of
trcljacologg anti Snttquttirs
*</fc
A HANDBOOK
OF
GREEK SCULPTURE
A HANDBOOK
OF
GREEK SCULPTURE
BY
ERNEST AETHUR GARDNER, M.A.
LATE FELLOW OF GONVILLE AND CAIUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, AND FORMERLY
DIRECTOR OF THE BRITISH SCHOOL OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT ATHENS ;
YATES PROFESSOR OF ARCHAEOLOGY IN UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE, LONDON
London
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
NEW YORK : THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1897
All rights reserved
*• „
V.SL
\
PREFACE
IN addition to the authorities quoted in the preface issued
with the first part of this handbook, one other calls for especial
notice here. This/ it need hardly be said, is Professor Furt-
wangler's Meisterwerke der griechischen Plastik, or, in its English
version by Miss Eugenie Sellers, Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture.
I had occasion to quote this work more than once in Part L;
but, from the nature of the subject) it has been far more fre-
quently in my hands while I was writing Part II., and I have
to acknowledge my indebtedness to Professor Furtwangler's
wonderful knowledge and observation in many instances where
I have not felt able to embody his conclusions in the text of a
handbook for students.
In dealing with the later portion of the history of sculpture,
I have endeavoured to follow the same principles as in the
earlier portion, and consequently I am again precluded from
the discussion of many interesting problems as to which I do
not feel justified in expressing a dogmatic opinion, while I have
not space to give, even in summary, the arguments on each
side.
I regret that I am unable to fulfil my conditional promise
of an appendix on the discoveries of the French excavators at
Delphi, no official publication having as yet been issued.
It is only fair both to M. Collignon and to myself to state
vi A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
that I had not the advantage of seeing the second volume
his Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque before the proof-sheets of t
volume were out of my hands.
Arrangements have been made by the Teachers' Guild
placing at the disposal of its members a series of lantern-sli<
to illustrate the history of sculpture ; these slides have b(
prepared from the material that has been used for the illust
tions of this handbook, and they are numbered to correspoi
They may be seen at the Educational Museum of the Gui
74 Gower Street, London, W.C., where inquiries may
addressed to the Hon. Curators.
The present volume contains a full index, compiled
Mrs. Ernest Gardner, to both parts of the handbook.
My brother, Professor Percy Gardner of Oxford, has agi
read the proof-sheets, and I have to thank him for many va
able corrections and suggestions.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON,
November 1896.
CONTENTS
PAGE
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY . xi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . xv
XOTE • xviii
CHAPTER III— (continued)
THE FIFTH CENTURY (480-400 B.C.) — (continued]
35. SCULPTURE OF THE PARTHENON . . . 267
36. OTHER ATHENIAN SCULPTURES — THESEUM, ERECHTHEUM,
TEMPLE OF WINGLESS VICTORY, ETC. . . . 294
37. SCHOLARS OF PHIDIAS — AGORACRITUS, COLOTES, THEOCOSMUS,
ALCAMENES ....... 304
38. SCHOLARS OF CALAMIS AND MYRON, AND OTHER ATTIC SCULP-
TORS ..... 313
39. ATTIC INFLUENCE OUTSIDE ATHENS ; PHIGALIA . . 321
40. POLYCLITUS .... 324
41. SCHOLARS OF POLYCLITUS ..... 337
42. OTHER SCULPTORS AND WORKS OF THIS PERIOD . .341
43. SUMMARY . 347
viii A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
CHAPTER IV
THE FOURTH CENTURY (400-320 B.C.)
§ 44. CHARACTER OF THE PERIOD
45. CEPHISODOTUS
(46) PRAXITELES
47. SlLANION AND ElJPHRANOR
48. TIMOTHEUS, BRYAXIS, LEOCHARES
49. SCOPAS .... . .
f§y THE MAUSOLEUM .
51. ATTIC TOMBSTONES .....
52. THRASYMEDES AND DAMOPHON ....
53. LYSIPPUS ... ...
54. PUPILS OF LYSIPPUS .....
55. OTHER SCULPTURES OF THE PERIOD
56. SUMMARY . ....
CHAPTER Y
THE HELLENISTIC AGE (320-100 B.C.)
§ 57. THE INFLUENCE OF ALEXANDER
(58.)CHiEF CENTRES OF SCULPTURE IN THE HELLENISTIC AGE
/"5&-THE PASTORAL TENDENCY — HELLENISTIC RELIEFS
60T BOETHUS, AND CHILDREN IN SCULPTURE
61. CHARES, AND THE COLOSSUS OF RHODES
62. EUTYCHIDES AND THE IMPERSONATION OF ClTIES
63. PORTRAITURE ......
64. HISTORY OF THE DEDICATIONS OF THE ATTALIDS
65. THE DEDICATIONS OF ATTALUS I.
CONTENTS ix
PAGE
§ 66. THE DEDICATIONS OF EUMENES II. . . . 459
67. THE RHODIAX SCHOOL — THE LAOCOON .... 468
.68. TRALLES — THE FARNESE BULL . . . . .472
69. THE EPHESIAN SCHOOL — AGASIAS .... 475
70. LATER IDEALS OF THE GODS ; APOLLO BELVEDERE, APHRODITE
OF MELOS, ETC. ...... 477
71. OTHER WORKS OF THE HELLENISTIC AGE . . . 485
72. SUMMARY ........ 490
CHAPTER VI
GRAECO-ROMAN AND ROMAN SCULPTURE
§ 73. HISTORICAL AND SOCIAL CHANGES .... 493
74. THE CARRYING OFF OF MASTERPIECES .... 495
75. CENTRES OF ART AND MIGRATION OF ARTISTS . . 496
76. STATUES OF THE GODS ...... 497
77. WORKS OF THE NEO-ATTIC SCHOOL . . . 501
78. ARCESILAUS ....... 505
79. PASITELES AND HIS SCHOOL ..... 508
80. PORTRAITURE ....... 512
81. HISTORICAL MONUMENTS ..... 516
82. ANTINOUS AND THE HADRIANIC REVIVAL . . . 517
83. SARCOPHAGI ....... 519
84. SUMMARY ... .... 521
INDEX ......... 523
INDEX OF SCULPTORS (for Part II.) 551
SELECT BIBLIOGKAPHY
General Histories
BRUNN, HEINRICH. Geschichte der griechischen Kiinstler. Vol. I., Bild-
hauer, 1852. (Eeprinted Stuttgart, 1889.)
Griechische Kunstgeschichte. Part I. (all issued). Munich, 1893.
COLLIGNON, MAXIME. Histoire de la Sculpture grecque. Vol. I. Paris, 1892.
Vol. II. 1896.
MITCHELL, LUCY. History of Ancient Sculpture. London, 1883.
MURRAY, A. S. History of Greek Sculpture. London, 1880-1883. 2nd
edition, London, 1890.
OVERBECK, J. Geschichte der griechischen Plastik. 3rd edition, Leipzig,
1881-82 ; 4th edition, Leipzig, 1895.
PERROT and CHIPIEZ. Histoire de 1'Art dans FAntiquite'. Paris, 1891 — .
Vol. I. L'Egypte ; Vol. II. Chalde'e et Assyrie ; Vol. III. Phenicie,
Cypre ; Vol. IV. Sardaigne, Judee, Asie Mineure ; Vol. V. Perse, etc. :
Vol. VI. Grece primitive. (English translation also issued.)
PERRY. Greek and Roman Sculpture. London, 1882.
TARBELL. A History of Greek Art. Meadville, 1896.
L. E. UPCOTT. Introduction to Greek Sculpture. Oxford, 1887.
Inscriptions relating to Sculptors
LO'WY. Inschriften griechischer Bildhauer. Leipzig, 1885.
Ancient Authorities
OVERBECK, J. Die antiken Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der bildenden
Kiinste bei den Griechen. Leipzig, 1868.
JONES, H. STUART. Select passages from ancient authors illustrative of the
history of Greek Sculpture. London, 1895.
xii A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
PAUSANIAS. Descriptio Graeciae. Ed. Hitzig and Bliimner. Part I. Berlin,
1896.
PAUSANIAS. Descriptio Graeciae. Ed. Frazer.
PLINY. Bks. xxxiv. and xxxvi. Ed. K. Jex Blake and E. Sellers. London,
1896.
LUCIAN. Imagines, Jupiter Tragoedus, etc.
Coins reproducing Statues
F. IMHOOF-BLUMER and P. GARDNER. Numismatic Commentary on Pau-
sanias. (Reprinted from the Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1885, 1886, 1887.)
P. GARDNER. Types of Greek Coins. Cambridge, 1883.
Books dealing with portions of the subject
FURTW ANGLER, A. Meisterwcrke der griechisclien Plastik. Leipzig-Berlin,
1893.
Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture, transl. E. Sellers. London, 1895.
NEWTON, Sir C. T. Essays on Art and Archaeology. London, 1880.
BAUMEISTER. Denkmaler des klassischen Altertums ; Articles on Sculpture
and Sculptors. Munich and Leipzig, 1884-88.
OVERBECK. Kunstmythologie. Leipzig, 1871-1889.
ROSCHER. Lexikon der griechisclien und romischen Mythologie ; Articles on
Artistic Types of Gods. Leipzig, 1884.
BRUNN. Griechische Gb'tterideale. Munich, 1893.
SCHUCHHARDT. Schliemann's Ausgrabungen. Leipzig, 1890. Schliemann's
Excavations, transl. E. Sellers. London, 1891.
MILCHHOFER, A. Anfange der Kunst in Griechenland. Leipzig, 1883.
CURTIUS and ADLER. Olympia (official publication). Berlin, 1890 — . Vol.
III. Die Bildwerke in Stein und Marmor (Treu). Vol. IV. Die Bronzen
(Furtwangler).
WALDSTEIN, C. Essays on the Art of Pheidias. Cambridge, 1885.
PETERSEN. Kunst des Phidias. Berlin, 1873.
COLLIGNON. Phidias. Paris, 1886.
MICHAELIS. Der Parthenon. Leipzig, 1871.
BENNDORF. Das Herob'n von Gjolbaschi-Trysa. Vienna, 1889.
PARIS, P. Polyclete. Paris, 1895.
URLIOHS. Skopas. Greifswald, 1863.
STARK. Niobe und die Niobiden. Leipzig, 1863.
HAMDY-BEY and TH. REINACH. Necropole royale a Sidon. Paris, 1896.
BIBLIOGRAPHY xin
SCHREIBER, TII. Die hellenistischen Eelietbilder. Leipzig, 1889.
FURTWANGLER, A. Der Dornauszieher und der Knabe mit der Gans. Berlin,
1876.
Der Satyr aus Pergamon. Berlin, 1880.
HAUSER. Die neu-Attischen Reliefs. Stuttgart, 1889.
ROBERT C. Die antiken Sarcophagreliefs. Berlin, 1890 — .
Technical
BLUMNER, H. Technologic und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Kiinste.
Leipzig, 1875.
LEPSIUS, R. Griechische Marmorstudien. Berlin 1890.
Illustrations, apart from publications of particular Collections or Museums
BRUNN-BRUCKMANN. Denkmaler der griechischen und rtimischen Plastik.
Munich, 1888—.
RAYET, 0. Monuments de 1'Art antique. Paris, 1884.
Monuments grecs. Publies par la Socie'te pour 1'encouragement des Etudes
grecs. Paris, 1872—.
These are all photographic — the following, having only outlines, are
useful for types only, but not for style.
MtJLLER-WiESELER. Denkmaler der alten Kunst. Gottingen, 1854-77.
CLARAC. Muse'e de Sculpture. Paris, 1841.
Catalogue
In addition to the official catalogues of the various Museums of
antiquities and casts,
FRIEDERICHS-WOLTERS. Bausteine zur Geschichte der griechisch-romischen
Plastik ; die Gipsabgiisse antiker Bildwerke. Berlin, 1885.
Periodicals
Journal of Hellenic Studies. London, 1880 — .
American Journal of Archaeology. Boston and Baltimore, 1885 — .
Bulletin de Correspondence Hellenique. Athens, 1877 — .
Gazette Archeologique. Paris, 1875 — .
Revue Archeologique. Paris, 1844 — .
Gazette des Beaux-Arts. Paris, 1859—.
xiv A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
/•Annali e Monument! del Institute di Corrispondenza Archeologica. Rome
1829-1885.
lArchaologische Zeitung. Berlin, 1843-1885.
After 1885 continued by
Jahrbuch des k. deutschen archaologischen Instituts. Berlin, 1886 — .
Antike Denkmaler des k. deutschen archaologischen Instituts. Berlin,
1886—.
Mittheilungeu des k. deutschen archaologischen Instituts. Rome, 1886 — .
„ ,, ,, :, ,, Athens, 1875 — .
'E(f>T)[j,epis 'ApxaioXoyiKr/. Athens, 1883—.
LIST OF ILLUSTEATIONS
FIG. PAGE
56. Metope of Parthenon (British Museum) . . . .271
57. Metope of Parthenon (British Museum) .... 272
58. Carrey's drawing of E. pediment of Parthenon (after Berlin Antike
Denkmaler, I. 6 and 6a) . . . . 275
59. Carrey's drawing of W. pediment of Parthenon (after Berlin Antike
Denkmaler I. 6a) . . . . .275
60. De Laborde Head, from a cast (Paris, private collection) . . 283
61. "Theseus," from E. pediment of Parthenon (British Museum) . 284
62. Cephisus (Ilissus), from W. pediment of Parthenon (British Museum) 285
63. "The Fates," from E. pediment of Parthenon (British Museum) . 286
64. Slab from N. frieze of Parthenon (Athens, Acropolis Museum) . 290
65. Group of Gods (Poseidon, Dionysus, Demeter (?)), from E. frieze
of Parthenon (Athens, Acropolis Museum) . . 291
66. Metope of Theseum ; Theseus and Cercyon (after Mon. List. , X.
xliv. 2) . . . . . .296
67. Metope of Theseum ; Theseus and Bull (after Mon. Inst. , X. xliii. 2 297
68. Victory binding sandal, from Balustrade of temple of Wingless
Victory (Athens, Acropolis Museum) . . . 299
69. Caryatid, from Erechtheum (British Museum) . . .301
70. "Mourning Athena" (Athens, Acropolis Museum) . . 302
71. Relief from Eleusis (Athens, National Museum) . . . 303
72. Portrait of Pericles, probably after Cresilas (British Museum) . 317
73. Slab from Phigalian frieze ; Heracles (British Museum) . . 322
74. Doryphorus, after Polyclitus (Naples) .... 328
75. Diadumenus from Vaison, after Polyclitus (British Museum) . 330
76. Amazon, after Polyclitus (Rome, Vatican) .... 333
77. Amazon, Capitoline type (Rome, Vatican) . : . 334
t
xvi A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
FIG. PAGE
78. Amazon Mattel (Rome, Vatican) ..... 335
79. Head from Heraeum, near Argos (Athens, National Museum) . 340
80. Victory by Paeonius (Olympia) . . . . 342
81. Irene and Plutus, after Cephisodotus (Munich) . . . 353
82. Hermes and infant Dionysus, by Praxiteles (Olympia) . . 357
83. Head of Hermes, by Praxiteles (Olympia) .... 358
84. Aphrodite of Cnidus, after Praxiteles (Rome, Vatican). From
J. H. S., PI. Ixxx. . . . . . . 361
85. Satyr, after Praxiteles (Rome, Capitol) . . . .365
86. Relief from Mantinean basis ; Apollo and Marsyas (Athens,
National Museum) ...... 367
87. Amazon from pediment at Epidaurus (Athens, National Museum) 373
88. Ganymede, after Leochares (Rome, Vatican) . . . 375
89. Heads from pediment at Tegea by Scopas (Athens, National
Museum). After Berlin Antike Denkmaler, I. 35 (from
cast) ........ 379
90. Portrait of Mausolus (British Museum) .... 388
91. Slab from large frieze of Mausoleum, with Amazons (British
Museum) ....... 390
92. Charioteer from small frieze of Mausoleum (British Museum) . 391
93. Tombstone of Hegeso (Athens, Ceramicus) .... 395
94. Tombstone of Dexileos (Athens, Ceramicus) . . . 396
95. Asclepius, from Epidaurus, probably after statue by Thrasymedes
(Athens, National Museum) .... 398
96. Heads of Anytus and Artemis, from group by Damophon at Lyco-
sura (Athens, National Museum) .... 401
97. Drapery from group by Damophon at Lycosura (Athens, National
Museum) ....... 402
ft§. Apoxyomenus, after Lysippus (Rome, Vatican) . . . 407
99. Demeter, from Cnidus (British Museum) .... 415
100. Head of Asclepius, from Melos (British Museum) . . 417
101. Head from S. of Acropolis (Athens, National Museum) . . 418
102. Drum of column from Ephesus (British Museum) . . 420
103. Niobe and her youngest daughter (Florence, Uffizi) . . 422
104. Niobid Chiaramonti (Rome, Vatican) .... 424
105. Son of Niobe (Florence, Uffizi) . . . . .425
106. N. side of Alexander Sarcophagus (Constantinople). After
Hamdy-Bey and Reinach, Necropole de Sidon, PI. xxix. . 429
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xvii
FIG. PAGE
107. Head of Alexander (British Museum) . . . .436
108. Hellenistic relief ; Dionysus visiting a dramatic poet (British
Museum) ..... .439
.*409. Boy and goose, after Boethus (Louvre) .... 443
1W? Antioch, after Euty chides (Rome, Vatican) . . . 447
ti-1. Dying Gaul (Rome, Capitol) . . . . .455
14Q-. Dead Amazon and Giant, after Pergamene group on Acropolis at
Athens (Naples) ...... 459
•tl£r Fighting Persian, after Pergamene group on Acropolis at Athens
(Rome, Vatican) ...... 460
114. Group from Pergamene Altar ; Zeus and Giants (Berlin) . . 463
. 115. Group from Pergamene Altar ; Athena, Giants, Earth (Berlin) . 465
-«6. Laocoon (Rome, Vatican) . . . . . .471
117. Farnese Bull (Naples) ...... 474
118. Borghese Warrior, by Agasias (Louvre) . . . 476
119. Apollo Belvedere (Rome, Vatican) . . . .479
420. Artemis of Versailles (Louvre) . . . . .481
-421. Aphrodite from Melos (Louvre) . . .483
-132. Victory from Samothrace (Louvre) .... 486
123. Head from Eleusis, known as "Eubuleus" (Athens, National
Museum) ..... .488
424. Venus dei Medici (Florence, Uffizi) . . . .500
125. Farnese Heracles, by Glycon (Naples) .... 503
126. Marble Vase with relief, by Sosibius (Louvre). After Bouillon III.
Vases et Urnes, PL 8 . . . . , 504
127. Venus Genetrix, probably after Arcesilaus (Louvre) . , 506
128. Orestes and Electra, Pasitelean group (Naples) . . ,511
129. Portrait of Julius Caesar (British Museum) . . . 514
130. Relief ; portrait of Antinous (Rome, Villa Albani) . , 518
NOTE
Since I have not accepted, as conclusively proved, Professor
Furtwangler's identification of the Lemnian Athena by Phidias,
I regret the more that I have, in my desire for brevity, made a
slightly incorrect statement of the evidence on which the
identification is based. On page 265 I stated that the head of
the Athena at Dresden " is made in a separate piece, and the
Bologna head exactly fits the socket." The Bologna head fits
the socket not of the complete Atnena at Dresden, but of a
headless duplicate of the same statue, also at Dresden. My
scepticism as to the identification of the statue as the Lemnian
Athena of Phidias has met with some criticism both here and
in Germany ; but if it leads my readers to weigh the evidence
more carefully for themselves, my purpose will be attained,
even though they may differ from me in their conclusion.
CHAPTER III— (continued)
THE FIFTH CENTURY — 480-400 B.C. — (continued)
§ 35. Sculpture of the Parthenon. — It probably would not have
occurred to any Greek to quote the sculptures of the Parthenon
among the finest examples of the art of his country, still less to
point to them as preserving the worthiest record of the genius
of Phidias. While such works as the Athena Parthenos and
the Olympian Zeus were still extant, mere architectural sculp-
tures, however perfect their execution, and however eminent the
master to whom they owed their design, could only occupy a
secondary position. But now that the great statues from the
master's own hand, of which every Greek thought when he
mentioned the name of Phidias, are either entirely lost to us,
or only preserved in copies that can convey but a poor and
inadequate notion of the originals, sculptures like those of
the Parthenon have acquired for us a value which they did not
possess in classical times. Mutilated and fragmentary as they
are, they yet preserve for us the direct impress of the master's
genius, if not the touch of his hand. They are no late copies,
contaminating the character of the highest period of Greek
sculpture with many features belonging to later times, but were
made under the direct supervision of the designer, although
their execution may in some cases show the sign of other handi-
work ; and we may be confident that any peculiarities which
we may notice in them are due, if not to the master himself, at
least to the group of pupils and craftsmen who lived under his
influence and formed his immediate surrounding.
It may be questioned how far we are justified in claiming for
the sculpture of the Parthenon so direct a relation to Phidias
himself. We shall see that there are, in different parts of this
T
268 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
sculpture, especially the metopes and some portions of the
frieze, not only inequalities of execution, but actual differences
of style and design, such as imply a considerable amount of
freedom in the work of the various individual sculptors em-
ployed. But, on the other hand, there is a character about the
whole sculpture, and especially about the more conspicuous
parts of it — such as the pediments — which has impressed all
artists and critics as differing essentially from everything else
which we possess, and as worthy of attribution to the greatest
of all sculptors. We are informed that Phidias was entrusted
with the general supervision of the wonderful artistic activity
which marked the supremacy of Pericles in the Athenian state.
The crowning work of all was the Parthenon. There can be
no doubt that it was intended not only as the worthy shrine of
Athena in the midst of her chosen city, but also as the monu-
ment that summed up and contained in itself all the glory of
Athens, and all the beauty, moderation, and wisdom of life of
her people. The gold and ivory statue within the temple was
made by. Phidias himself. It is hardly conceivable that he
should have left entirely to others the design of the sculptures
which decorated the building, for they were clearly part of one
harmonious whole, intended to prepare the mind of the spec-
tator, and to lead up to the final contemplation of the perfect
embodiment of the goddess herself.1 Doubtless the great size
and number of the sculptural figures which decorated every
available space upon the temple precluded the possibility of
their execution by a single hand, especially when we remember
that the whole building was ready for dedication within eight
years from its commencement. Some portions of the work,
especially the separate metopes, may have been left to the
sculptors who undertook them, after some general conditions as
to subject and treatment had been laid down by the designer of
the whole. But the great and harmonious designs of the
eastern and western pediments, and the continuous composition
of the frieze, must have been, in all essential features, the crea-
tion of a single artist ; and we can hardly imagine this artist to
have been any other than Phidias himself.
1 We need not be shaken in this opinion by the analogy of Olympia. Phidias
did not go there until the sculptural decoration of the temple was completed ; and
although he and his associates designed all accessories within the cella of the
temple, he had to leave the external sculptures as he found them.
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 269
Even after the removal or destruction of the great statue,
and the conversion of the Parthenon into a Christian church,
most of its external sculpture appears to have remained intact,
with the exception of the central group of the east pediment,
which was destroyed in building the apse of the church. It
was not until the disastrous explosion of the Turkish powder
magazine within the cella, in 1687, that a completer destruction
began ; and the explosion was followed by the even more
disastrous attempt of the victorious Veneto-German army to
carry off as booty some portions of the sculpture that their
cannon had already damaged. Thus the chariot and horses of
Athena in the west pediment appear to have perished in a
clumsy attempt to lower them from their place. What was left
remained exposed to weather, vandalism, or neglect, until Lord
Elgin, in 1801-1802, obtained leave to carry it off to England.
Though it is possible that his agents may not in every case
have shown all the care and discretion of which their task was
worthy, there is no doubt that the work on the whole was very
well done, that we owe to it, in a great measure, the degree of
preservation in which the sculptures still remain, and that Lord
Elgin's action deserves the gratitude, rather than the censure,
of all who have learnt to appreciate the " Elgin Marbles." 1
It must be remembered that at the time when he carried them
off they were not only neglected by those who had charge of
them, but were in constant danger of being carried off piecemeal
by less scrupulous travellers, and that soon afterwards, in the
war of Greek independence, the Acropolis was repeatedly be-
sieged and bombarded, and its buildings suffered severely. He
removed for the most part only such portions of the sculpture
as, from their position in the building, were exposed to the
weather or to other risks. Indeed, his discretion in this matter
was perhaps carried even too far, as we may easily realise by
comparing what is still left in situ in its present state with the
1 The absurd misrepresentations and the abuse showered on Lord Elgin by
Byron and others have had undue influence. They are now discredited by all
authorities — French, German, and Italian, as well as English — who have investi-
gated the matter. In view of the suggestion that these marbles ought to be given
back to Greece, now that the Greeks appreciate their value and are capable of
taking care of them, it must be remembered that they are now safely housed in
a place where they are easily accessible. If they were returned, they could not
be replaced in the building from which they were taken unless it were entirely
restored ; and it is hard to see what would be gained by placing them in a museum
in Athens.
270 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
casts which he had made at the time of all that he left behind.
Owing to his action, the bulk of this sculpture is now in the
British Museum ; a few pieces are in the Louvre, and a few
others have been taken elsewhere by earlier marauders. A
good deal, especially at the two ends, still remains on the build-
ing itself.
The various fields to which the sculptured decoration of the
temple was assigned have already been described in the section
of the Introduction concerning architectural sculpture (c). It
will be best to describe them in the order which is probably also
the order of their execution — (1) the metopes, (2) the pedi-
ments, and (3) the frieze.
(1) The Metopes. — These were sculptured all round the
building, 32 on each of the sides, and 14 on each of the fronts.
Those of the south side alone are preserved sufficiently to offer
any material for our study ; the rest have suffered so severely from
the weather and from the vicissitudes which the building has
undergone, that we can only conjecture their subjects, and can
form hardly any opinion as to their style. It appears that the
eastern front contained scenes from the battle between gods and
giants, and the western, combats between Greeks and Amazons ;
on the northern side even the subject is doubtful. On the
southern side the twelve l metopes at either end represent the
assault of the Centaurs upon the Lapith women at the bridal of
Pirithous, and the consequent battle between Centaurs and
Lapiths. This subject is naturally broken up into scenes of
single combat. The relief is very high ; the figures are almost
detached from the ground, and are practically in the round, a
fact which may account for the completeness with which so
many of the metopes have been destroyed. The best preserved
metopes are nearly all in the British Museum ; the most
western metope of the south side is still in situ on the
Parthenon, and affords an opportunity for appreciating the effect
of the high relief and vigorous design of the metopes, as seen
in the massive architectural frame for which they were designed.
The metopes vary in style more than any other part of the
sculptural decoration of the Parthenon. In some cases we see
a comparatively tame and lifeless design, or, if the combat is
more vigorous in conception, yet the pose of the combatants is
1 Only eleven at the east end have Centaurs ; but the twelfth may well belong
to the same scene.
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 271
awkward or strained ; some of the metopes, on the other hand,
are unsurpassed in all art for the admirable balance of their
composition, the perfect adaptation of design to field, and, above
all, for the wonderful life and beauty of the figures, whether
still engaged in the conflict (Fig. 56), or exulting in triumph
over a fallen foe (Fig. 57). Nor is there less variety in the
execution. The drapery is sometimes stiff and archaic in
FIG. 56. — Metope of Parthenon (British Museum).
character, sometimes it approaches that unrivalled treatment
which we see in the pediments and frieze ; sometimes it is
entirely absent, or is treated merely as a subordinate accessory ;
in other cases we can see already that tendency to use it to fill
vacant spaces in the field with the rich decorative effect char-
acteristic of later Attic relief. The modelling of the figures
varies also, from a hard and dry treatment like that of the
earlier Attic sculptors of athletic subjects, to a perfect
mastery, free alike from softness and from exaggeration. The
272 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
type of the heads is light and Attic, and usually shows an
archaic character in the eyes and the hair. The bestial faces
of the Centaurs are not really more advanced in style, though
their deep and distorted wrinkles and their grimaces of pain
make them appear less conventional — a contrast which we have
FIG. 57. — Metope of Parthenon (British Museum).
noticed also at Olympia. The treatment of the semi-bestial
nature of the Centaur reaches its acme in these metopes. The
human body joined at the waist to the horse's neck is, in itself,
one of the worst of the mixed forms devised by fancy, since it
implies a duplication of so many of the essential organs. How
unnatural and unconvincing such a combination appears may
be seen by a glance at its unskilful rendering, for example
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 273
on the relief at Assos. Success in so difficult an attempt was
not attained at one leap ; we see elsewhere, particularly at
Olympia, the various advances towards a more harmonious effect ;
but it is in the Parthenon that one principle is first fully
grasped and consistently carried out ; this is the adoption of a
familiar device of archaic art, by which the breast is seen facing,
the lower part of the body in profile. So in these metopes the
human upper part of the Centaurs is always seen either from
the front or three-quarter face ; while the equine body is seen
in profile ; the breadth thus gained for the upper part, and the
subtle curves of the transition from the one form to the other,
seen only in front, and implied at the back, help to justify and
almost to make credible the monstrous combination.
We have already seen reason to believe that Phidias, while
doubtless supervising the whole design, was obliged to leave
many details to his assistants, and it need not surprise us to
find that these assistants worked more independently in the
case of the metopes. From structural necessity, the metopes had
to be in their place before the cornice was put over the outer
colonnade, and therefore before the erection of the pediments.
At so early a stage of the work, it may well be supposed that
Phidias had not yet a trained body of assistants, and that he
was more dependent on the Attic artists of earlier schools for
help in the execution of his designs. The hard and dry work
of some of the metopes recalls the style of Critius and Nesiotes,
and it is to be remembered that Critius founded a school of
athletic sculpture which went on for many generations.1
Myron too had scholars ; and some of these groups, with their
even poise of combat and their choice of a momentary pause
in the midst of violent motion, are worthy of Myron himself.
Others again, in their violent contortions, their tricks of the
wrestling school, their ungainly and unstable position, seem to
betray the hand of pupils or imitators who, in their admiration
for the apparently reckless originality and variety of the sculp-
tor of the Discobolus, failed to catch his fine sense of appropri-
ateness and restraint. There is, in the details of the metopes,
more originality and less perfection of finish than elsewhere in
the sculpture of the Parthenon. In them we may see more of
the exuberance of Attic art of the period, and less of the con-
trolling genius of Phidias himself.
1 See p. 190.
274 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP, in
(2) The pediments of the Parthenon are described by Pau-
sanias only in the most summary manner : " What one sees on
the pediment as one enters the temple," he says, "is entirely
concerned with the birth of Athena ; while at the back is the
strife of Poseidon against Athena for the land." If we were
left only to this meagre description, and to the scanty, though
precious remains that still survive, we should have considerable
difficulty in getting any satisfactory notion of the composition
as a whole. For the eastern or front pediment, this is un-
happily the case. Though the French artist, Carrey, who visited
the Parthenon in 1674, shortly before the explosion which
destroyed the middle of the building, made a drawing of the
eastern pediment as he then saw it, he could record even less than
may still be seen in the galleries of the British Museum. With
the western pediment it is otherwise. Carrey's drawing, in
spite of some minor errors in the intervals and in the position
of the figures, which may well have been shifted slightly from
their original place,1 is evidently an accurate and intelligent
record of what he saw ; and it shows us the composition of the
western pediment almost complete. It is best, therefore, to
deal first with this pediment, though its actual remains, in the
British Museum and at Athens, are even more scanty than those
of the eastern.
The story of the contest of Athena and Poseidon for the
land of Attica has a mythological significance which cannot be
discussed here ; the two were reconciled in the Erechtheum,
which was really the centre of the old state religion of Athens,
though even there Poseidon had to take a subordinate position.
But in the Parthenon Athena was supreme, and her victory over
Poseidon, as recorded in the western pediment, was symbolical
of the unrivalled glory of her worship in her chosen city. The
form of the story varied in details ; that which appears to be
adopted by the designer of the pediment is as follows. Posei-
don and Athena both laid claim to the land of Attica, and
Poseidon produced a salt-spring (OdXaa-a-a) as the symbol or
pledge of his occupation, Athena the olive tree ; both these
symbols were preserved and revered within the precincts of
1 For the sake of ascertaining the exact position of the figures, Dr. Sauer has
made a detailed sketch of all indications of clamps, sockets, weathering, etc., re-
maining on the base and field of the pediments ; see Mitth. Ath., 1891, p. 59,
Taf. iii., and Ant. Denkmiiler (Berlin), I. 58.
276 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
the Erechtheum. Zeus referred the quarrel to the decision of
Cecrops and other heroes of the Attic land, or, according to
another version, to the twelve gods ; they decided in favour of
Athena, and Poseidon retired in wrath. The central group of
the pediment, which is divided from the subordinate groups at
the sides by the chariot and horses of Athena on the left, and
probably by those of Poseidon on the right, consists of two
figures only, Athena and Poseidon. Each moves with the whole
impulse of body and limbs away from the central point, which
each slightly overlaps ; but each has the head turned back
towards the centre. Their paths seem to cross, and there is an
opposing balance of momentum in the midst of impetuous action
which is peculiarly happy in this position, and at once gives
the combination of symmetry and variety, so essential to archi-
tectural sculpture, which may be traced also through all the
subordinate parts of the composition. The exact motive of the
two figures that compose this central group has given rise to
many discussions. It seems clear from Carrey's drawing, which
is confirmed by the extant fragments of the two figures, that
Poseidon has been advancing, and is suddenly starting back, .
cos 6're n's re dpdKovra Id&v waXlvopcros a.iriaT't],
as Mr. Watkiss Lloyd has aptly quoted. His resemblance in
position to Myron's Marsyas is obvious at first glance, and we
can hardly be wrong in assigning a similar motive : indeed, we
may perhaps acknowledge that this central group in its character
and subject may have been influenced by Myron's Athena and
Marsyas. However that may be, we must suppose that Posei-
don is starting back not only before Athena's advance, but also
from some object at which he is startled. What that object
was we may infer from the legend, but there is other evidence
also to take into account. The contest of Athena and Poseidon
is a frequent subject in minor art ; and in some cases we may
recognise either this central group, or a part of it, directly
imitated from the Parthenon pediment. On some Athenian
coins l we may probably recognise a figure of Athena derived
from this pediment; though turned the other way, as is
natural enough in the die-sinker's art, she resembles very
1 See Imhoof and Gardner, Numismatic Commentary on Paiisanias, pi. Z.
Some confusion is caused by the fact that other coins represent a quite different
treatment of the theme.
Ill
THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 277
strongly the goddess as represented in Carrey's sketch. In
almost all cases we see beside Athena, in a position which
would correspond to the centre of the pediment, an olive
tree, usually with a snake twined round ; when Poseidon
is present, this snake seems to attack him. Another valuable
piece of evidence is a vase found at Kertch, representing
this same contest of Athena and Poseidon.1 Here the figure
of Athena resembles that in the pediment, but in Poseidon
there is no sign of the sudden retreat so clearly indicated
in Carrey's sketch ; between the two is an olive tree ; a
snake coiled round its trunk rises against Poseidon, and amidst
its branches floats a Victory, bringing her garland to crown
Athena. Several subordinate figures are present, but they have
little in common with the subordinate figures on the pediment.
It may be doubted how far we are justified in using either coins
or vase as material for the restoration of the Parthenon pedi-
ment. The direct relation between them and their supposed
original can in no case be proved decisively ; and we must re-
member that there was on the Acropolis another group repre-
senting the same subject as the pediment. It seems likely,
however, that, as the sea-creatures (perhaps dolphins) visible
on Carrey's drawing of the pediment behind Poseidon represent
his symbol, the salt-spring, so too the olive, the rival symbol
of Athena, in right of which she claimed possession of the
land, must have been represented; and this symbol finds its
fitting place in the middle of the pediment ; its sudden appear-
ance may well be the portent from which Poseidon starts
back, and Athena's triumphant advance suffices to indicate her
victory.
The two central figures stand, as it were, in a space by them-
selves; behind Athena was her chariot, driven probably by Victory,
her constant attendant ; the chariot of Poseidon is also held in by a
female charioteer, who may well be identified as his consort Amphi-
trite. His chariot and its team were destroyed before Carrey's
sketch was made. Another figure stands just in front of the
charioteer on either side, a nude male on Athena's side, a draped
female on that of Poseidon ; it has been suggested that these
may be Hermes and Iris, sent to declare the result of the contest ;
but this appears superfluous, when its decision is already so
obvious. The subordinate figures behind the charioteers on
1 Oompte Rendu, St. Petersburg, 1872 ; /. H. S. 1882, p. 245.
278 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
either side have met with as many identifications as there have
been writers to discuss them, if we reckon all the combinations
and permutations which have been devised by the ingenuity of
interpreters. The fact is that Carrey's sketches afford just
enough material for conjecture, but not enough to lead us to
any certain conclusion. It has, for example, been much disputed
whether the nude figure seated on the knees of a draped woman
in the middle of the right side is male or female, and varying
conjectures have been made on either hypothesis.1 The only
clue that could guide us safely under such circumstances would
be the recognition of some of the figures or groups of figures as
a definite type, reproduced on other monuments, with a meaning
that can be identified ; but this has not hitherto been done.
The woman seated with two children behind Amphitrite, or the
child between the standing woman and the seated one behind
Athena's chariot, seems at first sight to offer a clue ; but a glance
at the long list of varying identifications given in Michaelis'
Parthenon suffices to show how inadequate it is. Apart from
isolated guesses about individual figures, we may say that three
different systems of explanation are possible. Either the
sculptor intended to represent those, either gods or heroes, who
were actually present at the contest ; or he represented those
special heroes and local divinities of Attica who, by their
presence, symbolised the interest of the Attic people in the
triumph of their goddess ; or else he added in the subordinate
positions a series of purely local personifications, intended to
indicate the scene of the action in which the principal figures
are involved. Against the first theory it may be urged that
gods or heroes, if present, were, according to the legend, present
as judges. And there is nothing of the character of judges
about the assistant figures; they certainly are not the twelve
gods, nor can we regard them as a representative body of Attic
heroes, who would, from all analogy, be a set of dignified and
aged men ; it has been suggested that they were present as
partisans on either side, but this again does not seem borne out
by the character of the figures. In a combination of the second
and third hypotheses we may probably find the truth ; probably
the sculptor had in his mind some definite mythological or topo-
graphical signification for each figure ; but, whatever it was, it
1 Dr. Saner claims to have settled this question by finding a male knee and
breast which must have belonged to this figure. Mittheil. Ath. 1891, p. 80.
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 279
is now lost, and we cannot recover it unless some new evidence
should be found to show his meaning. As to one or two figures
perhaps a more definite conclusion is possible ; it has been
generally agreed to recognise a river-god (Fig. 62) and a nymph —
probably Cephisus and Callirhoe — in the recumbent figures at the
ends, who thus give the topographical boundaries of the scene,
an interpretation in close analogy with that of the similar figures
on the east pediment at Olympia, which were traditionally ex-
plained as river-gods in the time of Pausanias ; and the identi-
fication is confirmed by the wonderfully soft and flowing model-
ling of the body and limbs of the Cephisus (often called Ilissus) ;
similarly in a statue of the Eurotas, made more than a century
later by Eutychides,1 the texture of the body was praised
as "more liquid than water." The position of the figures on
the building also coincides, as at Olympia, with the actual local
conditions. Cephisus, probably accompanied by an attendant
nymph,2 is on the side of his own river, and Callirhoe, beside
whom is Ilissus, is towards her spring. The seated bearded
man, near the left end, round whose neck the girl beside him
puts her arm, has a coil of a large snake behind him. This
has been quoted to prove the figures are either Cecrops and one
of his daughters, or Asclepius and Hygieia ; neither theory is as
yet convincingly proved.
The central group of the eastern pediment is irretrievably
lost ; a discussion as to how it may have been rendered belongs
rather to the province of mythography than of sculpture. The
birth of Athena from the head of Zeus, with the help of a blow
with an axe given by Prometheus or Hephaestus, is a common
subject on early Attic vases, where the goddess is seen like a
little armed doll, actually emerging from the crown of her father's
head. It is difficult to imagine how such a treatment of the
subject can have been modified even by Phidias into a theme fit
for monumental sculpture ; it is more likely that he discarded
this conventional type altogether, and represented Athena as
standing beside her father, already, as in the legend, full-grown
and armed, while the attendant figures, such as Prometheus
with his axe, and the Ilithyiae who had assisted in the safe
1 See p. 448, § 62.
2 This figure is not present on Carrey's drawing, but there is a space for her ;
Sauer, I.e., suggests that she must have fallen when the block on which she rested
was carried away by a falling piece of the cornice.
280 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
delivery, sufficed to indicate that her birth had just taken place.
Such is the rendering of the subject on a marble puteal (or
border of a well) in Madrid, where Victory also floats to crown
the new-born goddess ; l and this puteal may reproduce the theme
of this eastern pediment. It must be acknowledged that the
figures of Athena and Victory on the puteal bear a remarkable
resemblance to those of the same two figures, perhaps from the
western pediment, on the Kertch vase ; and while this resem-
blance is in favour of the view that both vase and puteal are
derived from a common source in the Parthenon, we may well
hesitate to admit the probability of so strong a resemblance
between the central groups of the two pediments. However
this may be, the indications on the ground of the pediment and
the supports provided seem to show that there was no figure in
the centre of the pediment, but that here, as in the west pedi-
ment, two figures only formed the central group, Athena on
the right, and Zeus, seated on his throne and facing her, on the
left.
The subordinate figures of the eastern pediment are still in
great measure preserved, and are, perhaps, the most perfect
works of sculpture that exist. Just as, in the west pediment,
a local setting is provided for the scene of contest, which took
place in Attica, so here the birth of Athena is framed with
appropriate circumstance ; the scene is in heaven, the time
sunrise, and so, while Selene, the Moon, descends with her
chariot 2 at the right corner of the pediment, Helios rises with
his team from the sea at its left corner. Facing the rising
horses of the Sun is the noble reclining figure familiarly known
as Theseus, a name that has little beyond its familiarity to
commend it. Here too the true identification has been much
disputed ; the suggestion of Brunn that the figure represents
Mount Olympus, illuminated by the rays of the rising sun, and
serving to indicate more definitely the locality, has much in its
favour. Such reclining figures are not uncommon as personi-
fications of mountains ; and the suggestion is thoroughly in
harmony with the conventions of Greek art. The identification
of the remaining figures in this pediment is as problematic
1 Baumeister, Fig. 172.
2 One horse is in the British Museum, and the remains of three others are still
on the pediment ; the sxiggestions that Selene was riding on one horse, or driving
a pair, must therefore be set aside.
ni THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 281
as in the western ; though we can still study the originals,
their distinctive attributes are gone ; but here also two
systems are possible ; we may either regard them as strictly
mythological personages, present at the event, or as more
or less fanciful personifications to give it, as it were, a cosmic
setting, since no local surroundings would suffice. Here, how-
ever, the two systems are not mutually exclusive as in the
west pediment ; thus Brunn's suggestion that the two seated
figures next his Olympus are the Horae, to whom the gate of
Olympus is entrusted, and past whom Iris is hastening out to
bear the message to the world, may find their place in either.
Corresponding to Iris, on the other side, most authorities
restore another figure in rapid motion, sent to tell abroad the
news of the birth of Athena ; this figure, which may be Victory
(NiKr)), does not however hasten to the right as Iris to the left,
but seems rather to be advancing straight forward.1 Next to
her is a seated figure, who, as Carrey's sketch shows, turned
her head toward the middle of the pediment. She may or
may not form part of a single group with the two that are
between her and Selene. One of these sits on the end of a
couch, along which the other is reclined leaning on her com-
panion's lap. The three have been called the Fates,2 or the three
Attic Horae ; in the absence of attributes, no such identification
can be proved : others have suggested a more fanciful meaning,
drawn from the marvellous delicacy and richness of the. drapery,
especially of the reclining figure,3 and interpret them as
personifications, not indeed of places or rivers, but of nature
in a more general aspect (Fig. 63).
But it is time to turn from the meaning of the artist to the
composition of the groups, and the execution by which their
splendid conception has found a worthy expression. We have
already noticed the subtlety in the balance of composition
shown by the central group of the western pediment ; as to the
eastern, unfortunately, we can say but little. Here we can
1 Sauer's investigations have proved that this figure cannot, as had been
suggested, be Victory crowning Athena in the middle of the pediment.
2 It is true the Fates are present in the Madrid puteal ; but they have no
resemblance to these figures, and such subordinate additions were often made in
decorative work from other sources than that from which the main subject was
drawn.
3 Thus Brunn calls them clouds ; Professor Waldstein suggests Thalassa
(Sea) in the lap of Gaia (Earth).
282 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
best realise the great attainment of the designer of the
Parthenon sculptures by a comparison with his predecessors
in the same field. In the east pediment at Olympia there is
also a balance, but of simple and even monotonous rest ; in the
western Olympian pediment there is motion enough, and motion
symmetrically balanced ; but it is motion either directly towards
or directly away from the centre, where a single colossal figure
offers a fixed mass amidst the struggling figures, puynae
nodumque moramque. The abolition of this central figure in
the Parthenon pediments makes the balance more delicate and
more subtly felt. And in the subordinate figures too there is
more variety and elasticity in the symmetry which, in an
architectural composition, can never be lost sight of. The two
sides still correspond, figure to figure; but their grouping
varies in detail. Thus the three " Fates " of the eastern pediment
correspond to three figures in very similar attitudes on the left
side of the same pediment ; but while the reclining figure and
the companion in whose lap she rests form a closely -united
group, from which the other seated figure is slightly separated,
the two. seated figures on the other side are closely united, and
the reclining male figure is separated from them. This is a
simple and obvious instance of a refinement of composition that
may be traced throughout. Again, though the attendant figures
are all present as spectators of the central action, on which
their interest is fixed, they do not all turn towards it with a
monotonous iteration. It may almost seem at first as if the
artist, in his desire to avoid this iteration, had gone too far in
turning some figures away from the scene they are present to
witness. But it is the moment just after the culminating event
that is rendered in each case ; and a consciousness of it seems
to pervade the whole without the need for further concentration
of attention. Thus the perception of the spectator, in travelling
from either extremity towards the centre, is not led on by a
continually -increasing strain, but is, as it were, borne on a
succession of waves. So much we can guess from the scanty
remains that are left ; but, when so much is lost, it must
always be difficult to realise adequately what must have been
the effect of the whole.
To study the •execution of the Parthenon pediments is the
liberal education of artists, to imitate it the despair of sculptors.
It is impossible to speak of it here except, in the briefest way ;
Ill
THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C.
all we can do is to notice a few of the characteristics that seem
to distinguish it from that of other masterpieces of Greek
sculpture. No heads are left on the figures, excepting that of
the so-called Theseus ; and its surface is so damaged that we
FIG. 60.— De Laborde Head, from a cast (Paris, private collection).
can judge of little but its proportions. In the treatment of
hair and of eyelids there is still a trace of archaic convention.
