ which must belong approximately to 440 B.C. The motive is precisely that of the Lansdowne Herakles. A chlamys, falling in firm vigorous folds, is flung over the hero's left shoulder. The stylistic forms of the beautiful lifelike body arc obviously derived from the Apollo of the Omphalos (Kalamis ? p. 81), even to so small a detail as the little furrow above the navel. The head also is connected with the scries, which I have already assigned (p. 81 sec^.) to the school of Kalamis, but the treatment is some- what freer : the hair has a strongly plastic quality, the eyes are heavy-lidded, the mouth full and open, resembling in expression and shape the mouth of the Herakles in Fig. 32. We therefore have here another work of that school of Kalamis which flourished alongside that of Pheidias. It was from statues of this type that the motive of the Lansdowne Herakles was developed. Far simpler had been the conception of Herakles in the Pheidian circle, to judge from a copy of a Herakles which so closely resembles the Farnese Diadumenos (p. 244) in the bodily forms, in attitude, and in bearing that it can only be ascribed to Pheidias, or to an artist influenced by him.- The hero, with his lion-skin over his head, his left foot at ease and placed with full sole to one side, looks straight out to the right to the side -of the support- ing leg. Though the Lansdowne Herakles is closel}^ con- nected in conception with all this Attic work, it differs from it in the bodily forms, which seem influenced much rather by Polyklcitan models ^ Fic. 126. — Heroic statue (British Museum). ' Copy in Brit. Mus. , Newton, (7iihA' Graeio-A'om. Sc. i. No. 134, from the Pal. Farnese ; Fig. 126 drawn from a photograph. Head broken f>iit genuine, the lower part of legs modern, but the position is shown by what remains. Puntcllo for the lowered right arm. A still better copy of the torso in the Louvre (photo. Giraudon, 1289). A replica of the head in the Lateran, No. 891, broken under the chin, wrongly turned to the right. Both copies of the head have swollen ears ; cf. the Riccardi bust. Fig. 66, and the Diomede, in which the chlamys may also be compared. - Statue under life-size in cortile of Pal. Borghese (Matz-Duhn, 90 ; Winckelmann, .1/oh. /lu-i/. 78). Head unbroken, upper half restored. Phot, in German Inst, at Rome.— .Similar statue in Museo Lapidario of Vatican, No. 132. Attic- Pheidian of a rather severer type; except for the bent head, the motive is the same as in the Borghese statue. — A statue of Herakles in the Louvre corresponds so closely to the Ares Borghese that it must be either a later Roman copy or an adaptation from the workshop of Alkamenes of the Ares to the Herakles type. The head does not belong to the statue, which is identified as a Herakles by the lion-skin on the trunk, which is ancient (see D'Escamps, Marbres Campaiia, PI. 40; Zcitschi: f. hi/d. A'wist, N.F. ii. p. 24, where Von Sybel wrongly considers the head to be authentic, and connects it with Skopas). ^ Cf. also Kalkmann, Prop. d. Cesichts, p. 60, note 3. THE LANSDOVVNE HERAKLES 299 (as a comparison with the Diadumcnos and the Dorj'plioros clearly shows) : the undulations of surface are, it is true, softer and rounder, but the forms of breast, stomach, navel, etc., are those characteristic of Polykleitan figures. We have already become acquainted (p. 348, n. 4) with a direct predecessor of the Lansdowne Heraklcs, in a terminal statue of the Musco Boncompagni-Ludovisi, and a torso at Dresden, in \\ hich we likewise detected a Polykleitan structure of body combined with an older, Attic type of head, approximating in character to Kresilas. The motive — the shouldering of the club — is the same, but the position of the arms is reversed. It is obviously more natural to shoulder the club with the right hand, but the position of the arms in the Lansdowne statue is more rhythmical, and moreover follows the Polykleitan model — the Doryphoros — more closely. The Lansdowne Hcrakles does not stand alone. Among analogous works may be cited a torso from the Villa Borghesc,' representing — as the long fiUet-cnds on the shoulder prove — either a Herakles or a victorious athlete, and another torso in the Museo Torlonia.'- Of still greater interest is a splendid bronze Hcrakles in the Jacobsen collection ; it repeats the motive of the Lansdowne figure, except that the left arm holds the bow and arrow instead of the club ; ^ the head shows the same fourth-century Attic type, and the body is again Polykleitan in its forms. Nor must we forget another beautiful bronze Herakles from Dalmatia, now in Vienna,"* carrying the club on the right shoulder ; here again the slightly drooping head is thoroughly Attic, and recalls the Florentine athlete (p. 261J, while the body shows the influence of Polykleitos. This same combination appears in a superb bronze statuette of Zeus at Munich, while in a bronze Zeus in the British Museum (Fig. 127)'' the Polykleitan influence extends from the bodily forms to the whole attitude, which is closely copied from the Doryphoros ; the head, however, with the short locks brushed up from the fore- head, is the e.xact counterpart of the Lansdowne Herakles, thoroughly Attic in its Skopasio-Praxi- telean character. Further, a noble bronze statuette of Zeus in Munich '' manifests, although less clearly, Polykleitan influence in the body, combined with an Attic position of the legs, and an Attic type of head. The Lansdowne Herakles, owing to likeness of the head to the later Skopasian ' Torso in front porch of the vilh ; the forms allied to the Doryphoros, but rounder ; vein^ on the abdomen. The left leg was somewhat adv.-vnced as in the Lansdowne statue, and tlie Iiead was turned to the left. Good workmanship. - Museo Torlonia, S ; allied to the Doryphoros, but rounder ; head turned to the left. 3 Ny Carlsberg Glypto. nyl tyllaeg 1892, No. 1039 a. The type is that of Herakles ; remains of the quiver strap on the breast ; the position of the fingers of the left hand is characteristic for holding the bow and arrow (cf. the statuette mentioned in the following note, the ' Taris ' of the Aegina marbles, and Berlin Skiitpt. No. 51). The statue is an admirable work, but the form and ornamentation of the basis jirove that it is not an original of the fourth century, but a more recent repetition of such an original. The bronze statuette from Thessaly {Oeslcrr. Mittk. iii. Taf. 7, 8), with Polykleitan forms, is an analogous work. ■* R. V. Schneider \x\Jahrb. d. A'uiists. d. Oeslerr. Kaiscrh. ix. p. 135 scq. Taf. I, 2. 5 Payne-Knight, xlvi. l6 ; Clarac, 802 G, 1917 D. Good execution, but from the colour of the metal evidently not a Greek original. Right hand lowered and holding something, left hand pierced. Copper nipples inlaiiL " Friederichs-Wolters, 1750. ^^ ^^H K'-'^l ^ mi BJI ■|l t-^ A%Z? ■^- ^H ^9 Fig. 127. -Statuette of Ztus Museum). (British 300 SKOPAS type of Ilcraklcs, may not impossibly be copied from an carl)- work of Skopas himself. A statue of the youthful Asklcpios, which must have been celebratetl in its cla_\-, has been preserved in a copy on a medallion of M. Aurelius,' and in a beautiful bronze statuette of the Roman period (Fig. 128),- in which we have to supply the serpent-wreathed staff which supported the right hand. In this bronze the bodily forms here again betray Polyklcitan influences ; further, the 'walking' motive and the sharp inclina- tion of the head towards the side of the free leg recall creations of the I'olykleitan school, such as the Pan (p. 269 seq.) and the works allied to it, while the position of the hands — the one leaning on a support, the other resting on the hip — very closely resembles that of the so-called Narkissos (p. 273). The statuette, however, avoids all sharp transitions, ami has a grace of movement and a suppleness of modelling such as we seek for in vain in those heavier Argive works. The head, with its charming short locks brushed up from the brow, is genuinely Attic. A beardless Asklcpios is actually known to us from tradition by Skopas. Pausanias saw it in the god's temple at Gortys.-' There once stood on the Palatine a beautiful and interesting statue of Hermes (Fig. 129),* which has now been removed to the Terme Museum. The alert grace of the god's pose already suggests the Apo.xyomenos of Lysippos ; just as in the latter statue the right leg, which is free, is placed well to the side and slightly drawn back ; and the }-outh balances himself on his hips while the gaze is directed to the side of the free leg ; the right forearm was held sideways -' from the body ; it doubtless grasped the herald's staff, if not so ener- getically, yet much in the same manner as a tech- nically exquisite bronze Hermes in Berlin," which is also quite Lysippian in style. Further, the great depression of the left shoulder — -while the right is raised and thrust forward — is already suggestive of that fine swing which marks not a few of the creations which -Bronze statuette of Asklepios (Carlsioihe). ' Cf. von Sallet's Zeitschr. f. Niimis. vs.. 140 ; Nuinis. Chroii. ser. iii. vol. ii. PI. 14, 3 ; Wieseler, Go/fin^': Nachr. 1888, p. 152 seq. Wieseler very plausibly maintains the interpretation as Aslilepios, against Wroth, who had suggested .\pollo. - At Carlsruhe, found at Speier : Schuster, Bronzcii, PI. 27; Friederichs-Wolters, 1758. Roman work, proljably made in Gaul. Ring on finger of left hand. Back specially good. ' It is possible, however, that a beardless Asklcpios in the Braccio Nuovo (Ilelbig, .I/»jtV/7/o-, 6), with a head of later Skopasian type, reproduces this statue. ■* Matz-Duhn, 1046. The body has suffered severely through long exposure. The head has been broken off, but is undoubtedly authentic ; it alone is very well presers-ed. The legs are ancient. Replica of head in Catajo ( .\rndt-Uruckmann, Eiii-.ek\ 52, 53}. •' The stum]) of the arm is placed liackwaiils ami to the side, and there is no puntello on the right side of the body. « .-Vntitiuarium, Jiiv. 6505 ; from .-Athens. HERMES 301 can be traced back to Lysippos.i Now the Herakles of Skopas — at any rate in the statue of which a copy exists in the Louvre,'- and which has the type of head assigned to Skopas — has this same move- ment of the upper part of the body, and Hkewise rests one hand (the left) on the hip. The extraordinary thing, however, about the Hermes of the Terme is that the bodily forms and the hair are still treated in the manner of the fifth century ; the hair lies close to the skull, and is divided into fine locks, pointed at the ends in true Polykleitan style ; ^ yet the forms of the face are purely Attic, and show that the original cannot be earlier than the fourth centur}-. The head fascinates by its exquisite charm and subtle refinement ; the e\-eball is slightly turned both inwards and upwards ; it is the beginning of that forma- tion of the eye so characteristic of Skopasian heads ; the bridge of the nose is rather broad, as in the Hermes of Praxiteles, but in spite of this the work is undeniably somewhat older than any of the works hitherto acknowledged to be by Skopas or than the Hermes of Praxi- teles. The motive of the statue has been shown to be one of the prototypes that in- spired Lysippos, and previous to him it seems to have been employed only by Skopas. Therefore, may not the Hermes of the Terme also be an earl\- work by this artist .'' There is other authentic evidence to prove that, during the middle of the fourth century, the school of Skopas not unfrequently fol- lowed fifth-century models in its treatment of the hair and of the bodily forms. The Hermes on one of the sculptured drums from Ephesos * is as closely connected with the Fig. 129.- -Hernies from the Pal.itine (.Muse dclle Terme). ' Particularly the one called Alexander, and the jouthful warrior in the Louvre, which may also repre- sent Alexander (Clarac, 264, 2100); further, the Herakles type of which a bronze (Brit. Mus.) is a specially good example (Clarac, 785, 1966). Cf. Roscher's Lex. 2172. The position of the legs is thai of the Apoxyomenos. - In the Salle des Carj-atides, No. 1524 (published by Graf, Rom. Mill/:, iv. 1889, p. 193. The type of head on PI. 8, 9 [ibid. ) belongs to this statue, and this only. The existence of so many copies of the head and of only one of the statue is explained by its frequent adaptation as a term (cf p. 66, note 5, p. 235), and this also explains the fact that so many of the heads are reversed from right to left. The Paris head is an inferior but an authentic copy of the same original as the single heads, and is unbroken. The original certainly wore the poplar-wreath. No copies of the Paris statue have come under my notice, but the coin of .Sikyon (Graf, loc. cil. 213) probably reproduces the original of the Paris statue. The head is differently placed, but in so rough a coin that means little. ' This is probably what Mat/.-Duhn means by the 'reminiscence of Doric types' in the head. ■" Friederichs-Wolters, 1242. The burning of the temple in 356 forms the terminus post quoii. The relief is probably near this in date. Skopas himself made a pillar relief (Pliny, xxvi. 95). As no other artists are named in connexion with the other reliefs, these were probably made by his colleagues and pupils. 302 SKOPAS Hermes of the Terme in the treatment of the close-lying hair and the broad well- defined surfaces of the body as it is with Polyklcitan models ; at any rate, every- thing about it differs entirely from the youth on the Ilissos relief, from the Mcleager, or from the llcrmcs of Praxiteles. Even the 'walking motive,' with the arm hanging idly on the side of the supporting leg, recall Polykleitos. Thus everything conspires to commend the view that the works we have grouped together arc connected with Skopas, and testify to a phase in which the artist was influenced by Polyklcitan models. lie was, as has been very plausibly conjectured,' the son of ArisLandros of Paros, who, since he wtjrked with the younger I'olykleitos on a votive offering set up at Am_\-klai by the Spartans after the victory at Aigospotamoi, must have been connected with the Argive school. Thus Skopas would naturally be early imbued with the traditions of that school, antl the peculiarities of the works enumerated above, .some of which maj' possibly be ascribed even to Aristandros, can be easily accounted for. Archaeologists have tried to trace this Pol)-klcitan influence in the works of Skopas, but by looking for it in the head they have gone completely astray. Only in the hair does a Polyklcitan touch sometimes occur, otherwise the contour of the head and the shape of the face arc absolutely the reverse of Polyklcitan, and are invariably, as was remarked in the case of the Lansdowne Hcrakles, dependent on the purest Attic types. P'rom the Polyklcitan school the young Skopas appropriated quite a number of formal elements, but in that spiritual conception which finds expression in the pose and the presentment of a figure, and in the forms of the head, he was entirely under Attico-Ionian influence, thus reproducing in the fourth century a phenomenon that hail its counterpart in the fifth. The Parians to whom we owe the Olympian sculp- tures had likewise been influenced by the Argive school in formal matters, though in their spiritual conceptions they had remained genuine lonians.- What at that period must still be called Ionian was afterwards entirely absorbed into Attic art. We may therefore consider Skopas also as an Attic master. By far the most novel and audacious of the works which we attributed to his early period is the Hermes of the Terme. It introduces a rh\thm full of restless energy, hitherto utterly unknown to statuary, and which prepares the way immedi- ately for Lysippos. In this statue the individuality of Skopas bursts forth in a most decided manner.^ Yet as if to set a check on his own audacity he shows himself here rigidly conservative in matters of form. The Hermes exhibits a singular com- bination of fire and grace, and, though Lysippos eventualh' surpassed Skopas in the expression of nervous tension and excitement, the internal tenderness and warmth of his predecessor were always lacking in him. Skopas, by representing figures with one foot raised on an elevation, once again forestalled Lysippos* in another motive full of restlessness and of broken outlines. ' Bbckh on C. I. G. 2285 b. ; cf. Lowy, /. G. B. 287. ^ Cf. Archiiol. Sliid. H. Bninn dargebr. 1 893, p. 69 seq. ' A statuary composition which is l;no\vn to me in two torsos seems to be an older, hesitating attempt in the direction of the Palatine Hermes. A youth of delicate form (which however shows Polyklcitan influence) is leaning his weight on his left leg, his left hand rests on his hips, the head is tm-ned to the right like the Hermes, but unlike it the right leg is not drawn back, and the right arm hangs by the side (torso in Vat., Gall. Lapid. 87, and another less well preserved in Museo Torlonia, j8, PI. 10). An inferior replica reduced in size (Vat., Gall, dei Candel. 24) gives the boy a Satyr's tail. Closely related is one of the small athlete statues, Braccio Nuovo (97). Torso only ancient. Head plaster. ■* According to the extant dates, the activity of Lysippos extends from 350 — 300 (King .Seleukos after 306, cf Lowy, 487), so th.at the period of Alexander marks the middle of it. Winter [Jalnb. «//. Coiiiiii. lU Roma, 1887, p. 169; Moil. d. Inst. Supp. 27, I. The head alone in {.) Glienccke (FriederichsAVolters, Gipmhi;. 1438), (7)m- "PX- '886, p. 55, 17 ; f. /. Gr. Sept. 332. ^o8 I'KAXriKLES stone with round dark spots on the surface. Several varieties of this wliiic and ^rc\- h'mestone occur on the bases of Olympia, but only from the time of Alexander downwards. The limestone of the earlier bases in Olympia is alwajs of that dark black sort which already occurs at an early period, and was sub.sequently much affected in the circle of Polykleitos.^ The earliest dated analogies in Olympia arc afforded b)- the bases of the si.x Zeus statues called Zanes, which were erected out of the fines which the .Athenians paid, Ol. I 12 (B.C. 332), for the misdemeanours of one of their citizens.- These bases follow the earlier shape without moulding, which was chosen because the statues continued a series of six earlier Zanes, erected 01. 98 (li.C. 388). On the other hand, the material differs from that of the preceding Zanes ; it consists of white limestone alternating with blue-black and with white conglomerate. Besides these there is a red and white conglomerate, never seen in earlier times, but to be found in the bases of the statues by Sophokles.'' These facts point to the second half of the ccntur}- as the date of the Hermes, so that the statue cannot be, as some maintain,' a record of the peace concluded after the events of the Anolympiad and the combat between the Arkadians and the Eleians in the Altis in i;.r. ^6^. Nor was there any inherent probability in this date, seeing that the reconciliation between the two states was a hollow one, arranged b\- the aristocratic party in Alantincia : the suggestion, however, that Hermes the god of Arkadia was represented as nursing Dionysos the god of Elis, in token of the union of these two districts, is certainly correct. I accordingly incline to refer it to a period twenty years later (B.C. 343), when the aristocratic party in Elis, in league with the Arkadians,^ won a decisive victory over the democratic party, and then formed an alliance with Philip for their own protection. This was a suitable occasion for fresh Eleian dedications at Olympia," and the Hermes represented as nursing the Eleian Dionysos might well be set up as a thank-offering to the Arkadians for their aid. At the same time that he made the Hermes at Olympia'' Praxiteles must have certainly made a Dionysos for this god's temple at Elis ; the reproduction of the statue on a coin of Hadrian ** shows that in design it was very closely akin to the Hermes. ' (,)uitc dilfereiit hum the dark bliio-lilacU liine->lune, uiU uf which su many bases in Olvnijiia in ihc liflh or fuurth centuries are made (also those from the circle of Polyldeitos, Naul^ydes, Daidalos, Kleon). - Pans. V. 21, 5 si-i/. •* All the Zanes set up in 01. 112 (Nos. 7 — 12) had one kind of basis, made of three superimposed cube sha|)cd blocks. The lowest block is always of poros ; the middle one of white limestone (yellow and of finer texture, like giallo antico in No. 10, missing in No. 12; cf. .-hr/i. Ztg. 1879, p. 45 se/. 257) it h.is been .issumed thnt the vessel in the original was a drinking-horn, liiit the kylix of the Palermo copy is more probably correct. In the Ludovisi statue there is preserved the end, not of a twisted horn, but of a twisted support which connected forearm and leg ; these sort of supports arc common in the age of Hadrian and the .Xntonines. It seems to me that in the original the left hand more probably held a cup ; pouring from a height seems to me more natural when the liipiiil falls on a broad surfoce, lathcv than into a narrow vessel. - f..?-. Friederichs-Wolters, (;//«/<;'. Nos. 1058, 1059, 1063, 1066. ^ Ghirardini, /of. cil. ' Thus rightly Michaelis, Ann, d. fust. 1S83, 140, note 1. EROS FROM THE PALATINE 313 Beyond these formal elements, however, the Argive influence does not extend. The spirit and expression of the head, nay, even the formation of the forehead, which though sparer in treatment yet shows the same shape as the Hermes, the round, soft, tender grace and kindly cheerful- ness of the small mouth and cheeks, are thoroughly Attic, and entirely in the spirit of the Hermes. Marked as is the resemblance of the body to the Pelopon- nesian prototypes, the deviations from it are no less noticeable. The navel is sunk deeper, and below it there is no trace of the linca alba ; the division between the abdomen and thighs is no longer marked with the old conventional hardness ; the gluteus of the free leg has no depression ; the flesh is softer and fuller, and the best copies show that in the original the delicate play of the muscles under the firm flesh must have been a special charm of the statue. Hence it is clear that the Satyr is of an earlier date than the Hermes, and it is as a youthful work of Praxiteles that we must consider it. We learn from it that the work of the Polykleitan school exercised a lasting influence on the young artist — an influence we can well understand with a youth so alive to beauty and grace of form. He had opportunities enough of studying the work of Peloponnesian artists at Athens (we still have an inscription from a work by Naukydes on the Akropolis), and he soon went himself to the Peloponnesos, where he worked for IMantineia.^ The date of the Satyr lies between 370 and 360 B.C. To the same period belongs a second work by the same artist like at all points to the preceding. It is an Eros, of which we have a good cop\- in a torso from the Palatine, which has been restored and is now in the Louvre (Fig. 133,.' That an Eros should be the nearest counterpart to the Sat\T is a ' The group of Apollo, Leto, and Artemis in Megara must have been one of the artist's early works. Imitations of it on coins (Imhoof-blumer and Gardner, Num. Comm. PI. A, x. ; FF, i. ii.) seems to point to a group of severe character in the style of the fifth century. The work might be by the elder Praxiteles. - Frohner, Notice, p. 311, No. 325 ; Brunn-Bruckmann, Deiikm. No. 378. Fig. 133 leaves out the restored head and left arm. Left forearm, right leg, left knee, and right foot are restored. The beautiful large left wing is antique. A cast of the torso, unreslored, was formerly in the small museum of the Palatine, and was there drawn by Eichler, 1876—77, for the Institute. Steinhauser's restorations are hideous. The antique S S -Eros from the Palaline (Louvre;. 514 I'RAXITKLES confinnuliun of the l'i-;i\ilelc;ui origin of both, for Fraxilclcs is ihc very arlisl who was as famous for his I'.rotes as for his Satyrs. This Kros torso is extraordinarily Hke the Sat\-r both in the attitude of the body and in the system of forms. The only difference is that the head is turned, not to the side of the supporting leg, but somewhat to the right, thus sacrific- ing the trancjuil absorption of the figure. What the hands held is uncertain ; pos- sibly a wreath or a fillet, as attributes of the god ; ' at aiu- rate the right arm was held very high ; the tree-trunk with the quiver and bow is mereh' an addi- tion by the copyist. The formation of the bo.dy, though still on the same basis as in the Satyr, goes further in the tlirection of softness and roundness. The abdomen is less fiat, the soft layer of flesh over the muscles is more clearly indicated ; the depression above the navel is deeper ; what remains of the hair shows a fuller, freer treatment, from which we may infer that the Eros is a later work of the )-outh of Praxiteles. In close connexion with both the [jreceding creations arc two others of less importance, which are possibly onl)' the work of a contemporary imitator. These two statues, both under life-size, represent respectively Apollo- and Dionysos,-' and correspond in attitude and bodily forms to the Satyr, except that the right hand rests quicti}- on the head. In the Apollo the head has been preserved ; it agrees in pose and in- clination with the Satyr, and, like it, bears witness to Polykleitan influence, in having the parted hair growing closely t(j the skull and hanging down over the forehead in symmetrical curls. On the other hand, there is a second Eros, which must have been another creation parts aie also soinewliat worked over in parts. Kor sketch of the anliijue parts and description, see Roscher's Lcxikoit, i. 1360, 1361, /,. 18 scij. Milani {ilus. Ital. iii. p. 767) and R. Forster (Eros, Rede, 1893, p. 10) agreed with me in referring it to Praxiteles. Weil, in Baumeister's Denkm. p. 1401, witli fig. 1551. There is a replica in the nuiseiiin at Parma (.\rndt-Bruckniann, Eiiizclvcrk. No. 74). ' Cf. Roscher's /.f.r//!w/, /or. tit. Milani (An-. <■//.) thought he had found an imitation of the statue on an Athenian coin : Beule, Moiin. il'At/i. p. 222 (= Brit. Mus. Cata/. Atli\a, PI. 12, 3 ; p. 39). But the motive is not the same. The figure on the coin represents a palaestric Eros (cf. Roscher's Lex. i. 1344, Z. 7), or another lialaestric Daemon, possibly Agon, according to Weil's hypothesis {Jn/i. Ztg. Bd. xxxiii. 164). The Eros of Kallistratos, with which Milani identifies it, must have been quite different, and is, I think, reiiroduced in a small bronze (ct. Jalirh. d. Vcr. v. A/lirtlnims-Fi: im Rhciiiland, Heft 90, p. 63, Taf. 3, 3). - In the I.ouvre. Frohner, Notice, No. 74; Clarac, PI. 269, 912; photo, edit. Giraudon, No. 1202. Poor. The stem with the tripod is only a technical support ; the left forearm does not really lean on it. This work i,s quite distinct from the later Praxitelean ' Resting .\pollo.' ^ In Tarragona, Hiibner, Bilihu. in Madrid, No. 672 ; Friederichs-Wolters, Gipsabg. 1488. Fig. 134. — Krus in N.^ple.s. EROS OF CENTOCELLE .i'? of the sculptor's }-OLith, and wliich, to judge from tlic number of extant copies, must have been far more celebrated. I know of seven copies of this Eros, of presumably tlic same size as the original (about life-size), and four statuettes. The best-known replica is the torso from Centocellc (head in Fig. 135)^ in the Vatican; the statue at Naples (Fig. 134) - is better preserved, and the work, though hasty, is fresh, and probably dates from the first century r..C. The main effect is faithfully reproduced, but little attention is paid to such details as the hair. On the support near the left leg are seen the remains of a bow, once held in the left hand. This accessory is more correctl}- reproduced in a third copy at Turin. ^ In it one end of the big bow rests on the ground, and the left hand holds the upper end of the weapon. A tree-trunk which serves as support has a qui\er hanging from it : but it is evident that it was only added by a copyist, for it has nothing to do with the design, and is differentlj- treated bv the several copyists. In the original the bow stood clear of the statue. A piece of the bow is also preserved in a replica in Russia.-* • Helbig, Museums, 185 ; Friederichs-Wolters, 1578. Holes for wings on the bad;. '- Clarac, 649, 1487 ; Roscher's Lexikon, i. 1359. Right aim. left forearm, and left leg restored ; wings mostly antique. The front of the body is somewhat worked over. The head is much more lifelike than the one in the Vatican. 3 Diitschke, Oherila!. iv. No. 49. The statue is well preserved ; the head (except the ends of the curls on the neck) is restored ; the basis is antique, so are both legs, though broken. The right foot is drawn back, and the heel raised. The left arm and hand are antique, though broken ; the hand rests on the end of the bow. The bow is carved in relief in a vertical position on the front of the trunk, the ujjper part of which is restored. The right upper arm is antique, and separated from the body. » Stephani, Die AuliKeiisaiiiml. :u fau'/ou'si- (Mem de /'Aeati. de SI. Pelersb. .wiii. 4), p. S, No. 6. From Stephani's description I gather that it is a genuine replica. The bow is introduced as it is in the Turin statue ; it is important to note that, according to Stephani, the right arm and the open empty hand are antique : also the large wings seem to be antique. I have already (/>'«//. d. Tust. 1877, 153) refuted Stephani's assertion that the figure formed a group with Psyche. Overbeck shares Stephani's opinion {Vlaslik, 3rd cd. ii. 34). 3l6 PRAXITELES Tlic fifth replica, rcccntl)- found in ]\omc, is only n torso (Tcrmc Museum) ;' the sixth has neither head nor arms;- the seventh (Palazzo Conscrw) ■' is distinguished from all the others throus^li the absence of wings, and moreover it is b\- far the worst and ob\'iousl)' quite the latest of the copies. In the right haiu! ma)- be seen the remains of some attribute, apparently a small torch, which, on the analogy of a small replica, was held reversed upon an altar. The statuette,'' however, is of very late and poor workmanship, and is also wingless."' The question now ari.scs whether the torch reversed upon the altar — an emblem of funereal import" — together with the winglessness which marks the figure as a kind of genius of death," are, on the ground of those two poor and late replicas, to be ascribed to the original statue. The answer must be in the negative. \Vc mcrcl_\- ha\'e here one of those transformations, effected b)- some trifling external additions, such as Greek originals not unfrcqucntly under- went at the hands of later Roman artists ; besides, in one, or perhaps even in two copies,'^ the right hand still exists, and has no sucli attribute. I'^irther, a dccorati\'e stucco at Pompeii," which truthfuU)- reproduces the main points of the statue, shows the left hand supporting the large bow placed on the ground, and the right hand hanging down empt\-. Of course there is no support for the left leg, any more than there can have been in the original ; the wings, as in the Palatine Eros, are very large. All the evidence tends to prove that the right hand was empty, yet in the original it ma\- not impossibly have held an arrow, which might easily be omitted by the copj-ist. The original must go back to Praxiteles. I once thought that we only had late adaptations of it,i^ because I wrongly believed that all the copies should be restored with the inverted torch on the altar, and because I followed the commonly received opinion that the plait of hair worn by the lu'os belonged to the Roman period. This was a mistake, for practically the same fashion of hair occurs in a boy's head of the fifth century — probably also an Eros." My next view was that the original of the statue should be sought for in the Pcloponnesian school of the fourth ccntury,'- bccause of the intimate connexion between this statue and the later Polyklcitan works. But I have since found all these characteristics in the early work of Praxiteles, and various considerations will eventually show that he was the artist. Thus the old conjecture of E. O. Visconti seems like!}- to prove true. ' The lorso has sufleved by water ; the ends of tlic curls are preserved; large holes in llic liack for the wings. - Rome, Coll. Monteverde (Arndt-Iiruekmann, Eiindvcrk. No. 141). 3 Discussed by me in Bull, dell' Inst. 1877, 151 seq. I^iblished in Bull, delk Comm. Arch, di Roma, 1S77, Tav. 16; 17, I. Cf. Helbig, /l/«,ff«OTj-, 569. The head is wrongly put on. ■" Vatican, Gall, dei Candel. 203 ; Gerhard, .Ant. Bildw. Taf. 93, 2 ; Ilelbig, Miisaiiiis, 393. For the restorations, cf. Bull. d. Inst. 1877, 152, No. 2. ■'■ The three other statuettes are : Berlin, 139. Torso with wings. — Copenhagen, Jacobsen collection, 1051, headless, bronze wings fastened on by two cramps. Quiver hangs on the trunk, on the top of which are traces of the attachment of the bow as on the Naples replica. Remains of a spiral puntello on the right thigh to join it to the wrist.— Turin. Head only. Fair work. « Cf Bull. d. Iiisl. 1877, 154 scq. ' Ilelbig (/>'«//. d. Inst. 1885, 71) and Fiihrer (No. 183) called it Tlianatos. [His view is now modified; cf. Museums, 1S5. —E. .S.] " On the copy of Tawlowsk (p. 315, note 4), and perhaps on the one at Turin (p. 315, note 3). " Mus. Borhoniio, ii. 53 ; Brulloff, Ttiermes de Pompeii, PI. 4. In Bull. d. Inst. 1877, 160, I pointed out the differences between these two publications. Brulloff gives the right hand empty, in Mus. Boib. it holds an arrow. The original is in Pompeii, on the wall of the Tepidarium of the rhermae of Fortuna. It is clear that the hand was empty, although only the thumb and forefinger remain. The stucco relief corresponds with the statue in attitude, turn of head, etc., but the head is not bent, and the plaits of hair are not exactly reproduced. '" Bull, deir lust. \?>TJ, 160 ; where stress is yet laid on the fact that an original of the best period is its origin. .Stephani {he. eit.) also assigns the motive to the Roman epoch. Wolters does this still more definitely in Gipsab. p. 634. " Arehaol. .^tudien H. Brunn dargehr. 1S93, i>. 88 seij. Taf. 3. '- Roscher's ].e\. i. 1362. THESPIAN EROS 317 It is the obviousl}- great reputation of the work wliich tells most in favour of Praxiteles, the most celebrated pourtra\-ist of Eros. In the second place, the bodil>- forms present great similarity to the Sat\T and the Palatine Eros, though the age represented is certainh- somewhat more ad\anced, since the muscles are more power- fully developed. The motive, like that of the Satyr, is connected with the series of Argivc types. The attitude of the body and the turn and bend of the head agree with the Polyklcitan ' boy crowning himself and the Ildefonso figure ; the motion of the arms, however, is different, and the upper part of the bod>' is slightly twisted, the right shoulder being slightly thrust forward. Even this attitude, though rever.sed, is found in the Pol)-- kleitan 'Dresden boy' (Plate XII.), who is almost identical with our Eros; even the arms correspond — one hanging down beside the bod}', the other being outstretched ; and if the Eros held, as we conjectured, an arrow in his right hand, the analogy with the Pol\"kleitan bo\', who also held something in the hand towards which the head is turned, becomes so much the closer. It is e\ident that the )-outhful Praxiteles had fallen under the charm of those Poly- klcitan figures, and his Eros shows an admirable adaptation of their chief characteristics. For Praxiteles, as for Polykleitos, the rhythmic grace of the whole motive depends very largel}' on the bend of the head. But this bend of the head has also been used by both sculptors for the purposes of characterization : in one case it serves to emphasize the modesty of the boy victor ; in the other, a slight change of attitude has sufficed to produce a very different effect : it is the demoniac nature of Eros which is expressed in that bent head, in that face peering up from amid its profusion of locks.i This is no longer the jo\-ous, innocent Eros with wreath and fillet, as we can imagine him to have been represented in the Palatine torso : he has become the bewitching daemon, the captivating, irresistible god, I'nrnvrwv Bai/j,6i'(oi' virepTaTo^, glorified in the poetry of Euripides,'- who gave him as symbols of his all-powerful swa}- the bow and arrow ^ which he carries here. We can now understand wh\' Praxiteles gave to this Eros more developed forms than to the other. The god holds his bow (and arrow .') ready for immediate use, j-et the artist only intends them as an outward symbol, for he has essayed the difficult task of giving visible expression to the inward might of the god : he does not allow him to use his weapons, his Eros is irresistible through his upward glance and bewitching charm. . . . We have thus unconsciousl}- arri\ed at a presentment of the god which agrees strictly with a well-known ancient epigram on the Thespian P^ros of Praxiteles, to the effect that he excited the transports of lo\-e b)- hurling not darts but glances, ipiXTpa Be /3d\Xw ovk' er olcnevwv, d\X' drei'ifo/xei/o?.'' Further, since this statue was, as we saw, an early work of Praxiteles, made at the same time as the Sat\-r ; and ' That the bent head means grief is a modern misunderstanding of Friederichs (Bans/cine, 44S). His earlier opinion (expressed in his exquisite monograph on Praxiteles, p. 22), that the licad is hcnt in a dreamy mood, and is characteristic of Praxiteles, is more correct. - Cf. Roscher's Lex. i. 1348. 3 cf. ihi,t 134S, and An/i. An:. 1S90, p. S9. ■* For the epigram, cf. Benndorf, in Bull, della Coiiim. Arch, di Roma, 1SS6, p. 69 ftv/-. who shows that arei'ifoVei'os is in the middle voice. His proofs seem to me absolutely convincing, and Robert's arguments {.-In It. Mdrchen, p. 167) are powerless to refute them. By the basis in the theatre, however, on which, according to Athenaeus, the epigram was inscribed, I incline to understand, not as Benndorf does, the original basis in Thespiai (for Athenaeus does not mention this city at all), but a basis of later date supporting a replica in Athens. Near the theatre was found a torso of an Aphrodite which appears to be an admirable replica of the Aphrodite in Thespiai (cf. supra, p. 319, n. i) I have already shown (p. 271, note) that Benndorf is wrong in referring to the Fros of Thespiai a statue of .Ares in the Capitoline Museum. 