A HANDBOOK 
 
 OF GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 
 
 BY EDMUND VON MACH
 
 UCSB LIBRARY
 
 
 RELIEF FROM ARA PACIS.
 
 A HANDBOOK 
 
 OF 
 
 Greek and Roman Sculpture 
 
 BY 
 
 EDMUND VON MACH, PH. D. 
 
 Author of " Greek Sculpture : Its Spirit and Principles," 
 " Outlines of the History of Painting," etc. 
 
 To Accompany a Collection of Reproductions of 
 Greek and Roman Sculpture 
 
 (THE UNIVERSITY PRINTS) 
 
 BOSTON 
 
 BUREAU OF UNIVERSITY TRAVEL 
 1905
 
 COPYRIGHT, 1905 
 
 BY 
 EDMUND VON MACH
 
 TO 
 
 CHARLES ELIOT NORTON 
 
 LOVER OF BEAUTY 
 INSPIRER OF MEN 
 
 THIS BOOK 
 IS DEDICATED
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PART PAGE 
 
 I. Mycenaean Age ...... i 
 
 II. Archaic Sculpture . . . . . 5 
 
 III. Transitional Period ..... 60 
 
 IV. Fifth Century 102 
 
 V. Fourth Century 181 
 
 VI. Hellenistic Period . . . . .270 
 
 VII. Graeco-Roman, Eclectic and Imitative Sculpt- 
 ure . . 345 
 
 VIII. EtruS'can and Roman National Sculpture . 358 
 IX. Grave Reliefs ...... 392 
 
 X. Portraits ....... 400 
 
 XI. Heads 402 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 List of Plates According to Numbers . i 
 List of Plates According to Places . xxxii 
 Chronological List of Important Artists xxxv 
 Bibliography . . . . . xxxvii 
 
 Archaeological Publications of Importance xliii 
 Index xlvi
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 This collection offers, on five hundred plates and forty- 
 five text illustrations, the most important remains of Greek 
 and Roman sculpture. Supplementary collections may be 
 issued in the future as they become necessary and are 
 asked for by those who use this series. 
 
 The plates have been made from original photographs 
 especially imported by the Bureau of University Travel. 
 In a few cases, where original photographs were inaccessi- 
 ble or where better results could be obtained from large 
 plates or photographs in the possession of Harvard Univer- 
 sity, this has been done, and thanks are due to the proper 
 authorities for the permission to use them. A small num- 
 ber of plates are copied from books. The plates are not 
 "retouched." Where the backgrounds seem to have been 
 painted black this is the defect of the original photograph. 
 
 In the classification the editor has aimed at clearness, 
 believing to serve the student best by enabling him to find 
 instantly the desired pictures. He has, therefore, often 
 deviated from the general rule of giving in the several 
 groups, first the statues of men, then those of women, 
 and finally the reliefs and other temple sculptures. In 
 the fifth-century group, for instance, the individual artists 
 have been treated separately. In the sub-divisions, when- 
 ever possible, the alphabetical order has been followed. 
 Where two or more pictures are given on one plate, the 
 most important one has been printed in its proper place in 
 
 vii
 
 Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 the catalogue, while a reference to the other has been 
 inserted where it would naturally belong. Thus Plate 92 
 contains one metope from the temple of Zeus in Olympia 
 and one from the Theseion in Athens. A reference to the 
 latter appears after Plate 130. Statues which are popularly 
 known by wrong names are listed under these names as, 
 for instance, the so-called Ilioneus, Plate 227; but a note is 
 attached to it in the catalogue or printed in the discussion 
 of the statue in the Handbook. Doubtful or erroneous, 
 although popular, names are printed in quotation marks. 
 
 Part Ten Portraits is the least complete part of the 
 collection, especially as regards Roman portraits. This 
 had to be so, because the number of extant Roman por- 5 
 traits is so large that even a fair selection from them 
 would have been out of proportion to the other parts of 
 the book. No attempt, therefore, has been made to give 
 portraits of all men of note. The aim rather has been 
 to select statues and busts which illustrate the develop- 
 ment of portrait-sculpture, irrespective of the persons 
 portrayed. 
 
 In Part Eleven Heads the specialist may miss some 
 favorite specimens, but here again the material from which 
 to draw is so large that a rigid sifting process became 
 necessary. The principle followed was similar to that 
 adopted for Part Ten. Heads were included in the list 
 when they illustrated the development of sculpture, and 
 often excluded, although with considerable regret, when 
 their chief claim to attention was based on their pleasing 
 appearance. 
 
 No special group has been given to votive offerings 
 because they were, in antiquity, rarely made by the great 
 artists themselves and could, therefore, be more easily
 
 PREFACE, IX 
 
 spared from this collection than other monuments. A few 
 of them are listed as reliefs in the several periods. 
 
 The Handbook offers a general introduction to the study 
 of the monuments. The necessity of treating them sepa- 
 rately precluded the systematic discussion of principles, for 
 which the author has been obliged to refer the readers to 
 his earlier book Greek Sculpture, Its Spirit and Principles. 
 The limited space which could be given to the several 
 statues and reliefs made it necessary to state facts as they 
 presented themselves to the author without in every case 
 adducing the proofs on which they depend. In small 
 type, therefore, references to the most important books or 
 articles in learned journals are given. These references 
 are not complete, because that would have been a waste of 
 time and space. They are intended as introductions to 
 the fuller bibliography of given subjects, the books and 
 articles mentioned containing references to other publica- 
 tions. No references are made to the ordinary textbooks, 1 
 because their complete indexes enable the reader to find 
 easily the desired information. 
 
 In all cases the author has intended to bring the bib- 
 liography up to date, so that, in future, by collecting 
 material from the excellent "Archaeological News" and 
 "Archaeological Discussions" of the American Journal of 
 Archeology, the users of this Handbook will always be 
 abreast of the times. 
 
 Grave Reliefs, Portraits and Heads (Parts Ten, Eleven 
 and Twelve) could not be treated with the same attention 
 to details as the other monuments, without making the 
 
 1 They are included in the general bibliography on p. xxxv.
 
 X PREFACE. 
 
 Handbook too large to serve its purpose. The author was, 
 therefore, obliged to confine his remarks in these parts to 
 the barest outlines of the subjects, trusting that he may at 
 some future time find the opportunity of treating them 
 according to their deserts. 
 
 The author has refrained as much as possible from refut- 
 ing erroneous views. Only when such views have gained 
 currency in popular books has he felt obliged to attack 
 them and to show their errors. 
 
 Much attention has been given to accurate statements 
 of the provenience and the restorations of the monuments, 
 and with unfailing persistence the neglect of museum 
 authorities to publish them has been noted. 
 
 In the case of marble statues, most recent books state 
 the kind of marble of which the statues were made, Pen- 
 telic, Parian, Carrara, etc., basing their remarks on the 
 investigations of Lepsius. The author has often had occa- 
 sion to doubt the accuracy of these investigations, and has, 
 therefore, refrained from quoting them. He is strength- 
 ened in his view by the opinion of modern geologists, 
 who believe that it is impossible to say definitely from 
 which quarry a piece of marble has been taken. 
 
 One of the most pleasant duties of the author is to 
 express his appreciation of the enthusiasm of Professor 
 H. H. Powers, the president of the Bureau of University 
 Travel, whose liberality has made the publication of this 
 collection possible. The assistance of Miss Minnie May 
 and Mr. Rossiter Howard, with their cheerful attention to 
 details, has been invaluable and a source of great personal 
 satisfaction. 
 
 The author finally wishes to record his deep sense of 
 gratitude to the man, whose name by permission appears
 
 PREFACE. XI 
 
 on the dedication page, and who for many years has 
 boldly fought the battle of spirit against matter. Recently 
 men have dared to affirm that even art should be studied 
 "scientifically," with the spirit left out. May the name of 
 Charles Eliot Norton preserve the reader from this fallacy! 
 
 EDMUND VON MACH. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 
 
 February, 1905.
 
 HANDBOOK OF 
 Greek and Roman Sculpture, 
 
 PART ONE. 
 
 The Mycenaean 1 Age. 
 
 The recent discoveries in Crete, which promise to shed new 
 light on the civilization generally called Mycenaean, are of 
 such far-reaching importance that a thorough discussion of 
 Mycenaean art seems ill-advised before all their results are 
 published. But so busy are the excavators in unearthing new 
 monuments that they have at present little time for collecting 
 their material in exhaustive treatises. 
 
 Most historians accept as true the Greek tradition of a 
 Dorian invasion, dating it approximately from noo B. C. to 
 1000 B. C. This event, they believe, marks the end of a 
 civilization of great splendor, distinguished by an unfailing 
 love of the beautiful. 
 
 The first rich finds 2 of its art were excavated on the citadel 
 of Mykenai in 1876, and came as a surprise, because scholars 
 then believed that the Greeks before the seventh century, 
 
 1 This is the accepted spelling. The word is derived from the name 
 of the ancient city of Mykenai. 
 
 3 Dr. Schliemann, who excavated Mykenai, had previously conducted 
 excavations on the island of Ithaca in 1868, and in Hissarlick in 1873.
 
 2 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 B. C., had been all but savages. Assuming that Mykenai with 
 its beautiful monuments was a solitary exception, they called 
 the civilization there revealed Mycenaean. To-day it is known 
 that this civilization covered a large area and flourished in 
 other places, for instance, on Crete, earlier than in Mykenai. 
 Different names have, therefore, been suggested, such as 
 Aigean or Mediterranean, but there are objections to all of 
 them, and in consequence the term Mycenaean is still the 
 almost universal favorite. 
 
 The date of the beginning of this civilization is uncertain. 
 It belongs in the early second or the third millenium before 
 Christ. Some investigators place it still farther back. 
 
 Architecture, painting, and the minor arts flourished, while 
 sculpture was not popular, and, as the few remains indicate, 
 was practiced only on rare occasions and by men whose 
 training fitted them better for work along other lines. The 
 great staircase of the palace of Phaistos ' in Crete, Plate i, the 
 Throne Room of the palace of Knossos, Plate 2, and the Gate- 
 way of Mykenai, Plate 3, are samples of the impressive and 
 noble grandeur of Mycenaean architecture. 
 
 The gold cups from Vaphio, Plate 8 ; the ornaments, Plates 
 9 and 10 ; and the mask 2 of a bearded man of thin gold leaf, 
 Plate 4, indicate the perfection to which the goldsmith's art 
 was carried, and the last also the lack of that knowledge of 
 the bodies of men which the sculptor needs. The low plane 
 on which sculpture was is seen in the three idols in the British 
 Museum, Plate 6. 
 
 The relief in the Museum in Candia on Crete, Plate 5, 
 which is of uncertain date, is added here, because the char- 
 
 1 See Halbherr, Man. Antichi, 1902. 2 For another head from 
 Mykenai, discovered in 1896, see Ephemcris, 1902, pp. iff., Plates I 
 and 2.
 
 THE MYCENAEAN AGE, 3 
 
 ioteer, his horses and his dog running along with them, re- 
 produce types known from much cruder grave-reliefs J in 
 Mykenai. The two warriors in the rear are superior to any 
 sculpture found in Mykenai and carry shields unlike those 2 
 known there. 
 
 Plate 7 reproduces two painted metopes from Thermon,3 
 which show their relation to Mycenaean art in the spiral decor- 
 ations of the borders of the garments and in the rosettes on 
 one of them, Plate 70, similiar to those on Plates 9 and 10. 
 Their state of preservation is remarkable, so that they are 
 better able to indicate the proficiency of wall-painting in the 
 Mycenaean Age than the few fragments of such paintings in 
 existence to-day. 
 
 The chief interest of these figures, however, is the similarity 
 which exists between them and some later Greek sculptured 
 monuments, especially two metopes from Selinus. 4 Herakles, 
 Plate 47b, carries the Kekropes in the same way as the man, 
 Plate 7b, carries his booty ; while the motive of the other 
 painted metope, Plate 73, of a man cutting off (or having cut 
 off ) the head of another figure, occurs again in Selinus, Plate 
 4?a. The half kneeling position, indicative of rapid running, 
 Plate 7a, is copied perhaps in the figure of Medusa, Plate 47a, 
 and certainly in the Flying Figure from Delos, Plate 32. The 
 shape of the wing on the shoe, Plate 73, is identical with that 
 on the back of the ankle of the Delian figure. 
 
 Such correspondences are not accidental. They indicate 
 that even during the " Dark Middle Ages of Greece," which 
 intervened between the fall of the Mycenaean civilization and 
 
 1 See P. Gardner, " Sculptured Tombs of Hellas," figs. 18, 19, and 20. 
 2 For Mycenaean shields see Tsountas and Manatt, " The Mycenaean 
 Age," pp. igiff. 3 Discovered in 1889; Ephemtris t 1903, pp. 7lff., 
 Plates 3 and 4. 4 The Greek spelling is Selinous.
 
 4 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 the rise of historic Greek sculpture, more than the mere 
 memory of past glories survived. Actual mementoes, how- 
 ever, were probably as few as the inherited love of things 
 beautiful was strong. Certainty on this point is impossible, 
 for as yet these centuries are very dark, the only ray of light 
 being shed by the Homeric poems. The civilization which 
 the poems portray is a mixture of the traditional splendor of 
 the past and the existing conditions in the time of the poet. 1 
 Homer is, therefore, no safe guide to the understanding of 
 these " Middle Ages," except in so far as his poems prove that 
 even in his time there were people who loved the beautiful 
 well enough to conceive noble thoughts and to appreciate 
 them when they were expressed. 
 
 SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MYCENAEAN ART. 
 
 Tsountas and Manatt, The Mycencean Age. 
 
 H. R. Hall, The Oldest Civilization of Greece, with bibliography, 
 pp. XXX Iff. 
 
 William Ridgeway, The Early Age of Greece. 
 
 IMPORTANT ARTICLES. 
 
 A. J. A., Series I, Vol. I, No. 3; Series II, Vols. I, pp. 3i3ff.; 
 IV, pp. 49<Dff. ; V, pp. 230 and 3i5ff. ; VII, p. 243. 
 
 /. H. S., XIV, pp. 8iff. ; XVI, pp. 7;ff. 
 
 Rev. Arch., 1897 (30), p. 143, fig. 2; (31) PI. XX; 1899 (35) pp. i6ff.; 
 1903, pp. I49-I53- 
 
 Jahrbuch, 1889, IV, pp. iigff. 
 
 Class. Review, 1902, p. 137. 
 
 Journal of Royal Institute of British Architects X (03), pp. 97-106, 
 and the recent numbers of the Monumenti Antichi and the Annual of 
 the British School at Athens. 
 
 1 Or poets. The question whether Homer wrote the Ilias and the 
 Odysee, or whether these poems are the joint works of many men is 
 still unsettled.
 
 PART Two. 
 
 Archaic Sculpture. 
 
 THE period of Archaic Greek Sculpture is one of explora- 
 tion. The artists strove to gain clear perceptions of the sub- 
 jects worthy of representation, laboring to understand them 
 and to master the intricacies of the several materials ' in which 
 they worked. Some of their types were bound to disappear, 
 because they were unworthy or unsuitable for corporeal repre- 
 sentation ; but the majority of the early creations are valuable 
 as bearing the germs from which the later masterpieces grew. 
 
 The lover of things beautiful may find little to admire in this 
 period, which is, nevertheless, one of the greatest importance. 
 During the two centuries (about 650-480 B. C.) which it lasted 
 those achievements were accomplished, or at least the founda- 
 tions for them were laid, which distinguish Greek Art from all 
 other arts of the world. Every kind of sham was forbidden. 
 Simplicity was sought, truth was worshipped, the accidental 
 was not admitted, and throughout, only those subjects were 
 carved, the worth of which was inherent and not dependent 
 on perfection of execution. The first aim of the true Greek 
 
 1 For a discussion of the several materials and the demands they 
 made on the artists, see E. von Mach, pp. 9 iff.
 
 6 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 was to discover, "What is worthy?" the second, " What is 
 the best way to carve it?" Almost all other nations invert 
 this order ; skill first, and discipline last, if at all. 
 
 Of the artists themselves we know little. A few names 
 stand out clearly; Daidalos, partly a mythical personage, 
 Endoios, Smilis, Achermos, Antenor, and others, 1 but it has 
 been found impossible to identify, with certainty, any extant 
 statues as their works. 
 
 Judged by the statues and reliefs now in our museums, the 
 archaic sculptors, as a class, tower head and shoulders above 
 their contemporary vase painters. The unmistakable borrow- 
 ing of the minor arts from Egypt and the Orient, and a certain 
 accidental resemblance between early Greek statues and a 
 certain Egyptian type, has led many to believe in a similarly 
 close connection between Greece and Egypt in sculpture. 
 The inaccuracy of this view, however, so self-evident to the 
 art student, has recently been conclusively proved. 2 
 
 The most satisfactory survey 3 of the archaic period con- 
 cerns itself, first with the figures in the round, and then with 
 reliefs. And since the drapery of women men were gener- 
 ally represented nude added another distinguishing feature, 
 male and female figures are best treated separately. 
 
 Statues of Men. 
 PLATE 11 a. Grave Monument of Kitylos and Dermys. Of 
 
 yellowish brown limestone. National Museum, Athens. From Tan- 
 agra, Bo2otia. Robinson, No. 6; Robert, Arch. Zeitung, 1875, PP- 
 I5iff. ; Korte, Athen. Mitth. Ill, 1878, pp. 3oiff. ; Reinach II, 109, i. 
 
 1 For these/artists see Gardner, pp. gSff. 2 E. von Mach, pp. 86ff. 
 
 3 The customary division in Dorian and Ionian sculpture is ill-ad- 
 vised. Best account, Gardner, pp. 133*?. Argument against it, E. von 
 Mach, pp. iO4ff.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 7 
 
 This is the best preserved of a number of Boeotian grave 
 reliefs, and offers excellent indications of the earliest type of 
 the so-called Apollo statues, Plates nb ff. The two figures 
 are not cut loose from the back and are, therefore, technically 
 speaking, in high relief. They are, however, designed in the 
 round without reference to the background. The clumsy ar- 
 rangement of the arms, the almost incredibly faulty anatomy, 
 and the visible inability of the maker of this group to over- 
 come even the slightest difficulties, stamp him as a very un- < 
 skilled stonecutter. He was far behind his time, as is proved i ~7 
 by a comparison of his work with the fragmentary stele of / 
 Agathon and Aristokrates (Athen. Mitth. Ill, PI. 15). Both ' 
 monuments contain inscriptions which show that they are of 
 about the same time, but the Agathon stele is by far the better 
 of the two. 
 
 The same lack of skill that characterizes the Kitylos and 
 Dermys group was doubtless to be found in the earliest crea- 
 tions of the "Apollo " type, however superior the " Apollos " 
 may have been from the beginning in conception. None earlier 
 than the " Apollo " of Thera, Plate t^have been found, but if 'A 
 any were extant, we might expect to see in them no opening 
 between the arms and the torso, just as is the case with 
 Kitylos and Dermys. 
 
 Another important similarity between this group and some 
 of the now lost first " Apollos " is probably contained in the 
 formation of the knees. The legs in all the early statues are 
 broken away, but in the " Apollos " of Tenea and of Melos, 
 Plates 14 and 13, in which they are preserved, we find a very 
 prominent muscle over the knee. 1 The beginning of this 
 muscle, wrongly conceived, is also seen in the Kitylos and 
 
 1 For the importance of this muscle see E. von Mach, pp. 1151!.
 
 8 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Dermys group, where some scholars have erroneously believed 
 they saw the bones of the knee represented. 
 
 At the time when the Kitylos and Dermys monument was 
 made, more accurate knees could be carved ; while the fact 
 that the background was preserved ought to have enabled the 
 stonecutter to cut the arms loose from the body without dan- 
 ger of having them break off. That he nevertheless did not 
 do so, but carved what we believe, with a fair amount of cer- 
 tainty, to have been characteristics of the earliest " Apollos," 
 suggests that it was his intention to copy this type. It is 
 therefore possible that in this monument we have two of the 
 very earliest statues preserved to us. 
 
 PLATE lib. "Apollo" Of Orchomenos. Of grayish stone. Na- 
 tional Museum, Athens. Dicovered on the site of the ancient Orcho- 
 menos. E. von Mach, pp. ii3ff., PI. 4, fig. 4; Robinson, No. 21; 
 F. W., No. 43 ; Reinach II, 76, n. 
 
 PLATE 12. " ApOllO " Of Thera. Of very coarse marble. Na- 
 tional Museum, Athens. Parts of the neck are restored. E. von 
 Mach, pp. noff. PI. 4, fig. 3; Robinson, No. 20; F. W., No. 14; 
 Reinach II, 76, 10. 
 
 PLATE 13. " ApOllO " Of MelOS. Of marble. National Museum, 
 Athens. Discovered in 1891, on the island of Melos. Feet restored. 
 Reinach II, 76, i. 
 
 PLATE 14. "Apollo" Of Tenea. Of rather coarse, probably 
 Parian, marble. Glyptothek, Munich. Discovered in 1846. The arms 
 and legs were badly broken, but only the middle of the right arm is 
 modern. The head, which, when found, was protected by a large urn 
 placed over it, is in a perfect state of preservation. E. von Mach, 
 Plate facing p. 80, pp. iioff. ; Furtwangler, Cat. No. 47 ; Robinson, 
 No. 22 ; F. W., No. 49; Reinach II, 76, 2. 
 
 PLATE I5a. "Apollo" from Mt. PtOOS. Of Breotian stone. 
 National Museum, Athens. Gardner, Fig. 24; Reinach II, 76, 7. 
 
 PLATE 15b. "ApOllO" from Mt. PtOOS. Of Boeotian stone.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 9 
 
 National Museum, Athens. Gardner. Fig. 25 ; Reinach II, 77, 4 
 (without head and fragment of right arm) or 81,4 and 5. 
 
 PLATE 16. "Strangford Apollo." British Museum, London. 
 Found on island Anaphe (according to Newton, Essays on Art and 
 Archeology, p. 81), and brought to England by Viscount Strangford. 
 Below life size. E. von Mach, Plate 4, fig. 3. pp. uoff. ; F. W., No. 
 89; Robinson, No. 23; Reinach II, 81, 6. 
 
 These seven statues are the best representatives of a large 
 group of male figures known as " Apollos." In ancient litera- 
 ture we are told of a statue of this god thus represented, and 
 most of these figures have been found in or near old sanctu- 
 aries of Apollo. Pausanias, on the other hand, describes the 
 monument of an athlete which must have looked much like the 
 " Apollos," while the Tenean figure, Plate 14, was found on a 
 grave, obviously intended to represent the dead. The ques- 
 tion whether these statues are gods or men is, therefore, an 
 open one ; but where certainty is impossible, it is advisable to 
 retain the familiar name, putting it in quotation marks or add- 
 ing a " so-called." 
 
 The gradual growth of accuracy of conception, and also of 
 skill, is splendidly illustrated in these seven statues. In all of 
 them, except the Orchomenos " Apollo," the artists have, 
 apparently, done their very best. Even the Theran figure with 
 its shortcomings appeals to us. The honesty and the sim- 
 plicity of its conception, and the proud assurance of the artist, 
 who knew that he would meet with a public able to under- 
 stand him, is noteworthy. Not by contortions, nor unnatural 
 or unexpected positions, has he sought to attract the attention 
 of the spectator. He has introduced pleasing lines where his 
 subject permitted it, as in the contours of the arms, but he 
 has disdained the trick of some Egyptians, of many Orientals, 
 and of not a few modern artists, of twisting the members of
 
 10 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 the human body from their natural positions, for the sake 
 of the resulting beautiful lines. 
 
 The exact forms of the bodily members he did not com- 
 prehend. The trunks of the figures are especially inaccurate, 
 and the features very unreal. Even where the artist knew 
 better, his mastery over his material was too slight to permit 
 freedom of execution. He was afraid of the heaviness of the 
 stone in which he wrought. The neck had to be thickened 
 and to be assisted by the flowing hair in order to support the 
 head. The arms were hardly detached from the body. But 
 glancing along the row of these figures, we note how every 
 successive artist dared a little more ; first, the Ptoon Apollo, 
 Plate i5a, and then the Orchomenos figure, Plate nb, then 
 those from Melos and from Tenea, where only the hands are 
 connected with the body by means of long ridges. These 
 ridges, in Plate 14, have given way to small blocks, and in the 
 Strangford Apollo, Plate 16, even the blocks have disappeared. 
 A similar advance shows in the treatment of the hands and 
 also in the general anatomy of the bodies. Only the features 
 remain comparatively the same. This is not surprising, for 
 they were meaningless to the early Greeks who had not yet 
 learned to read in them the soul. The very idea of soul 
 was foreign to their thoughts, and was to remain so for .several 
 more generations. 
 
 There are differences, to be sure, in the faces of these seven 
 statues. Some have eyes that slant inward, Plates 12 and 
 i5b, others have the eyes almost on a horizontal line, Plates 
 14 and "i5a. Some mouths are straight, Plate i5a, in others 
 both lips curve evenly, Plate 12, while in still others there 
 is an approximately straight line where the lips meet, with 
 only a pleasing curve for the edge of the lower lip, Plates 
 14 and 1 6. The characteristic qualities of the eyes and of the 
 mouths, and especially their inter-relation were not under-
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. XI 
 
 stood. The artists had yet to learn that what we call the 
 beautiful eye is the eye plus its surroundings. The same is 
 true of the mouth. Cheek and chin in nature are not mean- 
 ingless masses, modelled at will by the sculptor at one broad 
 sweep ; they are most delicately constituted transmitters of 
 even the slightest action on the part of either eyes or mouth. 
 The ignorance of these facts led to some rather perverse prac- 
 tices in the oldest Greek sculpture. A cut in a certain part 
 of the face meant a mouth. The lines which bound it were 
 the lips. And these, their individuality being ignored, offered 
 to the sculptors excellent opportunities for the exercise of 
 fancy. At times a good, almost an expressive mouth was 
 carved, at others a pleasing eye resulted ; but both were ac- 
 cidents. If they had not been so, they would have been 
 found in the same statues, the expression of the one enhanc- 
 ing that of the other, but this is rarely the case. 
 
 The curve of the mouth has made people believe that the 
 Greeks desired to give to their statues a pleasing expression, 
 that is to say, that they intentionally carved a smile. 1 This is ' 
 a mistake. The archaic artists never thought of the expres- 
 sion of the face in the modern sense of the word. If there is 
 a pleasing line encircling the mouth, it is there for the pleasure 
 it gives to the spectator. Later, when the true essence of the 
 lips was understood, less freedom was granted the artists, but 
 it is noticeable that from the very beginning, the liberties 
 which the artists took, were generally within the limits of 
 what is naturally probable. 
 
 PLATE 17a. Apollo PhtlesiOS (?). Small bronze statuette after 
 Kanachos, called the Payne-Knight Apollo. British Museum, London. 
 Very small bronze statuette, probably correctly identified by means of 
 descriptions (Pliny N. J/., 34, 75) and coins (see Overbeck, Kunstmy- 
 
 1 For the so-called archaic smile see E. von Mach. pp. i54ff.
 
 12 
 
 GREEK: AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 thologie des Apollon, pp. z^ft., and the table of coins I. No. 22ff). 
 Reinach II, 80, 9. 
 
 PLATE irb. Bronze Statuette from Ligourio. Berlin. Furt- 
 
 wangler, 50; Programn zum Winckdmannsfeste t Berlin. Waldstein, 
 J. H. S., 24, (1904), pp. i3off. ; Reinach II, 85, i. 
 
 The importance of these two statuettes is based on different 
 grounds from those of the preceding numbers. In Plate i ya 
 most scholars see the copy of a very old work by Kanachos, a 
 famous sculptor of Sikyon, while Plate i yb has been said to 
 have some connection with the work of Ageladas, an artist of 
 Aigina. 
 
 The first identification has much in its favor. It is based 
 on a description of the Kanachos statue and on a comparison 
 of the statuette with coins representing it. 
 
 The second is one of those " brilliant discoveries " which 
 dazzle the student without throwing sufficient light on the sub- 
 ject to overcome subsequent doubts. 1 
 
 Irrespective of their " identifications," these statuettes are 
 invaluable as showing the greater freedom of pose and of 
 execution which bronze permitted, as compared with marble. 
 The arms need not be " glued " to the body, as was the case 
 in the contemporary " Apollo " statues. 2 A glance at Plate 
 iya and then at the "Apollo" of Tenea, Plate 14, gives a 
 clear indication of how much of the latter figure is due to 
 limitations of skill, and how little, comparatively, to limita- 
 tions of conception. 
 
 The Ligourio statuette belongs to a somewhat later day, 
 when the anatomy of the body was more clearly understood. 
 
 the contra in this case are contained in the literature 
 given above. 
 
 2 Overbeck I, p. 145, calls the London bronze archaistic, that is, 
 made in late Greek times in imitation of earlier works.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. ! 3 
 
 It marks an advance even over the Strangford " Apollo," Plate 
 1 6, although the side views of both figures are somewhat alike, 
 with a sharp angle at the small of the back, and the erect head 
 supported by the neck without any assistance of the hair. 
 
 PLATE 18. "Apollo" Piombino. Of bronze. Louvre, Paris. 
 Found in the sea near Piombino in Tuscany. Height, three feet, four 
 inches. For the active discussion as to its genuineness as archaic 
 Greek see bibliography in Miiller's Handbuch, paragrapk 422, note 7. 
 Best discussion, Overbeck I, pp. 234ff. Reinach II, 84, 9. 
 
 Owing to two inscriptions on this statue, possibly of later 
 date, the genuineness of this " Apollo " as an archaic Greek 
 work has been doubted. Overbeck, however, has conclusively 
 proved its ancient origin. The extremely delicate feet resem- 
 ble those of the " Apollo " of Tenea, Plate 14, and are unlike 
 the clumsy feet of later imitations ; while the structure of the 
 knee is similar to that found on the marbles from Aigina, 
 Plates 78ff., which are admittedly influenced by the contem- 
 porary bronze workers. 
 
 The delicate contours of the back, in contrast to the appar- 
 ently straight front, are in keeping with the Tenean figure, 
 Plate 14, while a further point of contact with that statue is 
 found in the position of the hips, slightly too low to be accur- 
 ate. The small head and the long legs are characteristic of 
 the archaic period, although they reappear in later works. 
 The Belvedere Apollo has the same long legs, but for a special 
 purpose. 1 The pose of the figure is characteristically archaic, 
 both feet firmly planted on the ground, with the point of 
 gravitation exactly between them. 
 
 The statue may represent an " Apollo " with attributes not 
 unlike those of the statue by Kanachos, Plate i ya, which ac- 
 
 1 E. von Mach, pp. 308, 309.
 
 I 4 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 cording to Pliny, held a fawn on one hand and a bow in the 
 other. Overbeck's interpretation, however, is probably more 
 correct. He says the Piombino figure represented a boy 
 assisting at a sacrifice, with a cup in his left hand and a saucer 
 in his right. 
 
 PLATE 19. The Calf Bearer. Of bluish marble. Probably from 
 Mt. Hymettos near Athens. Akropolis Museum, Athens. Discovered 
 on the Akropolis 1864-1865, the base in 1887. Overbeck I, pp. iSyff. ; 
 F. W., 109; Robinson, No. 7, whose date for the statue (early sixth 
 century), is undoubtedly wrong. 1 Overbeck's date (about 536 B. C.) is 
 based on the inscription on the base and is probably correct. Reinach 
 11,551,1. 
 
 The motive of this statue is a familiar one in ancient sculpt- 
 ure. Reinach II, pp. 55 iff., gives nearly two dozen instances. 
 Kalamis had represented Hermes in this fashion (Pausanias, 
 9, 20, 4), and a similar monument of a man named Biton is 
 known from ancient literature. 
 
 This figure doubtless represents Kombos, who, according to 
 the inscription, dedicated the statue, and is not a Hermes 
 Moschophoros (calf bearer), by which name it used to be 
 known. It is one of the few instances from Greece proper, 
 where men of this period are not represented nude. The 
 sacred occasion required the addition of a garment. A draped 
 male figure, however, was not included in the figures the artist 
 knew how to carve. He has, therefore, designed his figure 
 nude, adding only a few lines to indicate the heavier folds, and 
 trusting, on the whole, to the application of color. 2 The gar- 
 ment is clearly carved only below the left elbow. 
 
 The doubts in the Attic origin of this figure are ill-founded. 
 The provenience of the marble is no conclusive proof, for a 
 
 1 Robinson also calls the calf a bull. 
 
 2 For the coloring of Greek statues see E. von Mach, pp. 67ff.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. ^ 
 
 foreigner might have worked in Athens. There are, however, 
 several indications which point to an Attic workshop. Chief 
 of them is the ear, which is exactly like the ear of the Aristion 
 stele (see below), and that of the head of the Discus Carrier 
 stele (see below), both Athenian works. The ear of a figure 
 is a minor, but a very intricate, part. It lends itself to a 
 schematic treatment, and as long as no portraits were carved, 
 the artists wrought the ears according to the habits acquired in 
 their schools. The close resemblance, therefore, between the 
 ear of the Calf Bearer and the later Athenian works may be 
 used as a valid argument. 
 
 A few additional indications of the Attic origin of the statue 
 are found in its technique, which resembles somewhat the still 
 earlier Poros sculptures of the Akropolis, Plates 40 and 41. 
 The erroneous date for the statue, early in the sixth century 
 (Robinson), is due to an undervaluation of the difficulties that 
 marble offered over the softer Poros. Nothing is more in- 
 structive than a visit to the Akropolis Museum. Stepping 
 from the Poros Sculpture Room into that of the early marbles, 
 one feels at first as if one had stepped back one whole genera- 
 tion in the development of sculpture. The thoughtful student, 
 however, soon realizes that this is not the case. He has 
 learned how to distinguish between halting skill and inaccurate 
 conception, and keeping this distinction in mind, he realizes 
 that the seeming step backward, is due to the difficulties of the 
 new material, and not to a retrogression of artistic concep- 
 tions. 
 
 For the detailed study of the Calf Bearer, it is interesting to 
 note the excellent connection of the body of the calf with that 
 of the man, the skill shown in carving the head of the calf, 
 and the customary absence of accurate conceptions in regard 
 to the human features ; further, the mistaken lines of the 
 front leg of the animal, and its excellent hind quarters and
 
 
 16 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 hoofs ; the muscular arms of the man ' and his delicately 
 modelled abdomen; the beard which is simply blocked out 
 to receive the paint, and the hair, which, in the simplicity 
 of the locks over the forehead, stands in strong contrast to 
 the fanciful curls of the flying figure from Delos, Plate 32. 
 On his head the Calf Bearer seems to wear a skull-cap, unless 
 this seeming cap was once painted in the semblance of hair. 
 The mouth is very interesting, while it is difficult to judge 
 of the eyes in their present appearance. The eyeballs, made 
 of a special material, were inserted in the sockets, and are 
 now lost. 
 
 Supplementary Reading and References for Archaic Male Figures. 
 
 1. For the " Apollo " figures in their relation to the spirit and the 
 principles of Greek Sculpture, E. von Mach, pp. logff. 
 
 2. For an inscribed base of an " Apollo " with only the feet pre- 
 served, A. J. A. I, PI. x. 
 
 3. For an alabaster figure, resembling the " Apollo " type, from 
 Naukratis.ya^r^wcA VII (1893) p. 180. Kieseritzky's view that this 
 statue speaks in favor of the Egyptian origin of Greek Sculpture 
 is not well taken. 
 
 4. For a somewhat more advanced type see the statue Sciarra, 
 now in Copenhagen, Overbeck I, pp. 238ff., figure 62. 
 
 Statues of Women. 
 
 PLATE 20. Statue from DelOS. Of rough marble, dedicated by , 
 Nikandre of Naxos. National Museum. Over six feet in height, in- 
 cluding the base. Overbeck I, pp. 95ff. ; Gardner, p. 121 ; Reinach II, 
 645, i. 
 
 In no other extant figure, has the artist been so completely 
 the slave of his material and of the conventional shape 2 of his 
 block, as here. The block was like a plank of wood, thicker 
 
 1 For the arms cf. Stele of Aristion, (below). 2 E. von Mach, p. 109.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 17 
 
 only at the very base, so that not even the face projects 
 beyond the plane of the breast and of the lower part of the 
 figure. The waist does not recede, and is cut in only at the 
 sides. Owing to these peculiarities, Brunn (quoted by Over- 
 beck, p. 95) believed that this statue reproduced one of the 
 earliest wooden images. Such wooden statues were of two 
 kinds, i, round, carved from a trunk (look at " Hera " of Samos 
 Plate 22) and 2, rectangular, carved from a plank. 
 
 Against Brunn's view we may assert that it would have been , 
 irrational to carve a statue from a plank, when the round trunk ,' 
 was just as handy. It is, therefore, more probable that rec- : 
 tangular wooden statues are influenced by stone sculpture 
 than that they have left their traces in figures like the one j 
 from Delos, for it is reasonable enough to suppose that the 
 first blocks of stone which were quarried were thin and/ 
 rectangular. 1 
 
 The Delian statue, moreover, stands near the beginning of 
 Greek Sculpture. It is difficult to see in it the result of a 
 prolonged experience in carving, and for this reason, if for 
 no other, it ought not to be considered to be an imitation 
 of a technique which had already run its course. 
 
 Drill holes in the hands point to the fact that this is the 
 goddess Artemis carrying her attributes, bow and arrow. In 
 view of the now lost attributes, it is, however, impossible to 
 be certain on this point. The fact that Artemis was wor- 
 shipped in Delos speaks in its favor. 
 
 'An interesting parallel is found in Babylonian-Assyrian art. The 
 country had practically no stone except alabaster. This is very brittle 
 and can be quarried only in thin slabs. One statue, not in relief, is 
 extant, the Assur-nazir-pal in the British Museum. The comparison 
 of the Assyrian figure with the Delian statue is full of suggestions 
 for the student of comparative art. Here it suffices to remark that in 
 the case of the Assur-nazir-pal no one has hinted at a wood original
 
 1 8 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The statue was undoubtedly painted. Gardner's suggestion 
 (p. 121) that the hair-dress can only be derived from an 
 Egyptian model is untenable. The same hair-dress appears 
 on the head from Crete (Gardner, p. 134, fig. 18) and on 
 other Greek works. It differs from that of the Tenean 
 "Apollo," Plate 14, only by having strands of the hair fall in 
 front over the shoulders, which was simply an additional pre- 
 caution against the dreaded weakness of the neck which, so 
 the ancients thought, could not support the head unassisted. 
 
 PLATE 21. Draped figure from the Akropolis. Of Marble. Akro- 
 polis Museum, Athens. Musees a"Alkenes, Rhomaides, PI. x; Gazettes 
 des Beaux Arts, 1888, i, p. 67 ; Reinach II, 650, i. 
 
 In general appearance, this figure bears an unmistakable re- 
 semblance to the votive offering from Delos, Plate 20.. Es- 
 pecially noteworthy is the squareness of the lower parts of the 
 statue, where traces of painting show how even the flat sur- 
 face of the Delian figure could have been transformed to the 
 semblance of drapery. The hair, no longer necessary as 
 chief support of the head, is thinner ; only three braids fall- 
 ing over each shoulder. The left lower arm was raised, and, 
 to make this possible, was carved of a separate piece and in- 
 serted. The discovery of this very simple device must have 
 come with great surprise to the early artists, who, the slaves 
 of their materials, had felt obliged to keep the arms close to 
 the sides of the body. The flatness of the breast of the 
 Delian figure has given way to two prominent disks, and the 
 nude, where it shows, is modelled with decided vigor. The 
 left arm is in proportions similar to the muscular arm of the 
 Calf Bearer, Plate 19, and to that of the stele of Aristion 
 (below). 
 
 The figure is thus marked as an Athenian work. It belongs 
 to a long series of draped female figures found on the Akro-
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. ig 
 
 polis, Plates 25-30, and is, although not one of the earliest, 
 as Gardner says (p. 174), far from being one of the latest. 
 
 PLATE 22. The "Hera" from Samos. Of marble. Louvre, 
 Paris. Including the now lost head, about six feet high. E. von 
 Mach pp. 1051!. ; Robinson No. 38 ; Reinach II, 647, I. 
 
 An inscription at the side of the statue says that it was dedi- 
 cated to Hera by Cheramyes. 1 The size of the statue and the 
 fact that it was found near the temple of the goddess makes it 
 probable that it is an image of Hera. Advocates of the theory 
 that early statues are influenced by wood images, see in this 
 " Hera " the reproduction of the second traditional type of 
 wooden statues, those carved from the round trunk. (For the 
 first kind see the discussion to Plate 20). Neither the accu- 
 racy nor the inaccuracy of this view can be proved. The 
 arguments used in connection with Plate 20 make it more 
 probable that this is an independent creation. 
 
 In nobility of conception and in skill, this statue marks an 
 advance over the figure from Delos. The artist is by no 
 means master over his material, but he shows in the feet, for 
 instance, and in the gesture of the left arm (now broken 
 away), also in the right hand, and in the modelling of the 
 right arm, and finally in the nobly stiff pose, that he is on the 
 way to overcome material difficulties. Lovers of Greek art, 
 satiated with many later statues of the goddess, always return 
 to the " Hera " of Samos with pride and with pleasure. 
 
 For the fuller discussion of the many fine points of the fig- 
 ure, for its place in the development of art, for the drapery 
 and the treatment of the back, see E. von Mach, pp. io6ff. 
 
 In studying the figure, note especially the feet, and contrast 
 
 * Cheramyes was a man, and not a woman, as inadvertently stated, 
 E. von Mach p. 105.
 
 20 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 them with those of Chares, Plate 36 ; further, the circular base 
 and how it is met by the garment ; the hand supported by the 
 drapery ; the absence of braids falling over the shoulder, and 
 the consequently broken head ; also the remarkably short 
 waist ; and (from a cast) the nail of the middle finger of the 
 right hand. 
 
 PLATE 23. Draped Female Figure from the Akropolis. Resem- 
 bling the "Hera" from Samos. Of marble. Akropolis Museum, 
 Athens. Collignon I, fig. 73 ; Reinach II, 647, 2. 
 
 PLATE 24. Head and Upper Part of Draped Female Figure from 
 
 the Akropolis. Resembling the " Hera " from Samos. Of marble. 
 Akropolis Museum, Athens. Gardner pp. H4ff. ; Reinach II, 648, 10. 
 
 In these two pieces we see the further development of the 
 " Hera" from Samos type. Plates 23 and 24 were, like the 
 statue, Plate 21, found together with a large number of other 
 draped female figures on the Akropolis of Athens ; but, unlike 
 it, they show no clear indications of Athenian workmanship. 
 In speaking of the Calf Bearer, Plate 19, the importance of 
 apparent details, such as ears, etc., for the classification of 
 statues, was mentioned. Such a detail links the fragment, 
 Plate 24, irrevocably to the " Hera " of Samos. The nail, 
 well preserved in the thumb, corresponds almost exactly to 
 that of the middle finger of the " Hera ", while it is alto- 
 gether different from the nails preserved on a few of the 
 other Akropolis figures, and from those of the Aristion Stele 
 (see below). 
 
 The arrangement of the drapery is very similar, if not iden- 
 tical, in the three monuments, Plates 22, 23, 24, while the 
 difference in the execution of the folds is readily accounted for 
 by growing skill. The hair does not fall in braids over the 
 shoulders in any of these monuments, as is invariably the case 
 with the other Akropolis figures. The treatment of the hair
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 21 
 
 in the preserved head, Plate 24, is unique. The only other 
 hair at all comparable to it is found on a statue (Reinach II, 
 646, 8) that in every other respect is the exact counterpart of 
 the majority of the Akropolis figures. 
 
 The more detailed comparison of Plates 22 and 23 is in- 
 structive. In the Akropolis torso, the right arm has a more 
 natural position. The artist felt secure enough to dispense 
 with the bracket-like piece of drapery under the hand. This 
 observation explains for the first time the short waist of the 
 " Hera." In order to support the hand by means of the 
 drapery, the artist had to choose between two evils. He had 
 either to shorten the arm, bringing the hand too near the 
 waist-line, or to shorten the waist. He preferred the latter 
 alternative. And he was right. The shortened arm would 
 have given the statue a deformed appearance. 
 
 PLATES 25-30. Fragments of Draped Female Figures from the 
 
 Akropolis. Of marble. Akropolis Museum, Athens. Discovered 
 during the excavations on the Akropolis of Athens from, 1885 to 1891. 
 E. von Mach, pp. I44ff. and 328ff. ; Reinach II, pp. 635ff. ; colored 
 plates, Antike Denkmdltr I, Plates 19 and 39, (but see E. von Mach, 
 p. 328); Collignon, frontispiece; Au Muste de rAkropole d' AthZnes, 
 H. Lechat. Plate 25a: Reinach II, 635, 3. Plate 25b: Reinach II, 
 637, 10. Plate 25c: Reinach II, 635, 7. Plates 26a and 26b : E. von 
 Mach, IX, 4, and p. 144. Plate 27: Reinach II, 636,4. Plate 28: 
 Reinach II, 635, i. Plate 29: Reinach II, 635, 8. Plate 30: Reinach 
 II, 635, 2- 
 
 With the discovery of the series of statues to which these 
 nine belong, a great part of the gap of our knowledge of 
 Greek Sculpture before the Persian wars has been filled. It is 
 true these statues are all of one type, but they show sufficient 
 variety to indicate what kind of work the sculptors were able 
 to do in other directions.
 
 22 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Glancing along the line, we see the artistic conception 
 gradually freeing itself from the fetters of insufficient skill, and 
 the skill itself growing to do justice to the dictates of the 
 artist's design. Finally the skill caught up to the conception, 
 outstripped it, and threatened to do what it has often done 
 before and since created insipid, conventional works. Every 
 one of the several observations pointing this way (see E. von 
 Mach, pp. i45ff., 156) will prove the case. The hair at first is 
 wrought in the semblance of actual hair, always, to be sure, with 
 a pleasing appearance in view. The artist who carved Plates 
 25C and 26a had definite hair in mind note especially the 
 braids. He had forgotten his model when he wrought con- 
 ventional spirals for locks in Plates 28 and 29, and also when 
 he made the braids, Plate 29, just like the upper fold of the 
 garment of his figure. 
 
 For a more detailed study of these figures note : 
 
 1. The evident desire on the part of the artist to show the 
 lines of the nude body in spite of the garment (Plate 25c) and 
 the subsequent neglect of everything but the drapery, Plates 
 
 27ff. 
 
 2. The two styles of representing braids : (a) transverse 
 cuts (Plates 25a and 28) ; (b~) zigzag lines (Plates 26 and 
 27). Most of the earlier figures have three braids falling over 
 the shoulders ; all the latest have four. 
 
 3. The ways of arranging the hair over the forehead : (a) 
 in parallel rows from temple to temple (Plates 25a, 26b, 27) ; 
 (t>) changing the direction at the sides (Plates 26aand 25c) ; 
 (<:) finishing the lowest row differently, generally in locks 
 similar to those on Plate 29; (d) in converging rows, no 
 longer from side to side, but from the top of the head down 
 to the forehead (Plate 29), and ending each one in a fancy 
 lock; (e) breaking all the rows into such locks (Plate 28), 
 for this style compare the head of Harmodios (Plate 58) ; 
 (/) substituting fanciful spirals for locks (Plate 30).
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 23 
 
 The intricacies of the garment have recently been fully ex- 
 plained by Kalkmann, Jahrbuch XI, '96, pp. igff. The 3' 
 figures wear long garments, over which they have thrown little 
 cloaks. Only Plate 30 is without the cloak. This view may j 
 at first seem strange, owing to the difference of folds into 
 which the garments fall on the left shoulders and below the 
 cloaks. Kalkmann's arguments, however, which it would be 
 idle to repeat without reproducing all of his illustrations, are 
 conclusive. 
 
 Plate 28 represents the largest of these figures. It has been 
 joined to the only colossal base that has been found, and, on 
 the strength of the name of Antenor ' inscribed on this base, 
 has been assigned to this famous artist. The first group of the I >J 
 Tyrannicides, of which copies are reproduced on Plate 58, was j 
 also made by Antenor. That the head of the Harmodios 
 there bears some marked resemblance to the head of this 
 statue from the Akropolis has been pointed out in Jahrbuch 
 II, '87, where the two heads are represented side by side on 
 Plate X. The resemblance, however, is not so close that it 
 necessarily implies that both are the work of the same man, 
 and since, owing to the fractures on the base and at the feet 
 of the statue, the union of the statue and of the base is not 
 proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it is impossible to say more 
 than that the statue may be by Antenor. To affirm that it is 
 by him is straining the evidence. 
 
 Most of these statues are in so fragmentary a state of pres- 
 ervation that it is difficult to form an idea of their original 
 pose. Plate 28 gives the best indication of it. Additional 
 suggestions are offered by the late Graeco-Roman adaptations 
 of this type. 
 
 1 See Text Illustration 3.
 
 24 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The statues are probably not images of Athena, as once 
 was universally believed. They may be priestesses. 1 They 
 were destroyed by the Persians in 480 B. C., and were used, 
 together with other " rubbish," as filling material to level the 
 surface of the Akropolis. As these fragments were carelessly 
 thrown down in the hurried work of rebuilding the Akropolis, 
 they .received additional fractures. From the fact that these 
 newly broken pieces were lying together in regular order, some 
 scholars have drawn the conclusion that the Athenians had 
 accorded them " honorable burial." If this view were correct, 
 we should expect to find the fragments of entire statues lying 
 together. This is, however, not the case. The Persians were 
 satisfied with breaking the statues off their bases, which was 
 most easily done where they were thinnest, that is to say, at 
 the legs. This accounts for our having found so many upper 
 bodies. What became of the legs and of the bases we do not 
 know. For some reason only a few of them were dumped with 
 the larger fragments. 
 
 PLATE 31. Draped Figures of Women from Delos. Of marble. 
 
 National Museum, Athens. B. C. H., Ill, VIII, XIII; Gardner, 
 pp. 126-127 ; Reinach II, p. 638. 
 
 These torsi and a number of similar ones were found in 
 Delos during recent French excavations. They bear strong 
 resemblances to the Akropolis figures, Plates 2$ff., from which 
 they differ, however, as Gardner has indicated in two points. 2 
 
 1 For the bearing of the interpretation upon the style of the statues 
 see E. von Mach, pp. 145 and 156. 
 
 2 Mr. Gardner's third point, that the projecting arm in most of them 
 is cut out of the same block with the statue is not well taken. There 
 are, in the first place, many exceptions, and secondly, those, of which 
 he speaks, may have been pieced so skilfully that the joint has 
 escaped his attention.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 25 
 
 1. They are remarkably square in shape. 
 
 2. They show a peculiar treatment of their very conven- 
 tional folds. The folds are deep and thin. A saw has been 
 used to make them, as is clearly seen in one case. The im- 
 portance of this observation lies in the fact that the folds are 
 deeper than is necessary for effect. Make a very thin fold 
 two-sixteenths of an inch deep, and you have all the shadow 
 you can get. You cannot introduce a stronger shadow by 
 carving down to the depth of an inch. No artist working to 
 express his conception wastes his time on tricks that add noth- 
 ing to the effect. Only men working with little inspiration 
 and along conventional lines do so. In these Delos figures 
 we have, therefore, another proof of the danger which Greek 
 art ran, before the Persian wars, of growing conventional, and 
 of considering skill as of greater importance than deep feeling 
 and artistic design. 
 
 PLATE 32. Flying Figure from Delos, erroneously called " Nike 
 
 Of DelOS." Of marble, probably Parian. National Museum, Athens. 
 Discovered in Delos, in 1879; * ne inscription in two pieces in 1880 
 and 1881, below life-size. E. von Mach, H7ff., 327; Robinson, No. 5; 
 A. J. A. IV, 'oo, p. 343; Kekule in Baedeker's Griechenland, p. 71 ; 
 Reinach II, 389, 5. 
 
 This statue has been added to a base found in Delos 
 in two parts, and, by means of an inscription on this base, 
 has been assigned to Achermos and Mikkiades, two sculptors 
 of the school of Chios. The restoration has met with strong 
 commendation and equally vehement disapproval. 1 Professor 
 Wolters' demonstrations on the original in Athens have con- 
 vinced the writer of the impossibility, owing to differences in 
 size, of an original connection of statue and base. 2 
 
 1 For the literature on this subject see Robinson's bibliography to 
 No. 5. 2 E. von Mash, p. 327.
 
 26 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 There are fragments of wings on the back and, near the 
 shoulders, in front. The restoration, Text Illustration i, is 
 correct, with the exception of the left foot, which doubtless 
 touched the base and thus gave additional support to the 
 statue. 
 
 Robinson, voicing the opinion of those whom he follows in 
 his catalogue, dates the statue in the seventh century B. C. 
 This would be about as early as if not earlier than the 
 earliest " Apollos," Plates nff. It needs but one glance at 
 those " Apollos " to convince one of the utter fallacy of 
 this view. There restraint and fear of the heaviness of marble 
 in every line, here courage and a certain amount of almost 
 foolhardy daring. There the arms hardly cut loose from the 
 sides, here one arm following an outspread wing without any 
 support on the body, and the other arm, with an almost de- 
 fiant gesture, resting with one hand on the hip. 1 
 
 Or contrast this figure with those from Samos and Delos, 
 Plates 20 and 22, the former of which Robinson dates early 
 in the sixth century, although it is about fifty years later. Not 
 to speak of the pose at all, notice the difference in the folds, 
 the leg protruding from the drapery in the Flying Figure, its 
 accurate anatomy and fine modelling, and its single support, 
 disguised as a wing. 
 
 And finally, look at the face and the treatment of the hair. 
 Notice the artificial spirals taking the place of curls over 
 the middle of the forehead, and remember the long course 
 of development that had preceded similar spirals in the Akro- 
 polis figures, Plates 25-30. 
 
 Of all these many points there is not one that does not 
 point to an origin of the statue late in the sixth century, 
 while the seemingly awkward pose by no means contradicts it. 
 
 1 Compare Oinomaos from Olympia, Plate 84au
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 
 
 27 
 
 That the skill falls short of doing justice to the artist's in- 
 tention is not surprising. The man who designed this figure 
 was ahead of his time. Without prototypes to guide him he 
 desired to represent motion, 1 not only on firm ground but 
 through space. He did not know how to do it. The im- 
 portant thing, however, is that he wanted to do it ; he thought 
 it could be done, and he actually attempted to do it. Can we 
 believe this of a contemporary of the early " Apollo " figures? 
 Certainly not ! 
 
 For a further detailed study of the statue the following 
 points are essential : 
 
 1. The broad stripe on the drapery, once painted in im- 
 itation of embroidery, for which compare Plates 21 and 29, 
 to the former of which the garment bears a rather close 
 resemblance. 
 
 2. The upper part of the body is not nude. The drapery 
 is merely close fitting. It was painted in a pattern that had 
 left its traces in an unevenness of corrosion clearly visible 
 when the statue was found. 
 
 3. The features : the pleasing mouth, and the difficulty the 
 artist had in " putting it in the face." 2 
 
 4. The adaptability of the figure to an akroterion, as Treu 
 has suggested. Akroteria were the decorations, not always 
 figures, but also large vases and the like, on the four corners 
 of a temple roof and on the two highest points of the gables. 
 The proof of the accuracy of Treu's view is at the same time 
 a proof of the impossibility of connecting the statue with the 
 base. 
 
 5. The resemblance of the typs of this figure to the 
 
 1 For the problem of motion, E. von Mach, pp. ii6ff. 
 
 2 This is an ancient Greek expression, cf. Lukian Imag. 4: Over- 
 beck S. Q. No. 768.
 
 2 8 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 so-called Oriental Artemis with wings, as she appears on the 
 bronze relief from Olympia,Text Illustration 5. This makes 
 it probable that the figure from Delos is an " Artemis." I 
 
 PLATE 33. Bronze Nike. British Museum, London. 
 
 The importance of this statuette and of the figure, Text 
 Illustration 2, lies in the daring of their conceptions, com- 
 parable, and in one case even superior, to that of the figure 
 from Delos, Plate 32. The Text Illustration 2, bears the 
 same relation to the Akropolis statues, Plates 253"., as the 
 Delian flying goddess bears to the statue from Delos, Plate 32. 
 
 PLATE 34. Athena. Bronze Statuette. Akropolis Museum, 
 Athens. Beaten out of two sheets of bronze joined in the centre, 
 both sides alike, but one reversing the other. Reinach II, 799, 3. 
 
 PLATE 35. Athena PromachOS. Small bronze statuette. Akro- 
 polis Museum, Athens. Reinach II, 285, 8. 
 
 In these statuettes two archaic types of Athena are pre- 
 served. Plate 34 shows one of the earliest Athenas at rest ; 
 Plate 35 shows the same goddess leading her people to vic- 
 tory, "Athena fighting for us," Promachos. The freedom of 
 pose of the latter statuette, remarkable even for bronze (cf. 
 Plate 17), suggests a date not much anterior to the Persian 
 wars. This would make it contemporaneous with the latest 
 of the Akropolis figures, Plates 25-30, to the style of whose 
 draperies its own garments correspond. 
 
 The big stride of Athena is unusual, women generally being 
 represented, in contrast to men, as stepping most delicately. 
 This is well seen on Plates 28 and 54. The exception here is 
 due to Athena's following the pursuit of men, war. The 
 
 1 For a discussion of the name, E. von Mach, pp. iijff.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 
 
 29 
 
 fragment on her left arm indicates the now lost shield, while 
 in her raised right hand we may supply the spear. 
 
 The other Athena is older, as is clearly shown, first, by the 
 greater restraint of her pose, in spite of the certain amount of 
 freedom in her arm ; and secondly, by the excessive care 
 which is bestowed upon her drapery, that is to say, on the ac- 
 cessory rather than on the goddess herself. The technique, 
 two metal plates joined to represent one figure, is remarkable, 
 if not unique. It is probably the survival of a very ancient 
 custom. Diodoros ' relates a tradition, according to which 
 Telekles and Theodores of Samos had fashioned the image of 
 Apollo at Samos jointly, so that one half was made by 
 Telekles in Samos, while the other half was wrought by * 
 Theodoros in Ephesos. The two halves fitted exactly. 2 This j _, ' (^ 
 story probably had its origin in works like this Athena, which \ 
 of necessity, had to be made of two separate parts. 
 
 PLATE 36. Seated Figures from Branchidai, near Miletos. Of 
 
 unidentifiable marble. British Museum. British Museum Catalogue 
 I, pp. i6ff., where the inscription on the statue of Chares is repro- 
 duced in facsimile. Robinson, No,^j6T Overbeck I, pp. looff. ; 
 Reinach II, 629, 2. 
 
 These figures, together with many more, were discovered in 
 1765, but not before 1858 were those that had not been car- 
 ried away by the natives removed to the British Museum. 
 They are seven male and three female figures, and, in addi- 
 
 1 Overbeck I, 98. S. Q., 279. 
 
 2 The conclusion which Diodoros draws from this tradition, namely, 
 that the statue was a work in imitation of Egyptian statues, where both 
 halves of the figure were exactly alike, is of course wrong. Even in 
 that style no two artists could have made one statue as here descibed.
 
 30 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 tion, two lions, one with an interesting inscription, one male 
 and one female head and a relief. 1 
 
 The seated figures once flanked a sacred way that led from 
 the harbor Panormos to the temple of Apollo, situated in a 
 district that had received its name from the priestly clan that 
 officiated in it, the Branchidai. The temple, which was not 
 far from Miletos, was destroyed by Darius, probably about 495 
 B. C. From this fact, and from certain peculiarities of the 
 preserved inscriptions, the statues have been dated approxi- 
 mately as between 580 and 520 B. C. Granting that other 
 statues were erected later than 520 B. C., these have now been 
 irretrievably lost. 2 Changes that took place in the Greek 
 alphabet at about 550 B. C. have enabled scholars to divide 
 the extant statues into two groups. The Chares, as he is 
 known from the inscription at the right side of this throne, be- 
 longs to the group subsequent to 550 B. C. The suggestion 
 that he is one of the local tyrants who were established after 
 the fall of Kroisos, 546 B. C., deserves attention. The in- 
 scription reads, " Chares am I, son of Kleisis, ruler of Teichi- 
 oussa. The statue is the property of Apollo." 
 
 Liibke describes the entire series as follows 3 : "They are 
 sitting stiff and immovable, with their arms pressed against 
 their bodies and their hands resting on their knees. Their 
 proportions are heavy, almost clumsy ; broad shoulders, power- 
 fully rounded contours, breasts very high, and in the women 
 very full. The treatment throughout is influenced by a love 
 
 1 These heads give clear indications of former painting. Neither 
 lids nor eyes recede, their position being marked by slightly incised 
 lines, ready to receive the distinguishing paint. 
 
 2 A suggestion of the style of the now lost statues may be obtained 
 from a seated statue from Miletos now in the Louvre, Paris. Reinach 
 II, 682, 5, and 683, I. 3 Liibke, Geschichte der Plastik, p. 93.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 
 
 3 1 
 
 of masses rather than by a feeling for the organic structure of a 
 human body. Fingers and toes, although correctly indicated, 
 are slighted in the execution. The only preserved head 
 shows full, broad, and rounding contours." 
 
 Not stopping to note details, Liibke has omitted to call 
 attention to the gradual development that has taken place 
 in these figures. It is most readily followed in the draperies. 
 In the earliest there are no folds indicated worthy of men- 
 tion. The drapery of Chares follows very much the same 
 pattern, but on the broad masses of the heavy garment actual 
 folds are carved, of which those on the folded strip falling over 
 the knee are the best. In the latest extant figure, Text Illus- 
 tration 4, the garment follows the lines of the body, it 
 even clings to it, so that the legs have the appearance of being 
 nude. But even this statue is far from being lifelike. What 
 has been correctly said of the Chares also applies to it. " He 
 is doomed to an eternal seated posture ; one cannot think of 
 him as getting up from his throne." To see the force of this 
 remark one need only compare him with the seated Athena, 
 Plate 37. For other early seated figures see the Spartan 
 tombstones below. 
 
 PLATE 37. Seated Athena. Of marble. Akropolis Museum. 
 Above life size. It is not known where and when the statue was found. 
 It was first seen, and sketched among the debris lying below the north 
 wall of the Akropolis. Overbeck I, pp. igoff. ; Robinson, No. 34; 
 Reinach II, 296, 3. 
 
 Although badly damaged, this statue retains the breath of 
 life that distinguished it from other early seated figures, nota- 
 bly the Chares, Plate 36. One instinctively feels that Athena 
 has sat down, and that she can, and will rise again. A slight 
 
 1 Liibke means preserved on the figures ; for separate heads see 
 above.
 
 32 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 technical device helps this illusion ; it is the right foot drawn 
 back. The same device recurs on the East Pediment of the 
 Parthenon, Plate 136, where it is supplemented by a delicate 
 forward inclination of the body. Here the opposite is the 
 case. Athena, as is seen in the profile view, leans back, prob- 
 ably in order to render the execution of a pleasing front view 
 easier. 
 
 The right foot is much larger than was the left, only half of 
 which is preserved. This is no accident. The sculptor had 
 observed that objects appear smaller the further they are away 
 from the spectator, but being unaware not only of the subtle 
 principle of foreshortening but also of the allowances which 
 the human eye compels the true artist to make to its peculi- 
 arities, 1 he endeavored to correct the defects of vision, but did 
 not know how to do it. His reasoning may have been some- 
 thing like this : " Further objects appear to be smaller than 
 those close at hand. The right foot is further away. There- 
 fore I must carve it larger, so that it may appear to be 
 as large as the other foot, for the spectator knows the 
 feet to be of equal size." The fallacy of such reasoning 
 is self-evident to the modern student. It is interesting, how- 
 ever, as throwing much light on the gradual evolution of 
 art, from its first beginnings to the present day. First, an ap- 
 peal to the knowledge of the spectator ; later an appeal to his 
 vision. The sculptor of this Athena still felt it his duty to 
 address himself to the knowledge of his public, although he 
 had begun to study the peculiarities of their vision. 
 
 The aegis worn by this statue is very large. Robinson's re- 
 mark that this is a distinguishing feature of archaic art is 
 hardly correct, as a glance at Plates 34 and 35, and at the 
 many Athena statues reproduced in Reinach, Repertoire, Vols. 
 
 'See E. von Mach, pp. 6ofL, 127^., p. ijtt.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 
 
 33 
 
 I and II, show. 1 Attached to the holes near the edge of the 
 aegis were writhing snakes of bronze, and on the boss in the 
 centre a Medusa 2 was painted. Noteworthy is the subordina- 
 tion of the chair to the figure sitting in it, which is in strong 
 contrast to the Chares, Plate 36. A similar contrast exists be- 
 tween the East Frieze of the Parthenon and the frieze of the 
 "Harpy" tomb, Plate 53. 
 
 The speculation of some writers as to the identification of 
 this statue with an old artist, Endoios, who is said to have 
 made a seated Athena for the Akropolis of Athens, and whose 
 name, inscribed on a base, has actually been found there, is 
 especially idle in view of the fact that it is not definitely known 
 that our Athena statue ever was erected on the Akropolis. It 
 turned up first among debris below the north wall, but how it 
 got there is a mystery. 
 
 PLATE 38. Sphinx from Spata. Of marble, below life size. 
 National Museum, Athens. F. W., 103; Kavvadias, 28; Reinach 
 II, 704, 4. 
 
 Although the representation of Sphinxes was very popular 
 with the Greeks, it has not yet been possible to explain fully 
 the Greek belief in the existence of such beings.3 The Sphinx 
 in the legend of Oidipous, uttering riddles, is a solitary and 
 probably later variant. Generally the Sphinx herself was 
 synonymous with the riddles and mysteries of life, the greatest 
 of which is the seeming cessation of it death. The Sphinx, 
 
 'The seated Athena statuette from Delos (Reinach II, p. 296, 4) 
 is especially interesting. The aegis there (not well seen in the picture) 
 is small and straight. 
 
 2 For early Medusa heads see below; for a discussion of Medusa 
 heads, Rev. Arch., 1896, Vol. 28. 3 By far the best account of Sphinxes 
 is given "Baumeister, pp. i688ff.
 
 34 GKEEJt AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 therefore, is frequently found on grave reliefs. Her tradition- 
 ally beautiful face was in keeping with the cheerful view of 
 death which characterized the Greeks. 
 
 In contrast to the Egyptian Sphinx, which generally is male, 
 the Greek Sphinx, like the Oriental, is female. Her face is 
 always human, but in the rest of her body the animal parts 
 preponderate almost as frequently as the human. Some of 
 her representations, owing largely to the wings of the bird, 
 which are uniformly hers, bear close resemblance to those of 
 the sirens which also appear on grave monuments. 
 
 An immediate borrowing of the archaic Greek type of the 
 Sphinx from the Egyptian, following, it is said, upon the 
 foundation of the Greek colony in Naukratis in the middle of 
 the seventh century, is the less likely, as Sphinxes have been 
 found in tombs in Mykenai and in Sparta. 1 
 
 In view of the above observations, it is probable that the 
 Sphinx now in Athens once decorated a tomb. The back and 
 the upper part of the figure' are not well finished, pointing to 
 a position on the top of a monument, where the Sphinx was 
 seen from below and only from the front. The face shows a 
 resemblance to the "Apollo" types, Plates uff., especially in 
 the eyes, but with everything harsh toned down to great mild- 
 ness. The mouth reveals the conventional curve, 2 but the ex- 
 pression of the face is one of severe beauty. 
 
 Numerous traces of paint were found on this Sphinx, red 
 and dark green on the feathers, brown in the hair, while the 
 outlines of three rosettes could still be distinguished on the 
 diadem, when the statue was discovered. 
 
 1 Athen. Mittheilungen II, pp. 265*!, IV, pp. 4Sff. 
 
 2 For the meaning of this curve see E. von Mach, pp.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 
 
 Temple Sculptures and Reliefs of the Archaic Period. 
 
 A few of the monuments here discussed, notably Plate 42, Athena 
 and the Giant, are not reliefs, but they, too, are designed to be seen 
 against the background of a pediment wall, and find their place, 
 therefore, most properly with reliefs. 
 
 The much mooted question of the priority of reliefs or of detached 
 sculpture in the round is beyond the possibility of a proof either way. 
 Greek reliefs as such have recently received much attention. The 
 mention of a few discussions will suffice; for they again contain refer- 
 ences to all the important articles on the subject. E. von Mach, 
 pp. 37ff. ; Conze, Ueber das Relief bei den Griechen, Sitzungsberichte 
 der Berliner Akademie 1882, pp. 563^?. ; T. Kopp, Der Urspring des 
 Hochreliefs bei den Griechen, fahrbuch II, pp. n8ff. 
 
 PLATE 39. Reliefs from ASSOS. Of dark gray Anachyte. Louvre, 
 Paris. Discovered 1838 in Assos. Additional pieces were discovered 
 1881-1883 by the first American Archaeological Expedition, and also 
 in 1896, and are preserved in Boston and in Constantinople. E. von 
 Mach, pp. 66 133; F. W. Nos. 8-12; Robinson No. 17; Investiga- 
 tions at Assos, the official publication of the Archaeological Institute 
 of America, Part i (ready) ; A. J. A. '97, Plate XXVII and p. 508, 
 fig. i ; Reinach I, 6 and 7. 
 
 These reliefs are unique as being sculptured decorations of 
 the architrave of a Doric temple. Generally the frieze was^ 
 thus decorated. The date assigned to these reliefs varies 
 considerably, from Friedrichs-Wolters, the seventh century, 
 to Joseph Th. Clark 1 the fifth century later than 479. This 
 latter date is arrived at from a comparison of architect- 
 ural details with the Theseion in Athens, and is so utterly 
 baseless in view of the style of the reliefs that it has been 
 
 1 In his report of the investigations at Assos, p. 104.
 
 3 6 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 wisely neglected of late. Only Robinson discusses it seri- 
 ously, although he does not accept it. 
 
 The very early date which has had many supporters, is not 
 less inaccurate. The great freedom of action in the scene of 
 Herakles struggling with the " old man from the sea," the 
 skill with which this old man is represented as slipping away, 
 and the knowledge of anatomy revealed in Herakles, all dis- 
 prove it. It is impossible to think of any of the old " Apollo " 
 sculptors as capable of carving such a work, even if the 
 technique in relief offered fewer material difficulties, 1 for it 
 made, on the other hand, new demands upon the ingenuity 
 of the artist, who was confronted by the problem of grouping 
 his figures and of filling the space. In both these directions 
 the Assos reliefs do not appear to mark the very beginning 
 of work along new lines. The group of the struggle between 
 Herakles and the monster is exquisitely well designed, and the 
 reclining men on the other slab are by no means bad. The 
 proper disposition of so many figures, however, was beyond 
 the means of the Assos sculptors. They had begun to feel 
 the importance of " isokephalism," 2 but did not know how 
 to do it justice. Placing the heads of all the figures on the 
 same level, they created truly ludicrous pictures. The little 
 waiter and the "nymphs" are far too small in proportion to 
 the reclining and to the struggling figures. 
 
 Another argument against the very early date of the reliefs 
 is found in the shape of the centaurs 4 enjoying the use of four 
 horses' legs, which is the regular fashion all through the classic 
 period. Originally 3 centaurs were represented as men, with 
 only the bodies and hind legs of horses attached to the small 
 of their backs. One such primitive centaur, it is true, was 
 
 *E. von Mach, p. 124. 2 For isokephalism E. von Mach, pp. 65 and 
 '33- 3 We know this from vase paintings and from early sculptures, 
 see Reinach II, 692. 4 For these centaurs see Reinach I, 6.
 
 3- BASE OF ANTENOR STATUE. 
 
 4. BRANCHIDAI FIGURE 
 
 5. ORIENTAL ARTHMIS. CAST FROM BRONZE.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 
 
 37 
 
 found in Assos in the American excavations of 1881-1883, 
 but this is of little importance, for it is the most advanced, 
 and not the conservative type, which is decisive for the date 
 of a relief. 1 The existence, however, of the two types side 
 by side is interesting ; for although the " man centaur " pos- 
 sibly belongs to another set of decorations, it more probably 
 shows that sculptors of a less and a more progressive temper 
 were engaged together in executing the reliefs. This we know 
 was also the case on the Parthenon. 
 
 Very instructive is the demeanor of the frightened nymphs 
 beating their hasty retreat. Compared with the subdued 
 action which we meet on most reliefs 2 of the archaic period 
 their excessive activity seems to suggest a great advance. 
 But this is not the case. " Nothing to excess " was the motto 
 of the Greeks, written in large letters on the temple at Delphi, 
 and " nothing to excess " is characteristic of the best Greek 
 work in sculpture. A warning like this, however, never is 
 uttered except when the natural tendencies of a people pull 
 it in the other direction. The noble restraint of Greek sculpt- 
 ure is not achieved without a struggle ; it is the conscious 
 subduement of a restless temper. The violent movement of 
 the nymphs, therefore, do^ot contradict the origin of this 
 relief in the sixth century, while the excellent composition of 
 the struggle scene makes it unlikely that the composition was 
 carved earlier than the best of the Branchidai figures, Plate 36, 
 that is between 580 and 520 B. C. 
 
 For the detailed study of these reliefs note : 
 
 i. The oblong blocks at the upper edge of the reliefs. 
 They are the regulae which fitted under the triglyphs of the 
 frieze, and prove that these slabs composed the architrave. 
 
 'See Overbeck I, p. 109. 2 Compare especially the reliefs from 
 Thasos, Plate 54.
 
 38 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 (For the explanation of the architectural terms see the restora- 
 tion of the temple at Aigina, Text Illustration 13.) 
 
 2. The unconcern about balancing the figures. There is 
 no symmetry in the composition. Contrast the Assos reliefs 
 with those from Thasos, Plate 54. 
 
 3. The remarkable tenacity of the old man who continues 
 to hold his symbol, the fish, in his hand in spite of his struggle 
 with Herakles. Contrast the entire group with the similar 
 one from Athens, Plate 4ob. 
 
 4. Compare the centaur with the centaurs from Olympia, 
 Plates 87, 89, and the large cups in the hands of the reclining 
 figures with the cups on the Spartan tombstones, Plate 36 ya, 
 
 PLATE 40a. Herakles and the Hydra. Of coarse limestone 
 (Poros). Pedimental group from the Akropolis. Akropolis Museum, 
 Athens. Overbeck I, fig. 33. 
 
 PLATE 40b. Herakles and the Triton. Of soft limestone (Poros). 
 Pedimental group from the Akropolis. Akropolis Museum, Athens. 
 Overbeck I, fig. 34. cf. fig. 36. 
 
 Fragmentary to the extreme, these reliefs are yet important 
 as the earliest discovered monuments of Athens. Plate 4oa 
 is carved in very low relief in a coarse soft stone, which is 
 found on a little island in the Peiraios harbor. This stone, 
 called Poros, is the worst imaginable material for sculpture, 
 offering an unpleasant appearance, and containing numberless 
 little shells embedded in the rather soft lime of which it is 
 composed. It is little wonder, therefore, that the Greeks 
 covered it almost completely with paint. This, some people 
 say, was the beginning of the coloring of sculpture, 1 first a 
 necessity owing to the homely material, later a habit difficult 
 to break, although the finest marble was used. There is force 
 
 1 For the coloring of statues see E. von Mach, pp. 67ff.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 
 
 39 
 
 in this argument, which is not easily refuted, and yet it cannot 
 be correct. It starts with the presumption that the painting 
 of statues is an anomaly ; that the Greeks, therefore, resorted 
 to it in spite of their better instincts. That they should have 
 submitted to a distasteful necessity in the archaic period is 
 in keeping with the facts. 1 Their inability to break an un- 
 worthy habit, however, in the subsequent generations is so 
 strongly against the weight of the evidence 2 that it is inad- 
 missible as an argument. With this second link in the chain 
 useless, the first loses much of its probability, and we are 
 forced to believe that the Greeks used color because they 
 wanted to use it, and not because they had to. The selection 
 of such a poor material as the Peiraios Poros loses much of 
 its mystery under this assumption, because why not use any 
 kind of a material which is easily carved if it will have to be 
 covered with paint anyhow U The possible objection that if 
 this was true we might expect to find Poros used all through 
 the classic period is not well taken, because the softness of 
 Poros prevented the delicacy of modelling which later artists 
 desired to introduce. 
 
 In this relief we meet for the first time a triangular gable 
 space which is to be filled with a composition. The problems 
 which such a task offers are many .4 The Athenian artist has 
 acquitted himself rather well. Only once, in the diminutive 
 size of the chariot, his resortful imagination has failed him. 
 Splendidly conceived are the horses, who had to lower their 
 heads in conformity with the narrowing corner of the pedi- 
 ment. Yet so well is this motive introduced that one forgets 
 the limitation of space. The large crab, which, according to 
 
 1 E. von Mach, pp. logff. 2 E. von Mach, p. 159. 3 For the technique 
 of this relief, which can be studied only from the original, see Over- 
 beck I, p. 181. 4 E. von Mach, pp. iSoff.
 
 40 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 tradition, approached to assist the Hydra against Herakles, is 
 seen advancing from the corner, and with true equine curiosity 
 the idle horses stretch their necks to smell of the slowly ap- 
 proaching guest. The hundred-headed snake (Hydra) well 
 fills the other half of the pediment. Snakes can assume 
 almost any position without doing violence to natural sem- 
 blance. 1 
 
 The difference in size between Herakles and his charioteer 
 may be explained on the ground of the physical development 
 of the hero. It may, however, also be due to the different 
 height of the space which the two figures had to fill. 
 
 The color on the relief was in a good state of preservation 
 when the slab was discovered. There were, however, some 
 spots that showed the natural light brown of the stone. It is 
 probable that here the paint had worn off. The colors used 
 are various shades of pink, black and red. 
 
 Plate 4ob is one of two similar groups representing the 
 struggle between Herakles and the so-called Triton, the old 
 man from the sea. One of them, facing the spectator's left, 
 may be a companion piece to Herakles and the Hydra, that is 
 to say, it may have filled the other pediment of the same tem- 
 ple. The second, facing the other way, was a companion 
 piece to the Typhon group, Plate 41 a. Both groups are 
 extremely fragmentary, but they offer interesting points of 
 comparison with the similar subject treated on the Assos re- 
 liefs, Plate 39. 
 
 PLATE 41 a. The Typhon, Pedimental Group from the Akropolis 
 
 Of Athens. Of fine hard limestone. Akropolis Museum, Athens. 
 E. von Mach, pp. 1785. ; Overbeck I, fig. 35; colored reproduction 
 Antike Denkmdler I, PI. 30. 
 
 *E. von Mach, pp. I7gff.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 4 ! 
 
 The better character of this stone, although it also is a kind 
 of Poros, enabled the sculptor to carve his group almost in 
 the round. The quality of a high relief, however, is not lost, 
 because the Typhon is well finished on the front side only. 
 Its coloring r is peculiar, and has given the figure the name 
 " Blue Beard." 
 
 The character representation of this three-headed monster 
 has so completely engrossed the attention of the sculptor that 
 he has failed to represent the Typhon in a posture adequate ! 
 to his imputed action. He is fighting with Zeus, for such I ' 
 was the meaning of the group, as is attested to by other frag- I 
 ments. 2 Three centuries later we meet with a similar struggle 
 between Zeus and a snake-bodied monster on the altar from 
 Pergamon (see below). A comparison * of these two monu- 
 ments clearly reveals the lines along which Greek sculpture 
 developed. 
 
 PLATE 41 b. Bull Attacked by Lions. 4 Of limestone profusely 
 painted. Colossal group in relief from the Akropolis. Akropolis 
 Museum, Athens. Overbeck I, p. 185, fig. 37. 
 
 This remarkably powerful composition is described by 
 Overbeck in these words s : "It is impossible to think of 
 this group in connection with a pediment; for the relief 
 was, doubtless, of rectangular dimensions. Its subject is one 
 of the oldest, and is frequently found on vases from Mykenai 
 and other old monuments. Here it is treated with truly 
 
 1 E. von Mach, p. 178. 2 See the restoration of the group. Over- 
 beck I, fig. 35. 3 Another interesting comparison is between the 
 Typhon relief and the old Attic Nestos Vase. Antike Denkmaler I, 
 PI. 57. 4 Compare fragment of two bulls overpowered by lions from 
 Kyzicus. A.J. A., VIII, 1904, p. 101. Date toward end of sixth cen- 
 tury, B. C. s Free translation of Overbeck I, p. 185.
 
 42 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 surprising vigor. The mighty bull, painted blue, is borne 
 down by two lions, his head pressed to the ground, while the 
 claws of his aggressors penetrate his skin, and from his 
 wounds the blood flows forth in streams. The head of the. 
 bull and the muscular legs of the lions belong to the most 
 glorious creations of early Greek art." 1 
 
 PLATE 42. Athena and Giant. Of marble. Pedimental group 
 from the Akropolis Museum, Athens. Studniczka. Athen. Mitt., 
 1886, pp. i85ff.; Reinach II, 800, 6. 
 
 The head of this Athena was found in 1863, while the re- 
 maining fragments were found in 1882. They were put to- 
 gether a few years later by Studniczka, who suggests with 
 much probability that they formed the center of one of the 
 pediments of the temple 2 of Athena, enlarged by Peisistratos 
 soon after 550 B. C. This date seems to accord with the 
 style of the group. The three braids (not four) falling over 
 the shoulder of the goddess correspond with the earlier of the 
 Akropolis figures, Plates 25-30. For the rest one must not 
 compare this head too closely with those of the Akropolis 
 figures, because it was designed to be seen at a considerable 
 height, while they were to be seen close at hand. This may 
 account for the fullness of the lips, which, near by, seem al- 
 most voluptuous. The rather short face may be an allowance 
 to the tilt of the head, and be due to the unwillingness of the 
 sculptor to have the chin appear less distinct when further 
 removed from view. 3 
 
 1 For some statutes of women carved in Poros see Rev. Arch., 
 
 1891, Pis. XI and XII. 2 For the temple see Dorpfeld. Atken. Mitt., 
 
 1886, pp. 3ioff. 3 The long eyelids are due in part to the downward 
 glance of Athena.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 
 
 43 
 
 The grouping of the figures has given considerable trouble 
 to the artist, but it is not bad. Even today we, accustomed 
 to seeing perfect battle scenes, are impressed with the force 
 of the goddess and the impotence of the defeated giant. A 
 similar arrangement of Athena and a fallen warrior occurs on 
 the pediment of Aigina, Plate 83.' There, however, the man 
 is dead, killed, it seems, by the other warriors, while the 
 goddess is impassively present. In harmony of lines the 
 Aigina group surpasses the old Athenian pediment, while it 
 falls short of it in vigor and in interest. 
 
 If one approaches archaic Greek sculpture, as many do, 
 with the preconceived notion that it is as weak in conception 
 as it is inexperienced in execution, one is constantly surprised 
 by its virility, for it bears indeed the germs from which sprang 
 the later masterpieces. 
 
 PLATE 43a. Metopes of the Treasury of Sikyon in Delphi. Of 
 
 marble. Museum in Delphi. 
 
 PLATE 43b. Frieze from a Treasury (possibly belonging to 
 SiphnOS) in Delphi. Of marble. Museum in Delphi. 
 
 These fragments were found in the recent French excava- 
 tions in Delphi, together with many others, only a few of 
 which have been published. The museum is just finished and^i \. 
 the installation 2 of all the sculptures is hardly completed. It } 
 is, therefore, too early to speak the last word on these reliefs, 
 but that they are of importance is certain. 
 
 The treasury of Siphnos was built about 525 B. C., and that 
 of Sikyon probably considerably earlier. The metopes from 
 this latter building, Plate 43a, are oblong in form, very unlike 
 
 1 See also the giant from the treasury of Megara in Olympia, Plate 
 46, and the Metopes from Selinus, text illustration 5, 49, and Plate 5ib. 
 
 2 Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift, July 11, 1903.
 
 44 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 in shape those of later periods, which were almost square. 
 (cf. The Parthenon Metopes, Plates i6off.) 
 
 One little detail of costume in the male figure to the spec- 
 tator's right is interesting as showing a survival of a habit in 
 vogue in Homeric times. The belt around the waist under 
 the garment is the Homeric Mitre, as P. Perdrizet has proved* 
 in his fully illustrated article in B. C. H., '97, pp. 169-183. 
 
 In studying the relief, notice the attention paid to pleasing, 
 and largely parellel lines, and the inability of the artist to carve 
 the many legs of the cattle successfully. A century later, on 
 the Parthenon, the well carved animal legs belong to the best 
 parts of the entire frieze. 
 
 The other metope, Europa on the Bull, finds its counterpart 
 in the metope from Selinus, text illustration 48. The chariot 
 horses, Plate 43b, mark a decided advance over the cattle, 
 Plate 433, and are especially interesting as compared with those 
 on the Herakles and Hydra relief, Plate 4oa, on the Knidian 
 frieze, Plate 44, and on the Parthenon (see below). There is 
 variety in these horses, some being seen in profile, others from 
 the front. No such variety is introduced on the Parthenon, 
 in keeping with the different conception of relief sculpture 
 which prevailed in Athens in the middle of the fifth century. 
 In Delphi the actuality of the background as a solid mass is 
 not considered, for chariot and men are proceeding slantingly 
 out from the background. 1 
 
 The dead man has fallen not parallel with the wall, but at a 
 very sharp angle. This is one of those deviations from the 
 strict principles of relief sculpture which add an element of 
 pictorial interest, but can never attain the harmonious unity 
 that prevails, for instance, on the Parthenon frieze. The 
 thing to note is that such pictorial decorations were known to 
 
 1 E. von Mach, pp. 55ff., p. 323.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 
 
 45 
 
 the Parthenon sculptors, who, after due deliberation, refused 
 to stoop to any means not in keeping with their principles. 
 
 PLATE 44. Reliefs from the Frieze of the Treasury of Knidos in 
 Delphi. Of marble. Museum, Delphi. 
 
 These reliefs, recently excavated in Delphi by the French, 
 may be called the forerunners of the Parthenon frieze In 
 strong contrast to the earlier Delphi frieze, Plate 43, the artist 
 here has realized the existence of the wall as an actuality. 
 The chariot horses may well be considered to be the proto- 
 types of an improved group on the Parthenon (see south frieze 
 below), while the seated figures remind one, in general ar- 
 rangement, of the gods on the east frieze. In bodily shape 
 they are more like the deities on the "Theseion," Plates 1318"., 
 while the folds of their short cloaks are much like those of the 
 Akropolis figures, Plates 25-30. In the folds of the figure to 
 the spectator's right the inability of the artist to. have them 
 fall as the forward bend of the figure would seem to demand is 
 noteworthy. 1 For the folds on her back compare those of the 
 garment of Chares, Plate 36. 
 
 PLATE 45. Lowest Sculptured Drum of a Column of the Old 
 Temple Of Artemis in EphCSOS. Of marble. British Museum. Lon- 
 don. Excavated in the early seventies. British Museum Catalogue I, 
 pp. 24ff. 
 
 This column has been put together of the fragments of 
 several columns. The inscription, probably correctly restored, 
 as " King Kroisos dedicated (this column)," and the figure of 
 the man are said to belong together. Kroisos fell in 546 
 
 1 Compare here the hair of the Kekropos, Plate 47b, and of the 
 Spinario, Plate 72.
 
 46 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 B. C. This gives the date ante quern for these Ephesos 
 sculptures ; and, since the first years of the reign of Kroisos 
 were full of wars, it is reasonable to suppose that the sculpt- 
 ures were made about 550 B. C. They are thus contemporary 
 with some of the Branchidai figures, Plate 36, flanking the 
 road which led up to the temple of Apollo, upon which 
 Kroisos is also said to have showered his royal gifts. 
 
 With only one male figure and the head of a woman pre- 
 served, the subject of the composition cannot be ascertained. 
 The man is of peculiarly lanky proportions, and his face 
 to judge by what is left un-Greek to the extreme. There 
 is, however, much dignity in his bearing. It grows upon one 
 with continued study. 
 
 The face of the woman is Greek. It is like many early 
 Greek faces, beautiful, with placid lines. Much attention is 
 given to details, but never a thought to character. 
 
 PLATE 46. Pedimental Relief from the Treasury of Megara in 
 
 Olympia. Of limestone. Museum, Olympia. Ad. Boetticher, Olympia, 
 
 pp. 2I2ff. 
 
 This fragment of a gigantomachia (fight of the Gods against 
 the giants) has, with some probability, been recognized as the 
 work of one Medon, member of the famous school of artists 
 who came to Greece from Crete. The folds of the drapery 
 and the face with the peculiarly wrought beard and the droop- 
 ing mustache ' are in keeping with work in the latter part of 
 the sixth century. 2 The artistic design 3 is surprisingly good. 
 The arrangement of the legs, with the thigh of the giant about 
 equal to the size of his opponent's foot, the modelling of the 
 
 1 Contrast the gold mask from Mykenai, Tsountas, and Manatt, p. 98. 
 2 Compare head below. Gardner, p. 208. 3 Compare this design with 
 Plate 42.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 
 
 47 
 
 nude and the moderation shown in the collapse of the giant, 
 all imply severe training. 
 
 PLATES 47-51 and Text Illustrations. Metopes ' from Selinus 
 
 in Sicily. Of limestone. Museum, Palermo. Discovered at various 
 times; the majority in 1822 and soon after, those of the third series 
 in 1892 by Professor Salinas. Benndorf : Die Metopen -von Selinunt 
 1873 ; Serradifalco, Antichita delta Sicilia. For the later discovery, 
 Monumcnti antic hi, Reale Academia dei Lencei, Volume I, 1892. A 
 few are discussed F. W. I49ff.; Robinson 27 and 28. All are men- 
 tioned Overbeck I, pp. I3iff., 2i2ff., 2i5ff., 557ff. 
 
 These metopes belong to different temples, of which only 
 one has been identified as dedicated to a definite deity. It 
 is the temple of Hera, and its extant metopes are those given 
 on Plates 49-5 1 . They are the latest of all, dating probably 
 from between 480 and 450 B. C., that is, in the Transitional 
 Period. They are, however, placed here together with the 
 older metopes, because they seem to be the natural culmina- 
 tion of a comparatively independent style. They are cus- 
 tomarily referred to as series IV. 
 
 Series I dates from about the middle of the sixth century 
 or earlier, and comprises Perseus slaying Medusa, Herakles 
 and the Kekropes, and a chariot. Of Series II only one is 
 well preserved, Europaon the Bull, 2 Text Illustration 48. Series 
 III is represented by two fragments, Text Illustration 49. 
 
 All these metopes were colored. How much these early 
 artists relied upon color is shown also by the fact that they 
 carved the nude parts of the women separately in white 
 marble, adding them to the rest, which had been carved in 
 limestone. 
 
 1 Plate 48b is a later votive relief, placed here for the sake of com- 
 parison. 2 For a late copy of Europa on the Bull, see British Museum 
 Catalogue, 1535 ; Reinach II, 417, 2.
 
 48 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The most apparent characteristic of the metopes of the 
 first series is daring of composition coupled with very in- 
 adequate skill, but with a certain natural gift of expression. 
 The artist ' knew how to make 'himself understood. This was 
 indeed his chief aim. Consequently he avoided everything 
 that might have led to confusion. On the other hand, he 
 saw no objection against deviating from nature, if by so 
 doing he could serve his end. This is best seen in Herakles 
 carrying the Kekropes. There were, from his point of view, 
 strong objections against carving the legs of the imps retreat- 
 ing into the background, that is to say, with only their knees 
 showing and perhaps their toes, but with the rest cut from 
 view, as they would naturally be, by the knees. Similarly 
 undesirable it was not to have the faces of the Kekropes 
 show. All early figures face the spectator. He therefore 
 carved a group which is anatomically impossible, but which 
 is yet readily understood. Herakles carries the twins sus- 
 pended from a pole over his shoulders. 
 
 A certain amount of accurate study of nature shows in the 
 hair of the Kekropes, falling downward. This Greek artists 
 did not always observe ; the hair of the Spinario, for instance, 
 Plate 72, does not follow the forward inclination of the head. 
 
 The feet on the other metope, Plate 473, are extremely in- 
 teresting. They indicate the direction in which the figures 
 have been moving. Exactly the same is found a century 
 later in Eurydike, Plate 179, but of course more cleverly 
 managed. The hind legs of Pegasos, sprung as the story 
 says from the blood of Medusa, are elongated so that they 
 may reach the ground and fill an empty space. This also 
 
 1 The singular is generic. We do not know that one man made all 
 the metopes of the temple. He might have made three or four, but 
 it would be strange to have the few that are preserved belong all to
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 49 
 
 occurs again in the fifth century in the case of a centaur from 
 the Phigaleia frieze, Plate 172. 
 
 The kneeling position of Medusa may suggest her hasty 
 flight and in that case be comparable to the attitude of the 
 figure from Delos, Plate 32. It may, however, also be a 
 devise of the artist in order to make the monster appear to be 
 of a more awe-inspiring size. The knees of all the figures 
 are very good, and far ahead of the majority of knees of the 
 early "Apollos," Plates nff. The faces also are not without 
 a certain naif charm, and the knees certainly are full of spirit. 
 
 Attention to a pleasing appearance of the composition is 
 not entirely neglected. The overlong legs of Pegasos are 
 one instance ; others are the thickened right thigh of 
 Medusa, and the sword of Herakles. All are due to the 
 desire to avoid empty spaces, the same that led to the 
 overlarge hand and cup on the Spartan tombstones. 1 
 
 The inactive presence of Athena in the Theseus metope 
 finds many parallels in Greek sculpture. Similar figures, 
 with whom it is instructive to compare her, are seen on the 
 Olympia metopes, Plates 90 and 91, while other gods, per- 
 haps invisibly present, are depicted in the pediments of 
 the temples of Olympia, Plates 86f., and of Aigina, Plate 83. 
 
 After studying two of the metopes, the reasons why the 
 sculptor carved his chariot, Plate 48a, as he did, are appar- 
 ent. On the same plate a picture of a much later chariot 
 is given, and nothing could more clearly disclose the in- 
 herent points of weakness, and yet of vigor of the Selinus 
 design. 
 
 The style of the metopes of the second series is illus- 
 trated by Europa riding the bull across the sea, Text Illus- 
 
 1 See below under grave monuments.
 
 5 o GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 tration 48. This picture gives an excellent revelation of 
 the simplicity of the artist's reasoning. The dolphin 
 shows that Europa is on the water, the front legs of the 
 bull suggest that he is swimming, and his swishing tail 
 and turned head declare that he is pleased. 
 
 The bull is Zeus, who, according to the story, carried 
 his beloved Europa away with him over the brine. There 
 is an almost human expression on his face, 1 very different 
 from that of the calf, Plate 19, and probably intentionally 
 so. The animal heads of the other metopes are more in 
 keeping with the natural appearance of the beasts por- 
 trayed. 
 
 The technical difficulties are overcome with considerable 
 ease, but with little success. The back of the bull is hol- 
 lowed so that Europa's head could come within the limit 
 of the block ; the problem of the twisted body is solved by 
 hiding the waist behind an outspread piece of drapery, and 
 the hair, for the sake of avoiding confusion, does not fall 
 straight over both shoulders. 
 
 The men who carved these metopes were unspoiled by 
 any traditional schooling. What they felt they told, and 
 the way they told it did not trouble them, provided it was 
 intelligible. This simplicity of heart, however, soon gave 
 way to a more thoughtful consideration of the problems 
 of the sculptor's art. Series III, Text Illustrations 8 and 9, 
 already gives evidence of this, and comes, therefore, much 
 nearer to the monuments of the mainland. One of the 
 falling giants compares favorably with a similar figure from 
 the treasury of Megara in Olympia, Plate 46. In Series 
 
 1 A similar expression is noted in a Roman work, the sacrifice of 
 Marcus Aurelius.
 
 8 AND 9. GIGANTOMACHIA, METOPES FROM SELINUS. 
 
 IO. MUSEUM INTERIOR, PALERMO.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 51 
 
 IV finally, Plates 49-51, a severe training of both thought 
 and hand is at once apparent. 
 
 These metopes, especially the two on Plates 49 and 50, 
 have lost none of the honesty of expression that charac- 
 terizes the earlier works from Selinus, but they have gained, 
 in addition, the grace that comes with discipline. The 
 artist no longer carves the very first thing he chooses to 
 express, but rather those conceptions which he has care- 
 fully thought out and found to be good. The lines and 
 masses of the Zeus and Hera relief are dignified and 
 pleasing. The seated god is very well designed, and his 
 majestic gesture gains by having him reach out across 
 an empty space. 1 Only the arrangement of his shawl is 
 too studied in effect to be altogether pleasing. His face 
 compares well with that of "Zeus" in Munich, Plate 71. 
 
 Hera also appears to better advantage when she is con- 
 trasted with the Akropolis figures, Plates 25ff., and the 
 same is the case with Artemis when she is studied side 
 by side with the metopes from Olympia, Plates goff. 
 
 The other two metopes are less satisfactory. The on- 
 ward sweep of Athena is well conceived, but the slanting 
 lines of her body are in need of a steadying mass instead 
 of one of such weakness as is offered by the body of the 
 collapsing giant. For this reason the lines of the Aktaion 
 group, and even those of the Herakles and Hippofeta, 7 
 are superior to those of the Athena slab, in spite of the 
 fact that the motives of these latter metopes are much 
 tamer. 
 
 There is another unsuccessful touch in the Athena and 
 
 1 This meant much in an age when people were governed by the 
 " horror vacui." (See E. von Mach, pp. 50 and 65.)
 
 (\ 
 
 5 2 GREEK: AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 in the Herakles metopes, which is due to the endeavor of 
 the sculptor to show clearly the close bodily contact be- 
 tween the victors and their opponents. The struggling 
 men and women are stepping on each other's feet. This 
 no doubt is true to nature, but it is not pleasant to look at, 
 and for this reason does not often occur in Greek art. 
 
 The Selinus metopes make a different impression on the 
 student from any known Greek works, although some of 
 their figures show strong resemblances to other familiar 
 statues or reliefs. Several correspondences have been 
 pointed out above. Others are found in the head of 
 Herakles, Plate 51 a, which reminds one of Harmodios, 
 Plate 58, and in his pose, which suggests that of Aristo- 
 geiton, Plate 59. But in spite of all this seeming corres- 
 pondence there is a fundamental difference. The Selinus 
 sculptor shows himself to be an unspoiled child of nature, 
 clever to a certain extent and open-hearted. The true 
 Greek, on the other hand, who was not less a child of na- 
 ture, had too keen a sense of the propriety of things to 
 permit himself the luxury of a random expression of first 
 thoughts. What he created was, to the best of his knowl- 
 edge, his sober second thought and always the result of 
 severe discipline, both mental and technical. 
 
 
 
 PLATE 52a. Gable End of a Tomb from Xanthos in Lycia. Of 
 
 limestone. British Museum, London. Discovered 1838-1840. British 
 Museum Catalogue I, p. 45 and Nos. 89 and 90. 
 
 PLATE 52b. Frieze of Cocks and Hens from Xanthos in Lycia. 
 
 Of limestone. British Museum, London. Discovered 1838-1840. 
 Catalogue I, No. 82. 
 
 The great skill of the artist in filling his triangular space
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 53 
 
 is the first thing noticed in the upper relief ' ; the next 
 thing is his mastery over animal forms. Compared with 
 them, even the beautiful faces of the sphinxes lose in life- 
 likeness. The women's breasts, however, reveal the cus- 
 tomary disregard of anatomically accurate forms. 
 
 Variety in perfect balance is another characteristic of 
 the upper slab. It is carried to the minutest detail, as a 
 careful observation reveals. Not only the faces and hair- 
 dresses are different, but also the wings, and the curls of 
 the tails. The upper slab is doubtless the gable of a tomb, 
 for which the presence of sphinxes 2 was especially appro- 
 priate. When first discovered, the gable group was brill- 
 iantly colored in blue, red, black, and white. 
 
 PLATE 53. Frieze of the " Harpy " Tomb from Xanthos, Lycia. 
 
 Of marble. British Museum, London. Discovered 1838-1840. E. von 
 Mach, pp. I29ff.; British Museum Catalogue I, pp. 54ff.; Robinson, 
 No. 29; F. W., Nos. i27ff. 
 
 These four reliefs are fully discussed in E. von Mach, 
 pp. i2gff. The important points are: 
 
 1. The position of the frieze just below the cornice of 
 a monument about twenty feet high. 
 
 2. The flying figures carrying off little creatures, 
 wrongly named "harpies," which have given the name to 
 the monument. 
 
 3. The pictorial element in the group of the woman 
 
 1 The apparently empty space over the left Sphinx was originally 
 filled by the extended beam of the lintel, now broken away. 
 
 2 Earlier sphinxes have been discussed, Plates 38 and 39. There 
 are also sphinxes, only slightly less beautiful than these, among the re- 
 cently discovered fragments from Assos.
 
 54 
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 sitting under one of the "harpies," and its inappropriate- 
 ness in sculpture. 
 
 4. The expressive poses of the seated figures. - 
 
 5. The successful dealing with isokephalism. 
 
 6. The interesting treatment of the women and of 
 their draperies. 
 
 7. The stocky build of the man in armor. 
 
 8. The exquisite echo of actual nature in the shep- 
 herd (?) with his dog. 
 
 9. The adherence to nature in the representation of 
 animal forms, for which compare Plate 52. 
 
 It may be added that the identification of the seated 
 figures as gods is not assured. Percy Gardner (/. H. S., 
 V, pp. i29ff.) suggests with much force that they are rep- 
 resentations of the dead, worshipped as heroes. For such 
 a custom see the Spartan tombstones below. 
 
 PLATE 54. Reliefs from Thasos. Of white marble. Louvre, 
 Paris. Discovered 1864. E. von Mach, pp. 1341!.; Robinson, No. 37. 
 A-C ; A.J. A., First Series, Vol. V, pp. 4i6ff. 
 
 These reliefs are fully discussed in E. von Mach, pp. 
 i34ff. The important points are : 
 
 1. Application of suggested lines in a few of the draped 
 figures. 
 
 2. Perfect balance of the groups on either side of the 
 door, adding the three women to the left of the large block, 
 and the Hermes and Grace to the right. 
 
 3. Variety in balance. 
 
 1 References of comparison with other works are given throughout in 
 E. von Mach, pp. 1296.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 55 
 
 4. The skilful twist in the Apollo figure, which may be 
 contrasted with Plate 32. 
 
 5. The technique of cutting away the background 
 where a part of the figure is intended to project, notably 
 in the case of Hermes. 
 
 6. The unconvincing position of the legs of Hermes, 
 owing to the timidity of the sculptor. 
 
 7. The moderation in the figures of the girls following 
 immediately upon the gods. 
 
 Attention may also be called to the figure back of 
 Hermes, who has only two braids falling over her shoulder, 
 while in early times three is customary in statues in the 
 round. The space in the relief is too limited to admit of 
 three braids without crowding. The artist was wise, 
 therefore, in deviating from his model. For the beauty of 
 the face and the fullness of the breast of this girl compare 
 the sphinxes from Xanthos, Plate 52a. 
 
 A different arrangement from the one here suggested is 
 proposed by Michaelis. 1 He arranges the slabs around 
 three sides of an open court, the long slab facing you as 
 you enter, the short slabs at right angles from the larger 
 one, and supplemented each by one additional slab, now 
 lost. The composition as we have it is so complete that it 
 is difficult to think of any valuable additions. If Michaelis 
 nevertheless is right, and his arguments, based on ob- 
 servations on the preserved slabs and the possibility of 
 having them joined together, certainly sound convincing 
 (except in the case of the supplementary slabs), then 
 we are justified in supposing that one artist made the ex- 
 cellent design, and that other sculptors, executing it, broke 
 
 1 A.J. A., First Series, Vol. V, pp. 4i6ff.
 
 56 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 the design, perhaps at the request of their employer, in the 
 fashion indicated by Michaelis. 
 
 PLATE 55. The Death Of Aigistheus. Marble relief. Glyptothek 
 Ny Carlsberg (Copenhagen). Discovered (date unknown) in Aricia in 
 Latium. Formerly in the Museum Despuig in Palma on Mayorca. 
 
 The subject of this relief has been variously ' interpreted. 
 It probably represents Orestes with drawn sword standing 
 over the mortally wounded Aigistheus, and uncertain 
 whether the foul murder of his father, Agamemnon, de- 
 mands of him also the killing of his mother Klytaimnestra. 
 She stands behind him, placing her hand, perhaps depre- 
 catingly, on his shoulder. Elektra follows her, looking at 
 Orestes with a gesture of victory and an almost sardonic 
 smile. The women to the right and left are slaves of the 
 household. 
 
 The grouping of the figures is well done. The backward 
 glance of Orestes supplies a center of interest, and the 
 moment selected the son hesitating before the matricide 
 is of great dramatic power. The wailing slaves, the 
 dying knave who had killed Agamemnon and had stolen 
 his wife, the excited mother notice her huge steps 2 
 and the exulting daughter, all give indications of the 
 superior power of the artist's mind. 
 
 Coupled with these, however, an awkwardness of execu- 
 tion is noticed, not less surprising, although it finds, in 
 every instance, its parallel in other early Greek works. 
 For the turned head of Orestes, see the lolaos or the 
 Herakles and Hydra relief, Plate 4oa ; for the drapery fall- 
 
 J See Overbeck I, pp. 216 and 295. 2 Compare remarks to Plate 35.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 57 
 
 ing in untroubled folds from the shoulders of the excited 
 murderer, see the figure mounting a chariot, Plate 56 ; for 
 the folds of the dress gathered in the hands of the queen, the 
 figures from the Akropolis, Plates 2sff., and so on. There 
 are, however, also incongruities of considerable impor- 
 tance in the design of the relief. The garment of the slave, 
 for instance, behind Aigistheus falls in actual folds, while 
 that of the queen is laid in the conventional folds of early 
 Greece ; the anatomy of the knee of Aigistheus is correct, 
 that of the Orestes is like an inaccurate copy of one of the 
 knees of the later "Apollos," Plates 11-16. The sleeve- 
 finish of the cloak of Klytaimnestra indicates a miscon- 
 ception of this garment, 1 and the smile of Elektra is out of 
 keeping with the expressionless faces of the others. The 
 arrangement of the three feet in the center is very clumsy 
 and seems strange in a composition of such power, most 
 especially when it is compared with compositions like the 
 pedimental frieze of the treasury of Megara, Plate 46, or 
 the beautiful disposition of the three hands in the relief 
 from Pharsalos below. 
 
 Overbeck (I, p. 216) says that the genuineness of this 
 relief has never been questioned. In view of the above 
 remarks this is strange. If the relief is genuine in spite 
 of them, it is unique. 
 
 PLATE 56. Figure Mounting a Chariot. Of marble (possibly 
 Pentelic). Akropolis Museum, Athens. Found near the Propylaia in 
 1822, except the small block with the horses' tails, which was first no- 
 ticed by Newton on the Akropolis in 1852. A head of Hermes, prob- 
 ably belonging to the same relief, was found in 1859 near the south 
 wall of the Akropolis. O. Hauser, mjahrbuch, 1892, pp. 54ff., identi- 
 
 1 See Akropolis figures, Plates 25-30.
 
 5 8 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 fies the figure as male. He says it is Apollo. He has many followers, 
 among them Michaelis in Springer's Handbuch I, p. 192. Overbeck (I, 
 p. 203) retains the old designation of a woman. Robinson (No. 33) 
 follows Hauser. 
 
 For the appreciation of this relief it is of no conse- 
 quence whether this figure is male or female. If a woman 
 is meant, the artist has wisely discontinued the habit of 
 representing her breast with too much fullness. 1 The lines 
 of the relief are delicate, great skill being shown in the 
 radiation of the folds of the cloak toward the right arm. 
 They carry the eye forward and thence along the arms to 
 the horses, and add a pleasing element of unity. The 
 orderly arrangement of the ends falling over the arms are 
 characteristically out of keeping with the action of the 
 figure, just as is the case on the Aigistheus relief, Plate 55, 
 and also on the Athena from Aigina, Plate 83. 
 
 The technique of the relief approximates that of the 
 Hermes slab from Thasos, Plate 54. The background is 
 not one even plane, but scooped out in places to give more 
 prominence to some parts. The skilful and convincing 
 arrangement of the composition is best appreciated when 
 one realizes that the wheel, in spite of the extreme flat- 
 ness 2 of the relief, appears to be on a nearer plane to the 
 spectator than the figure. It is this dexterous disposition 
 of the integral parts of the composition that, pushed to its 
 perfection, gives to the Parthenon frieze its greatest charm. 
 
 1 Look at the girl following Hermes, Plate 54. 2 For relief sculpt- 
 ure and its devises see E. von Mach, pp. 48ff.
 
 II. HERMES. 
 
 12. ATHENA PARTHENOS ON A GEM. 
 
 13. RESTORATION OF TEMPLE OF AIGINA.
 
 ARCHAIC SCULPTURE. 59 
 
 Note. 
 
 One interesting group of figures is not represented in 
 this collection, the men on horseback. Several are in ex- 
 istence, but none are well preserved. Franz Winter, Jahr- 
 buch VIII, 1893, pp. i35ff.) supplies many pictures in the 
 course of an exhaustive article, while Studniczka (Jahrbuch 
 VI, 1891, pp. 239) discusses an especially interesting 
 monument. Another horseman in relief is now in the 
 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
 
 60 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 PART THREE. 
 
 THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD.' 
 
 This period dates from the end of the Persian wars, 480 
 B. C. (more accurately 479 B. C. ) to about 450 B. C. It 
 is marked by the spirit of freedom, which, after the battle 
 of Salamis, had begun to sweep over Greece. Old conven- 
 tions, unless founded on truth and on accuracy of observa- 
 tion, were discarded, and as quickly as skill permitted, 
 nothing was done because " it had always been done that 
 way," but because "it now seemed to be the best way to 
 do it." 
 
 The names of a few artists working during these thirty 
 years are known, and some of their works, which have 
 been identified in extant statues, have revealed the sub- 
 stantial accuracy of the above characterization. Others 
 have then been assigned to the same period as following 
 the identical tendencies. Art tendencies, however, are 
 rarely confined, in all their manifestations, to one short 
 span of time. They are prematurely followed by excep- 
 tional men long before they begin to be the moving power 
 of all, while conservative people adhere to them even after 
 the natural course of their influence is run. It is wrong, 
 therefore, to believe that all the works discussed in this 
 period were necessarily made during the years from 480- 
 
 1 See E. von Mach, pp. i5Sff.
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 6 1 
 
 450 B. C. All that can be said is that they are of the 
 style in vogue at that time. 
 
 Some of the Greek masterpieces were made soon after 
 450 B. C., some of the most restricted conceptions were 
 executed immediately preceding 480 B. C. The period 
 under discussion, therefore, is properly called the Transi- 
 tional Period. 
 
 PLATE 57. Statue Of a " Boy." Of marble. Akropolis Museum, 
 Athens. Found, the body, 1865-66; the head, 1888; both near the 
 site of the present Akropolis Museum. Overbeck, p. 205, fig. 48 ; 
 Robinson, No. 64; Reinach II, 588, i. 
 
 This statue is almost universally referred to as that of 
 a boy. It is small, as would become a young fellow of 
 thirteen or fourteen years of age, and so beautiful in its 
 modelling that the accruing element of chastity seems to be 
 in keeping with such a subject. Reinach alone classifies 
 it among statues of men, and he is probably right. The 
 resemblance, both in form and face, of this figure with the 
 Harmodios, Plate 58, has often ' been pointed out, and 
 Harmodios is not a boy. The photographs of the statue, 
 moreover, in which the reduced size of the original does 
 not appear, do not at first give one the impression of 
 a boy. The comparison finally of this figure with the 
 Spinario, Plate 72, who is intended to be very young, the 
 differences in the conception between the two statues, 
 and, most especially, the difference in the development of 
 the arms, make it more than probable that we have here 
 not the statue of a boy, but the statuette of a man. If 
 
 1 See bibliography Robinson, No. 64.
 
 62 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 we, on the other hand, prefer to retain the idea of a boy, we 
 must see in this figure one of those frequent perversities of 
 ancient art, by means of which the same physical develop- 
 ment did duty for all ages, while the artists relied upon 
 differences of size to distinguish between them. This 
 view, however, is a little far-fetched. Our statue is not 
 much smaller than any of the " Apollos," except that from 
 Melos, and is even larger than the Strangford "Apollo," 
 Plate i 6. 
 
 A comparison with this latter statue reveals the changes 
 that have taken place. The Strangford " Apollo " shows 
 its origin in every line ; it is the best of a type that can be 
 traced back, step by step, to the " Apollo " of Thera. The 
 Akropolis figure is the free conception of a man who has 
 learned his lesson from the " Apollo " figures, but who, 
 after learning his lesson, has closed his book and has 
 struck out for himself. One daring device of the " Strang- 
 ford " artist he has even refused to accept, preferring to 
 follow the men a little back in the line who supported the 
 arms by little blocks near the hips of their figures. The 
 almost too prominent muscles over the ribs of the Strang- 
 ford " Apollo " our artist has toned down, convinced that 
 it was more important to be true to nature than to show 
 his knowledge of anatomy. The face is not individual, as 
 indeed it could not be, 1 but it has lost the artificial appear- 
 ance of the "Apollos," which was due to the promiscuous 
 attention paid to all the features. When Robinson be- 
 lieves the inserted eyeballs (now lost) indicate the inten- 
 tion on the part of the sculptor to imitate a statue of 
 bronze, he is in error. Inserted eyes are frequent in Greek 
 
 1 See E. von Mach, p. 202.
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 63 
 
 marble and stone sculpture, 1 while the modelling of the 
 body of the Athenian youth is such as is well adapted to 
 marble, and is unsuited to bronze, its delicacy being lost 
 in the harsher metal. The argument from the " wiry 
 treatment " of the hair is equally ill-advised. The same 
 hair is carved on the Strangford "Apollo." 
 