A female head (Fig. 60), now in Paris,1 was brought to Venice
1 Called the Weber head, from a former possessor, who suggested its belonging
to the Parthenon ; it is now in the De Laborde collection.
U
284 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP
by Morosini's secretary, and so there is every external probability
in favour of its belonging to some figure from the Parthenor
pediments, to which its style seems appropriate. In spite of iti
restored nose and chin, we can recognise in this head a nobl<
and intellectual type, a breadth and simplicity of modelling
coupled with the most delicate play of surface, and perfec
skill in the treatment of marble, which can only be matched bj
the similar qualities that we may recognise in the drape(
figures, to one of which it must probably belong.
FIG. 61.— "Theseus," from E. pediment of Parthenon (British Museum).
For the modelling of the nude male form we have again thi
Theseus and the Cephisus. The wonderfully soft and flowing
surface of the latter has already been referred to. The Theseu
(Fig. 61) on the other hand presents, as it were, the sum of al
that Greek sculpture had hitherto attained in the rendering of thi
male figure. There is nothing about him of the dry and somewha
meagre forms that characterise the athletic art of early masters
nor of that unduly square and massive build that was chosen bj
the sculptors of the Peloponnese. It -is an absolute freedon
Ill
THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C.
285
from exaggeration of any sort that marks in him the perfection
of sculptural technique. His muscles are correctly felt and
closely indicated, yet not in such a way as to suggest that there
is no interposing layer of flesh between them and the skin ; his
figure shows in every detail, as well as in its general character,
the most powerful build and the height of physical condition •
yet it is that of a perfectly-developed man rather than that of a
successful athlete. Above all, in his pose, with its combination
of grace and dignity, we see that Attic art has lost none of its
feeling for beauty of composition and pleasantness of effect,
while acquiring the more vigorous and severe excellence of other
schools. But it is in the treatment of the draped female figure
(Fig. 63) that the art of Athens reaches the most marvellous
FIG. 62.— Cephisus (Ilissus), from W. pediment of Parthenon (British Museum).
attainments of its prime, as it had devoted to the same subject
the most quaint and careful devotion of its youth. Here the
mastery over the material is so perfect as to make us forget the
slow and laborious process by which it has been attained. The
marvellous rendering of the texture of the drapery and the
almost infinite multiplicity of its folds does not obscure or even
modify the dignity and breadth of the whole conception, but
only adds to it a new delicacy and grace. And this seems to
be mainly due to two causes — the perfect harmony of the drapery
with the forms which it covers, and the studied and elaborate
system of the drapery itself, in which every fold, however
apparently accidental or even realistic in itself, has a relation to
the effect of the whole. We can see those characteristics most
clearly in the group of the "three Fates," especially in the
286 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
reclining figure, which, perhaps more than any other, even among
these Parthenon sculptures, shows the most marvellous transla-
tion into marble of flesh and of drapery. The nobility and
breadth are of course in great measure due to the proportions of
the figure, which are very different from those of later Greek art ;
to realise this one has only to contrast them with those of the
Aphrodite of Praxiteles,1 in which we see the most perfect
expression of the more usual, perhaps more human, ideal of the
female form. There is nothing hard or unwomanly about these
Parthenon figures; only in their combination of grace with
majesty they seem to imply a higher ideal of womanhood than
FIG. 63. — "The Fates," from E. pediment of Parthenon (British Museum).
we find elsewhere in Greek art. The drapery reveals, by its
modelling and by the flow of its folds, the limbs which it seems
to hide ; yet it never clings to them so as to lose its own essential
character. And its folds, however minute in themselves, are
always divided into clear and definite masses, which save it from
the crumpled confusion one often sees in an attempt to paint or
carve so delicate a texture. Compare the drapery of the
Aphrodite of Melos, where these broad masses only are given,
the sculptor, in his desire to escape from his own time and to
recover the style of the fifth century, not daring to add the
multitudinous detail which here, and here alone, does not mar
the simplicity and breadth of the impression produced. For a
1 See p. 361.
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 287
different effect, a study of the bold curves of wind-swept drapery,
we may turn to the Iris of the east pediment. Here the drapery,
stretched by the rapid motion of the goddess, does not fall into
such minute folds as in the figures at rest ; the contrast is such
that some have seen in it the work of a different artist. But
the explanation is rather to be sought in the thicker material of
the simpler Doric chiton worn by Iris, while the drapery of
"the Fates" is Ionic in its richness of folds and fineness of tex-
ture. With the Iris we may compare the Chiaramonti Niobid,1
a figure unsurpassed for realism in floating drapery. There is
again more system, more subordination of detail to the effect of
the whole, than in the later work. Of course we cannot fail to
recognise that the sculptor, in works like these, transcends his
surroundings ; yet the conventions and restraint of his prede-
cessors and their elaborate study of systems of drapery which
we see in the earlier works of Attic art, are not without their
influence even on the artists of the Parthenon, and afford, as it
were, a solid framework without which all this spontaneous
exuberance of beauty might well have exceeded the strict limits
of sculptural perfection.
Many other things call for notice which must be briefly
mentioned ; for example the spirited modelling of the horses
of Helios and Selene, and their contrast; — his horses inhale with
distended nostrils the air of the morning as they spring from
the sea, and hers, tired with their nightly course, still show their
mettle as they near the goal. This need not surprise us when
we remember that Myron and Calamis were even more famous
for their sculpture of animals than of men, and that a series of
horses from the Acropolis show the studies of earlier Attic
artists in this line, in contrast to the comparatively tame horses
of Olympia.
It has often been remarked that these pedimental sculptures
are finished almost as carefully behind as in front, and this has
been quoted to show the love of the Greek artist for his work
in itself, and his wish to make it beautiful even where it could
never be seen. Perhaps another explanation may be found,
more reasonable and more in accordance with what we know of
Greek art, which was never given to spending labour for no
purpose. We know that a Greek vase-painter — like a modern
1 See p. 424. Of course allowance imist be made for this Niobid being a copy,
though a good copy.
288 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
artist — was in the habit of drawing the whole of a figure of which
the greater part was concealed behind another, in order to make
sure that the relations of the visible parts were correctly drawn,
and afterwards of erasing or omitting the parts concealed.
May we not imagine that the artists who made these pedimental
figures had their sculptural instinct so strongly developed that
to them a figure in the round sculptured only in front was like
a figure drawn of which only some portions showed, and that in
order to assure themselves of the correctness of the visible parts,
they felt it necessary to complete the whole figures, at least in
the rough ? The labour thus expended offers no less strong a
testimony to the devotion of the sculptors and their determina-
tion to leave nothing undone that might add to the perfection
of their work, and it seems to proceed from a less sentimental
and more rational motive.
In speaking of these sculptures of the Parthenon pediments,
it has been assumed so far that they are a product of Attic art ;
and the evidence in favour of this view is so strong that it can
hardly be contested. How far we may consider them to be the
work of Phidias himself it is a difficult matter to decide. In
the case of the metopes we saw reason to believe that a con-
siderable amount of latitude in matters of detail and execution
must have been left to his assistants, even if he superintended
the distribution of the scenes and their general design. But in
the pediments, which were doubtless regarded as the culmination
of the sculptural decoration, we cannot imagine him to have left
the design to any other hand. It would indeed have been
impossible for Phidias to have carved with his own hand so
many large figures in marble during the short time in which the
Parthenon was completed, — a time too during which he had to
make the colossal gold and ivory statue of Athena, as well as to
superintend the whole artistic administration of Pericles. But
we may well suppose that he supervised the execution of the
pediments in person, that he even gave a finishing touch to
some portions, and that he had as his assistants in this work a
band of sculptors whom he had trained so completely in his
methods that their hand could hardly be distinguished from
his own. We may thus best understand the wonderfully even
excellence in execution which we recognise, in spite of some
varieties in style, in the pediments, as contrasted with the very
uneven quality of work which we see in the metopes, and some-
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 289
times also in the frieze. And, without the direct personal
influence and supervision of Phidias, it is almost impossible to
understand the marvellous excellence of the pediments in
execution as well as in design, and the vast interval which we
see between them and other almost contemporary examples of
architectural sculpture.
(3) The frieze of the Parthenon1 consists of a band of low
relief, going all round the outside of the cella, within the
peristyle ; it is about 3 ft. 4 in. high, and the depth of the
relief averages only about an inch and a half. The greater part
of the frieze is now in the British Museum ; that on the west
end is still in situ on the building, and a few other slabs are in
Athens ; there are also some fragments in the Louvre and
elsewhere.
The subject of the frieze is the Panathenaic procession, the
most brilliant ceremony of the great Panathenaic games, which
were held every fourth year in honour of Athena. This pro-
cession, which led beasts for sacrifice to the Acropolis, and also
carried the Peplos or sacred robe of the goddess, woven for her
by chosen Athenian matrons and maids, was representative of
all that was best and noblest in the Athenian state and society ;
the magistrates of the city, bands of men and youths chosen
for their dignity and beauty, maidens of the noblest families,
the representatives of allied and tributary states, the resident
aliens in the city, all had their place in the festal procession,
which was escorted by chariots and by the Athenian knights
in military pomp. Such a subject was fittingly chosen to
adorn the temple, as the most brilliant and characteristic act of
worship in which Athena was honoured by her chosen city. On
the western end of the cella, over the columns of the opistho-
domus, are represented the knights equipping themselves and
their horses for the festal parade. On either side, north and
south, we see the procession advancing towards the eastern front.
At the back are the knights, riding in a throng (Fig. 64), in front
of them come the chariots, each accompanied by a marshal and
an armed warrior (apobates) as well as the charioteer. In front
of them again come bands of men, and, on the north side attend-
ants and musicians ; nearest in approaching the east front are
the beasts for sacrifice, cows only on the south side, cows and
sheep on the north. On the east side we see the head of the
1 For its position in the building, see p. 41.
290 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
procession turning the corner at either extremity ; here are the
maidens with sacrificial vessels and implements, advancing to
meet a group of men, who are probably the nine archons and
other high functionaries. Then, in the centre of the eastern
side, over the main door of entrance of the temple, we see the
gods, seated in assembly as guests of Athena at her high
festival. They are divided into two groups. Nearest the
FIG. 64. — Slab from N. frieze of Parthenon (Athens, Acropolis Museum).
centre, in the right group is Athena ; next her come Hephaestus,
Poseidon, Dionysus, Demeter (Fig. 65), and Aphrodite,1 with
Eros leaning against her knee. On the other side the place of
honour is held by Zeus, and beyond him are Hera, attended by
Iris, Ares, Artemis, Apollo, and Hermes. Zeus and Athena are
separated by a space in which is represented what one would
expect to be, in meaning as in position, the central point
1 This list of gods is not beyond dispute as to some of the identifications ; but
the possible differences cannot be profitably discussed in the space that can here
be afforded.
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 291
of the whole ceremony. In the midst stand a priest, probably
the Archon Basileus, and the priestess of Athena, back to
back ; he is occupied, with the assistance of a boy, in folding
a large piece of cloth or drapery, while she is taking from
two attendant maidens the stools which they carry. Since
the offering of the Peplos, or sacred robe of Athena, was the
essential feature of the Panathenaic procession, and the Pep-
los, if not represented here, is not to be found anywhere
FIG. 65.— Group of Gods (Poseidon, Dionysus, Demeter (?)), from E. frieze of
Parthenon (Athens, Acropolis Museum).
else in the frieze, it is generally agreed that we must recognise
it in the piece of drapery which the priest holds ; but his action
certainly does not seem to suggest that he is taking charge of
the new peplos brought to Athena by the procession, from
which, moreover, he is separated by the whole group of the
gods.1 Both he and the priestess appear to be employed in pre-
1 This has been so strongly felt by some that they maintain the priest is only
taking off his own himation in preparation for the sacrifice ; he is dressed only in a
long chiton. For such a prominence given to vestments we have no authority in
Greek ritual. The stools taken by the priestess are also a puzzle ; it is hard
to find a motive for them adequate to the position they occupy.
292 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
paration for the great ceremony rather than in its performance ;
and we may perhaps find a more probable explanation of this
central group if we suppose the priest to be folding up and putting
away the old peplos of Athena to make place for the new one
which was to be brought her. Thus the offering of the new
peplos is implied by the folding up of the old one, and an ade-
quate motive is provided for the group over the east door ;
though it is still hard to explain why the new peplos is not
represented anywhere on the frieze.1 The group of gods on
either side turn their backs on the priest and priestess, and
fix their attention on the procession, which advances towards
them from either side.
The frieze is distinguished at once by its unity and its
variety of design. Each element in the procession occupies a
long enough portion of the field to attract and to satisfy the
attention of a spectator who sees it between the columns as he
walks along the building ; yet no two figures are alike ; and a
principle of contrasts marks the different parts — the majestic
repose of the gods and their subtle characterisation in pose and
feature, the slow and stately advance of the maidens and
of the men, and the impetuous rush of the cavalry, again
moderated by the graceful seat and perfect ease of the riders.
In adaptation of technical treatment to the circumstances
and position probably no work of sculpture shows so careful
calculation as this frieze — again a proof of its unity of design,
under the control of one supervising master, amidst all varia-
tions of the excellence and style of the execution in details.
So little is this sometimes understood, that it has been stated
that the frieze of the Parthenon was placed where it could
not be seen. Set in the outer wall of the cella, in the narrow
space between it and the entablature over the peristyle, high
relief would have been difficult to see, and its deep shadows
would have prevented a satisfactory lighting. For the lighting
came entirely from below, reflected from the white marbk
pavement. This is the explanation of the fact that the relief is
higher — that is to say is cut in deeper — in the upper part oi
the slabs than in the lower.2 The light coming from below,
1 The peplos was carried as the sail of a ship in late times ; but this has
nothing to do with the custom of the time of Phidias.
2 Their depth is given in the Brit. Mus. Catalogue as 1| in. at the bottom, 2^
at the top, with an average of 1^ in.
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 293
made it necessary to avoid deep cutting, and consequently deep
shadows, in the lower part ; and, on the other hand, the lower
contours of the figures are often cut more clearly, and even
surrounded with a groove cut into the ground, to make them
show, while the upper contours are weaker — so weak in some
cases as to be almost invisible when lit from above, and to
cause confusion in some of the finest blocks of the frieze when
now seen in a museum. All these details in execution must
proceed from a consideration of the lighting. The point of
view of the spectator below would not explain all of them ; and
of course the frieze was not meant to be seen from the narrower
passage of the peristyle, but from outside it, where the advance of
the moving procession, as seen between the columns, would give
a peculiarly lifelike appearance as its scenes opened themselves,
one after another, to the view. Another characteristic of the
frieze is the wonderfully skilful manipulation of the low relief,
so as to give an impression of roundness to the. figures, and
even to show them, apparently one behind another, in masses of
considerable depth ; this is especially the case with the troops
of cavalry. The result is obtained partly by extraordinary
skill and delicacy in the modelling of the surface of marble, a
peculiarly Attic virtue of which we saw some anticipation in a
work like the stela of Aristocles, partly by another device, also
known in other Attic reliefs. Where one figure overlaps another
at one side, and is in its turn overlapped by another, apparently
in front of it, the surface of this intermediate figure is not, as
it appears to be, a plane parallel to the normal surface of the
relief, but is slightly inclined to it. This inclination is so slight
as not to be visible, and consequently the three figures, though
all perhaps cut an equal depth into the marble, appear to be
one behind another in three different planes. In style the
frieze is the most perfect example of Attic grace and refine-
ment— more human and less exalted in conception than the pedi-
ments, as befits its subject — it embodies the ideal representation
of the people of Athens, uniting in the honour of the goddess
whose birth and exploits were celebrated in those more con-
spicuous groups. In design it is not unworthy of the same
master, and the unity of decorative effect as well as of religious
conception which distinguishes all the sculpture of the Parthe-
non seems to claim as its author Phidias, whom we know to
have been in control of the whole artistic activity of Athens at
294 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
the time. And the assistants that helped him in the execution,
though not all equally skilful, were such a band as Phidias
alone could have trained and influenced. So complete and so
successful was their co-operation that the sculpture of the
Parthenon stands in a connected series as the most perfect
example of the art of Greece.
§ 36. Other Athenian Sculptures — Theseum, Erechtheum, Temple
of Wingless Victory, etc. — If the sculptures of the Parthenon
are of supreme importance to us, as showing the work done in
Athens under the direct supervision of Phidias himself, those
which ornamented other Athenian temples are hardly less in-
structive. Though some of them probably belong to a time
considerably removed from that of his artistic activity, they
must all of them be regarded as the products of the school oi
which he was the acknowledged head ; some of them may show
us the character of that school before his genius had become
predominant ; in others we can still trace his influence after his
disappearance from the scene ; and we can also distinguish
here arid there the characteristics which we have reason tc
associate with other leading Attic sculptors and their pupils,
In the Parthenon we may indeed see the highest attainment ol
the Attic school; but we must supplement our study of its
sculpture by an observation of the remains of other Attic build-
ings, if we would form a complete notion of the varied artistic
activity which marked the Athens of the fifth century.
Second only to the Parthenon in the style and preservation
of its sculpture — though a long way removed from it — comes
the Theseum. It is impossible to discuss here the question
whether the Theseum is actually the temple built to hold the
bones of Theseus, which Cimon brought back from Scyros in
469 B.C. Some valid arguments have been adduced against
this identification ; the strongest are those which point to the
forms both of architecture and sculpture as impossible at such
a date. But on the other hand no other identification can be
regarded as attaining a high degree of probability, much less
certainty. Under these circumstances nothing is gained by
giving up the accepted tradition ; but in retaining it, though
we have advantage of a name which readily associates itseli
with the sculpture, we must not draw any inference as to the
actual date of the architecture and sculpture of the temple, but
must rather acknowledge that, if it is the Theseum, it cannot
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 295
have been completed until some time after Cimon's bringing
the bones of Theseus from Scyros. It appears to be nearly
contemporary with the Parthenon ; and the sculpture of the
Theseum shows most affinity with the metopes of that building,
which were, as we have seen, among its earlier portions.
The external sculpture of the Theseum is confined to the
ten metopes on the east front of the temple, and the four
adjoining metopes on the north and south sides — eighteen in
all. The rest of the metopes were never sculptured ; it is
impossible to tell whether they were decorated with painting.
There are also said to be indications that the pediments once
contained sculpture ; but this has now completely disappeared.
The metopes are in Parian marble, not Pentelic — an indication
that they belong to a time before the completion of the
Parthenon had indicated the native material as worthy of the
highest use in sculpture as well as architecture. They have
unfortunately suffered so severely from the weather that in
many cases it is barely possible to make out the subject and
composition : Stuart's drawings, made towards the end of the
last century before the damage had gone so far, are a great help
in this. The ten metopes of the east front are devoted to nine
of the labours of Heracles, that against Geryon being divided
between two metopes in a single composition — a probably
unique and not very successful experiment ; those omitted are
the Stymphalian birds, the stables of Augeas, and the bull — the
first two doubtless because of the difficulty of their adequate
representation, the third because its subject is practically
repeated among the eight labours of Theseus, which are repre-
sented on the metopes of the north and south sides. Of these
Stuart's drawings give us a fair notion, though they also have
suffered much since his day. The contests between Theseus
and the various robbers or monsters against whom he fought
showed him as a skilled athlete, making use of all the devices
of the palaestra in his struggles with the brute force of his adver-
saries (Fig. 66). It is most instructive, for example, to compare
the skilful way in which Theseus here masters the Marathonian
bull (Fig. 67) with the treatment of the similar subject in the
Olympian metope, where Heracles simply throws his weight
against the bull's and overpowers it. The execution seems
to have the dry and somewhat hard technique that we have
learnt to associate with the schools of Critius and of Myron, and
296 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP
which we recognised in some of the Parthenon metopes also
and the Theseum metopes resemble the less advanced among th(
metopes of the Parthenon in their extraordinary boldness oi
composition, sometimes almost transgressing the bounds o:
sculptural fitness in the pursuit of life and vigour.
The continuous friezes of the Theseum are over the pro
domus and opisthodomus, within the peristyle, in the positior
occupied by the corresponding portions of the continuous friez<
of the Parthenon ; but, unlike that frieze, they are in higl
relief. The western, which stretches only across the breadtl:
FIG. 66.— Metope of Theseum ; Theseus and Cercyon (after Man. Inst., X. xliv. 2).
of the temple, not that of the peristyle also, represents i
combat of Greeks and centaurs. The composition of thi
frieze is obviously due to an artist who is used to the designing
of metopes, and who repeats the concentrated groups of tw<
combatants adapted to the metope form, only connecting then
loosely by the aid of additional figures who often seem super
fluous to the action. Here again the resemblance to th<
Parthenon metopes is obvious ; it is not, however, necessary t<
infer, as some have done, that the Theseum frieze was made ir
imitation of those metopes ; it seems a sufficient explanation, i
we suppose the sculptor to have drawn on a conventional stor<
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 297
of subjects adapted to treatment in the metope form. In some
cases, however, he introduces a type unsuited to so limited a
field ; for instance, the invulnerable Caeneus, half buried by
the huge stones which a centaur on either side piles over him,
while other Lapiths, advancing to his relief, extend the scene
in a manner more adapted to continuous treatment.
The eastern frieze stretches across the breadth of peristyle
as well as cella, and we have already noticed l how the archi-
tectural conditions thus produced have influenced the composi-
FIG. 67.— Metope of Theseum ; Theseus and Bull (after Mon. Inst., X. xliii. 2).
tion of the frieze, a seated group of divinities being placed over
each of the antae, as if to continue upwards the supporting
member by a solid and restful effect. Outside these groups,
over the peristyle, is a group in comparatively gentle action,
such as the binding of a prisoner ; while in the middle portion
of the frieze is a wild scene of combat, Greek warriors fighting
opponents who hurl huge stones against them. The combat
cannot be identified with certainty ; a probable suggestion
identifies it as the fight between the Athenians and the wild
inhabitants of Pallene. If so, both the friezes, as well as the
metopes, would represent combats in which the Attic hero
1 P. 41.
298 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
Theseus was distinguished. Here again we see the same
vigorous, almost exaggerated and distorted, action that char-
acterises all the sculpture of the Theseum, and marks it as the
product of that school of Attic artists which was especially
devoted to athletic subjects ; but in this eastern frieze we also
see bold foreshortenings, especially in the fallen figures, which
are avoided in the Parthenon, but recur on the frieze of the
temple of the Wingless Victory.
The frieze of this little temple has some resemblance in
subject also to the west frieze of the Theseum. It is less than
eighteen inches in height ; some blocks of it are in situ in the
rebuilt temple ; others were brought by Lord Elgin to England.
On the east front is an assembly of gods, on the other three
sides battle scenes, Greeks against Persians on the north and
south sides, and Greeks against Greeks on the west ; in this
last scene most authorities see a reference to the battle of
Plataea, in which the Athenians were engaged mostly with the
Thebans and other Greek allies of Persia. The age of the
temple is not exactly known, but it is probably not far
removed in date from the Parthenon; the style of the sculptures
seems rather later, with its effective use of floating drapery
to fill the vacant spaces of the field.
The temple stands on a little platform, around which was
placed a balustrade, probably, to judge from the style of the
sculptures which ornament it, not long before the end of the fifth
century. On each of the three principal sides of this balustrade
was a seated figure of Athena, and the. rest of the field is occupied
with winged Victories, who are mostly employed in erecting
and decking trophies, leading cows to sacrifice, or performing
other tasks in honour of their mistress. Those figures are
wonderfully graceful in proportions and in attitude ; but it is
above all in the marvellous study of the texture and folds of
almost transparent drapery, now clinging to the beautiful
figures of the Victories, now floating in rich folds across the field
of the relief, that the character of the work is seen (Fig. 68).
We have already seen the perfect skill and delicacy with which
such drapery was rendered in the Parthenon pediments : here
the sculptor has gone even beyond that perfection, and however
much we may wonder at his skill and at the beauty of the
figures he has made, we can perhaps recognise in his work the
germs of that over -elaboration and even affectation in the
Ill
THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C.
299
treatment of drapery to which Attic work had always a tend-
ency unless it was checked by severer influence. We shall see
a further development of this tendency in the often graceful,
FIG. 68.— Victory binding sandal, from Balustrade (Athens, Acropolis Museum).
but conventional and imitative character of the Neo- Attic
reliefs.1
The Erechtheum was, next to the Parthenon, the most con-
spicuous temple of Athens, and was even more than the Par-
thenon the centre of Athenian worship. With the delicate
1 See § 77.
300 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
refinement of its architectural ornament we are not here con-
cerned. Two kinds of sculptural decoration were employed
on it, in the Ionic frieze over the north and east porticoes,
and in the Caryatids which carried the Pandroseum in its south-
western corner. The frieze is mainly interesting as a curious
experiment in the technique of relief. The figures, which are
carved in moderate relief in Pentelic marble, were affixed to a
background of black Eleusinian stone, which thus served as a
substitute for the coloured ground often used in reliefs. As
a natural result, though many of the figures are preserved, their
order and arrangement are lost, and even the subject that they
represented can no longer be identified. We do not know their
exact date ; all we know is that the Erechtheum was begun, and
was left in an unfinished state for many years ; and that in the
year 409 B.C. it was again taken in hand and completed. The
Caryatids (Fig. 69), or, as they are called in the official terminology
of the Erechtheum inscriptions, the Maidens, are the best-known
example in Greek architecture of the substitution of the human
figure, for a column as the support of an entablature, which,
howeA^er, is here specially lightened by the omission of the
frieze, so that the burden may not appear too heavy for its
bearers. The neck, too, which is in appearance the weakest
portion of the human figure, is strengthened by closely-fitting
bands of hair, and a light, basket-like capital is placed upon the
heads of the figures. These maidens are really like Canephori,
basket-bearers, who had a place in the sacrificial procession, and
delighted in the task that did honour alike to themselves and
to the goddess. Their rich festal drapery and the simple
severity with which it is treated fit them peculiarly for the
place they occupy ; and the elasticity of their pose obviates the
impression that their burden is heavy, and gives an apparent
stability to the whole composition, as each has the knee nearest
to the middle of the structure bent, and thus there is an appa-
rent inward thrust throughout. One can at once realise the
value of this arrangement if one imagines any one of the Cary-
atids on the right side to change places with the corresponding
figure on the left. One of these Caryatids is now in the British
Museum ; the rest — some of them in a fragmentary state — are
in situ in the restored Pandroseum.1 The question whether it
1 The Erechtheum was greatly damaged during the siege of 1827. The
Paudroseum was restored to its present state in 1845.
THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C.
301
is fitting to substitute a human figure for an architectural
support is open to difference
of opinion ; but there is no
doubt that, if it is done,
the effect depends on the
artistic skill and feeling
with which the figure is
treated, and the modifica-
tion of the architectural
surroundings to harmonise
with the new conditions. In
this respect the Caryatids
of the Erechtheum com-
pare most favourably with
other examples, ancient and
modern, of the same bold
experiment.
The great public build-
ings executed under the
administration of Pericles
and the artistic direction
of Phidias must have
gathered together a great
body of artists and crafts-
men in Athens ; and we
find their work not only in
great public monuments
like those we have so far
considered, but in state
documents and inscriptions,
which at this period are
often furnished with a sym-
bolical relief at their head,
and even on minor dedica-
tions and memorials set
up by private individuals.
Of these last the largest
and most interesting class
Consists of the funeral FIG. 69.— Caryatid, from Erechtheum
, . , M1 , (British Museum).
monuments, which will be
considered later, since they mostly belong to the fourth
302
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
CHAP. Ill
century.1 But all combine to show how wide -spread was
the artistic influence which found its highest expression
in the sculpture decorating the public buildings of Athens.
Thus, if the inscription recorded a treaty between Samos
FIG. 70.— "Mourning Athena" (Athens, Acropolis Museum).
and Athens, the tutelary deities of the two states, Hera and
Athena, were represented greeting one another in the relief at the
top. Numerous examples of such symbolism could be quoted.
Among the most interesting of these minor reliefs is one (Fig.
70) recently found built into a wall on the Acropolis, which
represents Athena standing with her head bent down, and lean-
1 See § 51.
Fio. 71.— Relief from Elensis (Athens, National Museum).
304 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
ing on her spear, as if in mourning, while in front of her is a
plain slab like a stela, on which a decree or a list of names
might be inscribed. It has been suggested with much plausi-
bility that the goddess is represented as mourning over a list
of some of her chosen warriors who have fallen in battle. The
period of this relief is probably about the beginning of the
Peloponnesian war. Its severe style and the stiffness of the folds
of the lower part of the drapery may seem earlier. But we
must always expect such productions of minor art to be behind
the attainments of the greater masters of the same age. There
is a simplicity and directness about this figure and its apparent
significance which rarely fail to impress and to delight all who see
it. Another (Fig. 71), perhaps the most noble of all dedicatory
tablets, is a great relief from Eleusis, representing the great
goddesses Demeter and Persephone, with a boy, probably
Triptolemus. The simple and severe style of this relief perhaps
implies that it is as early as the middle of the fifth century, but
it may well be somewhat later. So much restraint and
simplicity, especially in the treatment of drapery, show us how
completely the graceful and ornate tendency, which we saw in
early Attic art, and which we recognised again in a work like
the balustrade of the Victories, was sometimes overpowered by
a reaction towards a severer and nobler style. A study of these
two extremes leads us to a better appreciation of that golden
mean which we see realised, above all, in the sculpture of the
Parthenon.
§ 37. Scholars of Phidias — Agoracritus, Colotes, Theocosmus,
Alcamenes. — We have already seen something of the architectu-
ral sculptures which were executed under the supervision of
Phidias, and which now serve better than anything else to give
us some notion of his style. The works which are attributed
to his associates or pupils by ancient writers are for the most
part of a different nature, and resemble the great statues from
Phidias' own hand, of which we could only infer the character
from inadequate copies or descriptions. The resemblance in
some cases appears to have been so close that the attribution
was actually disputed, and we more than once find a statue re-
corded by some authorities as the work of one of the pupils of
Phidias, by others assigned to the hand, of the master himself.
Agoracritus of Paros is said to have been the favourite
pupil of Phidias. His fame depended chiefly on his reputed
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 305
authorship of the great marble Nemesis at Rhamnus, one
of the best-known statues in the ancient world. Many strange
and incredible stories are told about this work, some of which
need only be mentioned, while others require careful criticism.
It was said that the Persians brought with them a block of
Parian marble to Marathon, in order to make from it a trophy
for their victory over the Athenians ; and that after the battle
the Athenians made from this block a statue of Nemesis, as a
warning against the "pride that goeth before a fall." The
proximity of Marathon to Rhamnus, and the obvious appropri-
ateness of this story, are probably responsible for its invention
by some seeker after a subject for an epigram. An even more
absurd story is that the statue was originally sent in by Agora-
critus in a competition with Alcamenes for the statue of Aphro-
dite in the Gardens at Athens, and that after his defeat he
disposed of it to Rhamnus as Nemesis. We must give more
weight to the statement, quoted from Antigonus of Carystus,
that the inscription J 'Ayo/xxK/nros ttdptos eTroi'r/o-e was inscribed on
a tablet attached to the statue, though Pausanias, who gives a
detailed description of the Nemesis, knows nothing of this,
and simply attributes the statue to Phidias himself. Nor
can we ignore the tradition, repeated on many sides, that
Phidias really made the statue, but conceded to his favourite
pupil Agoracritus the credit of its design. The simplest in-
ference is that Agoracritus adhered so closely to the manner
of his master, and copied his style with so great success, that
ancient critics had great difficulty in distinguishing his work
from that of Phidias himself. It is, indeed, probable enough
that Phidias may have assisted his pupil in the design of so
great a work ; but the inscription recorded by Antigonus can
hardly be apocryphal, and would certainly imply that the
statue was really made by Agoracritus. The officials at
Rhamnus may well have destroyed or concealed such a record,
in their wish to claim a more distinguished authorship for the
statue that was the chief pride of their town.
Although this statue, from the less precious nature of its
material, had more chance of preservation than most of the
other great works of Phidias and his associates, it has been
destroyed, with the exception of some insignificant fragments
now in the British Museum,1 and the remains of the relief which
l. Ath. 1890, p. 64,
306 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
decorated its pedestal, now in the National Museum at Athens.1
We are therefore again mainly dependent on the description
of Pausanias. The goddess was represented as standing, of
colossal size, about 1 5 feet high ; on her head was a crown
decorated with what Pausanias describes as small Victories and
stags — evidently representations of the oriental winged Artemis,
holding stags in her hands as irorvia 07?/>c3v,2 who was prob-
ably identified by the Greeks with the goddess of Rhamnus.
In her left hand she holds a branch of apple, in her right a
bowl wrought with figures of Ethiopians. On the pedestal
was represented a subject from the myth of Helen, who was
said to be the daughter of Nemesis, Leda being only her foster-
mother ; the principal figures were these three, surrounded by
Tyndareus and various heroes of the Trojan war. The style of
the portions of this relief which have been found shows a grace
of design and delicacy of execution not unworthy of the highest
period of Attic art ; but they seem to lack the breadth and
simplic.ity which distinguish the sculpture of the Parthenon.
Another work attributed to Agoracritus by some authorities,
the statue of the Mother of the Gods at Athens, was by others
assigned to Phidias. This statue apparently established the
type under which the goddess was worshipped, at least at
Athens ; she was seated, with a cymbal in her hand, and lions
beneath her throne ; but late reliefs,3 which repeat this type,
cannot give much notion of the statue. Another work of
Agoracritus, in bronze, was the statue of Athena Itonia set up
in the common meeting-place of the Boeotians at Coronea ; be-
side this was also a statue described by Pausanias as Zeus, but
identified as Hades by Strabo, who is apparently better in-
formed, and knows of some mystical reason for the association.
Colotes was another of the most intimate associates of Phidias ;
he was apparently not an Athenian, though the country of his
origin was disputed. He is said to have assisted Phidias in
making the great statue of the Olympian Zeus. He also made
a table of gold and ivory at Olympia, on which the wreaths for
the victors used to be laid ; this table was decorated with reliefs
1 Jahrb. 1894, PI. i.-vii. (Pallat).
2 According to the ingenious explanation of Diimmler in Studniczka, Kyrene,
p. 106, n. 102.
8 See Harrison and Verrall, Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens,
pp. 45-48.
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 307
like those that ornamented the pedestals of Phidias' great
statues ; on the front was an assembly of gods, extending round
to the two sides, on which were minor deities ; at the back was
represented the ordering of the festival. The same precious
materials were used in a statue of Athena at Elis, attributed
by Pliny to Colotes, by Pausanias to Phidias ; the inside of the
shield was painted by Panaenus, the brother of Phidias, who
also contributed the paintings to the throne of the Olympian
Zeus; and in Cyllene, a port of Elis, was an Asclepius by
Colotes, again of gold and ivory.1 Colotes also appears in
Pliny's miscellaneous list at the end of the bronze-workers as
one of those who made " philosophers," probably a cant term for
portrait statues in civil garb.
Theocosmus of Megara does not appear to have been so closely
associated with Phidias as the two sculptors we have just con-
sidered. He was employed to make the statue of Zeus in the
Olympieum at Megara, which has already been quoted in the
Introduction (b, 1) as giving us useful information about the tech-
nique of gold and ivory statues. The statue was left unfinished,
owing to the straits into which the city fell at the outbreak of
the Peloponnesian war (432 B.C.) ; the head only was completed
in gold and ivory ; the rest was in clay and plaster ; and behind
the temple lay the half-finished wooden framework intended to
be covered with gold and ivory for the completion of the statue.
No doubt the artist made first his full-sized model in clay and
plaster, and when the work had to be abandoned after the head
only was finished, this model itself was substituted for the
precious materials which it was found impossible to provide.
Phidias was said to have assisted Theocosmus in the design of
this statue ; whether this be true or not, it certainly appears
from its character to have belonged to the series of great temple
statues made under the direct influence of Phidias, if not by
his pupils. Above the head of Zeus, presumably on the back
of his throne, were the Hours and the Fates ; the same position
was occupied by the Hours and the Graces on the Olympian
throne. If Theocosmus, when a young man, fell under the
influence of Phidias, we find him in a very different connection
thirty years later, when he was one of the sculptors employed
1 Sti'abo, viii. p. 344, says, " dXe^dvTivov " only ; but this is his usual descrip-
tion of chryselephantine works ; e.g. of the Athena Parthenos, ix. p. 396, and the
Zeus at Olympia, viii. p. 353.
308 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
to make the great dedication offered by the Spartans and their
allies at Delphi after the crushing defeat of Athens at Aegos-
potami in 405 B.C. His colleagues in this work belonged to the
school of Polyclitus, and his share was the statue of Hermon, a
naturalised Megarian, who was the steersman of Lysander's
ship. The inveterate enmity of Athens to Megara, which had
compelled him to abandon the completion of his chief work,
may well have led to his later association with the rival school
A of sculpture in the Peloponnese.
^S, Alcamenes, who occupies the first place among the reputed
pupils of Phidias, has been reserved to the end, partly because
he appears to have been amongst the youngest of them, partly
because his relation to Phidias is not quite so clear and direct
as that of some others. And in any case, his artistic eminence
and independent fame entitle him to a separate treatment. It
must, however, be admitted that, with the possible exception
of the sculptures of the West Pediment of the temple of Zeus
at Olympia, we cannot say with certainty that we possess,
either in the original or in a copy, any of the statues that are
assigned to him by ancient writers,1 so that we are reduced in
his case also, as in those of Calamis and Pythagoras, to
inferences from the literary evidence, in any attempt to esti-
mate his artistic character and his position in the history of
sculpture. We have already seen, in discussing the Olympian
pediments, that there are difficulties in the way of accepting
the statement of Pausanias that they were made by Paeonius
and Alcamenes respectively ; and even if we do not regard these
difficulties as insuperable, they are so serious that it is wiser to
keep the pediments separate, and not to make them the starting
point in our study of the works of the two artists to whom they
are assigned. Alcamenes was, according to some accounts, a
Lernnian, but he worked mostly in Athens, and in a contest
with the Parian Agoracritus, he is actually said to have been
preferred to a foreigner by his fellow-Athenians. His most
famous work was the Aphrodite in the Gardens, which was said
by some to have received its finishing touches from Phidias
himself, and was reckoned by many as one of the most beautiful
statues in the world ; in the passage of Lucian, quoted in full
1 It was only to be expected that an attempt woirlcl be made to assign certain
extant works to Alcamenes ; bnt no identification can be regarded as certain.
See note at end of this section on the Aphrodite in the Gardens.
in THE FIFTH CENTURY — 480-400 B.C. 309
under Calamis,1 this Aphrodite supplies to the ideal statue
imagined by the critic "the round of the cheeks and front
view of the face," " and the hands too and the beautiful flow
of the wrist, and the delicately -shaped and tapering fingers
shall be after the same model." When we remember that the
other statues which were laid under contribution were the
masterpieces of Calamis, Phidias, and Praxiteles, we realise that,
at least for these features, Alcamenes must have been unsur-
passed. Unfortunately we have no more detailed description
of the posture or attributes of this statue to help us in identify-
ing copies of it among extant works, though it is likely enough
that copies may exist of so famous a statue.2
Alcamenes is said to have originated the type of Hecate
known to us from so many reproductions, in which the goddess
is represented by three figures set back to back, typifying her
threefold aspect. It is probable that we may recognise in such
figures not a modified and softened survival from primitive idols,
but rather one of those mythological refinements in the subtle
distinction of personalities such as we shall meet with in the
next century : Alcamenes, in this way, seems to be the fore-
runner of Scopas. The statue of Hecate was set up on the
bastion beside the temple of the Wingless Victory. Alcamenes
also made several other well-known statues in Athens. One was
the Dionysus, in gold and ivory, that was in the temple close by
the great theatre. The foundations both of the temple and
of the basis of the statue are still extant ; and reproductions of
the figure upon coins show that the god was represented as
seated on a throne, holding a cup in one hand and a sceptre or
thyrsus in the other.3 Of a statue of Ares made by Alcamenes
we know nothing but that it stood in a temple of the god. His
Hephaestus, also in Athens, is selected for praise by Cicero ;
the god was represented as "standing on both feet, and, with the
help of the drapery, his lameness was slightly indicated, yet
not so as to give the impression of deformity." It is natural
to compare this statue with the limping Philoctetes of Pytha-
goras, whose pain seemed to make itself felt by those that saw
him. The contrast gives us the essential difference between
the moderation and reserve that mark the associates of Phidias,
1 P. 233.
2 See note at end of this section on the Aphrodite in the Gardens.
3 Num. Com. on Pans., CO. 1-4.
310 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
and the powerful and even painful vigour of the earlier sculptors,
who, in the first exuberance of freedom from archaic trammels,
sometimes transgress the limits of artistic reticence and
sobriety.
Another statue of a god by Alcamenes was an Asclepius, in
a temple at Mantinea ; he also made a colossal Athena and
Heracles of Pentelic marble,1 set up by Thrasybulus at Thebes,
as a memorial of his starting from that city on the expedition
which terminated successfully in the expulsion of the thirty
tyrants in 403 B.C. This last commission gives us the latest
date in the career of Alcamenes, and shows us that he was still
in full artistic vigour at the end of the fifth century.2 If he
was also a pupil and even a rival of Phidias, according to a
widely-spread tradition, his career must have been a long one,
for even if we exclude the Olympian pediments from our con-
sideration, we must still allow that he had already attained
an eminent position before the beginning of the Peloponnesian
war.
Two statues of goddesses by Alcamenes are mentioned in
connection with stories of an artistic competition. He is said
to have made an Aphrodite which was preferred to that sent
in by his rival Agoracritus, rather from the partiality of his
fellow- Athenians than from the superiority of his work. We
have already seen, in considering Agoracritus, the sequel of this
same story, which tells how the defeated competitor disposed of
his statue as Nemesis. Whether the Aphrodite in question
the goddess " of the Gardens " or not there is no evidence ; but
the identification seems probable, when we consider that this
was the one work of Alcamenes said to have been made with the
help of Phidias, and that the Nemesis also had the credit of the
same assistance. Thus the story, whatever be its worth, seems
to record a contest between two pupils of Phidias, each of them
helped by their common master. There is yet another story of
a competition between Alcamenes and Phidias himself, recorded
1 Perhaps a relief, if we accept the simple emendation, tirl TTUTTOV \idov TOV
HevT&yffii' ; but the reading is doubtful.
2 It has been maintained that this fact precludes the possibility of the employ-
ment of Alcamenes on the Olympian pediments. But he must in any case have
been an old man when he worked for Thrasybulus ; if he were as old as Sophocles
when that poet produced the Philocletes, it would, still be possible, though of
course improbable, that he might have been employed sixty years before at
Olympia.
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 311
by Tzetzes, on what authority we cannot tell. In this case the
commission was for two statues of Athena, to be set up upon
lofty columns ;x and it is said that the work of Alcamenes, being
graceful and delicate, pleased best before the two were mounted
and in position, but Phidias had calculated all his effects and
proportions for the height at which they were to be seen, and
therefore, though his statue, with its parted lips and distended
nostrils, did not look well close, it testified the skill of the
artist by its fine effect when it was set up at a height. Though
it is unlikely that there is any historical foundation for this story,
it embodies a valuable piece of criticism, probably due originally
to some one who was familiar with the works of both artists.
It is well in accordance with what we know of Phidias, in whose
colossal statues the application of principles of geometry and
optics was indispensable ; while Alcamenes is praised elsewhere
for the delicacy of his work in detail.
Besides these statues of divinities, only one athlete is ascribed
to Alcamenes, a bronze " pentathlus," who was called the
encrinomenos, a word of which the exact meaning is hard to
catch.2 It should mean "entering a contest," or "being
examined for qualification " ; and so may have represented an
athlete, presumably not in action, but standing so as to display
himself to the best advantage. Being a competitor in the
" pentathlum," he would be an "all-round" athlete, evenly
developed in all parts of his body ; and such a subject might
well offer an opportunity for an ideal rendering of the athletic
figure in its finest proportions and development. If we
possessed this figure3 it would be interesting to compare it
with the Doryphorus of Polyclitus, a statue of similar intent,
with which it is probably about contemporary. We can hardly
1 Statues set up " on columns " were not usual until Roman times, and it is
most tempting to translate "above the columns," i.e. in the pediments of a temple,
and even to refer this story to the two Athenas in the east and west pediments
of the Parthenon. But this is best set aside as a possible, but not profitable
speculation. Even if the story did refer to these two, it would have but little
weight as to their real authorship, being clearly rhetorical in character.
2 It is commonly rendered in German muster gultig, which seems to imply
a translation "chosen as a model," ignoring the present tense. In other cases,
such as apoxyomenos, anadyomene, etc., such present participles seem always to
refer to some process the subject is undergoing in the representation, and this
analogy should if possible be followed here.
3 It has been suggested that we may recognise it in a figure of a pentathlus,
standing with the discus in his left hand. But he is evidently preparing for the
throw, not merely standing before judges (see Overbeck, 3rd edition, I. p. 276).
312 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
doubt that the athletic type chosen by Alcamenes would be
much lighter and more graceful, as opposed to the massive and
powerful form preferred by Polyclitus. Nor is this contrast
inconsistent with another drawn between the same two sculp-
tors by Quintilian, who here couples Phidias with Alcamenes in
his criticism. He praises Polyclitus for the beauty and labori-
ous finish of his work, yet says it lacks that nobility of con-
ception l which we find in Phidias and Alcamenes. All we learn
from other criticisms is that Alcamenes was placed in the very
highest rank among sculptors ; by some second only to Phidias.
He seems to have been the most original and the most versatile
among his fellow-pupils. Being the youngest of them, and
surviving his master by many years, he probably escaped to a
great degree from the overshadowing influence which, in their
case, led to their fame being practically absorbed in that of
Phidias. He worked in gold and ivory, in marble, and in
bronze ; but, with the exception of the athlete just mentioned,
his works represent gods, and a large proportion of them seem
to have been temple statues. This fact seems to justify us in
following the tradition of ancient writers, and classing Alcamenes
among the pupils of Phidias.
In the fifth century the old images of the gods, which had
hitherto been the chief objects of worship, came to be considered
more and more inadequate, partly because the old mythological
conceptions failed to satisfy any longer the more enlightened
aspirations of the people, partly because the primitive idols
contrasted too crudely with the wealth of sculptural offerings
that surrounded them. In this crisis the art of sculpture came
to the assistance of religion. We have already seen the incal-
culable influence of works like the Zeus and Athena of Phidias,
in raising and ennobling the religious conceptions of the many,
and in reconciling the few to the old forms which they might
else have been inclined to reject. The numerous temples and
various divinities of Greece demanded many such embodiments
of the religious conception belonging to a particular shrine, and
the pupils of Phidias seem to have set themselves especially to
meet the need. In doing this they often followed their master
so closely that their separate existence was almost forgotten ;
1 It may seem strange to translate pondus in this way, but the contrast shows
that this must be the meaning, which is in accordance with the Latin use of
gravitas, etc.