3I>S TKAXl TllLKS since in the story of Phrync's strata.fjcm the Thespian Eros actually figures iii company with a famous Satyr ; and, fmall)-, since a statue preserved in so many copies must have been one of the sculptor's masterpieces — there can be hardly any doubt that we arc right in identifying it w ifh the Thespian statue. What dates we have of l'hr\-ne's life agree very well with the conjecture that the I'.ros which she dedicated at Thespiai was one of the works of the earlier pcriofl of i'raxitclcs, between 370 and 360 li.C The only reliable chronological information we have about her, beyond her connexion with the artist, is that she inspired the ' Anady- omcne ' of Apelles, and there is nothing to prevent our placing tliis about 350.' When l'hr\-nc offcrctl to rebuild Thebes in 335 i;.c., after its destruction by Alexander, she may very well have been advanced in jears, for this was an enterprise for which only money was needed. The lawsuit, in which she was defended by Hypcrides, cannot be closely dated.- Writers of the Middle Comedy speak of her as a contemporary,-' while in the New Comedy she is alluded to as a Iietaira of the previous generation.' It has been plausibly suggested that it was not till after the destruction of her home, Thespiai, by the Thebans that she came to Athens, at a time when her countr)-men were turning to Athens for succour (probably li.C. 373 — 372).'' At any rate, in order to be known as a Thespian, she must have been born before that date, and need no longer ha\c been a child" at the time. Her connexion with Praxiteles, which anyhow belongs most naturally to the artist's )-outh, would take place in the period immediately following. The temple at Thespiai was of course spared by the Thebans," and Phrync, in recognition of her successes in Athens, sent a handsome votive offering to the god of her native town, though its walls were razed and the town itself had passed into the power of Thebes.^ The Thebans, however, would certainly not interfere with private piety or dedications in the temple, their only object being to destroy the political existence of the community. Phryne's offering apparently consisted of three statues, for beside the Eros stood a statue of herself, and one of Aphrodite, both by the hand of Praxiteles : the Eros probably stood between the two,'' and the group was analogous to that of the Satyr between Dion\-sos and Methe (p. 311). This presentation of her own portrait b}- the Iietaira was simpi)- in accordance with an old custom. We are expressly told that '" her gilded portrait at Delphi, also by Praxiteles, was dedicated b\- the Iietaira herself. The material of this statue and the place where it was set up mark an ach-ance ' Owing to liis rel.nlioiis willi I'luliji, .^ix-llcs must have l)ccn active at this time. - Sal. Reinach points out (AVz'. Cril. 1894, p. no) that Hyperides was vciy little older than Thiyne was accordinp; to our assumption. I see in this no reason against the dating proposed above. ^ Timokles, apiid Athen. p. 567 e. In Aristoph. Eccles. IIOI, Phryne is only a name given to any courtezan. ■* Poseidippos, a/W Athcn. p. 591 e. ° Xenoph. Hett. 6, 3, l. Cf. Von .Stern, Ci-s,/i. d. sparlait. 11. lliehaii. He!;t-inonii; ]i. 1 19. " As Sal. Reinach (6'ii,;. Anlu'ol. 1887, 2S3) assumes, by placing her birth about B.C. 375. In 335 she may just as well have been fifty as forty. Overbeck(.SVi'(7/j. Ber. 1893, p. 40 .(,v/. ) places Phryne's birth (in connexion with his wrong late dating of Praxiteles) after B.C. 372, assuming that Thespiai was rccolonizcd again imme- diately, a view that cannot be reconciled with tradition. (Cf. infra, note 8.) " In the similar case of Plataia, this is expressly stated. Paus. ix. 1, 8. * As Thespiai seems, like Plataia, not to have been rebuilt till after Chaironaia — for that this had not yet taken place in 343 is proved by Demosthenes (F. L. 1 1 j, 325) — Phi7ne's votive gift must fall in the time when the walls were in ruins and the citizens scattered. For to place her gift after the rebuilding would contradict all we know for certain about Praxiteles. And why should Phryne have delayed her gift to her ancestral god till the Thespians had rebuilt these walls and were again politically independent ? " When .\lkiphron (Overbeck, S. Q. 1271) makes Phryne say that she stood in the middle between Eros and .Xphrodite, he is evidently merely indulging in a rhetorical period. '" Paus. X. 15, I. The statements that the irtpiKxiort? (Alhcnaeus) or the"EAAT)i'fs (.\ilian) had dedicated the statue are in each case due to misunderstanding. Al'IlKolJlTE 319 iipuii the Thespian offering, so that it must have been the later wdik. We now have to consider whctlicr there exist any copies of these statues. The well-known 'Venus d'Arles ' (Fig. 136)1 is certainly to be referred to I'ra.xiteles. This is mainly proved b}- the c.xtraortlinar)- likeness of the head to the authentic copies of the Knidian Aphrodite {infra, p. 322J. The arrangement of the hair with its double fillet, the forehead, the contour of the face — and we inay add the bracelet on the left upper arm — all correspond perfectly. It is only in details that the forms of the head are harder and more constrained ; the eye is less deeply set, the eyelids are rendered in the old manner, and the drawing of the mouth is more severe. An examination of the body confirms the impression that the V^enus of Aries belongs to the early period of Praxiteles. The attitude is very like that of the Eirene and of the ' Satyr pouring out wine ' : the left leg bears the weight of the bod)-, the left forearm is outstretched bearing some object towards which the head is turned and inclined, and the right arm is raised. As in the Eirene the right foot is not drawn behind the other, but onl\- placed to the side in Phcidian fashion with the heel off the ground. One of the muses on the Mantineian relief — the one plaj-ing the flute — is also closely related in the whole rhj'thm of her attitude. The simple broad treatment of the drapery corresponds to that of the Eirene and to the relief just mentioned, which is a work of Praxiteles's youth. Specially characteristic is the treatment of the nude, which so far as youth and maiden can be compared is closely related to that of the Satyr ; for the abdomen is still flat, and the whole front of the body is still treated in great broad planes, ending in a harsh line at the side ; the thorax is broad, and the breasts, very youthful in form, are far apart ;- the midulation of the hip abo\e the supporting leg is as yet only slightly indicated. There can be little doubt as to the inotive of the Venus of Aries : the left hand held a mirror ; the right was raised towards the head. j\n engraved gem " of the early fourth century shows a woman, doubtless an iVphrodite, with a mantle wrapped in the same waj- round the lower part of the body and a mirror in her left hand. The ttrra-cottas of that period frequently reproduce the same design.^ The partial nudity of the figure is explained by the fact that the goddess is at her toilet. The statue belongs to the period of the Satyr and the Thespian Eros ; therefore it probably represents the Aphrodite which stood beside the latter at Thespiai. A statue in the British Museum from Ostia (Fig. 137)'' is in close connexion with the one just described ; it is a variant of the same motive, with the sides re\erscd. The head is again so like the Venus of Knidos that we must refer this work also to ' Fruhner, Nati,c, No. IJ7. ' Thasian ' iiiaiblo. Kiyhl arm and left liaiid new. Diajjeiy worked over, licad well preserved (cf. supra, vigncUe on title-page). Cf. Bernouilli, Apluoditc, p. 1S2 ; Brunn-liruckniann, Dtiitiinihr, No. 296. An excellent replica (torso) was found in Athens near the theatre (Friederichs-Wolters, 1456). Cf. Roscher's Lex. i. 415, Z. 30. Brunn-nruckniann, Dcukiu. No. 300 A. The workmanship of this torso (in the finest Parian Lychnites) is so wonderful that it is impossible to resist the notion that it is a replica from the studio of Traxiteles himself or of one of his sons. (For a replica of the Thespian Eros in the theatre at Athens, cf. supra, V- 317- n- 4-) - The breasts are much more lifelike in the .\thens torso than in the Paris statue. The Athens torso gives a much better idea of the original. ^ In Berlin, 4631 ; scaraboid from Sparta ; judging from style certainly not later than the first half of the fourth century ; even the attitude of rest on the left leg corresponds ; the right hand moves towards the head, but does not hold anything. The hair is bound with three fillets like the statue. Broad chest. * Cf. e.g. Dumont-Chaplain, Ccraiiiiqucs, ii. PI. 28, 1 ; here the raised right haml holds a band fur the haii-. The style shows that this figure must be dated in the first half of the fourth century. 'I'he attitude of rest on tlie left leg and the wide flat chest are very like the Aries statue. * Friederichs-Wolters, 1455. The head is unbroken ; the left arm is restored, but it was raised ; the right hand is new. F'rohner, Notiic, p. 180, calls the statue an 'imitation' of the .\rles statue 320 I'KAXITELES Praxiteles. 15iit the orit^inal imist have been a lalcr work than the Venus of Aries. The attitude anil action are less constrained, the free leg is drawn more back, and, above all, the head, which is relative])- smaller, is turned towards the sitle of the free leg, and raised, thus destro)-inL; all the repose ami tranquillity of the earlier conception. The drapery is richer and more agitated, and falls down lower on the one side ; the Kli.. 136.^' Venus d'Arles' (l.unvre). bodily forms are rounder and closely related to the Knidian statue, the chest is no longer so broad and flat, the breasts arc closer together, the navel is sunk deeper, and the lower abdominal line is treated precisely as in the Knidian statue. The motive also was certainly identical with that of the Venus of Aries ; the left hand held up the mirror, and the right may have held some other toilet requisite. The whole conception lacks the dignity and repose of the other statue ; this maiden has a questioning, self-conscious look; rejoicing in her beaut)' she raises the mirror — and cares not if her mantle slips down a little lower. It seems to me that a I'hryne by Praxiteles must have looked just like this-- ideally beautiful and noble, )'et different enough from a goddess. The statue of Phr)-ne so PHRYNE 321 famous in antiquity was the one at Delphi ; as \vc saw, it was later than the Thespian oftering. It is this statue that I shouitl like to imagine as the original of the ' Townic}- \'cnus.' Of both the portraits, also, between whicli she was placed — Fig. 137.— ihe ■ rownlc) \'enus' (Crlt. Mils.) King Archidamos of Sparta and Philip of Maccdon — copies seem to exist, found in that villa at Herculancum whose owner was so devout an admirer of Greek philosoph)-. ' An Archidamos is preserved, as WoUers (Riim. Mitth. 1888, 113 scq.) has shown, in a terminal bust of the Herculaneum Villa. Wolters remembers only the two Archidamos statues of Olympia, and not the Delphi portrait, which is much more renowned ; he concludes from the style that the terminal bust represents Archidamos III., but admits the similarity of the portrait to that of Euripides. The resemblance is indeed so strong that we may assume the same artist for both portraits. The stylistic treatment of the hair in the Archi- damos points to the period of the Peloponnesian war, therefore the statue presumably represents the Archidamos by whose name the first period of the war was designated. It is not impossible that Demetrins. who belonged to T T 322 PRAXITELES After tlic Cynic Kratcs liad mocked at this juxtaposition of a courtesan and a K'int^, later ages cited it as a typical instance of Greek licence.^ The Aphrodite of Knidos must, from the preceding considerations, be assigned to the middle period of the career of Praxiteles.- This conjecture is strengthened when \vc remember that works executed for three towns so near each other, and so far from home as Knidos, Kos, and 1 lalikarnassos, must needs be of about the same date. The Mausoleum was begun in 353 li.C, so that the statue for Knidos should be dated about 350 i!.C. It has been preserved in a series of copies presumabl)- of the original size, and also in statuettes. All these tloubtless reflect the st\'le and design of the statue, but can give us no idea of its subtler qualities. W'c must be careful, however, not to reckon among the copies, as has been done hitherto, works which are rcall_\- later independent adaptations, such as the Mimich statue and the little head at Olympia.'' Praxiteles has represented the goddess disrobed for the bath, in the act of laying asiile her last covering. She turns her head quickly round in the direction of the free leg,'' an attitude only comprehensible if we imagine her as looking about her to make sure her privacy is not threatened. This also explains the instinctive movement of the right hand. The dominating note of the expression is its absolute freedom from any stronger emotion — from any yearning or languishing. It was only in later adaptations that voluptuous suggestions'' were introduced, but the goddess of Praxiteles produced her effect by the purity and innocence of her expression, b\- her simple grace and noble naturalness. As regard bodil)- forms, the statue stands about midway between the older tj-pe of the 'Venus of Aries ' and the later Mcdicean Venus. Much as she differs from the former, she yet also differs from the latter, especiall)- in the breadth of the chest and in the modelling of the contours, which are far less full and rounded. In addition to the nude Aphrodite of Knidos, an entirely draped Aphrodite b\- Praxiteles — probably the one described as velata specie at Kos — is known to us in a poor and late reproduction, which however has the advantage of being attested by docu- that period, might be the artist (cf. p. 122, n. 2). The Archidamos was found in the Villa Ercolancnse in the great peristyle as a companion piece to a term representing a beardless man, who, judging from style and type, might very well be Philip of Macedon, who stood beside the Archidamos at Delphi. Gercke (Boniit-r Stiidieii, p. 141) suggests Philhetairos, instead of Philip, but the lower part of the face, which deviates from the fixed type of the coins, speaks against this assumption. ^ T^s Twi/ 'EAA-jjcoji/ aKpaaias ai'cfflTj/ia, Krates, (7/^/(/ Athen. p. 591 b. - Our dating of Phryne does not clash with this in the least, as Sal. Reinach asserts {A'ev. Cril. 1894. no), for of course no reliance can be placed on the anecdote that Phryne sat as a model to the sculptor. ' As Michaelis has done in his last treatise on the statue (/. H. S. 1887, 324 siy.) Cf. my remarks in .lir/i. An-.. 1891, p. 140 seq. Michaelis's list of copies is in need of revision. The following are true copies of the Venus of Knidos, and correspond in their measurements : (i) = Mich. A, in the ' Magazino' of the Vatican ; bronze cast in the Louvre (cf.^n7/.^«:., loc. cit.)\ head unbroken ; best preserved copy; workmanship good.— (2) = Mich. D; Ilelbig, Museums, 316 ; head wrongly adjusted ; modern neck. Poor, leathery work. — (3) and (4) Museo Torlonia, No. 106, 146 (but tiot No. 26, which Mich, reckons with the others) ; both much restored. — (5) = Mich. C ; Pal. Pitti ; body good ; head wrongly adjusted, but genuine. — (6) Villa Ludovisi, Helbig, Museums, 869 ; head readjusted according to the lire of breakage; fair copy, which passes incorrectly as modern. — (7) Torso in Kaufmann Coll. (Berlin) from Tralles ; the head (Aut. Denkm. i. 41) is the best copy of the head. — (8) Torso, Louvre, No. 2885.— (9) Torso in Villa Medici, wrongly restored. — (10) Bust in Louvre = Frohner, 164; neck unbroken. — (ll) Head in Louvre, wrongly given to a reclining nymph (Frohner, 454). — (12) Head in Museo Chiaramonti, No. 254 ; fair work, but much nibbed over. — (13) Head in Capitol, Gal. No. 39. — (14) Head, Mus. Boncompagni Ludovisi, No. 21. — Among the statuettes there is one very good and well-preserved copy in the Museo Chiaramonti, No. 119 c ; an inferior one in Potsdam in the picture gallery. A bronze not quite exact in detail, Kmhner, Coll. Greau, Bronzes, PI. 26, No. 927. ■" The turn has been kept especially well in I, 6, 7, 10, 1 1. ^ Especially in the Munich statue, where the thighs are pressed together. KOAN APHRODITE 323 mentary evidence. It is a statue in the Louvre (F"ig. 138)/ round whose pHnth runs an ancient inscription, IIpafiTeXj/? eVoti/crei', dating from late Imperial times. Until a short time ago this inscription was only known from a notice in \'isconti, and had disappeared because the ancient plinth had been let in or sunk in such a manner that the inscription was supposed to be lost.- Lately the edge of the plinth has been set free, and the inscription is again legible.^ According to every analogy, the inscription can only mean that the work is a copy after Praxiteles, and the style certainly confirms this view. The goddess wears a long thin chiton, girded deep about the hips ; the right shoulder is lowered, allowing the garment to slip slightK' off, but not so as to c.Kpose the bosom. The attitude is as simple as that of the Knidian statue ; the weight of the body is thrown on to the right leg, the left shoulder is much raised, the right hip curved outwards. In the copy the left hand rests on the head of a little Eros obviously of late Roman origin, which cannot possibly have belonged to the original ; it doubtless replaces some acces- sory which was not to the liking of the copyist ; but if the hand be imagined to have rested on a terminal figure or an idol, we obtain a motive especially popular in the time of Praxiteles. Ihe head is unfortunate!)' missing.-* The main charm of this statue must have resided in the natural treatment of the thin semi-transparent drapery. The copy at any rate still allows this to be felt, and shows how differently the artist solved the problem which Alkamenes had essayed before him {Vfiius Genetrix, p. 82). Those clinging wet draperies, those beautifully arranged if conventional folds of the earlier artist, are quite abandoned in the Praxitelean period, which condemned them as untrue ; thus here also Praxiteles, in the multitude of fine flowing folds, is striving entirely after truth of effect. The lines of the folds are not beautiful in themselves, as they were in the older system, but they are charming (or were so in the original), because they reflect the rich abundance of nature. The same draper)', treated in the same way, as well as the deep girdle and the slight displacement of the drapery on one shoulder, is seen in another Pra.xitelean work, in the chiton of the Artemis Brauronia, a statue which I agree with Studniczka in thinking we have a copy of in the ' Diane de Gabies ' (Louvre).'' h'urthcr, many a work of later times (like the celebrated P^lora F"arnese)'' was evidently inspired by the Aphrodite of Kos. According to Studniczka's very probable suggestion, the Brauronia of Praxiteles was set up on the Akropolis, in 15. c. 346. It therefore belongs to the later period of his artistic activit)-. He must cvidcntl)- have returned from Asia ]\Iinor about Fig. 1 38. — Statue in Louvre. (From Clarac, JMits, de Sc. PI. 341-) ' Published Bouillon, t. iii. S/a/iics, PI. 6, 7. Clarac, Miiur, I'l. 341, 1291 (= our Fig. 13S, which omits the restored head). Cf. Bernouilli, Aphrodite, p. ill, \o. 2. - Cf. Frohncr, Notice, 151 ; Lowy, /. G. B. 502. ^ The epigraphy is of the later Imperial period. Sal. Reinach (GVi:. Arch. 1887, 259, note 5) called atlenlion to the inscription. The statue is not, as R. supposes, a replica of the ' Genetri.'c.' ^ Head and right shoulder are modern, not ancient and readjusted as Clarac and Frcihner assert. ^ Studniczka, I'eimnt. :. A'mistjfest/i. p. iS sei/. Robert (An/i. Mdnheii, p. 144. scq.) has adduced nothing decisive against this supposition ; cf p. 102, note J. To the known replicas of the statue should be added a head in Berlin, Shilpl. 625. The Praxitelean Dionysos, in the Hope Coll. at Deepdene (.Surrey), is analogous to this -Vrtemis in the drapery (Clarac, 695, 1614; Roscher's /.tvv. i. 1 133). '^ Clarac, 43S B, 795 D ; cf 437, 792 (.Munich Glyptolhck, 29S). 324 I'KAXlTliLES I'lG. 139.— Artcuus ii] L)n:bdi;n. this time. Shortly before this lie had brought to a close his work in Ephesos, Halikarnas- sos, Knidos, and Kos. Belonging apparently to the earlier part of his career is another statue of Artemis, of which the best copy is the one at Dresden ^ (Figs. 139, 140). It represents the god- dess as a quite young, still undeveloped girl, wearing a long ungirt tunic, and stand- ing in a simple, tranquil at- titude, her bow in her left hantl, while the right feels for the quiver at her back. The Praxitclean authorship is proved by the t\-pe of the head, which corresponds in contour and arrangement of hair \\ith the \'cnus of Aries and the Knidian Aphrodite, and merely introduces into the type a maidenl}', almost childish element. It is above all the attitude and drapery of the Dresden statue which clearly prove its early origin. The attitude, with the un- weighted foot placed to the side, is that of the Eirene and (if the Venus of Aries. Like the lurenc, too, the drapery falls in straight folds from the ' Dresden, liecker, Aii:^iistcuiii, 45 ; <'I,irac, 569, 1214 A; Mullei-Wieseler, ii. 162 ; Roscher's Lex. i. 606, No. 2. lOxcellent piesei vation. Faithful but 1 ather coarse copyist's work. P. Herr- mann and P. A rndt have recognized the Praxitelean character (cf. Arndt-Bruck- mann, Einzclvcvk. to No. 133). ■ — Three replicas in Cassel, heads not authentic ; in one (ii. 19) a piece of the raised right arm is antique. — A good replica in Ber- lin, Skiilpt. 60 (remains of the raised rii;ht arm antique). — Good statue in Villa Borghese (Arndt-Bruckmann, Kinzelvcrk. No. 133 ; head foreign). An Ionic under-chiton is added. The drapery is finer and better executed than in the IJresdeu statue. ARTEMIS J-3 right knee, but whilst the Eirene seeks to imitate the large simple folds characteristic of Pheidian drapery, the Munich Artemis shows a wealth of charming detail care- fully studied from nature. There is an astonishing similarity, except that the sides are reversed, between the drapery falling from the knee and the corresponding portion on one of the IMuses, leaning on her right arm, of the Mantineia relief. This statue was afterwards slightly altered and turned into an Isis-Tyche, by lowering the right arm, and by doing away with the quiver, which was no longer needed to explain the action of the hand, though the quiver-strap was retained f"lG. 140. — Head of .-^rlemis (Dresden). because it gave a special charm to the draper)- ; the bow in the left hand was replaced by a cornucopia, and an Ionian undcr-chiton, visible at the shoulders, was sometimes added. The best copy of this variant is at Munich. ^ Perhaps the basis of this con- ception was a Tychc by Pra.xitcles himself, with features borrowed from his Artemis. ' Glypt. 113. ISrunn-Bruckmann, Dtiiiiii. No. 123. The ends of curls on the shoulders are antique. Thorwaldsen rightly restored a horn of plenty in the left hand. The replica noted by Winter in the Pal. .Scian-a (Berlin, Skttlpl. p. 529) gives the true interpretation. The goddess holds a horn of plenty and a snake ; the child Harpokrates below. Replicas, known as such by the lowered right arm, the Ionic undcr-garnient, and the absence of quiver, are : Clarac, 410 H, 837 A (with horn) ; Museo Torlonia, Taf. 64 and 251 (wrongly restored in a group); Louvre, 1910 (Frohner, Naluc, 390), etc. The type referred to on p. 60, note i, is related to this one. 326 praxitei.es The later Orphic identification of Tjchc and Artemis' may be derived from an earlier, presumably Eleusinian conception. The same type was adopted, actually by Praxiteles, for an Athena.- A small transverse aegis now takes the place of the quiver-strap ; the right arm is raised and rests upon a lance, the left upon a shield. The goddess is conceived as a graceful girl, bright and gentle, but not quivering with excitement, like the youthful Athena attributed to Skopas {supra, p. 305). A head in Berlin,-' belonging to a large statue now lost, bears so marked a likeness to the Knidian Aphrodite that its original must have been a Praxitclcan work. We must not pass over a remarkable statuette of Artemis from Kition in Cyprus (Fig. 141).^ Here also the goddess is conceived as a graceful but quite young girl in a long chiton. She is leaning against an idol."' The folds of drapery round the lower part of the body are quite in the style of the Dresden Artemis. The head likewise resembles that of the Dresden statue, save that the knot of hair is rather different. But this Cypriote statuette has the freshness and bloom of a work which, however slight, is j-ct an original. It is so thoroughly Praxitclcan that we would gladl\- call it a irapepyov by the master himself, made perhaps \\hcn he was in the neighbourhood of Cyprus, at Kos or at Knidos. In addition to what has been described, a good deal of Praxitelean work might certainly be recovered from the statues and heads of other female divinities." But this master's creations have given ri.se to such countless variants and adaptations that it is difficult to pick out what was originally his. Such an inquiry would lead us too far from our immediate object, which is to trace the main points in the successive developments of the artist's style. One example however of what is meant may be given. Praxiteles certainly also pourtrayed older, more dignified goddesses, such as Leto for example. Some such t\-pc it is that imdcrlics the famous so-called 'Hera Ludovisi.' " The arrangement of the front hair, the forehead, and also the lower part of the face clearly show Praxitelean forms. In spite of this, the work is only a Roman creation based on a Praxitelean model ; for we must not attempt to deceive ourselves ; this famous ' Hera,' which passes for a type of ideal beauty, is in reality only a Roman empress or a lady of the Imperial family, represented as a goddess, as a Ceres or P'ortuna. There is external evidence to prove this. The arrangement of the hair at the back, with the t\-pical plait on the nape, is never given to goddesses. It is the special fashion of the Claudian age, and, so far as we know, it occurs at no other period, either before or aftcr."^ I'urthcr, the knotted fillet that ' Orpli. Hynni. 72. - Sl.ilue of the Villa Boi'ghese, Helbig, J/«.(i7cw.v, 935 ; Beric/itc d. Siulis. Gescl/. 1861, Taf. i, 2 ; 1865, Taf. I, 2, 3. The head is foreign. The right arm was ccrlainly raised. The drapery corresponds in all essentials with the Artemis ; on the shoulders an Ionic chiton is visible. Poor work. Replica in Turin, staircase to the Anncria ; right arm raised ; tlie neck new, l)ut the head seems genuine : Corinthian helmet, hair simply taken back; general Praxitelean character. — Museo Chiaramonti, No. 403 ; right arm raised, head foreign. In the later statues of .-Vthena, all sorts of Praxitelean influences may generally be distinguished. ^ Berlin, Skiilpl. No. 78. — A head in the Vatican (Melbig, Mtniiniis, 229 ; Miis. I'io CUin. vi. 2, 2) is similar, but differs in the proportions and in the turn of the head. ■* In Vienna, y«//ri'i. d. Kiiiists. d. Oeslcrr. Kaiscrh. v. 1887, Taf i. ii. ; p. I .>(/|iina has on her coins just such stiff locks as the 'Hera.' In the Luduvisi iinentoiy fur the year 1633 Fig. 141. — Statuette of Artemis from Kition in C>-pnJs (\"ienna). 328 f'RAXITKLES passes in front of the diadem and falls down at the sides is ccrtainl)- not the attribute of any tjoddess, hut it is cliaracteristic of the Imperial ladies during the early F.mpire, and marked them as priestesses,' and it is precisely in authentic heads of the Claudiaii age that we find this same combination of diadem and sacerdotal fillet.- There are various degrees of idealization in these portraits of deified women. In the Hera Ludovisi it is strongly emphasized, and so is the imitation of Praxitclean style. But a careful cop\- from an)- Greek original the ' Ilera ' is not,-' and the additions in Roman taste are clear enough to be unmistakable to us, though a former school of art criticism might fail to distinguish them. But to return to the statues of yVrtemis. If wc assign the Uiana of Gabii to Praxiteles, then the ' Diane dc Versailles ' cannot be very far removed from him. I'or the t\-pcs of head are nearly related. Above all, there is nothing in this celebrated statue which could not belong to the master's later period. Judging from coins, Jiis Artemis at Antikj'ra •• must have been very similar. The 'Diane' is certainly not, as was formerly believed, a creation of the Hellenistic age. No such invention remained for that age, for all these types of divinities had been created long before. Even the Belvedere Apollo has lately been shown to be a fourth- century creation.'" The Diana may well be derived from a work by the master of the Apollo — a point to which wc shall have to return. Still more closcl)- related to Traxitclcs and to his Artemis of y\iitikyra is a torso in the Jacobscn Collection.'' It is very like the Diana of Versailles, though it is simpler, with less of a gliding gait and a more decided stride ; the garment is open at the side ami clings closelj' to the figure, like the draper}' crilwctos, which was part of a group.) The Praxitelean authorship is not proved merely b)' the cvitlcnt renown of the work and by the gentle grace of the figure : another and more definite reason lies in the likeness of the head to that of the Eubouleus (Plate X\T.) " The breadth of the face, due to an exclusive attention to the front view, the shape of the forehead — with its well-marked horizontal modulations, the luxuriant crown of hair confined b\- the ^ No. 122. Clarac, 573, 1228. Good workmanship, badly restored. Drapery specially lifelike. The raised left shoulder shows that the forearm was raised and supported. - 188 B. Made into a bust in ancient times. The breast shows the chiton and the mantle on the left shoulder, but the folds are not the same as in the torso, and the quiver band is absent. ' In Villa .\lbani, against the wall in the garden. No. 295. To the left three worshippers, to the right Artemis in the type described (head broken off); below a dog. Drapery and attitude correspond with the Chiaramonti torso. ■* Sam in/. Saboiiroff, PI. 125, 126. ^ Cf. Friederichs-Wolters, 1216 ; Ilelbig, Miisciiiiis, 525; Berlin, S/;ii/pt. 25S, 259; Brunn, G/v/if. 105. Among the replicas note the Capitoline statue, smooth and elegant, apparently of the period of Hadrian. The copies of Villa Borghese (Helbig, Museums, 943), of Villa Albani, No. no, and of Museo Torlonia, No. 113, are very good. The two in the Vatican (Helbig, 211, 55), and that of the Lateran (Helbig, 639), are inferior ; on the Braccio Nuovo copy the antique fragment of a pedum on the right upper arm is an addition of the copyist. The best copy of the body is the Palatine torso in the Louvre. Among the heads, one in Vienna is to be noted, because the beautiful nose is antique. There is a celebrated head in the Hope collection at Deepdene, in Surrey (cf. Michaelis, Anc. Sculpt, p. 270), but I have unfortunately never seen it. [I was enabled to see this beautiful head in the summer of 1893 : every effort, however, made to obtain a photograph of it for the English edition of this book has proved of no avail. — E. S.] Of smaller replicas wc may mention the one in Museo Chiaramonti, 582, and the one in Tripolitza (cf. Ath. Mitth. 1879, p. 144, i). The owner told me in 187S that it came from Sparta ; it is a good copy ; the part tmder the eyes is more hollowed out than usual. ^ Benndorf {Anz. d. Wiener A tad. 1887, Nov. 16) laid stress on the rounded form of the skull, the full hair, and the fillet that presses into it as points of resemblance between the Satyr and the Eubouleus. U U 330 PRAXITELES chaplct, and the way it falls at the sides and on the nape of the neck, arc strikingly alike in both heads. We must mention, too, one special point of likeness to the Hermes — in the for[n of the foot, which has the characteristic great toe, slender abo\e and broadening at the end, separated from the others by a wide interval. If we compare the body, on the one hand, to the works of the early period, and, on the other, to the Hermes, we shall find that this Satyr comes between the two. In the body the artist has certainly not attained^ to the same degree of roundness as in the Hermes: on the contrary, the older manner is still quite evident in the broad planes, in the harsh depression between the straight and the oblique abdominal muscles, and, above all, in the flat form of the abdomen itself The treatment of the body is still far removed from the stage reached in the Hermes ; still it is more advanced than in the Satyr pouring wine ; the pubic region, for instance, is enlivened by little furrows treated with great delicacy. In the unconstrained easy design, in the picturesque draping of the panther-skin, which lies across the figure, in the exclusi\e attention paid to the front view, and above all in the whole formation of the head, Praxiteles has given unrestrained expression to his own new method, and thrown aside all that had bound him to older models; but in the formation of the body he had not yet gone quite so far. With this conclusion it is, however, impossible to reconcile Brunn's view, founded on generalizations, that the Hermes is an early work, the Satyr a mature one." Hrunn even thought that he had found the original of the Satyr in a torso from the Palatine in the Louvre. The torso however is unfortunately only a copy — a good one, it is true, but no better than other good copies ; even the material, a coarse-grained marble cold and white in tone, and possibly Thasian, but certainly not Parian, is never found in Greek works of the good period, though it is common in later copies. The work too is in many places quite lifeless, and the modelling lacks the finer touches ; it is only necessary to compare the part round the collar-bone and the shoulder with the corresponding portion of the Hermes in order to grasp thoroughly the difference between an original and a copy. The blithe beauty of the conception and the entrancing sweetness of the head, with the delicate smile on its lips, easily explain the reputation of the statue. Protogenes, a painter whose originality was in inverse proportion to his admirable technique, early utilized the design for a picture,-' and there are still later adaptations in marble which give to the Satyr coarser forms, a prominent abdomen, and crossed legs, and make him play the flute.* We have already reckoned with the Euboulcus (Plate XVI.) as with an authentic work of Praxiteles, for such we must maintain it to be, in spite of a contrary opinion^ that has lately been gaining ground. The Roman copyists, as an inscription tells us, copied the head of the ' Eubouleus of Praxiteles.' Now, to assume w'ith Kern that this Praxiteles may be any other artist who bore the name'' would be as perverse as if ' The copies all agree in this particular. " Dctttsche Rundschau, viii. 200. ^ Strabo, 14, p. 652; Plin. 35, 106. Slcphani (Cowptc Kiiulu, 1870 — 71, p. 99) wished to refer to this statue the marble figures of the resting Satyr, which is impossible. Tlie painter made use of the sculptor as Eupomjios made use of Polykleitos. ■• e.g. Berlin, Skulpt. 260, 261 ; Samml. Sahouroff, Text to Hate 77, 7S, p. 2, note 6. ^ Kern, in Atli. Mitl/i. xvi. I sqq., also Helbig, Fiihrcr, ii. p. 413. Sal. Reinach expresses doubt in Chronique ill. dclla Coinin. Arch. 1886, p. 74. ■'■ l''rbhner. Not. 326. Photo, cd. Giraudon, 1201. So-called Thasian marble. The connexion between the figure and the antique stem and drapery is new ; the stem probably stood rather nearer. The head is un- broken. The workmanship is poor, flat, and siiiritless, yet the beauty of the original shines through. Tlie motive of the Eros of Parion recurs on a Greek mirror and gem (cf. Roscher's Lex. i. 1359). '• Winckclmann (Hisl. of Art, bk. v. ch. i, § I2 = tr. Lodge, vol. i. ]i. 325) felt deeply the beauty of the work. In saying that it was ' fashioned after the beauty of angels ' he was evidently influcMiced by the volnpluous angel of seventeenth- and eiglitecnth-ccntury art. HERMES— APOLLO— DIONYSOS 337 its well-knit forms, is still under the spell of the constrained rhythm of I'eloponnesian creations/ and seems consumed with repressed longing. We have now arrived at that period of the artist's life to which the Olympian Hermes belongs. Many monuments can be grouped about this statue, but only the more important need be mentioned here. First of all comes an 'Apollo at rest' w'ith his right arm over his head — a famous work, to judge by the many copies and later adaptations.- Both the attitude and figure are extraordinarily like the Hermes, and the spirit of the work is so thoroughly Praxitelcan in the quiet beauty of its flowing lines, so radically different from the work of Skopas for instance,'' that we naturally assign it to the master of the Hermes. The position of the head is like that of the Aphrodite of Knidos ; the eyes gaze into the distance, and even the features show such a family likeness to the Aphrodite that the authorship of Praxiteles cannot be doubted. The hair is a fresh example of the master's skill in inventing rich and characteristic coiffures. The god is only lightly leaning on his left arm, for the left leg is not absolutely free and drawn behind the other as in the Hermes, but is planted flat on the ground, so as to give the figure more dignity of bearing. A Dionysos, of which copies likewise exist, corresponds so closely to this^ Apollo that it must be the work of the same artist. The attitude and the bodily forms are identical ; on the left shoulder a nebris is knotted, and clings clo.sely and softly to the figure so as to reveal its shape. The bacchic mitra is fastened into the hair, which falls in long curls over the shoulders. The type of face also, with the far-off look, is very like the Apollo, though it is modified to characterize a more effeminate, sensuous nature. There is another Dionysos at Madrid,"' which is certainly Praxitelcan, and belongs ' I may just mention at the close of this section that a series of Kanephoroi is preserved to us as Caryatids in copies which must go back to originals from the circle of Skopas and Praxiteles. Three types may be dis- tinguished : (rt) Villa Albani, 725; Friederichs-Wolters, 1557; Helbig, Ahiseums, 837; Clarac, 444, S14 B; left supporting leg, head related to Knidian Aphrodite. A replica without head in Athens, found near the Metro- politan Church. (Ii) Villa Albani, 628; Friederichs-Wolters, 1556; Helbig, S34 ; Clarac, 444, 814. Rests on left leg. Hair in furrows. Replica in Athens found with replica of «. (i) British Museum, Newton, Ginde Graeco- Rom. Siulpt. I, 126; Clarac, 444, 813. Rests on right leg. Ilair in furrows. The types are magnificent and worthy of the greatest artists. The replicas in Athens were perhaps made to replace the originals which the Romans took away. According to a suggestion kindly communicated to me by Bulle, these types can be traced back to the Triopian sanctuary of the Chthonic divinities near Knidos. This would answer admirably to our assumption of a Praxitelcan origin, for Praxiteles worked in Knidos. There was a Kanephora by Skopas in Asini Moniiiiiciilis ; the Kanephora of Praxiteles, Plin. xxxiv. 