 No very definite date can be assigned to the Akropolis 
 statue. The place of its discovery indicates that it was 
 used by Kimon as yf///^ when he began to level the eastern 
 end of the Akropolis. This was before 461 B. C. Since 
 it was not dumped together with the figures 2 destroyed by 
 the Persians in 480 B. C., it was doubtless made subse- 
 quent to the Persian wars, that is, between 480 and 461 
 B. C., or during the Transitional Period. 
 
 PLATE 58. HarmodiOS and Aristogeiton. Marble group; late 
 copy. Museum in Naples. Date of discovery unknown. Identified 
 by Friederichs in 1859. Restorations : Aristogeiton, the figure with 
 the drapery, both arms, the head, and several toes ; Harmodios, both 
 arms, everything below the hips except the upper part of the left leg. 
 E. von Mach, pp. i6off.; F. W., 121-124 (excellent bibliography); 
 Robinson, Nos. 62-63; Reinach I, 530, 3 and 5; II, 541, 5. Discus- 
 sion of Restoration, Sauer, Rom. Mittheil., 1900, pp. 219222; 1901, pp. 
 97-108. E. Peterson (Review) and A.J. A., VI, 1902, p. 203. 
 
 PLATE 59. Aristogeiton of the same Group. 
 
 This group is discussed in detail, E. von Mach, pp. 
 i6off., where its history and its relation to the earlier 
 group by Antenor also are treated. In a note on p. 329, a 
 
 'See Typhon, Plate 41 a, and Calf Bearer. Plate 19. 2 See Platas 
 25-30.
 
 64 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 fragment of a vase in the Museum in Boston is mentioned, 
 which is used as an argument in the discussion. This 
 fragment, the director states, was sold to the Museum with 
 the right of publication reserved. This right has not yet 
 been made use of. The public in the meanwhile is the 
 sufferer. Before it is published, its genuineness cannot be 
 ascertained, and in view of the many modern forgeries 
 offered and bought by Museums, 1 the sanguine opinion of 
 the officials that they have originals in their possession 
 counts for little. 2 
 
 The important points for the appreciation of this group 
 are: 
 
 1. The substantial accuracy of the restorations. The 
 arm of Harmodios, however, ought to be bent more sharply 
 over his head. Both men ought to carry swords and 
 scabbards. The head of Aristogeiton belongs to a much 
 later period. 
 
 2. The age differentiation in the bodies of the two 
 men. 
 
 3. The contrast between the older Aristogeiton, acting 
 from spite, and the younger Harmodios, bent upon murder 
 to vindicate his family honor. 
 
 4. The freedom of action of the figures, which is unlike 
 
 1 Exempli gratia only the tiara of Tissaphernes in the Louvre, and 
 the " Tenagra " figures in Boston. 
 
 2 The same is true of many marbles, now on exhibition in American 
 Museums, whose place of provenience is withheld, and one of which, a 
 colossal statue of Kybele in Boston, the editors of this series are not 
 permitted to publish. The interest of Greek art is best served by 
 frankness, and where many European Museums have set the noble ex- 
 ample of perfect honesty in the discussion of their possessions, it is to 
 be regretted that America should lag behind.
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 65 
 
 early figures in the round and is more comparable to re- 
 liefs (see Hermes, Plate 54). 
 
 5. The attempt at representing movement, resulting in 
 the minute moment of rest between the strides. The con- 
 sequent misunderstanding of the group on the part of the 
 restorer. 
 
 6. The design of the group follows the "principle of 
 opposites ; " the right side of one figure corresponding to 
 the left side of the other. The same principle was followed 
 in the Kitylos and Dermys group, Plate na. 
 
 The Naples group is a marble copy which has lost much 
 of the beauty of the bronze original. The supporting tree- 
 trunks were not needed in the bronze. The modern feet 
 are abominable. For good Greek bronze feet of this 
 period see the Charioteer of Delphi, Plate 60. For the 
 beauty of a Greek original of the Transitional Period see 
 Plate 57. 
 
 There are several other statues in existence which are 
 believed, to reproduce the Tyrannicides group. Chief 
 among them are some of the so-called " Farnese Athletes " 
 [Reinach I, 528, 2 and 6] ; and the figures in the Bobo- 
 lini gardens, Text Illustrations 14 and 15. The " Farnese 
 Athletes " seem to be characterized by less vigor and by 
 greater concentration of masses, as if the artist had been 
 mindful of the heaviness of marble. Two explanations 
 may be offered for this : 
 
 i. These statues are copies of the same originals; the 
 visible restraint being due to the less skilled copyist, who 
 felt obliged to concentrate his masses because he trans- 
 lated them from bronze into marble. In other words, he 
 was a more timid man than the sculptor who made the 
 other group, Plates 58 and 59.
 
 66 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 2. The visible submission to restrictions of the material 
 is a part of the original group. It betokens an artist still 
 somewhat under the influence of the " Apollos " and simi- 
 lar statues ; in short, it speaks in favor of Antenor soon 
 after 510 as the author of the group. If the second view 
 is right, then we may have in the more restrained groups 
 copies of the originals by Antenor, and in the other groups 
 copies of the second monument which Kritios and Nesiotes 
 made soon after 480 B. C. 
 
 That this second group was probably very much like 
 the first group is pointed out in E. von Mach, pp. 161 and 
 162 ; it would be proved to be so if the latter of the above 
 alternatives is correct. 
 
 On the strength of the identification of the Tyrannicides 
 group as the work of Kritios and Nesiotes, various other 
 works have been assigned to these artists or to their 
 school. Among them is an interesting athlete from Tar- 
 sos, now in Constantinople, published by A. Joubin in 
 Rev. Arch., Vol. 35, 1899, Plates 13-15, and p. 21. This 
 figure, however, if its restoration is correct, cannot belong 
 to the Transitional Period. The head of the statue does 
 not follow the direction of the weight of the body, as is 
 invariably the case in early Greek art. Turning the head 
 in another direction implies the activity of a controlling 
 mind, 1 and is, therefore, impossible (unless it be a miracu- 
 lous exception) in an age when the duality of man was not 
 acknowledged. 2 
 
 Joubin's arguments are based on the dimensions of the 
 head of the Tarsos athlete and of other heads. It is the 
 regular method of procedure of the modern " progressive " 
 
 1 E. von Mach, p. 251. 2 E. von Mach, pp. 2O2ff.
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 67 
 
 archaeologist, who reduces everything to measurable facts, 
 dealing with the most divine creations of Greek art as so 
 much interesting matter, capable of mathematically accu- 
 rate deductions. Art cannot be treated in this way with- 
 out losing everything that makes of it art 1 
 
 PLATE 60. Charioteer Of Delphi. Of bronze. Museum in 
 Delphi. Discovered by the French in 1896. E. von Mach, pp. ijsff. ; 
 Robinson (supplement), No. 85. Best illustrations, Monuments Piot, 
 Vol. IV, Pis. 15 and 16, and pp. i69ff.; Reinach II, 536, i. For an 
 ancient chariot see Records of the Past II, 1903, pp. 367-372, six cuts 
 of the chariot from Nurcia, recently acquired by the Metropolitan 
 Museum of New York. 
 
 This statue is fully discussed, E. von Mach, pp. i75ff., 
 where the impossibility of identifying it definitely is men- 
 tioned, and where the family resemblance between it and 
 the work of Kalamis is noted. The Kalamis theory is 
 vigorously defended by E. Audoin (reviewed A. J. A., 
 1904, p. 115). He bases his arguments on the resem- 
 blance of the charioteer to a statue discovered in Poitiers 
 in 1902. Another Athena has served Mahler as starting 
 point for his speculation 2 that the charioteer ought to be 
 assigned to Pythagoras. Mahler's view will appear un- 
 tenable to all who accept Waldstein's probably correct 
 interpretation of the " Apollo " type, Plates 66, 67, as a 
 copy of a statue by Pythagoras. Audoin's theory has 
 more in its favor, although it too is as yet nought but a 
 theory. 
 
 1 See also the excellent articles by C. Waldstein, The Classical Re- 
 view, March, 1904, and/. H. S., Vol. XXIV, 1904, pp. 
 
 2 Jh. Oesterr. Arch. Inst. Ill, 1900, pp. 142-145.
 
 68 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The important points for the study of the statue are : 
 
 1. The dignity of its appearance and the simplicity of 
 its design ;.its nameless grace. 1 
 
 2. The softness of the folds. 
 
 3. The exquisite modelling of the nude. 
 
 4. The dimensions of the face. 2 Its long lower parts. 
 
 5. The beautiful feet. 
 
 6. The neatly wrought hair and the fillet. 
 
 7. The fact that the chariot was only a part of a 
 group.3 For fragments of the horses see Monuments Plot. 
 
 PLATE 61. DISCUS 4 Thrower (DiSkObolOS). Of marble. British 
 Museum, London. Discovered in Hadrian's Villa in Tivoli, in 1791. 
 Height, five feet, five inches. Restorations : almost the entire face 
 below the eyes, both hands, and parts of the disk, right knee and 
 various small parts. The head is antique, and, as is shown by its 
 resemblance to the Lancelotti discus thrower head (which was not 
 broken), is the proper one. It belonged, however, to another copy and 
 is broken slightly below the " Adam's Apple," while the London statue 
 has lost its head just above it. Adding this head to the statue has 
 given the discus thrower two "Adam's Apples," and has resulted in 
 a wrong turn of the head. The athlete originally turned his head back 
 toward the discus. E. von Mach, pp. i68ff.; British Museum Cata- 
 logue, No. 250; Robinson, No. 81 ; Reinach I, 525, 5. 
 
 PLATE 62. DISCUS Thrower. Of marble. Vatican, Rome. Dis- 
 covered in Hadrian's Villa in 1791. Restorations: head, left arm, 
 right leg below the knee, other minor parts, and almost the entire 
 plinth. E. von Mach, pp. i68ff., and 330; Helbig I, 333; F. W., No. 
 451 ; Reinach II, 545, 5. 
 
 1 This was characteristic of Kalamis, see Lucian, Imag. VI, and 
 Gardner, p. 234. 2 For dimensions in old Attic art see Fr. Winter, 
 Jahrbuch II, 1887, pp. 2i6ff. Winter adds an excellent table of meas- 
 urements. 3 E. von Mach, p. 176. 4 For the discovery of an original 
 discus of about 500 B. C. and its description, see A.J. A., IV, 1900, 
 P. 361-
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 69 
 
 PLATE 63. DiSCUS Thrower. Of marble. Lancelotti Palace, 
 Rome. Discovered 1781 on the Esquiline. Now withheld from the 
 public. E. von Mach, p. 330; Reinach I, 527, I. 
 
 PLATE 64. Combination Cast of Discus Thrower After Myron. 
 
 The body of the statue in the Vatican, the head of the Lancelotti 
 statue. From Brunn-Arndt Denkmaler, Plate 566. 
 
 These statues have been identified by means of descrip- 
 tions by Lucian ' and by Philostratos 2 as copies of a 
 bronze discus 3 thrower by Myron. From these descrip- 
 tions we know that the head was turned back, as is the 
 case in the Lancelotti copy.4 
 
 The essential points in the study of these figures, which 
 are discussed in E. von Mach, pp. i68ff., are: 
 
 1. Reflex action, 5 the twist of the body not being con- 
 fined to one part, as in the Flying Figure from Delos, but 
 being reflected in the entire body. 
 
 2. Moderation 6 in the turn and the stoop of the figure, 
 which results in the creation of reserve force. 
 
 The original, being of bronze, could do without the re- 
 tarding support. The support is especially disturbing in 
 the Vatican copy, where it spoils the outlines of the free 
 leg, while it is almost unnoticed in the London copy, 
 where it coincides with the lines of the firmly planted 
 right leg. 
 
 A copy of the head of the Lancelotti discus thrower has 
 
 1 S. Q. 544. 2 I, 23, 24. 3 For the discussion of the ancient discus 
 thrower, see A.J. A., VII (1903), pp. 4451!. * Two statuettes in Munich 
 and in Bonn show the proper direction of the head. s See E. von 
 Mach, pp. i65ff. 6 On this score R. B. Richardson assigns to Myron 
 a beautiful torso from Daphne. A.J. A., IX, PL XI, pp. 53ff., X, p. 51.
 
 7 o 
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 recently been recognized by Furtwiingler I in a cast in 
 Paris, formerly known as " Tete de Mercure," and in a 
 head in Berlin. 2 The head is of great beauty, unusually 
 delicate and altogether more ethereal than could be ex- 
 pected from the poor illustrations which are in circulation 
 of the Lancelotti figure. 
 
 PLATE 65a. Marsyas, probably after Myron. Of marble. Lateran 
 
 Museum, Rome. Found 1823 in the studio of an ancient sculptor 
 on the Esquiline. Restorations : both arms and lower left leg, also 
 the ears and various minor parts. E. von Mach, pp. i6c)ff. ; Helbig, 
 No. 661 ; Robinson, No. 82. 
 
 PLATE 65b. Statuette Of Marsyas. Of bronze. British Museum, 
 London. Said to have been discovered in Patras. Reinach II, 51, 
 5 and;. 
 
 Statue and statuette represent a similar motive, Marsyas 
 astonished and recoiling. The restorer of the statue mis- 
 understood the motive. His arms belong to a dancing, 
 turning figure, such as are reproduced below. No such 
 figures, implying as they do the comprehension of bodies 
 moving with perfect ease in limitless space, 3 occur before 
 the latter half of the fourth century. A vase painting with 
 Marsyas recoiling before Athena, whose pipes he had in- 
 tended to pick up, is pictured in Helbig under No. 661, 
 and in Overbeck I, p. 269. In its moderation (see Plates 
 6iff., the Discus Thrower) the Marsyas is truly Myronic. 
 
 PLATE 66. Boxer, probably after Pythagoras, so-called " Apollo 
 
 'Review, A. J. A., VI, pp. 2O3ff. 2 In view of this discovery the 
 statement in E. von Mach, p. 171, concerning the discus thrower heads, 
 would seem to require a modification. 3 See E. von Mach, pp. 296, 297.
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. ji 
 
 With the OmphalOS." Of marble. National Museum, Athens. 
 Found, badly broken, but with few pieces missing except the feet, and 
 with an omphalos not far from the statue, in the excavations of the 
 Theatre of Dionysos in 1862. Identified as the statue of a boxer by 
 Pythagoras by C. Waldstein, /. H. S., I, pp. i68ff., II, pp. 322ff. 
 For extensive bibliography and multitude of identifications of the 
 statue see British Museum Catalogue note to No. 209. E. von Mach, 
 pp. I72ff. ; F. W., 219 ; Robinson, No. 92 ; Reinach II, 85, 7. 
 
 PLATE 6?. Boxer, probably after Pythagoras, so-called Choiseul- 
 
 GOUffler Apollo. Of marble. British Museum, London. Bought in 
 Constantinople by Choiseul Gouffier, provenience unknown ; deposited 
 in the British Museum in 1818. The nose some accounts say the 
 tip of the nose is restored. E. von Mach, pp. 1731!. ; F. W., 221; 
 Reinach II, 85, 10, cf. the Torlonia replica, Reinach II, 85, 9. 
 
 Following the custom of calling unidentified male statues 
 of vigorous appearance "Apollos," these two statues are 
 known by this name. The Athenian figure has been 
 further designated by the object which was found near it, 
 an omphalos, or navel of the earth, 1 while the London 
 figure is known by the name of the man who bought it in 
 Constantinople, Choiseul Gouffier. To-day although these 
 names still cling to the statues, it has been proved that 
 the omphalos does not belong to the Athenian statue, 
 that both figures are replicas of the same original (some 
 say the Athenian figure is the original) and that the sub- 
 ject is not Apollo, but an athlete. 
 
 The most convincing identification of the statues is 
 offered by Waldstein, who believes the figures are copies 
 of the statue of the boxer Euthymos by Pythagoras. The 
 importance of this discovery and the light it throws on the 
 
 1 The Omphalos is an attribute of Apollo as god of Delphi, which 
 was believed to be the center of the earth.
 
 72 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 remarkable proportions of the body are discussed in E. von 
 Mach, pp. lyzff. Since "Olympic victor statues did not 
 always show the athletes engaged in the sports in which 
 they had won," the sculptors were compelled, "to distin- 
 guish them by means of their physical development." The 
 well-developed chest and shoulders and the conscious 
 prominence of these parts characterize the statues in ques- 
 tion as boxers. The large number of extant copies reveal 
 the original to have been a famous one. The style assigns 
 the statues to the Transitional Period. We know of a 
 popular statue of Euthymos belonging to between 480 and 
 450 B. C. Its sculptor was Pythagoras. This artist is 
 praised for the fine use he made of details, especially of 
 veins, and for his careful representation of the hair. All 
 these traits are found in the extant statues. Notice, for 
 instance, the delicate locks of hair near the ears, hardly 
 visible in a photograph, and the veins on the upper arms 
 to indicate the free coursing of blood in these well-de- 
 veloped members. 
 
 The opponents of Waldstein's identification disagree 
 with him as to the meaning of the object on the tree-trunk 
 of the London statue ; the tree-trunk of the Athens statue 
 is broken away. 1 Waldstein explains the object as a 
 leather thong, such as pugilists wound about their hands 
 in place of the modern glove (see the statue of a boxer 
 Tarbell, fig. 177). Robinson, p. 71, says, "This definition 
 of the object, however, is open to question. It is more 
 probably a bow." The first part of Robinson's remark, 
 that the object is indistinct, may be granted ; the second 
 part however, is wrong. The fact is, the object may not 
 
 1 But the fracture, where it was attached to the leg, is still visible.
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 
 
 73 
 
 be a boxer's strap, but it is surely not a bow. Anybody 
 can convince himself of this who takes the trouble of look- 
 ing at the original, or at the cast, or even at the excellent 
 plate, /. H. S., I, PL IV. Ordinary photographs are, of 
 course, insufficient. 
 
 PLATE 68. Cassel Apollo. Of marble. Museum, Cassel. Above 
 life-size. Bought in Rome, between 17701780, provenience unknown. 
 It was badly broken, but has been put together with very few modern 
 additions. Robinson (supplement) No. 86 ; Reinach II, 97, 6. 
 
 PLATE 69. Apollo. Of bronze. Museum, Naples. Discovered 
 in the House of the Citharist (excavations begun 1853, completed 
 1868). The house was named after the statue, which is supposed to 
 have held a cithar. Mau-Kelsey, pp. 352 and 536; Reinach 11,97, i. 
 
 PLATE 70. Apollo. Of marble. Museo delle Terme, Rome. Of 
 
 colossal size. Found in fragments, and at different times, in the Tiber. 
 " The right leg below the knee, a portion of the lowest part of the left 
 leg, the lowest third of the stump and the plinth are modern." (Helbig, 
 No. 1028) ; Reinach II, 97, 8. 
 
 These three Apollo types 1 undoubtedly belong to the 
 Transitional Period. They bear certain family resemblances, 
 but exhibit also fundamental points of difference. All three 
 are copies of possibly bronze originals, and only one has re- 
 tained the material of the original. The Cassel Apollo is a 
 god, because he is given the most beautiful body the artist 
 knew how to carve. He is neither brought in connection with 
 the spectator, nor is he represented as capable of divine im- 
 pulses. He is objective in the extreme. Compared with the 
 Apollo of Olympia, Plate 86, he is carved with greater skill, 
 but with much less feeling. In him, and in his kind, we may 
 
 'The term "Apollo type" is no longer used in the sense of Plates 
 i iff., where Apollo was put in quotations to indicate " so-called."
 
 74 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 see the precursors of the Polykleitean school, whose desire 
 and sole end was to represent the body as well : as possible. 
 
 Very different is the Apollo from Pompeii. Restore in 
 mind his cithar, and you can imagine yourself listening with 
 the god to the dying strains of his tune. He still holds the 
 plectrum, and the position of his fingers around it is un- 
 changed. This Apollo is self-centered, impersonal and yet 
 interesting. 
 
 The third Apollo is another kind of a god. He is our god. 
 The gentle bend of his head, best seen in a profile or in a 
 back view, speaks of sympathy. He is divine, because he is 
 extremely human. 
 
 On this account Petersen's suggestion, 2 that the original 
 of the Roman Apollo was an early work by Pheidias, has met 
 with much approval. Petersen believes the statue to be a copy 
 of an Apollo who was a part of the bronze group erected 3 in 
 Delphi from the spoils of the battle of Marathon.-* Apollo, 
 Petersen says, laid his hand kindly on the shoulder of Mil- 
 tiades, on whose head Athena was placing the wreath of 
 victory. This view, however, charming as it is, is unfortunately 
 not supported by irrefutable arguments, the best point in its 
 favor being that there are equally few arguments, or facts, that 
 can be advanced against it. 
 
 The Pompeii bronze, with its stockier proportions, is claimed 
 for a Peloponnesian school on the strength that a generation 
 later heavy dimensions were characteristic of the work of 
 Polykleitos, the greatest of the Peloponnesians. 
 
 'See E. von Mach, pp. 248ff. z Rom. Mitth. 1891, pp. 3O2ff. and 
 377ff. 3 Pausanias X, 10, i ; S. Q., 633. Doubts have been expressed 
 as to the accuracy of the information of Pausanias. 4 This group must 
 date from the time of the ascendency of Kimon, whose father Miltiades 
 was the prominent figure of the group.
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 
 
 75 
 
 Equally unfounded, because based on similarly insufficient 
 data, is Furtwangler's ' attribution of the Cassel Apollo to 
 Myron. The student of art fortunately is little disturbed by 
 these failures of definite identifications. He enjoys the beauty 
 of the figures irrespective of the great reputation of the men 
 who are said to have made them. 
 
 PLATE 71. Nude Statue of a God or Hero, sometimes called 
 
 " Zeus." Of marble. Glyptothek, Munich. Colossal statue, formerly 
 in Villa Albani ; provenience unknown. Acquired for the Glyptothek 
 in 1815. Restorations : both lower arms and the objects they hold, the 
 tip of the nose and other minor parts. Furtwangler, Catalogue, No. 
 295; Reinach I, 504, i. 
 
 The name which we should give to this statue depends on 
 the attributes which the figure originally held in his hands. 
 The elbow of the left arm is antique, and shows that the direc- 
 tion of the lower arm is properly restored. The pronounced 
 biceps seem to indicate that the object in the hand was of 
 considerable weight and could, therefore, be neither the 
 sword, as the restorer thought, nor the eagle of Zeus, as has 
 since been suggested. The right arm shows no muscular ten- 
 sion ; the hand held a light object, the place of attachment for 
 which is still visible on the right leg slightly below the level of 
 the hand. In the absence of all analogies it is, of course, 
 futile to speculate what these objects might have been, and 
 subsequently what the proper name of the statue is. 
 
 The pose of the figure is comparable to that of the Apollo 
 from Pompeii, Plate 69, although it is less easy. It is dignified, 
 to be sure, but the more one compares it with other statues of 
 the same general design, notably the Doryphoros after Poly- 
 kleitos, Plate 113, the more one realizes its shortcomings. 
 
 * Masterpieces, pp.
 
 7 6 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Head and legs seem to indicate a rhythm which the body 
 does not continue. It is as if the artist, by inspiration, had 
 felt this rhythm, but had lost it in the severe task of carving it 
 in marble. The front view of the body is stiff, and interesting 
 only in conjunction with the head and the legs. In the pro- 
 file view the artist has succeeded better, and there, curiously 
 enough, only by a peculiar device. He has made the " hero " 
 throw out his chest, giving him a delicate curve from the 
 shoulders to the small of the back and out again to the hips. 
 The additional mass, however, of projecting pectoral muscles 
 and the surrounding parts may account for the difficulty the 
 sculptor had with the front view. 
 
 The statue is also interesting as being one of the first good 
 statues of bearded men. 1 It is noticeable here that the beard 
 is represented because it belonged to the type, and not be- 
 cause it offered the artist an especially beautiful motive. 
 
 PLATE 72. Spinario (Boy with a Thorn in his Foot). Of bronze. 
 Palazzo del Conservatori on the Capitoline, Rome. First heard of in 
 1471, when Sixtus IV founded the Capitoline Collection. Helbig, 617; 
 F. W., 215; Robinson, 91; Overbeck II, pp. i82ff., with full bibli- 
 ography, p. 1 86, fig. 1 86 ; Collignon I, pp. 4i6ff. For comparison of 
 the head with that of an Ephebe in Spain (picture of Madrid Ephebe) 
 see Rev. Arch., Vol. 39, pp. 322ff.; Reinach I, p. 344, 6. 
 
 Early Greek sculpture runs along types. It is unusual to 
 find only one representative of a class, and when one does 
 find a statue standing alone, one is apt to be at a loss how 
 to account for it. 
 
 The Spinario is such a statue. Scholars are still undecided 
 and of many varied opinions, in spite of the momentary truce 
 which has been declared, everything having been said that can 
 
 1 Compare this head with the head of Zeus, Plate 49.
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 
 
 77 
 
 be said. There are two camps. The ones their champion 
 is Overbeck believe that the Roman Spinario is a very late 
 and reactionary adaptation of a Hellenistic original, more ac- 
 curately copied in the London Spinario, Plate 284. They 
 say the piece is a genre group and, as such, impossible before 
 the autumn days of Greek Sculpture. The London statue is, 
 as all agree, a Hellenistic work. The Roman bronze, which 
 represents the same motive, is an adaptation of it, made at a 
 time when there was a craze for " archaic " art. Such a time 
 occurred during the activity of the school of Pasiteles (see 
 below). Pasiteles and his followers chose to carve well-devel- 
 oped conceptions in old and slightly halting forms. Such 
 forms are found in the bronze Spinario. He is, therefore, the 
 adaptation of a Hellenistic type carved in the retrospective 
 style of Pasiteles. 
 
 The opponents of this view, with Welters (F. W., 215) as 
 spokesman, object on several grounds. In the first place, not 
 only the face, but all the forms show notable points of re- 
 semblance with the Olympia sculptures. 1 Secondly, the hair 
 is far from being noteworthy for its casual and natural ap- 
 pearance, as is the case in the Hellenistic age, which has 
 left its unmistakable traces in the Pasitelean works. Thirdly, 
 the statue need not be understood as genre. A very definite 
 incident may be represented, say a young Olympic victor 
 winning the race in spite of a thorn in his foot. 
 
 Thus far the arguments pair off about even. Zimmermann, 2 
 
 however, has added an observation which may be turned into 
 
 a more decisive argument. The long hair of the Spinario does 
 
 no* f all, as it would naturally fall, over the cheeks, but down 
 
 leek, as if the boy were standing erect. It may be granted 
 
 For the face, see the Apollo, Plate 86 ; for the form of the body, 
 crouching boy. 2 Knackf uss und Zimmermann, Vol. I, p. 78.
 
 78 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 that Pasiteles (or his followers) were capable of representing 
 the old Greek forms, that they knew how to change the short 
 hair of the London statue to the long hair worn in earlier cen- 
 turies, that they even knew how to carve it with accuracy ; but 
 it is incredible that they should have made, in the advanced 
 archaistic age in which they lived, the change from short to 
 long hair without realizing that the long locks would either 
 obstruct the view of the face, or would have to be carved un- 
 naturally. If they did not want to obstruct the view, they 
 might have tied the hair up with a ribbon. 1 This they have 
 not done, so that we may see in the Spinario the work of a 
 man familiar with making standing figures and unacquainted, 
 as yet, with the changes that a drooping posture demanded. 
 The arrangement of the hair is in keeping with the unruffled 
 folds over the arm of Orestes, Plate 55, or of the figure mount- 
 ing a chariot, Plate 56. 
 
 A further argument against the view of Overbeck is found 
 in the fact that one has the greatest difficulty in seeing the face 
 of the Spinario. From no point does it appear to its best 
 advantage. The forms of the boy also, which are lovely and 
 pleasing in lines, are not always convincing. 2 The very oppo- 
 site we expect of the Pasitelian school. Their composition 
 would have been, owing to long training, immaculate, while 
 their modelling of detailed parts might have been wanting in 
 delicacy. 
 
 In view of all these observations, the fact seems to be estab- 
 lished that the Spinario was made during the Transitional 
 Period, and that it proved popular and was frequently copied, 3 
 not indeed accurately, for its shortcomings were realized. 
 
 1 Compare Plates 479 and 480. 2 Overbeck says the statue was in- 
 tended to be seen from below. Even this does not give one a good 
 view of the face, while it loses much of the charm of the present aspect. 
 3 For a list of copies see Helbig and Overbeck.
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. jg 
 
 Our interest is not so much in what the boy is doing, as in 
 the boy himself. (The opposite is true of the London mar- 
 ble.) We are apt to think of him as he would appear if he 
 stood erect, and we know instinctively that he would be fully 
 as lovely as the original of the girl, Plate 73. 
 
 PLATE 73. Victor Statue Of a Girl Racer. Of marble. Vatican, 
 Rome. Exact date and place of discovery unknown. Bought for the 
 Vatican Museum by Pope Clement XIV (1769-1775) from the Bar- 
 berini family, whose estate on the Palatine embraced the area of the 
 old stadium of Domitian, in which girls' races were held. Restora- 
 tions: both arms, except the parts close to the shoulders, the nose and 
 parts on the plinth. 
 
 The marble statue even more than its photograph suggests 
 a bronze original. By removing the support, 1 the figure gains 
 "an air of greater freedom and nobility," and by changing the 
 wrongly restored arms to positions expressive of eager atten- 
 tion, waiting for the signal for the race to start, a glimpse 
 of the surpassing beauty of the original is gained. 
 
 Helbig says, " The still somewhat stiff style agrees admirably 
 with the girlish naivete, which the artist seeks to express." 
 The subject is perfectly suited to the style of the sculptor. It 
 is this fortunate, and no doubt accidental, unity that makes of 
 this statue a masterpiece ; but it cannot blind us against the 
 fact that the sculptor himself was yet far from being what we 
 call a master. Placed before another task, for instance, of 
 posing his girl like the Spinario, Plate 72, he might have 
 failed. 
 
 To the careful observer the unnaturally high ears and the 
 
 1 Unnecessary in bronze. The palm branch on the support shows 
 that the copyist, who knew the original, understood it to be a Victor 
 statue.
 
 8o GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 long chin are the clearest indications of the early origin of the 
 figure. The modelling of the nude is exquisite, the legs and 
 knees being most especially beautiful. The face is interest- 
 ing, but, in keeping with the time, not expressive. The small 
 mouth deserves much attention. 
 
 Like the Spinario, Plate 72, this girl has been assigned ' to 
 the eclectic school of Pasiteles. Since the Spinario, however, 
 cannot belong to that school, as was proved above, there is no 
 further reason to doubt the origin also of the racing girl in 
 the Transitional Period. 
 
 PLATE 74. So-called " Penelope." Of marble. Vatican, Rome. 
 Date and place of discovery unknown. Restorations : the head, which 
 does not belong to the statue ; the shawl, falling on the shoulders from 
 the head ; the right hand ; the right knee ; both feet ; and the rock, which 
 has been supplied instead of the original chair with the work-basket 
 underneath. Helbig, 191 (cf. 92 and 589) ; F. W., 211, who wrongly 
 believes the head belongs to the statue; Robinson, 95 ; Reinach I, 504 
 (cf. II, 689, i and 2) ; Knackfuss-Zimmerman I, p. 78, fig. 55 from the 
 restored cast. For the head, Berlin Catalogue, 603, see Plate 453 ; 
 all the illustrative material Antike Denkmaler I, Pis. 31 and 32, head 
 p. 17; reproduced, Text Illustration 23. 
 
 The identification of this statue as Penelope rests upon an 
 Athenian vase painting (Helbig I, p. 54, fig. 7) and upon two 
 Graeco-Roman terra-cotta reliefs on which Penelope is thus 
 represented. The type, however, is a common one also for 
 other figures, Elektra for instance, on an inscribed terra-cotta 
 relief 2 (Overbeck I, p. 220, fig. 54), while several fragments 
 of similar statues are extant. The work-basket under the chair, 
 which it is now sure ought to be supplied for the modern 
 rock, suggests, by its correspondence to grave reliefs (see so- 
 
 1 Overbeck II, p. 475. 2 Rayet, Catalogue de la Collection a" Antiquites 
 (of the Louvre) doubts the genuineness of the inscription on the relief.
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 81 
 
 called " Ino Leukothea " relief Plate 3675), that also the 
 Vatican figure may have served as a grave monument. 
 
 The wrong head and right hand have introduced a disturb- 
 ing element. The beautiful head in Berlin, Plate 453, ought 
 to be supplied, and be bent until it rests easily against the 
 knuckles of the hand. At once the statue gains in unity. 
 This is best seen in the cast in Bonn (Knackfuss-Zimmermann 
 I, p. 78), where these restorations l have been carried out, 
 and in theText Illustration No. 23. 
 
 With all the charm that this new Penelope possesses, there 
 remains a decided awkwardness of pose, which is the more 
 noticeable as the pose is intended to be easy and fortuitous. 
 The sculptor, no doubt, had difficulties in distributing the 
 masses of a body which he had not yet studied in any except 
 in erect poses. 
 
 The technique of the figure is further remarkable in that 
 it is flat. Only one side is finished, the other is almost 
 smooth, as if it had been placed against a wall. If it was 
 surrounded by a shrine, as many grave reliefs were (see Grave 
 Reliefs below) the effect was that of a high relief. The care- 
 lessly wrought left hand and wrist suggest a high position for 
 the monument, where the seat hid it from view. The folds of 
 the drapery on the upper part of the body are admirably 
 graceful and easy. 
 
 PLATE 75. So-called Hestia. Of Marble. Torlonia Museum, 
 Rome. Date and place of discovery unknown. Formerly in Giustini- 
 ani collection. The only restorations are the end of the nose and the 
 forefinger of the left hand. Robinson, No. 84 ; F. W., No. 212 ; Furt- 
 wangler, Masterpieces, pp. 23, 8t ; Reinach I, 449, 7 (under the name 
 of Vestal). 
 
 'All except the chair to take the place of the rock.
 
 82 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 This statue is so beautiful that Wolters (No. 212) believes 
 it is an original Greek temple image. He answers the objec- 
 tions of those who see in it a marble copy of a bronze original, 
 by referring them to the Aigina marbles, Plates 78 to 83, which 
 show the same sharp eyebrows and eyelids, and the same wiry 
 treatment of the hair. His point, however, although apparently 
 well taken, carries not sufficient weight, because he concedes 
 in it the reminders of bronze technique ' in the statue. To 
 decide to-day whether these reminders are due to the original 
 sculptor who carried his bronze technique over into marble, as 
 did the Aiginetans, or whether they are due to the copyist who 
 carefully kept the traces of the metal technique of the orig- 
 inal, is obviously impossible. 
 
 The name of the statue is equally indeterminable. Robin- 
 son well remarks that " the severity which characterizes the 
 statue both in the face and in the marked simplicity of the 
 drapery . . . was not wholly intentional on the part of 
 the sculptor, but rather that it marks a certain stage in the 
 development of Greek sculpture." As long as it was believed 
 to be intentional, the name Hestia 2 or Vestal Virgin seemed 
 to be the only appropriate one. The discovery, however, of 
 the Olympia figures, Plate 84ff., especially of the figures of the 
 East Pediment and of the metopes, has shown that this was 
 the characteristic way of this period of representing all draped 
 women. In the absence of attributes or other distinguishing 
 marks, it is, therefore, impossible to give a definite name to 
 the statue. 
 
 Equally impossible is the attribution of the statue to a defi- 
 nite artist. Robinson compares its face with the so-called 
 Apollo with the Omphalos, Plate 66, and tentatively suggests 
 
 'Very noticeable in the curls falling on the neck. Compare also 
 the Cassel Apollo, Plate 68. 2 Hestia is the Latin Vesta.
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 83 
 
 Kalamis. Kalamis, however, is out of the question, if the 
 correspondence in the faces is really as strong as Robinson 
 believes, which is extremely doubtful ; for the " Apollo " is 
 more probably the work of Pythagoras of Rhegion. The 
 statue has, moreover, in spite of all its dignity, little of the 
 inexplicable charm which we are told ' marked the figures of 
 women by Kalamis. 
 
 A comparison of this statue with the Charioteer of Delphi, 
 Plate 60, is very instructive. Softness there has been substi- 
 tuted for sharp angularity here, and slimness has taken the 
 place of the strong physical development of this woman. 
 
 The motive of the hand resting on the hip is here met with 
 for the first time. It was to play a prominent part in Greek 
 art. 2 Compare the right arm of this figure with the left arm 
 of the "Marble Faun," Plate 195, and notice the mastery of 
 the fourth century sculptor as compared with the first atempt 
 of the " Hestia " artist. 
 
 Another interesting comparison is made between this figure 
 and the similar torso in Copenhagen, Plate 77. There the 
 straight masses of the heavy folds are most pleasingly broken 
 by the projecting left knee. Here, as there, the weight of the 
 body seems to rest on the right leg, but the left leg is not suf- 
 ficiently bent to become noticeable in the lines of the drapery. 
 The body, in fact, is not revealed under the skirt of Hestia,3 
 and if it were not for the mastery with which the folds are 
 carved, we should be tempted to compare the " Hestia " with 
 the " Hera" of Samos, Plate 22 however, only to be con- 
 vinced of the wonderful advance which the artists have made, 
 
 1 Lucian, Imag. VI. 2 About one thousand years later Donatello 
 struggled again with this problem. 3 The garment does not reach to 
 the floor. The variety of the bottom folds, found in later statues, is 
 therefore completely absent here.
 
 84 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 and to be led to a fuller realization of the large number of 
 things which they had to learn before they could carve really 
 masterful draped female figures. 
 
 The motive of the drapery of " Hestia," the Doric chiton 
 without an upper garment, occurs on the Herculaneum " Dan- 
 cers," Plate 76, on the figure from Copenhagen, Plate 77, on 
 the Athena Parthenos, Plates g6ff., and on the Maidens (Ka- 
 ryatides) of the Erechtheion, Plate 166, which latter figure, 
 more than any other, shows the modifications of which the 
 type was capable. A very pleasant motive is found in the 
 Herculaneum figures, now in Dresden, of dignified women 
 (Plate 208) where the outer garment is added. The folds of 
 the himation pulled about the figure enabled the artist to ex- 
 press some of the feelings of the person that wore it. 
 
 PLATE 76. Statues of Women Dressed in the Doric Chiton, so- 
 called Dancers. Of Bronze. Museum in Naples. Discovered in 
 Herculaneum during the early excavations. Reinach I, 457, 5 and 6; 
 II, 425, 8 ; I, 457, 2. Cf. similar bronzes, Reinach II, 643, 1-3, 6-9. 
 
 These three bronzes, doubtless copies or imitations, more 
 or less accurate, of Greek works of the Transitional Period, 
 show many points in common with the Giustiniani " Hestia." 
 They lack, however, her noble dignity ', and seem to be show- 
 works, made for the delight of a wealthy Roman, rather 
 than conveyers of inspired ideas on the part of the artist. 
 Figures like these frequently occur as mirror handles 2 or 
 other supports, and it is perhaps not unreasonable to suppose 
 that these three figures from Herculaneum are enlargements 
 of such little figures and not copies of original statues. The 
 heads of all the " Dancers " follow the weight of the body, a 
 
 1 On the quality of these bronzes see Otto Benndorf, reviewed 
 A.J. A., VI, 1902, p. 467. 2 See Baumeister s. v. Spiegel.
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 85 
 
 fact which speaks in favor of copies rather than of late imita- 
 tions of earlier works. 
 
 Another possibility is not excluded, namely, that these 
 three ' figures were made to illustrate the wearing of the old 
 Doric chiton. Whether intended for this purpose or not, 
 they serve it well. The Doric chiton is a large sheet, about 
 twice as wide as the person is tall, and one or two heads longer 
 than the height of the wearer. When the lady intended to 
 put it on, she turned over an apotygma or bib, and then 
 slipped it on from her left. 2 She clasped it on her shoulder, 
 tight around the neck and loose in front, with the result of a 
 triangular fold, as is seen in all three of these statues. 3 This 
 is the garment as worn by figure one. The other two have 
 proceeded slightly differently. In the turning over of the 
 apotygma they have turned over less of the half of the gar- 
 ment that makes the front. This made the dress, when they 
 clasped it on the shoulders, much longer in front than in the 
 back, where it just touched the floor. In order to get rid of 
 the superfluous length in front they belted 4 the garment and 
 then pulled the dress up over this belt to fall in a kolpos (bag) 
 below the edge of the apotygma. Great variety could thus 
 be introduced by making the apotygma, and consequently the 
 kolpos, larger or smaller. The length of the apotygma in the 
 back remained the same. The length is seen in number 
 three. 
 
 PLATE 77. Torso of a Woman Draped in the Doric Chiton. Of 
 
 marble. Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg (Copenhagen). Date and place 
 
 'And the other three found with them. 2 This left the garment 
 open on the right side (cf. Lemnian Athena, PI. 95). Sometimes it 
 was sewed up from the bottom to about the waistline. 3 These folds 
 show well also on the Olympia metopes, Plates 90 and 91. 4 Possibly 
 also No. i has a belt under the apotygma, but she has no folds pulled 
 over it.
 
 86 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 of discovery not known. Height 1.57 M. (official catalogue, No. 24). 
 For the separately inserted left fore arm, now lost, see the practice of 
 the Akropolis figures, Plates 25-30, and the torsi from Delos, Plate 
 31 ; Reinach II, 644, 6. 
 
 This statue is especially interesting, when it is compared 
 with the Giustiniani " Hestia," Plate 75, and the Maiden from 
 the Erechtheion, Plate 166, between which it holds a middle 
 place. There is sufficient variety here to 'relieve the monotony 
 of the former figure and, on the other hand, less fussiness 
 around the hips than threatens the harmony of lines in the 
 Maiden. The apotygma shows a few more folds than that of 
 the " Hestia," but is far from being as graceful as that of the 
 Athenian girl. The length of the garment, reaching to the 
 floor, and the protruding toes are noteworthy motives, which 
 might have given the artist the opportunity of introducing 
 beautiful folds. The greater bend of the left leg completely 
 changed the treatment of the garment on this side. Yet, 
 neither opportunity did the artist know how to improve. 
 
 This statue, therefore, illustrates the transition from the 
 slightly stiff to the perfectly easy. In some ways it is more 
 advanced than the Lemnian Athena, Plate 95, which is treated 
 in the next period as the work of Pheidias. In spirit, how- 
 ever, it belongs so unmistabably to the Transitional Period 
 that it finds its proper place here and nowhere else. 
 
 PLATES 78-83. Figures from the East and the West Pediments 
 Of the Temple Of Aigina. Of marble. Glyptothek, Munich. The 
 majority of these figures were discovered on Aigina in 1811. They 
 were acquired in 1812 for the crown prince of Bavaria, afterward King 
 Ludwig I, and removed to Rome in 1815. Here Thorwaldsen modelled 
 the restorations, while the execution in marble was entrusted to various 
 other sculptors under the supervision of Wagner. The groups were 
 removed to Munich in 1828. For complete bibliography see Furt-
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 87 
 
 wangler, Catalogue, pp. 77ff., which includes the most perfect descrip- 
 tion and discussion of the sculptures. E. von Mach, pp. i82ff. (see 
 also pp. I78ff.); Robinson, Nos. 60 A-O ; F. W., 69-85; Reinach I, 
 8i5ff., with some inaccurate restorations. For the more recent dis- 
 coveries see A.J. A., Reviews, V, 1901, p. 338 and VI, 1902, pp. 68ff. 
 For the date of the sculptures see Furtwangler, Catalogue, pp. i6iff., 
 who says, "either just before or soon after 480 B. C."; Gardner, p. 
 201, Tarbell, p. 156, who place it just before 480 B. C. ; Overbeck I, p. 
 164, about $00 B. C.; E. von Mach. p. 182, later than the Persian 
 wars. Restorations : for all the details see Furtwangler's Catalogue. 
 
 All the facts concerning the Aiginetan figures are so com- 
 pletely and so clearly set forth in Furtwangler's Catalogue, 
 that one might say the last word was spoken, if it were not 
 for the more recent discoveries. These new discoveries, how- 
 ever, have hardly been sufficient to warrant noticeable changes 
 in his arguments, which, in so far as they have not been noted 
 in the discussion of these pediments, E. von Mach, pp. i82ff., 
 are as follows : 
 
 1. The present arrangement of the figures, parallel to the 
 wall, is wrong. They ought to be arranged slantingly, as is 
 proved by their uneven corrosion and by the fact that they are 
 finished all round. The fallen men ought to be pushed close 
 into the corners. 
 
 2. This makes it possible to put many more figures in the 
 pediments, probably even more than fourteen. 
 
 3. By the slanting arrangement of the figures the group 
 gains in vitality. 
 
 Furtwangler's observation that the figures originally were 
 arranged slanting to the wall is extremely interesting. It sug- 
 gests that the Aigina pediments were carved under the same 
 influences that were in force when some of the Treasury 
 friezes in Delphi were carved (see Plate 43). It means the 
 denial of the particular space which the figures filled rather
 
 88 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 than the submission to its limitations, which characterizes the 
 Akropolis Sculptures. 
 
 That such an arrangement would have broken the present 
 monotony is self-evident. It may, however, be doubted 
 whether much life would have been added. The fundamental 
 defect of these figures, which are " pictures of men " x and not 
 real living men, remains the same. 
 
 The interpretation of the " Kneeling Spearman," Plate 78, 
 as running 2 substitutes one defect in the endeavor of removing 
 another. Because a spearman seems out of place behind a 
 bowman, Kalkmann and Furtwangler see in him the last in- 
 stance of the archaic representation of running^ which drew 
 the figures as kneeling. Such a decided archaism seems very 
 much out of place in Aigina with its clear observation of na- 
 ture. Kalkmann bases his argument on the fact that the knee 
 of the Spearman does not touch the floor. This fact, how- 
 ever, is capable of another interpretation, which reflects more 
 credibly on the sculptors. If this figure actually had knelt, 
 it would have appeared from below, owing to the projecting 
 cornice, as if it was sunk deep into the floor. In order to 
 appear to be kneeling on the floor, the knee had to be slightly 
 raised above the floor. It is this same accurate observation 
 of appearances that accounts for the little block interposed 
 between the capital of a column and the architrave of a good 
 Greek temple. Only by raising the architrave above the capi- 
 tal does it seem, from below, to rest on it. 
 
 The essentials for the study of these figures, discussed 
 E. von Mach, pp. 1828"., are : 
 
 i. The inadequacy of the large center figure of Athena, 
 who takes no part in the battle. 
 
 'E. von Mach, p. 201. 2 Kalkmann, Jahrbuch, 1895, pp. 65, 74. 
 3 See E. von Mach, pp. 118, 119.
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 89 
 
 2. The unconvincing arrangement of the battle scene in 
 two hostile camps, which results in only a few of the warriors 
 having opponents. 
 
 3. The satisfactory filling of the corners, as furthest from 
 the mele'e, with wounded men. 
 
 4. The superiority of the East Pediment figures over those 
 of the West Pediment. 
 
 5. The most interesting figure is the fallen warrior, Plate 
 80. The double twist, the inability of the artist to carve an 
 easy transition from the abdomen to the breast, and his suc- 
 cessful device of hiding his failure by means of the arm are 
 noteworthy. 
 
 6. The attention paid to details even on the backs of the 
 figures, 1 which is in strong contrast to the Olympia sculptures, 
 Plates 84-89. 
 
 7. Reflex action and anima, the breath of life, which char- 
 acterized Myron, are absent from most of the Aigina figures, 
 notably the Standing Spearman, Plate 81. 
 
 8. The eclectic use made of the curve of the mouth, 2 
 wrongly called the " archaic smile." 
 
 9. The incongruity between the freedom of the male 
 figures and the constrained representation of Athena, who may 
 be compared to the Akropolis figures, Plates 256., and the 
 women on the Harpy Tomb, Plate 53. 
 
 10. From the presence of Athena in both pediments it 
 used to be argued that the temple was dedicated to her. The 
 fallacy of this argument might have appeared even before 
 
 1 The importance of this all around finish is not lessened by Furt- 
 vrangler's observation that the figures were placed on a slant. Even in 
 such a position there is a considerable portion of the figure that does 
 not show, and that consequently could be slighted with impunity. 
 
 2 For the representation of the mouths see E. von Mach, pp. I54ff.
 
 9 o 
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Furtwangler discovered the Aphaia inscriptions, 1 because 
 several instances 2 are known of temple deities not represented 
 in the pediments of their sanctuaries. 
 
 PLATES 84-89. Figures of the East and of the West Pediments 
 Of the Temple Of Zeus in Olympia. Of marble. Museum, Olympia. 
 Discovered during the German excavations of Olympia, from 1875 to 
 1 88 1. Olympia, die Ergebnisse der von dent deutschen Reich verans- 
 talten Ausgrabungen, edited by Ernst Curtius and F. Adler. Robin- 
 son, 65 and 66, with excellent references; F. W., 245ff. ; E. von Mach, 
 pp. i8ff. There are no restorations on the marbles, but many sug- 
 gested restorations of the pediments. A list of references to the earlier 
 restorations is given by Waldstein, J. H. S., V, p. 198; and fourteen 
 restorations of the Eastern Pediment are pictured in Jahrbuch XII, 
 1897, on plate facing p. 169. Several good articles, Jahrbuch VI, 91 ; 
 J. H.S., X, pp. noff. Treu's final and irrefutable arguments 3 for the 
 arrangement of the centaurs on the Western Pediment, Jahrbuch III, 
 1888, pp. I75ff. Supplementary reasons, E. von Mach, pp. I94ff. 
 The best article on the East Pediment, Konrad Wernicke, Jahrbuch 
 XII, 1897, pp. i69ff. Excellent plate of the restorations, shading off 
 the restored parts, Overbeck I, facing p. 309; reproduced, E. von 
 Mach, Plate XIV, figures xa and ib. Head of Theseus, E. von Mach, 
 facing p. 1 88. 
 
 Treu's final arrangements of both pediments (see E. von 
 Mach, Plate XIV) may be considered to be substantially 
 accurate. The only doubt attaches (in the East Pediment) 
 to the distribution of the figures on either side of Zeus. 
 Pausanias (V, 10, 6ff.) says Oinomaos stood to the right of 
 Zeus ; and this is variously interpreted as meaning from the 
 point of view of the spectator or of Zeus. 4 Treu says the 
 
 J E. von Mach, p. 182. 2 See Tarbell & Bates, A. J. .4., Series I, 
 Vol. VIII, pp. iSff. 3 Strangely enough, not considered in their full 
 bearing by Robinson, who clings to Treu's earlier arrangement, after 
 Treu himself has given it up as impossible. 4 Right and left are used 
 here, unless otherwise stated, with reference to the figures and not to 
 the spectator.
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 
 
 9 1 
 
 spectator must be meant, because Pelops, as the designated 
 victor in the race, ought to stand on the right of Zeus. Wer- 
 nicke in his very illuminating article, referred to above, takes 
 the other view. He follows Pausanias literally and succeeds 
 in making a most convincing restoration. The only difficulty 
 is that there are doubts as to the possibility of placing the 
 figure he calls Myrtilos where he puts it. Treu says it is im- 
 possible, as proved by experiments with the casts in Dresden. 
 Wernicke contends that the casts, owing to restorations, may 
 be somewhat larger than were the originals, and that his ar- 
 rangement is not impossible. 
 
 The charm of Wernicke's restoration consists in his break- 
 ing the monotony of the center group. Slightly in front, and 
 a little to the right, of Zeus, he places an altar. Oinomaos and 
 Pelops are advancing toward it. This is possible, because it is 
 known, from the position of the rivet holes in the backs of 
 these two figures, that they did not stand parallel to the wall, 
 Oinomaos even less so than Pelops. Treu placing the king to 
 the left of Zeus, says he is turning his back upon the god ; 
 Wernicke, placing him to the right and a little in front of 
 Zeus, makes him advance toward the altar. Sterope, his wife, 
 further back, is thought of as likewise advancing, ready to 
 hand her husband the saucer for the sacrifice. When 
 Oinomaos has finished, Pelops and Hippodameia will step up 
 to the altar and perform their sacrifice. 
 
 The five stiff and lifeless center figures have thus been con- 
 verted into persons engaged in a most vital action. By plac- 
 ing the women back of the men, Wernicke has broken the 
 monotony of the lines and has added variety. The double 
 row of figures finds its parallel in Furtwangler's new arrange- 
 ment of the Aigina marbles, doubling 1 them up, as it were, to 
 
 1 Not exactly one behind the other, but all slantingly, and some 
 nearer to, others further away from the front.
 
 9 2 
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 admit more figures in the given space of the pediment. The 
 other changes of Wernicke's reconstructions are of little im- 
 portance, except his interpretation of the old man, behind 
 the chariot of Oinomaos, in Text Illustration 22. He explains 
 him as the charioteer of Pelops, and says he held the reins 
 in his right hand. His objection to having the reins of the 
 horses held by a groom squatting in front of the chariot seems 
 to be well taken, in view of the accurate observation of nature 
 that characterizes the Olympia sculptures. Nobody can stop 
 horses when holding their reins in a sitting position under 
 their heads. It may, however, be remarked that if the idea 
 of the necessity of stopping the horses had occurred to the 
 artist, he would not have put the reins in the hand of an old 
 man, a hand, moreover, which at the same time supports 
 the head. Neither objection, however, is fatal ; neither inter- 
 pretation conclusive. Wernicke's arrangement has the advan- 
 tage that it places the stooping slave girl under the horses' 
 heads near Hippodameia, perhaps to fasten the sandal of her 
 mistress, making of the two a group similar to those often seen 
 on Athenian grave monuments. 1 
 
 All the other important points are discussed in full in E. von 
 Mach, pp. i88ff. They have reference to the following facts: 
 
 THE EAST PEDIMENT. 
 
 1. The evidence as to the date of the temple, not later 
 than 457 B. C., nor probably earlier than 470 B. C. 
 
 2. The subject of the East Pediment : the chariot race of 
 Oinomaos and Pelops. 
 
 3. The difficulty of arranging the figures in the triangular 
 space, and the only partial success of the sculptor. 
 
 4. The attention paid to the balance of masses, and the 
 
 1 See Plate 371,
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 
 
 93 
 
 subsequent addition of a bronze coat of mail to the slighter 
 Pelops. The holes of attachment are still visible. 
 
 5. Age differentiation in the men, character expression by 
 means of pose and drapery in the women. 
 
 6. Exquisite observation of nature in the case of the old 
 man. 
 
 7. Skill of representing the twist in Kladeos, Plate 853, 
 the figure in the right hand corner (from the spectator's point 
 of view). Contrast it with the dying warrior from Aigina, 
 Plate 79. 
 
 THE WEST PEDIMENT. 
 
 1. The subject : the struggle with the centaurs at the 
 wedding feast of Peirithoos, king of the Lapiths. 
 
 2. The treatment of the battle scene, everybody having his 
 opponent, in strong contrast to Aigina. 
 
 3. The design, suggestive, by means of its lines and masses, 
 of a fierce struggle, but not of disorder. 
 
 4. Constant resolution of groups according to masses into 
 other groups according to thoughts ; the three center figures, 
 for instance, which seem to belong together, really form parts 
 of several groups, etc. 
 
 5. The necessity of following Treu's final arrangement of 
 having the centaurs canter away from Apollo. 
 
 6. The noble conception of Apollo, Plate 86, in the center. 
 The change in his drapery, introduced after the statue was 
 carved, in order to make of him a more adequate center mass. 
 The treatment of his hair, and of his ear, suggestive of a con- 
 servative technique not yet completely freed of conventions. 
 
 7. The touches of realism in the composition by having all 
 the men, and even the boy, fight aggressively, while the 
 women confine themselves to the defensive. 
 
 8. The bestiality of the heads of the centaurs ; the calm
 
 94 
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 nobility, unruffled even by the fight, of the Lapiths and of 
 Theseus. 
 
 9. The life of the entire composition, due to the action. 
 The figures " do not stand or move as any .one must do under 
 similar circumstances, but as their own particular feelings 
 dictate." 
 
 Pausanias names as sculptors of the pediments Alkamenes 
 and Paionios. But dating these two men by other known 
 works of theirs, it has been found impossible 1 to assign to 
 them, especially to Alkamenes, the Olympja pediments. 
 Lately, however, the old view that there were two sculptors of 
 the name Alkamenes has been gaining ground. 2 A Hermes, 
 Plate 112, recently discovered in Pergamon and inscribed with 
 the name of Alkamenes, seems to be of too early a style, being 
 about contemporary with the Olympia sculptures, to belong to 
 the pupil of Pheidias, so that the Pausanias information may 
 be correct after all. 
 
 PLATE 90. Herakles Bearing 1 the Burden of Atlas. Discovered 
 
 1876. Museum, Olympia. Gardner, p. 228. For the head of the 
 woman, cf.y. H. S., V, PI. 40, head in Madrid. 
 
 PLATE 91. Herakles Cleaning 1 the Stables of Augeias. Discov- 
 ered by the Germans, 1876. Museum, Olympia. 
 
 PLATE 92a. Herakles and the Cretan Bull. Most of the upper 
 part discovered 182930 by the French, Louvre, Paris; the rest by the 
 Germans, 1880. Museum, Olympia. For all the metopes see Over- 
 beck I, pp. 332ff. 
 
 1 R. Forster, Reinisches Museum (new series), 38, p. 421. See also 
 Gardner, pp. 231, 232. 
 
 2 For Alkamenes I and II, see J. Six, in J. H. S., X, pp. iioff.
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 
 
 95 
 
 TEXT ILLUSTRATION 18. Herakles Offering the (now lost) 
 Stymphalian Birds, or One of Them, to Athena. The seated figure 
 discovered by the French, 1829-30, Louvre, Paris; the male figure 
 discovered by the Germans, 1876. Museum, Olympia. Michon, Let 
 Sculptures (TOlympia Conservee au Musee du Louvre ; Rev. Arch., 
 Vols. 26, pp. 75-109, and 27, pp. 150-181. 
 
 PLATE 92b. Metope of the Theseion, Theseus and the Bull. Of 
 
 marble. In its original place on the temple in Athens. Overbeck I, 
 pp. 457ff. ; fig. 
 
 The metope ' sculptures of the temple of Zeus, unlike those 
 of the Parthenon, were not attached to the outside of the 
 colonnade, but to the temple proper, that is to say, inside the 
 colonnade in a position comparable to that of the Parthenon 
 frieze; the only difference being that the Olympia metopes 
 did not continue along the sides of the temple ; they were con- 
 fined to the two ends. 
 
 They represent the labors of Herakles, and seem to have 
 begun, if we judge by the chronological order generally as- 
 signed to these labors, on the back side of the temple, that is 
 to say, the west. This was the first side the visitor noticed, 
 and may thus have received more attention than the other, 
 which really was the front. This view, if correct, may also 
 account for the fact that the West Pediment, is more interest- 
 ing than the East Pediment. The better sculptor, contrary to 
 custom, may have been selected for the most noticeable, and 
 not for the front, gable of the temple. 
 
 The labors of Herakles represented on the metopes were : 
 
 On the West side : 
 
 (i) The Nemeian Lion; (2) The Lernaian Hydra; (3) 
 The Stymphalian Birds; (4) The Kretan Bull; (5) The 
 Kerynetan Doe ; (6) the Amazon. 
 
 1 For definition of metopes see E. von Mach, pp. 212.
 
 9 6 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 On the East side : 
 
 (i) The Eryraanthian Boar ; (2) The Horses of Diomedes ; 
 (3) Geryon ; (4) Atlas and the Apples of the Hesperidai ; 
 (5) The Stables of Augeias; (6) The Kerberos. 
 
 All of these, except the last, are mentioned by Pausanias, 
 VI, 10, 9. 
 
 The style of the metopes, although in general keeping with 
 that of the pedimental sculptures, is more careful. Some of 
 the notable points of resemblance are, the drapery of Athena, 
 on the Stymphalian Birds metope, which corresponds to that 
 of the girl held by her hair in the left z corner of the West 
 Pediment. In both cases the folds follow the lines of the bent 
 leg, instead of falling vertically across them as would be nat- 
 ural. Secondly, the drapery of the woman, possibly one of 
 the Hesperidai, Plate 90, which is of the same style as that of 
 Sterope, Plate 84b, and not fundamentally different from that 
 of Hippodameia,Text Illustration, 21. The same is true of 
 the garment 2 of Athena, Plate 93. Thirdly, the treatment of 
 the hair in most of the metopes, a smooth mass ready to 
 receive the paint, is like that of several of the pediment figures. 
 Finally, the body of Herakles, Plate 923, resembles the male 
 bodies in the center of the East Pediment ; while the Herakles, 
 Plate 90, is best compared with the second figure from the left 
 hand corner of the same pediment, or with the third figure 
 from the right hand corner of the other pediment. 
 
 The metopes of the " Theseion " represent partly the same 
 subjects and partly similar subjects to those of the temple of 
 Zeus, namely, the labors of Herakles and those of Theseus.3 
 
 1 Left from the spectator. 2 For the difference in these garments, 
 one with a "kolpos," the other without, see the " Dancers" from Her- 
 culaneum, Plate 76. 3 See below, Plates 130!?.
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 
 
 97 
 
 There is considerable uncertainty as to the date of the 
 " Theseion," which, however, seems to be later than that of 
 the temple of Zeus. The metopes are in a poor state of 
 preservation, but the comparison of the one representing The- 
 seus and the Bull with the similar one from Olympia is very 
 instructive. In Olympia, Plate 923, the titanic power of the 
 hero is matched against the brute force of the beast. The 
 question is, "Who is the stronger?" On Plate p2b the man 
 is insignificant, even slight, compared with the bull, whom he 
 will conquer by a wrestling trick, of which he was the tradi- 
 tional discoverer. The question is, " What is more efficient, 
 brute force or human skill?" 
 
 PLATE 93. So-called Mourning Athena. Of marble. Akropolis 
 Museum, Athens. Discovered on the Akropolis in 1888. The upper 
 left hand corner of the slab and parts of the left fore arm are restored. 
 A. Fairbanks, A.J. A., 1902, pp. 4ioff., compares the relief with the 
 picture on a vase and discusses all earlier views. See also_Graef, 
 Deltion, 1880, pp. io 3 ff. 
 
 The figures of women of the Olympia metopes invite a 
 comparison also with the beautiful little relief of the so-called 
 " Mourning " or " Thinking Athena." The small size of this 
 relief, intended to be seen close at hand, may account for the 
 greater elaboration of the folds of the drapery. Athena, how- 
 ever, wears the same garment as the women on the metopes, 1 
 although she has arranged it differently. She has turned over 
 a bigger apotygma and has used the belt, over which her coun- 
 terpart, Plate 91, has pulled the" kolpos, 2 to fasten her apo- 
 tygma. The part that is turned over is about equal to that on 
 Plate 90, only that there it is ungirdled. Her hair, as far as it 
 
 1 It may be a little smaller. 2 For kolpos and apotygma see Hercu- 
 laneum " Dancers " Plate 76.
 
 98 GREEK AMD ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 shows below the helmet, is much like that of the Hesperidai, 
 while the nonchalant gesture of her right hand, resting with 
 outspread fingers on her hip, carries a definite reminder of 
 the Oinomaos ' in the East Pediment. The inaccurate draw- 
 ing, or rather suggested drawing, of her legs finds parallels 
 in similarly thoughtless forms among the pediment figures. 
 The woman carried off by the centaurs, for instance, on 
 Apollo's right, seems to have only one leg, and the twist of 
 her sister on the other side is impossible. 
 
 These observations place the Athena relief by the side of 
 the Olympia sculptures, although one may hesitate to assign 
 it to the same school on account of her differently shaped, 
 and very differently conceived, head. The helmet worn by 
 this Athena is the loose-fitting Korinthian helmet, which is 
 best studied in the Perikles busts and in the grave relief now 
 in Copenhagen. 2 It is a helmet that in battle is pulled down 
 over the face (notice the openings for the eyes and the guard 
 for the nose), but that is pushed up over the head at all other 
 times. The Olympian Athena, Plate 91, wears the other, 
 close-fitting or Athenian, helmet. 
 
 The design of the relief is worthy of careful study. The 
 straight lines of the figure are in keeping with the traditional 
 character of Athena, while the forward inclination of the body 
 is expressive of a thoughtful mood. This inclination had to 
 be pronounced in order to counteract the rigidity of the lines 
 in the body of the goddess. It would, however, have appeared 
 to be excessive, if it had not been overshadowed by the still 
 greater forward slant of the spear. By comparison with the 
 spear the body appears all but erect. This is the first instance 
 of a Greek sculptor making use of what might be called " the 
 
 "Compare also J. H. S., XXII, 1902, PI. I, stele from Athens re- 
 cently discovered, and p. 2, fig. I, relief of Herakles from Mt. Ithome. 
 2 See below, Plates 406 and 356.
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 99 
 
 principle of negative suggestion," r that is, suggesting less than 
 is actually carved. The spear, therefore, becomes a necessity 
 of the design. Its possibly unpleasant effect, however, as be- 
 ing one side of a very acute triangle, is counteracted by the 
 stele at the right. This stele, 2 originally painted, may have 
 contained the key to the meaning of the relief. 
 
 The beauty of the relief is not measured by such corre- 
 spondences or details of design ; it is inherent. The grace 
 of its conception speaks in terms far more personal than are 
 expressed in words. We do not know what Athena is doing 3 
 and we do not care ; for we enjoy her presence, whatever it is 
 that has brought her here. 
 
 . PLATE 94. Relief of Three Women in Transparent Garments, j^ju^. y, 
 
 SO-called " Birth Of Aphrodite." Of Marble. Museo BoncampagnirT^ _6 
 
 Ludovisi; now in the Museo delle Terme, Rome. Found 1887 in 
 
 grounds of the Villa Ludovisi, together with two other reliefs, Text ,*^ 
 
 Illustrations 16 and 17, one of a woman offering incense, the other of 
 
 a woman playing the flute. Excellent illustrations, Antike Denkmdler 
 
 II, Pis. 6 and 7. Helbig, No. 892, who gives a full bibliography. 
 
 The graceful lines of these figures and the light fall of their 
 draperies, suggestive almost of flowing water, have given the 
 relief the name of " Birth of Aphrodite." This goddess 
 rose, according to tradition, from the sea. 
 
 The first formidable objection to this interpretation consists 
 in the fact that the Greeks of the Transitional Period, to 
 
 1 See E. von Mach, pp. 244 ff. ; where this principle is discussed in 
 connection with the " Kephissos " of the Parthenon, Plate 141. 2 It 
 is by no means impossible to assume that the stele is an addition 
 of the copyist, who took his type of Athena from a gem ; for if this 
 Athena is reproduced in an oval frame the need for a stable verticle 
 line disappears. She appears as if designed for an oval. 3 For the 
 several suggestions see bibliography Robinson (supplement) 87. One 
 is that Athena is mourning at the grave of a warrior, whose stele is 
 seen at the right.
 
 loo GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 which the relief belongs, were not in the habit of represent-*** 
 m S tne elements by means of suggestive figures. Helbig is -* 
 right when he says that if the sea was meant we should ex- 
 ' pect to see fishes and other sea creatures portrayed to desig- 
 
 nate it. But even granting that the inspired conception of an 
 exceptional artist permitted a different representation, then the 
 sheet from behind which Aphrodite is rising ought at least to 
 show the same " watery " folds that characterize the garments 
 of her attendants. This, however, is not the case. If it is 
 possible, therefore, to explain these folds in another way, 
 interpretation of the relief as the Birth of Aphrodite cannot 
 stand. Studied by themselves, the draperies of neither attend- 
 ant appear to be " watery." The girl to the spectator's right 
 seems to be dressed in two garments. The lower and heavier 
 is close fitting, it follows the lines of the bent leg, 1 just as was 
 the case with some Olympia figures. Over this close-fitting 
 garment the girl wears another, a transparent one, falling in 
 vertical masses. It is the difficulty of sketching the one gar- 
 ment over the other which accounts for the peculiar effect. 
 The watery appearance is accidental and not intentional. The 
 central figure, wearing only the transparent chiton, offered 
 fewer difficulties to the sculptor. 
 
 These observations reveal the insufficient grounds on which 
 the relief has been called the " Birth of Aphrodite," although 
 they fail to substitute another interpretation. No interpreta- 
 tion, in fact, 2 has been suggested that is convincing. These 
 three graceful figures, therefore, remain unnamed. 
 
 It: * S t ^ 16 "S* 1 * l e as i s seen from the foot. The faulty drawing 
 makes it appear to be the left. 2 Helbig's suggestion that the subject 
 is that of a woman awaiting her accouchement, kneeling, according to 
 an ancient custom, may be correct. If so, the relief is a good example 
 of the delicacy with which Greek sculptors treated subjects that, to the 
 ordinary mind, do not seem to lend themselves to an aesthetic repre-
 
 >r *
 
 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 101 
 
 The design of the group is thoughtful and, barring the com- 
 bination of the arms back of the central figure, very success- 
 ful. Both the balance and the harmony of the composition, 
 but withal its studied variety, call for attention. The two 
 attendants, although very similar in appearance, are yet differ- 
 ent in every line ; and the seemingly symmetrical folds of the 
 sheet in the center are, nevertheless, all of them, carrying the 
 eye, in the direction of the gaze of the figure above. The 
 modelling of the nude is good and expressive, the left fore-arm 
 of the figure on the right clearly marking her readiness to drop 
 the cloth and to reach down. This is a great achievement, for 
 it means the conquest of the inertia of the material in which 
 the arm is wrought. The hair of the center figure is note- 
 worthy, there being no connection between the hair on the 
 crown of the head and that below the fillet. This is a con- 
 vention characteristic of the Transitional and the Archaic 
 periods of Greek sculpture. Here, however, it is followed 
 with so much delicate skill that it almost escapes notice. 
 Only few heads are extant of which the same can be said, and 
 most, if not all, of these bear striking resemblances to this 
 relief. One is pictured, Athen. Mitth. VI, 1881, Plate VII, I, 
 and another/. H. S., XIV, 1894, Plate V. 
 
 This latter head has given Eugenie Sellers the opportunity 
 of discussing the relief in Rome in detail, coming to the con- 
 clusion that it must be assigned to Kalamis. 1 She may be 
 right, but with the data at our command, the case cannot be 
 proved, 2 although it is possible to say that the style of this 
 relief agrees more accurately with the reputed style of Kalamis 
 than with that of anyone else. 
 
 1 The same view is advanced, Rom. Mitth. VII, pp. 31-80. 
 
 2 The possibly correct attribution of this relief to Kalamis makes 
 the suggestion mentioned above, that the " Hestia" is by him, appear 
 deservedly ridiculous.
 
 102 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 PART FOUR. 
 
 Fifth Century. 
 
 The name of Pheidias, which is lastingly and firmly con- 
 nected with the Greek Sculpture of the fifth century before 
 Christ, has led many people to believe that his works are that 
 sculpture. Pheidias, however, was only one of many artists 
 who, receiving a rich inheritance, added to it from the pro- 
 ceeds of their genius, and created works which not only 
 pleased their fellow men, but which exerted through centuries, 
 and down to our own generation, influences of supreme no- 
 bility. 
 
 Pheidias, too, was a beginner once, and his early works, no 
 doubt, showed signs of the novice. We think of him, how- 
 ever, as of the man of matured ideas, and judge him by his 
 later works, the more so as it has proved difficult to identify 
 any of his earlier creations. It is the quality of his master- 
 pieces that has given to the century in which he lived the now 
 traditional character. For this reason it has seemed wise to 
 detach the first thirty years after the Persian wars, and to 
 treat of their sculpture in a separate period as works of 
 Transition. The word of suggestion uttered above, not to 
 believe that every work, because discussed in the Transitional 
 Period, must have been made between 480 and 450 B. C., 
 but rather to consider the affinity of spirit which classes it 
 with indubitable works of that period, holds good also here 
 All that is meant by placing a statue in the so-called Fifth-
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 103 
 
 Century group rather than in the Transitional Period is that it 
 shows less of traditional conventions and more of the genius 
 of the artist. In the case of a few statues it has been very 
 difficult to decide which was the case. They have been in- 
 cluded in the "fifth century" if they are important for the 
 understanding of a later type. 
 
 Properly speaking, the Fifth-Century group includes the 
 period of Transition. No name, however, having been as- 
 signed to the years after 450 B. C., and the public mind hav- 
 ing accepted the identification of freedom of conception and 
 of great skill with the fifth century, it has seemed wise to 
 separate the two periods, and to be intelligible rather than 
 logical. 
 
 PLATE 95. The Lemnlan Athena, After Pheidias. Plaster cast 
 
 of two marble statues in Dresden and a marble head in Bologna. 
 Albertinum, Dresden. Over six feet high. Indentured by Furt- 
 wangler, Masterpieces, pp. iff. Objections to Furtwangler's view by 
 P. Jamot, Monuments Grecs, Nos. 21, 22, '93 '94 ; Furtwangler's re- 
 ply, Class Rev., June, 1895; Jamot's rejoinder, Rev. Arch., 1895, VoL 
 27, pp. 7-39; Furtwangler's final remarks, Rev. Arch., 1896. Vol. 28, 
 pp. 1-5, Vol. 29, p. 27, with pictures of gems; Furtwangler upheld by 
 Studniczka, A. J. A. (Review), 1900, Vol. IV, p. 346; E. von Mach, 
 pp. 2o8ff., 332 ; Gardner, 1 pp. 265 and note facing p. 167 ; Robinson, 
 109; Reinach II, 274, 7. The statue is to be restored with a spear in 
 the raised left hand and a helmet on the lowered right hand. 
 
 The identification of this statue as a copy of the Lemnian 
 Athena by Pheidias is, to the writer, convincing. None of the 
 technical objections of its opponents have been unanswerable. 
 
 1 Professor Gardner informs me that he intends to recast his objec- 
 tions to Furtwangler's identification. He does not accept it, basing 
 his reasons now on the style of the statue, which he believes is not 
 Pheidian.
 
 I0 4 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The only difficulty is in replying to those who do not see the 
 style of Pheidias in the statue. The style of Pheidias, however, 
 is as yet something so elusive, based, or not based, on his con- 
 nection with the Parthenon sculptures, 1 that it becomes impos- 
 sible to argue the question. One thing is sure, if the original 
 of this statue was not by Pheidias, then the chain of circum- 
 stantial evidence which Furtwangler has drawn tightly around 
 his identification, must be explained away. This cannot be 
 done by a mere profession of incredulity in respect to the 
 style. It must be done by paring off argument against argu- 
 ment. This, however, no one has even attempted to do during 
 the ten or twelve years that the new combination statue has 
 been known. In view of these facts, it behooves us no 
 longer cautiously to speak of the " supposed copy of the 
 Lemnia," but to accept the force of the argument, whatever 
 pet theories it may scatter, and to name the statue as at 
 present it certainly appears to be the Lemnian Athena after 
 Pheidias. 
 
 " The dignity of the statue is self-evident. It is a somewhat 
 austere, though kind, conception of the patron goddess of 
 Athens, and appeals to the imagination even more than to the 
 senses. The statue was doubtless created under those influ- 
 ences which, by common consent, are held to have emanated 
 from Pheidias. They are perfection of transmitted forms, and 
 expression of a profound and divinely noble character." 2 
 
 The second of these qualities can only be felt. It cannot 
 be discussed. The first is capable of demonstration. It is 
 best understood when one compares the statue with the 
 Olympian metopes, Plates goff., the women of the East Pedi- 
 ment of Olympia, Plate 87, the relief of Athena, Plate 93, the 
 
 'See E. von Mach, p. 211. 2 Quoted from E. von Mach. p. 209, 
 where a fuller appreciation of the statue is given.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 I0 5 
 
 Giustiniani " Hestia," Plate 75, and the Copenhagen torso, 
 Plate 77.' It is then readily seen how naturally the type of 
 the Lemnian Athena evolved, under the gifted hands of a 
 great artist, from the earlier creations. Especially interesting 
 is a comparison of the Lemnia and of the figure in Copen- 
 hagen. The latter marks the clinging to the conventional type 
 and the mere refinement of details, the former shows the 
 power of divining the latent possibilities of the old type and 
 of embuing them with new life. 
 
 The pose of the head of the Lemnia also is noteworthy. 
 Following the direction of the weight of the body, as all its 
 predecessors do, it is yet full of individuality. In this respect 
 it compares well with the Apollo from the Tiber, Plate 10. 
 The drapery of the statue is short, leaving the feet bare. 
 Later, in the Parthenos, Plate 96, greater variety in the bottom 
 folds is procured by lengthening the garment. This was de- 
 sirable, in view of the unpleasant appearance of those folds of 
 the shorter garment which, for variety's sake, did not run 
 straight down to the edge. 
 
 PLATES 96-100. Copies and Adaptations of the Athena Parthe- 
 nos (the Virgin) by Pheidias. For the most complete list see Abh. 
 der K. Sac As, Gesellschaft der \Visscnschaften, 1883, and Th. Schreiber, 
 Athena Parthenos; also Jh. Oesterr. Arch, fnst., 1901, Vol. IV, pp. 
 I44ff., or the Review, A. J. A., 1901, Vol. VI, p. 463; Arch. Zeit., 1883, 
 pp. i83ff. For the dimensions, A. J. A., Series I, Vol. X, i895,.pp. 
 3358. The old literature is cited and discussed by Michaelis in his 
 standard book Der Parthenon, pp. 266ff. See also A. S. Murray, The 
 Parthenon; Charles Waldstein, Essays on the Art of Pheidias ; and 
 
 1 Additional interesting comparisons are made between the statue 
 and the statuette, Furtwangler, Masterpieces, fig. 5, p. 23; Reinach II, 
 2 93> 5 ; an d the Athena, Reinach II, 800, 7, a statue much like the 
 Copenhagen torso, Plate 77, but for a change of legs and the addition 
 of a slanting aigis.
 
 I0 6 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Furtwangler, Masterpieces, pp. loff. For further literature see Over- 
 beck I, p. 369, notes 25ff. Ancient descriptions, Overbeck, S. Q., 645- 
 690; Stuart- Jones, 104, 105. 
 
 PLATE 96. Small Statue Of Marble. Madrid, Hiibner, No. 10; 
 Michaelis, Der Parthenon, p. 279, A. " Very faithful " (recht getreu}, 
 
 PLATE 97. Varvakeion Statuette. Of marble. National Museum, 
 Athens. Found in 1880 near the Varvakeion, the northern precinct of 
 Athens. F. W., 467; Robinson, 413; Reinach 11,274,2. Mechani- 
 cally accurate, but otherwise very inferior. 
 
 PLATE 98. Lenormant Statuette. 1 Very small. Of marble. 
 National Museum, Athens. Found in 1859 west of the Pnyx. Unfin- 
 ished except the face. Truer to the conception of the original than 
 the Varvakeion statuette. Michaelis, p. 276, i ; F. W., 466; Robinson, 
 412; Reinach II, 274, i. 
 
 PLATE 99a. Pergamon Copy. Of marble. Discovered during 
 the German excavations. Museum, Berlin. Jahrbuch, 1890, p. 95; 
 Reinach II, 293, i. A late adaptation. 
 
 PLATE 99b. Colossal Statue by Antiochos 2 of Athens. Museo 
 
 Boncampagni, Ludovisi, now Museo delle Terme, Rome. Restora- 
 tions : both arms, parts of nose and lower lip, part of the edge of the 
 aigis, the projecting part of the snake-knot, several folds of the drapery 
 and the crest of the helmet. The restorer has spoiled the statue by 
 retouching several places, notably the edge of the apotygma, where he 
 has smoothed away several folds. Helbig, 870; Overbeck II, p. 452; 
 Michaelis, p. 279, B. ; Reinach II, 279, 7. One of the most faithful 
 copies, barring the restorations. 
 
 PLATE 99c. So-called " Minerve au Collier." Colossal statue of 
 marble. Louvre, Paris. Restorations : both arms and their attributes, 
 
 1 Another statuette is the bronze Athena in Turin. Found in 1828 
 in the bed of a river. Robinson, 414 ; Reinach I, 231, 2 and 3. " Full 
 of mannerism" (sehr maneriert) ; Michaelis, p. 279. 
 
 2 The first two letters having disappeared, the name, as Helbig sug- 
 gests, may also be Metiochos.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 107 
 
 the nose and the lips, the heads of the sphinx and the griffins on the 
 helmet, several locks and parts of the aigis. Frohner, Catalogue, No. 
 112; Michaelis, p. 278, 3; Reinach II, 162, 3. Free copy. 1 
 
 PLATE 100. Shield Of Athena. Of marble. British Museum, 
 London. Found in Athens, date unknown, acquired for the British 
 Muesum, 1863. British Museum Catalogue, No. 302; Conze, Arch. 
 Zeit., Vol. 33, pp. 33ff. ; Robinson, 415 ; Michaelis, p. 283, 34.* Sketchy 
 and a suggestion of the original rather than of a copy of it. 
 
 In the Varvakeion statuette scholars have come to see the 
 most accurate reproduction of the shape of the Athena Parthe- 
 nos by Pheidias. The statuette is little more than three feet 
 high, while the original was more than ten times this height. 
 It is, therefore, impossible to receive any impression from the 
 statuette comparable to that made by the gold and ivory 
 Parthenos in Athens. Some of the other copies have retained 
 more of the pleasing dignity of the goddess, but even they fall 
 short of giving an adequate impression. The work of Pheidias 
 was designed for the semi-dark of the sacred interior, it was 
 made of materials of great intrinsic value, gold and ivory, and 
 was doubtless conceived in forms capable of attracting atten- 
 tion in spite of the wealth in which they were wrought. Set- 
 ting, material, size and design, all combined to impress the 
 people, and of all, only the design reduced in scale and, there- 
 fore, distorted is left to us. 
 
 We have in consequence no right to judge Pheidias by these 
 copies. What now impresses us as stiffness may once have 
 appeared to be noble simplicity. A technical device, as for 
 instance the heavy fold falling from the left knee to the ground 
 
 1 For a new list of heads of the Athena Parthenos, see L. Pollak, 
 Jh.Oesterr.Arch. Institute IV, 1901, pp. 144-150. 
 
 2 A similar fragment is in the Vatican, Michaelis p. 284, 35 ; another 
 in the Capitoline, Schreiber, Plate III, 3.
 
 I0 8 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 and designed to serve as a support, 1 is prominent and un- 
 pleasant in the diminutive copy. It was not noticed among 
 the huge masses of the colossal drapery of the original. 
 
 The same may be true of the column 2 under the right hand, 
 if it really formed part of the original design. Possibly 
 although it has been tried in vain to get a concensus of 
 opinion in this respect the column is a later addition. The 
 apparent accuracy of the Varvakeion statuette, however, makes 
 it unlikely that the singular support of the hand, which occurs 
 also on several other monuments, 3 and which may even have 
 been mentioned by Plutarch,-* is an invention of the copyist. 
 The figure of Nike was six feet high, so that the arm of 
 Athena needed a strong support to carry such a weight. The 
 question is, " Could an interior support of sufficient strength 
 be devised to do away with the column?" Those who have 
 unbounded faith not only in the genius but also in the inge- 
 nuity of Pheidias feel inclined to answer " yes." They may 
 be right, and in that case suppose that the column was added 
 when repairs became necessary, soon after the death of 
 Pheidias. This would account for the presence of the column 
 in several extant monuments, while, on the other hand, the 
 absence of the column in the majority of reproductions of the 
 Parthenos type cannot be used as a valid argument, if it is as- 
 sumed that their several makers understood the column to be 
 
 1 The internal mechanism of a colossal gold and ivory statue was 
 very complex. The weight of the material was enormous. The statue 
 consisted inside of a huge skeleton, with many beams and iron bars 
 crossing and re-crossing. The fold from the left knee to the floor may 
 have hidden a supporting bar. 2 The shape of the column is un-Greek. 
 3 See Overbeck, p. 369,11016 26, and p. 352. 4 Overbeck, p. 369, note 30. 
 Plutarch, Life of Perikles, chapter 13, says Pheidias had inscribed his 
 name on the " stele," which is most naturally translated "on the col- 
 umn," although other translations are possible.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 109 
 
 nought but a support which they, in their smaller statues, could 
 afford to omit. 
 
 With the knowledge at our command at the present day, it 
 is impossible to decide the question. We can at best offer 
 guesses as to how the column came there. Either it was there 
 originally, or it was introduced when repairs became necessary, 
 or and this possibility has perhaps most in its favor it 
 never formed part of the gold and ivory statue from which 
 the columnless copies are derived, but was resorted to by a 
 later sculptor, who made a colossal marble copy (now lost) 
 of the Parthenos, which statue is reproduced in the column 
 copies. There is no mention in literature of such a colossal 
 marble reproduction, but literature is generally silent as to 
 copies, while we know that late artists at times delighted in 
 just such feats as the task of copying the Parthenos in a huge 
 block of marble would have offered. 
 
 Compared with the Lemnian Athena, Plate 95, the Parthe- 
 nos, in the most accurate copies, is of slender build. The 
 Pergamon Athena in Berlin is far from offering a thin appear- 
 ance. The appearance, however, counts. Multiplied by ten, 
 the width across the shoulders of the Varvakeion statuette 
 would offer powerful dimensions. It would then be judged 
 by itself, and not, as is the case with the small statues, by its 
 relation to the height of the figure. There is one other rea- 
 son why the shoulders of the Parthenos could not be very 
 broad. It would have carried the left hand, and consequently 
 the shield and the snake, unpleasantly far away from the side 
 of her body. This could have been obviated only if a differ- 
 ent angle had been assigned to the forearm. Such a change, 
 however, would have spoiled the symmetry of the design. 
 
 All this shows how erroneous it is to formulate a canon for 
 the art of Pheidias from the analysis of the extant copies of the 
 Parthenos, to call this his style, and to refuse to admit to his
 
 HO GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 circle all works that do not conform to it. The very opposite 
 is the right course to take. Pheidias was known in antiquity 
 as the man who adapted his designs to the places and to the 
 conditions under which they were to be seen. 1 None of his 
 statues of ordinary size, therefore, would show the proportions 
 of his colossal temple images, so that the proof of a statue's 
 not being by Pheidias may be found in its conformity to the 
 Parthenos proportions rather than in its deviations from 
 them. 2 
 
 This ought to be remembered by those who refuse to accept 
 the cogency of Furtwangler's arguments in respect to the 
 Lemnian Athena, Plate 95, and who do so on the ground that 
 the statue does not seem to exhibit the style of Pheidias. By 
 " style " they mean, not the conception, but the mechanical ex- 
 ecution, the distribution of masses, the general finish and the 
 proportions. The proportions are different, and must be so. 
 But with this one exception, there is a singular correspond- 
 ence between the Lemnian and the Parthenos copies, allow- 
 ing the latter to show a further development of the type of 
 the former. The long apotygma belted with snakes, the low 
 neck, the deep folds like flutings of a column, relieved by the 
 smoother stretches of the bent left leg, afftl even the fold from 
 the left knee down, which has become a supporting necessity 
 in the Parthenos, are found in the Lemnian Athena.3 
 
 The several Parthenos copies collected on Plates g6ff., offer 
 
 1 See story quoted from antiquity, E. von Mach, pp. 41, 42. 
 
 2 The same, of course, is true of the figures on the Parthenon frieze 
 and on the metopes and in the pediments, if in them we see the style 
 of Pheidias. They were not all colossal, to be sure, but they were to 
 be seen at a height of about fifty feet and at a sharp angle. 
 
 3 This fold is, of course, less pronounced in the Lemnia. It is, how- 
 ever, clearly seen in a profile view from the figure's left side. No such 
 fold appears, for instance, in the torso in Copenhagen, Plate 77.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. m 
 
 the best opportunity of familiarizing oneself with the tech- 
 nicalities of the style of Pheidias as manifested in this one 
 statue. As such they are invaluable. As a guide to the gran- 
 deur of the Pheidian conception, they are useless, 1 except for 
 those who have the power of divinition. 
 
 The subjects portrayed on the shield were the fight of the* 
 gods and the giants on the inside, 2 and a battle with the Ama- 
 zons on the outside. The shield of the Varvakeion statuette 
 is not decorated. The Lenormant shield 3 has a few dimin- 
 utive figures, which occur also, together with others, on the 
 fragment in London in the same bold and characteristic poses. 
 The lack of unity in the London composition is probably due 
 to the fact that the artist found it impossible, owing to the re- 
 duced size of his shield, to reproduce all the figures of the 
 original. 
 
 The greatest interest attaches to the two figures immediately 
 under the Gorgon, the old man swinging his double axe, 
 and his neighbor hiding the greater part of his face, with his 
 right arm extended to fetch a blow. According to tradition, 4 
 the old man is Pheidias and the other Perikles. 
 
 PLATE 101. Athena MediCl. Of marble (said to be from Car- 
 rara.) Ecole des Beaux Arts, Paris. Date and place of discovery un- 
 known, formerly in the Villa Medici, Rome. Sent to Paris between 
 1834 and 1841. Furtwangler, Masterpieces, pp. 27ff. ; Furtwangler, In- 
 termezzi, pp. I5ff. ; F. W., 476; Robinson, 450; Reinach I, 238, 2. 
 
 1 Much better for this purpose is, for instance, the gem in Vienna, 
 containing the head of Athena, signed by Aspasios, Text Illustration 12. 
 For a head which has preserved its color, see Plate 459 and Antike 
 Denkmdler II, Plates 31-34. 2 Overbeck recognizes a copy of this 
 scene in a vase painting in Berlin, Gerhard, Trinkschalen, Pis. 10 and 
 n. 3 Picture, Michaelis, PI. 15, 16. The very small size of the shield 
 made the reproduction of many figures impossible. 4 Overbeck, S. Q., 
 630, 668-671.
 
 112 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The vicissitudes that have marked the career of this statue 
 until they have obliterated all traces of its history have shed 
 their confusing light even over the discussions by various 
 learned men. From the place near Pheidias which Wolters 
 gives it, Robinson concludes " that it might even have been 
 supposed to be a copy of this statue of the Parthenos," ' while 
 Furtwangler at one time dragged it to the center of the East 
 Pediment of the Parthenon and then back again. Now all 
 these theories have run their course unaccepted, except that 
 of Wolters, which still has many supporters, although the 
 Carrara marble of which the statue seems to be made speaks 
 against it ; for this marble was first quarried in Roman imperial 
 times. If the style were really and unmistakably Pheidian, 
 the assumption of the Medici Athena being an unusually 
 faithful and spirited copy, might obviate this difficulty. This 
 assumption, however, grants the late copyist a power not only 
 of skill but also of perception so delicate that it 'becomes 
 impossible to deny him an equal power of conception, and 
 that is fatal to the unqualified attribution of the statue to the 
 age of Pheidias. 
 
 The first thing that strikes the observer is a wealth of dra- 
 pery motives and a nonchalant disposition of the legs. Placing 
 himself in the attitude of the Lemnia, Plate 95, he readily 
 appreciates the further development of the Parthenos, both 
 poses naturally devolving from the erect position of the 
 " Apollos," Plates nff., which, in all fifth-century works, seems 
 to be the starting-point. Not so in the Athena Medici. She 
 presupposes several changes. No simple sideway posture of 
 the right leg accounts for the fall of her drapery. Several 
 
 1 This could have been supposed only by those who are unfamiliar 
 with ancient literature and with the description of the Parthenos 
 there contained.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. H3 
 
 steps must have been taken, and the leg must have moved for- 
 ward actively, before the heavy garment could have been 
 pushed over to one side so much as to discover the right leg 
 completely. She is not a standing figure like the Lemnia or the 
 Parthenos, in the sense that she has long stood thus, and always 
 will stand in this attitude. She is a standing figure because 
 she has just stopped walking. Theirs is a position slightly 
 more varied than that which may have preceded ; hers is 
 an attitude less lively than was revealed by her forms before 
 she stood still. This implies ease of conception as regards 
 moving figures, and such ease is not found in any indubitably 
 Pheidian statue. 
 
 The contrast of the lower and of the upper garment as a 
 conscious motive of beauty is also not known in the age of 
 Pheidias, 1 so that the dignity of the figure, and the stability 
 of the folds of the heavy chiton on the left side, and the long 
 apotygma alone remain as possible arguments. The folds, 
 however, on closer observation, are very different from those 
 of the Parthenos. They are soft and not harsh, they are 
 varied with an eye more to the beauty of the design than to 
 their natural fall. This is clearly seen in the part of the gar- 
 ment which falls over the girdle, more especially immediately 
 over the center. 
 
 Under these conditions it becomes impossible to look upon 
 this statue as belonging to the immediate age of Pheidias. 
 It rather shows the latent possibilities of the Pheidian crea- 
 tions, divined by a later admirer, and embued by him with 
 new life, just as Pheidias had taken hold of the best he saw 
 
 1 Furtwangler's contention that the two garments do occur in the 
 fifth century is true only in so far as it refers to their co-existence in a 
 few statues. Nowhere are they contrasted for the sake of the beauty 
 of such a contrast.
 
 114 
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 in the works of his predecessors, and made of it the founda- 
 tion of his own designs. 
 
 The exact date of the Athena Medici is indeterminable. 
 We know as yet too little of the period of Roman art to which 
 the Carrara marble most naturally would assign her, to attri- 
 bute her to it with confidence. The appearance of the statue 
 speaks in favor of its being an original rather than a copy. 
 
 PLATE 102a. Athena Farnese. Of marble. Museum, Naples. 
 Gerhard and Panofka : Neapefs Antike Bildwerke, p. 41, No. 118; 
 Furtwangler, Masterpieces, pp. 73ff. ; Reinach I, 226, 5 and 6. 
 
 PLATE 102b. Hope Athena. Found in 1797 at Ostia. Now at 
 Deepdene. Restorations : Both arms, the Nike, the spear, a part of 
 the chiton and part of the snakes on the aigis, part of the toes on 
 the right foot, and the Gorgon's nose and chin. Michaelis, Anc. Mar- 
 bles, p. 290, No. 39; Furtwangler, Afasterpieces, pp. 73rf. : Reinach I, 
 227, 3- 
 
 PLATE 102C. Athena. Of marble. Villa Albani, Rome. Found, 
 date unknown, in Hadrian's villa on the Tiber. Restorations : nose, 
 lips, back of the head, the nude parts of both arms, front of left foot 
 and several minor parts, including the muzzle of the dog's skin. Hel- 
 big, 781 ; Furtwangler, pp. /8ff. ; F. W., 524; Reinach I, 236, 6. 
 
 These three statues, of considerable resemblance to each 
 other, and yet of one noteworthy difference in the case of the 
 Albani Athena, show a different motive of drapery from the 
 one discussed in its several varieties in the preceding statues. 
 The artist has returned to the cloak worn over the undergar- 
 ments by the Akropolis figures, Plates 25 ff. Most of these 
 early figures had the mantle fastened on their left shoulder, 
 and so it is here with two out of the three Athenas. Fashion, 
 however, has changed. The small cloak has given way to the 
 heavy mantle, which, like an unevenly doubled shawl, is thrown 
 over the shoulder. This new garment, when very large
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 115 
 
 reaching almost to the feet, has the peculiar effect of making 
 the figure appear short, as is the case with the Albani copy. 
 By showing more of the chiton below it, the artists of the other 
 two statues have broken the extent of the straight front view, 
 and have thus added to the appearance of height of their 
 figures ; while at the same time they have, by the lighter and 
 more numerous folds of the undergarment, begun to relieve the 
 monotony of the Albani statue. No conscious desire, how- 
 ever, is noticeable of enlarging upon this motive, as is the case 
 with the Athena Medici, Plate 101. Divested of their peculiar 
 draperies, these figures at once fall in line with the poses of 
 the Lemnia and of the Parthenos, Plates 95 and 96fF., of 
 which they mark a further development. This is most notice- 
 able in the Athena Farnese, Plate iO2a, which may almost be 
 said to stand ready to walk. From her to the Doryphoros, 
 Plate 113, is but one small step. 
 
 The Athena Albani used to be called " Athena with the Lion 
 Helmet," under the misconception that the dog-skin cap ' 
 was a lion's head. The cap, however, is more probably the 
 " cap of Hades," indicating the connection of this Athena with 
 the powers of the lower world, as was the case, for instance, 
 with an Athena worshiped in Koroneia. 2 The head is remark- 
 ably well preserved and of great beauty. Winckelmann 
 thought this statue revealed one of the grandest conceptions 
 of antiquity. 
 
 Furtwangler ventures to assign the Hope Athena to 
 Pheidias, although he confesses never to have seen the origi- 
 
 1 See Helbig, No. 781. 2 Overbeck, 6". Q., 830 ; Pausanias IX, 34, I ; 
 Strabo, IX, p. 411. The Athena of Koroneia was of bronze and was 
 the work of Agorakritos, a pupil of Pheidias. The grounds on which 
 Furtwangler, p. 81, assigns the Albani Athena to Praxias are so slight 
 that they disprove rather than prove his case.
 
 n6 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 nal, while he attributes the Farnese Athena to a pupil of 
 Pheidias. His only admissible arguments, which unsup- 
 ported however are really no arguments, are that the type 
 of these figures might be by Pheidias, that Pheidias would not 
 have repeated himself, and that therefore one of the statues 
 must have been made by one of his pupils. 
 
 PLATE 103. Draped Figure of a Woman, "Aphrodite." Of 
 
 marble. Berlin. Bought in Italy. Restorations : the tortoise under 
 the foot. Kekule, Eine Gewandstatue ; also Arch. Anzeiger, 1893, p. 
 74; Collignon II, pp. 131 ; Reinach II, 338, 6. 
 
 Kekule has correctly recognized not only the fifth century 
 style of this figure, but also that it is an original. Its "nobility 
 and breadth of proportions " and its drapery bear strong resem- 
 blance to one of the " Three Fates " of the Parthenon, Plate 
 136, while the raised foot is a motive not infrequent on the 
 Parthenon frieze. In lines and masses the figure appears to 
 be a ready evolution of types like the Copenhagen figure, 
 Plate 77 ; and, what is very interesting, it is the prototype of 
 figures like the Aphrodite of Melos, Plates 29 if. 
 
 The name " Aphrodite " for this statue seems to be correct. 1 
 Its attribution to Agorakritos, the pupil of Pheidias, is a guess 
 which has not enough in its favor to make it a probability. 
 
 TEXT ILLUSTRATION 25. Apollo, so-called Barberini Muse." 
 
 Of marble. Glyptothek, Munich. Of colossal proportions. Discov- 
 ered 1678 in Tusculum. Later in the Palazzo Barberini in Rome, 
 since 1815 in Munich. Restorations: the right arm, entire left lower 
 arm, small parts of the lyre and of the garment, the tip of the nose. 
 Furtwangler, Catalogue, 21 1 ; Reinach I, 254, 2. 
 
 'See the collection of similar statues, Reinach II, 338.
 
 25. APOLLO, " BARBERINI MUSE."
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. uj 
 
 PLATE 104. "Hera" or "Demeter," "Ceres". Of marble. 
 
 Vatican, Rome. Of colossal proportions. Date and place of dis- 
 covery unknown. It is believed to be one of the colossal statues 
 erected near the theatre of Pompey, because it was first heard of in the 
 court of the Cancelleria, not far from the site of that theatre. Restora- 
 tions: both arms, the right foot, four toes of the left foot, practically 
 the entire nose and both lips, also parts of the chin and the lobes of the 
 ears, several pieces of the drapery. Helbig, 297 ; Reinach I, 206, 1. 
 
 One glance suffices to convince one that these two statues 
 follow the same type. They are of colossal dimensions and 
 carry cloaks hanging down their backs a new fashion 
 offering a pleasing variety to the artists. The peculiar, long 
 drawn out fold near the left foot is identical in both statues. 
 The folds, however, along the right legs are different, those of 
 the one adapted to a standing position, those of the other to a 
 slowly advancing attitude. The long apotygma of Apollo cor- 
 responds to that of the Parthenos, Plate 96. The apotygma 
 of " Hera " is shortened, a device by means of which the artist 
 has added to the appearance of the broad upper development 
 of the goddess. It is this fullness that has given to the statue 
 the name of " Hera," * the matron, the mother of the gods. 
 
 Apollo used to be interpreted as a muse, owing to his 
 long garment. This was before we had learned that men 
 at religious festivals and at other solemn occasions wore 
 long gowns. Such a long garment is seen, for instance, in 
 the Charioteer of Delphi, Plate 60, and in the Apollo of 
 the Vatican. 2 Under the wrong impression that this figure 
 was a woman, the restorer has added a wrong right arm. 
 The arms of men, when they hang down at the sides, are 
 
 1 For the interpretation of this figure as Nemesis after Agorakritos, 
 see the bibliography in Helbig, No. 297. 
 
 2 Robinson, 507; Reinach I, 255,6,
 
 u8 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 straight, with the inner elbow joint turned to the side of 
 the body ; those of women commonly show a deviation 
 from the straight line, and turn the joint to the front, as is 
 the case here. The modern arm is very disturbing ; it sug- 
 gests a rhythm which the lines of the body do not carry 
 out. It strikes a wrong key. The eyes of the figure are 
 inlaid, as was often the case in antiquity. Now, when the 
 figure has lost all traces of its original coloring, 1 they stare 
 at one with uncanny glamor. The workmanship also is 
 hard, but the statue nevertheless has preserved much of 
 the dignity of the original. 
 
 PLATE 105. Hera, "Barberini Juno." Of marble. Vatican, 
 
 Rome. Colossal statue. Found, date unknown, on the Virinal in 
 Rome. Restorations : right arm, left fore arm, nose, and several 
 pieces in the drapery. Helbig, 301 ; Reinach I, 198, i. 
 
 PLATE 106. Hera, " Borghese Juno." Of marble. Glyptothek 
 Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen. Colossal statue. Found, date unknown, 
 in a villa on Monte Calvi, together with two statues of Anakreon and 
 several statues of Muses. Formerly in Villa Borghese. Restorations: 
 both arms and several pieces of the drapery, most especially the end 
 of the mantle below the waist. Glyptothek Catalogue, No. 224 ; 
 Reinach II, 239, 8. 
 
 With these two statues we take one more step away from 
 the calm simplicity of the Lemnian Athena, Plate 95. But 
 so rapid was the development of Greek art that it is im- 
 possible to say how far in time the statues are removed 
 from Pheidias. Some scholars say one hundred years, and 
 assign them to Praxiteles. 2 Others say not more than a 
 
 1 For the coloring of statues see E. von Mach, pp. 67ff. 
 
 2 H. J. Massi, Compendious description of the Museums of Ancient 
 Sculpture in the Vatican, p. 25, No. 546. The modelling on the left 
 upper arm and on the folds near the feet is by no means fine enough 
 to make the attribution to Praxiteles possible.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 119 
 
 decade, and name as their sculptor, Alkamenes, the friend 
 and pupil of Pheidias. 1 These latter possibly are right. 
 The clinging drapery, fallen from one shoulder and ar- 
 rested by the breast, finds its prototype in the " Fates " of 
 the Parthenon, Plate 136. The pose is the natural suc- 
 cessor of that of the Athena Albani, Plate io2c, while the 
 severe and impersonal nobility fits the character of the 
 fifth century better than that of any other age. The 
 motive of the himation (cloak, or shawl) is new, but its 
 folds around the knees, and on the right leg, suggest those 
 of the statues on Plate 102. 
 
 There are considerable differences in details between 
 these two 2 Hera statues, aside from the wrongly restored 
 corner of the garment in the Copenhagen figure. The 
 Hera Borghese shows a more pronounced tilt, and wears a 
 simple band (opisthosphendone) on her head instead of the 
 broad Stephanos of the Barberini Hera. Her chiton is more 
 clinging, revealing more clearly the forms which it is 
 intended to hide, and is arranged with more artificial exact- 
 ness. It also leaves more of the neck uncovered, and is, 
 therefore, probably a less accurate copy of the original. 
 
 The very prominent breasts of the statues, the certain 
 something in the draperies of both that seems to call for 
 attention rather than to permit the figures to be satisfied 
 with simply being as they are, adds a disturbing element 
 to the generally noble conception of Hera. This is doubt- 
 less due to the copyists who could not approach the signifi- 
 cant motive without impressing on it ideas of their own 
 
 1 Klein, Praxiteles, p. 6$ff. ; Arndt in his index to the Brunn-Arndt 
 collection of plates. 2 Another inferior copy is in the Vatican, restored 
 asDemeter; Helbig, 34.
 
 120 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 less dignified age. The beautiful unconcern of the " Fates," 
 Plate 136, similarly draped, is sadly missing in these two 
 statues of Hera. 
 
 PLATE 105T. Athena Of Velletri. Of marble. Louvre, Paris. 
 Colossal statue. Found in 1797, near Velletri in the ruins of a Roman 
 villa. Restorations : parts of the feet, both hands and parts of the 
 lower left arm. The rest of the arm has been put together of ancient 
 fragments, but was probably originally bent more in the elbow. Traces 
 of violet color, once doubtless red, were found on one eye and on the 
 lips. Frohner Catalogue, No. 114; F. W., 1434; Reinach I, 162, 6. 
 
 In this Athena we meet the short Doric chiton of the 
 Lemnia, Plate 95, the delicate adjustment of heavy folds 
 of the torso Medici, Plate 101, and the freedom of pose 
 and the arrangement of the cloak of the Hera Barberini 
 type, Plates 105 and 106. The aigis has dwindled down 
 to the appearance of an amulette of no integral connec- 
 tion with the figure. The extended left hand held a Nike, 
 as Athenian coins reproducing this type show ; the right 
 hand rested on a spear. 
 
 No attributes are needed to convince one that this slen- 
 der maiden is the virgin goddess, in strong contrast to the 
 mature deity represented in the Hera Barberini. The 
 shape of the head, long and rather thin, as befits the god- 
 dess of thoughtful wisdom, stands in decided contrast to 
 the round face of the Parthenos, Plate 96, while it bears a 
 strong resemblance to the busts of Perikles, Plate 406. On 
 this account the Velletri Athena has been attributed to 
 Kresilas, 1 who is said to have made the image of Perikles. 
 
 1 See the convincing argument, Furtwangler, Masterpieces, p. I4iff.
 
 26. HERA OF VIENNA. 2f. " SAUROKTONOS," VILLA ALBANI. 
 
 28. NIKE FROM COLUMN OF TRAJAN. 29. NIKE FROM ATHENA-NIKE TEMPLE.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. I2 i 
 
 PLATE 108. Aphrodite, so-called Venus Genetrix. Of marble. 
 
 Louvre, Paris. Discovered about 1650 in Frejus (Forum Julium). 
 Formerly in the gardens of the Tuilleries, then in Versailles, now in the 
 Louvre. Restorations : both hands and the objects they hold. The 
 head and the visible part of the right foot were broken, but are an- 
 tique. Frohner, p. 116, no. 135; F. W., 1208; Robinson, 545; As- 
 signed to Praxiteles by Brizio, Bulletino, 1872, p. 104, to Alkamenes by 
 Furtwangler, Roscher's Lexikon dcr Mythologie I, p. 413, to Arkesilaos 
 by Gardner, p. 506. Other literature, Overbeck I, p. 386, notes uS-; 
 Reinach I, 172, 3 and 4. 
 
 This statue received its name from the legend "Veneri 
 Genetrici " on a coin r of the empress Sabina, representing 
 a similar statue. A Grasco-Roman artist, Arkesilaos, is 
 known 2 to have made a statue for the temple of Venus 
 Genetrix in Rome, and it is on these grounds that the 
 statue first was assigned to him. But as early as in 1869 
 Frohner pointed out that the statue represented a much 
 earlier type than was seen on -the coin. This view is to- 
 day almost universally accepted and, although there is no 
 consensus of opinion as to the exact date of the statue, few 
 side with Gardner, who still places it in the Graeco-Roman 
 period. Furtwangler's view that it might be a copy of the 
 "Aphrodite in the Gardens," by Alkamenes,* a pupil of 
 Pheidias, has gained ground of late, especially in view of 
 the large number of extant replicas, * which indicate that 
 the original was a statue of world renown. And this, the 
 Aphrodite of Alkamenes, was beyond all other draped 
 statues of that goddess. 
 
 1 See cut of the coin in Frohner, p. 167. 2 Overbeck, S. Q., 2268; 
 Pliny, IV. Jf., 35, 155. 3 For another statue assigned to Alkamenes 
 see Antike Denkmaler II, PI. 22; Arch. Attz., 1894, pp. 46ff. For his 
 newly discovered Hermes see Plate 112. 4 For one other see Reinach 
 II, 378, 4 and 6.
 
 122 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Compared with the other draped figures of women ac- 
 cepted in the realm of the fifth century, there is nothing to 
 hinder the attribution of this Aphrodite to a prominent 
 artist of this period. We must not look for exact parallels, 
 granting a certain amount of inventive power to the artist. 
 The pose, however, in the first place finds its parallel, or at 
 least its prototype, in several figures (see Plates io2ff.). The 
 cloak hanging in the back is also no innovation, nor are 
 the gestures of the arms, except that the right arm is bent 
 back in the elbow. The drapery fallen from the shoulder 
 is found on the Parthenon "Fates," Plate 136, and on the 
 Hera Barberini, Plate 105, which latter statue also offers a 
 parallel for the clinging ' drapery, while the long fold 
 drawn back by the instep of the right foot is an echo of 
 the similar folds on the Vatican "Hera," Plate 104, and 
 on the Barberini Apollo, Text Illustration 25. 
 
 The appearance of the statue, dressed only in the thin 
 chiton, is an innovation, which is, however, in keeping with 
 the changes in the conception of the character of the god- 
 dess, which had begun to take place in the second half 
 of the fifth century. The new motive is treated with 
 great moderation, and is even, compared with the upper 
 part of the Hera Barberini, distinctly chaste and modest. 
 The statue itself is of poor workmanship. The modelling 
 of the face is most especially inadequate. But even with 
 these defects, the statue is charming. 2 
 
 PLATE 109. Figure of a Woman Running. Of marble. Glypto- 
 thek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen. Date and place of discovery not 
 
 1 The drapery clinging to the legs is as old as the Branchidai figures, 
 Text Illustration 4. 
 
 2 For the estimate of the ancients of the Aphrodite by Alkamenes, 
 see Overbeck, 5". Q., 812-815 ; especially Lucian, Imag,, 4 and 6.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 123 
 
 published. Restorations : end of nose and left elbow. Glyptothek 
 Catalogue, No. 257; Arndt, Plates of the Glyptothek 38-40; Furt- 
 wangler, Sitz. Munch. Akad., 1899, pp. 279ff. (Review, A. J. A., 1901, p. 
 232) says the figure is part of the now lost pedimental composition of 
 the " Theseion." Reinach II, 419, 2. 
 
 This figure was not intended to be seen on a level. 
 Raised aloft, perhaps on the corner of a temple as an 
 akroterion, it required unusual proportions in order to ap- 
 pear to be natural. This accounts for the elongated upper 
 legs and other parts, which are unsatisfactory on close in- 
 spection. 
 
 The woman seems to be running from danger, pulling 
 her garment as protection above her. 1 The scene whence 
 she is fleeing fascinates her and she looks back. If she 
 was an akroterion on one corner of the temple, the dreaded 
 action from which she cannot turn her eyes may have been 
 represented on the top of the gable. The rapidity of her 
 onward movement is suggested by the bulging and flutter- 
 ing folds of her garment. Her face, which is not unlike 
 the Sappho head in the Villa Albani (see Plate 394a), is 
 singularly calm for one in her position. It reminds one 
 of the immovable Olympic features, Plates S^fi., and is in 
 keeping with the style of the fifth century artists, who had 
 not yet stooped to the representation of fleeting emotions. 
 
 There are few statues 2 extant with which to compare 
 the Copenhagen figure. Two statuettes 3 of Leto fleeing 
 with her children in her arms come the nearest to it. 
 Collignon (II, p. 192) describes some fragments of acro- 
 
 1 The same motive is found in several Niobids, Plates 22off. 
 
 2 Arndt gives a statuette in the text to his plates, 38-40, p. 16, fig. 36. 
 
 3 Reinach II, 417, 6 and 7. See also one of the figures of the frieze 
 of the temple in Phigaleia, Plate I78f.
 
 124 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 teria figures found in Delos near the temple of Leto, J one of 
 which was Aurora carrying off Kephalos in the center, 
 and two fleeing nymphs at either side. The Copenhagen 
 figure, therefore, might be a nymph from a similar scene. 
 Arndt, on the other hand, with less probability identifies 
 her with a Hermione by Kalamis, dedicated 2 in Delphi. 
 Nothing is known of the way Kalamis represented the 
 Delphic Hermione, but Arndt assumes it was at the mo- 
 ment when she was pursued by Orestes. 
 
 Whatever the statue represents, it gives the fifth century 
 conception of a terrified girl fleeing from danger.* The 
 same motive supplied the sculptor of (probably) the fourth 
 century with one of the most impressive types created in 
 ancient times, the Niobid Chiaramonti, Plate 221. 
 