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 313
but it was no small achievement for them to have produced
a series of great statues which were deemed worthy of attribu-
tion to the greatest of Greek sculptors. If Phidias founded no
definite school which extended beyond the lifetime of those who
had actually worked with him, this was chiefly because his
influence was more personal in character, and imparted lofty
ideals and noble conceptions of the gods, rather than any
systems of style and proportion, or skill in particular kinds of
technique. But here and there in later times we shall come
across other artists who seem to draw their inspiration directly
from Phidias; and though we cannot class them also as his
pupils, they serve to show that the power of his example
remained, and that his great statues retained their position in
the reverence and affection of Greece, even after the art of
sculpture had turned aside to follow new methods and different
aims.
*~Note on the Aphrodite in the Gardens. — A statue of Aphrodite, of very
delicate and refined style, clothed in a transparent, clinging drapery, exists
in several copies ; the best known is that in the Louvre. It is generally
called Venus Genetrix, because it appears on coins which have been brought
into relation with the statue made by Arcesilaus for the Julian family (see
§ 78). But the type occurs earlier — for example in terra-cottas from Asia
Minor,— and thus it appears that Arcesilaus, like his contemporary Pasiteles,
adopted types from earlier artists, which he reproduced in their general
. character, while adding to them the impress of his own manner and execu-
tion. It is therefore legitimate, without refusing to assign this work to
Arcesilaus, to look for the famous earlier statue which he reproduced.
Furtwangler and others identify it as the Aphrodite in the Gardens of
Alcamenes. The identification is a tempting one, but lacks definite evidence.
The statue is just what one would imagine the work of Alcamenes to be like,
yet it may perfectly well be something else. In fact this identification stands
on much the same ground as the attribution of the "Apollo on the Omphalos"
to Pythagoras ; it is worth recording as a conjecture, and as an indication of
the impression produced by the literary evidence, but cannot be inserted as a
piece of verified information. ' More detailed consideration is therefore reserved
here, as in the case of the works of Pasiteles, for the section concerning the
sculptor from whom the extant copies are derived.
§ 38. Scholars of Calamis and Myron, and other Attic Sculptors.
—Praxias the Athenian, a pupil of Calamis, began the sculpture
in the pediments of the temple of Apollo at Delphi, which were
completed after his death by Androsthenes. We know nothing
of this sculpture except its subject — Apollo, Artemis, and Leto,
with the Muses, in the eastern pediment, and Dionysus and the
Thyiades in the western. Here we see again the principle of
contrast, which we have already noticed elsewhere, between the
314 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
quiet and stately subject on the front of the temple, and the
rout of bacchantes at the back. And the setting sun on one
pediment, presumably balanced by the rising chariot of the
moon at the opposite corner, recalls the rising sun and setting
moon in the eastern pediment of the Parthenon, and may even
have suggested that splendid device for filling the extremities
of the triangular field, and at the same time giving appropriate
surroundings to the central subject. Unfortunately the French
excavations have not led to the recovery of any remains of
these pediments, which must have been entirely destroyed or
removed. It seems natural to connect the employment of
Attic artists upon the temple at Delphi with its rebuilding by
the Attic family of the Alcmaeonidae, who supplied a front of
marble when they only contracted for stone ; they may have
added also the sculpture that adorned the pediments and
metopes. In any case it hardly seems likely that a pupil of
Calamis would have been employed to decorate a temple like
that of Delphi, after the pre-eminence of Phidias and those that
worked under him at Athens had been acknowledged; and so we
must probably assign these pediments to the first half of the fifth
century. Both the pediments and the metopes, which con-
tained scenes from a gigantomachy and exploits of Heracles
and Perseus, are referred to in the Ion of Euripides. But this
does not necessarily imply that they had been recently erected
when the play was brought out; though the credit Athens
gained by their presentation to the temple may have induced
an Attic poet to dwell upon them.
Lycius, the son and pupil of Myron, seems to have followed
in his father's steps. His date is established by an inscription
on the basis crowning one of the two buttresses that form the
extremities of the wings of the Propylaea at Athens. Pausanias
saw the equestrian statues that stood on these buttresses, but,
by a strange misunderstanding, connected them with the sons
of Xenophon. His mistake was explained by the discovery
of the inscription, which records a dedication made by the
Athenian knights from the spoil of their enemy in a victory
gained under the leadership of Xenophon (of course not the
historian 1) and others ; the name had evidently caught the eye
of Pausanias, and he had made a note of it without reading the
1 It is tempting to suggest that it was his grandfather ; if so, the talent of
Xenophon as a cavalry general would be hereditary.
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 315
whole inscription. Below comes the artist's signature,
€7rotifcr€v 'EA.€i;#e/>ei>s Mvpwos. If the statues were first set up
on these buttresses, they would necessarily be either contem-
porary with the building of the Propylaea (437-432 B.C.), or
else later. But the inscription on the basis is re-cut, on the
other side and the other way up, in slightly later characters ;
and this seems to prove that the statues were originally
dedicated a few years earlier, probably about the middle of
the century, and were later transferred to these buttresses.
The date thus gained is of especial interest as deciding beyond
dispute the period of Myron himself ; but we cannot well place
that period much further back, and therefore we must class
these statues among Lycius' earlier works.
A great group by Lycius, dedicated at Olympia, represented
the combat between Achilles and Memnon.1 It stood on a
semicircular base, on either extremity of which stood the
opposing champions. In the middle was Zeus, supplicated by
Thetis and Eos, each on behalf of her own son. In the inter-
mediate space were other famous heroes on the Greek and
Trojan sides, opposed in pairs. This group reminds us
irresistibly of the similar compositions made by Onatas of
Aegina, one of them representing the heroes of the Trojan
war, and even standing on a similar semicircular base. It
seems a fair inference to trace Aeginetan influence in the
more athletic side of Attic sculpture, as represented by
Myron and his associates, and to suppose that, when Aegina
lost its political independence, the tradition of its art survived
in works like this of Lycius. The commission was given by
the city of Apollonia in Epirus, as a dedication for a victory
over the Abantes of Thronium.
Besides statues of Argonauts, of which we know nothing
further, and a portrait of the athlete Autolycus, whose beauty
is celebrated in Xenophon's Symposium, Lycius made two
statues of boys which have led to much discussion ; one held
a sprinkler for holy water, and was set up on the Acropolis,
before the temenos of Artemis Brauronia ; the other was
Mowing up with his breath a smouldering fire. It is impossible
to separate this last from a similar work by Styppax of Cyprus,
1 The subject is a favourite one with vase-painters, who mostly follow the
version of Ictinus, and represent Zeus weighing the souls of the heroes in a
I ••.•dunce, and deciding accordingly. We do not know whether Lycius adopted
this form of the story.
Y
316 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
which represented a slave roasting entrails, and at the same
time blowing up the fire with his breath. This last slave is
further identified as a favourite of Pericles, one of the skilled
workmen employed on the buildings at Athens, who fell from
a height and was injured so seriously that his life was despaired
of, until Athena appeared in a dream to Pericles, and told him
to make use of the herb Parthenium1 as a remedy. As a thank-
offering there was set up not only the bronze statue of Athena
Hygieia by Pyrrhus, of which the basis may still be seen in
situ in front of one of the columns of the Propylaea, but also
a portrait of the slave himself, in the attitude already described.
It seems likely that two examples of so curious a subject, made
by Lycius and Styppax respectively at about the same time,
must have had some relation to one another ; but it would be
futile to conjecture exactly what that relation was. It is more
instructive to note the characteristics of this little group of
bronze statues, which belong to a class which has been quaintly
but not inappropriately termed "religious genre." The subjects
were -evidently intended to interest, not only for their own
sake, but also for the opportunity which they gave for the
display of the artist's skill, yet they are dedicated to religious
purposes, and one is actually a thank-offering for a deliverance.
Perhaps, in this case, the nature of the subject was a device to
justify the setting up of a statue to a slave within the sacred
precinct, somewhat as, at the end of the previous century, a
similar difficulty had been met in the case of Leaena, the com-
panion of Harmodius and Aristogiton. When her fortitude
vindicated for her a statue on the Acropolis, which seemed to
be precluded by her profession, Amphicrates had symbolically
recorded her heroism, by representing her in the guise of a
lioness, the beast whose name she bore. So too Styppax may
have rendered this slave, under the guise of a minister attending
the sacred fire on the altar.2
1 Not what we call Parthenium, but a plant common on the Acropolis, and
still used for healing purposes in the Levant ; it is called ave/moxopTo or erba di
vento (so Heldreich).
2 The suggestion that this slave was represented as actually crouching before
the feet of the Athena of Pyrrhus, and blowing up the fire on her altar, is un-
tenable. The altar of Athena Hygieia is a large one at some distance in front
of the statue ; and the statue of the goddess is a dedication, not an object of
worship. The long basis, on which it is suggested that the slave may have stood,
is obviously an addition of much later date. These facts are incorrectly stated
in almost all books on the subject.
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 317
Cresilas of Cydonia was a Cretan, but his association with
Pericles, and the presence of some of his most famous works in
Athens, make it natural to class him among the Attic artists.
Fio. 72.— For trait -of Pericles, probably after Cresilas (British Museum).
The basis of his portrait of Pericles has been found during the
recent excavations on the Acropolis at Athens, and the work is
doubtless the original from which are derived several extant
copies, one of them in the British Museum (Fig. 72). This portrait,
by its simple and severe treatment, especially in the modelling
318 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
of eyes and beard, shows the character of the fifth century ; and
at the same time the nobility and ideal treatment of the face
make one understand the words of Pliny applied to this work,
" mirumque in hac arte est quod nobiles viros nobiliores fecit." l
It is not so much an accurate presentment of the features of
Pericles that we have before us, as an embodiment and ex-
pression of the personality of the man who summed up in
himself the glory and artistic activity of Athens in the fifth
century ; there is no attempt to catch the minor details and
more accidental traits of the individual, as in later portraits.
The statue is dated by the inscription to about 440-430 B.C. ;2
yet it shows no sign of advancing age in the face of Pericles,
who is represented as in the full perfection of manhood.
Another statue by Cresilas, which has given rise to much
discussion, is one described by Pliny as " a man wounded and
fainting, in whom one can feel how little 3 life is left." This
work is by general consent identified with a bronze statue on
the Acropolis at Athens, described by Pausanias, representing
the .Athenian general, Diitrephes,4 wounded with arrows; a
basis found on the Acropolis, recording Hermolycus the son of
Diitrephes as the dedicator, and Cresilas as the artist, must
almost certainly belong to this statue, and dates from about the
middle of the 5th century. The basis is square, and has two
square holes in it, lying in one of its diagonals, for fixing the
statue, which must therefore have been represented in some
unusual position. A figure of a warrior pierced with arrows,
and staggering, with his feet some distance apart, is found on
an Attic lecythus of about this period ; and it has been con-
jectured 5 that it may represent the death of this same Diitre-
phes, which evidently caused a good deal of sensation at Athens
from its peculiar circumstances. Of course considerable caution
is necessary in recognising a copy of a contemporary statue on
1 Perhaps translated from an epigram, d\\' ij T^xvrt xal TOVTO 6av/j.d^fiv
t?xei' TOI>S evyeveis ZTCV&V cvyeveartpovs, i.e. "the marvel of this art is, that it
has added to the nobility of noble men " ; but, as H. Stuart Jones remarks,
nobilis in Pliny usually means only " famous " ; so it may mean the skill of the
artist "has added to the fame of famous men," by making their portraits.
2 AeXr.'Apx- 1889, p. 36.
3 See H. S. Jones, No. 148, note.
4 Not as Pausanias supposed, the Diitrephes who is mentioned by Thucydides
vii. 29 (413 B.C.), but an earlier man of the same name, perhaps the father of
Nicostratus (iii. 75, etc.). So Furtwangler, Masterpieces, p. 123.
5 See Furtwangler, loc. cit., p. 124.
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 319
a vase of this period ; such a thing is very unusual, but the
coincidences are strange if we do not suppose these various
pieces of evidence to be connected. If we imagine the statue
to have been in much the position we see in the figure on the
vase — as is probable from the indications on the basis — it was
certainly a tour-de-force in bronze technique ; and in its curiously
distorted attitude, and its representation of a man fighting to
the verge of death, it reminds us of Myron's Discobolus and
Ladas, and seems to show that Cresilas fell strongly under
Myron's influence. Of other works of Cresilas we know nothing
but the names ; two more bases have been found with his name,
one at Athens, belonging to a statue of Athena, another at
Hermione, from a statue of Demeter Chthonia ; he is also said
to have made a Doryphorus 1 and a wounded Amazon — one of
those in the famous Ephesian competition. These suffice to
mark him as an artist of considerable variety as well as of high
ideals and technical skill.
Strongylion is another artist of considerable fame and variety,
of whose works we know but little. One of them which is
often referred to represented, in bronze, a colossal figure of the
wooden horse of Troy, with some of the Greek heroes looking
out of it. The basis of this horse has been found on the Acro-
polis at Athens, and. appears to date from a year not long before
414 B.C., when it is referred to in the Birds of Aristophanes :
Strongylion is said to have been famous for his sculpture of
horses and bulls ; whence it has been conjectured that a bronze
bull, dedicated near the horse on the Acropolis, was also by him.
As to another work of his we have more satisfactory information.
He made a statue of Artemis Soteira at Megara, of which a
replica was set up at Pagae. The coins of these two towns show
an identical figure of Artemis, at Pagae actually in a temple and
<»n ;i basis; this must certainly be the statue made by Strongy-
lion.- It was of bronze, and the coins show us that the goddess
uas represented as holding two torches, and in rapid motion.
She wears a short chiton, girt round the waist and barely reaching
to the knee, and high hunting boots — the regular dress of the
huntress Artemis in late Greek art; indeed, it seems likely
enough that we must attribute to Strongylion the creation of
1 So only by a probable emendation ; Pliny's MSS. ascribe the work to a
Ctesilaus otherwise unknown.
- Inihoof and Gardner, Num. Com. on Pans., PI. A. 1.
320 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
this type, one of the most familiar in Greek mythology. If so,
though we may not be able to identify any copy of his Artemis
at Megara, we may see her more or less remote reflection in
many well-known statues. Other works by Strongylion were a
boy on a small scale, famous for the admiration felt for it by
Brutus, an Amazon, who was called Eucnemus, or "of the beautiful
shin"1 (not one of those in the Ephesian competition), and three
statues of Muses on Helicon. From these few facts we can
infer neither the origin nor the school of Strongylion ; he lived
about the time of the Peloponnesian war, and as he worked for
both Athens and Megara, we cannot assign him with certainty
to any influence. He seems to have worked almost exclusively
in bronze, and created a type which was of wide influence in
later art; excessive admiration of his work was among the
affectations of Roman amateurs.
Callimachus is an artist whom we have already seen coupled
with Calamis, as an example of the graceful subtlety of Attic
sculpture, in contrast to the grandeur and breadth of Phidias
and Polyclitus. He, indeed, represents more than any other
the direct succession of purely Attic art, which we traced to its
culmination in Calamis before the reaction to a stronger and
severer style under Doric influence. Callimachus is said even
to have carried this refinement and delicacy so far as to be
a fault ; he is called catatexitechnus, the man who frittered
away his art on details, and is said to have been so difficult to
satisfy with his own work that the excessive and laborious finish
which he gave it destroyed its beauty. In him some have seen,
not without reason, the originator of those over-refined and
affected works which later, as the Neo-Attic reliefs, occupied a
prominent place in decorative art. Besides a statue of Hera at
Plataea, we learn of only one work of sculpture by Callimachus,
some dancing Laconian maidens, probably those who danced at
the festival of Artemis at Caryae, and were called Caryatids ;
these must not be confused with the figures later called Carya-
tids in architecture.2 Such dancing figures are not uncommon
in later reliefs, and may be ultimately derived from the statues
by Callimachus. We hear of him not only as a sculptor, but also
1 She was presumably also on a small scale, since Nero had her carried about
with him ; but perhaps the eccentricities of that 'Emperor are beyond calculation.
There is no sufficient ground for identifying any extant Amazon with this statue.
2 These architectural figures were simply called Kopat in the fifth century.
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 321
as skilled in other branches of decorative and mechanical art ;
thus he made the lamp in the Erechtheum, which burned all the
year round, and had a golden palm-tree to serve as chimney;
and he is credited with the invention of the Corinthian
capital — perhaps in error, as it is already found in the temple
at Bassae ; but Ictinus may have used there the invention of
his fellow- Athenian. He is also said to have first used the drill
in marble — that is to say, probably, the running drill for cutting
the folds of drapery and other deep lines of modelling. In fact,
his influence on later art and his mechanical and technical
inventions distinguish him beyond his actual attainment in
sculpture.
§ 39. Attic influence outside Athens ; Phigalia. — The temple
of Apollo Epicurius at Bassae, near Phigalia, was one of the
most famous in the Peloponnese,1 alike for the magnificence of
its position, and the beauty of its architectural forms and its
sculptural decoration. It was built by the people of Phigalia
in thanks to Apollo, to whom they attributed their immunity
from a plague that ravaged the surrounding country during the
Peloponnesian war. It has been disputed whether this was the
great plague of 430 B.C., described by Thucydides, but said by
him to have spared the Peloponnese, or another plague ten years
later. Architectural and sculptural forms combine to confirm
the attribution of the temple to this period.
The temple is of peculiar design, and shows us the freedom
with which a great architect like Ictinus, who was employed on
this temple as well as the Parthenon at Athens and the Hall of
the Mysteries at Eleusis, dealt with the conventional plan of a
Greek temple. At first glance the temple appears to be of the
usual form, with pronaos and opisthodomus and surrounded
with a peristyle, except that it-faces north and south instead of
east and west. But the interior of the building deviates strangely
from the normal arrangement; it consists of a small cella at the
south end, opening toward the east by a door in the long eastern
side of the temple; here doubtless was the statue, facing east as
usual. To the north of this cella is an open court, taking up
all the rest of the building, and surrounded by attached Ionic
columns, varied by one Corinthian, the earliest known, in the
middle of the space between the cella and the court. Over
1 Paiisanias says it was second only to the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea,
which was built by Scopas (see § 49).
322 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
these columns ran the continuous frieze of the temple, round
the interior of the oblong court. Hence, unlike the friezes that
usually surround the outside of a building, it was all visible
from one point. Over the pronaos, at the north end, in a
position similar to that occupied by the metopes at Olympia, were
metopes, sculptured in high relief. Of these only comparatively
insignificant fragments have been recovered. These, as well as
the frieze, which is in a fine-grained Peloponnesian marble,1 are
now in the British Museum. The Phigalian sculptures were
excavated in 1811, by a party of explorers, including the
architect Cockerell ; and were purchased by the British Govern-
ment in 1814. Being added to the Elgin marbles, they make
our national collection unrivalled for the study of archi-
tectural sculptures of the fifth century.
FIG. 73.— Slab from Phigalian frieze ; Heracles (British Museum).
The subject of the frieze was divided into two parts, a battle
of Greeks and Amazons and a battle of Lapiths and Centaurs,
the former occupying two sides of the court, and one slab over,
the latter filling the rest of the other two sides. As to the
exact order of the slabs there is a good deal of uncertainty, but
it seems clear that each of the short sides, north and south, had
a group of especial interest, to afford a centre to the com-
position.
The battle with the Centaurs probably began at the south-
west corner. To this subject belongs the group of Apollo and
Artemis in a chariot ; she drives, while he bends his bow
1 From the quarries of Doliaua, near Tegea.
m
THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 323
against the monsters. Perhaps the goddess is hastening to
the help of those who, on the next slab, have taken refuge
at her image. The Centauromachy continues all along this
side, and turns the corner to the north, where it ends in
the great group of which the invulnerable Caeneus is the
central figure. We have already seen, in the case of the
Theseum, how this theme lends itself to effective composition
in a frieze. After the Caeneus group comes the beginning
of the battle against the Amazons, which encroaches by one
slab on the north side, while it fills the east and south sides
entirely. In the middle of the south short side was Heracles,
distinguished by his club and lion-skin ; his opponent is presum-
ably the queen of the Amazons (Fig. 73). The two combatants
cross each other's paths and strike back at one another, thus
making a balance in the composition, peculiarly suitable for
figures that form the centre of a larger group. The effect
is similar to that of Athena and Poseidon in the western
pediment of the Parthenon.1 The rest of the frieze is rich
and varied in motion, full of imagination and originality of
design, with here and there a group which is almost startling
in its unconventionality ; that, for instance, of a Centaur who
bites one adversary in the neck, while he lashes out with his
heels against another who holds his shield against this savage
attack ; or that of a Greek who tilts an Amazon off her horse
by seizing her shoulder and her foot. The treatment of the
nude is mostly vigorous and correct, especially in the male
figures, and the athletic frames of the Amazons; but it is
uneven in quality, and is particularly weak in the nude female
form when exposed, as in the Lapith women. The drapery is
remarkable ; it is designed, though not always executed, with
great skill and freedom, and floating masses of it. are often used
to fill vacant spaces in the field — a feature which we have
already seen in Attic work of this period. But the extremely
low relief of some portions shows a greater dependence on the
help of colour, and a greater subjection to influence of pictorial
method, than we often find in Athens itself; and there are
some mannerisms peculiar to this Phigalian frieze — for example,
the way in which the drapery of the short chiton is stretched
across in horizontal folds between the knees.
All these characteristics of design and of execution, taken
1 So A. H. Smith, British Museum Catalogue.
324 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
together, seem to show that the design is due to an Attic artist,
as we should expect from the employment of Ictinus, the
architect of the Parthenon. But the frieze does not appear
to be the work of the same hands as the decorative sculp-
tures which we see on the various buildings of Athens
itself. Some of their excellences and defects, their superi-
ority in rendering the male form, the mannerisms in the
treatment of drapery, make it likely that local artists of Pelo-
ponnesian training were employed in the execution, under the
general direction of an Attic master. In this way we can best
explain the obvious affinities in design to works of the Attic
school ; while the pictorial and decorative elements, especially
in the treatment of drapery, were naturally either exaggerated
or inadequately mastered by the local artisans to whom they
were unfamiliar. Here the internal evidence offered by the
style is confirmed by literary authority ; and so the Phigalian
sculptures offer a clue to guide us when we meet with a
somewhat similar character in other sculptures both in the
Peloponnese1 and in Asia Minor.2
§ 40. Polyclitus.2' — Two names stand out beyond all others
as representative of the sculpture of the fifth century — those of
Phidias and Polyclitus. So far we have considered either works
in which the influence of Phidias is predominant, or artists
whom it is natural to associate with the school of which he was
the most distinguished figure, if not the acknowledged head.
But Athens in the fifth century shows no artistic exclusiveness ;
she seems rather, in claiming for herself a pre-eminence among
the Greeks in the arts of peace, to have become to a certain
extent representative, and to have absorbed into herself much
of what was best in the work of her neighbours in addition to
continuing her own earlier traditions. We have seen, in par-
ticular, how the monuments testify to a strong accession of
Peloponnesian influence in the Attic art of the earlier part of
the fifth century, and how tradition assigns Ageladas of Argos
as a master to two of the greatest of Attic artists at this time.
The third pupil accorded to Ageladas by tradition is Polyclitus,
who succeeded him as the recognised head of the Argive school
1 See p. 339. 2 See p. 345.
3 The Greek IIoAikXaTos is transliterated Polycletus by Cicero and Quintilian,
hence the French Polyclete, the German Polyklet, and the form sometimes used
by English scholars. But Polyclitus, the form used by Pliny, is probably more
familiar to English readers. Cf. Clitus = KXelros in Shakespeare.
Ill
THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 325
of athletic sculpture. The relation has in all three cases been
disputed. Although we might have expected it to pass un-
challenged in the case of Polyclitus, whose Argive origin and
artistic connections seem to vouch for its historical truth, the
difficulties due to the respective dates of the two sculptors are
here so serious that they have led many to reject it as impos-
sible. If, however, we admit that Ageladas accepted a com-
mission as late as 455 B.C.,1 there is no difficulty in supposing
that Polyclitus — whose artistic activity falls entirely, so far as
we know, -within the last forty years of the fifth century — may
have worked as a boy under his veteran predecessor. However
this may be, he certainly accepted the tradition of the Argive
school as it had been handed down by earlier sculptors and
consolidated during the long life of Ageladas ; and though he
was regarded by later time as the first to introduce a system of
athletic sculpture, and to establish a canon of proportions, it is
difficult to tell how much of this he owed to his predecessors.
But his great creative imagination, which enabled him to make
a temple statue second only to those of Phidias, and his wonder-
ful technical skill — in which he was considered by many to
stand first among all the sculptors of antiquity, — gave him a
position above all previous masters of the Argive school. What,
however, was generally regarded as the most characteristic work
of Polyclitus was the statue in which he embodied the ideal of
bodily perfection, as conceived by the athletic schools of the
Peloponnese in their earlier period — a statue which served, as
it was intended; for a model to all later artists, and exercised
as much influence on the bodily type of Greek sculpture as the
Zeus of Phidias exercised on its religious ideals.
So far, it has been assumed without discussion that Poly-
clitus was an Argive. This statement, which rests on the
highest authorities, would require no comment but for Pliny's
assertion that he was a Sicyonian. The schools of Argos and
Sicyon seem always to have been closely united ; and the fact
that their common centre was transferred to Sicyon in the
fourth century suffices to account for the confusion. If, as we
have seen reason to suppose, Polyclitus was employed on sculp-
ture as early as the middle of the fifth century, we know
nothing of the work of his earlier years. Presumably he
devoted himself during this time to acquiring that knowledge
1 See p. 192.
326 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
of the athletic human form which was the chief tradition of the
Argive school, and to making the statues of athletes that
formed its commonest product. His earliest recorded work is
a statue of the Olympian victor Cyniscus, who won in the boys'
boxing match ; this may be assigned to about 440 B.C.1 Other
bases of athletic statues bearing the name of Polyclitus have
been found at Olympia ; but there were two artists of this
name, and the younger and less famous is probably the one to
whom these inscriptions must be assigned.2 The two greatest
works of the athletic type — both of which are preserved to us in
various copies — were not intended as statues of any individual
athletes, but rather as ideal embodiments of what an athlete
should be. The one is known as the Diadumenus, because he
is represented as a victor in the games, binding about his brow
the fillet over which the wreath is to be placed ; the other as
the Doryphorus, because he holds in his left hand a spear
sloped over his shoulder. This Doryphorus was also known as
the Canon, because Polyclitus had embodied in it not only his
conception of the male form in its most perfect development,
but also the system of proportions which he adopted as normal.
Indeed, he actually wrote a treatise which went by the same
name as the statue, and the two were mutually illustrative of
each other. Unfortunately, this statue, like all others that can
be attributed to Polyclitus, is only preserved to us in copies of
Roman period, which not only fail to enable us to realise the
beauty of their original, but do not even preserve accurately
the system of proportion embodied in the Doryphorus. The
copies we possess vary to some extent among themselves, so
that it is difficult for us to gather from them more than a
general notion of the proportions adopted by the sculptor ;
while, on the other hand, they exaggerate some of the charac-
teristics, especially the massive and heavy build, so as to pro-
duce an appearance of clumsiness which we cannot readily
accept as belonging to the work of Polyclitus himself. We
must, however, make the best of the evidence we possess, while
making due allowance for its inadequacy. It must especially
be remembered how much is lost in the translation from bronze
into marble of the work of an artist who, in the art of finishing
a bronze statue, is said to have surpassed all others, not except-
ing Phidias himself.
1 Loewy, 50. 2 See § 41.
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 327
The Doryphorus, or Canon, is preserved to us in several
copies ; the completest is that from Pompeii, now in the Naples
museum (Fig. 74). It is, however, a heavy and mechanical copy,
and can give us but little notion of the finish of Polyclitus' style,
in which his chief excellence lay. A bronze copy of the head
by the Attic artist Apollonius l at least reproduces the material
of the original, and so may be expected to follow its technique ;
but it is a conventional work of the Augustan age, and is hardly
more to be trusted. But all the copies, whatever their defects,
agree so far that we can safely infer from them the physical
type chosen by the artist, both for body and for face, and also
the pose and general character of the statue. It represents
a young man in the very prime of athletic condition, but
remarkable rather for massive strength than for agility. All
his muscles are strongly developed, though we must allow some-
thing here for the exaggeration of the late copyist ; his head is
large in proportion, about one-seventh of the total height, and
its squareness of skull and rather heavy jaw imply that his
athletic prowess is due rather to obstinate power of endurance
than to quickness or versatility. Not that the Polyclitan
Doryphorus shows any of that brutality which sometimes marks
the professional athlete of later Greece ; he represents a
thoroughly healthy and evenly-developed type ; and the de-
formed and swollen " boxer's ear," so conspicuous in Apollonius'
head, does not appear in other copies, and is probably a modifi-
cation introduced by the later artist.
Some faint reflection of the inimitable bronze technique of
Polyclitus may be traced in extant copies of his best-known
work. Perhaps the most accurate in this respect is the torso
in the Pourtales collection at Berlin, which shows a remark-
able treatment of the muscles of the body, unintelligible in
marble, but easier to understand if we imagine it transferred
to bronze.2 Here, though the relief of the various muscles is
less accentuated than in other copies, the lines of demarcation
between them are more clearly and definitely indicated ; there
is less of that play of light and shade over the whole on which
marble work depends for its effect ; more of the evenly-curved
surfaces, intersecting in definite lines, which in a metal statue
reflect the light and bring out all the delicacies of the model-
1 Collignon, I. Fig. 252.
2 Rayet, Mon. de V Art, I. PL 29, p. 2.
FIG. 74. — Doryphorus, after Polyclitus (Naples).
CHAP, m THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 329
ling. As to the treatment of the hair, all copies are pretty
well in agreement ; it lies close to the scalp, coming down low
over the forehead, and is divided all over its surface into short
waving tresses, which seem as if drawn on it, but never stand
out separately in relief ; it contrasts alike with the bronze
hair of later art, standing out freely from the head, and that in
the best copy of Myron's Discobolus,1 in which the hair, rather
than the separate tresses, is outlined in a harder line over the
forehead, and is subdivided into more minute curls, clinging
close but not waving, all over the head.
The other of Polyclitus' two famous athletic statues, the
Diadumenus, is also preserved to us only in inadequate copies.
Until recently, the most trustworthy of these were a statue from
Vaison in France, now in the British Museum (Fig. 75), and a
bronze statuette in the Louvre.2 To these may now be added
a head recently acquired by the British Museum, and placed
beside the Vaison statue, and a statue discovered on Delos,
which is perhaps the finest of all. The Diadumenus is repre-
sented as a victor in the games, binding about his head the
sacred fillet over which the judge was to place the wreath.
The position of the arms is much the same as in many statues
and statuettes in which later sculptors delighted to represent
Aphrodite binding her hair ; and the motive of the artist is the
same in both cases ; it affords an excellent opportunity for
displaying the symmetry and proportion of the arms and chest.
Unlike the Doryphorus, who is slowly advancing, the Diadu-
menus is standing still ; and thus, though the weight of the
body here also is borne mainly by the advanced right leg, the
poise of the figure is different ; the centre of gravity is behind
the right foot, instead of above it arid on the point of advanc-
ing beyond it. It is evidently in subtle distinctions like this,
and in the consequent modification of all the muscles and the
whole pose of the statue, that the art of Polyclitus excelled ; a
comparison of the two works is the best possible comment on
the monotony complained of by some ancient critics. Even in
1 See p. 237.
2 The Farnese Diaclumeuus in the British Museum is clearly so far modified as
to be useless for style, though ultimately derived from Polyclitus' statue ; the
same remark applies to the terra-cotta statuette published in J. If. £, PI. Ixi.,
also in the British Museum : the modification in this case is Praxitelean, though
it may be doubted whether the copy is the work of an ancient or of a modern
artist.
FIG. 75. -Diadumenus from Vaison, after Polyclitus (British Museum).
CHAP, in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 331
copies it is possible to appreciate to some extent the refine-
ment and delicacy of their differentiation ; if we possessed the
originals, it would doubtless be far more admirable. Of other
athletic statues by Polyclitus we have nothing but the name
recorded; one is described by Pliny as an athlete using the
strigil, destringentem se, and is interesting for the identity of
its subject with the " Apoxyomenus " of Lysippus, which was
intended as a rival to Polyclitus' Canon.1
It was, however, not only in athletic sculpture that Poly-
clitus excelled. His great gold and ivory statue of Hera in the
Heraeum near Argos was recognised as the visible embodiment
of the goddess, and is mentioned as a worthy counterpart to
the Olympian Zeus of Phidias. Indeed, Strabo goes even
further, and says that the Argive statue excelled all others in
its art, though the works of Phidias were more costly and on a
larger scale. Such a criticism is probably based on the work
of some writer unduly partial to the Argive school, and would
hardly be endorsed by modern opinion, if we possessed the
statues to which it refers. We can, however, safely infer that
Polyclitus excelled in the ideal representation of divine power
and beauty ; but the type of Hera, in Greek mythology, is a
less sublime and intellectual conception than that of Zeus or
Athena, and for this reason more adapted to the limitations of
the Argive school. Hera in the Argive ceremonies was especi-
ally worshipped as the bride who yearly renewed her virginity ;
and it was thus, probably, that Polyclitus represented her.
She was enthroned, with a pomegranate in one hand, in the
other a sceptre surmounted by a cuckoo, the bird in likeness of
which Zeus was said to have shown himself to Hera. On her
head was a crown, decorated with figures of the Graces and the
Hours. In short, she was represented as the bride and consort
of Zeus — the perfect type of youthful womanhood — a concep-
tion that gave full scope to the study of perfection in physical
form and dignity of type which belonged especially to the
Argive tradition. We may obtain some notion of what this
type was like from the contemporary coins of Argos and of Elis,
which, however, must not, like Roman coins, be taken as copies
of the work of Polyclitus, but rather as the die-cutter's concep-
tion of the type of Hera which found its most perfect ex-
pression in the work of Polyclitus. The statue was made
1 See p. 407.
z
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
immediately after the fire which consumed the Heraeum in
422 B.C.
As to other statues of gods by Polyclitus, we know nothing
for certain beyond the names ; they were a Zeus Meilichius —
the god of atonement — at Argos, set up after a massacre in
418 B.C., and made of white marble;1 a Hermes in Lysimachia,
which must have been moved from elsewhere ; a Heracles,
moved to Rome, and an Aphrodite at Amyclae, supporting a
tripod set up after the battle of Aegospotami (405 B.C.). In
most of these cases, as in some others, there is the possibility
of doubt whether the work should be attributed to the elder or
the younger Polyclitus ; a similar doubt exists in the case of a
group of marble, representing Apollo, Artemis, and Leto, on
Mount Lycone near Argos.2 The two artists were evidently
not clearly distinguished from one another in antiquity ; and,
if we had not the evidence of inscriptions to help us, we should
find it very difficult to keep them apart.
As to another work of Polyclitus, his Amazon, we have
more 'evidence ; and it will be well to include here a brief
notice of the set of statues of Amazons to which it belongs ;
they are best treated together, and Polyclitus is the only artist
to whom one of them is attributed by a general consensus of
opinion. Pliny says that there were certain Amazons dedi-
cated in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus, a town said to have
been founded by Amazons. These were by sculptors of differ-
ent periods ; but, in a competition of merit, decided by the
artists themselves, Polyclitus was placed first, Phidias second,
Cresilas third, and Phradmon, an Argive, of whom little else is
known, fourth.3 Among statues of Amazons, of which many
are preserved in our museums, there are some which clearly
show the style of the fifth century. To omit minor variations
or later modifications, there are three main types :- — 4
1. An Amazon, leaning with her left elbow on a pillar, her
right hand resting on her head (Fig. 76); her chiton is fastened
only on the right shoulder, leaving her left breast bare; on
1 The material is strange for either the elder or the younger Polyclitus ; the
massacre may be wrongly identified. That the younger Polyclitus used marble is
a mere assumption.
2 Also attributed to the younger Polyclitus because of material. See last
note ; this is merely arguing in a circle.
3 Pliny says fifth, making Cresilas Cydon (the Cydonian) into two sculptors.
4 I follow here Michaelis, Jahrbuch, 1886, p. 14.
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 333
her right breast, just outside the edge of the drapery, is a
wound.
FIG. 76. — Amazon, after Polyclitus (Rome, Vatican).
2. The Capitoline type. — An Amazon, with her right arm
raised, leaning, probably on a spear (Fig. 77) ; her head is bent
334 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
down, her chiton is fastened on the left shoulder, it has been
Fio. 77.— Amazon, Capitoline type (Rome, Vatican).
unfastened from her right by her left hand, which still holds t
drapery at her waist, so as to keep it clear of a wound below t
'
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 335
right breast ; there is another wound above it ; she wears also
a chlamys.
FIG. 78.— Amazon Mattel (Rome, Vatican).
3. The so-called Mattei type (Fig. 78), representing not a
irounded Amazon, but one using her spear as a jumping-pole to
336 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
mount her horse ; it is on her left side, and she grasps it with
both hands, her right passing across over her head. Her chiton
is fastened on the right shoulder, leaving the left breast bare,
and it is curiously drawn up below so as to expose the left
thigh.
These types very probably go back to the statues of
Amazons in the temple at Ephesus, which gave rise also to
Pliny's story. Pliny probably gives correctly the names of the
artists to whom these statues were attributed ; beyond this his
story is of little value, though it probably records, in a rhetorical
form, the opinion of some ancient critic. We may, then, make
use of the names he gives to help us in considering the extant
statues of Amazons.
It is generally agreed that the original from which the
extant statues of type (1) are derived must have been made by
Polyclitus. Its excellences and its defects alike claim him as
their author. The attitude recalling that of the Diadumenus,
the squarely-made and vigorous form, the athletic type of the
Amazon, who though female in sex, is male in modelling and
in proportion, the resemblance of the head to that of the
Doryphorus, with the squarely -shaped skull and heavy jaw,
the absence of any expression of emotion or pathos, except
of mere weariness of battle; the absence of any adequate
consideration of the modification necessitated by the wound
in the position of the figure or its expression — all these are
characteristics which we should expect to find in the work of
the Argive master. With type (2) the case is not nearly so
easy to decide. The whole character and type of the figure is
softer and more womanly, and the wound and its effect upon
the Amazon are never, even in details, lost sight of as the
central motive of the whole figure. It might seem, as has been
well said by Michaelis, that type (2) was consciously made as a
protest against the inconsistencies of type (1). The type of the
head is not dissimilar, but is entirely transformed by the pathos
of the expression, as she looks at her wounds.
It is best to be cautious about the attribution of this second
type.1 Some attribute it to Phidias, others, as confidently,2 to
Cresilas, appealing to the designation of his work as the wounded
1 The Capitoline Amazon has the name of Sosicles inscribed on it. But he is
only the copyist ; the same type is repeated elsewhere, e.g. in the statue in the
Vatican (Fig. 77).
2 So Furtwangler, Meisterwerke, p. 286.
m THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 337
Amazon ; the wound is certainly the leading motive in his
statue, and is not mentioned in other cases. Yet it is certainly
present,1 though not allowed to form the leading motive, in the
Amazon of Polyclitus. All that seems certain is that we see
here a fifth-century type, by an artist who prefers womanly
grace to athletic and almost virile character and proportion, even
in an Amazon ; and who, when he introduces a wound into the
statue, does not treat it as an accessory, but modifies the whole
conception to suit it. As a result, the spectator may indeed
be said " almost to feel her pain," as was said of the Philoctetes
of Pythagoras ; but, without more certain standards of compari-
son, it would be rash to say definitely who was the author of
this Amazon.
As to the third type (Mattei), even more doubt is possible ;
indeed, it is by no means certain that it belongs to the same
period as the other two ; the way in which the drapery is
drawn up to show the modelling of the left thigh reminds one
of a similar device in the Artemis of Versailles, and is not
adequately explained by the position, any more than the
drapery of the Aphrodite of Melos ; the slim and graceful
proportions of the figure also suggest a later period. We
cannot, however, assign her with confidence to any later artist,
though her extreme grace is in favour of a Hellenistic origin.2
Perhaps, however, so late an attribution must be given up,
especially in view of the simpler character of the example at
Petworth,3 which, however, seems to belong to the fourth
rather than the fifth century.
§41. Scholars of Polyclitus. — As the artistic activity of
Polyclitus falls in the latter part of the fifth century, his
scholars, as was to be expected,' mostly fall into the next
period ; but we have such scanty information about most of
them, apart from their relation to their master, that it seems
best to include most of them here, especially as the great
1 Michaelis (loc. cit.) refutes Overbeck's suggestion that the wound was in-
troduced here from the Capitoline type.
2 Winckelmann identified the Mattei Amazon as Strongylion's ewcj^/uos ; but
it should rather be etf/ATjpos.
Furtw angler suggests that this third type is that of Phidias, a theory which
will hardly gain in acceptance by his additional conjecture that the Herculanean
bronze head belongs to this type. That head has been generally recognised as
Polyclitan in origin ; the head of the Mattei Amazon does not belong to it, but to
a copy of the Capitoliue type.
3 Jahrb. 1886, PL 1.
338 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
common work on which many of them were engaged was the
group set up by the Spartans in commemoration of the victory
at Aegospotami in 405 B.C. Of many of them we know little
more than the name ; the most interesting group is the family
of Patrocles, who was perhaps the brother of Polyclitus. Two
of his sons were Naucydes and Daedalus.1 To these must be
added the younger Polyclitus, who is described by Pausanias
as the brother of Naucydes. He was also the pupil of Naucydes,
and worked in the first half of the fourth century. Another
pupil of Naucydes was Alypus. Of most of these sculptors
we know little beyond the fact that they made statues of
athletic victors — the stock subject of the Argive and Sicyonian
schools. Naucydes also made a Discobolus, a Hermes, and a man
sacrificing a ram, commonly, but without much reason, identified
with a statue of Phrixus on the Acropolis at Athens ; a basis
with his name has been found there. He also made a portrait
of the Lesbian poetess, Erinna — probably one of those ideal
portraits of famous men and women of old time that later
became common. His brother Daedalus too produced what we
may call athletic genre as well as athletic portraits — boys scrap-
ing themselves with the strigil. Naucydes worked with
Polyclitus the elder in the Heraeum, and made a Hebe of gold
and ivory as a pendant to the great statue of Hera ; other
statues of gods are attributed to him, as well as to his pupil
and younger brother, the younger Polyclitus, who worked in
the first half of the fourth century.
The great group dedicated by the Spartans after Aegospotami
reminds us of some of the earlier dedications from the spoils of
the Persians, notably that made by Phidias after Marathon,
which was also erected at Delphi, and was also of bronze. The
subject was an assembly of gods, with Poseidon crowning the
victorious admiral Lysander, in the presence of the leaders of
the Spartan allies. Another somewhat similar but smaller
group was dedicated by the Tegeans, after a victory over the
Spartans in 369 B.C. ; it represented the Tegean heroes, and was
made by Daedalus of Sicyon, with Aristophanes and others.
These bare enumerations suffice to show how numerous and
1 This rests on the authority of inscriptions, Loewy, 86, 88. Daedalus and
Naucydes called themselves Sicyonians, the younger Polyclitus an Argive. The
artistic relations of Argos and Sicyon were then close ; and the centre of the school
varied between the two.
m THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 339
influential was the school which owned Polyclitus as its master.
Though statues of athletic victors are its most frequent theme,
it produced many statues of the gods, and also great groups
of historical and mythological figures, which seem to continue
the tradition of earlier times and worthier occasions.
We might naturally expect to find that the sculptures of the
Heraeum near Argos would bear the same relation to Polyclitus
that we felt justified in claiming for Phidias in the case of the
sculptors of the Parthenon. But it must be remembered that
it was in single statues rather than in great decorative com-
positions that the Argive school excelled, and that we have no
reason to suppose that Polyclitus was entrusted with the main
direction of the works at Argos as Phidias was at Athens.
Some of the sculptures of this temple have been known for
some time; others were recovered in the recent American
excavations.1 Pausanias tells us that the metopes represented
subjects partly from the myth of the birth of Zeus, partly from
the battle of Gods and Giants, and the Trojan war and capture
of Ilium. The fragments that have been recovered do not
suffice to give us any general notion as to how these subjects
were treated, but their style is remarkable, and different from
what we should have expected. There is a good deal of variety
in them, but few, if any, show the heavy forms of the Argive
type. The nude male figure is treated with firmness and
precision, but at the same time shows a lightness of proportions
and variety of pose which is more like Attic work ; the drapery,
with its sometimes clinging, sometimes floating folds, again
recalls the Attic sculptures of the same period; and of the
types of face, though some are distinctly Argive, others
resemble those on Attic monuments. When it is added that
the material is Pentelic marble, the conclusion seems irresistible
that the wonderful successes in decorative sculpture of Athens
under Pericles had caused the influence of Attic art to spread
even to Argos ; and that, just as we recognised in the restraint
and severity of many Attic works the influence of Peloponnesian
art, so too this influence was later repaid by a reaction of Attic
grace and lightness upon the dignified but somewhat heavy and
monotonous style of the Argive sculptors. Another head (Fig.
79), in Parian marble, which probably does not belong to the
1 See Waldstein, Excavations at the Heraeum,
340 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
architectural sculptures but to a free statue,1 bears out the same
conclusion. This head, which is one of the freshest and best
FIG. 79. — Head from Heraeum, near Argos (Athens, National Museum).
preserved examples of the sculpture of the fifth century, strikes
us at first sight with its resemblance to the heads of the
1 It is about two-thirds life size, and so too big for the metopes. It may be from
the pediments, of which, however, no other traces have been found. It would rather
seem from the words of Pausanias, who describes the metopes only, that the
pediments had no sculpture.
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 341
Parthenon frieze, and has little resemblance in character or
proportion to the head of the Doryphorus, or of the Amazon
which we saw good reason for attributing to Polyclitus. Yet
when we examine it more carefully we see a simplicity and
severity of treatment, and absence of softness in modelling, which
contrast with Attic work. It is rather what one would expect
of an Argive sculptor who had fallen under Attic influence, and
appreciated the grace and beauty of the sculpture of the Par-
thenon, without losing his strong sense of artistic moderation
and clear-cut form. Doubtless sculptors from Argos as well as
elsewhere were attracted to Athens by the great artistic activity
under Pericles and Phidias ; and it is in the later employment
of such sculptors at Argos that both this head and the
architectural sculptures of the Heraeum find their natural
explanation.