69, is, however, only a conjecture, the reading oporan of the cod. Riccardianus being veiy probably the correct one. [Cf. now BuUe's article, Riim. Milth. ix. p. \T,\sqq. His own view is that the Roman statues belonged to a sanctuary of the Triopian Demeter on the Via Appia dedicated by Herodes Atticus in memory of Regilla, and that the Athenian copies possibly belonged to the sanctuary of Serapis and Isis, in the neighbourhood of the Metropolitan church. Neither series stood free, according to Bulle, but were placed pillar-wise against a wall. — E. S.] - For the type and its Praxitelean origin see my Satyr von Pcrgamoii, p. 21, A, 2 ; Roscher's Lex. \. 460— 462 ; Samml. Sabouroff, to Taf. 36. Collection of replicas (including some wrong material), Overbeck, Apolloii, 209 seq. Good copies are Berlin 44 and 512 ; Louvre, Frohner, 75, 76, and a torso, No. 3013 ; a torso in P.alazzo Mattel. A good copy of the head is falsely placed on a seated statue of Apollo in the Museo Bonconipagni- Ludovisi (Helbig, i1/«.t('«WM, 877). Schreiber (V. Litd. ,116) wrongly explains it as modern; another cojiy is in the Conservat. Pal. Salone,, No. 31, placed on a female statue. Two replicas of the head in the Brit. Mus., Friederichs-Wolters, 1292—93. One in the Coll. Barracco (Co//. />'. PI. 59, 59 a). Kalkmann, misled by his measurements {Prop. d. Gcsichls, p. 62), places this Apollo in the fifth century, and, on the other hand, calls a late Roman copyist's modification (in the Brit. Mus. from Kyrene) Praxitelean ! Cf. my remarks in the BcrL riiilol. Wochaischrift, 1894, p. 109. '■'■ Birch and Wolters, he. cit., thought of .Skopas. ■* The so-called Bacchus de Versailles in the Louvre, Frohner, yVv/Zce-, 218; photo, ed. Ciraudon, iiSo. Well preserved, with head. Jliid. Frohner, 216. •■' Friederichs-Wolters, 1485. I know no replicas ; the bronze Dionysos published by Milani (.Miisco Hal. iii. 752 seq. ) as Praxitelean has no connexion with Praxiteles. Cf. infra, p. 353. .\ X 33^ PRAXITELES to the same period of the artist's Hfc. In conception it most resembles the Eros of Parion. The god is resting his arm on an archaic terminal figure. But belonging to this later period there are also figures standing free without any support. First of all comes, as was noticed immediately on the discovery of the Olympian Hermes, the so-called Antinous (Hermes) of the Belvedere.^ The head and the bodily forms, even down to minute details like the hair over the forehead, correspond most closely to the Olympian statue. Still there are differences which cause one to suspect that this work is a still later de\-eIopment of the I'raxitelean manner, and may be by one of his sons ; these differences are the modelling of the chest, the greater curve of the hips, and the smallness of the head, which however seems to have lacked the ideal grace and refinement of the Olympian Hermes. The right arm is placed on the hip — an attitude often found in statues by Skopas ; here however it assumes a different character. Skopas made it express fierce impatience and restlessness, but here it conveys an idea of graceful nonchalance. Compare for instance the Meleager of Skopas. It is untrue to say that the difference arises from the subject-matter ; for the Hermes belonging to the earlier works of Skopas was, as we saw, represented in like unrest (Fig. 129). This again is a point in which Lysippos is linked to Skopas; a beautiful bronze statuette from Athens - gives us a Hermes of purest Lj-sippian style, in the swinging posture of the Apoxyomenos, the left arm placed behind the back, the right holding the kerykeion sidewa}-s, the head jerked impatiently to one side. How totally different is the thoughtful, quiet I'raxitelean figure ! Of another Praxitelean Apollo^ we get at least a glimpse in a torso {supra, Plate XV.) Like the Belvedere Hermes, he rests full on the right leg, with the hip curved outwards, and does not lean against any support ; the right arm is raised to feel for the quiver at his back. The head is turned towards the side of the free leg. The contours agree with those of the ' Apollo at rest ' and the Hermes of Olympia, but they are somewhat softer. There is another statue, a Hermes (Fig. 144),* which is particularh- interesting owing to the novelty and originality of the motive. The artist has for once broken through his practice of only representing figures at rest, and has attempted some- thing more vigorous. Even here however the master's bent is unmistakable, for the design is a model of perfectly rounded beauty and internal repose. Besides a full-sized copy in Florence, there are two statuettes, which however are not quite exact in details.^ The attitude is the same as that of the ' Apollo at rest ' and of the Dionysos, except that there is no support for the left arm. However, ' Treu, Homes mil dem Diouysoskiiahen (1878), p. 8 seq. Cf. Friederichs-Wollers, 1218 — 20; Helbig, Miui-iims, 145. The replica from Andros is not faithful stylistically, but mixes in Ly.^ippian elements ; the Roman copies are more faithful. A good one in the Lansdowne Collection (Michaelis, .-liic. Sculpt, p. 454, 65), and one in the I'al. Vecchio in Florence (Diitschke, ii. 511; the head antique, but foreign). Amelung {Florcnlincr Aiilikeii, p. 37) mentions replicas of the head. - Berlin, /«-■. 6305 ; cf. sii/»a, p. 300. The bronze corresponds very closely with the Apo.xyomenos in proportions and details of form. It appears to be an original of the same school. •■ In Villa Medici, Matz-Duhn, 215. This is the torso on which has been placed the beautiful Meleager head i)ublished in .-hil. Dcnktit. i. Taf. 40. ^ Uffizi, Diitschke, y8 ; Gall, di Firenze, Ser. 4, 135 ; Clarac, 666 C, 1512 A. Cf. Arch. Aiiz. 1889, 147. The drawing by Heemskerk, mentioned by Michaelis, Jahrb. d. Inst. vi. p. 140, 26, C, seems to represent this statue. The left arm and the beginning of the right upper arm are antique ; the ker)'keion is restored ; head unbroken ; nose, lips, and edge of jietasos restored ; legs, wings on feet, and plinth are antique. •'• a. Marble statuette. Gall, dei Candelabri, 17 ; only the torso antique ; the chlamys is fastened on the right shoulder. /;. Bronze statuette in Naples, No. 5208. No chlamys ; the right hand, bent and empty, seems to grasj) the Iiat. The left hand is held as in the Florentine statue. No kerykeion. HERMES 339 since in those other two statues the support is ahnost without influence upon the position of the bod}-, seeing that the left foot is planted flat to the front, while the left arm is only slightly supported, the actual difference is very slight. The close connexion of the Uffizi Hermes with the Apollo, the -Dionysos, and the 01\-mpian Hermes is proved above all b\- the correspondence of the bodily forms, somewhat -Hermes in the Uflizi. hard and dry though the copyist's work was. In this case too the right arm is raised ; unfortunately only the stump is left in the large statue, but the bronze statuette shows that the hand was empty. The left one holds a kerykeion like the Belvedere and the Olympian Hermes ; the chlamys falls over the arm as in the latter, an arrangement which we sometimes find on fourth-century Attic grave-reliefs. 340 I'RAXITEI.ES The head icmincls us of the ' Satyr at rest ' and (if the luibouleiis, for the hair grows thick and full on the crown of the head, then falls awas- on cither side of the face, and there is the same breadth of forehead, while face and neck agree completely. There are traces of a growth of beard on the checks — he is irpoiTov vTrtjr'ijTij^;, as Homer represents him (II. xxiv. 38). In fact, the whole conception is Homeric — this Hermes is no longer the }-outh trained in the palaestra, with close shorn hair and cphcbic type of face ; he is a free child of nature, a young man in the prime of his strength and beauty, a ruler's son, Kovpw alavfivij- Ti}pi foiKo)'!, a son of Zeus, as we are reminded b\- the typical growth of the hair. The Hermes is the messen- ger between gods and men, rejoicing in his strength as lie lifts his arm antl looks upwards, and we feel that his winged feet are about to bear him and his mes- sage to Olympos. This Hermes recalls the Kros described by Kallistratos, as about to clea\c the air with his wings. I believe I have tliscovered a reproduction of this statue in a small bronze,^ which shows Eros with both arms raised pre- paring to soar upward. This audacious conception would of course belong to the artist's later period. In close connexion with this Florentine Hermes comes a statue of Herakles in the Villa Albani (Fig- 145).^ The attitude is identical, and the statue has the typical late Praxitelean forms. The hero holds his club in the left hand just as the Hermes holds his kerykeion, and the right hand too is upraised ; the restorer has put a cup into it, and it is not improbable that it actually once held a drinking-vcsscl. Unfortu- nately a portion of the neck is new, but the head itself is genuine, and its turn to the right is shown by what remains of the neck to be accurate. The paws of the lion-skin are knotted together on the right shoulder so as to produce ' /a/ii-k d. Vcr.f. Allerlh.-Fr. im Rhei>ila>id, Heft 90, p. 61 sqq. Taf. 3, 3. Cf. p. 314, note I. - Clarac, 804 B, 2007 A ; Helbig, Museums, 840. The front of the right leg above the knee, the front of tlie foot, the left right arm (except at the shoulder, where sufficient remains to show that the arm was raised), the left hand, and most of the club, except a small piece in the middle, are restored. The neck is partly restored. The body has suffered much from exposure. The support with the quiver is antique. Emil Braiin (Ruincn tin J Miistrii, p. 706 «'\i. 70, SS ; Overbeck, Gesdi. li. P/ast!/,; yA //,';;, p. 371 : Helbig, Museums, 421. ' E. Reisch, ' Ein vermeintliches Werk des Euphranor," in Fcsfp-uss aiis liiiishruik an die Philologenver- samml. in Wieii, Innsbruck 1893. « Cf. Kern, A//i. Millli. xvi. 25 seq. ' In Pliny's account it stands between two works whose position in Rome is accurately given. ' Plin. xxxvi. 23. On the Capitol. » Cf. Kern, Ath. Mit/li. xvi. 24 seq. '" Am. Marbles of the Brit. Mus. xi. 47. The beardless figure carrying a horn of plenty on a votive relief rom Kyrene (Anhaeologia Scotica, iv. PI. 17 ; J. H. .S". v. 157, 3) is closely analogous. " Some of the more important gems are : carnelian in the British Museum (our Fig. 149). Calal. 929, already given by Natter, Traiti, PI. 23, also Cades, cl. ii. G, 57, 58. Several instances in Vienna and in Copenhagen (Abdr. derDcin. Samml. in Berlin 295 — 297), a good emerald-plasma in the Thorwaldsen Museum, No. 610, several stones in St. Petersburg (Abdr. in Berlin, 20, 16 ; 26, 14 ; 32, 86 ; 35, 47 ; 44, 59), Coll. Schonberg {Abdr. 127), etc. Coins : cf. the index of Cohen, Mi-d. Iiiipi'r. 2nd ed. viii. p. 365, Bonus Even/us. In the Berlin collection I have compared pieces of Titus, Hadrian, and Antoninus ; they continuously show exactly the same type as the gems. 350 KlIMIRANOR -iuch things can be that this statue was actuall)- the work of luiphranor. This is of the highest importance, for an examination of the figure shows that luiphranor followed that Argive t>-pc of which we found the Idolino to be the finest example. The youth rests on his right leg, and places the other to the side without drawing it back ; he bends his head to the right, holds the cup in his right hand, while in the left, which hangs down, he holds a bunch of cars of corn, or of poppies and corn mixed. The better reproductions reveal a certain sparencss of form which is specially conspicuous in the Idolino, so that the Bonus Eventus has all the characteristics of style which tradition ascribes to Euphranor. Taking this Bonus Eventus as a basis from which to recover the CarncLiVm th.: Standing Hialc figures of Euphranor, we may now venture further, and Bntibh MiLseum. ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ attention to a small group of figures which reproduce the klolino type so popular, as we have seen, in Argive circles of the fifth centur)-, in a st)'lc which savours more of the fourth. Among these by far the most important is a statue of Dionysos (Eig. 150),' found at Tivoli. A number of traits combine to suggest that it must be taken as a copy after Euphranor. It may even be the very statue of Dionysos by him which cpigra- phical evidence shows to have been -at Rome, or at any rate to have been copied there.'- The god stood exactly in the attitude of the Idolino. The left leg has been wrongly restored ;■' it originallj' was planted sideways with the foot flat on the ground. The right hand held a cup, the left hangs empty by the side. Imme- diately on its discovery the connexion of the statue with Polykleitos was noticed,^ but too much was made of it,'"' and those who attributed it to Polykleitos himself wandered far from the truth. On the other hand, Michaelis, to whom we are indebted for an excellent analysis of the statue, has made too little of this Polyklcitan influence, and has certainly not hit on the right solution when he talks of late eclecticism. It is to be hoped that this is only a last flicker of that unfortunate theory, now practically extinct, of an independent ' Pasitclean school ' — a theor}- by whose delusive light it was formerly hoped to illumine all dark places. The close connexion of this statue with the works of the Polykleitan circle is absolutely unmistakable, especially in the forehead, eyes, mouth, and profile, and in the nebris, which is disposed precisely as in the Dionysos of the Polykleitan school mentioned on page 272. But a comparison with the Polykleitan Dionysos and with the other undisputed works of the same school shows that we have before us no production of the actual inner Polykleitan circle. The Dionysos of Tivoli can onl}- belong to the fourth century," for its refined, delicate, and natural modelling is not found in earlier works. Compare, for instance, the formation of the toes (Michaelis has alread}- drawn attention to their Praxitelean quality) or the richly and softly modelled knee with that of the Pol\-kIcitan Amazon, where this part is harder and more simple, or the hair, which in this statue has a much more natural effect than in the more severely st\-listic works of the fourth centur}-. Further, in that Polykleitan Dionysos there is not the slightest admixture of those feminine forms which, as ' Moil. d. /ml. .Ni. 51 ; Ami. 1883, 136 jv/i/. (.Michaelis); Thriimer in Roschei's Lex. i. I13S ; Kiiedciichs- Wolleis, 520 ; Helbig, Miiseiiiiis, 967. CJood copyist work of Hadrian's period. - Lowy, /. 6'. />'. 495. It seems to me likely that the inscription stood under a copy ratlier tlian under llie original. •• First pointed out by Petersen, h'oiii. .Milllt. i8yi, 238. < Robert, Arch. /.t,i;. 1882, 137. ' tiec Wolters, he. at. '' Ilelbig {loc. ii/.) i~ of the same opinion. DIONYSOS 351 iMichaelis has shown, arc so noticeable a feature in the Dionysos of TivoH — as, for instance, in the glutei and the upper arm. Notwithstanding this, the bodilj- formation is still that of the Polykleitan circle, with which the artist must be connected. Apart from the attitude, the Dionysos resembles the Idolino in having a less rounded lower abdominal line than is usual in Polykleitan statues. The way too in which the hair lies close to the skull, and allows its shape to be seen, is Polykleitan. A resemblance to the Electra at Naples has been noted in Fig. 150. — Dionysos from Tivoli (Miiseo delle Ternie). the method of dressing the hair : the likeness consists in the employment of the roll of hair so characteristic of earlier Argive art.^ In the Electra, however, the roll is arranged in front of the ears according to the older fashion, while in the Dionysos it passes behind them, in an original manner. In this hair-roll we can anyhow recognize the influence of early Argive art. All these facts fit in admirablj- with what we have ascertained about Euphranor, and, supposing we place the Lysippian Apoxyomenos beside this statue, have we not the best possible illustration of the criticism passed by Xenokrates on Euphranor ? ' Cf. 50th Berl. Wiittkclmamtspro^r. p. \2'i sqq. 352 EUPHRANOR As a matter of fact, beside the Apoxyomcnos the Dionysos looks as if he were all head and limbs, while in the former the first thing which catches the e>-e is the torso, and then the small head and nervous limbs as mere appendages. If traces of Euphranor are anywhere to be found— and he must be represented among our copies — this Dionysos is by him. By its means several other statues are drawn into the group of works b>' this master. I formerly thought that the beautiful bronze representing a >-outhful Apollo Fig. 151. — Bronze btuuic of Apollo (Brit. Mus.) -Statue in Dresden. in the Sabouroff Collection ' was a Peloponnesian work of the fourth centur)-, which, starting on the lines of the Idolino, was closely connected with the Dionysos of Tivoli. We can now recognize in it an original work in the st\le of Euphranor ; attitude and position are the same, except that the left leg is drawn slighth- back so that the heel is somewhat raised. The Apollo is appreciably }-ounger and more boyish than the Dionysos, and naturally shows absolutely no admixture of feminine forms. With these exceptions the likeness of the two figures is remarkable ; ' Head unfortunately missing ; Saiiiiii. Sahoiir^Jf, I'l. 8 — it ; Sliiilpt. in Berlin, No. i ; Overbeck, Apollo)!, p. 227 ; Bnmn-Bruckniann, Denim. No. 278. STATUES OF APOLLO 353 the Argive substratum pierces through in every part : the torso, especially the front view of it, is rather flat, spare, and dry ;i and the lifelike, finely formed limbs are in strong contrast with it. The fingers, toes, and the modelling round the knee recall the Dionysos, and are also related to Praxitclean work. Now that we have brought the Dion\-sos into connexion with Euphranor, the historical position of the Apollo also becomes intelligible. A bronze statuette, formerly in the collection Grcau,- seems to go back to the same original as the Sabouroff Apollo, and can thus afford a notion of the face and hair. A Hellenistic imitation of an original closely connected with the preceding is preserved in a large bronze statue from Lower Egypt in the British Museum (Fig. 151).* The attitude and the position of the arms are like the Sabouroff bronze ; the bodily forms resemble the Dionysos, though the copyist has very much weakened his model : the head is not bent, the eyes gaze straight in front of them, the hair is very individual ; it lies close to the skull ; it is confined by a twisted fillet, whence it falls in loose curls all round the head. A work by Euphranor must have been the basis for this statue also. With these is connected a statue at Dresden (Fig. 152),* with sufficient remains of the arms and legs to show that the attitude was analogous. It is the figure of a boy, similar in form to the Sabouroff bronze. In this case too the front of the figure is rather flat and spare, although remarkable for its softly blended transitions of surface. The head, which is unbroken, turns naturally to the right, and is slightly bent ; the hair, which lies close to the head, has something Polyklcitan in its arrangement over the forehead, and at the back escapes in short twisted curls. The interpretation of this figure is uncertain, since it belongs to no known type. From what has been said, however, it is a natural step to conjecture in it the Triptolemos {J.e. Bo/uis Eventus) of Euphranor, shown to exist on coins and gems, and to restore it with a cup in the right hand and ears of corn and poppies in the lowered left ; at any rate, it will be difficult to find a better explanation for this remarkable type. Further, we now perceive that it was on prototypes in Euphranor's style that the artists of Hadrian's day based certain portraits of Antinous, which are among the most celebrated of those extant.^ In this connexion must be mentioned a bronze statuette of Dionysos which ' Cf. the fuller analysis in the text of Saiiiiii. Sabouroff, p. 3 jvnd, in possession of Sir Francis Cook; noted by me in 50th Bcrl. U'iih/cc/iiiainisprogr. 1890, p. 152, note 92. Trunk with quiver partly antique; head preserved ; right hand and left forearm new; feet antique ; mediocre work. — Rome, Pal. Chigi : Gitatlaiii, 1785, p. 7 ; Clarac, 4S9, 947 ; Matz-Duhn, 184 ; Overbeck, Apolloii, p. 135, 13. Quiver-band round the breast, not continued over the b.ick. Trunk with snake, feet and forearm new, the rest antique. Very poor copy, inexact in the hair, cfleminate expression. Torso in Berlin, No. 511, good cojjy. Torso restored as Hermes, formerly in Villa Casali, now in the Jacobsen Coll. in Copenhagen, No. 1059 ; right shin wrongly restored, as if drawn back ; good copy. Head without fillet, placed on the Munich 'Jason' (IJrunn, Glypl. No. 151). '■' The Mantua .\ polio (cf. 50th Bcrl. Wiiic/cclinaiuisprop: \i. 141 Jtvy. ) and the latei" modification in the Mubco Torlonia iTaf. 32, 126 ; Overbeck, A/las J. K. Taf 23, 24 ; Apolloii, p. 225, i), and tlie coins there referred to. 'ADONIS' 355 vci-)- like this one ; in the original of the Adonis-Apollo, however, tlie ri^^ht hand most probably held a laurel-branch. This statue again is entirely built up on the lines of a fifth-centur)- creation ; na)-, the artist has been so penetrated with the popular canon of Ilagclaidas that he has imported into his own work some slight reflex of its proportions: for example, he has made the chest too broad for the narrow hips. But above all he has everywhere retained the practice of treating the front of the body in simple, broad planes. The work cannot how- e\-er belong to the fifth centur}'. The transitions from plane to plane are soft and smooth, and the formation of particular parts such as breast or knee find their closest analogy in works belonging — like the Thespian Eros and the ' Satyr pouring out wine '—to the earl)- period of Pra.xitclcs. The relation of the head to this series is likewise manifest — its likeness to that of the Thespian Eros being specially striking. All this is of weight so far as the date of the statue is concerned ; but now, passing to the more delicate personal traits, we find they all speak for Euphranor. In common with the bronze Apollo in the British Museum, the ' Adonis ' has hair lying close to the skull and then escaping in a rough tangle of short curls — a peculiar and original arrangement, not met with elsewhere in statues of Apollo. Some copies, though certainly not all, even have the twisted fillet. Here too, as in the Dionysos of Tivoli, earlier Peloponnesian influences are at work. With the customary type this Apollo has as little in common as the Dionysos. Both however are closely related in their facial forms ; they both aim at typical beauty rather than at spiritual characterization. Both have the same heavy eyelids, treated after the earlier fashion, and similar ends of hair falling about the nape. In face and figure, and even in hair, the 'Adonis-Apollo' resembles the curly-headed Dresden youth (Fig. 152) still more strongly. Finally, if we survey the composition as a whole, we recognize in the Apollo that self- same spirit and temper which pervades the works grouped round Euphranor's name. The spirit of the old Argive creation lives again, rendered in the softer manner of a later age. Unoccupied, unconcerned by any inward and personal emotion, these figures stand absolutely at rest, with heads gently bent, basking as it were in their own beauty. The early works of Praxiteles — the Thespian Eros and the Satyr pouring wine' — ' In proportions, especially the small head, these are closely lelated to the .-Viwllo. Fig. 153.— .Apollo ('Adonis"), Vatican. 356 EUPHRANOR arc, as alrcad)- stated, spcciall)- related to this Apollo, and wo ma)- conclude that the two artists were closely connected. 15oth were influenced by I'eloponnesian models. Hut the active emotional Attic spirit in Praxiteles can never be disijuised ; in spite of their tranquil motive, those Praxitclean statues are all doing something, even down to the Thespian ICros, employed in sprcacHng the meshes of his glances. If the Apollo of the so-called Adonis t}'pc belongs to Euphranor, as every- thing seems to indicate, it must, like those works of his contemporary I'raxiteles, be placed in his earlier period, so that the difference between the Ai)ollo and those other works which form a group witli the Dionysos becomes explicable as a difference of time. In his early period the artist was permeated by the old types created b)- Ilagclaidas, and fashioned his genius after them. Later, he gave the preference to the Idolino type, and developed its bodily forms in the direction of softness and roundness, as shown in the Dionysos and the Sabouroff Apollo.' The criticism passed b)- Xenokrates deals only with these later works. The Apollo of the ' Adonis ' t)pc must, to judge from the replicas, have been a well-known and celebrated work. A similar figure resting on the left leg, the right somewhat advanced, the bow in the left hand, a twig in the right, appears on later Athenian coins,- whence it is safe to conjecture that it is a reproduction of one of the principal statues in the city, such as for instance the statue of Apollo I'atroos, the special god of the Attic race, in his temple on the Agora.'' Now, since the cultus- statue of the I'atroos actuall}' was the work of Euphranor,* it seems not impossible that our copies reproduce that very statue. The style of the Corinthian Euphranor must have been much appreciated in Athens, since he was commissioned to execute the Patroos. The fact testifies to the enthusiasm for Pcloponncsian art which must have reigned in Athens at that time, and which enables us to understand still better the early work of Praxiteles. It certainl)- must have been a great surprise to the Athenians to see Euphranor represent their Patroos almost as a boy with a round curly head, and in a tranquil attitutlc. Yet the creation found favour and reflected the more effeminate spirit of the age, even as the powerful, virile Apollo of Kalamis and M)-ron had reflected the spirit of theirs. An original work from the Akropolis, unfortunately only a torso,"' bears witness to the influence of Euphranor on contemporary Attic artists. It too is an Apollo, with soft, boyish forms, showing in attitude and conformation the influence of the figure surmised to be the Patroos;'' yet the artist has, in Attic fashion, replaced the sparencss and flatness affected by Euphranor by more softly rounded flesh, and he has obviously been influenced not only by this master but by Praxiteles. He was, however, one of the lesser artists ; his work must be dated at about 360 B.C. The Apollo has its exact counterpart in a Dionysos,' evidently belonging to the ' The Adonis- Apollo is flatter in brea.st and abdomen than these. The fold which separates the piiliic region from the abdomen is carried directly into the sulcus iiigHinalis as in the Polykleitan statues of boys. In those later works this is no longer the case. - Inihoof-BIumer and Gardner, Num. Coiiiiu. PI. CC. xv. xvii. ( = our Plate VI. 31) ; Overbed;, Apolloii, Miinztaf. 4, 33. Cf. p. 196, note 2. ^ Cf. Wachsmuth, Stadl Allien, ii. 418; Aristot. 'Afl. iroA. c. 55, 3; lieule (Monn. d'Al/i. p. 271 connected the Patroos with these coins. ■* Statues by Kalamis and Leochares stood outside the temple : Paus. i. 3, 4. '" So-called Elgin ' Eros' in the British Museum ; Friederichs-Wolters, 1291. With qiiiver-band ; of cMirse Apollo, not Eros, who is excluded by the absence of wings. " Weight on the left leg, right foot a little dr.awn back. ' It is the type of the horned Dionysos, discussed by Amelung, Florentincr Aulikcii, p. 15 sqq. I bad always supposed the head in Florence (Amelung, pp. 16, 17) to be a variant of the ' Adonis,' but the replicas enumerated DIONYSOS— HERAKLES-PARIS 357 same period of Eupliranor's activit)', and of which the licad, at an)- rate, has been i)rc- ser\cd in sc\-cral copies. Wc ma}- venture to restore the bod)' on the analogy of tliat of the Apollo, to which it must have offered a complete resemblance. Like the Apollo, this Dionysos differs from the received t)-pes in that his thick, short, curly hair, in which wc again find a twisted fillet, lies close to the skull. The modelling of the face and the self-absorbed expression arc extraordinarily like the Apollo. The earlier works of Praxiteles are also akin to it ; but this master always makes the features less massive and simple, and gives them a more delicately emotional grace. It further appears that we possess copies of yet another work by Euphranor, in which he clung close to the Hagclaidas t)'pes. On a term found in Rome in the seventeenth ccntur)-, and which afterwards disappeared, ran the inscription 'Hpa/cX?;'? 'Ev(j)pdvopo^} This proves that a terminal Herakles by Euphranor was well known at Rome through copies. In the Villa Ludovisi there is a scries of terminal figures which must once have adorned a gymnasium of some kind, and which are copies of works in divers styles.- Among them is a Herakles holding a cornucopia, in which I had alread)' recognized a later adaptation of the Alexikakos of Hagclaidas.'' Since then a statuette has been found in Rome which in all main points corresponds to the idea which one would naturally form of the Herakles by the early Argive master, except that the copyist seems to have replaced the cornucopia on the left arm by the more familiar lion-skin.^ The Ludovisi term repeats the main features of this type, but in a later st)'le, which manifests itself less in the bod)- than in the head, and which seems to correspond to the artistic stage reached by Euphranor. The skin is here slung round the figure, and knotted on the shoulder just as in the Praxitelean Herakles. Finally, it is an important confirmation of our results that the onl)- head of Paris, which judging from copies and later adaptations enjoyed a great reputation, fits so admirably into our sketch of Euphranor's art — na)-, belongs so entirely to the series of works we have been discussing, that wc are justified in thinking that it goes back to Euphranor's celebrated work. The youthful face in the Phrygian cap '' has a convinc- ing likeness to the Adonis-Apollo ; and here again the Peloponnesian influence makes itself felt even in the symmetric arrangement of the curls on the forehead. At the back the curls are twisted, and specially resemble those of the Dresden Triptolemos. The original underwent adaptations and alterations, but was apparently rarely copied, by Amelung make it quite certain that it is Dionysos. The variations in the Lateran head (Amelung;, p. 22) are probably assignable to the copyist. Amelung suggested I'raxiteles, but the illustrations he gives are peculiarly instructive, as showing the finer points of difference from Praxiteles. ' Lowy, I.G.B. 501. Several such inscriptions are known: there is therefore no reason for doubting the genuineness of this one. - Moil. d. Inst. X. 56, 57. Cf. Helbig, .Museums, S61— S65 ; JJrunn, Bayr. S//:tii!j;^s/'i-r. 1S92, 660. These terminal figures are of different date and style (cf. p. 24S, note 4), but mostly early. Cf a similar terui from Rhamnus, 'E(pTi/x. apx- 1891, Taf. 7. " In Roscher's Zt-.r/ziOT/, i. 2158^17/. ■* Marble statuette (in the Roman market) preserved intact (only known tome from the photograph) ; attitude like the Stephanos athlete ; the lowered right hand rests the club on the ground, as in the term ; bearded head bent to the left ; hair like the Stephanos figure and the Olympian sculptures ; lion-skin on the outstretched forearm. The skin was probably absent in the original. ^ As the style of this work fixes its date, we can hardly be at a loss about the interpretation. Ganymede was as yet not represented as a Phrygian, nor presumably was Attis (cf. Saiiunl. Salwiiroff, Text to Taf. 137, p. 4 and Supp.}, but Paris was. A statue in Rome which may be reckoned among the free later modifications shows by the attributes that it was meant for the shepherd Paris (Bui/, dclla Comin. An/i. 18S7, Taf. 2, p. 27). The seated Paris in the Vatican, conjectured by Helbig (Museums, 188) to be after Euphranor, is in conception and form of Ilellenistico-Roman origin. The figure seems to have been adapted from a painting or a relief. There are no replicas of it. 35S EUPHRANOR which accounts for tlic lack of iinanimit)- shown b_\- the extant examples in the hair and even in the position of the head. The most complete reproduction of the original composition seems to be the statue in Lansdownc I louse (I'ig. 154).* The j'outh stands just like the Tolyklcitan 'Narkissos' {sn/ra, Fig. 1 15), except that the sides are reversed and the les^s crossed. The rit^ht hand is supported on a tree, the left placed behind the back ; the head looks downwards to the right. The same pose appears in t'io. 154. — P.iiis in Laii^Jwuiie HuUm Fig. 135. — Turso uf .\plirodile (Xaplcs). a head at Munich,'- a really good copy ; a head in the Villa Albani-' differs somewhat in the hair. On the other hand, there is a statue at Copenhagen * with a beautiful head that corresponds fairly closely to the Munich head, though it is inclined in the opposite direction,^ while the attitude of the body is unaltered, and only a tree-stem is ' Clav.ic, 395 E, 664 L ; Michaelis, p. 447, 39. Head broken, but genuine. [Photographed for this edition }))' kind permission of Lord Lansdowne. — E. S.] - Glyptothek, 13$; Liitzow, MUtuhner Antikeit, 27. ' No. 218. The head is placed on a statue foreign to it. I'hoto. by Bruckmann. ^ Jacobsen Collection, No. 1052, head unbroken. ■' Also the head in the British Museum {Specimens, ii. 17 ; Fricderichs-Wolters, 15S0) is bent to the left ; this agrees in the hair most nearly with the Albani head. PAN— ATHENA 359 introduced at the back. The pose of the head of the Lansdowne statue is the more natural, and certainly more likely to be the original one. The body, at any rate in the Copenhagen copj-,^ is closely related to the Apollo, and shows the same cha- racteristic broad smooth masses. The attitude, while influenced by that Polykleitan prototype, has gone beyond it in the direction of pictorial noncJialancc. The complete self-absorption of the figure would encourage any one with a turn for epigram to find all possible contrasts united in the figure. A feminine counterpart of the Paris exists in a nude female torso at Naples which must have stood precisely in the same attitude (Fig. i55)-^ As far as a comparison of the figures is possible, the stylistic treatment of the body is in all main points that of the Apollo and the Paris. A strong family likeness unites with the preceding works another beautiful head, which has already called forth many a modern psychological description : I refer to the so-called ' Faun ' (Pan) of Winckelmann (Fig. 156), to whom it once belonged (No. 102 Munich Glypt.) The likeness of the features to the Adonis-Apollo and the youth at Dresden is most striking. Remains of Polykleitan rendering of form are also plainly to be seen — for instance, in the close-lying hair, and in the incision at the nape of the neck. The figure which must have belonged to this enchanting head should be con- ceived after the fashion of the Dresden youth ; the head should be more inclined to the front ; the eyes look to the right, doubtless to the side of the supporting leg. The expression of the head, as Brunn rightly states, is one of still unconscious but awaken- ing desire — ' a soft entrancement,' as Winckelmann calls it. Brunn considers the ' Faun ' to be a pendant to the Praxitelean Eros, and as a work by Euphranor this is actually its historical position.'' ^Moreover, we can, I think, also distinguish among our copies a dignified goddess by Euphranor. None among the extant types of Athena has been more difficult to explain than the so-called Athena Giustiniani (Fig. 157), of which several replicas exist.* It contains a host of peculiarities which at first seem to indicate a fifth- century work,^ side by side with others which point to the fourth." The solution is easy now that we have learnt to recognize Euphranor's style ; for this statue also belongs to the series of his works. Once more the attitude is influenced by the early Hagelaidas type, and is like the Adonis-Apollo, except that the right foot has less weight thrown on it and is somewhat drawn back, while the right hand is supported on the lance. The stead)' ' Not on the Lansdowne copy, where the forms are rounder and softer. 2 Friederichs-Wolters, 1468. Cf. Bernouilli, Aphrodite, p. 279 sqq. ; Roscher's Lex. i. 415, Z. 62 siiq. The left hand was supported against the side, not raised as in the paste compared by Friederichs. " Closely analogous to the Pan is a head of a youth in the Jacobsen Collection, No. 1095. Finally, the so-called Theseus of Ince Blundell Hall should also be mentioned in the present connexion (Spec, of Am. Hiii/pt. ii. 19 ; An/i. Zlg. 1874, Taf. i; Michaelis, Anc. Marbles, p. 351, 43; cf. p. 94, note l), the body of which seems to me very like the Adonis. The attitude is the same. I have, however, not seen the original. ■* I know the following copies : (tored) ; the head 364 F.UPllKANOR It is interesting to compare with the afiMcmcnlioned Capitolinc statue a Lysippian statue of a youth, at Berlin/ that tallies with it exactly as regards age and pose. Although it is in more complete repose than any other Lysippian figure known to me, yet the comparison forcibly brings out the stronger stir of life in head and limbs. How much stronger therefore will it not appear in those Lysij^pian figures, whether of gods or athletes,'- which arc represented in active movement. Still we must confess that Euphranor infused an inner meaning into the old Peloponnesian types, whilst Lysippos externalized the inner conceptions of Skopas. In the art of Lysippos lay the beginning of the pathetic style, which spread to such an extent in Hellenistic times. is of the bearded Lysippian ty])C. It seems to me not impiobable that Lysippos himself used the canon of I'oly- kleitos in this way, adapting it in liis own manner. His procedure would be the same as when Rubens copied an older work. ' Skulpt. 