 PLATE 110. Nike Of PaioniOS. Of marble. Museum, Olympia. 
 Discovered, the larger part of the statue, at the very beginning of 
 the German excavations in 1875. E. von Mach, pp. 26, 120, 263; 
 F. W., 496, 497 ; Robinson, 451 ; Reinach II, 379, i. For a picture 
 of the statue without the anaesthetic addition of the fragment of the 
 head see E. von Mach, PI. V, fig. 3. For a Roman copy of the head 
 see Rom. Mitth. IX, 1894, pp. i62ff., PI. VII. 
 
 PLATE 111. Restoration of the Nike of Paionios. 
 
 The chief defect of the picture of the excellent restora- 
 tion is that it is taken almost on a level instead of from 
 between eighteen arid twenty feet below, as the original 
 
 1 The probable date of this temple is 425 B. C. 2 Overbeck, S. Q. 
 522 ; Pausanias X, 16, 4. 3 Some people see in the " Iris " of the Easi 
 Pediment of the Parthenon, Plate 138, a similar motive. It is. how 
 ever, more probable that the figure is a hurrying messenger, and tha,< 
 the element of fear has had no place in her conception.
 
 3O. BIRTH OF ATHENA, MADRID. 
 
 31. HERMES BRINGING DIONYSOS TO THE NYMPHS.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 I2 S 
 
 was seen. The same defect, although not to the same ex- 
 tent, attaches to all pictures of the preserved torso of the 
 statue. Her downward flight through space is thus ar- 
 rested, and one of her greatest charms is lost. The eagle 
 at Nike's feet formed her material support. It was, how- 
 ever, only partly carved, and for the rest painted, shading 
 off probably into the azure of a blue sky, against which 
 the goddess seemed to be relieved. The bulging drapery 
 in the back and the heavy wings counterbalanced the for- 
 ward inclination of the figure and formed another substan- 
 tial support, which, however, did not appear as such, owing 
 to the beauty of the modelling which transformed the 
 heavy marble into the soft substance of a woollen mantle. 
 
 One stands aghast before the daring of Paionios, who, 
 with seeming ease, has proclaimed himself master of all 
 the difficulties that had baffled his predecessors. "Where 
 has he learned this facility that turns obstacles to good 
 advantage ? " one asks ; and there is but one answer, 
 " From the genius mind that created the sculptures of the 
 Parthenon." In daring, however, he has even surpassed 
 anything that was created in Athens. He must have been 
 a good mathematician too, in order to compute the counter- 
 weight which his inclined figure demanded, and to adapt 
 this to his design so perfectly that even the close observer 
 often fails to realize the magnitude of his achievement. 
 Mathematics, however, were a strong point of the Argive 
 school, so that we may not go wrong when we acknowledge 
 the influence also of this school over Paionios. 
 
 A remarkably skilful device, 1 which is not seen in the 
 
 1 Another device, the full bearing of which is seen by comparing the 
 original with the restoration, is found in the support of the left foot, 
 attached not at the toes, but further back, so that the toes (now broken) 
 hid it from view.
 
 J2 6 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 illustration, consisted in changing the conventional shape 
 of the quadrangular base to one of three sides. The 
 ordinary base, of which the spectator generally sees more 
 than one side at a time, would have offered, at the height 
 of over eighteen feet, such a cumbersome mass of dead 
 weight that the aerial flight of the goddess would have 
 appeared to be retarded. The one side which was seen of 
 the triangular base obviated this difficulty. If noticed at 
 all, it was like a wall over which Nike was sailing. 
 
 The garment of the figure reminds one of the " Venus 
 Genetrix," Plate 108. It is lighter, to be sure, and open 
 on one side, as many Greek costumes were. 1 The mantle 
 in the back finds its prototype in the cloaks on the backs 
 of the figures on Plate 104 and Text Illustration 25, while 
 the leg protruding from the garment, which indicates rapid 
 movement, goes back to the Flying Figure from Delos, 
 Plate 32. 
 
 PLATE 112. Hermes of Alkamenes. Of marble. Ottoman 
 
 Museum, Constantinople. An inscribed herm, excavated in Perga- 
 mon, November, 1903. Announced by Dr. Schrader, Arch. Anzcigcr, 
 1904, p. 76. Discussed by G. Loschke, Jahrbuch, 1904, pp. 22ft., 
 and by Conze, Sitzerungsberichtt der Akademie der Wissenschaften, 
 1904, Jan. 14, pp. 69ft. 
 
 The importance of the discovery of this Hermes cannot 
 possibly be over-estimated. It is a later copy, to be sure, 
 but the inscription 2 removes every doubt of its being a faithful 
 reproduction of the original by Alkamenes. With this fact 
 
 1 Compare the garment of the Lemnia and of the Parthenos, Plates 
 95 and 96, which are, however, open on the right side. 
 
 2 The inscription reads : " You will recognize that this is the beauti- 
 ful work of Alkamenes, Hermes before the Gates. Pergamios erected
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 127 
 
 accepted, as accepted it must be, we are confronted with a 
 dilemma : " How could Alkamenes, the pupil of Pheidias, the 
 supposed sculptor of the Aphrodite, Plate 108, have carved a 
 work of such a primitive style as this Hermes ? " It may have 
 been a work of his youth, 1 but its style resembles that of the 
 Olympia sculptures, Plates 84ff., and the connection of Alka- 
 menes with those sculptures, scholars have felt obliged to deny 
 in spite of the explicit testimony of Pausanias, 2 because the 
 man who made the dedicatory offering for Thrasyboulos and 
 his followers in 403 B. C.,3 could not possibly have worked on 
 the temple of Olympia. It now, however, seems that there 
 were, as people formerly used to assume, two men of the 
 name of Alkamenes. The work of Alkamenes I, we may see in 
 the Pergamon Hermes.* It may be he who once was a rival of 
 Pheidias, 5 and who made, as Pausanias says, the West Pedi- 
 ment in Olympia ; while the pupil of Pheidias, 6 who worked as 
 late as 403 B. C., was Alkamenes II. 
 
 It is, of course, too early to make definite statements in 
 this respect. The bearing, however, of the new discovery on 
 the solution of these questions is of far-reaching interest. 
 
 PLATE 113. Spear Bearer (Doryphoros) after Polykleitos. Na- 
 tional Museum, Naples. Discovered 1797 in the Palaestra in Pompeii. 
 Picture of Palaestra, Mau-Kelsey, Pompeii, p. 166. There are practi- 
 cally no restorations. The statue was badly broken, but has been put 
 together of the original fragments. It has, however, been "gone 
 over" by the man who joined the fragments. Identified as a copy 
 after Polykleitos in 1863 by Karl Friederichs in a monograph entitled, 
 Der Doryphoros des Polyklet. E. von Mach, pp. 249ff. ; F. W., 505; 
 Robinson, 100 ; Reinach I, 523, cf. II, 545, 10, the replica in the 
 Vatican. 
 
 1 Loschke argues convincingly that the Hermes of Alkamenes was 
 erected soon after 450 B. C. 2 Pausanias V, 10, 8. 3 Pausanias IX, 
 11,6. 4 Poor late copies of the same Hermes were found in the Sta- 
 dion in Athens. * Pliny, N. //., 34, 49. 6 Pliny, N. H., 36, 16.
 
 I 2 8 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The work of Polykleitos is fully discussed in E. von Mach, 
 pp. 248ff. The important points for the study of the 
 Doryphoros are : 
 
 1. The exaggeration of the muscles, due to the translation 
 of the original bronze into marble. 
 
 2. The pose, striding, the head following the direction of 
 the weight of the body. 
 
 3. Symmetry of design. The left side will show the same 
 curve in the next step as is now seen on the right side. 
 
 4. Exclusive attention paid to the body, no thought being 
 given to the feelings of the person portrayed. 
 
 Another interesting fact may be mentioned. The statue 
 stood not on a pedestal, but on the ground, " a man among 
 men." 
 
 As to the date of Polykleitos, the evidence adduced (E. 
 von Mach, p. 336) from the Oxyrrhynchos papyros that Poly- 
 kleitos was active as early as the fifth decade of the fifth cen- 
 tury before Christ has lost in strength by a recent discovery. 
 The papyros gives the names and the dates of Olympic victors 
 and of their victories, including one victor of the fifth decade, 
 to whom Polykleitos is known to have erected a statue. These 
 dates have generally been accepted as evidence also for the 
 dates of the erection of the statues celebrating the athletic 
 events ; the discovery, however, of the Hagias ' statue in Delphi 
 shows that at least in this one instance the monument was 
 made more than fifty years after the victory had been won. 
 
 PLATE 1 14. Diadoumenos (Vaison) after Polykleitos. 2 Of mar- 
 ble. British Museum. Found in Vaison in the south of France in 
 
 1 Plate 234. 2 For a collection of Diadoumenos replicas see E. 
 Petersen, Bull, della Comm. Arch. Comunale, 1890, pp. i85ff. ; for an 
 excellent statuette in the British Museum, A. S. Murray,/. H. S. t 1885, 
 PI. 61 ; for a list of heads, Furtwangler, Masterpieces, pp. 24off.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 129 
 
 1862, acquired by the British Museum in 1869. Restorations: the 
 nose, parts of the right hand, most of the left hip, and other minor 
 parts. E. von Mach, pp. 253ff. ; F. W., 508; Robinson, 102; Reinach 
 II. 547, 5- 
 
 PLATE 115. Diadoumenos (Delos) after Polykleitos. Of marble. 
 
 National Museum, Athens. Found on the island of Delos in 1894 in 
 the ruins of a house of the second century, B. C. Louis Couve, B. C. 
 H., XIX, 1895, pp. 46off. ; E. von Mach, pp. 254ff. ; Robinson (Supple- 
 ment), No. iO3a; Reinach II, 547, 9. 
 
 The Vaison statue has been erected with a slant to its 
 ancient plinth, which seemed to add to the pleasing appear- 
 ance of the statue. It makes the pose, however, more dis- 
 tinctly a striding one, and since a stride is out of place with 
 the motive a youth tying a fillet round his head doubts 
 have been expressed as to the wisdom of tilting the plinth. 
 The newly discovered Delos figure has been inserted in a base 
 on a level with its plinth, but the same disturbing stride 
 appears also in the new statue. 
 
 The important points for the study of these statues, which 
 are discussed E. von Mach, pp. 2536^., are : 
 
 1. The pose resembles that of the Doryphoros, but is ill- 
 adapted to the changed motive. 
 
 2. The over-prominence of the muscles in the Vaison 
 copy, which is a literal translation of bronze into marble, and 
 the rather soft and almost voluptuous forms of the Delos 
 figure. The sculptor of this statue obviously made allowances 
 for the change of material, but introduced an element of 
 fleshy forms out of keeping with the art of Polykleitos. 
 
 3. The contrast between the molliter juvenem, as Pliny r 
 calls the Diadoumenos, and the viriliter puerum, as he called 
 the Doryphoros.
 
 I 3 
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 PLATE 116a. DIadOUmenos. Of marble. Prado Museum, Madrid. 
 Restorations: the legs and the right arm. Michaelis, Annali, 1878, 
 p. no; Furtwangler, Masterpieces, p. 24off. ; Reinach I, 475, 6. 
 
 PLATE 116b. DiadOUmenos. Of marble. Glyptothek Ny Carl- 
 berg (Copenhagen). 
 
 PLATE 117. DiadOUmenos (Famese). Of marble. British 
 Museum. Small statue, known as early as the sixteenth century. 
 Date and place of discovery unknown, formerly in Palazzo Farnese ; 
 since 1864 in the British Museum. The nose is restored. F. W., 509; 
 Robinson, 103 ; Reinach I, 524, 2 ; Furtwangler, Masterpieces, pp. i6ff. 
 
 Of these three statues only the Madrid Diadoumenos re- 
 produces the work of Polykleitos. It is, perhaps, the best 
 copy, barring its wrongly restored right arm. The Copen- 
 hagen statue seems to reproduce an earlier type, while the 
 Diadoumenos Farnese has never yet been assigned to a place 
 that seemed universally acceptable. For years scholars have 
 noticed that this little figure had no connection * with Poly- 
 kleitos. Everything, except the motive of tying a fillet is 
 different, most especially the pose. The freedom of the left 
 leg, which might almost move in a circle around the right 
 leg without disturbing the rhythm of the figure, shows such 
 mastery of bodily forms moving in space that it almost ap- 
 proaches the work of Lysippos. 2 It is entirely unlike the 
 work of Polykleitos. 
 
 The statue is very beautiful, it shows the hand of a great 
 master, and the outlines of its head resemble some identified 
 works. On these grounds the statue has been assigned to 
 
 "Robinson alone, as late as 1896, wrote "the motives of the two 
 (meaning the Vaison and the Farnese statues) are so similar as to 
 leave little doubt of a common origin." 
 
 2 See Plate 235, the Apoxyomenos after Lysippos, and note the still 
 greater freedom of the Apoxyomenos.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. I3I 
 
 Pheidias. 1 A statue by him of a youth tying his fillet, and 
 called " Anadoumenos," is mentioned in literature, 2 which 
 renders the attribution even more probable. 3 
 
 PLATE 118. Amazon. Of marble. Museum, Berlin. Discovered 
 in Rome in 1868, acquired for Berlin in 1869. Restorations: the 
 entire right arm, the left lower arm and the pillar and the base, 4 both 
 hands and both feet, excepting the left ankle. E. von Mach, pp. 
 255ff. ; Overbeck I, pp. 5i4ff. ; Berlin Catalogue 7 ; F. W., 513 ; Robin- 
 son, 98 ; Reinach II, 324, 2. For a replica in the Vatican, see 
 Helbig, 32 ; Gardner, fig. 76. 
 
 PLATE 119. Amazon. 5 Of marble. Lansdowne House, London. 
 Michaelis, Ancient Marbles, Lansdowne, 83; Furtwangler, Master- 
 pieces, Plate VIII; Reinach I, 503, 3. 
 
 PLATE 120. Amazon. Of marble. Capitoline Museum, Rome. 
 Date and place of discovery not published, presented to the Capitoline 
 Museum by Benedict XIV (1740-1758). Restorations : practically the 
 entire right arm, the left fore arm, the parts of the drapery drawn away 
 from the wounds, several toes, end of the nose and part of the lower 
 lip. Helbig, 503, who on p. 368, gives a drawing of the correct restora- 
 tion of the right arm as holding a spear on which the figure leans, as 
 is seen on a gem, ib. p. 367, fig. 23. E. von Mach, pp. 255ff. ; Reinach I, 
 486, 3. 
 
 PLATE 121. Amazon (Mattel type). Of marble. Vatican Mu- 
 seum, Rome. Date and place of discovery unknown ; formerly in Villa 
 Mattei, acquired for the Vatican under Clement XIV (1769-1774). 
 
 1 The identification is accepted by Arndt, index to Brunn-Bruck- 
 mann collection of plates, and by Zimmermann in Knackfuss-Zimmer- 
 mann, Vol. I, p. 152, fig. 106. 2 Pausanias VI, 4, 5; Overbeck, S. Q., 
 757. 3 Cf. the figures on the West Frieze of the Parthenon (Plate V, 
 No. 9 Michaelis), a standing youth, which in many respects resembles 
 the Diadoumenos Farnese. 4 The accuracy of this restoration is 
 proved by the Lansdowne copy, PI. 119, in which the pillar is antique, 
 and by the Sciarra copy, in which the right arm is antique. S A 
 good profile view of the figure in Springer-MichaelisI, p. 211, fig. 376.
 
 '32 
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Restorations : the head, which is antique but does not belong to this 
 type, but to the Capitoline Amazon, Plate 120; the neck; both arms; 
 the top half of the quiver ; the right leg from the knee to the ankle ; 
 the upper half of the tree-trunk ; also the crest of the helmet on the 
 base. Helbig, 195; E. von Mach, 255ff. ; Reinach I, 483, i. The 
 restorations of the replica of this statue in the Capitoline Museum 
 are, according to Helbig, 530, the neck, the right arm, the left upper 
 arm, the index finger, middle finger and end of thumb of the left 
 hand, the bow, the right foot, the left leg from the middle of the 
 thigh to below the knee, tbe toes of the left foot, the upper part 
 of the stump with the points of the pelta, the plinth and the helmet. 
 The head is ancient, but does not belong to this statue. Robinson, 
 97 ; Reinach II, 324, I. 
 
 The important references to these statues of Amazons are: A. 
 Michaelis,_/a//rw^ I, 1886, pp. I4ff. ; Furtwangler, Masterpieces, pp. 
 I28ff. ; Overbeck I, pp. 514*?., and Notes p. 527, containing classified 
 bibliography; also B. Graef, Jahrbuch XII, 1895, PP- 8 iff., renouncing 
 his former, vigorously pressed theory of identity of origin of the Berlin 
 Amazon and the Doryphoros, and establishing a new identity between 
 the Capitoline type and the Diadoumenos. 
 
 The attribution of these several Amazon statues to their 
 respective artists has been often attempted and as often been 
 challenged. Michaelis, 1 and formerly Overbeck, assigned all 
 of them to Polykleitos, and this view has been followed by 
 the writer. 2 It has been discarded by Furtwangler and by 
 Overbeck in the fourth edition of his Griechische Plastik. 
 These men believe literally in the tradition ^ that four Amazon 
 statues were made for- Ephesos by Pheidias, Polykleitos, 
 
 1 Jahrbuch I, 1 886, pp. I4ff. 2 E. von Mach, pp. 25Sff. 
 
 3 Overbeck, S. Q., 946; Pliny, N. ff., 34, 53. It is interesting to 
 note that of the four Amazon statues here mentioned by Pliny only the 
 Amazon of Pheidias is referred to by another author, Lucian, Imag. 4, 
 while the only other statue mentioned twice is the Amazon by Kresilas, 
 the name of which Pliny repeats, N. ff., 34, 75.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 '33 
 
 Kresilas and Phradmon. In the several preserved types they 
 see copies of more than one statue, and endeavor to assign 
 them, by means of comparison with other works, to this or 
 to that artist. 
 
 Their attributions are not universally accepted. They are 
 fully discussed in the literature quoted above, and since they 
 neither are convincing to the writer, nor have proved lastingly 
 satisfactory to the men who have uttered them (for these men 
 constantly change their minds), they may be passed by here 
 with this mere reference. Only Overbeck (I, p. 515) makes 
 a remark which is of far-reaching importance, if true. He 
 says that the support of the Berlin Amazon on a pillar in- 
 troduces a Praxitelean motive, which he firmly believes was 
 impossible in the fifth century. The Praxitelean motive, to 
 which Overbeck refers, is best seen in the " Marble Faun " 
 Plate 19^, and in the "Apollo Sauroktonos," Plate 185. It 
 consists in resting almost half of the weight of the body on an 
 external support, which support is so integral a part of the de- 
 sign that without it the composition cannot exist. 1 It enables 
 the artist to introduce a rythm of ease and of comfort, unob- 
 tainable as long as the figure supports the weight of its body 
 on its own two legs. 
 
 Glancing from the Praxitelean figures to the Berlin Amazon, 
 one sees that the external support is there, but that the 
 rhythm, the curve, which makes of it the " Praxitelean motive" 
 is absent. On the other hand, one perceives, while studying 
 these several statues together, how naturally the Praxitelean 
 figures were evolved from statues like the Doryphoros, PI. 
 113, and the Berlin Amazon. The latter retains the stride of 
 the Doryphoros, but combines with it an external support. 
 Praxiteles sees the latent possibility of such a support and 
 
 1 See E. von Mach, pp. 27off.
 
 '34 
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 creates from it his characteristic motive. But his genius 
 compels it to yield to him unthought-of beauties. 
 
 For a further discussion of the Amazon statues see E. von 
 Mach, pp. 2558".' 
 
 PLATE 122a. Statuette of an Athlete (Mercure Aptere). Of 
 
 bronze. Louvre, Paris. Longperier, Notice des Bronzes Antiques, 
 214; Furtwangler, Masterpieces, pp. zygff. ; Reinach II, 588, 3. 
 
 PLATE I22b. Small Statue of an Athlete, so-called " West- 
 
 macott Athlete" after PolykleitOS. Of marble. British Museum, 
 London. Formerly in the possession of the sculptor, Sir Richard 
 Westmacott. The left hand was broken, but is antique. Petersen, 
 Rom. Mitth. 1893, pp. loiff. ; and Collignon I, p. 500, who believe 
 the statue to be the Kyniskos after Polykleitos ; Furtwangler, Master- 
 pieces, p. 250, note 2, expresses well founded doubts ; Robinson 
 (supplement), 112; Reinach II, 546, 9. 
 
 PLATE 122C. Statuette Of a Young Satyr. Of bronze. Biblio- 
 theque National, Paris. Babelon et Blanchet, Catalogue des Bronzes 
 Antiques de la Bibliotheque Nationale, No. 428; Collignon I, fig. 251 ; 
 Reinach II, 66, 2. 
 
 PLATE 123. Small Statue of a Boy, L'Idolino." Front and 
 
 back view. Of bronze. Museo Archeologico, Florence. Found in 
 Pesaro, near Ancona in 1530, presented to the duke, in whose villa 
 near Pesaro the statue remained until 1633, when it was removed to 
 Florence and was at first deposited in the Gallery of the Uffizi. The 
 right arm was broken. The eyes and the original covering of the lips 
 (gold or silver) are missing. The name " L'Idolo " (the idol) occurs 
 first in 1779. "L'Idolino" means the "little idol." Amelung, 268, 
 with full bibliography; Robinson (supplement), 113; Reinach II, 588, 2. 
 
 'The remarks, E. von Mach, p. 258, have reference to the present 
 restoration of the Capitoline Amazon. They are, of course, out of 
 place when the right arm of the statue, according to the gem, is restored 
 to lean on a spear.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 '35 
 
 PLATE 124. Small torso of Boy, called " Hermes." Of marble. 
 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Place and date of discovery and 
 former museum not published. Acquired for Boston in 1896. Twenty- 
 first Annual Report of the Trustees of the Museum, pp. 19-21.* 
 Reinach II, 488, 3. 
 
 These five statues have been assigned to the school of 
 Polykleitos with absolute certainty in the majority of cases. 
 The identification of some of them with definite statues 
 known by name from ancient literature has proved less 
 successful. 
 
 PLATE 125. Ares Borghese. Of marble. Louvre, Paris. Place 
 and date of discovery unknown. Formerly in possession of the 
 Borghese family, removed to Paris in 1808. Restorations: the left 
 arm, part of the right hand and several toes. F. W., 1298 ; Robinson, 
 104; Furtwangler, Masterpieces, p. 89; Reinach I, 133, 1-3. 
 
 Winckelmann's designation of this statue, several replicas 
 of which are known, as Ares is almost universally accepted 
 to-day. The dedicatory inscription " Marti " on one of the 
 replicas, and the ring 2 around the ankle of the Louvre statue 
 are strong arguments. 
 
 The resemblance of this Ares type to the figures by Poly- 
 kleitos, Plates 1138"., has long been noticed. The heads of 
 Ares and of the Doryphoros are rather striking in mutual 
 resemblance. Not only in general appearance are they alike, 
 
 1 In this report Mr. Robinson announces his intention to publish 
 "a more detailed description and discussion" of the statue, so that 
 courtesy forbids anticipating him. 
 
 2 This ring is explained as showing Ares fettered by Hephaistos. 
 There was a hole on the leg above the ring filled with lead, where the 
 chain may have been attached. Welters (F. W., 1298) gives good 
 reasons why the ring has nothing to do with the armor.
 
 136 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 but also in such details as the locks of hair near the ears mark- 
 ing the delicate beginnings of side whiskers. In spite of this, 
 Furtwangler has endeavored to identify the Louvre statue 
 with Alkamenes. 
 
 The statue is especially interesting as marking a further step 
 toward freedom of pose. The evolution of the male figure in 
 Greek sculpture seems to follow the order in which a man 
 standing stiff and erect first, with legs close together and arms 
 hanging at his sides, would move one limb after the other in 
 the endeavor to assume a freer, a more comfortable and a 
 more beautiful pose ; until at last all possible poses having 
 been taken, the man feels no longer bound to assume any 
 one, but falls at will and with ease into that one which is the 
 most natural expression of his character or of his momentary 
 state of mind. This perfect freedom was reached by the end 
 of the fourth century. Until then the poses are limited in 
 number and not always truly expressive. This makes it diffi- 
 cult, when attributes fail, to identify the statues ; for corre- 
 spondences between the characters of persons protrayed and 
 their poses are at first largely accidental. Nor could this be 
 otherwise in an age when the essence of character, the soul, 
 was, not consciously and seriously considered. 
 
 PLATE 126a. Athlete Dropping Oil in his Hand. Of marble. 
 Glyptothek, Munich. Date and place of discovery unknown. Bought 
 for Munich, in Rome, in 1811. Restorations: The right arm and 
 shoulder, the left forearm and the left hand. Furtwangler, Catalogue, 
 302, F. W., 462; Robinson, 527 ; Reinach I, 522, 2. For the head of 
 the statue see Kekule, Ueber den Kopf des Praxitelischcn Hermes, p. 8. 
 For a list of replicas see Diitschke IV, p. 53, 82, and Furtwangler, Mas- 
 terpieces. 
 
 Greek athletes anointed themselves with oil before exercis-
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 137 
 
 ing. 1 The oil was kept in little cruets, 2 and, as this statue and 
 several fifth-century vase paintings show, was poured in drops 
 on the hand with which it was afterwards rubbed into the 
 body. Naturally graceful an Athenian youth would be sure 
 to offer a pleasing picture to the spectator as he raised one 
 hand with the cruet high above his head and watched intently 
 the other hand catching the drops of the descending oil. The 
 action was so simple and the attention which it demanded, 
 nevertheless, so close, that it offered a charming motive for 
 sculpture. Its simplicity, no doubt, endeared it to the artist. 
 As the style of the figure shows, the original was made in the 
 fifth century. A later sculptor would probably have introduced 
 more variety into the composition. The pose would have 
 been farther removed from that of the erect standing figure^ 
 and would have been expressive of the individual rather than 
 of the type. If one would thoroughly understand the dis- 
 tinctly fifth century character of the Munich athlete, one has 
 only to compare him with the Apoxyomenos after Lysippos, 
 Plate 235. 
 
 So certain is the fifth century origin of the statue, that even 
 the resemblance * of its head to the type of heads found on 
 statues by Praxiteles cannot alter one's conviction. This re- 
 semblance, far from pointing s to a Praxitelean origin of the 
 statue, simply shows how firmly the art of Praxiteles was 
 rooted in that of his predecessors. 
 
 PLATE 126b. Standing Discus Thrower. Of marble. Vatican. 
 Found in 1792 in the ruins of an ancient villa on the Via Appia and 
 
 1 For a statue showing the removing of the oil see Plate 235. 2 For 
 such a cruet tied to the wrist see Plate 3490. 3 See, for instance, the 
 Apollo of Tenea, Plate 14. 4 Pointed out by Kekule, p. 8. s Robin- 
 son, p. 239, lays so much stress on this resemblance that he says it 
 "makes the date of its original a matter of doubt."
 
 138 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE, 
 
 bought for the Vatican by Pius VI (1775-1799). Restorations: the 
 fingers of the right hand, the nose, fragments of the lips, and other 
 minor parts. G. Habich, Jahrbuch XIII, 1898, pp. 57ff. ; A. Michaelis, 
 *3.,pp. I74ff. ; (Reviews), A.J. A., 1900, pp. 346; E. von Mach, A.J.A., 
 1903, pp. 45ft., 1 with the picture of a vase painting resembling the 
 Vatican statue. These articles have reference to the identification of 
 the statute as Hermes or as a Discus Thrower, also to the mode of 
 throwing the discus in antiquity. For other literature see Helbig, 331 ; 
 F. W., 465; Robinson, 107 ; Reinach I, 526, 8. 
 
 This statue, like the Ares, marks a further deviation from 
 the stereotyped erect posture of earlier statues. The Discus 
 Thrower no longer stands as anyone, engaged as he is, must 
 stand, but as he himself prefers to stand. The erect pose, in 
 its oneness, may be said to be the typical pose ; the stooping 
 posture, of which infinite varieties are possible, is characteristic 
 of the individual, provided it is consistently carried out. This 
 is not the case here. The stoop of this athlete, therefore, is 
 not a success. It arouses our interest not in the person por- 
 trayed, but in the artist who dared to strike out along a new 
 path. 
 
 The rhymth of the statue is pleasing only from one point of 
 view from everywhere else it is almost painful, owing to its 
 lack of unity, of balance, and of harmony. The head is un- 
 usually small, almost an anticipation of the small heads that a 
 century later Lysippos carved. It is noticeably delicate, and 
 very pleasant to look at. The great care which the artist 
 bestowed on it makes one feel that he really endeavored, ahead 
 of his times, to bring out the character of the individual. 
 
 1 This article was written immediately upon the publication of 
 Habich's article in 1898, but was not published until five years later, 
 owing to an accumulation of past material in the office of the Editor.
 
 32. GIRLS DECORATING A HERM. 
 
 33. ROMAN IMITATION OF A GROUP ON THE ATHENA-NIKE FRIEZE.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 139 
 
 PLATE 12T. "Apollo" of Eleusis ("Sabouroff Apollo"). Of 
 
 bronze. Museum, Berlin. Discovered probably in the sea, near 
 Eleusis, date unknown, and bought soon after by Count Sabouroff, 
 with whose entire collection it was bought for the Berlin Museum in 
 1884. There are no modern restorations, but a large number of 
 ancient "patches." Berlin Catalogue, No. i ; Robinson, No. 533; 
 Reinach II, 593, i. 
 
 The date of this figure, which is conceded to be an original, 
 is placed by the official catalogue at about 400 B. C. By its 
 grace and freedom of pose it partakes of the special charm of 
 the fourth century works, while by its unsupported and fortui- 
 tous attitude, just awakening, as it were, to an unfettered com- 
 mand of body and limbs, it stands firmly rooted in the art of 
 the fifth century. The wiriness of the boyish athlete, amount- 
 ing almost to meagreness of flesh in the " Idolino," Plate 123, 
 has given way to rounded contours. These, however, are by 
 no means effeminate, as is often the case with later works. 
 The right leg is more firmly planted on the ground than the 
 left, but it is not so straight-forwardly a supporting member 
 as the right leg in the Farnese Diadoumenos, Plate 117. This 
 gives the figure an easier rhythm. The body seems to sway 
 to an unheard tune, and there appears an unemphasized 
 curve, 1 beautifully repeated, as in an echo, by the extended 
 right arm and balanced by the graceful left arm. This mem- 
 ber, which forms an angle with the inclined body, is almost 
 parallel to the supporting right leg, so that the straighter lines 
 on either side are brought into prominence and in this way 
 are made to increase the stability of the related position. 2 
 
 The head, it seems, was turned to the right, that is, following 
 the direction of the weight of the body. 
 
 1 This curve is very different from the curves of Praxitelean works. 
 
 2 The substance of the last three sentences is taken from a descrip- 
 tion of the statue by my former pupil, Miss Elsie Langdon Stern.
 
 I4 o GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Compared with the standing Discus Thrower, Plate 126, 
 the Berlin bronze shows a less wilful deviation from the 
 ordinary, and a far greater power of perfecting the well-known. 
 The advance of the best Greek art is invariably along these 
 lines and is, in this respect also, the very opposite of the cus- 
 toms of modern art. 
 
 PLATE 128. AsklepiOS Or Zeus. Of marble. Albertinum, 
 Dresden. Found, date unknown, in Antium ; formerly in the Albani 
 collection; bought in 1728 by August the Strong (1694-1733) for his 
 collection of antiquities. Restorations : the left arm but not the hand, 
 the right forearm and attributes, both feet, the nose, the upper lip, the 
 plinth and the tree-trunk. Hettner, No. 59; Robinson 1 ; Reinach I, 
 
 Nude, for the Greeks considered nude everyone who ap- 
 peared without his chiton (undergarment), this figure is sup- 
 plied with a himation only for reasons of design. The 
 arrangement of the himation reminds one of that of the 
 "Barberini Hera," Plate 105, where the corner that here rests 
 on the shoulder has begun to slip down over the arm. The 
 motive of the end of the garment hanging over the shoulder 
 occurred also in the Zeus of Pheidias. 
 
 The pose of the figure is perfectly free, as appears from a 
 comparison of it with the "Zeus " in Munich, Plate 71. The 
 head here no longer follows the direction of the weight of the 
 body, which rests on the left leg. But this is perfectly nat- 
 ural, because the free leg is no longer kept behind the left 
 
 1 Robinson repeats most of the arguments both in favor and against 
 the interpretation of this figure as Zeus or as Asklepios. His last 
 argument, however, against this statue representing Zeus, namely, that 
 the statue was mild in appearance, is not well taken, in view of the 
 fact that the Olympian Zeus of Pheidias is praised for his mildness 
 (Dion. Chrys. XII, 14).
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 141 
 
 leg, but is placed ahead of it. The pose of the god, therefore, 
 is not the immediate result of having walked to where he now 
 stands and of having stopped short (cf. Plate 71), but of 
 having moved his free leg after he had reached his destination. 
 The head quite naturally follows the direction of this addi- 
 tional movement, but since the weight of the body, still sup- 
 ported by the left leg, has not followed the leg, the movement 
 seems incomplete and adds an element of expectancy. This 
 new idea the spectator is apt to translate into a readiness on 
 the part of the god to listen, perhaps to the supplications of 
 his people, so that the relationship between the deity and the 
 spectator becomes distinctly personal. 
 
 The statue unfortunately is a copy of inferior workmanship, 
 but even the lack of refinement in execution has been unable 
 to deprive it of its inherent graceful dignity. 
 
 PLATE 129. The Dioskoroi, Kastor, and Polydeukes. Of mar- 
 ble. Monte Cavallo, opposite the Quirinal, Rome. There is no indi- 
 cation that these statues have ever been invisible since they were first 
 erected in Rome. Their first mention in modern literature dates from 
 the tenth century of our era. Two brief inscriptions, reading, Opus 
 Fidia, and Opus Praxitelis, seem to date from late imperial times. 
 One long inscription * was placed on the monument when another 
 older one was removed in 1589 by Pope Urban VIII. The older one 
 said the figures were Alexander and his horse Boukephalos. The new 
 one left the subjects unnamed, stating simply that the colossal statues, 
 with their old inscriptions added, had been removed from the neighbor- 
 ing Baths of Constantine to the Quirinal. In the replacing of the 
 statues, the old inscriptions were exchanged. The Opus Fiditz be- 
 longs to the figure with the left arm raised, although it now is added to 
 the other man. F. W., 1270, 1271 ; Matz-Duhn, 959, with full biblio- 
 graphy; Furtwangler, Masterpieces, pp. 95ff., and excellent summary of 
 his view in Denkmaler Griechischer und Romischer Skulptur fur den 
 Schulgebrauch ; ffandausgabe, pp. 251!.; E. Petersen, A.J. A. (Review), 
 1901, Vol. V, p. 477 ; Reinach I, 485, 4 and 5. 
 
 1 Quoted in full, F. W., 1270, 1271.
 
 1 42 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Neglected until recently, these statues have suddenly jumped 
 into prominence by Furtwangler's defense of the authenticity 
 of the inscriptions. He does not overlook the obviously poor 
 workmanship, but he accounts for it by assuming that it is 
 contemporaneous with the inscrptions, probably of the time 
 of Constantine. 1 The greatest objection to this view is found 
 in the fact that the two statues are apparently of equal age, 
 and that Praxiteles lived one hundred years later than Pheidias. 
 To obviate this, Furtwangler believes in an older Praxiteles, 
 of whom we know nothing, or at least very little. In view of 
 the recent discovery of the Hermes of Alkamenes, Plate 112, 
 and of the ensuing probability that there once lived also an 
 older Alkamenes, whose existence scholars for years thought 
 they could disprove by the same literary evidence that seems 
 to speak against an older Praxiteles, Furtwangler's view is by 
 no means untenable, provided the style of the figures bears 
 him out in assigning their originals to the fifth century. The 
 question, therefore, is, " Could a fifth century Greek sculptor 
 have designed these figures?" The answer is an emphatic 
 "yes." We have not watched in vain the development of 
 poses in this period, and are, therefore, prepared to affirm 
 that men who in fifty years could make advances from the 
 style of the Boy found on the Akropolis, Plate 5 7, to the 
 "Idolino," Plate 123, or even to the Standing Discus Thrower, 
 Plate 126, or finally to the "Zeus" in Dresden, Plate 128, 
 could so far enliven and adapt the Aristogeiton, Plate 59, as 
 to create these Dioskoroi. 2 Further the writer dares not go 
 
 1 For sculptures of this time, see Plates 346ff. 
 
 2 A figure very similar in pose to the Dioskoroi occurs on the East 
 Frieze of the Theseion, Plates 131*?., immediately behind the seated 
 gods on the southern end of the frieze. Figures in relief, however, were 
 carved with freedom long before corresponding figures in the round.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. I 43 
 
 with Furtwangler, who sees correspondences between these 
 figures and some boys in the Parthenon sculpture. 
 
 Those who believe the heads are too small in proportion to 
 the size of the figures to make them possible before the time 
 of Lysippos (end of fourth century B. C.) need only be re- 
 minded of the very small head of the Standing Discus 
 Thrower, Plate i26b, to see that their objection is not well 
 taken. 
 
 The finish of these figures, complete only on one side, on 
 men and horses alike, has led to the correct observation 1 
 that these groups once decorated an entrance way, " so," says 
 Fogelberg, " that the corners of the entrance way fitted in the 
 angle between man and horse. In front of-the building, there- 
 fore, one saw the front view of the horses and the men beside 
 them in high relief against the wall. Entering, one passed 
 the long profile views of the horses." This puts the Opus 
 Fidice on the left side as one approaches. Both men are 
 walking away from the doorway. 
 
 A slight change in the disposition of Fogelberg may, how- 
 ever, be suggested. Suppose the doorway projected and the 
 horses were placed with their sides against the outside walls, 
 that is, the Opus Fidice on the right. Then both men are going 
 toward the entrance, which seems more hospitable, if one may 
 say so, and ensures an open outdoor light for both men and 
 horses. The horses are intended, as their size indicates, for 
 a distant view. This they receive only if the transposition 
 from Fogelberg's arrangement is accepted. The inside of the 
 doorway may have been decorated with reliefs in a style better 
 adapted to the near view in an interior. 
 
 The disposition of the Dioskoroi in this fashion at once 
 
 'Fogelberg, quoted F. W., 1270, 1271, p. 455.
 
 ! 4 4 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 calls to mind the Assyrian man-headed bulls guarding the 
 entrances of important buildings. The doorways of these 
 buildings projected. On the narrow ends of the entrance 
 walls the front views of these bulls were carved with the 
 heads of men, and on the sides, both inside and outside, the 
 bodies of the beasts were represented in relief. Herodotos 
 knew this Oriental custom, and it may have been on his sug- 
 gestion that his contemporary, Pheidias, designed this com- 
 position. 
 
 This supposition takes it for granted that the inscriptions 
 correctly designate the artists of these groups. As long as the 
 fifth century style of the Dioskoroi was not recognized, one 
 did well to discredit the inscriptions. Now one must advance 
 weightier arguments if one would rightfully disregard them. 
 
 For a full appreciation of the Dioskoroi one needs the gift 
 of imagination, enabling one to look beyond the poverty of 
 execution to the nobility of the design. Furtwangler has this 
 gift when he exclaims, " The inspired rythm that sways these 
 bodies reaches its height in the magnificent heads. The hair 
 of the youths flutters with the wind and surrounds their heads 
 as with a crown of divine glory. Their godlike eyes snap fire. 
 These are indeed the heavenly sons of Zeus, the Dioskoroi, 
 who, in the splendor of glittering rays, lustily engage in the 
 tussle with their snowy white horses." 
 
 PLATE 130. The "Theseion." The best preserved temple in 
 Athens. The most complete work on this temple is the recent book 
 by Professor Bruno Sauer. See also Gardner, Ancient Athens, pp. 
 4ioff. ; for the lighting of the temple, W. W. Bates, A. J. A., 1901, 
 pp. 37ff. ; for the date, earlier than the Parthenon, Julius, Annali, 1878, 
 pp. 205ff. ; later than the Parthenon, Dorpfeld, Ath. Mitth., 1884, pp. 
 336ff. ; Furtwiingler's answer, Masterpieces, p. 46, note I ; for the name 
 and date, Furtwangler, Sitz. Munch. Akad., 1899, pp. 279ff. ; A. J. A. 
 (Review), V, 1901, p. 232. Furtwangler says it is the temple of Apollo 
 Patroos. See also bibliography, Overbeck I, p. 469.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 *45 
 
 PLATES 131-133. Slabs of the Frieze of the " Theseion." Of 
 
 marble. In situ on the temple in Athens. For a sketch of both 
 friezes, Overbeck I, p. 462. F. W., 527, 528 ; Robinson, 108 ; Furt- 
 wangler recognizes in several figures now in Copenhagen, figures from 
 the now empty pediments ; Sitz. Munch. Akad., 1899, pp. 279ff. One 
 of them is our Plate 109, carved, as he says, by Kresilas. For a speci- 
 men of the metopes see Plate 92!). 
 
 There is no consensus of opinion either as to the name or 
 as to the date of the temple. The style of the frieze would 
 seem to indicate an earlier date than that of the Parthenon, 
 perhaps in the era of Kimon, who was supreme before Peri- 
 kles. The evidence from the architecture seems to be 
 confusing. 
 
 Equal uncertainty prevails in regard to the proper name of 
 the temple, which has been variously given as temple of Ares, 1 
 of Apollo Patroos, of Hephaistos, of Aphrodite Urania and 
 of Herakles in Milete. In popular speech the temple con- 
 tinues to be called the " Theseion," temple of Theseus. 
 
 The temple which "has 2 no simple and easily appreciable 
 relation between its various proportions cannot give one, in 
 spite of its excellent state of preservation^ an idea of the best 
 Greek work in the fifth century." An investigation of the 
 pedimental floors has revealed the fact that the now empty 
 pediments once contained figures. The carved metopes, of 
 which Plate 109 is a sample, ran along the front and included 
 the nearest four, both on the south and on the north sides. 
 The friezes in the colonnade * are the best preserved. 
 
 The East Frieze ran along the entire width of the colonnade ; 
 
 'Overbeck I, p. 457 and p. 469, note i. 2 Gardner, Ancient Athens, 
 p. 411. 3 It was early turned into a church of St. George. 4 For an 
 unusually interesting picture of the position of the frieze, see Gardner, 
 Ancient Athens, p. 413.
 
 146 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 the West Frieze only along the west wall of the cella proper. 
 It was, therefore, shorter than the East Frieze by double the 
 width of the colonnade. There were no carved friezes on the 
 north and south sides. 
 
 The design of the East Frieze makes allowances for the 
 architectural lines. At either end of the cella wall antse, or 
 flattened columns, ran up toward the frieze. Immediately over 
 these antae, groups of seated deities were represented, thus 
 continuing the stability of the architectural lines. Between 
 these groups the battle is raging, while more quiet scenes are 
 carved to the right and to the left of them, that is to say, 
 immediately over the colonnade. The gods are seated on un- 
 even ground, and in attitudes that seem to deny the existence 
 of the wall against which they are carved. They do not follow 
 the strict principles of relief sculpture l adhered to in the 
 Parthenon, but must not for that reason be assigned to a later 
 date. 2 These gods, however, and the group of standing men 
 to the right, may have suggested the gods and the magistrates 
 on the Parthenon frieze. The figure immediately behind the 
 gods on the left bears a strong resemblance to the Dioskoroi, 
 Plate 129. 
 
 The center group of fighting men is especially interesting 
 on account of the pictorial disposition of the dead,s with com- 
 plete disregard of the strict principles of relief sculpture. The 
 same pictorial element shows in the West Frieze, especially in 
 the fallen centaur, the foreshortening of whose mighty body has 
 been too much for the sculptor. 
 
 There are many isolated groups on both friezes, due no 
 
 'See E. von Mach, pp. 37-66. 2 lb., p. 323. See also reliefs from 
 Delphi, Plate 43. 3 For the representation of the dead in relief sculp- 
 ture, see E. von Mach, pp. 55 and 215. A similar design is found on 
 the Athena-Nike temple frieze, Plate 169.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 147 
 
 doubt to the fact that the continuous frieze was of Ionic origin 
 and unfamiliar to the Athenians, whose earlier buildings were 
 all of the pure Doric style, where the friezes were broken up 
 into metopes and triglyphs, of which only the former were 
 decorated with figures. 1 This made it necessary to tell the 
 story by means of separate groups. The problems of the con- 
 tinuous frieze were different, but without realizing them, artists 
 often tried to solve them by supplying connecting links be- 
 tween independent groups. The favorite single group of the 
 "Theseion" sculptors is pyramidal in design, two figures fight- 
 ing over a third who is overcome. That this motive has often 
 been successfully used on these friezes is undoubtedly true, but 
 wherever it is used it leaves the connection to the right and 
 to the left weak. This is the reason why it does not occur on 
 the Parthenon. An especially spirited group is the Lapith 
 Kaineus on the West Frieze, whom two centaurs endeavor to 
 put hors de combat by placing him in a hole in the ground 
 and keeping him there by a superimposed rock. The use of 
 such gigantic weapons adds immensely to the interest of both 
 compositions, an interest that is kept alive by the exercise of 
 almost superhuman strength on the part of some of the war- 
 riors. An excellent instance of this is seen on the West Frieze, 
 where a helmeted youth hurls himself against a prancing cen- 
 taur and, by the mere force of his impact, drives him to the 
 wall. 
 
 1 For Doric and Ionic friezes see E. von Mach, p. 212.
 
 148 GREEK' AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The Parthenon. 
 
 PLATE 134. Restoration of the Akropolis in Athens, as it 
 looked at the end of the Fifth Century, B. C. 
 
 PLATE 135. The Parthenon in Athens from North West. 
 
 The temple was begun shortly before 450 B. C. It was 
 practically finished by 438 B. C. The architects were Iktinos 
 and Kallikrates. In the Christian Era the Parthenon was 
 changed into a church of Hagia Sophia (Sacred Wisdom). In 
 the thirteenth century it was taken over by the Roman branch 
 of the Catholic Church, and its name changed to that of St. 
 Mary. Barring some alterations which had been necessary to 
 adapt the temple to the new cult, the Parthenon stood un- 
 harmed until September 26, 1687, when a bomb from the 
 artillery of the Christian army besieging the Turks in Athens 
 was wilfully directed toward it, and exploded in its interior. 
 
 There is one standard book for the study of the Parthenon, 
 its history, architecture, and decorations, A. Michaelis, Der 
 Parthenon, text and plates, published in 1871. All other 
 books are based on Michaelis ; none have even attempted to 
 supersede him. The most recent and most fully illustrated 
 book is A. S. Murray, The Parthenon ; the fullest account of 
 the dimensions, Penrose, Principles of Athenian Architecture ; 
 the fullest discussion of the art principles which the sculptured 
 decoration of the Parthenon follow, E. von Mach, pp. 37-66 
 and 211-247.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 149 
 
 Special References. 
 
 GENERAL. The Connection of Pheidias with the Parthenon, 
 denied by H. N. Fowler, Harvard Studies in Classical Phi- 
 lology, 1901, pp. 211-220; but see E. von Mach, pp. 211, 
 212. The drawings said to be made by Jacques Carrey of the 
 Parthenon in 1673 are now in the Louvre. The authorship 
 of Carrey denied by E. Babelon, C. R. Acad. Inst., 1900, pp. 
 263-264. The history of the Parthenon marbles, related by 
 Ph. E. Legrand, Rev. Arch., 1894, Vol. 25, pp. 28-33. 
 
 THE BUILDING. The mixture of Doric and Ionian elements 
 in the architecture of the temple. For a similar mixture of 
 the two elements see the Doric temple of Athena in Delphi 
 with Ionic half columns, discussed by Th. Homolle, C. R. 
 Acad. Inst., 1901, pp. 638-641. The curvature of the hori- 
 zontal lines of the Parthenon recently copied on the steps of 
 the Library of Columbia University, A. J. A., 1900, Vol. IV, 
 
 P- 376. 
 
 THE PEDIMENTS. Copies of lost figures of the West Pedi- 
 ment found in Dresden by Chas. Waldstein, Harper's Maga- 
 zine, December, 1900, pp. i2ff. Copy of Athena of the West 
 Pediment, on a vase painting, Ernest Gardner, J. H. S., Ill, 
 pp. 2 44 ff. 
 
 The floor of the East Pediment examined by B. Sauer with 
 a view to ascertaining the original position of the figures, 
 Athen. Mitth., 1891, XVI, pp. sgff. Reconstruction of the 
 center by J. Six, based on Sauer's worjc, Jahrbuch, 1894, IX, 
 pp. 83ff. Furtwangler's Restoration, Masterpieces, pp. 463ff. 
 See, however, E. von Mach, pp. 23 iff., especially p. 233, last 
 paragraph. 
 
 The birth of Athena, which was the subject of the East 
 Pediment, is found on many monuments. One dates from
 
 !5o GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 the end of the sixth century before Christ, others on vases. 
 S. Reinach, Rev. Etudes Grecques, 1901, 127-137 (Review, 
 A.J. A., V, 1901, p. 462) ; also on an archaic relief in Con- 
 stantinople where Zeus is seen in travail before the birth. S. 
 Reinach, C. R. Acad. Inst., 1900, p. 699. Correspondence of 
 subject with Creation of Eve, Kekule, Jahrbuch, 1890, Vol. 
 V, pp. i86ff. 
 
 The horse of Selene compared with horse's head from 
 Tarentum, now in British Museum, A. Michaelis, J. H. S., Ill, 
 pp. 234ff., PI. 24, with a note by Percy Gardner, dating head 
 the latter half of the fourth century. 
 
 THE FRIEZE. The movements of the horses ; fully illus- 
 trated article, La Representation du Galop dans r Art Ancient 
 et Moderne, S. Reinach, Rev. Arch., 1900, pp. 2i6ff., 44 iff., 
 and 1901, pp. 224ff. 
 
 The attendants of the priest on the East Frieze. Their 
 meaning explained by Jane Harrison, Class. Review, October, 
 1889, p. 378, with a note by Chas. Waldstein. 
 
 The god hugging his knees, on East Frieze, compared with 
 vase paintings, where this attitude is expressive of impatience, 
 as in the scenes of Odysseus and Achilles. Rev. Arch., 1898, 
 Vol. 33, figs. 5, 6, 7. 
 
 Peitho, so-called, on East Frieze. Her prototype perhaps 
 found on a clay relief in the Akropolis Museum, Athens, B. C. 
 H., 1897, PI. XII, fig. i. The style of this relief corresponds 
 with that of our Plate 94. 
 
 Heavily clad youths on North Frieze. Their prototypes per- 
 haps found in the Achilles of the Odysseus and Achilles scenes 
 referred to above. Rev. Arch., 1898, Vol. 33, figs. 5,6, 7, a-o. 
 
 Newly discovered fragments. Head of Iris, East Frieze ; 
 Chas. Waldstein, A. J. A., first series, Vol. V, pp. iff, PI. II. 
 Head of boy and horse of North Frieze; A. S. Murray, Journal 
 of the Royal Institute of British Architects, 1902-1903, X, pp. 
 3iff. (Review, A.J. A., VII, 1903, p. 390.)
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 151 
 
 THE METOPES. Metopes of the west side. Complete set 
 of pictures, A.J. A., 1899, Pis. V and VI, and figs. 1-14 ; text 
 by W. S. Ebersole, pp. 4096^., introducing several important 
 corrections of the statements by Michaelis in Der Parthenon. 
 
 The central metopes of the south side. Pernice, Jahrbuch 
 X, 1895, PP- 93- The question why they were inserted in 
 this side he leaves unanswered. 
 
 Newly discovered fragments. Head of South Metope, PI. 
 1 6, by Charles Waldstein, /. H. S., Ill, pp. 228ff., PI. 23. 
 Head of South Metope V, the only head of advanced style. 
 G. Treu, Jahrbuch XII, 1897, pp. loif. 
 
 Additional Literature on the Parthenon. 
 
 Stuart and Revett, Antiquities of Athens, with pictures of 
 the Parthenon in the eighteenth century. 
 
 Gregorovius, Athen im Mittelalter. 
 
 A. Laborde, Le Parthenon, reproducing all of Carrey's 
 drawings. 
 
 Charles Waldstein, Essays on the Art of Pheidias. 
 
 E. Petersen, Die Kunst des Pheidias. 
 
 L. Fenger, Dorische Polychromie, with colored plates show- 
 ing the application of color. 
 
 A. Botticher, Die Akropolis von Athen. 
 
 M. Beule, L'Akropole d ' Athenes. 
 
 H. Luckenbach, Die Akropolis von Athen. 
 
 Full bibliography of the Parthenon, British Museum Cata- 
 logue after History of the Parthenon. 
 
 PLATE 136. The "Fates." From the East Pediment of the 
 Parthenon. British Museum, London. 
 
 PLATE 13?. " Theseus." From the East Pediment of the Parthe- 
 non. British Museum.
 
 1 52 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 PLATE 138. " Iris." From the East Pediment of the Parthenon. 
 British Museum. 
 
 PLATE 139. "Nike." Probably from the East Pediment of the 
 Parthenon. British Museum. 
 
 PLATE I40a. Helios and Two of His Horses. From the East 
 
 Pediment of the Parthenon. British Museum. 
 
 PLATE I40b. Selene and One of Her Horses. From the East 
 
 Pediment of the Parthenon. The torso in the Akropolis Museum, 
 Athens. The horse's head in the British Museum. 
 
 PLATE 141. "KephiSSOS" Or "IliSSOS." From the West Pedi- 
 ment of the Parthenon. 
 
 TEXT ILLUSTRATION 24. " Hermes." From the West Pedi- 
 ment of the Parthenon. British Museum. 
 
 These eight figures comprise practically 1 all of the pedi- 
 mental figures that are sufficiently well preserved to afford 
 pleasure. Their names are still under dispute, with the excep- 
 tion of Helios, the sun-god, and Selene, the goddess of the 
 moon. But our enjoyment of these figures is fortunately not 
 dependent on our knowledge of the exact personalities which 
 the artists intended 2 to portray. These figures and the com- 
 positions of both pediments are fully discussed in E. von 
 Mach, pp. 230-247, where hints for an appreciative study of 
 the Parthenon pediments are given. 
 
 PLATES 142-156. A Complete Set of Pictures of the West Frieze 
 Of the Parthenon. Still in its original place on the Parthenon. 
 
 1 The others that might be classed with them are, of the East Pedi- 
 ment, a male torso (Michaelis H), and of the West Pediment, a group of 
 a man and a girl in situ (Michaelis B), torso of a woman (Michaelis O), 
 torso of Poseidon (Michaelis M), torso of Athena (Michaelis L). 
 
 2 For long lists of interpretations offered up to 1871, see Michaelis, 
 pp. 165, 180, and 181.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 '53 
 
 PLATE 157. Seated Gods. From the East Frieze of the Parthe- 
 non. British Museum. 
 
 PLATE 158. Maidens. From the East Frieze of the Parthenon. 
 
 British Museum. 
 
 PLATE 159. Magistrates. From the East Frieze of the Parthe- 
 non. British Museum. 
 
 These are samples of the Parthenon frieze. The frieze itself 
 is reproduced in its entire extent on the plates accompanying 
 this handbook. Hints and directions for the study of the 
 frieze are given in E. von Mach, pp. 218-230, and pp. 48-66, 
 also 37-48. 
 
 PLATES 160-164. Metopes from the South Side of the Parthenon. 
 
 British Museum, London, and Akropolis Museum, Athens. For frag- 
 ments of West Parthenon Metopes see Ephemeris, 1894, pp. iSjf., 
 Plates 10 and n. 
 
 These are eight of the seventeen or eighteen fairly well- 
 preserved metopes of the Parthenon. Originally there were 
 ninety-two. Those of the south side, representing, with the 
 exception of the nine in the center, the fight against the cen- 
 taurs, are the only metopes sufficiently well-preserved to make 
 one sure of their subjects. Hints for the study of the Parthenon 
 metopes are given in E. von Mach, pp. 213-218, 46-48, also 
 37-45- 
 
 PLATE 165. The Erechtheion. Viewed from the south-west, with 
 its south porch, or Hall of the Maidens, in the foreground. For a 
 ground plan of the Erechtheion see British Museum Catalogue, p. 232, 
 also Baumeister, s. v. Erechtheion; for another view, Text Illustration 34. 
 
 The Erechtheion is later than the Parthenon. It was prob- 
 ably J begun after the Peace of Nikias in 421 B. C. By 409 
 
 1 Gardner, Ancient Athens, p. 236.
 
 1 54 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 B. C. it was almost finished and a commission ' was appointed 
 to attend to its completion. The date of the completion of 
 the temple is not definitely known. In the fifth century of 
 our era the Erechtheion, like the Parthenon, was turned into 
 a Christian church, but greater changes were necessary here 
 than in the larger temple to adapt it to its new use. This was 
 due to the fact that the temple, which consisted of two inde- 
 pendent halls, was built on two levels, with the east hall much 
 higher than the other. The two compartments were thrown 
 into one by the Christians. The building suffered much dur- 
 ing the siege of Athens in 1687, and again during the struggle 
 for freedom early in the nineteenth century. 
 
 The groundplan of the temple is unique, necessitated by the 
 two levels on which the temple proper, of oblong shape, was 
 built. The entrance to the eastern chamber was through an 
 east portico of six columns (not shown on Plate 165). Broad 
 and easily graded steps led down along the outside of the 
 north wall 2 to the lower level, from which the western cham- 
 ber was entered through a magnificent portico. This northern 
 portico was deeper but less wide than the other. It had four 
 columns in front and one between each corner column and the 
 wall. The door leading from it into the temple is seen in 
 Plate 165 to the left of the Porch of the Maidens. 
 
 The Porch of the Maidens, often called the Hall of the 
 Karyatides, was not used by the public. It contained a very 
 small entrance, like a private door, behind the Maiden in the 
 back row on the spectator's right. The floor of this hall was 
 
 1 The report of this commission is preserved on stone, Corpus In- 
 scriptiomtm Atticarum, I, 332 ; also the account of the expenses for 
 the next year, ib., I, 324. 
 
 2 The long wall back of the Porch of the Maidens and to their 
 right, seen on Plate 165, is the south wall.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 '55 
 
 about on a level with the east chamber and, therefore, con- 
 siderably higher than the floor of the chamber in front of 
 which it stood. This is readily seen on the illustration by 
 comparing the level of the porch with the north door, of which 
 only the top shows. 
 
 To-day after several recent earthquakes the temple stands 
 in need of repairs. The plan of restorations 1 includes the 
 north portico and the west wall, to the left of the Maidens in 
 the illustration. This wall once contained engaged columns. 
 It is not known, however, whether they formed part of the 
 original plan, or were added in a renovation that became nec- 
 essary very soon after the temple was built. The architecture 
 belongs to the finest that has been created. Every detail is 
 as delicate as the general harmony of the dimensions of the 
 entire building. 
 
 PLATE 166. One of the Maidens 2 of the Porch of the Maidens 3 
 
 Of the Erechtheion. Of Pentelic Marble. British Museum, London. 
 Removed to England by Lord Elgin with the permission of the Porte 
 obtained in 1801, and bought by the British Museum in 1806. British 
 Museum Catalogue, 407; F. W., 810; Robinson, 747 ; E. von Mach, 
 p. 263, PI. XVII, fig. 2. 
 
 1 Represented, A.J. A., VI, 1902, p. 355. 
 
 2 They are called Maidens (Korai) in the official inscriptions. By 
 reason of their resemblance to the basket-bearing girls on the Parthe- 
 non frieze, some call them " Kanephorai," while still others follow 
 Vitruvius (I Chapter i), who calls them " Karyatides," girls from 
 Karya, a town in Arkadia. These girls, as punishment for the treach- 
 ery of their town, so Vitruvius says, were portrayed in architectural 
 schemes as carrying burdens on their heads. 
 
 3 It is the second figure from the left in the front row. A terra-cotta 
 fac-simile has been placed in the temple. This is the figure which, on 
 Plate 165, is seen in the deep shadow of the architrave.
 
 !^6 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 So perfectly are these figures designed to fill their places 
 that one pays no heed to the uncomfortable thought of 
 maidens carrying heavy burdens. And yet one never forgets 
 their architectural importance, as one doubtless would do if 
 they were nothing but ornaments, or if their strength appeared 
 to be so great that duty was turned into play. Their burden 
 has been lightened, to be sure, by the architect, who made the 
 entablature which they bear much smaller than is customary 
 when columns carry the weight. He has omitted the frieze ' ; 
 a doubly successful scheme, for the frieze would have been 
 decorated with figures ; and the contrast between these and 
 the maidens would have revealed the unreality of the entire 
 composition. 
 
 No two of the maidens are exactly alike ; for in order to 
 have the entablature above correspond to the wall below, the 
 corner figures must incline diagonally to their right and left 
 respectively. If they stood straight, the top of the porch 
 would be smaller than the bottom. The two middle figures 
 are posed so as to make the strong contrasts between the 
 corner figures disappear, which could be done the more easily 
 as there was a change of legs in the center, the three girls on 
 the left supporting the weight of their bodies on their right 
 legs, the other three supporting it on their left legs. The fig- 
 ures in the back row had to act as intermediaries between 
 the corner maidens leaning diagonally outward and the antse 
 (flattened columns) on the wall, following, roughly speaking, 
 a straight vertical line. 
 
 The arms of all the maidens are broken. One arm prob- 
 ably hung down the side, while the other pulled a corner of 
 the drapery forward. 
 
 A detailed comparison with other contemporaneous draped 
 
 'Compare Plate 1 68, the Athena-Nike Temple, where both frie^ 
 and architrave are seen above the columns.
 
 
 35- GIANT FROM 
 AGRIGENTUM. 
 
 36. HERAKLES, LOUVRE.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 '57 
 
 statues of women is not fair, because these maidens were in- 
 tended for a distant view ; yet so perfect is the workmanship 
 of all the decorations of the Erechtheion that even near at 
 hand they are admirable. The pose of the girls, moreover, 
 firmly planted on one foot, was required by the architectural 
 setting. But it is possible that similar poses of ordinary statues 
 (see, for instance, the woman in Copenhagen, Plate 77, or the 
 Apollo in Munich, Text Illustration 25) with the flute-like 
 appearance of the folds of their drapery along one leg, sug- 
 gested to the artist the use which he could make of them as 
 parts of his architectural schemes. 
 
 PLATE 16T. Maiden, " Karyatid." Roman work. Of marble. 
 Vatican, Rome. Date and place of discovery unknown. Formerly in 
 Palazzo Panganica, since 1828 in the Vatican. Restorations, made 
 under the supervision of Thorwaldsen : the head, both fore arms, the 
 part of the robe held in the left hand, the feet, and the plinth. Hel- 
 big, I, Reinach I, 219, 4. 
 
 The beautiful refinement and delicacy of the Athenian 
 Maiden is best appreciated when it is compared with this 
 pattern-made Roman figure.' Text Illustration 35 represents 
 one of the giants from Agrigentum used as architectural sup- 
 ports. Again the superiority of the Athenian artist appears. 
 He knew that human figures as burden-bearers in buildings 
 are satisfactory not when the tax on their strength is noticed, 
 as is the case with this giant, but when they appear to be cre- 
 ated for the very performance of their office, like the maidens 
 of the Erechtheion. 
 
 1 Other interesting comparisons are with the early " Karyatides " 
 from the treasufy of the Knidians in Delphi. They are described, 
 A. J. A., V, 1901, p. 461. In Korinth colossal figures were placed 
 against pillars as decorations, but they were not themselves supporting 
 anything. See A. J. A., VI, 1902, p. 464, and Plate IV.
 
 1 58 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 PLATE 168. Temple of Athena Nike, also called " Nike Apte- 
 
 rOS," 1 from the east. Akropolis, Athens. Furtwangler, Master- 
 pieces, pp. 422ff. ; Wolters, Banner Studien, 1890, pp. gaff.; British 
 Museum Catalogue, pp. 239ff., with a plan of the location of the tem- 
 ple. For the frieze see also F. W., 747-760; Robinson, 490 ; E. von 
 Mach, pp. 55ff. For the balustrade, F. W., 761-804; Robinson, 491- 
 497 ; J. H. S., VI," pp. 244ff. ; and especially Kekule, Die Reliefs an der 
 Balustrade der Athena Nike. The dimensions of the temple are not 
 quite eighteen feet by a little over twenty-seven feet. 
 
 The temple was built in the last quarter of the fifth century. 
 The exact date is not known. It remained practically unin- 
 jured until 1680, when the Turks took it down, and built its 
 stones into a fortification wall. In 1835 this wall was removed 
 and the temple re-erected on its own foundation with hardly a 
 stone missing. Only the roof and the pediments are lost. 
 The slabs of the west frieze, which were visible in 1801, when 
 Lord Elgin formed his collection in Athens, are now in the 
 British Museum. 
 
 The views from this temple toward the sea, with Aigina and 
 Arkadia in the distance, and along the Sacred Way to Eleusis, 
 belong to the finest views of the many of which Athens can 
 boast. 
 
 The temple is built in the Ionian style, with slender, deep- 
 fluted columns on bases, and the characteristic Ionian capi- 
 tals. 2 There is no colonnade about this temple which has 
 only two porticos, one in front and one in the rear. 
 
 1 Temple of the Wingless Victory. This name was given the tem- 
 ple because Athena, the goddess of war, was worshipped as having 
 brought victory. She was thus a Nike (Victory). The goddess Nike, 
 however, was invariably represented with wings, Athena, on the other 
 hand, without wings. To distinguish the two Nike deities, the Athena 
 Nike was called the Wingless Nike. 
 
 2 The characteristic difference between the corner capitals and the 
 others shows well on the illustration. The corner capitals had their 
 end volutes diagonally drawn out, with a volute carved in low relief on 
 either side of this projection.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 '59 
 
 The East Frieze, Text Illustrations 37 and 38, seems to 
 represent an assembly of the gods. The other three friezes 
 are possibly commemorative of the Persian wars. On the south 
 and north sides Greeks are fighting with Persians, on the west 
 side Greeks with Greeks. This, as has been suggested, refers 
 to the battle of Plataia, where the Athenians fought the 
 Thebans who had taken sides with the Persians. 
 
 The temple was built on a narrow projecting ledge of the 
 Akropolis, and was therefore surrounded by a balustrade, sev- 
 eral slabs of which are preserved. 
 
 PLATE 169. Slabs from the West Frieze of the Athena-Nike 
 Temple in Athens. Of Pentelic Marble. British Museum. 
 
 The deviation ' from the strict principles of relief sculpture, 
 followed by the Parthenon artists, is at once noticed. The 
 pictorial element is prominent, and the existence of an abso- 
 lutely rigid wall, against which the figures are carved, is de- 
 nied. Even a tree is introduced, although in very delicate 
 lines. In one place a man is seen back to, but apparently 
 with sufficient space to continue his fight. This means the 
 introduction of air as background. In many respects, there- 
 fore, this frieze is more like the frieze from Delphi, Plate 43, 
 than like the Parthenon. 
 
 The lines of the Athena-Nike temple frieze are very pleas- 
 ing, suggestive of a confused battle scene, without themselves 
 being confused. The only blemish is found in some of the 
 fluttering garments, which are too obviously given to the wind 
 that they may fill empty spaces. 
 
 PLATES iro and in. Two Slabs from the Balustrade of the 
 Athena-Nike Temple. Of Pentelic Marble. Akropolis Museum 
 Athens. 
 
 1 E. von Mach, pp. 55ff .
 
 160 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 TEXT ILLUSTRATION 29. One additional Nike of the Balus- 
 trade. 
 
 On the slab, Plate 170, the support of the right foot is 
 broken away, so that Nike now seems to be holding her foot 
 in the air. She thus seems to have assumed a very uncom- 
 fortable, almost untenable, position. This was not the case 
 originally. She had stopped where the ground was uneven, 
 and had placed her foot on a little elevation to readjust her 
 sandal straps. 
 
 The transparency of her chiton and the fall of her himation 
 in heavier folds are motives borrowed from the " Fates " of 
 the Parthenon, Plate 136, whose dignity she lacks. Hers is 
 a graceful body, ready to receive a casual glance as one passes 
 along to the little temple, and pleasantly remembered. Studied 
 in detail, she is not so impressive ; for the unreality of her 
 body showing clearly even through the double garment is 
 too apparent. As a " decorative relief, however, rich in flow- 
 ing lines and varied ways of drapery," she is unrivalled. The 
 critic who emphasizes the defects of this figure rather than 
 its beauty may be reminded of the words of the Greek poet : 
 
 " Why should little things be blamed ? 
 Little things for love are made." 
 
 Great dash is shown in the Nike on the second slab, Plate 
 171. But here also the excited fluttering of the drapery, not 
 entirely in keeping with the action of the figure, spoils the 
 pleasure of continuous study. For a moment's view this Nike, 
 like the other, is a source of pleasing thoughts. 
 
 If one would fully realize the gulf that separates her from 
 the Parthenon, one ought to contrast ' her with the " Nike " 
 
 'Another extremely interesting comparison is with a relief in the 
 Glyptothek in Munich (No. 264, F. W., 808), Text Illustration 32. The
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 161 
 
 of the East Pediment, Plate 139. There the beauty of form 
 is made subservient to the expression of a mighty thought, 
 until the form is almost forgotten. Here the form is every- 
 thing. 
 
 PLATES 172 and 1T3. Four Slabs from the Frieze of the Temple 
 of Apollo at Bassai, near Phigaleia, in Arkadia. Of marble. Brit- 
 ish Museum, London. Discovered 1811-1812; purchased by the 
 British Museum in 1814. F. W., 883ff. ; Robinson, 424 ; and especially 
 British Museum Catalogue, 52off., together with the Introduction to 
 these numbers and full bibliography. For the history of the building, 
 its plan, the architectural fragments and the remains of the metopes, 
 see British Museum Catalogue I, pp. 27off. ; plan, fig. 22. 
 
 The exact date of the temple is not known. Iktinos, one 
 of the architects of the Parthenon, built it, probably between 
 430 and 420 B. C. In Phigaleia ' the ground offered heavy 
 obstacles to the adoption of the stereotype plan of a Greek 
 temple ; a deep ravine making it impossible to face the temple 
 lengthwise east and west. The temple image, however, had 
 to face east ; perhaps there had even been an older sanctuary 
 which Iktinos was bidden to enclose in his plan without alter- 
 ing its location. The fact is, a very unusual arrangement was 
 adopted. A small sanctuary facing east had added to it, on 
 the north, a large chamber ; both compartments together from 
 
 figure on the right is obviously copied from the Athena-Nike Balus- 
 trade. The copyist has omitted the wings and has changed the motive 
 of the pose to the rather incredible picking up of a tainia with the 
 foot. By contrast with this copy the drapery of the original gains in 
 dignity. Still further removed from the original is the Roman relief, 
 Text Illustration 33, which might almost be called a travesty. 
 
 1 The temple was really in Bassai. It is, however, customarily spoken 
 of as the temple of Phigaleia. Bassai means " the ravine," and there 
 was no settlement near it.
 
 1 62 GREEK: AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 the outside having the appearance of an ordinary temple, ex- 
 cept that their long axis ran north and south instead of west 
 and east. This appearance was enhanced by porticos on 
 either side and by a surrounding colonnade. The entrance 
 to the sanctuary was through a door opposite the columns 
 numbers six and seven on the long east side. It could also 
 be entered from the large adjoining room, whose wall was 
 pierced, and to which there was probably a separate entrance 
 from the north portico. Inside the large room there was a 
 kind of a colonnade formed by engaged columns on project- 
 ing tiers. The frieze was placed above the architrave over 
 these columns. 
 
 The frieze was thus fundamentally different from other 
 known Greek friezes in that it decorated the inside instead of 
 the outside of a sanctuary. The Parthenon frieze could be 
 viewed only by traveling along with it ; the Phigaleia frieze 
 could be studied in its entirety from one spot by turning 
 around from one side of the room to the other. The Par- 
 thenon frieze was placed in the semi-dark of the colonnade, 
 dependent exclusively on the reflected light from below. The 
 Phigaleia frieze doubtless received some light ' from above. 
 
 All these and several more differences necessitated an en- 
 tirely different design and a different technique in Phigaleia. 
 The relief is high rather than low, 2 and its action " open " 
 rather than " closed." Very few faces are seen in profile, be- 
 cause the position of the frieze made a view from all sides 
 possible. If a face in Phigaleia is nevertheless in profile it is 
 placed so near another object that its averted side cannot be 
 seen even though one approach it from the direction toward 
 
 1 The lighting of Greek temples is as yet an unsettled question. 
 
 2 For the conditions determining the use of either high or low relief 
 see E. von Mach, pp. 4off.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. ^3 
 
 which the head is looking. This is well seen in Plate 1723, 
 where the profile head of the boy is placed close to the head 
 of the centaur, or in Plate 1 733., where the boy's leg prevents 
 a view of the other side of the centaur head. 
 
 The subjects of the frieze are the fight against the centaurs 
 on two sides, and the fight against the Amazons on the other 
 sides. One might, however, well call them the Reign of Un- 
 bridled Passion. Nothing is sacred to the tribe of the centaurs. 
 The mother with her baby in her arms is wantonly attacked by 
 one, while another strips a woman at the very feet of the god- 
 dess, to whose image she clings. This madness of the enemies 
 has kindled the passion of fury in the hearts of the defenders, 
 and has embued them with unwonted strength. One youth 
 hurling himself upon a centaur wrenches the head of his foe 
 back until one almost hears the cracking of the broken back- 
 bone of the vanquished man-beast. Another pulls his foe 
 along by the hair, while his brother, kneeling on the horsey 
 body, is ready to deal his enemy the death blow, when he is 
 arrested by a centaur back of him. The height of excitement 
 is seen in the group where a centaur, attacked by two youths, 
 is fighting with one boy man-fashion, and is kicking at the 
 other with his horse's legs. 
 
 The frieze is full of stirring incidents. It cannot be viewed 
 as placidly as the Parthenon frieze. One must take part in 
 the struggle. Here one pities, there one hates, again one 
 fears, and at another time one gives a sigh of relief. "Who is 
 the artist," one instinctively asks, " who knew so well how to 
 play on the passions of men ? " His name is not recorded, 
 and one turns to the reliefs themselves in the hope of finding 
 there an indication of his identity. But one is mistaken. 
 The figures offer a surprising medley of types from almost 
 everywhere. The centaur, Plate 1 733, is copied after the Par- 
 thenon metope with the dead Greek. There is the fluttering
 
 164 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 panther skin and there the whisking tail ! The motive, Plate 
 1725, is a curious mixture of the body of one of the " Fates," 
 Plate 136, and of the bulging folds of the "Iris" from the 
 Parthenon, Plate 138. The woman with arms extended re- 
 minds one of the "Venus Genetrix," Plate 108, and the youth 
 hurling himself upon the centaur on the same slab seems to be 
 inspired by the West Pediment of Olympia, 1 as is the boy 
 thrusting his sword into the vitals of his foe, who is fighting 
 man and beast fashion alike. Scanning all the slabs in the 
 British Museum, one finds correspondences with almost all 
 known monuments of the fifth century. 
 
 This is surprising, but far more surprising is the lack of skill, 
 one might almost say the carelessness, with which the more 
 telling incidents and gestures are dashed off. Proper propor- 
 tions, beauty in detail, convincing grouping, these are ideas 
 that the sculptors have glaringly ignored. From the woman 
 with outspread arms on Plate 172, to the dying centaur on 
 Plate 1 73, there is hardly a figure that, taken from its context, 
 would not call forth violent criticism. The left leg of the half- 
 nude woman is too long, the centaur's hind legs are impossi- 
 ble. The youth does not kneel on the centaur's back, as does 
 his brother further on, but seems to be slipping from it. The 
 gap behind him is filled with a tree. The body of the centaur 
 seizing the mother is too small, while her mantle surrounding 
 her babe flutters in front of her instead of behind her, and her 
 feet are poor. And so one might go on pointing out defects. 
 
 But then there are again wonderfully expressive motives. 
 The agonized gesture of the centaur, on Plate 1733, pressing 
 his hand, with thumb spread out, against his wound ; 2 the 
 
 'The correspondence with Olympia is especially clear on several 
 slabs not shown here, notably Overbeck I, fig. 131, west 6 ; and in the 
 mode of fighting, ib., fig. 132, south 23. 
 
 2 For a similar gesture see one of the Parthenon metopes, where the 
 hand itself, however, is hidden in the shadow.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 165 
 
 boy kneeling on him and the other pulling him ; the helpless 
 nudity of the woman clinging to the idol, 1 and many more. 
 Fine details also are not lacking. Even the lines in the hands 
 of some of the figures have been carved true to nature, 2 while 
 the hands 3 of Artemis, on the slab where she arrives (or 
 starts) in her chariot are most beautifully modelled. The 
 nudity of the woman, Plate 172, is not without a great deal of 
 charm, and some of the Amazons are very graceful. 
 
 No one has yet been able to advance a theory which would 
 account for these apparent incongruities. The most generally 
 accepted suggestion is that the frieze was designed by one 
 great artist, but that it was executed by an inferior company 
 of stone-cutters, some of whom, however, had much skill. 
 The difficulty with this theory is that the design itself shows 
 many of the defects which the execution enhances. More 
 probably, therefore, the origin of the frieze is due to the rather 
 erratic genius of some man intimately acquainted with the art 
 life of Greece. Who he was we are unable to say. 
 
 PLATE 1 ?4. Reconstruction of a Part of the Nereid Monument. 
 Second Frieze, Stylobate and Intercolumniation, from Xanthos. Of 
 
 marble. British Museum, London. 
 
 PLATES lT5a and b and m. Three Nereids of the Nereid 
 
 Monument from XanthOS. Of marble. British Museum, London. 
 Discovered, a few slabs of the frieze in 1838 and 1840, the rest in 1842. 
 Purchased by the British Museum in 1843. F. W., 9131!. ; Robinson, 
 4o8ff. ; and especially British Museum Catalogue II, pp. iff., and com- 
 plete bibliography, pp. 9 and 10. The most important review of the 
 theories as to the date of the building, Overbeck I, 197 and 198; 
 Furtwangler's dating (Arch. Zeit., 1882, p. 359) in the fifth century 
 is now almost universally accepted. 
 
 1 But notice her very poor right hand. 2 Best instance the extended 
 right hand of Amazon, Overbeck I, fig. 13, east 20. 3 Most of the 
 hands are very clumsy.
 
 -1 66 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The probably accurate restoration of the Nereid monument, 
 Text Illustration 39, shows the customary style of sepulchral 
 structure ' in Asia and Asia Minor. It is, however, unique, 
 owing to its rich decorations and its many figures in the round 
 between the columns. These figures have given the name to 
 the monument, the majority of them having some kind of sea 
 animals at their feet designating the sea, as the eagle in the 
 Nike of Paionios was used to indicate air. If this explanation 
 is correct and no other has been offered the girls them- 
 selves no doubt are Nereids, daughters of the Old Man of the 
 Sea, who was seen struggling with Herakles, Plate 39. Their 
 connection with a tomb is as obscure 2 as that of the " Harpies " 
 on the " Harpy " monument, Plate 53. 
 
 The date of the building is now generally conceded to be 
 the end of the fifth century. The friezes,^ or at least one of 
 them, apparently represent an historical event, a battle in the 
 open, and the capture of a city. Our knowledge of Lykian 
 history is too slight to make us sure of the event which is 
 meant here. If we could determine this point, we should 
 have a date after which the monument was built. Different 
 suggestions have been made, none, however, to the universal 
 satisfaction of scholars, some of whom still believe in a fourth 
 century date. But they too acknowledge the affinity which 
 the preserved figures bear to the fifth century style. They as- 
 sume that it took many years before Attic achievements made 
 themselves felt in Lykia. Since this is so, we may unhesi- 
 tatingly discuss the Nereid monument in connection with other 
 
 1 A shrine-like building on a base of considerable height. 
 
 2 For a possible explanation see E. von Mach, pp. 130 and 131. 
 
 3 There are four friezes, two on the huge base, one on the architrave 
 of the shrine, and one inside the colonnade. The architectural mem- 
 ber generally decorated with figures and placed above the architrave 
 (see Athena-Nike temple, Plate 168) is omitted here.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 167 
 
 fifth century works, unconcerned about the possible date when 
 it was actually erected. 
 
 Three of the finest extant copies are shown on Plates 175 
 and 1 76. Skipping easily across the surface of the water, 
 these figures do not seem to walk. Their motion is comparable 
 to the flight of the Nike of Paionios, Plate no. They are 
 graceful figures, full of harmony and rhythm, using their 
 draperies to the best advantage. Their bodies alone could 
 never have expressed the abandon to the joy of effortless 
 movement as well as their fluttering robes. The clinging gar- 
 ment of the figure, Plate 1753, is studied from the " Nike " of 
 the Parthenon pediment, Plate 139, even to the point of having 
 the wind carry off the folds on one leg. The nobility of the 
 " Nike," however, is lost. It was the motive that interested 
 the sculptor and not the thought expressed. The folds be- 
 tween the legs, strangely out of place with so thin a garment, 
 are more like those of the " Iris," Plate 138, and almost iden- 
 tical with those of the mother on the Phigaleian frieze, Plate 
 172. In bodily form the other Nereid, Plate i75b, comes 
 even closer to the " Iris," while Plate 1 76 almost gives one 
 the impression of the Olympian Nike freed from restraint and 
 given to the thorough enjoyment of her flight. 
 
 There is a sameness in the execution of all the Nereids that 
 is apparent even in these three statues, which are the best of 
 all that are preserved. In several of the others the poses are 
 almost identical. And yet they are pleasing, each one being 
 a variations, if not a new tune, of the general theme of joy in 
 movement. 
 
 The friezes are unlike anything noted on the mainlaind in 
 Greece. Doubtless the subjects were given, or no artist would 
 have selected them, for they are ill-adapted to the art of sculpt- 
 ure. This is most especially true of the deserted city. 1 
 
 1 Excellent selections from the frieze, Baumeister, Denkmdler, PI. 
 
 XXIV.
 
 1 68 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 There is, however, much skill shown in grappling with them. 
 The advance of the heavy armed men, Plate 1 74, is impres- 
 sive. It suggests the irresistible force of a hoplite attack. 
 The regiments of hoplites in antiquity took the place of the 
 modern artillery. The artist has here, for the first time, made 
 use of the opportunity that repetition offers when the single 
 object would fail to arouse the interest of the spectator. 
 Another similar instance ' occurs on the smaller frieze ; seven 
 men hurrying along to proffer their gifts. 
 
 Several of the other slabs carry definite reminders either of 
 the Parthenon or especially of the Athena-Nike frieze. An 
 exaggerated use of fluttering draperies mars many, and few 
 would interest us if they did not contain touches that are 
 extremely human and true to nature. The passion, however, 
 runs far less high, even in the battle scenes, than on the Phi- 
 galeian frieze. These people are fighting because they have 
 to, if they were not fighting they might be friends ; in Phigaleia 
 they fight and kill each other because they want to, for they 
 are consumed by the passion of hatred. 
 
 PLATE 177. Samples of the Friezes from a Grave Monument in 
 GyOlbashi in Lykia. Of poor Lykian limestone. Imperial Museum, 
 Vienna. Discovered in 1842, secured for Vienna in 1881. The stand- 
 ard publication of this monument is, Das Heroon von Gjol-Baschi 2 
 Trysa von Bendorf und Niemann ; F. W., 993!!.; Robinson, 504. 
 
 The tomb which these reliefs once decorated was a large 
 
 1 Baumeister, Denkmdler, PI. XXIV, fig. 1224. 
 
 2 The spelling Gjol-Baschi is the German approximation to the 
 native sound of the name of the place. Since letters have a different 
 sound in English, there is no reason why the German spelling should 
 be continued in English books. It would be different if Gjol-Baschi, 
 thus spelled, was the actual name of the place.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 169 
 
 court ' open to the sky and surrounded by four tremendous 
 walls. The reliefs decorated the insides of all four walls and 
 the outside of the wall which was pierced by the entrance 
 door. 
 
 The subjects present a large medley. Most of them seem 
 to be taken from Greek mythology, while some doubtless had 
 reference to the exploits and to the events in the life of the 
 dead. 
 
 The date cannot be ascertained with accuracy. Benndorf 2 
 has shown with great probability that the reliefs were made in 
 the last years of the fifth century B. C.3 They certainly con- 
 tain many reminiscenses of the friezes of the Athena-Nike 
 temple, of Phigaleia, and of other places. 
 
 The pictorial element in these reliefs is very strong, and 
 some attempts at bold foreshortening have even been crowned 
 with considerable success, notably in the case of the temple 
 which appears in the story of the Leukippides. The preser- 
 vation of these reliefs is of the poorest, owing to the extreme 
 porousness of the limestone in which they are carved, and 
 also to the fact that they have been exposed to the open air 
 from the very beginning through more than two thousand 
 years. 
 
 PLATE 178. Relief from ElCUSiS. Of marble. National Mu- 
 seum, Athens. Discovered in Eleusis in 1859, removed first to the 
 Theseion, which served as a national museum until the new building 
 was completed. Furtwangler, Denkmiiler, Handausgabe, pp. 36-39, 
 
 "The court was about 78 feet long by 65 feet wide, and slightly 
 irregular in shape. 2 GjoI-Baschi, p. 23iff. 3 Overbeck II, p. 207, 
 agrees, but calls attention to the draperies in the slabs representing 
 the hunt of the Kalydonian Boar, which have a greater resemblance to 
 works of the fourth century than to those of any other period.
 
 170 
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 who calls the figure to the left Persephone; * F. W., 1182, who calls 
 her Demeter; and Robinson, 96, who follows Wolters. Older litera- 
 ture in F. W. and Robinson. 
 
 This large relief the figures are lifesize is still awaiting 
 identification. Found in Eleusis, where 'Demeter and Perseph- 
 one, her daughter, were worshipped, it, doubtless, has refer- 
 ence to an incident in the varied mythology of these goddesses. 
 The veil of mystery that surrounded the Eleusinian cult in 
 antiquity has not yet been lifted, and will probably never be 
 raised sufficiently to grant us a clear view of what the Greeks 
 portrayed as having taken place there. In respect to the boy 
 on this relief, we know that two boys were brought in connec- 
 tion with the Eleusinian goddesses. One was Triptolemos, 
 whom Demeter chose as intermediary to teach her people the 
 blessings of agriculture. The other was a peculiar conception 
 of Dionysos, the son of Zeus and of Demeter, by some ac- 
 counts, or of Persephone by others. This Dionysos always 
 appears as a boy or slender youth, not yet grown up, and is 
 known, from the shouts uttered at his worship, as lakchos. 2 
 
 Triptolemos, receiving the ears of corn, is generally older, 
 at least on many vase paintings, where the scene occurs. Most 
 interpreters, nevertheless, believe that the marble relief repre- 
 sents this incident. The goddess to the left seems to be 
 handing something to the boy, and the position of her hands 
 renders it probable that the gift was one or more ears of 
 corn. The small size of the boy may be due either to a dif- 
 ferent reading of the myth here followed from the one we 
 
 1 Persephone is the Latin Proserpina or the English Proserpine. 
 Persephone was the daughter of Demeter (Mother Earth) and, in con- 
 trast to the Mother, is often called the Girl, Kora. 
 
 2 The literal similarity between this lakchos and the more usual 
 Bacchos is undeniable.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 171 
 
 know, or to an artistic license. The sculptor made Triptole- 
 mos smaller so that he might impress the spectator with the 
 size of the goddesses. There is, however, one difficulty with 
 this interpretation. According to the myth, Demeter hands 
 the corn to Triptolemos. She, therefore, ought to be the 
 figure to the left. The other woman, not mentioned in the 
 story, must be Persephone. It happens, however, that we 
 should interpret the two women in exactly the opposite way if 
 we were not influenced by the myth. The Ionic garment was 
 going out of use in Athens in the middle of the fifth century. 
 Matrons, it seems, continued to wear it, as, for instance, the 
 Barberini Hera, Plate 105 ; while younger women put on the 
 Doric chiton, which became characteristic of Athena, notice 
 Athena Parthenos, Plates 968". Another relief from Eleusis, 1 
 now in Paris, shows the two goddesses, one of whom holds 
 two ears of corn in her hand. She must be Demeter, but she 
 is clad in the Ionic chiton ; while the other woman is dressed 
 in the Doric garment. Persephone, moreover, is also known 
 as Kora, 2 and the Korai (maidens) from the Erechtheion 
 porch wear the identical costume. 
 
 The attributes on the Athenian relief, scepter and torch, 
 properly belong to both goddesses, and can, therefore, be of 
 no service in the identification of either. The woman back 
 of the boy seems to be placing a wreath on his head.3 Such 
 an incident is not transmitted in the legend of Triptolemos, 
 although it is, of course, possible that the sculptor has in- 
 vented it. 
 
 In view of these facts, it seems hasty to speak of a " prob- 
 
 1 A picture of it is given Baumeister, Denkmdler, p. 416, fig. 457. 
 2 See above, Note, p. 155. 3 There is a bore-hole over his forehead 
 where this wreath of bronze doubtless was attached. The hair, which 
 it would have hidden, is less well finished than the rest.
 
 1 72 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 ably accurate interpretation " of these figures from left to 
 right as Demeter, Triptolemos and Persephone. On the con- 
 trary, Demeter is the woman on the right, unless what is 
 little likely the artist chose to represent her in forms gen- 
 erally used to characterize her daughter ; Persephone (Kora, 
 the Maiden), the woman on the left; and the boy, either 
 Dionysos (lakchos), or less probably Triptolemos. 
 
 The difficulty which one has in distinguishing in this relief 
 between mother and daughter shows how far the artists of this 
 period were from character differentiation, beyond the mere 
 expression of such general themes as dignity, kindness, 
 weariness, and the like. They had, on the other hand, 
 learned how to design grand and beautiful compositions. 
 The combination of these three figures is excellent. Every- 
 thing is arranged to make a view of the relief easy and pleas- 
 ureable. 1 The transition from the tall Persephone to the boy 
 would be difficult in spite of the connecting arms if it were 
 not for the drooping curve of her garment under her right 
 elbow, and the similarity of her hair 2 to that of the boy in 
 front of her. The slender profile view of the boy's body is 
 made to appear less slim by that part of his garment which 
 hangs down from his right shoulder and disguises his hollow 
 back. This garment served also another purpose, for it ren- 
 dered easy the otherwise awkward position of the boy's right 
 arm, and was an excellent foil against which to relieve the 
 nude. Demeter, on the right, is drawn into the group not 
 only by the action of her right hand, but also by the gentle 
 droop of her head, carrying the eye of the spectator down to 
 the boy, whose upward glance to the goddess before him 
 
 1 See E. von Mach, Chap. VIII, pp. 6off., " Physical effort and 
 pleasure of looking at extended compositions." 
 
 2 Compare also the hair of the Spinario, Plate 72.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 173 
 
 makes a quick transition to Persephone possible. The promi- 
 nent torch is another important factor of the design, without 
 which Demeter would be a far less intimate part of the group, 
 for by its lines, almost parallel to the axis of the boy's body, 
 the eye of the spectator glides readily from one figure to the 
 other. 
 
 The only really insurmountable difficulty which the artist 
 encountered is found in the pose of Persephone. She is de- 
 signed to stand like the woman in Copenhagen, Plate 77, with 
 the bent left leg in advance. The slanting line of the upper 
 leg was needed as a link between her and the boy. The many 
 heavy folds were necessary to ensure dignified stability. How 
 to combine the two elements gracefully and with apparent 
 truth to nature the artist did not know. This, however, is 
 but a minor defect, and in spite of it the Athenian relief is 
 one of the best extant works of ancient art. Wolters says : 
 " There is no other Greek work known to us of so eminently 
 a religious character. ... It is the most beautiful instance 
 of an art founded on faith and carried along by it." 
 
 PLATE 1 79. Orpheus, Eurydikc and Hermes. Relief of marble. 
 
 Museum, Naples. There are two well-known replicas, one in Villa 
 Albani, Helbig, 790; F. \V., 1198; Robinson, 500; it has no inscrip- 
 tions. The other in the Louvre with inscriptions reading Amphion, 
 Antiopa, Zetus. This inscription is modern. The Naples inscriptions 
 are by some also believed to be modern. For full bibliography, see 
 F. W., 1198. The correspondence between the figures on this relief 
 and some figures on the Parthenon frieze are pointed out by Pickard, 
 A.J. A., 1898, pp. i669ff. 
 
 Hermes, who calls for souls to bring them to the lower world, 
 has appeared. His duty here is to part the loving couple. 
 Himself characterized by the petasos, the little hat on his 
 back, he is undoubtedly Hermes, while the man who holds a
 
 174 
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 musical instrument in his hand is believed to be Orpheus, and 
 the woman to be Eurydike. So they are designated by the 
 inscriptions, but these inscriptions may be modern. Eurydike, 
 the story goes, had died ; but Orpheus, who had gone to the 
 lower world in search of her, had been promised that she 
 would return to him if he refrained from turning around until 
 he had reached the upper world. When he came near the 
 light, however, and did not hear her follow him he grew 
 anxious and looked back, only to see her, like a shadow, dis- 
 appear from his side into the darkness below. 
 
 This incident, most interpreters believe, was in the mind of 
 the artist, who granted the couple, however, one last good-bye 
 before their final separation. Artistic license is elastic, so that 
 it is quite possible that the sculptor took liberties with the 
 transmitted story. Barring, however, the lyre and the foreign 
 costume of the man, there is nothing in this relief that did 
 not apply equally as well to the parting of any loving couple. 
 
 With true Greek simplicity, the feeling of grief has been 
 stripped of its exaggerated expression. The latter may be sung 
 by the poet, but must not be carved ; for it is not pleasant to 
 look at. The incident of the parting of the lovers, however, 
 far from losing any of its pathos, has gained because the grief 
 is revealed to be lasting, and not fleeting like the violence of 
 passionate outbursts. 
 
 The correspondence between these figures and several fig- 
 ures on the Parthenon frieze has recently been pointed out 
 in detail, 1 and is indeed striking. Even the selvage edge on 
 the mantle of Hermes is characteristic of the work on the 
 Parthenon frieze. The drapery of Orpheus reminds one of 
 that of the Berlin Amazon, Plate 118. 
 
 1 Pickard in article mentioned above. The correspondence is 
 especially strong with figures from the West Frieze on Plates 146 and 
 153, and the first figure on the East Frieze.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 '75 
 
 The combination of the figures, however, and the design of 
 the relief is original, and shows an admirable artistic temper. 
 The appearance of the relief was enhanced by color, which 
 added much, for instance, to the legs of Orpheus shod in 
 shoes which are merely blocked out in the marble. 
 
 The left foot of Eurydike is rather awkward. Its direction, 
 however, clearly indicates whither Eurydike was walking when 
 Hermes gently touched her wrist to take her away. The end 
 of the garment against which her head is relieved is with true 
 artistic license carved where it is not intended to appear to be, 
 behind her head. She had it over her head and had pulled 
 one end aside so that Orpheus could see her. If the artist had 
 carved her thus the spectator could not have seen her face. 
 To avoid this the sculptor took liberties which remind one 
 of the practices of Fra Angelico and of many Italians, who 
 often painted the halos not on the heads of their angels, but 
 back of them, or in front of them or to one side, as the 
 arrangement of the composition demanded. 
 
 PLATE 180. Hermes and the Nymphs, or the Graces. Of marble. 
 
 Museum, Berlin. Found, date unknown, on the Quirinal in Rome. 
 Berlin Catalogue, No. 709. 
 
 The Graces were originally nymphs. They appear, three in 
 number, 1 on the relief from Thasos, 2 Plate 54, together with 
 Hermes, so that these girls here may also be Graces and not, 
 as is generally stated, nymphs. 
 
 The studied variety in poses and garments which the Tha- 
 sian artist had sought to attain, is here carried to perfection. 
 The beautiful unconsciousness of the earlier work, however, is 
 missing. The later sculptor has rested satisfied with weaving 
 familiar types into a pleasing group, unmindful of the accruing 
 
 1 For this number see E. von Mach, p. 135. 
 
 2 Where they are named in the inscription as Graces, Charites.
 
 xy6 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE, 
 
 inconsistencies. The girl to the right is dancing. Her gar- 
 ment shows this, and she occurs also on a later relief as a 
 dancing Mainad. 1 The center figure is standing still, or is 
 at best walking, in spite of the wavy edge of her mantle. 
 Her exaggerated, almost unpleasantly large, step compares ill 
 with the slow and delicate rhythm to which the last girl is 
 moving. Hermes, in a graceful pose, stands in front of the 
 girls. His right arm reminds one of the left arm of the Eleu- 
 sinian Apollo in Berlin, Plate 127, and his general pose, which 
 is borrowed from the boy of the West Frieze of the Parthe- 
 non, on Plate 146, is echoed again in a much later work, the 
 Hermes on the column from Ephesos, Plate 217. He holds 
 his fair neighbor gently by the wrist, just as he holds Eurydike, 
 Plate 179. 
 
 The little figure to the left is a human being, distinguished 
 from the gods by his diminutive size, as is customary in votive 
 reliefs. From the opposite side the river god Achelaos 2 in his 
 cave is watching the gods. Over him Pan was sitting, but his 
 figure is now broken away, all but his goat's feet. 
 
 There is little originality in this relief, which seems to be 
 not a Roman copy, but, as the Pentelic marble 3 indicates, a 
 genuine Athenian work of the fifth century. It shows how 
 even in that period there were marked differences between the 
 creations of the sculptors. Some conceived mighty thoughts 
 and appealed to the divine instincts of their fellow-men. 
 Others borrowed their types and were satisfied with arranging 
 them skilfully so as to please the refined taste of their cus- 
 tomers. 
 
 PLATE 181. Medeia and the Daughters of Pelias. Relief of 
 
 marble, said to be Pentelic. Lateran Museum, Rome. 4 Found, 1814, 
 
 1 See Plate 219. 2 Achelaos is often represented in this shape. 3 It 
 seems to be proved that the marble of this relief is Pentelic. 4 It 
 was found necessary, at the last moment, to substitute the replica in
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. ! 77 
 
 in the foundation of the pavement of the old Academia de France 
 (Palazzo Simonetti). Helbig, 635; F. W., 1200; Robinson, 503. A 
 replica of the same in Berlin, Catalogue, No. 927, where a full bibliog- 
 raphy is given, to which Kekule's article, Jahrbuch XII, 1897, pp. 96ff., 
 must be added. For an interesting vase painting depicting the same, 
 incident, see Baumeister, Denkmaler, p. 1201, fig. 1394. 
 
 Medeia, the sorceress, had told the daughters of Pelias that 
 she could rejuvenate old people. To show her powers she 
 had bidden the girls to bring her an old ram. This she had 
 slaughtered, boiled in a kettle, and made to re-appear as a 
 lamb, as is seen in the vase painting mentioned above. The 
 girls are persuaded, and ready to kill their father, trusting 
 that also he will come out from the cauldron, by the power of 
 Medeia, a young man. Medeia, however, has no intention 
 of exerting her supernatural gift. She desires the death of 
 Pelias. 
 
 On the relief the preparations are made, Medeia with her 
 box, supposed to contain her herbs of youth, is seen on the 
 left, characterized as a foreigner by her Oriental garb, the 
 Phrygian cap and the sleeves of her mantle. One daughter is 
 arranging the cauldron, while the other is given to a moment 
 of thought before risking the deed the killing of her father. 
 Her attitude is strangely enough not unlike that r of Medeia 
 herself in an ancient wall painting, where she is seen as 
 hesitating before killing her own children ; while on the other 
 
 the Berlin Museum. Date and place of discovery unknown. It was in 
 the Palazzo Strozzi in Rome in 1550, bought for Berlin in 1842. Res- 
 torations : the left hand, lower corner, with the feet of Medeia. The 
 entire relief has been polished, and the branch in the hand of the 
 right hand figure been sketched in this process. 
 
 1 See Springer-Michaelis I, p. 173, fig. 309 ; Baumeister, Denkmaler, 
 p. 875, fig. 948.
 
 1 78 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 hand it bears strong resemblances to several draped figures of 
 women in the fifth century. 
 
 The pathos of the story here enacted is stripped of all the 
 excitement that must have accompanied the incident itself. 
 It is in this respect like the Orpheus, Eurydike and Hermes 
 relief, Plate 1 79. Its very successful arrangement of figures 
 and its distribution of masses is comparable to the exquisite 
 design of the Naples relief. Medeia herself, moreover, com- 
 pares well with the erect goddess on the slab from Eleusis, 
 Plate 178. The two figures are similarly posed, but the atti- 
 tude of Medeia indicates greater skill on the part of the artist, 
 who combined the bent left leg and the straight folds on the 
 right leg with a more convincing verisimilitude to nature. 
 
 PLATE 182. Fragment Of a Horseman. Of limestone, prob- 
 ably from Boiotia. Vatican Museum, Rome. Date and place of dis- 
 covery unknown. Brought to Italy with the Greek spoils of the army 
 of Morosini, in 1687. It passed through several collections until it was 
 finally deposited in the Vatican Museum under Pius VII (1800-1823). 
 
 The strong resemblance between this figure and several 
 horsemen of the Parthenon frieze has led people to see in 
 it a fragment of the Parthenon. This view, however, is dis- 
 proved by the difference of the material, a rather coarse lime- 
 stone, probably from Boiotia, and also by the difference in 
 technique. The relief of the Vatican horseman is about twice 
 as high. 1 More recently it has been suggested that this horse- 
 man was part of a grave relief. As such it was to be seen in 
 the strong light of out-of-doors, for which the low relief of 
 the Parthenon frieze was not adapted. 2 The sculptor, there- 
 fore, borrowed a type of a famous work, but executed it inde- 
 
 1 Or deep. See E. von Mach, pp. 39f., 4iff. 2 See E. von Mach, 
 pp. 4 iff.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 179 
 
 pendently in a technique demanded by the use to which his 
 work was to be put. This gives one an opinion of the Boio- 
 tian ( ?) sculptor that is by no means low, in spite of the fact 
 that he borrowed his type and did not invent it. The Greeks, 
 apparently, had no conscientious scruples against building on 
 the achievements of their predecessors, the chief aim of all 
 artists being to execute their motives, whether individually 
 conceived or borrowed, so that they appeared to be the best 
 adapted to the needs which they were destined to fill. 
 
 PLATE 183. Votive Relief Of HeraklCS. Of marble. Museum of 
 Fine Arts, Boston. Very small. Acquired with the Perkins' Collec- 
 tion. No further information published. 
 
 This little relief is interesting as showing the method in 
 ancient Greece of adapting well-known types to new uses, 
 unmindful of how little the new setting agreed with the orig- 
 inal design. Votive reliefs, as a rule, were not made by first- 
 class men, and this accounts for their comparatively low 
 standard. On the other hand, however, this relief tends to fill 
 one with admiration for the delicate feeling for lines and masses 
 that even the lesser sculptors possessed. One finds no diffi- 
 culty in surveying the design, which is simple, orderly, and, to 
 a certain extent, impressive. The eye glides easily and with a 
 sense of physical pleasure from one figure to the other. Only a 
 more detailed study reveals the inappropriateness of the youth 
 in profile. He is leaning much too far backward. His pose 
 is copied from the Parthenon frieze, 1 where it served a definite 
 purpose, and, in its proper setting, passed unnoticed. Transi- 
 tion had to be made between the rapidly moving cavalcade 
 and the slowly moving procession of maidens At the critical 
 
 1 See plates accompanying the Handbook.
 
 T 8o GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 point several youths were introduced, bearing implements for 
 the sacrifice. If they had been represented walking straight, 
 they would have failed to mark the necessary transition. 
 They were therefore carved like men checking the speed of 
 onward movement leaning back. It is these slanting lines 
 that break the continuity of the formerly suggested rapidity, 
 and prepare the way for the calm stateliness of the maidens. 
 Taken from their setting these youths " are unpleasant. 
 
 What is true of all of these youths is especially true of the 
 single adaptation of one of them in the Boston votive offering. 
 He is undraped, so that his inaccurate pose is even more no- 
 ticeable, and, to cap the climax, a cloak hangs from his 
 shoulder in almost vertical lines, as if inviting one to measure 
 how much the youth deviates from the correct posture of a 
 normal man. 
 
 The figure of the other man is even less satisfactory. He is 
 Herakles, as the lion's skin indicates, and as such has received 
 proportions of such muscular strength that his body is un- 
 natural. The sculptor has stooped to the crude device of por- 
 traying strength by size, forgetful of the fact that the limits 
 that circumscribe art are narrower than those that bind the 
 fancy of the mythologist. The latter had described Herakles 
 as unnaturally strong. To carve him thus was not permitted 
 to the artist, at least not so long as he portrayed Herakles as 
 a man ; for a man's physical development must be within the 
 bounds of the naturally probable. 
 
 The skin, doubtless intended to be the skin of a lion for 
 the inscription on the altar refers to Herakles is copied 
 from the panther skin on one of the Parthenon metopes, 
 Plate i6ia. The physique of both figures reminds one of 
 the work of Polykleitos (see Plate 113). 
 
 1 This is well seen wherever a slab of these Parthenon youths is 
 hung alone, as frequently happens.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 181 
 
 PART FIVE. 
 
 Fourth Century. 
 
 The once prevalent view that the artists of the fourth cen- 
 tury before Christ despaired of equaling the achievements of 
 Pheidias and therefore consciously refrained from touching on 
 grand themes, preferring to excel only in beauty of finish, is 
 no longer held by any but the most backward students of art. 
 If " grand themes " had appealed to the people, the artists of 
 the fourth century would have executed them, little concerned 
 about borrowing from their predecessors. The modern crav- 
 ing for something new did not disturb the breasts of the 
 ancients. Types were copied or adapted as long as they 
 promised to find favor ; for the Greeks knew nothing of copy- 
 rights and patents. Praxiteles imitated the Artemis ' by 
 Strongylion, 2 and the sculptors of the Parthenon wove into 
 their design 3 several well-known figures. 
 
 The difference between the sculpture of the fifth and of the 
 fourth centuries is not an artificial one of the artists' own 
 making, but the natural result of the changes 4 that had taken 
 place in Greece. The individual, unknown in the fifth cen- 
 tury, had stepped into his rights. In front of an indubitably 
 fifth century work one is inclined to ask, " What is the nature 
 
 1 For a discussion of this Artemis see the review of Reinach's article, 
 A.J. A., VII, 1903, p. 465. 2 Strongylion was in his prime about 410 
 B. C. 3 See E. von Mach, p, 218. 4 The changes are fully discussed 
 and explained in E. von Mach, pp. 2621!,
 
 1 82 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 of this god?" Turning to a statue of the next period, one in- 
 quires, " What does he feel?" and adds, with deference to the 
 personal note in this art, " How do I like him ? " 
 
 The artists, of course, strove to create works that should be 
 liked, and so a change naturally took place in the conception 
 of the gods. They lost much of their former impassive 
 grandeur and assumed the appealing beauty that characterizes 
 the fourth century. Most of them appeared in more youthful 
 forms than had pleased an earlier generation, a fact which 
 enables Waldstein ' to say with some justification that a 
 " general tendency to rejuvenescence in the types of the gods 
 marks the difference between the fifth and fourth centuries of 
 Greek art." Love, peace, hatred, anguish, resignation, in 
 short, all the human passions are portrayed in the eighty 
 years from the turn of the century to the death of Alexander. 
 The individual and his feelings are the constant but ever vary- 
 ing theme. If it were not so, even the wonderful perfection 
 of finish and the beauty of harmonious designs could not place 
 this art by the side of the creations of Pheidias. But there it 
 belongs, not on account of its external refinement, but rather 
 in spite of it. 
 
 The Romans loved this period best of any and copied 2 more 
 statues of the fourth century than of any other period. In 
 their own soulless age, however, they looked more for external 
 charm than for inherent worth, so that most of their copies 
 have preserved of the double excellence only the former. 
 This must be kept in mind if one would do justice to the 
 artists of the fourth century, whose work one can study to-day 
 only by means of late and inadequate copies. 
 
 PLATE 184. Eirene and Ploutos, after Kephisodotos. Of Pentelic 
 1 /. H. S., XXI, 1901, p. 31. 2 For Roman copies see E. von Mach.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 183 
 
 marble. Glyptothek, Munich. Date of discovery unknown. The 
 group appeared first in the Villa Albani, whence it was removed to 
 Paris by Napoleon I. It was purchased for Munich in 1816. Restora- 
 tions : the right arm and the fingers of the left hand, also small parts 
 of the drapery of Eirene, the right arm, the left foot, parts of the right 
 foot and the neck of Ploutos. The head of Ploutos is antique, but 
 does not belong to the statue. The vase is a mistaken restoration. A 
 replica of the boy in Athens indicates a cornucopia. Furtwangler, 
 Catalogue, 219, with full bibliography; F. W., 1210, and the replica in 
 Athens, 1211 ; Robinson, 515. The head alone, Plate 4733- 
 
 The tenderness of the mother toward her child is the more 
 apparent in this group, as it is simple and natural, and the 
 more astonishing as it has been added to the stern type of an 
 earlier age by means of only few alterations. The motive of 
 the drapery is like that of the Maiden, Plate 166, but in heavi- 
 ness it resembles rather the garment of the Parthenos, Plate 
 97, or of the " Hera," Plate 104. No better comparison can 
 be made than between this " Hera " and the Eirene group, if 
 one would contrast the gentleness of the fourth century with 
 the stern grandeur of the preceding age. 1 Nor can the readi- 
 ness of the later sculptor to borrow and to adapt earlier types 
 be more readily perceived than by studying the drapery of 
 Eirene together with that of the " Dancers," Plate 76, of the 
 Parthenos, Plate 97, of the "Hera," Plate 104, and of the 
 Maiden, Plate 166. In time, the Munich group is nearest to 
 the Erechtheion Maiden, but in vigor and grandeur of execu- 
 tion it goes back to the Pheidian works. Even the straight 
 supporting fold from the knee of the less engaged (right) leg 
 is copied from the Parthenos. 
 
 The child is unduly small and unnaturally far to one side. 
 The artist obviously feared to break the lines of the impressive 
 
 1 This age, to be sure, had in figures like the Apollo, Plate 70, 
 paved the way for greater mildness.
 
 184 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 drapery. 1 The head does not belong to the figure, while the 
 head of the replica in Athens reveals unmistakable signs of re- 
 semblance to the child in the arms of Hermes, Plate 190. 
 
 The original of this group was of bronze, erected in Athens 
 in honor of Eirene (Peace) and her child Ploutos (Wealth). 
 In front of the group was an altar, on which yearly sacrifices 
 were offered to these deities. The maker of the group was 
 Kephisodotos, which is a name of frequent occurrence in the 
 family of Praxiteles, who himself was the son of one Kephiso- 
 dotos. It used to be believed that the father of Praxiteles and 
 the sculptor of Eirene and Ploutos were identical. This view, 
 however, has few adherents to-day, because the style of Eirene 
 belongs too distinctly to the fourth century, while the father 
 of Praxiteles must have been in his prime during the last de- 
 cades of the preceding century. 
 
 Praxiteles and his School. 
 
 Irrespective of the few statues that can clearly be identified 
 with Praxiteles, the name of this sculptor stands for certain 
 definite art tendencies which are found in a large number of 
 extant monuments. For the study of ancient art, little is gained 
 by drawing a strong line between the few surely Praxitelean 
 works and the many unidentified statues exhibiting his style in 
 a more or less marked degree. While on the other hand, the 
 cause of knowledge is better served by acknowledging our lack 
 of accurate information than by arbitrarily increasing the cycle 
 of Praxitelean works with brilliant guesses. Professor Klein's 
 work on Praxiteles seems to err in the latter direction. The 
 fact that a statue may have been made by a certain artist is no 
 
 'Contrast this group with Silenos and the infant Dionysos, Plate 
 245.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 185 
 
 proof that it actually was made by him ; while the absence of 
 a definite proof by no means implies that the statue ought to 
 be credited to some one else. It simply goes to show how 
 difficult it is to be sure on a point after the lapse of two 
 millenia. 
 
 The undoubtedly Praxitelean works are the " Hermes " 
 found in Olympia, Plate 190, the " Apollo Sauroktonos," 
 Plates 185 and 186, and the Knidian Aphrodite, Plates 198 
 and igga. Of these only the Hermes is an original, the others 
 are copies. In addition, some scholars believe they are able 
 to prove that also the Mantineian Base, Plates 21 off., and the 
 Aphrodite in the British Museum, Plate 200, are by Praxiteles. 
 Of these again only the Mantineian Base is an original. 
 
 As to the majority of the other statues grouped together 
 here, there is much unanimity on the part of scholars in see- 
 ing in them works created under the influence of, if not in a 
 few cases by, Praxiteles. Plates 191-193, three statues of 
 Hermes, and Plate 202, Venus Medici, are included in this 
 list only for the sake of comparison ; while Plates 2o8a and 
 2o8b are doubtful. They have recently been assigned to 
 Lysippos. 
 