§ 42. Other sculptors and works of this period. — Paeonius of
Mende, in Thrace, has already come under our notice as the
sculptor to whom Pausanias assigns the eastern pediment of the
temple of Zeus at Olympia. We also possess a work from his
hand which is attested not only by the statement of Pausanias,
but also by the inscribed basis on which it was erected. This is a
statue of Victory, set up on a lofty triangular pedestal narrowing
block by block up to the top, over which the goddess appears to
be floating (Fig. 80). The inscription records that this Victory,
made by Paeonius, was dedicated by the Messenians and Naupac-
tians from the spoil of their enemy — that is to say, of the Spartans
who fell or were captured at Sphacteria in 424 B.C. ; such at
least was the Messenian tradition.1 On the inscription Paeonius
states that he was also the victor in a competition to crown the
gables of the temple with acroteria ; which were probably similar
floating figures of Victory.2 The goddess is represented as floating
with outstretched wings through the air. She is not alighting,
for on the pedestal just beneath her feet is a flying eagle, as if
to show she is still in the air ; the rough block on which she is
supported may well have been painted blue, so as to keep up
the illusion, and be barely distinguishable from the sky. Her
1 Pausanias without sufficient reason doubts it, and quotes an expedition
against Oeniadae in 452 B.C. He was probably influenced by his belief that
Paeonius made the pediment ; but it is incredible that the same man could have
made this Victory almost at the same time ; thirty years later it is conceivable.
2 It has been suggested that a confusion between acroteria and pediments may
be the origin of Pausanias' statement about the latter.
Fid. 80.— Victory by Paeonius (Olympia).
CHAP, in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 343
face is lost : l the drapery is a very beautiful and careful study
of the effect of wind and rapid motion, as it clings to the graceful
and girlish form, or floats in wide tempestuous folds, while a
loose mantle, held in one hand, sweeps out in a full curve
behind the figure ; but at the same time it gives the impression
of a study or an experiment, rather than of that mastery which
we see in the best Attic work. It is interesting to compare this
statue with the Victory of Samothrace,2 when, in spite of the
vigour of the later work, the simplicity and directness of
observation in Paeonius' figure and its graceful poise in the
air stand out in contrast. It is difficult to assign so original
a work to an old artist, who had followed a very different style
in his younger days, and had late in life fallen under the
all-pervading Attic influence ; but such is the only possibility,
if we wish to adhere to the statement of Pausanias about the
pediments. When we consider the grave difficulties that met
us in the case of Alcamenes also, we must acknowledge that the
hesitation which so many have felt in attributing the Olympian
pediments to these two artists is certainly justified.
Various series of sculptures, mostly architectural, have been
found in widely-separated districts of the ancient world, which
may be ranked either as examples of Greek sculpture of the
fifth century, or as falling directly under its influence. We
have already had to turn to the sepulchral sculpture of Lycia
as illustrating the contemporary tendencies of Greek art, and
in the " Harpy tomb " we saw an example of the lax archaic
style derived from Ionia. We must return to Lycia again in
the fifth century, to see once more an art entirely subservient
to that of Greece ; but the predominance of Athens has already
asserted itself, and we shall see in Lycia the reflection of many
types and many artistic devices which we have noticed either
in Athens or in works made outside Athens under Attic
influences.
The most extensive of these Lycian monuments is the sculp-
ture on the precinct wall surrounding a tomb at Trysa (the
modern Gjolbaschi) ;3 it has now been removed bodily to
1 On Griittner's restoration, which is widely known, her face is restored from
the pediments ; this begs the question of Paeonius' authorship of the latter, and
u-inls to prejudice our judgment on the question.
2 See p. 486.
3 Without illustrations it is impossible to speak except in a general way of
these reliefs ; and illustrations of details would not suffice ; to gain a general
344 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
Vienna. The material in which it is carved is unfortunately a
soft and porous stone, which has suffered much from exposure
to the weather, and can never have been adapted to refinements
of modelling. The artist probably trusted for his effect in great
measure to colour, and indeed his compositions on the whole are
pictorial rather than sculpturesque in character. It is difficult
to decide how far we are entitled to quote this monument as a
work of Greek sculpture at all. It consists of whole series of
friezes, often set one above another on a wall in defiance of all
Greek architectural principles, and recalling the sculptured
chronicles which adorned the palace walls of oriental monarchs.
Some of its scenes are historical records of actual combat;
others are decorative or conventional ; but the majority form a
varied gallery of mythological subjects. The battles of Greeks
and Amazons and of Lapiths and Centaurs, the exploits of
Theseus, the slaying of the suitors by Odysseus, these and many
more find their place here ; and while some of them repeat the
types with which we are already familiar from Attic decorative
sculpture, others show representations which can be more easily
paralleled upon vases. When we consider the strong influence
which Ionic art exercised at an earlier period in Lycia, and also
the character and treatment of the composition, which, wherever
it is not mere chronicle, is governed by the principles of paint-
ing rather than those of sculpture, it is impossible to seek the
origin of the art they represent anywhere else than in the
paintings of the great Ionic artist Polygnotus.1 The affinity of
his great historical and mythological compositions with the
reliefs of Trysa is obvious ; the repetition of some of the same
scenes upon Attic vases is undoubtedly due to his influence.
And it is an interesting question how far we may trace that
same influence in the Attic reliefs which we have hitherto
considered. It is probable that these Lycian sculptures de-
rived the influence of Polygnotus in part directly from the
painter ; but we can also see many features which betray an
acquaintance with the Attic reliefs of the age of Pericles, from
which the Heroum of Trysa cannot be far removed in actual
date.
Another Lycian monument of later date, but still, in all
notion of the whole composition it is necessary to turn over the plates of
Benndorf's great publication, Das fleroon von GjGlbaschi-Trysa.
1 See p. 348, below.
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 345
probability, falling within the limits of the fifth century,1 is
now in the British Museum. This is the Nereid monument, so
called from the figures in floating and clinging drapery which once
stood between its columns, and which appear, from the marine
attributes with which some of them are provided, to represent
Nereids. There is considerable resemblance between some of
these Nereids and the Victory of Paeon ius, especially in the
drapery, and the reason for this resemblance is probably not to
be sought in any influence of the one upon the other, but rather
in some common influence which affects both. It is possible that
this influence should be recognised as that of Attic art, and
that in both cases alike we see the experimental, sometimes even
exaggerated, attempt of a foreign hand to imitate the con-
summate skill and grace in the treatment of drapery which
mark the Attic art of the latter part of the fifth century. But
perhaps an explanation at once simple and more probable may
be found in the pictorial character of Ionic art, of which we have
already seen so striking an example in the Heroum of Trysa,
though some relation to contemporary Attic art cannot be
denied. The position of the Nereids, set as figures in rapid
motion between the rigid lines of the colonnade, shows a device
familiar to architectural sculpture. The other decorations of
the building consist of four friezes ; of these two were prob-
ably placed one round the cella and another over the
columns of the small Ionic temple that forms the body of
the monument, and two others surrounded the lofty basis
on which it is erected. This system of decoration is a
great advance on that of the Heroum at Trysa, where the
friezes are simply carved on the wall in no architectural relation
either to it or to one another ; in this respect the distribution
of the sculpture of the Nereid monument resembles the decora-
tion which we shall meet later on the greatest of all Asiatic
monuments, the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus. In subjects the
resemblance to the Trysa monument is again conspicuous. We
have the record of battles and the capture of a town, partly in
a style and composition which recalls the frieze of the temple of
1 The old view is that it was the monument of the Lycian prince Pericles, and
'1 to his capture of Telmessus in about 370 B.C. But Furtwangler, Arch. Z.
$82, p. 359, and Benndorf, Das Heroon von Qjolb. -Trysa, p. 243, give good
reasons for assigning the tomb to the fifth century, though its association with
the Lycian Pericles is still possible.
346 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
the Wingless Victory at Athens, partly in pictorial treatment,
great spaces of wall and town being introduced in the manner
of some of the scenes of the Heroum of Trysa — a device more
familiar on the mural chronicles of Asiatic sculpture than in
the art of Greece. The sculptors of the Nereid monument have
the advantage over those of Trysa in their material, Parian
marble, which has not only led to the better preservation of
their work, but also gave more opportunity for surface model-
ling. It may be doubted to whom the design and execution
of such a work should be attributed. The local characteristics,
alike in style and accessories, seem to exclude the possibility
of the employment of Attic artists. It seems more reasonable to
suppose the monument to be the work of local sculptors, brought
up under the Ionic influence which prevailed in Lycia, and not
unacquainted with the great series of architectural sculptures
with which the age of Pericles had enriched Athens.
We have already noticed the Sicilian sculptures, which occupy
a prominent position in the earlier history of Greek art ;
another of the temples at Selinus has a set of metopes which,
from their style, must be attributed to about the middle of the
fifth century. These, like the earlier ones, are now in Palermo.
It is a peculiarity of these metopes that they have the faces,
hands, and feet of the female figures inserted in white marble,
the rest of the sculpture being in coarse local stone. This in-
laying makes us realise how much the effect of colour as well
as of form was relied upon in such architectural sculptures,
especially when they were made of inferior material. The sub-
jects of the metopes preserved are the wedding of Zeus and Hera
— he is seated on a rock, and she stands before him, holding her
veil up with one hand — the punishment of Actaeon, who is
attacked by his own dogs while Artemis stands looking on at
the side, and the combats of Heracles and Hippolyta, and of
Athena and a Giant.1 Selinus was a Dorian colony, and we can
see, especially in the female figures, some resemblance to the
corresponding figures in the Olympian metopes ; but there is
less vigour and more mannerism about the Selinus sculptures.
They represent a further development of the tendency which
we noticed in some of the earlier metopes from the same site
— notably that of Europa on the bull. Together with their
refinement and delicacy of sentiment they betray the weak-
1 Baumeister, Figs. 367, 368.
in THE FIFTH CENTURY— 480-400 B.C. 347
ness which too great prosperity had brought to the Sicilian
Greeks.
A very different series, though of about the same date, are
the colossal figures l which served as pilasters in the upper part
of the interior of the huge temple of Zeus at Acragas. These
however are treated architecturally rather than sculpturally ;
there is a stiffness and archaic character about them which is
evidently intended to adapt them to their position as supports.
They contrast alike with the easy and graceful service of the
maidens who carry the light entablature of the portico of the
Erechtheum at Athens, and with the constrained, sometimes
almost painful sense of oppression beneath a heavy load which
we sometimes find in later and less conventional supporters.
§ 43. Summary. — We saw in the last chapter how the various
schools of sculpture in Greece were all advancing towards a
common goal in the evolution of artistic types, and in the
attainment of mastery over technique ; we also saw how these
various schools influenced one another even during the earlier
years of the rise of sculpture. But, with the feeling of national
unity and combination against the Persian enemy, and the
common dedications in thanksgiving for the victory, the relations
of the various states of Greece became yet closer, and it was
the mutual influence of their local schools that gave rise, not
merely to the art of Athens or of Argos or of Aegina, but to
that Greek art of the fifth century which has never been rivalled
in the loftiness of its ideals or the perfection of its execution.
The last steps towards technical mastery were very rapid ; but
men like Calamis and Myron and Pythagoras were themselves
but the last of a long series of predecessors who had each added
his contribution of thought, of study, or of observation to a
progress which seems swift in its culmination.
In the first exuberance of conscious power and mastery over
the material, we meet with some examples in which the skill of
the sculptor impresses us more than the subject, which he
perhaps seems to have chosen rather for the sake of its difficulty
than for its adaptation to sculptural treatment. But these are
the exception ; and it is not the least remarkable thing in the
history of Greek art that just at the moment when it attained
1 They are commonly stated to be Giants ; why, I do not know, except from
their size ; they have none of the characteristics of Giants in Greek art. They are
also known as Atlantes or Telamones. See Baumeister, Fig. 270.
2 A
$48 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
perfect technical skill, this skill was not regarded by the greatest
artist as an end in itself, but as a means for the expression of
the ideals which sculpture had hitherto been unable to approach
worthily. And in the nobility of conception and design which
distinguishes the art of the fifth century it is not sculpture alone
that can claim pre-eminence. The same character is attributed
to the great compositions of the painter Polygnotus, who
worked in Greece during the period immediately following the
Persian wars, and covered with his paintings the walls of buildings
at Athens and at Delphi. He was a Thasian by birth, and we
have already noticed the pictorial character which the sculpture
of northern Greece and of Ionia possessed before his time, and
which, owing mainly to his influence, was still more widely
spread in later times. Polygnotus occupies much the same
position among Greek painters that Phidias holds among Greek
sculptors • and although we cannot attribute to him the same
technical perfection in his branch which we must attribute to
his greater contemporary, it would be difficult to overrate his
influence. We can only judge of his work from more or less
remote reflections of it in sculpture or on vases ; but all ancient
writers agree to praise the nobility of his aims and the breadth
and simplicity of his style. It may even be that these
same qualities, which we noticed as modifying in the fifth
century the tendency towards excess of grace and refinement in
Attic art, are due in part to the influence of Polygnotus, as
well as to the severity and accuracy in execution which Athens
learnt from her Peloponnesian rivals.
The leading feature of this period, in art as in literature,
is the sudden advance of Athens to a position of unrivalled
eminence among the Greek states. The city of Aeschylus was
also the city of Phidias; and although other centres of art
continued to pursue their local traditions, we can trace Attic
influence even amidst the sculptures produced by the rival school
of Argos, and in the remote uplands of Lycia. Yet, in spite of
this pre-eminence of Athens, other schools by no means gave up
their traditions, and Argos in particular continued that study of
athletic forms which reached its highest attainment in the work
of Polyclitus, and was passed on by him to his successors. It
is probable also that other minor schools, of which our literary
records are scanty, also persisted in their own tradition, modified
indeed by the greater influences of the period, and offering each
in THE FIFTH CENTURY — 480-400 B.C. 349
its own contribution to the resources of Greek sculpture.
While athletic art was carried to its highest pitch not only in
the study of the figure in detail, but also in that of pose and of
symmetry, and the numerous works of architectural and decora-
tive sculpture offered unlimited scope to the imagination of the
artist and his skill in composition, it was above all in the great
statues of the gods that the fifth century showed its highest and
most characteristic attainments. These attainments are so much
bound up with the work of Phidias and his associates that there
is no need to add anything here to what has already been said.
Although, as a natural consequence of the value of the materials
generally used, we neither have nor can hope to have any of the
masterpieces of this sculpture in our museums, we can trace their
reflection in innumerable minor works, and recognise in literature
the ideas to which they gave the most perfect expression. It is
only by a sympathy with the Greek character, to be attained
by a careful study of the history of their life, their thought,
and their art, that we can realise what we have lost, and attain,
by a constructive imagination, to some notion of its character.
CHAPTER IV
THE FOURTH CENTURY; 400-320 B.C.
§ 44. Character of the period. — If there is one characteristic
which, more than any other, marks the distinction of Greek art
of the fourth century from that of the fifth, it is the greater
prominence of the individual and personal element, alike in
employer, in artist, and in subject. With the exception of the
statues of victorious athletes, which continue to be made under
much the same conditions from the earliest to the latest times,
almost all the chief works with which we had to deal in the last
chapter were public dedications, made at the expense of the state,
and recording the triumphs of the people, or giving expression
to its religious aspirations. In the fourth century the private
dedication takes a more prominent place, partly because the
impoverished exchequers of the states could no longer afford such
magnificent expenditure, partly because of the tendency, in the
decline of political health and vigour, for men to live for them-
selves rather than for the State. In the case of the sculptors too
the individuality of the various masters seems to assert itself
more strongly than before. However great the names with
which we have hitherto met, they mostly appear to repre-
sent for us the culmination and impersonation of the tradi-
tions of a school, or perhaps, of all Greek art, rather than
the character and attainments of an individual. This impres-
sion may be enhanced by the fact that we are forced to
infer the nature of the chief works of this period either from
very inferior copies or from the work of assistants and associates ;
but in part it is due to the very greatness of the sculptors them-
selves. When once the artistic and technical skill indispensable
for the greatest statues is acquired, the master appears to apply
CHAP, iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 351
it once for all to the highest religious and artistic aspirations
of the people, and to give to the Greek ideals an embodiment
so perfect that both his contemporaries and his successors must
recognise the impossibility of further progress. Indeed, those
who came after Phidias must have felt what Wagner said of
Beethoven ; he had exhausted the possibility of attainment in
the art which he had made his own; for others, unless they were
content to be merely the imitators of what could not be sur-
passed, the only chance was to strike out a new line, and to
follow new artistic methods. ' This leads us to the third element
in the artistic conditions of the fourth century — individuality in
subject. We may see this, in its simplest form, in the case of
.portraiture. We have already noticed1 how Cresilas, in his
portrait of Pericles, does not bring before our eyes the personal
character of the subject, with his idiosyncrasies of character and
manner — much less the minor physical traits and peculiarities of
his appearance — but rather that noble type of statesman, general,
and patron of all literary, intellectual, and artistic excellence,
which found in Pericles its most perfect expression. We may
contrast this, to take an extreme case, with the portrait of the
bald little Corinthian general, Pellichus, made by Demetrius,2 in
which all the personal characteristics of the man, his corpulence,
his swollen veins, even the arrangement of his hair and his
garments, are reproduced with realistic exactness ; and in a
statue like that of Demosthenes, of which we possess copies that
must be derived from a fourth-century original, we may see the
same tendency, though followed with more moderation. To
statues of the gods it may seem at first sight that this distinction
between the fifth and the fourth centuries cannot apply, and of
course it does not apply in the same degree. But when we
contrast the work of Phidias with that of Scopas or Praxiteles,
the essential difference is of much the same nature. Phidias
embodied in his great statues a noble conception of the per-
manent and immutable character of the deity, his power and
his benignity. Scopas and Praxiteles seem rather to realise
the gods as individuals of like passions with ourselves, to
express their varying moods and phases of character or emotion,
or to draw subtle distinctions of personality. And another
point of difference between the fourth and fifth centuries follows
as an almost inevitable consequence from this. While it might
1 P. 317. 2 P. 450.
352 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
suffice for Phidias to be absorbed in the contemplation of his
ideal, and to devote all his energy to its adequate artistic ex-
pression, a sculptor who depended so much on subtle distinctions
and rendering of passing moods or excited emotions could hardly
fail to consider also the effect of his work on the spectator, and
the means by which he could bring home to those who saw his
statue the particular impression which he intended to convey.
He would thus devote his attention to its appearance and the
effect it produced, rather than to the perfection and correctness
of its actual form ; he felt a tendency at once towards realism
and towards impressionism. But of course this tendency was
only allowed scope in the fourth century within certain limits, and
never, at least in the case of the greater artists, exceeded the
bounds of moderation. The influence of the severe and lofty
ideals and the exact and conscientious execution of the earlier
period long continued to be felt, and, in addition to this, the
strong natural instinct of the Greeks for sculpture still prevented
them from attempting anything beyond the legitimate province
of the art. And, even in execution, there was still a possibility
for advance. If we did not possess the Hermes of Praxiteles,
even the Elgin marbles would not suffice to show us how the
Greek sculptor could carve marble to render the texture and
elasticity of flesh or the folds and material of drapery.
§ 45. Cephisodotus. — An account of the sculptors of the fourth
century naturally begins with the name of Cephisodotus, partly
because of his close relationship to Praxiteles 1 and his artistic
connection with him, partly because in his works we may already
trace characteristic examples of many of the tendencies of the
time. One of his works — fortunately that which is the most inter-
esting for its subject — has been recognised by Brunn in a statue
now preserved at Munich (Fig. 81). It is a study in impersona-
tion of abstract ideas which is thoroughly in accordance with the
spirit of the age — the goddess Peace nursing the infant Wealth.
1 He is usually stated by modern writers to be the father of Praxiteles. But
the date of such of his works as are recorded is not much earlier than that of
Praxiteles himself ; hence he has been suggested (by Furtwangler, Masterpieces,
p. 295) to be his elder brother ; a similarity in subjects suggests that he in-
fluenced or taught Praxiteles. Furtwangler, who believes in an elder Praxiteles
also, for whose existence there is but scanty evidence, suggests that this man was
the grandfather of Cephisodotus and the great Praxiteles. The younger Cephiso-
dotus was the son of Praxiteles. Such a recurrence of names in a family is of
course extremely common.
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 353
This group may most probably be recognised on certain coins
of Athens,1 which show a statue certainly identical with that
from which the copy at Munich is derived. Although we cannot
imagine an allegorical representation like this to have com-
FTO. 81.— Irene and Plutus, after Cephisodotus (Munich).
manded the worship of the people and influenced its religious
conceptions in the same manner as the great statues by Phidias,
there seems to be no doubt that its fancy hit the popular taste,
and that it gave more reality to a cult of which there are some
1 Num. Comm. on Pans., PI. DD. ix. x.
354 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
earlier traces. Just as the altar of Pity was one of the most
popular of all at Athens in later times, so too there are varying
traditions of the foundation of an altar of peace at Athens, which
however, need have no direct connection with the statue. Aristo-
phanes' play, the Peace, suffices to show how natural was the imper-
sonation of the goddess. The statue itself was in bronze;1 Peace
(Irene) is represented standing, her right hand resting on a
sceptre, supporting on her left arm the child Wealth (Plutus).
Her drapery is dignified in treatment, but severe and almost
archaic in stiffness ; it recalls the work of the fifth century
rather than the fourth ; her proportions also are massive arid
stately. As to the child, little can be said ; it is obvious that
in extant copies it has been modified to suit the taste of a later
age, which rendered the forms of children with more truth to
nature than was usual in the fourth century. The group — or
rather the figure with the child — is especially interesting for
comparison with the Hermes and infant Dionysus of Praxiteles,
a subject in which Cephisodotus had also anticipated his greater
successor. His group of Peace and Wealth was similar in subject
to another group set up at Thebes, representing Fortune (Tyche)
and the child Wealth, a group of which the more important
parts, and presumably the design also, were due to the Attic
sculptor Xenophon. This Xenophon was evidently an associate
of Cephisodotus ; he worked with him in a group dedicated in
the temple of Zeus Soter at Megalopolis,2 representing Zeus
enthroned, with Megalopolis standing by him on one side,
Artemis on the other — yet another example of personification.
As to other statues by Cephisodotus, an Athena and possibly a
Zeus at the Peiraeus and a group of the Muses on Mount
Helicon, we know no details, and their identification can only
be conjectural. But what we know of his work suffices to
show us that he was a sculptor who in type and in execution
kept to the severer style of the preceding century, while his
predilection for allegorical subjects and impersonations betrays
1 This is an inference from the style of the Munich statue ; it is nowhere
expressly stated.
2 It is true that the architectural evidence in this temenos points to a later
date than the foundation of the city in 371 B.C., which offers the most probable
occasion for the dedication. But the architectural remains, beyond foundations,
are very scanty, and may well be due to later repairs. The association of
Cephisodotus and Xenophon, and the similarity of their subjects, outweigh
anything but clear and positive evidence to tne contrary. To substitute the
younger Cephisodotus in this connection appears an improbable theory.
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 355
•that study of fine distinctions of character, even in divinities,
which marks the fourth century. At the same time we do not
yet find any study of emotion or passion in his work ; he shows
only the beginning of those tendencies which other sculptors,
some of them of his own family, were to follow in their art.
§ 46. Praxiteles.1 — The work of Praxiteles was regarded by
the later Greeks and the Romans with an admiration more
unqualified and more enthusiastic than was accorded to any
other artist of antiquity ; and there is no name so familiar to
modern ears as representing the sculpture of Greece. Yet
those very facts have probably led to an unjust and one-sided,
if not erroneous, estimate of his artistic excellence. The word
Praxitelean suggests a rich and voluptuous beauty, sometimes
almost an effeminate and luxurious character, which is too
easily contrasted with the noble and severe ideals of an earlier
and higher art. But in this matter Praxiteles has been wronged
by his very popularity. The innumerable copyists and imitators
of later Greek and Roman times could appreciate, even if they
could not reproduce, the softness and delicacy of his modelling,
the grace of pose and beauty of physical form which they saw
in his works. But the stronger and nobler side of his art was
ignored by them, as beyond their appreciation or comprehension,
and consequently omitted in what they doubtless intended for
faithful copies of his statues; and, were we dependent only on
such copies, we should be forced either to acquiesce in their
versions of the master's character, or to believe, without a
possibility of proof, that there was something more in his work
beyond what they have reproduced. Fortunately, however,
this is not the case. We possess at least one undisputed
original from the hand of Praxiteles himself; and it seems
best to make this the starting-point of our study, before pro-
ceeding to consider other works mentioned by literary tradition,
and preserved to us in more or less inadequate copies.
Among the statues set up in the Heraeum at Olympia,
Pausanias mentions a Hermes of marble, carrying the infant
Dionysus, the work of Praxiteles. The statue in Parian
marble, answering exactly to this description, was found in
the Heraeum by the German excavators, so that the identifica-
1 There is no trustworthy evidence as to any exact date in the career of
Praxiteles, but all indications join to prove that his artistic activity must fall
about the middle of the fourth century.
356 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP, iv
tion, even on external evidence, is placed beyond all possibility
of doubt. This is the only case in which we possess an un-
disputed original, straight from the hand of one of the greatest
masters of antiquity ; and the preservation of the surface is
admirable. Hermes was represented as standing in an easy
and graceful position, leaning his left elbow, which supports
the child, on a tree-trunk, partly disguised by the folds of his
chlamys, which hangs from the same elbow. His weight rests
mainly on his right hip, his left leg being bent at the knee,
and the distribution of support thus produced gives rise to a
peculiarly delicate and restful curve in the central line of the
figure, while the tree-trunk prevents the weight of the child from
affecting or stiffening the pose. The right arm of Hermes is
raised ; but there is no clear evidence as to the object which it
held. Some have maintained that it was some object like a
bunch of grapes, towards which the child is reaching out his
hand ; others that it was the caducous, in the form of a long
sceptre, like that held by the Irene of Cephisodotus.1 Either
view' can be supported by the evidence of minor works of art
reproducing the motive of the statue, which vary considerably
in detail. In any case, Hermes cannot be regarded as taking
any active interest in the matter ; his gaze is fixed, not on the
child, but on a point beyond him, and his expression has
nothing of the concentration of playfulness. The child is
treated with none of the realism which we find devoted to the
forms of children in later art. His proportions are those of a
much older boy, and his face is but slightly sketched ; he is in
every way treated as an attribute rather than as a separate
figure forming part of a group. We have not to do with a
genre scene, in which the interest lies in the action, or in the
relation of the figures, but with an ideal representation of
Hermes as the protector of youth ; this function is exemplified
by his care of his younger brother Dionysus.2 It is then
as a statue of Hermes that we have to consider the work of
Praxiteles.
To appreciate the unrivalled excellence of Praxiteles, alike
in the selection of type and proportions, and in the details of
1 So A. H. Smith, J. H. S. iii. p. 81, who summarises the evidence. Treu
suggested a thyrsus.
2 To try to see any political meaning, such as an alliance of Arcadia and Elis,
in the Hermes and Dionysus is clearly superfluous, just as much so as to find
an occasion for the making of the Irene and Plutus.
FIQ. 82. — Hermes and infant Dionysus by Praxiteles (Olympia).
358
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
CHAP.
srmes
other
execution, one can hardly do better than compare the Herm
with later copies, derived either from this statue or from othe
works of Praxiteles. Some of these, though they may pass
muster among the ordinary contents of a museum, at once
FIG. 83.— Head of Hermes, by Praxiteles (Olympia).
offend us, when placed beside an original, by the coarseness
and heaviness of their modelling ; others by their too soft and
effeminate forms. It seems impossible for later artists to steer
a middle course between these two extremes, not to speak of
approaching the marvellous combination of strength and
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 359
virility of type with softness and delicacy of modelling, and
with that subtle play of surface in marble, which had already
distinguished the Attic school, but awaited the hand of Praxi-
teles to bring it to a perfection that has never been attained
before or since. The figure of the Hermes, though more slender
and graceful than that of a Polyclitan athlete, is that of a man
of the highest physical development, and if not in hard training,
at least in such perfect condition as to render training super-
fluous. Yet the vigorous and muscular form is covered with
an envelope of flesh so elastic and flowing in its surface, and
full of such delicate play of light and shade in the modelling,
that its strength is almost concealed by its grace — an impression
enhanced by the restful attitude. The treatment of the drapery
is different alike from the drapery of the Parthenon pediments,
beautiful from studied system rather than spontaneity, and from
the work of later times, which errs either in elaboration or in
over -simplicity. It is said that when the photograph of the
Hermes was first shown to a great German critic, he said,
" Why did they leave that cloth hanging there when they
photographed the statue ? " And the wonderful realism in
treatment of folds and of surface could not receive a more
emphatic tribute ; yet we may well doubt whether any artistic
skill could have devised, in cloth, an appearance and composition
so simple and graceful in itself, and so perfectly adapted to its
purpose. In the foot, too, we can see the most skilful indica-
tion of the difference of texture between the leather sandal and
the skin. But it is above all in the head of the Hermes that
the original work of Praxiteles shows the greatest difference
from imitations or copies ; and, in fact, we know that the critic
Lucian selected the head, and in particular the hair, brow, and
eyes, as that in which Praxiteles excelled all other artists.
Although he had in his mind the Cnidian Aphrodite, his
criticism will apply almost equally well to the Hermes. The
hair, which is cut short all over the scalp, stands out in small,
roughly-finished blocks ; the apparently slight and sketchy
treatment is most successful in the feeling of texture which it
gives, and particularly in its contrast with the finished and
polished surface of the skin. The form of the brow is dis-
tinguished by the strongly-marked bar of flesh over the brow,1
separated by a depression from the upper part of the fore-
1 Sometimes called in modern times "the bar of Michael Angelo."
360
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
CHAP, r
head — a characteristic which, before but slightly indicated, in
the fourth century, and, especially in the works of Praxitel<
and Scopas, distinguishes the male forehead from the female.
It helps to give a finish at once softer and broader to the brow,
and also to throw the eyes and their sockets more into shadow.
The line of the nose, in profile, practically continues the lin<
of the upper part of the forehead, this bar projecting beyom
it. The opening of the eyes is narrow, only about one-third of
their length ; the upper eyelid projects strongly ; the under bu1
very slightly, and at the outer edge it passes by an almost ii
perceptible transition into the adjoining surface ; the profile oi
the eyeball is but slightly curved, and inclined considerably
downwards. The expression which results from this treatmenl
is of a gaze directed slightly downwards, and not concentrat
on any point near or far, but resting vaguely on a moderate!;;
distant object — a gaze that implies passive contemplation rathei
than close attention or strong emotion. The lower part of the
face narrows greatly towards the chin, and in the finish of the
lips we see the same delicate and almost imperceptible transitioi
at the sides into the surface of the cheek which we noticed ii
the end of the eyelids. The whole character and type of the
head is in complete harmony with the treatment of the body.
It is refined and intellectual, yet free from all trace of excessive
concentration. The whole statue suggests a nature of perfe<
physical and intellectual development, free from all taint oi
special training. In the Hermes, Praxiteles has embodied his
ideal of Greek youth, in its normal and healthy condition, am
he has added that expression of mood which is inseparable
from the individuality of his conception — here a half -thoughtful
half-unconscious feeling of pleasure in the harmony of the g(
with himself and with his surroundings, and in a momentary
rest from a task itself made light by an abundance of intellects
and physical power.
The Hermes was only one of the minor works of Praxitel<
though, to us, its preservation has placed it first among his
works. With the help of the knowledge of his style which we
can gather from an original work, we must now proceed to con-
sider what were counted by antiquity as his masterpieces, thougl
we have to be content to see them only in inferior copies.
First of these comes the Aphrodite of Cnidus, considered bj
many ancient writers to be the most beautiful of all statues. The
FIG. 84. -Aphrodite of Cnidus, after Praxiteles (Rome, Vatican). From J. H. S. PI. Ixxx.
362 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
type of this Aphrodite is known to us alike from descriptions and
from its reproduction upon the coins of Cnidus; and with the help
of them copies of it have been identified in the Vatican1 (Fig. 84)
and at Munich. The goddess is represented as preparing for
the bath, which thus supplies a motive for her nudity. The
feeling of the Greeks in this matter is illustrated by an anecdote
which told how the Coans, being offered by Praxiteles the choice
between this statue and a draped one, chose the latter, as more
consistent with the dignity of the goddess. She stands in a
position closely resembling that of the Hermes; we see the
same graceful curve of the whole figure, produced by the weight
being carried on the projecting right hip, the left knee being
bent ; but, unlike the Hermes, the Aphrodite does not rest her
left elbow on a support, but holds in her left hand the drapery
which she allows to glide down upon a large marble vase. She is
not naked and unashamed; rather her nudity is conscious. And
here again we see the personal individuality of the conception
of Praxiteles. He is not content merely to embody in his work
his .ideal of the goddess as she is, her beauty unveiled ; but
he realises the feeling with which she shrinks from its exposure
even for the bath — a feeling expressed in every line of face and
figure — while she is conscious of her own beauty, and delights
in it. There is, of course, no trace of that later and less refined
motive, in which the goddess is conscious, so to speak, of human
spectators, and assumes a posture of mock modesty. That is
the degradation due to the imitators of Praxiteles ; yet his con-
ception contains the germ which was capable of such develop-
ment.
In execution, the Vatican statue, with the help of the
Hermes, m&y give us some notion of the delicacy of Praxiteles'
style. The type of the body, though less broad and majestic
than the female figures of the Parthenon, is still far removed
from the narrow-chested, too-rounded figures of later art. With
all the softness of modelling and even voluptuousness of outline,
there is still a finely-developed physical form. Hair and drapery
are again treated with a skill in the rendering of texture which
contrasts them with the smooth surface of the skin. In the
1 The Vatican example is incomparably the finer, and is followed in the de-
scription. Her legs are covered with tin drapery ; fortunately a cast of the
whole statue was obtained in 1887 ; from it. our illustration is taken. The
original has never been photographed entire.
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 363
expression, we can to some extent realise what Lucian meant
when he spoke of "the beautiful line of her forehead and brow,
and her melting eye, full of joy and of pleasure." In the eyes
we see the same narrow opening as in the Hermes, but here
even more marked ; it is indeed " the sleepy eye that speaks
the melting soul," which the sculptor has chosen for the dreamy
mood which he portrays as characteristic of the goddess of love.
The Aphrodite of Praxiteles had as great an influence on later
art, and represents as essential a part of Greek religion, as the
Zeus or Athena of Phidias. But alike the choice of the subject
and the manner in which it is treated belong not only to a
different artist but also to a different age.
Scarcely less famous than the Aphrodite of Cnidus was the
Eros of Thespiae, a statue presented by Praxiteles to his
mistress Phryne, and dedicated by her in her native town.
Unfortunately we have no description of this statue, nor any
record of its attitude ; all we know of it is that it was the one
thing that made Thespiae worth visiting, and that it was
counted among the few greatest statues of the ancient world.
Another Eros, set up at Parium on the Propontis (Sea of
Marmora) is represented on the coins of that town.1 The god
was represented as a youthful figure, leaning with his left
elbow on a pillar, his weight supported on his right hip,
his left knee bent — exactly the position and distribution of
weight which we saw in the Hermes. His right arm was
lowered, but the object, if any, which it held cannot be made
out. He has long wings ; and his head is turned over his left
shoulder. Though many statues of Eros exist which are clearly
derived more or less directly from a Praxitelean original, we
MI 1 1 iot with certainty regard any of them as copied from either
the Thespian or the Parian figure. The type of Eros intro-
luced by Praxiteles was imitated by numerous later artists,
mt imitated with countless variations of pose and of detail, so
,hat it is extremely difficult to eliminate from them whaf
Belongs to a later age, or to a different sculptor ; it seems clear,
lowever, that Praxiteles represented the god as a youth of almost
nature proportions, but with a boyish delicacy and grace in
lis pose and in the softer modelling of his body; and this is
he type of the fourth century, which is repeated again and
in variations on the Praxitelean conception, until the
1 See J. H. S. 1883, p. 271 ; cf. Roscher, Lexikon Myth. p. 1358.
2 B
364 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP, iv
dreamy youth who symbolises the power of love is superseded,
in the Hellenistic age, by the mischievous and sportive child,
with tiny wings and chubby form, who is familiar as Cupid in
Roman art, and hence in mediaeval and modern fancy.
It is said that when Phryne induced Praxiteles to name his
finest works by the trick of telling him his studio was on fire,
he exclaimed at once that his labour was all lost, if the Satyr
and the Eros were destroyed. The Eros was the statue which
she chose and dedicated at Thespiae. The Satyr was to be
seen in the Street of the Tripods at Athens, and the judgment
of the sculptor as to its excellence was endorsed by the general
opinion, if we may judge from the numerous copies of it that
have been found. The most famous of these is " the Capitoline
faun " (Fig. 85), the best is a torso now in the Louvre, so
admirable in its workmanship that Brunn and others are
disposed to recognise in it the original statue of Praxiteles,
from which all the others are derived. The youthful Satyr is
represented as human in every respect except his pointed ears ;
but human only physically ; his expression, so far as we can
judge from the copies, was that of a playful animal;
the contrast is clearest when we put him beside the Hermes,
whose face has all the possibility of moral and intellectual
energy : in the whole body too of the Satyr we seem to see the
character of a soulless and happy existence ; he is at rest for
the moment, and his position again recalls that of the Hermes ;
he rests also on a tree -trunk, but with his right elbow, his
weight being supported mainly on the left thigh ; his right
leg is not merely bent backwards, as in the more dignified
position of the Hermes, but bent round also, so that his right
foot is placed behind his left. His right hand held a pipe,
which he evidently has just been playing ; his left rests on his
hip. He has a leopard-skin thrown across his chest, and in
the Louvre torso the wonderful contrast of texture between the
skin of the beast and the living human skin which it covers is
almost worthy of the hand that made the foot and sandal of the
Hermes. The care and thought which the sculptor has devoted
to realising this conception of a Satyr are again characteristic of
Praxiteles and of his age. In earlier times the satyrs were
merely grotesque monsters, whose semi -bestial nature often
found the simplest expression in t external characteristics.
Praxiteles takes up the double nature rather as a psychological
Fio. 85.— Satyr, after Praxiteles (Rome, Capitol).
366 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP, iv
theme ; and he solves the difficulties with a skill as great as
that which the artists of the fifth century had shown in the
physical combination of the two natures in the Centaur ; but
the interest for him lies in the expression of the individual
character of the creature of his fancy. He follows, it is
true, a mythological type ; but he approaches it from a new
point of view, in which the mythological conception is but a
pretext for the theme of the artist's imagination.
Another work of Praxiteles, of which the subject is so dis-
tinctive that copies of it are easily recognisable, is the Apollo
Sauroctonus. The mythological type is here again given a new
turn by Praxiteles ; the god is represented as very youthful, and
playing with the lizard, which runs up a tree-trunk against which
he leans with his left hand high above his head, while in his right
he holds an arrow with which he tries to hit the animal ; in fact
the scene is one of mere boyish sport ; as to style and execution,
we cannot judge from the copies that survive of this work ;
they are all of that effeminate character to which the style of
Praxiteles was so often perverted in later times.
It is satisfactory to turn from such travesties of his work to a
monument of a different nature; the reliefs decorating the basis of
a great group which he made at Mantinea, representing Leto with
her two children, Apollo and Artemis. As to the group itself
we have no evidence beyond the subject, but on the basis of it
Pausanias mentions " a Muse and Marsyas playing the flute " (?).
This may well be an abridged and perhaps corrupted description
of a group representing the contest of Apollo with his lyre and
Marsyas with his flute, the Muses acting as judges ; and this
very subject having recently been discovered on a relief at
Mantinea, in a form suitable for decorating the basis of a statue,
its identity with the work described can hardly be disputed ;
and it may consequently be attributed, at least in design, to
Praxiteles himself, though the execution was probably left to
assistants. It consists of three slabs, which evidently were placed
side by side on the front of the basis.1 On the middle slab (Fig.
86) is Apollo seated in a quiet dignity that contrasts with the
wild excitement of his antagonist, whose figure recalls in his
1 Dr. Waldstein points out that the reliefs were all on the front, not on the
different sides of the basis (Papers of the Amer. School at Athens, v. p. 282). But
his assumption of a fourth slab spoils the symmetry of the composition and is
unnecessary ; the conventional number of nine for the Muses belongs to later
art. I follow here an unpublished suggestion of Professor Percy Gardner.
368 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
attitude the statue by Myron, which was so famous as to have
become conventional. Between the two stands the Phrygian
slave with a knife — a hint of the terrible punishment of flaying
that awaited the vanquished Marsyas. On either side is a
peculiarly graceful group of three Muses ; the diversity of their
postures and the rich variety of their drapery recall the terra-
cotta statuettes of Tanagra, and perhaps give us a clue to
show whence those statuettes derived their artistic inspiration.
So far we have been concerned with works of Praxiteles
which are preserved for our study either in the original or in
copies. To these might be added many others, which have
been attributed to him by ancient or modern authorities —
among them the famous group of the children of Niobe,1 which
ancient critics, as Pliny tells us, hesitated whether they should
assign to him or to Scopas. Enough, however, is now before
us to enable us to obtain a fair general notion of his artistic
activity and character ; only we must remember that a long list
of his works compiled from ancient authorities places him among
the niost prolific of ancient sculptors, that his variety of subject
and treatment was very great, and that some of his works in
bronze were hardly inferior to those in marble. Beside many
groups of deities,2 Praxiteles made the statue of Artemis
Brauronia at Athens, that of Trophonius, in a form like that
of Asclepius, at Lebadeia, and others that were set up as
objects of worship in temples. Several of these are preserved
to us on coins, though only in minute copies,3 and so we can
judge at least of their attitude. Thus Dionysus, at Elis, was
represented in much the same attitude as the Hermes, his left
elbow rested on a pillar, and into it he poured wine from a
rhyton held in his raised right hand ; the youthful form of the
god is also characteristic ; and Artemis, at Anticyra, was in
rapid advance, a torch held before her in her right hand,4 a bow
1 See § 55.
2 One of these, attributed to Praxiteles, is of Demeter, Persephone, and lacchus
at Athens. Its inscription was written in the Attic alphabet, officially given up
in 403 B.C., and this is the strongest evidence for the existence of an elder
Praxiteles. On the other hand, Cicero's quotation of the lacchus as a priceless
statue which nothing would induce the Athenians to part with, seems to imply
that the great Praxiteles was the sculptor. An inscription on the wall about the
artist of the statues is in any case unusual, and it may perhaps have been a
device of later date, with affected archaism in the lettering.
3 E.g. Num. Gomm. on Pans. p. 74 ; PI. K. xxxvii., Y. xvii., FF. i. ii. etc.
4 So Pausanias. The coin has inverted the action of the two hands.
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 369
in her left. She wore a short chiton, and her quiver was on
her shoulders ; beside her was a hound. Another statue repro-
duced on coins is that of Leto at Argos. She leant her left
elbow on a small archaic statue,1 and her right arm was raised,
again a Praxitelean attitude. In addition to such statues of
gods and goddesses, Praxiteles made two statues of Phryne,
one of marble at Thespiae, one of bronze gilt at Delphi ; it was
even said that Phryne had served as his model for the Cnidian
Aphrodite ; and, though we may not accept this literally, we
may well acknowledge that Praxiteles took advantage, for that
statue, of his studies of a woman whose beauty of face and of
figure was beyond compare. Among other works, there were
attributed to him groups of the attendants of Dionysus —
Maenads and Thyiads, Satyrs and Nymphs. It would be
interesting to compare these with the raving Maenad of Scopas;
but, although it is likely enough we have reproductions or
imitations of them in the numerous reliefs and statues of this
subject, there is really not material for such a study ; from
what we know of Praxiteles, we should expect to find in them
the dreamy grace of an enthusiastic nature in the intervals
between its bursts of excitement, rather than the Bacchic
frenzy in its unrestrained fury. For with Praxiteles, so far as
we can judge, grace and moderation in all things were the first
consideration ; and his works all show an artistic restraint
which we do not find in some of his contemporaries. We may
perhaps even see a certain monotony of pose in his statues,
though there are always slight varieties, and the beautiful
curve and flow of lines is never repeated in quite the same
form. Alike in this characteristic, and in his consummate skill
in the treatment of marble, we may see in Praxiteles the
furthest and highest development of the purely Attic school ;
he is the successor of Calamis and Callimachus rather than of
Phidias. The decadence begins with those who followed or
imitated him; they could not surpass the grace of his con-
ceptions or the perfection of his technique, while the higher
qualities of his art did not appeal to them. The influence of
Praxiteles on his successors was extremely great ; but we meet
it in the less interesting and less noble branches of later art,
1 This statue was supposed to represent Chloris, the sole surviving daughter
't' Niobe, who founded the temple of Leto. Analogy would rather lead us to
ise in it an earlier conventional statue of the goddess herself. Cf. Eros and
tlie llerm at Parium.
370 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
especially in the soft and effeminate character of much Graeco-
Roman work. On the other hand, the bold innovations and less
restrained invention of some of his contemporaries, though
showing in themselves a less true and refined appreciation of the
sphere of sculpture, led to the magnificent groups which, in the
Hellenistic period, enthral us by their dramatic vigour and
living passion. But if we judge the work of Praxiteles from
itself, not from its influence, we find in it perhaps the most
perfect example of all those qualities that form the peculiar
excellence of Greek sculpture.
§ 47. Silanion and Euphranor. — These two artists are, in
several ways, characteristic of the period to which they belong ;
and although we do not possess any works which can with
certainty be ascribed to either of them, the record of their
works and of their style which we gather from ancient authors
enables us to learn something about them. Both of them were
theoretical as well as practical artists ; both wrote treatises on
symmetry. Euphranor was even better known as a painter
than *as a sculptor, and wrote also upon colours. We may
therefore safely infer that the peculiarities noted in their work
were not due to accident, but to deliberate intention.
We have no record as to the nationality of Silanion, but his
connections are mainly Athenian. A favourite theme of his
art seems to have been ideal portraits either of mythical
heroes or historical characters : he made famous statues of
Achilles and of Theseus, and of the poetesses Sappho and Corinna.
Such a choice of subjects seems to be due to the scope they
offer for the realisation and sculptural expression of an indi-
vidual character, as recorded by myth or tradition. His con-
temporary portraits show the same tendency. One of them
was of the philosopher Plato, erected in the Academy, and
made on the commission of Mithridates, who died in 363 B.C.