471. The body, without pubes, is analogous to the youth of the Capitol. The attitude and head are quite Lysippian. This is doubtless a copy of an athlete by Lysippos. - The majestic motive of I'esting the hand high on the sceptre, seen in the greater gods, was invested with a l)athctic character by Lysippos, who made the hand grasp the staff higher up. Cf. the rock-relief from Alyzia, where Lysippos worked, Heuzey, Olympe et Acarnan. pi. 12, p. 412 (cf. Roscher's Lex. i. 2173, line 33), and the same figure used as a symbol on an Athenian coin, Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, Num. Coiiiiii. pi. EE. 13. 'l"hc same motive is shown in the large bronze statue (Ant. Deiikm. i. 5 ; Helbig, Mitsaiiiis, 965), which, as Rossbach has recognized, represents Alexander Balas ; I think, however, that the motive of this statue is only borrowed from the famous Alexander with the spear by Lysippos. As regards athletes in motion by Lysippos, the two statues in Dresden (Hettner, 245, 246) are worthy of special notice. The beardless head is surprisingly similar to that of the sandal-binder of the Akropolis (,-////. Millh. 18S6, Taf. 9, i). A head analogous to the bearded one, but much more beautiful, is in the Jacobsen collection at Copenhagen (No. 1072) ; it belongs to an athlete in similar motion, and is one of the finest and most purely Lysippian works in existence. It probably belongs to an earlier period of the artist than the Apoxyomenos, for the hair is flatter, and worked in an older manner. THE VENUS OF MILO IT. THE V ENIT-^ OF MILO. ATHENS, Thursday. A terracotta, statuette about 21.n « recently been ^^^/^/^^f^Lac^demonia. The vasia. i.. the P^-^tfi^Yn many respects to the statuette .s s'm, ar V" ^-^^^ J,^, f the Voiuis of Milo, a.io I expressed the K^Honal Museum ^<^^J ^r^J by a loc.1 ©pinion that it is a rep i.oiivre. Tho f^P^^\?^t:er:ria"ro;is*a mirror in the SthU, S"tU n.ht supports a garnient *Theretso- diffei^nce between the pose of VenUsofM.lo atidtnis^sbein ^ ^^.^ ^^ possibihvy .^^at the sc„.pt° ^^^^^ ^^^.^ r4rT:o^?tote'';uSstd|1he ■ Arch.o- WicIlGazette - of Athens-JJ^ufcr.. ^ A A J_^ wr' MILO B Y subjecting the famous statue from Mclos in the Louvre to a fresh critical examina- tion, \vc shall, at the same time, have occasion for enlarging and extending in more than f)ne direction the knowledge we have gained in the preceding essa\- of the art of Skopas and Praxiteles. The 'Venus of Alilo' is still a centre of eager controversy, and only recenti)' a distinguished archae- ologist pronounced the whole question to be an insoluble riddle.' Before resigning myself to this conclusion, I should like to be sure that no means of solution has been left untried. Since questions of very great interest in the history of art arise in connexion with this statue, it will be well to see what lurthcf light can be obtained from a sober and unbiassed examination both of facts and of tradition. I. 7"//t' Los/ Inscribed Fragiueiit : Discussion of the Statncs Provenance. Our first inquiry must be concerning the fragments belonging to the statue. It is now almost universally acknowledged that a left upper arm and a hand holding an apple, which were found with the \'cnus, really belong to it. Even F. Rav^aisson, the author of the most recent reconstruction, admits this fact, although ' .Sal. Reinach, in the Gaz. da Beaii.x-Aits, 1S90, i. 376 .>nus dc Milo, Plates I. and 11. 1871. Clarac ( I'l'niis Vittri.x, p. 23) and Ravaisson (he. eit. p. 10) are wrong in supposing it a restoration. * Clarac ( I'iniis Vielrix, p. 13) was at first inclined to consider the lower half of the body as a restoration, but on closer examination he changed his view. " Des Cloiseaux rt/W Ravaisson, Ventts tie Milo, 1S71, p. 67. 3 B 370 THE VENUS OF MILO On the other hand, akhou^h the inscribed frai,nncnt is lost, tlic part of the ph'iUh still extant shows that a piece is missing to whicli the lost inscribed block cxactl}' corresponds. There is therefore not the smallest Ljroiind for doubtint; the testimony of those first eyewitnesses who, in spite of their preconceived theories, accepted the inscribed block as ])art of the plintli. Since casts have recently been taken of the ' Venus ' without the restorations (I'ig. 158), anyone can easily convince themselves that the plinth, like the whole statue, was put together out of different pieces.^ The block of marljlc was insufficient, and the plinth had to be continued to the right b)- joining on a piece. To the right of the existing plinth there is a slanting contact-surface worked smooth at the upper edge, and it is plain also that the piece adjusted to the right must have been higher than the rest of the plinth. Now those first eyewitnesses, and Dcbay's drawing, which wc still pos- sess (Fig. 159), prove that the lost piece of marble had a slanting sur- face to its left, exactly corresponding to the surface on the existing plinth, and that it was of the desired height. Gcskel Saloman, in his treatise on the Plinth of the Venus of Milo (p. 30), described carefully and in detail the marks on the existing por- tion of the plinth, and mj- own ex- amination confirms his results in all essential particulars. Yet his exposi- tion docs not qm'tc account for certain difficulties wliich arise on closer con- sideration. I therefore consulted the sculptors who have been working at the reconstruction of the I'ergamene frieze — -MM. Possenti and I'^reres — in Berlin, and with their help arrived at the following results. Needless to say that Overbeck's restoration, made before the real shape of the plinth was known, must be wrong,- because it gives a false distorted turn to the left foot ; this foot must have projected beyond the edge of the plinth. Tarral's restoration (Goler von Ravcnsburg, pi. 4) is also wrong, because it contradicts Debay's drawing (Fig. 159) by placing the inscribed piece too far to the right. Saloman, Overbeck, and Ravaisson ^ maintained, but incorrectly, that the existing plinth was let into a second plinth. This was often done in the case of marble statues, but not in this particular instance. There could not have been a plinth at the back, because the perpendicular surface of the existing plinth is neatly finished off, and the folds of drapery -\'emis t}{ Mik. (uiili pliiilli uiii-csloreil). ' The supposition of Valentin (/r///M7, Kiiiullcr, uud Kuiislwcikc, p. 32i),lli,at the plinth was put together for the first time in modern times — actually in the Louvre — is refuted liy the appear.nnce of the plinth. - Gcsdt. d. Plastik, 3rd ed. vol. ii. p. 331. "' Saloman, p. 36 ; Ravaisson, 7'. d. M. 1892, p. 54. THE LOST FRAGMENT 3/1 on the left (of the spectator) are worked right down to the ground. The left perpen- dicular face (looked at from the front), like the back of the plinth, is smooth!)- finished, and therefore also intended to be visible. For it is well known that the faces of plinths intended for insertion were left rough. But the front face appears not to correspond ; it cannot possibly have been \isible, nor can the front of the inscribed block have formed a continuation to it. Something must have been fastened on in front of it. The manner in which it is prepared with a smooth edge, top and bottom, is precisely that of a tooled contact-surface, and excludes every other inter- pretation. 1 To complete the rectangular plan, as Posscnti showed me, the lost piece must have been wedge-shaped (Fig. i6o). The inscribed block need not have stood more than a very little farther forward (1 cm., according to Possenti, meets the technical requirements) than the existing plinth. Clarac's statement {Venus Victrix, p. 49), that the fragment lay ' bien juste dans I'alignement dc la surface an- terieure de I'ancienne plinthe,' is therefore not quite correct, but the mistake is easily under- stood. The deviation of plane is so slight as to be easil)- passed over ; indeed, the left-hand edge of the inscribed block on which the thin wedge-shaped piece joined on in the front abutted, seems, as Debay's drawing shows, to have been injured. Besides, Clarac's remark is not made in the course of a scien- tific description, but in a rhe- torical period in which he is attempting to prove, not that the inscribed piece fitted, which nobod}' doubted, but that the inscription was there not by accident but b\- intention, and that it really gave the artist's name. Clarac's inexactness of wording i.s shown by another undoubted in- stance in the very same sentence. What he called ' fractures' arc really, as Ouatre- mere and Saint-Victor rightly maintained, contact-surfaces. Dcba\-'s drawing does not show the front of the plinth as a junction-surface. It has been drawn smooth, possibly because it looked better so ; hence it is not surprising that Debaj- also overlooked the divergence in plane between the two front surfaces. If, as seems likely, the wedge-shaped piece put on in front was of the same marble as the inscribed block, then the whole front of the plinth was originally uniform in material. Therefore there is nothing in the condition of the extant fragments against the genuineness of the inscribed block. On the contrar\-, several circumstances afford proof positive that the missing piece of plinth must have been rANAPoX --HNIAOY ETTqIHZCN V[G. 159. — Drawing by Ueb.iy, showing ihe to tlie plinth. inM.ritjcd block adjusted ' Overbeck's assumption {Lt//>:. Rcnnntiationsprogr., loi. (it.), {\v,\l the plinlli was sunk in another up to the smoothed edge of the front surface, is contradicted by the fact that the back and left side are smoothly finishcil. Ravaisson ( V. cl. M. 1892, p. 54) recognized the original existence of a separate piece of marble in front of the plinth, but by his hypothesis of a large ' faussc plinthe ' he completely ignored the finished state of the back and left side, 372 THK \-F.NUS OF MILO just such a piece as Debay's drawing and the evidence of the eyewitnesses attest the lost inscribed block to have been. We have already pointed out that the missing piece had a slanting contact- surface, and must have been higher than the existing plinth. This e.xtra height may be calculated from the remaining portion. On the outer side of the left foot of the figure are to be seen {a on Figs. i6i, 162) the remains of a small horizontal plane surface hitherto unnoticed, which must have been continued in the piece of plinth added on. Now this plane is e.\actly level with the height of the inscribed block in ArniANAPOA.'. H N I AOY ANT'1 6X E YZAroM A iAXNAPOY E TO 1 HZ E N ...J- Fig. t6o. — Ground-plan niul projection of tlie i>lintli, with restorations indicated. Deba)-'s drawing ; it is considcrabl)- lower than a horizontal plane at the lc\el of the heel of the left foot would be, as may be easily calculated from the remains of the ankle visible through the drapery. Hence the foot, the front and larger portion of which was, as is well known, made of a separate piece, must have sloped down- wards in a slanting direction.' The small fragment of flat surface n gives the level where the foot rested, and this is the level of the inscribed block. The ends of the folds of drapery behind the foot turn up just at the same level, showing that at that ' Cf. Saloman, PliiUlic, 37 ; Overbeck, hi. cil. RESTORATION- OF THE PLINTH 373 point they touched the ground. The actual edge of the drapery is not preserved, but the smooth!)- worked contact-surface /' shows that the missing edge of drapery was made of a small piece of marble inserted between the torso and the additional piece of basis. This was done, Possenti informs me, because the edge of the drapery worked in one piece with the torso would not have afforded a solid enough termination to the block. The lost portion of the plinth cannot possibl)- have formed the support for a male figure grouped with Aphrodite, as Ravaisson has again recently suggested — first, because it was higher than the part which supports the female figure, and the man could not possibl}- be placed on a higher basis than the woman ; and, secondl)-, because it did not reach to the back of the e.Kisting plinth, and was therefore only large enough for a smaller object. This is evident from the appearance of the contact- surface, ■ which comes to an end before it reaches the back of the plinth (cf the side view of the plinth. Fig. i6i, where the slanting hatchings mark the smoothly worked portion of the contact-surface). Again, the draperj- at the back does not turn up as in front, where it met the higher ad- ditional piece of plinth, but falls right down to the lower edge of the plinth. The in- scribed piece drawn by Debay satisfies these conditions in so far that the rect- angular hole visible on the upper surface shows distinctly that it was only destined to support some small pillar-shaped object. On the other hand, Debay has placed the line terminating the plinth at the back too high, probably with the intention of im- proving the appearance of the whole plinth : evidently for the same reason he also, as is well known, drew the existing plinth con- siderably higher than it reall)' is.^ In our Fig. 1 60 the added piece is made to end at the back where the smoothed edge of the existing plinth ceases completely ; the end must have sloped down somewhat at the back, as shown in Fig. 161. Finally, the ends of folds turning up behind the foot, the remains of the horizontal surface a, and the vertical surface on the inner side of the left foot- make it absolutel)- certain that the left foot was placed not on a round object but on a flat tectonic surface like the fragment sketched by Deba\-. Since, then, the e.xtant remains of the basis point quite positively to a con- tinuation shaped precisely like the inscribed fragment drawn b\- Debay, it becomes impossible even for the most sceptical to doubt the original authenticity of this frag- ment, whose exact correspondence, at the time when it was still extant, was not disputed even by those who would have welcomed every opportunity for doubt. The front of the plinth thus consisted of two parts — the longer and lower to the left, the shorter and higher to the right. On either of these the artist could have cut ' The correction of this error naturally brings the inscription somewhat nearer the lower edge. - -Saloman, Piiitthe, p. 37, and Overbeck, hi. cit. I should like to add further that the rounded hollow (,• on our sketch) above this vertical edge, which must necessarily have belonged to a tectonic member, is not part of the horizontal surface of that member, but merely belongs to a fold of drapery. Fig. i6i. — Side view of the extant plinth. 374 THE VENUS OF MILO his inscription. He chose the right-hand surface, probably because it was of a more convenient shape, and because it formed the front of a sohd block instead of being merely a thin added piece like the left-hand wedge. As a rule, inscriptions which are cut not on the pedestal but on the work of art itself (as in this case) arc found to be written in a small space in several lines, and are not conspicuously placed. In this instance the inscription is under the foot, and yet is easily read from below if the statue be placed at the height that was customary in the third and second centuries B.C. The Belvedere torso is inscribed between the legs of the figure on the marble seat. How comj)letcl)- our restoration harmonizes on the one hand with the existing remains, and on the other with Debay's drawing, can be so easily ascertained by a comparison of Figs. 158 and 159 — 161 that it need not be further emphasized. We cannot follow the fortunes of the inscribed block from the time it left Melos till its arrival in the Louvre, but this is immaterial. The fact is enough that it was brought to the Louvre with the other pieces of the statue ostensibly from the same pro\-cnancc, and that it was at once adjusted to the plinth. It must not, however, be Fig. 162. — Side view of the plinth. (Restoration indicated by dotted hnes.) forgotten that the suggestion (afterwards so often reiterated as a fact) put forward b)' the Vicomte de Marcellus, to the effect that the inscribed fragment was only brought from Melos b}- the Marquis de Riviere in November 1820, remains a pure conjecture. Although years later M. de Marcellus professed to have no recollection of receiving the inscribed block in May 1820, this is no proof that he did not take it awaj-. Supposing the lettering to have been much effaced, the Vicomte might very well mistake the block for a mere shapeless fragment ; and he himself asserts that he brought awa\- everything that was found with the Venus except the large excdra inscription. The block in question may very well have been among the ' quelques socles ' which he received. That the Marquis de Riviere brought it later is a pure supposition. Dumont d'Urvillc immediatcl}- after the discovery stated, as is well known, that an illegibly inscribed fragment was found with the statue, and describes it as the pedestal of one of the terminal figures discovered at the same time. This means that it had a hollow as if for the support of a term, thus corresponding to the piece we are now examining. We can hardly doubt, therefore, that the fragment mentioned bj- Dumont d'Urvillc is identical with ours. Again, Voutier's drawing PLACE OF DISCOVERY 375 published by Ravaisson,* and said to have been made in Melos before the statue was shipped, i.e. before May 24, 1820, contains the inscribed piece under discussion. It is drawn as ' piedestal d'un des hermes.' It is evident that Voutier's drawing repre- sents the same fragment as that described by Dumont, and that this fragment is the inscribed block drawn by Debay.- To connect the inscription with a terminal figure is, of course, a purely arbitrary hypothesis, suggested at the time of the discovery, and adopted b\- Dumont and \'outier. W'c shall attach but little value to Voutier's evidence if we bear in mind that he restored the plinth of the Venus as a complete rectangle. He also drew an inscribed basis '^ under the second term, but this basis plainly shows by its section of profile that it could have had nothing to do with the term. It was simply a stray fragment of pedestal with a hole for insertion. Voutier's drawing, then, is valuable only as evidence that the inscription was found with the statue, but his combinations of inscriptions and terminal figures are quite arbitrary. A few words must here be added about the character of the spot where the statue was found, though this is really a minor consideration. According to Salomon Reinach,* this was a limestone-burner's kiln or workshop {jnagasiu de chauxfoiiniier^\, where bits of refuse marble of all kinds were collected for burning. If this statement were correct, it would still be no evidence against the genuineness of the inscribed block. But I cannot admit that it is correct. Dumont d'Urville, an e\^ewitness, speaks of ' unc espece de niche,' -^ and of hewn stones found first by a peasant. He also sa}-s that an inscribed marble block was found over the opening to the niche {entire de la niche). Clarac speaks of a ' niche carree d'environ quatrc picds de large.' In Oij-mpia I have often helped to excavate limestone kilns where had been burnt precious works of statuar\', which however had always been previously broken up into small pieces. But not even the most ignorant person could ever mistake such a limekiln for an archi- tectural ' niche.' Reinach's supposition has no foundation in fact. The contents of the ' niche ' consisted, not of a mass of odd fragments of a number of different statues, but simply of the pieces of the Venus and of the small terms (such terminal figures being, as is well known, a favourite decoration of niches) and of an odd hand. A foot ' chausse d'un cothurne ' was found, according to Dumont, ' en meme temps,' but, according to Marcellus, not in the same place, but lower down near the sepulchral caves. This foot is identical with the left foot with a sandal, of smaller proportions than the Venus mentioned by Clarac on p. 24 of his work." In November two clums}' arms were brought to the Marquis de Riviere, as coming from the spot where the statue lay — a statement which is naturall\- not ver\- reliable. It is evident that these premises are insufficient to warrant the theor)- of ' un magasin de chauxfournier.' My own opinion is that the statue was found /// situ. I base it solcl)- on the evidence of the earliest informants as given above, leaving entirely out of the question the statement made long after the discovery, and already dis- proved by Ravaisson, that the statue was found intact." A square niche with an inscribed block over it was evidently what the disco\erers saw. The niche 1 V. ck M. 1S92, PI. 2 ; p. 10, 51. Cf. Bcil. Phit. H'ochciischr. 189J, lloS. " Lowy's objections (loc. cit. p. 1:2) are not serious. Debay may have drawn the insciiiHiim from a transcript, and the original may very well have been illegible to the unpractised. •' Mentioned nowhere else. ■* Gaz. d. Beaux-Arts, ioi. ivV. \>. 3S2. ■'' Brest (20 Nov. 1820) also calls the spot a ' niche.' '■ The foot must still be in the Louvre, though Ravaisson ( T. ti,- .1/. p. 54) says it cannot be found there. " Cf. Ravaisson, V. d. M. 1892, p. idsqij. It is needless to discuss the foolish nonsense contribute d by \\. Rochefort to the Art Fraiifais of Jan. 21, 1893, and quoted in e.xtenso in Arcli. Anz. 1893, p. 27 (cf. Sal. Reinach, Chroniqiie d'OrUnl, 1893, !'• 35 > B(rl. Phil. IVoc/teiisilir., /oi. cit.) 2i7& THK VENUS OF MILO contained the statue and two terminal fit^ures,' and, as far as i-; known, no other fragments of sculpture. Clarac says (p. 25) that the block, from its dimensions, seemed to have been placed above the niche. He evidently considered Dumont's statement about the position of the block an inference, but a correct inference, and we have no reason for holding a different opinion. Morcy's assertion that the statue was found in a sepulchral grotto partly hewn out of the rock - found great favour, but had no foundation other than statements of the Melos peasants, who were only too ready to show the English traveller (who visited the ishmd eighteen years after the discovery) any cave wliich they thought would satisf)' his curiosity. The real niche in question, being in their arable land, was probably destroyed very soon after its contents were removed. It is not the late statement of Morcy, but the first authentic records, which can serve as evidence, for we know how quickly ancient remains disappear if the ground where they lie is cultivated. Now the place where the statue was found was in cultivated soil, above the caves. These are hewn in the rocks of the vallc)- called Kliiiia, which slopes down towards the sea. Ross has given a vivid description of these in his Inselreiseii (3, p. 9). No trustworthy record exists of any remains of sculpture which the caves may have contained. The higher ground, on the other hand, especially the site of the ancient town of Melos, was peculiarly rich in remains. Ill the immediate neighbourhood of the place w'here the Venus was discovered there were found some years later a statue of Hermes bearing the artist's inscription, seven fragments of another statue, and the inscription C. I. G. (Bockh) 2431, to which I shall have to refer again.-' Recently the statue of a boxer has been discovered at the same spot as the Venus.' In a ' grotte ' within the town ruins, but not localized more accurately, has been found, along with innumerable voti\c gifts to Asklcpios and Hygieia, the superb Asklcpios head now in the British Museum.-"' In the lower part of the city near the .sea, 'dans la localite dite Klima,'" several wcll-i)rescrved statues now in the Central Museum, Athens, recently came to light." These probably stood in a sanctuary of Poseidon, to whom one of them bears a dedicatory inscrip- tion. Another is a colossal figure of the god himself,* of peculiar interest as affording the closest analogy to the Venus. It is nude above and draped below, and consists of two blocks of slightl)' different marble joined just within the upper roll of drapery, exactly as in the Venus. The treatment of the folds, especially on the right leg, which supports the weight of the body, is strikingly similar. No one has ever maintained that the Poseidon is earlier than the Hellenistic period. The inscription on the block above the niche reads-': — Bd'/cvfo? '%a-Tlov^'^ V7royv[fii'aaiap-^>ja]ai; tuv ts i^eBpai' Koi to / ... EpfiCu 'H/ja/cXei. ' Two .iccoi-ding to Diimont, Brest, and Vouticr, yet three came to the Louvre, and MarceUus also speaks of tliree ; tlie third was probably found later. Cf. I'li/ra, p. 377, and Ravaisson, K de J/, p. 38. - The assumption so often repeated latterly, that the statue was found in a hiding-place, is purely arbitrary. Even Ravaisson (/oc. cil.) speaks of a ' cachette.' It is true that Le Blant (in M,'/aiii;is iV Arclu'ologie ct ifJJis/. .n. (iSgo) p. 389 i(y- B.C. along with the older form with the shorter second stroke." We therefore have no reason for dating the dedicatory inscription later than the artist's. The character of the epigraphy allows us to place cither inscription anywhere between 200 li.C. and the Christian era, but their nearest ' Cf. Pergaiiwii, viii. Iiisn-. No. 9, dedication to Hermes by a gymiiasiaicli, C. /. .-/. iii. 105. Do. 123 to Hermes and Herakles. Also Bull. Con: Hell. 1891, p. 251 sqq. for several similar inscriptions from the gymnasium in Delos. The usual votive offering seems to have been a terminal figure. - Cf. Saloman, La .Slat lie de JMilo, p. 20 seq. ■' The exact measurements, communicated to me by M. Michon, are as follows: No. 194: whole height (exclusive of the modern basis) = 1-153. Height of bust = o-30, of head = o-i7 : breadth of shaft = o-i7, depth = 0-14. — No. 209 : whole height (exclusive of the modern basis) = 1-26 ; height of bust = 0-31, of the head down to the (modem) point of the beard = o-24 ; breadth of the shaft = o-i95 ; depth = o-i6.— No. 195 : whole height ot ancient portion = o-745 ; height of bust=o-32 ; of head = o-iS5 ; breadth of -shaft = o-i75, deiith = o-l45. 'Ihe phallos was attached somewhat differently in each. ■■ The height of the arm-holes (7 cm. ) and the distance from the head to the terminal shaft is the same in all three. '' The edge of the eyelids is smoothed off, the eyeball is almost concave instead of convex— peculiarities which no longer occur in Imperial times. •' See Pergamon, viii. fnsa: Nos. 33—37 (.Kttalos 1.), 47. 5 L 53 (^'i™' 2°° B.C.), 58, 169, 236, 239, 240-2 (end of empire). For the different forms of// in .\ttic records see Ditlenberger, .An/i. Zlg. 1876, )i. 139. 3 "^ 3/8 THE VENUS OF MILO parallels arc found from 150 to 50 B.C. For more exact dating \vc must rely on a comparison of stjlcs. It is interesting to compare the quadrangular niche in which the Venus was dis- covered with the remains of niches found ranged round a court which served as the place of assembly for the Italic colony on the Island of Delos. These niches * con- tained either benches — in which case they were genuine i^eBpai — or statues offered by various persons at different times, and the whole building was dedicated to Hermes- .Mercury, the patron of the colon)-. The building with its sculpture ma\- be dated about the end of the second century i;.C., the very period to which we have assigned the exedra of the Gymnasium of Mclos. That court in Delos had probably been copied from a gymnasium. Several constructions of this kind serving as gymnasia or palaestrae, and dating from Hellenistic or Roman times, have been preserved. The characteristic portion of the design is a square, pillared courtyard surrounded by a wall containing rectangular or rounded niches (excdz-at) once adorned by statues. Such are the Gymnasium of Hadrian in Athens (JipaKTiKO, t?}? ap-^^- erai,pla<;, 1885, Trtv. i.), the Gymnasium in Delos {Bull, de Corr. Hell. 1891, p. 238), and the Palaestra at Olympia. For others in Perge, Side, and elsewhere see Petersen in Lanckoronski, Stiidte in Pampliylien und Pisidicii, i. p. 41, 134. It is obvious how excellently the Melian finds fit into this series ; the further fact that the theatre is close to the spot accords admirably with our theory (cf Petersen, loc. cit. p. 134 seq}) It has been a somewhat difficult task to work our way back to the actual cir- cumstances of the discovery of the ' Venus of Milo.' The facts themselves are so simple that it is astonishing they should ever have been misunderstood. It was the blind and prejudiced notion of the time that this statue was a unique and unrivalled treasure, the work of Pheidias or of Praxiteles, something cjuite isolated from, and independent of, historical limitations. Ignorance of marble technique fostered this fancy, for the separate pieces which did not tally with a preconceived ideal were ruthlessly rejected as later additions. When an opinion has once taken hold it is extraordinarily difficult to eradicate it, however flatly an unprejudiced examination of fact may contradict it. II. Ristoration of the Statue. Having ascertained what parts of the statue are in existence, wc must now pro- ceed to restoration of the missing parts. The square hole in the inscribed piece of plinth evidently held something like a pillar. This object must have stood fairly high, for the left side of the figure is less carefully worked than the right, evidently because it was to be partially concealed. Dumont d'Urvillc and Voutier, as we have seen, supposed the inscribed block to be the pedestal of one of the terms. Ouatremcre de Quincy says that the hole in the block corresponded in width to the socket of one of the three terms, and Clarac remarks (Vaius Vietrix, p. 38) that possibly this figure may have been set in the block on the occasion of a restoration. Nothing is said to show that it fitted exactly, hence there is no evidence for the view, upheld chicfl)- by Tarral and G. Saloman, that one of the beardless terms belonged to the in- scribed block. The approximate correspondence in size might be purely accidental, and there arc various circumstances that tell directly against the Tarral-Saloman theory; for instance, the workmanship of the terminal figure is much poorer than that ' llumolle ill />'«//. ili: Corr. IJcll. v. 390 sqq. viii. 1 13. RKSTORATION 379 of the statue, and the material, a common bluish marble, is inferior. The artistic effect produced b}- a conjunction of statue and term is distinctly' unpleasing, as has sufficientl}" been pointed out by others,^ and as Tarral's restoration shows at a glance. It would moreover be not only a hideous but an unparalleled device to place a term as support to a figure with which it had no definite connexion.- Ovcrbcck's notion of a pillar on which the shield stands must be rejected, because we know that the left hand held an apple. The same fact speaks against Hcydcmann's hypo- thesis,^ that the goddess is decking a troph\-. For such an occupation she must ha\-e both hands free, and not be negligently holding the apple with her left : besides, the ancient tropaion was always round, not rectangular, as must have been the shaft inserted in this hole. Let us for once simply follow the clue given by the shape of the hole : we shall immediately see that a pillar must be restored here. We must, however, find a motive for this pillar. This motive could onl)' be to serve as a support : Aphrodite was resting the elbow of her left arm on a pillar. This is, in fact, the solution of all the difficulties. Others* have already observed that the whole attitude demands a support on the left side. The biceps of the left arm is not tense, as it would be were the arm held freely. For the rest, it can casiK- be gathered from the restorations that show the arm raised free into the air how constrained and unnatural, how ugly and angular, this position would be. Owing to the fact that in both torso and arm there arc distinct traces of the hole for the large dowel which once connected the two, the position of the upper arm can be settled beyond dispute."' The arm ought to be moderately raised to the side ; this is proved by the edge of the fracture on the left armpit. The convexity below prevents the arm being lifted higher. The direction of the forearm is absolutely certain from the direction of the dowel-hole in the upper arm. Possenti's attempt at restoration proves that if the dowel-hole in the upper arm be rightly connected with that in the body, the biceps of the upper arm would be turned not upwards but forwards, and that the forearm, which, as the muscles of the upper arm show, was bent nearly at a right angle," would also be directed not upwards but for- wards. Earlier attempts at restoration have all been incorrect, because they did not take into account the direction of the dowel-hole. Lastly, the position of the left hand must be fi.xed. It did not hang down, but was turned upwards, as Possenti rightly remarks, because the swelling on the upper arm at the elbow points to this position of the lower arm. This also explains the position of the apple, which was held b)' the thumb, the third and the fourth finger, while the first and second fingers were gracefully extended.^ Now, if the hand had hung down, the apple must have been grasped more firmly. This position of the apple is natural only if it rested on the upturned palm of the hand. It is easy to see why the back of the hand is so roughly worked. It ' Cf. Ileydemann, Pariscr Aiitikcn, p. 7. ^ Certain terra-cottas derived from pictures (e.g. Sainiii. Sahoiiroff, Taf. S4) fall under a different heading from large statuai7 compositions. ^ Other archaeologists take no account of the hole in the basis, though Fried. Kiel, to be sure (Die Venus von Milo, Hanover 1882, p. 32) imagines a lance fixed in the hole and held by the goddess with both hands — i.e. Venus as giantess with a spear as thick as a tree ! * Cf. Ravaisson, I^ev. Arch. 1890, xv. 148; l\'ni(s de Milo, p. 56. •'' A portion of the smooth surface of junction may still be seen on the fragment of arm. On tlie torso the corresponding surface has been broken away, but the piece may be restored with absolute certainty l>y aid of the dowel-holes. ^ Cf Henke in Liitzou's Zeilschr. f. Bild. A'linst, 1S86, p. 198. " Cf. Kroker, loe. cit. Kroker's notion that the first and second finger must have held something — and that this was the edge of the shield — is in itself sufficiently unsatisfactory. It will be seen to be quite impossible, from the proofs adduced above as to the real position of the arm. 'i8o THE VENUS OF MII.O was turned downwanls, and was therefore not much seen. Fig. 163 gives a sketch f)f a restoration jjroposed by Possenti, which is carried out in plaster, and ilhistrates what I have just said. The arm thus raised and supported under the elbow forms a not ungraceful motive — at any rate, it has many analogies. A figure of Hermes on a vase (Millin, Vases Feints, ii. 20) may first be mentioned ; it is evidently influenced by sculpture, and the arm is supported on a tall slender pillar in the way supposed for the \'enus.^ The vase appears to be of fourth-ccntur\' Attic manufac- ture. Still more instructive is a series of terra-cotta statuettes of the fourth century li.C. representing Ajjhrodite half- draped lils'c the IMclian statue, the elbow supported on a pillar and the left arm raised. I-"urthcr, Aphrodite in a similar attitude often occurs on gems of the Hellenistic period (Fig. 164).'- A beautiful bronze statuette of the nude Aphrodite (Dresden, Fig. 165)'' reproduces a motive which is still commoner in terra-cottas. The forearm is not raised,* but bent forward in the position proved for the Aphrodite of Melos. The left hand — and this is specially interesting in the present connexion — hangs loosely from the wrist holding an apple. The support was in a separate piece and has disappeared, but the whole atti- tude makes it ijuitc certain that it was originally there.' Pillar supports are of very common occurrence in ancient statuar\-. Pheidias himself had given one to the I'arthenos, though it was purely technical, and not, as here, part of the composition. In further confirmation of our restoration we may note two late Roman marble variants of the motive of the Mclian statue, in both of which are to be seen traces of a support under the left arm. These are a statuette in Treves, and another in Dresden. The traces are less distinct in the Treves statuette," but in the Dresden example " (Fig. t66) is still to be seen the end of a rectangular pillar on a low base. This statuette is, however, in no sen.sc a replica of the Venus of Milo. Probably the pillar supported an attribute — possibly a lyre * — with which the left hand was occupied, and towards which the right hand also was directed. Flc;. 163. — Proposeil restoration of the Venus of Milo. Fig. 164. — .Aphrodite on a gem (Uerhn). ' Published examples : Dumont-Chaplain, Cc'ramitjiic Gr. ii. 28, 2, apparently identical with Anh. Am. 1S91, p. 121, 10. See also Anh. Atiz., he. cil. p. 22, 6, and Samiit. Sabouroff, Taf. 132 below, to the left. - Brown convex paste (Herlin, Inv. |i. 581). The gem belongs to a distinct class, which is most certainly Hellenistic. In the right hand is a leaf-fan, the left hand seems to have held the end of the cloak (Fig. 164). For an analogous Hellenistic gem cf. King, Aiident Gems aiid Rings, ii. PI. 23, B. 5. •' Basis and pillar modern. Pre-Roman. ■* Berlin Antiq. TC. 7794' Half-nude .Aphrodite ; left upper arm raised and supported on pillar, forearm hanging down. ■'' Cf. the Apollo bronze, Anh. .4iiz. 1889, p. 105, where the left arm is held as in the Melian statue, and presupposes a similar support. * 7\!i%c\\, /akrh. d. Ver. v. AUerthximsfr. itn Klu-iiil. Heft 62, Taf. 2, p. 74 j-(/r/. ; Hetlner, Ilic Koni. Stein- (ienkmfiler in Trier, No. 684. Flasch's interpretation of the figure as a Hygieia seems very uncertain to Hcttner, who inclines to think it represents a Victory setting up a trophy. " Half life-size figure, Hettner, No. 174 ; published with the old restorations (now removed), Le Plal, 124, and Cl.irac, 595, 1301. Poor, late workmanship. ' Heltner suggests Terpsichore. Cf. Clarac, 481, 959 W. TYCHE OF MELOS 381 I had carried my inquir\- to this pcjint, when I first noticed wliat is the strongest proof of my restoration, and what at the same time seems to place it beyond all uncertainty — namel\-, that the highly revered cultus-statuc of Melos, the Tychc of the island, was represented in the same attitude as the one which we are compelled to suppose was that of the Melian statue. This t\'pc is known to us from Imperial bronze coins of the island, of which there are three examples in Berlin (see I-"ig. 167, with the legend TTXH,' and from a relief on the drum of a column found, along with its counterpart which reproduces an archaic cultus-imagc of Athena, in Melos, Fig. 165. — Ijiuii/c .