 PLATE 185. " Apollo Sauroktonos," after Praxiteles. Of mar- 
 ble. Vatican, Rome. Discovered in 1777 in the Villa Magnani on 
 the Palatine Hill in Rome. Restorations: practically the entire head, 
 except the right side of the face ; the right forearm ; three fingers of 
 the left hand ; almost the entire right leg, and the left leg from below 
 the knee; part of the tree-trunk ; the upper part of the lizard ; and the 
 plinth. E. von Mach, pp. 269ff. ; Helbig, 194; Robinson, 519; Reinach 
 1,239, i- 
 
 PLATE 186. " Apollo Sauroktonos," after Praxiteles. Of mar- 
 ble. Louvre, Paris. Formerly in the Villa Borghese. Restorations : 
 the head, which was broken from the statue, but is said to belong to 
 it; the right hand and adjoining part of the right arm ; almost the en-
 
 1 86 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 tire left arm ; head and neck of the lizard. The feet of " Apollo " 
 were broken, but are antique. Frohner, Sculpture Antique, No. 70 ; 
 
 E. von Mach, pp. 26gff., especially 271; Reinach I, 135, 5 and 6; 
 Helbig, 749; F. W., 1214; Reinach II,ioo,3 (not, as F. W., erro- 
 neously states, I, 249, 3). A less accurate copy is in the Albertinum in 
 Dresden, E. von. Mach, Plate XXVII, 4. 
 
 TEXT ILLUSTRATION 2T. " Apollo Sauroktonos." Of bronze. 
 Villa Albani. Found, date unknown, in a vineyard below the Church 
 of S. Balbina, Restorations : The tree and the lizard. Helbig, 749 ; 
 
 F. W., 1214 ; Reinach II, 100, 3. 
 
 The important points for the study of these statues, which 
 are fully discussed in E. von Mach, pp. z6gff., are : 
 
 1. Complete bodily and mental rest portrayed in the lines 
 of the figure, and suggested by the presence of the shy lizard. 
 
 2. Mistaken name " Lizard Killer " (Sauroktonos) for the 
 youth who is absent-mindedly watching the lizard. 
 
 3. The curve in the body, unlike anything in earlier statues. 
 Contrast it with the "Apollo" of Tenea, Plate 14; the 
 Munich "Hero," Plate 71 ; and the Doryphoros, Plate 113. 
 
 4. The inappropriate change in the Louvre copy, Plate 
 1 86, where the tree- trunk is drawn too close to the body of 
 the figure. For a still nearer trunk see the statue in Dresden 
 (E. von Mach, Plate XXVII, fig. 4). 
 
 PLATE 1ST. Dionysos, " SardanapallOS ". Of marble. Vatican 
 Museum, Rome. Discovered in 1761 in the ruins of a villa in the 
 neighborhood of Frascati in Italy. The only restorations are the point 
 of the nose, the lips, the right arm, and fragments of the drapery. 
 Helbig, 327; F. W., 1284 (only the bust) ; Reinach I, 382, 7. 
 
 An inscription on the mantle of this figure reads, " Sardana- 
 pallos." Just why this wrong inscription was placed there no 
 one knows. Helbig suggests, " Some bo n vivant of the
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 187 
 
 imperial epoch, interested in Sardanapallos, whose refined 
 luxury was a proverb in antiquity, may have wished to possess 
 a portrait of him. This wish being impossible of fulfilment, 
 either he himself or some accommodating art dealer gave the 
 name of Sardanapallos to a statue of the bearded Dionysos, 
 who corresponded in many respects with a luxurious Oriental 
 potentate." 
 
 Scholars to-day agree that the Vatican statue represents 
 Dionysos. This god was variously portrayed. As an infant, 
 he was carried by Hermes to the Nymphs, Plates 190 and Text 
 Illustration 31, or held in the arms of Silenos, Plate 245 ; as a 
 youth he appears in the statue in Rome, Plate 2 76, and proba- 
 bly in a bronze in Naples, Plate 194 ; and as bearded, thought- 
 ful, almost sad but benign, we see him in the Vatican statue 
 and in the Naples head, Plate 498. 
 
 It is this sadness of expression that clearly places the Vatican 
 statue in the fourth century, while its supreme dignity, and 
 pleasing, not pathetic expression, render it impossible to as- 
 cribe him to the cycles of any other fourth century sculptor 
 than Praxiteles. Of this artist we know ' that he portrayed 
 Dionysos, and although the description of the statue by him 
 does not tally with the extant copy, there is no reason to sup- 
 pose that he did not make other statues of the same god. 
 
 Another suggestion is that the original was by Kephisodotos, 
 the maker of Eirene and Ploutos, Plate 184. Both statues are 
 touched with sentiment, both show the love of the artist for 
 the monumental effect of drapery. The folds of the under- 
 garment of Dionysos are, however, so fussy that it is difficult to 
 imagine that they should have pleased the maker of Eirene. 
 They remind one more of the garment of the Matron in 
 Dresden, Plate 208. 
 
 1 Overbeck, S. Q., 1222.
 
 188 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 In order to get the full effect of the drapery of Dionysos it 
 is wise to compare this statue with other draped figures, for 
 instance, the Hera Barberini, Plate 105, the Athena of Velletri, 
 Plate 107, and Sophokles, Plate 412. A comparison with this 
 last statue is especially valuable in revealing the devices by 
 means of which the artist made his Dionysos appear to be a 
 man of liberal proportions. He has thrown his cloak around 
 him so that the folds hang from the extended elbow rather than 
 from the side of the body. This necessitated a peculiar de- 
 viation from the natural in the representation of the undergar- 
 ment in order to avoid an empty space and not to give away 
 the device. The width of the garment below is too great 
 to be natural. 
 
 The hair of the head and the beard of Dionysos are long 
 and beautiful, but with that peculiar suggestion of voluptuous 
 growth that is reflected in the body, and that belongs properly 
 to Dionysos, the god of wine and easy living. In technique 
 the locks falling over the left shoulder remind one of those of 
 some of the Akropolis figures, Plates 26 and 27. This remi- 
 niscence of what is old and gone by adds to the somewhat 
 heavy conception of the god an element of venerable dis- 
 tinction. 
 
 PLATE 188. Eros With a BOW. Of marble. Capitoline Museum, 
 Rome. Place and date of discovery unknown, formerly in the Villa 
 d'Este at Tivoli. Restorations : the end of the nose, the wings (except 
 their roots), the arms from below the shoulders, the right foot, the 
 lower left leg, the stump and the quiver. Helbig, 429; F. W., 1582; 
 Reinach I, 352, 7 ; compare also Reinach II, 427, iff. 
 
 PLATE 189. ErOS Centocelle. Of marble. Vatican, Rome. 
 Found in Centocelle near Rome, and acquired for the Vatican by Pope 
 Clement XIV (1769-1774). Only the point of the nose and fragments 
 of the hair are restored. Helbig, 185 ; F. W., 1578 ; Reinach I, 537, i. 
 For a fully restored replica in Naples see the picture in Knackfuss- 
 Zimmermann, PI. 193, fig. 136.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 189 
 
 These two statues of Eros have been placed together for the 
 sake of comparison, although only the second seems definitely 
 to belong to the cycle of Praxitelean works. It is probably 
 the copy of the Thespian Eros by that master. The first 
 statue has been tentatively assigned to Lysippos, but without 
 cogent arguments. It may be the adaptation of a type created 
 in the time of Praxiteles. Judging by gems ' the restoration 
 of the bow is inaccurate. Eros was endeavoring to fasten the 
 string on his bow. 
 
 The restoration of the Eros Centocelle has given much dif- 
 ficulty. Wolters (F. W., 1578) believes that he held a torch 
 turned down in his right hand. This was the symbol of death, 
 and Erotes are sometimes seen with it on Roman sarcophagi. 
 Helbig, on the contrary, contends that the right arm hung 
 loose by the side of the body, and that his hand was empty. 
 The left arm may have rested on a bow or a pillar. The latter 
 view seems to be substantiated by a number of replicas, one a 
 Pompeian stucco relief. 2 The actual appearance of the Thes- 
 pian Eros by Praxiteles is not recorded. It is, however, a 
 pleasant supposition that the Centocelle figure copies that 
 famous statue. This view gains probability, since there are 
 many replicas extant, which would be the case only with a 
 famous original. 
 
 Most important, however, is the general Praxitelean charac- 
 ter 3 of this work peace of mind coupled with ease of pose 
 and in the lines of the body a most harmonious rhythm. It 
 is the beginning of that rhythm which singles out the Hermes 
 of Praxiteles, Plate 190, and the " Marble Faun," Plate 195, 
 as works of surpassing beauty. With the legs of Eros gone, 
 it is, of course, difficult to feel the full force of this rhythm, 
 
 'Pictures of two gems, Helbig I, p. 316. 2 Helbig I, p. 119. 3 For 
 Praxitelean character see E. von Mach, pp.
 
 19 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 but one has only to compare the Centocelle figure with the 
 " Hermes " in Boston, Plate 124, in order to see that none but 
 a supreme master could have designed it. 
 
 The finish of the statue is hard, in reality even harder than 
 the photograph reveals. The figure, also, seems rather too 
 slight, but this defect was counterbalanced by the wings, now 
 lost, that were added in the holes on the back, and acted as 
 foils to the slim body, enhancing the delicacy of the rhythm. 
 
 PLATE 190. Hermes Of Praxiteles. Of marble. Museum, Olym- 
 pia. Discovered May 8, 1877, in the ruins of the Heraion, during the 
 German excavations of Olympia. Traces of color were found, although 
 they have now disappeared, on the mouth, in the hair, and on the san- 
 dal (not reproduced in the plate). E. von Mach, pp. 2jiff; F. W., 
 1212; Robinson, 516; Reinach II, 173, i. See also Helbig, 79. 
 
 Pausanias (V, 17, 3) mentions a Hermes carrying the child 
 Dionysos to the nymphs, 1 of marble, in the Heraion in Olym- 
 pia. It is, therefore, now generally accepted that the discov- 
 ered statue is the work of Praxiteles. 2 This statue is fully 
 discussed in E. von Mach, pp. 2 7 iff. The important points 
 are : 
 
 1. The beauty of the surface finish. 
 
 2. Its remarkable state of preservation, owing to a number 
 of lucky circumstances. 
 
 3. Its inferiority in design to other statues by Praxiteles, 
 of which, however, only copies are extant. It was in antiquity 
 not mentioned among the great works of the master. 
 
 4. The absent-mindedness of Hermes, who might be called 
 
 1 For another treatment of this subject see Text Illustration No. 31. 
 
 z lt is true that Pliny, N. H., 34, 87, credits the elder Kephisodotos 
 with a statue of Hermes finding the infant Dionysos. No place is 
 mentioned.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 19 1 
 
 " Hermes the Dreamer." It is enhanced by the playing in- 
 fant, who here takes the place of the lizard in the so-called 
 Sauroktonos figures, Plates 185(1. 
 
 5. The expressive sunny eyes and the intentionally less 
 beautiful mouth. 
 
 The little Dionysos is treated merely as an accessory, and is 
 conventional. He cannot, therefore, be taken as an illustration 
 of what the fourth century sculptors were able to do in statues 
 of children. For excellent heads of children see the Stele of 
 Kephisodotos, J. H. S., XI, p. 101 (picture), or the head from 
 Paphos, /. H. S., IX, Plate X. For the motive of Hermes 
 taking the child Dionysos to the nymphs ' to be nursed, see the 
 relief, Text Illustration 31 ; for the general motive of the pose 
 of Hermes, see the statues of Hermes, Plates 191-193, 
 especially the Hermes of Andros. For possible copies of 
 Hermes see the torso in the Vatican, Helbig, 79 ; Reinach II, 
 173, 2. Several small reproductions, among them a bronze 
 in the Louvre, Reinach II, 173, 3-8. 
 
 PLATE 191. Hermes Of AndrOS. Of marble. National Museum, 
 Athens. Discovered in 1833, on the island of Andros, "in a sepulchral 
 chamber" (Wolters), together with the statue of a woman. Only the 
 left leg from below the knee to the ankle is restored. F. W., 1220; 
 Robinson, 521 ; Reinach II, 149, 10. 
 
 PLATE 192. Hermes Belvedere. Of Marble. Vatican, Rome. 
 Discovered in 1543 near the castle of S. Angelo, in Rome, placed in 
 the Belvedere Garden by Paul III (1534-1549). Four toes of the right 
 foot were restored in ancient times. The legs of the statue were 
 broken when it was found, and the joining of the right leg to the foot, 
 being poorly done, has given the leg an unpleasant curve. The statue 
 used to be called " Antinoos." Helbig, 145; Reinach I, 376, 2 (with 
 restored arms). 
 
 1 Or in this particular relief only one nymph.
 
 I9 2 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 PLATE 193. Hermes Farnese. Of Marble. British Museum 
 London. Date and place of discovery unknown. It was sold by the 
 Sassi family in 1546 to the Farnese family, and was acquired from 
 them in 1864 for the British Museum. Restorations: left leg from 
 below the knee, front part of right foot, and most of the wings, left 
 hand, tip of the nose, lower lip and chin, part of the staff and of the 
 drapery. British Museum Catalogue, 1599, with full bibliography; 
 Reinach II, 149, i. 
 
 These three statues are grouped together as offering inter- 
 esting material for comparison with the Hermes of Praxiteles. 
 The Hermese Belvedere and the Hermes Farnese are late 
 copies. The figure from Andros may belong to the fourth cen- 
 tury and is, possibly, not intended to represent a Hermes, but 
 to be a statue of the deceased in whose tomb it was found. 1 
 The snake on the tree trunk may designate the dead as hero, 
 while it may also be the attribute of Hermes marking his con- 
 nection with the dead, whose souls it was his duty to usher to 
 the lower world. 
 
 The interesting question arises : Did Praxiteles invent this 
 type of Hermes, or did he merely make use of it in his 
 Olympian figure ? In view of the fact that he copied 2 the 
 Artemis of Strongylion, the latter alternative is by no means 
 impossible. It is even probable that the type was famous 
 before Praxiteles added the little Dionysos and introduced 
 into his figure his own peculiar rhythm ; 3 for it is difficult to 
 imagine that a later artist should have copied the Praxitelean 
 Hermes so accurately as these three figures do, without pre- 
 serving its chief charm, its rhymth. 
 
 PLATE 194. " Narklssos," probably Dionysos. Small statuette 
 of bronze. Museum, Naples. Found in 1863 in a house of the 
 
 1 See the arguments F. W., 1220. 2 See A.J. A., VII, 1903, p. 465. 
 3 See E. von Mach, pp. 27off.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 193 
 
 seventh region in Pompeii. The base is restored ; a part of the 
 ancient base shows under the right foot in the profile view, indicating 
 that the statue, as now erected, tilts too far forward. F. Hauser, 
 Jahrbuch IV, 1889; pp. H3ff., with pictures showing the mistake 
 corrected. Mau-Kelsey, pp. 452f. ; Reinach II, 1217. 
 
 The restlessness of lines, at present noticeable in this figure, 
 is less pronounced when the figure is tilted back until the 
 level of its base is parallel with the fragment of the ancient 
 base preserved under its right foot, and when this piece is 
 sunk into the level of the floor on which the figure is sup- 
 posed to stand. But even these changes do not add that 
 element of rest that one instinctively feels belongs to the 
 figure. The Praxitelean rhythm is unmistakable, so that one 
 is at once reminded of the device of this master of completing 
 the rhythm of his figures with external additions ; the tree 
 trunk in the Hermes and the "Sauroktonos," Plates 190 and 
 185, the drapery on the vase in the Knidian Aphrodite, Plate 
 198, etc. In this case a panther has been suggested, which 
 animal is frequent with Dionysos, as, for instance, Plate 219.' 
 Rearing at the side of Dionysos, the panther supplies the 
 stability to the design which now is lacking. It also explains 
 the pose of the god, who is playfully teasing his pet. 
 
 Thus understood, the Naples bronze resembles the " Sau- 
 roktonos." It is, however, much less restrained in lines, and, 
 therefore, less satisfactory as a constant companion. If the 
 design is by Praxiteles, the " too-much " has been added by 
 the sculptor who made the reduced copy. If this is not the 
 case, a later admirer of the Praxitelean rhythm must be 
 credited with the conception of the figure. 
 
 1 The type of Dionysos has here, by the addition of peculiar ears, 
 been changed to that of Satyr in the service of Dionysos, the god of 
 wine.
 
 194 GREEK AMD ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The popular name " Narkissos " is wrong. It was based 
 on the misconception that this boy of supreme beauty was 
 represented as watching the reflection of his face in the brook 
 at his feet. 
 
 The Naples bronze never fails to charm the observer. It 
 is, however, much over-rated ; and, although extremely grace- 
 ful, has no place at the side of the masterpieces of Greek 
 sculpture 
 
 PLATE 195. Satyr. "Marble Faun." Of Marble. Capitoline 
 Museum, Rome. Discovered probably * in Hadrian's Villa near 
 Tivoli, exact date unknown. It was placed in the Capitoline collec- 
 tions by Pope Benedictus XIV in 1753. Restorations: the nose, the 
 right fore arm, the flute, practically the entire left arm, the right foot, 
 parts of the toes of the left foot, a few fragments of the panther skin 
 and the plinth. Helbig, 525 ; E. von Mach, pp. 267!?. ; Robinson, 517 ; 
 Reinach I, 401, 4 ; Overbeck II, p. 77, note 59, with complete bibliog- 
 raphy. The name " Marble Faun " was given to the statue by Haw- 
 thorne, who based on it one of his best-known novels. For numerous 
 replicas see Reinach II, I34ff. An Artemis from Mytelene, now in 
 Constantinople, is doubtless inspired by this type, A. J. A., I, 
 Plate IX. 
 
 PLATE 196. Torso of a Satyr, Replica of Plate 195. Of Marble. 
 
 Louvre, Paris. Discovered on the Palatine in Rome during excava- 
 tions conducted there by Napoleon III, between 1861 and 1865. 
 E. von Mach, p. 268; Robinson, 518; Reinach II, 135, i. 
 
 These statues have been assigned to Praxiteles on internal 
 evidence. We know of no other sculptor whose style 2 is so 
 
 1 Robinson, No. 517, gives the place of discovery, without citing his 
 authority, as the site of a villa of Antoninus Pius, and the date as 
 1701. 2 The suggestion that these statues and their numerous replicas 
 are copies of a painting, the " Resting Satyr," by Protogenes, has 
 found little favor.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 195 
 
 completely reflected in them as that of this master. Satyr 
 statues, moreover, 1 were favorites with him, one of which 
 received in antiquity the name of the " world-famed." The 
 extant statues cannot be identified with any of the three 
 satyrs described in literature. There is, however, no objection 
 to assuming that Praxiteles made more Satyr statues than the 
 three whose names have been recorded. This view seems 
 especially correct because the surface modelling of the excel- 
 lent torso in the Louvre resembles that of the Hermes, 
 Plate 190. 
 
 These statues are fully discussed in E. von Mach, pp. 266ff. 
 The essential points are : 
 
 1 . The motive ; a boy at rest and yet on the alert. 
 
 2. The well-disguised identity of the little fellow's race, 
 until one notices his ears. 
 
 3. The telling use made in the original, probably of bronze, 
 of the long tail of the panther skin, a motive not reproduced 
 in the best marble copies, but retained in the Satyr in the 
 Vatican (E. von Mach, Plate XXVII, Fig. 3). The Satyr 
 played absent-mindedly with this tail, swinging it to and fro. 
 The suggested movement enhanced the stillness of the boy, 
 just as the lizard had done in the case of the " Sauroktonos," 
 Plate 185, and the little Dionysos with Hermes, Plate 190. 
 
 4. The beauty of finish of the Louvre torso, which, how- 
 ever, for several reasons, cannot be the original. 2 
 
 PLATE W. Satyr Pouring: Wine. Of Marble. Museo delle 
 Terme, Rome ; formerly Museo Bon Campagni-Ludovisi. Restora- 
 
 1 Robinson correctly mentions three. Of these, one was in Rome, 
 he says, according to Pliny. He gets his authority, doubtless, from 
 Pliny, N. H.. 34, 69, but Pliny mentions no place for the satyr. 
 
 2 This view was held by Brunn, Deutsche Rundschau, VIII, 1882, 
 p. 200.
 
 1 96 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 tions : raised right arm, left lower arm, elbow, part of the drinking 
 horn, and various less important parts. Th. Schreiber, 71; Helbig 
 88 1 ; Reinach II, 139, 7. For several replicas see Th. Schreiber, 71 and 
 Reinach II, 139, 5. 
 
 Of this, as of the other Satyr, Plates 195, 196, numerous 
 copies exist, showing that the original was very famous. One 
 of the best replicas is in Dresden. 1 The attempt to identify 2 
 this statue with one of the Praxitelean Satyrs known from 
 literature has failed. The reasons for assigning it to the cycle 
 of Praxiteles are the same as those advanced in the discussion 
 of Plates 195, 196, but they are less cogent, the characteristic 
 rhythm of that master being less in evidence here than in the 
 other figures. There is, however, enough of the style of 
 Praxiteles in the statue to make one admit the possibility of 
 its origin in his studio. 
 
 PLATE 198. Aphrodite, copy of the Knidian Aphrodite of 
 
 Praxiteles. Of Marble, above life size. Vatican, Rome. There is 
 much confusion concerning the date of discovery and the addition of 
 a tin drapery to this figure. The facts, as set forth by Michaelis, 
 J. H. S. t VIII, 1887, pp. 324-355, are : one copy was in the Vatican in 
 the reign of Pope Julius II (1503-1513), another was added under 
 Clement VII (1523-1 534).* In the eighteenth century, from motives 
 of propriety, a tin garment was ordered made for the best of the two 
 statues. The garment was, however, added, either intentionally or 
 by mistake, to the inferior copy. The wave of puritanic morals having 
 subsided for a time, nothing was done to the better statue. Pope 
 Gregory XVI (1831-1846) finally issued the order to banish from his 
 galleries all statues of nude women, which relegated the best extant 
 copy of the Knidian Aphrodite to the magazines of the Vatican, where 
 it was last seen by Feuerbach in 1839. The tin garment has been only 
 
 1 Reinach II, 139, 5 and 6. 2 See the discussion, F. W., 1217, note 
 on page 421. 3 A third was bought for the new Museo Pio Clementino, 
 rebuilt by Popes Clement XIV and Pius VI (1769-1799).
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 197 
 
 once removed by permission of the late Pope Leo XIII, for the making 
 of a cast and of one illustration. The restorations of the Vatican 
 figure are the front of the nose, the throat, the right fore arm, most of 
 the left arm, the support of the hydra, and most of the lower part of 
 the legs. Helbig, 316; E. von Mach, pp. 276ff.; Robinson (supple- 
 ment) 545a ; Reinach II, 356, 8. For coins representing the statue see 
 Overbeck II, p. 46, figs. 150-1. 
 
 PLATE 199a. The Same, with the Metal Garment, as she ap- 
 pears in the Vatican Museum. 
 
 The head of the statue is antique. " It cannot, however, 
 belong to the same replica of the body," and has received a 
 slightly inaccurate turn in the restoration of the neck. The 
 statue is fully discussed in E. von Mach, pp. 276ff. The im- 
 portant points are : 
 
 1. The statue copies the work of Praxiteles which was 
 the most famous in antiquity. 
 
 2. The finish is hard and preserves little of the delicacy of 
 modelling, which was the chief charm of the original. 
 
 3. The drapery, ready to drop from the hand of the god- 
 dess, is especially poor. For a good piece of drapery see 
 Plates 217 and 218. 
 
 4. The drapery serves as the " material " support of the 
 statue, but originally did not appear to be a support at all. 
 
 5. The gesture of the right arm is unconscious, " and is 
 prompted by no thought of any unauthorized beholder." 
 Contrast this with the " Venus Medici," Plate 202. 
 
 6. The most beautiful replica of the head of this statue is 
 in Berlin, see E. von Mach, Plates XXXIX, fig. i and XL, 
 
 fig- 3- 
 
 It used to be believed that the nude figures of women in 
 Greek art were an importation from the East, and that the best 
 of the Greek genius revolted against them. The fallacy of this
 
 ig 8 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 view has been recently proved by S. Reinach. 1 Nude women 
 were carved in Greece (see Plate 6) in very early times, while 
 in the Orient they are importations and not native. It is to the 
 credit of the best Greek sculptors that they refrained from 
 carving nude women, (although the idea itself was not re- 
 pugnant to their countrymen) , until they had gained sufficient 
 mastery over the problems that these motives entailed to 
 enable them to create works of such beauty that even the 
 fastidious modern taste cannot fail to admire them. 
 
 PLATE 199b. Aphrodite. Of marble. Slightly below life size. 
 Glyptothek, Munich. Found, date unknown, near the ancient harbor, 
 Fiumicino in Italy, later in the Braschi palace, and since 1811 in 
 Munich. The head was broken, but is antique and belongs to the 
 statue ; only part of the hair in the back is restored. Other restor- 
 ations : the right fore arm, the left arm below the bracelet (but the 
 hand is antique except the fingers), the right lower leg and both feet. 
 Furtwangler, Catalogue, 258 ; Reinach I, 331-5. 
 
 This statue is undoubtedly an adaptation of the Aphrodite 
 of Knidos type, Plate 198. The artist, however, has made 
 one important change, and one that has altered the whole 
 appearance of the statue. Instead of dropping the garment 
 on the vase, the goddess is pulling it towards her, as if anxious 
 to hide herself from the gaze of an unwelcome visitor. This 
 adds an element of self-consciousness, out of place with the 
 Praxitelean motive, and not in keeping with the accurately 
 copied forms of the body. 
 
 The reasons which induced the sculptor to make this change 
 are easy to understand. He desired an immediate and more 
 substantial material support for his figure. This brought the 
 drapery closer to the side of the body of Aphrodite, and thus 
 
 1 Rev. Arch. XXVI, 1895, PP- 3 6 7~394-
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 199 
 
 lessened the risk of erecting a heavy marble figure on two 
 comparatively thin legs, of which one, moreover, bent in the 
 knee, could be of little assistance. It also made the motive of 
 dropping the drapery impossible, because this would have 
 required its falling in vertical folds. The sculptor doubtless 
 was further influenced in making the change by the difficulty 
 of carving the drapery, which as support had an upward ten- 
 dency, in a fashion that it appeared to be falling down. 
 
 The finish of the body of this statue is superior to any 
 known copy of the Knidian goddess. The breast is, perhaps, 
 carved with too much pronounced attention to the charms of a 
 woman, but in all other respects this figure stands in strong 
 contrast to the later Aphrodite statues, Plate 201, and 
 especially Plate 202. 
 
 PLATE 200. Aphrodite. Bronze statuette. British Museum. Lon- 
 don. Acquired from the Pourtales collection in 1865. Restorations: 
 the feet and the left hand. Catalogue of the bronzes in the British 
 Museum, No. 1084; Klein, Praxiteles, pp. 286ff., and figures 48-50; 
 also Praxitelische Studien, frontispiece, and pp. 6off. ; Reinach II, 341, 
 4, and 343, 10. Compare also Collection Auguste Dutuit, Plate XVIII. 
 
 The graceful pose of this statuette and its exquisitely 
 rhythmical disposition of masses has led Klein to identify it 
 with an Aphrodite of Praxiteles. He calls her " Pseliou- 
 mene," that is, " putting on a necklace " ; others call her 
 " Anadyomene," that is, " rising from the sea," a name which 
 is little appropriate to this particular statuette, but seems to 
 agree with other replicas, where the hair hangs loose and is 
 held by the hands as if in the act of drying it. An interesting 
 copy is the bronze in the collection of Mr. Auguste Dutuit, 
 where the hair on the top of the head is fully dressed, while the 
 side strands are playfully passed through the hands. 
 
 It is impossible to decide for which one of these motives
 
 200 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 the type of this statuette was first designed. It is probably 
 inspired by Praxiteles. 
 
 PLATE 201. Aphrodite, " Capitoline Venus." Of marble. Capi- 
 toline Museum, Rome. Probably identical with the statue found in the 
 pontificate of Clement X (1670-1676) in Rome. Benedict XIV removed 
 it to the Capitoline Museum in 1752. Helbig says that he, "is unable 
 to trace the source of the statement, repeated in various handbooks, 
 that the statue was found walled up, like a treasure." The remarkable 
 state of preservation of the statue, however, only the point of the 
 nose and parts of the hands being restored, argues in favor of the 
 accuracy of the story. Helbig, 458; F. W., 1459; Reinach I, 333, i 
 and 2. 
 
 PLATE 202. Aphrodite, " Venus del Medici." Of marble. Be- 
 low life-size. Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Date and place of discovery 
 unknown. Owned by the della Valle family before 1584, when it came 
 into the possession of the Medici family. In 1677 it was taken to 
 Florence. Restorations : point of the nose, the fingers of the left hand, 
 fragments of the breast and of the thighs, and parts of the dolphin and 
 the Erotes. The front of the base with the name of the sculptor 
 Kleomenes is modern. Amelung, 67; F. W., 1460; Reinach I, 328, 
 4-6. 
 
 Both statues belong to a later period. They are, however, 
 inspired by the work of Praxiteles, and are best appreciated 
 when compared with the Knidian goddess, Plate 198. 
 
 The Capitoline Aphrodite has completed the action sug- 
 gested by the Knidian. She has dropped her garment and 
 stands entirely nude. Her delicacy, however, shrinks from this 
 idea ; and the element of self-consciousness is introduced, for- 
 eign to the work of Praxiteles. It causes slight changes in the 
 attitude of the goddess and in the disposition of her arms, 
 changes which are designed to set off to the best advantage 
 the charms of her divine body. This body is the only claim 
 she has on divinity ; for, unlike the Knidian Aphrodite, she im- 
 presses one as supremely human. This may be largely due to
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 2OI 
 
 the realistic modelling of her body, suggestive throughout of a 
 living model. 
 
 Deferring to the taste of a later age, possibly the third cen- 
 tury before Christ, the simple hairdress of the Knidian Aphro- 
 dite has been replaced by a more picturesque design, and a 
 fringe has been added to the shawl. 
 
 In the Medici Aphrodite even the shawl has disappeared. 
 A dolphin has taken its place. No longer ready for a bath, 
 this figure is thought of as Aphrodite risen from the sea. But 
 even more than the Capitoline figure, this woman is a goddess 
 only in name. The last vestige of delicately shrinking from 
 the idea of being nude has gone, and the " Venus Medici " 
 stands before one fully conscious of the charms which she re- 
 veals. She lacks the dignity and grandeur of the Knidian 
 goddess, and the nobility and womanly delicacy of the Capi- 
 toline Aphrodite ; but what she lacks ought not to blind one 
 against what she possesses in the highest degree physical 
 charm. 
 
 She is the youngest of all known statues of Aphrodite, and 
 she is small. Her physique is not built on the grand scale of 
 the Knidian goddess, but her luxurious development is pro- 
 nounced. Granting the artist the right of portraying the mo- 
 tive he has chosen, it is difficult to see how he could have 
 created a lovelier figure. The head of the statue is treated 
 with less care. It is only a copy. A better example of the 
 same type, showing a closer connection with Praxiteles, is the 
 Aphrodite head in the Petworth collection in England. 1 
 
 PLATE 203. Aphrodite of ArkS. Of marble. Louvre, Paris. 
 Discovered in 1651 in the ruins of the ancient theatre in Aries, pre- 
 
 1 For pictures of the Petworth head see Amelung, figs. 9 and 10, 
 facing page 47, after Furtwangler, Masterpieces.
 
 202 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 sented in 1683 to Louis XIV, who placed her in the galleries of Ver- 
 sailles in 1685. She eventually was transferred to the Louvre. Re- 
 storations : the tip of the nose, part of the hair ribbon, the right arm, 
 the left fore arm, both hands, numerous fragments of the drapery, and 
 the big toe of the right foot. Frohner, 137; Reinach I, 173, 5. 
 Several replicas of the statue, although less well-preserved, are in ex- 
 istence. One is in the British Museum, another is in the Louvre. 
 Rev. Arch. XL, 1902, Plate XII. See also A. J. A., VII, 1903, p. 466. 
 
 Various restorations have been proposed for this statue. 
 Some scholars make of her a " Venus Victrix," giving her the 
 spear in her right hand, and a helmet to be carried in her left 
 hand, 1 similar to the correct restoration of the Lemnian 
 Athena, Plate 95. Others supply her with a mirror and be- 
 lieve that the right arm ought to be bent, so that the hand is 
 arranging the hair. This latter view is more in keeping with 
 the general idea expressed by the figure. Its calm grace, and 
 also its absent-minded application to some unimportant occu- 
 pation, agree with the tendencies of Praxiteles. The seductive 
 ease of its rhythm is best appreciated when it is compared 
 with statues like the Hera Barberini, Plate 105. The full gar- 
 ment, covering the lower part of the figure, is in strong con- 
 trast to the diminutive shawl shrouding the Aphrodite of 
 Melos, Plates 291 and 2923. 
 
 PLATE 204. Aphrodite. Of marble. Museum, Syracuse. Dis- 
 covered in 1804 in a garden in Syracuse. The little blocks on the 
 breast served to support the right arm. F. W., 1469; Reinach I, 
 3 26 > 7- 
 
 Decoratively, this is one of the most impressive Aphrodite 
 statues, her drapery serving as an excellent foil to the beauty 
 of her body. The surface finish is exquisite, and, in fact, far 
 too delicate to be appreciated in a photograph. 
 
 1 She is thus portrayed, Reinach I, 173, 2.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 203 
 
 It is interesting to compare this figure with the Capitoline 
 and the Medici Aphrodite statues. Like them she owes her 
 immediate origin to a later period, but is no doubt inspired 
 by Praxiteles. 
 
 PLATE 205. Artemis. Statuette. Of marble. Museum, Vienna. 
 Discovered in 1880 in Cyprus. Acquired for Vienna in 1884. When 
 first discovered the end of the right arm, holding a torch, is said to 
 have been extant. Jahrbuch der Kunstrammlungen V, 1885, Plates i 
 and 2; Gazette des Beaux Arts, 1887, Part I, pp. 332ff. ; Arch. Zeit., 
 1881, Plate XVII, i ; Reinach II, 318, 9. The little statue on which 
 Artemis leans is said to be another type of the same goddess : compare 
 the statue of Aphrodite, Reinach I, 341, 4. There is no marble on the 
 island, so the statuette must be imported. 
 
 Furtwangler's attribution of this figure to Praxiteles seems 
 convincing if understood to mean based on his style. The 
 figure is far too weak to be an original by Praxiteles, or an 
 immediate copy of one of his works. In general design, it re- 
 minds one of the "Marble Faun," Plate 195, without exhibit- 
 ing the same graceful rhythm. It also resembles an inferior, 
 painted statuette of Aphrodite from Pompeii, 1 both figures hav- 
 ing in common the little idol on which they lean, and which 
 is a copy of the archaic type of draped women, as it appeared 
 in the majority of the Akropolis figures, Plates 256. A similar 
 figure occurs in the Ildefonso group, Plate 324. 
 
 PLATE 206. ArtemiS-Tyche Or ISlS-Tyche. Of marble. Glypto- 
 thek, Munich. Date and place of discovery unknown. Acquired for 
 Munich in 1812 from the collection in the palace Braschi, from which 
 also the Aphrodite, Plate iggb, was procured. The restorations were 
 made by Thorwaldsen. They include the head and neck and practically 
 both arms, with their attributes. Furtwangler, Catalogue, 227 ; Reinach 
 I, 221, 3. Compare the statues of Artemis (No. 60) in Berlin, and of 
 
 1 See Baumeister, Plate XLVII.
 
 204 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Isis with Harpokrates (No. 6oa, ibidem, not mentioned in the official 
 Berlin Catalogue'). 
 
 The probably correctly ' restored cornucopia designates this 
 goddess as either Tyche or Isis. The attribute in her right 
 hand ought to be either the rudder for Tyche or the snake for 
 Isis. But whatever the name of this goddess is, the type of 
 the statue was not invented for her, but for Artemis, as is 
 clearly shown by the quiver strap, which the adaptation has 
 retained as offering a pleasing motive, although it was out of 
 place in statues of either Tyche or Isis. The original from 
 which the type is taken is lost, but Furtwangler argues con- 
 vincingly that it was by Praxiteles. The design of the drapery 
 and the pose of the* figure certainly do credit to that master. 
 
 Perhaps the most famous Artemis statue to-day is the 
 Artemis of Versailles, Plate 296. Hers is a short garment, but 
 probably only in appearance. One of the charms of a Greek 
 dress is that it can be shortened at will by pulling it over a 
 girdle. This girdle is often concealed under the bib. 2 With 
 the bow in her right hand and her left hand reaching for an 
 arrow from the quiver, the Praxitelean Artemis was practically 
 ready to go hunting, like her sister from Versailles. All she 
 needed to do was to add a shawl and to pull her garment over 
 the girdle, which must be supposed to encircle her waist below 
 the upper part of her dress. 
 
 The appearance of the original Artemis is retained in an 
 inferior copy in Berlin, No. 60, while the changes that were 
 necessary to approximate the Artemis of Versailles are clearly 
 visible in another Berlin statue of Artemis, No. 63. 
 
 PLATE 20f. Artemis Of Gabii. Of marble. Louvre, Paris. 
 
 1 See Furtwangler, Catalogue, p. 220. 2 For Greek garments see the 
 discussion to Plate 76.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 205 
 
 Found in 1792 in the ruins of Gabii, later in the Villa Borghese, and 
 finally brought to Paris by Napoleon I. The head is antique, but was 
 broken when the statue was found. Restorations : the nose, part of 
 the left ear, the right hand, the left hand and part of the mantle which 
 it holds, the left elbow, the lower left leg and foot, and the front half 
 of the right foot. Frohner, 97 ; Reinach I, 144, 2-4. See also 
 A. J. A., II, 1898, pp. 3671!., and Studniszka Vermutungen z. Griechi- 
 ichen Kunstgeschichte, p. 25. 
 
 The best description of this statue is given by Frohner as 
 follows : ' " Nothing could be more graceful than her simple, 
 easy pose, the attitude of a maiden goddess finishing her 
 toilet. Her head, turned to the right, is carved with inimita- 
 ble refinement. The delicate, half-parted lips recall the 
 praises which the ancients lavishly bestowed on the statues of 
 Artemis by Praxiteles. 2 With exquisite feeling the artist has 
 enlivened his composition by well chosen bits of contrast. On 
 one side one sees the rounded contours of the raised arm, the 
 shoulder hidden by the drapery, the straight folds of the belted 
 garment and the leg which supports the weight of the body. 
 On the other side the shoulder is bare, the arm is pressed 
 against the breast, the heavy folds of the cloak descend to be- 
 low the knee, and the left leg is bent and set back. This subt- 
 lety of pose and movement, combined with the beautiful 
 conception and perfect execution, make of the statue a work 
 of supreme charm and dignity." 
 
 Little need be added to this eloquent description. Frohner 
 dated the statue in the time of Alexander the Great ; modern 
 scholars feel inclined to assign it more definitely to Praxiteles. 
 The writer himself doubts the accuracy of this attribution. 
 The grace and beauty of the statue seem to him too studied 
 
 'Translation from Frohner, p. 121. 2 Compare Petronius, chapter 
 126.
 
 206 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 in effect to be by Praxiteles. They compel attention, and this 
 was not the way that master worked. Possibly they are due 
 to the copyist or adapter. But whether by the master himself 
 or by one of his disciples, the statue is one of the best that has 
 come down to us from antiquity. 
 
 PLATE 208a. Maiden or Muse from Herculaneum. Of marble. 
 
 Albertinum, Dresden. Accidentally discovered either in 1706 or in 
 1713 in Herculaneum. The discovery of this and of the following 
 statue led to the more extensive excavations in Herculaneum thirty 
 years later. Both statues were sold to Prince Eugene, who sold them 
 in 1736 to King August of Saxony. There are practically no restora- 
 tions. Reinach 11,665, i and I, 256, 4; F. W., 1688. For the hair- 
 dress compare the head of Kora in Munich, Springer I, p. 247, fig. 435. 
 
 PLATE 208b. Matron or Muse from Herculaneum. Of marble. 
 Dresden. Traces of gold * were found in the hair of the statue. For 
 discovery, etc., see note to Plate 2o8a. F. W., 1687; Reinach I, 449, 
 8. For similar statues see Reinach II, 67of. ; Baumeister, p. 1088, 
 figs. 1297-1299 ; A. J. A., VI, 1902, p. 424, fig. 2, statue from Corinth. 
 
 These statues were at first named Vestals, then Muses, 2 
 then portrait statues, and lately again Muses.s The fact is that 
 these particular statues are not original creations, but adapta- 
 tions of a famous type, to judge by the numerous extant 
 copies. In several instances portrait heads have been added, 
 which accounts for the identification of these figures, as mother 
 and daughter. If this had been the artist's intention, he could 
 
 1 Recently a replica was found in Delos, see B. C. If., VII, 1895, 
 Plate VII, which had retained numerous traces of color ; red and gold 
 on the sandal, blue and gold on the border of the garment, blue and 
 violet in the folds, red in the hair. The hairdress is the same as is 
 found on the relief of Nymphs in Vienna, Mitchell, p. 500, fig. 224. 
 2 Compare the Muses on Plates 211 and 212. 3 Salomon Reinach, 
 Rev. Arch., 1900, Vol. 37, pp. 3800. 4 See, for instance, the statue 
 excavated in Olympia, Baumeister, p. 1088, fig. 1299.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 207 
 
 not have chosen better types ; for one statue is unmistakably 
 the modest maiden and the other clearly the mature woman. 
 Proportions and demeanor show this. 
 
 The general grace of both statues has led scholars to assign 
 them to the Praxitelean cyclus. Recently, however, this view 
 has been challenged and the type been claimed for Lysippos, 
 who is called by Pausanias (I, 43, 6) the maker of Muses. 1 
 The lengthy proportions 2 of both figures, noticeable especially 
 in the Maiden, are in keeping with the style of Lysippos. 
 With this exception, and unless we have not yet reached a 
 proper appreciation of his style, there is little in these statues 
 to remind one of him. It must, however, be acknowledged 
 that the same is true of the recently discovered statue of 
 Hagias, Plate 234, which one would hesitate to attribute to 
 Lysippos, if it could not be proved beyond a doubt that he 
 made it. It is, therefore, wise to reserve judgment in the 
 case of the Dresden statues and to wait for more conclusive 
 proofs. 
 
 PLATE 209a. Three Graces (Charities). Of marble. Opera del 
 Duomo, Siena. Discovered in Rome during the pontificate of Pius 
 II (1458-1464), and presented by him to the cathedral library, but re- 
 moved thence in 1857 by the desire of Pope Pius IX (1846-1878). 
 From this group Raphael made his first studies from the antique, and 
 his designs are preserved in Venice. Knackf uss-Zimmermann I, pp. 
 222f. ; Reinach I, 346, 2. The head of one of the Muses, Plate 473b. 
 
 PLATE 209b. Boy and Girl, " Eros and Psyche." Of marble. 
 
 Capitoline Museum, Rome. Found on the Aventine and added to the 
 Capitoline collections in 1749 by Pope Benedict XIV. Restorations: 
 On Eros, the nose, parts of the back of the head and of the neck, the 
 right hand (but there were traces of three fingers on Psyche's cheek), 
 
 1 A recently discovered inscription on a large base in Megara reads, 
 " Theramenes, son of Timoxenos, dedicated (the group), Lysippos 
 made it." 2 See discussion of the style of Lysippos below.
 
 208 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 the palm of the left hand and the left foot. On Psyche, the nose and 
 practically the entire right hand. The plinth is modern. Helbig, 457; 
 Reinach I, 361, 2. For Eros and Psyche on a sarcophagus in Clieveden 
 see J. H. S., XX, 1900, Plate Xlb. For a classification of the many 
 extant Eros and Psyche statues see E. Petersen, Rom. Mitth., 1901, pp. 
 57-93 ; reviewed, A. J. A., VI, 1902, p. 214. 
 
 Both these groups seem to owe their inspiration to the 
 sunny atmosphere which pervades the work of Praxiteles. Eros 
 and Psyche, as the second group is commonly called, are in 
 reality a boy and a girl at play, he opening her mouth " in 
 order to count her teeth or for some similar freak." Later 
 adaptations of this group changed this motive ; wings were 
 added to these children, and they became gods. They were 
 represented as kissing each other and the beautiful innocence 
 of the playful pair was lost. 
 
 The design of both groups is wonderful, and the daring of 
 conception of the three Graces admirable. If one would ap- 
 preciate the " Eros and Psyche " group to the fullest extent, 
 one ought to compare it with the first Greek group, Kitylos 
 and Dermys, Plate na. 
 
 PLATES 210-212. Three Slabs from the Mantineian Base. Of 
 
 marble. National Museum, Athens. Found in Mantineia, in Arkadia, 
 in 1887. E. von Mach, p. 27 ; Robinson, 520 A-C, with bibliography ; 
 to which add W. Amelung, translated by P. Gardner, /. H. S., XVII, 
 1897, pp. I2off., on the arrangement of the slabs, retracting his (Gard- 
 ner's) views expressed ib., XVI, 1896, pp. 28off. ; S. Reinach, Rev. 
 Arch., XXXIV, 1899, P- 39- Waldstein's theory, A. J. A., First 
 Series, VII, 1891, pp. iff. (accepted by Overbeck) is now recognized to 
 be untenable. For the seated Apollo compare the relief from Ikaria, 
 A.J. A., First Series, V, Plate XI. For another base recently assigned 
 to Praxiteles by O. Benndorf, see A. J. A., IV, 1900, p. 348; F. W., 
 2147- 
 
 If we accept Amelung's arrangement of these three slabs we
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 209 
 
 must suppose that an additional slab has been lost. Two 
 decorated the front of the base : Plate 210 and the lost relief; 
 Plate 211 was on the left side turning the corner from the lost 
 slab; and Plate 212 on the corresponding right side. This 
 would give a base 2.70 m. long and 1.43 m. deep, sufficiently 
 large to have supported the group of Leto and her two chil- 
 dren by Praxiteles. P*ausanias (VIII, 9, i), who saw this 
 group, mentioned the reliefs of the base, saying they repre- 
 sented the (or a) Muse and Marsyas playing a flute. Most 
 scholars believe he said the Muses, but that the plural form 
 was inadvertently changed in the manuscript to the singular. 
 Whatever he said, he did not mention Apollo, Plate 210. 
 This is not astonishing, for the long garment ' of this god easily 
 mislead the casual observer so that he saw in him another 
 Muse. 
 
 The reliefs have been attributed to Praxiteles because he 
 was the maker of the group that stood on the base which they 
 decorated. This argument, however, is itself not convincing, 
 while the carelessness of the execution, showing many mis- 
 takes in drawing, actually proves its fallacy. Notice the right 
 leg of the seated Muse on Plate 212, and the left leg of the 
 central figure on Plate 211. 
 
 The general design of the reliefs is remarkably graceful and 
 on that account worthy of Praxiteles. It is, however, hardly 
 better than many contemporary terra cottas. Professor Zim- 
 mermann has made this very clear by placing side by side 
 (Knackfuss-Zimmermann I, figs. 141 and 142) pictures of one 
 of the Mantineian slabs and of three Tanagra figures. 
 
 For the style of the reliefs it is interesting to note that they 
 are not carved under the horror vacui* that had dominated 
 
 1 See discussion to Plate io4a (Text Illustration 25). 2 For explan. 
 ation and discussion of this term see E. von Mach, pp. 50 and 65.
 
 210 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 most of the earlier creations : the figures are not crowded. 
 Another valuable comparison is made between the Marsyas 
 after Myron, Plate 653, and him from Mantineia, Plate 210, 
 who has lost the Myronic moderation without going to the 
 extreme of the recoiling man on the frieze of the Maussolleion, 
 Plate 2290. 
 
 Skopas and His School. 
 
 Skopas is the great contemporary of Praxiteles, with whose 
 works his own used to be confused. The exact dates of 
 both men are unknown, although it seems that Skopas was 
 slightly the older, working in Tegea probably as early as 
 soon after 396 B. C. 1 Until recently, however, so little was 
 known of his style that it seemed more desirable to begin the 
 study of fourth century Greek art with the works of Praxiteles. 
 There were the fewer objections to this procedure, as the dates 
 of these artists are purely conjectural beyond the fact that 
 both men were active during the first half of the fourth cen- 
 tury before Christ. 
 
 The works which are definitely associated with Skopas show 
 the same perfection of execution as those of Praxiteles. Peace 
 of mind, however, has given way in them to more passionate 
 moods. The dreamy eyes of Praxiteles, reflecting a wealth 
 of light, have become with Skopas deeply shadowed and of 
 sinister purport. 
 
 It would be a mistake to believe that Skopas always worked 
 thus. The fact is these are the only works which are surely 
 his. In respect to others, we lack the very starting point of 
 an aesthetic appreciation. The only absolutely certain works 
 
 1 The temple of Athena Alea in Tegea was burned in 396 B. C. 
 Skopas was engaged in the rebuilding of this temple.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 211 
 
 of Skopas are the much worn heads from Tegea, Plate 469.' 
 The heads, Plates 470 and 471, and the statues and reliefs 
 grouped together on Plates 213-216 and 219 are attributed to 
 him largely on the strength of the Tegea heads. The Ephesos 
 drum, Plate 217, is spoken of in connection with him because 
 he worked in Ephesos. Another often quoted argument, based 
 on Pliny, 36, 95, is of extremely doubtful accuracy. 
 
 PLATE 213. Ares Ludovisi. Of marble. Museo delle Terme, 
 formerly Museo Boncampagni-Ludovisi, Rome. Discovered, exact 
 date unknown, but earlier than 1633, near the palace of Santa Croce, 
 Rome. Restorations : On Ares, the nose ; right hand, except the part 
 touching the knee ; several fingers of the left hand ; the right foot, ex- 
 cept the heel ; and the greater part of the sword. On Eros, parts of 
 both arms, the quiver, the bow, the right foot and part of the right leg. 
 Points of attachment on the left side of the figure show that either 
 another figure or some object was added there. Helbig, 883 ; F. W., 
 1268 ; Robinson, 524 ; Overbeck II, pp. \"ji. ; Reinach I, 515, 6 and 7 ; 
 for a doubtful replica see Reinach II, 192, 6; for the torso in Naples 
 Reinach II, 192, 5. 
 
 The proper interpretation of the Ares Ludovisi depends on 
 the explanation of his pose. Figures hugging their knees are 
 not frequent in sculpture. 2 They are, however, less excep- 
 tional in vase painting, and there it seems 3 the gesture implies 
 impatience. Granting that it expresses the same in sculpture 
 no motive would seem to be better adapted to the style of 
 Skopas * than this the fiery god of war restrained from action, 
 
 1 For the yield of the recent excavations in Tegea, nine fragments, 
 among them a fine head of Herakles and a torso, probably Atalante of 
 the East Pediment, see B. C. H., XXV, 1901, pp. 241-281 ; reviewed, 
 A. _/. A., VII, 1903, pp. 3y8f. 2 One other occurs on the East Frieze of 
 the Parthenon. 3 See Rev. Arch., XXXIII, 1898, figs. 5-7. 4 Fora 
 discussion on the style of Skopas, see E. von Mach, pp. 279ff., also 
 p. 267.
 
 212 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 not by physical inability but by thoughts conflicting with his 
 natural temperament. What these thoughts were we do not 
 know; possibly a figure, now lost, at his left, held the key to 
 the interpretation. The little Eros at his feet, of dimensions 
 unknown in the fourth century, is the addition of the copyist, 
 but may correctly suggest ' the motive for the god's impa- 
 tient inactivity. Ares was in love. Aphrodite stood at his 
 side. It is true that the points of attachment on the shoulder 
 lend themselves not well to the supposition that Aphrodite was 
 there represented. But in the original the Ludovisi Ares may 
 have been part of a group of figures carved independently. 
 
 An Ares by Skopas stood in Roman times in a temple built 
 by Junius Brutus Gallsecus (about 133 B. C.) Here Pliny 
 saw it and mentioned it {N. H. t 36, 26). A copy of this 
 statue scholars recognize in a relief from the arch of Constan- 
 tine, Plate 346a, where the seated Ares has a spear in his right 
 hand, and a Nike on his left hand, but does not hold up his 
 knee. On this score Overbeck and others feel sure that the 
 Ares Ludovisi does not reproduce the statue by Skopas. A 
 closer observation, however, shows that the relief sculptor has 
 taken decided liberties, avoiding everything that could result 
 in difficult foreshortening. The only thing, therefore, that even 
 in antiquity suggested the statue was probably its seated atti- 
 tude. If this is granted, it may be assumed that Nike in the 
 relief has been added in honor of the Emperor standing 
 below. Far from serving, therefore, as an argument against 
 the Skopadean origin of the Ludovisi figure, the Roman relief 
 makes this origin more probable, for it indicates that the 
 statue by Skopas was seated. 
 
 1 Copyists often added attributes not contained in the original in 
 order to suggest the exact motive which they endeavored to copy. See 
 the leather thong on the tree -trunk of the Boxer after Pythagoras, 
 Plate 67.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 213 
 
 There is only one consideration that may make one hesitate 
 to claim the Ludovisi Ares as a copy after Skopas, and that is 
 his dimensions. His limbs are certainly long compared with 
 his body. Imagine Ares standing and his proportions are 
 more like those of the Apoxyomenos after Lysippos, Plate 235, 
 than those of the Meleager statues, Plates 214-216. This, 
 however, is no sure indication of Lysippean origin, for it is 
 readily seen that the artist had to make allowances to the pe- 
 culiar position of his figure. On the Parthenon frieze the left 
 leg of the god clasping his right knee does not reach to the 
 floor. This is not unpleasantly noticed because of the lines of 
 the goddess seated in front of him. In the Ludovisi Ares such 
 a short leg would have been very disturbing. The artist might 
 have lowered the seat or have drawn the leg farther back. In 
 both cases he would have spoiled the beauty of his design. 
 The only satisfactory solution r of the problem was the length- 
 ening of the legs. To argue from this device that the statue 
 is by Lysippos, who introduced long and slender limbs as a 
 characteristic element of his statues, is straining the evidence. 
 If the Ares has any connection with Lysippos, it may be that 
 he served as a prototype to him. There is no evidence on 
 this point, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that the acci- 
 dentally lengthened limbs of Ares may have suggested such 
 proportions to the later sculptor. The Apoxyomenos would 
 thus be inspired by the Ares, a theory which gains in probabil- 
 ity owing to the correspondence that seems to exist between 
 the heads of the two statues. A much better replica of the 
 Ares head in Munich (Glyptothek, No. 272), shows an un- 
 
 1 Such solutions of problems are frequent in Greek sculpture. They 
 amount to deviations from proportions customarily employed by the 
 sculptor. For instances of this kind see Plate 109, the legs; and Plate 
 453, the mouth.
 
 214 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 mistakable affinity to the surely Skopadean heads, although 
 it is, as Furtwangler correctly observes, not far removed from 
 the type of Lysippos. 
 
 PLATE 214. Meleager. Of marble. Museum, Berlin. Discov- 
 ered in 1838 near Santa Marinella, not far from Rome. Acquired for 
 Berlin in 1841. Restorations : the head, the right arm and hand, 
 several fingers of the left hand, the lower half of the right leg, the right 
 foot, the left leg from below the knee, the plinth and the dog. Berlin, 
 Catalogue, 215, with necessary bibliography. Reinach I, 484, I. 
 
 PLATE 215. Meleager. Of marble. Fogg Museum of Harvard 
 University; Cambridge, Mass. Discovered in 1895 near Santa Mari- 
 nella, within one hundred yards of the place where, in 1838, the Berlin 
 Meleager, Plate 214, was found. Purchased by Miss Forbes and de- 
 posited in Harvard in 1899. Noticie degli Scam, 1895, P> r 9^ ^- Norton, 
 Harvard Graduates' Magazine, June, 1900, pp. 485ff. ; A. J. A., IV, 
 1900, p. 275; E. von Mach, A. J. A., V, 1901, pp. 29ff . ; Reinach II, 
 555, 6. The measurements in inches of this little-known statue are as 
 follows, the figures in brackets designating the corresponding measure- 
 ments of the Hermes of Praxiteles : From the roots of the hair to the 
 hair of the privy parts, 34 (34) ; navel to privy hair, 6)^ (7/4) ', neck 
 around the chin, 21 (21%); around the neck under the chin, 18 (18) ; 
 across the brow just above the ears, 25)^ (27); root of hair over fore- 
 head to end of chin, 6 4-5 (7^) ; around the waist, 37% (4 1 ) < greatest 
 thickness, 9 (n). 
 
 PLATE 216. Meleager. Of marble. Vatican, Rome. Discov- 
 ered, date unknown, probably in Rome. In the middle of the sixteenth 
 century it belonged to the physician of Pope Paul III. Clement XIV 
 (1769-1775) acquired it for the Vatican. The only restorations are the 
 tip of the nose of Meleager and the ears of the dog. Helbig, 133; 
 Robinson (Supplement), 522, E ; Reinach I, 479, 2. The most impor- 
 tant article on these statues is by B. Graef, Rom. Mitth., IV, 1889, pp. 
 2i8ff. Their relation to Skopas is discussed in E. von Mach, pp. 
 
 Of these three statues the Harvard Meleager takes the least 
 satisfactory picture and, being unrestored, fails to reveal his
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 215 
 
 beauty. He is, moreover, little known and nothing has been 
 published about him in detail to which the reader can be re- 
 ferred. It is therefore, advisable to give a full description of 
 him. 
 
 He stands erect, resting the weight of his body on the right 
 leg. The left leg was bent in the knee, with the left foot 
 slightly in the rear. The right hand rested easily on the back, 
 as is seen from a slight fracture where the hand was attached. 
 The left hand held the light hunting-spear, the point of which 
 is seen just below the armpit. The ancient hunting-spear was 
 short and provided with two prongs. The preservation of one 
 of these prongs in the Berlin Meleager materially aided in the 
 identification of the statue. In the Harvard copy the prongs 
 are broken away, but the place of attachment of one of them 
 is still visible. This, together with the unmistakable spear- 
 head preserved under the shoulder, disproves Norton's view 
 that the hero was easily resting on " his inverted spear." The 
 position is not, as Norton says, like the Hermes of Praxiteles, 
 who divides the weight between his right leg and his left arm, 
 resting on a tree-trunk. No one can rest his weight on a 
 pointed spear, but if a person should nevertheless attempt to 
 do so, the spear would have to touch the armpit, which is not 
 the case in the Harvard statue. Meleager is supporting his 
 entire weight solely on his right leg, which gives to the statue 
 a decidedly more powerful rhythm than is seen in Hermes. 
 
 The head was broken, but has been restored. A minute 
 examination of the fracture has proved that it belongs to the 
 statue ; it was carved of the same block with the torso. Look- 
 ing in the direction of the free leg and with eyes full of eager- 
 ness and pleasant self-consciousness the hero is gazing into the 
 distance. 
 
 Both arms are broken just below the shoulder. A fragment 
 of the left arm to about half way between the shoulder and the
 
 2l6 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 elbow was found, together with the statue, and has been at- 
 tached. This fragment contains the pointed end of the spear. 
 The body has been severely scratched and shows several round 
 fractures, spoiling somewhat a close view, but too slight to mar 
 the rhythm of the composition. The modelling is exquisite 
 with the added charm of moderation. The back is not less 
 excellent than the front. To run one's finger tips over the 
 body, gives one the sense of touching actual epidermis and of 
 feeling the blood course under the skin. The modelling of 
 the left shoulder is especially sympathetic. As in nature, one 
 can feel and see beneath the bolster of muscles and fat the 
 shape of the shoulder blade itself. The legs are broken con- 
 siderably above the knees, and of the several fragments which 
 have been found none fits the fractures. Among the fragments 
 is the left knee, which is of surpassing beauty. One forgets 
 that it is of stone. It is the actual intricate structure of na- 
 ture herself without exaggerations or omissions, a work of con- 
 summate skill and loving art. From the anatomy of this knee 
 the position of the left leg can be definitely ascertained. 
 
 With all these excellent points of the statue, there are a few 
 signs of carelessness in workmanship ; for while the left cheek 
 is beautifully modelled, the right cheek is cold, flat, and life- 
 less. It is badly corroded, but this alone cannot account for 
 its inferiority ; for the left shoulder, which is almost equally 
 corroded, has preserved its magnificence. The poverty of 
 modelling of the right cheek continues, though to a less de- 
 gree, to the neck, and is painfully noticeable just below the 
 chin. The only other place of poor modelling is on the lower 
 front part of the left arm. 
 
 One is furthermore astonished at the use of the grooved 
 drill to mark the partition line between the legs, both in front 
 and in the back, where a regular little hole marks the starting 
 point of the drill. When so much has been done to make the
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 21 ^ 
 
 statue life-like, this schematic way of treatment in places, 
 which are clearly visible, is surprising. The same is true of 
 the many supports or places where supports have been broken 
 away. There are eight such supports, 1 partly on the torso it- 
 self, partly on those fragments which unmistakably belong to 
 the statue. 
 
 1 The supports are : i. The right hand was attached on the back. 
 This place of attachment was so small that perhaps it ought not to be 
 mentioned as a support. A comparison of it with the regular square 
 block which, in the Vatican Meleager, forms the connection between 
 the body and the hand makes one admire the skill of the artist. 
 
 2. Of the same nature is the indication of where the hook rested on 
 the side. 
 
 3. Regular support, apparently between the left hip and the spear, 
 2^ inches high, i% inches broad at the top and almost 2 inches at the 
 bottom, smoothly finished only in front. 
 
 4. Fragment of similar support eight inches further down on the 
 left leg, too badly fractured to allow one to draw any conculsions from 
 it. It follows the same direction as No. 3. Both lie almost in the 
 perpendicular of the continuation of the back of the spear head. The 
 thin spear would need such double supports in this short distance, 
 especially since it had to support the left arm and hand. This indicates 
 that the Harvard statue ought not to be restored with a boar head as 
 in the Vatican statue. 
 
 5. Support on the back of the left leg 2% inches broad, surface of 
 attachment i)^ inches at the sides, 2 inches in the middle. Upper 
 surface slanting downward. It seems to have connected the statue 
 with some object which might have been introduced to support the 
 heavy marble statue. What this object was we do not know. The 
 support itself is too slight to have acted as main support, besides being 
 unable to reach the ground in a curve of which there is no indi- 
 cation as in the Hermes of Andros, Plate 191, where the surface of 
 attachment is much larger. 
 
 6. On the fragment of the lower left leg, just below the calf, there 
 is a very powerful support 5^ inches high and 3 inches thick, obviously 
 connecting the two legs, smooth only in front.
 
 218 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 These considerations make it clear that the statue cannot 
 be an original by the hand of Skopas. It is, however, the 
 best extant copy, and maintains its superiority also when it is 
 compared with the beautiful Medici head I in Rome. In no 
 other Skopadean head has so much skill been spent on the so- 
 lution of technical problems and in no other is the result so 
 singularly beautiful as in the Harvard Meleager. The eye is 
 surrounded by deep shadows, 2 without itself being in the dark. 
 This is done in three successive stages. First, the surround- 
 ings of the eye are built out : brow, cheek-bone, outer muscle 
 and root of the nose. Secondly, the eyelid is thick. In the 
 Hermes of Praxiteles it is so thin that the touch hardly reveals 
 it. Thirdly, the edge of the eyelid does not rest on the eye- 
 ball, but is undercut by a groove. Every one of these three 
 devices tends to increase the apparent depth of the eye, with- 
 out, however, preventing the eyeball from catching and re- 
 flecting the light. The reflection, however, has to pass the 
 three stages of shadows and thus creates a very different im- 
 pression from that of the eyes of the Praxitelean figures. 
 
 7. Directly opposite this there is a thinner, much smaller support, 
 probably corresponding to 3 and 4, as supports for the spear, 2 inches 
 wide, i inch long, but broken before it ends. 
 
 8. Likewise on the outer side of this leg there is another support, 
 oblong, almost rectangular, 3)^ inches ; 2% inches going back diago- 
 nally to the left, probably towards the same object, with which sup- 
 port No. 5 was connected. 
 
 On the other fragments there are additional indications of supports, 
 but they are too fragmentary to allow of any conclusions to be drawn 
 from them. The more important of these fragments are a part of a 
 thigh, parts, possibly, of the spear and several objects of an indeter- 
 minable shape. 
 
 'The best accessible picture of this head is Antike Denkmdler, I, 
 Plate XL, and a small reproduction of it in Tarbell, p. 217, fig. 146. 
 
 2 Shadows on the photographic plate are intensified, so that the eye 
 seems to be perfectly dark.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 219 
 
 The mouth is carved similarly to the eyes. Behind the 
 parted lips the teeth are seen, undercut from the lips and 
 themselves undercut from the supposed opening of the mouth 
 behind. It is the mystery of shadows that adds its charm to 
 the Harvard head, and raises it far above the conventional 
 head of the Vatican statue, and even of the excellent Medici 
 head. 
 
 The Harvard and Berlin copies differ from the Vatican 
 copy in that they have no drapery. The addition of the gar- 
 ment is an innovation, no doubt, of the copyist, who resorted 
 to it, not from reasons of beauty but of expediency. It was 
 difficult to pose the statue with no other support than the 
 spear, and even when this was successfully done the statue was 
 not very secure. Both the Berlin and the Harvard statues are 
 badly broken. The sculptor of the Vatican Meleager added a 
 drapery and twisted its lower end so that it might serve as a 
 material support, together with the likewise newly introduced 
 boar's head. This statue is less pleasant to look at, but is 
 durable ; it alone has come down through the ages practically 
 intact. 
 
 PLATES 217 and 218. Sculptured Drum of a Column from 
 
 EpheSQS. Two views. Of marble. British Museum, London. Dis- 
 covered in 1871, "deeply buried in the sand and marble chippings at 
 the west end of the temple . . . turned completely over," (Wood, p. 
 189). J. T. Wood, Discoveries at Ephesos ; British Museum Cata- 
 logue, 1 206, with full bibliography and restorations, also ground plan of 
 the temple, pp. 168 and 169; Robinson, 526; F. W., 1242. This 
 column is from the temple, the rebuilding of which after a fire was 
 begun not before 356 B. C. For a column of the earlier temple see 
 Plate 45. 
 
 The connection of these figures with the style of Skopas 
 rests on two arguments : First, Pliny (N. H., 36, 95) says that 
 the reliefs on one of the one hundred and twenty-seven
 
 220 
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 columns of the temple were made by Skopas ; ' secondly, the 
 pathos of the scene represented, and especially the face of 
 Hermes, agree with our knowledge of the style of Skopas. 
 The second argument is the only valid one ; for even if the 
 reading of Pliny's manuscript is correct, which is open to 
 doubts, it would be an almost incredible stroke of good luck 
 that the only well-preserved drum discovered should be the 
 one mentioned by Pliny out of more than five score. 
 
 The subject represented on this relief is still unidentified. 
 C. Robert 2 suggests an incident from the myth of Alkestis. 
 The winged figure, according to him, is Thanatos (Death) 
 compelled to release Alkestis. Hermes stands on the left of 
 the woman, ready to assist her to the upper world. The re- 
 maining figures of the relief, not seen in the picture, are the 
 god and goddess of the lower world and Herakles. 
 
 The objections which have been advanced against Robert's 
 interpretation are, in the first place, that it does not agree 
 strictly enough with the transmitted myth ; secondly, that the 
 fragment identified as Herakles has a cloak slung around his 
 left arm, similar to that of Hermes, which is impossible, it 
 seems, for a figure of Herakles ; and finally, that the action 
 appears to be moving toward Thanatos rather than away from 
 him. The first two objections are well taken, the second is 
 open to doubts. The gesture of "Thanatos," for instance, 
 of which Robinson says that it, " certainly does not suggest 
 that he is resigning the woman to Hermes," may, nevertheless, 
 be so interpreted. It is very similar to the gesture of Orpheus, 
 Plate 1 7 9, after whose pose "Thanatos" is obviously modelled. 
 The Orpheus gesture has its definite meaning ; that of " Than- 
 
 1 Pliny says, una Scopa. E. Curtius, Arch. Zeitung, 1872, p. 72, 
 suggests that this is a corruption of an original imo scapo, that is, 
 " on the lowest drum." 2 In Thanatos, Berlin, 1879, P- 3&
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 221 
 
 atos " is meaningless. Only a person ill-versed in the customs 
 of the Greeks can explain it as one of beckoning. The 
 Greeks, both ancient and modern, beckon differently; they 
 extend their arm with the hand palm downward and move the 
 fingers toward their bodies. The gesture of "Thanatos," 
 therefore, can only mean that he once stood as intimately 
 close to the woman as Orpheus stands to Eurydike. This 
 suggestion, perhaps out of place in the case of the spirit of 
 Death, is nevertheless the one conveyed by the Ephesos relief, 
 and can be interpreted only in one way, Death has released 
 the woman unless we actually refuse, on the strength of the 
 gesture, to accept the interpretation of the winged figure as 
 Death, which probably is the right course to follow. 
 
 This leaves the subject still unidentified, while it teaches at 
 the same time that the relief cannot be by Skopas, for this 
 master would surely not have been so meagre in resources that 
 he was obliged to copy the Orpheus and Eurydike relief. 
 
 Nothing can better reveal the contrast between the spirit of 
 the fifth century and that of the fourth century than a com- 
 parison of the two reliefs. Allowances, to be sure, must be 
 made for the rounding surface of the later work, which for- 
 bade the intimate connection of the several figures. The 
 elegance of the woman from Ephesos is as evident as the sim- 
 ple charm of Eurydike. The skill of the later artist is 
 greater. In the folds of the drapery lightly held up in the 
 hand of the woman, the seemingly impossible has been accom- 
 plished ; the texture of the heavy marble has been changed to 
 the texture of soft cloth. It is skill like this that made possi- 
 ble, for instance, the Knidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles, Plate 
 198, ready to drop her garment on a vase ; and it is its absence 
 that accounts for the poor copies of the figure of Aphrodite in 
 later times, the only ones extant to-day. 
 
 The winged figure reminds one of Praxitelean statues of
 
 222 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Eros. Its execution, however, is not good. Especially poor 
 is its right foot, which the sculptor found impossible to place 
 correctly at right angles with the background. He ought to 
 have known that on a rounded surface this could not be done ; 
 for if the foot seemed to be right in front, it could not seem to 
 be so either from the right or from the left. 
 
 The successful pose of Hermes, designated as such by his 
 herald's staff, is best appreciated when he is compared with 
 the youth on the relief in Boston, Plate 183. 
 
 The more one studies the Ephesos relief, the less one feels 
 inclined to credit one of the great masters with its design and 
 execution, but the more one admires the skill and the sense 
 of what is beautiful and graceful even in men of lesser dis- 
 tinction, such as would probably have been employed in 
 decorating the drums of the one hundred and twenty-seven 
 columns of the temple of Artemis. 
 
 PLATE 219. Bacchic Relief. Of marble. Museum, Naples. For 
 a very similar relief in the British Museum, see Robinson, 575 ; Man- 
 sell, photograph, 861 . Compare also the Bacchic relief, Berlin Museum, 
 Catalogue, No. 850. 
 
 The Mainad by Skopas, a very famous work of antiquity, 
 was fully draped, so that the Mainad on this relief cannot be a 
 direct copy of his work. But since the abandon with which 
 the head is thrown back characterized also the statue of 
 Skopas, this important detail of the relief may be his inven- 
 tion. The motive of the half open gown ' also is not alien 
 to the cycle of Skopadean works, for it occurs on the Maus- 
 solleion frieze, Plate 2293, with which Skopas had a more or 
 less intimate connection. 
 
 1 The best known instance of a statue in which this motive is em- 
 ployed is the Aphrodite Kallipyge in Naples, Reinach I, 328, 1-3.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 223 
 
 The remaining two figures are inspired by statues of other 
 men. The face of the satyr to the left on the London copy 
 resembles that of the " Marble Faun," while his entire body 
 suggests a statue not dissimilar to the so-called Narkissos, 
 Plate 194. In the panther skins of both satyrs one sees a 
 reminiscence of one of the Parthenon metopes, Plate i6ia. 
 
 All this implies that the composition of the Naples relief is 
 not the work of one of the great masters ; an inference which 
 becomes a certainty when one compares the Naples copy with 
 the one in London, and looks in addition to the Berlin relief. 
 This last relief suggests that there were originally more than 
 three figures in the procession. Assuming this actually to 
 have been the case, then the unpleasantly empty space be- 
 tween the two satyrs finds an explanation ; the Mainad and 
 one of the satyrs are out-dancing the rest. The London 
 copyist has endeavored to improve on the design, and has 
 drawn the three figures evenly grouped. A few still remain- 
 ing empty spaces he has filled with the paws of the panther 
 skins, which are, however, given more freely to the wind. 
 
 In modelling, both reliefs are about equal. The Mainad is 
 better in Naples. Her feet are especially poor in London. 
 The satyr to the left is better in London. Not only is his 
 face more finished, but his "thyrsos" (staff) is better exe- 
 cuted. In the original, doubtless, the staff was not perfectly 
 straight. Such a straight line would have been awkward in 
 close proximity to the body of the satyr with its frequent 
 deviations from it. It is, however, as the London copy shows, 
 perfectly possible to carve the thyrsos so that it conforms to 
 the lines of the body, and yet appears to the casual glance 
 to be straight. This nicety of design is completely lost in the 
 Naples copy. 
 
 It would seem, therefore, that the London and the Naples 
 reliefs are entirely independent copies of three figures, once
 
 224 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 forming part of a more extended design, and possibly, in one 
 case, inspired by the art of Skopas. 
 
 The Niobe Group. 
 PLATE 220. Niobe and Her Youngest Daughter. Uffizi Gallery, 
 
 Florence. Discovered in 1583 in Rome, exhibited first in the Villa 
 Medici in Rome, since 1775 in Florence, and since 1795 i n the hall 
 which was especially built for the Niobe group. Restorations : On Niobe, 
 the nose, the lower lip and part of the upper lip, the left forearm, and 
 an adjacent piece of the drapery, the right hand and a small part of 
 the arm, also minor parts of the drapery. On the daughter, the nose, 
 the right arm, the left hand (the left arm was broken but is antique), the 
 left foot. The head and neck of Niobe and both of her arms were 
 carved of separate pieces. Amelung, 174; Reinach I, 313, 2. 
 
 PLATE 221. NiObid Chlaramonti. Of marble. Vatican, Rome. 
 Discovered, exact date unknown, near Tivoli. Formerly in the Garden 
 of the Quirinal. There are no restorations. Helbig, 73; F. W. 1261 ; 
 Robinson, 512; Reinach I, 310, 5. 
 
 PLATE 222. Niobid. Of marble. Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Copy 
 of the same original which is reproduced in the statue in the Vatican, 
 Plate 221. For place and date of discovery see the remarks to Plate 
 220. Restorations: the nose, the left hand and part of the left elbow, 
 also both feet and bits of the drapery. The right arm and shoulder 
 were broken, but have been put together of antique pieces. The head 
 and bust were carved separately and inserted. Amelung, 184; Reinach 
 1,312,4. 
 
 PLATE 223. Dead Niobid. Of marble. Glyptothek, Munich. 
 Date and place of discovery unknown. Once in the Casa Maffei in 
 Rome. Acquired for Munich from the collection in the Palazzo 
 Bevitaqua in Verona in 1811. Restorations: the right foot and the 
 front part of the left foot, the fore finger of the left hand, the right 
 hand and wrist, and practically the entire base, including the spear, 
 which is an inappropriate addition. Furtwangler, Catalogue, 269; 
 Reinach I, 315, 2. For the two replicas of the statue, the one in Flor- 
 ence, see Amelung, 185; Reinach I. 314, 5; and the one in Dresden, 
 see Hettner, 196; Reinach I, 315, 3.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 225 
 
 PLATE 224a. NiObld. Of marble. Uffizi Gallery, Florence. For 
 date and place of discovery see the remarks to Plate 220. Restora- 
 tions : part of the nose and lower lip, the left arm, the right lower arm, 
 the right foot, the part of the garment extended by the right arm, and 
 several minor details of the garment. Amelung, 182 ; Reinach I, 312, 
 3. The motive of the figure is understood from the fragment in the 
 Vatican, Text Illustration, 41. 
 
 TEXT ILLUSTRATION, 41. Fragment of Group of Son and 
 Daughter Of Niobe. Of marble. Vatican, Rome. Date and place 
 of discovery unknown. Restorations : the left fore finger and the left 
 foot of the girl. The head of the girl is antique, but belongs to an- 
 other statue. Helbig, 209; F. W., 1262; Reinach I, 480, 6. 
 
 PLATE 224b. NiObid. Of marble. Uffizi Gallery, Florence. For 
 date and place of discovery see the remarks to Plate 220. Restora- 
 tions : part of the nose, the lips, the right ear, parts of the neck, the 
 right lower arm and parts of the garment. The head, the left arm 
 and the adjacent part of the garment were broken, but are antique. 
 Amelung, 181 ; Reinach I, 312, 2. 
 
 PLATE 225a. Tutor (Paidagogos) and Youngest Son of Niobe. 
 
 Of marble. Louvre, Paris. Found, date not published (or unknown ?), 
 in Soissons. Now in the Louvre. Restorations : the head of the 
 tutor and various other parts. The arms are antique. Reinach I, 316, 
 3. For a replica in Florence of the boy alone see Amelung, 176; 
 Reinach 1,314, 2 ; and for one in Rome, Helbig, 383 ; Reinach I, 376, 2. 
 
 PLATE 225b. Tutor Of Niobe Group. Of marble. Uffizi Gallery, 
 Florence. For date and place of discovery see the remarks to Plate 
 220. Restorations : the head, both arms, a piece of the calf of the 
 right leg, the left heel and the rocky edge of the base. Amelung, 183 ; 
 Reinach I, 314, 6. 
 
 Bibliography to the Niobe Group. 
 
 The bibliography to the Niobe group is large. It is col- 
 lected in Stark, Niobe und die Niobiden, Leipzig, 1863. Im- 
 portant additions since 1863 are collected in Overbeck II, p. 
 89, note i. Still later additions are : Amelung, Fiihrer durch
 
 226 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 die Antiken von Florenz, pp. iisff. ; Klein, Praxiteles, the 
 chapter on the Niobids ; and E. von Mach, pp. 283^". The 
 best account of the unsolved problems in connection with the 
 Niobe group is given in Overbeck II, pp. ySff. For brief 
 mentions of the group in ancient literature, see Pliny 36, 28, 
 and Anthologia Graca, IV, 181, 298; or Overbeck, S. Q., 
 1180 and 1284. 
 
 Even in Roman times the name of the maker of the Niobe 
 group was forgotten. Only a tradition had survived, accord- 
 ing to Pliny, to the effect that either Praxiteles or Skopas had 
 made it, but nothing more definite was known. We are more 
 familiar to-day with the styles of these two men than was 
 Pliny ; we are more critical ; and yet we have not come any 
 nearer than he to solving the problem of the origin of the 
 Niobe group. 
 
 Three views prevail. First, the beauty of the design, the 
 " loveliness " of the figures, indicate Praxiteles ; second, the 
 pathos of the occasion, the dignified bearing under agonizing 
 conditions suggests Skopas ; and third, there is nothing in the 
 group distinctly characteristic of either artist beyond the 
 family resemblance that must exist in works belonging to the 
 same period, and if Pliny had not mentioned the names of 
 these artists which he did to cover his ignorance we 
 should not have thought of connecting the Niobe group with 
 either. The pros and cons of all of these views are fully dis- 
 cussed in the bibliography given above. Suffice it to state 
 that none can be definitely proved, and that the more con- 
 servative scholars have come to look upon the artist of the 
 Niobe group as a man inspired by both Praxiteles and Skopas. 
 
 Equally impossible is it to agree on the original appearance 
 of the group and the number of figures it contained. Niobe 
 had seven sons and seven daughters, so that if the artist fol-
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 227 
 
 lowed the myth correctly, there ought to be at least fifteen 
 figures in the group. The presence of the tutor adds one 
 more, and suggests the possible presence of one or several 
 others, namely, a nurse and attendants. This, together with 
 the fact that several figures may have been doubled up, 
 Furtwangler, for instance, suggests a sister bending over the 
 dead boy in Munich makes it impossible to reconstruct the 
 group. Only one thing seems to be sure ; the action took 
 place from the two corners toward the center, where Niobe 
 stood, singled out by her gigantic size. 
 
 The original place where the group was erected is another 
 point of contention. In Rome it stood at the time of Pliny in 
 some connection with a temple. A pediment has, therefore, 
 been suggested as its original I place. Against this view three 
 facts may be strongly urged. First, bases of rocks are found 
 in practically all the statues. Rocks, however, are out of 
 place 2 in a pediment, and although occasional exceptions 
 occur, it is hardly credible that the entire design should be 
 built on such exceptions. Secondly, the extant figures are too 
 numerous to fill the triangular space of any Greek temple 
 without making Niobe in the center appear small in spite of 
 her colossal size. And, finally, the group does not seem to 
 belong to any temple. The only gods in whose sanctuaries 
 the Niobe legend would offer a good subject for decoration 
 are Leto and her children, Artemis and Apollo. These gods, 
 however, slew the sons and daughters of Niobe and turned her 
 into stone. A representation of this myth, in which the appeal 
 to the spectator's pity for the victims is stronger than that to 
 his veneration of the gods, as is the case in this group, is 
 
 1 The extant figures cannot be originals. It is doubtful whether 
 Pliny saw in Rome the originals or these copies, which were excavated 
 in Rome and are now in Florence. 2 For the requirements of pedi- 
 mental sculpture see E. von Mach, pp. iSoff.
 
 228 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 obviously out of place in temples designed to do honor to 
 these deities. More appropriate than the pediment might 
 have been the court connected with the sanctuary, for it seems 
 that the ancients were not always considerate of the feelings 
 of their gods in respect to the statues which they erected in 
 the outer precincts. 
 
 The idea of the group, many believe, was suggested by the 
 performance of the Niobe legend as a tragedy in a Greek 
 theatre. Sophokles wrote a lost tragedy called Niobe, where 
 the scene was laid in Thebes, and the sons died in the gym- 
 nasium. The rock bases, however, speak against his tragedy 
 as having suggested the extant group ; and since we know 
 that other Niobe tragedies were written later, it is believed 
 the artist followed one of these. If the scene was laid in 
 the mountains, the bases of rocks would at once find their 
 explanation. It also has been urged that the original group 
 was erected in a park. This, however, is merely a suggestion, 
 which it is equally as impossible to prove as to disprove. 
 
 The group now in Florence is the only approximately com- 
 plete group. Its figures, however, are by no means the best. 
 The Niobid Chiaramonti, Plate 221, in Rome, is better than 
 the replica in Florence, Plate 222 ; the dead son in Munich is 
 far more beautifully modelled than the same figure in Flor- 
 ence ; and the head of Niobe in Brocklesby Park, 1 England, 
 is much superior to that of the Florentine statue. Another 
 peculiarity of the Florence group is the fact that figures, once 
 closely united, are carved separate, as, for instance, the tutor, 
 Plate 225b, and the son, Plate 2243, which one ought to com- 
 pare with the group in the Louvre, Plate 225a, and the frag- 
 ment in the Vatican, Text Illustration 41. This latter fragment 
 is especially interesting, for without its help it would have been 
 
 1 For a picture see frontispiece in Knackf uss-Zimmerman, Vol. I.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 229 
 
 difficult to explain the folds of the garment on the knee of the 
 boy. They are held there by the arm of his sister, and with- 
 out it are impossible. 
 
 A very telling comparison is made between the statues of 
 the daughter, Plates 221 and 222. In view of the inferiority 
 of the workmanship of the Florentine figure, Amelung sug- 
 gests that in it we have the more accurate copy, while the 
 Chiaramonti sister betokens the freer adaptation of the type 
 at the hands of a better sculptor. This remark of Amelung 
 opens a wide field of speculation, for he contrasts the finery of 
 the garment of the figure in Florence with the almost fifth 
 century grandeur of the figure in Rome. The earlier element 
 in the Chiaramonti Niobid has been noted before, and the 
 writer himself in his " Greek Sculpture, Its Spirit and Prin- 
 ciples," has endeavored to enforce it by reproducing the 
 statue on the same plate with those of " Nike," and " Iris " 
 of the East Pediment of the Parthenon. 1 If Amelung is right, 
 however, in believing that the Chiaramonti figure does not 
 reproduce the appearance of the original, is it not perhaps 
 more probable that the original Niobid herself was based on 
 an earlier type, and that this type is preserved in the Chiara- 
 monti figure, than that a later copyist should have been able to 
 transform the Niobid, which is correctly copied in Florence, so 
 that he struck the true note of an art unknown to him ? 
 
 The wonderful pathos of the group, and withal, its moder- 
 ation, are discussed in E. von Mach, pp. 2836% where atten- 
 tion is also called to the fact that the artist has wisely refrained 
 from representing the gods as visibly present ; " the flying 
 arrows are more unerring since we do not know whence they 
 come." 
 
 1 E. von Mach, Plate XIX.
 
 230 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 PLATE 226. Youth from Subiaco. Of marble. Terme, Rome. 
 Found in the ruins of the Villa of Nero at Subiaco in 1884. Helbig, 
 1063; Reinach II, 419,7. For various interpretations see de Rider, 
 Rev. Arch., XXXI, 1897, pp. 265^. (he says the statue is a ball-player) ; 
 Kalkmann, y<2/r3#f,& X, 1895, pp. 46ff. (he says it is a runner) ; Korte, 
 Jahrbuch XI, 1896, pp. nff. (he says it is Hylas in water) ; Kalkmann, 
 Jahrbuch XI, 1896, pp. I97ff. ( defends his view expressed before; 
 Petersen, Jahrbuch XI, 1896, pp. aoaff., sides with Korte, who denies 
 that the base is suggestive of water (he says that the statue is a runner 
 with a lasso and adduces pictures of corresponding figures). 
 
 This statue was first claimed as a Niobid, but owing to the 
 differences in execution between it and the Niobids, and 
 largely also because of the absence of drapery all the 
 Niobids have at least some garment against which the nude is 
 relieved this view has been abandoned without its having 
 become possible to reach a universally satisfactory interpre- 
 tation of the statue. Several suggestions are given above. 
 Korte's view that the top of the base represents water is 
 not so untenable as his opponents believe. Korte himself 
 refers to the base of the Nile, Plate 278, and he might have 
 added the waves on the base of Helios in the East Pedi- 
 ment of the Parthenon, 1 Plate 1403. His interpretation, how- 
 ever, of the statue as Hylas drawn into the water by the 
 nymphs is not convincing. 
 
 Of the other two interpretations, that of a runner and that 
 of a ball-player, the former seems to have more in its favor. 
 When Kalkmann, however, sees in the figure a work of the 
 middle of the fifth century, he is misled by the pose, which he 
 explains as a last occurrence of the archaic mode of represent- 
 ing running as half kneeling. 2 If Kalkmann were correct, 
 
 1 Waves are seen both on the side and on the top of the base be- 
 tween the arms of Helios. 
 2 See the discussion to the Kneeling Spearman of Aigina, Plate 78.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 231 
 
 the youth from Subiaco would be contemporaneous with the 
 figures reproduced on Plates i22ff., and would copy a device 
 that had gone out of use before the Aigina or Olympia figures 
 were carved, Plates jSff. and 840. This is impossible. The 
 beautifully soft flesh of the Subiaco youth finds no parallel in 
 the fifth century. He is unmistakably a product of the spirit of 
 the fourth century. The action of the figure is full of energy 
 and pregnant with the determination to succeed. This ap- 
 pears nowhere clearer than when it is contrasted with the 
 hopeless and aimless rushing about of the Niobids. 
 
 PLATE 227. So-called Ilioneus. Of marble. Glyptothek, Munich. 
 Discovered, probably in the sixteenth century, in Rome. It changed 
 hands frequently until it was bought in 1814 by crown prince Ludwig 
 of Bavaria. There are no restorations. Thorwaldsen was asked to 
 restore the statue but declined, and the restoration in plaster by 
 Tenerani did not meet with approval. The holes in the arms and in 
 the neck are not antique. They served for the attachment of a plaster 
 head and plaster arms before the statue was acquired for Munich. 
 Furtwangler, Catalogue, 270; Robinson, 501 ; Reinach I, 316, 5. 
 
 Ilioneus was the last of the sons of Niobe to die, pitied even 
 by Apollo, so that his name seemed appropriate to the lovely 
 and finely modelled statue of the kneeling boy in Munich as 
 long as this boy was identified as a Niobid. The statue can, 
 however, have no connection with the Niobids, for it has no 
 drapery nor does its base " represent a rocky territory. 
 
 The statue is not an original, 2 but an unusually good 'copy, 
 which has retained much of the wonderful grace and softness 
 of flesh of the statue it reproduces. " The spirit of Praxiteles 
 is in this body," says Furtwangler, 3 and adds, "Compare this 
 
 1 The "Ilioneus " base is antique. 2 Furtwangler denies Robinson's 
 assertion that the surface has been worn somewhat by polishing and 
 Cleaning. 3 Catalogue, No. 270, p. 270.
 
 232 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 body with that of the Spinario (Plate 72) if you desire to 
 realize the contrast which exists between the somewhat harsh 
 endeavor of the older Greek art to be true, and the later 
 craving for soft and delicate beauty." 
 
 The Sculptures of the Maussolleion. 
 
 Maussollos, satrap of Karia, sometimes called king, died in 
 353 B. C. Artemisia, his wife and sister, succeeded him on 
 the throne, and spent the two years of her reign she is said 
 to have died in 351 of a broken heart, longing for her hus- 
 band erecting a tomb for Maussollos of such splendor that 
 it has never been equaled. It attained great fame and the 
 word " mausoleum ' " to this day designates a fine sepulchral 
 structure. 
 
 The architects were Satyros and Pythios, and the sculptors, 
 according to Pliny, 2 Leochares, Timotheos, Bryaxis and 
 Skopas. Vitruviuss mentions also Praxiteles, while he ex- 
 presses his doubts as to Timotheos. Certain incongruities in 
 the statements of both writers have led modern scholars to 
 place little reliance on their lists of sculptors. 
 
 The final destruction of the building is due to the Christians. 
 In 1402 the Knights of St. John took possession of Halikarn- 
 assos, the ancient capital of Karia. It is not known how well- 
 preserved the monument then was, but an account of the year 
 1522 has come down to us. It was written by Knight de la 
 Tourette of Lyons and reads in part as follows : 4 " The knights 
 on their arrival began to seek for material for lime and found 
 nothing more suitable and convenient than certain steps of 
 white marble which rose up in the form of a platform in a field 
 
 1 Mausoleum is the Latin spelling of Maussolleion. 2 Pliny, N. If., 
 36, 3of. ; S. Q., 1177. 3 Vitruvius VII, 12 ; S. Q., 1178. 4 Quoted from 
 British Museum Catalogue II, p. 67.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 233 
 
 near the harbour." The knights then proceeded to dig into 
 the platform and the account continues : " After four or five 
 days they found an opening into a large square chamber, 
 elaborately adorned with an architectural order, coloured mar- 
 bles and reliefs, all of which the finders admired and de- 
 stroyed." ( !) 
 
 In 1846 those slabs that were built into the castle were re- 
 moved to England by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, then Sir 
 Stratford Canning, while excavations on the site of the monu- 
 ment itself were begun in 1856 and continued in 1865. One 
 slab, Plate 228, was acquired from Genoa in 1865, and three 
 other fragments were added to the British Museum collection 
 in 1876 and 1879. 
 
 For a detailed discussion of tho architecture of the Maussol- 
 leion see the British Museum Catalogue II, pp. 708"., and the 
 many suggested restorations, pp. 76 and 77. One of them is 
 reproduced as Text Illustration 40. 
 
 The fullest bibliography to the Maussolleion is also found in 
 the British Museum Catalogue, pp. 65 ff. The most con- 
 venient arrangement of the sculptures is in Overbeck II, pp. 
 98ff., and especially fig. 177. 
 
 The several sets of sculpture discovered from the Maussol- 
 leion are : 
 
 1. A frieze representing a battle between Greeks and 
 Amazons. (Plates 228-230.) 
 
 2. A frieze representing a battle with the Centaurs. This 
 frieze is poorly executed. (Not represented in this collec- 
 tion.) 
 
 3. A small frieze representing a continuous row of chariots. 
 It is in part of excellent workmanship, Plate 231. 
 
 4. A set of panels, possibly the covering slabs of the coffers 
 of the ceiling of the peristyle. (Not represented in this. col- 
 lection.)
 
 234 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 5. Several lions. (Not represented in this collection.) 
 
 6. Fragments of a colossal four horse chariot. (Not rep- 
 resented in this collection.) 
 
 7. A colossal group of Maussollos and Artemisia, Plate 404. 
 
 8. Various fragments of statues. (Not represented in this 
 collection.) 
 
 PLATE 228. Slab of the Large Frieze of the Maussolleion. 
 
 British Museum, London. Formerly in the Villa di Negro at Genoa, 
 to which place it was probably transported from Budrum by one of the 
 knights of St. John, some time in the fifteenth century, and was pur- 
 chased from the Marchese Serra in 1865. British Museum Catalogue 
 II, p. 95, and No. 1022 ; Overbeck II, fig. 171, Series IV, Nos. 3 and 4. 
 
 PLATES 229a, 229b, 230a, and 230b. Four Slabs of the Large 
 
 Frieze Of the MauSSOlleion. British Museum, London. For date and 
 circumstances of discovery see above, introductory remarks to the 
 Maussolleion. British Museum Catalogue, 1014, 1015, 1006, 1020; 
 Overbeck II, Series III, 3, 4, and 5, 6; Series IV, I, 2; Series I, I, 3. 
 
 No serious student of the large Maussolleion frieze fails to 
 see great discrepancies in the several extant slabs. Plate 230!), 
 for instance, impresses one as on a lower artistic plane than 
 either slabs on Plate 229. It is, therefore, natural that one 
 should endeavor to classify the entire series, and, if possible, 
 distinguish in the several groups the styles of definite artists. 
 Pliny ' mentions four of them : Skopas for the east side, 
 Leochares for the west, Bryaxis for the north, and Timotheos 
 for the south. There were several friezes encircling the Maus- 
 solleion. It does not seem likely, therefore, that these four 
 artists should have divided the work so that all the decorations 
 on one side were made by one man. A much more rational 
 distribution of labor would have called for the services of these 
 men on separate friezes. There were, moreover, many statues 
 
 1 Pliny, N. H., 36, 30; S. Q., 1177.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 235 
 
 erected in and about the building, so that, if we prefer to be- 
 lieve that Pliny's statement is based on facts, we may assume 
 that it has reference to these statues and not to the friezes. 
 To look, therefore, for the styles of these several men in the 
 slabs of the Amazon frieze is a mistake, especially since it is 
 impossible to assign the slabs to their original sides, with the 
 possible exception of the east side. All the slabs of Over- 
 beck's group III (Plates 22ga. and 22gb are samples of them) 
 were found east of the Maussolleion. They are excellent, full 
 of impetuosity, and of fine modelling ; in short, they are worthy 
 of Skopas. Overbeck's group I, however, of which Plate 23ob 
 is a sample, is so faulty in design that it would be difficult to 
 see in it the work of any of the other three artists, all of whom 
 were men of high reputation. 
 
 In view of these facts, the attempt to assign these slabs to 
 different men must be given up, 1 although it is still possible to 
 group them according to internal evidence in four separate 
 classes. This has been done by Brunn 2 and elaborated by 
 Overbeck (II, pp. io6ff.). 
 
 The first group (Plate 23ob) is distinguished by many 
 figures being shown in a back view, which is a device that 
 adds interest to a composition, if it is used sparingly, as, for 
 instance, on the Athena-Nike temple frieze, Plate 169, but 
 which is monotonous if it begins to be the rule rather than the 
 exception, and is augmented by other figures which are hidden 
 from view by large shields. The group, moreover, contains 
 several instances of extremely faulty drawing, a glaring in- 
 
 1 A recent examination of the sides and the backs of the slabs in the 
 British Museum has conclusively proved that Brunn's attribution of the 
 slabs to the four different men is untenable. 
 
 2 For the discussion of Brunn's four classes see the bibliography in 
 Overbeck II, p. in, Note 20. There are several dissenting voices, 
 some accepting only three, others only two classes.
 
 236 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 stance of which is the elongated left leg J of the fourth warrior 
 from the left, Plate 230!), while several figures are drawn 
 realistically accurate, but by no means beautiful in appearance. 
 The lines of the man who collapses in the center of Plate 23ob 
 may be true to life, but offer no satisfactory motive for art. 
 
 The second group (not reproduced in these plates) is char- 
 acterized by the singular garments worn by the Amazons, the 
 oriental 2 long-sleeved chiton and trousers. 
 
 In the third group (Plate 229) the artist delights in the 
 nude. Not only are all the Greeks completely nude, but also 
 the Amazons are as little draped as possible. In the figure of 
 the standing Amazon, Plate 22pa, the drapery merely serves 
 as foil to reveal the beauty of her body. The groups of 
 fighters in this class are always confined to two, one Greek 
 and one Amazon. The design is beautiful throughout and full 
 of power. 
 
 The same high praise belongs to the slabs of the fourth 
 group, Plates 228 and 23oa, which is distinguished from those 
 of the preceeding class only by the facts that the Greeks, in 
 the majority of cases, are provided with garments, that there is 
 no apparent desire to show much of the bodies of the Amazons, 
 and that the groups are not all confined to only two parti- 
 cipants. 
 
 The real pathos of a battle of men against beautiful women 
 is here shown with simple straightforwardness, surpassed 
 
 1 The leg of the warrior was of course elongated in order to connect 
 the Amazon behind him with the group to which he belonged. A 
 similar instance occurs on the North Frieze of the Parthenon (E. von 
 Mach, Plate XVI, Fig. 3, p. 230), where a figure is drawn entirely out of 
 proportion for the sake of filling a gap. 
 
 2 A similar garment is worn by the archer, sometimes called Paris, 
 in the south corner of the West Pediment of the temple in Aigina, 
 Text Illustration 13.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 237 
 
 only by its strong appeal to one's emotions. Nothing could 
 be more pathetic than the Amazon, Plate 228, succumbing not 
 only in body, but also in spirit to the onslaught of the Greek. 
 She has sunk on her knees, and raising her hand with a 
 gesture of despair, she, the woman no longer the warrior 
 is asking for mercy. The Greek does not relent, but for a 
 moment he hesitates ; he looks at the woman at his feet, while 
 swift as the wind another Amazon is swooping down upon 
 him, and the interested spectator, with breath abated, watches 
 to see who will deal the first blow, the Greek to kill his victim, 
 or the victim's cruel sister to teach the Greek that he who 
 pities an Amazon or receives her supplications must die. The 
 entire Amazon frieze is replete with such powerful scenes, 
 but only the last two groups combine with remarkable vigor 
 of thought an element of almost unexcelled beauty of exe- 
 cution. 
 
 From a technical point of view, the Maussolleion frieze 
 illustrates a tendency almost diametrically opposed to that of 
 earlier friezes, and especially the Parthenon frieze. Neither 
 the fear of empty spaces, horror vacui, nor the desire of having 
 all the heads on the same level, isokephalism, has been a factor 
 in its design. The freedom of space granted to the most 
 beautiful figures, and the variety of levels given to all the 
 heads, add a special charm to the composition. Noticeable 
 also is the lack of restraint, best illustrated by the recoiling 
 Greek, Plate 229^ Myron once carved a figure recoiling be- 
 fore Athena, Plate 65. He only suggested the intensity of the 
 movement ; the Maussolleion sculptor actually carved it. That 
 he succeeded is due to his wonderful gift of design. The 
 lines of the Greek without his shield and without the less in- 
 clined Amazon in front of him would be not only not pleasing, 
 but actually painful. 
 
 The points of excellence in the slabs of the last two groups
 
 238 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 are so many and so subtle that they cannot be enumerated or 
 explained. Thoughtful observation alone reveals them. There 
 is in the best of these slabs not a detail that, if noticed, does 
 not add both to the beauty of the design and to the vigor of 
 the thought expressed. 
 
 PLATE 231. Charioteer from the Small Charioteer Frieze of the 
 
 Maussolleion. British Museum, London. For date and place of dis- 
 covery see introductory remarks to the sculptures of the Maussolleion. 
 British Museum Catalogue, 1037, Plate XVIII. 
 
 This is the best preserved figure of the chariot frieze ; beau- 
 tiful in execution and imbued with passion. It is just the kind 
 of a figure we should expect of Skopas or any of his followers. 
 His pose is unlike that of the Parthenon frieze charioteers, 
 who remind one more forcibly of the Charioteer of Delphi, 1 
 Plate 60 ; while he suggests a multitude of later charioteers on 
 both marble reliefs and gems. A notable instance of which is 
 found on the cuirass of Augustus, Plate 418. 
 
 The charioteer from the Maussolleion wears the long chiton 
 which marks the man who takes part in a festival in honor 
 of the gods. The folds of the garment suggest, what without 
 them would have been impossible to express, the speed of his 
 horses, while they at the same time, by means of contrast, re- 
 veal the perfect beauty of his face. 
 
 PLATE 232. Nude Charioteer, " Young: Apollo." Museum of 
 
 Fine Arts, Boston. Date and place of discovery not given in the 
 official publication. According to Klein, Praxitclische Studien, p. i, 
 note i, who gives as his authority Arndt and a photograph taken when 
 the statue was in the salesrooms of a dealer in Rome, the statue 
 was trovata nel Tevere. Restorations : the plinth, with the tree-trunk, 
 
 1 This is especially true of the charioteer on the North Frieze, slab 
 XXIV.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 239 
 
 which serves as a support for the figure; the left foot and ankle; the 
 right foot and leg below the knee, and the tip of the nose (Robinson in 
 Report of Trustees of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1897, pp. 18 
 and 19). Interesting comparisons are made between this statue and 
 the athlete in Naples, Plate 289, and the boy in Berlin, Plate 274. 
 
 The striking resemblance in pose between this figure and 
 the charioteer from the Maussolleion, Plate 231, has escaped 
 both Klein and Robinson. The latter's interpretation of this 
 youth as Apollo has been deservedly attacked by Klein. 
 Robinson bases his sole argument on the resemblance of the 
 head of this statue with some heads published by Overbeck. 1 
 The much closer correspondence of this head with that of 
 Kore in Vienna, 2 which he correctly notes, ought to have 
 restrained him from adding another to the long list of mean- 
 ingless Apollos. 
 
 Klein sees in the statue an athlete, one preparing to jump. 
 The broken supports on the legs of the statue indicate, he 
 says, that they supported the wrists, and that the arms, there- 
 fore, hung down ; the boy held dumb-bells or weights in his 
 hands, which the ancients used in order to add impetus to the 
 jump. Klein reaches this conclusion because he assumes 
 that the supports are parallel. His assumption is wrong. 
 They are not parallel, but diverge outward. They might well 
 have made the connection with the sides of the rim of a 
 chariot, provided the figure is correctly interpreted as a char- 
 ioteer, as in the light of Plate 231 it certainly seems to be. 
 The same pose, the same forward inclination, the same half- 
 open mouth and eager look. Shelley's words, which Gardner 
 appropriately quotes in connection with the Charioteer from 
 the Maussolleion, may be applied also to him : 
 
 'Overbeck, Apollon, pp. I49ff. 2 Reproduced Klein, Prax. Studien 
 figs. 5 and 7 j cf. also Amelung Plate i.
 
 240 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Others with burning eyes lean forth and drink 
 With eager lips the wind of their own speed, 
 As if the thing they loved fled on before, 
 And now, even now, they clasped it. 
 
 There is only one seemingly plausible objection to the in- 
 terpretation of the Boston youth as a charioteer and that is 
 that he is nude. Most charioteers known to-day are draped, 
 for reasons which it is not difficult to understand. They were 
 dedicatory statues representing events that had taken place in 
 honor of the gods. At such occasions all persons wore the 
 long chiton, unless the event was one in which clothes would 
 have proved an impediment, as in the gymnastic games. 
 Some monuments of nude charioteers, however, have become 
 known recently, noticeably ' the statue of a charioteer in the 
 Palazzo dei Conservatori, discovered on the Esquiline in 1874. 
 (Helbig, 597 ; Reinach II, 536, 6.) The objection to the in- 
 terpretation of the Boston statue as charioteer based on the 
 absence of the long chiton is, therefore, groundless. Similarly 
 without foundation is the objection that the artificial hairdress 
 suggested a calmer pastime than a race. The hairdress in- 
 dicates the boy, as Klein 2 has correctly observed, comparing 
 it with a number of artificially dressed heads of hair of playing 
 boys. If this explanation seems insufficient, it may be asked, 
 is this elaborate hairdress better adapted to a jumping athlete, 
 as Klein would have it, or an Apollo preparing to run, as 
 Robinson says, than to a boy racing his colts? 
 
 The execution of the statue is worse than the photograph 
 reveals, it is decidedly mediocre. Only the left profile view is 
 satisfactory, an additional reason to suppose that the resem- 
 blance to the charioteer from the Maussolleion is not acci- 
 dental. 
 
 1 For other nude charioteers see Reinach II, 536, I and 7. 
 
 2 Pra xitdische Studien, p. 2.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 241 
 
 PLATE 233. Ganymedes and the Eagle, after Leochares. Of 
 
 marble. Vatican, Rome. Date and place of discovery unknown. 
 Added to the Vatican collections by Pope Pius VI (1775-1798). Res- 
 torations: on the eagle, the head and the wings; on Ganymedes, the 
 nose, the chin, the lower lips, the neck, the right forearm and the stick, 
 nearly the whole left arm, and both legs from the knee downwards, ex- 
 cept the left foot ; on the dog, everything except the paws and the 
 hindquarters. Helbig, 400; F. W., 1246; Robinson, 555; Reinach I, 
 192, 2. For similar statues see Reinach I, 185, 5 (London) ; I, 192, 7 
 (Vatican, Rome) ; I, 195,3 (Madrid). For statues of Ganymedes and 
 the eagle treated differently see Reinach I, 192, 6 (Naples), etc. For a 
 mosaic from Sousa, Ganymedes borne down by the weight of the eagle, 
 see Rev. Arch., XXXI, 1897, Plates X and XII ; and for a bronze relief 
 that may have adorned a shield, see the description, .4. _/. A., VII, 1893, 
 P- 3 8 9- 
 
 Pliny, 1 speaking of Leochares, an artist of the second half 
 of the fourth century before Christ, says : " He carved the 
 eagle so that the bird seemed conscious of the prize he was 
 snatching in Ganymedes and of the importance of the god to 
 whom he was to bring him. Laying hold of the boy where the 
 drapery lessened the sharpness of his talons, he was yet careful 
 not to hurt him even by this gentle touch." This description 
 fits the Vatican statue so well that there can be little doubt 
 about the statue being a copy after Leochares. The original 
 was of bronze, a material which permitted a far more daring 
 pose than the marble sculptor could copy. The heavy tree, 
 which in the copy seems a necessity, was probably dispensed 
 with in the original. 
 
 Whether the dog was part of the bronze group is doubtful. 
 Possibly the copyist introduced him as a suggestion of the 
 disappearance of Ganymedes in the air, the weight of the mar- 
 ble preventing him from indicating this important fact in any 
 other way. 
 
 \N. If., 34, 79; S. Q., 1308.
 
 242 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 This observation further suggests that the motive -of the 
 work of Leochares is not one that lends itself to corporeal 
 representation. It is not a proper subject for sculpture. 
 Sculptors at all times have endeavored to break through the 
 bounds that limit the free exercise of their fancy, maintaining 
 that there are no bounds provided they have the skill. They 
 are mistaken. There are no bounds to their fancy, but there 
 are limitations r to their modes of expression. Some subjects 
 cannot be treated in sculpture, others are ill-adapted to paint- 
 ing, and some defy representation in either art. 
 
 Lysippos and his School. 
 
 The uncertainty of our knowledge of the styles of the 
 ancient masters has recently again been demonstrated in the 
 case of Lysippos. Starting with the singular proportions of 
 the Apoxyomenos in the Vatican, Plate 235, scholars had be- 
 gun to agree on the peculiarities of the style of Lysippos, to 
 whom they assigned the Vatican statue, when the discovery of 
 the Hagias statue in Delphi, threatened to overthrow many of 
 their theories. This statue is an undoubted work by, or after, 
 Lysippos, and must be reckoned with if we want to under- 
 stand the master. In proportions it resembles statues iden- 
 tified with Skopas more closely than the Apoxyomenos. The 
 suggestion, therefore, has been made 2 that the identifica- 
 tion of the Apoxyomenos with Lysippos cannot stand. This 
 is over-shooting the mark. Lysippos lived to be a very old 
 man, and was perhaps the most prolific ancient sculptor. Is 
 it not, therefore, credible that he, in his long career, did not 
 confine himself to one set of proportions, but that he began 
 with those known and used by his contemporaries, and only 
 
 1 For a discussion of these limitations see E. von Mach, pp. 22 and 
 ijiff. 2 P. Gardner,/. H. S., XXIII, 1903, pp. nyff.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 243 
 
 gradually evolved a distinct type of his own? If this is true, 
 the discovery of the Hagias statue need not upset all former 
 conclusions ; it merely reveals Lysippos to have been even 
 more versatile than was commonly believed. 
 
 The references to his art in ancient literature are numerous, 
 and not always very lucid. According to the emphasis laid 
 on the spirit or the letter of the reference, the completed 
 picture of Lysippos is more or less that of a revolutionary in- 
 novator, or of a gifted interpreter of the spirit that had moved 
 his predecessors. The latter view of him is taken in E. von 
 Mach, pp. zgoff. Some of the most comprehensive accounts 
 of him are found in Overbeck IT, pp. isoff., and notes, pp. 
 164(7., containing an important bibliography; and in Th. Ho- 
 molle, B. C. H., 1899, pp. 473ff. For statues of women re- 
 cently assigned to Lysippos see Plates 2o8a and 2o8b. 
 
 PLATE 234. Hagias. Of marble. Museum, Delphi. Discovered 
 in Delphi in 1894. Erich Preuner, Ein Delphisches Weihgeschenk ; Th. 
 Homolle, B. C. H., 1899, pp. 446ff. ; Rev. Arch., 1900, p. 383; P. 
 Gardner,/. H. S., XXIII, 1903, pp. Ii7ff. ; Reinach II, 549, u, (this 
 picture represents the statue before the legs were found). 
 
 This statue was found in Delphi, together with several 
 others. 1 Homolle at once recognized their fourth century 
 origin. The freedom of pose seemed to correspond with that 
 of the Apoxyomenos, Plate 235, while the proportions, if not 
 exactly like those of that statue, were yet sufficiently similar to 
 point in the same direction. A resemblance, on the other 
 hand, with Praxitelean or Skopadean works, was also noted by 
 Homolle. Together with the statues, fragments of a long 
 inscription were found. 
 
 It was this inscription that enabled Erich Preuner to make 
 
 1 JS. C. H., 1899, Plates IX and XII.
 
 244 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 his startling discovery. The Hagias statue in Delphi is a 
 marble copy of a bronze statue by Lysippos in Pharsalos, and, 
 what is especially important, a copy made while Lysippos was 
 alive, and, therefore, probably under his own supervision. 
 
 Preuner's arguments ' are the acme of ingenuity, but abso- 
 lutely convincing, and have been accepted as correct without 
 a dissenting voice. It is impossible to summarize them, for 
 they are built up of a multitude of details, the omission of any 
 one of which would threaten the force of the whole argument. 
 
 The result of Preuner's discovery is that we now possess an 
 undoubted work of Lysippos and shall, therefore, in future be 
 better able to appreciate him. 
 
 Another valuable lesson is learned from this statue. It refers 
 to marble copies made in the best Greek times. No clumsy 
 marble support or tree-trunk mars the lines of the composi- 
 tion, only a very small piece of marble near the right foot 
 strengthens this supporting member. How different from 
 the heavy tree-trunk in the Apoxyomenos, Plate 235 ! How 
 different from modern practices, where sculptors take it for 
 granted that statues may be designed for marble, and executed 
 in it, even if this is impossible without the addition of cumber- 
 some supports ! 
 
 PLATE 235. Apoxyomenos, after Lysippos. Of marble. Vatican, 
 Rome. Found in 1849 in the ruins of a private house in Trastevere, 
 Rome. Restorations, by Tenerani : the ringers of the right hand and 
 the die, the tip of the left thumb, parts of the strigil, and all the toes. 
 The die does not belong to the figure ; it is due to a misinterpretation of 
 a passage in Pliny by Canina, 2 under whose instruction Tenerani worked, 
 N. ff., 34, 55. Helbig, 31 ; F. W., 1264; Robinson, 523 ; E. von Mach, 
 
 1 Preuner starts by restoring the Delphi inscriptions from two other 
 fragments, one contained in the Diary of Stackelberg in Thessaly, the 
 other published by Messrs. Pridik and Sanctis. 
 
 2 F. W., 1264, p. 449, paragraph 2 of the notes.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 245 
 
 pp. 2p5ff. ; Reinach I, 515, 6 and 7, and II, 546, 2 ; P. Gardner, J. H. S., 
 XXIII, 1903, pp. H7ff., denies the authorship of Lysippos on the 
 strength of the recently discovered Hagias of Delphi. For a dis- 
 cussion of the proportions of the Apoxyomenos see Michaelis.y. H. S., 
 II, 1885, pp. 355ff., and Plate XXXV, Metrological Relief at Oxford. 
 