The fame of Silanion as a portrait-sculptor has led some to
attribute to him the original from which extant portraits of
Plato are derived ; but this view seems hardly convincing,
though of course possible. A man so famous and so much
venerated by his contemporaries would be sure to have other
portraits made beside that due to a barbarian potentate. As
to the statue of the sculptor Apollodorus, Pliny gives more
detail. " Apollodorus," he says, " wa§ so severe a critic of his
own work that he often destroyed finished statues in his
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 371
inability to attain his own artistic ideals, and hence was called
the ' Madman.' Silanion embodied this character in his portrait
so perfectly that it seemed to be, not a man, but incarnate
Rage." Such a description helps us to realise how Silanion
caught the individual character of a passionate nature like that
of Achilles or of Sappho. Yet, in an ideal portrait, and
similarly in a portrait like that of Apollodorus, it is the
passionate temperament that was rendered, rather than a par-
ticular outburst of passion, such as formed the theme of Scopas
and those who followed him. The dying Jocasta, another work
of Silanion, is the subject of the strange story that the artist
mixed some silver with his bronze in order to give the pale hue
of death to her complexion. The technical difficulties of such
a process have already been mentioned.1 But the effect that is
aimed at, and the means by which it is produced, alike point
to Silanion as an artist fond of bold and original methods, both
in subject and in technique ; and it is to the realisation and
portrayal of character and emotion that his efforts appear to
have been devoted.
Euphranor was a Corinthian ; but his youth fell in a time
when Athens and Corinth were closely allied, at the beginning
'of the fourth century, and he does not appear to have confined
himself to the traditions of any one school. His study of
proportion seems to indicate at once an imitation of Polyclitus
and a departure from his canon. The criticism which Pliny
records of it is probably due to Lysippean influence. He
evidently adopted unusually slender forms, in a reaction against
the solid and heavy build of the Polyclitan athlete. But such
an excessive slimness made the head and joints appear too large
— auxerat articulos macies.2 He also, as well as Silanion,
devoted himself especially to ideal portraits of heroes, both in
sculpture and in painting. His study of individual character
is testified by Pliny in the case of his Paris, in which one could
recognise at a glance all the various sides of the hero who was
at once the judge of beauty for the three goddesses, the lover
of Helen, and the slayer of Achilles.3 He made other statues,
1 See p. 32.
2 Ovid. Met., viii. 808. That this line is probably spurious does not affect the
truth of its observation.
3 Speaking of painting, he said that his Theseus was fed on beef, that of
I'anliasius on roses ; but this probably refers to colouring rather than proportion
or character.
372 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
about which we have no clear evidence, among them one of
Leto with her two young children ;l but it is interesting to find
in the list personifications like those of Valour and Hellas. By
his portraits of Philip and Alexander in chariots, he also finds
a place among the artists who felt the beginning of the over-
whelming influence of the Macedonian conqueror. His extra-
ordinary versatility, his careful technical study, the psychologi-
cal refinement of his choice of subject, — all combine to make us
recognise in him an artist not only peculiarly characteristic of
his period, but of great influence upon his contemporaries and
successors.
§ 48. Timotheus, Bryaxis, Leochares. — Timotheus was, until
recently, little more than a name to us, except as one of
the sculptors employed on the Mausoleum. His share in
that building, as well as those of his collaborators, must be
reserved for a later section. But, in addition, the great inscrip-
tion of Epidaurus, recording the contracts for the building of
the temple of Asclepius, has the following reference to him :
" Timotheus contracted to make and supply models for sculp-
ture 2 for 900 drachmas " ; and again : " Timotheus contracted to
supply acroteria for one of the pediments for 2240 drachmas."3
Some of these acroteria (the figures placed upon the three
angles of a pediment to stand out against the sky),4 have
actually been found. Those which stood at either side of one
of the pediments, probably the western one, were figures of
Nereids seated upon horses ; there are also some floating
figures of Victory, which probably occupied a similar position
in the smaller temple dedicated to Artemis. The drapery of
the Nereids, and of the better among the Victories, is of that
peculiarly graceful type, either clinging to the limbs or sweeping
in rich and windy folds, which we noticed in Attic work towards
the end of the fifth century.5 The price given for these figures
1 There is really no ground to assign to him an extant statue of this subject ;
it is not an unknown one in earlier art.
2 TIJTTOVS ; this might mean reliefs.
3 The artist who contracted for the corresponding figures on the other pediment
was Theotimus. It would be tempting to see in this an error of the stone-cutter,
especially as the extant figures are very similar ; but in such a document the
error is improbable. Perhaps the similarity of names implies a close family con-
nection, Timotheus and Theotimus being brothers who worked together and had
been trained in the same school.
4 See p. 37.
5 Winter (MUtkett. Ath. 1894, p. 160) proposes, on the grounds of style, to
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 373
seems to imply that the execution in marble was undertaken by
the sculptor himself ; on the other hand, the set of models, which
cost only about a third of the sum given for these three single
figures, may probably have been merely designs in wax or clay,
of which the execution was a matter for separate contracts. If
Fid. 87. — Amazon from pediment at Epidaurus (Athens, National Museum).
so, we have a very important addition to our knowledge of the
share taken by the designer in the execution of Greek archi-
tectural sculpture; but of course the inference is not a certain
one. The models may well have been for the pedimental
sculptures, which have also been found. They represent a
a Leda in the Capitoline Museum at Rome to Timotheus ; but the charac-
s apply too generally to Attic art of the period for such an identification
to be safe.
374 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
battle of Greeks and Amazons at one end, and of Greeks
and Centaurs at the other, and the design and execution
are such as to favour their attribution to an Attic artist of the
earlier part of the fourth century. The Amazon on horseback
(Fig. 87) is full of life and vigour, and her drapery, while no
less skilful than the clinging folds of the Nereids, is more
restrained and appropriate to the athletic form of the warrior
maiden. Timotheus also made among other works a statue of
Hippolytus at Troezen, which Pausanias took to be ;tn
Asclepius, and an Artemis which was moved by Augustus to
the temple of the Palatine Apollo at Rome.
Bryaxis, in addition to his work on the Mausoleum, made
several famous statues of gods.1 Libanius gives a rhetorical
description of his statue of Apollo at Daphne, near Antioch,
which shows that he represented the god in long drapery with
lyre and cup, as if singing, a type which is familiar in statues
of Apollo Musagetes, but which was treated by others beside
Bryaxis. An inscription was recently found with his name in
Athens ; it is on a basis ornamented with reliefs of horsemen,
and records the victories of a family distinguished in cavalry
manoeuvres. It is impossible to tell the nature of the object
set up on the basis ; but in the reliefs we might well expect to
find at least as close a relation to Bryaxis as the Mantineari
reliefs bear to Praxiteles. They are, however, but slight and
sketchy work. Probably Bryaxis did not trouble much about
the design — a mounted horseman, which is repeated almost
without variation on three sides. The date of the work is
about the middle of the fourth century. Bryaxis lived to make
a portrait of Seleucus, who was born not much before this date,
and so both this work and also his share in the Mausoleum
must have belonged to his earlier years.
Leochares was much employed as a sculptor in Athens in the
middle or latter part of the fourth century, as is attested by
the numerous inscriptions on the Acropolis that bear his name.
His fame in portraiture is attested not only by his being
chosen by Timotheus, the son of Conon, to make a statue of
his friend Isocrates set up at Eleusis, but also by his employ-
ment to make the gold and ivory portraits of the family of
Philip set up in the Philippeum at Olympia. While working
1 In these the statue of Sarapis is probably not to be included. See Michaelis,
J. H. S. 1885, p. 290.
IV
THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 375
at Halicarnassus, he made an acrolithic statue of Ares ; ] a
Zeus, which was set up as Jupiter Tonans on the Capitol at
FIG. 88.— Ganymede, after Leochares (Rome, Vatican).
Rome, was an admirable work. There is more individuality
about the description given by Pliny of his Ganymede carried
off by the eagle, " which, sensible of the boy's beauty and his
1 By some this was assigned to Timotheus.
376 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
high destination, seems careful not to hurt him, even through
his garment, with too rash a grip of its talons." This statue
may well be recognised in extant reproductions, of which the
best is in the Vatican. Though the copy is but an inadequate
rendering of the original, it serves to show the originality and
power of the composition, which almost transcends the bounds
of sculpture in its addition of surroundings and accessions to
enhance the effect. A high tree-trunk forms the background
and support for the whole, which is most skilfully constructed,
so that the feet of the boy do not touch the ground,1 and the
wonderful upward sweep of the whole composition is enhanced
by the contrast with the dog, who sits on the ground and looks
upward after his master. The outspread wings of the eagle
form a broad summit to the group from which it gradually
narrows down to the feet of Ganymede, and thus the effect is
further increased. Eagle and boy alike strain upward in an
aspiration like that which Goethe expresses in his poem of
Ganymede. There is no hint of sensual meaning in the treat-
ment of Leochares ; the eagle is merely the messenger of Zeus ;
and We can see in his grip of the boy the care which Pliny
mentions. We safely infer that the author of this group was
not only an artist of great originality, but also that he sought
and expressed in his art the higher and nobler meaning of the
myths he adopted. It is in accordance with this that the more
famous of his portraits, those of Isocrates, and of the family of
Philip, were likely to have been work in which the character of
the individual was idealised. His portraits of Alexander may
well have contributed to the formation of the type which had
so great an influence at the close of this period.
§ 49. Scopas is the artist in whom we see the fullest energy
of the tendencies that we have already noticed in other masters
of the fourth century, and in whose work we can trace the rise
of the influences that were to predominate in all the finest
and most vigorous art of the succeeding period. Praxiteles,
and others of his contemporaries, embodied in marble or bronze
not only the individual character of gods or men, but the mood
in which that character found its most natural expression —
/caToy/^as a/vyows rots XiOivois €pyoi<$ rot Try? ^I'^^S TrdOr). It may
seem that this quotation applies equally well to the attainments
1 Except by a block inserted in the marble copy, and doubtless absent in the
bronze original.
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 377
of Scopas, but it applies in a different and in a stronger sense.
It is not merely subtle shades of character or mood that Scopas
makes the theme of his sculpture, though these also find their
place among his works ; he excels above all in the rendering of
passionate and excited emotion, in the vivid expression, in
every line of face and body, of an overmastering impulse from
within. It is but a step to the expression of such an impulse
coming from without, such as we see in the wonderful life-like
and dramatic groups of later art. But, though these are cer-
tainly to be derived in their origin from the influence of Scopas,
it is doubtful whether we can recognise any such among his
chief works. In them we find rather the embodiment of such
a fiery and passionate nature as suggests the potentiality for
such struggles, in contrast to the more passive and dreamy
mood and character that give to Praxiteles his favourite
themes.
The list of recorded works by Scopas is only about half as
long as that assigned to Praxiteles ; l this may be partly due to
the greater fame of Praxiteles in later times, which has led to
the mention of a large proportion of his works, and even to
the attribution to him of certain works which are not his — an
attribution which we meet in the case of Scopas also.2 At the
same time it is probable enough that an artist who put so
much fire and passion into his work was less prolific, and less
tolerant of ordinary commissions. We are also less fortunate
in the preservation of his works; such copies as we possess of
his independent statues owe their identification only to inference
from style, and are not entirely free from the doubt that always
must attend such an inference where our evidence is so scanty.
Those extant works which we can attribute with a fair degree
of certainty to him or to assistants working under his direction
are architectural sculptures ; and we have already in more than
one instance seen the objections to regarding such monuments as
originals from the sculptor's own hand ; and, moreover, in the
case of the Mausoleum, the difficulty in distinguishing the work
of Scopas from that of his collaborators is so great that we
have found it necessary to reserve the whole building for a
special section, instead of making use of portions of its sculp-
1 In Overbeck's S. Q. the list for Praxiteles is 47, for Lysippus 35, for
s 25.
2 E.g. the Niobids ; see § 55.
378 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
ture as evidence for the style of the different sculptors who
contributed to its decoration.
Pausanias tells us that the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea
was rebuilt by Scopas, after a fire which occurred in 395 B.C.
If the temple was rebuilt at once, Scopas must have been a
young man at the time ; for he was employed on the Mausoleum,
which was not finished till after the death of Artemisia in
349 B.C. It must however be admitted that the style of the
sculptures seems almost incredible so near the beginning of the
fourth century, and that perhaps some years may have elapsed
before the temple was rebuilt. But when we are dealing with
a sculptor of so startling originality as Scopas, it is not easy
to say at what point of his career any particular style of work
becomes possible. The employment of Scopas at Tegea while
still a young man also requires explanation, for he was a native
of Paros ; but if the Aristandros of Paros,1 who worked with
Polyclitus at Amyclae on a dedication to commemorate the
battle of Aegospotami, was his father, he may have had a family
connection in the Peloponnese. Pausanias describes the temple
at Tegea as far the finest in the Peloponnese, both in design
and in size. He does not expressly say that the pediments are
to be attributed to Scopas ; but, by speaking of him as the
architect of the temple, and then going on to describe in detail
the sculpture that filled its pediments, he leaves a strong pre-
sumption in favour of such an attribution — a presumption fully
borne out by the style of their extant remains, which are only
explicable at such a period if made by a sculptor of marked
originality. They have an artistic character exactly in accord-
ance with what we learn of Scopas from literary authorities.
The pediments of the temple celebrated myths connected
with it ; the fell of the Calydonian boar was actually preserved
within the temple, having been won by the Arcadian heroine
Atalanta ; and Telephus was the son of Heracles and Auge, the
priestess of Athena Alea. " In the eastern pediment is the
Hunt of the Calydonian boar ; the beast occupied the middle of
the field, and on one side of it were Atalanta, Meleager, Theseus,
Telamon, Peleus, Polydeuces, and lolaus, and Prothous and
1 The relationship is deduced from the fact that the names Aristaudros and
Scopas occur as the names of father and son in a family of Parian artists in the
first century B.C. ; and both names and professions were often traditional in a
family.
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 379
Cometes, the brothers of Althea (Meleager's mother) ; on the
other side of the boar is Ancaeus, who, wounded and dropping
his axe, is supported by Epochus ; and beside him Castor and
Amphiaraus, and beyond them Hippothous, and last of all,
Pirithous. In the western pediment is the battle of Telephus
and Achilles in the plain of the Caicus."
Such is the description of Pausanias, which gives rise to
considerable difficulties if we attempt to reconstruct from it
the composition of the pediments; it is difficult to see, for
example, how the figures can have been arranged, so as to
FIG. 89.— Heads from pediment at Tegea by Scopas (Athens, National Museum).
After Berlin Antike Denkmdler, I. 35 (from cast).
allow for the diminution in height from the centre to the ends,
and, in particular, how the corners were filled. It would be
interesting to know how Scopas solved these problems ; but it
••> u-eless to guess how he may have solved them. The extant
! viiiains do not help us in this matter, as they consist only of the
of the boar and the heads of two heroes (Fig. 89), which
must almost certainly come from the eastern pediment, though
•annot even fix with certainty the figures to which they
I'elong.1 In spite of the much-battered and damaged condition
"f the two heads, they at once distinguish themselves from all
t hat we have hitherto considered, and indeed from all others
1 One is bare ; the other, which is helmeted, has been split iu two and
I. Both are certainly male heads.
2 C
380 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
preserved to us in the remains of classical antiquity, by the
extraordinary life and warmth of their expression. And
although this character is essentially beyond the reach of
detailed study or analysis, we may notice many details in the
execution which contribute to its effect.
It is above all in the eyes that the passion of these two
heads is centred, and there are two characteristics in modelling
for which the eyes are remarkable ; their slightly upward gaze,
directed on a distant object, and the deep shadow into which
they are thrown. We have seen how the archaic sculptor,
realising also the importance of the eyes to the expression of
the face, made them unduly prominent in his modelling, and
thereby marred the very effect he was seeking to produce.1 It
was only by slow stages that Greek art came to learn how it is
the muscles and bones surrounding the eye, much more than
the eye itself, that offer an opportunity to the sculptor for
rendering the expression of character and emotion ; Scopas seems
to have been the first to realise how much the expression of
the. eye is enhanced by the depth of its socket. This effect is
partly due to the bony structure of the skull ; but it depends
even more upon the form of the mass of flesh above the brow
—the same which we noticed in the Hermes of Praxiteles as
forming the chief characteristic of the forehead. Here its treat-
ment is much more conspicuous ; it does not merely form a bar
across the brow, but curves down as if in1 a heavy roll over
the outer corners of the eyes, so that the upper eyelids actually
disappear beneath it at their outer extremities ; and at the
same time the lower eyelids are carried up rapidly at their
•outer extremities to meet the upper eyelids, and in this way
the visible portion of the eyeball is made much shorter in
horizontal measurement; in fact, the opening of the eyes in
these heads of Scopas is about 2'1 in proportion of length to
breadth, as contrasted with the proportion of about 3*1 which
we usually meet with in Praxitelean heads, where, as in the
Hermes for example, the upper and lower lids approach one
another gradually at their outer extremities, and meet in a very
small angle. The wide-open and the half-shut eye which we
see thus affected by the two great contemporaries are not
merely due to a difference of momentary action or circum-
stance, but are an indication of type and temperament; the
1 Conze, Darstellung des menscM. A uges in dcr gr. Plastik.
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 381
passionate and concentrated upward gaze which Scopas gives to
his heads has left its trace on the surrounding muscles^ even
when he represents a figure at rest and free from exciting con-
ditions. And it harmonises with his treatment of the rest of
the face, and his selection of physical type. The mouth in
these Tegean heads is half open, and shows the line of the
teeth, the upper lip being drawn up in the passionate excite-
ment of the combat ; but here again we see a result of tem-
porary action which is not without its permanent effect on the
lines of the face. The proportions of the Tegean heads are
remarkably square 1 and massive. This may be due partly to
the fact that Scopas was, in his younger years, under the
influence of the Argive school ; but the strength and solidity
thus attained seem more suitable to the vigour and even
violence of the emotion with which the forms are animated
than the more graceful and slighter proportions of Praxitelean
art.
It is probable, as we have already seen, that the sculptures of
these Tegean pediments belong to the earlier years of the
artistic activity of Scopas; and it is certainly surprising to
find them so characteristic of his style, and so marked in their
contrast to other fourth-century sculptures. If the evidence as
to dates is to be accepted, it must prove that Scopas showed
from the first the power and originality that distinguished him
among his contemporaries and gave him so great and lasting an
influence over his successors. It is more remarkable still to
find this character in architectural sculptures, at a time when
Scopas cannot yet have collected round him a body of pupils
and assistants trained in his style and methods. The inference
seems an obvious one ; the difficulties of explanation are only to
be escaped by supposing that Scopas must have made these pedi-
mental sculptures, or at least the heads of them, with his own
hands. And such a supposition is by no means out of the
question. Scopas, as a young sculptor employed as architect,
would not be unlikely to employ his time at Tegea, while
supervising the whole construction of the temple, in finishing
with his own hands those parts of ite decoration in which his
own skill and training had the greatest scope.
1 Allowance must of course be made Jor the fact that the head without a
helmet has been cut away at the top and the back, so as to look even squarer
than it really is.
382 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
While he was at Tegea, Scopas also made statues of Asclepius
and H'ygieia ; and the statues of the same deities at Gortys in
Arcadia most probably belong to the same period; there Asclepius
was represented as beardless — a type which always persisted
beside the more familiar bearded type of Thrasymedes : and other
works in Argos and Sicyon are also likely to belong to Scopas'
earlier years. Several statues in Athens and other parts of
Greece are also attributed to him — among others an interesting
group at Megara, representing Eros, Himeros, and Pothos — a
refinement in the study of subtle mythological distinction and
impersonation of three different phases of the god of love,
Passion that inspires the lover, Desire that breathes from the
presence of the beloved,1 and Yearning in absence ; we may
imagine what Scopas is likely to have made of such a theme.
Since it is known that Scopas was employed on the Mauso-
leum about 350 B.C., and many of his works are recorded to
have been set up in Asia Minor, it is generally supposed that he
spent the later part of his career in that region, which was in
later .times to give free scope to those tendencies in art that
owed to him their origin. A mere enumeration of these would
not be profitable ; but there are some of them which, from their
subject, or from their association with extant works, call for
more detailed attention.
Pliny tells us that when the temple of Artemis at Ephesus
was rebuilt after its destruction in 356 B.C., one of the columns
was sculptured by Scopas ; 2 this is probable enough ; for
Scopas was employed on the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus just
at the time when the Ephesian temple was being rebuilt, and
he may have had the commission given him by Artemisia ; she
is not likely to have failed to take her place among the princes
who gave each a column to the temple. There were thirty-six
such sculptured columns ; and among the fragments of them
that have been brought to England there is one of which the
design is, in part, well preserved. The chances are clearly
much against this being the one for which Scopas was re-
1 See Luciau, Deorum Judicium, 15. 6 'E/xbs 8\os irape\6uv ts avr^v dvayKd<rei
TTTJV yvvaiKa tpav, 6
2 This is the MS. reading, and there is no reason to reject it, though the
conjecture imo scapo for una a Scopa is ingenious and in accordance with the
fact ; the columns are sculptured on the bottom drum only, the variation in
diameter being due, as Mr. A. S. Murray has pointed out, to the greater size of
the corner columns ; see R. I.E. A. Journal, 1895, Nov.
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 383
sponsible; and its style is not such as to justify us in making
so uncertain an identification, though it is interesting as show-
ing us the work of one of his associates.1
One of the works of Scopas which Pliny selects for special
praise, and calls worthy to have been the work of a whole lifetime,
was a group — probably a relief — representing Poseidon and Thetis
and Achilles, and Nereids riding on dolphins or hippocamps or
other sea monsters, and the Tritons and many other creatures
of the sea. This was carried off to Rome ; it probably originally
decorated a temple or other building in Bithynia.2 The subject
probably was the apotheosis of Achilles, when he was carried off by
his mother to the Isles of the Blest, in a procession accompanied
by all the denizens of the sea. A frieze now in Munich, and found
in Rome near the place where this work in said to have been
set up, has been thought by Brunn to be the relief described by
Pliny ; but many things in its design and execution show that
it cannot be earlier than Hellenistic times, though we may
admit that it reflects the character of Scopas' work. There are
however, many representations of deities or creatures of the sea
in our museums that are derived, more or less directly, from
the conceptions of Scopas ; and from them we may infer what
the original was like.3 The character of restless yearning which
we almost always find in their expression is quite in harmony
with what we know of the art of Scopas. In the Tegean heads
we saw a passionate nature in the energy and concentration of
action ; in these deities of the sea we see a vaguer longing
expressed in the upturned gaze, directed on a distant and un-
attainable goal ; and it is borne out in the liquid and flowing
texture of flesh and hair, which is in contrast to the concise and
vigorous modelling of the Tegean heads. It is probably a
reflection of the work of the same artist dealing with a different
subject and realising his conception by the same methods. It
is interesting to compare these marine types with the Satyr of
Praxiteles. The human but soulless expression and playful
mood and the graceful figure of the creature of the woods con-
trast strongly with the uncouth form, the eternal longing for
1 See below, p. 420.
2 The reason for this supposition is that the man who brought it to Rome had
just been governor of that district.
} See Brunn, Personification des Meeres in his Griechische Goiterideale, p. 68.
The suggestive remarks of Brimn are the basis of the character here assigned to
the deities of the sea.
384 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
some gift or quality denied by nature, that is characteristic of
the personifications of the sea ; and in the two alike choice of
subject arid method of expression show Scopas and Praxiteles
each unsurpassed in his own field. Another expression of
passion, or rather of divine inspiration, may be seen in the
famous Bacchante of Scopas set up in Byzantium. She was
represented in the full raving of Dionysiac frenzy, holding in
her hand a kid that she had slain in the orgies of the god.
Though such a subject is preserved to us in many reliefs
and other works of art, which doubtless draw their inspira-
tion from Scopas, they cannot be regarded as more than
repetitions of a type which he had originated. Unfortunately
we are but ill informed as to details ; besides two or three
epigrams, which testify to the marvellous life and frenzy that
Scopas had infused into the marble, we have only a rhetorical de-
scription by Philostratus, in which the redundant and meaningless
verbiage obscures or destroys all accuracy of meaning. From
what we know of Scopas from other sources, we should be
inclined to recognise the type at least of his Bacchante in the
figure in wild excitement, with head thrown back and upward
gaze, and often with half a kid in one hand, which we see
on late reliefs : 1 but the identification can only be a con-
jecture.
We must now pass to other statues of gods or heroes by
Scopas which have been recognised with more or less probability
in works of minor art, or even in extant statues. Among these
is the Apollo Smintheus, with the field mouse from which he
took his name, set up at Chryse in the Troad ; but the statue in
the temple of the god which is figured on the coins of that town
is now generally admitted to be distinct from the work of
Scopas, which was probably set up as a dedication beside it
The Ares of Scopas, a colossal statue transported from Pergamui
to Rome, has been recognised with considerable probability on
relief of Trajan's time, set in the arch of Constantine. The g<
is represented nude and seated, with a spear in his right ham
a Victory seated on his left ; but the scale and execution of the
relief do not give much clue as to style. The Apollo Citharoedus,
singing, and in long drapery, which was set up by Augustus in
the Palatine temple at Rome, was also a work of Scopas ; but
attempts to recognise it in statues by the help of coins have led
1 Cf. Fig. 126, p. 504.
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 385
only to confusion.1 Recently a constructive criticism,2 based on
the study of the Tegean heads, has led to more satisfactory
results, and has shown that the direct influence of Scopas may
be traced in a whole series of extant statues, some of which
may even be regarded as copies of his works. It is mainly in the
treatment of the eye and the surrounding portion of the face,
and in the expression resulting therefrom, that the character of
Scopas may be recognised. Chief among the works that show
this character is a very fine Greek Heracles in Lansdowne House,
which may well be a copy either of the Heracles recorded to
have been made by Scopas at Sicyon, or of some other un-
recorded statue of the hero.
However this may be, we have seen enough of the work of
Scopas to be prepared for the influence which we shall find him
exercising throughout the following period. If others of his
predecessors and contemporaries had made their marble live, he
added to that life an intensity of passion and expression far
beyond what had hitherto seemed possible. To a Greek passion
and suffering are expressed by the same word, pathos ; and we
need not be surprised to find that his imitators in a later age
broke down the barrier that he had never transgressed, and
found in pain and death a theme for that dramatic instinct to
which he had given play. But we must not lay the artistic
excesses of Pergamene and Rhodian art to the charge of Scopas,
any more than we must lay the too great delicacy and effeminacy
of Graeco-Roman work to the charge of Praxiteles. Both masters
had an influence which went far beyond what they themselves
performed ; but to Scopas, more than any other man, is due all
that is most vigorous and robust in the art of the Hellenistic
age.
§ 50. The Mausoleum. — Our literary information as to this
tomb, which is the most magnificent of the princely monuments
of Asia Minor, is derived from a story repeated with some
variations by Pliny and by Vitruvius. Pliny's version is
tin- completer, and as it is practically the basis of discussion,
we had better have it before us in full. " Scopas," he says,
" had as rivals and contemporaries Bryaxis, Leochares, and
1 The type similar to the statue of Apollo Musagetes in the Vatican is found
"it foins of Nero, and is distinct from that found on coins of Augustus with the
'1 Apollini Actio.
2 By Dr. B. Graf, in the Rom. Miltheil., 1889, p. 199.
386 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
Timotheus ; and we must speak of them all together, since
they collaborated in the sculpture of the Mausoleum. This is
the monument built to Mausolus, prince of Caria, who died in
351 B.C., by his wife Artemisia; and the work of these artists
mainly contributed to place it among the seven wonders of the
world. . . .l The sculpture on the east side was by Scopas,
that on the north by Bryaxis, that on the south by Timotheus,
that on the west by Leochares. Before the completion of the
work the queen died ; but they went on until they had finished
it, for their own fame and a record of their art, and it still
preserves their emulation. There was a fifth artist also. Above
the colonnade is a pyramid, equal in height to the lower part,
and narrowing by 24 steps to the summit; on the top is a
marble chariot made by Pythis." Vitruvius also says that the
various sides of the building were undertaken by different
artists ; these he gives as Leochares, Bryaxis, Scopas, Praxi-
teles, and perhaps also Timotheus. This was practically all
that was known of the Mausoleum until, in 1846, twelve slabs
from its frieze were presented to the British Museum by Lord
Stra'tford de EedclifFe ; and the interest they excited led to the
complete excavation of the site at Halicarnassus by Sir Charles
Newton in 1857. The building had been almost entirely
destroyed by the Knights of St. John, when they built their
castle of Budrum out of its materials, and burnt its sculptures
for lime ; but all that remained has been recovered and brought
to England, and suffices to show the nature of the building and
of the sculpture that decorated it.
As to the details of the plan and construction of the
Mausoleum, much doubt is still possible ; it is, in particular,
difficult to fix the places where the various parts of its sculptural
decorations were introduced. These consist of the following : —
1. A colossal group of two figures, Mausolus and Artemisia,
probably set up within the building.2
1 Then follow statements as to the dimensions of the building, which are only
confusing, as some of the mimbers recorded in the text are obviously wrong, and
no simple emendation makes them probable. Mr. Oldfield has proposed a new
and very ingenious restoration, with cruciform plan, thus preserving Pliny's
numbers. Perhaps a simple emendation is to read cxiii for Ixiii as the length of
the larger sides ; then there is nothing impossible. But this question belongs to
architecture, not to sculpture.
2 These are often supposed to have stood in the chariot on the top ; but their
state of preservation, and a consideration of proportion, show this to have been
impossible. See P. Gardner, J. //. &, 1892-3, pi 188.
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 387
2. Various statues, some equestrian, probably set up round
the building — possibly some between the columns of the colon-
nade, as in the Nereid monument.
3. A frieze representing Greeks and Amazons fighting.
4. A frieze of rougher work, representing Greeks and
Centaurs.
5. A smaller frieze, of very fine work, representing a chariot-
race.
6. Various metope-like panels.
7. A colossal chariot, with four horses, set up on the summit
of the building.
8. A set of lions, of which the position is doubtful.
It is not certain where any of these friezes or panels were
placed ; but the coarser execution and worse preservation of
the Centaur frieze seem to show that it was high up in the
building and in an exposed position, perhaps as the frieze of
the Ionic order over the colonnade ; while the fine work and
preservation of surface in such portions of the chariot frieze as
have been preserved, show that it was in a sheltered position
where it could be seen from near, perhaps within the colonnade ;
we have seen how in the case of the Parthenon frieze an
advancing procession is a peculiarly appropriate subject for a
position where it would be seen through the columns by one
who walked along the outside of a colonnade.1 There seems
no place left for the Amazon frieze except around the basis
below the colonnade ; and here it is usually placed, as well as
the panels.
It is clear that when the sculptural decoration of the
building is so varied and so extensive, it is a very difficult task
to assign to each of the four masters who are said to have been
employed in making it his share of the whole. For the present
it is best to consider in more detail those parts of it which are
of the greatest artistic merit or interest.
The colossal statues, and especially that of Mausolus (Fig. 90),
which is the better preserved, offer a very fine example of fourth-
century portraiture, full of individual character, yet with a
breadth and restraint of style which avoids giving prominence
to minor or accidental peculiarities. The figure, though not of
ideal proportions, is dignified and even majestic ; the full and
1 Of course if the colonnade was mounted on a high basis, the frieze could only
1)> srt'ii thus from a distance ; but, even so, the effect would be fine.
388
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
rich folds of the drapery are rendered with a skill not entirely
free from realistic touches in detail. The type of face is
obviously not Greek, with its sloping eyes, square brow, and
Fio. 90.— Portrait of Mausolus (British Museum).
straight hair, rising over the forehead and brushed back ; but it
is noble and intelligent. The statue, in short, represents to us
Mausolus as he was, in feature and in character, but it represents
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 389
him as the wise and energetic prince of Caria, and as the worthy
subject of so splendid a monument.
Some of the statues which stood around the building probably
represented the attendants of the prince. Of these only frag-
ments remain ; among them the most beautiful is a portion of
a horse and his rider, who wears the Persian close-fitting
trousers.1 The rendering of both horse and man, so far as
preserved, is unsurpassed in quality, whether in modelling of
surface and rendering of texture, or in the life and action of
the horse's forward plunge and his rider's easy seat ; but so
much is lost that what survives excites our regret for what is
irone even more than our admiration for what is left.
ft
The Amazon frieze (Fig. 91) is the most extensively preserved
of all the sculpture of the Mausoleum, and it also gives us an ex-
cellent opportunity for comparing the treatment of the subject
by the greatest sculptors of the fourth century with that which
we have seen in friezes made in Athens or under Attic influence,
as at Phigalia. The first contrast we notice is in the design,
which is less crowded than in the earlier works, thus giving
each figure room to stand out by itself ; and full advantage is
taken of this opportunity for each individual figure, as it sways
far to one side or the other in vigorous action, to contrast the
poise and sway of its limbs with the continuous and rigid line
of the architecture above and below. The action is just as
violent in the Phigalian frieze, yet the mass of figures prevents
our feeling its artistic effect so clearly as in the Mausoleum
reliefs. The more slender proportions of the later figures
••.nlijiiice the effect of their sparser grouping; while the wonder-
ful variety prevents any hint of repetition, even in detail.
The beauty of the individual figures, whether male or female, has
ilso taken much of the artist's care; they vary of course in excel-
lence, as is usual in architectural sculpture, but are for the most
part admirable both in proportions and in modelling of details ;
he slim and lithe figures of the combatants on either side never
jecome too slender for strength, while the wonderful spring and
ife that pervade the whole carry the eye along from figure
0 figure and from group to group by a composition perfectly
ulapted to the long and narrow field. Though there is perhaps
1 tendency for the light drapery of the Amazons to blow aside
nore than before, and to disclose the beauty of their figures,
1 Fine reproduction in Mitchell, Selections, pi. ix.
390
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
CHAP.
they never depart from the athletic type of the warrior maidens,
as occasionally in later art. The eagerness and rush of combat
expressed in every face and every action have never been caught
with more vigour; and the tense strain of the whole com-
position seems to clasp it in a band around the building which
it decorates.
The smaller frieze of charioteers is not well enough preserved
for us to judge as to the general effect or variety of its composi-
tion; but the single figure of a charioteer (Fig. 92), which is the
best preserved fragment of it that remains, is also perhaps the
finest of the relics of the Mausoleum now preserved in the British
Fio. 91. — Slab from large frieze of Mausoleum, with Amazons (British Museum).
Museum. He is represented as leaning forward in his car, while
the long charioteer's chiton, which reaches to his feet, curves to
the wind in sweeping folds. But it is above all the expression of
the face, with its intense and eager straining towards the distant
goal, that gives this figure its unique character. The forehead
is deeply furrowed, and there is a heavy bar of flesh over the
brow, overshadowing the deep-set eyes, which gaze upwards
into the distance. It is difficult to imagine a finer rendering of
the ideal charioteer, as described by Shelley : —
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.
The expression, though not the detail of execution, reminds
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 391
us irresistibly of the Tegean heads by Scopas. This com-
parison brings us back to the question which we can no
longer evade : How are these sculptures to be distributed
FIG. 92.— Charioteer from small frieze of Mausoleum (British Museum).
mong the four artists who are said to have made them, and
hat evidence and criteria do we possess for such a distribu-
on ? For comparison with other monuments we are now fairly
392 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
well equipped. We have the Tegean heads to show us the
style of Scopas, the Epidaurus sculptures for Timotheus, the
Ganymede for Leochares, and a basis probably designed by
Bryaxis, without going beyond what is established by satisfac-
tory evidence, or arguing from one conjecture to another. Yet
the results that have so far been attained are far from convinc-
ing ; and, in particular, a division according to style and other
indications of the Amazon frieze among the various artists, by
the greatest master of criticism of style, Brunn, proved to be
inconsistent with the indications offered by the slabs themselves,
when their backs and sides could be examined during their re-
mounting in the British Museum. This is a warning ; but
perhaps it need not discourage us, if we attribute the failure
not so much to error of method, as to an attempt to conform
to unnecessary and impossible conditions. The statement of
Pliny and Vitruvius, to the effect that each sculptor undertook
one side, is clear enough ; but we do not know precisely the
authority on which it rests ; and when we come to consider the
probabilities of the case, and the variety of the friezes and
other decorations that ran all round the building, it certainly
seems incredible. The Mausoleum was not, according to the
accepted restorations, like a temple, in which it was possible
enough for the sculptural decoration of either end — especially of
the pediments — to be undertaken by a different sculptor. But
each of the friezes, wherever it may be placed on the building,
must have gone round it on all four sides, and a spectator, when
at or near one of the corners, could see two sides at once ; such,
indeed, was the aspect in which the peculiar design of the
Mausoleum could best be appreciated. It is clear, therefore,
that the composition of the friezes, or of any two adjacent
sides, ought really to form a single design ; and, in a building
designed and completed with such supreme artistic skill that it
became one of the seven wonders of the world, it is incredible
that the portion of each frieze which happened to fall on each
of the four sides was left to be designed, independently of his
colleagues, by the artist to whom the side was assigned. For
it is clear, both from the circumstances and from the actual
execution of the remains, that it was the design, not the execu-
tion, that these four great sculptors undertook. In fact, the
only rational distribution of the work would be the assignment
of the entire design of each frieze to. a single sculptor; if four
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 KG. 393
great masters were employed, the assignment of one side to each
.of them is just the kind of traditional tale that would grow up
among ignorant ciceroni on the spot, or among equally ignorant
compilers of such tradition. Under these conditions, it may
not perhaps prove impossible to solve a problem that has hither-
to proved insoluble. Careful and detailed study and comparison
are of course necessary before a definite result can be reached,
and this is not the place for so complicated a discussion. But
we may perhaps be justified, on the ground of the similarity to
the Tegean heads which we noticed in the charioteer, in sug-
gesting at once that the small frieze owes its design to Scopas,
though some details seem to show that the actual execution was
done by an assistant under his supervision. Both the careful
finish of the work, which seems to imply that it was placed
where it could be seen from near, and the good preservation of
the surface, which shows that it was in a protected position,
confirm the opinion that it was a part of the sculpture under-
taken by Scopas, who was probably the eldest and certainly the
most distinguished of the artists employed.
However this may be, the sculpture of the Mausoleum takes a
very high place in the great series of architectural monuments
which preserves to us so much of the original work of Greece,
while we are dependent to a great extent on copies for our
knowledge of the independent statues made by the chief masters.
We have already seen its relation to the sculptures made in the
fifth century under Attic influence ; and it is no mere accident
that we find the most perfect example of the development of
the same art in Asia Minor. We shall see in the next period
how the sculptors of that region continued the work of Scopas
and his colleagues, and how the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus
shows an intermediate stage between the monuments of Athens
and those of Pergamum.
§ 51. Attic tombstones. — We must now turn to a series of
monuments which will in many ways carry us back to the style
and character of an earlier period. The Attic tombstones and
their reliefs may indeed seem to reflect the character of the
fifth century rather than of the fourth ; but the great majority
of those preserved in Athens and in other museums were actually
made in the fourth century. It was natural that such works of
minor art, made by artisans rather than artists, should cling to
the tradition of the great days of Attic art. Many of the work-
394 A. HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP. TV
men who afterwards devoted themselves to this and other trades
must have been employed on the magnificent buildings with
which Athens was decorated under the administration of Pericles,
or while Attic artists continued to produce such works as we
see in the Erechtheum. And when, in the decline of state
expenditure upon sculpture, they turned the skill they had
acquired to meet the requirements of private demand, they still
preserved and handed on to their successors those traditions
which they had acquired while working under Phidias and his
associates. We may therefore expect to find in the tombstones
an artistic conservatism which might sometimes mislead us as to
their date ; but sometimes the tradition is broken, and a new
influence is felt ; several of the reliefs show distinct traces of
the innovations due to Scopas or to Praxiteles.
The subject of the tombstones is too complicated a question
to be discussed here ; most of those that concern us for our
present purpose represent scenes from ordinary life, showing
the deceased in the midst of his characteristic pursuits and
surroundings. Thus the athlete appears with his strigil and
his oil-flask ; the hunter with his dog ; a lady is represented
playing with her children or her jewels (Fig. 93) ; and each
accompanied by his attendants or companions, whether slav
or pet animals. Whatever be the mythological origin of th
scenes, we can hardly doubt that the intention of the sculpt
of the fourth century was merely to represent the deceased as
he had been in life, partly to recall him to his relatives and
friends as they had known him at his best ; partly perhaps also
the relief was regarded as a gratification to the person buried
below it, since it perpetuated in marble the pursuits and enjoy-
ments which had been his in life, and of which some vague
and shadowy semblance might still be his in the other world.
Sometimes there seems to be a definite reference to some even
in the life of the deceased or to his death ; thus Dexileos (Fig.
94), who, as the inscription tells us, was one of the five knights
who fell in a skirmish in the Corinthian territory in 494 B.C., is
represented on horseback, transfixing with his spear a fallen
enemy. The scene doubtless refers to the life of Dexileos as
a knight, and even to the last battle in which he lost his life ;
but it is his triumph not his death that is depicted. The tomb-
stone of Hegeso, in its delicate and graceful pose, and its
admirable treatment of low relief, and 'that of Dexileos, with
ted
ves
tor
FIG. 93.— Tombstone of Hegeso (Athens, Ceraraicus).
2 D
396 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
its life-like and spirited group, and its almost free figures in
high relief, may serve as two of the best examples of those
Attic tombstones, and are not unworthy of the traditions of
those who had worked on the Parthenon.
FIG. 94. — Tombstone of Dexileos (Athens, Ceramicus).
Often we find a monument not representing merely the
deceased and his attendants, but a family group, sometimes of
two figures only, sometimes containing many members. And
in such groups we often find a reference, direct or indirect, to
the death of the deceased. Not, of course, that a death-bed
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 397
scene is represented, except in the rarest of cases ; sometimes
the hint of departure is only given in a general shade of
chastened melancholy that pervades the scene ; sometimes one
of the party is having her sandals put on as if about to start
for a journey ; very often the two principal figures are re-
presented as clasping hands in a long farewell. It is not
always easy to identify the particular person over whom the
monument was set up ; indeed, it was often intended as a common
monument for the whole family whose names are inscribed
over the figures ; and the sense of death and parting is general
rather than individual. And indeed both groups and figures
are to be taken as types rather than personal portraits. Often
they correspond only approximately to the names inscribed ;
and it is probable that in most cases they were not specially
made to order in commemoration of any family or individual,
but were kept in stock, and selected by the purchaser so as to
fit his requirements as appropriately as possible. The execu-
tion, as might be expected, is of very uneven merit, and the
style of some workshops may easily be distinguished ; but in
spite of all defects, such as a tendency to clumsiness in pro-
portions and to a coarse execution in details, what is most
striking in them is the good taste and artistic moderation that
pervade them all, and form so marked a contrast to the
tasteless and pretentious monuments that offend the eye in
any modern cemetery. The people who could deal thus with
death — and that too in a class of reliefs that were made to suit
the demand of the general public, not to satisfy the criticism
of any superior officials — show a natural instinct for sculpture
and a vivid appreciation of artistic expression even when their
feelings are most deeply moved ; and when we realise the way
in which Greek life was permeated by such tendencies, we are
the better prepared for the wonderful attainments of those
masters whose works form the main theme of our study.
§ 52. Thrasymedes and Damophon. — Thrasymedes of Paros
has usually hitherto been classed among the associates and
scholars of Phidias. He made the statue of Asclepius at Epi-
daurus, which was by some ancient authorities attributed to
Phidias himself ; and the reproductions of this statue on coins
show that it was a modification of the type in which Phidias
embodied his Olympian Zeus. But more recent evidence has
proved that, at least so far as the date is concerned, this
398
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
CHAP.
inference is erroneous, and thus we receive a warning agains
trusting too much to circumstantial evidence in assigning
period to any artist ; but, on the other hand, we may sti
acknowledge that Thrasymedes worked under the influence of
the Phidian tradition. Thrasymedes is mentioned in th(
FIG. 95.— Asclepius, from Epidaurus, probably after statue by Thrasymedes (A
National Museum).
inscription relating to the building of the temple of Asclepius
at Epidaurus as undertaking a contract for the ceiling l and the
doors of the temple. The doors were of wood covered with
gold and ivory, the same materials of which the great statue
itself was made ; and the employment of Thrasymedes on them
1 TCLV 6po(pav rav V7revep6e> tb.4 lower or inner roof, which was probably of
tvood decorated.
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 399
strengthens his relation to Phidias, the great master of chrysele-
phantine technique. The date - of the inscription — the same
one in which the contract of Timotheus for the acroteria and
pedimental sculptures is also recorded — is probably about 375
B.C. ; and so it is improbable, if not impossible, that Thrasymedes
can have studied under Phidias in his youth. We may obtain
some notion of what the statue of Asclepius was like not only
from the coins on which it is represented,1 but also from two
reliefs of Greek workmanship, found at Epidaurus, which
certainly reproduce its type and character, though they cannot
be regarded as copies in the stricter sense (Fig. 95). The god
was represented as seated upon a throne, holding a sceptre in
his left hand, and stretching forth his right over the head of
his sacred snake ; and a dog lay beside his throne. Unlike the
beardless and youthful Asclepius of Scopas, he was a bearded
and dignified figure — a milder and more human version of
Zeus, as became the hero whose divinity was but half recognised,
and whose beneficence was confined to the cure of those ills
which called for the help of a superhuman physician rather
than an omnipotent deity. Such was always the most popular
type of Asclepius, and Thrasymedes' statue was its recognised
embodiment.
Damophon of Messene is another sculptor whose relation to
Phidias has been generally recognised, though in his case it has
never been supposed that he was a direct pupil of the great
Attic master, since his chief works were made for his own
restored city of Messene and the new city of Megalopolis, both
founded in 370 B.C. But his choice of subject, since all his
works are representations of gods set up in temples, and his
skill in gold and ivory work, which led to his employment in
repairing the statue of the Olympian Zeus, show that he followed
the traditions of Phidias in a later age. So long as only
literary notices 2 of his work were preserved, it was natural to
date his artistic activity by the foundation of the two cities to
which he supplied so many temple statues, especially as there
is no later time when so great an energy in this direction seems
1 Num. Comm. on Pans. PI. L., Epidaurus, iii.-v.
2 It is curious that these are only found in Pausanias ; and this is one of the
strongest arguments for the view that Damophon lived later than those compilers
on whose work Pliny and others have drawn. But it is possible that he may have
been unknown in the chief centres of art, and have been merely of local fame in
Arcadia, where all his works were set up.
400 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP, r
probable among the Arcadians. But in addition to his work
Messene and Megalopolis, Damophon made a colossal group a
Lycosura in Arcadia, representing the goddesses Demeter am
Despoena (the local name of Persephone, "our Lady") seated, wit
Artemis and the Titan Anytus standing beside them. Recen
excavations have not only laid bare the temple in which thi
great group was set up, but many fragments of the statu
themselves have been recovered, including the heads of thr
of the figures, and a very richly -decorated piece of drapery
These fragments show more originality of work, and mo
deviation from the accepted types of fifth -century or ev
fourth-century art, than had been expected ; but there does not
appear to be sufficient ground either for rejecting their attrib
tion to Damophon, or for reconsidering the opinion as to hi
date which was before based on sound reasoning. That Dam
phon was in some ways independent of his contemporaries
previously acknowledged ; what we learn from these statues i
that he not only clung to some of the traditions of an earli
age, but also introduced some characteristics with which w
are not familiar in Greek art until a later period. There is
nothing impossible in such a combination ; an artist of origin-
ality, who kept himself apart from his contemporaries, would
be likely enough to anticipate some of the tendencies which
did not reach others until a later time. It has been stated
that the architectural evidence shows that the temple at
Lycosura cannot have been built until a later age ; but the late
characteristics about it may well enough be due merely to
later repairs, and do not preclude the possibility of the work
of Damophon being set up in the fourth century.1 There is a
strong individual character about the heads from Lycosura;
the largest of the three, which belonged to one of the two
seated figures, shows considerable breadth and dignity; the two
smaller heads (Fig. 96), which belong to the two subordinate
standing figures, are treated with more freedom ; both have the
eye-sockets hollowed, for filling with precious stones or enamel.