\l-ilirotlite (Dresden). near the theatre (Fig. 168).'- The goddess supports her right arm on a simple pillar or column in the position ascertained for the left arm of the Aphrodite, except that in the Tyche the forearm too is raised, in keeping with the solemn attitude of the goddess. It is not impossible that, like our Venus, the original statue held the apple, which as the symbol of the island would be a singularly appropriate attribute. It is at once obvious that the motive of the supported arm must have been transferred from the Tyche to the Venus, and that the reverse was not the case, 1 The three examples in Berlin all have ihe pillar as support and the child raising its arms to the right. The description in Imhoof-BIumer, Grlcch. Miiinen (Ab/i. Bayr. Akad. i. CI. xviii. 3), p. 547. should he rectified accordingly. Cf. Wolters in Ath. Mitfh. xv. 248. 3«^ Tin: VENUS OF Ml 1.0 for the positicin i'^ iiuilc in harmony with the cahn di,<;;nit\- of Tychc ; she holils the infant I'loutos on her left arm, and with a festal, solemn air rests her left elbow upon the pillar. On the other hand, the motive is so little suited to the animated pose of the Aphrodite that it must ha\e been borrowed. The statue of T\xhc, although, to judge b)- the draper}', not earlier than the middle of the fourth century li.C, is most pro- bably older than the Ai)hrodite. Hence we may con- cUkIc that the moti\e belonged originally to Tyclie, and was transferred to Aphrodite, although the artist altered the forearm and tlid not rejircsent it raised. This transference seems only natural when we remember the close connexion of the two divinities in Hellenistic times, especially among the Asiatic Greeks.^ In ni)- view, the artist wished to characterize the j\phrotlite of the Gymnasium as goddess of Good l.iick, and therefore gave her the pose of the Tychc (jf the city. If, as I sup[)osc, Tjxhe held the apple, the trans- ference was still more fitting, for the apple was the peculiar attribute of Aphrodite.- A remarkable coin of Melos of Imperial date proves that the Tychc type was used even for a male figure personifj'ing the Good Luck of the city.-' The preceding considerations not only justify our restoration of the left arm with the support, but have given us fresh material for deciding the question of ' originality.' Our statue cannot be an 'original' in the usual .sense of the word, since the artist who designed it borrowed, for purely external and not artistic reasons, a motive foreign to the central conception. It is necessary to bear this in mind in our attempts to restore the right arm. We shall no longer demand (as those critics have done who took it for granted that they were dealing with an absolutely original work) a perfect correspondence between the motive of right and left hand. The discovery of the left hand holding the apple was in itself enough to exclude the idea of such correspondence. The strong tension of the upper part of the right arm can be explained only by supposing that the hand was extended downwards across the body towards some point a little distance from it. This point can only be the drapery on the left thigh. Most restorations make the arm too short.* The hand could easily reach the lower edge of the mantle falling about Vir,. :66. — .Statue in Dresden. Ku",. 167. — Bronze coin of tile ihland of Melos (Berlin). ' Cf. Saiiiiii. Sahotti-off, Text lo Taf. 25, ]). 3 seij. - In Magnesia accordingly she was called 'A(fip. MTjAe^a, as we know from a coin ( Inihoof-Blumer, Monnaics Grecques, p. 292; cf. Herakles MtiAciov). This Aphrodite has naturally nothing whatever to do with Melos (in which case the adjective would be Vi-r\\ia). Kavaisson, however (I'l'iiin dc Mi/o, ji. 109), quoted this coin (without giving the reference), and translates ' Venus des Meliens ! ' ■' The coin is published by Imhoof-liluiner, Griech. Miinz. Taf. 2, 9. The figme, which is bearded, is, regardless of sex, designated as Tuxij. I cannot agree with Imhoof 's view that this is due to mere carelessness ; it seems to me more likely that the image refers to a benefactor of the island who was represented as her Tyihc, holding the infant I'loutos. ■* So in Tarral and Ilassc. The correct length is given in Valentin's restoration (Aiiiul uiid Kinnllcr, plate to p. 240). TYCHE OF MKLOS 38^ the thigli. All this portion is unfortunately much worn a\va\-, yet the lie of the folds is still sufficiently clear to show that the hand was busied here. Possenti, who is of the same opinion, has also pointed out to me that the right arm, like the left, must have been joined on, because the block of marble of which the upper torso was made was not large enough to include the whole of the arm. The existing arm-stump shows evident marks of break- age, hence the contact-surface was probably lower down, as indeed we should expect from the size of the block, which is large enough to have included the upper arm. The right arm was not fastened on in the same way as the left arm. It was not supported, but hung down, therefore it needed a more solid attachment. It was connected with the body of the statue b}- a strong side dowel. Under the ri"ht breast is a large Fig. 16S. — Relief from a column in Melns. Fig. 169. — Aphrodite with the apple. Terra-cotla from Myrina (Berlin). square hole two inches deep, for the dowel which supported the arm.^ In the front view, this dowel was, as Possenti's restoration shows, not \isiblc, and in the side view which our figure gives it is covered b}- the arm. The explanation of the right arm already given b\- Dumont d'Urville — namel\-, that it was feeling for the draper)- — - turns out, therefore, to be correct, as must strike any careful observer un- prejudiced by aesthetic theories. The mantle is but loosely thrown round the body, and the action of pulling it closer b\- the end which falls over the left thigh is a ver)' natural one, requiring no special intention to account for it. The folds over the left thigh are some- what displaced and drawn up, and this can only be due to the action of tiic right hand. We should note, howc\cr, that the motive of the left haiul, w hich was supported and held an ajiplc, is comparatively independent. It is clear that the two arms thus restored lend neither unit}- nor harmony to the composition ; in short, their loss is one less to be deplored than might at first appear. But since wc are now ' I am now convinced by Signer Possenti's avguments that the hole belongs not to a later restoration (as I fom-.crly believed), but to the original fastening of the arm, which was very firm and solid. 384 THE VENUS OF MILO trying to find out, not what the statue ouijht to have been or how it would answer best to our preconcci\ed notions, but what it actuall)- was, we sliall not allow this discover}- to affect our results. W'c may reasonably ask at this point : If the goddess is leaning on her left arm and calmly holding her attribute, whence comes the agitated position of the upper part of the torso, and why is the left foot raised ? W'h}- has she put on the mantle in such a way that she must grasp it with the right hand ? What is the meaning of the motive ? An exquisite tcrra-cotta statuette from Myrina, of Hellenistic date (Rerlin, Fig. 169),' gives a variant showing the harmonious grace of wliich the subject was capable. In this figure we have again an Aphrodite with the upper part of the bod}' undraped, the left arm leaning on a pillar, the right leg supporting the weight of the bod}-, and the head turned to the left. But the motive is vigorous and concentrated. The figure seems to be one of the few tcrra-cottas which really reflect the spirit of statuary. It is an old type effectually made new by the upward turn of the head and the spread of drapery arranged to form a background to the nude torso. A specially interesting feature of the conception is the animated manner in which the right hand holds up the attributive apple.- How was it that the artist of the Melian statue failed to round off and harmonize his work in some such way .' The answer to this question demands a separate chapter. 111. Iiifliicnci's tliat affected the Artist of the ' I'eiius.' — Skopas. — Historical Position of the I'eiins. The artist of the \'enus of Milo took two entirely independent traditional t}-pes, and tried to combine them b}- means of partial modification. The result, as might have been imagined, was not altogether happ}-. We have already seen that the motive of the left arm was taken o\er from the T}-che of Melos. But it can also be ascertained whence the artist borrowed the main design : it can be traced back to an original, the best-known copy of which is the well-known I'eiiiis of Capua (Fig. \70)? The usual theory, that this figure is a weak Roman variant of the \'enus of Milo, is singularly perverse, and can be easily disproved by external evidence alone. The \'enus of Milo is unique, and no replicas of it exist.^ Of the Capua Venus there are not only .several exact replicas^ but sundry Roman variants, showing that this statue, and not the Venus of Milo, was the one renowned in antiquit}'. The Capuan t}pc several times appears grouped with v\res,*' but that this was ■ In the Berlin Antiquarium, TC. //«■. Xo. 8151. Height 0-29. - Cf. another statuette from Myrina in Karlsruhe. (Sal. Reinach, Clirouiiiiu d' Orient, p. 325.) The right hand holds the apple, while the left draws up the cloak. ^ For literature see Fricderichs-Wolters, Cipsab. 1452. Both arms are restored from just below the shoulder. The basis in the original is about 35 cm. broader to the right of the helmet. This surface (left out in the cast, cf. Fig. 1 70) would not be large enough for an .\res, and probably supported an Eros, a favourite addition of the copyists. Good illustration in Brunn-Bruckniann, Denl;iniitt:r, No. 297. * The supposed replicas are really copies of the Venus of Capua. ■'' <:-S- W) ' Venus Torlonia ' in Villa Albani, No. 733 ( Valentin, //o/w Fran von Milo, Taf. 4, 10 ; cf Helbig, Museums, 838). The head does not belong to the statue, (h) Torso from Smyrna in Vienna (Goler von Ravens- burg, Venus V. Milo, p. 173 ; Benndorf, in Arclt. Epigr. Mitlli. aits Oeslerr. 1880, p. 72, note). " In the Florentine group (Clarac, 634, 1430, phot. Alinari) the Venus, both in body and drapery, is an exact copy of the Capuan statue. The small poor group in the Villa Borghese agrees in this respect with the Florentine ; the goddess sets her foot on a pair of greaves (group given by Nibby in Mon. S(elli d. I'ilta Venus of capua 3«5 not the original intention is plain from the circumstance that the figure of Arcs is now of one t>'pe now of another. If these groups could all be referred to one original, the t>-pe of Ares would always be the same. The composition of the group.s is so poor and clumsy that it is impossible to refer it to an earlier period than that in which the extant monuments were actually executed. The Capuan type occurs with the addition of an under-garment, not only as a single figure,! b^f j^j^q grouped with Ares'- or Asklepios."' The chiton differs .so much Fig. 170. — Venus of Capu.T (N.iijlts). in the various examples that it cannot have formed part of the original design. It seems clear that it was added because the type had to be used for portraits of Borghese, Tav. 44 ; more lately by Ravaisson, loc. cit. PI. 7, I. Ravaisson is unaware of the former iniblication, and has left out the head of Ares, which although broken and wrongly set is yet genuine). In the Capitoline group (Clarac, 634, 1428 ; Helbig, Museums, 502), the Venus, being turned into a portrait-statue, has been given a chiton. The same is the case in the Paris group (Clarac, 326, 1431), where the arrangement of the mantle is likewise altered. Cf. the sarcophagi, and the relief from Side in Lanckoronski, Pamphyl. u. Pisid. i. p. 147 ; Reinach, Chron. d' Or. p. 701 ; Ravaisson, loc. cit. PI. 7, 3 ; the fragment of a terra-cotta relief from I.ocri published by R. ihid. PI. 7, 4, and on which he lays great stress, has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the group. It is the remains of a fifth-century grouji, similar to the one which I described in the 50th Bol. Wiihkc!i/iiiinisproi;r. (see also Herzog, .S'/ki/. c. Gcsch. d. Gr. Kiinst, p. 12). ' {a) ' Venus Kalerone ' in the Louvre (No. 1737), Mon. d. Jus/, iii. 2, I ; Golerv. Ravcnsburg, /". 7: .1/. 17S. Left foot on helmet, (i) Statue in Madrid, cast in Paris (Goler, p. 179 ; Ravaisson, T. dc .)/. PI. 6, 3, 4). Chiton added after the model of the Venus of Kos of Praxiteles. Replica in the Vatican, Giavdino della Pigna. (Ravaisson, /oc. cil. PI. 6, I, 2.) (<) Statue in the Louvre (No. 1733) restored as a Muse, (rf) Cast of a torso said to have been found in the Giardino Boboli, Ecole des Beaux-Arts, Paris, (t) Coll. Jacobsen, Copenhagen. A good copy without head or arms. (/) Statuettes in Treves and Dresden (see supra, [). 380). "- Cf. p. 384, note 6. ^ Group in Turin, Dutschke, iv. 312 ; pub. by Ravaisson ( ('. dc M. I'l. 7, 2). 3 ^ 386 THE VENUS OF MILO flistin: Myth. i. 340, nml P.iiis. iii. 17, 5. '■^ vaXiiov, according to Slrabo, viii. p. 379. The coins differ greatly in the reproduction of the temple. •' Imhoof-Bhimer and P. Gardner, Num. Coiinii. PI. G, 121 sqq., p. 25 seq ; PI. D, 63 (with Po.seidon). .\11 the coins with one exception have the sides reversed as compared with the Capuan statue, hence they probably reproduce the attitude of the Corinthian cultus-image. In the one exception, Imhoof-Gardner, PI. FF xiii. (coin of Commodus in Berlin), the change is probably necessitated by the grouping of the figure with Herakles. ■• Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, loc. (it. ; Head, Hist. Num. p. 340. ' Studniczka, J\om. Mitlh. iii. (188S), 297 scq. " Cf. Prcller-Rober", Gr. Myth. i. 357. .\phrodite is called apem and ivinrXms in Sparta, iyx^^"^ '" Cyprus, and (jTpaTfla in Caria. " Cf. Alkiphron (7/W Prcller-Robert, i. 350, .\, 2. ** We learn frnni Pausanias that several archaic idols had been preserved in Corinth. Cf Inihoof-Gardner, /or. (it. p. 10. APHRODITE WITH THE SHIELD 589 Corinthians of the time had a cop\- made from it without reference to their own local cultus. The older armed image, to which, as I believe, Pausanias refers, is decided evidence in favour of the first view. However that may be, it is certain that the original of the Capuan statue belonged to the fourth ccntur\-. This is plain from the reasons already adduced, and from the style, notably of the head (I'"ig. iji)- The Capuan statue, which was found in the amphitheatre renewed under Hadrian, had been correctK- assigned to this Emperor's period,' and bears cvcrj- mark of the time in its st\-lc. The cold elegance of the workmanship, the dry mannerism with which the hair is treated, the plastic indication of the pupils, the dead smoothness of the flesh, even the profile of the plinth are characteristic, and for some time prevented due ap- preciation of the value of the figure. Fortunately however we possess in a marble bust in the Palazzo Caetani at Rome an earlier and more lifelike copy at any rate of the head (Fig. 172).- Careful compari- son will show that this head must be referred to the same original as the Capuan statue. The only variations are a fillet instead of a diadem, and the absence of the small ends of hair on the back of the neck. The diadem is a usual Roman adornment of Venus, and is probably added by the copyist. The simple fillet, on the other hand, belongs to Aphrodite in Praxitelean art, and is therefore likely to be an original feature. The Victory of Brescia affords another proof that the fillet is correct ; she wears a similar one (except that a laurel-wreath is engraved on it), and it can be derived only from the original, which is identical with the original of the Capuan statue. That the Caetani head is not a copy of the Victory of Brescia (as I stated in Roscher's Lexikon, i. 414), and, in fact, docs not belong to a Nike statue at all, is plain not only from an accurate comparison of the two, but also from the measurements. The Caetani head corresponds in proportions to the Capua type, the Brescia statue stands alone. The latter is an independent Roman modifi- cation of the Aphrodite, as we have seen from tlie draper}-. The artist kept fairly near his original in the workmanship of the head, but did not attempt to make an ' Bemouilli, Aphrod. p. 161. - Matz-Duhn {Zerstr. Bildw. in Rom. 797). Von Duhn was the first to c.ill speci.il attention to the hc.ail ; Frieflerichs-Wolters, Gipsahi;. 1454. Said to be intact ; I have not seen the oiiginal. From the sliape, probalily a bust, and not intended for insertion into a statue (in which case the piece to be let in would be longer in front, and narrower on the shoulders). Fiu. [. — Head of Venus of Cciima. a: I SKOPASIAN AND PRAXITKI.F.AN Al'HROniTES 391 exact cop_\-. The face is shorter and broader, and b)- making the lips thinner he has omitted a distinctl)- Aphrodisian trait. He probably added the little curls in front of the ear. The empty soulless expression of the face shows how totally unable this Roman artist was to impart to his work any quality corresponding to the spirituality of the Greek original. In studying the Capuan type, then, we had better leave the Victory out of the argument, and keep to authentic copies.' Of these the Caetani bust seems to be the most faithful ; although a coarser version of the original, it yet is uniform in style, and nothing extraneous has been added. This style, as need scarcely be remarked, is that of the circle of Praxiteles and of Skopas. This is especialh' marked in the simply parted hair, which forms an angle over the forehead, is con- fined by a smooth band, and worked without deep shadows.- In the facial forms, moreover, it is impossible not to recognize the character of that period. In judging of details it is necessar)- to inquire whether we have to imagine an original of marble or of bronze. The question of material is more important in con- nexion with the fourth than with the fifth century B.C. In the fifth century marble and bronze were similarly worked (cf. p. 7) ; in the fourth century, with Skopas and Praxiteles, was developed a technique peculiar to marble. The wonderful freedom in the treatment of masses of hair and the delicate indication of roots, to cite only one point, which we see in extant originals such as the Hermes, the Eubouleus, the Petworth Aphrodite, the head from the south slope of the Akropolis, and the Demeter of Knidos, and which we can divine from copies such as the Aphrodite of Knidos, would be impossible in bronze. Copies of the Sauroktonos show how Praxiteles treated bronze hair. Our Aphrodite is evident!)' derived from bronze, not from marble, and is analogous to the Sauroktonos, not to the Aphrodite of Knidos and other works whose originals are to be imagined as marble. The hair is not loosely massed, but defined from root to point in separate locks that show great variety of form. On the knot of hair at the back and on other parts of the head are marks of incision, e\-identl}' an imitation of bronze technique. The motive of the statue, an extended arm holding a shield, is much more appropriate to bronze than to marble. It is instructive to compare with the Caetani head similar conceptions as treated b}- Praxiteles. The Aphrodite of Knidos (p. 322) is a good instance for our purpose, and the Venus of Aries (p. 320) a still better one, because the pose of the head is similar to that of the Caetani Aphrodite, and the motive, a mirror, is probably the same. The Caetani Aphrodite differs materially from both these types. At the first glance wc notice the absence of the long regular oval face so characteristic of the Praxitclean school, we miss the marvellous harmony and calm conveyed by the gentle and even balance of the face-curves from centre to sides and from sides to centre. Here the lines arc restless and broken, and seem to crowd to the front. The hair forms a less regular angle on the forehead, which is wider, especially at its base, the eyebrows are thicker, the cheek-bones broader, the setting of the eyes more marked. The inner corners of the eyes are deeply sunk — almost drawn into the head — and at a higher level than the outer corners. The nose projects more, making a less perpendicular profile. The nostrils swell as if breathing. But the mouth shows the most decided difference of all. The lips are fuller and more animated, the raised upper lip is strongl\- curved, the lower one has a strong dent in the middle. The ear, too, has its own peculiar fium, ' The marble head worked into a bust in the possession of Count Stroganoft' in .St. Petersburg is a replica of the Capuan statue. Another is in the Coll. Barracco, Rome ; Coll. Barraao, p. 60, 60 a. Helbig (text, p. 46) does not recognize it. A much-restored head in the Louvre known to nie only from Ravaisson, (". tie M. PI. 5- 3, is possibly a copy. - Cf. Sanim. Sahoiiroff, i. Skiilpt. Introd. p. 1 1 )V/y. 392 THE VENUS OF MILO unlike that observed in tliosc two I'r.ixitclcan heads. Instead of standing upright it lies over towards the back. The hollow is small, the cartilaginous part broader with decided protuberances, the lobe is small and delicate, and completely joined to the head in front. What we lose in grace, harmony, and repose by comparison with Praxiteles wc gain in a more individual expression, in a more vigorous life, and in the fiery energy of mouth and eye. Now the contrasts noted above arc practicall)- the very same that mark off the works of Skopas from those of Praxiteles.^ The Caetani head possesses, in common with Skopasian heads, not only expression and structure, i.e. the short broad face, but even details such as the shape of the ears, the breathing nostrils, and the raised upper lip. The few points of difference are not noticeable enough to warrant us in ascribing the work to any other artistic individuality. We must remember, too, that this is only a copy, and that the subject is a new one in the Skopasian school. The head is looking down instead of up ; hence the upper cjclids are plainly seen, instead of nearly disappearing as they do in those other heads to which an upward gaze has been given. The Skopasian t\-pc represented by the Caetani head is not isolated. Several other monuments are closely analogous to it. The head of a Leda- in Florence shows great similarity in hair, fillet, forehead, and eyes, and although of poor workmanship it must be referred to an original by the artist of the Caetani head or by one of his imitators. More significant is a head of rich, strong beauty, adjusted to a statue called ' Giunone,' in the Capitoline Museum; it bears unmistakable analogies to fourth-century types (Fig. 173);^ in the forehead, eyes, and breathing nostrils it recalls the Caetani head ; at any rate, it comes nearer to the Skopasian than to the Praxitclcan school. We must of course beware of imagining that ^?// Skopasian heads must have the intense upward look to be seen in many works of the school.* I<'urthcr, in the Jacobscn collection, in Copenhagen, there is a head of Aphrodite which, though a poor and much-dcfaccd copy, shows the distinguishing marks of the style of Skopas." A colossal head in the Hermitage may, on the other hand, be a Hellenistic adaptation" of the Caetani type. We have seen that the head of the shield-bearing Aphrodite should be ascribed to the school of Skopas. Turning now to the body, and comparing it with that of the Knidian Aphrodite for instance, we shall be struck by the elasticity and vigour of our statue, due to the greater spareness and slenderness of hips and breasts, while the heavier build of the Knidian goddess seems to betoken easy negligent repose. This distinction is in keeping with what we know of the different tendencies of Pra.xiteles and of .Skopas. Specially peculiar to the Capuan t)pe " are the sloping shoulders and ' Botho Graf, Kivit. Millli. 4, 1889, p. 189 sqq. Cf. Von Sybel in Liitzcrw's Zeilschrift fitr hild. KtinsI, N. F. ii. 249 sqq. - Diitschke, Uffizien, 192 ; Oveibeck, Zciis, p. 514 ; Muller-Wieseler, Dcnkin. 2, 44. Cast in Dresden. .\ replica in the courtyard of the Naples Museum. '^ For literature cf. Helbig, Museums, i. 532. The head is inserted into the statue, not broken. It is of different marble, still it might belong to the statue, were not the style so different. It is of fourth- century style, while the body is Hellenistic and Pergamene. Cast of the head in Dresden., from the Mengs collection. ■■ Graf {hi. cil. p. 21S) admits that the female he.id of the Capitol (cf. also Helbig, Museums, i. 445), which he classifies as Skopasian, has been worked over and intensified. I should go further, and say that it is a decidedly Hellenistic development, a long way removed from Skopas. * Ny Carlsberg Glypt. 1073. Mouth, nose, and other portions are restored. The hair is simply arranged in a knot, without fillet. Already Helbig had with fine insight recognized an Aphrodite in this work. * D'Escamps, Marbrcs Cavipaiia, PI. 38; Guedeonow, Eriiiit. 175. " In this respect the replica grouped with Ares in the Florentine copy agrees with the Capuan statue, ?, K 394 THE VENUS OF MII.O the rounded breasts, which arc more globe-shaped tlian in llic rraxitclcan Aphrodites. In the drapery, again, fourth-century taste is conspicuous.' The rolled drapery about the hips is peculiarly characteristic, and is found on countless Attic grave-reliefs of the period. The Ludovisi Arcs — an invention, as we have seen, of Skopas — wears drapery similarl}^ treated, and so do the Niobids. In the latter connexion, the Florentine Niobids should be specially studied,- for, though poor copies, they faithfully reproduce fourth-century style, \\hilc the famous ' Chiaramonti ' Niobid-' is realh- not a copy at all, but a free translation of one of the original figures into Hellenistic forms. ]?ut to resume — the drapery of our Aphrodite well illustrates the tendency of Attic art in the Praxitelean period to despise decorative effect and aim straight at truth of nature.* In the agitated pose and slim proportions of our t}-pc scholars thought to detect the Lysippian manner. But we have everywhere recognized in Skopas the precursor of Lysippos, the artist whom Lysippos most closel)' followed. Of those works which have been attributed to Lysippos the one most similar to the Aphrodite is the 'Eros stringing a bow ' ; ^ the movement— except that it is directed to the other side — is almost identical, a correspondence which makes it probable that the two compositions are related. The position of the Aphrodite, however, although full of energy, is yet tranquil and firm, while the Eros has that sway of the torso which is so distinctive a mark of the Apoxyomenos. Now, as the Palatine Hermes {supra. Fig. 129) which we referred to Skopas had precisely the same motive, we are bound to consider whether the Eros also may not be traceable to Skopas. This, however, seems to me improbable, owing to the insignificance of the type of head. We have assumed that, like that of the ' Eros stringing a bow,' •* the original of the Capuan Aphrodite was of bronze. This does not invalidate the Skopasian attribution, for not only does Pliny mention Skopas among the bronze-workers, but we know for certain that his Aphrodite Pandemos at Elis riding the goat was of bronze, and there may have been many other bronzes among the works b)^ him whose names have been handed down to us without mention of the material in which they were executed. We have no reason to suppose that Skopas, any more than Praxiteles, worked solely in marble. Among the works which we have already brought into connexion with Skopas, some may have been of bronze — for instance, the youthful Athena {supra, Fig. 130). There are still a few more statues which we venture to refer to Skopas because of their resemblance to the Aphrodite ; chief among them is the Leda in Florence (for discussion of the head-type see p. 392). The torso and drapery are allied to the Aphrodite, the shoulders and the rounded but less developed breasts are similar." The motive, which has been often misunderstood, is free from any voluptuous sugges- tion.^ The frightened bird has flown to the girl for protection ; she is bending over it and wrapping it in the folds of her garment. The swan is small in scale, as in ' .Much restored in the Capuan statue. Belter preserved in the Florence group. - Cf. the hanging drapeiy of the ' Son of Niobc,' Overbecl<, C. ■' llelbig, Museums, 73. ■* Cf. Samm. Sabouroff, i. Skiitht. Introd. ji. 14. ■' Cf. Roscher's Lex. i. 1362. " Cf. Ilelliig, Museums, i. 429. The Thespian Eros of Lysippos was of bronze. ' Note also the bracelet on the rig/il upper arm corresponding to the Florentine replica of the Capuan type. The Praxitelean Aphrodite wears it on the /e/l arm. ' Such as Ovcrbeck, Zeus, p. 514. O. Jahn (.-In/i, Beilr. p. 4) appreciated the group much more correctly. PSYCHE OF CAPUA. 395 the earlier ' Leda ' monuments, and the whole conception is that of the Greek terra- cottas of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C., and of a statue which I have discussed elsewhere.! jn this case too the figure should be interpreted rather as Nemesis than as Leda. It is interesting to compare this Skopasian ' Leda ' with that older oft- copied Leda, which, like the Barberini ' Suppliant,' to which it is allied, must be referred to the fifth ccntur}', and to an artist nearly connected with Pheidias.- It is more dramatic and effective than our Skopasian statue, which is simpler, more natural, and deeper in feeling. A second not less interesting work of the same scries is the Psyche of Capua (Naples),-' which has .so often been called Praxitclcan,* but is really a very good copy after a purely Skopasian work, with the characteristic sloping shoulders and globe-shaped breasts. The latter have, it is true, been somewhat worked over, but the essentials of the form remain unchanged : it is the same flat, youthful breast that we noticed in the Nemesis-Leda,'^ There is a bracelet on the right arm.*^ Marks of the Skopasian Aphrodite t\-pe in the face are seen in the peculiar mouth, the dilated nostrils, the ear set slanting back with small opening, the strongly marked ear cartilage uneven in outline, and in the lobe growincr close to the head. Such cumulative evidence leaves no room for doubt that we have here a work by the artist of the Caetani head. But the interpretation of the figure is not so easy. It is certain, however, that it does not i-eprcsent Psyche, as was formerl}- supposed. Aphrodite would be nearer the truth. The figure obviously leaned its weight on the right leg, and the left hand drew over the left shoulder the drapery which shrouded the lower part of the body.' The head was turned to the right and bent down. Perhaps the goddess was grouped with an Eros holding a mirror. The 'melancholy character' of the work cannot be urged against this interpretation, for it is easy to imagine melancholy in a bowed head when we know nothing of the motive. The head is posed as in the Capuan Venus, only more inclined. This inclina- tion doubtless formed the principal charm of the figure in the eyes of the artist, who in this instance has with characteristic boldness gone beyond his prototype. One step more, and we should have the ' Kallipygos ' motive of the succeeding generation. A third beautiful plastic conception, which we may refer to a bronze original by Skopas, is the H\-pnos, represented by a marble copy in Madrid and a bronze head in the British Museum.* It has long been acknowledged that the original must have been in bronze. This is proved not only by the extant remains of a bronze copy, but by the vigour of the action, which, when represented in marble, necessitates the presence of a meaningless and disfiguring support. The style of this work, ' Samm. Sabouroff, i. Vases, Introd. p. S sqq. " Ihid. p. 9 scq. 12. ^ Friederichs-Wolters, 1471. The piecings are originril, and not, as was formerly believed, due to restora- tions. Date first century B.C. The figure is analogous to the Ares of the Conservatori Palace (Ilelbig, Museums, 568) (see supra, p. 271), which is also made up of several pieces. M either figure had wings. The working over is by no means as bad as had been supposed : it can be detected on the breast in the region of the collar-bone, but the head has been left absolutely untouched. ' So lastly by Benndorf, Bull, della Comtii. Arch, di Koiita, 1886, p. "3. ' Cf. for the breasts of the Psyche, E. Briicke, Sclumheit und Fehler der Menschlichen Gestall, p. 67. * Cf. p. 394, note 7. '■ E. Wolff recognized this {Bull. d. Iiisl. 1833, 134) ; also Stark {Siichs. Ber. 1S60, 90). .-^n cNamination 01 the original will show Kekule's supposition (.Aiinali, 1864, 145), that the left upper arm was wrongly set on, and had originally been drawn back, to be quite false. His further hypothesis, that Psyche was tied to ihe tree, naturally becomes untenable. * Friederichs-Wolters, Gipsabg. 12S7, 1288. For list of small bronze replicas see Winnefeld, Hypnos, p. 8. Of these, the Turin figure is published in Atti della Soc. di Ardieol. c Belle Arii di Torino, iv. 1883, Tav. 15, p. 113, and the two Lyons copies in Gaz. Areiu'ol. 1888, PI. 6. See also Sauer in Roscher's I.e.x. i. 2849, and Brunn, Gbtlerideale, p. 26, Taf. 3. 396 TilK VENUS OF MILO rightly attributed to the Praxitclean epoch, has been h'kencd to that of the Sauroktonos,' but the more closely \vc look at the head the more clearly \vc shall see that its resemblance to the Sauroktonos is merely superficial, while it is closely analogous to the Skopasian Aphrodite — in a word, it offers the same contrast to the Sauroktonos that the Aphrodite of Skopas does to the Aphrodite of Praxiteles. \Vc find in the H}'pnos a broad type of face and a pronounced bony structure, quite different from the graceful elongated oval of the Sauroktonos. The forehead of the latter, and the wavy hair that frames it, correspond closel)^ to the Venus of Aries and the Knidos Aphrodite, while in the Hypnos the forehead and the hair growing back from it so strongly resemble the Caetani Aphrodite that we are justified in referring the two conceptions to the same artist. Tlie dilated nostrils of the Hypnos arc character- istically Skopasian, but the protuberance in the middle of the forehead, which, as Brunn showed, is definitely necessitated b)- the wings, is individual to the divinity represented. Finally, the swinging stride, recalling the Palatine Apollo,^ and the chiastic disposition of the limbs are much more appropriate to Skopas than to Praxiteles, while, to pass to the treatment of the nude, the modelling of the abdomen and the navel with its little furrow are details more nearly related to the Skopasian Weleagcr than to the Sauroktonos or the Hermes. This magnificent invention, then — the work of an artist who went straight to the heart of his subject — inust be assigned to the later period of Skopas's activit)-. Unlike the Kairos of Lysippos, a composition carefully built up by an effort of activity, this conception flowed warm and living from the soul of the artist. With gliding gait and quiet pulse of wings the god of sleep sinks down upon a weary world. It was a happ)' inspiration of Skopas to place the wings on the head instead of on the shoulders, as in the earlier representations of Hypnos. The original of the statue must surely have been intended for one of the few shrines where Hypnos was worshipped. We only know of three such in Greece. There was an ancient altar in Troezene which Hypnos shared with the Muses (Paus. ii. 31, 3); statues of Hypnos and Thanatos (to which a cult was probably attached) stood near the Chalkioikos in Sparta (Paus. iii. 18, i) ; in the Hieron of Asklepios at Epidauros Hypnos was worshipped, at least in later times ;^ and finally the front chamber of an o'Ut^fia in the peribolos of the sanctuary of Asklepios at Sikyon (Paus. ii. 10, 2) was consecrated to him.^ As Asklepios was wont to manifest himself to his suppliants in sleep, and Sleep might easily be personified as a daemon favourable to recovery, the connexion of the two divinities seems natural enough. Pausanias states that only the head of the figure was in existence in the cella.^ Possibly the original statue had been stolen, and if so the head Pausanias saw must have been a copy, for whoever took the statue would not leave the head behind. We know that Skopas worked in Sikyon, for Pausanias refers to a Herakles there made by him (probably reproduced on Imperial coins)." Hence it is not impossible that the statue in the cella was also a work by Skopas. Other coins of the Imperial times seem to show that a third famous work of the same artist, not assigned by tradition to any special place, may have belonged to ' Cf. Murray, Nisi, of Gr. Scnlpliiic, ii. 259, wliere Benndorf is quoted. - Cf. p. 305, note 6. " Cf. Blinkenberg in Nonl Tid-Skrift f. Filol. ny Kiiiikc, x. 270, 8 ; 273, 20. ■* The back cella was consecrated to Apollo Karneios. ° In the Stoa which was naturally attached to the Asklepicion, Pausanias saw another statue of Hypnos — KaraKoifxiiuf AeWra ; Pausanias may be here inaccurately referring to the type (known by later copies) of Hypnos sleeping on a lion. (Bu//. d. /its/. 