 The statue represents a man scraping the sand and oil from 
 his body. Greek athletes were in the habit of annointing 
 themselves before the exercises with oil, and of sprinkling soft 
 sand over it, which they, of course, removed when the games 
 were over. Lysippos made a statue of a man " scraping him- 
 self" (Apoxyomenos), and the Vatican figure has been recog- 
 nized as a copy of his work by means of its lengthy propor- 
 tions ; for it was a peculiarity of Lysippos, according to Pliny ' 
 to make the heads of his figures smaller and their bodies more 
 slender and " dryer " than his predecessors, a device which 
 made his figures look decidedly taller. How true this is of the 
 Apoxyomenos is best seen when he is compared with the 
 Doryphoros after Polykleitos, Plate 113. 
 
 The easy grace of the statue of Lysippos is appreciated 
 even in the Roman copy, with its added tree-trunk and the 
 cumbersome supports for the extended arm, the beginning of 
 which is still seen over the right knee. Tenerani, who re- 
 stored the statue, fortunately possessed enough skill to do 
 without this support. He accomplished a difficult feat, the 
 very difficulty of which accounts for the fact that there are no 
 other replicas of the statue extant, 2 although the original was 
 carried to Rome and was there one of the most famous statues. 
 
 The conclusions which it is possible to draw from this 
 Apoxyomenos as to the style of Lysippos are fully discussed in 
 E. von Mach, pp. 295/1. 
 
 * N. If., 34, 65. 2 The only possible exception is a torso in Athens, 
 Reinach II, 819, i.
 
 246 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 PLATE 236. Herakles Farnese. Colossal statue of marble. 
 Museum, Naples. Discovered in 1540 in the Baths of Caracal la in 
 Rome. Since 1790 in Naples. Restorations : the tip of the nose, half 
 of the left lower arm, the left hand, and the right hand ' with the apples. 
 F. W., 1265; Overbeck II, pp. 449ff. ; Reinach I, 465, I, 3. For the 
 good replica in the Uffizi Gallery, Florence, see Amelung, 40; Reinach 
 I, 474, i ; and for the poor replica with the important antique inscrip- 
 tion, " the work of Lysippos," in the Pitti Palace, Florence, Amelung, 
 186; Reinach II, 210, 5. For a coin with the name of Alexander, 
 struck not later than 300 B. C., on which the type of the Herakles 
 Farnese appears, see Numismatic Chronicle, Third Series, Vol. Ill, 
 1883, Plate I, 5; and for a colossal replica found together with the 
 statue, Plate 290, on the bottom of the sea off Antikythera ; Ephcmeris, 
 1902, supplementary Plate B. 7. 
 
 That the type of this Herakles was invented by Lysippos is 
 proved by two facts; the inscription 2 reading, "the work of 
 Lysippos," on the replica in the Pitti Palace, Florence ; and 
 the picture of the statue on a coin with the name of Alexander 
 struck not later than 300 B. C. The coin proves that the 
 type of the Herakles Farnese belongs to the fourth century, ^ 
 so that all the arguments formerly advanced against its being 
 a work of Lysippos are groundless ; for they were based on 
 the assumption that the statue showed indications of a much 
 later style. This, together with the ancient inscription on the 
 Pitti Palace replica, appears to be an irrefutable argument. 
 
 Lysippos was especially fond of the variety of motives which 
 the legend of Herakles offered. Herakles seated, Herakles 
 
 'The right hand with the apples may possibly be antique, but this 
 is very doubtful. 
 
 2 The genuineness of the inscription has been doubted, but see 
 Amelung, 186. 
 
 3 It really proves only that the type cannot be later than the fourth 
 century. But there is, of course, no doubt possible of its having been 
 invented earlier.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 247 
 
 standing, and Herakles performing his several labors, 1 these 
 are some of his statues which the ancient art critics did not 
 weary of mentioning with commendation. 
 
 The motive of the Herakles Farnese is more complex. 
 Overbeck 2 discusses it as follows : " The artist, it seems, en- 
 deavored to place before the people the whole tremendous 
 laboriousness of the earthly career of Herakles. He repre- 
 sented a body, knit of the firmest fibre, and developed to its 
 extreme by the gigantic toils which it had been his fate to 
 perform. And yet this body, in spite of its extravagant 
 strength, was seen overcome, even if not actually exhausted 
 and weighed down, by the hardships of life. It was in need 
 of rest and of support, both of which were vouchsafed to it 
 in this world only at rare intervals and never for any length of 
 time. The elements of the ph)'sique of this Herakles type are 
 not new with Lysippos ; they are the elements of hard, in- 
 destructible, but not agile force, the same that entered into 
 the conception of the Olympia metope, Plate p2a. Lysippos, 
 however, has interpreted them in his own peculiar way, and 
 has mixed with them a modified canon of his own propor- 
 tions.3 The head of the Farnese Herakles is unduly small, 
 while the legs are noticeably long in proportion to the trunk. 
 This is probably a device by means of which the artist hoped 
 to suggest that this ponderous mass of muscles could be put 
 into fiery motion, swift as it had to be, for instance, in hunt- 
 ing down the stag. From the marble copy it is impossible to 
 judge as to how successful this device was in the bronze 
 original." 
 
 1 For a list of posssible copies of these groups see Overbeck II, p. 
 164, note 13. 2 Free translation of Overbeck II, pp. 449ff. 3 For the 
 proportions of Lysippos see E. von Mach, pp. 295ff., and the discussion 
 of Plate 235.
 
 248 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Theoretically speaking, no finer touch was possible than to 
 suggest ' to the spectator the tremendous activity of the body 
 of Herakles by representing its superhuman power momen- 
 tarily spent. This gave play to the imagination, and resulted 
 in a much stronger picture of the might of Herakles than 
 could actually be carved ; for what people imagine always out- 
 strips what is possible in reality. 
 
 The statue in Naples is inscribed with the name of Glykon, 
 who was the maker of this particular copy. He has as little 
 claim to the invention of the type of the statue as Antiochos 
 has to the design of the Athena Parthenos, which he repro- 
 duced in the copy now in Rome, Plate ppb. 
 
 PLATE 237o Hermes Reposing. Of bronze. Museum, Naples. 
 Discovered in 1758 in Herculaneum. Restorations: the entire rock, 
 three of the four wings 2 on the feet, several fragments of the head, 
 which was broken in several pieces. The right arm was broken off, 
 but is antique. De Petra, La Villa Ercolanense, p. 268 ; Robinson, 
 525 ; Reinach I, 367, I. 
 
 The wonderful power of Lysippos of portraying the human 
 body in bronze so that it really seemed to be a living body 
 and not only its portrait in cold metal, is well illustrated in 
 his Hermes. The youthful messenger of the gods, lithe, 
 active, and never tired, is sitting. Far from being exhausted, 
 he gives signs of the ease with which he may resume his 
 journey ; and it needs not the wings to tell one that his journey 
 is swift. 
 
 The grace of outline and the beautiful balance of masses 
 are especially noticeable. The figure is the work of an artist 
 of consummate skill and of great love for human bodies. 
 
 1 For the principle of suggestion and its power in art see E. von 
 Mach, pp. i28ff. and 244. 2 For similar wings see the Hermes Farnese, 
 Plate 193.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 249 
 
 Such a man was Lysippos. The proportions of Hermes also 
 agree with the canon of Lysippos, so that there is good reason r 
 to see in him the copy of a work by that master. 
 
 PLATE 238a. Hermes With the Sandal. Of marble. Glyptothek, 
 Munich. Discovered, probably about 1790, in Hadrian's Villain Tivoli. 
 The statue changed hands often and was restored by the sculptor 
 Franzoni by request of the third owner, Duke Braschi Oresti. The 
 wrongly restored statue in the Louvre, Plate 238b, served as model. 
 In 1809 King Maximilian I (1805-1825) bought the statue and in 1819 
 he deposited it in the Glyptothek. Restorations : the head, which is 
 antique but belongs to a different statue; both arms and the left hand; 
 the right leg and the drapery; the right foot except its center part ; 
 the left thigh ; the sandal straps except fragments preserved with the 
 right hand. Furtwangler, Catalogiie, 287 ; Klein, Praxitelische Studien, 
 pp. 4ff. ; Reinach I, 487, 7. Klein's arguments are much weightier than 
 Furtwangler, Catalogue, p. 294, note, acknowledges. The writer does 
 not accept all the conclusions of Klein, but he cannot deny the force of 
 Klein's argument, that the original type exists to-day in two separate 
 sets of replicas. 
 
 PLATE 238b. Hermes with the Sandal, " Jason." Of marble. 
 
 Louvre, Paris. Discovered in Rome, exact date unknown. Purchased 
 by Louis XIV (1643-1715), deposited in Versailles 1769. Restora- 
 tions: the tip of the nose, the lower lip, the chin, the back part of the 
 head (the head itself, which was broken off, is antique, but probably 
 does not belong to the statue), the left arm and shoulder, half of the 
 right forearm and the right hand, the right leg almost to the ankle, a 
 part of the drapery, two toes of the right foot and a part of the sandal 
 strap. The left leg was broken, but has been put together with the 
 help of five modern pieces. Small pieces are added all over the body. 
 A ploughshare was added on the other side of the support of the foot 
 to designate the statue as Cincinnatus. Frbhner, 183, with full bibliog- 
 raphy on pp. 212 and 213. For later bibliography see Klein, Praxitel- 
 
 1 No statue of Hermes by Lysippos, it is true, is recorded in ancient 
 literature, but seated figures were well liked by Lysippos, as is shown 
 by several such statues, which the ancient art critics mention.
 
 250 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 ische Studien, p. 4, note 2. There is a similar statue in the Lansdowne 
 House, London, Reinach I, 487, 6 ; and another, inverting the motive, 
 in the Vatican, Reinach I, 487, 5. For a torso in Athens see Reinach 
 II, 153, 10. For other replicas see Furtwangler, Catalogue, 287, and 
 Klein, Praxitelische Studien, pp. 4ff. A coin representing the type is 
 reproduced in Frohner, p. 211, where also the description of a statue of 
 Hermes by Christodoros (Ekphrasis V, 297-302) is given. 
 
 That the restorations of these two figures, barring the heads, 
 are generally correct may be conceded. The question, how- 
 ever, is, what was the original position of the arms ? The well- 
 preserved replica in the Lansdowne collection, London, has 
 the right arm as here ; the left arm, however, with the cape 
 wrapped around it, is bent inward and rests on the right knee. 
 The head is looking up. The design of the figure is pleasing, 
 while its lines are more beautifully varied than those of the 
 Munich and Paris copies with their present restorations and 
 the many almost parallel lines of both arms and both legs. 
 Hermes, so scholars say, is receiving the bidding of Zeus, even 
 while preparing for his journey to fulfill it. At an especially 
 important command he interrupts his preparations, eager not 
 to lose one word of what the king of the god is saying. 
 
 All will agree with Furtwangler that the Munich figure 
 would be more pleasing to look at if it were restored like the 
 Lansdowne statue. It is, however, not a question of what is 
 most pleasing, but of what is correct ; and Klein argues force- 
 fully that the left arm in the Munich figure cannot be restored 
 other than it is. He reasons that, since the arm was lost but 
 the shoulder was preserved, the arm could not have been bent 
 inward from the shoulder across the breast ; for in that case 
 either the arm and the shoulder would have been lost, or part 
 of the arm would have been preserved with the shoulder where 
 it lies close to the breast, as is the case with the torso in 
 Athens, Reinach II, 153, lo. 1 The accuracy of this observa- 
 
 1 See also the Aphrodite of Melos, Plate 291.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 
 
 25' 
 
 tion is proved by many statues where either the one or the 
 other of these alternatives has occurred. The counter argu- 
 ment, therefore, that a bent arm is more beautiful, carries no 
 weight and must be withdrawn. This is especially necessary 
 in view of the fact that an ancient coin reproduces a Hermes 
 in just this attitude with both arms hanging down. 
 
 Since the Munich figure, therefore, extended both arms to- 
 ward the right foot and the London and Athens statues bent 
 the left arm across the breast, Klein argues that two versions 
 of a common type are extant. The Munich and Paris copies 
 he compares to a figure of the Parthenon West Frieze ; the 
 London and Athens figures to the Nike, Plate 170. He then 
 assigns the one type to Lysippos, and the other type, with 
 both arms hanging down, to an earlier master. His two types 
 may be accepted without compelling one to believe that two 
 different men are to be credited with them, for the motives 
 are so similar that it is easy enough to assign both to one man, 
 a man big enough to see defects in his own work and to cor- 
 rect them. Such a man was Lysippos and since the propor- 
 tions of the figures agree with his reputed canon, 1 there can 
 be no objection to attributing them to him. 
 
 The name of the statues is doubtful. Cincinnatus, called 
 from the plough to be dictator in Rome, was the first sugges- 
 tion. Winckelmann declared in favor of " Jason," who, in 
 his hurry, had forgotten to put on both sandals. Recently 
 the name Hermes has been suggested, which has documentary 
 authority in the coin and in the passage from Christodoros 
 mentioned above. Still others believe with Frohner that the 
 extant statues are ordinary athletes, although the type was in- 
 vented for Hermes. 
 
 1 For the motive of the raised foot see the discussion to Plate 239.
 
 252 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 PLATE 239. Poseidon. Of marble. Lateran Museum, Rome. 
 Found in 1824 in Porto d'Anzio in the ruins of a building supposed to 
 have been the public baths. Restorations : the left arm, the lower 
 part of the right forearm, both legs from below the knees, the nose, 
 fragments of the hair and beard, the vessel, the dolphin, both attri- 
 butes, and the plinth. The restorations are based on better preserved 
 copies of the same type, some of which are reproduced in Reinach II, 
 27; Helbig, 667; Reinach II, 27, i, with restorations, and 1,428, 5, 
 without restorations. For the motive of the raised foot see Lange, 
 Das Motiv des aufgestiitzten Fusses. 
 
 This statue represents the type of Poseidon, which became 
 for subsequent ages the accepted type of this god. Lysippos 
 designed it, as seems almost certain in view of Lange's investi- 
 gations on the subject. The characteristic sign is the motive 
 of the raised foot. This was, to be sure, no invention l of 
 Lysippos, whose only merit was that he discovered its artistic 
 usefulness. The mission of Lysippos was not, as is frequently 
 asserted, to introduce new ideas this was merely an inci- 
 dent in his great work but to discern, 2 " more clearly than 
 anyone before, the essential principles which had guided his 
 predecessors." 
 
 The youth on the Parthenon frieze stands with his foot 
 raised, because this position fits in the general design of the 
 composition. Poseidon is similarly posed, because this atti- 
 tude better than any other seemed to express his character. 
 It is for this reason that his type survived. Lysippos made 
 use of the same attitude for Alexander, Plate 399. There, 
 however, it is merely a device to reveal the body to its best 
 advantage ; it has, therefore, been as little able to supplant 
 other types as the Hermes, Plate 238, has become the uni- 
 
 1 There are several figures with one foot raised on the West Frieze 
 of the Parthenon. A similar motive occurs in the Nike slab, Plate 
 170. 2 See E. von Mach, pp. agoff.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 253 
 
 versal type of Hermes. The important question in respect to 
 poses is, not are they very beautiful, but are they expressive 
 of the personality portrayed ? 
 
 PLATE 240a and b. Two Statues of Nike from Epidauros. Of 
 
 marble. National Museum, Athens. Found during the excavations in 
 Epidauros 1 88 1 and 1891. Kavvadias, Fouilles d'Epidaure; Defrasse 
 et Lechat, Epidaure (1895), with many plans and restorations. Reinach 
 II. 379' 3 and 381. 5 and 6. 
 
 
 
 The excavations at Epidauros have brought a large number 
 of sculptures to light, some of -which may be identified, with a 
 good deal of certainty, with Thrasymedes and Timotheos. 
 They are the sculptures of the large temple of Asklepios. 
 Less certainty exists in respect to the figures of Nike belong- 
 ing to the smaller temple of Artemis. That they are of the 
 same period cannot be doubted, and since the two known 
 artists worked in Epidauros between 375-360 B. C., this is 
 also the probable date of the Nike statues. If no date were 
 known, their resemblance in conception to the Nike of 
 Paionios, Plate no, and in execution to the balustrade of the 
 Athena-Nike temple, Plates 170 and 171, and Text Illustra- 
 tion 29, would seem to argue in favor of an earlier date. This 
 serves to prove how impossible it is to argue as to the time 
 that elapses between the date of an original and that of the 
 later work which is based on it. 
 
 The Epidauros statues of Nike served, as is generally 
 agreed, as akroteria for the corners of one side of the temple. 
 A third Nike, slightly larger, may have decorated the point of 
 the gable. Another Nike, of which only a large wing and por- 
 tions of the upper half of the body are extant, probably had 
 no connection ' with the temple. 
 
 1 A basis, still in situ in Epidauros, representing the prow of a ship,
 
 254 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE, 
 
 PLATE 2413 and b. TWO Reliefs Of AsklepiOS. Of marble. Na- 
 tional Museum, Athens. From Epidauros. For date and place of 
 discovery see the remarks to Plate 240. Gardner, p. 398. 
 
 There can be but little doubt that these reliefs reproduce 
 the gold and ivory statue of Asklepios by Thrasymedes. 1 
 They are not accurate 2 copies, as indeed they could not be, 
 considering they were reliefs, while the original was a statue in 
 the round. Copied accurately on the flat surface, Asklepios 
 would have failed to convey the same impression as his gold 
 and ivory image, probably he would not even have suggested 
 it. Thrasymedes had fashioned him 3 seated, holding a staff 
 in one hand and extending the other over a snake coiling it- 
 self up at his side. His dog was also represented. From the 
 coin it appears that the god had one foot drawn back. The 
 stiffness of the pose on the coin is out of keeping with the 
 traditionally mild character of Asklepios, while both reliefs do 
 justice to his kindness. 
 
 The important thing to note in the study of these reliefs is 
 their design, in both cases well adapted to an execution in re- 
 is claimed by Kavvadias, Fouilles d'Epidaure, pp. 39 and 118, as the 
 base of this Nike. The base contains j.n inscription datable in the 
 fourth century before Christ, so that the motive of the Nike of Samo- 
 thrace, Plates 202 and 203, would appear to be not an original inven- 
 tion for that statue. Overbeck (II, p. 129), however, advances weighty 
 arguments against the connection of the prow-shaped base and the 
 Nike in Epidauros. 
 
 1 Thrasymedes used to be dated in the fifth century. An inscription 
 from Epidauros, however, dating from between 375 and 360, speaks of 
 Thrasymedes as working in gold and ivory on the gates of the temple. 
 
 2 Notice especially the right shoulder, which in the relief is thrown 
 back in order to give a view of the chest. 
 
 3 According to Pausanias II, 27, 2, with whose description a coin 
 agrees. See Overbeck II, p. 125, fig. 175.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 255 
 
 lief. The artist has studied the statue he desired to reproduce, 
 and then has expressed, in an entirely new design, his recol- 
 lections of it and his own impressions. 
 
 The reliefs are independent, the one of the other, so that 
 they differ in many details. The drapery of the relief, Plate 
 24 1 b, is richer and is more picturesquely arranged around the 
 body than the other. Around the legs, however, this second 
 relief is superior to the first, owing to a different distribution 
 of masses. The straight lines of the chair also differ con- 
 siderably from the curving back and legs of the chair of the 
 other relief. But with these exceptions, which a close study 
 reveals, there is an unmistakable resemblance between the two 
 reliefs. They suggest the same personality that was expressed 
 in the original statue. It is this power of suggestion that 
 makes of them works of art. The best art calls our attention 
 not to the means employed, but to the thought expressed. 
 
 PLATE 242. Mounted Amazon. Of marble. National Museum, 
 Athens. From Epidauros. For date and place of discovery see the 
 remarks to Plate 240. Overbeck II, p. 126; Reinach II, 325, 6. 
 
 Beautiful in modelling and exquisite in design, this Amazon 
 is worthy of the sculptor to whom she has been assigned, 
 Timotheos, the co-worker of Skopas on the Maussolleion. 
 According to inscriptions found in Epidauros, Timotheos was 
 under contract to make and to supply the akroteria of one 
 side of the temple for 2240 drachma! 1 and models 2 for 
 other sculptures for 900 drachmai. This Amazon is believed 
 to have come in under the second contract, while the Nereids, 
 Plate 244, represent two of the akroteria. 
 
 1 The approximate value of a drachme is eighteen cents or a little 
 less than a franc. 
 
 2 The Greek word used here may also be translated "reliefs." The 
 small price paid, however, makes it probable that models are meant.
 
 256 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 As splendid a horsewoman as her sisters on the Maussolleion 
 frieze (notice especially Plate 2290), this Amazon rises in her 
 seat to deal her enemy the final blow. The horse is pulled in 
 hard, and rearing, fills the moment with an element of pent 
 up passion. How much his now lost head added to the in- 
 tensity of the group is understood by looking at the horse, 
 Plate 22pb. 
 
 Unrestricted by any of the limitations of space that confined 
 the heads of all the Parthenon horsemen to practically one 
 level, this Amazon is built up rising in the air, her head higher 
 than the head of the horse, and her hand, still higher, swinging 
 her weapon. She might have filled the center of a pediment. 
 At her feet we must assume her foe, so that the composition 
 is not unlike that of the Dexileos monument, Plate 365, and 
 yet how different it is, owing to the freedom permitted to the 
 sculptor of figures in the round. 
 
 PLATE 243. Fragment of Mounted Amazon. Of marble. Mu- 
 seum, Boston. Date and place of discovery not published. Report of 
 the trustees of the Museum (Robinson), 1903, p. 57, No. 5. Length of 
 the horse, 0.91 m., which is considerably more than that of the horse, 
 Plate 242. 
 
 The workmanship of this Amazon is such that it might be a 
 work of either the fourth century, B. C., or of the last part of 
 the fifth century. The remains of an arm and a hand on the 
 left side of the horse's belly indicate that a fallen foe was there 
 represented, similar to the one on the Dexileos monument, 
 Plate 365, which was erected a few years anterior to 390 B. C. 
 Properly restored this Amazon would be much like x the 
 Amazon of Epidauros, Plate 242, which is an undoubted fourth 
 century work. 
 
 1 Another interesting comparison is made with the fragment of a 
 horseman from the Maussolleion, Reinach II, 527, 3.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 257 
 
 Robinson concludes from the remains of the foe on the left 
 side of the horse which means that the rider's action was 
 directed towards the left, that neither the Boston nor the 
 Epidauros Amazon can be copied the one from the other. 
 This conclusion iff not necessarily correct in view of the fact 
 that both ancient copyists and modern forgers frequently in- 
 vert the motive which they reproduce. An instance of this 
 practice was mentioned above in the discussion of Plate 238. 
 
 PLATE 244. TWO Statues Of Mounted Nereids. Of marble. Na- 
 tional Museum, Athens. From Epidauros. For date and place of 
 discovery see the remarks to Plate 244 ; Reinach II, 410, i and 3. 
 
 These Nereids probably are two of the akroterion figures 
 made by Timotheos for the temple of Asklepios in Epidauros, 
 according to the inscription quoted in connection with Plate 
 242. 
 
 The animals are hippokampoi, as appears from their pro- 
 portions, mythical beasts, used instead of horses by deities of 
 the sea. 1 Their execution is less fine than that of the horse 
 of the Amazon, Plate 242, which, on the strength of this fact, 
 has been assigned to the pediment itself rather than to the 
 akroterion above it. 
 
 The treatment of the draperies of both Nereids resembles 
 that of the friezes from the Athena-Nike temple in Athens, 
 Plate 169, and from the temple of Apollo near Phigaleia, 
 Plates 172 and 173. This is especially true of the figure to 
 the right, whose sharp folds over the breast and near the right 
 leg appeal to one as reminiscences from Phigaleia. 
 
 Both Nereids were to be seen at a great height, which ac- 
 counts for their seemingly uncertain seat. Seen on the level, 
 
 1 Poseidon's chariot on the West Pediment of the Parthenon was 
 perhaps drawn by hippokampoi ; but see Athen. Mitth., XVI, p. 73.
 
 258 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 they appear to be slipping from the backs of their hippo- 
 kampoi. 
 
 The representation of a motive not unlike that of these 
 Nereids was attempted by a sculptor in very early Greek art 
 in the Europa on the bull from Selinous, Text Illustration 7. 
 The problems that had confronted the early sculptor, and had 
 been solved by him rather inadequately, are still the same, but 
 the Epidauros artists have shown their mastery over them to 
 such an extent that they seem no longer to exist. The delicate 
 touch of revealing the outlines of the body by means of heavy 
 parallel folds of drapery, which adds a peculiar charm to the 
 left Nereid, is the same that distinguishes one of the Asklepios 
 reliefs, Plate 241 a, from the other, Plate 24 ib. Attention 
 ought also to be called to the right hand of the same Nereid, 
 which, in a more natural way than is the case in the other 
 figure, supplies a heavier mass of folds by gathering them in 
 the lap. The undraped right breast carries a definite re- 
 minder of the Aphrodite after Alkamenes, Plate 108. 
 
 PLATE 245a. Silenos with Infant Dionysos. Of marble. Giypto- 
 
 thek, Munich. Date and place of discovery unknown. Formerly in 
 the Palazzo Gaetani, later in the Palazzo Ruspoli; acquired for Munich 
 in Rome in 1812. Restorations: the head, which is an exact replica of 
 the copy now in the Vatican, Plate 24513, but formerly also in the 
 Palazzo Ruspoli ; and so many fragments everywhere that " it is diffi- 
 cult to say what is old and what is new." Furtwangler, Catalogue, 238 ; 
 Reinach I, 375,6. 
 
 PLATE 245b. SilenOS With Infant Dionysos. Of marble. Vati- 
 can, Rome. Date and place of discovery unknown; formerly in the 
 Palazzo Ruspoli. Restorations : on Silenos, most of the leaves of the 
 ivy wreath, all the ringers and probably the toes of both feet ; on Diony- 
 sos, the left part of the head from below the left ear upwards, the nose, 
 both arms, a portion of the left shoulder, the left leg, the left hip, and 
 the right foot. Helbig, 4. 
 
 PLATE 245c. Silenos with the Infant Dionysos. Of marble.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 259 
 
 Louvre, Paris. Discovered in Rome in the sixteenth century near the 
 gardens of Sallust, which extended from Mount Quirinal to Mount 
 Pincius ; formerly in the Villa Borghese. Restorations : on Silenos, the 
 end of the nose, several locks of the hair, both hands including the 
 wrists, and several toes; on Dionysos, the nose, the chin, the arms and 
 the legs, and parts of the back. The head of Silenos was broken off, 
 but is antique. The base is partly modern and the tree-trunk almost 
 entirely so. The tilt of the figure to the left is far too pronounced, as 
 appears from a comparison with the other replicas, Plates 24 5a and 24$b. 
 Frohner, 250; F. W., 1430; Robinson, 514; Reinach I, 169, 1-3. 
 
 Formerly, when Praxiteles was little known and people 
 judged only from externals, these Silenos groups were added to 
 the cycle of Praxiteles. This erroneous view, which Wolters 
 already (F. W., 1430) had exposed, still lingers in some 
 books. Says Robinson (514) : " The attitude and the senti- 
 ment of the conception are suggestive of Praxiteles." Nothing 
 could be less true. Dreamy absent-mindedness characterizes 
 Praxiteles. His figures are never self-centered, never given to 
 the enjoyment of the moment at hand, but always happily un- 
 concerned about their surroundings. The only resemblance to 
 Praxiteles that any one can see in this group is contained in 
 the little Dionysos. But he who looks twice notices how differ- 
 ent the use is that the artist has made of him. To Praxiteles, 
 the child served as a foil to set off the day-dreams of Hermes ; 
 to the maker of this group, the child appealed as a pleasing mo- 
 tive for one definite half of his group. Silenos without Diony- 
 sos loses his very raison d'etre ; Hermes, Plate 190, remains 
 unchanged, even if the child is taken away from him, save that 
 his mood is not so readily understood. This difference ' shows 
 also in the grouping of the two figures. Praxiteles removed 
 Dionysos to one side and treated him as an accessory ; the 
 
 1 Furtwangler also calls attention to the difference in the feet be- 
 tween Silenos and Praxitelean figures.
 
 260 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 later ' sculptor permitted the child's body to enter intimately 
 into the masses of his main composition. 
 
 The pose of the Silenos is far from being like that of the 
 Hermes of Praxiteles. It is much more like that of the 
 Farnese Herakles, Plate 236, with the one exception that 
 the support here reaches only to the elbow, while there it ex- 
 tends to the armpit. The Herakles Farnese has been brought 
 in connection with Lysippos, and the same might be done with 
 Silenos, owing to his elongated proportions, if it were not for 
 the realistic treatment of several details. In the prominent 
 abdomen of Silenos, and in the position of his feet, 2 one almost 
 in front of the other, the artist has introduced touches that are 
 true to life, but far from being artistically beautiful. 
 
 Several scholars have therefore been inclined to assign 
 Silenos to a later period of Greek sculpture, believing that 
 such realism was unknown to the artists of the fourth century 
 before Christ. They are right only in so far as realism of this 
 kind is not characteristic of that period. Exceptions, how- 
 ever, occur, some of them having been noted above in connec- 
 tion with the Maussolleion frieze, Plate 23ob. To the best of 
 our knowledge Lysippos never permitted himself to deviate 
 thus far from the uniformly beautiful. The kinship of the 
 Silenos with his work is, nevertheless, so close that the statue 
 deserves a place at least until the contrary is proved in 
 the fourth century. 
 
 Silenos, the old reveler of the Greeks, was not noted for 
 paternal instincts, but when he looked into the smiling eyes of 
 the child Dionysos, even he relented. Aurelius Nemesianus, 
 
 1 Only Klein, Praxiteles, pp. 395ff., speaks of an earlier sculptor, 
 Kephisodotos. The impossibility of Klein's suggestion is self-evident. 
 
 2 This fact is not well seen in photographs, except on Plate 2450. It 
 is rather disturbing in the originals.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 261 
 
 a late Latin writer, describes 1 the many liberties which he 
 permitted his youthful charge to take with him, pulling his 
 beard, or pinching his nose, or patting his head. And a group 
 in Rome, according to Pliny (N. H., 36, 29), represented 
 Silenos soothing a crying child. In the extant groups, he 
 holds the child lovingly and playfully in his arms. His charge 
 is smiling back at him and extends one arm ready, no doubt, 
 for another of his pranks to try the good nature of his old 
 guardian. 
 
 The three statues in Munich, Rome and Paris are pretty 
 accurate replicas of the same original. The restored tree- 
 trunk and base of the Paris copy have given Silenos a too 
 pronounced tilt to the left. With this exception, the pictures 
 of the three statues taken from different points of view may 
 serve as illustrations of three views of any one of them. 
 
 PLATE 246. TorSO Belvedere. Of marble. Vatican, Rome. Date 
 and place of discovery unknown ; 2 formerly in the Colonna family, 
 added to the Belvedere gardens by Pope Clement VII (1523-1534). 
 Helbig, 126; F. W., 1431; Robinson, 663; Sauer, Der Torso Belve- 
 dere (1894) ; Reinach I, 477, i, 3. 
 
 Apollonios, son of Nestor, of Athens, whose name appears 
 in the inscription on the rock of this torso, is generally consid- 
 ered to be the maker of this particular statue, and not the 
 inventor of this conception. Sauer, however, and with him 
 Overbeck (II, p. 447), differ from this view. 
 
 The intensity of the twist of the body, and the attention 
 paid to the finish, " making of the torso flesh," as Dannecker, 
 
 1 Eclogues, X, 27-34, quoted in Frohner, p. 265. 
 
 2 The usual account that this statue was found in the Campo di 
 Fiori, that is, in the precincts of the Theatre of Pompey, during the 
 papacy of Julius II, is erroneous. Helbig, 126.
 
 262 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 the sculptor, used to say, while the Laokoon, Plate 270, is 
 marble, render a date for the original earlier than the age of 
 Lysippos impossible. This has been universally recognized. 
 Robinson alone says that, " its date may have been as early as 
 the end of the fifth century." Probably a hasty comparison 
 of the torso with the figures from the West Pediment of the 
 Parthenon has misled him. The letters of the Apollonios in- 
 scription belong to about the first century before Christ, so 
 that this would "be the latest possible date of the torso. 
 
 The suggestions of restorations of the torso have been 
 numerous. Visconti believed another figure, a woman, stood 
 at his left; Heyne thought the figure was a copy of the 
 Herakles Epitrapezios : by Lysippos ; and Petersen suggested 
 a Herakles playing the lyre. The impossibility of all three 
 restorations has been demonstrated. 2 In respect to the last it 
 is interesting to compare the torso with the seated " Anakreon," 
 in Copenhagen, Plate 389. A more vigorous lyre-player is 
 not readily imagined. But the action of the Belvedere torso 
 is even more intense, so that it seems impracticable to restore 
 it as Herakles with the lyre. As such, Herakles also ought to 
 place his left leg back, instead of extending it, as is the case 
 in the torso. 
 
 The most plausible restoration 3 is offered by Sauer in his 
 book on the Torso Belvedere. He says that the figure, in the 
 first place, is not Herakles, but Polyphemos ; for the skin on 
 the rock is not that of a lion, but of a panther. The Poly- 
 phemos of which Sauer speaks is not the Polyphemos of 
 Homer, but he of the later poets, who was more civilized 
 and was in love with the Nereid Galateia. Seated on a rock, 
 
 'For seated statues of Herakles see Reinach I, 475, 5, and II, 229, 
 5 ; also Rev. Arch., 35, 1899, p. 58, fig. i. 2 See Overbeck II, pp. 43 iff. 
 3 For a picture see Overbeck II, p. 434.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 263 
 
 with his club leaning against his left thigh, 1 the giant is waiting 
 for his love. Thinking that she is approaching from his left, 
 he turns in that direction, raising his left hand to shade his 
 weak eye and at the same time reaching over with his right 
 hand to hold his club. 
 
 It is, of course, impossible to affirm that Sauer's restoration 
 is correct ; all that it is possible to say is that it alone accounts 
 for the action of the torso as we see it, and that no arguments 
 have been advanced to disprove its accuracy. 
 
 Technically, the Belvedere torso is peculiar in that it shows 
 no veins in spite of its apparent realism. Winckelmann, who 
 wrote before the Parthenon sculptures and many other Greek 
 works had become known, drew the conclusion from this fact 
 that the Greek gods, to show their immortal state, had their 
 bodies thus represented. From this remark the erroneous no- 
 tion has spread that the Greeks never represented veins in 
 their sculpture ; a doctrine which is readily disproved by the 
 observation of almost any original Greek statue or relief. 
 Instances where veins are prominent are the Parthenon sculpt- 
 ures, the Boxer after Pythagoras, Plates 66 and 67, and the 
 Stele of Alxenor, Plate 34pa. The absence of veins on the 
 Belvedere torso may be explained in several ways. One is 
 that the torso was made at a time when accurate observation 
 of nature had given way to academic representation of bodily 
 forms ; the other, that the veins were added, according to the 
 custom 2 of the ancients, when the entire statue was painted. 
 
 PLATE 247. Demeter Of KnidOS. Of marble. British Museum, 
 London. First observed by English travelers in 1812, found during 
 the winter of 1857-1858 in the Temenos of Demeter in Knidos by Sir 
 C. Newton. British Museum Catalogue with full bibliography; F. W., 
 1275; E. von Mach, pp. 282ff. ; Reinach II, 245, 2. 
 
 1 There are places of attachment on the left side of the thigh. 
 3 For the painting of statues see E. von Mach, pp. 6?ft.
 
 264 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 "There are in Knidos," says Pliny, 1 "other statues by first- 
 rate sculptors . . . and there is no greater testimony to the 
 Aphrodite of Praxiteles (see Plates 198 and 199) than the 
 fact that among all these it is the only one thought worthy of 
 mention." 
 
 This Demeter doubtless is one of the statues which Pliny 
 had in mind. One of the most beautiful statues of antiquity, 
 it is yet not mentioned in ancient literature. 
 
 Its state of preservation unfortunately is poor, owing to the 
 poor material of which the body is wrought. Only the head 
 and neck, which were made to be inserted, are carved of a fine 
 piece of marble. The gracious dignity of Demeter, who, as 
 the mother longing for her daughter, always appealed to the 
 fine sentiment of the Greeks, is remarkably well portrayed. 
 Her statue is inspired by the loving sunshine of the art of 
 Praxiteles. If one would know the full extent of her fourth- 
 century charm, one must compare the Knidian Demeter with 
 her of the Eleusinian relief, Plate 1 78. Dignified and kind 
 she is even there, but here she is an individual imbued with 
 feelings that human beings can understand. 
 
 PLATE 248. "Flora FameSC." Colossal statue of marble. 
 Museum, Naples. Discovered in the Baths of Caracalla in Rome dur- 
 ing the papacy of Paul III (1534-1549), and taken to Naples toward 
 the end of the eighteenth century. Restorations : the head, the lower 
 arms and the feet. F. W., 1284 ; Reinach I, 212, 5. 
 
 The fourth century Greek origin of this statue seems so un- 
 mistakable, and its interpretation as Flora so natural that one 
 is prone to search for the Greek equivalent of this decidedly 
 Roman deity. Unfortunately, it has not been found. Several 
 suggestions 2 have been made, none, however, to universal 
 
 1 N. H., 36, 22, translated, Stuart- Jones, p. 152. 2 See F. W., 1284.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 265 
 
 satisfaction. Flora we may, therefore, continue to call this 
 goddess, although we must remember that when the statue 
 was designed this was not her name. 
 
 Some things are so superior that to enlarge on their beauty 
 seems impertinent. The Farnese Flora belongs to this class. 
 Her modern head and right hand unfortunately are not in 
 keeping with the rest of the statue, but no one who has ever 
 seen her can forget the wonderful impression that her benign 
 advance made on him. Involuntarily one is reminded of 
 Schiller's description of the mythical girl, perhaps Spring her- 
 self, who visited a tribe of poor herdsmen whenever the larks 
 began to sing : 
 
 In einem Thai bei arm en Hirten, 
 
 Erschien mit jedem neuen Jahr, 
 Sobald die ersten Lerchen schwirrten, 
 Ein Mddchen sch'dn und wunderbar. 
 
 PLATE 249a. Demeter, Seated. Of marble. Glyptothek Ny Carls- 
 berg, Copenhagen. Date and place of discovery unknown ; formerly 
 in the Palazzo Rondanini in Rome. Restorations : the head and right 
 arm. Copenhagen, Catalogue, 184; Miiller-Wieseler, 2, Plate VIII, 
 87 ; Reinach II, 245, 4. 
 
 This statue, the exact date of which is still open to doubt, is 
 well studied by the side of the Demeter of Knidos, whose 
 benignity and charm she unfortunately lacks. The drapery of 
 the Knidian is of a different kind, and by its very arrangement 
 reveals the individual. That of the Copenhagen Demeter is 
 stereotyped. The undergarment reminds one of the standing 
 figure, Plate 77, while the shawl is arranged in a way that since 
 Pheidias made use of it for his colossal Zeus in Olympia has 
 often been copied. 
 
 PLATE 249b. Kybele, Seated. Of marble. Glyptothek Ny Carls- 
 berg, Copenhagen. Discovered, date unknown, in its place, it is sup-
 
 2 66 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 posed, as temple image in Formiae. Restorations : the nose, some of 
 the hair by the right temple, and the fingers. Copenhagen, Catalogue, 
 274; Showerman, Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, Vol. I, No. 3. 
 
 The cult of Kybele, the great mother of the gods, was in- 
 troduced in 204 B. C. in Rome from Greece and Asia Minor, 
 where it had flourished long before. This particular statue has 
 not the appearance of an original Greek work and was there- 
 fore undoubtedly made in Rome subsequent to 204 B. C. It 
 copies probably an earlier Greek work, but whether this be- 
 longs to the fourth century or to the next century may be 
 difficult to decide. The statue is placed here in order that 
 a comparison between it and the statues of Demeter, Plates 
 247 and 2493, may enable one to study the several types of 
 seated figures, 1 which in the best Greek times are not many. 
 
 PLATE 250. Nymph. Of marble. Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, 
 Copenhagen. Date and place of discovery not published. Copen- 
 hagen, Catalogue, 315. 
 
 The drapery of this statue is carved solely as a foil to the 
 nude, just as it was with the Amazon from the Maussolleion 
 frieze, Plate 229, and the Bacchante, Plate 219. The right 
 leg of the figure is in a bad state of preservation ; the upper 
 part of the body, however, and the left leg and knee still show 
 the loving care which the artist bestowed upon the nude. The 
 lines of the drapery taken by themselves are far from beauti- 
 ful. They appeal, however, by their fortuitous arrangement, 
 which seems to place an individual before one. They are in 
 this respect far removed from the dignified beauty that charac- 
 terizes the " Nike " of the East Pediment of the Parthenon, 
 
 1 Compare also the seated figures from the East Pediment of the 
 Parthenon.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 267 
 
 Plate 139, and partake of the spirit that permeates the Maus- 
 solleion frieze. It is for this reason that the figure has been 
 placed here, although it cannot be denied that she also could 
 have been carved in the next period. The name " nymph " is 
 only a suggestion. She is thought of, together with her sisters, 
 as accompanying Artemis through the woods. Plates 296 and 
 305 reproduce the type of Artemis that might have formed 
 the center of this group. 
 
 PLATE 251. Psyche Of Capua, SO-called. Of marble. Museum, 
 Naples. Discovered in the ruins of the amphitheater in Capua, to- 
 gether with the Aphrodite, Plate 293, in the middle of the eighteenth 
 century. Restorations : the lower part of the nose. The entire figure 
 has been polished in modern times to obtain a smooth surface. F. W., 
 1471 ; Robinson, 547 ; Reinach I, 357, 4. 
 
 Two small holes on the right shoulder have led people to 
 believe that wings ought to be added to this figure, and to 
 call her Psyche. The sad droop of the head and the melan- 
 choly expression of the face seemed to agree with this inter- 
 pretation. More recently, however, it has been remarked that 
 the figure seems to be too mature for Psyche, and that the 
 holes on the shoulder could not have been used for the attach- 
 ment of wings, for these would have left traces on the shoulder^ 
 which is not the case. All other names are only suggestions, 
 Aphrodite being perhaps the most feasible of all. 
 
 The peculiar fracture of the head is explained by the prac- 
 tice of the ancients of piecing their sculptures. The additions 
 on the top and the back of the head, being insecurely 
 fastened, have been lost. 1 Another explanation is that the 
 figure fitted into the architectural setting of the amphitheater, 
 where it was found, and that the space required the mutila- 
 
 ' For a similar instance see the Hermes in Boston, Plate 124.
 
 268 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 tion of the head, which now is apparent but in its place would 
 have passed unnoticed. 
 
 Judged as a piece of architectural decoration, this Psyche is 
 perfect. Studied close at hand it is very disappointing. The 
 body is indicated by graceful outlines, but there is no fine 
 modelling anywhere. Psyche is marble and will never appear 
 to be flesh and blood even to the most enthusiastic student. 
 This, however, has not prevented people from ranking her 
 with the masterpieces of Greek sculpture. People in this 
 respect are like the makers of the first crude statues of 
 " Apollo," unable to go beyond the perception of outlines. 
 It took generations of thoughtful study before the Greek 
 artists advanced to the appreciation of finer details. And so 
 it takes much patient observation before the modern student 
 of ancient art learns the reason why this Psyche, as he sees 
 her to-day, cannot be the work of a master of the fourth cen- 
 tury before Christ. 
 
 PLATE 252. Fragment of a Draped Woman. Of bronze. Mu- 
 seum, Berlin. Found in Kyzikos in 1882. Berlin, Catalogue, 3. 
 
 This is one of the few extant remains of original Greek 
 bronzes 1 of draped figures. It repeats a motive which, with 
 variations, occurs on the figures from Herculaneum, now in 
 Dresden, Plate 208 ; and on the statue of Sophokles, now in 
 the Lateran Museum, Plate 412. All these statues are proba- 
 bly copies of bronzes. By comparing them with the Berlin 
 fragment, one readily sees how superior to marble bronze was 
 for the reproduction of such motives. 
 
 1 A similar fragment was shown in a private view of the Museum in 
 Boston two years ago. No information of its provenience was given, 
 and the fragment has not been placed on exhibition.
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 269 
 
 PLATE 253. The Monument of Lysikrates in Athens. Stuart 
 
 and Revett, Antiquities of Athens, Vol. I, Chapter IV, De Cou, A.J. A., 
 First Series, VIII, 1893, pp. 42ff.; for the reliefs sec F. W., 1328; 
 Robinson, 597ff. 
 
 In ancient Athens there was a street called the " Street of 
 the Tripods," because it was the practice of the Athenians 
 to erect here on columns or shrines tripods commemorating 
 the victories in musical contests. The names inscribed on this 
 monument are Lysikratas the victor, 1 and Euaintes, the archon. 
 Euaintes was archon in 335-334 B. C., which, therefore, is the 
 date of this monument. The monument is about thirty-four 
 feet high. 
 
 1 Lysikrates had paid the expenses of the chorus that had won the 
 prize.
 
 270 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 PART Six. 
 
 The Hellenistic Period. 
 THE AUTUMN DAYS OF GREEK SCULPTURE. 
 
 Alexander the Great had carried as far as India, together with 
 his standards, also the knowledge of Greek civilization. He 
 died in 323 B. C., succeeded in the several Asiatic and African 
 principalities by his generals. Everywhere Greek ideas spread, 
 and the wealth of monarchies was placed at their disposal. 
 These ideas, however, were often as unlike the true Greek 
 ideas of earlier centuries as the conditions were unlike those 
 under which Greek art had formerly flourished. There was, 
 moreover, an admixture of barbaric notions of sensuous pleas- 
 ure that tended to alter completely the essence of art. Side 
 by side with these manifestations, the old traditions were kept 
 alive by some men, and every now and then works were 
 created that would have called for the admiration even of 
 Pheidias and Praxiteles. It was as it is to-day. Surrounded 
 by statues whose inanity reflects the commercial instincts of 
 the age, such works as French's " John Harvard," or Saint 
 Gaudens' " Sherman," or Dallin's " Medicine Man " loom up 
 like reminders of an age of thoughtful nobility. 
 
 Skill was the keynote then as it is now. Works were not 
 undertaken unless they offered singular opportunities for its 
 display. But it is very wrong to believe that every good statue
 
 43- FUNERAL VASE.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 271 
 
 showing more beauty than skill can give, beauty that is de- 
 pendent on the nobility of conception, must for this reason be 
 assigned to an earlier age than the Hellenistic Period. 
 
 There is in the best works of this period an element of ripe- 
 ness and of self-sufficiency, a sense of confidence in contrast 
 to the faith of earlier works, that has led the writer to coin the 
 term, " Autumn Days of Greek Sculpture." For a more de- 
 tailed discussion of this element see E. von Mach, pp. 299^". 
 
 Of no other period of Greek art is there such lack of 
 agreement as to its value as of this one. This is largely due 
 to the fact that it is the longest of all, and that only very 
 few artists are known to whom it might be possible to assign 
 any of the extant monuments. The customary procedure has 
 been to group in the Hellenistic age everything that is too 
 poor to be of fourth century workmanship and too good to be 
 Roman ; Roman sculpture, as people used to think, being the 
 worst of all ancient sculpture. The injustice of such procedure 
 ought to be self-evident. The student ought to realize, in the 
 first place, that some of the statues created in this period were 
 in nobility of conception and in perfection of execution, second 
 to none ; secondly, that many works were imbued with a very 
 distinct character 1 of their own by which they may be dis- 
 tinguished ; and finally, that many artists, studying as they did 
 assiduously the art of their predecessors, could not help work- 
 ing more or less according to the earlier styles. 
 
 This latter fact renders it especially difficult to bring order 
 out of the chaos of statues commonly assigned to the Hellen- 
 istic Period. The plan followed here has been to group in 
 this period, first those statues and reliefs which can be dated 
 accurately as belonging to it ; and secondly, those works for 
 which no definite dates can be ascertained but which have so 
 
 1 See E. von Mach, pp. aggff.
 
 272 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 habitually been assigned to this period that they are most 
 readily looked for in this connection. Many statues, in con- 
 sequence, are treated here in spite of the personal opinion of 
 the writer that they owe their origin to the fourth century be- 
 fore Christ or to the Roman Period. 
 
 PLATE 254. Boy with Goose, probably after Boethos. Of mar- 
 ble. Glyptothek, Munich. Date and place of discovery unknown; 
 formerly in the Palazzo Braschi in Rome ; purchased -for Munich in 
 1812. Restorations: the tuft of hair over the forehead, the tip of the 
 nose, the lower lip, part of the upper lip, and a few locks; also the head 
 and the tips of the wings of the goose. Furtwangler, Catalogue, 268 ; 
 F. W., 1586 ; Reinach I, 535, 5. For the replica in the Capitoline see 
 Helbig, 518; Reinach I, 534, i : for the replica in the Louvre, Robin- 
 son, 568; Reinach I, 148, 3: for the replica in the Vatican, Baumeister, 
 p. 350, fig. 372; * Reinach I, 535, 9. There are many statues of boys 
 with birds extant, although not of the same arrangement. One little- 
 known group is in Stockholm, Rev. Arch., 29, 1896, Plate X. 2 For a 
 discussion of the several types of boys with geese see Ernest Gardner, 
 /. H. S., VI, pp. iff. 
 
 This statue is universally, s assigned to Boethos,-* who made, 
 according to Pliny (N. H., 34, 84), a bronze group of a boy 
 strangling a goose. Geese were familiar animals with the 
 Greeks. Children played 5 with them as they now play with 
 cats. 
 
 1 Robinson erroneously says that figure 372 in Baumeister is the 
 replica in the Louvre. 2 This figure is especially interesting, because 
 the treatment of the body and of the arms is not unlike that of the 
 Spinario, Plate 72. 3 The only dissenting voice is Robinson (568), 
 whose conclusions seem to be due to a misinterpretation of the article 
 by Ernest Gardner. Gardner himself ( Handbook, pp. 442f.) correctly 
 attributes the statue to Boethos. * For a discussion of the date of 
 Boethos see Helbig, 518. s Even the geese of Penelope, Homer Od., 
 XIX, 536, seem to be kept more for the pleasure of Penelope than 
 for any other purpose. For the place of geese in the Greek house- 
 hold see Stephani, Compte Rendu, 1863, p. 17, 51.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 273 
 
 This little fellow has played with his goose and is determined 
 to retain him, even against his will. Like a little Herakles, as 
 Wolters says, he is struggling with his mighty opponent. So 
 eager is he that, in the joyful exercise of his childish strength, 
 he does not notice the discomfort he is giving to his comrade, 
 whom he seems to be strangling. He laughs, and so does the 
 spectator, moved by the amusing appearance of the goose and 
 the merriment of the whole composition. The group is de- 
 signed in the round, yet so that one point of view is the best, 
 with all the lines arranged as they would be in a composition 
 in relief. 
 
 PLATE 255. Fragment of Drapery by Damophon. Of marble. 
 
 National Museum, Athens. Discovered in Lykosoura in Arkadia in 
 1889. Together with this fragment, the heads, Plates 477,489,492, 
 were found. Kavvadias, Le Fouilles de Lykosoura ; Robinson, 738 D; 
 Overbeck II, pp. 486ff. For the date of the temple see Dorpfeld, 
 At/ten. Mitth., XV, 1890, p. 230, and XVIII, 1893, PP- sigff. The most 
 recent and exhaustive discussion of the art of Damaphon is by Daniel 
 in/. H. S., XXIV, 1904, pp. 4iff. 
 
 Dorpfeld has dated the ruins of the temple in which the 
 statues of Damophon were erected in the second century be- 
 fore Christ. No remains of an earlier temple have been found, 
 so that this would appear to be the date also of the statues. 
 Pausanias r is the only ancient author who mentions Damo- 
 phon, and from his writings it is impossible to draw any de- 
 finite conclusions as to the century in which Damophon lived. 
 From the style of the heads, Plates 477, 489, and 492, many 
 scholars have come to look upon Damophon as closely allied 
 to the great masters of the fourth century. 2 They are, there- 
 
 1 Pausanias IV, 31 ; VII, 23; VIII, 31 and 37. 
 
 2 A head in the Capitoline Museum, Helbig, 453, is variously as- 
 signed to Damophon or to pupils of Skopas.
 
 274 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 fore, inclined to discredit Dorpfeld's investigation. It is, how- 
 ever, possible to harmonize Dorpfeld's date with the supposed 
 style of the Lykosoura sculptures ; for it is known that some 
 artists of the Hellenistic age followed more closely than others 
 in the footsteps of their predecessors. This was especially 
 natural in the case of temple statues. 
 
 The richness of decoration of the remaining fragment of 
 drapery ' has proved a revelation. The embroidery, 2 which it 
 is intended to represent, is not confined to the border, but 
 spreads over the entire garment. No such splendor is known 
 on any other temple image, not even on the Parthenos, Plates 
 96ff. But she is extant only in copies, while the Lykosoura 
 fragment is a bit of the original. It may serve, therefore, not 
 only as an indication of what Damophon was able to do, but 
 also as a suggestion of what was probably done in the case of 
 all important temple images. 
 
 PLATE 256. Statue of the Tyche of Antiocheia on the Orontes. 
 
 Of marble. Vatican, Rome. Discovered, date unknown, outside the 
 Porta S. Giovanni in Rome; formerly in the possession of the sculptor 
 Cavaceppi, who restored the missing parts from Syrian coins. Restora- 
 tions : the mural diadem, the parts of the drapery falling over the 
 shoulders and back, the nose, the upper lip, and the right forearm; 
 also the arms of the river god below. Helbig, 376; F. W., 1396; 
 Reinach I, 450, 3. For a possible copy of the river God see Springer- 
 MichaelisI, fig. 463. 
 
 Visconti and Miiller were the first to identify this statue 
 with the bronze statue of the Tyche of Antiocheia by Euty- 
 
 1 Compare also the drapery of Hermes, Plate 190. 
 
 2 For the Nike with the incense on the drapery, compare the gem 
 in Furtwangler's Antike Gemmen, III, p. 133, dating from the first half 
 of the fourth century before Christ.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 275 
 
 chides, 1 a pupil of Lysippos. This identification is now almost 
 universally 2 accepted. 
 
 The beautiful location of the city is suggested in the statue. 
 Nestling on the hills near the banks of the Orontes, Antiocheia 
 enjoyed the reputation of being one of the most beautiful cities 
 of antiquity. She was well fortified the goddess wears a 
 mural crown ; she was rich in fertile lands the goddess 
 holds ears of corn in her right hand ; and she was favored 
 with a navigable river the river god appears 3 from the rock 
 at her feet. 
 
 The mildness of the goddess, which is apparent in the re- 
 duced copy, was in the colossal original probably made sub- 
 servient to the impression of grandeur and dignity. The 
 execution of the Vatican copy is not above the average. The 
 design, however, is so beautiful that one may well reckon this 
 figure among the best extant works of this period. 
 
 It is noteworthy that the ancients did not speak of this 
 statue as Antiocheia, contrary to modern customs ; the French, 
 for instance, speaking of their famous statue in Paris as 
 " Strassbourg." This observation has led to an interesting 
 investigation by Percy Gardner on Countries and Cities in 
 Ancient Art. He finds that they were represented in three 
 ways : first, by the persons of their guardian deities ; secondly, 
 by the persons of their founders or heroes eponymoi;* and 
 
 1 For a recently published inscription of Eutychides, see B. C. ff., 
 1894, pp. 336f. 
 
 2 F. W., 1396, refers to doubts expressed by Michaelis. They have 
 been withdrawn, see Springer- Michaelis I, pp. 26 iff. and figure 464. 
 
 3 He probably was represented as swimming. Cavaceppis' restora- 
 tion of his arms is open to doubts. See, however, the swimming river 
 gods on the base of the statue of the Tiber, Reinach I, 68, I. 
 
 V- H- -S; IX, pp. 47ff. 
 
 5 " Eponymos " practically means "namesake."
 
 276 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 finally, allegorically, similarly to the personification of the peo- 
 ple of Hellas and Asia in the Persai of Aischylos (i8if.), as 
 women dressed in the respective garbs of their countries. The 
 statue by Eutychides belonged to the first of these classes. 
 
 The School of Sculpture of Pergamon. 1 
 
 Brunn was the first to assign the Dying Gaul and the Gaul 
 and His Wife, Plates 25 7-259, 2 to the school of Pergamon. 
 He published his discovery in 1857. Up to that date the very 
 existence of this school had been forgotten. Then followed 
 in quick succession the identification of the copies of statues 
 which Attalos I of Pergamon (241-197 B. C.) had sent as a 
 votive offering to Athens, Plates 262-264; and our knowledge 
 of that school seemed to be based on a firm foundation. No 
 one, however, could dream of the startling discoveries yet to 
 be made. 
 
 Karl Humann had obtained, in 1873, possession of a few 
 fragments of an ancient high relief from Pergamon. He at 
 once recognized their value and secured permission to search 
 for more. In 1878 the German excavations began, which 
 lasted until 1886. The finds, Plates 267-268, were large and 
 valuable beyond the most sanguine expectations. In 1898 the 
 country was surveyed preparatory to the making of careful 
 maps, and this led to renewed excavations,3 which have not 
 yet been concluded. 
 
 Practically all the works discovered in Pergamon belong to 
 
 1 Some ancient writers call the city Pergame, a few others Pergama, 
 and the majority Pergamon. 
 
 2 The subjects of these statues were properly recognized by Nibby in 
 1821, and Raoul-Rochette in 1830. 
 
 3 For a report of the new excavations up to June, 1903, see J. If. S n 
 1903. PP- 335ff-
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 277 
 
 the reign of Eumenes II, 197-159 before Christ; while all the 
 works identified with Pergamon before the excavations began 
 belong to the reign of his predecessor, Attalos I, 241-197 
 before Christ The art of Pergamon is, therefore, subdivided 
 into two schools. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF PERGAMON. Pergamon makes its appear- 
 ance in history late, but at once with great splendor. It was 
 an unimportant town down to the third century before Christ, 
 mentioned only as the entrance place to the country beyond. 
 The summit of the hill, however, was fortified, and here 
 Lysimachos, one of Alexander's successors, stored a great 
 treasure. Philetairos had been left in charge of Pergamon, but 
 revolted when the cruel reign of Lysimachos proved to be too 
 provoking. He declared his independence and was able to 
 maintain it. At his death in 263 he was succeeded by Eu- 
 menes I, the son of his brother, who reigned to 241. With 
 Attalos I, 241-197, the real glory of Pergamon began, 'won 
 with many hardships ; for the Gauls, who, after their defeats 
 in Rome and in Delphi, had turned to Asia Minor, men- 
 aced Pergamon until Attalos, in several successful battles, 
 succeeded in transforming the fierce Gauls to the mild Gala- 
 tions, to whom St. Paul addressed his letters. Attalos there- 
 upon called himself king, and caused many statues to be 
 erected in honor of his victories. In 221, hard pressed by 
 Antiochos III, he allied himself with Rome. This friendship 
 with Rome continued throughout the reign of his successor, 
 Eumenes II, 197-159, who extended his realm until it included 
 almost the whole of Asia Minor. He enlarged his citadel, and 
 spent much of his wealth in beautifying Pergamon. Attalos II, 
 159-138, continued an uneventful reign of splendor, and 
 Attalos III, 138-133, willed his empire at his death to Rome 
 at least so the Romans chose to interpret his last will and 
 testament. The Romans assumed active command in 129;
 
 278 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 and Pergamon no doubt came in for its share of prosperity as 
 long as the power of Rome lasted. With the reverses of 
 Rome, Pergamon also declined and at a date unknown 
 was abandoned. Eventually a new settlement grew up in the 
 valley at the foot of the old citadel hill, which was frequently 
 used as a fortress. The modern city is named Bergama, and 
 has a mixed population of Turks, Greeks, Armenians and 
 Jews, amounting to about twenty thousand inhabitants. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. The bibliography, including monographs, 
 on Pergamon is very large. The large official German publi- 
 cation is, of course, the standard book. In addition, the Berlin 
 museums have issued several pamphlets. An excellent account 
 is given in Baumeister s. v. " Pergamon" ; also J. H. S., Ill, 
 pp. 3Oiff. ; IV, pp. i22ff. ; VI, pp. 1026. ; VII , pp. 2510. The 
 arrangement of the large frieze from the Altar of Pergamon is 
 discussed by H. Schrader, Sitzb. Berl. Akad., 1899, pp. 612- 
 625, (reviewed, A. J. A., IV, 1900, p. 342) ; and that of the 
 Telephos frieze, by the sa.rt\Q, Jarhbuch XV, 1900, pp. 97-135 
 (review, A. J. A., V, 1901, p. 229), and by Carl Robert, Jahr- 
 buch II, pp. 2446% and III, pp. 45 ff., 87ff. 
 
 For further bibliography see Overbeck II, pp. 288ff., and the 
 remarks to Plates 257-269. 
 
 For some of the statues and heads that have been assigned 
 to Pergamon on the strength of resemblances to undoubtedly 
 Pergamon works, see L. R. Farnell, _/. H. S., XI, pp. 181-209 ; 
 and Plate 2693. 
 
 For two of the recent discoveries, see Plate 308, and the 
 head of a man, Antike Denkmaler II, Plate 48. For the 
 Warrior from Delos, see Plate 287. 
 
 PLATES 257 and 258. Dying Gaul. Of marble. Capitoline, Rome. 
 Discovered, exact place and date unknown, but probably in Rome in the 
 sixteenth century; formerly in the Villa Ludovisi, but removed during 
 the papacy of Clement XII (1730-1740) to the Capitoline. Restora-
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 279 
 
 tions : the tip of the nose, the left knee, all the toes, and the part of 
 the plinth on which the right hand rests, including of course, the hand 
 and a part of the horn. The right arm is antique. It was broken off 
 and used to be considered a restoration. E. von Mach, 3i5ff. ; Helbig, 
 533 ; F. W., 1412 ; Robinson, 654; Reinach I, 530, 2. Full bibliography 
 in Helbig and F. W. For the theory that the statue is the Tubicen of 
 Epigonos, mentioned by Pliny (N. ff., 34, 88), see Jarhbuch VIII, pp. 
 129-131. For the authoritative arguments against this theory, see 
 Rom. Mitlh., VIII, 1894, p. 253. For the discussion of whether the 
 Gaul dies of a self-inflicted wound or not, see Chr. Belger, Jahrbuch 
 III, 1888, pp. I5off., and Overbeck I, p. 251. For a torso in Dresden 
 resembling the Dying Gaul, see Overbeck II, p. 257, fig. 196, and 
 B. C. H., 1889, p. 1 88. 
 
 The once popular name of " Dying Gladiator " for this 
 statue has long since z been abandoned. In the first place, the 
 statue undoubtedly belongs to Greek times, and the Greeks 
 knew nothing of gladiators ; and secondly, the figure is that of 
 a Gaul as Gauls are described by ancient writers. Unlike the 
 Greeks or the Romans, they wore moustaches, but shaved the 
 rest of their faces. They annointed their hair until it became 
 so thick it " was like the manes of horses," and they combed 
 it back, which gave them the appearance of " satyrs or Pans." 
 They also wore gold torques 2 or necklaces. 
 
 Such a type of barbarian is most admirably reproduced in 
 the Capitoline statue, "not only in the face," says Helbig, 
 " but also in the forms of the body. The massive extremities, 
 the large bones, the coarse and unelastic skin are all instances 
 of this." 
 
 The original of this statue was doubtless one of those which 
 Attalos erected in honor of his victory over the fierce Gauls 
 
 1 Nibby in 1821 recognized the statue to be a Gaul. 2 Well known 
 in antiquity, owing to the story connected with T. Manlius Torquatus.
 
 280 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 who had infested Asia Minor. Lord Byron, misreading the 
 character of this Gaul, wrote of him the famous lines, in which 
 he said the Gaul "consents to death, but conquers agony." 
 This sentiment is ill applied to the fierce nature of the bar- 
 barian, who unlike the Greeks, dies unwillingly, struggling l 
 against death to the last. 
 
 Valuable comparisons are made between this statue and the 
 Gaul, Plate 2643., and the fallen warrior from Aigina, Plate 79. 
 
 PLATE 259. Gaul and His Wife. Of marble. Terme, Rome; 
 formerly Boncampagni-Ludovisi Collection. Date and place of dis- 
 covery unknown. The group was known as early as 1632. Restora- 
 tions : on the Gaul, the right arm and the greater part of the sword, 
 the lower half of the nose, the left lower arm down to the wrist, the 
 index finger of the left hand, the floating part of the drapery and the 
 support; on the woman, the nose, almost the entire left arm, the lower 
 part of th right forearm, with the hand, four toes on the right foot, 
 and parts of the drapery. The group used to be called Paetus and 
 Arria ; it was identified as a Gaul and his wife by Raoul-Rochette in 
 1830. Helbig, 884; F. W., 1413; Robinson, 655; Overbeck II, pp. 
 25off. ; Reinach I, 498, i. 
 
 Like the Dying Gaul, Plates 25 yf., this group has been 
 recognized as belonging to the first school of Pergamon, It is 
 the copy of one of the monuments which Attalos I (241-197 
 B. C.) erected in honor of his victories over the Gauls. The 
 statues, therefore, were to represent the wild, un-Greek quality 
 of the barbarians ; and it must be granted that the artists have 
 succeeded well. In this Gaul, who has just killed his wife, 
 and who is pushing his sword into his own throat to escape 
 slavery, one sees revealed at a glance the completeness of the 
 victory of Attalos, a victory which is the more remarkable as 
 it has been won over foes who shrink from nothing. 
 
 1 For a fuller discussion of this statue see E. von Mach, pp. 
 and 340.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 281 
 
 Unlike the majority of Greek groups, the Gaul and his wife 
 are designed as statues in the round, with no one view offering 
 an advantage over the others, because this one view alone 
 would show the lines and masses harmoniously distributed. 1 
 With its modern restorations, it is impossible to get a good 
 view of the face of the Gaul and his wife at the same time. It 
 has, therefore, been suggested that the right arm of the Gaul 
 be restored differently, with the little finger instead of the 
 thumb down. This changes the position of the elbow ; it 
 becomes possible to turn the group more to the right (from 
 the spectator's point of view) and to get a better profile view 
 of the face of the Gaul. The objection to such a change of 
 the right arm lies in the fact that now the Gaul holds his sword 
 as he did when he was fighting the enemy. Defeat has come 
 swiftly ; he has not had time to change his hold on the hilt of 
 his sword before he has been driven to the extreme deed in 
 order to avoid capture for his wife and for himself. 
 
 One other group is known in Greek art of a man in the 
 shadow of death and a woman dying on his knee. It is one 
 of the Niobids, Plate 224 and Text Illustration 41. The 
 Niobid is represented as a Greek, with Greek thoughts and 
 emotions ; the Ludovisi statue is a barbarian. His very figure 
 suggests the importance of the victory of Attalos, which meant 
 the supremacy of the nobility of Greek ideas over the fierce- 
 ness of barbarian passions. 
 
 PLATE 260. Scythian Slave Sharpening His Knife, "L'Arro- 
 
 tino." Of marble. Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Found in Rome, exact 
 date unknown, but earlier than 1583. Restorations: the forefinger of 
 the right hand, the thumb and two fingers of the left hand, the tip of 
 the nose and a few minor pieces. Amelung, 68 ; F. W., 1414 ; Reinach 
 I, 286, 1-3. 
 
 1 See the discussion to Plate 254.
 
 282 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 PLATE 261. Marsyas and the Scythian Sharpening His Knife. 
 Combination group of Marsyas, in the Louvre, and the Scythian, 
 Plate 260. 
 
 The statue, Plate 260, represents the type of another race 
 of barbarians, the Scythians. The forehead is receding, the 
 cheek bones are high, and the expression of the face is in 
 keeping with a low grade of civilization. The early school of 
 Pergamon, to which the Gauls, Plates 257-259, belong, was 
 the first to excel in the characterization of foreign people. 
 The treatment of the body of the Scythian, accurate to nature, 
 without refinement and without attention to anatomical details, 
 is the same as that of the statues of the Gauls. By common 
 consent, therefore, this figure is assigned to that school. 
 
 The upward glance of the slave suggests that he once formed 
 part of a group ; and it is believed that the other figure was 
 Marsyas, who was to be flayed by the order of Apollo. These 
 same figures are seen, together with the god, on the base from 
 Mantineia, Plates 210-212, but there an earlier moment of the 
 story is represented. Here Marsyas has lost in the musical 
 contest and is on the point of receiving his punishment. 
 
 Several copies of a Marsyas hanging on the tree are extant. 1 
 None, however, are in the style of the Pergamon school, for all 
 are full of anatomical details which the peculiar motive tempted 
 the artists to introduce. The source of all, however, may 
 have been the figure once grouped with the original 2 of the 
 Scythian in Florence. Plate 261 shows one of the extant 
 statues of Marsyas grouped with the Scythian. 
 
 1 See also Plate 3370. 2 The Scythian in Florence cannot have 
 been the original part of a group. His base is profiled all around, a 
 fact which clearly shows that this particular figure was meant to stand 
 alone.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 283 
 
 The Attalos Group. 
 
 The originals of the group which Attalos I (241-197 B. C.) 
 sent ' to Athens are lost. They represented the battles between 
 the gods and the giants, the Greeks and the Amazons, the 
 Greeks and the Persians, and his own exploits against the 
 Gauls. They were small, their size being only about three 
 feet, and were probably of bronze. Reproductions of a few 
 of the figures are extant. The majority are in the Museum 
 in Naples ; and it is a notable fact that only copies of the 
 defeated antagonists and none of the victors 2 are preserved. 
 Plate 263 is a giant of the Gigantomachia, Plate 262 an 
 Amazon of the fight of the Greeks and the Amazons, Plate 
 264!) a Persian, and Plate 264a a Gaul. 
 
 For a complete list of all the extant figures see Brunn, 
 Annali, 1870, pp. 2926^. ; Overbeck II, fig. 189, containing 
 twelve pictures; and M\c\\a.e\\?>,Jahrbuch VIII, 1903, pp. 
 
 PLATE 262. Dead Amazon. Of marble. Museum, Naples. Dis- 
 covered in Rome in 1514 in the cellar of a convent. It passed from 
 the possession of the Medici family to the Farnese family in 1 538, and 
 eventually, with the Farnese collection, to the Museum in Naples. 
 Restorations: the left foot. E. von Mach, 3i6ff. ; Robinson, 670; 
 Reinach I, 482, 2 ; M.icha.e\is,_fa/irl>ue:/i VIII, 1893, PP> H9ff-> especially 
 p. 122, reproducing the picture of the Amazon, made about 1540. 
 There was then a baby 3 grouped with the Amazon. This baby, 
 
 'See Pausanias I, 25, 2, and Plut. Anton., 60, or S. Q., 1995 and 
 1996. 
 
 2 The inference that only the defeated people were represented in the 
 group is contradicted, in that one of the gods, Dionysos, is mentioned 
 in ancient literature. 
 
 3 The customary version of the Amazon myth in Asia was that they 
 were also mothers.
 
 284 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Michaelis believed, was antique and subsequently removed. Petersen, 
 Rom. Mitth., 1893, pp. 25iff., takes the opposite view; the baby was a 
 modern addition, which later, when recognized as such, was removed. 
 Overbeck and Kliigmann (see Overbeck II, p. 289, note 20) agree with 
 Petersen. For the motive, compare Virgil, ALneid XI, 803 and 804. 
 
 PLATE 263. Dead Giant. Of marble. Museum, Naples. For 
 date and place of discovery see the remarks to Plate 262. Restora- 
 tions : half of left lower leg, the fingers of the right hand and the nose. 
 
 PLATE 264a. Dying Gaul. Of marble. Museum, Naples. For 
 date and place of discovery see the remarks to Plate 262. Restora- 
 tions : the left arm, several fingers of the right hand, the right foot and 
 the toes of the left foot. Robinson, 669 ; Reinach I, 523, 3. 
 
 PLATE 264b. Dead Persian. 1 Of marble. Museum, Naples. For 
 date and place of discovery see the remarks to Plate 262. Restora- 
 tions : both arms, the right leg from the knee down, and part of the 
 sword. Robinson, 669; Reinach I, 531, 3. 
 
 With a singularly keen touch the four types here reproduced 
 are characterized. Beautiful even in death is the Amazon. 
 Her repose is peaceful, " such 2 as the Greeks desired for 
 themselves and those they liked." And they always liked the 
 Amazons, although they often carved their mythical fight with 
 them ; for if they had not loved them so well, they would not 
 have represented them so beautiful as they did everywhere, 
 notably on the Maussolleion frieze, Plates 228-230. 
 
 The giant, Plate 263, in spite of his reduced size, reveals 
 not only his own powerful strength and unbridled passion, but 
 also the power of the gods, before whom he could not survive. 
 
 The Gaul, Plate 2643, is perhaps the least satisfactory of all 
 these figures. This is partly due to the fact that one cannot 
 
 1 For the head of a dead Persian belonging to a much larger statn , 
 but of the same general style, see Springer-Michaelis I, fig. 497; Hel'uig, 
 1025. 2 Quoted from E. von Mach, p. 317.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 285 
 
 help comparing him with the Dying Gaul, Plate 257. He 
 represents practically the same motive as the larger statue, but 
 with less vigor. He is not so distinctly the fierce barbarian ; 
 for a sense of humility and submission seems to be conveyed 
 by his helpless attitude. 
 
 The Persian, Plate 264b, is dead. Clad in his national cos- 
 tume with long trousers, which the Greeks always considered 
 to be the sign of the weakling, he has selected for himself, 
 even in the hour of death, a comfortable position. He lies 
 gracefully, but no Greek ever would desire to die like him. 
 The contrast between him and the Amazon, Plate 262, is the 
 greater, as hers is undoubtedly the more manly way of meet- 
 ing death. 
 
 PLATE 265. The Altar Of Pergamon. Reconstruction in the 
 Pergamon Museum in Berlin. For date of discovery and bibliography 
 see above introduction to the Art of Pergamon. For mention of the 
 altar in ancient literature see .Stuart-Jones, No. 264, and Revelation of 
 St. John, Chapter 2, Verses 12 and 13. A picture of the altar is on a 
 coin struck in Pergamon between 193 and 211 of our era ; see Arch. 
 Anz., 1902, p. 12, fig. i. For another view of the reconstructed altar 
 see E. von Mach, Plate facing p. 314. The large outside frieze, visible 
 on Plate 265, represents the Gigantomachia, fight between the gods 
 and the giants. Plates 266 and 267 reproduce four slabs from it. In- 
 side the colonnade there is another smaller frieze with representations 
 of the legend of Telephos. This frieze is less well-preserved. 
 
 PLATES 266 and 26r. Four Slabs of the Large Frieze of the 
 Pergamon Altar. Of marble. Pergamon Museum, Berlin. 
 
 PLATES 268a and 268b. Dionysos and Selene from the Large 
 Frieze Of the Pergamon Altar. Of marble. Pergamon Museum, 
 Berlin. 
 
 The first impression of the reliefs in the Pergamon Museum 
 in Berlin is overpowering and oppressive, because it is impos- 
 sible to step back to the distance for which the reliefs were
 
 2 86 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 designed. Placed on the hill in Pergamon, the altar was 
 visible from far off, so that the reliefs had to be powerful if 
 they were to be recognized at once as decorations. 
 
 The next observation is that the artists have shown re- 
 markable skill in combining the several groups into one con- 
 tinuous and harmonious whole, without lessening in the least 
 the unity of the several compositions. The subject of the 
 Gigantomachia is an old one. It is found, among others, on 
 the treasury of the Megarians in Olympia, Plate 46, on the 
 metopes from Selinus, Text Illustrations 8 and 9, and on the 
 east metopes of the Parthenon. It occurs again later on the 
 frieze of the temple of Hera at Lagina (two hours northeast 
 of Stratonike), which dates probably from the time of Sulla. 1 
 There, however, the subjects have been separated into indi- 
 vidual groups. 2 
 
 In studying the several scenes of the fighting gods and giants 
 on the Pergamon Altar, many well-known figures appear. 
 Athena, Plate 266b, reproduces the type of Athena of the 
 Madrid relief, Text Illustration 30 ; and Apollo, Plate 26ya, 
 forcefully reminds one of the Apollo Belvedere, Plate 272.' 
 Overbeck has drawn the conclusion from such borrowings on 
 the part of the Pergamon sculptors that, " in this late Greek 
 art the artists had begun to lose their keen perception of the 
 purely ideal, while their power of invention had become ex- 
 tremely active in respect to historic realism, as is proved by 
 the remains of their representations of Gauls." (See Plates 
 
 1 Ares there appears in the garb of a Roman. 
 
 2 See B. C. ff,, 19, 1895, Plates X-XV. 
 
 3 Further correspondences between Pergamon figures and other 
 known statues and reliefs are pointed out in Overbeck II, pp. 
 
 See also the official publications.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 287 
 
 The feeling for lines and masses in these reliefs is pro- 
 nounced, if not delicate. The eye is pleased and appalled in 
 turn. Graceful forms, like that of Nike, Plate 2663, are re- 
 vealed only by assiduous study, so surrounded they are by 
 giants and coiling snakes and fanciful wings. There is, how- 
 ever, never any disorder, as even the most casual and be- 
 wildered glance perceives. 
 
 In the case of the individual gods whose names ' were 
 inscribed on the blocks above them, a certain character deline- 
 ation is noticeable. Athena, Plate 266b, the patron goddess 
 also of Pergamon, sweeps on, met by Nike, always victorious. 
 The giant has sunk before her, even though no weapon is in 
 her hand. In vain his mother Ge z appears to ask mercy for 
 her son. He who rises against Athena must fall ; his very 
 attempt is his curse. 
 
 In Dionysos, 3 Plate 268a, in spite of his fighting attitude, the 
 character of the beautiful patron god of wine and happiness is 
 undisguised. 
 
 Zeus, Plate 266a, seems to be the Olympian Zeus of Phei- 
 dias risen from his throne. His mildness has given way to 
 righteous wrath, and with his drapery still arranged as Pheidias 
 had designed it, he raises his arm to hurl his thunder bolts 4 at 
 the mightiest of the giants who have dared to attack him. 
 
 And Selene s, Plate 268b, to mention only one other, glides 
 
 1 The names of the giants were inscribed below. 
 
 2 Ge is the Greek Mother Earth. The word is akin to the first part 
 of the name Demeter. 
 
 3 Dionysos is accompanied by two satyrs. Of the second little satyr 
 only the arm is preserved. 
 
 4 Poverty of imagination seems to account for the actual thunder- 
 bolt stuck in the leg of the giant to the left of Zeus. 
 
 5 Selene is the goddess of the moon. Compare the Selene from the 
 Parthenon, Plate I4ob.
 
 288 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 on with the even grace which is traditional of the movements 
 of the moon. 
 
 The giants are not less characteristic. They are colossal in 
 strength, not by means of the perfect development of divine ' 
 bodies ; for they are, in the majority of cases, monsters, with 
 snakes instead of legs, with tails and with wings. Snakes can 
 assume almost any position or fill any space without doing 
 violence to natural semblance. They were, therefore, very 
 welcome in a design in which no empty spaces were permitted. 
 
 The heads of the giants, which appear in their true light 
 only when they are compared with heads like that of Laokoon, 
 for instance, Plates 270 and 484, are worthy of careful study. 
 In the case of Laokoon " one 2 feels that the forehead can be 
 straightened and that the eyes can shine with the kind dignity 
 of Zeus (Plate 487). It is just the opposite with the giants. 
 Their deep-set eyes and darkened brows are theirs always. 
 They are, as their features imply, a fierce and unjust race." 
 
 PLATE 269a. Goddess. Of marble. Capitoline Museum. Date 
 and place of discovery unknown. Formerly in the Palazzo Cesi. 
 Acquired for the Capitoline Museum under Clemftnt XI (1700-1721). 
 Restorations : both arms, the right foot, the nose and fragments of the 
 lips. The head, the neck and the nude portions of the bust and of the 
 left shoulder are carved in a separate piece of marble attached to the 
 body. Helbig, 532 ; Reinach I, 200, 2. 
 
 Several technical peculiarities have induced scholars to assign 
 this statue to the school of Pergamon. In the first place, the 
 so-called closet folds 3 are indicated in the drapery, as is fre- 
 quently the case in the Pergamon frieze, Plates 265ff. These 
 
 1 To the Greek mind, nothing was more divine than the human body. 
 
 2 Quoted from E. von Mach, p. 313. 
 
 3 Hardly visible in the picture.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 289 
 
 closet folds are the " horizontal ' lines made in the mantle 
 when lying folded up in the closet." The first instance of 
 carving them is found in the statues of Maussollos and Arte- 
 misia, Plate 404, but they are frequent only in the Pergamon 
 school of sculpture. Secondly, " the arrangement and style of 
 the drapery occur in a statue found at Pergamon. And lastly, 
 the hem of the neck of the chiton often appears on drapery 
 carved by Pergamenian sculptors." 
 
 The head of the statue seems to copy a distinctly earlier 
 type, that of Skopas. Helbig, however, argues convincingly 
 that this fact speaks rather in favor of a Pergamon origin of 
 the statue than against it. Skopas was a favorite with the 
 sculptors of Pergamon, as with many artists of the Hellenistic 
 age. The Pergamon sculptors, as was seen in the discussion 
 of the altar frieze, Plates 265ff., did not object to copying 
 earlier types. " It need not, therefore, appear strange that a 
 Pergamenian artist has on one occasion exactly reproduced 
 such a type, if it, according to his view, gave most complete 
 expression to the ideal he wished to reproduce." 
 
 The School of Priene. 
 
 The ruins of the temple of Athena Polias in Priene contain 
 a dedicatory inscription of Alexander of Macedon. The re- 
 liefs, however, which were excavated in 1869, and are now in 
 the British Museum, London, belong probably 2 to the recon- 
 struction of the temple under Orophernes at about 158 B. C. 
 They are very fragmentary, but show many points of resem- 
 
 1 Quoted from Helbig, 532. Such folds may be used in the attempt 
 to assign a date to an ancient statue just as well as the creases in the 
 trousers on modern statues indicate their very recent origin. Such 
 creases were unknown a generation ago. 
 
 2 See Wolters, Jahrbuch, 1886, pp. 56ff., and Overbeck II, p. 405.
 
 $9 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 blance with the large frieze from Pergamon. They are, how- 
 ever, less powerful and in places even weak rather than 
 vigorous. Together with these reliefs ' several statues were 
 found, the exact date of which it is the more difficult to ascer- 
 tain, as it was the practice of many artists to adapt earlier 
 types. The most interesting of these statues is reproduced on 
 Plate 2695. 
 
 PLATE 2691s. Draped Female Statue from Priene. Of marble. 
 
 British Museum, London. Discovered in Priene in 1869. British 
 Museum Catalogue, 1154; Reinach I, 673, 5. The holes in the belt 
 served for the attachment of some metallic ornament. 
 
 At first sight this statue calls to mind the Charioteer of 
 Delphi, Plate 60. A more detailed comparison, however, re- 
 veals more points of difference than of resemblance. Not 
 only does the woman from Priene wear two garments, 2 but her 
 upper garment also is arranged with a freedom and an atten- 
 tion to graceful simplicity that show the skilled artist. The 
 simplicity of the Charioteer appears hard by contrast, and the 
 limitations of the sculptor are never seen more clearly than 
 when his work is studied side by side with the woman from 
 Priene. This latter work, on the other hand, deserves the 
 greater admiration, as all its improvements are due to the 
 exercise of a fine perception of the beautiful, and a moder- 
 ate use of the many devices which the advanced skill of the 
 artist placed at his disposal. He has posed his statue differ- 
 ently, permitting her to draw back her right leg, and he has 
 lengthened her garment. By means of these two devices, he 
 has transformed the beautiful, although somewhat stiff, Char- 
 ioteer into the impressive statue of Priene. 
 
 'See the plate containing seven samples in Overbeck II, facing 
 p. 405. 2 The sleeves of the thin lower garment are seen on the upper 
 arms.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 291 
 
 The School of Rhodes. 
 
 PLATES 270. Laokob'n, by Agesander, Polydoros, and Athen- 
 Odoros. Of marble. Vatican, Rome, Discovered near the Baths of 
 Titus in Rome in 1506. Restorations: the right arm of Laokoon, the 
 right arm of the younger son, and the right hand of the other son. 
 E. von Mach, pp. 3iiff.; Helbig, 153; F. W., 1422; Robinson, 656 ; 
 Reinach I, 504, 2. See also Lessing's Laokoon, edition by Blumner, 
 and the bibliography there given. Excellent bibliography also in Hel- 
 big, 153; Jahrbuch VI, 1891, pp. I77ff., and IX, pp. 43ff., on Laokoon 
 monuments and inscriptions. See also Jahrbuch VI, 1891, Plate III, a 
 Laokoon head in the Museo Civico in Bologna. 
 
 Pliny mentions in his Natural History r a statue of Laokoon 
 and his sons in the palace of Titus, as a work to be preferred 
 to all other statues and paintings. He gives the names of the 
 artists as Agesander of Rhodes and his two sons, Polydoros 
 and Athenodoros, and adds a brief description of the statue, 
 by means of which the Laokoon now in the Vatican has been 
 identified as undoubtedly the work of which he speaks. 
 
 Unfortunately his account contains no hint as to the date of 
 the Rhodian sculptors, nor has the most assiduous study of all 
 available sources yielded any definite indication. The internal 
 evidence drawn from the group itself is not conclusive, be- 
 cause no other group is extant with which it can be com- 
 pared. Agesander and his sons were men of genius, and 
 genius may appear at almost any time. The only point on 
 which one can feel fairly sure is that the Laokoon, with his 
 intensity of emotion bursting the bonds of all aesthetic beauty, 
 is unthinkable earlier than, or even during, the age of Prax- 
 iteles. Laokoon has been compared with the giants of the 
 
 l JV.ff., 36, 37.
 
 292 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 frieze from Pergamon, but the conclusions have varied, some 
 scholars vehemently asserting that he must be later, while others 
 just as firmly insist that he must be earlier. He belongs to 
 the Hellenistic age ; that is about as far as one may safely go 
 in one's attempt at dating him. 
 
 Before one can proceed to appreciate the statue as a work 
 of art, information must be gained on two points. In the first 
 place, the restorations, the right arms of Laokoon and his 
 younger son, are wrong. The arm of Laokoon ought to be 
 bent back and his hand rest on his head, slightly above his 
 right ear, where the end of one of the locks is cut away. The 
 arm of the boy, who is almost dead, ought to fall limp by his 
 side. 
 
 In the second place, the story of Laokoon, well known in 
 antiquity, was current in several variants. Which one of these 
 had currency in Rhodes or in the place for which the group 
 was designed, we have no means of judging. The best 
 known legend in modern times is that derived from Virgil, 
 whose account makes of Laokoon an innocent sufferer at the 
 hands of unjust gods. This probably was the original story. 
 The Greeks, however, were jealous at all times of the reputa- 
 tion of their gods, and often altered old stories so that they 
 might better conform to new ideas. Sophokles wrote a 
 tragedy, Laokoon, in the fifth century before Christ, and from 
 the few fragments that are extant of his work, it seems he im- 
 puted shameful deeds to Laokoon, who thus met a just fate. 
 
 Our instincts do not revolt against seeing the guilty man 
 suffer, but against having the unjust fate of the innocent man 
 portrayed. Our conception, therefore, of the character of Lao- 
 koon will be a determining factor in our estimate of his statue. 
 The artist has the right to take this into account, provided he 
 enables us to see the character of Laokoon in his work. When 
 this is not the case, as in this statue, we are compelled to
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 293 
 
 judge of the work only according to visible actualities ; and 
 then our judgment must be adverse ; for if it were not for the 
 cruel sense of curiosity innate in most people, all would turn 
 their backs upon the agonies portrayed in this group. They 
 would do this the more vehemently as the remarkable skill of 
 the artists seems to have filled with horrible pain not marble 
 statues, but actual, living beings. 1 
 
 As an instance of skill the Laokoon group is unsurpassed. 
 One cannot see the body of the priest writhing in the ex- 
 tremes of pain, or look into his contorted face, that yet has 
 retained indications of its noble features, 2 without understand- 
 ing the justice of the saying of Pliny, " Laokoon is to be pre- 
 ferred to all other statues and paintings ; " only one wants to 
 add, " to all that care to be judged by skill only." 
 
 The School of Tralles. 
 
 PLATE 271. The Farnese Bull. Of marble. Museum, Naples. 
 Discovered in the Baths of Carcaralla in Rome, either in 1546 or 1547, 
 formerly in the Palazzo Farnese in Rome, since 1786 in Naples, at first 
 in the public grounds of the Villa Reale, now in the Museum. Restora- 
 tions : on Dirke (the woman in the foreground), the entire upper part 
 of the body from the navel upward, and both arms ; on Amphion (the 
 man to the spectator's right), the head, both arms but not the hands, 
 both legs but not the feet, the end of his drapery and the upper part of 
 his lyre; on Zethos, the head, both arms, the left leg but not the foot, 
 and the right leg ; on Antiope 3 (the woman back of Amphion), the 
 head and both arms, and the spear ; on the Bull, all four legs, except 
 the hoofs of the hind legs ; on the Mountain god (the little figure below 
 
 1 For a fuller discussion of this point, see E. von Mach, p. 311. 
 
 2 For the head of Laokoon see the discussion to Plates 2651!. and 
 E. von Mach, p. 313. 
 
 3 This figure was broken about six inches below the knee. It is 
 antique with the exception of the restorations mentioned above.
 
 294 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Amphion), the left arm and the right forearm ; the dog is entirely 
 modern except his forepaws. F. W., 1402; Welcker, Alte Denkmaler 
 I, pp. 365ff. (the most exhaustive discussion of the group); Reinach I, 
 483, 2. For a collection of ancient monuments, gems, paintings, re- 
 liefs, see Jahn, Arch. Zeit., 1853, No. 56, and 1878, p. 43f.; for the 
 recently discovered wall painting, Text Illustration 45, see E\y,y.Jf.S., 
 XVI, 1 896, p. 152. 
 
 TEXT ILLUSTRATION 44. The Farnese Bull, side view. 
 
 TEXT ILLUSTRATION 45. Wall Painting, representing the 
 subject Of the Farnese Bull. Dining room, house of the Vettii, 
 Pompeii. Discovered in the house of the Vettii during the excavations 
 of 1894-1895. 
 
 The subject of this group is taken from a Theban myth, 
 which Euripides had treated in a tragedy called Antiope, of 
 which only fragments are preserved. Dirke, the cruel queen 
 of Thebes, had designed for Antiope, the mother of Amphion 
 and Zethos, the fate which now is her own. She had selected 
 the boys to be the executioners, but when they discovered 
 that it was their mother whom they were bidden to tie to 
 the horns of the bull, they turned against the queen, meting 
 out to her the punishment which had been designed for 
 Antiope. 
 
 The copious restorations of the group are substantially cor- 
 rect, with the one exception that Zethos, as is known from a 
 cameo in Naples, held the hair of Dirke in his hand, proba- 
 bly J in order to raise her sufficiently to fasten the rope about 
 her body. 
 
 Pliny 2 mentions a marble group in the gallery of Asinius 
 
 1 Another interpretation is that he endeavored to pull her away from 
 Amphion, to whose legs she clung, and that the rope was already 
 fastened about her, as is seen on the cameo. For the objections to 
 this view see Overbeck II, p. 342. 2 N. H,, 36, 34.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 295 
 
 Pollio in Rome in these words, " In it stand Zethos and 
 Amphion and Dirke and the bull and the rope, all carved of 
 one block, and brought from Rhodes, the works of Apollonios 
 and Tauriskos." And a little earlier he had said that Tauris- 
 kos was a sculptor of Tralles, and that the works in the gallery 
 of Asinius were selected to form a collection of general interest. 
 
 The Farnese Bull is generally believed to be the group of 
 which Pliny speaks. That the group is not carved out of one 
 block is no objection to this assumption ; for Pliny was not 
 always accurate in his statements. 1 
 
 The question has arisen whether the Farnese Bull is an 
 original or a copy. The execution of the draperies seems to 
 be in favor of a copy, but it is little credible that a composi- 
 tion of such huge dimensions, and requiring such an amount 
 of time as the Farnese Bull, should have tempted any artist to 
 reproduce it. This would seem to show that the group in 
 Naples is the only sculptured group of the subject that existed. 
 It need, however, not be an original even then, for it may 
 reproduce a painting. That such is the case will appear from 
 the following considerations. 
 
 Pliny mentions all the figures of the group except Antiope. 
 In the chief view of the group Antiope does not appear, nor 
 does she from any point of view enter into the action of the / 
 participants in the tragedy, either actively or passively, although 
 it would have been easy to draw her closely into the group ; 
 she might have exhorted her boys, or have received the sup- 
 plication for mercy of Dirke. Her figure serves only one pur- 
 pose, and that is to fill a gap when one looks at the group ^*^ 
 
 1 It is possible to interpret Pliny's expression ex uno lapide as the 
 equivalent of the Greek "one block" (e. g., Anthology IX, i, 59), often 
 applied to skilful works and possibly meaning no more than " joined 
 together so as to appear to be of one block."
 
 296 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 from the right. If it is, therefore, assumed that the original 
 was a painting, it is easy to see how the necessity of carving 
 the bull in its entire length would have led to an unpleas- 
 antly empty space back of Amphion. The sculptors were 
 obliged to introduce another figure ; and none was so readily 
 inserted as Antiope, whose presence on the mountain, where 
 the tragedy occurred, was attested to by the myth. The 
 original artist had wisely refrained from painting her. It is 
 more natural to forgive the cruel deed of Amphion and Zethos, 
 when one sees them alone with the woman who had plotted 
 to destroy their mother, than when the presence of this mother 
 ought to temper the fierceness of their wrath. In her absence 
 one thinks of the innocence and purity of Antiope, and is 
 such is vindictive human nature almost ready to take part in 
 the punishment of Dirke. By the presence of Antiope all this 
 is changed. If she is willing to see the other woman suffer, she 
 herself forfeits our sympathy ; and, unable to pacify the wild 
 mood of her sons, she appears to be less innocent herself. 
 With Antiope absent, the group is the apotheosis of right con- 
 quering wrong ; with Antiope present, it is turned into the glori- 
 fication of the triumph of might over weakness. And there is, 
 finally, one other fine touch that her absence lends to the group. 
 One feels that up to the very last she may appear and take 
 pity on Dirke, and that thus the awfulness of the suggested 
 deed may be averted. 
 
 From the mere study of the composition, therefore, one 
 reaches the conclusion that Antiope is an unpleasant addition, 
 although she is necessary for the sculptured group. That 
 Pliny should not have mentioned her, if his description was 
 made from this group, seems incredible. Considering his 
 method of work, however, this is perfectly natural if it is 
 assumed that he was thoroughly familiar with the original 
 picture, or copies of it. His statement then amounts to this :
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 297 
 
 the collection of Asinius Pollio is full of the most interesting 
 curios. There is even a marble group of the punishment of 
 Dirke, in which all the figures (well known in the painting), 
 Zethos and Amphion and Dirke and even the rope, are carved 
 together as if out of one colossal block. 
 
 That this was Pliny's meaning is the more probable since 
 the fine painting recently unearthed in Pompeii, Text Illus- 
 tration 45, tallies with the description of Pliny in every re- 
 spect. It is of course not the original, 1 but it readily suggests 
 it. In fact it is impossible to doubt a common prototype 
 for the group in Naples and the painting in Pompeii. One 
 has, therefore, the choice of looking upon the sculptor or 
 the painter as the creator of the original. That it was the 
 painter is indubitable. If it had been the sculptor, the painter 
 copyist would have been obliged to reproduce also Antiope, 
 which he could easily have done by arranging his figures dif- 
 ferently. Antiope, therefore, does not belong to the original 
 design, which means that Dirke's punishment was not invented 
 as a composition in the round ; for in this the figure of Antiope 
 is a necessity. 
 
 The date of the original painting cannot be definitely ascer- 
 tained because we know too little of Greek painting: The 
 execution of the marble group, however, is more readily as- 
 signed to a definite period. 
 
 Nobody who has carefully studied the Pergamon Altar 
 frieze can doubt that similar tendencies are at work also in 
 the Naples group. The first impression of the Farnese Bull is 
 one of bewilderment. The lines cross and recross each other, 
 and the masses are arranged as prominent dots without any 
 apparent attempt at harmonious distribution. The composi- 
 tion is nevertheless by no means confused. A second careful 
 
 1 None of the Pompeian wall paintings are originals.
 
 298 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 look at it brings order out of the apparent chaos. This is 
 not the kind of work that appealed to artists of the fifth cen- 
 tury, or even the fourth century before Christ. Such work is 
 not found earlier than the Pergamon Altar ; a fact, which, with 
 certainty assigns the sculptors of Tralles to the Hellenistic age. 
 
 PLATE 272. Apollo Belvedere. Of marble. Vatican, Rome. " In 
 all probability this statue was not found at Antium (Porto d' Anzio), as 
 is usually stated, but in a tenuta (estate) of Cardinal Giuliano della 
 Rovere, near Grotta Ferriata. Giuliano, after he had become Pope 
 Julius II (1503-1513) placed this statue in the Belvedere" (Helbig p. 
 102). Restorations, by Montorsoli: the top of the quiver, both hands 
 and the right forearm, the upper part of the stem, and various small 
 fragments on the drapery and legs. E. von Mach, pp. 3o8ff. and 340 ; 
 Helbig, 160 ; F. W., 1523 ; Robinson, 652 ; Reinach I, 239, 2. For the 
 Stroganoff Apollo in St. Petersburg see first publication by Stephani, 
 Apollon Botdromios (1 860); Furtwangler, Meister-werke, pp. 659-662, 
 who says this statuette is a forgery; Kieseritzky, A then. Mitth. XXIV, 
 1899, pp. 468-484, who says that it is an original ; and Furtwangler's 
 conclusive rejoinder, Athen. Mitth. XXV, 1900, pp. 28off., who con- 
 tinues to maintain that it is a forgery. A picture of the Stroganoff 
 Apollo is given in Helbig, p. 103. For the attribution of the Apollo 
 Belvedere to Leochares, see Collignon, Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque, 
 chapter on Leochares. For the suggestion that the Apollo Belvedere 
 is part of a group, together with the Artemis of Versailles, Plate 296, 
 and an Athena in the Capitoline Museum, see Overbeck, Berichte 
 der K. Sachs, Gesellschaft d. Wisscnschaften, 1867, pp. I2iff. ; and Over- 
 beck II, pp. 378ff. Overbeck complains (II, p. 409, note 34) that his 
 arguments have not been refuted and ought, therefore, to be accepted. 
 The fact is, his combination group is perfectly possible. It is, how- 
 ever, not backed by arguments strong enough to compel acceptance. 
 
 Montorsoli, the restorer of Apollo, found it impracticable to 
 add the lower right arm without attaching it to a support. He 
 added, therefore, to the height of the tree-trunk. Originally 
 the arm was supported by a block from Apollo's right leg, 
 where the place of attachment is still visible. Its direction
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 299 
 
 shows that the arm ought to be brought forward to the extent 
 of nearly two inches. 
 
 The chief defects of the restorations are the unpleasantly 
 elongated hands. 1 Doubtful also is the attribute of the left 
 hand, which now suggests the bow. As long as the Stroganoff 
 bronze in St. Petersburg was believed to be genuine, scholars 
 were inclined to copy from it the aigis also for the Belvedere 
 Apollo. The bronze, however, is probably a modern forgery, 
 so that deductions from it are inconclusive. Other attributes 
 have been suggested, but none to universal satisfaction. 
 
 The comparison between this statue and the relief from 
 Pergamon, Plate 2673, is striking. The Pergamon Apollo is 
 nude, save for the bit of drapery thrown over his left arm in 
 order to fill an empty space. The arrangement of the Belve- 
 dere drapery is very inappropriate, for to wear the quiver strap 
 under the garment is unreasonable. This makes it probable 
 that the statue is a copy not of another statue now lost, but of 
 a painting 2 or a relief. Many of the gods on the Pergamon 
 frieze were borrowed types ; both Apollos, therefore, may be 
 derived from the same prototype. A bit of drapery is very 
 desirable as a foil to the nude. In a painting it may be added 
 to a figure in such a fashion that it does not conflict with the 
 quiver strap. In a figure in the round this is impossible. v 
 
 These observations disprove Collignon's view that the statue 
 is by Leochares, not to speak of the character of the statue, 
 which is entirely different from the works of the fourth century. 
 The resemblance of the Belvedere Apollo to the Ganymedes, 
 Plate 233, is no valid argument ; for it is not so close that it 
 could not be accounted for in a multitude 3 of ways, nor is it 
 
 1 For the reasons which induced Montorsoli to carve the hands too 
 long, see E. von Mach, p. 309. 2 For instances of sculptors copying 
 the works of painters, see the discussion of the Farnese Bull, Plate 
 271. 3 See Helbig, p. 106, for one weighty counter argument.
 
 300 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 closer than that to the Boy in Berlin, Plate 274, which even 
 Collignon, no doubt, would place later than the fourth century. 
 The statue is discussed in detail in E. von Mach, pp. 3o8ff. 
 The important points are : 
 
 1. Popular over- valuation of the statue. 
 
 2. Lack of dignity of Apollo, as compared with earlier 
 works. 
 
 3. Physical beauty of the statue. 
 
 4. Skill shown in representing the figure walking, and de- 
 vices by which this illusion has been attained. 
 
 PLATE 273. Praying Boy. Of bronze. Museum, Berlin. Date 
 and place of discovery unknown. The statue belonged in the seven- 
 teenth century to Fouquet, whose son sold it in 1717 to Prince Eugene 
 for 18,000 francs, from whose heirs Prince Lichtenstein acquired it, only 
 to sell it for 17,500 marks to Frederic the Great. In 1806 the French 
 carried the statue to France, but were obliged to return it in 1812. 
 Restorations : both arms, except fragments immediately below the 
 shoulders indicating their direction; the second toe of the right foot, 
 and the second and third toes of the left foot ; also small pieces in the 
 deltoid and the eyeballs. Berlin Museum Catalogue, 2 ; Conze, Jahr- 
 buch I, 1886, pp. iff.; Robinson, 511; Reinach 1,459,4. Mau, Rom. 
 Mitth., XVII, 1902, pp. 100-106, interprets the statue as that of a ball- 
 player. His theory is convincingly refuted by Furtwangler, Miinchencr 
 Altgemeine Zeitung, November 29, 1902, Beilage No. 297. Mau also 
 assigns him to the school of Lysippos, a view which was expressed 
 earlier, Rom. Mitth., XVI, 1901, p. 391. For a relief of a praying boy, 
 manibus supinis, from Nemea, and a gem with the same motive, see 
 Arch. Anzeiger, 1904, p. 75; for a coin, Jahrbuch I, 1886, p. 217. 
 
 From the gesture of this boy people used to argue as to the 
 praying attitude of the ancients. The arms are modern restor- 
 ations, a fact which has led many writers to discredit them as 
 wrong. This is, however, a mistake, for enough of the arms 
 was left to indicate their direction. It is thus merely a ques- 
 tion as to the exact bend of the arms in the elbows ; the
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 301 
 
 restoration is substantially correct. The position of the hands 
 also seems to be established by other ancient monuments, so 
 that one may continue to admire the statue for what it is, a 
 praying boy. 
 
 It is one of the most beautiful extant bronzes, perfect in 
 lines from every point of view, and exquisite in execution. 
 Recently it has been brought into connection with the school 
 of Lysippos ; and it must be conceded that its affinity to the 
 Apoxyomenos, Plate 235, and the Resting Hermes, Plate 237, 
 is marked. There is, however, an element of reverence for 
 the spiritual in this statue, which does not accord with our 
 knowledge of the style of Lysippos, while it might have been 
 characteristic of one of his followers. 
 
 PLATE 274. Boy from the Rhine. Of bronze. Museum, Berlin. 
 Found near Xanthus in the Rhine in 1858, when the water was unusu- 
 ally low. Berlin Museum Catalogue, 4; Reinach II, 488, 7. 
 
 The place of discovery and the heavy x bronze of the statue 
 point to a Roman workshop of the empire. The face also, 
 which is very broad, is unusual. The statue itself, however, 
 is undoubtedly inspired by a Greek original, and deserves, to 
 be admired as such. Unfortunately the broken right arm 
 spoils the rhythm of the lines ; but with this exception the 
 boy is one of the most charming creations of ancient art, a 
 fact which has been of late almost universally overlooked. 
 
 Just what the artist intended to convey with this statue is 
 unknown. Bonus Eventus, genius of good luck, is one of the 
 names 2 that has been suggested ; Novus Annus, the spirit of 
 the new year, is another ; and Bacchus, the Roman name of 
 
 'The bronze of the Praying Boy, Plate 273, is very much thinner 
 and more delicate. 2 For the several suggestions of names, see Berlin 
 Museum Catalogue, pp. 5 and 6.
 
 302 GREEK: AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 the Greek Dionysos, god of wine and good fellowship, is a 
 third. All these suggestions are based on the cheerfulness 
 that seems to emanate from the gracious advance of the boy. 
 Others refer more specifically to his attitude. The forward 
 inclination of the figure is considerable, and it has, therefore, 
 been supposed by Friedrichs to designate a charioteer. The 
 main objection to this view, namely, that the boy is nude, is 
 no longer valid, 1 and what is more, his attitude reminds one 
 of the charioteer in Boston, Plate 232. At best, however, 
 this interpretation is only one of several possible ones. 
 
 In closing, it may be remarked that the general impression 
 conveyed by this statue is not unlike that of the Belvedere 
 Apollo, in so far as one judges of both statues not by the 
 character of the persons portrayed, but by the physical energy 
 which controls their bodies. 
 
 PLATE 275. Centaurs by Aristeas and Papias. Of dark grey 
 
 marble. Capitoline Museum, Rome. Discovered in Hadrian's Villa, 
 near Tivoli, in 1736; placed in the Capitoline Museum in 1765 by 
 Pope Clement XIII. Restorations : on the old centaur inscribed with 
 the name of Aristeas, the left eyebrow, almost all the fingers of the 
 right hand, the thumb of the left hand, the middle of the right foreleg, 
 and various minor details ; on the young centaur inscribed with the 
 name Papias, the end of the nose, the points of the ears, both hands, 
 part of the left foreleg, the right hind leg, the tail, most of the pine 
 branches, pieces of and on the tree-trunk, and fragments of the hair. 
 Helbig, with full bibliography, 512 ; Reinach I, 426, 2 and 4. On the 
 replica of the old centaur in the Louvre, see Frohner, 299; F. W., 
 1421 ; Reinach 140, 2. 
 
 The replica of the older centaur in the Louvre retains frag- 
 ments of a little god of love on his back. Attachments for 
 such Erotes are visible on the backs of both statues in the 
 
 1 See the remarks to Plate 232.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 303 
 
 Capitoline Museum. The subject is therefore Age and Youth, 
 both overcome by Love. The young centaur feels in his ele- 
 ment ; the old one, however, takes the matter more seriously, 
 his arms are tied on his back and with marked displeasure he 
 turns toward his tormentor. 
 
 His head and human body remind one of Laokoon, Plate 
 270, even more so in the Louvre copy, while the young cen- 
 taur suggests satyr statues like those on Plates 282ff. It is, 
 therefore, natural to date the original of this group in the 
 Hellenistic age. The artists, however, whose names and coun- 
 try are inscribed on the base, were Aristeas and Papias of 
 Aphrodisias, and it happens that we do not know of a flourish- 
 ing school of sculpture in this place before the time of 
 Hadrian in the second century of our era. The letters of the 
 inscriptions agree with this date, and so does the very artificial 
 style, which endeavors to treat the dark grey marble as if it 
 were bronze. If, therefore, Aristeas and Papias carved the in- 
 scriptions themselves, they are perhaps only the copyists and 
 not the original sculptors of the group. On the other hand, 
 there is no objection to assuming that later copyists carved the 
 inscriptions and that Aristeas and Papias, the original sculptors, 
 lived earlier, in the Hellenistic age. That no mention is made 
 of a school of sculpture in Aphrodisias in this age does not 
 argue against this view. Not even Pergamon is mentioned in 
 ancient literature as a center of art. 
 
 PLATE 276. Youthful Dionysos. Of marble. Terme, Rome. 
 Discovered in the ruins of the Villa of Hadrian in 1881. Restorations: 
 the front of the nose, a piece of the chin, the free-hanging parts of the 
 nebris (skin), the thumb and most of the fingers of the left hand, the 
 lower part of the left leg, the tree-trunk (except the part adjoining the 
 thigh), and nearly all of the plinth. Helbig, 1022, with full bibliography; 
 F. W., 520; Robinson, 528; Reinach II, 117, 4. First publication, 
 Michaelis, Annali, 1883, p. 1 36ff .
 
 304 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The unmistakable resemblance in pose between this Diony- 
 sos T and the statues of Polykleitos, Plates 1138"., has led to 
 three different datings of this figure. Wolters 2 sees in it the 
 Roman copy of a work of the fifth century ; Collignon 3 and 
 Furtwangler 4 agree in assigning the original to Euphranor, an 
 artist of the fourth century ; while Helbig s is inclined to be- 
 lieve in an origin of the type in the Hellenistic Period. This 
 last view is most probably correct. 
 
 While the points of resemblance of Dionysos to Polykleitan 
 works is marked, those of difference from them are not less 
 prominent, the most striking difference being the sentimen- 
 tality of the figure, which is an element as unknown to Poly- 
 kleitos as it is distinctly intentional here. Artists of the fourth 
 century, although they did not hesitate to borrow earlier types, 
 were nevertheless too creative and original to have copied an 
 old statue pose, dimensions, everything and have added 
 of their own nothing but a refined finish and element of senti- 
 mentality. This renders it very improbable that the originator 
 of the Dionysos type was Euphranor, not to speak of the fact 
 that the entire art of the fourth century, in spite of its leaning 
 toward exterior beauty, was one of decided virility. 
 
 In the Hellenistic age many sculptors were less original ; 
 actual copying was a regular practice, and sentiment, carried 
 to its extreme, was well liked, so that this Dionysos probably 
 owes its origin to this age, unless one should prefer to push 
 its date down even further, and credit it to the Roman 
 era. Distrust of Roman sculptors is characteristic of modern 
 scholars ; and anything that is in the least good must be denied 
 them. It is, however, undoubtedly true that some of them 
 
 1 The skin clearly indicates that this figure is meant to represent 
 Dionysos. 2 F. W., 520. 3 Collignon, chapter on Euphranor. 4 Furt- 
 wangler, Masterpieces, pp. 3Soff. 5 Helbig 1022.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 305 
 
 were able to create as good works as many Hellenistic Greek 
 sculptors. The one indication in the Dionysos that would 
 seem to point in their direction is the treatment of the hair, 
 which is parted in the middle. This is unheard J of in the 
 fifth and the fourth centuries before Christ, it is unusual in the 
 Hellenistic age, and very common in Roman times. The 
 parted hair at once singles the statue out from other repre- 
 sentations of Dionysos, and conveys an impression of reality 
 such as it is difficult to equal even in the Hellenistic age with 
 its love for realism. 
 
 After all these discussions of date and origin, the student 
 gladly turns again to the statue itself. It is one of the most 
 endearing creations of ancient art, and one's estimate of 
 Hadrian grows when one contemplates that he took sufficient 
 pleasure in this Dionysos to add it to the many beautiful works 
 with which he adorned his villa. 
 
 PLATE 277. Menelaos and PatroklOS. Group of marble. Loggia 
 dei Lanzi, Florence. Discovered in Rome, exact date unknown, but 
 earlier than 1570, when Duke Cosimo I bought it. Restorations: on 
 Menelaos, the head, neck and upper part of the body, the right arm, 
 except the hand, the left arm, parts of the sword, and a few pieces of 
 the drapery; on the dead Patroklos, both arms, the nose, the upper lip, 
 and parts of the cheeks. F. W., 1397 and 1398 ; Amelung, 5 ; Reinach I, 
 498, 2. For a list of replicas see F. W., p. 506, and Helbig, 240. 
 
 TEXT ILLUSTRATION 42. So-called Pasquino. Fragment of 
 the group of which Plate 277 reproduces a copy. Discovered in Rome 
 in the sixteenth century, near the house owned by a shoemaker named 
 Pasquino. Pasquino was well known for his attacks, full of satire, on 
 popes and cardinals. After his death his name went to the ancient 
 fragment, which had been erected where it was found and on which 
 scurrilous verses, of the kind the shoemaker used to write, were pasted. 
 
 1 If instances of it should be found, they would only be the excep- 
 tions that prove the rule.
 
 306 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The colossal size of these figures suggests ancient heroes, 
 and it happens that an incident related in Homer tallies with 
 the representation of the group. Patroklos has fallen, killed 
 with two wounds, one in his back and the other under his left 
 breast, just as indicated in the statue. Then Menelaos runs 
 up to save the body of his friend, but on his way to the ships 
 he is hard pressed and obliged to put Patroklos down, to draw 
 his sword and defend himself. This is the moment here 
 represented. The head of the Florentine statue is wrongly 
 restored ; like the Pasquino, the hero ought to look up and 
 back toward the enemy. He is no longer carrying Patroklos, 
 but ready to deposit him gently on the ground. This care, 
 bestowed even on the dead body of his friend and at a time 
 when he himself is hard pressed, is one of the most impressive 
 touches of the composition. It is enhanced by the contrast 
 that exists between the strong, active body of Menelaos and 
 the youthful beauty of the dead Patroklos. Greek art is full of 
 such incidents of deep human feeling. They are met with in 
 Phigaleia, but most especially on the Maussolleion frieze and 
 in the Niobe group. 
 