The face of Artemis is remarkable for its lips, pouting in front
1 Without venturing to criticise in detail the architectural evidence, which is
as yet unpublished, I may record an opinion that there is nothing improbable in
the view expressed in the text. The temple and basis certainly show signs of
extensive repair and rebuilding in Roman times ; but some of what appears to
remain from the original work has a strong resemblance to what is probably
fourth-century work in the neighbouring city of Megalopolis.
402
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
CHAP.
and drawn in at the sides so as to be very short ; the moutl
seen from the front,
hardly longer than the
eye. This seems to be
matter of feature and tei
perament rather than 01
passing expression ; it give
a remarkably life-like aj
pearance to the head; an<
that of the Titan ah
with its rough and di
shevelled hair and beai
strongly impresses the ii
gination, and is not easib
forgotten. The draper]
(Fig. 97), with its transh
tion into low marble relie
of the rich decoration of
woven or embroidered gai
ment, such as had also bee
imitated in the great gol
and ivory statues of tl
gods, is also unique
character; it consists partb
of purely decorative pat
terns, partly of convei
tional figures and of quail
dances, in which the per
formers wear the heads
beasts ; but all are coi
bined into a rich and
monious effect. It is
cult to place these thin^
in any consecutive series
and so to fix their date; bul
they certainly seem moi
probable in the fourth cei
tury than in the Rom;
period' to which some hav<
wished to assign them.
Some of Damophon's other works were acrolithic; and w
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 403
have seen that the custom of making the flesh parts of a statue
in white marble and its drapery in gilded wood is to be regarded
as a cheaper way of getting the same effect as Phidias and others
had produced by their statues in gold and ivory. Damophon
also made various decorative works at Megalopolis ; among them
a table, ornamented with figures and groups of gods that remind
us of the table of Colotes at Olympia. In spite of some
difficulties, there seems on the whole a decided preponderance
of evidence in favour of keeping Damophon in that position
to which Brunn had assigned him from the literary evidence.
He may best be understood if we regard him as a man who
lived in the fourth century, but apart from the general stream of
its artistic tendencies, feeling deeply the influence of the high
ideals of the age of Phidias, but of sufficient originality to
introduce into his art some innovations as yet unknown to his
contemporaries, though they anticipate the custom of the
Hellenistic age. His work for the new Arcadian confederation
finds its natural place as intermediate between the art of Athens
under Pericles and the art of Pergamum under the Attalids,
though the regular succession of Greek sculpture passed from
the one to the other by a different channel.
§ 53. Lysippus. — Lysippus, more than any other artist, is
spoken of by the later Greeks and Romans as representative
of his age, arid as exercising a strong and direct technical
influence over his pupils and successors ; his artistic theories
have even influenced our information about his predecessors,
since one of the body of his pupils, Xenocrates, wrote
treatises on painting and sculpture which were freely drawn
on by later compilers. He was, moreover, a most prolific
sculptor ; it is said that he was in the habit of putting one
coin from every commission he received into a vase,1 and
when his heir broke this vase after his death, the astonishing
number of 1500 coins was found within it. Under these
circumstances we might well expect to find many copies
of statues by Lysippus in our museums ; yet, strange to say,
there is only one which has been identified with any degree of
probability as a direct copy of his work, though repetitions or
modifications of types which he origij^ed have been recognised
1 Pliny calls it thesaurus. A receptacle made for such a purpose, and broken
o get at its contents, would doubtless be an earthen vase made with only one
mall slit for an opening, such as is still used in Greece as a "money-box."
404 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
in reliefs or minor works of art, and the indirect traces of his
influence may be seen in countless examples of later Greek
workmanship. This dearth of identified copies of the statues of
an artist at once so famous and so prolific can hardly be alto-
gether accidental. He worked entirely in bronze, and so there
was little chance that any original work from his hand could
survive ; but we might well have expected to find more copies
of his work characteristic enough for their identity to be un-
disputed.
We have some interesting anecdotes as to the earlier years
of Lysippus ; he is said to have begun life as a mere artisan, a
bronze-founder ; such an origin might go some way to explain
both the excellences and the limitations of his art. He was
first stirred to a higher career by the influence of Eupompus ;
when this painter was asked which of the earlier masters he
followed, he pointed to a crowd and replied "Imitate nature,
not another artist." l That Lysippus should have adopted such
a saying as the motto of his earlier years may at first sight
appear inconsistent with the character of his art. His elaborate
study of theoretical proportion, in which he used to declare
that the Doryphorus (or Canon) of Polyclitus was his master,
and the academic nature of his own work and of the school that
surrounded him, do not seem appropriate to a man whose aim
in art was to study nature itself rather than the methods of
earlier sculptors ; and the accepted notion of Lysippus may be
gathered from a reference in Varro, who, when discussing the
weight to be assigned to usage in the choice of words, appeals
to the analogy of art, and says that Lysippus followed not the
errors but the style of earlier artists. But the contradiction is
more apparent than real; Lysippus came to be the acknowledged
and unrivalled master of the Sicyonian school — a school which,
in close relation with that of Argos, had been for more than a
century the most closely united and the best organised in Greece,
and which therefore had contributed more than any other to the
advance of academic study and the continuity of artistic tradition.
fin the career and under the leadership of Lysippus this artistic
1 H. S. Joues denies that ^jp^mpus can ever have met Lysippus, even as a
boy. But we have no information' how long Eupompus lived ; his life may well
have overlapped the younger years of Lysippus. It is hard to see why the name
of an artist so little known as Eupompus should be introduced, unless thfiv is a
kernel of truth in the story.
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 405
tradition reached its culminating point, and it was through his
work and influence that the accumulated technical skill and
theoretical study of many generations of Sicyonian and Argive
sculptors was handed down to later times.J Hence it was natural
enough for later artists and critics to look back on Lysippus as
the most academic of sculptors ; but the means by which he
attained his position as head of the Sicyonian school did not con-
sist merely in a careful study of what his predecessors had done.
We know that he revolutionised their system of proportions,
and introduced many technical innovations and improvements ;
and these he derived from a direct and thorough study of nature.
They are all in the direction of a less conventional and more
realistic treatment, together with an introduction, to some degree,
of the impressionist principle. Thus we are told that Lysippus
modified the square and heavy proportion of the Polyclitan
canon ; he made the head smaller (about J of the total height
instead of y), the body more slender and drier in texture, thus
increasing the apparent height. This last remark brings us to
the most essential change of all, which affects alike proportion
in general and execution in detail. Although sculptors, even in
the fifth century, had not ignored the conditions under which
their statues were to be exhibited, or the position from which
they were to be seen, they had, in the main, made it their
endeavour to imitate in bronze or marble the actual forms of
nature, or such an idealised version of them as should imitate
exactly the substance of the artist's conception ; they, in short,
made men and things "as they were." Lysippus introduced
the principle of making them as they appeared to be ; 1 that is
to say, he did not so much consider the correctness to nature of
the actual material form of his work, but rather the effect it
produced on the eye of the spectator, and was, so far, an
impressionist. /His improvement in the treatment of hair is
not simply an example of his clearness and delicacy of work
even in the smallest details, but also, in part, of this impressionist
tendency. The earlier sculptors in bronze had tried to imitate
rtie actual texture and form of hair by various devices, such as
nserting twisted pieces of bronze, like corkscrews, round the
1 Quales mderentur esse; this is Pliny's statement, and is quite intelligible
-lands ; he is evidently quoting here from an excellent and well-informed
>t' criticism, probably derived ultimately from Xenocrates. There is no need
o suppose he has mistranslated his Greek authority.
406 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP, iv
forehead, or even covering the head with a kind of wig of
bronze plate cut into fine shreds ; x or, when they did not do
this, they covered the whole surface of hair and beard with fine
lines, as if drawn with a comb across the surface, so as to imitate
every separate hair. Polyclitus, who was no less famous than
Lysippus for his accuracy and care in detail, had made a great
advance, in selecting an arrangement of the hair at once more
adapted to sculpture and more true to nature ; but, in his
selection of a treatment of hair which represented it as clinging
close to the scalp in short curved tresses all over the head, while
only the point of each tress stood out from the surface, he was
choosing a form of real hair that could be exactly reproduced in
bronze rather than giving to the bronze such a form that it
presented the appearance of real hair. The bold and heavy
masses of hair, often standing far out from the head, and giving
a shadow to portions of the face, which we find so frequently in
Hellenistic art, are doubtless due to the influence of Lysippus
and his innovations. It is interesting to compare a similar
result attained by a different means by Praxiteles in the hair of
the Hermes, which, through the wonderful texture of its surface
and rough sketchy treatment, gives an impression of hair, though
never attempting in detail to imitate its form. This, however,
is a masterpiece of marble technique. How Lysippus attained
a similar effect in bronze we cannot tell from any extant statue,
but can only infer from his influence on others.
So far we have been concerned with general conclusions
based on the statements of ancient authors about Lysippus, or
on the unmistakable traces of his influence ; we must next
consider such extant works as can be regarded as more or less
direct copies of his statues. First among these comes the famous
Apoxyomenus of the Vatican (Fig. 98) — the statue of an athlete
who is employed in cleaning the oil and sand of the palaestra
from his extended right arm with a strigil, which he holds in his
left hand. The character of this work, not a statue of an
individual athlete, but a study in athletic genre, and the position
given to it by Pliny at the head of his description of the works
of Lysippus, give some support to the opinion that it was made
to embody a new theory of proportions, like the Doryphorus of
Polyclitus, which Lysippus professed to have studied as his
1 Such a bronze wig was found among the' fragments on the Acropolis ; sec
J. H. S. 1892-3, p. 343.
FJQ. 98.— Apoxyomenus, after Lysippus (Rome, Vatican).
408 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE < HAP.
model, and which this new canon was intended to supersede.
This opinion, however, can only be regarded as probable, and
not as proved. And indeed, the very identification of the statue
rests mainly on the fact that it accords so well in every way
with what we are told of the style of Lysippus; for other
statues of the same subject are recorded. There can, however,
be no doubt that the statue in the Vatican serves admirably to
illustrate the style and proportions of Lysippus, allowing for
the changes that are inevitable in the translation of a bronze
work into marble. The attitude at once marks the distinction
between the Doryphorus of Polyclitus and the Lysippean
Apoxyomenus. The Doryphorus stands, or rather advances,
with the whole weight of his body resting on one foot, which is
planted firmly on the ground, and there is an appearance of
solid stability about his pose which contrasts most strongly
with the elastic, almost momentary poise of the Apoxyomenus :
though the greater part of the weight in the latter statue also is
carried on one leg, the whole attitude of the body is such that
a shift of the weight on to the other foot might well take place
at any moment, and the athlete seems prepared either to change
his pose or even to spring from his place at a moment's notice.
Hence a grace and agility which greatly enhance the effect of
the smaller head and lighter proportions. There is a contrast,
equally strong, but of a different nature, when we compare the
Apoxyomenus not with the massive athletic frame of the Poly-
clitan canon, but with the Praxitelean Hermes. Here the
lithe and agile athlete of Lysippus, alert and in high training,
contrasts with the softer and fuller form of the Attic youth,
and the Lysippean body and limbs seem almost meagre beside
those of the Hermes. Both alike have a grace which dis-
tinguishes them from the heavier and squarer build of the
Doryphorus ; but in the Hermes the difference, beyond mere
proportions, is emphasised by the intellectual and contemplative
character of the face, while in the Lysippean athlete it is
merely physical vigour that produces a lighter and more
versatile appearance.
It would not, however, be fair to criticise the attainments
of Lysippus from one statue alone, more especially if that
statue be intended as an embodiment of his theories of athletic
art, in correction of the Polyclitan canon. That he had also a
power of expressing character is sufficiently testified by the
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 409
tradition that he alone among sculptors was permitted to make
portraits of Alexander, and by the descriptions of these portraits
which we possess. Many extant statues or busts of Alexander
survive to illustrate the descriptions, but none of them can be
regarded as direct or adequate copies of the work of Lysippus,
though many of them may preserve traces of his influence.
His monopoly in this matter can hardly have really existed or
have been rigidly enforced ; for we hear of other statues of
Alexander by his contemporaries, and many were certainly made
by his successors. In a statue described by Plutarch he repre-
sented Alexander as gazing upwards, with his neck slightly
turned to one side, in accordance with a slight malformation.
This was done with such skill as to enhance the effect rather
than to call attention to the deformity, as other sculptors had
done, and Lysippus caught also his manly and leonine aspect,
which others had lost in their attempt to render the liquid and
melting gaze of his eyes. He must have embodied in his
portrait a conception of the fiery and ambitious temper of the
conqueror of the world which satisfied Alexander himself ; and
this fact alone suffices to show him a master of ideal portraiture,
in which all his technical skill in detail was employed to glorify
the individual character of his subject. We shall see later 1
what an influence on the course of art was exercised by such
a portraiture as this.
In addition to his statues of Alexander, Lysippus made groups
representing him in the midst of his companions in battle or in
hunting. The great Sidon sarcophagus is covered with reliefs
which recall the character of these groups, whether directly
derived from them or not.2
Several statues of gods were attributed to Lysippus, among
them four of Zeus ; one of these was the colossus of Tarentum,
60 feet high, said by Strabo to be the largest in the world after
the colossus of Rhodes. We have no certain reproductions of
any of these statues of Zeus, but we may see their reflection in
many statues and statuettes of the Hellenistic period. To
Lysippus is probably due that leonine conception of Zeus, with
mane-like mass of hair and strong bar across the forehead,
which becomes prevalent after his time ; and some statuettes,
which seem to go back to the old nude standing type, but with
1 § 57. 2 See § 55.
410 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
the proportions and style of a later age, may show the influence
of Lysippus.
A more definite identification of a type rather than of any
individual statue which reproduces it is concerned with the
statue of Poseidon set up in the Isthmian sanctuary ; this
figure appears on a cameo representing the Isthmian games and
their surroundings,1 and also, in a more or less modified form, in
some extant statues. The god is represented on the gem as
standing with his left foot resting on a high rock, and his left
knee bent at a right angle ; on it he leans his left elbow ; this
is a pose which becomes a favourite one in the school of
Lysippus, and which some go so far as to call characteristic of
Lysippus himself.2 His authorship of this particular statue,
however, is not beyond doubt. The only authority for his con-
nexion with it is a passage in Lucian which shows he made a
bronze statue for the Corinthians which was the recognised and
typical representation of Poseidon ; but there were many statues
of Poseidon both at Corinth and in the Isthmian sanctuary.
What became of them at the sack of the city by Mummius we
do not know ; they may have been taken away by him and
sent back by Julius Caesar when he founded the new Roman
colony ; but neither the description of Pausanias, nor the types
reproduced in coins, give us any help in identifying the
particular statue made by Lysippus ; and the cameo, being of
Roman period, is a doubtful authority for the time before the
sack of Corinth.
Another famous statue by Lysippus was that of the sun-god,
Helios, at Rhodes, who was represented driving his four-horse
chariot. (He made several statues of Heracles, and the subject
seems to have been one which he found peculiarly congenial, to
judge from the descriptions and epigrams of which these works
are the themes. One of them, at Tarentum, was of colossal size,
and was carried off thence to Rome, and from Rome to Con-
stantinople ; it represented the hero as seated on his lion-skin,
his right arm and leg extended, his left knee drawn up beneath
him and supporting his left elbow, while his head leant on his
hand, as if in depression. This conception of Heracles as a man
1 Figured in Baumeister, p. 1390, fig. 1538.
2 It is practically arguing in a circle to attribute statues to Lysippus because
they are in this pose, and then infer from them that the pose was characteristic o
him. This does not however invalidate the true observation that the pose is first
found in works which, from their style, clearly belong to his school.
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 411
of toil and sorrows, ever performing new labours, but wearying
of his gigantic task, is characteristic of Lysippus, and marks the
beginning of the Hellenistic age ; we can see the character of
such a statue reflected in later representations of the hero,
such as the Farnese Heracles at Naples, which, though in a
different position, shows the same weariness and depression^
{Another Heracles by Lysippus. of somewhat similar character
but of minute size, is said to have been made by him to decorate
the table of Alexander. A whole collection of stories had
gathered about this statuette, and they are recorded in the
epigrams of Martial and Ausonius ; from Alexander it is said to
have passed through the possession of Hannibal and of Sulla
to its later owners. The hero was seated looking upwards,
with a wine-cup in one hand, his club in the other.)
Lysippus seems not only to have been fond of such sen-
timental versions of mythical persons, but also, like his great
contemporary, the painter Apelles, to have indulged in alle-
gory to a degree which seems to us too artificial in its detail.
He made a statue of opportunity (Kai^os) which has been the
subject also of many epigrams and rhetorical descriptions.
Bacon quotes, " as it is in the common verse, * Occasion
turneth a bald noddle after she hath presented her locks in
front, and no hold taken ' " ; and the conception is now so
familiar to us as to have become a commonplace. It was none
the less an original device on the part of Lysippus, and it was
borne out by many attributes.
Opportunity, whose sex in the Greek Katpos is masculine,
was figured as a youth with long hair on his forehead and bald
behind ; he had wings on his ankles like those of Hermes, and
wre a razor in his left hand, on which, probably, was balanced
he beam of a pair of scales to which his right hand gave the
lecisive touch ; this is a kind of visible comment on the Greek
netaphor, cVi £vpov urrarai a*/^.1 Other accessories were
•xlded in later reliefs, on which the type is reproduced,2 and
ven those mentioned may, some of them, be due to others
ban Lysippus ; but the initial conception was his, and it
1 A curious misunderstanding seems to occur in some late reliefs and descrip-
,ons, where the razor is changed to a knife, projecting backwards to cut one who
rasped from thence. It would be interesting to know whether the scythe of
iinc is the ultimate development of this same symbol, and his hour-glass of the
(dance.
• See Baumeister, p. 771, figs. 823 and 824.
2 E
412 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
shows once more a tendency which belongs to the beginning
of the Hellenistic age in Greece, when criticism of mythology
and even of literary metaphor was to find allegorical expres-
sion in art. This is not an embodiment of an idea, or a
refined study in personification, like the Eros, Himeros and
Pothos of Scopas, but an unveiled allegory, depending on
accessories rather than on expression of face or figure.
Lysippus was a most prolific sculptor, and he also shows
great variety in his choice of subject ; yet it is a variety with
certain limitations. He never worked in any material but
bronze, though in this he showed unrivalled skill, whether he
was making a colossal figure 60 feet high or a small statuette.
And in the list of his works there are hardly any female figures
—none of any note, if we except a drunken flute-player, as to
which we have no further information. But his technical skill
and study of proportion gave him the greatest influence not
only on his own school and his immediate followers, but on the
art of the whole Hellenic world. His intimate association with
Alexander, and the numerous and varied works which he made
for his great patron, whether portraits or groups representing
hunting or battle scenes, also gave him a position of peculiar
advantage for directing the artistic tendencies evolved by the
new conditions of social and political life. Thus Lysippus seems
not only to stand at the end of the series of the great masters of
independent Greece, but also at the beginning of the Hellenistic
age when the art and culture of Greece were to spread over
the civilised world, and to group themselves about many centres
remote from the country of their origin. The work of Scopas and
others in Asia Minor had been a preparation for this change ;
but it was to Lysippus that the chief sculptors of the succeed-
ing age looked back as their immediate master. It was his
methods and his artistic skill that chiefly affected the form of
their work, though they had to look more to others for in
tellectual and emotional inspiration. Though we have so little
that we can quote as the direct product of his studio, his
influence can be recognised in the great mass of the sculpture
of a later period. If his artistic individuality is hard to grasp,
this is chiefly because we find it diffused through the works of
so many sculptors who, consciously or unconsciously, followed
his teaching.
§ 54. Pupils of Lysippus. — From what has already been said,
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 413
it is clear that we have to trace the influence of Lysippus in a
wider circle than that of his acknowledged pupils ; and moreover
we shall recognise some of his scholars among those sculptors
who are representative of the Hellenistic age. But there is a
narrower circle of his associates, some of them connected with
him by family ties also, which claims notice as an appendix to
his own artistic career. Among these is his brother Lysistratus,
who is said to have been the first among Greek sculptors to take
a cast from the face of his model, and then to work upon the
cast itself. His process was to make a mould of plaster on the
face, and then to insert into it a coat of wax, doubtless backed
by harder material ; and on the wax he did his modelling. This
shows, in the first place, that the process used by Lysippus and
his associates was not the same as that of Polyclitus, who
finished the surface of his model in clay, but was the simpler
cire perdue process customary at the present day.1 But the fact
is still more interesting from the light it throws on the artistic
principles of Lysistratus. Of course a great deal depends upon
the nature of the work expended by him on the wax after it had
been moulded ; if this was very thorough and went deep, then
the device of casting might be regarded merely as a mechanical
process to save labour in the earlier stages of preparing the
model for a bronze statue. But we are probably justified in
inferring that the man who used such a process aimed at an
exact and realistic reproduction of his subject, though he of
course did not ignore the necessity of a complete remodelling of
the surface if, to use the words of Lysippus himself, it was to
represent not the actual but the apparent forms of nature.
Euthycrates, the son of Lysippus, is said to have followed his
father in the consistency and thoroughness of his work rather
than in his grace and lightness, and to have aimed at the severer,
not the more pleasing side of his artistic excellence ; in subject
also he followed his father very closely ; thus he made Alexander
as a hunter, battle and hunting groups, chariots, a Heracles — all
repetitions of the favourite subjects of Lysippus. His only
other recorded work is the statue of Trophonius at his oracle
at Lebadeia — a theme which offered ample scope for mysteri-
ous and impressive treatment. Tisicrates, the pupil of Euthy-
crates, is also mentioned as a close imitator of Lysippus — so
close, that his works could hardly be distinguished from those
1 See p. 25.
414 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP, iv
of the master himself. Besides portraits of the companions of
Alexander, he made a statue of a " Theban sage," perhaps an
ideal image of Pindar or of Teiresias — either a fine subject for
the embodiment of a noble and individual personality.
Other pupils, besides Chares and Eutychides, to whom we shall
have to recur in the next section, are barely known to us by
name or by the mention of a single work. A boy in the atti-
tude of prayer, now in Berlin, standing with outspread arms,
may give us some notion of a work of this kind by Boedas ;
but the subject is a common one, and the identification cannot
be regarded as more than a guess, though the proportions and
attitude of the figure suggest a more youthful version of the
Apoxyomenus.
Such a band of pupils, with their close imitation of their
master, both in style and subject, attests his personal ascendency,
and prepares us for the wider spread of his influence over his
contemporaries and successors.
§ 55. Other Sculptures of the Period. — In addition to such
works as are either originals from the hand of the masters of
the fourth century, or copies directly derived from them, we
possess many sculptures of this period which are among the
chief treasures of our museums, whether for their intrinsic
beauty or for the light they throw on the history of sculpture.
It is difficult to select where the material is so rich ; yet a bare
enumeration would be useless, and little more is possible unless
we confine ourselves to the consideration of a few characteristic
examples. A visit to any of the great museums will add to
the number others perhaps as beautiful and as interesting;
but, with some general knowledge of the artistic character of
the chief artists of the fourth century, and also of the works
made by others more or less under their influence, we should
not find it difficult to appreciate the sculpture of the period
wherever we may see it.
One of the chief treasures of the British Museum is a statue
brought from Cnidus by Sir Charles Newton, where it was found
in the precinct of the Deities of the Lower World (Demeter,
Persephone, and Hades, Fig. 99). Its identification as Demeter
sorrowing for her daughter — the mater dolorosa of ancient art—
cannot be doubted when we look at the pose and expression of
face and figure ; but we have no external evidence as to the
sculptor by whom the statue was made. The body is of inferior
FIG. 99.— Demeter, from Cuidus (British Museum).
416 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
local marble. The dignified pose of the seated figure, and the
rich and varied folds of the drapery, are adequate as a setting
for the head, but are not otherwise in themselves remarkable.
The head, of Parian marble, is clearly the work of a master.
The face is remarkably even and regular in shape. Its model-
ling is soft and refined, but perhaps rather more clear-cut in
its outlines than that of the Hermes of Praxiteles, with
its almost imperceptible transitions. The expression of the
eyes is treated with wonderful skill ; they are set in deeply
below the brow, which is smooth and even above their sockets.
The eyeballs have something of the upward gaze, fixed on
distant object, which we saw in the Tegean heads ; but tl
curve of the lower eyelid rises to meet the upper lid more
the inner corners of the eyes than at the outer. It is th(
device adopted by Scopas, but used in a different manner am
for a different effect. In the Tegean heads we saw an expression
of violent and excited passion ; here it is a chastened and
reflective melancholy, as of resignation after long weeping ; and
even the physical results of such sorrow are preserved in the
modelling round the eyes and in the lines of the mouth. The
head has many points of resemblance both to the style of Scopas
and to that of Praxiteles ; and it was probably made by a sculptor
who was the associate of both of them during their activity in
Asia Minor ; but we have not at present any criteria to help us
in assigning it to any of those whose names are known to us.
Whoever he was, his power of expressing in marble the effect
of emotion on the character and the more passive mood which
succeeds the violent outburst of passion, is such as to rank him
high even among those masters of the fourth century whose
study was mainly devoted to such themes.
Another head in the British Museum serves as a good ex-
ample of the artistic types of the gods preferred by the sculptors
of the fourth century. This was found in Melos, and repre-
sents a bearded man (Fig. 100). The softness of the modelling
and the moderation and restraint in the rendering of the hair and
beard distinguish it as probably belonging to the Attic school
of the fourth century. It has sometimes been called Zeus;
more probably it represents Asclepius, as a milder and more
human form of the divine power. We have already noticed
the statue of Asclepius made by Thrasymedes of Paros at
Epidaurus. There are no grounds for connecting this Melian
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 417
head directly with his work ; but, as a contemporary image of
the same god, and coming probably from the same school, it
may help us to realise what the statue at Epidaurus may have
been like ; it is also really the best example that we possess,
from a good period of Greek art, of the type of bearded head
belonging properly to Zeus ; and although it is here modified
Fio. 100.— Head of Asclepius, from Melos (British Mnsemn>
to suit Asclepius, and the mildness and beneficence of the deity
are expressed rather than his majesty and power, still we may
use it, with this limitation, even in our attempts to imagine the
appearance of the Olympian Zeus.
Among the many fourth-century heads in Athens there is
one that calls for especial mention.1 It evidently represents
1 It was found on the south of the Acropolis, and is sometimes called Themis,
for no particular reason.
418 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
some goddess — whom we cannot tell. The simple and oval
form of the face, without that delicate play of surface which we
see in Praxitelean work, the expression of the eyes, and the
half-open mouth, showing distinctly the line of the teeth, make
FIG. 101.— Head from S. of Acropolis (Athens, National Museum).
it seem appropriate as a feminine counterpart to the Tege*
heads by Scopas ; and we are probably justified in assigning it
to an Attic artist working under his influence, though not to
himself. The fold of flesh over the outer part of the eyelids
comes down close to them, but does not hide them entirely ;
and the under lids curve up at the outer extremity, so produc-
IV
THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 419
ing the wide-open eye which contrasts so strongly with the
half-shut lids of the Hermes and Aphrodite of Praxiteles. The
inflated nostril, as well as the eyes and mouth, seems to show a
passionate nature in repose — yet another example of that
attribution to the gods of mood and individuality so common
in the fourth century. Here the breadth, simplicity, and
dignity of the work are most impressive ; they contrast strongly
with another head,1 preserved in more than one replica, of which
the best example is also in Athens. This other head has, too,
a remarkably individual character ; it is of a lighter and more
graceful, almost girlish type, with a narrower and higher fore-
head, of which the effect is enhanced by the hair drawn up into
a knot on the top of the head ; but it suggests no possibility
of deep or strong feeling, such as raises the head represented in
Fig. 101 to a unique position among its fellows.
Other works peculiarly characteristic of the fourth century,
and at the same time anticipating, alike by their artistic tend-
ency and their geographical position, the character of the suc-
ceeding age, have been found in Asia Minor. We have already
seen something of the early temple of Artemis at Ephesus ; and
the sculptured drums of its columns — some of them dedicated
by Croesus — were among the most characteristic monuments
of early Ionic art. The temple, again, takes a similar position
in the art of the fourth century. It was destroyed by fire in
356 B.C., and rebuilt with even greater magnificence, princes
contributing as before to the building, and, as Pliny says,
"giving each a column." Thirty-six of these columns were
sculptured, one of them by Scopas.2 Several fragments of the
sculptured drums from Ephesus are now in the British Museum,
but one only in a complete enough 'state to give us an adequate
notion of its design and style (Fig. 102). There is of course no
reason for supposing that this, the one column preserved, is the
one which Scopas made. But his influence and that of his associ-
ates was at this time predominant in Asia Minor, and so it is
likely enough to reflect the character of his art, even if it be
not by his own hand. This probability is borne out to some
extent by the composition and style of the relief, though there
are other elements in it which do not seem consistent with
what we know of his work. The best-preserved portion of the
1 Mitth. Ath. 1885, PI. ix.,-cf. viii.
2 See above p. 382.
420 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
CHAP.
drum represents a female figure in rich drapery ; on the right
of her is Hermes, nude but for a chlamys wound about his left
arm ; in his right, which is lowered, he holds his caduceus.
He advances slowly, with head thrown back ; his weight rests
FIG. 102.— Drum of column from Ephesus (British Museum).
on his right foot. In the way in which his left toot is
drawn after it, bent at the knee, which almost leans against his
right knee, we can recognise a Praxitelean attitude — and even
the head, though thrown back, as in some of the works of
Scopas, shows little if any trace of the passionate nature which
is usually associated with the attitude. On the left of the
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 421
female figure is a very graceful winged boy, who might almost
be taken for Eros, but for the large and heavy sword which he
wears slung over his shoulder. He stands almost full-face, and
his pose, especially the position of his legs, again recalls the
studied grace of the followers of Praxiteles. The best explana-
tion of this scene is that we see here Alcestis between Thanatos,
a gentle Death, such as he might well be imagined by those
who carved the Attic tombstones, and Hermes Psychopompus,
who is waiting to guide her on her path to the other world.
If this is the true interpretation, then the attitudes and char- '
acter of the various persons, however beautiful in themselves,
seem strangely incongruous with a scene of so much pathos and
dramatic interest. The artist seems most concerned to find a
graceful motive for each figure ; the lady is even fixing her
mantle over her left shoulder. It is impossible to attribute
such a design to Scopas, the master of passion ; though the
artist who made it may have worked with Scopas, and learnt
some of his mannerisms. There is more of the influence of
Praxiteles ; but the work is probably that of an associate, who
had caught much of the grace of the Attic masters. By his
personification of Death he has exemplified in the most beautiful
form that talent for mythological subtlety in which the fourth
century excelled.
Among the works of sculpture brought from Asia Minor to
enrich the treasures of Rome, few if any groups are more
famous than that which represented the slaying of the children
of Niobe by Apollo and Artemis. The rivalry of Niobe with Leto,
and the terrible vengeance exacted for Niobe's presumptuous
boast, form a subject represented in works of art of various
periods. It appeared on the throne of the Olympian Zeus, and
we often find it on vases, on sarcophagi, and on other monu-
ments. The great group, which was brought by Sosias to Rome
in 35 B.C., and set up by him in a temple dedicated to Apollo,
probably came from Cilicia, where it may have adorned either a
temple or a tomb. Pliny says that it was a disputed question in
his time whether the group was to be attributed to Scopas or to
Praxiteles. The value of such a statement may be estimated
by the weight which we should attach to a similar statement in
modern days, if a collector told us that some work of art he had
discovered in a remote locality was said to be either by Raphael
or by Lionardo, but he did not know which. It is incredible
FIG. 103.— Niobe and her youngest daughter (Florence, Uffizi).
;HAP. iv
THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 423
that, on the basis of such an authority, many archaeologists
have confined their discussion to the weighing of the claims of
Scopas and Praxiteles to the authorship of these statues, without
even considering any other possibility. The tradition may have
some kernel of truth, in assigning the origin of the sculptures
to the right period ; but even this must be tested by the study
of the statues themselves. Most of the extant statues which
have been recognised as belonging to the group of the Niobids
are now in Florence ; the majority of them were found together,
but others have been added later. The Florence statues are for
the most part inferior in execution, and so we must not draw in-
ferences from the details or defects of their style. The finest of
all is a statue of one of the daughters, now in the Chiaramonti
gallery of the Vatican (Fig. 104). How or where the original
was set up we cannot tell ; but it is evident that it was placed
against a background of some sort, since several of the figures
are unfinished, and others present an awkward appearance if
seen from behind ; it is also evident that it formed a connected
group of which the central figure, which is also the largest, was
that of Niobe protecting her youngest daughter (Fig. 103)*flT The
arrangement does not, however, fit well into a pediment. The
ground too, on which the figures stand, is not represented as level,
but as a rocky surface with elevations and depressions that are
used to vary the attitude of the figures. It is probable that
Apollo and Artemis were not themselves a part of the composition
as in some later renderings of the scene ; they are sufficiently
represented by the arrows which come from their hands. Their
victims see or feel the sudden and inevitable fate that comes on
them from above, and it is in the various ways in which they
meet it that the charm of the work consists. In no case do
we get a pathological study of the pain and contortions of the
wounded and dying ; but the moderation of the fourth century
still prevails, and so tends, more than anything else, to confirm
the tradition assigning the group to this period. Some are
already dead or sinking in the languor of death, but their death
has nothing of the struggle or agony which later sculptors did
not always avoid in dealing with such a subject. Those that
ure dead seem to have fallen by a sudden and painless stroke,
and, even when the wound is the motive of the action of any
figure, the effect is one of surprise rather than of torture.
But the dramatic interest of the whole group lies in the
424 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP, iv
character and action of the figures rather than in their sufferings;
some turn as if with defiance against their irresistible enemy ;
FIG. 104.— Niobid Chiaramonti (Rome, Vatican).
others seek to protect their weaker companions from the in-
evitable blow. For instance, the young man (Fig. 105) who
raises his chlamys as a shield on his. arm was grouped in the
FIG. 105.— Son of Niobe (Florence, Uffizi).
426 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
original with a fallen sister whom he supported against his
knee ; Niobe herself clasps her youngest daughter against her,
and seems to strive to hide the child from the destruction
around, while she holds up her mantle as a protection ; others
again, in the rush of their vain endeavour to escape, offer in
their floating, wind-swept draperies a splendid contrast to the
quieter and more self-contained groups. And, for mere technical
effect, nothing can surpass the way in which the expression of the
young man (Fig. 105) is enhanced by the shadow thrown by his
drapery over the upper part of his face. It is, however, above
all in the contrast of figure with figure and of group with group
that the dramatic power of the artist has full scope ; we have
the relation of protector and protected repeated three or four
times with variations. The tender but despairing care of Niobe
for her youngest daughter, whose slender girlish form clings
passionately to the noble matronly figure that towers above her,
contrasts with the impetuous youth who, as he supports his
dying sister, looks up in defiance in the direction from which
the fatal arrow has come ; and we see another variation in the
youngest boy, who looks on with curiosity, almost with in-
differejice, as if unable to realise the terror of the scene, which
is testified by the uncouth gesture of the old barbarian slave or
" paedagogue " who stands over him. As to details of execution,
it is impossible to speak with so much certainty : the immense
superiority of the Chiaramonti Niobid over the corresponding
figure at Florence warns us against drawing many inferences
from the other figures of the inferior set ; and a head of Niobe,
at Brocklesby Park,1 is a more refined copy than the Florentine
one, though still probably far short of the power of the original.
With such help we can to some extent realise the mastery with
which the artist embodied his dramatic conception — above all
in the expression of Niobe herself ; in the upward gaze of her
eyes and her contracted brow we can see the struggle between
pride and defiance of so severe a judgment and that inconsolable
grief for which her name was to become proverbial ; yet withal
a moderation and dignity that never forgets the queen in the
suffering mother, just as, in a wider sense, the nobility and
grace of sculpture are never lost in too realistic an attempt to
express a scene of pain and death. Whether the group was
made by a contemporary of Scopas and Praxiteles, or by a
1 See Michaelis, Ancient Marbles in Great Britain, p. 227.
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 427
successor of the Hellenistic age, its designer was certainly
inspired by the artistic character and traditions of the fourth
century, rather than by the cruder if more dramatic tendencies
of a later period. >l
A fitting conclusion to the sculpture of the fourth century is
offered by the magnificent set of sculptured marble sarcophagi
found at Sidon, and now preserved in the Constantinople
Museum.1 These are in a marvellous state of preservation, and
not only the surface of the marble, but even the colours that
tinted it are still to a great degree intact. They reflect the
character of several generations of Greek sculptors, and their
existence in a place where the influence of Greek art was so
little to be expected is not easy to explain. It would seem that
there must have been a tradition with a local dynasty of
Phoenician princes to employ Greek sculptors for the decoration
of their tombs ; for the work is all unmistakably the work of
Greeks, not of local sculptors who had fallen under Hellenic
influence.
The earliest of these sarcophagi reflects the art of Ionia,
and has much in 'common with the Lycian tombs -of the
same age. It is known as the tomb of the Satrap, from a
figure, evidently representing the deceased, which appears in
various scenes of hunting and feasting. It does not belong
to the fourth century, but is only mentioned here to show
the various periods that are represented ; a second, known
as the Lycian sarcophagus, from its ogival top, closely resembles
the tombs of Lycia, made1 under Attic influence towards the
close of the fifth century! ; it is ornamented with sculpture
which, both in subjects and style, recalls that which we have
noticed on the Attic buildings of the latter part of the fifth
century. It has been suggested that this sarcophagus may have
been bought ready made in Lycia;2 but, in spite of the
characteristic Lycian shape^ the style of the carving seems to
show that it was made by ah Attic sculptor, whether he worked
in Lycia or Sidon. The same Attic character is unmistakable
in the sarcophagus commonly named after the mourners (les
pleureuses) who decorate its sides and top. This is made as a
1 See the magnificent publication of these sarcophagi by Hamdy Bey and Th.
Reinach ; the photographic plates giren in it show better than any description the
beauty of the sculpture and its preservation.
2 E.g. by M. Joubiu, Catalogue, p. 36.
2F
428 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP, iv
complete miniature model of an Ionic temple, around which, in
each intercolumniation, stand or sit the eighteen beautiful female
figures from which the sarcophagus is named. They are in a
variety of graceful attitudes, each suggestive of melancholy or
grief, but with a subdued and chastened expression which
reminds us of the Attic tombstones of the fourth century. It is,
indeed, upon the Attic tombstones that these figures find their
nearest analogies, though few of those monuments can rival this
sarcophagus in execution; and the grace and variety with which
the mourners are posed recall the Mantinean reliefs from the
pedestal of the g-oup by Praxiteles,1 and also the terra-cottas of
Tanagra, with their wealth and variety of motive and their
graceful diversity of attitude and of drapery. This sarcophagus
finds its natural place among those products of minor art which
reflect the style of the greater artists of the period, without
directly borrowing their designs or copying their works ; but
among such minor monuments it is distinguished both for its
unique design and for the care of its execution.
The most beautiful and the best preserved of all the Sidon
sarcophagi is called that of . Alexander, not because there
is any. probability that the body of the Macedonian con-
queror ever rested within it, but because its sides represent
scenes of battle or of hunting in which he and his companions can
be recognised (Fig. 106). It is impossible not to be reminded by
these subjects of the groups made by Lysippus and his scholars.
But although his influence in this respect may be admitted,
many features of style and technique, as well as the Pentelic
marble 2 of which the sarcophagus is made, suggest an Attic
connection ; and there are other affinities also which we must
notice. The composition of the various groups contrasts in
many ways with that of the friezes of the Mausoleum — the
monument which at once suggests itself for comparison. On
the Sidon Sarcophagus the grouping is much more crowded :
the figures do not stand out singly against the background, but
the melee of battle seems at first glance to be rendered in all
its confusion. And the subject here is no imaginary combat
of Greeks and Amazons, but a battle in which the actual am
1 See p. 367.
2 See the Official Catalogue, in which the Pleureuses are described only as
marbre blanc, the " Lycian " and " Satrap " as of Parian marble. According to
Hamdy Bey and Reinacli, Nteropole Royale d Sidon, the Matrap and Pleureuses
are in Pentelic marble.
430 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
individual characters of the opposing parties are evidently his-
torical : we seem to recognise the features of more than one
Macedonian warrior besides Alexander himself; and their
peculiar helmets and arms are also rendered with accuracy, as
well as the Oriental swathings and drapery of their Persian
opponents. Yet we have not a realistic battle scene ; every
pair or group of combatants is designed with all the distinction
and artistic concentration of a heroic combat, as well as with a
wonderful fertility of invention and vigour of execution. Thus
the crowded groups of combatants, on a closer study, separate
themselves in the apparent confusion which strikes us at first
sight; and the care and delicacy with which every detail is
finished lead us on to a better appreciation of the whole. It
is above all in the expression of the faces of the combatants
that these scenes of battle and of the chase distinguish them-
selves from all others. The effect is increased by the preservation
of colour on eyes and hair, which gives a wonderfully lifelike
appearance. Indeed, no one who has not seen this sarcophagus
can realise the effect produced by a correct and artistic applica-
tion of colour to sculpture. This is the circumlitio which Nicias
applied to the statues of Praxiteles, and which, as Praxiteles
himself declared, contributed in the highest degree to their
excellence. The colour thus applied does not obscure the
texture of the marble nor the delicacy of the modelling ; on the
contrary, it makes both more visible, by giving a variety to the
monotonous whiteness of the surface; it relieves the fatigue other-
wise caused by the study of colourless form, and assists the eye
to observe many subtleties of modelling which it might other-
wise be unable to appreciate. But it only has its full effect
when, as here, it is joined to a delicacy of finish which satisfies
the most minute criticism. The tense brows and deep-set eyes
of the combatants have, in their modelling alone, an intensity
of expression which can only be paralleled by the Tegean heads
of Scopas and the charioteer of the Mausoleum ; and the colour
which gives life to this expression helps us to realise the effect
which those other heads must have had when they were perfect.
The addition of colour to the drapery, especially to the floating
garments which fill vacant spaces of the background with their
folds, also adds greatly to its decorative effect, and again gives us
an opportunity for restoring in our minds the original appearance
of many Attic reliefs in which the drapery is used in a similar
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 431
manner. This sarcophagus is in itself one of the most beautiful
as it is certainly the most perfect in preservation of all the
monuments of Greek art that have survived to our time ; but
it is not valuable for itself alone. Many of the most precious
relics of antiquity are mutilated or defaced, and none of them
preserve their appearance as they left the hand of the artist,
with a finish of surface and an addition of colour which he
regarded as essential to their completeness ; and therefore a
work like this sarcophagus, though its colour is said to have
faded since its discovery, offers us a standard whereby we may
appreciate others that have been less fortunate in their history.
Even the published reproductions are enough to show how
much may thus be gained ; yet more is learnt from the sight
of the originals in the museum at Constantinople, which they
have at once raised to a very high rank among the collections
of Greek antiquities.
The discovery of such a wonderful series of the finest
examples of Greek sculpture at Sidon is one of those surprises
which attend excavation and upset all calculations of probability.
The spread of Hellenic culture through the East which followed
the conquests of Alexander here finds a remarkable anticipation,
even if it be only in the tastes of a single princely house. In
earlier times this Hellenic culture seems to be associated with
Ionian and Lycian commerce, though it soon falls under the
predominating influence of Attic art, an influence probably
confirmed in the fourth century by the Attic friendships
and connections of Evagoras, the neighbouring prince of
Cyprus. Later in the same century the employment of Scopas
and his colleagues, mostly of Attic origin, on the Mausoleum
and other works in Asia Minor, probably attracted the attention
of the Sidonian princes ; and in the wonderful and passionate
life of the Alexander sarcophagus we may recognise the hand
of a sculptor who had been reared in Attic traditions, but who
had also worked as an associate of Scopas.
§ 56. Summary. — We have already noticed the greater promi-
nence of the individual as in various ways characteristic of the
change from the fifth century to the fourth ; but this did not
prevent the continuity of the different schools. The great
school of athletic sculpture, which, in the fifth century, had
found its main centre at Argos, was transferred in the fourth
century to Sicyon. We do not know the reason, but even
432 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
some families of artists seem to have migrated from the one
city to the other. Lysippus, the last great master of this
school, is in some ways the most characteristic figure of the
close of the fourth century. He continued but transformed the
Sicyonian tradition ; and not only athletic statues, but images
of the gods — some of them colossal — and portraits of men,
especially of Alexander and his companions, are among his
works, and anticipate the tendencies of the succeeding age. But
with all his skill in the portrayal of character and even of
individual mood and passion, Lysippus had probably learnt
much from his contemporaries and predecessors of other schools,
as well as from his study of nature, and from the tradition of
his own immediate associates. And it was through his influence
and his technical predominance that most of the artistic tend-
encies of the fourth century came to be handed on to the
Hellenistic period.
The Attic school also had continued to flourish and to pro-
duce many sculptors who enriched its tradition by their
originality and skill. Praxiteles, above all, had carried sculp-
ture in. marble to the highest pitch of technical perfection,
though he also worked in bronze. His statues of the gods had
given them an individual, almost human, character, which
brought them nearer to the lives and hearts of men, even if his
art lost something of that ideal and divine character which
belonged to the great statues of the fifth century. He also had
an influence on posterity proportionate to the beauty and grace
of his conceptions and the skill of their execution. If those
who imitated him lost the better side of his art in a softer
and almost effeminate elegance and voluptuousness, we must not
regard these characteristics as belonging to his own works.
They are certainly not to be seen in the only examples of it by
which he ought to be judged.