1877, 122 sc'P^''o' she must have held a sword ; no such weapon can however be distinguished on the coins. ' Num. Coiniii. p. 29, PI. II. vi. v. 398 THE VENUS OF MILO thus it was a right instinct which induced scholars who could not bring proofs to confirm their impression to bring it into connexion with this artist.' In spite of the numerous modifications, the Skopasian groundwork is manifest not only in external details, such as the arrangement of the fillet antl of the hair (which is however effectively modernized bj- the addition of the loosened strands falling on the neck), but in the attempt to impart fire and vitalit)' to the expression. The artist sought to heighten this Skopasian quality. In his desire to bring into the conception something of dignity and eleva- tion, he lengthened the lower part of the face, thus returning to the older manner. The suc- cessors of Praxiteles, in the same way, tried to outdo him in grace. The result in each case is a slight exaggeration of the master's peculiarities. The Aphrodite of Skopas becomes the Venus of IVIilo, the Aphrodite of Praxiteles becomes the Venus of Medici. It is characteristic of a later development that the firm, well-knit forms of the original Skopasian head have undergone in the Melian statue a certain relaxation, threatening to become almost fluid in their lack of compactness and definition. The same tendency may be observed in other heads of Hellenistic date, notably in the much-admired head from Pergamon," so often compared with the Melian Aphrodite. This head, though doubtless considerably older than our Venus, shows the laxity of the forms carried to such a point that an ex- pression of weakness, almost amounting to \-acancy, is the result. On the other hand, the beautiful head from Tralles, now in Smyrna (Fig. 174),^ belongs to the beginning of the series, and is not far removed from Skopas in general character, betraying Hellenistic taste only in the treatment of the hair. Mention must also be made here of a smaller and more widely known head from Tralles which has been brought into close connexion with the Melian statue, and even referred to the same original,* although it has in common with it onl}- quite general traits. Its artist evidently imitated Praxiteles, from whom he may have been separated onl)- by a generation or two. It cannot be said that he made a definite copy, but he followed that master's characteristic rendering of form, such as the delicate N.ikiitini ( Rjir ' e.i'. Waagen, Welcker {Jiif. Denkni. i. 445), Stark {Scichs. Berichte, i860, p. 51), Urlichs (Skopas, p. 122), and B. Graf {R'oin. Mittli. iv. 217) have all in a more or less degree pointed to the Skopasian characteristics. - LUtzow's Zeitschrift f. Bild. Kiiiisl, iSSo, xv. 161. ^ In the Mus. of the Evang. School. Badly published in Bull. Con: Hell. 1882, PI. III. Cast at Bonn (Fig. 174). •* Benndorf in Ocsterr. Miltli. 1880, T.if. i, 2 ; ;i. 66 st/q. ; Overbeck, Cfsc/i. d. Plastik, 3rd ed. ii. 342 ; FriederichsWolters, Gipsahg. I451 ; R. v. Schneider, Uehersicht dcr H'uihr A'lins/lu's/oi. Sam///. 1891, p. 78, interprets the head as an Artemis. ATTIC PROTOTYPES. 399 oval of the face, the dimple on the chin, the sweet expression ; but the whole conception has become small, not to say trifling. We hav-e seen (p. 377) that the epigraph)- of the inscription allows us to date the Venus of Milo as early as the end of the third century B.C., though the period between 150 and 50 Ii.C. was more probably that in which the \'cnus was made. The stylistic peculiarities now confirm this later date. The hair is arranged, as we have alread}- said, in the fourth-centur\^ manner, but the treatment is in marked contrast to fourth-century work. What hard rendering of the roots of the hair on the fore- head, what lifeless parallel grooves in the strands that are combed back ! The above-mentioned head from Pergamon, which belongs probably to the third cen- tury, illustrates the exact reverse of this procedure. The artist has arranged the hair according to the fashion of his time, but in the delicate indication of the growth of the hair and in the light treatment of the region round the eye he preserves the best tradi- tions of fourth-century work — traditions which seem to have been unknown to the artist of the Melian statue. In determining the style of our Aphrodite, the draper}' is also of very great importance. Here the artist has definitely altered his Skopasian model. He has rejected the treatment which aims at simple truth of nature, and has chosen instead — not the usual Hellenistic manner, as shown in the marbles of Pergamon — but, strangely enough, the manner of the Parthenon pediment figures.' The stuff lies in large unbroken masses, with sharp edges and no cross folds, and it clings to the nude parts as if moistened. Only on the right thigh does it show a touch of Hellenistic taste. To this large massive treatment of drapery we owe the theor}-, not with- out adherents even at the present da\-, that the statue is by a successor of Pheidias. In my view this imitation is precisely what shows the statue to belong to that Renascence which. about the middle of the second century B.C., embodied a reaction against the extravagance of the Hellenistic school. The Belvedere Herakles torso is a work of kindred ten- dency. Here the nude is treated according to Pheidian tradition,- and without any of the realism in which the art of Pergamon excelled. A comparison of the Venus of Milo with the Venus of Medici will convince us that the Melian figure shows a return to Pheidias not only in the draped but also in the nude parts.-' The impression of grandeur of style which the statue has always made was intentionally aimed at by the artist. It is probable also that the statues of the Pheidian school which gradually lead up to this motive were not unknown to him. Perhaps the statue of Aphrodite Fui. 176. — Statue in Pal- V.-ilentini. (Restorations omitted.) ' Cf. Overbeck, Gcsclt. il. Plastik, 3rd etl. ii. 341. -- Roscher's Lex. i. 2182, 20. ^ Cf. Waagen, Kimslwcrke tiiul K'instkr in Paris, p. 108. 400 THK VF.NUS OF MILO Ourania, in Elis, by Phcidias, with the left foot on a tortoise, was the origin of tiic whole scries.' An excellent work of art belonging to the generation after Phcidias, probabl>- an Aphrodite, is preserved to us in two copies in the Palazzo Valentini - and the Palazzo Odcscalchi at Rome (Figs. 175, 176). This figure .shows so many points of analogy to the Venus of Milo, more especially in those particulars where the latter differs from its Capuan original, that we may very well imagine that the artist in his adaptation of the Aphrodite of Skopas consciously emulated the style of some such Pheiilian prototj'pe. Aphrodite here, as always in the Phcidian period, wears the chiton under the mantle. It clings closely to the body, thus forming an almost transparent covering, in the manner of the sculptures on the Nike balustrade and of the Aphrodite of Alkamenes. The left foot is advanced but not raised, and the form of the left leg is distinctly seen through the mantle, just as in the case of the Aphrodite of Melos. The sharply defined curves of the mantle wrapped round the body and enveloping the right leg, on which the weight of the body is supported, show the breadth of concep- tion, the combined wealth and animation of forms which characterize the school of Phci- dias from the epoch of the Parthenon pediments onwards. The Hera of Ephesos (p. 84, note 4) and the so-called Barberini Hera (p. 82) are similar works, but the Aphrodite Valentini far surpasses them in beauty and richness of drapery. One of the fragments of the reliefs by Agorakritos^ is very closely related to the Valentini figure. Again, the head of the figure, with its large full forms, its forehead high in the middle, and its delicate roots of hair, finds its nearest analogies in two statues which we have already ascribed to Agorakritos (p. 88), i.e. the Barberini Apollo and the Athena of the Capitol, and this circumstance gives some weight to the belief that the Valentini Aphrodite is to be referred to Agorakritos. There is the same dignity and majesty of pose, the same expression of frank victorious pride, that we saw in other works by the same hand. The artist of the Melian Aphrodite has tried to catch at least a ray of inspiration from Agorakritos, but his work, as we have shown, must be dated not earlier than the Renascence of the second century B.C. This chronology is confirmed by a purely external circumstance — the appearance of the inscription on an integral part of the statue. This is without any analogy before the end of the second centurj- li.c' Previous to that time, with the exception of course of the archaic period, it was the invariable custom of artists to sign their statues on the pedestal ; after this date, prob- ably- in order to insure permanence in case the statue should be removed, signatures were placed on some block — such, for instance, as the supports — which was intiinatcly connected with the statue. The Venus of Milo, then, belongs to a series of works executed in the latter half of ' Cf. p. 72 scj. In a recently acquired statue in Berlin, see p. 73, note (Airh. Aiiz. 1893, p. 74, and Kckule, Weiblkhc Gcwandjigiir, etc.), the left foot is jjlaced higher. In StacUelherg's tcrra-cotta (Griihei; Taf. 69) the foot is only slightly raised, and in the terra-cotta (Kfv. Ank. 1891, i. PI. 6, p. 289 ; Th. Reinach) from the Troad, probably a copy of a statue, it is raised extraorilinarily high. - Pal. Valentini: Guattani, Moii. Ant. vied., 1788, Tav. 2; Chirac, 69S, 1655; Matz-Duhn, Zcrs/i: Bild- ■werke. No. 606 ; Roscher's Lex. i. 414. The left arm and lower right arm and the cymbals are restored. The copyist has neglected 10 give the Ionic sleeve on the left arm. The head is broken, but belongs to the figure. The left hand evidently drew the mantle up over the shoulder. Thick sandals on the feet. Large eyes. Good, intelligent workmanship.— Poorer replica in Pal. Odescalchi. Head, lower right arm, and left arm are restored (Matz-Duhn, 605). '■'■ 'Era, p. 105 si^q.) Since Amphipolis was founded under the auspices of Perikles, it is not surprising to find Athenian artists of the school of Fheidias cutting Athenian types for her coinage. But we also possess marble copies of a work, or at any rate of the head of a work, which was a prototype of Leochares's conception. Two copies of this earlier work exist, one in the British Museum (Fig. 177)^ and one in Naples, where it is wrongly placed on the torso of a wounded hero and misnamed a gladiatore? The work is Fig. 177.— Head of .\pollo (Brit. Mus.) in reality a youthful Apollo, well characterized by the full hair and the forehead broadening at the base. The analogy to the Belvedere statue consists not onl_\- in these general features but specially in the animated turn of the head to the left and the bright steady gaze of the eyes, which almost seem to emit rays of light. But a long inter\-al of time separates the two conceptions. The London and Naples heads have the firm simple planes, the large and sharply defined forms of the older style ; the Belvedere head shows richer modelling and smoother transitions. In the ' I noticed the resemblance of this head to the Belvedere Apollo on my first visit to London in iSSi ; Fig. 177 is from a photograph taken at that time. Kopp has since published (BiMniss Alexanders lies Grosseii, p. 24) two other views of the head. - Afuseo Borbon. v. 7 ; Clarac, S65, 2203 ; Photograph Sommev, 1582. A portion of the neck is also preserved. 412 THF. APOLLO OF THE BELVEDERE earlier head tlic mouth seems to be put on from outside, in the later it is well knit with the rest of the face, and its edges melt impalpabl}- into the surrounding surfaces. Again, the e}-es of the earlier head show no trace of the careful modelling of the region arounil the ej'C, so telling as a vehicle of expression ; there is no indication of the lower edge of the eye-socket, but the cheek continues unbroken up to the groove below the eyeball ; the lower lid is broad and hard, and the part between the upper lid and the upper edge of the eye-socket is modelled according to old convention. Instead of swelling out gradually towards the temple, it is represented as a compact roll of flesh separated by a slight depression from the eyebrow, which continues in a hard sharp ridge as far as the temple. All these are marks which distinguish Pheidian from Praxitelean work. But the type of this British Museum Apollo is not unfamiliar to us, for it is closely connected with a series of heads which we have previously discussed (p. 99 S(jq.) ; the whole expression of the head and its turn, the form of the open mouth with the powerful curve of the lips, recall the Dioscuri of Monte Cavallo and the works related to them. Above all, the analogy which the hair presents in its forms and its peculiar asymmetria to the heads ascribed to the Elder Praxiteles {supra. Figs. 42, I ; 43, 44) seems to me so personal and individual as to warrant us in attributing the London head to the same artist. Doubtless the whole movement of the statue had nothing of the gliding grace of the Belvedere figure. We may imagine a motive more in the manner of the Monte Cavallo Dioscuri, though not so violent. The right knee was probably more bent, and a real stride represented. An Athena of the Pheidian school, copied in a statuette of Epidauros,^ very well shows how artists of that time conceived of a divinity hastening to give succour and aid. The head is turned with an animated gesture, the knee of the striding leg is bent and well advanced ; it was the singular merit of Leochares to impart to the attitude grace, lightness, and elasticity. In this Apollo of the Pheidian circle — presumably by the Elder Praxiteles — the god is represented as Healer and Saviour, striding like the Athena Hygieia of Epidauros," or like that earlier Apollo of Kaulonia who waves the laurel-twig in token of expiation. On the Akropolis of Athens stood a bronze statue of Apollo, called ' Parnopios ' because the god had saved the land from a plague of grasshoppers. The figure was 'said to be' by Pheidias {to aya\/jLa \iyova-iv 'EiJ)7)f<. ipx- 1S86, Taf. 12 (left hand) ; A/h. Milth. 1886, p. 309 (Petersen). Not only the helmet but the hair and type of face are Pheidian. - Petersen's explanation (he. czV.) seems far-fetched. The goddess is simply hastening to help in need. For the torch on the basis of the relief, see Friederichs-Wolters, 1176. ■' Cf. supra, pp. 10, 32, 62. The \i-yovaiv of Pausanias (on the strength of which Michaelis in Ath. Mit/li. ii. p. I, note 2, reckons the Parnopios as doubtful) does not in itself necessarily imply anything at all, as Gurlitt (/fe/waw/flj, p. 193) has shown, for even when he is quoting an inscription Pausanias not unfrequently introduces it by Tipovjiov, the temple as a whole cotov th 'EKctTupTTfdov. The last expression is certainly of a very ancient character, as may be conjectured from the Trvpij iKUTi'tpnoBos of the Iliad (xxiii. 164). The name refers to the length of the temple exclusive of the peristyle, and is manifestly older than this, coming down from the days when the whole building was a hundred feet long. Only at a quite early period could the erection of a temple a hundred feet in length be a subject for special pride." Even the Heraion at Olympia is considerably bigger, and the mighty temples of ancient Ionia were on a very different scale. Hekatompedon, then, was the official name for the whole edifice. The eastern half belonged in a special sense to Athena ; the western half, approached from the west, to Erechthcus. We shall speak ' Lolling, 'AAtji/o, 1890, 627 ; AeAriof, 1890, 92 ; Dorpfeld, .-///;. Milth. xv. 420 njij. So also Fowler, Am. Journ. of Arch. \s. 9. - Hermes, vol. xxvi. (iSyi) y. 472. ' C. 1. A. iv. 139. ■" Cf. also Pans. x. 4, 4. TheiL-forc I cannot assent to Dittonhergcr's assertion iUv. til.) that an essential part of a tcin])le could not be called oXKijiia. ^ It should be noted here thai the existence of separate buildings to contain temple treasures is attested in several insLances ; so the flrjiroupos wilh door and roof in Eleusis {'Eipr)p.. afix- 1883, p. 126, I. 4 ; p. 118, 1. 73 ; ;i. 115, 1. 13); cf. Kubensohn (/>/■■ Myslerieiilteilii^lJiiiiner, ]). 65) and llie stone structure in F.pidauros {^Y.<^i\p.. apx- 1886, p. 147, 1. 230, 243, 300); cf. Swoboda in Wiener Sliidioi, x. 299, note 78. " There is alisohUely no ground for the assumption that the name Hekatompedon in itself points lo a ' siilendid innovation,' a 'display of m.agnificence,' belonging lo the period of the Tyrants (Curtius, Stadtgescli. p. 72; Petersen, ,-///;. Milth. xii. 66 seq.) On the contrary, tlie Olyjniiieion at Athens shows us excellently what was meant by a temple built for display in the time of the I'eisistratids. THE -OLD TEMPLE' 4^9 farther on of the subdivisions of this latter half The popular conception pictured Ercchtheus as actually dwelling in the temple,' and his ritual, described in the passage from Homer, may in old times have been more important in the eyes of the people even than that of Athena. The ' tokens,' the Olive and the Salt Well, were quite close to the temple. The difficult problem of bringing even the Salt Well into the architecture of a temple must have been far removed from the ideas of those old times. The fencing in of the sacred spot, which moreover lay in the most immediate and most sacred precinct of the temple, was doubtless quite sufficient. We may compare the custom of fencing round spots struck by lightning, as sacred places of Zeus Kataibates.- The Olive was, naturally, left in the open air even after the Salt Well was built over : similarly, at Olympia, the c'Xai'a Ka\'KicTTe(pavos stood outside near the temple. The assumption that we must suppose an older temple on the site of the Erechtheion, if only on account of the 'tokens' in the rock, is unfounded. The Olive was certainly always outside. The ' tokens ' were of course immovable, but the temple was not. In contrast to those cases in which a new temple has been erected on the foundations of an old one, there are, as is well known, several instances of the opposite proceeding, in which another spot near by, within the sacred precinct, was chosen. The shrine of Dionysos at the foot of the Citadel was one instance; so was that of Hera at Argos ; and the same was done at Samothrake and elsewhere. Now each point within the iepw was equally dedicated and appropriated to the deity ; it was therefore a matter of indifference whether his image and temple were set up on this or on that part of the precinct within which he dwelt. Only it was customary on the occasion of any change affecting the possessions of a deity, whether his temple, his image, or other votive offering, to avert the possible displeasure of the deity by means of a kind of propitiatory sacrifice, called npecrrrfpioi/.-' The old Hekatompedon, then, was until 480 the only temple of the City Goddess, and her companion Erechtheus, upon the Citadel. In its east cella stood the olive-wood image of the goddess ; this was not necessarily older than the temple itself, since the fables of later writers, who represent it as fallen from heaven, as set up by Kekrops, or Erichthonios, as made by Endoios, the pupil of Daidalos,^ have about as much value as the Christian legends ascribing a host of pictures to St. Luke. They prove only that the image appeared to those of later days to be very old. The date of the temple exclusive of the peristyle is to be placed in the long interval between the Mykenaian and the Peisistratan periods : in thus placing it we are guided by the style of the foundations. The artistic forms of the building are unfortunately quite unknown. II. r/ic First Parthenon. The second great temple of the Citadel is the older Parthenon, the substructions of which lie under the building of Perikles. Dorpfeld has lately shown " that this older Parthenon was not erected till after the burning of the Citadel in 480. The most natural supposition is that it was to replace the 'Old Temple' burnt by the Persians. Unfortunately we cannot now know with certainty the ground-plan of the building, as it has been covered by the later Parthenon. But Dorpfeld supposes, with great probability, that it had the same number of columns on the short sides, namely eight, while on each of the long sides it had two more than its successor, i.e. nineteen instead of seventeen. The older edifice was thus, he thinks, about six metres longer than the later, but on the other hand somewhat narrower. The idea which we find in the Periklean Parthenon, of making the eastern cella by itself a fVaTo/iTreSot i/eiir, as long as the entire old 'EKaToVwcSoi', was no doubt embodied in the old construction also.'' The greater length of this last must therefore have been bestowed upon the western cella. Dorpfeld has pointed out that the difference in length between the two temples just corresponds to the depth of the small rooms behind the west cella of the old Hekatompedon." We ■ Cf. Rohde, rsyche, p. 127. - In the Allis at Olympia, Taus. v. 14, 10. On the Akropolis at Athens, AeAn'ov apx- 1890, 144. In the Olympieion at Athens, 'EStj^i. opx- 1889, 61. ^ Cf. on this point Kohler, in Hermes, x.wi. 1891, p. 44 seq., and the inscriptions he cites. * O. Jahn, De Aittiquiss. Jlliiiervae Simiilaeris, p. 9 seq. ' The recent attempt of Penrose to revive the earlier view of the pre-Persian origin of the substructions; seemed finally refuted by Dorpfeld (Ath. Mitth. xvii. 1S92, p. 158 sqq.) In/. H. S. xiii. 32, however, he has tried once more to defend his views against Dorpfeld, but wiihout bringing forward any new material that could alter his opponent's results. The decisive argument is afforded by the character of the filling of debris on the south side of the Parthenon. Any one who had opportunity to observe this filling during the excavations must fully agree with Dorpfeld : the layers of building debris are' beyond uncertainty. Now, if the debris is contem- porary with the Parthenon, Penrose's view is thereby refuted. " Cf Dorpfeld, Atli. Milth. xvii. 174. " Cf. ihid. 420 TMF. TF.MPLES OF ATHENA ON THE AKROPOLIS may therefore conjecture that the older Parthenon was intended to have similar rooms. Moreover, the whole cella was certainly, as Dorpfeld supposes, considerably narrower than the Periklean building, which needed so wide a cella simply for the sake of the gigantic ciiltus-image. It follows from this that the ground-plan of the older Parthenon was essentially only an enlargement of the old Hekatompedon, which it was intended to replace ; therefore the worship of Erechtheus, and all that this involved, was to be transferred to it. If we further recollect that the site of the temple was so chosen as to necessitate enormous substructions on the southern side, we shall realize that this plan represented no ordinary degree of audacity. Without regard to the spot consecrated by antiquity, and the proximity of the divine ' tokens,' the cult was to be transferred in its entirety — of course after the offering of the proper dixa-Trjpin — to a site on the Citadel which had first of all to be in great part artificially produced. No evidence has come down to us as to the date of the temple, or the person who erected it. We know, however, that it must belong to the time between 479 and 447, and that the work was abandoned before it was finished ; only the lowest drums of the marble columns had been prepared, and on these the fluting had not been cut. Moreover, it is highly probable that the date of erection comes very much nearer to the upper limit (479) than to the lower (447) ; the Periklean edifice is so widely different from the older one, that a comparatively long interval between the two is probable. The difference is especially clear in the suljstructions added on the north side. The steps, moreover, arc of marble in the Periklean building, of poros stone in the older edifice. A third and topmost step of the latter was entirely taken away,' and a part of the second removed. The marble drums of columns prepared for the older building were thrown aside, and used in levelling up the ground about the Periklean building. Some of them had been, probably at an earlier date, built into the north wall.- The plan was altered, and the foundations carried farther north. This whole revolutionary proceeding is certainly easier to explain if the work had lain for some length of time untouched when Perikles began to build. The older Parthenon has been ascribed to Kimon, the only difference of opinion being as to the time of his life to which it belongs. Thus Kopp considers that the work did not begin till after the return of Kimon from exile, about 454.-' But on this theory there would be an interval of only a year or two between it and the Periklean Parthenon, and that is practically impossible. Dorpfeld, therefore, conjectured that the building was begun some time earlier, soon after the banishment of Themistokles (471). My belief is that we ought to go still further back, and place it in the years immediately following 479. The only fact that appears to point to Kimon is that the south wall of the Citadel is closely connected with Kimon's name, and it is assumed that the substructions of the Parthenon are contemporary with the south wall, the two being parts of a single design. Contemporary, however, it is not. The south wall is undoubtedly later than the foundations of the Parthenon,' and has no necessary connexion with them. On the contrary, the method pursued in levelling up the ground to the south of the Parthenon seems to me to show that when the foundations of the temple were built there was as yet no thought of the great south wall. It was clearly intended in the first place to raise only the part between the projected temple and the old cyclopean circuit-wall, so as to form a terrace surrounding the temple. For the support of the masses of up-piled materials it w-as necessary to heighten the old circuit wall. This was done by means of the scarped ' supporting wall ' ^ ; it starts to the south-west of the temple from the old circuit wall, but is carried on in a straight line, cutting off the curve which the other wall makes outwards. This outer wall seems to have been partially removed in this place ; at least stones from it were used. The supporting wall ended, no doubt, where the museuin now stands, and abutted on the circuit wall, which at that spot turns inward again. It was probably intended subsequently to face the outer side of the supporting wall with better stones ; but the wall would never have been erected if the south wall had been planned at the ' Dorpfeld (/oi-. ri/. 166) thought it more probable that the building departed from the general rule in having only two steps ; he has now, however, changed his opinion, as he has informed me, and believes it can be proved with certainty that there were three steps ; and this is, in any case, more probable. - It is uncertain when this was done. Dorpfeld (/oc. cit. p. 1S9) conjectured that it was at the time of the battle of Tanagra. In answer to a question from me as to whether the drums were necessarily built in before the Periklean Parthenon was Ijegun, he writes that he thinks this must have been so ; because ' if the drums had not been buih in, Perikles would certainly have used them for his new columns, since they are not damaged like tIio.se found near the Parthenon." ■' fahrb. d. Inst. v. 1S90, 270. ■* Cf. Atli. Mitlh. xiii. 432. Dorpfeld further corroborates this by'lelter : 'There can be no doubt that the south wall of the Citadel is later than the foundations of the temple ; at most, its lowest courses may be contemporary with the temple. The length of time that intervened between the two buildings I do not venture to estimate.' ■• .Marked with the number 20 on the plan in AeArlo;', 1889, p. 50. Cf. Ath. Mitth. xiii. 432. THE FIRST PARTHENON 421 s;\ine time. The latter is more recent, and the space between it and the supporting wall was not filled up till later. Now the south wall is dated by the well-known and quite trustworthy testimony given in Plutarch, Kim. 13 ; it was erected by Kimon after the battle on the Eurymedon from the money received as ransom for the prisoners. Plutarch here draws from a very well-informed authority, who purports to be very complete in his account of what Kimon did for the city in the way of buildings and the like.' Even the trees which he planted in the Agora and the embellishment of the Academy are mentioned. The south wall is named as an independent and important construction ; we have seen that it is such in fact. The old Parthenon was older, and had nothing to do either with this or with Kimon. Before the battle on the Eurymedon, it would have been scarcely possible for Kimon to set on foot such a work, if only on account of his continual campaigns. If, however, it had been begun by him, he would surely after that battle, which brought such abundant booty, have applied the money to carrying on the temple, not to the erection of the south wall. From the fact that he did not touch the unfinished temple at a time when he was at the height of his renown, with enormous sums of money at his disposal, we may safely conclude that the erection of the temple had been begun by the party adverse to him. All works of importance in the Athens of those times ought certainly to be judged with reference to the great parties which were at strife with one another, and alternately gained the predominance. Kimon ignored the older Parthenon, because it had been begun by the party of Themistokles. The building must belong to the time immediately after 479, when Aristeides and Themistokles were the TipoaTarm Tnv brjfiov, as Aristotle expresses it (ttoX. 'Ad. 23, 3 ; cf. 28, 2). As early as the sixties of the fifth century there was a great new temple on the Citadel ; this follows from the inscription C. I. A. i. i (iv. p. 3), if Kirchhoff and Dittenberger- are correct in their highly probable restoration of the passage : Iv T!(pi?i\oKa>\i. rtS voT6d]ev tov r^f 'Adrivaia[s apxalov vc]q> ffiTToXei. For this inscription is, according to Kirchhoff and Dittenberger, without doubt con- siderably older than 460, and equally without doubt later than the destruction of about 480 : it belongs, they hold, to just that time at which we consider the first Parthenon to have been begun ; as contrasted with this new building, the temple which it was to replace was the apxaios ntdis.^ This inscription is also interesting in another respect, as confirming the view that the ' Old Temple ' contained no places at all for the storing of money. The Eleusinian treasure, which is here in question, is to be kept in a peribolos, near the temple ; and this would assuredly not have been the case if the temple had had ' treasure chambers.' * The plan of restoring the forsaken and destroyed city in 479 undoubtedly included the re-erection of the shrines. The Athenians had not by any means, like the lonians, bound themselves by an oath to leave the ruins standing.^ When the ancient image of Polias re-entered her desolate shrine, it can have needed no powerful persuasion to induce the Athenians to undertake a splendid restoration. But in the method pursued we see the work of an original, unscrupulous, and revolutionary mind : the new building was transferred from the site consecrated by antiquity to the sloping south side of the Citadel, and in order to widen the hill at this point numbers of damaged architectural and statuary fragments were used to level up the ground. In all this we seem to trace genuine Themistoklean 8{ii>6rr)s and toX/wi.'' ' It has been supposed, with good reason, that the authority was Theopompos. Theopompos is favourable in his representation of Kimon, whereas he decries Themistokles. '^ Dittenberger, Sf//. 3S4. ^ Dorpfeld (Ati. Mitth. xii. 39) reads onia^av instead of vo-roS^v ; he interprets the place to be the Opistho- domos of the 'Old Temple.' The preceding letters, however, oXw, he leaves quite unregarded. Curtius [Stadtgesch. p. 132, note i) likewise reads onus^iv, and before it iv tJ 0]o'Aa!. This last restoration is, however, incorrect, since it takes no count of the number of letters missing, but inserts a letter too few. .\nd how could the Opisthodomos of the 'Old Temple' be "called, as Curtius supposes it to be, SiKoi oinaBtv TOV vaoS? It seems to me indubitable that the passage cannot refer to any part of the temple itself. Kirchhoft s restoration, exactly supplying the lacuna, is at any rate highly probable. — Petersen {Af/i. Mitth. xii. 65) rightly lays stress on the fact that the inscription is, according to Dorpfeld's estimate, older than the Parthenon ; and from this he only draws a false inference on account of his conception of the 'Tyrants' Temple.' * We may conjecture that the same building, to the south of the ' Old Temple,' is intended in the old Hekatompedon inscription, C. T. A. iv. p. 138, col. ii. 11. 8, 9: koi v6\T6Siv T[oi> v\iOi evrhs tov k . . . The following restoration would exactly supply the number of letters wanting in the lacuna : eVriis tov k[vk\ov ko! /cafl'j Siroi' Til 'EKaTifiweSof. With this agrees the gloss in Hesvchius, /cukXos' ir£pi/3o\os. Now to what deity can have been dedicated the circular peribolos to the south of the 'Old Temple'? I am inclined to conjecture that it was sacred to Ge, whose worship in this place is attested by the well-known rock-cut inscription of later date (C. /. A. iii. 166 ; cf. in/ra, VII. p. 468). Perhaps the kvkKos 70s of a recently published sacred law from Kos was likewise a peribolos of Ge (cf. Topffer, At/i. Mitth. xvi. 427 seq., who leaves this possibility an open question). ^ That the oath applies only to the lonians has been proved by Kopp (Jahrb. d. Inst. 1890, p. 272). Puchstein calls my attention to the fact that the lonians did actually keep the oath for a long while ; none of the restorations or rebuildings of the great temples of Ionia belong to the fifth century. '' Phit. Kim. 5. 422 THE TEMPLES OF ATHENA ON THE AKROPOLIS On this theory we have an excellent explanation of the fact that the ' Persian debris' between the Parthenon and the supporting wall looks so fresh and is of so homogeneous a character : it had not lain about year after year on the Citadel, but was used for this work immediately after the destruction. We have an excellent explanation, too, lor the iliscontinuancc nf the building so magnificently begun, just as the marble superstructure was beginning to rise ; we see why the work was broken off and allowed to lie unfinished. The reason was the fall of Themistokles, the definite union of Aristcidcs with Kimon, and the beginning of the predominance of Kimon's party. Even as, after the fall of the Pcisistratids, the great Olympieion was left untouched for several centuries, so was it now with the new temple on the Citadel. The enterprise of Themistokles was no doubt abused as too expensive, as the scheme of a madman ; the pious and conservative were offended at the purposed displacement of the old centre of worship, and it was probably said that too nnich had been begun, that the first thing was to complete the fortification of the city and harbour. This was the spirit in which Kimon laid the foundations of the long walls in the marshes of the Halipcdon, and erected the strong south wall of the Citadel. This was assuredly to be no mere 'adornment' of the .iXkropolis,' but a protection on the weak and accessible side. The Pyrgos at the western extremity of the wall only lost its significance as a fortification by the erection of the Periklean Propylaia and of the temple of Nike.- But to the builder of the old Parthenon the Citadel was no fortress; in the eyes of Themistokles the Peiraieus was the true fortress of Athens ; though for him, as for others, the Akropolis was, and must remain, the religious centre. Yet the strife of parties brought it about that from 479 to 438 the Polias possessed upon the Citadel only a temple provisionally repaired after conflagration and destruction. At the time to which we ascribe the beginning of the great temple, immediately after 479, the old antagonists, Themistokles and Aristeides, united by the triumph of Salamis, acted in harmony for a while at least. It was a time at which everything was still guided by the counsels of Themistokles.^ The building of the city wall he accomplished in concert with Aristeides.* The Parthenon was no doubt likewise planned with his approval, and probably the party of the Alkmaionidai, politically in close connexion with that of Aristeides, was also favourable.'^ In 479 Xanthippos and Aristeides were stratcgoi. The Alkmaionidai must clearly have had an especial interest in the erection of a splendid shrine to the Polias on a spot other than that desecrated by themselves ; such a work would necessarily tend to blot out the memory of their ancient crime. And the idea of constructing such a temple wholly of marble (this was the first instance at Athens) had been already carried into execution by the Alkmaionidai in the faqade of the temple at Delphi. On this view, then, it appears as specially appropriate that the man who subsequently resumed the work should have been Perikles, the kinsman of the Alkmaionidai, and participator in their curse, the /lyos-. Indeed, by attributing the foundation of the Parthenon, not to Kimon, but to causes resulting from the position of parties after 479, we place the building in quite a new historical light. We must bring before our minds the two great parly programmes which, from the time of the city's liberation from her tyrants, are traceable throughout the course of Athenian politics, and which, to a great extent, are connected with the ancient families of the Philaidai and Alkmaionidai, and represent their traditions. Then it will be clear how little appropriate the Parthenon is to the side on which arc ranged the names of Miltiades, Kimon, Thucydides, and of which the principles were solidly conserv- ative. Their tendency was antagonistic to all bold innovations. Thus, in particular, Kimon's work on the Akropolis, the south wall, arose from a policy so short-sighted as to be almost timorous. The valiant, open-hearted hero was certainly, in intellectual endowments, undistinguished, circumscribed, wanting in even the ordinary fieuuTT/f "ATriitr." It is to the other side, the side of Kleisthcnes, Themi- stokles, Perikles, which shook off the yoke of tradition and made progress its own, that the Parthenon likewise belongs. Thus Perikles, in this case as in others, appears as the successor who carried on the policy of Themistokles and put his ideas into execution, whereas it would be incomprehensible that Perikles should take up a project of Kimon. The audacious conception of the temple, then, takes its place appropriately beside the audacious erection of the city wall, and the foundation of the Peiraieus: all these were originated by Themistokles, and the first is no less significant than the others of his energetic thoroughness, of his abolition of ancient trammels. He embodied too, and ' As Curtius assumes, Slailti^isch. 130. ! sao. So pre' e been any talk of treachery committed liy Themistokles. - Cf. Wolters in Bonuci- Sludiat, ji. 92 sqq. So previously Robert, ap. von Wilamowitz, Kydalhen, p. 182. •' In the first years after Salamis there cannot vet have " "" ' " . . . ™ ■ . , . Cf. Bauer, 'Jlu-niisloklcs. ■> Thuc. i. 91 ; Aristotle, 'A9. toA. 23, 4. '•> Cf BusoU, Gr. Gcsch. ii. 54, "" Stesimbrotos, ap. Plut. Kim. 4. PARTHENON OF PERIKLES 423 expressed, the pride of Athens in her independence of Sparta. In earlier times the same tendency which we now recognize in the building of the Parthenon is to be found expressed in the removal of the Pr>taneion from its old site, and in the founding of the Tholos by Kleisthenes.' When Themistokles was abandoned by those with whom he had acted in concert during the first years after Salamis, when Aristeides passed over completely to Kimon, and the coalition of the Alkmaionidai and Philaidai, symbolized by Kimon's marriage with Isodike, thrust out the hated and maligned Themistokles, then the Parthenon necessarilv fell likewise into the background. III. Tlic Parthenon of Peri kief:. Not till 447 was the work resumed by Perikles, with a somewhat altered ground-plan.