 Because of the singular correspondence of sentiment be- 
 tween this group and some of the Niobids, 1 a few scholars 
 have been tempted to assign Menelaos and Patroklos to the 
 fourth century, in substantiation of which view they might also 
 have quoted the garment of Menelaos, which repeats the mo- 
 tive of the Maussolleion Amazon, Plate 22ga. 
 
 There is, however, another close analogy, and that is with 
 the head of Laokoon, Plate 484, " both in the shape of the 
 skull and in the treatment of the skin and hair," 2 which would 
 seem to date the Florentine group in the Hellenistic age. 
 Wolters comes to the same conclusion, irrespective of a re- 
 
 1 See Plate 2243.. 2 Helbig, pp. i6of.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 307 
 
 semblance to the Laokoon, and says, " During the middle of 
 the fourth century we know of no instance of a group similarly 
 thoughtful in artistic arrangement ; we feel, therefore, inclined 
 to assign Menelaos and Patroklos to the first part of the third 
 century." 
 
 If Wolters' conclusion is correct, as it no doubt is, it adds 
 another argument to many others against the erroneous theory 
 that the art of the entire Hellenistic age was one of decadence. 
 
 PLATE 278. The Nile. Of marble. Vatican, Rome. Discovered 
 during the papacy of Leo X (1513-1522) near the church S. Maria 
 sopra Minerva in Rome. Restorations, by Gaspare Sibilla : the fingers 
 of the right hand, the ears of corn, except the stumps on the left calf, 
 the toes ; also the upper part of nearly all the children and in some 
 cases still more. Helbig, 47; F. W., 1543; Reinach I, 431, 5. For 
 the inferior companion piece to the Nile, the Tiber, found in 1512 in 
 the same locality, see Frohner, 449; Reinach I, 171, 5; and for the 
 reliefs on the base, Reinach I, 68. For the river gods on the upper 
 strip see the representation of Orontes, Plate 256. 
 
 That this unmistakable river god is intended to be the Nile 
 is proved by the presence of the Sphinx, the symbol of Egypt, 
 by the sixteen little figures, typifying the sixteen cubits which 
 the river rises at its maximum inundation, 1 by the crocodile 
 near his feet, by the ichneumon near his knee, and by the re- 
 liefs on three sides of the base with incidents from the life near 
 the banks of the Nile. The fertility of Egypt, moreover, is 
 indicated by the cornucopia and the ears of corn. 
 
 1 The Nile, with never failing regularity, begins to rise slowly from 
 the fifteenth to the twentieth of July, then rapidly until the fifteenth of 
 September. Then there is a standstill for two weeks, and after that a 
 renewed rise, so that the river reaches its maximum at mid-October. 
 Then the flood sinks to its lowest mark, so that the cultivation of the 
 ground may begin about December.
 
 308 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The place where the statue was found has yielded numerous 
 monuments which relate to Egypt, so that a temple of Isis is 
 assumed to have stood there. The companion piece to this 
 river god, the Tiber, now in the Louvre, may have been in- 
 tended to suggest the new home of the goddess, as the Nile 
 typified her old place of worship. 
 
 The workmanship of the statue assigns this particular copy 
 to Roman times, when the Tiber also was made. The origin 
 of the Nile, however, is to be sought for at an earlier date, 
 probably in Alexandria in the Hellenistic age. Allegory and 
 peasant life were favorite subjects of the Alexandrians, whose 
 tendencies are better known to us from literature than from 
 extant monuments. 
 
 One quality that was noted on the Pergamon Altar, Plates 
 265ff., and again in the Farnese Bull, Plate 271, is prominent 
 also in the Nile. This quality refers to the desire of the artist 
 to round out his entire composition even at the cost of mo- 
 mentary confusion of outlines, and to his skill in bringing order 
 out of the seeming chaos. 
 
 The sixteen little figures have, in this instance, supplied the 
 sculptor with the means of creating a characteristic work along 
 these lines. Their distribution is very ingenious. They are 
 combined in pleasing groups wherever the masses of the 
 human body tended to leave an empty space or to taper down 
 to unsatisfactory thinness, as below both arms and near the 
 feet. 
 
 The reliefs, filled with incidents taken from the daily life of 
 the Egyptians, are wisely reserved for the back and the two 
 sides of the base. In front, they would have detracted from 
 the interest in the god himself. 
 
 PLATE 279. Poseidon Of MelOS. Colossal statue of marble. 
 National Museum, Athens. Discovered in the island of Melos in 1878,
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 309 
 
 and acquired for the Museum in Athens for 27,000 drachma!. 1 Res- 
 torations : the nose, the left side of the back of the head, which was 
 carved separately, small fragments of the drapery and the trident. 
 Kavvadias Catalogue, 235 ; Gaz. des Beaux Arts, 1890, 1, p. 339 ; B. C. Jf. t 
 XIII, Plate 3; Reinach I, 28, i. 
 
 At first sight, this colossal statue is very imposing. The god 
 is revealed in his might. He, the master of the ocean, is ' 
 aroused, and at a word from him the billows of the sea will 
 pile up and bring destruction to whomsoever he hates. 
 
 His drapery is arranged like that of the Olympian Zeus by 
 Pheidias, so that he seems to have just risen from his throne. 
 The moment of rest is represented, the storm is suggested, 
 but not only the storm ; for the unruffled drapery, which is 
 appropriate to a seated figure but impossible for one in action, 
 implies that excitement may pass and that the god may return 
 once more to the peaceful posture of the Olympian Zeus. 
 
 The detailed finish of the statue is mediocre, for the artist 
 has bestowed all his attention upon its general appearance. 
 This presupposes, on his part, an estimate of the quality of his 
 spectators, which is by no means favorable to them, and ap- 
 pears to have been impossible before the heterogeneous ele- 
 ment of art lovers had made its appearance in the Hellenistic 
 age. 
 
 It is interesting to compare this statue with the Poseidon in 
 the Lateran, Plate 239. Here only the dolphin explains the 
 nature of the god, who, but for this animal of the sea, might 
 have been a Zeus or any other of the great gods. There the 
 entire figure is characterized as what it is, Poseidon. The 
 superiority of the Lateran type would be even more apparent 
 if it were extant in a better copy, but, even so, the serious 
 
 1 A drachme is officially the equivalent of a franc. Its value, how- 
 ever, fluctuates and rarely even approaches that of a franc.
 
 310 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 student has no difficulty in assigning to both statues their 
 proper places. 
 
 PLATE 280. Satyr, "Barberinl Faun." Of marble. Glypto- 
 thek, Munich. Found during the repairs of the Castle of S. Angelo 
 (the mausoleum of Hadrian) in Rome, 16241641. The statue was 
 immediately placed in the Palazzo Barberini, where it remained until 
 1799, when it was bought for Munich in 1813, but the permission to 
 remove it from Rome was not granted until 1820. The first publica- 
 tion of the statue in 1642 showed it restored (picture, Reinach I, 409, 
 3, in the reverse), but probably only on paper. The present restora- 
 tions were made by the sculptor Pacetti, who had bought the statue in 
 1799. He seems to have followed the plaster restorations made by 
 Bernini (1598-1680), with one important exception. He bent the right 
 leg more sharply in the knee, supporting the foot on a piece of rock 
 which he inserted for this purpose. The original foot probably rested 
 on the spot which now shows dark on the illustration below the foot. 
 Restorations : the entire right leg and fragments of the left leg, the left 
 lower arm, the right elbow, the fingers of the right hand and the tip of 
 the nose, also the back part of the rock. Furtwangler, Catalogue, 218; 
 F. W., 1401 ; Robinson, 657 ; Reinach I, 402, 2 and I, 409, 3. For a 
 suggested change of position, tilting the figure further back, see Habich, 
 Jahrbuch XVII, 1902, pp. 3iff. (review, A. J. A., VI, 1902, pp. 467), 
 and Bulle, Jahrbuch XVI, 1901, pp. iff., with several illustrations. But 
 see the conclusive rejoinder of Furtwangler, Catalogue, p. 203. 
 
 Fresh from the Bacchic revels this satyr is overcome with 
 sleep before he has found a comfortable position. To tilt him 
 back in the endeavor to have him seem to rest more easily, as 
 Bulle and Habich suggest, is depriving him of one of his best 
 touches of realism, while it is also contradicted by the now 
 vertical, loose hanging ends of the panther .skin between his 
 legs. 
 
 The type of face of this statue is entirely new, and so is its 
 general conception. In the age of Praxiteles, satyrs were 
 reproduced different from human beings, but they were noble
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 311 
 
 products of the artist's imagination : see the " Marble Faun," 
 Plate 195. This satyr differs from human beings, to be sure, 
 but only because he is the incarnation of those base elements 
 which in man rarely appear unallied with better impulses. 
 This at once removes the statue from the cycle of the fourth 
 century artists. Its excellent workmanship and its simplicity 
 of design seem to indicate that it cannot be of a very late date. 
 The realism of the statue is pronounced, as " appears ' first 
 of all in the posture of the figure and is followed even more 
 carefully in the sensual, half-savage face. The expression of 
 the open mouth is strongly suggestive of sonorous breathing." 
 
 PLATE 281. Sleeping Satyr. Of bronze. Museum, Naples. Dis- 
 covered in Herculaneum during the early excavations. Museo Bor- 
 bonico, Vol. X, Plate 61 ; Reinach I, 409, 4. 
 
 This statue offers interesting points of comparison 2 with the 
 preceding. It is obviously not an original, and is in need of a 
 supporting background. The superiority of an original mas- 
 terpiece like the " Barberini Faun," Plate 280, is nowhere 
 more apparent than when it is compared with the less thought- 
 ful work of a copyist. 
 
 PLATE 282a. Dancing Satyr. Of bronze. Museum, Naples. 
 Found in 1830 in the ruins of a house in Pompeii, which house re- 
 ceived from it the name Casa del Fauno. 3 F. \V., 1504 ; Mau-Kelsey 
 pp. 288ff., and p. 451, fig. 258 ; Reinach I, 408, I. 
 
 PLATE 282b. Dancing Satyr. Of marble. Terme, Rome, for- 
 merly in the Villa Borghese. Found in 1824 on Monte Calvo, near 
 Rieti, in the Sabine District. Restorations, probably by Thorwaldsen: 
 both arms and cymbals, the lower part of the right leg except the front 
 
 'Quoted from Robinson, 657. 2 Another interesting comparison 
 may be made between it and the Reposing Hermes in Naples, Plate 
 237. 3 The Latin faunus is used synonymously with the Greek satyr.
 
 312 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 of the foot, the tail, the lower part of the stump with the adjacent parts 
 of the skin, and the greater part of the plinth. Helbig, 944 ; F. W., 
 1427 ; Reinach II, 50, 8. 
 
 PLATE 283. Satyr Playing Scabellum. 1 Of marble. Uffizi, Flor- 
 ence. Date and place of discovery unknown. It belonged to the 
 collections of the Medici family as early as 1600. Restorations: the 
 head, almost entire; both arms; the toes of the right foot; several 
 pieces of the legs, and other pieces near the left hip. Amelung, 65 ; 
 Robinson, 536 ; Reinach I, 405, I and 3. For a scabellum played by 
 a flute player, see the relief of a sarcophagus, Baumeister, p. 442, fig. 
 492. 
 
 These three statues of satyrs are samples of the large num- 
 ber of similar representations dating from the Hellenistic 
 Period, when the tumultuous hilarity of these creatures of 
 fancy pleased the popular taste better than the fine conception 
 of the " Marble Faun," Plate 195, or the ignoble character of 
 the " Barberini Faun," Plate 280. 
 
 The gayety of the bronze satyr from Pompeii, Plate 282%, 
 is catching ; it " is 2 instinct with rhythmic motion. Every 
 muscle of the satyr's sinewy frame is in tension as he moves 
 forward in the dance, snapping his fingers to keep time ; the 
 pose is a marvel of skill." There is no tree-trunk to impair 
 one's pleasure, and altogether this satyr is one of the best 
 bronzes in Naples. 
 
 The next satyr, Plate 2 Sab, is a marble copy, tied to a 
 supporting block of marble and unable therefore to convey 
 the impression of motion in spite of the suggestive twist of his 
 body. The arms are restored, but they continue well the 
 rhythm of the figure. Similar arms are added to the Marsyas 
 after Myron, Plate 65 a, where they are out of place. The 
 
 1 Scabellum is the name of the instrument on which the satyr is 
 playing with his foot. It emitted sounds like those of castanets. 
 
 2 Quoted from Mau-Kelsey, p. 451.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 313 
 
 Marsyas is designed for a plane of two dimensions ; the 
 Borghese Satyr implies an accurate conception of the require- 
 ments of space, that is, of three dimensions. 
 
 Like the Naples satyr beating time with his fingers, he in 
 the Uffizi must give vent to the rhythm which he feels. He 
 uses for this purpose the scabellum, and his entire body is 
 bent to enforce the time which he is beating out with the shrill 
 instrument under his foot. A modern artist would, perhaps, 
 have represented him engaged in a clog-dance. 
 
 The accuracy of the restored arms is doubtful. Amelung 
 suggests the satyr ought to be playing a double flute like the 
 girl on the Sarcophagus relief in Baumeister, fig. 492. This 
 seems, however, inappropriate ; for the double flute is a digni- 
 fied instrument, while the attitude of the satyr is marked by its 
 careless abandon to one controlling idea rhythm. 
 
 PLATE 284. Spinario. Of marble. British Museum, London. 
 Found in Rome in 1874. Restorations : a few pieces in the back, which 
 is also mended with plaster. British Museum Catalogue, 1755; Over- 
 beck II, 183!?. ; Reinach II, 144, 2. 
 
 This statue has been, in part, discussed in connection with 
 the Spinario in Rome, Plate 72, which Overbeck believed was 
 a copy of the same original. It was, however, seen that his 
 view was untenable. The Roman Spinario belongs to the 
 Transitional Period of Greek sculpture, while the London 
 statue, as all agree, is a work of the Hellenistic age. Its 
 individuality, far removed from the typical, which is repre- 
 sented in the other statue, and its submission to the require- 
 ments of space it is a statue in the round in the best sense 
 of the word date it with absolute certainty. 
 
 More difficult is it to find a definite artist to whom to attri- 
 bute it. Boethos has been suggested by Overbeck, but un- 
 fortunately on insufficient grounds. Overbeck makes his case
 
 314 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 very plausible, but the data on which he bases it are so few 
 that the real conclusion must be not the statue is by Boethos, 
 but it may be by Boethos, which is a very different thing. 
 
 Boethos appeared as the maker of the Boy with the Goose, 
 Plate 254, and is mentioned by Pausanias ' as the sculptor of 
 a seated nude boy in the temple of Hera in Olympia. In this 
 statue Overbeck sees the original of the Spinario. In the 
 manuscript the boy is designated as gilded (epichrysori) which 
 seems to be superfluous, in view of the fact that Pausanias 
 rarely vouchsafes such information. It has, therefore, been 
 suggested that the passage ought to read epikyrton, which 
 would mean " in a stooping posture." But even if this emen- 
 dation is accepted and on text-critical grounds there is no 
 objection to it it still seems a little rash to claim Boethos 
 as the maker of the Spinario type on the sole grounds that his 
 statues of boys were famous, 2 and that he also made a statue 
 of a seated boy in a stooping attitude. 
 
 PLATE 285. Torso Of a Triton. Of marble. Vatican, Rome. 
 Found, date not published, on the farm of S. Angelo at Tivoli. 
 Restorations : the tip of the nose, parts of the ears and hair, and almost 
 the entire lower part of the body. Helbig, 187 ; Reinach I, 429, 3. 
 
 Tritons were the mermen of ancient mythology, and are 
 often represented together with the Nereids. Their bodies 
 ended in fishes, or, in one variety called sea-centaurs, in 
 horses. Often, however, they were seen emerging from the 
 sea, in which case the shape of their lower extremities was left 
 to the imagination. Creatures of fancy, at all times, they were 
 represented with the characteristic signs of their terrestrial 
 cousins, the satyrs. Their ears are pointed, and a skin 
 
 1 Pausanias V, 17,4, or S. Q., 1596. 2 There are several references 
 to the children by Boethos in ancient literature.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 315 
 
 resembling the nebris, or panther skin, is slung about their 
 shoulders. This was the more natural, as the myth connected 
 the tritons also with the cult of Dionysos. 
 
 The first great sculptor to select tritons as subjects worthy 
 of serious treatment was Skopas. The melancholy expression 
 which is characteristic of all sea-deities, and indeed also of 
 human beings dwelling near the sea, may have appealed to 
 him. The element of brooding sadness is very strong in the 
 Vatican triton, whose head, moreover, offers several points of 
 resemblance to the head of Niobe, Plate 220, so that some 
 scholars have been inclined to see in him Skopadean influ- 
 ences. Skopas, however, was a man of more moderation and 
 greater reserve than is shown in this head. The originator 
 of this type must, therefore, be sought among his successors, 
 probably in the Hellenistic age. 
 
 PLATE 286. Borghese Warrior. Of marble. Louvre, Paris. 
 Found early in the seventeenth century in the ruins of the old city of 
 Antium ; at first in the possession of the Borghese family, and since 
 1808 in the Louvre. Restorations: the right arm and the right ear. 
 F. W., 1425; Robinson, 66 1 ; Reinach I, 154, 1-4. 
 
 This statue is designed and posed with one definite view 
 in mind, to show the skill of the artist and his knowledge 
 of anatomy. Half on the defensive the shield J is held up, 
 half ready to deal a decisive blow the right leg and arm 
 are drawn back, the body of the warrior is shown at the 
 moment of its greatest tension, an excellent model for students 
 in art classes. All indications of actual warriors, such as 
 helmet and armour, are omitted, and the face is that of a man 
 of the lower classes, and not suggestive of a hero. The 
 speculations, therefore, as to the foe whom this warrior was 
 
 1 Of bronze, once attached to the shield-handle on the arm.
 
 316 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 fighting, are futile. Any definite incident portrayed would 
 have made an appeal to the imagination of the spectators. 
 The sculptor, however, desired to appeal only to their vision. 
 
 When this is kept in mind, the statue is not so disappointing 
 as it appears when one approaches it with higher expectations. 
 It is, moreover, a statue distinctly in the round, and loses more 
 than most Greek statues when it is projected on a plane of 
 two dimensions, as is the case in a photograph. 
 
 An inscription on the support of the figure contains the 
 name of the sculptor, Agasias, son of Dositheos of Ephesos. 
 The character of the letters assigns the statue to the first cen- 
 tury before Christ. This is probably also the date of the con- 
 ception of the statue ; for it is difficult to believe that earlier 
 artists would have been willing to use their superior skill for the 
 execution of a subject which conveyed absolutely nothing be- 
 yond what was actually seen. 
 
 PLATE 287. Warrior from Delos, probably a Gaul. Of marble. 
 National Museum, Athens. Found in Delos in 1882 during the ex- 
 cavations of the French School at Athens. Reinach, B. C. H., 1884, 
 p. 178, and 1889, p. 103; Kavvadias, Catalogue, 247; Robinson, 66ia; 
 Reinach II, 195, 5 ; Wolters, Athen. Mitth., 1890, pp. i88ff. The now 
 lost upper part of the figure was carved of a separate piece and added 
 to the trunk. 
 
 Near this statue a base was found containing the name of 
 Agasias, son of Menophilos, of Ephesos. This base Reinach 
 at first believed belonged to the statue ; and since another 
 Agasias of Ephesos, the son of Dositheos, was the maker of 
 the Borghese Warrior, Plate 286, he reasoned that there might 
 be some connection between the two statues, which in pose, 
 indeed, are not unlike each other. Wolters, however, proved 
 convincingly that the base does not belong to the statue, but 
 that on the other hand an inscription containing five distichs
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 317 
 
 does. This inscription celebrates the victory of Philetairos, 
 brother of Eumenes II, 1 over the Gauls, and contains the 
 name of the artist Nikeratos. The statue, therefore, probably 
 represents a Gaul. So conclusive are Welters' arguments 
 that Reinach himself has accepted them. 2 He publishes the 
 statue as that of a Gaul in his Repertoire II, 199, 5. 
 
 The warrior from Delos, as an observation from the original 
 proves, is in technique and style not unlike the statues of the 
 school of Pergamon, while it has only the pose in common 
 with the Borghese warrior. Near it were found fragments of 
 a horseman, suggesting that it was against him the warrior was 
 defending himself. He has sunk on his right knee and is 
 entirely on the defensive. He is thus much lower than the 
 Borghese statue and might well have formed part of a group. 
 
 In spite of these differences there is nevertheless an element 
 of similarity between the two statues, which calls for an ex- 
 planation. The Agasias inscription from Delos undoubtedly 
 supplies it. It proves that sculptors from Ephesos worked in 
 Delos, and suggests that also the other Agasias, son of Dosi- 
 theos, might have been familiar with the Delian warrior. 
 When he, therefore, looked for a subject in which to display 
 his skill, that statue seemed to him to supply it. He adapted 
 it and, disregarding its connection with a group, made it serve 
 him as a means by which to show his knowledge of technique 
 and of anatomy. 
 
 PLATE 288. The Wrestlers. Of marble. Uffizi Gallery, Flor- 
 ence. Found in 1583 near the Lateran in Rome, together with the 
 Niobe group, Plates 22off. Restorations: both heads, which are 
 
 1 The great altar of Pergamon was built under Eumenes II, 197-156 
 B. C. 2 Robinson based his account on Reinach's first erroneous pub- 
 lication. His references to the similarity of the skin of both statues 
 are particularly open to objections. Compare Gardner, p. 477.
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 antique 1 but do not belong to the statues; on the youth on top, both 
 arms ; on the other youth, the lower right arm, the forefinger of the 
 left hand ; also the base. Amelung, 66; F. W., 1426; Robinson, 531 ; 
 Reinach I, 523, I. 
 
 PLATE 289. The Wrestlers. Of bronze. Museum, Naples. 
 Discovered in Herculaneum in 1754. Antichita Ercolano, Vol. IV, 
 Plates LVIII and LIX ; Museum Inventory, Nos. 5626 and 5627 ; 
 Reinach II, 541, 2. 
 
 These two groups for the two figures in the Naples Mu- 
 seum are supplementary and form a group represent differ- 
 ent moments of the sport of wrestling. The Naples figures 
 have been interpreted in various ways, but the majority of 
 scholars seem to agree that they are athletes ready to start a 
 wrestling match. Their whole attitude implies not only eager- 
 ness to make a forward move, but also readiness to meet an 
 attack. This is best seen in the firmly planted feet of the ad- 
 vanced legs. If the youths were runners, as some have be- 
 lieved, they would be leaning forward more. As they stand, 
 they cannot start to run without losing time by raising the heels 
 of the forward feet. 
 
 The youths in Florence have nearly finished their match. 
 The under one is held in such firm embrace that he will have 
 to acknowledge his defeat soon. The other, however, is taking 
 no chances, and has raised his right hand so that he may 
 quickly seize upon any member of his adversary that the latter 
 may succeed in freeing. 
 
 The arrangement of this group is extremely skilful. It is 
 built up, a pleasant mass, and its lines, although at first per- 
 plexing, are far from being confused. This indicates a kind 
 of design that is akin to the sculptures from Pergamon, Plates 
 and other 2 Hellenistic works. 
 
 1 Both heads probably are replicas of the head of one of the Niobids. 
 On both the nose is restored. 2 Compare Plates 271 and 277.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 319 
 
 The Naples figures are dated in the Hellenistic age with 
 less certainty. Individually they resemble the reposing Hermes, 
 Plate 237, which probably belongs to the cycle of Lysippos in 
 the fourth century before Christ. 
 
 PLATE 290. Youth from Antikythera. Of bronze. National 
 Museum, Athens. Discovered on the bottom of the sea near Anti- 
 kythera, off Cape Malea in 1900. The statue is copiously restored and 
 has been entirely covered with putty, so that it is far from offering an 
 appearance at all comparable to the original. The head, parts of the 
 upper body and the right arm are the most important ancient parts. 
 Ephemeris, 1902, pp. I49ff. ; E. von Mach, pp. 325ff. ; for copious 
 bibliography see A.J. A., V, 1901, p. 465 and VII, 1903, pp. 464^ 
 
 Never since the reawakening of serious interest in ancient 
 art early in the nineteenth century, has a work of Greek work- 
 manship received such unworthy treatment as this youth from 
 Antikythera. " The ' entire statue has been covered with a 
 thick layer of paste to conceal the rivets, seams and joints and 
 has been artificially colored to look like a genuine bronze 
 statue. The surface modelling of the statue is, therefore, not 
 Greek but modern ; not by Skopas or by Lysippos, as has 
 been said, but by M. Andre, whose office is that of ' restorer 
 of works of art ' in Paris." This makes it extremely difficult 
 to speak authoritatively of the statue. M. Andre's skill of 
 course, made it possible for him to give the statue an appear- 
 ance, by means of its surface finish, of any desired age, or of a 
 mixture of the characteristics of several ages. 
 
 This alone explains the great variety of opinions that have 
 been published concerning the statue. S. Reinach 2 attributes 
 it to a sculptor of the early fourth century, one who was in- 
 
 1 Quoted from E. von Mach, p. 326. 2 Gazette des Beaux Arts, 1901, 
 pp. 295ff.
 
 3 20 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 fluenced by Polykleitos, he seems to think of M. Andre's 
 heavy proportions. 
 
 A. S. Arvanistopoulos * dates it still further back, perhaps to 
 Alkamenes, noting probably a certain lack of refinement of 
 finish in the restoration compared with the dignified pose. 
 
 Charles Waldstein at first 2 believed the statue showed the 
 style of Praxiteles and later 3 changed his view, so that he as- 
 signed the work to Skopas his judgment was based on the 
 pose and the general appearance of the statue. 
 
 Ernest Gardner 4 considers the statue a work of the Hellen- 
 istic age, which " combines s much that is good from earlier 
 artists, but with a theatrical pose, an anatomical realism, and 
 an absence of self-contained dignity proper to the later age." 
 
 The same view has been taken by the writer, 6 who, in com- 
 menting on the points of resemblance which the statue has 
 with works of the fourth century before Christ, adds that, 
 " Greek artists of the autumn days, or even of a later period, 
 were well able to adopt some of the characteristics of an earlier 
 school." 
 
 The gesture of the statue is a peculiar one, which has not 
 yet found a universally satisfactory solution. 7 
 
 PLATE 291. Aphrodite Of MelOS. Of marble. Louvre, Paris. 
 Found in 1820 in a grotto on the island of Melos. Bought by the 
 Marquis de Riviere in 1821 and presented to Louis XVIII, who placed 
 it in the Louvre. Restorations : the end of the nose, part of the lower 
 lip, the big toe of the right foot, and a few small pieces elsewhere 
 restored in plaster. Frohner, 136, with the bibliography up to 1869; 
 
 'In a monograph on the statue, Athens, 1903. 2 Monthly Review, 
 June, 1901, pp. noff. 3 The Illustrated London News, June 6, 1903. 
 */ H- S., XXIII, 1903, pp. I52ff. s Quoted from the review, A. J. A., 
 p. 465. 6 E. von Mach, p. 326. 7 Compare, however, the remarks on 
 this gesture in E. von Mach, pp.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 321 
 
 F. W., 1448-1450, with the bibliography brought up to 1885; E, von 
 Mach, pp. 30 iff. ; Robinson, 539, with important bibliography up to 
 1896; to which add Reinach Chron. d. Arts, February 9, 1901; and 
 Michon, R.Et.Gr. XIII, 1900, pp. 3O2ff. Reinach I, 172, 5. These 
 references by no means include everything that has been written on the 
 statue. They will, however, serve as an introduction and, by means of 
 cross references, introduce the student to the complete bibliography. 
 
 PLATE 292a. Front View of the Aphrodite of Melos. Plate 291, 
 Reinach I, 172, 6. 
 
 PLATE 292b. Torso Of Draped Woman. Of marble. Glyptothek 
 Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen. Date and place of discovery not pub- 
 lished. Copenhagen, Catalogue, 273 ; Reinach I, 338, 5. 
 
 No other statue of ancient art has so completely absorbed 
 the interest of all intelligent people as the Aphrodite of Melos, 
 and no other is so universally admired as she. Popular 
 admiration is proverbially indiscriminate, and although it has 
 been bestowed in this instance on a worthy subject, the quali- 
 ties of the statue are not those which some people ascribe to 
 her. She is not, in the first place, of the impersonal grandeur 
 that characterizes the age of Pheidias, nor is she a creation of 
 such supreme harmony that she is beyond reproach in every 
 respect. She is, however, designed to satisfy the beauty- 
 loving taste of spectators by means of her general grandeur 
 and the perfection of modelling of her most noticeable parts. 
 How people at first ascribed her to Pheidias is to-day incom- 
 prehensible, and similarly strange, future generations will think, 
 are the attempts J of some scholars of to-day to identify her 
 with the work of the fourth century before Christ. A glance 
 at the Aphrodite of Aries, Plate 203, at once reveals the gulf 
 that lies between " Our Lady of Melos " and the conceptions 
 of Praxiteles 2 and his co-workers. The former statue, however 
 
 1 For an explanation of these attempts see E. von Mach, pp. 301 ff. 
 
 2 It must not be forgotten that the Aphrodite of Aries is only a copy.
 
 3*2 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 much designed to please the eye, makes allowances also to the 
 intelligent knowledge, on the part of the spectator, of the sub- 
 ject portrayed ; the garment is large enough to cover the 
 figure if the goddess should pull it about herself. The Aphro- 
 dite of Melos appeals almost exclusively to the eye of the 
 spectator, to his senses, and not to his knowledge. For 
 reasons of design, the drapery is much smaller than is natural. 
 
 The type of the Aphrodite of Melos is not unique. It is a 
 development of such figures as the statue in Berlin, Plate 103, 
 and, more directly, of the statue in Copenhagen, Plate 292^ 
 although this particular copy has suffered by the exaggerations 
 in her drapery, which may be due to the individual likings of 
 a late adaptor. From this type, preserved in the Copen- 
 hagen figure, various statues are derived besides the Aphrodite 
 of Melos, the most important of which are the Nike of Brescia, 
 Plate 301, and a figure of Nike on the Column of Trajan. 1 The 
 Aphrodite of Capua, Plate 293, is more directly influenced by 
 the statue from Melos, these two being the only ones in which 
 the drapery of the upper part of the body is omitted. 
 
 For a detailed discussion of the name of the statue, of its 
 date and restorations, reference must be made to E. von Mach, 
 pp. soiff., and the other books and articles mentioned above. 
 A few words, however, ought to be given to the popular mis- 
 take of calling the figure " Venus de Milo " or " of Milo," giving 
 to the letter " i " the continental pronunciation which corre- 
 sponds to the English " e," or finally, of pronouncing the word 
 " Milo " according to the English quality of " i." 
 
 Venus is the Latin equivalent of the Greek Aphrodite and, 
 therefore, less applicable to this Greek statue. It is, however, 
 also the common French name of the goddess, and has gained 
 currency because the statue became known through French 
 publications. 
 
 1 Text Illustration, 28.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 323 
 
 The word " Milo " is the continental endeavor to spell the 
 word as it ought to be pronounced, since in modern Greek 
 the "e" in Melos is like the English "e." The "s" had 
 dropped off in common speech long before the statue was 
 discovered. If the French authors had retained the " e " in 
 Melos, the people would have mispronounced it to sound like 
 what an Englishman would spell Malos. In short, Venus de 
 Milo is the French name of the statue. To retain this in 
 English is needless. If, however, it is retained, it ought to be 
 pronounced with the French accent. To translate the French 
 " de " into the English " of" and to keep the other two words 
 of the foreign name, calling the statue Venus of Milo is 
 affected ; while to keep the French spelling " Milo " and to 
 pronounce it as if it were an English word is barbarous. 
 
 Equally unwarranted it seems to keep to the French "Venus" 
 and to translate " de Milo " into " of MeloSo" This is reason- 
 able only if the person who speaks of the " Venus of Melos " 
 consistently uses the term " Venus " instead of " Aphrodite." 
 The latter name, however, has become so well known, not only 
 in recent French and German books, but also in English 
 writings, that it may be used without fear of its being unin- 
 telligible. 
 
 PLATE 293. Aphrodite Of Capua. Of marble. Museum, Naples. 
 Discovered during the middle of the eighteenth century in the ruins of 
 the amphitheatre at Capua, whence it was taken first to the castle of 
 Casertaand later to Naples. Restorations; the nose, both arms and 
 the end of the drapery over the left thigh. F. W., 1452; Robinson, 
 542 ; Reinach I, 320, 5 and 6. 
 
 As the base of the statue shows, another figure was grouped 
 with it, probably Eros. He appears as the companion of 
 Aphrodite on a coin of the Roman colony of Korinth, which 
 reproduces a temple image almost identical with the statue
 
 324 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 from Capua. In her arms she held the shield of Ares, in 
 which she watched her reflection. His helmet is under her 
 foot, indicating that the lord of battles has sucumbed to the 
 goddess of love. The only difference between the coin and 
 the statue in Naples is that in the latter the shield rested on 
 the leg, as is indicated by the angular cut in a fold there ; 
 while in the former, Aphrodite holds the shield up in her arms. 
 The brittleness of marble required a support for the shield, in 
 order to relieve the arms. 
 
 The present restoration of the statue must be corrected by 
 supplying the shield and changing the position of the arms so 
 that the hands may lay hold of it. 
 
 Wolters points out that the forms of Aphrodite are rather 
 too soft in modelling to be lastingly satisfactory, but that they 
 are in keeping with the motive, which is slight a vain god- 
 dess of love watching her own reflection. 
 
 The relation of this figure to the Aphrodite of Melos and 
 kindred statues has been pointed out above, page 322. It is 
 not so close that one need think of an actual copy, while it 
 presupposes a knowledge of the general type mentioned above. 
 
 PLATE 294. Crouching Aphrodite. Of marble. Vatican, Rome. 
 Discovered in 1760 on an estate situated on the Via Praenestina, and 
 acquired for the Vatican by Pope Pius VI (1775-1798). Restorations: 
 the hair, except the locks lying on the neck; the entire back part of the 
 head; all the fingers of both hands, except the left thumb; probably 
 also the entire right hand; the front of the right foot and several toes 
 of the left foot; practically the entire base. 1 The face has been 
 retouched. Helbig, 252; Reinach I, 339, i and 2; compare also, 
 F. W., 1467. 
 
 This statue is commonly known as the Aphrodite of 
 
 1 This includes the artist's name on the base, for which see Loewy, 
 Inschriften griechischer Bildhauer, No. 497.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 325 
 
 Daidalos, although the grounds on which it has been 
 attributed to this artist are slight. Three sculptors of this 
 name are known. The first, belonging to the archaic 
 period, is perhaps a mythical person ; r the second lived 
 toward the end of the fourth century and was an artist of 
 Sikyon, a compatriot of Lysippos ; 2 while the third, of 
 whom little is known, was born in Bithynia and worked 
 in the Hellenistic Period. 3 Pliny* mentions a Bathing 
 Aphrodite by Daidalos in the temple of Jupiter in Rome, 
 and it is this statue which several modern scholars believe 
 is copied in the Vatican Aphrodite and the great number 
 of similar extant statues. Formerly the fourth century 
 Daidalos was mentioned as the possible originator of this 
 type. This view, however, is generally abandoned 5 to-day, 
 because all these crouching figures seem to stand clearly 
 under the art influences characteristic of the Hellenistic 
 Period. 
 
 The Vatican statue is a genre piece, but the motive of 
 the bathing goddess is almost forgotten over the display 
 and the arrangement of her bodily charms. It is very 
 different in this respect from the Knidian Aphrodite, Plates 
 198 and igga, and compared with her, marks the difference 
 of artistic aims in the two periods to which the statues 
 owe their origin. 
 
 PLATE 295. Ariadne. Of marble. Vatican, Rome. Date and 
 place of discovery unknown. Already during the papacy of Julius II 
 
 "See E. von Mach, p. 103. 2 Some ancient writers give Argos as 
 the home of Lysippos. 3 He made a statue of Zeus for Nikomedeia, 
 a city which was founded in 380 B. C. 4 Pliny, N. H., 36, 35. s For 
 the discussion of this question and the coins of Bithynia and a few 
 fourth century gems, see Helbig, 252, and F. W., 1467.
 
 326 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 (1503-1513) the figure adorned a fountain in the Belvedere Garden 
 Restorations: the entire rock and all the vertical folds of the garment 
 falling over it, also the horizontal section of this garment between 
 the left knee of Ariadne and the rock below her elbow; further, the 
 nose, the lips, the right hand and several fingers of the left hand. 
 Helbig, 214; F. W., 1572; Robinson, 758; Reinach I, 385, 2. For 
 the replica in Madrid, see F. W., 1573; Reinach I, 415, 2. 
 
 In discussing this statue Helbig comes to the same con- 
 clusion that was reached by the writer in respect to the 
 Farnese Bull, Plate 271, that it is a copy after a painting 
 and not after a piece of sculpture. Helbig's arguments, 
 which are based on extant replicas of the type in mural 
 paintings, in reliefs and in a few statues, are almost identi- 
 cal with those advanced by the writer in connection with 
 the Farnese Bull. 
 
 The statue represents Ariadne, who had fallen into a 
 troubled sleep just before Theseus left her and Dionysos 
 appeared as her saviour. The arrangement of her drapery 
 and her awkward pose perfectly express this idea. Ari- 
 adne appears to have moved uneasily in her sleep. The 
 resulting lines, perplexing at first but not confused, are in 
 keeping with some of the art tendencies of the Hellenistic 
 Period, as they are noted above in connection with reliefs 
 of the altar from Pergamon, Plates 265ff., the Farnese Bull, 
 Plate 271, and the Nile, Plate 278. 
 
 PLATE 296. Artemis Of Versailles. Of marble. Louvre, Paris. 
 Date and place of discovery unknown. It was carried from Rome to 
 France in the sixteenth century, and after having been erected in 
 several places, added to the collection of the Louvre in 1798. Restora- 
 tions : the nose, both ears, a part of the neck, the right hand and part 
 of the lower right arm, the entire left arm and hand, the right foot and 
 upper part of right leg, the end of the large toe of the left foot, the two 
 ends of the quiver and several small pieces in the drapery, the hair and
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 327 
 
 other parts of the statue. Frohner, 98; E. von Mach, pp. 3o8ff. ; F. W., 
 1531 ; Robinson, 660; Reinach I, 143, 4-6. For the suggestion that 
 Artemis ought to be grouped with the Belvedere Apollo see the re- 
 marks to Plate 272. R. Dussand, Rev. Arch., 1896, 28, suggests an 
 entirely new restoration of the statue with both arms raised as just 
 having shot her arrow and looking ahead at her prey. For the picture 
 of a hunting goddess see the Megarian bowl from Thebes in the British 
 Museum,/. H. S., XXII, 1902, p. 3, fig. 2. 
 
 This statue is discussed in E. von Mach, pp. 3088". The 
 important points are : 
 
 1. Artemis is impressive not by means of her expressed 
 character, but by means of her body and the movement of her 
 body. 
 
 2. She wears the long chiton girt up high so that it appears 
 short. (Compare Plate 206 and the remarks to it.) 
 
 3. The fold over the left knee is studied in effect, and 
 characteristic of the taste of a late period that loved to suggest 
 more than it considered modest to carve. 
 
 4. The fussiness of the folds of the garment reminds one 
 of that of the Niobid in Florence, Plate 222, which stands in 
 strong contrast to the simplicity of the Niobid Chiaramonti, 
 Plate 221. 
 
 5. The simplicity of the not dissimilar torso in Copen- 
 hagen, Plate 305, suggests that the Artemis of Versailles is not 
 an original, "an idea which is well sustained by the rather 
 poorly modelled hind and the awkward support." 
 
 PLATE 297. Athena GiUStiniani. Of marble. Vatican, Rome. 
 Discovered, date unknown, near the church of S. Maria sopra Minerva. 
 It was in the possession of the Giustiniani family early in the seven- 
 teenth century. Later it belonged to Lucian Bonaparte, who sold it to 
 Pope Pius VII ( 1800-1823) for the Vatican. Restorations : the sphinx 
 on the helmet, except the feet ; the lower half of the right forearm and 
 the spear, except its lowest part, which was preserved; several fingers 
 and the head of the serpent. Helbig, 51; F. W., 1436; Robinson, 
 588; Reinach I, 233, t.
 
 328 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The critics of this statue are much divided in opinion, some 
 holding that it is a copy of an original of the fourth, or per- 
 haps even the fifth century before Christ, and that the elabora- 
 tion of the drapery and the gesture of the left hand, almost 
 nervously playing with the edge of the mantle, are innovations 
 introduced in the otherwise accurate copy by the late sculptor. 
 Others, however, consider these so-called innovations of such 
 importance that they believe they are indications of the date 
 when the statue was made. The strong reminders of an earlier 
 art in the dignified pose and in the shape of the head they ex- 
 plain as natural in the Hellenistic age, when sculptors con- 
 stantly borrowed older types which they changed more or less 
 to suit their needs. 1 
 
 This latter view gains in probability owing to the fact that 
 both the sphinx on the helmet and the snake at the side of 
 Athena are copied from the Athena Parthenos by Pheidias, 
 Plates 96ff. 
 
 Although Athena is provided with her attributes of war, 
 spear, aigis, and helmet, she is conceived here as the goddess 
 of intellect. The snake at her side, which has given her the 
 mistaken name Athena Medica, is more probably meant to 
 represent the mythical Erechthonios, who was often thus rep- 
 resented ; unless it is perhaps nothing but a thoughtless copy 
 of one of the attributes of the Parthenos. 
 
 PLATE 298. Athena Chlaramonti. Of marble. Vatican, Rome. 
 Discovered during the papacy of Pius VI (1775-1798) in the ruins of 
 the so-called Villa of Cassius in Tivoli, together with seven statues of 
 Muses and a statue of the cithar-playing Apollo. Restorations: the 
 crest of the helmet, the tip of the nose and both arms. F. W., 1437. 
 A replica of the same statue is also in the Vatican. On it the left 
 arm is more pleasingly restored as hanging almost straight down at the 
 side. Reinach I, 233, 5. 
 
 1 For a discussion of this habit see the remarks on Plates 2651!.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 329 
 
 " Not only the execution, but also the invention of this 
 figure is insignificant," Wolters says in his accurate estimate 
 of the Athena Chiaramonti. She is, no donbt, a very late 
 creation, perhaps even of Roman times, when Apollo and 
 Athena were often grouped together with the nine muses on 
 sarcophagus reliefs ; and this statue, as noted above, was found 
 together with Apollo and the muses in the ruins of an ancient 
 villa. 
 
 She is, barring her wrongly restored left arm, pleasing to 
 look at, but compared with other fine Athena types, 1 insignifi- 
 cant and uninteresting. 
 
 PLATE 299. Melpomene. Colossal statue of marble. Louvre, 
 Paris. Probably discovered, date unknown, in the ruins of the theatre 
 of Pompey. The statue was restored during the papacy of Pope Pius VI 
 ( 1 775- 1 79%) and placed in the Vatican. Napoleon I carried it away to 
 France. Restorations : the tip of the nose, the lower lip, the right fore- 
 arm and the mask, the fingers of the left hand, several toes of the right 
 foot, the edge of the cloak and several fragments in the drapery. 
 Frohner, 386; F. W., 1442; Reinach I, 160,3. For a head of Mel- 
 pomene in Athens see F. W., 1444; for other statues of Melpomene 
 see Reinach I, 
 
 This statue, which is about twelve feet in height, is carved 
 of one colossal block of marble and is probably the largest ex- 
 tant ancient statue. It was no doubt designed for a distant 
 view and its place of discovery, the ruins of the theatre of 
 Pompey, indicates that it was erected in one of the niches of 
 this colossal building. 
 
 Melpomene is the muse of the tragic art. Her attribute is, 
 therefore, the mask ; 2 which, although it is a restoration in the 
 Louvre copy, is attested to by other replicas. Often she also 
 
 'Compare Plates 95,96, 101, 107, and 297. 2 Ancient actors invari- 
 ably wore masks.
 
 33 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 carried the club of Herakles, 1 the best known of the many 
 heroes whose legends formed the subjects of the majority of 
 Greek tragedies. 
 
 The high belted garment is characteristic of actors, who 
 with it appeared to be larger than they were. 
 
 The statue is dignified and, barring the slightly sentimental 
 turn of the head, well able to suggest the pathos of tragedy. 
 
 PLATE 300. Polyhymnia. Of marble. Berlin. Discovered by 
 Frascati, exact date unknown, in the ruins of a villa supposed to have 
 belonged to Marias ; formerly in the collection Polignac ; later in Sans 
 Souci. Restorations : the head, the neck, the left breast and shoulder, 
 the left arm except its lower half, the left hand, the greater part of the 
 right hand and the lower right arm, the greater part of the right 
 shoulder and back, the left foot, the lower left leg, the base, the larger 
 part of the rock and fragments of the drapery. Berlin Museum Cata- 
 logue, 221 ; Reinach I, 275, 7. For the replica in the Louvre see 
 Frohner, 391 ; Reinach I, 166, 3. Both restorations are based on ex- 
 tant monuments, see, for instance, the relief in the Louvre, Reinach I, 
 106, 4 ; and the Apotheosis of Homer, Plate 310. 
 
 Polyhymnia is the muse par excellence, without any further 
 designation ; while all her sisters are muses either of tragedy or 
 comedy or music, etc. She generally stands closely wrapped 
 in her garment, and in reliefs is often represented in a gently 
 swaying or dancing attitude. 
 
 The upper part of this figure is so extensively restored that 
 it is not advisable to draw any conclusions from it. The folds 
 of the drapery below, however, are interesting. They are 
 heavy and vertical in front, gradually curving at the bottom, 
 until in the back they assume curves of easy grace. A very 
 similar transition from stiff folds to easy curves of drapery 
 
 1 This interpretation is doubted by some scholars, who see in the 
 club the attribute of Dike (Justice), Moira (Fate), or Ananke (Neces- 
 sity).
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 331 
 
 is noted on the Aphrodite ' Kalipyge in Naples, Reinach I, 
 
 PLATE 301. Nike Of Brescia. Of bronze. Temple of Ves- 
 pasian, arranged as a museum, Brescia. Discovered in 1826 near the 
 west side of the temple built by Vespasian (69-79 A. D.). Restora- 
 tions : insignificant and assured by the remains. Diitschke IV, 375, 
 with full bibliography ; F. W., 1453 ; Reinach I, 348, I. 
 
 The connection of this Nike with the type preserved in the 
 Aphrodite of Melos, Plate 291, and the Aphrodite of Capua, 
 Plate 293, has been noted in the discussion of those statues. 
 The shield on which this Nike is inscribing the name of the 
 victory to be commemorated, is as appropriate in her hands 
 as it seems strained in the hands of an Aphrodite, although 
 even there it finds a reasonable explanation. It is, therefore, 
 impossible to determine whether the type of these figures was 
 invented as Nike or Aphrodite, or possibly a still different 
 deity. 
 
 PLATES 302 and 303. Nike of Samothrace. Of marble. Louvre, 
 Paris. Discovered on the island of Samothrace in 1863, and imme- 
 diately removed to the Louvre, except the blocks of the base, which 
 were left on Samothrace until 1879. Restorations: one hundred and 
 eighteen pieces into which the statue was broken have been joined. 
 E. von Mach, pp. 3o6ff. ; Frohner, 476; F. W., 1358-1359; Robinson, 
 759 ; Reinach II, 380, 2 and 3. The first accurate interpretation and 
 dating of the statue by Conze, Hauser and Benndorf, Untersuchungcn 
 auf Samothrace. For further bibliography see F. W., 1358-1359. 
 
 This statue is discussed in E. von Mach, pp. 3o6f. ; the 
 important points being : 
 
 'H. Heydemann, Jahrbuch II, 1887, pp. I25ff., compares this statue 
 with a vase painting and says it is not a statue of Aphrodite, but a 
 statue of a Hetaira, or, to use a modern equivalent, a " chorus girl."
 
 33 2 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 1. The date of the statue is established by the fact that 
 it was erected to commemorate a naval victory in 306 B. C. 
 
 2. Reproductions of the statue on coins show Nike 
 blowing the fanfare of victory and holding what seems to 
 be a trophy in her left hand. 
 
 3. Mastery over space is the keynote of the statue. 
 She seems actually to be moving through space. 
 
 4. The devices by means of which movement has been 
 indicated render any special view of the statue undesirable 
 for any length of time. If one begins by looking at the 
 statue from the front, the lines of the folds vigorously carry 
 one to the side, and vice versa. 
 
 5. There may be a question whether such conceptions 
 of motion properly belong to the sphere of sculpture. 
 
 PLATE 304. Themis Of Rhamnous. Of marble. National Mu- 
 seum, Athens. Discovered in the temple of Themis in Rhamnous in 
 1890. Restorations : a few small defects of the figure are repaired in 
 plaster. Kavvadias, 231 : Reinach I, 244, 4. 
 
 The inscription r on the base of this statue reads in sub- 
 stance : Megakles, son of Megakles, of Rhamnous, dedi- 
 cated this statue in honor of a choraic victory. 2 The 
 sculptor was Chairestratos, son of Chairedemos of Rham- 
 nous. Nothing else is known of this artist ; his date, 
 however, is determined by the character of the letters 
 which were in use in the early third century before Christ. 
 
 This statue deservedly has come to be a favorite ; for so 
 pronounced are its merits and so almost hidden its defects 
 that one is impressed by the former and apt to forget the 
 
 * Not seen in the illustration. 2 For memorials of choraic victories 
 see Plate 253.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 333 
 
 latter. The charm of the head, set straight on youthful 
 shoulders, is unequalled in Greek art. It conveys the idea 
 of kind and thoughtful justice, and is enhanced by the con- 
 trast between the severe folds of the outer garment (hima- 
 tion) and the close-fitting softness of the chiton on the 
 upper part of the body. The body of the goddess is seen 
 to be slight, but the arrangement of the himation adds to 
 it considerable weight. This is largely due to that part of 
 the himation which falls from the left arm. The material 
 heaviness of these marble folds, however, needed a sup- 
 port, which was provided by an unnatural width of the 
 chiton over the feet, a width entirely out of keeping with 
 the garment revealed at the waistline. This device consti- 
 tutes one of the strongest defects of the statue. It is no 
 doubt inspired by a similar device in the statue of Diony- 
 sos, Plate 187, but differs from it in that it supplies nothing 
 new to the conception of the figure. 
 
 A sensitive eye is further offended by the arrangement 
 of the himation about the waist and the ensuing heavy 
 lines, also by the point tucked or rather suggested as 
 being tucked under the left arm. The long, deep folds 
 running up from the right ankle toward the left elbow in- 
 troduce another disturbing element. They are unpleasant 
 as appears especially when the lower part of Themis is 
 contrasted ' with the fragment of a draped woman in 
 Berlin, Plate 252. 
 
 All these defects, however, are of slight consequence 
 compared with the general dignity and charm of the statue. 
 
 1 The garment of the woman in Berlin is as much superior to that of 
 Themis as the latter is superior to the garments of the torso in Copen- 
 hagen, Plate 292!}, and of the Nike of Brescia, Plate 301.
 
 334 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The beautiful upper part of the figure makes so immedi- 
 ate and so lasting an appeal that one rarely finds the 
 time to pay attention to the less satisfactory lower part. 
 
 In its technique and the use of special tools for special 
 purposes, this Themis resembles the Nike of Samothrace, 
 Plates 302 and 303. This, however, does not appear in 
 the photograph. 
 
 PLATE 305. Torso of Draped Woman, Artemis. Of marble. 
 
 Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen. Date and place of discovery 
 not published. Copenhagen Catalogue, 1 50. 
 
 This magnificent torso, probably designated as Artemis 
 by the quiver strap, has been mentioned above in connec- 
 tion with the Artemis of Versailles, over which it has the 
 advantage of comparative simplicity. Strangely enough, 
 the fold over the left knee appears also here, although in a 
 much more delicate way. It shows here the desire of the 
 artist to impress the spectator by means of the contrast 
 between the nude and the drapery, a desire which has led 
 to the beautiful treatment of the right side of the figure 
 above the girdle. 
 
 Some of the folds of the garment are undoubtedly in- 
 spired by the "Nike" 1 of the Parthenon, Plate 139, and 
 suggest a similarly rapid movement through space as that 
 of the " Nike." The converging folds at the right side of 
 the figure, indicating the fluttering of a windswept drapery, 
 deserve special attention. 
 
 1 If the " Nike " seems to lose in delicacy compared with the Copen- 
 hagen torso, it must be remembered that she was intended to be seen 
 at a very considerable height.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 335 
 
 Reliefs of the Hellenistic Period. 
 
 One of the most prominent characteristics of the numer- 
 ous reliefs of the Hellenistic Period is their tendency to 
 show pictorial qualities. The appeal of the majority of 
 them is the appeal of a picture ; x and since sculpture can- 
 not do justice to any but its own appropriate subjects, 
 most Hellenistic reliefs fail to give entire satisfaction. 
 The skill of the artists on the other hand, is so great that 
 many reliefs are not only pleasant to look at but profitable 
 to study. A small selection of typical reliefs is given on 
 Plates 3o6ff. The most important books 2 are Schreiber, 
 Die Hellenistischen Reliefbilder, and Hauser, Neuattischc 
 Reliefs. 
 
 PLATE 306. Endymion. Of marble. Capitoline, Rome. Dis- 
 covered on the Aventine during the papacy of Clement XI (1700- 
 1721). Restorations: several locks of Endymion, the front of his 
 right foot, the great toe of his left foot, and the point of his lance. 
 Helbig, 462. 
 
 There can be little doubt that this relief copies a paint- 
 ing. When it is imagined painted all its charms are en- 
 hanced, and most of its defects disappear. The rocky 
 background, which cannot be satisfactorily expressed in 
 sculpture, receives its proper treatment, and the left side of 
 the sleeping Endymion, which now almost disappears from 
 view, is prominently brought to notice ; the painted light 
 
 1 Not a few of the reliefs are undoubted copies of pictures. 
 
 2 Wickhoff, Roman Art, takes a unique position. He assigns all these 
 picture-reliefs to Roman art.
 
 33 6 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 of the whole picture, doubtless suggested the approach of 
 Selene, the goddess of the moon, who, according to tradi- 
 tion, came to surprise the tired hunter. This again will 
 explain the excitement and fear of the dog notice his 
 tail which in the unpainted relief seems strangely out of 
 keeping with the sleeping Endymion. 
 
 The lines of the body of Endymion are entirely unlike 
 those familiar to Greek sculpture, but may have been 
 characteristic of a certain school of painting. The droop- 
 ing head and long neck of the boy and the elongation of 
 all his members distinctly remind the modern spectator of 
 the peculiarities of that brotherhood of artists of which 
 Burne-Jones is the most prominent representative. 
 
 PLATE 307. Dancing Woman. Of marble. Theatre of Dionysos, 
 Athens. Discovered in the theatre of Dionysos in Athens in 1862. 
 F. W., 1878. 
 
 PLATE 308. Dancing Woman. Of marble. Museum, Constanti- 
 nople. Discovered in Pergamon during the recent excavations. Antike 
 Denkmdler II, Plate 35 and text. 
 
 These two reliefs are samples of a large class of decora- 
 tive reliefs, the aim of which was to please by means of 
 rich and beautifully arranged draperies. They might be 
 called studies in draperies, and seem to have belonged to 
 the general stock of knowledge of the Hellenistic artists. 
 The Dancing Woman from Athens occurs 1 with no, or only 
 slight variations, on a number of extant monuments. 
 
 PLATE 309. Apollo, Artemis, Leto and Nike. Of marble. Villa 
 
 Albani. Date and place of discovery not published. Restorations : 
 part of the pillar to the left, the right hand and elbow of Leto and the 
 
 1 See F. W., 1878.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 337 
 
 part of the drapery hanging below her right elbow, and a great part of 
 her figure between her right hip and her knees; the right thumb and 
 forefinger of Artemis ; the tip of the nose and the right hand of Apollo; 
 the tip of the nose, most of the left hand, thumb and forefinger of the 
 right hand, and fragments of the wings of Nike. Helbig, 779; Robin- 
 son, 590. 
 
 In view of the studied stiffness of the draperies on this 
 relief, Helbig suggests that it may be a free copy of an 
 archaic work, and adduces in substantiation of his view 
 the fragment of a relief in the Baracco collection, 1 "repre- 
 senting the same theme and consistently reproducing the 
 peculiarities of the late archaic style." The temple in the 
 background, which has Corinthian columns, unknown in 
 archaic Greek times, he calls a later addition. 
 
 The accuracy of this view may be doubted ; for there are 
 so many indications of late art, even in the figures, that it 
 seems difficult to credit them to an archaic original. This 
 is especially true of Nike. The lines of her right arm and 
 hand are of a kind unknown to Greek sculpture earlier than 
 the Hellenistic times. They imply a taste not dissimilar 
 to that revealed in the drooping head of Endymion, Plate 
 306, and ought to be contrasted with the lines of the arm 2 
 of the athlete in Munich, Plate i26a. The freedom of 
 pose, moreover, of all the figures, especially that of Leto, 
 the goddess to the left, is so great that the relief is more 
 probably the individual creation of a later artist than a 
 copy of an earlier work. The suggestion of archaism in 
 the draperies is readily explained by the prevailing custom 
 in Hellenistic times of adapting at will and without attempt 
 
 1 Baracco and Helbig, La Collection Baracco, Plate XXX Ilia, p. 34. 
 
 2 The arm of this statue is restored. Its accuracy, however, is 
 proved by other monuments.
 
 33 8 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 at consistency whatever pleased the taste of the individual 
 artist. 
 
 The arrangement of the background, a temple behind 
 a wall, against which the figures are relieved, realizes in 
 the wall the requirements ' of sculpture, namely, a flat back- 
 ground, while it makes allowances in the temple to the 
 growing preference of the people for the pictorial element 
 even in reliefs. A similarly arranged background is seen 
 on Plate 315. Students of Roman antiquities readily rec- 
 ognize a marked correspondence between both these re- 
 liefs and one style of wall decorations 2 in Pompeii. 
 
 PLATE 310. Apotheosis Of Homer. Of marble. British Museum, 
 London. Discovered during the middle of the seventeenth century 
 near the Via Appia ; formerly in the Palazzo Colonna in Rome; since 
 1819 in the British Museum. Restorations: the two upper corners 
 and the left arm and bit of drapery of the dancing, or hurrying woman 
 in the right hand corner; the right foot of Homer (the seated figure in 
 the lowest row) ; the left hand and roll of Memory (the second front 
 figure from the right side in the same row) ; and the left hand and 
 saucer of Mythos (the boy in front of Homer). Further, the heads of 
 the following nine figures : lowest row, Sophia (the lower of the two 
 figures at the right hand side) ; second row from the bottom, all except 
 Polyhymnia (the third figure from the left) ; third row from the bottom, 
 the second, third, and fourth figures from the left. F. W., 1629; 
 Robinson, 589; and especially Reinach, Gaz. Arch., 1887, pp. I32ff., 
 and Rev. Arch., 1900, pp. 398ff. 
 
 The names of the figures in the lowest row are inscribed 
 below them. They are from left to right : Chronos (Time) 
 and Oikoumene (the inhabitants of the world) crowning 
 
 1 For a discussion of these requirements see E. von Mach, pp. 53ff. 
 
 2 See, for instance, Baumeister, fig. 525, or Mau-Kelsey, p. 466, fig. 
 263.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 339 
 
 Homer, who is seated before them on a throne supported 
 by two children, Ilias and Odyssee ; Mythos in front of the 
 altar, and Historia behind it; Poiesis (Epic poetry) with 
 two torches; Tragoidia ; Komoidia ; Physis (Nature, prob- 
 ably natural inclination) ; a little girl, hardly visible in the 
 photograph, in front of the group of four women to the 
 right. These women are so crowded that it is difficult 
 to assign to each her proper name. They probably are : 
 in the back row, Arete (Virtue) and Pistis (Faith) ; and 
 in front, Mneme (Memory) and Sophia (Wisdom). 
 
 The figures of the other strips are not distinguished by 
 inscribed names. Zeus on top is characterized by his 
 scepter and the eagle in front of him ; and Apollo in the 
 cave by his long robe, 1 the lyre and the omphalos, 2 against 
 which are placed his bow and quiver. The statue in the 
 same row with Apollo is probably intended to commemo- 
 rate some poet ; it has been suggested, him who dedicated 
 this relief. The roll in his hand implies that he is a poet, 
 and the tripod behind him suggests that he has won a vic- 
 tory. 3 By representing him as honored with a statue, 
 while the other figures are portrayed actually alive, the 
 artist has singled him out as not belonging to the action 
 of the relief. 
 
 The ten remaining figures are probably Mnemosyne, the 
 mother of the Muses, and her nine daughters. Mnemo- 
 syne * is the tallest woman in immediate neighborhood of 
 Zeus. Kalliope comes dancing down the hill near her. 
 
 1 See discussion to Text Illustration 25 and Plate 104. 2 See discus- 
 sion to Plates 66 and 67. 3 For the custom of erecting tripods in honor 
 of victories, see the discussion to Plate 253. 4 These names for the 
 several muses, in the absence of prominent attributes, are hypothetical.
 
 34 GREEK AMD ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 On her other side from right to left are Euterpe, Erato, 
 Melpomene, Klio ; while below, from left to right, are 
 Terpsichore, Urania, 1 Polyhymnia, and in the cave with 
 Apollo, Thalia. Formerly this figure was interpreted as a 
 priestess, and Mnemosyne was called one of the Muses in 
 order to have the full traditional number of nine muses. 
 
 The subject of this relief is very complex, and he who 
 would understand its full meaning must be familiar, not 
 only with Greek traditions, but also with their philosophi- 
 cal interpretations. No artist earlier than the Alexandrian 
 school of learning in the Hellenistic Period would have 
 attempted its representation. The sculptor of this relief 
 was, according to an inscription, immediately below Zeus, 
 Archelaos, son of Apollonios of Priene, who lived, to judge 
 from the character of the letters, about 100 B. C. 
 
 Judged not by the story told, but by the distribution of 
 lines and masses, the relief deserves high praise. The eye 
 notices everywhere with pleasure deviations from mathe- 
 matically accurate lines, and a delightful variety in the 
 orderly balance of masses. The individual figures also are 
 full of charm. To mention only a few, Oikoumene in the 
 lowest row, Urania and Apollo in the next row, and above 
 them the graceful joyous Kalliope. 
 
 PLATE 311. Herakles and the Hesperidal. Of marble. Villa 
 
 Albani. Date and place of discovery unknown. In the sixteenth 
 century it was preserved on the Monte Giordano. Restorations : the 
 upper part of the left third of the slab. The only ancient portions of 
 the figure behind Herakles are a piece of the left arm, and the lower 
 part of the left leg, with the drapery covering it. The nose of the 
 Hesperide to the right and most of the rocky ground are also modern. 
 Helbig, 784. 
 
 1 The Greek spelling of this name is Ourania.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 341 
 
 The figures of this relief remind one of those of Attic grave 
 reliefs of the best period. Our collection contains no exact 
 replicas, but the Hesperide to the right suggests the woman, 
 Plate 354b ; while the combination of the seated figure with 
 another figure standing before it occurs on Plates 360 and 
 361, and of a third figure behind the seated ones on Plates 
 368 and 374. The landscape setting, however, dates the re- 
 lief in the Hellenistic Period. 
 
 "The subject 1 is a version of the myth of the Hesperides 
 especially current in Attica, according to which Herakles ob- 
 tained the golden apples, not by violence but with the con- 
 nivance of the daughter of Atlas." The other version of the 
 myth, according to which Herakles was duped by Atlas, who 
 had promised to fetch the apples if Herakles would support 
 the universe for him, and who afterwards refused to relieve the 
 hero of his burden, is represented on one of the metopes from 
 Olympia, Plate 90. 
 
 PLATE 312. Paris, 2 Eros, Aphrodite, Helen, and Peitho. Of 
 
 marble. Museum, Naples. Date and place of discovery unknown ; 
 formerly in the possession of the Duke of Noja. Restorations: the 
 face of Aphrodite, and probably also the forefinger of her left hand, 
 and the right hand and wrist of Paris. F. W., 1873; Robinson, 548. 
 
 There is not a figure in this relief that could not have been 
 carved in the fourth century before Christ. The story-telling 
 element, however, was unknown to the sculptors of this period, 
 so that the relief doubtless owes its origin to the Hellenistic 
 age. It is one of the so-called Neo-Attic reliefs, in which not 
 the invention of the types of the figures, but their grouping 
 was original with the sculptors. 
 
 1 Helbig, 784. 2 The original Greek name of the hero generally 
 known as Paris is Alexandros. This name is inscribed on the relief.
 
 34 2 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The story is told with much impressive simplicity. Paris, 
 proud and impatient, seems almost to be ready to turn away, 
 but is restrained by Eros, the god of love, whose mother, 
 Aphrodite, in the meanwhile tries to persuade Helen Peitho, 
 the little spirit of persuasion sits above her on the column 
 to yield herself to Paris. 
 
 The grouping of the figures is well done, while the large 
 wings of Eros obviate the difficulty of having the heads on 
 different levels. The coaxing persistence of this little god is 
 well portrayed in his attitude, while his easy unconcern is re- 
 flected in the nonchalant gesture ' of his right hand. 
 
 The grouping of the two seated figures is especially skilful, 
 so that Aphrodite is drawn slightly in front of Helen for the 
 sake of revealing more of her than would have been possible 
 otherwise. The two women, moreover, are well characterized 
 in their poses ; Helen thoughtful and almost shrinking, Aphro- 
 dite persuasive and unconcerned about possible consequences. 
 
 An interesting point in the figure of Paris is that he wears 
 his sword strap under his garment. The Apollo of the Belve- 
 dere, Plate 272, also has a strap under his garment, which is 
 even less in place there than here, because it is a quiver strap. 
 
 PLATE 313. Peasant Going: to Market. Of marble. Glypto- 
 thek, Munich. Found in the neighborhood of Rome in 1820, and 
 presented to the Glyptothek in 1858. Furtwangler, Catalogue, 455. 
 
 In this relief the sculptor has stepped far beyond his own 
 province, for the whole design is that of a picture. But grant- 
 ing him the right to execute such subjects in marble, he has 
 done exceedingly well, so that one cannot but allow him much 
 credit for his technical skill. 
 
 1 Compare this with the hand of Oinomaos, Plate 84a, and contrast 
 it with the left hand of the " Marble Faun," Plate 195.
 
 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 343 
 
 PLATE 314. Satyr after the Hunt. Date and place of discovery 
 unknown ; formerly in the Villa Albani. Restorations : the right arm 
 of the satyr with the rabbit, except the forelegs of the rabbit ; a great 
 part of the panther skin ; head, neck, and left hind quarter of the pan- 
 ther, restored as a dog ; the head and breast of the rabbit on the col- 
 umn; several folds of the cloak and a piece near the base of the column ; 
 part of the trunk of the tree. Frohner, 281 ; Reinach I, 69, 2. 
 
 The general remarks to Endymion, Plate 306, apply with 
 equal force to this relief, which, though skilful in technique, 
 lacks the refinement and delicacy of line of the Endymion. 
 The drawing of the feet of the satyr is awkward ; and the 
 picturesque background very disturbing. The projecting 
 branch of the tree reminds one of the branch on the relief in 
 Munich, Plate 313, while the figure of the satyr himself ap- 
 pears like a poor copy of the Endymion. 
 
 This relief demonstrates better than any other the inad- 
 visability of introducing the pictorial element into sculpture. 
 
 PLATE 315. Visit Of DionysOS. Of marble. Museum, Naples. 
 Discovered, date not published, in Capri. Restorations : the heads of 
 the last two satyrs to the right, and the upper right hand corner of the 
 block. Robinson, 534; Hauser, Die neu-attischen Reliefs, p. 191, No. 
 4 ; Schreiber, Hellenistischc Relief bilder, No. 39. 
 
 The subject of this relief is of frequent occurence in extant 
 monuments. 1 Dionysos, heavy with wine and supported by a 
 little satyr, appears as guest of a man, who, together with a 
 woman, is reclining at his feet. The god's gay retinue is fol- 
 lowing him. The entire composition is relieved against a 
 wall, over the top of which the roofs of other buildings appear. 
 In this respect the background of the Naples relief is like that 
 of the relief in the Villa Albani, Plate 309, from which it differs 
 
 1 F. W., 1843, ^44, and 2149.
 
 344 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 only by the curtain hung in front of the wall to deprive it of 
 its monotony. A similar curtain, but less characteristically 
 treated, is seen in the lowest row of the Apotheosis of Homer, 
 Plate 310. 
 
 The general remarks to the preceding plates refer also to 
 this relief. The pleasing arrangement of figures, however, and 
 the good drawing make of it one of the best of the Hellen- 
 istic Period.
 
 ECLECTIC AND IMITATIVE SCULPTURE. 345 
 
 PART SEVEN. 
 
 Graeco-Roman, Eclectic and Imitative Sculpture. 
 
 Toward the end of Greek sculpture proper and about the 
 time when it was merged with Roman art, and even later, a 
 number of works were created which it is difficult to classify. 
 They are, in the first place, not Greek, that is to say, not per- 
 meated with the spirit of art that through centuries had put its 
 own peculiar stamp on the creations of the Hellenes. 1 They 
 are, on the other hand, not Roman, for they treat of subjects 
 which were of no great interest to the Roman national mind. 
 The subjects, indeed, are Greek, but they are treated in the 
 eclectic or imitative manner characteristic of outsiders. In 
 many instances the artists show no more feeling for what is 
 characteristically Greek than Thorvvaldsen or Canova did early 
 in the nineteenth century. Whether the general assumption 
 that most of them were of Greek extraction is true cannot be 
 determined. Since, however, the historic sculpture of the 
 Roman empire found Roman artists ready to execute its 
 themes, many may have been Roman. 
 
 Roughly speaking, the statues grouped together in this class 
 are of two kinds. They are, in the first place, imitative of a 
 certain definite period, generally the archaic, of which the 
 forms are broadly suggested, while the spirit is not infrequently 
 lost. It is as if a western artist attempted to paint a Japanese 
 
 'The Greeks called themselves Hellenes.
 
 346 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 picture. The second class is not confined to one period, but 
 combines the forms of several into a new and often pleasing 
 whole. It selects what it likes from everywhere ; it is eclectic. 
 The first reveals the copyist, the second the adapter. 
 
 The ideas of both these schools had been seen actively at 
 work during the whole of the Hellenistic Period, but they were 
 kept in abeyance by a strong admixture of creative individu- 
 ality, and, what is more, by a well-defined feeling for the spirit 
 of Greek art. When these two qualities began to be subordi- 
 nated or even entirely lacking, the copyist * and the adapter 
 appeared. 
 
 To-day we again live in an age when the existence of the 
 spirit of art is sometimes denied, and nothing but the form is 
 studied. It is, therefore, extremely difficult to reach an agree- 
 ment among modern scholars as to extant ancient works 2 and 
 to affirm that this man did and this man did not understand 
 the spirit of the art which he copied or adapted. Under these 
 circumstances, and in view of the services which this Hand- 
 book and collection are intended to render, it has seemed wise 
 to include in this group only 3 those works on which there is a 
 concensus of opinion. The most careful students, however, 
 
 1 The term," copyist " is used here in a different sense from the one 
 that applies to those men who made exact replicas of statues just as 
 we to-day take casts of them. 
 
 2 It is especially difficult because the marble replicas taking the place 
 of the modern casts, often lost the spirit of the statues and repro- 
 duced only their forms, so that there is hardly any difference between 
 such a replica and the works here discussed. 
 
 ' 3 An exception has been made in the case of the two statues of 
 women in Boston, Plates 319 and 320, which are here published for the 
 first time. Most writers of ancient art, if they had known of these 
 statues, and had included them in their books, would probably have 
 assigned them to the Hellenistic Period.
 
 ECLECTIC AND IMITATIVE SCULPTURE. 347 
 
 will be convinced of the advisability of detaching several works 
 from the preceding periods and of adding them here. 
 
 PLATE 316. Archaistic Pallas Athena. Of marble. Museum, 
 Naples. Discovered in Herculaneum. Hair and ornaments were gilt 
 when the statue was found. New Catalogue by Domenico Monaco, 
 1886, translated by E. N. Rolfe, No. 6007, under the heading, Corridor 
 of Masterpieces ; Reinach I, 227, i. 
 
 The treatment of the folds of this Athena reminds one of 
 the figures from the Akropolis, Plates 2$ff., and of the Athena 
 of Aigina, Plate 83, while her attitude is similar to that of the 
 bronze statuette, Plate 35. The entire statue bears witness to 
 the studied endeavor of the artist to work in an early style, the 
 halting skill of which he had outgrown, although he was unable 
 to reproduce its spirit of life. 
 
 Works of this kind are commonly called archaistic in con- 
 trast to the genuine archaic. The term is broad and is applied 
 by some scholars to all attempts of artists to work in a less 
 advanced style than is natural to them. In a narrower sense 
 of the word it refers to those works which were carved at the 
 end of the Hellenistic age, or later, in imitation of statues of 
 the archaic period. 
 
 Many of the archaistic works show much external refine- 
 ment, and since their finish is often exceedingly delicate, many 
 people, even those who prefer genuine expression to laborious 
 copying, cannot help admiring them. 
 
 PLATE 31 r. "Karyatid." Of marble. Glyptothek Ny Carls- 
 berg, Copenhagen. Date and place of discovery not published. Form- 
 erly in the Giustiniani collection, Rome. Restorations : the nose, 
 mouth and chin, both lower arms, and the left breast. Glyptothek 
 Catalogue, 248. 
 
 The style of this figure is based on that of the Maidens
 
 34 8 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 of the Erechtheion. The statue may, therefore, be said to hold 
 an intermediary place between one of the originals, Plate 166, 
 and the slavish copy of it, Plate 167. Unlike both, it was not 
 intended to serve as an architectural support, as is shown by 
 the treatment of the hair, and also by the absence of heavy 
 sandals. Treading the ground with bare feet, this girl is 
 more readily imagined as walking. 
 
 The important features of her face are restored, so that it is 
 not possible to know whether a portrait statue was intended or 
 not. But whatever the artist's intention was, it is clear that 
 his genius was imitative rather than creative. It is this fact 
 which places his statue in this group and not by the side of 
 the Erechtheion figure, Plate 166. 
 
 PLATE 318. The " Esquiline Venus." Of marble. Palazzo del 
 Conservator!, Rome. Discovered in the ruins of a villa on the Esqui- 
 line Hill in Rome in 1874. Restorations : the tip of the nose. Helbig, 
 566; Robinson, 166; Reinach II, 364, 2. 
 
 Unless the characteristics of the statues grouped together 
 here as a class are understood, the " Esquiline Venus " is an 
 anomaly. And so she is called by Robinson who says, " The 
 Esquiline Venus is an anomalous work, for while the body is 
 modelled with a voluptuousness that almost oversteps the line 
 dividing the nude from the naked, the head is treated with 
 archaic severity, in the style of the first half of the fifth cen- 
 tury." These correct observations can be reconciled only on 
 the assumption that in this statue we have a work of the 
 eclectic school of sculpture. The artist may have borrowed 
 his type from the fifth century, and have introduced of his 
 own volition the sensuous modelling of the nude body. 
 
 If this assumption is right, then the original was not an 
 Aphrodite, for this goddess was. not represented nude in that
 
 ECLECTIC AND IMITATIVE SCULPTURE. 349 
 
 period. 1 It has, therefore, been suggested, on the strength of 
 a vase painting 2 that the artist was influenced by an Attic 
 painting of Atalanta preparing for her race with Hippomenes. 
 But if this is the case, then again the artist has introduced a 
 foreign element; the body of this woman is not that of a 
 girl in training, 3 as Atalanta was. 
 
 What the artist called his statue we do not know, perhaps 
 he was satisfied with calling her " a nude woman." Judged 
 as such, the statue is interesting. The proportions are not 
 Greek, but the girl is nevertheless beautiful. It is one of the 
 best instances of the eclectic school of sculpture. 
 
 PLATE 319. Statue of a Seated Woman. Of marble. Mu- 
 seum, Boston. Discovered in 1900 (or in 1899) i n Vasciano in Umbria. 
 Report of the Trustees of the Museum, Boston (Robinson), 1903, 
 p. 58, No. n; Amelung, Rom. Mtttk., 1901, p. 29. For a similar 
 statue see Michaelis, Ancient Marbles, p. 694, No, 117; Reinach I, 
 257, 2. 
 
 The workmanship of this statue, as Robinson has pointed 
 out, bears a strong resemblance to that of the age of Augustus, 
 while on the other hand the subject distinguishes it from those 
 works which in this collection have been grouped together as 
 Roman National, Part Eight. The finish of the statue is very 
 pleasing, especially for a casual view, but it combines together 
 with bits of delicacy and refinement, an element of such 
 thoughtless arrangement of the drapery, that it is impossible 
 to think highly of the artistic powers of its sculptor. He had 
 skill, no doubt, but lacked the temper of quiet contemplation, 
 without which even the most skilled are not artists in the full 
 sense of the word. 
 
 The figure is seated, but below and at her left side her 
 
 1 For Aphrodite statues of the fourth century see Plates 103 and 
 108. 2 See picture in Helbig, p. 424. 3 For such a body see Plate 73.
 
 35 GREEK: AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 drapery is carved as if it were swept by the winds. This gives 
 a feeling of restlessness l to the statue, painfully conspicuous 
 to all who have become familiar with the best Greek works. 
 The folds on the upper part of the figure are almost obtrusively 
 skilful, the sharp line running from the left breast down to the 
 center of the waist line being the acme of studied mastery 
 over the material. 2 The same is true of the two small bulging 
 folds below the left breast immediately over the himation. 
 
 The piece of marble of which this figure is carved is very 
 beautiful, of a mellow light yellow color, so that it is justly 
 admired. Historically the statue belongs to the Grseco-Roman 
 eclectic and imitative sculptor. The fluttering drapery 3 near 
 the left leg is probably copied from a statue, where it was no 
 doubt in place, while the transparent garment on the upper 
 part of the body, which ill agrees with the motive of the figure 
 wearing two garments, is taken from another statue, and the 
 disposition of the limbs and the general pose of the figure 
 from still another. 
 
 PLATE 320. Statue Of Woman. Of marble. Museum, Boston. 
 Date and place of discovery not published. Reports of the Trustees 
 of the Museum, 1901, p. 35 (Robinson). 
 
 This statue is designed for only one view, the one seen in 
 the photograph. From all other points of view, especially 
 those from its left side, the statue is inharmonious in composi- 
 tion and unsatisfactory in modelling. Its back is perfectly flat. 
 Copyists and adapters often work in this fashion. The folds 
 of the drapery are extremely studied in effect and fail to 
 
 1 Contrast this with the seated figure, Plate 434. 2 Such details do 
 not appear well in a photograph. 3 For such folds see Amelung's 
 article, referred to above. The writer cannot accept Amelung's con- 
 clusion that the statues exhibiting them date late in the fifth century.
 
 ECLECTIC AND IMITATIVE SCULPTURE. 351 
 
 please. This is especially true of the folds enveloping the 
 right arm, and the concentric and therefore monotonous folds 
 from the right breast down to the left thigh. The more this 
 part of the drapery is noticed, the less real is its appearance, 
 for it is out of keeping with the idea of an ample outer shawl 
 (Jiimatiori) pulled over an under chiton, both of which are 
 heavy enough to fall in thick folds about the neck. Such a 
 mixture of motives is again characteristic of the copyist. 
 
 Unique in ancient sculpture is the position of the right arm 
 of the figure and the attention paid to the wrist action of the 
 right hand. Judging by the wealth of extant statues with arms 
 hanging loose at the sides, the Greeks never perceived the 
 peculiar charm of the curve of the wrist. 1 Two of the best 
 statues to illustrate this point are the " Idolino," Plate 123, 
 and the "Apollo," Plate 127. The sculptors 2 of the Italian 
 Renaissance are supposed to have been the first to pay atten- 
 tion to the individuality of the action of the wrist. Seeing it 
 expressed, therefore, in the statue in Boston, one is subject to 
 doubts as to the genuineness of the statue. Forgers to-day are 
 very skilful. They may find it difficult to imitate masterpieces 
 of the great artists, but they are well able to imitate the style 
 of the inconsistent later copyists or adapters. The only way of 
 successfully combating such doubts is to prove that the statue 
 is genuine. This, however, cannot be done unless the place 
 and date of discovery of the statue are published. 
 
 1 In many grave reliefs gestures unlike those of the best statues are 
 seen, and consequently also many pronounced bends of the hand at the 
 wrist. Nowhere, however, is there an indication of special delight 
 taken in beautiful wrist-actions. 
 
 2 Notably Donatello and Michelangelo.
 
 3S 2 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The So-called School of Pasiteles. 
 
 PLATE 321. Statue Of a Youth by Stephanos. Of marble. Villa 
 Albani, Rome. Discovered in Rome in 1769. Restorations: the 
 upper part of the skull, part of the fillet, the curls on the forehead, the 
 end of the nose, the right arm, the front of the left forearm, the front 
 of the right foot, the toes of the left foot except the little toe, and a 
 large part of the plinth. Helbig, 744, with bibliography; F. W., 225; 
 Reinach II, 588, 9. See also Charles Waldstein, /. H. S., XXIV, 
 1904, pp. lagff. For the copy of this statue in the group of "Orestes 
 and Elektra," see the Naples copy, Reinach I, 506, 4 ; for the other 
 copy see Plate 323. The inscription reads : " Stephanos, pupil of 
 Pasiteles, made (this statue)." 
 
 PLATE 322. " Orestes and Elektra." Group by Menelaos. Of 
 marble. Terme, formerly Villa Ludovisi, Rome. Date and place of 
 discovery unknown. The group was in the Villa Ludovisi as early as 
 1623. Restorations: on "Orestes," the right arm from above the 
 elbow, several fingers of the left hand, the front half of the right foot, 
 the tip of the nose, and a small piece in the top of the head ; on 
 "Elektra," the front half of the top of the head, the tip of the nose, 
 the left arm below the sleeve, half of the thumb, the forefinger and 
 little finger of the right hand, and various minor parts. Helbig, 887 ; 
 F. W., 1560; Robinson, 577; and especially Kekule, Gruppe des 
 Kilnsllers Menelaos, Reinach I, 506, 6. The inscription reads : " Mene- 
 laos, pupil of Stephanos, made (this group)." 
 
 PLATE 323. " Orestes and Pylades." Of marble. Louvre, Paris. 
 Put together of a great many fragments. Reinach I, 161, 2. 
 
 PLATE 324. The Ildefonso Group. Of marble. Prado, Madrid. 
 Date and place of discovery unknown. Formerly in Villa Ludovisi in 
 Rome, later in the possession of Queen Christine of Sweden, whence it 
 was removed to the castle Ildefonso in Spain. While in this castle the 
 group became generally known. It is now in the Prado Museum in 
 Madrid. Restorations : on the youth with the torch, both arms, parts 
 of the left lower leg and fragments of the wreath ; on the other youth, 
 the head (which is antique, but does not belong to the figure), 1 the right 
 
 1 It is one of the many extant replicas of heads of Antinoos.
 
 ECLECTIC AND IMITATIVE SCULPTURE. 353 
 
 arm and large parts of the left arm; also several pieces of the altar 
 with the flame and the little draped figure. F. W., 1665; Baumeister, 
 p. 1730; Reinach I, 486, 6. 
 
 At a time when every artist independently felt at liberty to 
 copy the achievements of his predecessors, and when many of 
 the works copied belonged to a forgotten age, so that the new 
 productions had the double charm of veiled antiquity and 
 implied originality, no definite school of sculpture could exist. 
 It is, therefore, not surprising that the search through ancient 
 literature has yielded, with one exception, only detached names 
 of artists. This one exception is the school of Pasiteles, a 
 school that by names can be traced through three generations. 
 Of Pasiteles himself no works are extant, but one work each is 
 preserved by his pupil Stephanos, Plate 321, and by Menelaos, 
 the pupil of the latter, Plate 322. To these two works others 
 have been added because they resemble them, and all are 
 called works of the school of Pasiteles. 
 
 The title, " School of Pasiteles," is rather ambitious ; the 
 more so since the particular statues said to have emanated 
 from it are by no means original creations. This is well seen 
 in the case of one of them, Plate 321, when it is compared 
 with the Apollo from Pompeii, Plate 69. To claim the Apollo 
 statue also for Pasiteles and his followers, as has been done, 
 does not help matters, because there are too many undoubted 
 works ' of the Transitional Period to show whence the later 
 artists borrowed their type. 
 
 The statue by Stephanos, Plate 321, is nevertheless very 
 pleasing. It possesses the charm of modesty, inherent in the 
 halting skill of the Transitional Period, and displays to its best 
 advantage the technique of Stephanos. The " simple model- 
 
 1 See Plates 66ff.
 
 334 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 ling of the body " is beautiful ; while the absence of over 
 accentuation of the muscular development proved no doubt 
 gratifying to people satiated with looking at exaggerations of 
 anatomically accurate bodies. 
 
 A most interesting comparison is made between the Stepha- 
 nos statue and the Athlete, Plate 66. The broad shoulders of 
 the latter designated him as a boxer. They are copied in the 
 later statue without serving a definite purpose beyond perhaps 
 offering a pleasing view. The rhythm of the lines of the body 
 is changed, chest and abdomen are better modelled, and the 
 proportions of the limbs are lengthened. The head also has 
 been refined ; the hair is parted ' and the fillet pushed further 
 down. All these changes, the writer believes, have combined 
 to make of the self-made athlete and victor a well-groomed 
 aristocrat. 
 
 The correspondence between the youth by Stephanos and 
 one of the figures of the group in the Louvre, Plate 323, is so 
 close that the two statues may be looked upon as replicas of 
 the same original. This original, some scholars believe, was 
 made by Pasiteles. The Stephanos inscription, therefore, they 
 consider as of the same kind as that of Antiochos, Plate ppb, 
 recording merely the name of the copyist. Others, however, 
 say Stephanos signed as maker and not as copyist. Certainty 
 on this point is impossible. 
 
 The general proportions of the Louvre " Orestes and Pyl- 
 ades" and the underlying idea of grouping two youths together 
 occur again in the much disputed composition, called the 
 Ildefonso group, Plate 324, which, therefore, has been properly 
 brought in connection with them. The more familiar one is 
 with Greek sculpture, the less Greek this group appears. The 
 Greeks liked contrasts ; the nude and the drapery, man and 
 
 'The hair in this statue, to be sure, is restored.
 
 ECLECTIC AND IMITATIVE SCULPTURE. 355 
 
 woman, old age and youth. It is doubtful whether it would 
 ever have occurred to them to put like and like together in 
 the endeavor to impress the spectator by their combined 
 appeal. In their poses, moreover, both youths in Madrid 
 repeat earlier types, the one near the little goddess, the 
 Doryphoros, Plate 113, of the fifth century; the other the 
 "Apollo Sauroktonos," Plate 185, of the fourth century; while 
 in the little idol 1 a still older type see Plates 2$K, is 
 preserved. The grouping together of such heterogenous types 
 and the introduction of the necessary changes, as, for instance, 
 the different turn of the head of the figure based on the Dory- 
 phoros, unmistakably prove that the Ildefonso group is cor- 
 rectly classed with works of the Grseco-Roman eclectic and 
 imitative sculpture. The characteristics of the so-called Pas- 
 iteles school are too indistinct to extend with certainty also to 
 the Ildefonso group. 
 
 The subject of this group is a serious bone of contention. 
 Formerly when the Antinoos head, restored on one of the 
 figures, was believed to be genuine, the group was brought in 
 connection with one of the many stories told of this favorite 2 
 of Hadrian. Now it is generally believed to have some bear- 
 ing on the Thanatos 3 myth. The greatest difficulty to the 
 interpretation consists in the fact that it cannot be determined 
 whether the youth is lighting his torch from the fire of the 
 altar 4 or trying to extinguish it on the altar. 5 In the one case 
 he may be a mourner at a funeral, ready with averted face 
 to ignite the funeral pyre ; 6 in the other case he may be 
 Thanatos, the spirit of Death. Wolters compares him with the 
 
 1 For a similar idol see Plate 205. 2 See below Plates 4i5ff. 3 Than- 
 atos is the spirit of death. 4 This is the interpretation of Baumeister, 
 p. 1730. s This is the interpretation of Wolters, F. W., 1665. 6 Com- 
 pare Virgil's ALneid VI, 224, aversi tenuere faccm.
 
 356 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE, 
 
 Eros Centocelle, Plate 189, who also probably held an inverted 
 torch in his hand. Whatever subject the artist thought of 
 portraying, he has not made his meaning clear. Nor could 
 this be otherwise ; for the man who copies his types, and 
 whose original part in the work consists only in adapting them 
 to his own conception, will invariably fail to imbue them 
 sufficiently with his idea to have them easily understood. 
 
 The same is true also of the so-called " Orestes and 
 Elektra" by Menelaos in Rome, Plate 322, where it is impos- 
 sible to state whether the youth is arriving or preparing to 
 leave, receiving admonition, or imparting important informa- 
 tion. A great many interpretations, therefore, have been 
 offered ; none, however, to universal or even partial satisfac- 
 tion. Only the suggestion of Wolters, 1 that no definite mo- 
 ment is intended to be portrayed, deserves attention. He be- 
 lieves that the group may have served as a grave monument, 
 designed to convey the affection between the older- woman 
 and the younger man, one of whom had died. 
 
 The type of the woman is not unlike although less beau- 
 tiful than that of the matron, Plate 208, while the youth 
 partakes of the characteristics of numberless male standing 
 figures extant from Roman times. He appears younger than 
 the woman only because he is smaller. Two independent 
 figures, therefore, are grouped together, so that it is not as- 
 tonishing that it is impossible to determine their relationship. 
 
 Judged as monumental works, both groups in Rome and in 
 Madrid are very satisfactory. The artists have shown fine 
 feeling for composition and delicacy of temper. The maker 
 of the Ildefonso group is unknown ; the other has signed 
 himself proudly " the pupil of Stephanos." Stephanos, who 
 himself boasted of his connection with Pasiteles, may have 
 
 1 F. W., 1,560.
 
 ECLECTIC AND IMITATIVE SCULPTURE. 357 
 
 inherited and passed on to his successor some of the fame of 
 his master. The grounds on which Pasiteles was praised are 
 mentioned by Pliny, 1 who says that he made many works, of 
 which, however, only few were known even by name in his 
 time (about one hundred years later), but that he had written 
 a remarkable work in five volumes on the masterpieces of the 
 world, to which Pliny had had frequent occasion to refer. 
 He made an exact model of every statue he intended to carve 
 or to cast, and supplemented his theoretical studies with mod- 
 elling from life. 2 
 
 All this implies familiarity with, and admiration for, the 
 works of past ages, coupled with painstaking execution. It 
 makes no mention of originality or even individual import- 
 ance. Neither Stephanos nor Menelaos improved on Pasiteles. 
 Both were theorists and men of skill. Their statues are pleas- 
 ant to look at, but they lack that intensity of feeling which 
 , marks the genuine Greek work of art. 
 
 1 See Overbeck, S. Q., 2262ff. 2 This is the inference from the story 
 told by Pliny, according to which Pasiteles once came near losing his 
 life when he made models of wild animals imported from Africa.
 
 35 8 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 PART EIGHT. 
 
 Etruscan and Roman National Art. 
 
 ETRUSCAN ART. 
 
 The most assiduous investigations of the last century have 
 not been able to untangle the mystery that attaches to every- 
 thing Etruscan. The people, their speech, their government 
 and their art are alike beyond the scope of our knowledge. 
 The few gleams of light that scattered discoveries have shed 
 on this dark page of history have made us only the more 
 anxious to read it, for they have proved that Etruscan anti- 
 quities deserve serious attention. 
 
 Etruscan art, it seems, was the prose of ancient art life, just 
 as Greek art was its poetry. Soberness of thought, in contrast 
 to divine inspiration, marks the few extant remains of Etruria. 
 This is best seen in the clay sarcophagus ' from Caere in the 
 British Museum. The bronze Chimaera, Plate 3253, stands 
 under Greek influence, while the so-called Etruscan Minerva, 
 Plate 330, is probably wholly Greek. The " Etruscan Orator," 
 Plate 327, treats a subject familiar to Roman art, but is so 
 sober in execution that it is difficult to reach a definite con- 
 clusion concerning it. 
 
 1 For a picture of this sarcophagus, see Knackfuss-Zimmermann I, 
 p. 281, fig. 223.
 
 ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN NATIONAL ART. 359 
 
 ROMAN ART. 
 
 The beginnings of Roman art are as obscure as those of 
 Etruscan art. For years Roman sculpture has been considered 
 to be " nothing but the last chapter of the long history of 
 Greek art in fact, a sort of decadent anti-climax." Re- 
 cently the injustice of this view has begun to dawn upon those 
 who have taken pains to study this art. 
 
 The Romans were a practical people, and not only skilful in 
 solving difficult problems on whatever field, but also glad to 
 exercise their ingenuity in so doing. The art of architecture 
 fared best at their hands, and although the Greeks were the 
 inventors of some of the most beautiful decorative schemes, 
 architecture as such and its various architectural problems 
 were first solved by the Romans. The grandeur of some of 
 their buildings is impressive, not only because these buildings 
 are eminently well adapted to the needs which they are de- 
 signed to meet, but also because their masses are so well dis- 
 tributed that they please the eye. 
 
 A people that craved beauty almost as much as service- 
 ability in its monumental buildings, cannot be stigmatized as 
 void of the sense of beauty because it created little in the art 
 of sculpture. Good sculpture is not to be had for the asking. 
 The very simplicity of its spirit shrinks from the contact with 
 those whose life is swayed by a multitude of complex emo- 
 tions. Such people may have skill, but they are seldom, if 
 ever, privileged to feel the force of great and noble ideas such 
 as add worth to a piece of carved marble or cast bronze. 
 
 Sculpture, moreover, in Roman times had to serve an 
 ulterior end, that of glorification. The subject was given and 
 the expression of individual ideas forbidden. Those Romans 
 and there were many whose culture enabled them to
 
 360 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 perceive ideas that are best conveyed by bodily representation, 
 surrounded themselves with Greek statues, originals if they could 
 procure them, or copies, of which there was a large supply. 
 
 The glorification of the emperors in reliefs or statues kept 
 the artists busy ; for such monuments were erected not only in 
 Rome, but in many other places of the extensive empire. The 
 reliefs I were generally designed to tell graphically some event 
 of importance. In many cases they were leaves of history 
 written in pictures. They were by their very nature not 
 intended to convey ideas which defy words, but, on the con- 
 trary, to illustrate accounts which had passed from mouth to 
 mouth until their every detail had become known to every 
 one. It was, therefore, impossible for the artists to make 
 their selections ; the spectators would look for this or that 
 incident in their combinations, however incapable of artistic 
 treatment it might be. 
 
 If these limitations are understood and taken for granted, 
 the way is clear for the admiration of those other qualities 
 which distinguish many of the Roman reliefs as the works of 
 thoughtful men. The arrangement of the figures and the dis- 
 tribution of masses is often exceedingly fine. The incidents 
 are clearly and vigorously told, the whole representation is 
 straightforward, rarely open to misunderstandings, and gener- 
 ally refined in diction. Greek historical reliefs, the frieze of 
 the Athene-Nike temple in Athens for instance, Plate 169, 
 please the lover of beauty, but are of no help to the student of 
 history. Roman reliefs constitute some of the chief sources 
 of our knowledge of Roman events. 
 
 The portraits of the emperors and other famous men are the 
 second class of sculpture in which the Romans did original 
 
 1 An excellent treatise of Roman reliefs is by Edmund Courbaud, 
 Le Bus-Relief domain, Representations Historiques, Paris, 1899.
 
 ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN NATIONAL ART. 361 
 
 work. And this class is by far the most important. The 
 artists were fortunate in their subjects, for never has a country 
 boasted of such an array of powerful men, each one supreme 
 by his own individuality, as Rome. At first these men were 
 ruled by virtue, and later by vice or a perplexing mixture of 
 both, but at all times they were men of passion. The qujet 
 gamut of respectable emotions had no attraction for them. 
 
 The features of the Romans were pronounced, every head 
 being almost a caricature ; for most of them lacked the noble 
 blending of the Greek type. While this, it is true, made it 
 easy to carve good likenesses, it offered the temptation to 
 exaggerate. That the sculptors rarely yielded to it reveals 
 them as artists of considerable worth. In portraiture, in fact, 
 they have rarely been surpassed. They not only perpetuated 
 the outward appearance, but also suggested the spirit of life 
 and the character of their sitters. 
 
 Sculpture in Rome received its stimulus from its contact 
 with the art life of Greece and her colonies. The fall of Syra- 
 cuse in 212 B. C. gave the Romans their first acquaintance 1 
 with the splendor of the Hellenic civilization ; for Marcellus 
 carried away with him to Rome many pictures and statues. 
 Other generals followed his example. Capua was despoiled 
 of its art treasures in 210 B. C., and Tarentum in 209 B. C. 
 The mainland of Greece yielded its first booty in 197 B. C., 
 when T. Quinctius Flamininus sent so many objects to Rome 
 to be carried in his triumphal procession that it took two days 
 to pass all of them through the streets of the capital. Quan- 
 tity hereafter was as desirable as quality. One general 2 brought 
 with him two hundred and eighty-five bronze statues and two 
 hundred and thirty marble statues, while another 3 had need of 
 
 1 The Conquest of Campagna, which had taken place much earlier, 
 had given the Romans a chance to know Greek art, but they do not 
 seem to have taken much interest in it then. 2 M. Fulvius Nobilior. 
 3 ^Emilius Paullus.
 
 362 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 two hundred and fifty wagons to cart his booty of Greek 
 pictures and statues in triumphal procession through the streets 
 of Rome. In 146 B. C. Greece was conquered and made a 
 Roman province. From this time on a regular traffic in art 
 objects took place, not to mention the shiploads of statues that 
 were sent to Rome by the generals and governors. 
 
 The part taken by the Romans in the creation of new statuary 
 during the first century and a half after their first intimate 
 acquaintance with Greek art in 212 B. C. is very uncertain. 
 Some scholars believe it consisted only in copying earlier 
 works. This, however, is hardly credible in view of the fact 
 that in later times the Romans were sufficiently skilled to carve 
 excellent portraits and good historical reliefs. The subjects 
 continued to be largely Greek ; the execution, however, may 
 be credited with equal justice to both Greeks and Romans. 
 Unwilling to enter into the merits of either case, most writers 
 speak of works supposed to date later than the middle of 
 the second century before Christ as Graeco-Roman. A few 
 such works were discussed in Part VII of this Handbook, 
 where it was noted that it may be wise to detach several statues 
 from the preceding groups and add them to the list of Graeco- 
 Roman works. 
 
 The last years of the Republic yielded some good portraits, 
 but Roman national sculpture proper had its rise with the 
 empire. 
 
 The first period of this sculpture is characterized by ele- 
 gance, refinement of thought, and beauty of execution. Much 
 is idealized. It is the age of Augustus. In the next period, 
 which is at its best under Trajan, realism is aimed at. Artists 
 strive to reproduce the appearance of things, and they suc- 
 ceed. Some critics have called them illusionists. The ways, 
 however, of good sculptors and of illusionists soon part, so 
 that the age of Hadrian already marks a decline.
 
 ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN NATIONAL ART.' 363 
 
 Hadrian himself was an art collector of importance. His 
 villa J has yielded statues of almost all styles and periods, but, 
 strangely enough, not one archaic or archaistic statue. But his 
 apparently great love for the creations of the past seems to 
 have rendered him unable to appreciate the efforts of his 
 contemporaries. These, incapable of withdrawing from the 
 realistic influences of their age, but anxious to make allow- 
 ances to the imperial taste, executed with minute care figures 
 designed to impress by pictorial realism rather than by form, 
 and by thus mixing two incompatible styles paved the way for 
 future decline. 
 
 How low the art of sculpture could sink in the next genera- 
 tions is shown by those reliefs of the Arch of Constantine 
 which are not taken from earlier monuments, Plate 3470. 
 The poverty of these reliefs is the more remarkable as the 
 arch itself is impressive and far from showing any decline in 
 the art of architecture. From the first to the last architecture 2 
 was the art of the Romans, just as sculpture 3 had been the art 
 of the Greeks. 
 
 PLATE 325a. Chimaera. Of bronze. Archaeological Museum, 
 Florence. Discovered near Arezzo in 1554. Restorations: the left 
 
 'See Hermann Winterfeld, Die Villa des Hadrian bei Tivoli, which 
 contains a list of works of art found there. 
 
 2 Wickhoff, Roman art, takes a different view. He has, more 
 carefully than anyone before him, investigated the Roman temper in 
 respect to the graphic arts. His conclusions are not generally ac- 
 cepted, and the writer himself cannot agree with him. Wickhoff, how- 
 ever, deserves the credit of having treated for the first time in detail a 
 subject, the difficulty of which has deterred most investigators. A 
 second attempt may prove more acceptable, and promises better suc- 
 cess because of the pioneer work done by Wickhoff. For specific ref- 
 utations of some of his views see Theodor Schreiber, Jahrbuch XI, 
 1896, pp. 78ff. 3 And perhaps painting.
 
 364 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 \front and hind legs, the snake, the end of the right horn and beard of 
 the goat. Amelung, 247 ; Reinach II, 695, 4. 
 
 The Chimaera of ancient mythology was a creation of the 
 fancy of the story-teller rather than of the artist. Lion, goat 
 and snake may be combined in one fearful animal in the 
 imagination, but cannot be joined together in bodily forms 
 without losing much force, or running the risk of appearing 
 ridiculous. The goat element offered the greatest difficulty, 
 and one which is hardly successfully solved by adding the 
 goat's head and neck to the back of the Chimaera. Goat and 
 snake were ancient symbols of the thunderstorm, and the 
 aigis of the Greeks at first probably was a goatskin, surrounded 
 by writhing snakes. It was the attribute of Zeus and of 
 Athena as goddess of the air. Apollo is said to have shaken 
 it in the face of the Gauls l when his sanctuary, Delphi, was 
 threatened by them. Later the aigis came to be looked upon 
 as a weapon of protection, a kind of shield. 
 
 The formidable Chimaera was the dangerous foe of Beller- 
 ophon riding through the air on the winged horse Pegasus. 
 The Florence bronze shows a wound in the neck of the goat, 2 
 so that the struggle with Bellerophon must be supposed to be 
 in progress. This explains the attitude of the monster and its 
 fury. 
 
 An Etruscan inscription appears on the right foreleg. What 
 it contains is beyond our power to know, because no key has 
 yet been found to the Etruscan language. 3 Perhaps it might 
 offer an indication as to the origin of the bronze. Without 
 being able to make use of it, most scholars to-day believe that 
 this Chimaera is a Greek work. In Sikyon, the Greek home 
 
 1 See E. von Mach, p. 315. 2 Not seen in the photograph. 3 A few 
 inscriptions, especially those containing names, have, it is true, been 
 deciphered. The best book is Corssen, Sprache der Etrusker.
 
 ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN NATIONAL ART. 365 
 
 of bronze casting, Bellerophon was worshipped, for the neigh- 
 boring Korinth was his birthplace. The coins of both cities 
 and their colonies often contain pictures of the Chimaera, and 
 the lion's head of the Florence bronze is not unlike Greek 
 lions of the middle of the fifth century before Christ. In the 
 absence of accurate knowledge of contemporary Etruscan art, 
 it is, however, impossible to declare with certainty that this 
 Chimaera is not an Etruscan work. 
 
 PLATE 325b. The Wolf Of the Capitol. Of bronze. Palazzo 
 dei Conservatori, Rome. Known to have stood in front of the Lateran 
 Palace in Rome as early as the tenth century of the Christian era, and 
 removed to the Capitol 1 in 1471. Restorations: the lions and, accord- 
 ing to Helbig, so many parts everywhere that it is difficult to say what 
 is ancient and what is modern, except the head and neck, which are 
 undoubtedly ancient. Helbig, 618 ; Robinson, 557 ; Reinach II, 728,4. 
 
 The wolf nursing Romulus and Remus was not always rep- 
 resented as the kind mother, but sometimes as the wild beast 
 at bay. Thus she is known from several coins 2 and since she 
 generally is looking toward the children when she is represented 
 as nursing them, Helbig with much probability suggests that the 
 Capitoline bronze has received an erroneous addition in the 
 twins. If this is the case, the current identification of this 
 statue with the one mentioned in ancient literature 3 as erected 
 
 1 The Palazzo dei Conservatori is also known as the New Capitoline 
 Museum. 2 Helbig II, 460, fig. 30, gives one of these coins ; see also 
 the wall painting from Pompeii, Century Magazine, February, 1905, 
 picture facing p. 598. 3 Livy X, 23, says, et ad ficum Ruminalem sim- 
 ulacra infantium conditorium urbis sub uberibus lupa posuerunt, which, 
 translated, reads, " and they placed near the Ruminal fig-tree the images 
 of the infant founders of the city under the breast of the wolf." Rob- 
 inson understands this to mean, " that the children were added to a 
 figure that already stood there." Such an interpretation, however, 
 takes no account of the ablative after sub ; and while there is a possi-
 
 366 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 near the sacred fig-tree in Rome in 295 B. C. is wrong. It is 
 so also for another reason, which Helbig presses perhaps with 
 too much vigor. The wolf seems to him to be too archaic to 
 have been erected in 295 B. C., when the Romans were 
 already in possession of Campagna, and therefore able to 
 know Hellenistic and Hellenic art. It must, however, be re- 
 membered that we have no information as to the Romans 
 having become interested in Greek art as early as 295 B. C. 
 The first Greek spoils of works of art entered Rome in 
 212 B. C. 
 
 If it is, therefore, impossible to assign a date to this wolf, 
 unfamiliar as we are with the beginnings of Roman sculpture. 
 This statue is nevertheless extremely interesting as showing the 
 straightforward, matter-of-fact tendencies of the Romans, po- 
 tent as well in the beginning as in the prime of their art. 
 
 PLATE 326. CamillUS. Of bronze. Palazzo dei Conservator!, 
 Rome. Date and place of discovery unknown. It was removed to 
 the Capitol, perhaps from the Lateran Museum, by Pope Sixtus IV 
 (1471-1484). Helbig, 607; F. W., 1561 ; Reinach II, 502, 4. For 
 many replicas of the statue see Reinach, s. v. Camille. Compare also 
 the standing figure in the frontispiece. 
 
 Camillus, a word of doubtful etymology, is the Roman des- 
 ignation for a high-born attendant at a sacrifice. It is also 
 more loosely used of any unmarried boy of good family. 
 Boys like the one of the Roman bronze are often seen in re- 
 liefs ' of sacrifices, so that this one is generally understood to 
 
 bility, to be sure, of correctly using sub with the ablative instead of the 
 more logical accusative in the meaning of placing something under 
 something else, there can be no doubt as to the passage as a whole. 
 It refers to the entire group, wolf and children, and not only to the 
 children. 
 
 "Similar figures are seen in the relief, Baumeister IV, p. 1713, and 
 in the frontispiece.
 
 ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN NATIONAL ART. 367 
 
 be the attendant at a sacrifice. As such he ought to carry 
 sacrificial implements. These, however, have not been pre- 
 served either with this statue or any of its replicas. Perhaps, 
 therefore, the artist did not intend to portray a definite inci- 
 dent, but simply to perpetuate one of the most pleasing types 
 known to him. 
 
 Basing his work on those of the fifth century of Greek art, 
 the sculptor has yet succeeded in preserving his individuality. 
 He is far from being a copyist. The modesty of the well-born 
 youth is excellently reflected in the severity of the artist's 
 style, while the immediateness of the boy's presence is sug- 
 gested, in spite of his idealized face, by the almost haphazard 
 fall of the folds of his drapery. A comparison of this statue 
 with the Amazons, Plate 1 1 8ff., is very instructive. 
 
 The date of this statue, which treats an undoubtedly Roman 
 subject, is uncertain. It seems impossible earlier than the 
 time when the Romans had become familiar with Greek art 
 and had learned to appreciate it. How long it took them to 
 do this after Greek statues had begun to pour into Rome in 
 the second century before Christ we do not know. The 
 vigorous spontaneity of this Camillus is unlike the studied re- 
 finement of the art of Augustus or the realism of the next 
 period. It has, therefore, been dated in the prime of the 
 republic, but whether earlier or later than the turn of the cen- 
 tury (100 B. C.) is indeterminable. 
 
 PLATE 327. Orator. Of bronze. Archaeological Museum, Flor- 
 ence. Discovered in 1566 near the Trasimenian Lake. Restorations: 
 the right arm, which was broken, has been joined. The eyes are lost. 
 Amelung, 249; Reinach I, 452, 2. The lower hem of the cloak con- 
 tains an inscription which Corssen ' interprets to mean that this is the 
 statue of Metilius, erected in his honor by his widow, Aulese Clensi, 
 and made by the bronze-caster, Tenine Tuthines. 
 
 1 Corssen, Sprache der Etrusker I, pp. 7i2ff.
 
 368 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The soberness of this statue is most apparent when it is 
 compared with the decorative charm of most Roman statues, 
 which in this respect are generally far more influenced by 
 Greek art. No superfluous details are permitted to detract 
 attention from the person here portrayed. The skill of the 
 artist is considerable, as is best seen in the gesture ' of the right 
 hand, 2 which taken together with the upward tilt of the head, 
 forcefully suggests the powerful address of Metilius. To this 
 idea everything is sacrificed, and no attempt has been made 
 to make the lines of the figure rhythmical and pleasing by 
 balancing the raised right arm with a prominent left arm. 
 Truthfully and almost prosaically the artist has told his story, 
 unconcerned about the appearance of his work so long as it 
 was intelligible. 
 
 PLATE 328. TOgatUS Sacrificing. Of marble. Vatican, Rome. 
 Date and place of discovery unknown, formerly in the Giustiniani col- 
 lection at Venice, acquired for the Vatican under Pope Clement XIV 
 (1769-1774). Restorations; the nose, the parts of the toga adjoining 
 the cheeks, the right forearm with the cup, and the left hand. The 
 head was broken and is by some believed not to belong to the statue. 
 Helbig, 330 ; F. W., 1677 ; Robinson, 558 ; Reinach I, 451, 7. For 
 similar figures in relief, see Plate 33ib and Baumeister III, p. 1713. 
 For a similar statue see Reinach I, 583, 2, the statue of Hadrian in 
 the Capitoline Museum, Rome. 
 
 " This is the finest toga statue extant," says Helbig, " and it 
 is well adapted to convey an idea of the impressive dignity lent 
 by the toga 3 when arranged in the prescribed manner, to a tall 
 
 1 Similar gestures in modern statues often are failures, e. g., the statue 
 of Edward Everett in the Public Gardens in Boston. 2 The hand, 
 which was the nearest object to the camera, has become over large in 
 the picture. 3 For a description of the toga and the several ways of 
 wearing it, see Baumeister, s. ij. Toga, III, pp. i822ff.
 
 ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN NATIONAL ART. 369 
 
 and well proportioned figure, both by its voluminousness and 
 by its large folds." As was customary in sacrifices, this Roman 
 stands capite velato, that is, he has drawn his toga over his 
 head. Virgil 1 says this was done in order to concentrate the 
 attention of the worshipper on his intercourse with the gods 
 and to remove all danger of outward disturbance. The ordi- 
 nary way of wearing the toga appears in the London statue, 
 Plate jzgb. Compared with this figure, the Vatican Togatus 
 gains much ; for the execution of his drapery "is masterly, and 
 in spite of the number of folds reproduced by the sculptor, the 
 effect is both clear and calm." 2 
 
 PLATE 329a. " ThUSneWa." Of marble. Loggia dei Lanzi, Flor- 
 ence. Date and place of discovery unknown. Restorations: the lower 
 right arm, the finger of the left hand, the nose and several minor details. 
 Amelung, 6; F. W., 1563; Reinach II, 507, 7. 
 
 This statue bears a strong resemblance to other extant 
 statues of northern barbarians with whom the Romans had 
 come in fierce contact. The garment, the bare breast, and 
 the long hair agree with the Roman descriptions of the Ger- 
 mans, so that this statue may be looked upon as typifying the 
 
 1 ^Eneid III, 405-407. 
 
 Ne qua inter sanctos ignis in honore deorum 
 Hostilis fades occurrat et omina turbet. 
 
 2 Mr. F. J. Scott, Portraitures of Juliiis C&sar, and Portraits of Julius 
 C&sar, the Scott Collection. A Brief Description, No. 4, claims this statue 
 as a possible portrait of Caesar in the same breath as he doubts its 
 being an antique. He advances no arguments, but says, " I do not 
 know what reason there is for supposing it to be an antique." Excel- 
 lent reasons are its style, which is fundamentally different from that of 
 Michelangelo, to whose time Scott would assign the statue ; and its 
 marble, which probably is Pentelic and certainly of a variety never 
 known to have been used by the Italians.
 
 37 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 women of that race. The fact that no attempt at portraiture 
 is noticeable, disposes of the popular name of this figure as 
 Thusnelda. 
 
 The column-like stability of the statue suggests that it origi- 
 nally formed a part of an architectural scheme. The artist, 
 however, has shown his skill in turning such a limitation to 
 good advantage. The pose of the woman is expressive of 
 controlled sorrow, which is also seen in her face ; while, on 
 the other hand, it indicates the lesser grace in movements 
 and poses with which the Romans credited the people of the 
 Northern races. 
 