But perhaps Scopas was the greatest of the masters of the
fourth century, and his influence, if less direct and visible in
outward forms than that of Lysippus or of Praxiteles, was
deeper and more far-reaching. It was Scopas, above all, who
made the marble of his statues not only full of life and indi-
vidual character, but instinct with passion and emotion. We
have a difficulty in assigning him to any special school, either
in his antecedents or his successors ; but he seems in his earlier
years to have assimilated all that was* best suited to his art
iv THE FOURTH CENTURY— 400-320 B.C. 433
alike in the Peloponnese and in Athens; and those who worked
with him in his maturity seem to have felt his unrivalled power
of expression, and to have striven to imitate it themselves in
accordance with the traditions and technique in which they had
been trained. We see this imitation now in an Attic tomb-
stone, now in a Lysippean athlete or warrior, now in a relief
made by a Greek sculptor for an Oriental prince. And still
more we shall see it in the next epoch, when the passionate
dramatic groups made by the Schools of Asia Minor perhaps
exceed the bounds of sculpture. But the excess of expression
from which some of these works are not altogether free is no
more to be laid to the charge of Scopas than the defects which
we may notice in the followers of Praxiteles should prejudice
us against their master.
Besides these three great names, which stand out above all
others in the fourth century, we have noticed many other
artists ; some of them grouped about the chief sculptors of the
age, others of independent style or following the traditions of
an earlier period.
Towards the close of the period we find in artistic as in
political conditions the anticipation of those changes which
will form the theme of our next chapter. We already see
many of the chief sculptors working for foreign princes in Asia
Minor, and spreadi-ng the influence of Hellenism where the
conquests of Alexander were soon to make it universal ; and
even Lysippus owes much of his fame to his association with
the great Macedonian whose personality already begins to
dominate the art of Greece.
CHAPTER V
THE HELLENISTIC AGE — 320-100 B.C.
§ 57. The Influence of Alexander. — We have already seen how
in the early years of the fifth century the Persian wars and
their unexpected result changed the relations of Greece with
the East, and how the revulsion of feeling that they caused
found its expression in the sculpture of the age perhaps even
more than in any other form. The long struggle between East
and West continued in a desultory manner through the succeed-
ing periods, varied now and then by an exciting incident like
the retreat of Xenophon's ten thousand, who first taught the
Greeks that they could hold their own against Persians even in
the heart of their enemy's country. It was reserved for the
Macedonian kings, Philip and his son Alexander, to profit by
the lesson, and to plan a more ambitious scheme of conquest
than had ever yet been thought of in Europe. They were first
employed on those preliminary efforts to unite Greece under
their own leadership which, seen only from the side of the
independent Greek states, or with the eyes of an Athenian
patriot like Demosthenes, seemed fatal to liberty. Even a far-
seeing politician like Isocrates, the " old man eloquent " who
was " killed with report " of the victory of Chaeronea, could
not foresee the consequences of that battle, so as to find consols
tion for the defeat of his own city in the splendid realisatioi
of his dream of a united Greece conquering its old enenrj
Persia.1 But this practical realisation was not to come froi
the free states of Greece, worn out with internecine strife, am
incapable of any lasting combination. It was reserved for the
monarchs of the semi-barbarian kingdom of Macedon to becorm
1 See his Panegyric.,
CHAP, v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 435
the champions of Hellenism ; but we must not forget that the
reigning family claimed the highest Hellenic lineage in descent
from Heracles himself, and that this claim had been officially
recognised by admission to the Olympian games, long before
Philip and Alexander had established their position in Greece
so strongly that such a right could not be refused. It was
really the civilisation and culture of Greece that subdued Persia
with the armies of Alexander, and Alexander himself would
have been the first to recognise the fact ; while the colonies
which he founded throughout the East became the new centres
of Hellenism.
The spread of Hellenism in the East, and especially of
Hellenic influence in art, was, as we have seen, already antici-
pated to some degree in the fourth century. The most perfect
monuments of Greek sculpture have been found not only on the
western coasts of Asia Minor, where the Greek colonists had
long been established, but in the barbarian kingdoms of Caria
and Lycia, and even as far east as Sidon. Artists like Scopas
and Praxiteles had done some of their finest work in regions
beyond the pale of Hellenic nationality. All these things pre-
pared the way for the great change to be effected by Alexander's
campaigns ; and when his new empire and the kingdoms of his
successors threw open the East to the immigration of Greek
civilisation and literature and art, they met with a ready
welcome in regions already beginning to be permeated by their
influence.
It is little wonder that the man whose career is bound
up with one of the greatest events in the history of civilisation
should have dominated with his personality the sculpture of the
period to a degree probably unparalleled in the history of art.
Literature has not done Alexander justice ; those who approach
him from that side probably think more of the enemy of
Demosthenes than of the pupil of Aristotle ; and he has been
unfortunate in those to whom it has fallen to chronicle his
exploits. But Lysippus rendered his character in portraiture
with an insight and skill that did much to make up for this
misfortune ; and, partly owing to the influence of the sculptor,
partly to the commanding position of the subject, the individual
features of Alexander have had a permanent effect on the
sculptural type of Hellenistic art. The divine honours paid to
him by his successors contributed also to this result. They not
436
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
only set up numerous statues to him, but even placed his head
upon their coins, an honour hitherto reserved for the gods ; and
when they claimed similar privileges for themselves it was in
virtue of their inheritance of his majesty. For this reason we
Fio. 107.— Head of Alexander (British Museum).
possess many works of the Hellenistic period — some of them
idealised portraits, some of them representing other subjects — as
to which it has been disputed whether they are portraits of Alex-
ander or not: for instance, the "Inopus"in the Louvre, and the
so-called " Dying Alexander." The fact is that sculptors had
studied so closely the peculiar character of his face — his heavy
v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 437
brow and deep-set eye, and the fiery glance of a "genius akin to
madness " — that it had influenced their prevalent type of face,
and that his personality has thus overshadowed many works to
a degree of which the sculptor himself was not conscious.
§ 58. Chief Centres of Sculpture in the Hellenistic Age. — So far
we have been mainly concerned with the schools of sculpture
which had their centres in various cities of Greece itself; and if
we have traced outlying branches of these schools, or assigned
to their influence works that were made at a distance, we have
still had to recur to Greece for all continuity of tradition. With
the conquests of Alexander, and the consequent Hellenisation of
the East, all this is changed. Athens, indeed, continues to pro-
duce sculptors of minor importance, and the school of Sicyon
does not at once become extinct. But all the life arid originality
of Greek art seems to have followed Alexander to the East,
whither, even before his empire was founded, many of the
greatest sculptors had already turned for the worthiest employ-
ment of their activity. We should naturally expect to find
schools of sculpture founded in the colonies which Alexander
planted to spread Hellenic arts and commerce throughout the
East. This expectation is only partially fulfilled. Alexandria,
indeed, became the chief centre of literary studies, and it also
had artistic tendencies of its own, especially in the direction of
decorative art.1 Its coins attest the existence of a whole gallery
of statues and groups which must have been the work of Greek
sculptors. But we do not hear of any great or original sculptors
arising in Alexandria, nor do we possess any great monument
of Alexandrian art. With Pergamum,2 the literary rival of
Alexandria, the case is different. This city was not indeed
founded by Alexander, but it was a mere provincial town, of
ancient origin though of no great importance, before his period.
It owes its prominence in the Hellenistic world to its being the
seat of the dynasty established there in the time of his suc-
cessors. We shall see how the kings of Pergamum were the
most munificent patrons of art as well as of literature, and
gathered round them a school of sculpture which lasted for
several generations, and produced works which are among the
1 See Schreiber, die Alexandrinische Toreutik.
2 II(pyaiu.ov is the usual form in Greek, Pergamum in Latin and also in the
Revised Version ; the Old Authorised Version has Pergamos, which has little
authority beyond Ptolemy.
438 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP, v
most impressive that have survived from antiquity. Other
ancient cities of Asia Minor also had their schools of sculpture
in the Hellenistic age, especially Tralles and Ephesus. Ehodes,
which had occupied so prominent a position in the early age of
Greek art, again becomes conspicuous during its decline for a
series of sculptors lasting over several generations, and culmin-
ating in the authors of the Laocoon. Beside all these flourishing
schools of sculpture in the East, the art of Greece in its original
home sinks into comparative insignificance, and it does not
again attract our attention until the demand of Eoman patrons
for Greek sculpture has created a supply of copies and of
imitative works for which we cannot but be grateful. But, so
far as the history of art is concerned, we shall henceforth be
concerned almost exclusively with those vigorous offshoots of
Greek sculpture which sprang up in a new soil after Greece
itself had become effete.
§ 59. The Pastoral Tendency — Hellenistic Eeliefs. — The literary
tendencies of the Hellenistic age, especially in their chief centre
at Alexandria, are those which naturally belong to the period
of criticism, learning, and artificiality that marks the decline of
original and creative energy. The rise of pastoral poetry among
such surroundings is a phenomenon which seems at first sight
surprising, but its explanation is not far to seek. The people,
cooped up in towns amidst the conventions and restraints of a
highly-refined and artificial civilisation, felt a natural reaction
towards simplicity, and a craving for the country life and
manners from which they were cut off. Most of all was this
the case in Alexandria, where the dreary level of the delta
offered the only possible change from the crowded streets and
squares of the city. The poems of Theocritus and his associates
show us how the trees and mountains and breezes of Sicily—
the open-air life of the shepherd and the fisherman, and even
mythological scenes in a similar pastoral setting — were brought
to refresh the jaded intellect of the townsmen of Alexandria
and of the courtiers of the Ptolemies. The same desires found
expression in a series of reliefs which also, with a strange incon-
sistency, are the chief examples of a new and luxurious device
for the decoration of buildings. These "pictures in relief,"1
as they have been aptly named, were designed as panels to be
1 See Schreiber's publication, Die Hellenistictien Relief bilder, and also his Die
Brunnenreliefs aus Palazzo Orimani.
440 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
let into the walls, a practice now for the first time become
common, though isolated examples occur earlier — for example,
on the Mausoleum. They are distinguished not only by their
choice of subject, but by a peculiar pictorial treatment of the
design, especially in the background. There is usually a group
of figures in the foreground, and in these figures the analogy
in subject to pastoral poetry is striking. Sometimes the
scene is mythological, but usually representing such mythical
personages as we read of in Alexandrian poems — satyrs and
nymphs, the Cyclops Polyphemus, Adonis, or Paris and
Oenone. Often the scene is from actual country life — a herds-
man minding his cattle or milking, a peasant on his way to
market, or drawing a thorn from a companion's foot, or even a
group of animals, a sheep and lamb, or a lioness and cub.
Sometimes, too, we find scenes from comedy, or a poet in
meditation over his works. The background, which is the
most characteristic part of these reliefs, varies so as to be
appropriate to the subject. Sometimes it is purely architec-
tural, sometimes it represents nothing but rocks and trees,
treated with a strange combination of naturalism and conven-
tionality. More often it consists of a mixture of the two — a
country scene, with peasants' huts and rustic shrines scattered
over the landscape, or a group of buildings with trees and
bushes lending variety to their stiffer outlines (Fig. 108). And
throughout there is a beauty and refinement of detail which
reminds us of the minute finish given by Theocritus to his
pictures of rustic life. The flowers on the rocks, the leaves
of the trees, are often carved not only with the utmost care,
but with botanical accuracy. The country is seldom left un-
tenanted by man or by his imaginings : small shrines or altars,
thyrsi, and masks and other symbols, are scattered freely over
the scene.
Similar subjects, treated in a similar style, are also found on
other works of the minor arts, such as bronze or silver vessels
and even gems ; they are interesting not only from the way in
which they illustrate the literary tendencies of the Hellenistic
age, and the social conditions which they reflect, but also because
they show us an undoubted example of the influence of painting
on sculpture. The treatment of landscape is - very similar to
that which we see in Greek pictures that have been preserved,
and even if it were not so, the style of the reliefs would suffice
v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 441
to show the influence under which they were designed. It is
valuable to have a set of reliefs like these, in which the imitation
of painting is undisputed ; for they offer us a standard whereby
we can judge of the influence of painting which, according to
some theories, contributed so greatly to the general development
of Greek sculpture. They also help us to appreciate the con-
tribution made by Alexandria to the art of the Hellenistic age,1
and to assign to the city in this direction, as well as in litera-
ture and social development, a position worthy of the founder
whose name it bears.
§ 60. JBoethus, and children in sculpture. — We have noticed in
the last section one of the artistic forms in which the reaction
of the Hellenistic age against a too elaborate civilisation found
expression ; we must now turn to another product of the same
artificial simplicity. It is commonly stated, and is in the main
true, that Greek sculptors of the fourth century made no attempt
to render children with any truth to nature, and that when, as
in the Hermes of Praxiteles, a child is found as part of a group,
it is treated merely as an accessory. The proportions of child-
hood are ignored ; the body is simply like that of a full grown
man on a smaller scale, and the face shows no study of childish
forms. There are indeed some exceptions;2 but even these,
though they show more of an attempt to catch the character and
expression of childhood, certainly do not imply a recognition of
the rounded and chubby figure and undeveloped proportions
that properly belong to a young child. Early in the Hellenistic
age there appears to have been a change in this respect ; and
from that time on the chubby, babyish cupids which are familiar
to us from late Greek and Roman art are not only rendered
with truth to nature, but are often chosen with especial pre-
dilection as a subject for sculpture. It seems as if the age of
innocence in children, like the imagined innocence of rustic life,
had a peculiar fascination for those who felt themselves oppressed
by their too complicated surroundings.
The leader of this movement appears to have been Boethus,
an artist of Carthage,3 which at this time, as we know from its
1 Here I accept the conclusions of Prof. Schreiber, whose minute study and
splendid publication of these reliefs give his opinion the highest authority.
- E.g. The fourth century head of a boy from Paphos, J. H. S. 1888, pi. x., and
that of Cephisodotus on a stela from Lerna, ibid. 1890, p. 100.
3 K. 0. Miiller suggested Chalcedon, in Bithynia, instead of Charcedon
(= Carthage), a conjecture confirmed by an inscription recording two sons of
442 A HANDBOOK OF GKEEK SCULPTURE CHAP, v
coins, had felt the all-pervading influence of Hellenic art, and
probably included Greek artists among its inhabitants. Three
statues of children by Boethus are recorded, one of the infant
Asclepius, another of a seated boy, gilt, and probably of bronze,
which was set up at Olympia.1 The third is of more interest to
us, because copies of it have been recognised in a group of
which we possess several examples ; it represents a young boy
struggling with a goose almost as big as himself (Fig. 109). He
plants his feet widely apart, and wrestles manfully with the great
bird, which he grasps tightly round the neck with both his arms.
To understand the subject we must remember that the goose was
a regular inmate of a Greek house, the model and companion of
a good housewife, and the playmate of the children ; it occupied,
in fact, much the same position as is taken, in a modern house-
hold, by the domestic cat. Here there is a quarrel between the
baby and his playmate ; the evident reality of the struggle to
the child and his mock-heroic attitude contrast with his chubby
figure to produce a fascinating and humorous piece of genre.
The subject evidently had a great vogue, for we find it repeated
again and again with endless variations ; one of the most
interesting is a little silver statuette from Alexandria in the
British Museum, where the boy is seated and grasps a smaller
goose round the body while it bites at his ear.2 This statue is
not later than about 240 B.C., and so we have good reason to
believe that the type of which it is a variation, and which we
must assign to Boethus, belongs to the beginning of the Hellen-
istic age. We are expressly told that Boethus excelled in silver;
and so we have a further confirmation of his connection with the
Alexandrian school, which devoted itself especially to decorative
and minute work in the precious metals.3
§ 61. Chares, and the Colossus of Rhodes. — We must now return
to the pupils of Lysippus, through whom his influence was trans-
mitted to later times. The most famous of them is Chares of
Lindus in Khodes, who made the famous bronze Colossus which,
from its gigantic size, was counted one of the seven wonders of
Boethus at the neighbouring town of Nicomedia. But the Alexandrian affinities
of Boethus seem to confirm his African origin.
1 There is no evidence for associating this boy, as has been done, with the
"Spinario " of the Capitol, or a Hellenistic version "of the same subject now in the
British Museum.
2 See J. II. S. 1885, p. 1, pi. A.
3 Schreiber, Alexandrinische Toreutik.
FIG. 109.— Boy and goose, after Boethus (Louvre).
444 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
the world. This statue was 105 feet high; it was set up out
of the spoils left behind him by Demetrius Poliorcetes, when he
raised the siege of Rhodes in 303 B.C., and is said to have taken
twelve years to make.1 It was overthrown by an earthquake
after it had only stood for about 60 years, and could not be re-
erected ; but it remained, in this damaged state, a marvel to
travellers ; its remains are said not to have disappeared entirely
until comparatively modern times. We have a record as to the
process by which it was made in a treatise on The Seven
Wonders, under the name of Philo of Byzantium, a writer on
mechanics, who lived, probably, in the second century B.c,,
and had studied both at Alexandria and in Rhodes ; but un-
fortunately the authenticity of the work is doubtful. It states
that the Colossus was cast in sections as it stood, from the feet
upward ; and that a mound of earth was piled up around it as
it rose, so that it was always possible for the founding to be
done in a subterranean mould. The story appears probable on
the face of it, and not such as a rhetorical writer like the
author of this treatise would probably invent ; so we may infer
that he was following a trustworthy tradition. We hear also
that when the statue had fallen, it was possible to see through
the cracks in it the large blocks of stone which Chares had
placed inside it so as to give it stability.
In making such a work as this, Chares was following closely
in the footsteps of his master, Lysippus, whose colossal statue
of Zeus at Tarentum was hardly less famous ; and it was dis-
tinguished, as we learn from Lucian, no less for the artistic skill
of its style than for its colossal size. We have no information
as to the pose of the work ; it represented the sun-god Helios,
the patron of Rhodes, whose head, surrounded with a crown of
rays, appears upon Rhodian coins; to this type we must suppose
Chares to have conformed. It is really a variation on the Greek
conception of Apollo, but has a rounder face and more marked
features, in accordance with the usual notion of the appearance
of the sun itself.
Lucian, in his humorous description of the assembly of the
gods, makes Helios claim a front seat because, from his colossal
1 The absurd descriptions and representations in mediaeval treatises on The
Seven Wonders, which make the Colossus stand bestriding the entrance of the
harbour of Rhodes, and holding up a lantern in one hand to serve as a lighthouse,
are of course merely imaginary fabrications.
v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 445
stature, he had cost as much as sixteen 1 golden statues, and
moreover was a work of high artistic merit and remarkable for
accuracy of finish, considering his great size. This is an estimate
which will hardly appeal to us more than to those addressed by
the god on this occasion ; but at the same time we must re-
cognise that, in order to make a statue such as this Colossus,
Chares must have possessed not only very high technical and
mechanical skill, but also an artistic sense of a very high order ;
a colossal statue like this would require a treatment in every
detail appropriate to the size of the work ; no adequate effect
would be produced by a mere enlargement of the forms that
would look well in an ordinary statue. The kind of style that
is necessary for a colossal statue may be seen from the two
statues of the Dioscuri of Monte Cavallo at Rome, which are
themselves also examples of Lysippean art.2 Here perhaps more
than anywhere else we appreciate the dictum of Lysippus, in
which he asserted that his aim was not to reproduce the exact
forms of life, but their effect as seen by the spectator. The
deeply and clearly cut features look coarse and unsightly when
examined close at hand, but produce an admirable impression
when seen from a distance.
Colossal works, of more moderate size, were produced by
Greek sculpture at every period of its existence. But in the
excessive size of this Rhodian figure we may recognise a desire
for mere bigness, far surpassing in size all previous statues,
since to surpass them in beauty of conception or execution was
hopeless. Here we see the beginning of the decline, and there
is little doubt that the Colossus of Rhodes, in spite of the
artistic skill which it displayed, was rather a wonder to the
vulgar from the difficulty of its production, than a delight to
those who were capable of appreciating good work, whether on
a small or on a large scale.
1 The cost of the Colossus, as given by Pliny, is ccc talents ; this, being too
small a number, has been emended to MCCC. But more probably we should read
DCCC ; then we have exactly sixteen times fifty, which is the round number at
which the gold of the Athena Parthenos is estimated by Diod. Sic. Of course this
fifty, or forty according to the more exact statement of Thucydides, refers to weight
of gold, not to its value (in silver). But this is a point which either Lucian or the
Colossus might ignore in a forensic claim. The number sixteen implies that
Lucian had some definite figures in his mind.
2 I follow the rejection of the modern inscriptions opus Fidiae and opus Prax-
itelis by Loewy and others, in spite of Prof. Furtwiingler's attempt to defend them
as based on a correct tradition.
446 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP, v
§ 62. Euty chides and the Impersonation of Cities. — Impersona-
tion is not foreign to Greek art at any stage of its development,
and even the impersonation of states and cities is not uncommon
in earlier times. Such impersonations usually occur on vases
or on reliefs, especially on the headings of decrees ; but on such
documents the contracting states are usually either represented
by their patron deity, or figured under a form which is derived
from his. In the fourth century we have seen that with the
more individual realisation of the various divinities there comes
also a tendency to personify abstract ideas, and to refine on
mythological distinctions of character. We find figures like
the Peace nursing Wealth of Cephisodotus, and the Eros,
Pothos, and Himeros of Scopas. With the Hellenistic age
another kind of impersonation, more local and limited in its
character, which was before not unknown on vases and reliefs,
begins to find its way into sculpture also; and in its most
characteristic example it is associated with a curious new
cultus, that of the Fortune (Tyche) of the city, who comes to
be a real tutelary deity.1 The best-known example of the
artistic embodiment of such a conception is the figure of
Antioch' — or rather, to speak more correctly, of the Fortune of
Antioch — which was made for the citizens of the town (founded
in 300 B.C.) by the sculptor Eutychides, a pupil of Lysippus
(Fig. 110). She is represented as seated upon a rock, on which
her left hand rests ; the whole right side of her body (as Brunn
has well expressed it) is turned towards her left ; the right knee
is thrown over the left, and the right elbow rests upon it, and the
face also is turned in the same direction. Her figure is en-
veloped in the folds of a rich mantle, which is drawn over her
head, and covers her left arm down to the wrist. On her head
is a mural crown. Beneath her feet a swimming figure rises
from the waves to represent the river Ororites. This is a form
of impersonation which reminds us in many ways of the com-
plicated allegories of the period. It is really a representation
of the geographical position of the city, in anthropomorphic
symbolism; and it implies that the city was set upon the
slopes of a hill, bending forward upon itself in the turn of a
valley, while the river flowed at its feet. But we must not
allow the somewhat frigid and artificial nature of this sym-
bolism to blind us to the wonderful grace and freedom of
1 On this whole subject, see P. Gardner, J. H. S., 1888, p. 47.
Fio. 110.— Antioch, after Eutychides (Rome, Vatican).
448 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
invention with which it has been expressed. In pose and
varied flow of drapery the statue reminds us of the most
beautiful of Greek terra-cottas — and here we see alike its
excellence and its defect. The terra-cottas, representing merely
fanciful figures from daily life — girls at play or in meditation,
treated with the most perfect simplicity and grace — cannot be
surpassed for their lightness and versatility of imagination, and
their adaptation of subject to material. But when one of these
same figures is translated into a statue, and set up as an
object of worship, and as the embodiment of one of the most
vivid religious conceptions of the period, we cannot help feel-
ing a certain incongruity. The whole position and character
of the figure, though so full of grace as to make it one of the
most charming to the eye of all the Greek statues that have
survived, have a certain lack of dignity which disqualifies it for
the exalted role it is called upon to play. The mural crown
upon her head l does not suffice to make us recognise a present
deity in this woman, whose beauty of pose and figure at once
excites our admiration.
This was not the only attempt in the direction of imper-
sonation by Eutychides. He also made a statue of the river-
god Eurotas, which is attested by an epigram to have shown
a modelling flowing as water in its texture, so that the bronze
of which it was made seemed even more liquid than the element
it simulated. We may well imagine how the sculptor of the
Antioch may have dealt with such a subject. The flowing,
almost liquid, surface of the Cephisus of the Parthenon pedi-
ment may also give us some notion of how far a sculptor,
entirely free from the artistic restraint that marked the school
of Phidias, may have gone in a similar attempt. And it is
no surprise, when we consider the artistic character of Euty-
chides, to learn that he was also a painter. The man who
could invent such a figure as the Antioch certainly had as
much of the painter as of the sculptor in him ; for the con
ception of the city is in many ways a pictorial one.
Though we may feel the inadequacy of such an artificia
creation as an object of worship, it is asserted that this ver
figure of Antioch had much reverence from those who lived
in the region ; and the numerous imitations to which it gave
rise sufficiently testify its artistic popularity. Most of these
1 The head is a restoration, but the crown is attested by coins.
i
v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 449
lack the grace and refinement which distinguish the work of
Eutychides. A good example is offered by the Puteoline basis,1
of Roman date, where the cities of Asia Minor stand around
a statue of Tiberius. The extent to which such geographical
impersonation could go is shown by Ephesus, who stands, in
the garb of an Amazon, with one foot upon a mask with flowing
beard and hair that typifies the river Cayster ; while over her
right shoulder appears the Ephesian Artemis on a column,
to indicate that the temple stood behind the town, visible
over its right shoulder, so to speak, as seen from the sea. Of
course Eutychides is not responsible for such versions of the
symbolism he had originated ; but they show us its ultimate
result.
§ 63. Portraiture. — It was the custom in Greece, from the
earliest times, to set up statues as memorials of individual men,
both in temples and on tombs ; but although such statues were
in a sense intended to represent those whom they commemoi-
ated, they were not what we should call portraits. As we
have seen, both in the statues of athletic victors and in the
tombstones set up over the dead, there was no attempt in
earlier times to imitate individual form or features : it was
enough if the statue conformed generally to the age and sex,
office or character of the subject. And the nature of the
subjects chosen for such commemoration was different from
what we find in the later days of Greece, and in modern times1.
The statues were either religious dedications, set up in honour
of a god as a symbol of personal devotion on the part of the
dedicator ; or, if they were monuments over a tomb, they were
set up to recall the deceased to his friends, and their erection
was a matter of private interest. We find no examples in
early tknes of a statue set up to honour a man who had con-
ferred great benefits on his country in peace or war, or whose
fame was so great that his fellow-citizens desired to preserve his
image in a public place. Athens, so far as we know, had no
statue of Solon or of Miltiades,2 of Cleisthenes or Themistocles
or Aristides, set up during their lifetime, or while their
1 Baumeister, p. 1297, fig. 1441.
2 A statue of Miltiades occurred in a subordinate figure, in a group set up at
Delphi to commemorate Marathon ; but this is no real exception. Of course
statues of all these great men existed in Athens in later times, but they were
probably not erected before the fourth century.
450 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
memory was still fresh among their friends and admirers. The
first recorded example of a statue set up with a motive similar to
that which now prompts us to erect statues to our public men, is
the portrait of Pericles by Cresilas.1 We have already noticed the
ideal and typical, rather than individual character of this work ;
it was also a dedication, offering to Athena on the Acropolis an
image of the man who had done so much to enrich and beautify
her chosen city. Still the motive of the dedicator (who ap-
pears to have been a private citizen) was doubtless to preserve
a record of Pericles himself among the buildings which he had
erected ; and the custom of dedication was one which continued
to be kept up even until times when it had become a mere
form, and the honour was intended altogether for the man and
not for the god. It was to be expected that, with the tendency
of art towards individualism which we noticed as characteristic
of the fourth century, portraiture would at once take a more
prominent place ; and accordingly we find that many of the chief
artists of the fourth century did make portraits, either of con-
temporaries or of famous characters of old. In this last case
it is clear that the portraits were inventions of the imagina-
tion rather than records of individual physiognomy or character.
We do, however, hear of one sculp^f »f +,hp f™™*k /»ar.fi1T.y
Dem'etrius of Alopece2- — whose portraits were so realistic in
character that Lucian calls him the "maker of men" rather
than the " maker of statues." 3 He made a famous statuette of
Lysimache, an aged priestess of Athena ; and Lucian has given
us a description of his portrait of the Corinthian General
Pellichus — " high-bellied, bald, his clothes half-off him, some of
the hairs of his beard caught by the wind, his veins prominent."
Such a work of realism — we might almost say of caricature —
is exceptional, not only in the fourth century, but at any period
of Greek sculpture ;4 and indeed, in works like this, it is the
skill and humour of the artist rather than the character of the
person represented that are the essential thing.
With the beginning of the Hellenistic age we find a new and
a stronger impulse towards portraiture. In the first place, the
1 The portrait of Pericles was a herm, not a statue, but the purpose remains
the same.
2 He is dated by inscription to the earlier part of the fourth century (Loewy,
62, 63).
3 dvdpuirbTToios instead of avdpiavroTrotos.
4 Caricatures are of course common enough in terra-cottas.
v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 451
demand for it was constantly increasing. It became the com-
monest form of compliment or of flattery to set up statues in
honour of any individual. We hear, for example, that the
incredible number of 360 honorary statues were set up within
a year to Demetrius Phalereus in Athens; and during this
period it became customary to decorate theatres, libraries, and
other public buildings of literary connection with statues of
poets and other authors. The great majority of the portraits
which we possess owe their origin to this custom, and to the •
imitation of it in Rome. Such statues were sometimes contem- /
porary portraits ; more often they were imaginary, more or less
traditional representations of men who had died long before
without leaving any record of their features behind them.
Portraits now so familiar to us as that of Homer were thus
invented, while even the features of more recent writers under- .
went a partly idealising, partly conventionalising process from
the frequency with which they were repeated.
But among all the various branches of portrait sculpture,
none exercised so great an influence on the history of art in the
early Hellenistic age as that which was inaugurated by Lysip- S
pus with his portraits of Alexander. We have already seen
something of this influence. Alexander's successors began by
according divine honours to him, but soon they came to arrogate
similar honours to themselves. Nor was the worship or flattery
—whichever we please to call it — paid to them only by the
people of Asia Minor ; even in Athens itself we find a hymn
composed in honour of Demetrius Poliorcetes as a present deity,
while other gods were far away or cared not for their people.
The custom of masquerading or posing as a god, to which some
of the Greek kings of the East were led by such a reception of
their claims, naturally found expression in sculpture also ; and
hence we find examples in which a king is represented under
the character and with the attributes of some deity, or the statue
of the god is modified to resemble the features of the king.
And we see, on coins and elsewhere, a tendency to make gods
and kings alike resemble Alexander, whose deification seems to
justify the pretensions of his successors.
The study of Greek portraits (iconography, as it is called l)
can only be touched upon here in some of its more general
aspects, and especially in its relation to the development of
1 See Visconti, Iconographie G'recqite.
452 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
sculpture as a whole. One or two more technical points also
call for notice.1 In earlier times a portrait was always either a
complete statue or a herm — that is to say, a plain square pillar,
- with the top carved into the form of a head. It was not,
* apparently, until Hellenistic times that the making of busts
began (TT/OOTO/XCU) : to the head was added a rendering, more or
less conventional, of the shoulders and front part of the breast,
often with some drapery thrown across it, while the back was
hollowed out in the lower part and mounted on a stand.
§ 64. History of the Dedications of the Attalids. — The pre-eminent
position of Pergamum in the art of the Hellenistic period is due
to its being the seat of the powerful and enlightened dynasty of
the Attalid kings. The founder of the greatness of the family
was Philetaerus, who was placed by Lysimachus in charge of
Pergamum, where there was a considerable store of treasure.
His bold remonstrance against his master's crimes forced him
into a revolt, which proved successful ;" he became ruler of Per-
gamum, and bequeathed his power to his nephews, Eumenes and
Attalus. Attalus distinguished his accession in 241 B.C. by his
great victories over the Gauls or Galatians. These barbarians
were- one of those hordes that had for many centuries been
swarming out of Gaul into the south of Europe. Such a band
had sacked Rome in 390 B.C.; in 278 B.C. another had devastated
Greece, and had been repulsed from Delphi with the miraculous
aid of Apollo. We next find them in Asia Minor, whither they
were said to have first come at the invitation of a Bithynian
prince ; and then they became the terror of the settled inhabi-
tants, sometimes hiring themselves out as mercenaries to the
various contending princes, sometimes levying tribute on their
own account from the defenceless population. It is the chief
glory of Attalus that he was the first to withstand these
barbarians with success. Such, at least, was the aspect under
which his victory was regarded by those who celebrated it ; and
although both the victory itself, and the strengthening of
the independent kingdom of Pergamum which resulted from
it, may have been due in some degree to the skilful policy
of Attalus during the internal strife of the Seleucid kingdom,2
1 See Forster, Das Portrat in der gr. Plastik.
2 The Gauls are called in a Pergamene inscription the allies of Antiochus, i.e.
Hierax, the brother and rival of Seleucus Callinicus, whose part was taken by
Attalus.
v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 453
its result was such as to recall to the people of Attalus
the deliverance of Marathon and Salamis. The terror inspired
.into the degenerate Greeks of Asia Minor by this fierce
horde of barbarians, with their strange weapons and manner of
fighting, their personal strength and stature, and their indomit-
able courage, had till then carried all before it ; and even the
victories of Attalus did not suffice to end the danger. The
Gauls continued to harass and to terrify their neighbours until
Eumenes II., the son and successor of Attalus, finally reduced
them to submission in 166 B.C., at the end of several campaigns
in which he had met with varied success. After this time they
settled down as a peaceable community in the district of Galatia.
On the occasion of his great victories Attalus appears to have
summoned from Greece a body of sculptors, who thenceforth
made Pergamum their home, and formed a school to which we owe
the greatest and most vigorous works of sculpture of the Hellen-
istic age. The inscriptions which record their work can easily be
distinguished from those of another group of artists, some
fifty years later, who were employed in the magnificent series
of buildings and sculptures with which Eumenes decorated his
capital. We shall consider the works made by both sets of
sculptors with more detail ; but in order to understand this
wonderful revival of art in the East, while in Greece it was
stagnating, we must realise the historical conditions which sur-
rounded it — a struggle for existence between Greek and barbar-
ian, the like of which had not been seen since the Persian wars.
§ 65. The Dedications of Attalus I. — The inscriptions incised
upon the bases of the groups set up at Pergamum by Attalus
to commemorate his victories have, many of them, been pre-
served ; the statues which stood upon these bases were of
bronze, and have disappeared ; it seems, from the careful way
in which their feet have been cut out from the blocks, that they
must have been carried off to some other site, perhaps to Rome
or Constantinople. But some marble statues have been recog-
nised from their subject and style as derived from the earliest
set of these Pergamene monuments, and represent scenes from
the victory of Attalus over the Gauls ; although the inscriptions
show that his triumph was over other enemies as well, it was
especially the Galatian figures which impressed both writers
and artists ; for Pliny mentions the sculptors employed by
Attalus only as representing his battles against the Gauls. The
454 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
most famous of these extant statues is the " Dying Gaul " in the
Capitol at Rome (Fig. 111). His nationality may be recognised
from his distinctive necklace or torque, his rough hair combed
straight back from the forehead, his moustache, and the shield
and trumpet that lie on the ground beneath him. He has long
been known as one of the masterpieces of ancient art ; but in
earlier days he was called the " Gladiator "; his barbarian origin
could not be mistaken, but he was supposed to have fallen in
the combats of the arena, "butchered to make a Roman
holiday." With our present knowledge of the history of art,
we cannot suppose that sculpture in Rome was ever capable of
originating a figure of such wonderfully powerful modelling,
and such dignity of pathos ; nor is the choice of subject in itself
credible. At Pergamum, on the other hand, the courage and
fortitude of the Gauls had impressed their Greek conquerors no
less than their savage and barbarous character, and we need
not be surprised to find admiration and even pity for a fallen
foe ; while from the Pergamene artists, trained in the school of
t Lysippus, and adding to their artistic training the study of
anatomy for which the great centres of learning in the East
were noted, we might expect the excellence of modelling and
execution which we find in the " Dying Gaul."
The marble statue in the Capitol is not, of course, the original
set up by Attains, if it belongs to the group of dedications of
which the bases have been found, for they were all of bronze ;
but both the material — a local marble of Asia Minor or one of
the adjacent islands — and the execution, which, though the
statue has suffered somewhat at the hand of the restorer, is still
fairly preserved, show that it is probably a genuine product of
Pergamene art, as well as the copy of a Pergamene masterpiece;
it may even be a contemporary replica. The fallen warrior
is well described by Byron —
He leans upon his hand ; his manly brow
Consents to death, but conquers agony,
And his drooped head sinks gradually low :
And through his side the last drops, ebbing slow
From the red gash, fall heavy, one by one.1
1 It has been suggested that he had killed himself like the Gaul of the Villa
Ludovisi. But the wound is from a spear, not from a sword ; and is on the right
side of the chest, where it might well come in combat, but would hardly be self-
inflicted. The sword on the basis is a restoration.
v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 455
The Greek sculptor has caught the spirit of the northern
barbarian ; it is interesting to contrast the fortitude with which
the Galatian meets his death with the contorted agony of the
Giants on the Great Altar made by a later generation of the
same school of artists. The hardened skin, matted hair, and
strong but irregular features of the barbarian are rendered with
a realism only equalled by the anatomical skill of the modelling ;
but the true appearance of the surface is never sacrificed to
display of anatomical detail, as in some later statues of Asia
FIG. 111.— Dying Gaul (Rome, Capitol).
Minor — notably those of the Ephesian school. There is a
moderation, alike in conception and execution, which suffices
to indicate that this statue marks the highest point of sculp-
ture in Pergamum. Another piece of sculpture, probably
from the same series, is now in the Museo Boncampagni
(formerly Villa Ludovisi) at Rome, and used to be known by
the name of Arria and Paetus. It represents a Galatian warrior
who, in defeat, is slaying his wife and himself rather than fall
into the hand of the enemy. The subject, it must be confessed,
is one less suited to sculpture ; but there is some grace in the
figure of the wife, who has already received her death wound,
456 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
and sinks at the feet of her husband, who supports her arm
with his left hand while he stabs himself with his right hand,
driving his short sword through his left shoulder towards his
heart.1 Here again the national character is clearly indicated ;
and there is a fine dramatic contrast between the warrior, who
still stands and turns his head as in defiance of a pursuing foe,
and the relaxed limbs and drooping head of the woman. There
I is, moreover, no contortion or agony of death here either ; the
dramatic interest still exceeds the pathological, even though
death and wounds are represented with a vigorous realism.
Pliny gives a list of the sculptors who were employed by
Attalus on the monuments in commemoration of his Gallic
wars — Isigonus, Phyromachus, Stratonicus, Antigonus ; and this
list is checked and supplemented by the inscriptions that have
been found on the bases at Pergamum. The only artist/s name
mentioned which is certainly contemporary with the dedication
is that of a certain -yovos. This may be either Antigonus or
Isigonus, they are both mentioned in Pliny's list ; or it may be
Epigonus, whose name is mentioned in other Pergamene in-
scriptions of the same period. Upon a somewhat later set of
inscriptions, on the top of the basis, appear the names of a
certain Praxiteles, who may belong to the family of the great
Praxiteles, Xenocrates, and others of whom nothing further is
known. Among these sculptors Antigonus and Xenocrates2
were both of them writers on art as well as practical sculptors.
Epigonus is of still more interest ; for Pliny describes two works
of his, a trumpeter and a child, whose caress of its slain mother
was a sight to move pity.3 When we know that Epigonus was
employed at Pergamum, it is tempting to restore his name as
that of the artist whose name occurs on the basis of the
groups of Attalus. The mother and child might well have
represented Galatians, and formed a counterpart to the group of
the warrior slaying himself and his wife. Most tempting of all
1 See Baumeister, p. 1237, fig. 1410. The arm is wrongly restored, with the
thumb down, such a thrust would have no force.
2 See Introduction, p. 12. Xenocrates' career belongs to the earlier rather than
the later part of the third century. But he may have been employed on the
earliest dedications.
3 By a singular coincidence, the dead Amazon at Naples was grouped with a
child in an early restoration, and hence the suggestion to connect this with the
work of Epigonus. But the restoration is improbable in itself, and seems to rest
on no good authority. See Michaelis, Jahrb. 1893, p. 119 ; Peterson, Rom. Mitt.
Io93, p. 261.
v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 457
is the identification of the "Dying Gaul" himself, with his
large trumpet, as the tulricen mentioned by Pliny. But such
speculations must not be taken as serious evidence, though they
may help us to classify and appreciate the work of an artist
otherwise unknown.
Another series of extant works has been brought into relation
with a set of groups dedicated by Attains on the Acropolis at
Athens, probably on the occasion of his visit to that town in
200 B.C. They were seen by Pausanias close to the south wall
of the Acropolis, and consisted of figures about three feet
high. The purpose of this dedication was evidently to claim
for the feats of Attains against the Galatians a fame like that
of the Persian wars, and a similar association with the mythical
antitypes of the great struggle between Greek and barbarian.
There was represented the battles of the Pergamenes against the
Galatians, of the Athenians against the Persians, of the Athenians
against the Amazons, and of the Gods against the Giants. The
last of these groups shows us that the Pergamenes were already
symbolising their victory over the Galatians in the same way in
which the Athenians, on the Parthenon and elsewhere, had
celebrated their victory over the Persians ; and it must be
admitted that, of the two adversaries, the Galatians had the
more resemblance to the Greek conception of the wild Giants
who fought against Zeus and the other Olympian gods. We
shall see in the Great Altar at Pergamum the magnificent
expression which was given later to this same idea.
There exists, scattered over the museums of Europe, a whole
series of statues of combatants, some fallen, but still fighting to
the last, some already wounded to death or extended lifeless on
the ground ; these are about three feet high, and their character
corresponds exactly to the description of Pausanias ; there are
some of the defeated antagonists of each group, Galatians, Per-
sians, Amazons, and Giants (Figs. 112, 113). It is a singular fact
that no corresponding statues of the victorious combatants have
been identified — indeed, we may say, that no such statues exist,
for the small size and characteristic style of these works makes
their recognition easy, and they could hardly have escaped notice.
The explanation of this fact is still to seek. We might have
supposed that only the defeated and dying were represented in
the trophy, the conquerors being sufficiently implied by the
wounds they had inflicted ; but we know that the gods, at least,
458 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
were included, since a statue of Dionysus from this group was
blown over into the theatre by a storm. This last fact also
makes it probable, though hardly beyond doubt, that the
originals were in bronze. All the extant statues of the series
are in marble, but with a vigour and accuracy of modelling
which place them above ordinary copies, and with a polish of
the surface which is characteristic of Pergamene art and the
schools dependent on Pergamum.1 It is probably safest to
suppose that the extant statues, or at least the majority of
them, are contemporary replicas of those set up on the Acro-
polis ; though it is barely possible that they may be the
originals.
These little statues have never been surpassed in dramatic
vigour and power ; they do not, of course, aim at the expression
of any high ideal, or even at any great beauty of form ; but
they express with wonderful realism and truth to nature the
way in which the various sets of combatants take their defeat.
In one case we see a Galatian, fallen and wounded, but still
fighting to the last and recklessly exposing himself ; in another
a Persian, who is also beaten down, but seems to shrink together
for a last effort in his defence (Fig. 113). The way in which
the dead combatants have fallen is no less characteristic than
their manner of fighting. A Persian, lying on his side, seems
to have sunk quietly to rest ; a Giant, who has fallen without a
wound before the thunderbolt, lies on his back with his limbs
outspread, as wild and savage in death as in life ; and a young
Galatian lies in much the same attitude ; an Amazon, pierced
with a wound in her breast, also lies on her back, but her figure
is graceful even in death, as she lies with one hand beneath her
head and one knee slightly drawn up (Fig. 112). For all the
dramatic power, there is nowhere any agony or contortion ;
whether death comes by sudden blow or by more gradual
collapse from wounds, its pain is not emphasised with patho-
logical detail, though the way in which the figures have fallen
shows a correct study of the effect of various wounds ; above all
there is none of that exaggerated, almost sentimental develop-
ment of pathos which we see in later Pergamene work. Here all is
1 This polish is regarded by some as an imitation of the surface of bronze,
More probably it is a later substitute for the ydvwffis and circumlitio of earlier
times, and is due to the use of a marble which had a less beautiful texture than
Parian or Pentelic, but would take a high polish. See p. 29.
THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C.
459
restrained and concise ; and, the choice of subject once granted,
there is in everything a moderation and dignity such as we see
also in the " Dying Gaul." The hairy and uncouth form of the
Giants, the hardly less violent nature of the Galatians, and the
more graceful, but no less vigorous figure of the Amazon, are
all characterised with equal skill. Only in the case of the
Persians we find a strange deviation from fact ; one warrior,
FIG. 112. — Dead Amazon and Giant, after Pergauiene group on Acropolis at
Athens (Naples).
though he wears a Persian cap, is otherwise completely nude,
in violation of Persian custom. Perhaps the artist felt that, in
order not to make the Persians, with whom the Athenians were
matched, too effeminate adversaries in comparison with the
Galatians, some such modification was justifiable. But perhaps
it betrays an artistic convention such as must not surprise us
even in the finest work of the Hellenistic age.
§ 66. The Dedications of Eumenes II. — Under Eumenes II.,
who succeeded his father Attalus in 197 B.C., the city of
2 H
460 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
Pergamum was enriched with a series of buildings which made
it rank among the most splendid and beautiful cities of the
FIG. 113. -Fighting Persian, after Pergamene group on Acropolis at Athens (Rome,
Vatican).
ancient world. The most famous of these monuments was the
great altar of Zeus, which was among the chief wonders of the
v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 461
ancient world, and so impressed the early Christians that it is
referred to in the Revelation as " the Throne of Satan." It
consisted of a huge basis, more than 100 feet square, on the
top of which stood a colonnade surrounding an open court in
which the altar of sacrifice itself was placed. The court was
approached by a broad staircase, cut into the square structure,
which took up about three -fifths of its west side. Two
sculptured friezes decorated this magnificent building ; the chief
one ran round the basis in a continuous composition ; it was
interrupted by the broad staircase, but turned round the wings
of the building which bordered it, so that the sculptured design
runs right up to the steps, which limit it at the extremity into
a narrowing field. There was also a smaller frieze, probably
on the inside of the colonnade above. These sculptures have
been dug up by the Germans, and carried off to the Berlin
Museum, of which they are the chief ornament.
The great frieze, which represents the battle of Gods and
Giants, is the most extensive and characteristic example of
Pergamene art, and perhaps the most imposing and overwhelm-
ing, at least at first glance, of all the monuments of Greek
sculpture that have been preserved to our time. It is true
that the restlessness of the composition, and the almost un-
limited wealth of design scattered in profusion over the whole
frieze, are fatiguing and unsatisfying on a more careful study ;
but the knowledge and skill of the sculptors, their extraordinary
richness in resource, and their wonderful mastery over their
material, must always command our admiration.