- It was the time when, after Kimon"s death, Perikles stood at the head of Athenian politics, in spite of the opposition of the Kimonians, led by Thucydides. Hostilities with the Persians were given up ; Perikles wished for peace abroad, in order to build up at home the power and splendour of .Athens. We have already spoken of the peace negotiations belonging to this period, and have conjectured (p. 34) that Perikles had the colossal statue of Athena Promachos erected on the Citadel as a splendid votive gift to mark the conclusion of the Persian wars. The resumption of work on the Parthenon belongs to the same group of events. When the Persian war was given up, the payments of the allies, which up to that time had been used for carrying on the war, became available. If they could be successfully added to other resources, a speedy and splendid completion of the Parthenon would become possible. With this matter seems to me to be connected an act of Perikles's policy which has been much discussed, and is still constantly being shifted from one period of his life to another. I refer to the proposal of a Peace Congress, mentioned by Plutarch {Perikl. 17). All Hellenes were to be invited to form a congress at Athens, to deliberate concerning the shrines burned by the barbarians, the sacrifices for the deliverance of Hellas from the Persian crisis, and concerning peace and free inter- course by sea. It has been rightly surmised that this decree is to be connected with the building of the Parthenon. But so long as a Kimonian Parthenon was assumed, this gave rise to the greatest difficulties. The motion could, of course, not have been made while the building of the Parthenon was in progress, and e\en not at a time w-hen the work had ceased only a year or two before. Therefore, Kopp recently proposed to date the motion at circa 459, earlier than Kimon's Parthenon, the beginning of which he places as late as 454 : ' he does not hesitate to suppose that in this case Kimon carried out a project set on foot by Perikles. We escape this difficulty by dating the beginning of the older Parthenon immediately after 479. At the death of Kimon, in the year 449, the building had long lain an abandoned design : and a large part of the marble drums prepared for its columns had most probably been already built into the north wall. Thus the resumption of the work needed to be specially urged. That motion of Perikles must belong to a time shortly after 449, and its immediate practical result was the beginning in 447 of the splendid new Parthenon, with the help of the payments of the allies. Perikles, in his projected Peace Congress, did not in the least enter on ' the inheritance bequeathed by Kimon ' -.^ on the contrary, it was to inaugurate the new Periklean policy, which com- prised the conclusion of the Persian war, peace within the limits reached, and free intercourse by sea under the hegemony of Athens. That the congress would come to nothing, Perikles, of course, fore- saw. His real purpose was to represent the restoration of the shrines as a Pan-Hellenic concern. Then clearly no one could find fault with Athens if she appropriated for her own sacred buildings part of the funds of the confederation hitherto devoted to the war with Persia. The .Athenians could then say : 'The religious duty arising on the conclusion of the war with the barbarians, which the others refuse to perform, we are performing, we .Athenians and allies, in memory of the Persian crisis from which we delivered you.' Thus on the failure of that congress there no doubt followed immediately ' Of. Wachsmuth, Slaiit Allien, i. 506 jv. This can refer only to payments of the allies, o-vnfj.itxtKi)l ^d/joi, which passed into the treasury of the Hellenotamiai ; and it is not a case of the ixpii dn-o mv mXavroi;, the sixtieth of the tribute which belonged to the goddess ; money belonging to the confederation is meant. In the years 447 — 445 there arose a strong opposition led by Thucydides, which passionately opposed this application of the funds of the alliance, and loudly protested against it in the popular assembly,^ until Thucydides was removed by ostracism and his Hetairia dissolved. Later, on the occasion of the building of the Propylaia, Perikles seems to have proceeded with greater caution. The contribution furnished by the Hellenotamiai, as we learn from the e.xtant accounts belonging to the year 434 — 433, is designated as /ii/a diro tov ToXdirrov : it is only a sixtieth of the tribute, a second in addition to the first which from the beginning had passed into the treasury of the goddess.^ As Perikles succeeded by means of the proposal for a Peace Congress in finding a suitable pretext for adorning the Citadel of Athens with the help of the resources of the confederation, so the Athenians somewhat later, probably likewise under the guidance of Perikles, had the skill to procure themselves by a similar proceeding the means of increasing the splendour of the shrine at Eleusis : they exacted those contributions — a kind of Peter's Pence — which the Eleusinian decree of taxation required from Athens and her allies, and requested from the rest of the Hellenes.'' The new Parthenon built by Perikles differed from the older, as was noted above, mainly in the greater width of the cella, required by the colossal image, and also in the absence of the two small chambers of the west cella, which made the whole length less. Even the older Parthenon had in all prob.ability departed from the model of the 'Old Temple' by making the east cella considerably the larger, whereas in the ' Old Temple' it is somewhat smaller than the west cella including the two chambers. This pre-eminence of the east cella corresponded to the superior importance of Athena at this time compared with the old-fashioned forms of ritual represented by Erechtheus. In the building of Perikles it is still more emphasized, the chambers of the west cella being given up altogether. We must conclude from these facts that those who planned the older Parthenon still contemplated the transference of the whole ritual of Erechtheus, which, with all that pertained to it, was established in the west half of the ' Old Temple.' The opposition, which brought about the abandonment of the projected building as a whole, probably resisted this part of the scheme with special vehemence, since the worship of Erechtheus seemed united by peculiarly close bonds with the neighbourhood of the old ' tokens ' and the graves. It was, we must further infer, by a skilful concession to this feeling that Perikles relinquished the transference of the worship of Erechtheus. Accordingly Perikles left the ' Old Temple ' standing as it had been provisionally restored after 480. It was to retain at least the worship of Erechtheus just as before ; only Athena received a splendid new abode. That even after the completion of the Parthenon Perikles had no intention of erecting a new temple for Erechtheus, and therefore wished to leave the ' Old Temple' standing, may clearly be inferred from his then taking in hand so great a work as the building of the Propylaia. The west cella of the Parthenon might, therefore, have been omitted altogether. Perikles, however, only left out the chainbers and retained the cella. His inain reason doubtless was that he did not wish to depart too entirely from the lines of the existing foundations. His west cella, then, was a second chamber for the goddess, to whom the whole building belonged. The place was called ' Parthenon,'-' according to my present view, because in the women's dwelling-place that name was given to the part which was most carefully shut off, the secret chamber into which the maidens retired, and in which it was customary to keep precious possessions, remembrances, and relics.'^ The great east cella was called 6 veas n eKiiroiimSns, the Cella of a Hundred Feet, as distinguished from the old expression to 'Eraro/jn-eSoj', which included several cellas. This east cella was the hall of ' C. I. A. i. 300 jr/'/.; Mich.-ielis, ]\ii(s. Dcsa-. Ards, and ed. p. 40. - Pint. Pciikl. 12 Sip]. With regard to his authority, see Busolt, Gr. Gesdi. ii. 500, note. ■' This is the interpretation given by Christ, Dc Publ. Pop. Ath. Ralionilnis, p. 13. Cf. Busolt, ii. 568. ^ It is to be specially noted that the 5^/jos toiv 'Aejiraimi/ reserves to itself the absolute right of determining what ayaevfiaTa are to be offered from the money thus collected. With regard to the general question of the decree, see, .as the latest authorities, Holm, Gr. Gcsc/i. ii. 274; CxwiixK, Stad/scsch. 159; Kubensohn, Myslaiaikfiliglhiimcr, PP- 36, 52, 77- According to Loschcke (E}ineaknutosepisode, p. 18 sq<].), it was not Perikles who originated it. ■'' It is so c.allcil in the official lists drawn up by the treasurers, which lists begin in 434. The name is applied by transference to the whole building first in Demosthenes (xxii. 13I. " Thus the lance of I'elops is kept in Iphigeneia's Parthenon (Eurip. ////. Tatii: 826). THE OPISTIIODOMOS 425 state, the place of festivals, in which the goddess heiself uas manifested in her image, llcr ' Par- thenon ' was the west cella, shut off by itself, which in the building of Perikles had been converted into a second chamber of the dwelling of the maiden goddess. Now the name ' Parthenon' already includes the meaning of a place where can be stored objects of all kinds that have to be kept shut up. And for this purpose it was in fact used, though not, however, for storing money. The common notion is that the treasure of the confederation, or the Empire, which in 454 was transferred from Delos to Athens, was kept in the temple of Athena on the Akropolis ;' it was formerly even thought that the Opisthodomos of the Parthenon must have already stood complete in 454. All this, however, is a mistake : the treasure of the confederation, into which passed the tribute of the allied states, was administered by the Hellenotamiai. We do not know where their official place of business was ; probably in the lower city.- That it was not in the ' Opisthodomos ' on the Akropolis is clear from the celebrated inscription (C. I. A. \. 32) which lays down rules for the administration of the treasures in the 'Opisthodomos' in the year 435 — 434. It is there assumed that the treasurers of the goddess are already installed in the Opisthodomos. The new regulations refer to the appointment by lot of treasurers for the other gods. They are to share in the Opisthodomos with those of Athena, the one group having the right side, the other the left, as the scene of their official duties. Moreover, it is decreed that the Hellenotamiai should from time to time deposit the surplus of their treasure with the Taniiai of Athena, who are to take over the administration of these sums.^ From this it is clear that the Opisthodomos was not used by the Hellenotamiai, who administered the funds of the confederation, but only by the Tamiai of Athena and of the other gods. But even these Tamiai stored their money in the ' Opisthodomos,' not in the Parthenon. Now the Opisthodomos has hitherto been usually regarded as a part of the Periklean temple, or as a part of the 'Old Temple' (Dorpfeld, Curtius, White ^) ; but Milchhofer" seems to me to have proved that it was a separate and independent building on the side of the Citadel farthest from the approach ; that it was, in fact, a ' back building ' (oTno-^dSo/jor) of the Akropolis." And with the old theory on ' Cf. recently Curtius, Stcultgesch. 132. - This is the view of Kohler, Abh. d. Berl. Akad. 1869, p. 103, note. The writers who mention the transference of the treasure from Delos only say that it was brought to Athens, not that it was taken to the Akropolis. ^ Kohler (Abh. d. Berl. Akad. 1S69, 104) had already formed this conception of the relation between the two boards. Kirchhotfs view (.-ibli. Berl. Akad. 1S76) is that after the transference of the treasure to Athens the annual receipts of the confederation, consisting of the tribute piaid, were deposited by the Hellenotamiai with the treasurers of Athena, and that this arrangement was only re-enacted in 435 — 434 ; he considers that the two boards always performed their functions in the same place. iSut this theory is untenable. The tribute (including the SeicaTTi from the Bosporos ; cf. Beloch, A'luiii. Miis. 1SS4, 34 sqq. ) passed into the treasury of the Hellenotamiai, and they administered it. The inscription (C. /. A. i. 32) must be understood as enacting that they should deposit with the treasurers of Athena any surplus that might remain at the end of the year. This was shown by J. Christ {De Pub/. Pop. At/ten. Rationihus, Greifsw. Diss. 1879, p. 14) : he supplies in the inscription Ta l/ta[o-ToT€ ■wepi6vTa, which is probably more correct than yfiofieva. Christ's interpretation was supported by Lipsius, Busolt {Gr. Gcsch. ii. 422), and Thumser (in Hermann's Griech. Staatsaltcrth. p. 6311). The sums of money thus deposited were of course, as Kirchhoff has seen, not intended to pass into Athena's treasure. The administration of the treasures at Delos affords an analogy ; there the Tap.iat (who would answer to the Helleno- tamiai at Athens) dehver a certain smaller part of the state revenues (cf. Schofi'er, £>e Deli Ins. Kdnis, p. 120) to the lepoiroioi at the temple (these answer to the treasurers of the goddess at Athens) ; these sums are kept in a special Sij^otria kiSoitos ; they are a deposit in the hands of the hpoiroioi, who alone administer the treasures in the temple, as at Athens the TOficcti rris 6eoi) have the management of the Opisthodomos. But did this depositing of surplus funds on the part of the Hellenotamiai, determined upon in 435 — 434, ever actually take place ? When the war had once begun it certainly did not, since then all moneys received by the Hellenotamiai were at once paid away. There have as yet been found no accounts recording payments made by the -rafxiai tTjs d^ov from funds of the state deposited with them ; and yet this must have been the case, if KirchhofTs views were correct. The payments made by the t. t. fleoG to the Hellenotamiai, or directly to the generals, from Ol. S6, 4 onward, were, as Kirchhoff has seen, taken from the property of the goddess, and were to be paid back subsequently. Therefore from as early as Ol. 86, 4 there was no deposit of money belonging to the state in the charge of the treasurers of the gods. — In the fourth century also these latter held in theory the management of the reserve funds of the state, when at any time there were such funds. But this does not in the least imply that, as Frankel asserted (Hhtor. Philol. Aitfsdtz€, Festschr. f. E. Ciirliiis. 1SS4, p. 40), the functions of the Hellenotamiai were transferred to them ; the Hellenotamiai had always managed the current receipts only, never a reserve fund. — It is further to be noted that Kirchhoff's view concerning the sixtieth of the fdpoi given to the goddess is of course impossible, according to our theory. He holds that this sixtieth, the airapxi of the tribute given to Athena, was offered as a kind of rent for the money of the State deposited in her care. This is in itself improbable, for that votive gift was no doubt simply intended to express thankfulness to the goddess for taking over the office of protecting the confederation. ■* Dorpfeld, At!i. Mitth. xii. 210, xv. 437 ; Curtius, Sladtgc-scli. 132, 152 ; J. W. White, Tl:e Ofisthodomos on the Akropjlis (1894). The last treatise is at present only privately printed, and I have to thank the kindness of the author for my knowledge of it. When it has been made public, it shall be discussed in more detail. •'■ Philulogus, vol. liii. (1894) p. 352 sqq. ^ The W'hole, of which a part is designated oirio-fldSofios, may be the Akropolis just as well as a temple- building. The possibility of ' Opisthodomos ' being conceived in the former fashion is, moreover, confirmed by 3 I 426 'riiK ri:Mi'i.i:.s ok atiikna on tmf. akropoijs this point is also overthrown Dorpfeld's argument which infers from the mention of the Opistho- domos in inscriptions of the fourth century tluit the ' Old Temple' still existed at that period.' In the ' Parthenon ' — the west cella of the Periklean temple — were kept only sacred objects.- At the time of the war the valuables of the Pronaosand Parthenon were melted down, and finally (407 — 406) reduced to a scanty remnant. This remnant and some objects from the ' Opisthodomos ' were subse- quently brought into the great cella of Athena, in order, we may conjecture, to prevent its appearing too utterly empty. The 'Parthenon' itself is name J in the inscriptions after this only as the place containing the stele which gave the data for verifying that the image by Pheidias was intact. At the end of the fourth century the place was so empty that it could be assigned as a dwelling to Dcmetrios. When the Periklean Parthenon was built, then, the intention was that the west cella given by the existing foundations should be a closed space serving as a second chamber for the goddess. The worship of Erechtheus was to remain where it was, attached to the ' Old Temple,' with the two sacred 'tokens' beside it. But Athena was to move from the 'house of Erechtheus' into a new and splendid abode : even the Parthenon of Themistokles had destined a cella of a hundred feet to her sole use. This arrangement corresponded to the superior importance which Athena already at that time enjoyed in comparison with her old companion in the temple, Poseidon-Ercchtheus. Without doubt the Hekatompcdos Neos of Pcrikles, just like that begun in the time of Themistokles, was intended to supersede completely the cella of Athena in the ' Old Temple.' But it follows from this that // -zvas intended to bring into the ?icw temple the ancient and highly revered image of Athena, with which the most important ceremonial rites were inseparably connected. The erection of the magnificent new statue by Pheidias in no way tells against this conclusion. It was quite usual to display the old sacred images beside the more splendid new ones. This was done, as we know from inscriptions, in the Brauronion on the Akropolis f also, as Pausanias testifies, in the Heraion near Argos, and in other places.* It is known that the statue by Pheidias the ancient explanation of the word given by the Scholiasts. They consistently regard oiria-flo'So/ios as an inde- pendent building behind the temple. In the period before Perikles, likewise, the treasury was separate from tlic temple, as we remarked siifra, p. 425. ' The other reasons adduced by Dorpfeld for his hypothesis will bear examination even less than this one. It was .attractive, but wholly erroneous, to connect together the divisions in the management of the treasure in the Opisthodomos as established by the decree of 435 — 434, and the division into chambers in the ' Old Temple,' which had existed long before that time. The inscription rather points to a place common to the two boards without any division as far as building was concerned. The inferences reached by Dorpfeld from his theory are wholly impossible. The old temple of Polias containing the lamp — the only temple named by Strabo besides the Parthenon as standing in the Ufov of Athena on the Citadel — is identified with the Erechtheion, and with no other place, by the inscription relative to the building, which assigns the old image of Polias to the Erechtheion. Yet Dorpfeld identifies it with his ' Old Temple,' while on his theory the east cella of the Erechtheion must have been absolutely useless and empty. - Even the Hekatompedos Neos itself, the cella of Athena, was used in the same w.iy, with this distinction, however, that, being the principal cella, only those utensils and votive gifts which were more pleasing to the eye were stored in it, just as in the Pronaos, which was wholly open to view from outside, there were displayed a multitude of handsome silver vessels. These utensils were undoubtedly brought over from the ' Old Temple ' to the Parthenon when the latter stood complete. The aKiraKai Triptxpviroi, for instance, are no doubt to be regarded as belonging to the spoil of the Persians. The transfer seems not to have been completed till the first year of which the accounts were recorded ; for the large number of eTreVfio which came into the Parthenon in the first year [C. I. A. i. 161), forming a contrast to the very small subsequent additions, are not likely to have been new acquisitions, but had merely been brought over ; and in fact there are even fr.agmcnts among them, such as feet of couches. We must, indeed, suppose that all objects of value were at that time transferred from the ' (^Id Temple ' to the new one ; otherwise the records which give three headings, Pronaos, Hekatompedos Neos, and Parthenon, would necessarily have a fourth also, the 'Old Temple.' But it is not till the end of the fourth century that lists appear of valuables stored in an apxaioi veius (C LA. ii. 733, 735) ; this is to be understood as meaning the Erechtheion. The extant records surely represent the carrying out of the commission given by the people to the treasurers of Athena in the decree (C. /. A. i. 32) to make an inventory of all I'tpa xp'iM"'^" composed of the precious metals. Now if any of these had remained in the 'Old Temple,' they must have been entered in the lists. The oicAaSias, the 8wpof, and the aKira/tr;?, which Pausanias saw in Athena's cella in the Erechtheion, were at that time in the Parthenon, where they must be included under the various headings of the inventory among the h.Kvva.Kai 6iipa/c65 and 0K\a5iai. The h.Kivi.K-r\$ of Mardonios had been, according to the accusation brought by Demosthenes in Timokr. 129, abstracted by Glauketes ; but it must have been discovered again. The same is the case with the 5i'(j)pos of Xerxes. That the latter was in the ' Parthenon ' is expressly stated (llarpokr. ap^u/joTToKs 5i'rescnting a girl c-irrying a seat with a cushion, just like the maidens of the frieze, is of course a Sitt>t>o(p(Spns. Hydrophoroi also occur not unfrequently among terra-cottas. Waldstein misunderstands the figure, and suggests Kosmo and Trapezo, who have nothing at all to do in this connexion, but to whom Miss j. E. Harrison {Ctass. Kcv. iii. 378), following older precedent (Michaelis, p. 264), had lately called attention. '' It arose from an erroneous interpretation of the passage of Aristoplianes ; the seatdjearers and the bearers of sunshades have been confused together, and thus the former made to carry their seats after the Kanephoroi. Cf Michaelis, Partlt. pp. 213, 255 ; Thumser, Staatsallertli. p. 424. On the other hand, it is staled with regard to the bearers of sunshades only that they belonged to the class of Metoikoi. They did really walk behind the BANQUET OF THE GODS 429 Diphrophoroi walked at the head of the procession, entered the temple, and there gave up their burden before the priestess. The Kanephoroi, who in the frieze form the head of the procession on the right,' remain outside ; their load is taken from them there by some of the officials. The other classes of those that take part in the procession are indicated each by only a few representatives, and so it is likewise with the Kanephoroi and Diphrophoroi. Regarding the matter in this way, we reach a fresh confirmation of the fact that the delivery of the Peplos is represented in the frieze : since if, as we have seen to be the case, the seats have been brought by the procession, this will be true also of the robe represented in the corresponding scene to the right ; therefore it must be the Peplos, the only robe that can have come with the procession. But why are the Diphrophoroi received in the temple and by the priestess in person, and how can this transaction stand on a level with the delivery of the Peplos.' Michaelis, who has rightly perceived that the Diphrophoroi arc represented,'-^ is not able to solve this C[uestion. He speaks of the seats merely as ' furniture for the festival,' and can make no statement as to their purpose.-' In the case of the other TTOfiTTcia — the sacrificial baskets, the paterae, jugs, hydriai, censers, and the like — the intention is immediately clear : they are used in the act of sacrificing. But what about the seats ? I do not know that at any ancient sacrifice there were persons participating who sat down. That the theory which connected the seats with the Kanephoroi rested merely on a foolish blunder we have remarked above. A number of seats and armchairs are, as is well known, entered in the inventories of the Parthenon among the votive offerings and festival furniture. In other temples also we find tlie like as votive gifts ; thus at Olympia there is a throne presented by a Tyrrhenian king, at Delphi one dedicated by Midas and one by Pindar.* An armchair is named in an inscription as being in the temple of Artemis at Delos,^ another as being in the Asklepieion at Athens."" Marble representations of thrones dedicated to Nemesis, to Themis, and to Dionysos were discovered at Rhamnus.'' That such thrones were meant for the gods was in later times sometimes made clear by placing their attributes upon them.^ Again, as early as the Mykenaian period, small representations of armchairs in terra-cotta were dedicated to divinities.'-* The great throne of Apollo at Amyklai is interesting as having comprised several KadiSpm : clearly these seats were intended for the divine and heroic guests of Apollo, whom he was to receive on days of festival. An inscription from Chios dedicates T^x a-TpwTrjv Ka\ rat Kade8f>as Miji-pi ;'" thus even several Ka6(dpat are appropriated to the mother of the gods. The connexion in which these appear here is significant : o-rpaTri is indeed a word that does not occur elsewhere, but it must evidently mean some kind of couch." Such pieces of furniture, under the names koiVj;, kXiVi;, kXio-/ios, we find not unfrequently kept in the temples like the seats ; quite a number are entered in the inventories of the Parthenon, others are mentioned in the Heraion near Argos, in the Heraion at Olympia and the one near Plataia, and also in the temple of Athena at Tegea.'- There can be no doubt as to their significance : like the tables, the Tpdnf^m, they have reference to a custom widely prevalent at festivals of the gods, that of the cTpmais t^j kXiV?;? koi Kuaprjais rf/i Tpa7Tf(r]i. The deity is feasted, and not he alone, but guests also are invited to his festival from the circle of gods and heroes. This was a widely Kanephoroi ; no doubt their sunshades were in reality only ceremonial objects (cf. the .Skirophoria). but it ui.iy have been supposed even in early times that they were connected with the distinguished maidens, the Kanepliomi, behind whom they were carried. Von Wilamuwitz {/Ai-mts, xxii. 220) is certainly right in denying that the connexion existed, but it does not necessarily follow that it was not supposed to exist : he too makes the mistake of saying that the girls carrying seats and sunshades were of the class of MetoiUoi. ' Petersen (IVndias, pp. 291, 315) conjectures, perhaps rightly, that the girls at the head of the procession to the left (figs. 16, 17) were also marked as Kanephoroi by painted baskets. - Parthaiou^ p. 256 St'q. ^ Recently Miehaelis (in the Fcs/sthriff fur OvcHicck, 1893) has expressed the view that tlie seals were intended for the Peplos. I hardly think this will prove convincing. ■* Pans. v. 12, 5 ; Herod, i. 14; Patis. \. 25, 5. That Pindar sat upon the scat was no doubt a fable of later times, based upon the dedicatory inscription, which gave Pindar's name. ^ Bull, de Corr. Hell. 1882, 128. '• C. I. A. ii. 766, 1. S. '■ C. I. A. ii. 1570, 1571, 1 191 (Alh. .Vilth. iv. 284). ^ Cf. the throne of Apollo, Mon. d. Inst. v. 28; Aiiiia/i, 1S51, 103 (Brunn) ; that of Poseidon in the relief, Friederichs-Wolters, Gilisahg. 1905. " .Some were found at Mykenai (noted tiy me, 1878) and at Tiryns (Sehliemann, 'I'iryiis, PI. 23 C.) ; .1 good specimen is at Berlin {T.C. fin'. 7S12 ; cf. .Sanini. Sahottroff^ on PI. 144, 3). '" B. C. H. iii. p. 324, No. 11, perhaps of the second century B.C. " Haussoullier (he. eit.) conjectures 'une ttoffe, un tapis.' ^'- Pans. ii. 17, 3: KXivri ttjs "Hpas, in the /'yoiuios, v. 20, I. '/'/i:ie. iii. 68. Pans. viii. 4", 2: kAiVt) Upk T7)5 'AflijvSj. A representation in stone of a couch dedicated to .\skIepios at E])idauros : 'E(fii)/i. apx- 1883, p. 27, 3. On the Akropolis is a marble couch widi a pillow, dedicated to Uione, and belonging to the fourth century (the inscription AeArioi' ijixaioA. 1S90, |>. 145, 3). 43° TUF, TEMPLES OF ATHENA ON THE AKROPOLIS spread Greek conception, which found its most pregnant expression in the ^S€i«i 6foi w-orshipped in the state religion of Attica,'" the same to whom w-as consecrated the altar erected on the market-place by the younger Peisistratos. This gives us the clue for recovering the names of the individual gods on the frieze. The relief upon an altar from the inner Kcramcikos at Athens makes known to us with complete certainty at least six members of the Attic ' Cf. Uencken, De Thcoxeniis (Beil. Dtssci-t. 1881). A usage siniil.ir to tlK- Tlicoxenia m.iy well be supposed at the Panathenaia, even if the same name was not used in this case. - The priests also no doubt had their seats, from whieh they could look on at the festive proceedings : a fragment of a seat, found near the Erechtheion, bears the inscription Up4ois Bovtov {C, I. A. ii. 1656. Dittenberger is wrong, as Kohler has pointed out, in assuming that the fragment is out of plaee and comes from the theatre). But these .seats belonging to the priests were quite distinct from those of Iho deities, who are in fact also named as owners in the inscriptions on their own seats. ' One set of sepulchral furniture of this kind found in a tomb at Chiusi is at Berlin, others at Florence. One is published Ami. d. Inst. 1S78, PI. Q. ■* An interesting .-\ttic vase of the late black-figured style at Naples (Heydemann, 3358 ; Ann. il. Ins/. 1865, PI. F. ; Schreiber, Kulturhist. Bilderatlas, PI. 20, 3 ; Wiener Vorkgebl. Ser. C. 8, 2) represents two female deities seated on Si'i^poi ; in front of them is a small table for food, and a man praying and pouring a libation ; there is also a small aedicula, in which we must conceive the images of the goddesses to be ; the table and the seats, however, have been set out for the goddesses themselves, and they have really come and taken their places. These deities arc certainly Denieter and Kore (as has been already conjectured by Ste])hani, Comple A'oidii, 1868, p. 160) ; the man's name is Mystes (p.iaTa no doubt is vocative). The interpretations given by Liibbcrt ami Schreil)er are wrong. ^ C. I. .-/. ii. 374. '' With regard to them see Topffer, .•lllische Geneal. p. 122, as a recent authority. " Ilesychios, s. v. irXaKis. ' C. I. A. i. l6r .f(/(/. After the war only six are left (C". /. ./. ii. 646, 16) : prob.ably the number was then made up with the plain seats. " An excellent corroboration of my view is furnislied by an inscription discovered at Magnesia (cf. the l>reliininary report in t)ie A>r/i. Anz. 1894, p. 79). Here at the great festival the twelve gods are invited, their idols are set u]) in the Agora, and Lectisternia arranged before them. What hap]iens here is just what we have postulated at Athens : the twelve gods are invited and entertained. '" The evidence is given in Curtius-Milchhofer, .Stadtgesi/i. p. ix. THE TWELVE GODS 43 I group of twelve gods ; ' among them is Demeter. The only figure in the frieze which will in every point do for Demeter is the one with a torch.- If this is Demeter, then the god opposite her, the only one of the company who sits on a cushion, mitst be Dionysos.-* The goddess between Aphrodite and Apollo is generally supposed to be Peitho ; but she is excluded, if only because she cannot be reckoned among the twelve great gods of Olympos. Rather the goddess must be Artemis, who is as appropriate in this place between her brother and Aphrodite, a goddess closely connected with her,* as, on the other side, Dionysos is to Demeter. This company of twelve gods (on the left, Hermes, Dionysos, Demeter, Ares, Hera, Zeus ; on the right, Athena, Hephaistos, Poseidon, Apollo, Artemis, Aphrodite) is identical with the one so widely prevalent in later times, except that it includes Dionysos in place of Hestia ; it is possible that this deviation only occurred in the one case of the Panathenaic festival, the cause being that Hestia was fast rooted to her hearth, and could not well be invited as a guest, for that later canonical group of gods was that of Athens even in early times.'' The Peisistratid altar of the Twelve Gods marked Athens, as Curtius says,'' 'even then as an abode of guest-friendship between state and state, and of peaceful intercourse of nations.' It was certainly a genuine Periklean conception, according well with the idea of an Hellenic congress which was to precede the building of the Parthenon, that here on the temple frieze where the festival of Athena is represented, by far the most prominent place was given — no doubt owing to an established usage in the rites of the Panathenaia — to this group of gods, which could claim a significance general to the whole Hellenic nation ; and that the representation of that temple rite which has reference to the divine guests is placed on a level with the bringing of the Peplos, the gift that did honour to Athena. Of course, the place in which the gods are sitting is not an ' ideal ' spot ; " the temple, the Parthenon, is intended. The men who stand immediately in front of the gods are conceived as assembled in front of the temple while the procession comes up. They form a company of ten (four to the right, six to the left) ; ' probably they are the ten officials who managed the property of the goddess, the raiiUu. tepav ;(p7/xaVo)i' Tijs 6eov, who here are posted before the temple intrusted to their charge. The man in the long chiton within who is receiving the Peplos is, however, certainly not a treasurer, as has been supposed ; '-* the priestly robe in itself proves this. Now the priest of Erechtheus will not do either — it is hardly likely that he was concerned with this particular oftering, the Peplos of Athena ; thus we have to regard the priestly personage as a representative of the ifpowoioi, who, according to a well-known inscription,'" had, in fact, the whole management of at any rate the Lesser Panathenaia ;•' among other things they offered the various sacrifices to -A.thena, ' Ath. ititlh. iv. PI. 20, p. 337 sqq. (von Sybel). The ahar, judging by its workmanship, is to be ascribed perhaps to the second half of the fourth century. Cf. also Preller-Robert, Griech. Mythol. i. no. - Flasch interprets it as .\rtemis, but for the reasons against this cf. especially Back, in FkckeisoC s Jahrb. 1S87, 456 J-tfj?. '^\\zh^ft\\%\n Berliner Philo!. Wochenschr. 1892,1172. ^ As was supposed by Michaelis and Petersen, and has lately been maintained by Back with very good arguments, in opposition to Flasch (Fleckeiseii's Jahrb. 1SS7, 433 sqq.) ' Gerhard also regarded her as Artemis. — It is well known that Artemis is found not unfrequently in the fifth century wearing a cap ; cf. merely as an example the Niobid vase of Polygnotan style, Man. d. lust. xi. 40, or the somewhat older cylix of the severe period, Ath. Mitlh. v. PI. 10. Robert regarded the latter as representing .\rtemis Brauronia (cf. supra, p. 102, note 3) ; in any case the figure follows as its model an Attic cultus-image of an early period. The vase of Elite Ceram. ii. 92 is near in time to the frieze of the Parthenon. — The chiton slipping down on the left shoulder is found again in the statue of Artemis Brauronia by Praxiteles (cf. supra, p. 323). Artemis Brauronia as a goddess nearly allied to Aphrodite, and presiding over the sexual functions of women, has clearly influenced the representation of Artemis in the frieze. ^ I recently had the opportunity in Copenhagen of accurately examining the terra-cotta fragment with the Athena of the Parthenon frieze, Herr Snphus Midler having kindly taken the teiTa-cotta down from the wall into which it had been fixed. I consider the fragment to be genuinely antique : the thickness, the clay, the whole appearance are exactly those of the 'Campana' reliefs. In addition to this the (very slight) traces of blue colour on the ground, and, above all, the genuine incrustation on the surface, are proofs of their authenticity. The other fragments noted by Waldstein (Essays on the Art of Pheidias, Pi. ix. xiii. ) are therefore presumably also genuine. The agreement with the small casts in Rome, derived from the old mould made for Choiseul-Gouflier, which puzzled Waldstein, is to be explained by reference to the same original. The Roman terracotta copies, which must have been made in Rome probably in the Augustan age, are evidently derived from casts. [.\ further frag- ment belonging to the same series, and reproducing figs. 133 and 134 (Mich.) of the north frieze, was recently acquired in Rome by Mr. A. H. Smith. Ko:n. Mitth. 1S94, p. 94; cf. Sal. Reinach in Chron. d'Orient, 1894, p. 17. — E. S.] " Sitznngsber. d. Berl. Akad. 1890, p. 1154. ' As is supposed by Michaelis, Parthenon, p. 221. ' Michaelis thought that they were rather the nine Archons ; he separated figure iS from the rest. But this will not do ; 18 and 19 belong together as much as 20 — 21, or 22—23 ! 'ti^X •""'^ three groups of men quite similar to each other ; 18 may also have held a staff. Cf. Petersen, Pheidias, p. 290, note 3. ' So Botticher, and Michaelis agrees with him, pp. 221, 257. 