 To the modern taste, accustomed to the fierce and passionate 
 portrayal of emotions, the Florence statue may seem weak. 
 One glance, however, at the Maiden, Plate 166, reveals how 
 clearly this woman has been characterized as a barbarian 
 mourning the lost independence of her race. 
 
 Recently ' this statue has been called " Medea," because of 
 a seeming resemblance to paintings of Medea 2 meditating the 
 murder of her children. The characteristic garment of the 
 statue and its correspondence with undoubted statues of bar- 
 barians seems to dispose of this interpretation. 
 
 PLATE 329b. TOgatUS. Of marble. British Museum, London. 
 Date and place of discovery unknown ; formerly probably in the Arun- 
 dell Collection. Restorations : the nose, the ears, part of the neck, the 
 left hand with the roll of manuscript, and many small pieces of the 
 drapery. British Museum Catalogue, 1943 ; Reinach II, 617, 4. 
 
 This statue, undoubtedly the portrait of an unknown man, is 
 interesting chiefly as showing the mode of wearing the toga in 
 
 1 Milchhofer 42. Berliner Winckelmanns program, p. 37. 
 2 For pictures of these paintings see Baumeister II, p. 875, and 
 Springer-Michaelis I, p. 173.
 
 ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN NATIONAL ART. 371 
 
 the ordinary walks of life. It differs, therefore, from the statue, 
 Plate 328, where the garment is pulled over the head, as was 
 customary at sacrifices. 
 
 The massive folds are here less well treated than in the 
 Vatican statue, but even their excessive prominence cannot 
 disguise the dignity of appearance of a Roman gentleman. 
 Compared with the " Thusnelda " on the same plate, the pose 
 of the Roman indicates the grace of movement that character- 
 ized the classic people in contrast to the barbarians. 
 
 PLATE 330. Minerva, Commonly Called Etruscan. Of bronze. 
 Archaeological Museum, Florence. Discovered together with the Chim- 
 aera, Plate 3253., near Arezzo in 1554. Restorations: the right arm, 
 the entire lower part of the body from below the hips, with the excep- 
 tion of the feet, which are antique. Amelung, 245 ; Reinach * I, 233, 4. 
 
 This statue is commonly called Etruscan, probably because 
 it was found near Arezzo, together with the Chimaera, Plate 
 325a. It may be of Etruscan workmanship, but undoubtedly 
 repeats an earlier Greek type, extant in several replicas, 2 in 
 accordance with which the entire lower part of the figure has 
 been restored. The resemblance of this Athena-Minerva with 
 the muse in the center of the slab of the base of Mantineia, 
 Plate 211, is very interesting. The grace and beauty of that 
 muse were retained when her type was adapted to that of the 
 sterner goddess Athena. 
 
 PLATES 331-333 and FRONTISPIECE. Reliefs of the Ara Pacis 
 AugUSti. Of marble. The reliefs, Plates 331 and 332, are in the Uffizi 
 Gallery in Florence ; those on Plate 333 and the Frontispiece are in 
 the Terme in Rome. Discovered, exact date unknown, in Rome in the 
 place now covered by the Palazzo Ottoboni-Fiano. Restorations : 
 Plate 331, almost all the heads, and the greater part of the feet, which 
 
 'The picture in Reinach gives an inverted, or mirror-image of the 
 figure. 2 For pictures see Amelung, figures 45 and 46.
 
 37 2 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 project beyond the plane of the relief; on the other reliefs several 
 minor parts ; and on Plate 333 all the parts that were necessary to join 
 the extant fragments. Petersen, Rom. Mitth., 1894, pp. 17 iff., and 1895, 
 pp. I38ff. ; a monograph, Vienna, 1902, and Arch. Anz., 1903, pp. iSaff. ; 
 Amelung, 166; Wickhoff, Roman Art, pp. 3iff. See also Helbig, 156. 
 For the most recent discussions see the articles mentioned in the re- 
 views, A.J. A., VII, 1903, p. 479, and VIII, 1904, p. in. For coins 
 with pictures of the Ara Pads, see Jh. Oesterr. Arch. Inst. V., 1902, 
 pp. 153-164. 
 
 All these reliefs, and a few more in Vienna, Rome, and 
 Paris, together with many that are lost, once decorated the 
 great Altar of Peace of Augustus, Ara Pads Augusti, erected 
 in his honor by order of the Senate between the years 13 and 9 
 before Christ. 
 
 The altar itself stood in the center of a large square open 
 court, about thirty feet wide and surrounded by a wall approxi- 
 mately twenty feet high, which was pierced by a large door 
 immediately opposite the altar. The wall was profusely deco- 
 rated both outside and in. A specimen of the scheme of this 
 decoration is given on Plate 333. 
 
 In the beauty of its floral patterns the Ara Pads stands 
 unrivalled. Accurate observation of the forms of nature vies 
 with delicate treatment, and throughout a highly artistic tem- 
 per is shown in the choice and the arrangement of appropriate 
 designs. The completed decoration, however, impresses the 
 spectator, not with warmth of feeling, as the Greek works do, 
 but with what has been called "cold elegance." The 'intel- 
 lectual quality of the work which is very apparent is, com- 
 pared with Greek works, lacking in " divine inspiration." 
 
 The procession is well managed and characteristically 
 Roman. The unbridled gaiety of the Parthenon frieze had 
 no place on reliefs portraying the dignified family of Augustus 
 and his suite ; nor did Italian artists look with favor on the
 
 ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN NATIONAL ART. 373 
 
 allegorical representation of the victories of the Gauls in Per- 
 gamon, where the fight of the gods and the giants had been 
 carved in the attempt of showing the importance of the vic- 
 tories. On the Ara Pads real men and women are repre- 
 sented, idealized to a certain extent, but with portrait heads, 
 and in every-day garb. 
 
 The large man in the center, Plate 33 2b, is possibly 
 Augustus. Like the other Roman, Plate 328, he has pulled 
 his toga over his head, preparatory to the sacrifice. 
 
 Of the other figures, only a few have been identified, with 
 some probability to be sure, but not with certainty. 1 Livia* 
 his third wife, follows Augustus, and between them is the little 
 Lucius. On the upper slab, Plate 33 2a, the woman 3 to the 
 left is Antonia, the wife of Drusus, who stands near her. Be- 
 tween them is the little Livia, while Germanicus has laid hold 
 of the mantle of Drusus. Julia, the beautiful daughter of 
 Augustus, stands with veiled head in the center, and Tiberius, 
 with raised right hand, behind her. 
 
 Since most of the heads on the other slabs are restored, it is 
 impossible to determine who the people are. Probably they 
 are members of the royal suite and senators of Rome. 
 
 The figures in very low relief in the back rows are char- 
 acteristic of Roman reliefs. 4 In Greek works they are rare.s 
 They indicate an astonishing lack of knowledge, or disregard 
 of the principles 6 of relief sculptures, and show such strong 
 affinities to the style of the later gem-cutters that they suggest 
 a stronger influence from this quarter than from Greek relief 
 sculpture. 
 
 The artists have well acquitted themselves of the difficult 
 
 1 For detailed identification of the members of the family of Augustus 
 see Domaszewske, Jh. Oesterr. Arch.Inst. VI, 1903, pp. 57-66. 2 Com- 
 pare her with the Livia-Pudicitia, Plate 435. 3 Her nose is restored. 
 4 See Plate 338. 5 For one such figure see Slab VI of the North Frieze 
 of the Parthenon. 6 See E. von Mach, pp. 37ff.
 
 374 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 task of combining a large number of dignified personages, 
 most of them wearing the toga, and of necessity therefore in 
 similar poses, into one long procession, without wearying the 
 spectator or sacrificing the individuality of the figures. In- 
 terest in these reliefs does not wane, but grows the more one 
 studies them. When once one has become accustomed to 
 the sight of the many togas, one detects many pleasant details, 
 both in the children and in the grown people. Defects in 
 drawing, to be sure, also appear, generally due to the attempt 
 of connecting the shadow-like figures of the back-ground with 
 those of the foreground. The hand, for instance, laid on the 
 head of the boy behind the so-called Augustus, Plate 33 2b, 
 is out of proportion with the figure to which it belongs. 
 Similarly awkward is the face of the woman behind the so- 
 called Antonia, Plate 3323, whose garment pulled about her 
 head gives her the appearance of an image seen in a mirror. 
 The disposition of the feet has given the artists the greatest 
 difficulty. A comparison with the Parthenon frieze is here 
 especially interesting. On the Ara Pads every figure has its 
 legs posed and carved without reference to those of its neigh- 
 bors. The result is a seeming confusion of legs, when the 
 reliefs are studied, not in detail, but in their entirety. On 
 the Parthenon frieze the opposite is the case. Viewed as a 
 whole, there is perfect order ; viewed in detail, many a figure 
 seems inaccurate. , 
 
 The most delicate compositions on the Ara Pads are found 
 in a smaller frieze, which represented the attendants with the 
 victims for the sacrifice, of which the frontispiece reproduces 
 a sample. The rhythm is gayer, the design less restrained, 
 and the modelling of the nude often exquisite. Noteworthy is 
 the pictorial element of the relief, frontispiece, which closely 
 resembles some of the Hellenistic r reliefs, Plates 3o6ff. Even 
 
 1 Wickhoff, as mentioned above, assigns all these reliefs to the 
 Romans.
 
 ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN NATIONAL ART. 375 
 
 in these carefully wrought figures T the artist has been unable 
 to carve the legs well. The left leg of the standing figure 2 is 
 unpleasant in effect, because it is in too low relief. It follows 
 the same erroneous theories 3 of relief sculpture that are found 
 in the earliest Greek art, and are exhibited in monuments 
 like the Spartan Tombstone, Plate 3673. The whole develop- 
 ment of Greek relief sculpture had passed unnoticed. In spite 
 of their technical skill, the Roman artists, when it came to a 
 knowledge of principles, stood where the first Greeks had 
 stood.-* This is a most remarkable phenomenon, and one 
 which doubtless accounts for the dearth of really beautiful 
 Roman pieces of sculpture. 
 
 PLATES 334 and 335. Two Panels from the Arch of Titus. 
 
 Of marble. In the Forum in Rome. The best account of ancient 
 triumphal arches is by Graef in Baumeister, pp. i865ff., whose list is 
 corrected by Frothingham, A. J. A., VIII, 1904, pp. iff. Philippi, 
 Ueber die Romischen Triumphal Reliefs, in Abhandlungen d. phil., hist., 
 Classe der Sachs. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften VI., 1872, pp. 27iff., 
 and in Annali, 1875, PP- 4 2 ^- Jh- Oesterr. Arch. Inst. II, 1899. For 
 the art of the reliefs, see Wickhoff, 5 Roman Art, pp. 76ff. 
 
 The Arch of Titus was intended to commemorate the tri- 
 umphs of this emperor over the Jews in 70 A. D. The date 
 of the erection of the arch is unknown, except that it was 
 built after the death of Titus (September 13, 81 A. D.) by his 
 successor, Domitian, who himself died in 96 A. D. 
 
 1 The left hand of the standing figure is an exception. 2 This figure 
 may be a Camillus, cf. Plate 326. 3 For these theories see E. von Mach, 
 pp. I25ff. and pp. 37ff. 4 This is also true of many modern artists, 
 some of whom even boast of their ignorance of principles. They 
 worship only skill. 5 The writer is unable to accept Wickhoff's discus- 
 sion as even partially correct. Wickhoff falls a victim to the same 
 fallacy that ensnared the Roman sculptors, namely, that a mixture of 
 painting and sculpture will result, if skilfully done, in good art.
 
 37 6 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The two large reliefs reproduced on Plates 334 and 335, 
 give evidence of much power on the part of the artist, and 
 indicate that had he better understood the principles of sculpt- 
 ure, his work would have taken rank second to none. The 
 victorious and joyous entrance of the emperor in Rome, and 
 the eager advance of the bearers of his spoils are magnificently 
 conceived. The man in whose honor these monuments were 
 erected was called " the love and delight of the human race " 
 (amor et delicice generis humant) ; and, compared with the 
 perfunctory work of many Roman historical reliefs, one feels 
 that here the artist has introduced some of his personal 
 admiration for the man beloved by all. 
 
 This of itself adds a worth to these reliefs that is shared by 
 few pieces of Roman sculpture. It is further increased by the 
 successful selection of the moments for representation, both 
 of which are of inherent interest and capable of artistic treat- 
 ment. The distribution of masses is well managed, with the 
 most prominent objects, the candlestick and the chariot, not 
 in the centers' of the compositions, but slightly behind them. 
 This, together with the suggested advance, results in arousing 
 the desired illusion of rapidity, and may be said to be a most 
 successful device. In the relief, Plate 335, this illusion is 
 increased by the representation of the goal the city gate 
 toward which the action is taking place. 
 
 This gate, on the other hand, marks one of the many serious 
 defects of both reliefs. Perspective is introduced with a per- 
 sistence out of keeping with the requirements 2 of sculpture 
 and permissible only in painting. This is best seen in the 
 chariot scene, Plate 334. In painting there would not have 
 been an actual background. The winged goddess of victory 
 
 1 For an explanation of this device see the discussion to Plate 338. 
 2 See E. von Mach, pp. 37ff . and pp. 1 27 ft.
 
 ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN NATIONAL ART. 377 
 
 would have seemed to be descending through the air with as 
 much freedom as she is now restrained by lack of space. The 
 people on either side of the chariot would have been relegated 
 to their proper spheres instead of crowding the chariot, and 
 the poor device of carving heads in such flat relief on the 
 background that the absence of their shadows reveals their 
 unreality would have been avoided. How much the chariot 
 itself has lost by the introduction of the groups of people to 
 the right and left is best seen when it is compared with the 
 Greek relief, Plate 48b. 
 
 Barring the city gate, Plate 335, this slab has suffered less 
 from perspective of design than the other. It shares, however, 
 with the other the defect of the faces carved in outline on the 
 background. The same defect was noticed in the Ara Pads l 
 Augusti, Plates 33 iff. It is here especially noticeable, because 
 the heads of the men in the front are now broken away, so that 
 the heads in the back seem to belong to the decapited trunks 
 in front, with which they are out of all proportion. 
 
 In defence of the Roman artists, it may be argued that their 
 sculptures were colored ; that they really were paintings accent- 
 uated by sculpture. This, however, is but a poor defence, for 
 although color would make the defects of the compositions 
 less glaringly apparent, it would neither remove them nor 
 lessen them for delicate eyes. The fact is, the mixture of 
 painting and sculpture, or rather of designs appropriate for the 
 one art or the other, is never successful. It always leaves 
 something to be desired, however skilfully it is done. And 
 this is the worst defect of art which makes the spectator feel 
 that in spite of everything beautiful something is missing. 
 Gladly and unconsciously one forgives faults which to the 
 
 1 There as here the artists have been unable to carve the legs with- 
 out resulting confusion.
 
 37 8 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 scrutinizing eye may be no less apparent, but which pass 
 unnoticed because the adequate relation between conception 
 and execution binds the details of the composition together 
 into one satisfactory whole. 
 
 Antiquarians, as is well known, delight in this relief, Plate 
 335, because it has preserved the shapes of the famous seven- 
 armed candlestick of Jerusalem and of the old Roman stand- 
 ards. 
 
 In taking a final glance at these reliefs, one is aware of the 
 defects that mar them, but one cannot withhold from them 
 genuine admiration. There is force, there is feeling, and that 
 exquisiteness of artistic temper that sees beauty even in the 
 commonplace. The modelling often is strong and fully as 
 elegant as that on the Ara Pads, 1 but far removed from the 
 coldness which characterized the earlier monument. On the 
 contrary, a genial warmth emanates from these reliefs, singling 
 them out from all other Roman works as eminently worthy 
 of attention and study. 
 
 PLATE 336. The Columns of Trajan and of Marcus Aurelius 
 Antoninus, so-called " Column of Antonine." Rome. The best 
 
 books on the Column of Trajan are W. Frohner, La Colonne Trajane ; 
 Conrad Cichorius (first part published in 1896) ; and E. Petersen, Tra- 
 jan's Dakische Kriege nach dem Saulenrelief erzdhlt (1899). The 
 standard book on the Column of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus is Die 
 Markus Saule by E. Petersen, A von Domaszewski and G. Calderini. 
 For reliefs from this column, see Plate 344. For a discussion of the 
 reliefs of the column of Trajan, see F. W., 1926-1936. 
 
 The column of Trajan commemorated the victory of this 
 emperor over the Dacians. The reliefs are history written in 
 pictures. Like a spiral band they encircle the column, growing 
 larger toward the top, so that they may appear more clearly 
 
 'See especially the frontispiece.
 
 ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN NATIONAL ART. 379 
 
 to the eye ; for the height of the column is more than one 
 hundred feet. On the top stood the statue ' of the emperor 
 himself. There are more than twenty-five hundred human 
 figures in the reliefs and a proportionately large number of 
 animals, trees, houses, and the like. It is, therefore, no wonder 
 that the casual observer is perplexed and unable to understand 
 their meaning. If, however, the pictures are studied in detail, 
 all confusion disappears, and the whole eventful campaign 
 against the Dacians is seen represented with a wealth of detail, 
 and told so clearly and simply that no written history could 
 have given a better account of it. 
 
 Welter's summary (F. W., p. 765) is by far the best of any 
 modern commentary. He says, " In spite of the tremendous 
 extent and the similarity of all the events represented, monot- 
 ony and repetition are happily avoided. On the contrary, 
 much variety is given by mixing with the fierce scenes of war- 
 fare some tenderer subjects, such as the care of the wounded, 
 and the grief of the Dacians at the premature death of some 
 of their young heroes. The artist had an open eye for things 
 human. To be true, and to appear to be so, was his chief 
 aim. He, therefore, neither embellished nor omitted to tell 
 the cruel deeds of war. This makes of the column a living, 
 true and faithful history of the war, such as does not exist any- 
 where else. But it is just this longing to be clear and accurate 
 that has induced the artist to stoop to many reprehensible 
 tricks. He carves fortresses, villages, huts, and the like to 
 show their plans and elevations ; but, in order to do this, he 
 had to design them unnaturally small and often in faulty per- 
 spective. Such defects might pass unnoticed in a more child- 
 ish, more academic mode of art ; but here, where complete 
 mastery of form is shown they are disturbing, unpleasant. The 
 
 "This statue has been lost, and that of a saint been substituted.
 
 380 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 reliefs do not rise from the matter-of-fact to the loftier plane 
 of inspired artistic representation. They are prosaic, mere 
 chronicles, and, although they are able to arouse interest, they 
 do not stimulate. . . . The modelling is not delicate, a defect 
 which may, however, be pardoned, in view of the magnitude 
 of the work, and the height at which the figures are seen." 
 
 The column of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus is modelled 
 after the column of Trajan. The style of the reliefs, however, 
 is less fresh. The defects of the earlier work are found in 
 them in larger numbers, while the chief charm of that work, 
 its spontaneity and perspicuity, is lacking. Their modelling is 
 less delicate often actually crude and unpleasant. 
 
 PLATE 337. Reliefs in the Forum, Rome. Of marble. Discov- 
 ered in 1872. Best summary of all discussions and complete bibliog- 
 raphy is an essay by Miss A. S. Jenkins, A. J. A., V, 1901, pp. 58ff. 
 
 Two marble screens, 1.75 m. high and 5.37 m. long, 1 were 
 found in the Forum in Rome in 1872. The relief of the 
 Suovetaurilia, Plate 33 7a, that is, sacrifice of the pig (sus) 
 and sheep (avis) and bull (/aurus), is the same on the inner 
 sides of both screens. The subjects on the outer sides are 
 different. Plate 33 ?b represents that of the western screen. 
 
 There has been much discussion of the date when these 
 screens were made, and the man in whose honor they were 
 erected. Domitian, Trajan and Hadrian are mentioned, but 
 Trajan's claim 2 seems to have most in its favor. The scene 
 on the western screen, Plate 337b, is believed to have refer- 
 ence to " one of the most popular acts of Trajan's reign, and 
 one which was commemorated on an arch, as well as by coins 
 and inscriptions the enlargement (amounting practically to 
 
 1 The second screen lacks the corner block. 2 For a discussion of 
 these claims see the article by Miss Jenkins referred to above.
 
 ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN NATIONAL ART. 3 8x 
 
 the founding) of the system of alimentation begun on a small 
 scale by Nerva. The large number of coins which refer to this 
 system of relief, as well as the fact that it was mentioned on a 
 triumphal arch, show the great interest which it had for the 
 people." From the Rostra, 1 the speaker's platform in the 
 Forum, the emperor appears to be making the declaration. 
 The people in front are raising their arms in joyful approval, 
 while in the center the emperor appears again, seated like a 
 god 2 on a raised platform, while in front of him stands the 
 allegorical figure of a woman in Greek garb, holding a child in 
 her arms, and probably leading another by her right hand. 
 This group doubtless is intended to show the emperor as 
 introducing by his benevolent act the goddess of Plenty into 
 Rome. 
 
 The fig-tree 3 and the statue of Marsyas, both famous land- 
 marks, designate the place as the Forum. Both are sur- 
 rounded by square enclosures, which to-day, when the color 
 that told the story has faded, appear to be bases. 4 
 
 The background of both reliefs contains buildings and 
 columns. The attempt to identify them with definite build- 
 ings on the Forum has not been entirely successful. 
 
 The state of preservation of these screens makes it difficult 
 to discuss their style, except in reference to their general de- 
 sign. The western screen, Plate 33 yb, is the more interesting 
 of the two, and is extremely clever. The masses are well bal- 
 
 1 The present theory is that these screens once formed part of the 
 Rostra. 2 Compare him with Asklepios, Plate 241, and notice the 
 greater skill of the Greek artist in casting his figure in pleasing lines. 
 3 The Ruminalian fig-tree where the wolf with Romulus and Remus was 
 erected in 295 B. C. See the discussion to Plate 3250. 'They are ex- 
 plained as enclosures by Hiilsen, Rom. Mitth., 1892, p. 287. Miss 
 Jenkins' arguments against this view, A. J. A., V, 1901, p. 77, are not 
 convincing.
 
 382 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 anced, and unity, at least in appearance, is preserved in spite 
 of the double * incidents which the artist desired to portray. 
 Studied in detail, the poses of a number of figures are too 
 studied to be lifelike, while the introduction of a local back- 
 ground, and the mixture of reality in the group to the left, and 
 allegory in the group in the center, show that this artist, like 
 all his compatriots, either did not know the limitations of the 
 art of sculpture, or believed that he could transgress them 
 with impunity. Considering, however, the fact that he was 
 expected to carve a memento of actual events, a task which 
 does not lend itself to an artistic treatment, he must be said 
 to have acquitted himself well. 
 
 PLATE 338. Reliefs from the Triumphal Arch of Trajan in 
 
 Beneventum. For the literature on triumphal arches see above, the 
 discussion to Plate 334. For the political importance of the reliefs 
 from Beneventum see A. von Domaszewski, Jh. Oesterr. Arch. Inst. II, 
 1899, pp. I73ff. 
 
 The date of this arch is 114 A. D. Both reliefs, Plate 338, 
 are taken from the inner archway, and represent the distri- 
 bution of victuals to the Romans, Plate 3383, and Trajan 
 sacrificing to Jupiter, Plate 338b. Trajan on this slab appears 
 with the toga over his head 2 like Augustus, Plate 332b. It is, 
 therefore, interesting to compare these two reliefs. The 
 shadowy figures on the background in Florence have here as- 
 sumed definite shapes by crowding the figures in front and 
 raising the relief in which those further back are carved until 
 their heads their only visible parts stand out boldly. 
 Wherever space permitted, silhouettes were introduced still 
 
 1 Ghiberti, on his bronze gates in Florence, was equally skilful in 
 combining more than one scene in every one of his panels. 2 See also 
 the statue, Plate 328.
 
 ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN NATIONAL ART. 383 
 
 further back, so that the crowd seemed to extend not only 
 from left to right, but also from the front to the back. This 
 seeming mass of people is well handled. It is broken up in 
 pleasing groups, three standing near the emperor and three 
 others behind these. All are looking toward the emperor, 
 who thus becomes the center of the design, although he does 
 not hold the center of the composition. This was desirable, 1 
 for going through the arch, the spectator could keep his eye 
 on the most important person uninterruptedly until he had 
 almost passed the arch. 
 
 In both reliefs, Plates 338a and b, the existence of an 
 actual background is denied, while space, air, has been sub- 
 stituted. The applied color, now lost, may once have assisted 
 the desired illusion. It indicates that here also the sculptor 
 did not know the limitations of his art. He was a painter 
 rather than a sculptor, and forgot to reckon with the actual 
 shadows of figures carved in bold relief. On the slab, Plate 
 338a, this defect is most apparent, because the heads of the 
 men in front are lost and the heads of the back row combine 
 in a weird fashion with the trunks in front. 
 
 The perfect order of both compositions deserves high 
 praise, while the treatment of individual figures is equally 
 admirable. They are made subservient to the idea of the 
 whole, but are, when studied by themselves, not void of inter- 
 est. A few excellent portrait heads, especially those in low 
 relief Plate 338a reveal the real force of the artist. 
 
 PLATE 339. Trajan and his Suite. Of marble. Lateran Mu- 
 seum, Rome. Discovered, together with three fragments of a frieze 
 probably in the reign of Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605) near the 
 Forum of Trajan in Rome. Restorations : the head of the emperor 
 
 1 Cf. above Plates 334 and 335.
 
 384 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 (the second figure from the right) and the head of the smaller figure 
 immediately behind him, also the right hand of the emperor. Helbig, 
 627. 
 
 The fact that this relief was found near the Forum of Trajan 
 and that its style conforms ' to the age of that emperor has 
 induced the restorer, who is said to have been Thorwaldsen, 
 to add to the figure of the emperor the portrait head of 
 Trajan, while he has given the head of Hadrian to the young 
 man behind him. 
 
 The grouping of the figures is done with exquisite skill, so 
 that one takes pleasure in contemplating them, not to speak 
 of the interest which one takes in the strong, clean-cut faces. 
 The customary Roman mistake of carving faces in extremely 
 low relief on the background is here less patent, although not 
 absent ; it is most noticeable in the bearded face to the left. 
 
 PLATE 340. Two Reliefs probably of the Age of Hadrian. Of 
 
 marble. Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome. These reliefs once decor- 
 ated a triumphal arch near the church of S. Lorenzo, known as the 
 Arco di Portogallo. This arch was removed to widen the Corso in 
 1662, and the reliefs were transferred to the Palazzo dei Conservatori. 
 The restorations on Plate 340 are very numerous. They include the 
 head, the right forearm and the left hand of the principal figure ; the 
 noses and right forearms of the bearded men behind the emperor ; and 
 also the right arm and spear of the lower of the two ; the front part of 
 the face of the boy ; the end of the nose, the right forearm and the 
 fingers of the left hand, but not the thumb of the young man; the tip 
 of the nose of the beardless man in the background ; and some frag- 
 ments of the temple. The restorations on Plate 34ob include : the 
 head and neck of the empress borne to heaven ; almost all the right 
 wing, the left forearm, and most of the torch of the winged figure ; the 
 upper part of the head with the ear and wreath, the nose, and the fin- 
 
 1 Compare it with Plate 337b.
 
 ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN NATIONAL ART. 385 
 
 gers of the right hand of the emperor; the nose, the upper lip, and 
 the right hand of the young man seated hi front of the pyre. Helbig, 
 550 and 549. 
 
 The Korinthian temple in the background, Plate 34ob, which 
 was believed to have reference to Marcus Aurelius (see Plate 
 344) induced the restorer to give to the modern head of the 
 chief figure the features of that emperor. Owing to this mis- 
 take, the likeness of the head on the other relief, Plate 34ob, 
 of which only the top is modern, passed unnoticed for years. 
 It is a head of Hadrian. 1 In consequence it may be assumed 
 that both reliefs and the arch which they once adorned date 
 from his reign. 
 
 In the relief, Plate 34ob, Hadrian decrees the apotheosis, 
 that is, the divine honors, of an empress, 2 who at once is 
 borne from her funeral pyre by the genius of Eternity to take 
 her place among the gods in heaven. The reclining figure 
 may be the personification of the Campus Martius, where the 
 corpses of the imperial family were burned. Such allegorical 
 figures were frequent in Roman art ; many of them are seen 
 on the column of Trajan. In general pose the Campus Mar- 
 tius suggests the so-called Theseus of the East Pediment of 
 the Parthenon, Plate 137. 
 
 The subject of the companion relief, Plate 3403, is uncer- 
 tain. The emperor seems to be promulgating some decree. 
 
 1 See the bust of Hadrian, Plate 429^ Hadrian was the first em- 
 peror to wear a beard. Beards were already worn in the time of Tra- 
 jan, see Plate 339; but long beards do not seem to have been in vogue 
 until later. 
 
 2 Hadrian decreed the apotheosis of two empresses, of Plotina, wife 
 of Trajan, who died in 129 A. D., and of Sabina, his own wife, who 
 died in 136 A. D. The head of the empress in the relief is restored, 
 so that it is impossible to state who she is.
 
 386 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 His audience is typified by only three figures, of which the 
 larger, only half-draped youth in the foreground is believed to 
 be allegorical. A comparison of this relief with the left hand 
 portion of the screen, Plate 33 yb, results decidedly in favor 
 of the earlier work. The life and excellent grouping of that 
 relief are conspicuously absent- here. Individually the figures 
 are not without interest, but they fail to supplement each other 
 successfully as members of an organic whole. The artist lacks 
 breadth of vision ; he is unwilling to sacrifice details for the 
 sake of an artistic ensemble. The two allegorical figures, 
 Plates 34oa and b, resemble in style the smooth, uninspired 
 treatment of forms characteristic of the many statues which 
 Hadrian erected to this favorite Antinoos. 1 
 
 This academic interest in form was diametrically opposed to 
 the realistic, almost illusionistic style of sculpture which was 
 in vogue at that time. Its introduction has " a taste of the 
 end ; " it ushers in the decline. 
 
 PLATE 341. Apotheosis Of Antoninus and Faustina. Of Car- 
 rara marble. Giardino della Pigna, Vatican. Discovered, together with 
 the remains of the column of Antoninus Pius, in 1704, near Monte Cit- 
 orio in Rome. F. W., 1939. 
 
 This relief once adorned the back of the base of a column 
 which in 161 A. D. was erected in honor of Antoninus Pius 
 by his sons. The subject is similar to that of the relief, Plate 
 34ob, except that here two people, Antoninus and his wife 
 Faustina, are carried off to heaven by the genius of Eternity, 
 and that the place of the emperor decreeing to them this 
 honor is taken by the goddess Roma. The reclining figure is 
 generally interpreted as the allegorical representation of the 
 Campus Martius, where the corpses of the royal dead were 
 
 'See Plates
 
 ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN NATIONAL ART. 387 
 
 burned, but may be intended to be the Tiber ' winding around 
 the Campus Martius. Perhaps this is indicated by his left 
 arm holding the obelisk, which was erected there. 
 
 Although slightly better in grouping than the earlier relief, 
 Plate 34ob, the composition here is even less satisfactory in 
 respect to individual figures, except Roma and the Tiber, 
 both of which probably are copies or adaptations of Greek 
 works. The winged genius is much less characteristic than the 
 same figure on Plate 34ob, and the position of the emperor 
 and empress enthroned on his wings is almost ridiculous in its 
 stiff inappropriateness to the idea of flight, the eagles on their 
 right and left, which are crowding the space, actually prevent- 
 ing the illusion of flight. The entire composition contains 
 nothing original that does not give signs of impending decline. 
 
 PLATES 342 and 343. Reliefs from the Column of Marcus 
 Aurellus Antoninus, called the Column of Antonine. Rome. See 
 Plate 336b. 
 
 These three reliefs, representing the arrival of the emperor 
 in a village, the decapitation of noble Germans, Plate 34 2b, 
 and the miraculous rain, Plate 343, are taken from the column 
 of Marcus Aurelius, Plate 336b. As stated above, this column 
 is modelled after that of Trajan. What was said in reference 
 to the reliefs of that column, Plate 3363, is true also of these 
 reliefs, with the exception that the points of excellence are 
 fewer and the defects much more marked. The ridiculous 
 smallness of the buildings is at its worst on the slab, Plate 
 3423, which also shows all the ridiculousness of inaccurate 
 perspective. Some of the figures, however, are not without 
 charm. The dismounted emperor is dignified, and the native 
 woman with her child running away from the conqueror is 
 
 1 For representations of the Tiber see the discussion to Plate 278.
 
 3*8 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 sufficiently well characterized to arouse interest. The other 
 slab, Plate 342!), is nothing but a descriptive picture of a 
 historic event. Neither in itS treatment nor in the selection 
 of the moment for representation has the man who carved it 
 shown that he had any claim to be called an artist. 
 
 PLATE 344. Two Reliefs of a Monument in Honor of Marcus 
 
 AureliUS Antoninus. Palazzo del Conservator*, Rome. Formerly in 
 the Church of S. Martina, and since 1515 on the capitol. "They are 
 so high up, and covered with such a coat of dust, that it is difficult to 
 distinguish the restorations." Helbig, 544 and 546. 
 
 Marcus Aurelius in the relief, Plate 3443, bears a striking 
 resemblance to the equestrian statue of the same emperor on 
 the Piazza del Campidoglio, Plate 428.' The barbarians 
 craving for mercy cannot be identified, since Marcus Aure- 
 lius continued an almost uninterrupted warfare with the Mar- 
 comanni, the Quadi and the Sarmatian Jazygi. The grouping 
 of the relief is fairly well done. Only in the case of the horse- 
 man behind the emperor, does the artist reveal his ignorance 
 as to what parts of the horse and the rider he ought to carve, 
 and what parts he could safely leave to the imagination. If 
 he had omitted this horseman and, together with him, all the 
 figures in the background, his composition would have been 
 the better for it. Relief sculpture can do justice only to 
 simple designs developing in one direction. 
 
 For this reason the other relief, Plate 344b, is more satisfac- 
 tory, although the figure of the emperor is much less interest- 
 ing. He has pulled his toga over his head, 2 but is in no other 
 way distinguished from the man behind him. 
 
 1 The resemblance would be even more striking if Plate 428 gave a 
 view from the right side of the statue. 
 
 2 Compare for this custom the remarks to Plate 328.
 
 ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN NATIONAL ART. 389 
 
 The modelling is fairly good on both reliefs, although the 
 half-nude figure behind the bull and its inaccurate proportions 
 and muscles indicate that knowledge of the human body had 
 begun to belong to the past. Unlike the Greeks, the Romans 
 rarely had an opportunity to carve other than draped figures. 
 
 The accessories and the background have received much 
 attention everywhere. The temple, Plate 344b, is the temple 
 of Jupiter in Rome. 
 
 PLATE 345. Triumphal Arch of Septimius Severus. Rome. 
 For the literature on triumphal arches see the notes to Plate 334. 
 
 This arch was built in 203 A. D., and although its architec- 
 ture is still imposing and indicative of the strength and skill of 
 the Romans in this branch of art, its reliefs show that the 
 sculptors have continued on the downward road which they 
 had begun to travel under Hadrian. Considered, on the other 
 hand, as merely decorative bits of pleasing bossiness the reliefs 
 fill their places well. Sculptors as artists of independent ideas 
 belong to the past. 
 
 PLATES 346 and 347. Reliefs from the Triumphal Arch of Con- 
 Stantine in Rome. For a complete set of the medallions on the Arch 
 of Constantine, see Antike Denkmdler I, Plates 42 and 43. 
 
 This arch was built in 315 A. D., when architects were still 
 able to do creditable work, but when the last spark of art had 
 vanished from all pieces of sculpture. Of the slabs reproduced 
 on Plates 346 and 347 only Plate 34 yc is an original of the age 
 of Constantine, all the others are taken from monuments of 
 Trajan, and conform to the style in vogue during the reign of 
 that emperor. 1 The pitiable depth to which sculpture had 
 sunk under Constantine is best seen in Plate 34 yc. This slab 2 
 
 1 See Plates 336f. 2 Contrast it with Plates 337 b.
 
 39 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 is void of inspiration and the chastening influence of the good 
 sculpture of the past. It marks the end. Sculpture could 
 not sink lower. Historians, therefore, are right when they 
 date the end of the old and the beginning of a new art in the 
 century of Constantine. The antique had run its course. It 
 had no further message for the people, and a new order of 
 things had to arise to stir again those nobler emotions of 
 men to which alone good art appeals. 
 
 PLATE 348. Part of the Frieze of the Temple of Minerva. 
 
 Forum of Nerva. Rome. Middleton, The Remains of Ancient Rome 
 (1892), Vol. II, pp. 2 iff. A restoration of the temple is given in Ziegler, 
 Das alte Rom., Plate VII, fig. i, and a view of the temple in the 
 fifteenth century, ibidem Plate VII, fig. 3. 
 
 The temple of Minerva, built during the reign of Nerva, 
 96-98 A. D., remained almost intact down to 1606, when 
 Pope Paul V despoiled it for the sake of his new chapel of 
 S. Paul in the Basilica of S. Maria Maggiore. But even the 
 few extant remains are able to give one an idea of the rich 
 decorative quality of the art of architecture in Rome in the 
 first century of the Christian era. Most of the sculptured 
 pieces have disappeared, but the fragments of the frieze suffice 
 to show that they were made by men of mark. They are 
 graceful in lines and interesting in composition. The figures 
 are posed with delicate skill and are thoughtful in design. 
 They are more Greek in feeling than the secular reliefs, but 
 like them give evidence of the spirit of the time the intro- 
 duction of the pictorial element in sculpture. This is best 
 seen in the drapery on the, background ' behind the group to 
 the right on Plate 348, in the perspective of the design of 
 the seated figure in the center, and in the supposed air as 
 background for the third figure from the left turning her back 
 to the spectator. 
 
 'Compare Plates 310 and 315.
 
 ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN NATIONAL ART. 391 
 
 The only marked defects of the frieze are the hands which 
 are carved on the background. These, however, were not 
 seen from below and were, therefore, intentionally slighted by 
 the artists. In every other respect the frieze compares well 
 with the reliefs which are generally dated in the Hellenistic 
 Period of Greek art. If the date of the temple were not 
 known, and the frieze were taken from its setting, many people 
 would probably deny its Roman origin, on the ground that it 
 was too good. These remains, therefore, may teach one 
 caution, and suggest that possibly many pieces of sculpture 
 known as late Greek are Roman.
 
 39 2 
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 PART NINE. 
 
 Grave Reliefs. 
 
 The custom of the Greeks of erecting memorial tablets on 
 tombs dates back to the Mycenaean age. 1 At first these tablets 
 were simple and not always sculptured. The decoration was 
 only painted. 2 Later the figures were carved. The majority 
 of the earlier reliefs contained only one figure, 3 but gradually 
 more figures were introduced, until the entire space of the 
 faade of a building, into which the simple slab had developed, 
 was filled with figures. Toward the end of the fourth century 
 tombs had begun to be so luxurious that Demetrios Phalereus 
 carried a law forbidding them. Only small columns, or slabs 
 raised in the shape of tables, or urns of stone $ were per- 
 mitted. This law, it seems, continued in force so that no 
 grave reliefs of importance date later than the end of the 
 fourth century before Christ. 
 
 By many modern writers all grave reliefs are called stelai. 
 It is, however, doubtful whether the ancients called any but 
 those of the shape of Plate 349 by that name, except in a 
 general way. 6 
 
 'See the discussion to Plate 5. 2 Good color reproduction of a 
 painted stele, A. J. A., Plate XVII. 3 The so-called Spartan tomb- 
 stones mark an exception. On these tombstones see J. H. S., V,p. 129. 
 4 Cicero, De Legibus 11,26. s See Plate 377. 6 A further distinction 
 must be made between those reliefs which were erected on the tombs 
 and those dedicated somewhere in commemoration of the dead. The 
 latter were generally broader than they were high, while the opposite 
 was true of the reliefs placed on graves.
 
 GRAVE RELIEFS. 393 
 
 The large number of extant grave reliefs offers an excellent 
 opportunity of acquainting oneself with the Greek attitude to- 
 ward death. This, however, is a study ' slightly outside the 
 realm of art and must, therefore, be passed by here with the 
 mere mention, although it is a study of absorbing interest. 
 
 On Plates 349-354 some of the simple grave reliefs are re- 
 produced. Those of Aristion, made by Aristokles, Plate- 35oa, 
 and of the unknown man, made by Alxenor, Plate 349a, be- 
 long to the Archaic Period. The monument of Agathokles, 
 Plate 35ob, is carved with a full knowledge of the principles 
 of relief sculpture that characterizes the Parthenon frieze, 
 while the woman, Plate 35 4b, seems to stand under fourth 
 century influences. The continuation through many centuries 
 of the simple early slabs as grave monuments is therefore 
 proved. 
 
 Some beautiful fragments of archaic stelai are reproduced 
 on Plates 351 and 352. The head, Plate 353, belonged to a 
 monument similar to the Alxenor stele, Plate 3493, but 
 superior to it in modelling. It reminds one of the " Idolino," 
 Plate 123. The resemblance between the two reliefs on Plate 
 349 is noteworthy. The earlier monument, in spite of its 
 faulty drawing, possesses a charm not found in the later stele 
 in Naples. Alxenor for the first time endeavored to express 
 sentiment. Fully aware of the nobility of his purpose and, 
 like all his contemporaries, cheerfully unconcerned about his 
 halting skill, he proudly declared in an inscription, " Alxenor 
 of Naxos made me. Just look at me ! " The Naples relief is 
 a late adaptation of the Alxenor design. Its skill, revealed in 
 the modelling, ill agrees with its faulty design, and although 
 the artist has introduced changes to avoid the most glaring 
 defects he has been unable to carve a satisfactory figure. 
 
 1 The best book on the subject is Percy Gardner, Sculptured Tombs 
 of Hellas.
 
 394 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 In the stelai of single figures the desire seems to tend grad- 
 ually away from quiet poses to figures in motion, like that of 
 Aristonautes, Plate 35 7, which belongs in the fourth century. 
 This was in keeping with the general tendencies of Greek art. 
 
 Seated figures also were frequent. They occur in the very 
 old so-called Spartan tombstones, several of which were found 
 near Sparta and one of which is reproduced on Plate 3673.' 
 Single seated figures of men are not known, while those of 
 women are frequent. The relief of Philis, Plate 355, is one 
 of the best, and gives evidence of the singular charm of this 
 class of monuments. In later grave reliefs the importance of 
 the personality fades before the portrayal of its relation to 
 other members of the family. In early times the introduction 
 of several figures on the slab is rare. An instance is given on 
 Plate 36 7b, 2 which, owing to its resemblance, in style, to the 
 frieze of the " Harpy" monument, Plate 53, must be dated in 
 the Archaic Period. Noteworthy is the workbasket under the 
 chair, to show that this woman had been an industrious house- 
 wife. A similar basket, it is believed, ought to be substituted 
 for the rock in the so-called Penelope, Plate 74. 
 
 Likewise to the Archaic Period belongs the fragment of the 
 stele of two women from Pharsalos in Thessaly, Plate 358. 
 The careful balance of masses and the effort to avoid repeti- 
 tion reveals the sculptor as a thoughtful man, the equal of that 
 artist who carved the reliefs from Thasos, Plate 54. Both lived 
 in the northern part of Greece. Truly admirable is the dis- 
 position of the three arms and hands in the center, and the 
 variety introduced by means of a slight difference of pose in 
 the otherwise similar heads. 
 
 1 For a discussion of this relief, its technical defects, and its attempt 
 at perspective see E. von Mach, pp. 124!?. 2 Notice the " perspective " 
 in the arrangement of the three standing figures.
 
 GRAVE RELIEFS. 395 
 
 The three reliefs, Plates 359-361, show sufficient resem- 
 blance to each other to be all three patterned after the same 
 general design. Like modern funeral sculpture, ancient grave 
 reliefs were rarely original in design ; but rather combinations 
 of stock patterns, 1 adapted to the needs of the occasion. 
 Only in the relief of Hegeso, Plate 359, have the figures been 
 combined to a harmonious whole. An exaggerated attention 
 to details, and the desire of expressing sentiment by means of 
 figures designed fora different purpose, have somewhat spoiled 
 the relief, Plate 360 ; while the untrained and somewhat crude 
 taste of a stone-cutter seems to be revealed in Plate 361. 
 
 The relief of Hegeso, Plate 359, with figures dating about 
 the time of the Olympian sculptures, Plates 84ff. compare 
 the standing figure with the woman, Plate 89 is one of the 
 earliest 2 in which the simple slab has developed into the facade 
 of a building. Gradually the side pilasters were made more 
 and more prominent, so that the depth of the monument re- 
 quired figures either in very high relief or almost in the round 
 instead of the former figures in low relief. Generally speak- 
 ing, the deep-frame monuments belong to the fourth century, 
 the low-frame reliefs to the fifth century. 
 
 The fragment of a beautiful grave relief of men, contain- 
 ing two figures, is reproduced on Plate 362. The strong 
 straight lines of the tall, almost deified youth, contrast well 
 with the sorrowful droop of those of the little slave at his 
 side. The presence of his pet on the pillar adds a touch 
 
 1 For a stele of the Hegeso stele type, but with the figure inverted, 
 see A. J. A., VIII, 1904, p. 103, and for a duplicate of the girl on the 
 stele in Berlin, Plate 354a; for a stele in the Palazzo Giustiniani see 
 Ant. Denkmaler I, Plate 33. 2 Such a fa9ade had been noticed in the 
 monument of Aristonautes, Plate 357, which in this discussion was 
 mentioned earlier than the Hegeso relief, because it contained only 
 one figure. Chronologically it is much later.
 
 39 6 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 of sentiment, the more impressive as no trace of it is 
 noticeable in the figure of the dead himself. The grouping 
 of the relief is skilful. In his endeavor to avoid too many 
 empty places, the artist has made use of one of the devices 
 of his predecessor, Plate 36ya ; he has extended the arm 
 of the chief figure. In the Athenian relief this is so well 
 done that the device is not apparent; in the Spartan tomb- 
 stone, on the other hand, it is unduly prominent. The 
 important thing, however, is that in both cases the artists 
 were prompted to do what they did by exactly the same 
 motive. Even the early sculptor felt the force of the 
 requirements of a composition that should please the eye. 
 Deep feeling shows in the two reliefs, Plates 363 and 
 369, both of about the same date, the fourth century 
 before Christ. The latter relief, which is perhaps the most 
 impressive of all extant Greek reliefs, is so simple in 
 design and yet so wonderfully true to the emotion por- 
 trayed, that it may well rank as one of the masterpieces of 
 the world. The old man eagerly looking at the youth in 
 whose honor the monument was erected, reminds one of 
 the words of the German poet Lenau : 
 
 Sein liebes Bild sich recht in's treue Herz zu shauen. 
 
 In the other relief, Plate 360, the result is much less 
 satisfactory. 
 
 Very different in thought are the reliefs, Plates 364-366. 
 Here the dead are seen on horseback. Plate 365 is the 
 monument of Dexileos, who fell in the Korinthian war 
 early in the fourth century. The monument represents him, 
 with pardonable disregard for truth, as the victor in the 
 conflict. Very spirited and less constrained in space, 
 because the youth has jumped from his horse, is the second
 
 GRAVE RELIEFS. 397 
 
 relief, Plate 366. The third relief, Plate 364, shows the 
 youth not in battle, but on a pleasure ride. The repre- 
 sentation is noteworthy because the rider carries a riding- 
 whip, an unusual thing for a Greek horseman. 
 
 The remaining monuments of this series, Plates 368 and 
 370-374, represent family scenes, which by many touches 
 of individuality are made extremely interesting objects of 
 study, although these touches not rarely disturb the beauty 
 of the composition. This is most especially true of the 
 tilted chair, Plate 368, and the small figure crowded into 
 the design, Plates 373 and 374. Very charming is Plate 
 371, the little slave-girl fastening the sandal of her mis- 
 tress and the woman tenderly touching her head. 1 
 
 From first to last all these grave reliefs appear to be 
 inspired by works which are of greater importance than 
 they themselves. The connection of Plate 35ob with the 
 Parthenon, of Plate 367b with the " Harpy " monument, 
 and of Plate 353 with the school of Polykleitos, has been 
 noted above. The horsemen, Plates 365 and 366, are 
 more or less influenced by the Parthenon and other temple 
 sculptures. A comparison of the Dexileos monument with 
 the Amazon from Epidauros, Plate 242, is very instructive. 
 'The youth, Plate 369, reminds one of Skopadean works, 
 and Plate 371 may reproduce a motive from Olympia. 
 
 With Plate 376 we enter on an entirely different kind of 
 grave monuments, in which the representation of the dead 
 has no place. The two seated figures in Berlin are repre- 
 
 1 This motive is interesting because it offers a parallel to a sug- 
 gested transposition of figures on the East Pediment of the Temple of 
 Zeus in Olympia, by means of which the crouching maiden is placed 
 close to one of the standing women, whose sandals she is supposed to 
 have just finished arranging.
 
 39 8 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 sentations of women mourning at the grave ; while the 
 vases, Plate 377 and Text Illustration 43, by their shape 
 indicate that the dead whose graves they decorate had 
 died unmarried. It was customary with the Greeks to 
 carry the water for the bridal bath in such vases. When 
 the young people died before marriage, a stone vase was 
 placed on their graves. Reliefs might be carved on them 
 or they might be otherwise decorated, as for instance the 
 vase, Text Illustration 43. 
 
 The sarcophagi, reserved for people of princely station, 
 of which Plates 378-386 reproduce a few 1 of the most 
 famous, offer an interesting study. For the decoration of 
 most of them the best sculptors were employed. The 
 designs are almost uniformly exquisite, from the so-called 
 Sarcophagus of the Satrap, Plate 378, in the first half of 
 the fifth century, to the so-called Alexander Sarcophagus, 2 
 Plates 379ff., not earlier than the end of the fourth cen- 
 tury. One of the most masterful compositions, truly Greek 
 in its simplicity, decorates the Sarcophagus of the Mourn- 
 ing Women, Plates 385 and 386.* 
 
 The study of Greek grave reliefs may not teach one any- 
 thing new concerning sculpture, or reveal any principles 
 that are not more fully or more clearly exemplified in other 
 extant works. It does, however, prove that in every 
 
 1 For colored reproductions of another famous sarcophagus, the 
 Amazon Sarcophagus, see/. H. S., IV, Plates XXVI-XXVII; for two 
 archaic sarcophagi of clay, see/. H. S., IV, pp. iff. For the Alexander 
 Sarcophagus see the publication by Hamdy Bey and Reinach ; also 
 Jahrbuch X, 1895, pp. 1651!.; / H. S., XIX., 1899, pp. 273ff.; and 
 Jahrbuch IX, 1894, pp. 2O4ff. 
 
 2 For a Roman sarcophagus of the type frequent in later ages, see 
 Text Illustration 46.
 
 GRAVE RELIEFS. 399 
 
 department of life, even in one that to-day is almost exclu- 
 sively given over to the barbarous taste of untrained stone- 
 cutters, the Greeks were governed by a delicate temper 
 and the high standards of their best men.
 
 40 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 PART TEN. 
 
 Portraits. 
 
 A brief discussion of ancient portrait-sculpture is unsat- 
 isfactory from every point of view. The limits of the 
 Handbook, however, preclude a more explicit discussion 
 of this subject, while the desired comprehensiveness of the 
 collection demands the reproduction of at least a few 
 representative portraits. 
 
 The Greek portraits of this collection are divided into 
 two classes, those that are imaginary and those that might 
 have been made from life. Portrait-sculpture, even in its 
 most modest sense, was of course unknown in the time of 
 Aisopos (sixth century before Christ), so that the late- 
 Greek artist who carved the statue, now in the Villa Albani, 
 had to rely on his imagination fully as much as Mr. French 
 had to do in more recent ^times when he modelled the statue 
 of John Harvard, of whose features no record had been 
 preserved. Conditions were different in the case of As- 
 pasia (the friend of Perikles), of Alexander (fourth cen- 
 tury), and of the other persons of these or later periods. 
 The artists who carved their portraits knew them ; or, if 
 the extant statues and busts are later works, might have 
 known likenesses made by their own contemporaries. 
 
 The many details which give individuality to a face are 
 absent in most Greek works ; it is as if the artists had 
 penetrated below the surface, and portrayed the essential
 
 PORTRAITS. 401 
 
 character of the person, untouched by the vicissitudes of 
 life and without reference to any particular mood. The 
 Romans worked differently ; they caught the expression of 
 the moment and copied every essential detail. Their heads 
 are real to an astonishing degree. 
 
 Entirely independent of the study of ancient portraits 
 as works of art is their discussion from the point of view 
 of identification. The noticeable result of recent investi- 
 gations has been the discovery that many popular names 
 of statues and busts are wrong, and that many hitherto 
 unknown works represent famous characters. One of the 
 most interesting suggestions is that the bust in Boston 
 labelled " Menander ? " Plate 403^ is Virgil. 
 
 In the selection of portraits for this collection less atten- 
 tion has been paid to these investigations than to the value 
 of the portraits as illustrations of the development of por- 
 trait-sculpture. The popular names, therefore, are given, 
 unless they are now universally acknowledged to be wrong, 
 in which case they are printed in quotation marks.
 
 402 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 PART ELEVEN. 
 
 Heads. 
 
 It has been said that every ancient statue can be accu- 
 rately dated by its head, and that the treatment of the 
 head is the surest guide to the understanding of the style 
 of a sculptor. This is true if allowances are made for 
 those conscious copies of earlier works which characterize 
 the styles of some later artists. A study of the heads 
 along these lines is, however, impossible from photographs ; 
 for it must take into consideration the third dimension, 
 and requires access to originals or their casts. General 
 tendencies, however, not so much characteristic of indi- 
 vidual artists as of periods, can be traced even in pictures. 
 To illustrate this fact, some seventy heads are grouped 
 together here, Plates 439-500, and arranged approximately 
 in chronological order. The conclusions which may be 
 drawn from these heads are so many that to mention all 
 exceeds the limits of the book. They are, moreover, often 
 self-evident. 
 
 Characteristic of the ARCHAIC PERIOD is the ignorance 
 of the proper relation of the features and of the individual 
 quality of the several parts of the face. The eyes and the 
 mouths offered the greatest difficulty, especially in marble. 
 To sink the eyeball behind the lids, and both ball and lids 
 under the brow was a problem no early sculptor, afraid ' of 
 
 1 See the discussions of the " Apollo " figures, Plates I iff.
 
 HEADS. 403 
 
 the brittleness of his material, dared to solve. This ac- 
 counts for the " bulging " eyes, Plates 440 and 444. In 
 the very beginning, lack of accurate observation had the 
 same effect, as is seen in the bronze head, Plate 442. The 
 somewhat later bronze, Plate 441, shows a great advance. 
 
 A lack of feeling for the characteristic difference of the 
 upper and the lower eyelid is well seen in Plate 439, and a 
 similar lack in respect to the lips in Plate 442. Indica- 
 tions of painted eyeballs are seen in Plate 440, while the 
 eyes of the heads, Plates 442 and 445, were made sepa- 
 rately and inserted. The top of the head, Plate 444, was 
 prepared to receive a helmet. The roughness, therefore, 
 does not indicate hair, as scholars used to believe. 
 
 Plate 445, labelled in the Museum of Boston "Artemis?" 
 and considered by the Museum authorities to be genuinely 
 Greek archaic, shows such a striking resemblance to the 
 head of Artemis in the Metope, Plate 50, that it is difficult 
 to doubt an existing connection between the two heads. 
 Unfortunately the provenience ' of the Boston head is not 
 published. Some scholars 2 consider the head a late Greek 
 or Roman attempt at work along archaic lines. In other 
 words, it is a copy. The writer shares this view ; to his 
 mind, however, it is not at all certain that this copy was 
 made in antiquity. 
 
 Some peculiarities of the Archaic Period continued even 
 
 1 Mr. Robinson, the Director of the Boston Museum, informs me by 
 letter of February i, 1905, that this head can be traced to Rome, 
 " where it was formerly owned by a man who is said to have had it 
 from excavations of his own. Where these excavations were I have 
 never learned, but they were most probably in Italy, and perhaps not 
 far from the city." 2 Professor Rufus B. Richardson and, the writer is 
 told, also Professor Adolf Furtwangler.
 
 404 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 after the Persian wars. The arrangement of the hair, for 
 instance, on the Apollo of Olympia, Plate 446, resembles 
 that of the head, Plates 440 and 443a. On the head, 
 Plate 447 b, the braid is arranged like a fillet around the 
 head and is very pronounced. When the custom changed 
 and the hair was worn short enough not to necessitate a 
 braid, the artists familiar with the earlier style substituted 
 an actual band for the braid of hair. This is clearly seen 
 in the heads, Plate 449-450^ In the bronze, Plate 44gb, 
 this band, which was cast separately, has been lost. This 
 bronze also illustrates the greater freedom in the arrange- 
 ment of the several locks that metal permitted, as com- 
 pared with marble, Plate 44ga. Entirely original is the 
 Naples head, Plate 448. Here the narrow band has given 
 way to a broad fillet, which introduced a new and very 
 successful motive, and one which was destined to last. 
 Neither band nor fillet breaks the masses of hair on the two 
 heads, Plates 451 a and b. The orderly arrangement of 
 the locks, however, and the parallel depressions, very pro- 
 nounced in the lowest row, Plate 45 ib, indicate the gen- 
 eral type from which these heads deviate. 
 
 Compared with the earlier heads, these ten heads, Plates 
 446-45 1 b, show greater knowledge of the relation which 
 the features bear to each other, and their individual quali- 
 ties. The eye is always properly sunk below the brow, 
 and the eyelids are often carved with great skill. The 
 brows are either arching, Plate 45 ob, or almost straight 
 and sharp, Plate 448. The only brow which the critical 
 modern observer recognizes as possibly true to nature is 
 found on Plate 45 ib. 
 
 The mouths still continue to offer great difficulties to 
 the artists. Those that are true are by no means the most
 
 HEADS. 45 
 
 beautiful, Plates 44ga and b. The mouth on Plate 45 ib 
 is too studied in effect to be very pleasing. 
 
 The Apollo of Olympia, Plate 446, was designed for a 
 distant view, so that a detailed discussion of his features 
 is ill-advised. Very valuable is the comparison of the 
 marble head, Plate 44ga, with the bronze head on the same 
 plate; and also with the two marble heads on Plate 451, 
 of which one, Plate 451 a, is a copy of a design in bronze, 
 while the other was designed for marble. 
 
 On Plates 4$2a and b and 453, three heads of women of 
 this period are given. The Athena head, Plate 45 2b, 
 originally was helmeted. The head, Plate 453, in Berlin, 
 has recently been recognized as belonging to a type of 
 figure similar to " Penelope," Plate 74. The treatment of 
 the mouth is very interesting. The two halves of the 
 mouth are irregular, a fact which was originally, no doubt, 
 little noticed, when the entire figure and not only the head 
 made its appeal to the spectator. The purpose of this 
 uneven mouth, together with eyes which are not on a 
 straight line, was to suggest a more pronounced tilt of the 
 head than the artist cared to carve because it would have 
 spoiled the upright lines of his composition. The Greeks 
 often resorted to such devices. The ears of the " Marble 
 Faun," Plate 195, for instance, are unevenly placed on the 
 head, and it may perhaps be stated as a rule that tilted 
 heads in good Greek art never are designed with the 
 symmetry which characterizes the natural head and which 
 they are intended to suggest. 
 
 The heads of the so-called FIFTH CENTURY PERIOD con- 
 tinue to develop along the lines established by the earlier 
 artists. The proper relationship of the several features to 
 one another is always carefully observed. The general
 
 406 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 ensemble is often very beautiful, but the character of the 
 person is rarely if ever portrayed in his face. On the 
 contrary, one sooner perceives in the lines of the features 
 the mood of the artist than the frame of mind of his 
 subject. 
 
 The first head of this subdivision is a so-called Apollo in 
 the Louvre, which it is interesting to compare with the 
 head on Plate 44ya. The upper lip is faulty and unpleas- 
 antly restored; with that exception, however, the head well 
 illustrates the advance alike of skill and of conception that 
 had taken place. Characteristic of most heads of this 
 period is the outline of the face, which tapers toward the 
 chin. 
 
 The next four heads, Plates 454b-457a, all belong to the 
 school of Polykleitos. Plate 455 reproduces the head of 
 the Delian Diadoumenos, Plate 115, and Plate 45;a, the 
 bronze herm 1 of the Doryphoros (see Plate 113), now in 
 Naples. The other two heads are in the Museum in 
 Berlin. 2 They show, especially over the forehead, the 
 characteristic treatment of the hair of the Doryphoros, 
 Plates 113 and 45 7a. The long locks of the head, Plate 
 454b, remind one of the so-called Medusa Ludovisi, Plate 
 495 ; while the broad fillet of the Diadoumenos, Plate 455, 
 calls to mind the head in Naples, Plate 448. In the Dia- 
 doumenos no locks protrude below the fillet, which gives 
 the appearance of a high forehead. 
 
 1 Herm is the generic term of heads erected on pillars. Originally 
 probably all such heads represented Hermes. These pillars were often 
 decorated with garlands. The projections, Plate 457, were used for 
 this purpose. On marble herms the projection was probably of wood, 
 inserted in oblong holes; see, for instance, Plate 4 lib. The Dory- 
 phoros herm is inscribed with the name of the copyist, Apollonios of 
 Athens. 2 Berlin Catalogue, 479 and 546.
 
 HEADS. 407 
 
 Great individuality of treatment characterizes the seven 
 heads of women, Plates 4570-463. In all, the artists have 
 endeavored to do justice to the peculiar charms of full heads 
 of hair. The herm of the Amazon, Plate 45 70, found together 
 with that of the Doryphoros, used to be held to offer strong 
 points of resemblance both to the Doryphoros and the head of 
 the Berlin Amazon, Plate 118, and consequently to prove the 
 Polykleitean origin of that statue. This view has recently 
 been attacked, and a stronger resemblance been noted between 
 the Capitoline Amazon, Plate 120, and the Diadoumenos. 
 The question is still disputed. 
 
 The even fullness of the hair of the Amazon, Plate 45 7b, 
 fails to set off the beauty of the face to the same advantage as 
 the parted strands of the hair of the Hera head, Plate 462. 
 In this respect this latter head certainly comes nearer the 
 Polykleitean treatment of hair (see Plates 113, 456 and 45 7a) 
 than that of the Amazon herm. Very similar is the Hera 
 Farnese in Naples, Plate 461, which, however, is a very 
 uninspired copy, and consequently has lost the tender charm 
 of the original. On the broad eyelids of this head the eye- 
 lashes originally were painted, similar to the head, Plate 459. 
 Now when the color has disappeared, the lids appear to be 
 exaggerated, they add an unpleasant expression to the face. 
 
 The head, Plate 463, was found in Argos. It probably 
 belonged to the pediment of the temple, and although not 
 necessarily the head of Hera, is generally known by that name. 
 It was designed to be seen only in profile ; the front view is 
 almost unfinished and very cold. Its profile modelling, how- 
 ever, is very superior to the two heads of Hera, Plates 461 and 
 462, and helps to suggest the beauty that must have distin- 
 guished the original Hera, of which Plate 462 is a copy. 
 
 Another head, 1 originally belonging to a pediment, is the 
 
 1 For a profile view see E. von Mach, Plate XXXIX, fig. 4.
 
 408 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Weber head l in the de Laborde Collection in Paris, Plate 460. 
 It probably once belonged to the East 2 Pediment of the 
 Parthenon. Unfortunately the head has been spoiled by the 
 restoration of a poor nose and mouth. Its grandeur of con- 
 ception, however, is still apparent. Despising all devices such 
 as enhancing its beauty by an artificial arrangement of the 
 hair, the artist has designed a head of such inspiring dignity 
 that it fully deserves the attention which its connection with 
 the Parthenon has given it. 
 
 Perhaps the most interesting of these heads of women is the 
 head in Bologna, Plate 458, probably correctly identified by 
 Furtwangler as that of the Lemnian Athena by Pheidias, a 
 copy of whose statue is discussed in connection with Plate 95. 
 
 Plate 459 reproduces one of the few extant heads with suffi- 
 cient traces of color to convey an idea of the appearance of 
 original statues. Another painted head of Athena is in the 
 Berlin Museum, Catalogue, 76. 
 
 On the next six Plates a few of the heads are reproduced 
 that have been brought in connection with the STYLE OF PRAX- 
 ITELES. The only surely Praxitelean head, however, is the 
 Hermes, Plate 466. There one of the strongest points of that 
 sculptor, his .sunny eyes, is well studied. By a multitude of 
 devices, shadows about the eye are as much avoided as they 
 are sought for in the Skopadean heads, Plates 4690^. The 
 same absence of prominent cheekbones shows in the Boston 
 head of a woman, Plate 468. The forehead of the woman is 
 almost straight, that of Hermes has a pronounced bar. This 
 is a characteristic distinction between the heads of men and 
 women in the fourth century. 
 
 1 It used to be in the Weber collection. 2 Not the West Pediment, 
 as scholars used to believe. See Bruno Sauer, Der Weber-Labordische 
 Kopf, und die Giebelgruppen des Parthenon ( 1 903).
 
 HEADS. 49 
 
 The head of the Hermes of Andros is added here for the 
 sake of comparison with the Praxitelean head, a comparison 
 which is especially desirable in view of the relation that the 
 two statues, Plates 190 and 191, bear to each other. 
 
 The Eubouleus and Hypnos, Plates 464 and 467, are so 
 habitually brought in connection with Praxiteles that it seemed 
 wise to add them here. The writer himself is unable to see in 
 either head any distinctly Praxitelean quality, taking as starting 
 point the Hermes by that sculptor. Praxiteles, may of course, 
 have worked differently when new subjects called for new 
 modes of procedure ; in fact, we may be sure that he did. 
 But what these new modes were we do not know. To see 
 them in the Eubouleus, Plate 464, and Hypnos, Plate 467, is 
 guess work. 
 
 The Hypnos head has lost one of its wings. In the photo- 
 graph the hole near the left ear, where this wing was added, is 
 hidden in the shadow. 
 
 The first definite indication of the STYLE OF SKOPAS has 
 been gained from the two heads from Tegea in the Pelopon- 
 nesos, Plate 469. An excellent summary in tabulated form of 
 Graefs exhaustive studies of these heads is contained in Robin- 
 son's Catalogue, supplement, pp. n and 12. The devices by 
 means of which shadows are created about the eyes are dis- 
 cussed above in connection with Plates 2136., especially Plate 
 215. This same element of shadows and the ensuing pathos 
 of expression is noted in a small head in Boston, Plate 47ob, 
 which for this reason has been brought in connection with 
 Skopas. The face, however, tapers strongly toward the chin, 
 and in this respect continues the style of Polykleitos as ex- 
 hibited in the heads, Plates 454b-457a. 
 
 On less cogent grounds, although possibly correctly, the 
 head of a woman from Athens, Plate 471, is assigned to 
 Skopas. Unfortunately the photograph is taken under wrong
 
 410 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 light, from below instead of from above, so that the high 
 cheekbones and the deep shadows about the eyes are almost 
 lost. The same is true of the somewhat dry copy of this head 
 in Berlin, Plate 47oa. The hair is arranged similar to that of 
 Hera, Plate 461 (see also Plate 462), sparse over the forehead 
 and very full from the temples to the ears. The only differ- 
 ence is that in the Athens head, Plate 471, the fillet is pushed 
 down farther, so that no hair shows on the forehead below it, 
 just as was the case with the Diadoumenos by Polykleitos, 
 Plate 455. 
 
 On the next five plates (472-476), seven heads in STYLES OF 
 VARIOUS ARTISTS are reproduced. The bearded head from 
 Melos, Plate 472, is known as Asklepios, god of healing, be- 
 cause the mildness of its expression seems to agree with the 
 character of this god better than with that of any other deity 
 customarily represented as bearded. 
 
 The tender charm of Eirene, goddess of peace, which was 
 noted in the discussion of her statue, Plate 184, is beautifully 
 expressed in her face, Plate 4733. On the same plate the 
 head of one of the Graces in Siena, Plate 2O9a, is reproduced. 
 It is much less personal and seems to indicate that the late 
 copyist introduced some of the ideas of his own age into this 
 face if indeed the entire group does not owe its origin to this 
 late date, in spite of the general verdict that it is a fourth cen- 
 tury work. 
 
 Similar doubts come to the serious student in respect to the 
 colossal Hera Ludovisi, Plate 474, which is most frequently 
 assigned to this period.' Those familiar with Roman portrait- 
 sculpture and the endeavor of many Roman artists to idealize 
 the faces of their subjects cannot help believing that this head 
 is not a Hera, but a Roman lady of quality. 
 
 1 The best discussion of this head is, F. W., 1272.
 
 HEADS. 411 
 
 The battered head of a woman, Plate 4753, is interesting 
 because it was found in the excavations of the Maussolleion. 
 Its hairdress is like that of Artemisia, 1 Plate 4043, and that 
 of a colossal head from Priene, now in London ( Catalogue II, 
 Plate XXI). Most important, however, are the points of 
 resemblance, between this head and that from Athens, Plate 
 471, especially in respect to the shape of the face and the 
 treatment and distribution of the features. The head in 
 Athens has been assigned to Skopas, and Skopas is said to 
 have been one of the sculptors of the Maussolleion. 
 
 The head, Plate 475b, is known as Aphrodite, owing to its 
 "soft 2 smile and the languishing expression of the almond- 
 shaped, half-closed eyes." Its features, moreover, as Helbig 
 says, "betray a close kinship with those of the Venus of 
 Knidos." 3 Much closer, however, is its kinship with the head 
 of the daughter of Niobe, Plate 222, yes, even with Niobe 
 herself, Plate 220. This resemblance grows when the head 
 in the Terme Museum is viewed from its left side, the one 
 doubtless intended for inspection, but unfortunately rarely 
 photographed. Forming thus a link between the Knidian 
 Aphrodite by Praxiteles' and the Niobe group of doubtful 
 origin, this head, little known at present, promises to become 
 soon one of prime importance for the student of ancient art. 
 
 Plate 476 reproduces a beautiful, but little-known head of 
 the Museum in Berlin/ acquired in Athens in 1844, and 
 unfortunately polished to the detriment of its modelling. The 
 head is not unlike that of the Demeter of Knidos,s Plate 247. 
 
 'The face of Artemisia is a restoration. 2 Quoted from Helbig, 
 1026""." 3 See Plate 198, and for the Kaufmann head, E. von Mach, Plate 
 XXXIX, fig. I. 4 Berlin Catalogue, No. 616. 5 The resemblance is 
 better seen in the front view of Demeter, given E. von Mach, frontis- 
 piece.
 
 412 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Both heads were worked to be inserted in their respective 
 statues. 
 
 The next eleven plates (477-487) offer samples of heads of 
 men presumably of the HELLENISTIC PERIOD. The heads, 
 Plates 478, 484, and 486, which are taken from statues, Apollo 
 Belvedere, Plate 272; Laokoon, Plate 270; and Youth from 
 Antikythera, Plate 290, need no further commentaries than 
 are contained in the discussions of the statues above. 
 
 The head of the giant Anytas, Plate 477, was found, together 
 with two heads, Plates 489 and 492, in the excavations of 
 Lykosoura, and like them is the work of Damophon, who was 
 discussed above in connection with Plate 255. The pictu- 
 resque arrangement of the hair, together with the individuality 
 of the features, gives a unique charm to Anytas. He has no 
 equal in the whole realm of Greek sculpture, a fact which 
 makes it very difficult to date the artist who carved him. In 
 the treatment of the hair, he comes nearest to the fanciful 
 creation of sea deities, such as are reproduced on Plate 483. 
 The smaller locks on his forehead remind one of the locks on 
 the forehead of the youth, Plate 486. 
 
 Almost equally unique, although along different lines, is the 
 dreamy head of Apollo, leader of the Muses, in the British 
 Museum, Plate 479a. Fanciful in the extreme, this head can 
 yet not disguise the early prototype from which, in a series of 
 changes, it has developed. This is most apparent in the 
 arrangement of the hair over the forehead, which calls to mind 
 Polykleitean heads, such as the youth in Berlin, Plate 456. 
 The fanciful bow of hair in the center of the head is frequent 
 in the Hellenistic age with heads of women and of Apollo, who 
 at that time began to be represented more and more effemi- 
 nately. The same bow occurs on Plates 478 and 480. This 
 latter head in fact may be considered to be a very prosaic and 
 exaggerated copy of the same original, from which also the 
 head, Plate 4793, is derived.
 
 HEADS. 413 
 
 Rather interesting is a peculiar and not successful device of 
 the artist who carved the so-called Alexander, Plate 4790. In 
 order to suggest a more pronounced tilt than he actually cared 
 to carve, 1 he has carved the center line of the hair with the 
 nicely parted locks not in the center of the forehead, but 
 nearer the right temple. This device was originally more 
 apparent when the heavy masses of hair over the partition, 
 perhaps arranged in a bow similar to that of the Apollo on the 
 same plate, were not broken away. 
 
 The bronze head of an Athlete in the Louvre, Plate 481, shows 
 by its fanciful arrangement of the hair that it belongs later than 
 the fourth century. Below the hair, however, the features are 
 of surpassing beauty and dignity. It is well to compare this 
 head with that of the youth from Antikythera, in Athens, Plate 
 486, and to note how much the Athens head falls below the 
 standard of Greek art. The admiration bestowed by many 
 people on the Antikythera figure is entirely without foundation. 
 
 The perfection of the technique of bronze casting is well 
 illustrated in the two heads, Plates 482 and 485. The exact 
 date of the former is unknown. It represents a professional 
 athlete, and doubtless belonged to a victor statue in Olympia. 
 Although generally assigned to the Hellenistic Period, the 
 head might, the writer believes, also have been made in the 
 fourth century. Michaelis 2 actually mentions it in connection 
 with Lysippos. A comparison of this head with the early 
 bronze, Plate 442, is valuable as showing the direction in 
 which Greek sculpture developed. 
 
 The other head, Plate 485, is chiefly interesting as revealing 
 a different conception of a youthful satyr from that of the 
 " Marble Faun," Plate 195, generally assigned to Praxiteles. 
 
 1 See above the discussion of the head, Plate 453. 2 Springer- 
 Michaelis, p. 259.
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 The animal nature of the little creature is much more promi- 
 nent in the later head. 
 
 Plate 484, which reproduces the head of Laokoon, ought to 
 be studied by the side of Plate 487, Zeus Otricoli. The 
 remarkable relationship that exists between these two heads 
 has been pointed out in E. von Mach, p. 313. 
 
 The next ten plates, 488-497, offer several heads of women 
 of the same period. Damophon ' was the sculptor of Artemis, 
 Plate 489, and Demeter, Plate 492 ; while Euboulides probably 
 carved the once helmeted head of Athena, Plate 490. With 
 these exceptions the artists of none of the other heads are 
 known. 
 
 The Athena, Plate 490, is especially interesting, because, if 
 the attribution to the Euboulides monument, near which it was 
 found and the inscribed base of which is extant, 2 is correct, 
 we possess in her a part of the only monument "which 3 we 
 can identify as having been actually seen by Pausanias during 
 his visit to Athens." 
 
 The two heads on Plate 488 belong to the statues of the 
 Aphrodite of Capua, Plate 293, and the Nike of Brescia, Plate 
 301, the points of correspondence between which were noted 
 above in the discussions of the statues. 
 
 The ugly fracture of the nose of the beautiful head, Plate 
 491, renders an appreciative study of the sleeping girl very 
 difficult. " The deep breathing," says Helbig,* " of the fair 
 sleeper is indicated naturally and charmingly in the treatment 
 of the half-opened mouth. The expression shows a slight 
 
 'For this artist see above the discussions of Plates 255 and 477. 
 2 See Overbeck II, p. 438, and references there given. 3 Quoted from 
 Gardner, Ancient Athens, p. 517. Mr. Gardner refers only to the statue 
 of Athena, but two other fragments of this monument have been found, 
 the torso of a woman and the head of a woman. 4 Helbig, 1084.
 
 HEADS. 4*5 
 
 trace of melancholy. As there are no determinative attributes, 
 we have to give up the idea of definite identification, but the 
 fillet seems to indicate a mythical personage rather than a 
 grave figure." Since, however, the mythical girl sleeper of 
 antiquity was Ariadne, this name is generally given to the 
 head. 
 
 Plate 493 reproduces one of the treasures of the Museum in 
 Berlin, a head from Cyprus. It is characterized by large, 
 generous features and a full open mouth. The peculiar ex- 
 pression, which is due to these points, is best appreciated 
 when the head is compared, for instance, with that of Artemis, 
 Plate 489. Very similar in this respect is a head from Perga- 
 mon, likewise in Berlin, 1 a fact which seems to point to 
 Pergamean influences also in the head from Cyprus, especially 
 since on the large frieze of the altar at Pergamon 2 open 
 mouths are very common. 
 
 The delicacy of modelling of the exquisite head in Boston, 
 Plate 494, is so great that not even this good reproduction is 
 able to suggest it. The head is mentioned in the Report of 
 the Trustees (Robinson), 1903, p. 57, but unfortunately with- 
 out any mention of its provenience. Robinson there attributes 
 the work to the school of Praxiteles, and the second half of 
 the fourth century B, C. This attribution is doubtful ; the 
 head tan hardly be dated earlier than in the Hellenistic Period, 
 owing to its peculiar hairdress, which finds its nearest parallel 
 in the Apollo heads, Plates 479a and 480. It does not, 
 moreover, show the sunny eyes, which to-day are considered 
 characteristic of all surely Praxitelean works.3 The shadowy 
 effect of the small eyes in the Boston head is very pronounced, 
 in fact more so than in almost any other head ; and the cheek- 
 
 'See E. von Mach, Plate XXXIX, fig. 4. 2 See Plates, 265-268. 
 3 See the discussion of Plate 466.
 
 4*6 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 bones are very prominent, both indications of an un-Praxite- 
 lean origin. The treatment of the nude is the acme of skill, 
 rendering the upper surface of the marble almost pellucid. In 
 this respect the Boston head finds its nearest parallel in the 
 head of Apollo, Plate 47ga. 
 
 The next three heads, Plates 495-497, are known as heads 
 of Medusa. This identification, however, is very doubtful in 
 the case of the so-called Medusa Ludovisi, Plate 495. Helbig 1 
 argues with force that the head is not that of the Medusa, but 
 of a sleeping Fury, one of the Eumenides. "The hair tangled 
 by the wind, and the locks on the cheek, heavy with perspira- 
 tion, indicate the ardour with which the Fury has been pursu- 
 ing a criminal. She is sleeping for the nonce ; but even in 
 her sleep she retains her severity of expression and her wrath 
 against the miscreant." Wolters, 2 who with Helbig denies 
 that this head is that of Medusa, dying or dead at the hands 
 of Perseus * believes, contrary to Helbig, that death neverthe- 
 less and not sleep is here represented. "There is perhaps," 
 he says, " no other work extant of ancient sculpture in which 
 the awfulness of death is portrayed with equal force and super- 
 lative skill." The writer himself inclines to the view that the 
 woman is sleeping ; but he acknowledges that the artist, if this 
 was his intention, failed to express himself with sufficient clear- 
 ness. 4 The disposition of the body, however, to which the 
 head belonged, may have contained the key to the interpreta- 
 tion. The copious restorations, including a bust and an oval 
 background, seen on most photographs, were removed for the 
 making of this picture. Viewed by itself without these con- 
 fusing additions, the head clearly is the fragment of a group. 
 
 'Helbig, 866, with complete bibliography. 2 F. W., 1419. 3 See the 
 discussion to Plate 47a. 4 Contrast this head, for instance, with the so- 
 called Sleeping Ariadne, Plate 491.
 
 HEADS. 4*7 
 
 The original group, Helbig suggests, comprised the three 
 Furies, arranged similarly to a group on a vase-painting from 
 Magna Graecia/ where one of the three dreaded goddesses is 
 resting her head in sleep against the shoulder of a seated 
 sister. 
 
 The generally accepted date of this head is the Hellenistic 
 Period. Wickhoff, 2 however, would assign her to the Roman 
 period, and more specifically to the time of Augustus. He 
 reaches this conclusion by noting the resemblance between 
 this head and the sleeping Endymion, Plate 306, which he 
 erroneously, the writer believes, calls Roman. 
 
 No doubt attaches to the common name of Medusa of the 
 head in Munich, Plate 496. The wings and snakes sufficiently 
 characterize it. Medusa was the only mortal of the three 
 gorgons. Perseus is said to have cut off her head. 3 In early 
 art she was represented as an awe-inspiring monster. Later, 
 however, possibly under the influence of Pindar, who called 
 her beautiful, her representations changed. The head of 
 Medusa had the power, according to the myth, of turning to 
 stone whoever looked at it. It was, therefore, an appropriate 
 decoration of a shield and especially of the aigis.4 As such 
 it is already mentioned by Homer, Ilias XI, 36. The Medusa 
 Rondanini, Plate 496, shows a late development of the type 
 of head used for such shield decorations. 
 
 Of a very different type is the head in Paris, Plate 497. The 
 wing and the snakes, almost disguised in the surrounding hair, 
 indicate that this woman is one of the three gorgons. Sleep, 
 however, seems to be represented rather than death, so that it 
 is doubtful whether Medusa is meant or one of her immortal 
 sisters. This head is especially interesting, in view of the 
 
 1 Helbig, 866, fig. 35. 2 Wickhoff, Roman Art, p. 38. 3 See Plate, 4;a. 
 4 See almost all statues of Athena.
 
 4*8 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 doubts that attach to the head, Plate 495, as representing one 
 of the gorgons ; for those who see in her, in spite of Helbig's 
 arguments to the contrary, a Medusa, will be ready to affirm 
 that if one artist felt at liberty to treat the distinguishing at- 
 tributes of the monster, wings and snakes, with as much deli- 
 cacy as the artist of the Paris head did, another might be 
 supposed to have omitted them entirely. 
 
 The next two heads, Plates 498 and 499, are samples of a 
 mode of sculpture not uncommon throughout antiquity, but 
 most in vogue late in the Hellenistic Period and during the 
 ascendency of the Romans, that of working in a style older 
 than the one that came natural to the artist. The severity 
 of archaic art, when halting skill and fervor of conception 
 created works that possessed a curious power to charm, ap- 
 pealed to many late sculptors. They tried to imitate it out- 
 right, or to mix with it a bit of their own more expressive skill. 
 Their works generally are known as archaistic. Perhaps the 
 noblest of all such works is the head of Dionysos in Naples, 
 Plate 498, in which mild and natural features, such as were 
 unknown to the early artists, are blended with simple severity 
 of treatment, especially in the hair of the head. 
 
 A more accurate copy of an archaic prototype is the Zeus 
 Talleyrand, Plate 499. It is archaic art seen through the 
 spectacles of an uninspired age. The perfect symmetry and 
 exasperatingly accurate dimensions of this head remind one of 
 the machine-made heads of the present day. But even in this 
 guise the dignity of the original is apparent. 
 
 Several centuries separate this head from the realistic head 
 of a man, Plate 500, carved in late Roman times, when men 
 had acquired the habit of wearing beards. In this head 
 nothing is left to the imagination, every detail is carved in an 
 illusionistic manner, but not the less carefully. Even the 
 brows and the pupils of the eyes are indicated. The head is
 
 HEADS. 419 
 
 carved by a master hand, but although the man himself who 
 wielded the chisel may have been a Greek by birth, one feels 
 that he was no longer Greek in spirit. A new conception of 
 art had dawned. This dawn was short ; for soon utter decline 
 overtook all manifestations of art ; centuries elapsed before 
 either painting or sculpture rose above the commonplace. 
 But when that time finally came, memories of heads like this 
 head in Athens survived, and many of the images of Christ 
 bear unmistakable points of resemblance to the head of this 
 unknown Greek.
 
 LIST OF PLATES. 
 
 Part One. Mycenaean Age. 
 
 PLATE. 
 
 1 . . Stairway in the Palace of Phaistos Crete 
 
 2 . . Throne in the Throne-Room, Palace, Knossos Crete 
 
 3 . . Gate of the Lionesses Mykenai 
 
 4 . . Mask of Bearded Warrior from 
 
 Mykenai National Museum, Athens 
 
 5 . . Chariot Relief Museum, Candia 
 
 This relief does not belong to the Mycenaean Age proper, but 
 to the transition from that age to historic Greek sculpture. 
 
 6 . . Three Nude Idols British Museum, London 
 
 7 . . Two Painted Metopes from 
 
 Thermon National Museum, Athens 
 
 These metopes do not belong to the Mycenzan Age proper, 
 but to the transition from that age to historic Greek sculpture. 
 
 8 . . Gold Cups from Vaphio National Museum, Athens 
 
 This Plate is reproduced with the permission of Ginn & Co. 
 
 9 . . Gold Ornaments from Mykenai . . National Museum, Athens 
 10 . . Gold Ornaments from Mykenai . . National Museum, Athens
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Part Two. Archaic Greek Sculpture". 
 
 PLATES 11-56. For Grave Reliefs, Portraits and Heads, see 
 Parts IX, X and XI. 
 
 Statues of Men. 
 
 lia . Kitylos and Dermys National Museum, Athens 
 
 lib ."Apollo "of Orchomenos . . . . National Museum, Athens 
 
 12. ."Apollo "of Thera National Museum, Athens 
 
 13 . . "Apollo" of Melos National Museum, Athens 
 
 14 . . " Apollo " of Tenea , . Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 i$a . "Apollo" of Mt. Ptoos National Museum, Athens 
 
 15^ . "Apollo " of Mt. Ptoos (later style), National Museum, Athens 
 
 16 . ." Apollo " Strangford British Museum, London 
 
 ija . Statuette after Kanachos British Museum, London 
 
 17 b . Bronze Statuette from Ligourio Museum, Berlin 
 
 1 8 . . "Apollo" Piombino Louvre, Paris 
 
 19 . . Calfbearer Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 Chares, Plate 360 
 
 Statues of Women. 
 
 20 . . Figure of Woman from Delos 
 
 (Artemis) National Museum, Athens 
 
 21 . . Akropolis Figure Resembling 
 
 No. 20 Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 22 . . "Hera" of Samos Louvre, Paris 
 
 23 . . Akropolis Figure Resembling 
 
 No. 22 Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 24 . . Akropolis Fragment Resembling 
 
 No. 22 ,. . . . Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 25 . . Akropolis Figures Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 26 . . Akropolis Figures Akropolis Museum, Athens
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. tfi 
 
 27 . . Akropolis Figure Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 28 . . Akropolis Figure Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 Antenor Base, Text Illustration No. 3 
 
 29 . . Akropolis Figure Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 30 . . Akropolis Figure Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 31 . . Figures of Women from Delos . . Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 32 . . Flying Figure from Delos National Museum, Athens 
 
 Restoration, Text Illustration No. I 
 Oriental Artemis, Text Illustration No. 5 
 
 33 . . Bronze Nike British Museum, London 
 
 Marble Nike (Akropolis style), Text Illustration No. 2 
 
 34 . . Athena Statuette, beaten out of two 
 
 sheets of metal Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 35 . . Athena (bronze statuette) .... Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 363 . Chares, seated figure from 
 
 Branchidai British Museum, London 
 
 36^ . Woman, seated figure from 
 
 Branchidai British Museum, London 
 
 Another Woman from Branchidai, Text Illustration No. 4 
 
 37 . . Seated Athena Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 38 . . Sphinx from Spata National Museum, Athens 
 
 Another Archaic Sphinx, Text Illustration No. 6 
 
 Reliefs and Pediment Sculptures. 
 
 39 . . Reliefs from Assos Louvre, Paris 
 
 4O . Herakles and the Hydra Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 4o3 . Herakles and the Triton Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 4ia . The Typhon Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 416 . A Bull Attacked by Lions .... Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 42 . . Athena and a Giant Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 43a . Metopes of the Treasury of Sikyon Museum, Delphi 
 
 43^ . Relief from the Frieze of the Treasury (possibly 
 
 belonging to Siphnos) Museum, Delphi 
 
 44 . . Reliefs from Frieze, Treasury of Knidos . . . Museum, Delphi 
 
 45 . . Sculptured Drum of a Column, old temple 
 
 of Artemis in Ephesos . . . : . British Museum, London
 
 v GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 46 . . Pediment Relief, Treasury of Megara, 
 
 Olympia Museum, Olympia 
 
 47<z . Perseus Slaying Medusa, metope from 
 
 Selinus x ... Museum, Palermo 
 
 47^ . Herakles carrying the Kekropes, metope from 
 
 Selinus Museum, Palermo 
 
 480 . Four-horse Chariot, metope from Selinus . Museum, Palermo 
 48^ . Votive Relief of Victorious Charioteer . . . Museum, Berlin 
 Europa, metope from Selinus, Text 
 
 Illustration No. 7 
 
 49 . . Zeus and Hera, metope from Selinus . . . Museum, Palermo 
 
 Gigantomachia, two metopes, Text 
 Illustrations Nos. 8 and 9 
 
 50 . . Aktaion and Artemis, metope from Selinus . Museum, Palermo 
 510 . Herakles and Hippolyta, metope from 
 
 Selinus Museum, Palermo 
 
 51 . Athena and Giant, metope from Selinus . . Museum, Palermo 
 
 Selinus metopes in their settings, Text 
 
 Illustration No. 10 
 520 . Gable End of a Tomb from 
 
 Xanthos British Museum, London 
 
 52^ . Frieze of Cocks and Hens from 
 
 Xanthos British Museum, London 
 
 53 . . Frieze of the "Harpy" Tomb . . . British Museum, London 
 
 54 . . Reliefs from Thasos Louvre, Paris 
 
 55 . . The Death of Aigis- 
 
 theus Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 56 . . Figure Mounting a Chariot . . . Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 Head of Hermes, Text Illustration No. n 
 
 1 The Greek spelling of Selinus is Selinous.
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Part Three. Tfansitional Period. 
 
 PLATES 57-94. For Grave Reliefs, Portraits and Heads, see 
 Parts IX, X and XI. 
 
 Statues of Men. 
 
 57 . . Statue of a "Boy" Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 58 . . Harmodios and Aristogeiton (Tyrannicides) Museum, Naples 
 
 " Tyrannicides," Bobolini Gardens and Naples, Text 
 Illustrations, Nos. 14 and 15 
 
 59 . . Aristogeiton Museum, Naples 
 
 60 . . Charioteer of Delphi Museum, Delphi 
 
 61 . . Discus Thrower, after Myron . . . British Museum, London 
 
 62 . . Discus Thrower, after Myron Vatican, Rome 
 
 63 . . Discus Thrower, after Myron .... Lancelotti Palace, Rome 
 
 64 . . Discus Thrower (cast with body of 62 and head of 63.) 
 
 650 . Marsyas Lateran, Rome 
 
 65^ . Statuette of Marsyas British Museum, London 
 
 66 . . A Boxer, probably after Pythagoras, so-called " Apollo 
 
 with the Omphalos " National Museum, Athens 
 
 67 . . A Boxer, probably after Pythagoras, so-called 
 
 "Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo " . . . British Museum, London 
 
 68 . . Cassel Apollo Museum, Cassel 
 
 69 . . Apollo from Pompeii Museum, Naples 
 
 70 . . Apollo from the Tiber Terme, Rome 
 
 71 . . Hero or God (Zeus?) Glypotothek, Munich 
 
 72 . . Spinario Palazzo dei Conservator!
 
 vi GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Statues of Women. 
 
 73 . . Statue of a Girl Racer . Vatican, Rome 
 
 74 . . " Penelope " Vatican, Rome 
 
 A copy of the head belonging to this statue, Plate 453 
 " Penelope " properly restored, Text Illustration No. 23 
 
 75. . " Hestia" Giustiniani Torlonia, Rome 
 
 76. . "Dancers" from Herculaneum Museum, Naples 
 
 77 . . Statue of a Woman . Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 Reliefs and Pediment Sculpture. 
 
 TEMPLE OF AIGINA. 
 Restoration of Temple, Text Illustration No. 13 
 
 78 . . North Corner of West Pediment .... Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 79 . . Fallen Warrior of East Pediment .... Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 80 . . Fallen Warrior of West Pediment .... Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 81 . . Standing Spearman of East Pediment . . Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 82 . . Archer, "Herakles," of East Pediment 
 
 (back view) Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 83 . . Center of West Pediment Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 TEMPLE OF ZEUS, OLYMPIA. 
 
 Restoration of the Olympia Pediments, Text Illustrations 
 Nos. 20 and 21 
 
 840 . Oinomaos, East Pediment Museum, Olympia 
 
 84^ . Sterope, East Pediment Museum, Olympia 
 
 853 "Kladeos,"East Pediment Museum, Olympia 
 
 8$t> "Alpheios,"East Pediment Museum, Olympia 
 
 86 . . Apollo, West Pediment ....... Museum, Olympia 
 
 Head of this statute on Plate 446 
 8;a . Centaur Holding a Girl by the Hair, West 
 
 Pediment Museum, Olympia 
 
 87^ . Centaur Biting a Boy, West Pediment . . . Museum, Olympia
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. Vll 
 
 88 . . Old Woman, West Pediment Museum, Olympia 
 
 89 . . Centaur Running away with a Girl, West 
 
 Pediment Museum, Olympia 
 
 90 . . Atlas Metope Museum, Olympia 
 
 91 . . Augeian Stable Metope Museum, Olympia 
 
 920 . Herakes and Bull Metope Museum, Olympia 
 
 Stymphalian Birds Metope, Text Illustration No. 18 
 f)2b . Theseus and Bull, Metope Theseion, Athens 
 
 Plate gzS is placed here for the sake of comparison. It be- 
 longs after Plate 133. 
 
 93. . . Athena, "Mourning" or 
 
 " Thinking " Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 94 . . Three Women in Light Garments, so-called 
 
 "Birth of Aphrodite." Decorative Relief 
 
 of a Throne Terme, Rome 
 
 The reliefs of the sides of the throne, Text 
 
 Illustrations Nos. 16 and 17
 
 viii GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Part Four. Fifth Century. 
 
 PLATES 95-183. For Grave Reliefs, Portraits and Heads, see 
 Parts IX, X and XI. 
 
 Connected with Pheidias and His School. 
 
 95 . . Lemnian Athena, cast Albertinum, Dresden 
 
 Head of this statue on Plate 458 
 
 96 . . Athena Parthenos, copy Prado, Madrid 
 
 Athena Parthenos, head on gem by Aspasios, 
 Text Illustration No. 12 
 
 97 . . Athena Parthenos, Varvakeion copy, National Museum, Athens 
 
 98 . . Athena Parthenos, Lenormant copy . National Museum, Athens 
 
 990 . Athena Parthenos, Pergamon copy Museum, Berlin 
 
 99< . Athena Parthenos, copy by Antiochos ( ? ) . . . Terme, Rome 
 99<r . Athena Parthenos, copy, " Minerve au Collier " . Louvre, Paris 
 
 100 . . Copy of Shield of Athena Parthenos . British Museum, London 
 
 101 . . Athena Medici Ecole des Beaux Arts, Paris 
 
 1020 . Farnese Athena Museum, Naples 
 
 IO23 . Hope Athena Deepdene, England 
 
 iO2c . Albani Athena Villa Albani, Rome 
 
 103 . . Draped Figure of a Woman (Aphrodite?) . . Museum, Berlin 
 
 Apollo, " Barberini Muse", Text Illustration No. 25 
 104. . Hera, " Demeter" (Ceres) Vatican, Rome 
 
 105 . . Hera, " Barberini Juno" Vatican, Rome 
 
 1 06 . . Hera, " Borghese Juno", Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 Hera in Vienna, Text Illustration No. 26 
 
 107 . . Athena of Velletri Louvre, Paris 
 
 108 . . Aphrodite, perhaps after Alkamenes, so-called 
 
 "Venus Genetrix" ,. Louvre, Paris 
 
 109 . . Woman Running . . . Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 Farnese Diadoumenos, Plate 117
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. IX 
 
 Paionios. 
 
 no . . Nike of Paionios Museum, Olympia 
 
 in. . Restoration of Nike of Paionios 
 
 Alkamenes. 
 
 112 . . Hermes after Alkamenes from 
 
 Pergamon Museum, Constantinople 
 
 See also Plate 108. 
 
 Polykleitos and His School. 
 
 113 . . Spearbearer (Doryphoros) after Polykleitos . Museum, Naples 
 
 A copy of the head of this statue, the bronze 
 herm in Naples, Plate 457^. 
 
 114 . . Man Fastening His Fillet (Diadoume- 
 
 nos) after Polykleitos, Vaison copy . British Museum, London 
 
 115 . . Man Fastening His Fillet (Diadoumenos) 
 
 after Polykleitos. Delos copy . . National Museum, Athens 
 Head of this statue, Plate 455. 
 n6a . Man Tying His Fillet (Diadoumenos) after 
 
 Polykleitos, Madrid copy Prado, Madrid 
 
 ndb . Man Fastening His Fillet 
 
 (Diadoumenos) . . . Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 117 . . Man Fastening His Fillet (Farnese Diadoume- 
 
 nos), perhaps copy after Pheidias . British Museum, London 
 
 Placed here for the sake of comparison. It belongs after 
 the School of Pheidias. 
 
 118 . . Amazon, Berlin type Museum, Berlin 
 
 A probable copy of the head of this statue, 
 the bronze herm in Naples, Plate 457^. 
 
 119 . . Amazon Lansdowne House, London 
 
 1 20 . . Amazon, Capitoline type Capitoline, Rome 
 
 121 . . Amazon, Mattel type Vatican, Rome 
 
 1220 . Statuette of a Youth Louvre, Paris 
 
 122^ . Westmacott Athlete ....... British Museum, London 
 
 \22c . Statuette of a Young Satyr . . Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris
 
 X GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 123 .. Statue of a Youth, 
 
 " L'Idolino " Archaeological Museum, Florence 
 
 124 . . Hermes Museum, Boston 
 
 125 . . Ares, "Borghese Mars" Louvre, Paris 
 
 Unidentified or Doubtful. 
 
 1260 . Athlete Dropping Oil in His Hand . . . Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 1 263 . Standing Discus Thrower Vatican, Rome 
 
 127 . . "Apollo" from Eleusis Museum, Berlin 
 
 128 . . Asklepios or Zeus Albertinum, Dresden 
 
 129 . . The Dioskoroi, Castor and Pollux . . . Monte Cavallo, Rome 
 
 Temple Sculpture. 
 
 THE THESEION, ATHENS. 
 
 130. . The " Theseion " Athens 
 
 Metope of Theseion, Plate 92^. 
 131-133 The "Theseion" Frieze Theseion, Athens 
 
 THE PARTHENON, ATHENS. 
 
 134 . . Restoration of the Akropolis of Athens. 
 
 135 . . The Parthenon from the North West. 
 
 The Pediments. 
 
 136 . . The " Fates," East Pediment .... British Museum, London 
 
 137 . . "Theseus," East Pediment .... British Museum, London 
 
 138 . . "Iris" East Pediment British Museum, London 
 
 139 . . "Nike," East Pediment British Museum, London 
 
 1400 . Helios and Horses, East Pediment . British Museum, London 
 
 140^ . Selene and Horse, East Pediment .... Athens and London 
 
 Carrey's (?) Drawings of Pediments, Text Illustration No. 22 
 141 . . "Kephissos" or " Ilissos," West 
 
 Pediment British Museum, London 
 
 " Hermes," West Pediment, Text Illustration, No. 24 
 Relief of Birth of Athena, Madrid, Text Illustration, No. 30 
 Weber Head, Plate 460
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. xi 
 
 The Frieze. 
 
 (For the complete reproductions of the Parthenon frieze see the plates 
 
 accompanying the Handbook.) 
 142-156 West Frieze, complete Parthenon, Athens 
 
 Plate 142 includes, besides the last man of the West Frieze, 
 the first two figures of the North Frieze. 
 
 157 . . Seated Gods, East Frieze British Museum, London 
 
 158 . . Maidens, East Frieze Louvre, Paris 
 
 159 . . Aphrodite, Eros and Magistrates, East 
 
 Frieze British Museum, London 
 
 The Metopes. 
 1 60- 1 64 Nine Metopes of the Parthenon . . British Museum, London 
 
 THE ERECHTHEION, ATHENS. 
 
 165 .. The Erechtheion. 
 
 Another view of the Erechtheion, Text Illustration No. 34 
 
 166 . . One of the Maidens (Karyatides), porch 
 
 of the Erechtheion British Museum, London 
 
 167 . .A Roman Karyatid Vatican, Rome 
 
 A"Karyatid"in Copenhagen, Plate 317 
 
 Giant from Agrigentum, Text Illustration No. 35 
 
 Plate 167 and Text Illustration No. 35 are placed here for 
 the sake of comparison. 
 
 THE ATHENA-NIKE TEMPLE, ATHENS. 
 
 168 . . The Athena-Nike Temple Athens 
 
 169 . . Slabs from the West Frieze .... British Museum, London 
 
 Slabs from the East Frieze, Text Illustrations Nos. 37 and 38 
 
 170 . . Nike Fastening Her Sandal, from the 
 
 balustrade Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 Girls Decorating a herm, Text Illustration No. 32 
 
 171 . . Two Nike Figures with a Bull, from 
 
 the balustrade Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 Roman Relief with a Motive Similar to Plate 171, 
 
 Text Illustration No. 33 
 Additional Nike, Text Illustration No. 29
 
 xii GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF APOLLO AT BASSAI NEAR PHIGALEIA. 
 
 172 . . Two Slabs of the Frieze British Museum, London 
 
 173 . . Two Slabs of the Frieze British Museum, London 
 
 Monumental Sepulchral Structures. 
 
 THE NEREID MONUMENT. 
 
 Reconstruction of the Nereid Monument, 
 
 Text Illustration No. 39 
 174 . . Reconstruction of a Part of the Nereid 
 
 Monument British Museum, London 
 
 1750 . Nereid British Museum, London 
 
 175^ . Nereid British Museum, London 
 
 176 . . Nereid British Museum, London 
 
 THE GYOLBASHI MONUMENT. 
 
 177 . . Parts of the Reliefs from Gyolbashi .... Museum, Vienna 
 
 Other Reliefs. 
 
 178 . . Eleusinian Relief National Museum, Athens 
 
 179 . . Orpheus, Eurydike and Hermes Museum, Naples 
 
 1 80 . . Hermes and the Nymphs Museum, Berlin 
 
 181* . Medea and the Daughters of Pelias Museum, Berlin 
 
 182 . . Fragment of a Horseman Vatican, Rome 
 
 183 . . Votive Relief Museum, Boston 
 
 "It became necessary at the last moment to substitute the Berlin 
 copy of this relief for the better one in the Lateran Museum, Rome. 
 The Handbook contains a description of the latter relief.
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. Xlll 
 
 Part Five. Fourth Century. 
 
 PLATES 184-253. For Grave Reliefs, Portraits and Heads see 
 Parts IX, X and XI. 
 
 Kephisodotos. 
 
 184 . . Eirene and Ploutos Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 Head of this statue on Plate 4730. 
 
 Praxiteles and His School. 
 
 Statues of Men. 
 
 185. ." Apollo " Sauroktonos Vatican, Rome 
 
 186 . . "Apollo" Sauroktonos Louvre, Paris 
 
 "Apollo" Sauroktonos (bronze), Villa Albani, 
 Text Illustration No. 27 
 
 187 . . Dionysos, " Sardanapallos " Vatican, Rome 
 
 188 . . Eros with Bow Capitoline, Rome 
 
 189 . . Eros Centocelle Vatican, Rome 
 
 190 . . Hermes of Praxiteles Museum, Olympia 
 
 Head of this statue on Plate 466 
 Hermes Bringing Dionysos to the Nymphs, 
 Text Illustration, No. 31 
 
 191 . . Hermes of Andros National Museum, Athens 
 
 Head of this statue, Plate 465 
 
 192 . . Hermes Belvedere Vatican, Rome 
 
 193 . . Hermes Farnese British Museum, London 
 
 194 . . "Narkissos" (probably a Dionysos) .... Museum, Naples 
 
 195 . . Satyr, " Marble Faun" Capitoline, Rome 
 
 196 . . Satyr, torso Louvre, Paris 
 
 197 . . Satyr Pouring Wine Terme, Rome
 
 XIV GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Statues of Women. 
 
 198 . . Aphrodite (Knidian) nude, from the cast . . . Vatican, Rome 
 
 1993 . Aphrodite (Knidian) with metal drapery . . . Vatican, Rome 
 
 199^ . Aphrodite Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 200 . . Aphrodite Anadyomene 
 
 (Pselioumene) British Museum, London 
 
 201 . . Aphrodite, Capitoline Capitoline, Rome 
 
 202. . Aphrodite, " Venus dei Medici " Uffizi, Florence 
 
 203 . . Aphrodite of Aries Louvre, Paris 
 
 204 . . Aphrodite Museum, Syracuse 
 
 205 . . Artemis from Cyprus Museum, Vienna 
 
 206 . . Artemis-Tyche (Isis-Tyche) Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 207 . . Artemis of Gabii Louvre, Paris 
 
 2o8a . Maiden from Herculaneum ...... Albertinum, Dresden 
 
 2086 . Matron from Herculaneum Albertinum, Dresden 
 
 Groups. 
 
 209^ . Three Graces Capitoline, Rome 
 
 Head of one of these graces, Plate 473^ 
 209^ . Boy and Girl, " Eros and Psyche" Capitoline, Rome 
 
 Reliefs. 
 
 2 1 02 1 2 Slabs of Marble Base from 
 
 Mantineia National Museum, Athens 
 
 Skopas and His School. 
 
 213 , . Ares Ludovisi Terme, Rome 
 
 214 . . Meleager Museum, Berlin 
 
 215 . . Meleager Harvard University, Cambridge 
 
 216 . . Meleager Vatican, Rome 
 
 217 . . Drum from Ephesos British Museum, London 
 
 218 . . Drum from Ephesos, another view . British Museum, London 
 
 219 . . Bacchic Procession Museum, Naples
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. XV 
 
 Works Brought in Connection with Praxiteles and Skopas on 
 Doubtful Authority. 
 
 THE NIOBE GROUP AND RELATED FIGURES. 
 
 220 . . Niobe and Daughter Uffizi, Florence 
 
 221 . . Niobid Chiaramonti Vatican, Rome 
 
 222 . . Niobid, resembling Niobid Chiaramonti . . . Uffizi, Florence 
 
 223 . . Dying Niobid Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 224 . . Fleeing Sons Uffizi, Florence 
 
 Son and Daughter, Vatican, Text Illustration, No. 41 
 
 2250 . Paedagog (with boy) Louvre, Paris 
 
 225* . Paedagog Uffizi, Florence 
 
 226 . . Kneeling Youth Subiacco Terme, Rome 
 
 227 . . " Ilioneus " Museum, Munich 
 
 Plates 226 and 227, although not belonging to the Niobe group, 
 have been placed here because they are most readily looked for 
 in this connection. 
 
 THE MAUSSOLLEION SCULPTURE. 
 
 Maussollos and Artemisia, Plate 404. Head of a Woman, 
 Plate 4750. 
 
 228 . . Slab of the Large Amazon Frieze . British Museum, London 
 2290 . Slab of the Large Amazon Frieze . British Museum, London 
 229^ . Slab of the Large Amazon Frieze . British Museum, London 
 230^ . Slab of the Large Amazon Frieze . British Museum, London 
 230/5 . Slab of the Large Amazon Frieze . British Museum, London 
 231 . . Charioteer of the Small Frieze . . . British Museum, London 
 232. . Charioteer (?), "Apollo" Museum, Boston 
 
 Placed here for the sake of comparison with Plate 231. 
 
 Leochares. 
 
 233 . . Ganymedes and the Eagle Vatican, Rome 
 
 Lysippos and His School. 
 
 234 . . Hagias, after Lysippos Museum, Delphi 
 
 235 . . Apoxyomenos, after Lysippos Vatican, Rome
 
 XVI GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 236 . . Herakles Farnese Museum, Naples 
 
 Herakles, bronze statuette, Louvre, Text 
 Illustration, No. 36 
 
 237 . . Herakles Reposing Museum, Naples 
 
 2380 . Hermes Fastening Sandal Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 238*5 . Hermes Fastening Sandal, " Jason " Louvre, Paris 
 
 239 . . Poseidon Lateran, Rome 
 
 Alexander, Plate 399 
 
 Sculptors of Epidauros. 
 
 2400 . Nike from Epidauros National Museum, Athens 
 
 240^ . Nike from Epidauros National Museum, Athens 
 
 Thrasymedes. 
 
 Asklepios Relief, copy of statue by 
 
 Thrasymedes National Museum, Athens 
 
 Asklepios, another relief, copy of statue 
 
 by Thrasymedes National Museum, Athens 
 
 Timotheos. 
 
 242 . . Amazon, Mounted National Museum, Athens 
 
 243 . . Amazon, Mounted Museum, Boston 
 
 Placed here for the sake of comparison with Plate 242. 
 
 244 . . Two Nereids, Mounted National Museum, Athens 
 
 Artists Unknown. 
 
 2450 . Silenos and Infant Dionysos Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 245*5 . Silenos and Infant Dionysos Vatican, Rome 
 
 245^ . Silenos and Infant Dionysos Louvre, Paris 
 
 246 . . Torso Belvedere Vatican, Rome 
 
 247 . . Demeter of Knidos British Museum, London 
 
 248 . . Flora Farnese Museum, Naples 
 
 249*2 . Demeter Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 249*5 . Kybele Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 250 . . Nymph Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 251 . . Psyche of Capua Museum, Naples 
 
 252 . . Woman from Kyzikos Museum, Berlin 
 
 253 . . Lysikrates Monument Athens
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. xvii 
 
 Part Six. The Hellenistic Period. 
 
 THE AUTUMN DAYS OF GREEK SCULPTURE. 
 
 PLATES 254-315. For Grave Reliefs, Portraits and Heads, see 
 Parts IX, X and XI. 
 
 A. IDENTIFIED SCULPTURE. 
 
 1. BY ARTISTS. 
 Boethos. 
 
 254 . . Boy with Goose Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 Damaphon. 
 
 255 . . Fragment of Drapery National Museum, Athens 
 
 Eutychides. 
 
 256 . . Statue of the Tyche 1 of Antiocheia Vatican, Rome 
 
 2. BY SCHOOLS. 
 Pergamon, First School. 
 
 257 . . Dying Gaul ... Capitoline, Rome 
 
 258 . . Dying Gaul (back) . Capitoline, Rome 
 
 259 . . Gaul and His Wife Terme, Rome 
 
 260 . . Slave Sharpening Knife Uffizi, Florence 
 
 261 . . Marsyas and Slave, suggestion as to appearance of the original ; 
 
 combination group of Marsyas in the Louvre and the Slave, 
 Plate 260. 
 
 1 Tyche is the name of the Greek goddess of Good Luck.
 
 xvill GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Attalos Group. 
 
 262 . . Dead Amazon Museum, Naples 
 
 263 . . Dead Giant Museum, Nables 
 
 2640 . Dying Gaul Museum, Naples 
 
 264/5 . Dead Persian Museum, Naples 
 
 Pergamon, Second School. 
 
 265 . . Restoration of Pergamon Alter . . Pergamon Museum, Berlin 
 
 266 . . Two Slabs of Large Frieze .... Pergamon Museum, Berlin 
 
 267 . . Two Slabs of Large Frieze .... Pergamon Museum, Berlin 
 
 268 . . Two Figures from Large Frieze . Pergamon Museum, Berlin 
 269*1 . Goddess Capitoline, Rome 
 
 Dancing Woman, relief from Pergamon, Plate 308 
 Warrior of Delos, Plate 287 
 
 Priene. 
 
 1696 Statue of Woman British Museum, London 
 
 Rhodes. 
 
 270 . . Laokoon Vatican, Rome 
 
 Head of this statue, Plate 484 
 
 Tralles. 
 
 271 . . Farnese Bull Museum, Naples 
 
 Farnese Bull, side view, Text Illustration No. 44 
 Wall Painting from Pompeii with Motive of Far- 
 nese Bull, Text Illustration No. 45 
 
 B. ARTISTS AND SCHOOLS UNKNOWN. 
 Statues of Men. 
 
 272 . . Apollo Belvedere Vatican, Rome 
 
 Head of this statue, Plate 478 
 
 273 . . Boy Praying Museum, Berlin 
 
 274 . . Boy found in the Rhine Museum, Berlin
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. XIX 
 
 275 . . Centaurs, copies (?) by Papias and Aristeas, Capitoline, Rome 
 
 276 . . Youthful Dionysos Terme, Rome 
 
 277 . . Menelaos and Patroklos Loggia dei Lanzi, Florence 
 
 The Pasquino, Rome, Text Illustration No. 42 
 
 278 . . Nile Vatican, Rome 
 
 279 . . Poseidon of Melos National Museum, Athens 
 
 280 . . Satyr, Barberini Faun Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 281 . . Satyr Sleeping Museum, Naples 
 
 2820 . Satyr Dancing, bronze Museum, Naples 
 
 282*5 . Satyr Dancing, marble Villa Borghese, Rome 
 
 283 . . Satyr Playing Scabellum Uffizi, Florence 
 
 284 . . Spinario British Museum, London 
 
 285 . . Triton Vatican, Rome 
 
 286 . . Warrior Borghese Louvre, Paris 
 
 287 . . Warrior from Delos National Museum, Athens 
 
 288 . . Wrestlers Uffizi, Florence 
 
 289 . . "Wrestlers" Museum, Naples 
 
 290 . . Youth from Antikythera National Museum, Athens 
 
 Head of this statue, Plate 486 
 
 Statues of Women. 
 