1" C. I. A. ii. 163 ; Michaelis, Parth. p. 332 ; Dittenberger, Syll. 380. " According to Aristot. 'Afl. iroX. 54, the fifth Panathenaia of every fourth year were not managed by the annual Hieropoioi; unfortunately the further details with regard to the Panathenaia are much damaged. 432 Tin-; TI'.MPLES OF ATIIKNA ON Till". AKKOI'OLIS and therefore probably appeared in the long chiton, the sacrificial robe of priests. .Aiialogous to this function of receiving the Peplos would be the Eleusinian ceremony, at whicli llic Upimmm received the grain offered by the various states.' IV. T/ic Ercchtheion. Thus we have in the Parthenon, just as in the Propylaia, a lasting memorial of what Perikles desired but did not wholly accomplish. The old sacred image of Athena remained in the ' Old Temple,' and the Parthenon was not, as had been intended, the centre of the wor^^hip of .Athena on the Citadel, but only an appendage, however magnificent, of the ' Old Temple.' Now it was the task incumbent on the ojiposition so to restore or rebuild the old lemiile by the sacred 'tokens' that it might be a fitting place for the ancient image. But they could not set to work at once. They had succeeded in cutting down the projected Propylaia of Perikles, but not in putting an end to the erection altogether, and till this was finished there could be no thought of anew temple. Then, before the Propylaia were yet completely finished, came the war, and with it the cessation of all building on the part of the state. Not till after the peace of Nikias could there be any thought of building new temples, and it is just this time that Michaclis has recently fixed upon, on strong grounds, for the beginning of the Erechtheion." He at the same time hazards the suggestion that Alkibiades had something to do with the project. This, I think, is practically impossible. The undertaking docs not in the least accord with the character of Alkibiades, or his attitude in the strife of parties. But there is another who probably has a right to be named in this connexion — Nikias, the foremost man, the most highly respected in the Athens of his day, the very person who had been successful in negotiating the peace. He was the head of the conservative party, and personally a man of strictly orthodox belief and timid piety : ?" y'P " ""•' "y"" ^"""'Mw Tf xai ™ tuioxiti^ npucTKrififfoi (Thuc. vii. 50), in strong contrast to Perikles, who was SdcnSaifiovins KadvrrcpTfpos (Plut. Per. 6). Political and religious considerations alike must have determined Nikias to continue the traditions of those who opposed the building schemes of Perikles. We saw that the task had fallen upon them of providing a worthy place for the old image more especially, and also for the worship of Erechtheus. This w-as done by the building of the Erechtheion. For it follows necessarily from our previous arguments that the Erechtheion must be regarded as the rebuilding of the ' Old Temple.' The latter was now demolished, with the exception of the stylobate,^ which was left as a level platform. A part of the peristyle had already been taken down and used in the building of the north wall, perhaps as early as the time when the Parthenon of Themistokles was in progress.' The cellas could not be removed till the Erechtheion was erected. The new building was placed close beside the old, only projecting a little over its stylobate. Thus worship could go on undisturbed in the old cellas until the new were ready for the transfer. The date of this is not quite certain. When the work was taken up again in 409, the whole roof of the cella of Athena was still missing ; it was not put on till 409— 40S. Possibly the ' Old Temple ' was removed at the com- pletion of the Erechtheion, though it seems to me more probable that this had taken place previously. The expression o wus 6 c^iTroXct eV m to Apxaiov ityaXfia, by which the building in- scription designates the new structure, would be meaningless \i—>iot the new temple, but — the old, closely adjacent to it, was the temple containing the idol. Further, the inscription proves, as is well known, that the porch of the Caryatids was the portion of the building most advanced when the works were interrupted in 413 ; ° it alone was quite finished and polished except in one or two trifling details, evidently because it was the chief ornament of the building, and would be the first to strike visitors to the Akropolis. If, however, the high cella wall of the old temple rose straight in front of the ' Dittenberger, .S>//. 13. -i Al/i. Mitl/i. xiv. p. 363. 2 Dtirpfeld {Alh. Milth. xv. 439) points out the fact that one stone of the stylobate is still in situ, and several lie near on the founcl.itions. This is, of course, no proof for Dorpfeld's theory that the temple remained standing throughout antiquity, but only shows that the stylobate was not demolished with the rest of the edifice : this is very intelligible, since it afforded a fine level platform. We may further quote the analogy of the old Heraion near .\rgos, which was not completely pulled down, the BcfiiKia being left standing (Paus. ii. 17, 7). ■* Dorpfeld has been so kind as to inform me by letter that the part of the north wall which contains the entablature of poros stone from the old temple is calculated for a lower level of the surface of the Citadel within than that which existed in the time of Perikles ; and that when the north wall was built the numerous archaic -statues came to be buried in the earth ; this seems to point to the time of Themistokles as the most probable. We must suppose that the work of removing and demolishing the peristyle was then begun, and given up at the same time that the building of the old Parthenon was broken off. '^ Cf. Michaelis, /oi: cit. THK KRKCHTHEION 433 Caryatids and completely concealed them, the early termination of this portion becomes unintelligible. Previous to the roofing of her new shrine, the old image could be provisionally guarded in her own closed aedicula. Even in the new shrine it seems to have been contained in a separate aedicula, the painting of whose ceiling is recorded in one of the inscriptions (Michaelis, Ath. MiitA. xiv. 361). It is, however, quite possible that during the building the image was kept in some other place of safety within the sanctuary. Cultus-image and temple are by no means inseparable in ancient usage : there are countless instances of cultus-images that never had a temple. The ancient holy idols were habitually placed in a small portable shrine or aedicula. It is also several times stated that cultus-images were kept in the house of the priest for the time (cf. the oixi'a Upii ov ri iepaa oiVti at Eleusis, "E0i;/i. dpx- 1883, p. 109, n. 74; a. 50;.' Therefore on the Athenian Citadel also there would be ample means for guarding the ancient image in a manner conformable to ancient custom. At any rate, there is nothing that can be urged on this score against our previous assumption. After the new building had received the apx"'"" uyaXfia, it was officially called after this as being the most important thing it contained ; - but in common parlance it kept the name of the predecessor which it had supplanted, and was called the 'Old Temple.' In the contest over the building of the Parthenon, long waged between the parties of Athens, the ' Old Temple ' was certainly always opposed to the new one. The Erechtheion, as the work of that party which had desired the maintenance of the old temple, as the temple of the old sacred image, near by the old sacred ' tokens,' remained the ' Old Temple,' even though the building was new ; it represented old Athens, while on the other hand the Parthenon always represented new Athens. It is characteristic of Nikias that he— as a private person— dedicated on the Akropolis a gilt ' Palladion ' (Plut. Mi. 3), i.e. clearly an archaistic, idol-like image of .Athena wielding the spear. In this act he was following Kimon, the great hero of his party, who, after the battle of the Eurymedon, likewise caused a gilt Palladion to be dedicated. Kimon's image was sent to Delphi.^ Thus in their new dedications this party adhered to the old type of the goddess. How much more must their programme have required that they should do their utmost to display the ancient sacred image in surroundings worthy of her ! The Erechtheion was smaller in plan than the old temple ; as a grand and spacious temple they had the Parthenon, and small chambers sufficed for the old image and for the worship of it and of Erechtheus. They dispensed even with a peristyle, and only set porches in front of the cellas. The Ionic style of architecture was selected, perhaps in accordance with the precedent of the old temple, the architectural forms of which are unfortunately not known to us. The choice of site was determined by the condition of keeping near the sacred ' tokens ' ; in fact, the temple w^as to be even more closely attached to these than its predecessor had been ; the cleft in the rock was included within the building— the Olive of course was to remain in the open. This arrangement, how- ever, involved the necessity of building on a site which included considerable difterences of level : the western part, where was the cleft in the rock, lay lower down than the eastern. It is well known what skill the architect displayed in solving the difficulty arising from these conditions. With regard to the interior arrangement of the Erechtheion, there is, as is well known, consider- able uncertainty. This much only is sure, that there were two cross walls dividing it into three chambers. The old theory of a division into two storeys may be regarded as completely refuted.* Now these three chambers clearly answer to the three parts of the ' Old Temple.' In the new building, as in the old, there is to the east a larger cella, that of Athena. Here too, to westward of this, lie two other rooms, one beyond the other. We are, accordingly, fully justified in supplying what is destroyed in the Erechtheion after the pattern of the old temple : that is to say, the central section may be regarded as having been in the Erechtheion also divided into two chambers,-' accessible probably only from the third, the western, section." Thus we obtain a fixed point of startling importance for the restoration of the Erechtheion and the comprehension of its arrangements for worship. The temple as a whole is a unity, and as such is called in the inscription relative to its building 'the temple with the old image,' ^ and again, 'the old temple of Polias' ; Pausanias even calls it 1 Cf. Paus. iv. 33, 2 ; vii. 24, 4 ; ix. 40, 12. - Cf. ra/ra, p. 432. " Plut. Nikias, 13, 3 ; cf. Paus. x. 25, 4. The inscription gave only the name of the Athenians, since it was a votive offering of the state, but the originator of the idea w.-is of course Kimon. ■• Julius, Das Erechtheion, 1878 (in Baumeister's Dcnkmaler, i. 488) ; Borrmann, Ath. Mitth. iSSi, 372 sqq. 5 They must, however, have been divided only by a slight partition wall thai did not affect the foundations ; there is in the foundations no trace of such a wall. •* That the Erechtheion had no door of communication between the east cella and the west sections is a view- that has been recently supported by Petersen (Ath. Mitth. x. 6 seq.) with good reason. " C. I. .A. ii. 464 ; Strabo, 9, 396. Cf. supra, p. 432. 434 Tin- TEMPLES OE ATIIEXA ON THE AKROPOLTS simply 'temple of Athena.'' But this unity consisted of two distinctly separated parts. The eastern part on the higher ground was the cella of Athena, the special temple of Polias, with its porch turned towards the great altar of Athena. To the larger and lower-lying western part belonged the north and south porches. The great north porch stands partly in front of the central section, which shows that this and the western part were closely connected, forming a single whole— namely, the olVij/ia 'Epex^^'ov KaXovfjicvov, as Pausanias has it. Now this consisted of three apartments^ the \vest section, and the central section, divided, as we saw, by a wall into two chambers. The west wall, towards the Pandroseion, had windows above, with half-columns, clearly in order to admit light to the central section.- The wall between the western and central sections had two doors opening into the chambers, probably of the same height as the great north door ; up to this same level it was perhaps divided into panels by a row of pillars.'' No doubt the two chambers received the more precious and more sacred objects, and the western section was the antechamber to them. This clearly was so in the old temple, although there the front apartment is larger. The two chambers were almost exactly of the same size in the new building as in the old. Among the sights of the Erechtheion mentioned by Pausanias, the position of one at least is unquestionable ; it is the trident-mark in the rock.'' It lies under the floor of the north porch, and from this place a covered passage leads straight to the central section, opening into its north-west angle— that is, into its northern chamber. According to Pausanias, we must conceive the tridcnt-mark and the Salt Spring as lying quite close together. Again, the Spring is expressly mentioned as fVSoi/, within the nUrjiia. From this we must infer that the above-mentioned covered passage joined the two tokens' of Poseidon's power, that, therefore, the Salt Spring was in the north chamber of the central section ; from this, which was, of course, also down in the rock-foundation, the way led through, below the north wall of the building, to the mark in the rock under the north porch. The placing of the porch at this point, and the great depth at which it stands, are naturally explained by the desire to include the 'tokens' in the rock within the limits of the building. The inscription relative to the building, w^here it speaks of that part of the interior walls which had not received its polish, mentions a place which it calls to Trpoa-Tofiiaiov. This word is evidently formed from 7r/«>o-7-(i/iiov, the enclosure of the mouth of a well or spring," and therefore denotes the place, the apartment (olVi;/in is to be supplied) in which is the Trpomuiiwn, the puteal ; and this can scarcely be other than the spring of salt water. The Prostomiaion,then, denotes the north chamber of the central section. The inscription unfortunately gives us a definite name for only one other part of the building : this is TO KeKpi'iTTiov. It is true that it has hitherto been customary to place the Kekropion outside, to the south of the Erechtheion. But since 1886 we have known that the stylobate of the old temple lay there, and this certainly cannot represent the Kekropion ; and apart from this an accurate study of the testimony given by the inscription shows that it was a part of the Erechtheion itself. The context in the inscription (C. /. A. i. 324 a, col. 2, 24) in itself makes this highly probable ; only the name of part of the actual building could be expected in this passage. But the clearest proof of all is given by the fact that the ' Caryatid Porch ' is consistently called 17 ■n-pimTaa-ts ?} npns r, not TTpof rod KeKpmriov. It is the porch added to the Kekropion, not the one that looks towards the Kekropion. As the fma npos tu> \i6a tm 'EKfva-ivia in the same inscription are the figures on the stone, fastened to the stone, so the irpua-Taa-ts wpos tm K«po7ri'&)is the porch attached to the Kekropion. The Kekropion, then, must be behind the porch ; so the name must denote the western section of the temple. For the ' Caryatid Porch ' does, in fact, precisely stand in front of this section, not over- lapping the central apartment as the north porch does, but ending exactly in the line of the wall between the sections : thus it is, in a sense quite proper to itself, the porch added to the western section. The distinction between ivpos with the dative and trpos with the genitive is very accurately observed in this inscription. The roi^oi npos tov Uavdpoa-elov is the wall towards the Pandroseion, the western wall, which faced the Pandroseion situated outside ; in the same way the western pediment is designated 6 npus mv navSpoaflnv fiifTor. If the ' Caryatid Porch' was to have been designated, 1 rf j/o-pT^s 'Adrims (Palis, i. 27, 2) no doubt refers to the whole Erechtheion, whereas roJs rijs FloAiaSos (27, I) denotes the special cella of Athena, as is shown by the context. - Cf. Julius in Baumeistei's Dcnkiii. i. 488. ^ Cf. Julius, loc. (it. Bovrmann (A//i. Millli. 1S81, p. 388 seq. ) reports that the wall above the level of the doors s undivided, but below that is carried down with only half its strength ; probably there were projecting pillars as far as this. \ Alh. Mitth. 1881, 380 i.y. Cf. Julius, Das Ercihlh. p. 25. '" So TrpoTruAaioi- from •7rpo7ru\oi'. Slichaelis and Petersen can hardly be right in deriving the word from (TTiifiioc, and ex]ilaining it as the space in front of the spring (Petersen), or in front of the a-Tifua, meaning the doors (.Mieliaelis) ; .-;//;. Millli. x. 4. THE ERECHTHEION 435 according to the common view, as looking towards the Kekropion, then, being outside the Erechtheion, it must have been called Tr^of tov KeKpontov ; but it is always called Trpuj tis. Hut the line from an unknown tragedy (Eutip. Frg. 922) to which he refers speaks only of a metamorphosis of half the body into a snake. More- over, we should expect to find a mention somewhere in literature of the identity between the snake of the Akropolis and Erechtheus, if it had been expressed at the conclusion of the celebrated jiiece by Euripides. ^ Apollodor. Bid/. 3, 14, 7, i ; Clemens A), /'ro/r. 3"a(l fin. Hut he is not by any means, as Rohde asserts {Psyche, i. 128), identified with Erechtheus. " ' Cf. Herodot, loc. cit. KALI.IMACHOS 437 406—405 it was injured by fire. This happened just at the time that Athens was at the lowest depth of her difficulties, and it seems accordingly that for the moment nothing was done beyond temporary repairs. Not till 395—394 do we find an inscription (C. /. A. ii. 829) recording a real restoration of the part destroyed ; and to this time also seems to belong an inscription commending the people of Karpathos for having presented a cypress to be used for the roof of Polias's temple.' Other inscriptions {C. I. A. ii. 733 sqq.) show that in the fourth century votive gifts in the shape of miscellaneous small valuables had accumulated in the Erechtheion also. But by far the most valuable object kept in the Erechtheion — namely, the golden lamp of Kalliniachos surmounted by the palm-tree of brass — had been in all probability dedicated at the very beginning, when the temple was first erected. The palm clearly passed through the roof, serving as a chimney, and was thus a part of the actual building. Thus it is permissible to conjecture that Kalhmachos, whom we know to have done architectural work, took part also in the building of the Erechtheion in general, apart from the lamp. The decorative marble work of this temple, unsurpassed in carefulness of execution, would accord excellently with the clei^anlia et sublilitas arlis tnarinorariae- for which this artist was renowned, and which earned for him the surname Katatexitechnos. And it is certainly no mere accident that the Erechtheion is the first monument at Athens in the ornamentation of which is introduced the so-called akanthos,^ the same motive which helped Kallimachos to create the Corinthian capital.^ And we may yet further conjecture that Kallimachos stood in specially close relation to Nikias and his party, with whom originated the building of the Erechtheion. There is something particularly appropriate in the commission for the Erechtheion : here no new statue was to be erected ; the builders desired nothing beyond the old sacred image. These pious souls use their money for making magnificent cultus-.ippliances. And the strength of Kallimachos must have lain in decorative art. On that account he ranked, as Pausanias says, ' after the greatest masters,' while only one statue of a god made by him is recorded.'' There is a special interest in the form used for conducting the smoke of the lamp. Benndorf already rightly perceived that it must have some sort of connexion with the palm of the votive offering dedicated after the victory on the Eurymedon." Kimon had then caused to be erected a gilt Palladion on a palm of bronze, symbolizing the East vanquished by Athena's proteges. Nikias was the heir to the political ideas of Kimon's party ; the palm-tree in the Erechtheion we consider as being, in its conception, the w-ork of Nikias, and it took up once more that favourite Kimonian allusion to the national victory over the East. But in yet another particular was the tendency of Nikias mirrored in the artist Kallimachos. The literary notices of him contain what has hitherto seemed an irreconcilable contradic- tion. While the lamp in the Erechtheion and the creation of the Corinthian capital definitely point to the last third of the fifth century as his date, he is on the other hand named in con- nexion with Kalamis, and a relief which bears the artist's name, and clearly professes to be a copy ' Bull, de Con: Hell. xii. I54i'(/^. (Foucart). I have already remarked (supra, p. 415, n. 4) how untenable is the hypothesis of Szanto, who supposes Dorpfeld's temple to be meant here. — It has been proved by Schultz and Gardner (/. H. .S. xii. p. I -rp^ap) in the Erechtheion no doubt received when the temple was built a new ornamental enclosure which was probably designed by Kallimachos. Should we not regard the puteal in the Capitol as a copy of it? The sacredness and renown of this spring would make it very intelligible that its decorations should have been copied in Roman times. On account of the kindred style I should be inclined further to conjecture that the so-called 'Tripod-Basis' at Dresden' is a copy after Kallimachos, and probably after an original in bronze. Here the archaistic reliefs are again combined with an ornamentation which, in its treatment of the so-called akanthos and the flowers, stands in close relation to the Erechtheion, while the winged Silenoi introduce an element that belongs to older times. The purpose of the work- it is a stand for some monumental candelabrum or lamp-carrier, and was no doubt destined originally for a shrine, probably of .■\ polio — is also suggestive of Kallimachos, who made the lamp for the Erechtheion. Finally, I incline to regard the armchair found in front of the Pronaos of the Parthenon * as an original, hardly indeed from the hand, but at least from the studio of Kallimachos. It shows once more that remarkable combination of dainty archaism and ' swallow-tail ' folds with an ornamentation resembling that of the Erechtheion.'-' How highly this work was esteemed is to be inferred from the ' Cf. recently Hauser, /o,: til. 162 se,/. Me indicates the archaic ^t\le, ami i^ iiiclineil to dale the iiioiuimeiu .shortly after 350. Wings on the foot occur in archaic monuments not only on shoes but also attached to the bare foot (cf. e.g. the old Ionic monuments, Moii. d. Inst. vi. 46, 3 ; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, V\. 31, 6), so that this detail in the Hermes is not to be regarded as an argument of late date. Hauser (p. 163, n. 3) rightly cills attention to the carved .Astragal ; this again answers completely, as it seems, to the style of the Erechtheion. - The usual interpretation, which regards it as the introduction of Herakles to Olympos, isuntcnalile (I also followed it formerly, in Roscher's Le.x. i. col. 2239) : Zeus could not possil)ly be absent. ^ The triple group is indicated by holding hands, in accordance with the established type. Ihe interpreta- tion of one of the figures as Hebe was a mistake. -* Friederichs-Wolters, Gipsahg. 424 ; Hauser, loc. n't. \\ 60 sty. -' Athena, Hephaistos with the hammer, Apollo, Herakles, should especially be compared. " Here, as on the Corinthian puteal, Herakles follows after his protectress .\thena, which confirms the .\ttic origin. It was a matter of boast that Herakles was worshipped as an Olympian god first in .\thens, and archaic Attic vases show Herakles already present on Olympos at the birth of Athena. That the introduction of Herakles to Olympos cannot be meant has been rightly remarked by Hauser. " Friederichs-Wolters, Gipsaig. 42^ ; Hauser, / The stylistic treatment of the akanthos is characteristic, as is the retention of the conical arrangement of the palmette-leaves, and the form of the spiral, which is not yet, as it becomes later, purely an adaptation of ^1 E 442 THK TKMI'LES OK ATHKNA ON THE AKROPOLIS fact that there was a copy of it at Rome.' On the upper edge of the original is an inscription, which if it were complete would furnish us with an exact date, since it names the Archon Eponymos. I conjecture that it should be restored thus : f^ri Arjuoa-TJpnTo t'pxoi'riis, and that the work therefore belongs to 393-392.- There is of course not the slightest difficulty in supposing Kallimachos to have been still at work at the beginning of the fourth century. The archaistic fashion of the time of N ikias no doubt found other adherents also among the artists. Even I'heidias's pupil Alkamencs must have followed it in one case : his triple Hekatc on the Nike bastion was, as is shown by the numerous imitations, an archaistic work.-'' There was an old and simple type of idol, popular at Athens, in which Hekate was represented as a pillar with three heads.* Developing this, Alkamenes^ created the three figures with their backs resting against the pillar. He gave them the Doric peplos girt over the diploVs, as Pheidias was fond of representing it, with an Ionic undcr-garment. The attitude was the stiff pose of an old idol, the folds were archaistic, without however degenerating into the exaggerated prettiness of Kallimachos. The heads seem to have displayed the free and grand type of the epoch. The work was certainly contemporary with the building of the new temple on the Nike bastion, when it would seem desirable to replace the old idol which had probably existed down to that time. V. The Temple of Athena Nike. Thus we have passed to a new subject, the temple of Athena Nike, the fifth extant temple to Athena on the Citadel, and the last to be studied here. It fits in excellently with the results we have so far reached. Recent investigations into the date of the temple of Nike have at least established with certainty the Icnniiius post quevi, Julius and Bohn did indeed consider that they had fixed also the terminus ante quern ; they tried to prove that the temple of Nike was planned and erected during the time of the building of the Propylaia. Dorpfeld however has removed the basis of their assertion by showing " that the original plan of the south-west wing of the Propylaia was curtailed before the building of it had begun at all, that therefore this curtailment could not have been due to the temple of Nike, even if, as is generally supposed, that was planned while the building was in progress. Some sacred place existing on the bastion, before the Propylaia were begun at all, must have been the cause. Next Welters proved ^ that this sacred place was certainly not the now extant temple of Nike, and that even the curtailed design of Mnesikles, and indeed the whole Propylaia as actually built, including even its very latest parts, showed no trace of the existence of the present temple of Nike. The bastion was higher when the Propylaia were built. Mnesikles did not carry the steps completely round the anta of the south-west wing, because at that time the third step of the Propylaia lay still below the top of the bastion ; to divide off that space he erected here in front of the ania the marble barrier which Wolters proves to have existed. This remained standing even later, vegetable forms. The monument of those that fell in the Corinthian War also belongs to this earlier stage. Very soon after this, however, must have occurred the change of type to that of the usual fourth-century stele. Cf. Samm. Sahoiiroff, i. Skulpt. Introd. p. 8. ^ Now in Berlin, Sluilpl. No. 1051 ; a good copy of the so-called later Attic school. That it is a question of a copy only is very clear from closer comparison, especially of the akanthos. - The inscription is in C. T. A. ii. 1524. Kcihler proposes Ai/o-iVrpnTos (369 — 36S), or Ka\Xi£ A'f Eqiies. 12, 3) to horsemen may indeed he judged from the description to have had the 'pilos' shape, but this does not imply that it was specially Boeotian, since it was much used by other Greeks also. ^ Herodotos, ix. 20 — 24. Cf. Busolt, Griech. Cesch. ii. 197 sqq. " Kekule, Baluslr. (1S69), p. 17. " The correspondence of the slabs G and O (Ross) is such that one would be decidedly inclined to bring them to one side. Kekule's proposed anangement for the south side produces a fine composition complete in itself FRIEZE OF THE TEMI'LE OF NIKE 447 ei)i3aiW.' The third, northern, side probably referred to the main action of the Lakedai- nionians and Tegeans against the Persians, and to the conclusion of the whole. Unfortunately there is but very little extant on this side, if we follow, as seems best, Kekuld's arrangement of the slabs. To it belong the fragments of .Slab f. (Ross), which shows the Greeks fighting against infantry. Their opponents arc draped, and are probably Persians ; but, unfortunately, decisive indications are wholly wanting. To this side belongs moreover Slab m. (Fig. i82\ where on the left appear indistinct remains of fallen figures. We see a draped man, who is therefore probably a Persian ; then follows a Greek, who seems to be striking down at him from above with a spear ; with his right foot he treads on a head,^ which is severed from the naked corpse lying stretched out beside it ; ' this corpse appears to have been stripped and mutilated. Next follow two Greeks hurrying at a run towards the right ; in front of them a Greek in a chiton* has his left knee resting on a mound of earth, below which lies a draped and bearded corpse; to judge by the outline of the head the latter is a Persian;'^ the Greek was clearly purposing to spoil the corpse ; he is hindered in this by a Greek who opposes him, laying hold of him so vigorously with his left hand that the helmet falls from his head. Behind this attacking Greek two riderless horses are galloping away. Thus we get the following points : Battle of the Greeks with Persian infantry. The Greeks are victorious. They are hastening at a run, probably in pursuit of the fugitives, over the field of battle. The field is full of corpses, w-hich are being plundered. But the retreat of the enemy is not wholly uncovered : it is being protected by Greek allies, apparently cavalry ; they, however, are also Fig. 182. — Portion of the north frieze of the Temple uf Nike- (From Lebas, I'ii^-iT^e Arche(?t.) being overthrown, so that the riderless horses leap away. All this, too, answers to the battle of Plataia ; the principal action was that of Lakedaimonians and Tegeans against the Persian foot. The Persians fled to the camp, the Greeks pursued, no resistance being oftered except by the cavalry, especially that of the Boeotians" (this accounts for the Greek beside the galloping horses). They made their way in spite of this opposition to the camp, which was then taken, the Athenians especially helping in the capture. It is possible that a slab is lost which came next and indicated the storming of the camp. Of the last slab, which came next beyond, we have still some slight remains. Here there is no longer any battle. As in the east frieze of the Theseion at the right-hand end there appear tranquil figures, evidently indicating the results of the battle, so here we see first of all a low podium, and upon it apparently the foot of some piece of furniture, shaped like the claws of a wild beast," then the lower part of a large vessel; towards these a figure is running — there remain parts of the bare lower portion of his legs ; ^ * Aesthht. in Ctes. 116. ^ This cannot be seen in the reproductions ; the foot treads on the face. ^ 'I he head Hes in quite a different line from the body, and also too far away to be considered otherwise than as severed from the corpse. On the latter there is only a small clolh between the legs. The right arm also seems to have been hacked off. ■* The Corinthian helmet that is falling from his head proves him irrefutably to be a Greek. * Only the outlines can now be seen, since the figure is much injured. The w.ay in which the head is placed on the shoulders and the outline of the beard are quite similar to what we see in the Persians of the frieze. Trousers cannot now be made out. 6 Herod, ix. 68. ^ Clearer in the drawing by Landron, aptid Le Bas, than in Ross. I have been obliged to depend on the publications for this slab, as there is no cast. ' Landron gives a small fragment remaining of the left foot, which is placed far back. 448 THK TEMPLES OF ATHENA ON THE AKROPOLIS then fnlldu llic legs of ;i boy who is standing still. After the battle there was erected, as is well known, an altar to Zeus Eleutherios, and a festival instituted, to be repeated every fifth year, at which there was a contest of runners who ran armed before the altar.' This, I am inclined to infer from the remains, was indicated on the slab : on the left a step of the altar, or the basis of the holy table of Zeus, in front of it a great krater, pertaining to the festival, - and then perhaps a representative of the armed youths running in honour of the god. The assembled god."^ on the east side are to be understood just in the same way as the deities that in the frieze of the Theseion appear among the combatants : they are taking an interest in the battle, and it is they who bestow the victory. There on the Theseion, where there was only a single side at the artist's disposal, they arc introduced at two suitable places in the battle itself; here, where the representation extends round the four sides of the temple, a whole side is reserved for them. We must of course suppose complete unity of time, and the gods can only be conceived as present at the battle.' From this alone it is clear that the latest interpretation put upon the east frieze by Bruno .Sauer'' cannot be correct : he considers that we have here a trial scene, taking place previous to the expedition of Dareios. Hellas sits on the defendant's bench, Asia is the plaintiff, the Greek gods arc the judges, who are to declare their sentence by means of voting tablets. A maiden on the right acts as 'herald of the court,' and summons any of the public to come forward before the assembled judges and speak on behalf of the defendant. This strange interpretation, however, rests at its very outset on a false conception. How could Asia enter a complaint against Hellas with the Greek gods, and how could these be the impartial judges of their own land ? This is quite opposed to ancient thought. The Hellenic gods can only be on the side of Hellas.'' Asia is hurled to ruin through her arrogance and blindness," through her contempt for the Hellenic gods and their laws. Even before the battle, according to the Greek conception,^ the decree of the gods against the Persians is fixed, and, according to Herodotos, Mardonios himself knew of an oracle to the effect that the Persians must be overthrown in Hellas.' Equally impossible are all the details of the interpretation. The name of Hellas is given to a figure who turns her head away from the gods in the centre of the frieze, whereas the only possible representation of her would be as suppliant and prott'gc'e of Zeus and Athena, as she appears on the vases. And Asia is supposed to be sitting enthroned among the (Ireek gods as though she belonged to them. And where is there a trace of an indication that the gods intend to advance to the urn and deliver voting pebbles .' Of the names which Sauer proposes for the individual gods, there is especial reason to doubt those of sea and earth, Thalassa and Gaia, which he gives to two corresponding and entirely similar female figures : they must at least have been different from each other ; and, as a matter of fact, Gaia was at that time regularly represented as rising up from the earth." It is, however, a downright mistake to divide off Fig. 8 in the left half of the frieze from the group to which she necessarily belongs in view of the motive and the corre- spondence with the other side, and to make her act Ate or Eris to the supposed Asia (Fig. 7). The centre has three figures (Poseidon, Athena, Zeus) ; on either side of these is a group of five standing deities, each group divided into two pairs and a single central figure : the symmetrical arrangement is very clear : it is therefore inadmissible to dissever a member of the group on either side. Then follows in each half a sitting personage, and several maidens in rapid motion towards the centre ; on the left are three ; on the right only two are preserved ; '" but symmetry, which has been regarded hitherto, demands three maidens here also. It is clear that in this Olympian assemblage we have before us two of those triple sisterhoods of divine maidens which from old times — we may instance the Moirai, Horai, and Charites of the Frangois vase— artists were fond of introducing into ^ Ofovat 5e wTrKtafiivoi Trpt, rov ^aifiov, Paus. ix. 2, 6. - Cf. <'.^'. the sacred table with a krater in front of Dionysus {J/oii. il. Jus/. 6, ]'l. 5 li). Al the yearly feast of I lie dead held by the graves on the battle-field of Plataia, a krater was set up, from which the Archon poured libations (PhU. Arisleid. 21). ^ I can think of no argument to be brought against this natural supposition, and do not understand why Welters, Gipsabi;. p. 284, assumes that the east side is ' certainly ' to be separated from the others. ■* AusderAuoniici, 1890, p. 96 i(/i/., 'das Gottergericht iiber .\sia und Hellas.' Kopp (Arch. Anzciger, 1892, p. 128) adopts his interpretation ' in the main.' ° Only the deities Helios and Selene, whom the barbarians worshipped, are conceived in the Peace of Aristophanes (406 .((/r//. Ztg. 1882, pp. 359, 368 ; Wollers [Gipsabg.)':a\<\ Benndorf (i%VOT« 7>on (//'<>/i5.) have subsequently followed me in this view The o])ini(>n which I also expressed there, that these works are of original Ionic style and do not imitate Attic models, I likewise still believe to be correct One may, however, go higher up in the fifth century for the date than I did then. The Dioskouros of the one Akroterion from Xanthos (cf. loi-. cit. 347) whose head is extant shows a style which can hardly be placed after 440, as it resembles the metoijes of the Parthenon. In /. H. S. xiii. 132 -i