 291 . . Aphrodite of Melos (side) Louvre, Paris 
 
 2920 . Aphrodite of Melos (front) Louvre, Paris 
 
 292^ . Aphrodite (draped torso), 
 
 Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 293 . . Aphrodite of Capua Museum, Naples 
 
 Head of this statue, Plate 4880 
 
 294 . . Aphrodite, crouching Vatican, Rome 
 
 295 . . Ariadne Vatican, Rome 
 
 296 . . Artemis of Versailles Louvre, Paris 
 
 297 . . Athena Giustiniani Vatican, Rome 
 
 298 . . Athena Chiaramonti Vatican, Rome 
 
 299 . . Muse, Melpomene Louvre, Paris 
 
 300 . . Muse, Polyhymnia Museum, Berlin 
 
 301 . . Nike of Brescia Museum, Brescia 
 
 Head of this statue, Plate 488* 
 
 302 . . Nike of Samothrace (Victory of SamothraceJ Louvre, Paris
 
 XX GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 303 . . Nike of Samothrace (other view) Louvre, Paris 
 
 304 . . Themis of Rhamnous National Museum, Athens 
 
 305 . . Torso, draped woman . Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 Reliefs. 
 
 306 . . Endymion Relief Capitoline, Rome 
 
 307 . . Dancing Woman, theatre Dionysos, National Museum, Athens 
 
 308 . . Dancing Woman from Pergamon . . Museum, Constantinople 
 
 Groups in Relief. 
 
 309 . . Apollo, Artemis, Leto, Nike Villa Albani, Rome 
 
 310 . . Apotheosis of Homer British Museum, London 
 
 311 . . Herakles and the Hesperidai Villa Albani, Rome 
 
 312 . . Paris and Helen Museum, Naples 
 
 313 . . Peasant Going to Market Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 314 . . Satyr After the Chase Louvre, Paris 
 
 315 . . Visit of Dionysos Museum, Naples
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE, xxi 
 
 Part Seven. Graeco- Roman, Eclectic and 
 Imitative Sculpture. 
 
 PLATES 316-324. For Heads see Part XI. 
 
 316. . Archaistic Pallas, Athena Museum, Naples 
 
 317. "Karyatid" Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 Roman Karyatid, Plate 167 
 
 318 . . Esquiline Aphrodite .... Palazzo del Conservatori, Rome 
 
 319 . . Woman Seated Museum, Boston 
 
 320 . . Woman Standing Museum, Boston 
 
 SCHOOL OF PASITELES. 
 
 321 . . Youth, by Stephanos ... . Villa Albani, Rome 
 
 322 . . " Orestes and Elektra " Terme, Rome 
 
 323 . . " Orestes and Pylades " Louvre, Paris 
 
 324 . . Ildefonso Group Prado, Madrid
 
 XXll GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Part Eight. Etruscan and Roman National. 
 
 PLATES 325-348. For Grave Reliefs and Heads see Parts IX and X. 
 STATUES. 
 
 325*1 . Bronze Chimaera Archaeological Museum, Florence 
 
 325/5 . Wolf of the Capitol .... Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome 
 
 326 . . Camillus Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome 
 
 327 . . Orator Archa;ologieal Museum, Florence 
 
 328 . . Togatus Sacrificing Vatican, Rome 
 
 329x1 "Thusnelda" Loggia dei Lanzi, Florence 
 
 329^ . Togatus British Museum, London 
 
 330 . . Minerva, bronze, commonly called 
 
 Etruscan Archaeological Museum, Florence 
 
 SECULAR RELIEFS. 
 
 Age of Augustus. 
 
 331 . . Procession, Ara Pacis Uffizi, Florence 
 
 332 . . Procession, Ara Pacis Uffizi, Florence 
 
 333 . . Relief and Floral Pattern from Ara Pacis . . . Terme, Rome 
 
 See also Frontispiece 
 
 Age of Titus. 
 
 334 . . Triumphal Procession, arch of Titus Forum, Rome 
 
 335 . . Spoils of Jerusalem, arch of Titus Forum, Rome 
 
 Age of Trajan. 
 
 3360 . Column of Trajan Forum of Trajan, Rome 
 
 336^ . Column of Marcus Aurelius (Column of 
 
 "Antonine") Piazza Colonna, Rome 
 
 This is placed here for the sake of comparison. It belongs 
 after Plate 343
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. XXlli 
 
 337 . . Reliefs in Forum Forum, Rome 
 
 338 . . Reliefs from Triumphal Arch Beneventum 
 
 339 . . Trajan and His Suit Lateran, Rome 
 
 Nike, Column of Trajan, Text Illustration No. 28 
 See also Plates 346 and 347 
 
 Age of Hadrian. 
 
 340 . . Reliefs Palazzo dei Conservator!, Rome 
 
 Age of Antonine. 
 
 341 . . Apotheosis of Antonine Vatican, Rome 
 
 Age of Marcus Aurelius. 
 
 Column, see Plate 336^. 
 
 342 . . Reliefs from Column of Marcus 
 
 Aurelius "of Antonine" Piazza Colonna, Rome 
 
 343 . . Relief from Column of Marcus 
 
 Aurelius Piazza Colonna, Rome 
 
 344 . . Reliefs Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome 
 
 Age of Septimius Severus. 
 
 345 . Triumphal Arch Forum, Rome 
 
 Age of Constantine. 
 
 3460 . Relief on Triumphal Arch of Constantine; 
 
 Sacrifice of Trajan Forum, Rome 
 
 346^ . Relief on Triumphal Arch of Constantine; 
 
 Trajan and His Troops Forum, Rome 
 
 347*2 . Relief on Triumphal Arch of Constantine; 
 
 Trajan on the Lion Skin Forum, Rome 
 
 347 b . Relief on Triumphal Arch of Constantine; 
 
 Trajan and the Boar Forum, Rome 
 
 347^- . Relief on Triumphal Arch of Constantine; Con- 
 stantine enthroned, surrounded by the people Forum, Rome 
 The arch was built by Constantine. Most of the reliefs were 
 taken from earlier and better arches. 
 
 TEMPLE RELIEFS. 
 
 348 . . Temple of Minerva, part of the frieze, in situ Rome
 
 XXIV GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Part Nine. Grave Reliefs. 
 
 PLATES 349-386. See also Plates na, 174-176, 177, 228-231. 
 Single Figures. 
 
 3490 . Grave Relief by Alxenor National Museum, Athens 
 
 349^ . Grave Relief, resembling that of Alxenor . . Museum, Naples 
 
 3500 . Grave Relief of Aristion National Museum, Athens 
 
 350(5 . Grave Relief of Agathokles .... National Museum, Athens 
 
 351 . . Discus-carrier Head National Museum, Athens 
 
 352 . Spearbearer, Head Museum, Berlin 
 
 353 . . Head of a Youth, from Athens Museum, Berlin 
 
 354 . Grave Relief of a Young Girl Museum, Berlin 
 
 354^ . Grave Relief of Woman Heavily 
 
 Draped National Museum, Athens 
 
 355 . . Grave Relief of Philis Louvre, Paris 
 
 356 . . Fragment of Grave Relief of a 
 
 Warrior Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 357 . . Grave Relief of Aristonautes . . . National Museum, Athens 
 
 Two Figures. 
 
 358 . . Grave Relief from Pharsalos Louvre, Paris 
 
 359 . . Grave Relief of Hegeso . . Outside the Dipylon Gate, Athens 
 
 360 . . Grave Relief, similar to relief of Hegeso, 
 
 Plate 359, from the Peiraios . . . National Museum, Athens 
 
 361 . . Grave Relief similar to 
 
 Plate 359 Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 362 . . Grave Relief of a Youth with His Boy 
 
 Servant and His Cat National Museum, Athens 
 
 363 . . Grave Relief of a Youth Attended by 
 
 an Old Man National Museum, Athens 
 
 364 . . Grave Relief of Horseman with Whip 
 
 from Thespiai National Museum, Athens 
 
 Placed here for the sake of comparison with Dexileos, Plate 365. 
 It belongs after Plate 357 
 
 365 . . Grave Relief of Dexileos . Outside the Dipylon Gate, Athens 
 
 366 . . Grave Relief of a Horseman, similar to 
 
 that of Dexileos Villa Albani. Rome
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. xxv 
 
 Three or More Figures. 
 
 3670 . Spartan Grave Relief Museum, Berlin 
 
 367 . Grave Relief of a Mother, formerly called 
 
 Ino-Leukothea relief Villa Albani, Rome 
 
 368 . . Grave Relief, seated woman on tilted chair, 
 
 two attendants, frame restored . National Museum, Athens 
 
 369 . . Grave Relief.found in the bed of the Ilissos, 
 
 youth and grieving father (?), little slave 
 
 and dog below National Museum, Athens 
 
 370 . . Grave Relief, seated woman, standing woman, 
 
 man in the background National Museum, Athens 
 
 371 . . Grave Relief, two standing figures, slave girl 
 
 tying the sandal of her mistress . . National Museum, Athens 
 
 372 . . Grave Relief of Korallion . . . Outside the Dipylon, Athens 
 
 373 . . Grave Relief of Protonoe .... Outside the Dipylon, Athens 
 
 374 . . Grave Relief of Damasistrate . . . National Museum, Athens 
 
 Roman Grave Reliefs. 
 
 375 . . Tombstone of Husband and Wife, so-called Porcia 
 
 and Cato Vatican, Rome 
 
 376 . . Two Mourning Women Seated Museum, Berlin 
 
 Kitylos and Dermys, Plate na 
 
 "Penelope," Plate 74 
 
 " Orestes and Elektra," Plate 322 
 
 377 . . Two Funeral Vases National Museum, Athens 
 
 A Very Ornate Vase, Text Illustration No. 43 
 378. . Side of Sarcophagus of the Satrap . . Museum, Constantinople 
 
 379 . "Alexander"Sarcophagus (front) . . Museum, Constantinople 
 
 380 . "Alexander"Sarcophagus (back) . . Museum, Constantinople 
 
 381 . . Heads from"Alexander"Sarcophagus . Museum, Constantinople 
 
 382 . . Heads from"Alexander"Sarcophagus . Museum, Constantinople 
 3830 "Alexander"Sarcophagus (end) . . . Museum, Constantinople 
 
 383^ . Lycian Sarcophagus (end) Museum, Constantinople 
 
 3840-^. Lycian Sarcophagus (both sides) . . Museum, Constantinople 
 38 ^a-b . Mourning Women Sarcophagus (both 
 
 sides) Museum, Constantinople 
 
 386 . . Mourning Women Sarcophagus (end) Museum, Constantinople
 
 XXVI GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Part Ten. Portraits. 
 
 I. GREEK PORTRAITS, PLATES 387-438. 
 Imaginary Portraits. 
 
 387 . . Aisopos Villa Albani, Rome 
 
 388 . . Anakreon Standing . . Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 389 . . Anakreon Seated . . . Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 390 . . Anakreon, head Museum, Berlin 
 
 39ia . Miltiades Louvre, Paris 
 
 391^ . Menelaos Vatican, Rome 
 
 392 . . Homer Museum, Naples 
 
 393 . . " Sappho," bronze Museum, Naples 
 
 3940 . " Sappho," marble British Museum, London 
 
 Portraits Possibly From Life. 
 
 394<5 . Aspasia Vatican, Rome 
 
 395 . . Aischines Museum, Naples 
 
 396 . . Alexander, head Museum, Boston 
 
 397 . . Alexander, often called head of Helios . . . Capitoline, Rome 
 
 398 . . Alexander, bust Louvre, Paris 
 
 399 . . Alexander, statue Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 "Alexander" head, British Museum, London, Plate 479^ 
 
 400 . . Berenike Museum, Naples 
 
 401 . . Demosthenes Vatican, Rome 
 
 40212 . Euripides Museum, Naples 
 
 402^ . Euripides Museum, Berlin 
 
 4030 . Euripidies Museum, Mantua 
 
 403^ . Menander (?) Virgil (?) Museum, Boston 
 
 4040 . Artemisia British Museum, London
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. xxvil 
 
 404^ . Maussollos British Museum, London 
 
 405 . . Menander Vatican, Rome 
 
 4060 . Perikles Vatican, Rome 
 
 406^ . Perikles . British Museum, London 
 
 407 . . Phokion ... Vatican, Rome 
 
 408 . . Plato Museum, Berlin 
 
 409 . . Poseidippos Vatican, Rome 
 
 410 . . Ptolemy Museum, Naples 
 
 41 \a . Sokrates Capitoline, Rome 
 
 41 1 . Sokrates and Seneca Museum, Berlin 
 
 412 . . Sophokles Lateran, Rome 
 
 413 . . Unknown Man Leaning on His Spear Terme, Rome 
 
 II. ROMAN PORTRAITS. 
 Portraits of Men. 
 
 . Agrippa Louvre, Paris 
 
 . Portrait of Unknown Man Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 415 . . Antinoos (colossal) Vatican, Rome 
 
 416 . . Antinoos Mandragone Louvre, Paris 
 
 417 . . Antinoos Villa Albani 
 
 418 . . Augustus from Prima Porta Vatican, Rome 
 
 419 . . Augustus, standing, dressed in toga Louvre, Paris 
 
 420*1 . Augustus, head .... Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 420^ . Augustus Vatican, Rome 
 
 4210 . Brutus II Museum, Naples 
 
 42 1 b . Young Marcus Aurelius Capitoline, Rome 
 
 4223 . Caesar Museum, Naples 
 
 422^ . Caesar Louvre, Paris 
 
 4230 . Caesar (front) British Museum, London 
 
 423^ . Caesar (profile) British Museum, London 
 
 424^ . Caligula Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 424^ . Antoninus Pius .... Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 4250 . Caracalla Museum, Naples 
 
 425^ . Commodus Palazzo dei Conservator!, Rome 
 
 426 . . Cicero Vatican, Rome 
 
 427 . . Germanicus Louvre, Paris
 
 XXVlll GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 428 . . Marcus Aurelius (equestrian) . . Square of the Capitol, Rome 
 
 4290 . Pompey Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 429^ . Hadrian Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 Portraits of Women. 
 
 430 . . Agrippina, the Elder (bust) Capitoline, Rome 
 
 431 . . Agrippina (?) Museum, Naples 
 
 432 . . Seated Woman, "Agrippina" Capitoline, Rome 
 
 433 . . Seated Woman, " Agrippina " Villa Albani, Rome 
 
 434 . . Faustina Villa Albani, Rome 
 
 435 . . Livia " Pudicitia " Vatican, Rome 
 
 Portraits of Unknown Men and Women. 
 
 436 . . Unknown Man, terra cotta head (front) . . . Museum, Boston 
 
 437 . . Unknown Man, terra cotta head (profile) . . Museum, Boston 
 
 438 . . Two Unknown Women, Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 See also Plate 329*
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. XXIX 
 
 Part Eleven. Heads. 
 
 PLATES 439-500. For Portrait Heads see Part X. 
 
 I. MYCENAEAN AGE. 
 For heads of this period see Part I. 
 
 II. ARCHAIC PERIOD. 
 
 439 . . Head of a Youth, marble .... Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 440 . . Head of a Youth, marble .... Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 441 . . Head of a Youth, " Speusippos," bronze . . . Museum, Naples 
 
 442 . . Bearded Warrior Akropolis Museum, Athens 
 
 443 . . Profile Views of 440 and 442 
 
 444 . . Bearded and Once Helmeted Head, front and 
 
 profile Museum, Berlin 
 
 445 . . Artemis (?) Museum, Boston 
 
 III. TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 
 Heads of Men. 
 
 446 . . Apollo of Olympia Museum, Olympia 
 
 447 . . " Apollo," marble Louvre, Paris 
 
 448 . . " Apollo," marble bust Museum, Naples 
 
 4490 . " Apollo," marble Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 4493 . "Apollo," bronze Museum, Naples 
 
 4500 . "Apollo" (lakchos), marble . . . . British Museum, London 
 
 450*5 . Bearded Man, " Dionysos," marble . British Museum, London 
 
 45 1 a . Youth, style of Myron Palazzo Riccardi, Florence 
 
 451^ . Youth, style of Myron, Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 Heads of Women. 
 
 4520 . Akroterion Head of Woman, Aigina . . Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 452^ . Athena, East Pediment, Aigina Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 453 . . Head of'Penelope". Museum, Berlin
 
 XXX GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 IV. FIFTH CENTURY. 
 Heads of Men. 
 
 4540 . "Apollo" Louvre, Paris 
 
 454* . Youth, marble Museum, Berlin 
 
 455 . . Delian Diadoumenos, head .... National Museum, Athens 
 
 456 . . Youth, marble Museum, Berlin 
 
 4570 . Doryphoros, bronze herme Museum, Naples 
 
 Heads of Women. 
 
 457^ . Amazon, bronze herme Museum, Naples 
 
 458 . . Lemnian Athena Museum, Bologna 
 
 459 . . Athena, painted eyes, marble Vatican, Rome 
 
 460 . . Goddess, Weber Head Laborde Collection, Paris 
 
 461 . . Hera Farnese, marble Museum, Naples 
 
 462 . . Hera, marble Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen 
 
 463 . . Hera from Argos, marble Museum, Athens 
 
 V. FOURTH CENTURY. 
 Style of Praxiteles. 
 
 464 . . Eubouleus, marble National Museum, Athens 
 
 465 . . Hermes of Andros National Museum, Athens 
 
 466 . . Hermes of Praxiteles Museum, Olympia 
 
 467 . . Hypnos British Museum, London 
 
 468 . . Head of Woman, marble Museum, Boston 
 
 Style of Skopas. 
 
 469 . . Tegea Heads National Museum, Athens 
 
 4700 . Woman, replica of Plate 471 Museum, Berlin 
 
 470^ . Head of Youth, marble Museum, Boston 
 
 471 . . Woman from Slope of Akropolis, marble . . Museum, Athens 
 
 Styles of Various Artists. 
 
 472 . Asklepios of Melos British Museum, London 
 
 473^ . Eirene and Ploutos Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 4731$ . Grace from Group in Siena .... Opera del Duomo, Siena 
 474 . . Hera Ludovisi Terme, Rome
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. XXXI 
 
 47 Sa . Head of Woman, Maussolleion . . British Museum, London 
 475^ . Head of Woman, marble ..." Terme, Rome 
 
 476 . . Head, resembling Knidian Demeter .... Museum, Berlin 
 
 VI. HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 
 Heads of Men. 
 
 477 . . Anytas by Damaphon National Museum, Athens 
 
 478 . . Apollo Belvedere Vatican, Rome 
 
 4790 . Apollo Musagetes, marble British Museum, London 
 
 479^ ." Alexander" Head British Museum, London 
 
 480 . Pourtal&s Apollo (front and profile) . British Museum, London 
 
 481 . Athlete, bronze (front and profile) Louvre, Paris 
 
 482 . . Athlete, professional (bronze) . . National Museum, Athens 
 
 4830 . Centaur, marble Vatican, Rome 
 
 4833 . God (sea deity), marble Vatican, Rome 
 
 484 . . Laokoon Vatican, Rome 
 
 485 . . Satyr, bronze bust Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 486 . . Youth from Antikythera, bronze . National Museum, Athens 
 
 487 . . Zeus Otricoli Vatican, Rome 
 
 Heads of Women. 
 
 488^ . Aphrodite of Capua, marble Museum, Naples 
 
 488^ . Nike of Brescia, bronze Museum, Brescia 
 
 489 . . Artemis by Damophon, marble . . National Museum, Athens 
 
 490 . . Athena by Euboulides National Museum, Athens 
 
 491 . . Ariadne, sleeping (marble) Terme, Rome 
 
 492 . . Demeter by Damophon National Museum, Athens 
 
 493 . . Head from Cyprus, marble Museum, Berlin 
 
 494 . . Head of Woman, marble (front and profile) . Museum, Boston 
 
 495 . . "Medusa" Ludovisi Terme, Rome 
 
 496 . . Medusa Rondanini Glyptothek, Munich 
 
 497 . . Medusa, winged, sleeping Louvre, Paris 
 
 VII. GR^ECO-ROMAN, ECLECTIC AND IMITATIVE SCULPTURE. 
 
 498 . . Dionysos, bearded, archaistic Museum, Naples 
 
 499 . . Zeus Talleyrand 7 Louvre, Paris 
 
 500 . . Realistic Head National Museum, Athens
 
 List of Plates According to Places. 
 
 ATHENS, Akropolis Museum: 19, 21, 23-31, 34, 35, 37, 40-42, 56, 57, 
 
 93, i4ob, 170, 171, 439, 440, 442, 443. 
 
 National Museum : 4, 7-13, 15, 20, 32, 38,66, 97, 98, 115, 178, 191, 
 210-212, 240-242, 244, 255, 279, 287, 290, 304, 307, 34ga, 350, 
 35 1 . 354b, 357, 3 6o > 362-364, 368-371, 374, 377, 455, 463-465, 
 469, 471, 477, 482, 486, 489, 490, 492, 500. 
 
 Burial Grounds Outside the Dipylon Gate: 359, 365, 372, 373. 
 Lysikrates Monument: 253. 
 Parthenon: 142-156. 
 Theseion : 92b, 130-133. 
 BENEVENTUM, Arch of Trajan : 338. 
 
 BERLIN, Neues und Altes Museum: i7b, 48b, gga, 103, 118, 127, 180, 
 181, 214, 252, 273, 274, 300, 352, 353, 354a, 3673, 376, 390. 4O2b, 
 408, 41 ib, 444, 453, 454^ 456, 47oa, 476, 493. 
 Pergamon Museum : 265-268. 
 BOLOGNA, Museo Civico: 458. 
 BOSTON, Museum of Fine Arts: 124, 183, 232, 243, 319, 320, 396, 
 
 43b, 436, 437, 445> 468, 47ob, 494. 
 BRESCIA, Museo Patrio: 301, 488b. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE, MASS., U. S. A., Fogg Museum of Harvard Uni- 
 versity: 215. 
 
 CANDIA, Crete, Museum: 5. 
 CASSEL, Museum Fridericianum : 68. 
 CONSTANTINOPLE, Imperial Museum: 112,308,378-386. 
 COPENHAGEN, Glyptothek Ny Carlsberg: 55, 77, 106, 109, n6b, 
 249, 250, 292b, 305, 317, 356, 361, 388, 389, 42oa, 424, 429, 438, 
 45ib, 462. 
 CRETE, Candia : 5 
 Knossos: i. 
 Phaistos: 2.
 
 LIST OF PLATES. XXxiii 
 
 DEEPDENE, England: 
 
 DELPHI, Museum . 43, 44, 60, 234. 
 
 DRESDEN, Albertinum: 95, 128, 208. 
 
 FLORENCE, Archaeological Museum: 123, 3253, 327, 330. 
 
 Loggia de Lanzi : 277, y.^. 
 
 Palazzo Riccardi: 451 a. 
 
 Uffizi Gallery: 202, 220, 222, 224, 225!), 260, 283, 288, 331, 332. 
 KASSEL, see Cassel. 
 
 LONDON, British Museum : 6, 16, 173, 33, 36, 45, 52, 53, 61, 65!), 67, 
 ioo, 114, 117, i22b, 136-141, 157, 159-164, 166, 169, 172-176, 
 193, 200, 217, 218, 228-231, 247, 269!), 284, 310, 329!}, 394a, 404, 
 4o6b, 423, 450, 467, 472, 475a, 478, 480. 
 
 Lansdowne House: 119. 
 MADRID, Prado : 96, i i6a, 324. 
 MANTUA, Museo Civico: 403^ 
 
 MUNICH, Glyptothek: 14, 71, 78-83, i26a, 184, iggb, 206, 223, 227, 
 2383, 2453, 254, 280, 313, 399, 414^ 4493, 452, 473a, 485, 496. 
 
 MYKENAI, Citadel Gate : 3. 
 
 NAPLES, Museo Nazionale: 58, 59,69,76, io2a, 113, 179, 194, 219, 
 236,237,248, 251, 262-264, 271, 281, 2823, 289, 293, 312, 315, 
 316, 349^ 392, 393, 395, 400, 4023, 410, 42ia, 422a, 425a, 431, 
 441, 448, 449b, 457, 461, 4883, 498. 
 
 OLYMPIA, Museum : 46, 84-923,. no, 190, 446, 466. 
 PALERMO, Museo Nazionale: 47, 483, 49-5 ib. 
 PARIS, Bibliotheque Nationale: 1220. 
 E'cole des Beaux Arts: 101. 
 Laborde Collection : 460. 
 
 Louvre: 18, 22,39, 54, 990, 107, 108, 1223, 125, 158, 186, 196, 203, 
 207, 2253, 23Sb, 2450, 286, 291, 2923, 296, 299, 302, 305, 314. 323, 
 355 35 8 > 39^,398, 4i4a,4 I 6, 4^. 422b, 427, 447, 454^ 481, 497, 
 499.
 
 xxxiv GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 ROME, Capltoline Museum: 120, 188, 195, 201, 20913, 257, 258, 2693, 
 2?5> 3 6 ' 397. 4"a, 42ib, 430, 432. 
 
 Palazzo dei Conservator! (New Capitoline Museum): 72, 318, 
 325!}, 326, 340, 344, 425^ 
 
 Square of the Capitol : 428. 
 
 Piazza Colonna : 336!), 342, 343. 
 
 Forum : 334, 335, 337, 345, 346, 347. 
 
 Forum of Trajan : 336a. 
 
 Lancellotl Palace: 63. 
 
 Lateran Museum : 653, 239, 339, 412. 
 
 Temple of Minerva : 348. 
 
 Monte Cavallo: 129. 
 
 Museo Nazionale delle Terme: 70, 94, ggb, 197, 213, 226, 259, 
 276, 282b, 322, 333,413. 474, 475 b , 49 1 . 495- 
 
 Museo Torlonia: 75. 
 
 Vatican: 62, 73, 74, 104, 105, 121, i26b, 167, 182, 185, 187, 189, 
 192, 198, igga, 216, 221, 233, 235, 245^ 246, 256, 270, 272, 278, 
 285, 294, 295, 297, 298, 328, 341, 375, 39ib, 394^ 401, 405, 4o6a, 
 407, 409, 415, 418, 42ob, 426, 435, 459, 478, 483, 484, 487. 
 
 Villa Albani : 1020, 309, 311, 321, 366, 36/b, 387, 417, 433, 434. 
 
 Villa Borghese merged into the Museo Nazionale delle Terme. 
 SIENA, Opera del Duomo : 2093, 473b. 
 SYRACUSE, Museum : 204. 
 VIENNA, Kunsthistorisches Hofmuseum: 177,205.
 
 CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF ARTISTS. 
 
 xxxv 
 
 Chronological List of Important Artists 
 
 BASED LARGELY ON ANCIENT LITERATURE. 
 
 IN CRETE 
 Daidalos 
 Dipoinos 
 Skyllis 
 
 Largely Mythical. 
 IN ATHENS IN AIGINA 
 Endoios S mills 
 
 IN SAMOS 
 
 IN CHIOS 
 
 Rhoikos 
 
 Melas 
 
 Theodores 
 
 Mikkiades 
 
 Telekles 
 
 Archermos 
 
 Botades 
 
 Boupalos 
 
 "' 
 
 Athenis 
 
 IN ARGOS 
 
 IN SIKYON 
 
 IN AIGINA 
 
 Ageladas 
 Glaukos 
 
 Kanachos 
 Aristokles 
 
 Kallon 
 
 Onatas 
 
 Dionysios 
 
 
 Glaukias 
 
 IN RHEGION 
 Pythagoras 
 
 (born in Samos) 
 
 Archaic Period. 
 
 IN ATHENS IN ELIS 
 Antenor Kallon 
 Hegias 
 
 Aristokles IN RHEGION 
 Klearchos 
 
 Transitional Period. 
 
 IN ATHENS 
 Kritios 
 Nesiotes 
 Kalamis 
 Myron 
 
 (born in Eleu^erai) 
 
 Fifth Century. 
 
 IN ATHENS IN ARGOS AND SIKYON 
 Pheidias Polykleitos 
 
 Alkamenes Kanachos 
 
 Agorakritos Daidalos 
 
 (born in Paros) Naukydes 
 
 IN VARIOUS PLACES 
 Paionios of Mende 
 Theokosmos of Megara 
 Styppax of Kypros 
 Kresilas of Crete
 
 GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Kolotes 
 Praxias 
 Androsthenes 
 Lykios. 
 
 Strongylion 
 Kallimachos 
 Demetrios of Alopeke 
 
 Fourth Century. 
 
 ATHENS 
 
 Kephisodotos Bryaxis 
 
 Skopas Silanion 
 
 (born in Paros) Polyeuktos 
 Praxiteles 
 Leochares 
 
 ARGOS AND 
 SIKYON 
 
 Lysippos 
 
 VARIOUS PLACES 
 
 Thrasymedes 
 
 Timotheos 
 
 Sthennis 
 
 (born in Olynthos) 
 Euphranor 
 
 Lysistratos 
 Eutychides 
 Boethos 
 
 Hellenistic Period and Later. 
 
 Chares 
 Damophon 
 
 From this time on the importance of the individual artists waned 
 before the importance of the local centres to which they were attached. 
 The best known of these centres were : 
 
 Pergamon 
 
 Priene 
 
 Rhodes 
 
 Trail es 
 
 Famous names of the late sculptors are : 
 
 Pasiteles Aristeas 
 
 Stephanos Papias 
 
 Glykon 
 
 Menelaos 
 
 Arkesilaos 
 
 Zenodoros 
 
 Salpion 
 Kleomenes 
 
 Sosibios 
 
 Apollonios of Tralles 
 Tauriskos 
 Apollonios of Athens
 
 BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY. XXXVli 
 
 Brief Bibliography of Greek and Roman Sculpture 
 
 AND LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED IN REFERRING 
 TO SOME OF THE BOOKS. 
 
 A short, selected and graded bibliography is given in E. von Mach, 
 
 PP- 343 ff - 
 
 A larger and very well arranged bibliography is given A. J. A. t 
 Second Series, Vol. I, 1897, Appendix, pp. I28ff. 
 
 The most complete bibliography is contained in the Katalog der 
 Bibliothek des Kaiscrlich Deutschen Archceologischen Instituts in Rom 
 von August Mau. Two volumes. This catalogue, which is very full, 
 although it lacks the names of some important English books, ought to 
 be in every library. 
 
 Bibliographies to special subjects are given in the introductions to 
 the several parts of the Handbook and in the discussions of the several 
 monuments. 
 
 The following list contains the names of some of the books which 
 those interested in Greek and Roman sculpture will find most useful. 
 High priced books are mentioned only when less expensive good books 
 are not in existence. In the cases where the names of more than one 
 book on a given subject are listed, the descriptive notes will guide the 
 student. 
 
 GENERAL BOOKS. 
 
 H. von Brunn; Geschichte der Griechischen Kiinstler ; Bninn; Stuttgart. 
 
 $5.00. Excellent, and although written about fifty years ago, still 
 
 essentially accurate. 
 M. Collignon; Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque ; Firmin, Dido et Cie. ; 
 
 Paris, France. $12.00. Beautifully illustrated, written by a sound 
 
 scholar, who also is a master of style Collignon 
 
 Fowler & Wheeler; Greek Archaeology. In preparation. American 
 
 Book Company.
 
 xxxviu GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 A. Furtwangler, translated and edited by Eugenie Sellers; Masterpieces 
 of Greek Sculpture ; Heinemann; London. $15.00. Invaluable to 
 advanced students of classical archaeology. Brilliant and stimu- 
 lating, but not always convincing . . Masterpieces or Furtwangler 
 
 Ernest A. Gardner ; A Handbook of Greek Sculpture ; The Macmillan 
 Co.; New York City. $2.50. Reliable, up-to-date, almost com- 
 plete Gardner 
 
 W. Liibke, translated by R. Sturgis ; History of Sculpture ; Dodd & 
 Mead Co.; New York City. $10.00. The best short history of 
 the sculpture of the world. 
 
 Edmund von Mach ; Greek Sculpture, Its Spirit and Principles ; Ginn 
 & Co. ; Boston. $4.50, for teachers and classes $2.25. E. von Mach 
 
 Anton Springer, revised by Adolf Michaelis ; Handbuch der Kunstge- 
 schichte, Vol. I, Das Altertum; E. A. Seemann ; Leipsig. $2.00. 
 Brief, up-to-date, with excellent illustrations. One of the most 
 useful books for the beginner. It discusses not only sculpture, 
 but also painting, architecture and the minor arts . . . Michaelis 
 
 A. S. Murray; History of Greek Sculpture ; John Murray; London. 
 $9.00. Original and interesting 
 
 Johannes Overbeck; Geschichte der Griechischen Plastik; J. C. Ilin- 
 rich; Leipsig. $9.00. The most complete and scholarly work on 
 the subject ; no view is advanced which is not fully supported by 
 argument Overbeck 
 
 P. Paris, translated by Jane E. Harrison; Manual of Ancient Sculpture ; 
 J. B. Lippincott Co. ; Philadelphia. $3.00. An interesting gen- 
 eral introduction to the subject. 
 
 Max G. Zimmerman ; Kunstgeschichte des Altertums und des Mittel- 
 alters ; Velhagen & Klasing; Leipsig. $2.50. It deserves the 
 same high praise as Springer's Handbuch . . . . Zimmermann 
 
 F. B. Tarbell ; A History of Greek Art, with an introductory chapter on 
 art in Egypt and Mesopotamia; The Macmillan Co.; New York 
 City. $1.00. A short, accurate and fully illustrated compendium. 
 
 Tarbell 
 
 BOOKS ON SPECIAL TOPICS. 
 
 H. R. Hall; The Oldest Civilization of Greece; David Nutt ; London. 
 $3.00. A very detailed account of the arguments on which the. 
 accepted accounts of the Mycenaean Age are based.
 
 BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY. xxxix 
 
 Chr. Tsountas and J. I. Manatt; The Mycenaan Age ; Houghton, 
 Mifflin & Co. ; Boston. $6.00. The standard book in English. 
 
 C. Schuchhardt, translated by Eugenie Sellers; Schliemanrfs Excava- 
 tions; The Macmillan Co.; New York. $4.00. The most con- 
 venient reference book to the excavations of Schliemann. 
 
 A. Joubin ; La Sculpture Grlcque entre les Guerres Mediques ft I' 
 Epoque de Pericles; Hachette & Co.; Paris. #2.50. A full and 
 interesting account of this period. 
 
 M. Collignon; Phidias; Librairie de 1' Art; Paris. $0.7 5. Short 
 biography and discussion of the works of Pheidias. 
 
 Adolf Michaelis; Der Parthenon ; Breitkoff & Hartel ; Leipsig. $7.50. 
 The standard book on the Parthenon. 
 
 A. S. Murray; The Sculptures of the Parthenon; E. P. Button & Co.; 
 New York. $6.50. The last book of an original scholar who 
 knew and loved the Parthenon sculptures well. 
 
 Charles Waldstein ; Essays on the Art of Pheidias ; Century Co. ; New 
 York. $7.50. In part brilliant and always interesting. 
 
 Th. Davidson ; The Parthenon Frieze ; Kegan Paul ; London. $2.00. 
 Very interesting, but not generally accepted as trustworthy in 
 every detail. 
 
 A. Mahler; Polyklet und Seine Schule ; Earth; Athens and Leipsig. 
 $2.25. The most recent scholarly discussion of the works of 
 Polykleitos. 
 
 P.Paris; Polyclete ; Librairie de 1' Art ; Paris. $0.85. Short biography 
 and discussion of the works of Polykleitos. 
 
 W. Klein ; Praxiteles ; Veil & Co. ; Leipsig. $6.00. The most ex- 
 haustive book on Praxiteles, advancing many as yet untested 
 theories. 
 
 W. Klein ; Praxitelische Studien ; Veit & Co. ; Leipsig. $0.90. Sup- 
 plementary to the larger work by the same author. 
 
 A. Kalkmann, Die Proportionen des Gesichtes ; Georg Reimer; Berlin. 
 
 H. Magnus; Die Darstellung des Auges in der Antiken Plastik ; See- 
 mann ; Leipsig. $0.35. 
 
 J. Overbeck (collected by) ; Die Antiken Schriftquellen zur Geschichte 
 der Bildenden Kiinste bei den Grief hen ; Engelmann ; Leipsig. 
 $2.50. The untranslated references of ancient authors to Greek art 
 collected and arranged. The serious student cannot do without 
 this book S. Q.
 
 xl GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 H. Stuart-Jones ; Select Passages from Ancient Writers Illustrative of 
 the History of Greek Sculpture ; The Macmillan Co.; New York. 
 $1.50. This book is less comprehensive than the preceding. It 
 is, however, very valuable because the Latin or Greek passages are 
 given side by side with the English translations . . Stuart-Jones 
 
 L. Urlichs; Skopas, Leben und Werke ; C. A. Koch; Greifswald. 
 $1.50. Somewhat antiquated. 
 
 E. Lowy; Lysipp und Seine Stdlung zur Griechischen Plastik ; Richter; 
 Hamburg. $0.35. Very sound. 
 
 Fr. Hauser ; Die Neuattischen Reliefs ; M. Wittwer; Stuttgart. $1.50. 
 Invaluable. 
 
 Th. Schreiber ; Die Hellenistischen Reliefbilder ; W. Engelmann ; 
 Leipsig. $9.00. Invaluable. 
 
 Franz Wickhoff, translated by Mrs. S. A. Strong; Roman Art ; The 
 Macmillan Co. ; New York. $8.00. The fullest discussion of the 
 principles of Roman art, but along lines that have found only 
 partial approval Wickhoff 
 
 A. Mau, translated by F. W. Kelsey; Pompeii, Its Life and Art ; The 
 Macmillan Co.; New York. $2.50 Mau-Kelsey 
 
 Percy Gardner ; Sculptured Tombs of Hellas ; Macmillan & Co; Lon- 
 don. $8.00. Accurate and extremely interesting. 
 
 J. J. Bernoulli, Romische Ikonography, W. Speemann ; Stuttgart. $24. 50. 
 " Indispensable for the study of Roman portraiture." 
 
 J. J. Bernoulli; Griechische Ikonography ; W. Speemann; Stuttgart. 
 " Indispensable for the study of Roman portraiture." 
 
 K. Jex-Blake and Eugenie Sellers; The Elder Pliny's Chapters on the 
 History of Art ; The Macmillan Co. ; New York. $3.50. Excellent. 
 
 E. Lowy; Inschriften Griechischer Bildhaucr ; B. G. Teubner; Leip- 
 sig. #6.50 Invaluable to those who approach ancient sculpture 
 through the study of individual artists. 
 
 R. Lepsius ; Griechische 'Marmorstudien ; Abhandlungen der Berliner 
 Akademie der Wissenschaften 1890; Berlin. 51.50. "A treatise 
 on the chief marble quarries in Greece and a scientific determina- 
 tion of the marbles employed in certain Greek statues." Accepted 
 as correct by many, but not by all authorities. 
 
 Percy Gardner; Types of Greek Coins; The University Press; Cam- 
 bridge, Eng. $8.00. Perhaps the best general book on ancient
 
 BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY, xli 
 
 E. Babelon, La Gravure en Pierres Fines ; Libraries Imprimies Reunies; 
 
 Paris. $0.80. An interesting introduction. 
 A. Furtwangler; Die Antiken Gemmen ; Giesecke und Devrient; Berlin 
 
 and Leipsig. Almost an encyclopedia on gems. 
 H. Crosby Butler; The Story of Athens ; The Century Co. ; New York. 
 
 $2.40. Very interesting. 
 E. A. Gardner; Ancient Athens ; The Macmillan Co.; New York. 
 
 $5.00. An excellent account of ancient Athens. The pictures, 
 
 unfortunately, are poor. 
 R. Lanciani ; Rome in the Light of Discoveries ; Houghton, Mifflin & 
 
 Co. ; Boston. $6.00. 
 J. H. Middleton ; Ancient Rome ; A. & C. Black ; London. $6.25. 
 
 REFERENCE BOOKS. 
 
 Salomon Reinach ; Repertoire de la Statuaire Greque et Romaine. Three 
 volumes, 1 volume two in two parts. The first volume is a reprint 
 of Clarac and is often called Clarac de Poche ; E. Lerou ; Paris. 
 $4.00. A collection of outline reproductions of practically all 
 known statues of Greek and Roman sculpture, well arranged. In- 
 valuable. The references to Reinach will enable the student to 
 see at a glance many statu'es similar to those under discussion. 
 
 Reinach 
 
 A. Baumeister (edited by), Denkmaler des Klassischen Altertrtm, three 
 volumes; R. Oldenbourg; Munich and Leipsig. $21.00. An 
 excellent encyclopedia of ancient art, architecture, mythology and 
 biography Baumeister 
 
 Chas. B. Gulick ; The Life of the Ancient Greeks, with Especial Refer- 
 ence to Athens ; D. Appleton & Co.; New York. $1.40. An ex- 
 cellent handbook. 
 
 A. van Kampen; Atlas Antiquus ; Justus Perthes; Gotha. $0.80. An 
 excellent pocket atlas with index of about seven thousand names. 
 
 A. D. F. Hamlin; A History of Architecture; Longmanns, Green & 
 Co. ; New York. An excellent handbook. 
 
 'Volume III reached the author too late to enable him to insert 
 many references in the Handbook.
 
 xlii GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE, 
 
 CATALOGUES. 
 
 OF CASTS. 
 
 Carl Friederichs, revised and enlarged by Paul Welters; -Die Gibsab- 
 gusse Antiker Bildwerke in Historischer Folge Erkldrt ; W. Spee- 
 mann ; Berlin. $3.00. A treasure-house of sane, sound, inspiring 
 information. Invaluable to the student of art F. W. 
 
 Edward Robinson; Catalogue of Casts, Part If I, Greek and Roman 
 Sculpture, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston ; Houghton, Mifflin & Co.; 
 Boston. $0.50. Conveniently arranged. The information con- 
 cerning provenience, restorations, etc., in small type preceding the 
 discussions, is very valuable. The Boston Museum contains one 
 of the best-selected collections of casts to be found anywhere. 
 
 Robinson 
 
 OF ORIGINALS. 
 
 All the official catalogues. 
 
 The following unofficial catalogues : 
 
 W. Amelung; Die Skulpturen des Vatikanischen Museum (Part I 
 ready) Amelung 
 
 W. Amelung ; Fiihrer durch die Antiken in Florenz. 
 
 H. Lechat ; Au Musee de /' Akropole d' Athgnes. 
 
 Th. Schreiber ; Die Antiken Bild-werke der Villa Ludovisi. 
 
 Panofka und Gerhard; Neapels Antike Bildwerke. 
 
 Hiibner; Die Antiken Bildwerke in Madrid. 
 
 W. Frohner; Sculpture Antique du Musee Imperial dti Louvre. 
 
 Frohner 
 
 Hettner; Die Bildwerke der Kgl. Antiken Sammlung zu Dresden. 
 
 W. Helbig; Guide to the Public Collections of Classical Antiquities in 
 Rome (translated by J. F. and F. Muirhead). The references are 
 to the English edition where the numbers run slightly higher than 
 in the German edition Helbig 
 
 F. Matz and von Duhn ; Antike Bildwerke in Rom. 
 
 0. Benndorf and R. Schone ; Die Antiken Bildwerke des Lateranischen 
 
 Museums. 
 H. Diitschke ; Antike Bildwerke in Oberitalien. 
 
 1. N. Svoronos; Das Athener Nationalmuseum. First two parts ready.
 
 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS. xliii 
 
 Archaeological Publications of Importance 
 
 AND LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED IN 
 REFERRING TO THEM. 
 
 AMERICA. 
 
 American Journal of Archaeology, founded in 1885. Series I, Vols. 
 
 I-XI (1896). Index to Series I A. J. A., Series I. 
 
 Series II begins with Vol. I, 1897. Connected with the Journal: 
 (a) Papers of American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 
 Vols. I-VI (to 1897); (b) Reports of the Institute, beginning in 
 I &79; ( c ) Papers of the School in Rome, Vol. I in press. A. J. A. 
 
 Records of the Past, published in Washington, D. C., since 1902. 
 
 ENGLAND. 
 
 Journal of Hellenic Studies. Vol. I, published in 1880. Separate 
 volumes of plates, I-VIII J.H.S. 
 
 Annual of the British School at Athens. Vol. I, published for the 
 year 1894-1895. 
 
 Papers of the British School at Rome. Vol. I, published in 1902. 
 
 GERMANY. 
 EARLIER THAN 1886. 
 
 Archaologische Zeitung. Vol. i (published in 1843) to Vol. 43 (1885). 
 
 Index Complete Arch. Zeit. 
 
 Annali dell' Institute. Published in Italian from 1829-1885. Index 
 
 Complete Annali 
 
 NOTE. The Archaeological Institute at Rome was at first unofficial 
 and international. Later it became the Imperical German Archae- 
 ological Institute. 
 
 Monument! Inediti, volumes of plates to accompany the Annali. 
 
 Man. Ined.
 
 xliv GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE. 
 
 Mittheilungen Athenische, see also after 1886. 
 Bulletino, see Mittheilungen Romische, since 1886. 
 
 SINCE 1886. 
 Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts. 
 
 Jahrbuch 
 Archaologischer Anzeiger appears as an appendix to the Jahrbuch, but 
 
 is paged separately Arch. Anz. 
 
 Mittheilungen des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, 
 
 Romische Abtheilung. This continues the Bulletino, which was 
 
 published from 1829-1885 Rom. Alitth. 
 
 Mittheilungen des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, 
 
 Athenische Abtheilung; founded in 1876, and continued with a 
 
 slight change of title after 1886. Index to Vols. 1-20. A then. Mitth. 
 Antike Denkmaler, a collection of valuable plates published at irregular 
 
 intervals Ant. Denk. 
 
 Erganzungshefte, supplementary volumes, published by the German 
 
 Institute at irregular intervals. 
 (Geschichte des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts von 1829-1879, 
 
 von A. Michaelis). 
 
 A number of valuable articles have appeared in the Winkclmannspro- 
 gramms, of which there are three kinds : 
 
 Programm zum Winckelmannfeste der Archaologischen Gessellschaft 
 
 zu Berlin. First number published in 1841. 
 Hallisches Winkelmannsprogramm, Vol. i, published in 1876. Vols. 
 
 1-13 by H. Heydemann. Vols. 14-24 (the last one) by C. Robert. 
 Festschrift zu Winkelmanns Geburtstage herausgegeben vom Vorstande 
 
 des Vereins von Alterthumsfreunden im Rheinlande, published 
 
 from 1844-1888 at irregular intervals. 
 
 NOTE. Many philological journals print occasionally articles of archae- 
 ological importance, notably Hermes, and Rheinisches Museum. 
 
 Denkmaler der Griechischen und Romischen Skulptur, herausgegeben 
 von H. Brunn, fortgesetzt von P. Arndt, published by Bruckmann 
 in Munich. A collection of large plates Brunn-Arndt 
 
 AUSTRIA. 
 Archaeologische Epigraphische Mittheilungen. Vol. I, published in
 
 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS. xlv 
 
 1877, last volume (XX) in 1897. Index complete. This publica- 
 tion has been superceded by the following : 
 
 Jahreshefte des Oesterreichischen Archaologischen Istituts in Wien. 
 Vol. I, published in 1898 ........ Jh. Oesterr. Arch. Inst. 
 
 FRANCE. 
 
 Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique. Vol. I, published in 1877. 
 
 Index to the years 1877-1886 . . . , ........ B. C. H. 
 
 Bibliotheque des Ecoles Fran9aises d' Athenes et de Rome. Important 
 
 monographs, frequently published, Vol. I in 1877, Vol. 89 in 1904. 
 Histoire et 1' Oeuvre de 1' Ecole Francaise d' Athenes par Georges 
 
 Radet, 1901. 
 Revue Archeologique: Series I, 1844-1860. Series II, 1860-1882. 
 
 Series III, 1883-1902. Series IV, 1903. Indexes complete to 
 
 1890 ....................... Rev. Arch. 
 
 Gazette Archeologique. Vols. 1-14 (1875-1889). This journal is 
 
 announced to resume publication .......... Gaz. Arch. 
 
 Gazette des Beaux Arts. Series I, 1859-1868. Series II, 1869-1888. 
 
 Series III, 1889- ............. Gaz. d. Beaux Arts 
 
 Revue des Etudes Grecque. First volume published in 1888. R. t. Gr. 
 
 ITALY. 
 
 Bulletino Archeologico Neapolitano. Series I, 1843-1848. Series II, 
 
 1853-1863. Separate volumes of plates. 
 Bulletino della Commissione Archeologica Municipiale di Roma. Vol. 
 
 I, published in 1872. Index, 1872-1885. 
 Publications of the Reale Academia del Lincei Monument! Antichi. 
 
 Vol. I, published in 1889, large plates and text. This publication 
 
 continues the Museo Italiano di Antichita Classica, of which three 
 
 volumes were published. 
 Notizie degli Scavi di Antichita, Vol. I, published in 1876. Index, 
 
 1876-1900. 
 Rendi Conti. 
 
 GREECE. 
 
 , TTJS 'ev 'Aflijj'cuj "'A.pxa-ioXoyucTJs 'Erat/jfas. Vol. I, published 
 in 1871 ..................... Practika 
 
 'E077/aepis ' ApxatoXoyiK-^. Published at irregular intervals from 1837 to 
 1883, and since then yearly ............. Ephemeris
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Accouchment, kneeling woman 
 
 awaiting, 100 
 ^Emilius Paullus, 361 
 Agasias, son of Dositheos of Eph- 
 
 esos, 316 
 Agasias, son of Menophilos of Eph- 
 
 esos, 316 
 
 Agathokles, 393, PI. 35ob 
 Agathon and Aristokrates, stele 
 
 of, 7 
 
 Age differentiation, 93 
 Agesander, 291 
 Agrippina, Pis. 43off. 
 Aigina, figures from the pediments 
 
 of the temple of, 86fL, Pis. 
 
 7 8ff., 452 
 
 Aigis, origin of, 364 
 Aigistheus, death of, 56f., PI. 55 
 Aischines, PI. 395 
 Aisopos, portrait, PI. 387 
 Akropolis, restoration of, PI. 134 
 Akropolis figures, draped, archaic, 
 
 i8ff., Pis. 21, 23ff. 
 Akroterion, 123 
 Alabaster, Assyrian sculpture in, 
 
 i? 
 Alexander, Pis. 396f. ; bust, PI. 
 
 398 ; statue, PI. 399 
 "Alexander " head, 413, PI. 479b 
 Alkamenes, 94, 119, 126, PI. 112 
 Alkestis, 220 
 Alpheios, Zeus Temple, Olympia, 
 
 goff., PI. 8sb 
 Alxenor, grave relief of, 393, PI. 
 
 394* 
 Amazon, dead, Naples, 283ff., PI. 
 
 262 
 Amazon, frieze, Maussolleion, 
 
 234fL, Pis. 228ff. 
 Amazon, herm, bronze, 407 PL 
 
 Amazon, mounted, Boston, 256f., 
 
 PI. 243 
 Amazon, mounted, from Epidau- 
 
 ros, 255f., PI. 242 
 Amazon, wounded, after Polyklei- 
 
 tos (?) I3iff., 367, 407, Pis. 
 
 n8ff. 
 
 Amazons, fight against, 163 
 Amphion, 295; in group, PI. 271 
 Anadoumenos by Pheidias, 131 ; 
 
 see also 130, PI. 117 
 Anadyomene, Aphrodite, 199, PI. 
 
 200 
 " Anakreon " seated, 262, PI. 389 ; 
 
 standing, PI. 388 ; head, 390 
 Ananke (Necessity), 330, Note 
 Andre (restorer of the Youth from 
 
 Antikythera, PI. 290), 319 
 Andros, Hermes of, igif., Pis. 191, 
 
 465 
 
 Anima, 89 
 Antae, 156 
 Antenor, 6, 23 
 Antikythera, youth from, 319^, 413, 
 
 Pis., 290, 486 
 Antinoos, colossal, PI. 415; Man- 
 
 dragone, PI. 416; Albani, PI. 
 
 417 
 
 Antioch, see Tyche t>f Antiocheia, 
 274f., PI. 256 
 
 Antiochos' copy of the Parthenos, 
 io6ff., PI. ggb 
 
 Antonia on Ara Pacis, 374 
 
 Antoninus Pius, PI. 424b 
 
 Anytas, 412, PI. 477 
 
 Aphaia, 90 
 
 Aphrodite statues : Anadyomene, 
 bronze statuette, British Mu- 
 seum, 199, PI. 200; of Aries, 
 2Oif., PI. 203; in Berlin, 116, 
 PI. 103 ; " Capitoline Venus,"
 
 INDEX. 
 
 xlvii 
 
 Aphrodite statues Continued. 
 2ocf., PI. 201 ; of Capua, 322, 
 3 2 3 f -. 33 r > 4M. Pis. 293, 488a; 
 crouching, Vatican, 324f., PL 
 294 ; of Daidalos, 325 ; " Es- 
 quiline Venus," 348f., PL 318; 
 Kalipyge, 331 ; of Melos, 
 32off., 322, Pis. 291, 292a; 
 "Venus de Milo," discussion 
 of proper name, 322 ; in Mu- 
 nich, igSf., PL 1990; in Syra- 
 cuse, 2O2f., PL 204 ; " Venus 
 Genetrix," i2if.,Pl. 108 ; " Ve- 
 nus dei Medici," 2Oof., PL 202 ; 
 " Venus Victrix," 202 
 
 Aprodite in relief of Paris and 
 Helen, 34if., PL 312 
 
 Apollo : in apotheosis of Homer, 
 339; Barberini Muse, so-called, 
 u6f., Text 111. 25; Belvedere, 
 286, 298ff., Pis. 272, 478 ; Cas- 
 sel, 73, PL 68 ; Musagetes, 
 head, PL 47ga; in Naples, 73, 
 PL 69 ; with the Omphalos, 
 7off., PL 66 ; Temple of Zeus, 
 Olympia, goff., Pis. 86, 446 ; 
 Philesios (?), nff., PL I7a ; 
 from Pompeii, 73, PL 69 ; 
 Sauroktonos, 185^, Pis. i85f., 
 Text 111. 27 ; Stroganoff, of 
 bronze, 299; in Terme, 73f. 
 PL 70 
 
 "Apollo:" Archaic statues, 8ff., 
 Pis. iibff. ; Charioteer, Bos- 
 ton, 238ff., PL 232; "Choi- 
 seul-Gouffier," 7 iff., PL 67; 
 of Eleusis ( " Sabouroff 
 Apollo"), i39f., PL 127 
 
 Apollo heads: Louvre head, PL 
 454; Naples, bust, 404, PL 
 448 ; Naples, bronze head, 404, 
 PL 4496; Munich head, 404, 
 PL 449a; Pourtales, PL 480 
 
 Apollo misinterpreted as Muse, 
 1 1 6, ii7f., 209, Text 111. 25 
 
 Apollo with Artemis, Leto, and 
 Nike, relief, 336ff., PL 309 
 
 Apollonios of Rhodes, 295 
 
 Apollonios, son of Nestor, 261 
 
 Apotheosis of Antoninus and Faus- 
 tina, 386f., PL 341 
 
 Apotheosis of an empress, 385, PL 
 34ob 
 
 Apotheosis of Homer, 338ff., PL 
 310 
 
 Apotygma, 85 
 
 Apoxyomenos, after Lysippos, 
 244f., PL 235 
 
 Ara Pacis Augusti, 37iff., Frontis- 
 piece and Pis. 33iff. 
 
 Arbitrary solution of difficult prob- 
 lems, 213 
 
 Arch of Trajan, Beneventum, 382, 
 
 PL 338 
 Arch of Constantine, reliefs from, 
 
 3 8 9 f., Pis. 34 6f. 
 Arch of Septimius Severus, 389, 
 
 PI- 345 
 Arch of Titus, two panels from, 
 
 37 5 ff., Pis. 334 f. 
 Archaic sculpture, 5ff. 
 Archaic heads, 4O2ff., Pis. 439ff. 
 Archaic draped figures from the 
 
 Akropolis, i8ff., Pis. 21, 23ff. 
 Archaistic, explanation of the term, 
 
 347 
 
 Archaistic heads, 418, Pis. 4g8f. 
 Archermos, 6, 25 
 Architrave, sculptured decorations 
 
 on, 35 
 Ares: Borghese, I35f., PL 125; 
 
 Ludovisi, 212, PL 213; in 
 
 Roman art, 286, Note 
 Arete (Virtue), 339 
 Arezzo 371 
 Ariadne, sleeping, statue, 325^, 
 
 PL 295 
 
 Ariadne, sleeping, head, PL 491 
 Aristion, grave relief of, 393, PL 
 
 35 a 
 
 Aristogeiton, 63ff., PL 59 
 Aristogeiton and Harmodios, 63ff., 
 
 PL 58 
 Aristogeiton and Harmodios, vase 
 
 in Boston, 64
 
 xlviii 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Aristokles, stele by, 393, PI. 35oa 
 Aristonautes, grave relief, 394, PI. 
 
 357 
 
 Arkesilaos, 121 
 
 Arms of men and women con- 
 trasted, H7f. 
 
 "Arrotino," 28if., PI. 260 
 
 "Artemis" head, Boston, 403, PI. 
 445; by Damophon, 412, PI. 
 489 
 
 Artemis, Copenhagen torso, 334, 
 PI. 305 ; of Gabii, 2O4f., PI. 
 207 ; of Versailles, 326, PI. 
 296; Vienna statuette, 203, PI. 
 205 ; in group with Apollo, 
 Leto and Nike, 336ff., PI. 309 
 
 Artemisia, PI. 44a 
 
 Artemis-Tyche, 203^, PI. 206 
 
 Asklepios : two reliefs after Thrasy- 
 medes, 254^, PI. 241 ; of Me- 
 los, head, PI. 472 ; or Zeus, 
 I4of., PI 128 
 
 Aspasia, PI. 394b 
 
 Assos, reliefs from, 35, PI. 39 
 
 Assyrian man-headed bulls, 144 
 
 Atalanta, vase-painting of, 349 
 
 Athena: Aigina Temple pediment, 
 88, PI. 83; Akropolis Museum, 
 compared with Parthenon 
 sculptures, 32; Albani, H4f., 
 PI. io2c; Archaistic, Naples, 
 347, PI. 316; Birth of, in Ma- 
 drid, 286, Text 111. 30 ; Bronze 
 statue, beaten out of two 
 sheets of metal, 28f., PL 34 ; 
 Chiaramonti, 328, PI. 298; by 
 Euboulides (?), 414, PI. 490; 
 Farnese, H4f., PI. io2a; Gius- 
 tiniani, 327f., PI. 297 ; Hope, 
 i I4f., PI. iO2b ; Lemnian, cast, 
 iO3ff., PI. 95; head, Bologna, 
 PI. 458; Medica, wrong name 
 of Athena Giustiniani, 328 ; 
 Medici, 1 1 iff ., PI. 101 ; " Mourn- 
 ing" or " Thinking," 97ff., PI. 
 93; Parthenos, copies and 
 adaptations, io5ff., Pis. 96ff. ; 
 Promachos, 28, PI. 35 ; Seated, 
 Akropolis Museum, 31, PI. 37 ; 
 
 of Velletri, 120, 188, PI. 107; 
 Vatican head, painted eyes, 
 PI. 459 
 
 Athena and Giant, pedimental 
 group, 42, 43, PI. 42 
 
 Athena-Nike Temple, " Nike Apt- 
 eros" Temple, 158^, PI. 168; 
 Balustrade, Nike figures from, 
 i59f., 253, Pis. I7of., and Text 
 111. 29 ; Slabs from the West 
 Frieze, 159, PI. 169; Slabs 
 from the East Frieze, Text 
 111. 37 f. 
 
 Athlete : Dropping oil in his hand, 
 I36f., 337, PI. I26a; Farnese, 
 65, Text 111. 15; Louvre head, 
 bronze, PL 481 ; Mercure 
 aptere, statuette, I34f., PI. 
 I22a; after Pythagoras (?), 
 7off., Pis. 66f.,fromTarsos, 66; 
 Professional, bronze, Athens 
 PI. 482; " Westmacott," 134^ 
 PI. I22b 
 
 Atlas metope, Zeus Temple, Olym- 
 pia, 94ff., PL 90 
 
 Attalos I, 277 
 
 Attalos II, 277 
 
 Attalos group, 283ff., Pis. 262ff. 
 
 Attributes added by copyists, 212 
 
 Augeias, Herakles cleaning the 
 stables of, Olympia metope, 
 9 4 ff., PI. 91 
 
 Augustus, on Ara Pacis, 373 ; from 
 Prima Porta, PL 418 ; standing 
 in toga, PL 419; two heads, 
 PL 420 
 
 Aurora carrying off Kephalos, 124 
 
 Bacchic relief, Naples, 222f., Plate 
 219 
 
 Bacchus, 301 
 
 Bacchus, see Dionysos 
 
 Background, actuality of, not con- 
 sidered, 44f. 
 
 Ball-player (?), 230, Plate 226 
 
 Balustrade of Athena-Nike 
 
 Temple, 159^, Pis. i7of., Text 
 111. 29
 
 INDEX, 
 
 xlix 
 
 "Barberini Faun," 31 of., PI. 280 
 "Barberini Juno," n8f., PI. 105 
 "Barberini Muse," Ii6f., Text 111. 
 
 25 
 Base (drum) of column from Ephe- 
 
 sos, sculptured, archaic, 45, 
 
 PI. 45 ; fourth century, 2i9ff., 
 
 Pis. 2i7f. 
 Base from Mantineia, three slabs, 
 
 2o8ff., Pis. 2 1 off. 
 Bearded men, statues of, 76 
 Beckoning gesture among the 
 
 Greeks, 221 
 Bellerophon, 364 
 Belvedere torso, 26iff., PL 246 
 Beneventum, arch of Trajan in, 
 
 382. PI- 338 
 
 Berenike, PI. 400 
 
 "Birth of Aphrodite," relief 99ff., 
 Plate 94 
 
 Birth of Athena, 286, Text 111. 30 
 
 " Blue Beard," popular name of 
 Typhon, Athens, 41, Plate 41 a 
 
 Bobolini Gardens, athlete in, Text 
 111. 14 
 
 Boethos, 314; boy with goose, after, 
 272, PI. 254 
 
 Boiotian (?), sculptor, 179 
 
 Bonus Eventus, 301 
 
 Borghese "Juno," n8f., PI. 106 
 
 Borghese warrior, 3i5f., PI. 286 
 
 Boston, statues of women in, 346, 
 Note, 35of., Pis. 319^ 
 
 Boxer (PI. 66) copied by late sculp- 
 tor, 354 
 
 Boxers after Pythagoras ( ? ), 7off., 
 PI. 66f. 
 
 "Boy," Akropolis Museum, 6iff., 
 PI. 57 
 
 Boy, with Goose, after Boethos (?), 
 2721., PI. 254; " L'Idolino," 
 I34f., PL 123; Praying, Berlin, 
 3Oof., PL, 273 ; from the Rhine, 
 bronze, 3Oif., PI. 274; with 
 thorn in his foot, London, 
 31 3f., PI. 284; with thorne in 
 his foot, Rome, 76ff., Plate 72 
 
 Boy and Girl, " Eros and Psyche," 
 
 2O7f., PI. 2ogb 
 Branchidai, seated figures from, 
 
 29ff., PL 36, Text 111. 4 
 Bronze statues, early, beaten out of 
 
 two sheets of metal, 28f . 
 Brutus II, PL 42 la 
 Bryaxis, 232 
 Bull attacked by lions, 41, PL 4ib 
 
 Caesar, portraits, Pis. 422f. 
 Calf-bearer, 131!., Plate 19 
 Caligula, PL 424 
 
 Camillas on Ara Pacis, 375, Note 
 Camillus, 3661., PL 326 
 Campus Martius, 385, 386 
 Candlestick of Jerusalem, seven 
 
 armed, 378 
 Cap of Hades, 115 
 " Capitoline Venus," 2oof., PI. 201 
 Capua despoiled, 361 
 Capua, Psyche of, 267, PL 251 
 Caracalla, PL 42 5a 
 Carrey, Jacques, drawings by, 149, 
 
 Text 111. 22 
 
 Cassel Apollo, 73, PL 68 
 Cato and Porcia, Vatican, PL 375 
 Centaurs, 36 
 Centaurs, copies (?) by Aristeas 
 
 and Papias, 3O2f , PL 275 
 Centaurs, fight against, 163 
 Centaur head, Vatican, PI. 483a 
 Centaurs on Olympian metopes, 
 
 goff., Pis. 87ff. 
 Centaurs on Parthenon metopes, 
 
 153, Pis. i6off. 
 Ceres, see Demeter 
 Chairestratos, son of Chairedemos 
 
 of Rhamnous, 332 
 Characterization of types in the 
 
 Attalos group, 284 
 Chares, from Branchidai, 29ff., PL 
 
 3.6 
 Chariot, figure mounting a, 57f., 
 
 PL 56 
 
 Chariot relief at Candia, PI. 5 
 Charioteer, "Young Apollo," Bos- 
 ton, 238ff., Plate 232
 
 1 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Charioteer of Delphi, 65, 67, 83, 
 290, PL 60 
 
 Charioteer of small mausolleion 
 frieze, 238, PL 231 
 
 Cheramyes, 19 
 
 Chimaera, Etruscan bronze, 358, 
 363, PI. 32 5 a 
 
 Chin, long archaic, 80 
 
 Chiton, Doric, 85 
 
 Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo," 7iff., 
 Plate 67 
 
 Chronos (Time), 338 
 
 Cicero, PI. 426 
 
 Cincinnatus, 251 
 
 Cocks and hens, frieze from Xan- 
 thos, 52, PL 520 
 
 Colossal "Zeus" in Munich, 75f., 
 PL 71 
 
 Column: "of Antonine," 378, PL 
 336b, and reliefs from, 387, Pis. 
 342f. ; in design of Athena 
 Parthenos, 108; of Marcus 
 Aurelius, 378, PL 336b; reliefs 
 from, 387, Pis. 342f. ; of Tra- 
 jan, 378, PL 336a 
 
 Commodus, PL 425b 
 
 Contrasts liked by the Greeks, 354 
 
 Corner capitals, Ionic, 158, Note 
 
 Cups, gold, from Vaphio, 2, PL 8 
 
 Cupid, see Eros 
 
 Daidalos, 6; three artists of this 
 
 name, 325 
 
 Daidalos, Aphrodite by, 325 
 Dallin, Medicine Man, by, 270 
 Damophon, Drapery by, 273, PL 
 
 255; Heads by, 412, PL 477, 
 
 489. 49 2 
 Damasistrate, grave relief, 397, PL 
 
 373 
 " Dancers," from Herculaneum, 
 
 84f., 183, PL 76 
 Dancing woman from Athens, 336, 
 
 PL 307 
 Dancing woman from Pergamon, 
 
 336, PL 308 
 
 Death of Aigistheus, 56f., PL 55 
 Delos, Archaic woman from, i6f., 
 
 PL 20 ; Draped women from, 
 24f., PL 31 ; Flying figure 
 from, 25ff., 69, PL 32 
 
 Delphi, Charioteer of, 67f., PL 60; 
 reliefs from the frieze of treas- 
 ury of Knidos in, 45, PL 44; 
 reliefs from the treasury of 
 Sikyon in, 43, PL 43a ; frieze 
 from the Siphnos (?) treasury 
 in, 43, PI. 43b 
 
 " Demeter," (Ceres) or Hera, 117, 
 183, PL 104 
 
 Demeter : Copenhagen, seated, 
 265f., PL 249a ; by Damophon, 
 412, PI. 489; of Knidos, 263^, 
 PL 247 ; Head resembling PL 
 247, PL 476 
 
 Demetrios Phalereus, 392 
 
 Demosthenes, PL 401 
 
 Dermys and Kitylos, 6, PL iia 
 
 Dexileos, grave relief of, 256, 396, 
 PL 365 
 
 Diadoumenos: in Copenhagen, 130, 
 PL n6b; Delos copy, after 
 Polykleitos, 129, 406, Pis. 115, 
 457a; Farnese, 130, 139, PL 
 117; in Madrid, 130, PL n6a; 
 Vaison copy, after Polykleitos, 
 i28f., PL 114 
 
 Diana, see Artemis 
 
 Dike (Justice) 330 
 
 " Dionysos," head of bearded man, 
 London, 404, PL 45ob 
 
 Dionysos: 302; Archaistic,bearded, 
 418 ; PL 498 ; Infant in arms of 
 Hermes of Praxiteles, 191, PL 
 190 ; Infant in arms of Silenos, 
 3 replicas, 258ff., PL 245; "Nar- 
 kissos," I92ff., PL 194; from 
 Pergamon alter, frieze of, 28 5ff ., 
 PL 268a ; " Sardanapallos," 
 i86f., PL 187; Theatre of, dan- 
 cing woman from, 336, PL 
 307 ; Variously portrayed, 187; 
 Visit of, 343f., PL 315; Youth- 
 ful, Terme, 3O3ff., PL 276 
 
 Dioskoroi, Kastorand Polydeukes, 
 I4iff., PL 129
 
 INDEX. 
 
 11 
 
 Dirke, 295, in group, PI. 271 
 Discus-carrier head, PL 351 
 Discus-thrower statues after My- 
 ron, 68ff., Pis. 6 iff.; Combi- 
 nation cast, and Lancelotti, 
 London and Vatican copies 
 Discus-thrower, standing, 137^, PL 
 
 I26b 
 
 Diskobolos, see discus-thrower 
 Donatello's treatment of wrist- 
 
 action, 351 
 Doryphoros, I27f., 406, Pis. 113, 
 
 Drachme, 255, Note 
 
 Draped archaic figures from the 
 
 Akropolis, i8ff.. Pis. 21, 23ff. 
 Draped archaic figures from De- 
 
 los, 24f., PL 31 
 Draped woman in Berlin, "Aphro- 
 
 dite," 1 1 6, PL 103 
 Draped woman from Priene, 290, 
 
 PL 26gb 
 Drapery by Damophon, fragment 
 
 of, 273^, PL 252 
 Drum of column from Ephesos, 
 
 sculptured, archaic, 45, PL 45 
 Drum of column from Ephesos, 
 
 sculptured, fourth century, 
 
 2I9ff., Pis. 21 7f. 
 
 Drusus, on Ara Pacis, 373 
 " Dying Gladiator," Dying Gaul, 
 278ff., Pis. 2571 
 
 Ears in archaic art, 1 5f ., 79 
 
 Eclectic period, 345ff. 
 
 Egypt, borrowing of minor arts 
 
 from, 6 
 Eirene and Ploutos, after Kephiso- 
 
 dotos, i82ff., 187, 410, Pis. 
 
 184, 473a 
 " Elektra " with " Orestes," 352ff., 
 
 PL 322 
 Elektra, 56f. ; on an inscribed terra- 
 
 cotta relief, 80 
 
 Eleusis, relief from, i69ff., PL 178 
 Endoios, 6 
 
 Endymion, 335f., 343, PL 306 
 Ephesos, sculptured drum of col- 
 
 umn, archaic, 45, PL 45 
 
 Ephesos, sculptured drum of col- 
 umn, fourth century, 2191!., 
 PL 2i7f. 
 
 Epidauros, Amazon from, mounted, 
 255f., PL 242 ; Nereids from, 
 two mounted, 257f., PL 244 ; 
 Nike figures from, two, 253, 
 PL 240 
 
 Erechtheion, the, 153*!., PL 165, 
 Text 111. 34 ; Maiden from the, 
 i55ff., 348, PL 1 66 
 
 Eros: probably groupedwith Aphro- 
 dite of Capua, 323 ; with 
 a bow, Capitoline, i88f., PL 
 188 ; Centocelle, i88f., PL 
 189; of Praxiteles, 189, 222; 
 in Paris and Helen relief, 34if., 
 PL 312 ; and Psyche, 2O7f., PL 
 
 "Esquiline Venus," 348f., PL 318 
 Etruscan art, 358, Pis. 3251!. 
 Eubouleus, head, Athens, 409, PL 
 
 464 
 
 Eumenes II, 277,317 
 Euphranor, 304 
 
 Euripides, three portraits, PL 4O2f. 
 Europa and the bull, frieze of the 
 
 Siphnos (?) treasury, 44ff., PL 
 
 43b ; metope from Selinus, 
 
 258, Text 111. 7 
 Eurydike and Orpheus relief, 48, 
 
 173, PL 179 
 Euthymos, 72 
 
 Everett, Edward, statue of, 368 
 Eyes in archaic art, icff. 
 
 Face, individual, 62 
 
 Family scenes, grave reliefs, 397, 
 Pis. 368, 37off. 
 
 Farnese: Athena, ii4f., PL iO2a; 
 " Athletes," 65ff., Text 111. 15; 
 Bull group, 293ff., PL 27 iff., 
 Text 111. 44f. ; Diadoumenos, 
 130, PL 117; "Flora," 264^, 
 PL 248; Hermes, 192, PL 193 
 
 " Fates," the, from Parthenon, 152, 
 PL 138 
 
 Faun, see Satyr 
 
 Faustina, PL 434
 
 Hi 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Feet, good Greek, bronze, 65 
 
 Fifth century period, io2ff., Pis. 
 
 95ff. ; Definition of term, 103 ; 
 
 Heads, 4O5ff., Pis. 454ff. 
 
 Fig-tree in Forum, 381 
 
 Figure flying from Delos, 69, 25ff., 
 
 PI. 32 ; mounting a chariot, 
 
 S7 f, 78, PI. 56 
 
 Figures hugging their knees, 211 
 Flamininus, T., Quinctius, 361 
 " Flora Farnese," 264^, PI. 248 
 Flying figure from Delos, 2$ff., 69, 
 
 PI. 32 
 
 Foreshortening, mistaken allow- 
 ance to, 32 
 
 Forum, Rome, reliefs in, 380, PI. 337 
 Fourth century, iSiff., i84ff.; Heads, 
 
 4o8ff., Pis. 464ff. 
 Fra Angelico, 175 
 Freedom of pose, 136 
 French. John Harvard by, 270 
 Frieze: Athena-Nike Temple, 159, 
 PI. 169, Text Ills. 37f.; Cocks 
 and hens, from Xanthos, 52, PI. 
 52b; Gyolbashi, reliefs from, 
 168, PL 177; "Harpy" tomb 
 from Xanthos, 53, PI. 53; Kni- 
 dos, treasury of in Delphi, 45, 
 PI. 44; Maussolleion, large 
 Amazon, 2340., Pis. 228ff.; 
 Minerva, Temple of, 390, PI. 
 348; Parthenon, see s. v. Par- 
 thenon; Phigaleia, Temple of 
 Apollo at Bassai, iSiff., Pis. 
 I72f.; Siphnos (?) treasury, 
 Delphi, 43, PI. 43b 
 Funeral vases, 398, PI. 377, Text 111. 
 43 
 
 Gable end of tomb from Xanthos, 
 52f., PL 523 
 
 Galateia, 262 
 
 Gallsecus, Junius Brutus, 212 
 
 Ganymedes and the eagle, after Leo- 
 chares, 24 if., PL 233 
 
 Garment on Akropolis figures, 
 conscious contrast between 
 lower and upper, 113 
 
 Gate of lionesses, 2, PL 2 
 
 Gaul : Dying, Capitoline, 2786% Pis. 
 
 257f.; Dying, Naples, 284^, PL 
 
 2&4a; " Warrior from Delos," 
 
 3i6f., PL 287; and his wife, 
 
 28of., PL 259 
 
 Gauls conquered by Attalos I, 277 
 Ge, 287 
 Gem-cutters, influence on Roman 
 
 reliefs, 373 
 Genre figures, 77 
 Germanicus, on Ara Pacis, 373; 
 
 portrait, PL 427 
 
 Ghiberti, bronze gates by, 382, Note 
 Giant, dead, Naples, 284^., PI. 263 
 Giant and Alhena, 42, PL 42 
 Giants on Pergamon altar frieze, 288 
 Gigantomachia, 46 
 Girl racer, 79, PL 73 
 Girl, stele in Berlin, PL 354a 
 Girls decorating a herm, Roman, 
 
 1 60, Note, Text 111. 32 
 Gjolbashi, see Gyolbashi 
 "Gladiator," dying, 278f., PL 257^ 
 God, or Hero, statue of, 75, PL 75 
 Goddess, Capitoline, 288f., PL 2*j<)a. 
 Gold cups from Vaphio, 2, PL 8 
 Gold ornaments from Mykenai, Pis. 
 
 8f. 
 Goose, with boy, after Boethos (?), 
 
 272f., PL 254 
 Graces, the three, 207^, PL 2093; 
 
 Head of one, PL 473!:) 
 Graeco-Roman period, 345fT., Pis. 
 
 3 1 off- 
 Grave monument in Gyolbashi, re- 
 liefs from frieze, i68f., PL 177 
 Grave reliefs, 392fT., Pis. 349ff. 
 Greece conquered, 362 
 Gyolbashi, reliefs from monument, 
 1 68, PL 177 
 
 Hades, cap of, 115 
 Hadrian, 303, 305; PL ^zgb 
 Hagias, after Lysippos, 128, 207, 
 
 2 4 3f., PL 234 
 Hair, arrangement of as means uf 
 
 dating statues, 22
 
 INDEX. 
 
 liii 
 
 Hair, wiry' treatment of, 63 
 Hand resting on hip, 83 
 Harmodios, 61, 63 
 Harmodios and Aristogeiton, 63!?., 
 
 PI. 58 
 " Harpy " tomb from Xanthos, frieze 
 
 from, 53, PI. 53 
 Head following direction of weight 
 
 of the body, 105 
 Heads, 4O2ff., Pis. 439ff. 
 Heads of children, 191 
 Hegeso, grave relief from, 395, PI. 
 
 359 
 
 Helen, with Paris and group, relief, 
 341, PI. 312 
 
 Hellenistic Period, ayoff., Pis. 2S4ff.; 
 Heads, 4i2ff., Pis. 477^ 
 
 Hera, " Demeter " (Ceres), Vatican, 
 I I7f., 183, PI. 104; Argoshead, 
 PI. 463; " Barberini Juno," 
 Il8f., 202, PI. 105; "Bor- 
 ghese Juno," irSf., Plate 106; 
 Copenhagen head, PI. 462; 
 Farnese head, 407, PI. 461 ; Lu- 
 dovisi head, PI. 474; in Vienna, 
 Text 111. 26 
 
 " Hera" from Samos, 19, Plate 22 
 
 Herakles (?) on sculptured drum 
 from Ephesos, 220 
 
 Herakles, Assos relief, 36ff., PI. 39; 
 in Boston, votive relief, I79f., 
 PI. 183; Labors ofg$f.; Bronze 
 statuette in the Louvre, Text 
 111. 36; Farnese, 246f., PL 236; 
 Atlas metope, Olympia, 94ff., 
 PL 90; Augeian stables metope, 
 Olympia, 94ff., PL 91; Kretan 
 bull metope, Olympia, 94ff., 
 PL 92a; Stymphalian birds 
 metope, Olympia, 95tf., Text 
 111. 18; of Lysippos, Epitrape- 
 sios, 262; and the Hesperidai, 
 34of., PL 311; and the Hydra, 
 38, Plate 4oa; and the Kekropes, 
 47, PL 47b; and the Triton, 38, 
 PL 4 ob 
 
 Herculaneum, " dancers " from, 84f., 
 183, PL 76 
 
 Herm, definition of, 406, Note 
 Hermes: of Alkamenes, I26f., PL 
 112; of Andros, 19 if., 409, 
 PL 191, 465; Belvedere, Vati- 
 can, 19 if., PL 192; in Boston, 
 torso, 135, 267, PL 124; bring- 
 ing Dionysos to the Nymphs, 
 191; Text 111. 31; with Euri- 
 dike and Orpheus, relief, 1 73f., 
 PL 179; Farnese, 192, PL 193; 
 fastening sandal, on coin, 25 1 ; 
 fastening sandal, "Jason," 
 Louvre, 2491!., PL 238b; fasten- 
 ing sandal, Munich, 249ff., PL 
 238a; after Lysippos, reposing, 
 248, PL 237; Moschophoros, 
 I4f., PL 19; and the Nymphs, 
 I75f., PL 1 80; by Praxiteles, 
 I9of., 408, PL 190, 466 
 Hermione, by Kalamis, 124 
 Hero or god, colossal, Munich, 75f., 
 
 PL 71 
 Hesperidai with Herakles, 34Of., PL 
 
 3" 
 
 "Hestia," Torlonia, Rome, 8if., PL 
 
 75 
 
 Hippokampoi, 257 
 Historia, 339 
 
 Homer, apotheosis of, 338, PL 310 
 Homer, Naples, PL 392 
 Hope Athena, H4f., PL lO2b 
 Horror vacui, 237 
 Horseman, grave relief, Albani, 396, 
 
 PL 366 
 
 Horseman, in relief, 59 
 Horseman, in Vatican, fragment, 
 
 i78f., PL 182 
 Horseman with whip, grave relief 
 
 from Thespiai, 396, PL 364 
 Horses, on frieze at Delphi, 45 
 
 Human body, treatment of in archaic 
 
 art, gff. 
 
 Humann, Karl, 276 
 Hydra, Herakles and the, 38, PL 4Oa 
 Hylas ( ?), 230, PL 226 
 Hypnos head, 409, PL 467
 
 liv 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 " Idolino," L', I34f., 139, PI. 123 
 
 Idols, three nude, 2, PI. 6 
 
 Iktinos, 161 
 
 Ildefonso group, the, 3526"., PI. 324 
 
 Ilias, 339 
 
 Ilioneus, 23 if., PI. 227 
 
 Imitative sculpture, period of, 345ff., 
 
 Pis. 3i6ff. 
 
 Individual, the, in Greek art, i8if. 
 Ino-Leukathea relief, 397, PI. 3670 
 Iris, on Parthenon pediment, 167, PI. 
 
 I3 
 
 Isis-Tyche, 2O3f., PI. 206 
 Isokephalism, 36, 237 
 
 "Jason," Hermes, Louvre, 249ff., 
 PI. 2380 
 
 John Harvard, statue of, by French, 
 270 
 
 Juno, see Hera 
 
 Kalamis, 67, 83, 124 
 
 Kanachos, statuette after, nff., PL 
 i7a 
 
 " Kanephoroi," discussion of name, 
 155, Note 
 
 "Karyatid," in Copenhagen, 347f., 
 PI. 317; from the Erechtheion, 
 I55ff., PI. 166; Roman, Vati- 
 can, 157, PI. 167 
 
 " Karyatides," discussion of name, 
 
 J 55 
 Kastor and Polydeukes, 14 iff., PI. 
 
 129, Note 
 
 Kekropes, 47, PI. 470 
 Kephalos, carried off by Aurora, 1 24 
 Kephisodotos, Eirene and Ploutos 
 
 after, i82ff., 187, 410, PI. 184, 
 
 473* 
 
 Kimon, 63 
 
 Kitylos and Dermys, 6, 65, PI. iia 
 Kladeos, Zeus Temple, Olympia, 
 
 9off., PI. 8sa 
 Klytaimnestra, 56ff. 
 Kneeling position, 49 
 Knees, formation of, in archaic 
 
 sculpture, 7 
 Knidian Aphrodite, I96ff., Pis. 198 
 
 and 
 
 Knidian Demeter, 263^, PI. 247 
 Knidos, Delphi, reliefs from frieze 
 
 of treasury of, 45, PI. 44 
 Knights of St. John, 232 
 Knossos, throne in palace, 2, PI. 2 
 Kombos, I4f. 
 Komoidia, 339 
 Kora, 171 
 
 Korai, discussion of name, 155, Note 
 Koroneia, 115 
 Kresilas, 120, 133 
 Kritios, 66 
 
 Korallion, grave relief, 397, PI. 372 
 Kyzikos, fragment of draped woman 
 
 from, 268, PI. 252 
 
 Lancelotti discus thrower, 69ff., PI. 
 
 63; Copy of head in Berlin, 70; 
 
 Cast of head in Paris, 70 
 Laokoon, 29iff., 306, 414, Pis. 270, 
 
 484 
 
 Laokoon, tragedy by Sophokles, 292 
 " L'Arrotino," 28if., PL 260 
 Lemnian Athena, cast, IO3<T., PL 95; 
 
 head in Bologna, PL 458 
 Lenau, 396 
 Lenormant statuette of the Parthe- 
 
 nos, io6ff., PL 98 
 Leochares, 232, Ganymedes and the 
 
 eagle after, 24 if., PL 233 
 Leto, statuette of, 123 
 Leto, Apollo, Artemis, and Nike, 
 
 336ff., PL 309 
 
 " L'Idolino," I34f., 139, PL 123 
 Ligourio, statuette from, I2f., PL I7b 
 Limitations in sculpture, 242 
 Livia, on Ara Pacis, 373 
 Livia " Pudicitia," PL 435 
 Ludovisi Ares, 21 iff., PL 213 
 Luna, see Selene 
 Lykosoura, 274 
 Lysikrates monument, Athens, 269, 
 
 PL 253 
 
 Lysimachos, 277 
 Lysippos, 130, 207, 251, 262, 301; 
 
 Mission of, 252; Compared with 
 
 Skopas, 213; and his school, 
 
 242; Apoxyomenos, 244^ PL
 
 INDEX. 
 
 lv 
 
 Lysippos Continued. 
 
 235; Hagias, 243^, PL 234; 
 Herakles Farnese, 246f., PL 
 236; Hermes reposing, 248f., 
 PL 237 
 
 Madrid copy of the Parthenos, io6fL, 
 
 PL 96 
 Maiden from Herculaneum, 2O6f., 
 
 PL 2o8a 
 Maiden, "Karyatid," Roman, 157, 
 
 PL 167 
 Maiden from the Porch of the 
 
 Maidens, Erechtheion, I55ff., 
 
 PL 1 66 
 
 Maidens of the Erechtheion, 348 
 Mainad, 176, 222 
 Man tying his fillet, see Diadou- 
 
 menos 
 Mantineia base, slabs from, 2o8ff., 
 
 282, Pis. 2 1 off. 
 Mantle, heavy, introduced with 
 
 changing fashion, i I4f. 
 " Marble Faun," Capitoline, I94f., 
 
 405, PL 195 
 Marcus Aurelius, reliefs in Palazzo 
 
 del Conservatori, 388, PL 344; 
 
 Portrait, PL 421 b; equestrian, 
 
 PL 428 
 
 Mars, see Ares 
 Marcellus brings Greek art to Rome, 
 
 36i 
 Marsyas, hanging, and slave, 282, PL 
 
 261; on Mantineia base, 209; 
 
 probably after Myron, 70, 312, 
 
 PL 653; Recoiling before 
 
 Athena, vase painting, 70; 
 
 Statue in the Forum, 381 ; Stat- 
 uette in London, 70, PL 65b 
 Mask of Warrior, from Mykenai, 2, 
 
 PL 4 
 Matron, from Herculaneum, 2o6f., 
 
 356, PL 2o8b 
 Maussolleion sculpture, zy&., Pis. 
 
 228ff. 
 
 Maussollos, 232, PL 4<D4b 
 
 Medea, 370 
 
 Medeia and the daughters of Pelias, 
 
 relief, I76f., PL 181 
 Medici Athena, inff., PL 101 
 
 Medicine Man by Dallin, 270 
 Medusa, 33; Slain by Perseus, 47, 
 PL 47a; Heads of, 416!., Pis. 
 
 ~ -f 
 
 Megara, treasury of in Olympia, ped- 
 imental relief from, 46, 286, PL 
 46 
 
 Meleager, 2l4ff.; Berlin, PL 214; 
 Harvard, PL 215; Vatican, PL 
 216 
 
 Melpomene, 329^, PL 299 
 
 Menander (?), Boston, 401, PL 4O3b 
 
 Menander, Vatican, PL 405 
 
 Menelaos, PL 39 ib 
 
 Menelaos, group by, 352, PL 322 
 
 Menelaos and Patroklos, 305^, PI. 
 277 
 
 Mercure aptere, I34f., PL I22a 
 
 Mercury, see Hermes 
 
 Metopes: of the Parthenon, I53ff. 
 Pis. i6off.; from Selinus, 47ff., 
 Pis. 47ff., Text Ills. 6ff.; from 
 treasury of Sikyon, 43, PL 43a; 
 from the Zeus Temple, Olym- 
 pia, 94ff., Pis. giff., Text 111. 18 
 
 Michelangelo's treatment of wrist- 
 action, 351, Note 
 
 Mikkiades, 25 
 
 Miltiades, PL 3913 
 
 Minerva, bronze, commonly called 
 Etruscan, 371, 358, PL 330 
 
 Minerva, see also Athena 
 
 " Minerve au Collier," lo6ff., PL 990 
 
 Mitre, Homeric, 44 
 
 Mneme (Memory), 339 
 
 Mnemosyne, 339 
 
 Moira (Fate), 330 
 
 Monument, Nereid, see Nereid 
 
 Monument of Lysikrates, Athens, 
 269, PL 253 
 
 Moschophoros, I4f., PL 19 
 
 " Mourning " Athena, 97ff., PL 93 
 
 Mourning women, Berlin, 397, PL 
 
 376 
 Mourning woman sarcophagus, 398, 
 
 Pis. 3 8 5 f. 
 
 Mouths in archaic art, loff. 
 Muse, Melpomene, 329^, PL 299 
 Muse, Polyhymnia, Berlin, 330, PL 
 
 3o
 
 Ivi 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Muses, 339 
 
 Muses from Herculaneum, 2o6f., PI. 
 
 208 
 Mykenai, gold ornaments from, 2, 
 
 Pis. 8f. 
 Myron : Discus-thrower statues by, 
 
 68ff., Pis. 6iff.; Marsyas, prob- 
 
 ably after, 70, 312, PL 653; 
 
 Heads in style of, PL 451 
 Mythos, 339 
 
 " Narkissos," ipaff., PL 194 
 
 Neptune, see Poseidon 
 
 Nereid monument, from Xanthos, 
 165, PL 1 74, Text 111. 39; Three 
 Nereids from, i65ff.; Pis. I75f. 
 
 Nereids, two, mounted, from Epi- 
 dauros, 25 7f., PL 244 
 
 Nesiotes, 66 
 
 Nikandre of Naxos, 1 6 
 
 Nike with Apollo, Artemis, and 
 Leto, 3366., PL 309; of Brescia, 
 322, 331,414, Pis. 301, 488b; 
 Bronze, archaic, 28, PL 33; On 
 column of Trajan, 322; "Nike" 
 of Delos, 250., PL 32; Fasten- 
 ing her sandal, balustrade, 
 Athena-Nike Temple, 159, 251, 
 PL 170;' Two figures with a 
 bull, balustrade, I59f., PL 171; 
 Two figures with a bull, Roman, 
 161, Text 111. 33; Two figures 
 from Epidauros, 253, PL 240; 
 Of Paionios, 1246*"., PL no; 
 restoration, PL ni; With in- 
 cense, 274, Note; Of the Par- 
 thenon East Pediment, 152, 160, 
 167, 266, 334, PL 139; On Per- 
 gamon altar frieze, 287, PL 
 266a; Of Samothrace, 33 if., 
 253, Note, Pis. 302f. 
 
 " Nike- Apteros " Temple, I58f., PL 
 i68ff. 
 
 Nikeratos, 317 
 
 Nile, the, 307^, PL 278 
 
 Nile, periods of inundation, 307 
 
 Niobe group, 224ff.; authorship dis- 
 cussed, 226; Niobe and her 
 
 youngest daughter, 224ff., PL 
 220; Niobid Chiaramonti, 
 224ff., PL 221; Niobid, dead, 
 Munich, 2246% PL 223; Niobid 
 in Uffizi, resembling the Chiara- 
 monti, 224ff., PL 222; Niobides 
 compared with Menelaos and 
 Patroklos, 305; Niobides flee- 
 ing, 225ff., 281, PL 224; Nio- 
 bides, son and daughter, frag- 
 ment of group, 225(7., Text 111. 
 41; Tutor (Paidagogos), 22$tt., 
 PL 225b; Tutor and son, 2250., 
 PL 2253 
 
 Nobilior, M. Fulvius, 361 
 
 Novus Annus, 301 
 
 Nymph, Copenhagen, 266f., PL 250 
 
 Nymphs, with Hermes, 1751"., PL 180 
 
 Odysee, 339 
 
 Oikoumene (inhabitants of the 
 
 world), 338 
 Oinomaos, Zeus Temple, Olympia, 
 
 goff., PL 843 
 Old man of the sea, Assos relief, 
 
 3 6ff., PL 39 
 
 Old woman, Temple of Zeus, Olym- 
 pia, goff., PL 88 
 Olympia, Temple of Zeus in, pedi- 
 
 mental figures, 82, goff., Pis. 
 
 84ff. ; suggested arrangement 
 
 of East Pediment, 397, Note 
 Olympia, treasury of Megara, pedi- 
 
 mental relief, 46, PL 46 
 Omphalos, 339; Apollo with the, 70, 
 
 PL 66 
 
 Opisthosphendone, 119 
 Orator, Etruscan bronze, 358, 367, 
 
 PL 327 
 
 Orestes, in death of Aigistheus, 56 
 "Orestes and Elektra," 352ff., PL 
 
 322 
 "Orestes and Pylades," 352ff., PL 
 
 323 
 Orient, borrowing of minor arts 
 
 from, 6 
 Ornaments from Mykenai, gold, 2, 
 
 Pis. 8f.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Ivii 
 
 Orophernes, 289 
 
 Orpheus, Eurydike, and Hermes, re- 
 lief, I73f., 178, 220, PI. 179 
 
 Painted metopes from Thermon, 3, 
 
 PL 7 
 Paionios, 94; Nike of, 1246., 253, PI. 
 
 liof. 
 Pallas Athena, archaistic, Naples, 
 
 347, PI. 316 
 Panormos harbor, 30 
 Papyros, Oxyrrhynchos, date of, 128 
 Paris, Eros, Aphrodite, Helen, 
 
 Peitho, 34 if., PI. 312 
 Parthenon, the, 1480., PI. 135 : 
 
 Frieze, complete, in strips in a 
 
 pocket at back of book; Frieze, 
 
 east, 153, Pis. I57ff.; Frieze, 
 
 west, complete, I52f., Pis. I42ff.; 
 
 Frieze, youths on, 179, 180; 
 
 Metopes, south side, 153, Pis. 
 
 i6off.; Pediment sculptures, 
 
 1 5 if., Pis., I38ff. 
 Parthenos, Athena, copies and 
 
 adaptations, iO5ff., Pis. 96ff. 
 Pasiteles, 77, 78 
 
 Pasiteles, school of, 352ff., Pis. 32iff. 
 Patroklos and Menelaos, 305 f., PI. 
 
 277 
 Pediment sculpture, problems of, 
 
 33ff- 
 Pediments, see under the names of 
 
 the buildings 
 Peasant going to market, relief, 342, 
 
 PI. 313 
 
 Pegasos, 48 
 
 Peiraios, grave relief from, 395, PI. 
 
 360 
 Pelias, Medeia and the daughters of, 
 
 i76f., PI. 181 
 Peitho, in Paris and Helen relief, 
 
 34if., PI. 312 
 " Penolope," 8of., PI. 74 
 Penelope, head of, PI. 453; geese of 
 
 272, Note 
 
 Pergamon altar, 2856"., Pis. 265^". 
 Pergamon, copy of the Parthenos, 
 
 io6ff., PI. 99a 
 
 Pergamon, dancing woman from, 
 
 336, PI. 308 
 Pergamon, school of, 276flf., Pis. 
 
 2 57 ff. 
 
 Perikles, two portraits, PI. 406 
 Persephone, 170 
 
 Persian, dead, Naples, 284^, PL 2&4b 
 Perseus, 47 
 
 Perspective in reliefs, 376, 394, Note 
 Petasos, 173 
 Phaistos, stairway in palace of, I, 
 
 PI. I 
 Pharsalos, grave relief from, 394, PI. 
 
 358 
 
 Pheidias, 102, 131, 132, 142 
 Phigaleia, frieze from temple of 
 
 Apollo near, i6lff., Pis. I72f. 
 Philetairos, 277 
 Phokion, PI. 407 
 Phradmon, 133 
 
 Phylis, grave relief, 394, PI. 355 
 Physis (Nature), 339 
 Pictorial element in relief sculpture, 
 
 44f. 
 
 Piombino, Apollo, (?) PI. 1 8 
 Pistis (Faith), 339 
 Ploutos with Eirene, i82ff., 187, PI. 
 
 184 
 
 Plato, PI. 408 
 Poiesis (Epic Poetry), 339 
 Polydeukes and Kastor, 141 ff., PI. 
 
 129 
 
 Polydoros, 2916. 
 Polyhymnia, Berlin, 330, PI. 300 
 Polykleitean school, precurssors of, 
 
 74 
 
 Polykleitos, 132, 135, 304; Diadou- 
 menos by, I28f., Pis. U4f.; 
 Doryphoros or Spear Bearer, 
 I27f., PI. 113; Heads from 
 school of, 4o6ff., Pis. 454ff.; 
 "Westmacott Athlete," 134^, 
 
 PI. I22b 
 
 Polyphemos, 262 
 
 Pompey, PI. 42ga 
 
 Porcia and Cato, Vatican, PI. 375 
 
 Poros, 15, 38 
 
 Portraits, 4Oof., Pis. 387(7.
 
 Iviii 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Poseidippos, PI. 409 
 
 Poseidon, in Lateran, 252, 309, PI. 
 
 239; of Melos, 3o8f., PI. 279 
 Praxitelean character, 189 
 Praxitelean motive, 133 
 Praxiteles, 137, 142, 181, 192, 203, 
 
 205, 221, 259; and his school, 
 
 i84ff.; "Apollo" Sauroktonos 
 
 after, iSsf., Pis. 185^, Text 111. 
 
 27; Heads in style, of 4o8f., Pis. 
 
 464(1.; Hermes of, igof., PL 
 
 190; Knidian Aphrodite after, 
 
 I96ff., Pis. 198!. 
 Priene, school of, 289ff., draped 
 
 woman from, 290, PL 2690 
 Principle of opposites, 65 
 Promachos, Athena, bronze statuette, 
 
 28, PL 35 
 
 Protonoe, grave relief, 397, PL 373 
 " Pselioumene, 199, PL 200 
 Psyche of Capua, 267^, PL 251 
 Ptolemy, PL 410 
 "Pylades" with "Orestes," 3528"., 
 
 PL, 323 
 
 Pythagoras, 67, 263; "Apollo with 
 the omphalos," probably after, 
 7off., PL 66; "Choiseul-Gouf- 
 fier " Apollo, probably after, 
 7 iff., PL 67; Boxers, 7off., Pis. 
 66f. 
 
 Pythios, 232 
 
 Realism unknown in fourth century, 
 
 260 
 Reliefs, Roman, in Palazzo dei Con- 
 
 servatori, 384, PL 340 
 Reliefs, copied after statues, 254 
 Revelation of St. John, 285 
 Rhamnous, Themis of, 332$., PL, 304 
 Rhodes, school of, 2910% Pis. 2706". 
 Riding whip, 397 
 Roman art, 358ff., Pis. 325^ 
 Running, archaic representation of, 
 
 88, 230 
 
 Sacred way at Branchidai, seated 
 
 figures from, 29ff., PL 36 
 Saint Gaudens, Sherman by, 270 
 
 Saint Paul's letters to the Galatians, 
 
 277 
 
 " Samos," Hera from, 19, PL 22 
 Sappho, bronze, PL 393 ; marble, PL 
 
 394* 
 
 Sarcophagi, 398, Pis. 3788". 
 Sarcophagus relief in Baumeister, 
 
 3U 
 
 " Sardanapollos," i86f., PL 187 
 Satyr, "Barberini Faun," 3iof., PL 
 280; Bronze statuette, Biblio- 
 thque Nationale, Paris, I34f., 
 PL I22c; Dancing, Naples, 
 31 iff., PL 282a; Dancing, 
 Terme, 31 iff., PL 282b; After 
 the hunt, relief, 343, PL 314; 
 " Marble Faun," Capitoline, 
 I94f., 312; PL 195; Playing 
 scabellum, 3i2f., PL 383; Pour- 
 ing wine, I95f., PL 197; Sleep- 
 ing, Naples, 31 1, PL 281 ; Torso 
 (replica of PL 195), 1941., PL 
 196 
 
 Satyros, 232 
 Scabellum, satyr playing, 3i2f., PL 
 
 283 
 
 Sciarra, archaic " Apollo," 1 6 
 Sculpture copying paintings, 297, 326 
 Selene, from Pergamon alter, 285ff, 
 Selinous, see Selinus, PL 268b, 
 from Parthenon pediment, 152, 
 PL I4ob 
 Selinus metopes, 476"., 286, Pis. 47<T., 
 
 Text Ills. 7ff. 
 Sentiment, first conscious expression 
 
 of, 393 
 Sherman, statue by Saint Gaudens, 
 
 270 
 Shield of Athena Parthenos, 107, 
 
 in, PL 100 
 Sikyon, metopes from treasury of, 
 
 43, PL 43a 
 Silenos, with infant Dionysos, three 
 
 replicas, 2586"., PL 243 
 Siphnos ( ?) frieze from treasury of, 
 
 43, PL 43b 
 
 Skopas, 21 iff., 232, 289, 315; and 
 his school, 2ioff., Pis. 2i3<T; 
 Heads in style of, 409, Pis. 469^
 
 INDEX. 
 
 lix 
 
 Slave sharpening his knife, 28lf., PI. 
 
 260 
 
 Smile, archaic, 89 
 Smilis, 6 
 
 Snakes on Pergamon alter, 287 
 Sokrates, PI. 41 la; and Seneca, PI. 
 
 41 I'D 
 
 Sophia (Wisdom), 339 
 Sophokles, 228, 268, PI. 412; 
 
 Tradgedy of Laokobn by, 292 
 Spartan, grave relief, 396, 397, PI. 
 
 367* 
 
 Sparta, sphinx from, 33, PI. 38 
 Spearbearer, Doryphoros, after Poly- 
 
 kleitos, I27f., PI. 113 
 Spearbearer head, 393, PI. 352 
 Sphinxes, character of, 33 
 Spinario, London, 3i3f., PI. 284 
 Spinario, Rome, 61, 76, 313, PI. 72 
 Spirit of art denied, 346 
 Stairway, palace of Phaistos, i, PI. I. 
 Standards, Roman, 378 
 Statues reproduced in reliefs, 254 
 Stephanos, 119 
 
 Stelai (single figures) 392f., Pis. 349ff. 
 Stele, correct use of the word, 392 
 Sterope, Zeus Temple, Olympia, 
 
 9off., PI. 84b 
 
 Strassbourg, statue of, 275 
 Stride of men contrasted with that 
 
 of women, 28 
 
 Stroganoff Apollo, bronze, "299 
 Stymphalian birds, metope from 
 
 Selinus, 95ff., Text 111. 18 
 Subiaco, youth from, 230, PI. 226 
 Suggested lines, 54 
 Suggestion, principle of negative, 99 
 Suovetaurilia, 380, PI. 337a 
 Support, material, 197, 198 
 Syracuse, fall of, 361 
 
 Tarentum despoiled, 361 
 
 Tarsos, athlete from, 66 
 
 Tauriskos, 295 
 
 Tegea heads, by Skopas, 409, PI. 469 
 
 Telekles, 29 
 
 Temple, of Aigina, 86ff.,Text 111. 13, 
 Pis. 78ff. ; of Apollo near Phiga- 
 leia, slabs from frieze of, i6iff., 
 Pis. I72f.; Athena-Nike, isSf., 
 
 Pis. i68f., Text 111. 37f.; the 
 Erechtheion, I53f., Pis. 165^, 
 Text. 111. 34; of Minerva, part 
 of frieze of, 390, PI. 348; the 
 Parthenon, I48ff., Pis. I35ff., 
 and strips in pocket at back of 
 book; the Theseion, I44ff., Pis. 
 I3off.; of unusual design, 161 
 
 Thanatos, 220, 355 
 
 Thasos, reliefs from, 54, 394, PI. 54 
 
 Themis of Rhamnous, 3328., PI. 304 
 
 Theodores, 29 
 
 Thermon, painted metopes from, 4, 
 PI. 7 
 
 Theseus and the bull, metope from 
 the Theseion, 95ff., PI. 92b; 
 
 "Theseion," the, I44ff., PI. 130; 
 slabs from the frieze, PI. 13 iff., 
 pedimental composition of, 123 
 
 Thespiai, grave relief from, 396, PI. 
 
 364 
 
 "Thinking" Athena, 97ff., PI. 93 
 
 Thrasymedes, 253, 254; two Askle- 
 pios reliefs after, 254^, PI 241 
 
 Three women in transparent gar- 
 ments, relief, 99ff., PL 94 
 
 Throne, palace, Knossos, 2, PL 2 
 
 " Thusnelda," 369, PL 32ga 
 
 Tiber, 308 
 
 Tiberius on Ara Pacis, 373 
 
 Timotheus, 232, 253, 255 
 
 Titus, palace of, 291 
 
 Togatus, British Museum, 370, PL 
 329b 
 
 Togatus sacrificing, 368f., PL 328 
 
 Tomb, gable end of, from Xanthos, 
 52f., PL 52a 
 
 Torso Belvedere, 26iff., PL 246 
 
 Torso of a boy, " Hermes," Boston, 
 135, PL 124 
 
 Torso of a draped woman, " Arte- 
 mis," Copenhagen, 334, PL 305. 
 
 Torso of a draped woman, Copen- 
 hagen, 32 iff., PL 292b 
 
 Torso of a Satyr (replica of PL 195), 
 I94f., PL 196 
 
 Torso of a Triton, Vatican, 3i4f., PL 
 
 285 
 
 Torso of woman in Doric chiton, 
 Copenhagen, 85^, PL 77
 
 Ix 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Tragoidia, 339 
 
 Trajan and his suite, 383, PI. 339 
 Tralles, school of, 293 
 Transitional Period, 6off., heads, 
 
 404ff., Pis. 446ff. 
 Treasury of Megara, Olympia, pedi- 
 
 mental relief, 46, PI. 46 
 Triton, Herakles and the, 38, PL 4ob 
 Triton, torso of a, Vatican, 314^, PI. 
 
 285 
 
 Tyche, of Antiocheia, 274^, PI. 256 
 Tyche, Artemis-Tyche, 2C>3f., PI. 206 
 Typhon, pedimental group, 40, PI. 
 
 4ia 
 Tyrannicides, Bobolini Gardens, 
 
 65ff., Text 111. 14 
 Tyrannicides, Farnese Athlete, 65ff., 
 
 Text 111. 15 
 Tyrannicides, Naples, 6^fi., Pis. 8f. 
 
 Unknown man, terra-cotta, Boston, 
 
 Pis. 43 6f. 
 Unknown man leaning on spear, PI. 
 
 413 
 
 Unknown man, portrait, Roman, PI. 
 4140 
 
 Vaphio, gold cups from, 2, PI. 8 
 Varvakeion statuette of the Parthe- 
 
 nos,' io6ff., PI. 97 
 Veins in Greek sculpture, 263 
 Velletri, 120, PI. 107 
 Venus, see Aphrodite 
 " Venus de Milo," discussion of 
 
 proper name, 323 
 " Vestals," from Herculaneum, 
 
 2o6f., PI. 208 
 Victor, Olympic, 77 
 Victor statue of girl racer, 79, PI. 
 
 73 
 
 Victory, see Nike 
 Virgil ( ? ) portrait, 401, PI. 403b 
 Votive relief of Herakles, Boston, 
 
 179!., PL 183 
 
 Warrior Borghese, 3l5f., PL 286 
 Warrior from Delos, 3i6f., PL 287 
 Warrior, fragment of stele, PL 356 
 Watery folds of garments, 100 
 Weber, head, 408, PL 460 
 Wernicke's restoration of Olympia 
 pediments, 91 
 
 "Westmacott Athlete," 134^, PI. 
 
 I22b 
 
 Wolf of the Capitol, 365, PL 325b 
 Woman ( " Aphrodite " ), Berlin, 
 
 116, 322, PL 103 
 Woman in Boston, seated, 349f., PL 
 
 319 
 Woman in Boston, standing, 35of., 
 
 PL 320 
 Woman (torso) in Copenhagen 
 
 321 ff., PL 292b 
 Woman heavily draped, stele, 393, 
 
 PL 354 b 
 Woman from Kyzikos, 268, 333, PL 
 
 252 
 Woman running, Copenhagen, I22f., 
 
 PL 109 
 Women from Herculaneum, in Doric 
 
 chiton, bronze, 84^, PL 76 
 Wrestlers, Florence, 317^ PL 288 
 Wrestlers, Naples, 3i8f., PL 289 
 Wrist-action, 351 
 
 Xanthos in Lycia, gable end of a 
 tomb from, 52f. PL 52a; Frieze 
 of cocks and hens from, 52, PL 
 52b; Frieze of "Harpy tomb" 
 from, 53, PL 53; Nereid monu- 
 ment from, see Nereid 
 
 Youth from Antikythera, 3i9f., Pis. 
 290, 486 
 
 Youth, fragment of stele from 
 Athens, 393, PL 353 
 
 Youth with an old man, grave re- 
 lief, 396, PL 363 
 
 Youth on Parthenon frieze, foot 
 raised, 252 
 
 Youth with servant and cat, grave 
 relief, 395, PL 362 
 
 Youth by Stephanos, 352ff., PL 321 
 
 Youth from Subiaco, 23of., PL 226 
 
 Youths on Parthenon frieze, 1 79f. 
 
 Zethos, in group, 295, PL 271 
 
 Zeus, 339; Otricoli, PL 487; or 
 
 Asklepios, Dresden, I4of., PL 
 128; on Pergamon altar frieze, 
 287, PL 266a; of Pheidias 287, 
 309; temple of Olympia, goff., 
 Pis. 840".; or hero, Munich, -j^i., 
 PL 71 ; Talleyrand, 418, PL 499
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Read "Archermos " for "Achermos" pp. 6, 25 
 Read "Aischines " for "Aischenes " PI. 395
 
 Ix 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Tragoidia, 339 
 
 Trajan and his suite, 383, PI. 339 
 Tralles, school of, 293 
 Transitional Period, 6off., heads, 
 
 404ff., Pis. 446ff. 
 Treasury of Megara, Olympia, pedi- 
 
 mental relief, 46, PI. 46 
 Triton, Herakles and the, 38, PL 4ob 
 Triton, torso of a, Vatican, 314!., PI. 
 
 285 
 
 Tyche, of Antiocheia, 274^, PI. 256 
 Tyche. Artemis-Tvche. 20 if.. PI. -znfi 
 
 "Westmacott Athlete," 134^, PI. 
 
 I22b 
 
 Wolf of the Capitol, 365, PI. 325b 
 Woman ( " Aphrodite " ), Berlin, 
 
 1 1 6, 322, PI. 103 
 Woman in Boston, seated, 349f., PI. 
 
 319 
 Woman in Boston, standing, 35of., 
 
 PI. 320 
 Woman (torso) in Copenhagen 
 
 321 ff., PI. 292b 
 
 Tyr 
 Tyr 
 Tyr 
 Unl 
 Unl 
 Unknown man, portrait, Roman, PI. 
 
 Vaphio, gold cups from, 2, PI. 8 
 Varvakeion statuette of the Parthe- 
 
 nos; io6ff., PI. 97 
 Veins in Greek sculpture, 263 
 Velletri, 120, PI. 107 
 Venus, see Aphrodite 
 " Venus de Milo," discussion of 
 
 proper name, 323 
 " Vestals," from Herculaneum, 
 
 2o6f., PI. 208 
 Victor, Olympic, 77 
 Victor statue of girl racer, 79, PI. 
 
 73 
 
 Victory, see Nike 
 Virgil ( ? ) portrait, 401, PI. 4O3b 
 Votive relief of Herakles, Boston, 
 
 i 79 f., PI. 183 
 
 Warrior Borghese, 315^, PI. 286 
 Warrior from Delos, 3i6f., PI. 287 
 Warrior, fragment of stele, PI. 356 
 Watery folds of garments, IOO 
 Weber, head, 408, PI. 460 
 Wernicke's restoration of Olympia 
 pediments, 91 
 
 tomb from, 52f. PI. 52a; Frieze 
 of cocks and hens from, 52, PI. 
 52b; Frieze of "Harpy tomb" 
 from, 53, PI. 53; Nereid monu- 
 ment from, see Nereid 
 
 Youth from Antikythera, 3i9f., Pis. 
 290, 486 
 
 Youth, fragment of stele from 
 Athens, 393, PI. 353 
 
 Youth with an old man, grave re- 
 lief, 396, PI. 363 
 
 Youth on Parthenon frieze, foot 
 raised, 252 
 
 Youth with servant and cat, grave 
 relief, 395, PI. 362 
 
 Youth by Stephanos, 352ff., PI. 321 
 
 Youth from Subiaco, 23of., PI. 226 
 
 Youths on Parthenon frieze, 1 79f. 
 
 Zethos, in group, 295, PI. 271 
 
 Zeus, 339; Otricoli, PI. 487; or 
 
 Asklepios, Dresden, I4of., PI. 
 128; on Pergamon altar frieze, 
 287, PI. 266a; of Pheidias 287, 
 309; temple of Olympia, 9off., 
 Pis. 840".; or hero, Munich, 75f., 
 PI. 71 ; Talleyrand, 418, PI. 499
 
 A 000 651 274 3