The great frieze is over seven feet high, so that its figures add
the effect of colossal size to that of their dramatic vigour and
violent action. The battle of ' the Gods and Giants, or indi-
vidual scenes from it, had always been a favourite theme with
Greek artists ; but we have seen that it meant more to the
Pergamenes than to any other Greeks since the age of the
Persian wars, and that their own victories over the fierce and
savage Galatians were really more suggestive of such a proto-
type than any earlier contest. When Eumenes undertook to
commemorate his exploits and those of his father Attalus by
a frieze which should represent the subject on a scale and with
a completeness that had never before been approached, the
artists whom he employed devoted themselves to the task in a
manner characteristic of the age. They were not content to
462 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP, v
reproduce the familiar scenes of the great battle according to
the old usage, with a new dramatic power added ; but they,
probably aided by the learned mythologists who frequented the
Pergamene library, made a mythological study of the gods and
their opponents the basis of their work; and as a result they have
represented the whole Greek pantheon on this altar with a
completeness, almost a superfluity, that savours of an age of
criticism and. eclecticism rather than of religious belief. We see
not only the chief gods, each accompanied by his proper attend-
ants and attributes and sacred animals, but all the minor
divinities, each in his proper place ; and many are included who
perhaps would hardly find a place in a purely Hellenic system ;
many are merely variations of the same mythological person-
ality. If so much confusion and multiplication of characters
is to be seen in the extant fragments, which only amount to
about half of the whole composition, we may imagine how much
stronger the impression would be if we possessed the whole. It
was no unnecessary help, even to a Greek, to add the name of
each of the Gods on the cornice above, while each of the Giants
has his name incised below him. While the combat is
continued from end to end of the frieze in one writhing mass of
Giants, with whom their divine antagonists are inextricably
entangled, several groups at once stand out conspicuous ; the
two chief are those of Zeus and of Athena, which probably were
both upon the eastern face of the structure, opposite to. the
staircase, and balanced one another in the composition. This
eastern face was evidently the principal one ; it faced the open
space which formed the religious and political agora of the city ;
and so the two chief deities here find their appropriate place,
Zeus, to whom, as the deliverer, the altar was dedicated, and
Athena, whose temple was the chief building on the Acropolis
above. Zeus is engaged in combat with three Giants (Fig. 114);
but although his weapons are the irresistible aegis and thunder-
bolt, even he is not exempt from the strain and violence of
combat. He strides to his right, facing the spectator ; in his
outstretched right arm is a thunderbolt which he is about to
hurl, while with his left he shakes the snaky folds of the aegis
in the face of one of his opponents ; his long mantle hangs
over his shoulders and round his legs, leaving his finely
modelled torso bare. The figure is full of life and action;
but the use made by Zeus of his weapons seems hardly
464
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP, v
adequate to their divine power ; and there is something almost
grotesque about the way in which a thunderbolt he has already
thrown has pierced with its prongs the thigh of a fallen
adversary, as if it were a mere common piece of metal.1 And
if Zeus has to fight hand-to-hand, the drapery which well
becomes his majestic figure cannot but impede his movement.
This group, in fact, shows both the strength and weakness of
the sculptor. In power of composition, in dramatic force and
action, in vigour and correctness of modelling, it cannot be .
surpassed; yet the artist has neither been content to follow
the traditional manner of rendering the scene, nor has he
ventured to throw over entirely all old conventions, and to
create a new conception of the nature of the combat and of the
combatants. It is this strange combination of study with im-
agination, of originality with eclecticism, which we shall find
throughout the work.
The group in which Athena is the chief figure is the finest in
design and in preservation of those that remain (Fig. 115). She
advances to the right, and seizes by his hair the young Giant
who is her opponent. His figure, human but for his outspread
wings, 'and less savage in its strength than those of most of his
fellows, slants right across in a direction opposite to her
advance ; and the balance and composition of the main lines of
the group which result from this crossing of the opposing forces
are admirable in their effect. Here, too, although the guardian
snake of Athena attacks her adversary, there is less of the
conventional weapons and their physical effect than in the
opponents of Zeus. The vanquished Giant has no wound nor
Athena any weapon of offence ; and his agonising, upturned
glance, as his head is drawn irresistibly back by the goddess, is
most dramatic in effect. The helplessness of the Giant in the
hand of his divine conqueror is expressed also by the vain grasp
of his right hand at her arm over his head ; and the attitude
gives to his figure a certain grace even in its agony such as we
do not often see in this frieze. Another wonderfully dramatic
effect is gained by the appearance of the Earth herself, who
rises to the waist above the ground in front of Athena, begging
with a gesture of prayer and a despairing upward gaze for her
children the Giants, while Victory floats over her head to crown
1 This is really almost as absurd as if a savage killed in battle with a civilised
enemy were represented with a Maxim gun stuck through his body.
466 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
Athena. Yet, in spite of all balance of composition and of
dramatic action, the mind of the spectator is bewildered here,
as everywhere else in the frieze, by a too restless variety of
line. There is nowhere any fixed point on which the eye can
rest, nor any surface free from the turbulent waves of hair and
wings and drapery, unless it be a nude body, in which the
strained muscles and contorted position give a similar impression.
The struggle is continued in a succession of groups all varying
in their motives and circumstances. One, which is preserved
upon several continuous blocks, shows the deities of light-
Helios (the sun) driving a pair of horses in the long, floating
drapery of a charioteer, while before him rides a goddess on a
horse, who probably symbolises the dawn (Eos). However
suitable such a representation may be on a vase representing
the sunrise, one cannot help feeling it rather out of place in
the midst of a battle where every god is engaged with his own
adversary. Selene (the moon), who is seated on a mule,
with her back to the spectator, her head turned to the lef
is among the most pleasing in the frieze, both for figure an
drapejy. Artemis appears in the guise of a huntress with he
dogs ; close to her is Hecate, who offers yet another exampl
of the attempt of the artist to combine a traditional form wit
a new and almost incompatible motive. Her triple figure i
represented, but what we see appears at first glance to be onl
a single figure, seen from the back and advancing into th
ground of the relief ; the extra heads and limbs that appea
behind it have no apparent organic connection with it. Apoll
stands almost facing the spectator as an archer, his chlamy
hanging over his left arm, and his body entirely nude — a fin
and effective piece of modelling, and quieter in its pose than mos
of the combatants, especially in contrast to the writhing Gian
around. Dionysus appears with his panther and his satyr
The deities of the sea, Poseidon, and Amphitrite, and Triton, an
the rest occupy a whole wing on one side of the staircase.
prominent position is found also for Cybele, with her lions an
attendants. For the Giants it was impossible to find as muc
variety as for the Gods, but every device has been used to attai
a similar impression. Some, as the Giants of earlier art, a
like human warriors, only of wilder aspect and greater strength
This is the character under which we saw them portrayed
tjie dedication of Attalus at Athens, But the later Pergamen
v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 467
sculptors did not content themselves with this type. Whether
they first gave to the Giants the snake-footed form in which
many of them appear on the altar is a matter of dispute ; but
in any case they did not originate the combination ; it was
already familiar in the representation of Typhoeus and of the
earth-born hero Cecrops. It appears in every variety on the
frieze : sometimes the snaky legs begin at the thigh, sometimes
not till below the knee ; and many of the Giants have wings
also like Typhoeus. Some are still more strange mixtures
of different natures, like a lion-headed monster, with lion's claws
and human body and limbs, who is strangled by one of the
Gods. But what is most characteristic throughout is the writh-
ing serpent coils, which are seen almost everywhere in the
frieze, and contribute in no little degree to the feeling of
struggle and restless motion that pervades the whole.
The relief is high ; many of the figures, or parts of them,
being entirely detached from the background. The architec-
tural frame in which the frieze is set is itself of peculiar con-
struction ; it projects to an exceptional extent both above and
below, and thus the relief gains a depth of setting which
enhances its effect. The chief technical peculiarity of the
relief is that there is not here, as usually in Greek sculpture,
a normal front plane which is never exceeded by the projecting
portions; the limbs " of the combatants seem to project almost
at the artist's caprice as they advance or retreat in or out
of the background ; and this motion itself is not only along
the direction of the frieze, but at right angles to it towards
or away from the spectator. Thus we have a still further
increase of the bewilderment and confusion which indeed
challenge our admiration, but also offend a finer artistic sense.
We see, indeed, a living and moving mass ; but it is more like
the phantasmagoria of a troubled dream than the calm dignity
and breadth of the Greek sculpture of an earlier age. The
drapery, too, adds to this impression ; it is full of flow and life,
with a wonderful sense of texture and motion ; yet it has no
single broad and intelligible scheme. Here we see a device
studied from an earlier model, there a piece of direct and real-
istic observation from nature — but all confused with an eclectic
yet indiscriminating desire to use every resource of art at once.
When we come to the modelling of the nude, we must assign
a higher merit to the Pergamene work, as was to be expected
468 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
in a school directly dependent on the pupils of Lysippus.
Nothing could surpass the mastery with which the heavy and
muscular torsoes of the Giants are rendered, whether they are
strained in the combat or contorted in the agony of death ; and
we have noted in some of the torsoes of the Gods, such as Zeus
and Apollo, almost the only surfaces on which the eye could
rest for a moment from the confused detail around. The
expression, again, which we see in faces like that of Earth, or
of the young Giant seized by Athena, are worthy of the suc-
cessors of Scopas, and have all his dramatic power, though
more distorted and less restrained in character. And the way
in which the marble is worked to represent whatever the artist
has in his mind has never been excelled in mere technical skill,
though this very facility has sometimes led to a lack of true
sculptural instinct in the choice of what ought to be repre-
sented.
The smaller frieze of the same altar was never finished, and
in some parts was only blocked out in the rough ; it represented
scenes from the life of the local hero Telephus. The chief
interest of the frieze lies in its resemblance in background and
setting to the Hellenistic reliefs of Alexandrian origin ; it is,
indeed, a work of the same nature in a continuous composition
instead of separate panels ; the same landscape background
occurs throughout. We may weir see in this an influence of
Alexandria on the art of Pergamum, such as was probable
enough from their literary rivalry.
The Great Altar was probably built during the most pros-
perous and quiet time of the reign of Eumenes, between 180
and 170 B.C. The names of the artists employed were inscribed
upon it, but have almost entirely disappeared. Only one name
is of interest, which appears in the genitive, that of Menecrates,
the adoptive father of the sculptors of the Farnese bull. This
probably implies that his sons were among the sculptors of the
great frieze.
§ 67. The Rhodian School : the Laocoon. — The activity of the
Rhodian school of sculpture is attested by a large number of
signatures of artists which have been found in the island, as
well as by the statement of Pliny that there were a hundred
colossal statues in the island which, though eclipsed by the
huge work of Chares, would each have sufficed to make any
other place famous. Apparently many sculptors were attracted
v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 469
from Asia Minor by the great prosperity of the island in the
latter part of the Hellenistic age. The inscriptions of these
Rhodian sculptors fall into two groups.1 Of the earlier of these
groups, which belongs to about 200 B.C., we have no extant
works. One of the sculptors belonging to it was Aristonidas,
who made a statue of Athamas, in the remorse which followed
the fit of madness in which he slew his son. This statue is one
of those, like the Jocasta of Silanion, in which we hear of
strange admixtures of other metals with bronze to produce a
certain tint. Here a mixture of iron is said to have rendered
the blush of shame and contrition. The technical difficulties
in the way of believing such a story are apparently insuperable.2
rTo the later group of sculptors, who worked at the beginning
of the first century B.C., belong Agesander, Polvdorus, and
Atjbenodorus, the sculptors or the Laocoon (Fig. 116). Though
this work may, in actual date, be assigned to the Koman rather
than the Hellenistic period of art, it is better to treat the whole
Ehodian school together in continuous succession, and not to
separate from its antecedents a work which shows so clearly
the influence of Pergamum.
The Laocoon has acquired an almost fictitious importance
from the circumstances under which it was exhibited in the
palace of Titus at Rome, from the essay on the principles of
art, of which Lessing made it" the theme, and from the contro-
versy which has arisen about its date and affinities. Now that
we have the Pergamene frieze for comparison, and are able from .
inscriptions to fix the date of Agesander and his colleagues
within narrow limits, the Laocoon falls naturally into its place •
in the history of Greek sculpture, as the last and most extreme
example of Pergamene art, which strives after exaggerated
pathos by an actual^i^presentation of pain and agony, and
refuses no devicTthat may add to the dralmatic","almbst theatrical""
effects, because such a device does not readily harmonise with
the principles of sculpture. Yet Pliny speaks of the Laocoon
as a work to be set above all others, whether in painting or
sculpture, and Lessing, instead of quoting it as an example of
what sculpture should not attempt, uses it, in comparison with
Virgil's description, as an illustration of the difference between
the principles of poetry and sculpture. If Lessing had been able
1 See Loewy, 159-205 ; Hiller von Gartringen, Jahrb., 1894, p. 23.
2 See Introduction, p. 32.
470 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
to see all the examples of Greek sculpture which now fill our
museums, from the Elgin marbles to the Pergamerie altar, we
can hardly doubt that he would have estimated the Laocoon in
a different way. With this group, indeed, we enter upon the
study of a series of works, such as the Apollo Belvedere and the
Venus dei Medici, which we shall find ourselves compelled to
judge by a different standard from that of Winckelmann and
his associates. To them these late works were representative
of Greek art, simply because they had never seen any monu-
ments of better period, such as we now may study in any
museum ; and, instead of disparaging their criticism when we
may find reason to modify it in the light of fuller evidence, we
cannot but wonder at the intuition which led them to recognise,
in the products of a decadent age, the trace of those virtues
which had distinguished the highest period of Greek sculpture.
Now that we know the group of Laocoon to have been made
some fifty years before Virgil's description of the same subject
was written, our comparison of the literary and the sculptural
treatment of the same theme is freed from a good deal of vain
speculation. The group cannot be intended as an illustration
of Virgil's description ; and although both are doubtless derived
from a common tradition, what we know of Virgil's method in
other cases will warn us against assuming any very close imita-
tion of the original from which he copied, especially in the
pictorial realisation of the scene which must have been in his
mind. On the other hand, the description of Virgil does not
appear to be derived directly from the group made by Ages-
ander and his colleagues. It is by the succession of the narra-
tive, as Lessing points out, that the poet attains his effect, not
by an elaborate description of the pose of his subjects at any
one dramatic moment. The awful approach of the serpents
across the sea, their first attack on the two children, and their
turning on Laocoon himself, when he rushes to the aid of his
sons, cannot find any expression in sculpture, though on these
things the pathos and terror of the poetical description mainly
depend. But when we turn to the group itself, we cannot help
feeling that the object of the sculptor was not so much to
express in marble the story ^of Laocoon as to make use of the
theme as a pretext for a group of figures struggling in the
agony of a cruel death : and, however much we may admire the
skill with which he has rendered his repulsive subject, the
v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 471
choice of such a subject in itself suffices to show that he — or
rather the age in which he lived — had lost the finer instinct for
FIG. 116. — Laocoon (Rome, Vatican).
sculptural fitness. Death in itself, when met with a fortitude
like that of the dying Galatian, may reveal the character as
nothing else can, and show a quiet dignity, which affords an ad-
472 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
mirable subject for sculpture ; but the case is different when such
a subject leads to a mere pathological study of agony and con-
tortion. There is not here even that grace of composition and
bodily form which distinguishes the young Giant conquered by
Athena upon the Pergamene altar — a figure which somewhat
resembles the Laocoon in pose, if we remember that the upraised
right hand of the Laocoon is a false restoration, and that his
arm should be restored, as on ancient reproductions of the
group, with his elbow bent back so as to bring his hand close
to his head.
The technical excellence of the group, no less in com-
position than in execution, must be acknowledged. It is of
a pyramidal form, and the contrast between the father and
the "two sons ^ives it variety. The one on the right seems
as if about to escape, a version of the story in which the
sculptors followed the early poet Arctinus. The expression
of agony in the drawn brow and open mouth of the father,
and in the despairing glance of the younger son, is borne out
in every line of muscle and limb ; we see throughout the strain
of intense physical torture. Such pathological study, how-
ever" far from the true domain of sculpture, would be justified
in a sense, and even have a peculiar merit of its own, if its
realism was equalled by its correctness. But one cannot help
feeling that the motive of the whole is inadequately rendered.
The snakes have no truth to nature, but are zoological mon-
strosities. They clearly are not of the poisonous order, but kill
their victims by crushing them in their irresistible coils ; but
for such a process they have not the girth or muscular develop-
ment, and the coils in which they are wound about Laocoon
and his children give them no real grip, but are merely designed
in a conventional and ^decorative manner") to^ suit, the .artistic
^effect, and one of them" is BrETng~lrke a aog. It is the same
mixture of realism and convention which we saw in the great
frieze of the Pergamene altar ; and although we cannot deny to
the sculptors a wonderful power of design, of modelling, and of
expression, their work lacks the truth to nature, which alone
can justify so extreme a realism.
§ 68. Trailed — the Farnese Bull. — Another great group of
sculpture, which, like the Laocoon, was originally set up in
Rhodes and later transferred to Rome, has been preserved to
our time. This is the group at Naples known as the Farnese
v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 473
Bull (Fig. 117). It represents the cruel punishment inflicted by
Zethus and Amphion, the Theban heroes, upon their step-mother
Dirce, at the instigation of their mother Antiope, who looks on as
an unmoved spectator. They have caught a young bull, to which
they are in the act of tying their victim by a rope ; she lies on
the ground, and lifts her hand in vain supplication. The
sculptors, Apollonius and Tauriscus, were brothers, and prob-
ably lived early in the first century B.C.1 Thus, in date, this
group also falls into the next period ; but it belongs, like the
Laocob'n, to the works of the Rhodian school, dependent on
Pergamum, and it seems better not to separate it from this
connection. In its pyramidal composition this group recalls
the Laocoon, and it shows the same skill in dealing with a huge
mass of marble ; 2 but here the skill of the design is still greater,
since the group produces a similar effect from whatever side it be
seen, and is not intended only for a front view, like the Laocoon.
The choice of subject is clearly due to a desire for an ostentatious
display of the sculptor's skill, and so is characteristic of the
school and period.
The setting of the group is of interest, as showing another
influence which we have already noticed at work in another
example of Pergamene art — the smaller frieze of the Great
Altar ; it is really a translation into the round of those pictorial
accessories which we have first seen translated into relief in the
Hellenistic panels, probably of Alexandrian origin. So here
we have a rocky field on which the scene takes place, and it is
diversified not only by plants and animals, wild and tame, but
also by a small seated figure, a personification of the mountain
Cithaeron, on which the action takes place. But the minute
size of these accessory figures, and their disproportion to the
main group, offends us by its incongruity. It is yet another
example of that excessive and undiscriminating use of convention
which seems peculiarly unfitting in a work which claims our
admiration for the skill of the sculptor and his realistic power.
Another attribute which seems out of place, though in a
different way, is the lyre of Amphion, which leans against a
1 See Hiller von Gartringeu, Mitth. Ath. 1894, p. 37, who publishes an
inscription belonging to a son or grandson of one of them.
2 Here, as in the case of the Laocoon, Pliny states, the work was made ex uno
lapide. Either he is wrong, or he means merely "in one continuous piece of
marble " ; several blocks are joined together in the case of both works.
FIG. 117.— Farnese Bull (Naples).
CIIAV. v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 475
tree-trunk at his feet, while he is in the act of seizing and
mastering the bull. Here, we again see the same use of conven-
tion, which, though it does not seem incongruous in an archaic
work, is here even less appropriate than on the Pergamene
frieze.
§ 69. The Ephesian School — Agasias. — We have already, in
the case of Rhodes and Tralles, transgressed the limit which we
assigned, on general grounds, to the Hellenistic period, in order
to follow out the ultimate development in Asia Minor of those
schools of sculpture which were, in their origin, dependent on
the associates and pupils of Lysippus. At Ephesus we find yet
another school, which shows clear traces of the influence of the
great Sicyonian master, at a time separated by more than two
centuries from the age of Alexander. This school is not
mentioned by ancient authorities, but is known to us only from
inscriptions ; 1 its two chief names are Agasias and Menophilus ;
but Agasias is the name of more than one artist. Besides the
Agasias, son of Dositheus, who made the famous statue of the
Borghese warrior,2 now in the Louvre, there is another Agasias,
son of Menophilus, whose name occurs at Delos on a basis
which fits a statue of a wounded and fallen warrior found close
by. The two statues are very similar in style, and are probably
the work of two cousins of the same name.3
The Borghese warrior stands with his feet planted far apart,
and stretching out his shield to the utmost reach of his left arm,
while his right arm holds his sword in reserve (Fig. 1 1 8). The
attitude is that of a combatant on foot attacking a horseman ;
it is evidently chosen because it strains every muscle of the body,
and so gives an opportunity for display of the sculptor's know-
ledge of anatomy ; and in this display consists the main interest
of the work. We see here the last development of the great
school of Argos and Sicyon, which had devoted itself to the
study of athletic forms. It is true that we have before us a
combatant, not an athlete ; and in this we may see the influence
of Lysippus and his pupils who represented the battles of
Alexander, and of the Pergamene artists who celebrated the
1 See Loewy, 287-292.
Usually called, in old books, the Borghese Gladiator.
3 It has been asserted that because the Borghese statue was found at Antium
it must date from Imperial times ; but it is probable enough that it was transferred
from elsewhere to the Imperial villa there. The inscription, according to Loewy,
is about contemporary with those of the other Agasias.
2 I
476
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
CHAP.
Galatian wars ; but the opportunity for rendering the nude male
form in the utmost tension is hindered by no clothes or defensive
Fio. 118. — Borghese Warrior, by Agasias (Louvre).
armour, and so the subject suits the sculptor's purpose as well
as if it had been athletic. The Borghese warrior is essentially
an anatomical study ; every muscle and sinew stands out clearly,
v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 477
and is rendered with great knowledge and accuracy ; but the
figure looks almost as if it had been skinned, and there is no
covering of flesh, nor any attempt to render the actual texture
of the surface of the body. We may compare this treatment
with the almost equally dry and muscular rendering of the body
and limbs in the statues of Harmodius and Aristogiton ; and we
can at once recognise the difference between the early work and
the late. Critius and Nesiotes are indeed carried away by their
mastery of athletic form, which is too new and too hardly won
by observation and diligence to be unconscious, like that of the
great sculptors of the finest period ; and as a natural result they
emphasise unduly many details which in a living body are only
to be seen by close study ; but their object is to make a worthy
monument to the slayers of the Tyrants, and in the splendid
dash and vigour of the onset we can forget the too dry and hard
treatment of the muscles. But in the work of Agasias we feel
that the muscular exaggeration is the purpose of the statue,
and that the attitude of attack is merely chosen as a pretext for
its display. And, moreover, the work bears the impress of
academical and anatomical study, such as the scientific schools
of Alexandria and Asia Minor had encouraged, rather than of
fresh and diligent observation of the living and moving body.
For this reason the Borghese warrior is excellent as an
anatomical model; but, as a work. of art, it merely excites our
admiration of the sculptor's knowledge and skill, but in no way
interests us in his theme.
. § 70. Later Ideals of the Gods; Apollo Belvedere, Aphrodite of
Melos, etc. — In speaking of the Apollo Belvedere, it is needful
for us to bear in mind the increase of our knowledge of Greek
art since the end of the last century ; the same caution
was needed in the case of the Laocoon. Since the days of
Winckelmann and his followers, the Apollo Belvedere has
acquired a sort of prescriptive right to rank as a typical example
of a Greek god as rendered by the finest Greek sculpture ; and,
as a natural consequence, many excellences have been attributed
to this statue which it does, in some degree, actually possess, as
a more or less direct product of the art of Greece. Now that
we can see those same qualities exhibited in a less contaminated
form by many other extant works of better period and more
authentic character, we do not think of turning to the Apollo
Belvedere for their illustration ; but, in comparing the estimate
478 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP, v
of the Apollo Belvedere which is forced upon us by modern
criticism with the enthusiastic admiration of earlier writers on
Greek art, we must remember that he is now being judged by
a different standard. If it is his defects rather than his
perfection on which we have to dwell, this is because we now
compare him with the genuine products of Hellenic art, instead
of with the mass of Graeco-Roman works among which he stands
out in conspicuous excellence.
The statue (Fig. 119) stands in the Belvedere of the Vatican,
from which it takes its name, and is a marble copy of a bronze
original. This is evident both from the character of the
modelling, especially in the hair, and from the design ; a large
thin expanse of garment, like the chlamys which hangs from the
left arm of the god, is easily enough rendered by a sheet of
bronze, but in marble is clearly unsuitable. The god stands
with his left arm extended, his right lowered, and his feet rather
widely apart ; his glance follows the direction of his extended
left arm, and the position suggests an archer, who has just shot
an arrow and watches its flight.1 Such is the most usual Greek
conception of Apollo, and the correctness of the interpretation
is confirmed by the Apollo of the Pergamene frieze, who stands
in a similar position, and is certainly shooting with bow and
arrow.2 This Pergamene figure, however, also offers a con-
trast ; he is standing firmly on his two feet as an archer should,
and is full of life and vigour. The Apollo Belvedere, on the
other hand, seems gracefully posing as an archer rather than
actually shooting, and there is something theatrical about the
disdainful smile of his parted lips. The eyeballs, though
shadowed by the projecting brow, are in themselves remarkably
prominent, and show a strongly convex curve ; this is best
visible when the face is seen from below. The modelling of the
body is in many ways the very opposite to what we see in the
Pergamene figures ; there every muscle is emphasised and even
1 A statue in St. Petersburg, evidently reproducing the same original, known
as the Apollo Stroganoff, holds in the left hand the folds of some object like an
aegis or goat-skin — not, it seems, the end of the chlamys. Accordingly some have
asserted that the Apollo Belvedere also held the aegis, not a bow. The matter is
one of endless and not very profitable controversy. Furtwangler cuts the knot by
declaring the Apollo Stroganoff a modem forgery (Meisterwerke, p. 660 ; Eng.
trans, p. 406).
2 Furtwangler, I.e., says that the Belvedere statue held also a branch of bay
and woollen fillets in the right hand. This would make the motive of the out-
stretched bow absurd.
FIG. 119.— Apollo Belvedere (Rome, Vatican).
480 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP, v
exaggerated ; here all strong modelling is refined away until
we have a form which may, perhaps, be called ethereal, but is
certainly lacking in human vigour. It is perhaps a reaction
against the realistic tendency which was at the time so strong
in Pergamum and elsewhere ; but the Apollo Belvedere is
certainly open to an objection which some critics make, un-
justly, against the idealistic tendency in sculpture; in him
generalisation and avoidance of individualistic traits has gone
so far as to lose touch with nature. If we had not other works
of better period to correct our impression, we might, when we
look at this statue, be inclined to sympathise with the charge
which has been brought against Greek art generally by those
ignorant of its history and conditions — that it cares more for
mere grace and beauty of form than for truth to nature and
expression of character. How little such a general criticism is
justified we can see from the whole study of Greek sculpture ;
but it nevertheless does apply in this instance. As to the
precise school and period to which the Apollo Belvedere is to be
assigned we have no certain evidence.1 More than one copy
from the same original exists, and therefore that original must
have been a well-known work ; the character of its style which
we have already noticed, and above all the rather theatrical
nature of the pose, seem to show that we must assign it to the
Hellenistic age ; but we have no clue to guide us to any more
definite conclusion.2
The Artemis of Versailles (or Diane a la biche), now in the
Louvre (Fig. 120), has been universally recognised as the coun-
terpart of the Apollo Belvedere, and by a correct instinct ; the
modelling and conception are similar in character, and most of
what has been said about the Apollo applies to the Artemis also.
The figure of the virgin huntress, tall and slim, rushing through
the woods in pursuit of her quarry, and reaching an arrow from
her quiver with her right hand, is one with which we are familiar
in Greek art, from the time of Strongylion down ; it is finely
1 Winter, Jahrb. 1892, p. 164, assigns the Apollo Belvedere to Leochares, on
the ground of its resemblance to that artist's Ganymede, and Furtwangler agrees
with him. I must confess myself unable to see the least resemblance in style
between the two works ; also, on more general grounds, we cannot regard the
Apollo Belvedere as even in origin a possible creation of the fourth century.
2 There is no evidence for the theory that this Apollo, the Artemis of
Versailles, and a certain Athena should be grouped together as an offering set up
at Delphi after the repulse of the Gauls in 279 B.C.
Fio. 120.— Artemis of Versailles (Louvre).
482 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
embodied in this statue, with a successful striving for the desired
effect ; but all is marred by an addition like so many we have
already noted in Hellenistic art ; the stag which she holds by
the horn with her left hand is merely a conventional attribute,
such as we find often enough on early vases and statues ; but it ;
is remarkably out of place in a work like this, which depends .
for its effect on the reality and truth of the impression conveyed.
The way in which the drapery is turned back above the left
knee, merely in order to display the beauty of the thigh, is
another touch that betrays a master of the decadence.
We must now turn to a work which, though it must be
assigned to the same period, is of an entirely different character.
This is the famous statue known as the Venus of Melos (Fig.
121), which is the chief treasure of the Louvre, and is considered
by many, not without reason, to be the most beautiful of all the
statues that have survived from antiquity. There is a breadth
and simplicity about the modelling of this statue which recall at
first glance the character of the fifth century, and its attribu-
tion to so late a period always excites a conscious or unconscious
protest. Yet we shall see good reason for the place to which
it is* assigned in the history of sculpture. The statue was
found at Melos, in a grotto, together with some other antiqui-
ties, among them a portion of a plinth, which had on it an
inscription recording that the statue it bore was made by a
sculptor whose name ended either in -xander or -sander, of
Antioch on the Maeander.1 The name is otherwise unknown ;
but the character of the writing suffices to show that he
probably lived about 100 B.C. This plinth is said to have
joined on to the plinth of the Venus of Melos at the place where
that plinth is cut away under her left foot; but it has now
disappeared, and some have even suggested that its disappear-
ance was not accidental, but was contrived by those who wished
to claim a more distinguished authorship for the statue. There
has been much controversy about this question. On the whole
it is probably safest to follow the verdict of Loewy, who, after
a careful summing up of the evidence, decides that the connec-
tion of plinth and statue must be regarded as " not proven." 2
1 See Loewy, p. 298.
2 Furtwangler, in his Masterpieces, accepts the plinth as belonging, and
even restores the statue on its authority as resting the left arm on a pillar, for
which the basis has a socket. But his restoration is not convincing, and he
himself acknowledges it to be^ awkward in pose.
v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 483
The goddess stands, her left foot raised on a slight inequality
of the ground, and her drapery wrapped about her lower limbs,
FIG. 121.— Aphrodite from Melos (Louvre).
the upper part of her body being bare. The motive of her
position cannot be ascertained, unless we can discover the
484 A HANDBOOK OF GKEEK SCULPTURE CH.
correct restoration of her arms — a problem which, in spite of
endless discussion, has hitherto found no final solution. The pose
of the figure is almost identical with that which we see in a type
of Aphrodite grouped with Ares, of which we have several
copies. In another type she rests her left foot on a helmet, and
holds in her hands the shield of Ares, which she uses as a mirror;
and a later modification of the same type is seen in the Victory
of Brescia, who is engraving on a shield the names of those
whose exploits she celebrates. But it does not seem probable
that the pose of the Aphrodite found in Melos — for her identi-
fication as Aphrodite follows an instinct that cannot be gain-
said— was due to her holding a shield. She may have been
holding up her drapery with her right hand ; for without such
assistance it could not stay where it is for any length of time ;
but this, too, is not a satisfactory explanation, and it is prob-
ably wiser to acknowledge that we are at fault.
In the arrangement of the drapery we see the stamp of the
Hellenistic age. The artist wishes to represent the bodily
beauty of the goddess unveiled, but he also has a feeling that
nudity is inconsistent with her majesty and dignity ; and,
halting between the two opinions, he adopts a compromise
which once more brings us back to the strange relapse into
convention so common in Hellenistic art. The drapery,
like that of Zeus in the Pergamene frieze, is so designed as to
allow of an effective display of the figure while lending its
dignity to the deity ; but, in order to attain this end, it is
placed in a position where it would be almost impossible to
arrange it, and whence it certainly must fall at the slightest
movement. A sculptor of the fifth century would not, probably,
have ventured to represent Aphrodite except in complete
drapery : a sculptor of the fourth century represented her
completely nude without hesitation. It remained for the
eclectic art of the Hellenistic age to attempt to combine two
irreconcileable conceptions, and to be forced by the attempt
into an unnatural convention.
But, in spite of this defect, we must acknowledge that the
artist has caught much of the spirit and the dignity of the best
period of Greek art. For a conception of the female figure at
once so dignified and so beautiful we have to go back to the
sculpture of the Parthenon ; and we see the same breadth and
simplicity of modelling in the drapery as in the nude. The
v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 485
expression of the face, too, has the grace and charm which we
admire in the work of Praxiteles, without a hint of the too
soft and sensual tendency which we may trace in his followers,
if not in himself. The sculptor who made this Aphrodite of
Melos must have lived, in spirit, in the age of Phidias, even
although he could not entirely escape the contaminating influ-
ences of his own day, and he has given us a work which, now
that we have lost the originals from which he drew his inspira-
tion, is not unworthy to transmit something of the beauty and
majesty of the great works of the fifth century.
§ 71. Other Works of the Hellenistic Age. — Amongst the works
made to glorify the victories of Alexander and his successors,
those that we have hitherto noticed have either portrayed the
actual scenes of combat or the portrait of the monarch in whose
honour they were made, and some combined the two. But the
custom of setting up a statue of the goddess Victory (NtK?/)
in celebration of a successful battle or campaign was usual in
Hellenistic times as it had been in earlier Greece ; and the
Louvre possesses a statue, found on Samothrace, which is a
magnificent example of the custom (Fig. 122). This Victory
was set up by Demetrius Poliorcetes to celebrate a naval victory
in 306 B.C. We do not know who was the sculptor of the statue,
but it is reproduced upon the coins of Demetrius, and has been
identified with their help ; hence we may infer that it was greatly
admired at the time, and it ranks as a typical work of the be-
ginning of the Hellenistic age.
The goddess is represented as standing on the prow of a
ship. With her right hand she holds a trumpet to her lips,
with her left she carries a cross-tree, the framework of a trophy.
Her wings are outspread behind her, and her drapery is swept
by the wind so as to cling close to her body in front, and to
stream in heavy masses away from her limbs ; her knees are
hardly bent, and so the figure, in spite of its rush of forward
motion, does not seem to advance by its own speed, but by that
of the ship on which it stands. The effect of the statue is most
powerful, and, like that of the Pergamene frieze, overwhelming
at first glance ; but it must be admitted to be sensational in
character. In order to realise this we may compare it with the
Victory of Paeonius, or even with the figures in rapid motion
from the Nereid monument, which are intermediate between it
and the earlier work. There is a realistic vigour and dramatic
486 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
force about the Victory of Samothrace which carry us away at
the first impulse ; but from it the eye turns with relief to rest
Fio. 122.— Victory from Samothrace (Louvre).
on the simpler conception and execution of the fifth century.
This is chiefly the effect of the treatment of the drapery,
v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 487
which has no breadth or system ; some of it reminds us of the
finest bits of modelling in earlier work, and is doubtless imitated
from them ; other parts of it show a close and careful study
from nature ; but in the whole there is a restlessness that is
distracting — an impression similar, though less in degree, to
that produced by the Pergamene frieze. Theatrical power and
mastery of technique are there ; and there is something pictorial
about the design which must have been peculiarly effective in
the surroundings amidst which the statue was erected, in the
open air and in the open country. Then it must have been almost
startling to come upon this effective Victory, rushing through
the air on her ship to announce her tidings ; and if there is too
conscious a straining after effect on the part of the artist, we
must also recognise that he has been successful in his effort. /
Another work which cannot be placed far from the beginning
of the Hellenistic age is a head found at Eleusis of remarkable
workmanship (Fig. 123). Owing to a certain theory as to its
identity it has come to be known by the name of the " Eubu-
leus," which it seems likely to retain, even when spoken of by
writers who deny the correctness of the identification. This is
unfortunate, though not unnatural, since any name is better than
none by which to refer to an extant work.1 It consists of the
head and shoulders of a young and beardless man, more than life
size. It was never part of a complete statue, nor on the other
hand, is it either cut away below the neck into a square pillar, as
is usual with herms both in earlier and later times, nor finished
off as the conventional bust which has been common since
Hellenistic times. It is, in fact, transitional in form between
the two ; and this is consistent with a position in the history
of sculpture at the beginning of the Hellenistic age. Such a
position we may assign to it also on the ground of its artistic
character. The full and wonderfully soft modelling of the
flesh, the deeply undercut and overhanging masses of the hair,
1 It was found in the sanctuary of Pluto at Eleusis, and was called Eubuleus
because that god, or hero (he is both in myth), was there associated with Hades
in worship. And further, on the authority of a headless herm at Rome with the
inscription Ev(3ov\et>$ Hpa^iT^Xovs, it was claimed by both Benndorf and Furt-
wangler as an original work by Praxiteles. Kern, in Mitth. Ath., 1891, p. 1,
showed that the identification was mythologically improbable. There is certainly
no such resemblance to the Hermes or other attested works of Praxiteles a to
incline us to the artistic inference ; and the meaning of the Roman inscription
and its applicability are extremely doubtful.
488 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
are such as are unlikely at an earlier date ; and, above all, the
distinctly Alexandroid type of the head shows its approximate
date. It is not a portrait of Alexander, but it has a strong
resemblance to his features, such a resemblance as reminds us of
other works of about the same age that have been brought into
relation with him ; for example, the Inopus of the Louvre.
FIG. 123. — Head from Eleusis, known as " Enbuleus (Athens, National Museum)
The small eyes and sensual mouth suggest Alexander with tl
stronger and better parts of his character omitted ; and, moi
over, the head seems to have much of the nature of a portrait
and has more than once been identified as a portrait, though
without convincing success. It is either some mythical person
represented under the features of a man, or a man posing as a
hero or god ; and the man either had or affected to have a close
v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. 489
resemblance to Alexander, and cannot have lived long after his
time. We cannot say more than this with any confidence ; but
the extraordinary delicacy and softness of the modelling, which
is such as we see only in the finest Attic treatment of marble,
cannot blind us to the unpleasing and unworthy nature of the
subject represented. In spite of this drawback, however, the
head is a most characteristic example of the idealising por-
traiture, or of the assimilation of an ideal subject to the features
of an individual — we can hardly say which it is ; but both alike
are typical of the beginning of the Hellenistic age, when the
decline of the religious conception of the gods was matched by
a corresponding exaltation of men who seemed to have acquired
almost divine power and attributes.
The two works which we have just considered must be
assigned to the beginning of the Hellenistic age. One of them,
indeed, the "Eubuleus," is claimed by some high authorities for
the fourth century. We must conclude by a brief mention of
some works which give us a notion of the versatile activity of
the Pergamene school, of which we hav.e already seen the chief
monuments. One of them is a representation of the flaying of
Marsyas, in which one of the more morbid of the Pergamene
masters found a congenial subject. It had been represented
before by the painter Zeuxis among others, and we possess repro-
ductions of the group on sarcophagi and on other minor works
of art, which show that the satyr was represented tied up to a
tree, suspended by his arms, which are secured above his head.
In front of him crouched a barbarian slave, sharpening the knife
with which the cruel punishment was to be performed ; and
Apollo was probably represented as a spectator. We have
already noticed scenes from the same myth in earlier sculpture
among the works of Myron and Praxiteles. But the repre-
sentation of its painful conclusion was reserved, at least in
sculpture, for a Hellenistic artist. The actual flaying is not
indeed portrayed ; but its agony seems to be anticipated in the
expression of the face and the whole body of the satyr Marsyas.
His muscles seem riot only horribly strained by his suspension,
but also shrinking from the pain of the operation for which the
slave is preparing his knife. The Marsyas exists in several
copies, more than one in Florence ; but in execution they are
all surpassed by the statue of the crouching slave which is in
the Tribuna of the Uffizi Gallery at Florence. This statue is
490 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAR
of the same marble as the replicas of the dedications of Attains,1
arid has the same polished surface. It also shows the same
skilful rendering of the barbarian figure which we saw in the
Dying Gaul. It is these characteristics that make it most
probable that we must assign the group to a Pergamene
sculptor.
There is another set of works of playful and realistic genre
which we may also assign to the Pergamene school. One of
these is a bronze found at Pergamum, and now at Berlin. It
represents a young satyr, who is hardly to be distinguished
from a shepherd boy, who springs back and defends himself
with his short club from the attack of some animal. The figure
is full of life and action ; alike in face and body we see that
fulness, almost excess of expression, that the Pergamene artists
affect. The choice of such a subject, which in its character
reminds us of the idylls of Theocritus, once more shows us that
love for wild and country life which we have already noticed
as characteristic of the age. Another similar work is a statuette
in marble, in the British Museum, of a boy drawing a thorn
from his foot 2 — another touch of country life such as was dear
to the art of such cities as Alexandria and Pergamon. In these
works, as in the pastoral, we see an affectation of rustic sim-
plicity which is a sure symptom of the artificiality of a decadent
age.
§ 72. Summary. — The leading characteristics of the art of
the Hellenistic age have shown themselves clearly in the various
works of the period which have come before us. One of the
chief influences at its beginning was the dominant personality
of Alexander, which not only gave a new impulse to portrait
sculpture in celebrating him and his successors, but actually
affected the artistic type of the period, so that even gods were
created after his image. The sculptor who was mainly employed
by Alexander was Lysippus, and therefore it is not surprising
to find him looked upon by many of the Hellenistic schools as
their master, and to find his pupils directing the activity of
Greek art in the new centres it had found in the East. But
Scopas had been before him in Asia Minor, and his power of
1 See p. 458.
2 It is a matter of dispute whether the famous bronze boy of the Capitol, the
Spinario, is an early version of this same subject, or a late archastic modification
of a theme invented in the Hellenistic period.
v THE HELLENISTIC AGE— 320-100 B.C. /
expression and of pathos was likely to impress the sculptors of
later time, and to excite their emulation. We have seen in the
art of Pergamum, and of the later schools dependent upon
Pergamum, the dramatic and sensational development of which
Hellenistic sculpture was capable.
We have noticed the craving for an artificial simplicity
which was the natural result of the crowding of the population
into great cities like Alexandria, and the expression which that
craving found in art as well as in literature. Following the
bent of pastoral poetry, sculpture also represented the scenes
and the characters of country life, sometimes actual fishermen
and shepherds, sometimes satyrs, who are no longer the personal
attendants of Dionysus, but mere personifications of country
life, sharing the character of the rude and simple peasants
among whom they are imagined to live. Children, too, are
represented with truth to nature, and even the gods are some-
times represented in childish form.
It is above all in the conception of the function of art that
the Hellenistic age differs from the earlier periods. Sculpture
is no longer mainly concerned, as in the fifth century, with the
embodiment of the sublimest ideals of the gods, nor even with
their more human and personal characterisations as in the fourth
century. The types of the chief deities have, so to speak,
become stereotyped and conventional, and the artist can only
add colossal size or brilliancy of execution to the attainments
of his predecessors. It is partly due to this fact, partly to the
employment of art almost exclusively in the service of the
kings of those regions into which the empire of Alexander was
divided, that a desire for what was magnificent and imposing
almost superseded the need for artistic expression of the ideas
of the sculptor or of the people. Great works like the Colossus
of Rhodes and the Pergamene altar ranked among the wonders
of the world, and by that very fact satisfied to a great extent
the aim of those who had erected them.
An age of decadence is often an age of study and criticism,
and the Hellenistic period is perhaps the most conspicuous
example of this tendency. The study of nature in detail, of
botany and zoology and anatomy, has left many traces in
Hellenistic sculpture. The great libraries of Alexandria and
Pergamum were the chief centres of intellectual activity ; and
a study and criticism of earlier sculpture came to have an
2 K
492 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP, v
excessive influence on the art of the day. Of course in earlier
times each school had had its tradition, and its succession of
masters and pupils ; and the chief schools had also acted and re-
acted upon one another, especially during the times of the greatest
activity. But we now for the first time find the details and
mannerisms of earlier artists studied and imitated ; and this,
combined with the academic study of anatomy and of the
model, gives a lack of spontaneity and freshness to most of the
chief monumental works of the time, in spite of their dramatic
power and imposing effect. In smaller works, on the other
hand, we often find a freshness and humour that remind us of
the poems of Theocritus. But throughout we feel that the
sculptor chooses the subject for the sake of its effect, and its
scope for exhibiting his own skill or fancy. He is rarely
inspired with a great idea, which it is his aim to embody ; and
even when the result is a work so beautiful as the Aphrodite
of Melos, it is not the spontaneous growth of the sculptor's
own period and personality, but is due to his devotion to the
types and ideals of a greater age.
Nevertheless, the great works of the Hellenistic age, and
especially those which belong to the Pergamene school, are the
products of a living art, full of vigour and force. We hear
but little of Greece itself during this period ; and when the
sculptors of Athens again become prominent, they but confirm
the impression that all the strength and originality of the Greek
genius had followed Alexander in the spread of Hellenism over
the Eastern world.
CHAPTER VI
GRAECO-ROMAN AND ROMAN SCULPTURE
•
§ 73. Historical and Social Changes. — So far we have been
concerned with the history of sculpture, if not in Greece itself,
at least among people of Greek nationality and civilisation.
When Hellenic art, as well as Hellenic language and literature,
followed the conquests of Alexander to the East, it did not
change its essential nature ; and it was the pride alike of patron
and of sculptor to claim Greek birth and nationality, and to
trace a direct succession from the highest period of Hellenic
art. There are indeed some apparent exceptions — notably in
the case of the sarcophagi found at Sidon, where Greek artists
must have been employed by princes of a foreign dynasty ;
but those princes appear to have left the sculptors a free hand,
and to have been the better pleased the more closely the work
resembled what was made among the Greeks themselves.
It is true that Hellenism spread to the West as well as to
the East, but it was under different conditions. Alexander was
of Greek race, and posed as the champion of Hellenism ; so that
the influence of Greece upon the East came with all the prestige
of a system imposed by a conqueror upon his subjects ; and
although it found a ready acceptance, and was assimilated with
enthusiasm by its new devotees, it did not forget the pride of
its origin. But Greek influence on Rome was the reaction of a
conquered people upon its conquerors, and was never free from
the tinge of dependence and contempt to which such a relation
naturally gave rise. It is a trite saying —
Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit ;
but neither conqueror nor conquered forgot their political and
494 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
social position. Of course there were men of finer taste and
higher culture in Rome, by whom the literature and art of
Greece were estimated at their true value. But, in the main,
the Roman regarded the artistic and intellectual attainments of
Greece as things either to be despised or at most to be patron-
ised as an ornamental addition to the luxuries of life. The
tone of even so refined and cultured a poet as Virgil is not to
be mistaken :—
Excudent alii spirantia mollius aera,
Credo equidem, vivos ducent de marmore voltus ;
Orabunt caussas raelius, caelique meatus
Describent radio, et surgentia sidera dicent :
Tn regere iraperio populos, Romane. memento ;
Hae tibi erunt artes ; pacisque impOnere morem,
Parcere subiectis, et debellare superbos.
Macaulay's cruder expression of the same sentiment —
Leave to the Greek his marble nymphs
And scrolls of wordy lore —
probably represents fairly enough the feelings of the average
Roman upon the matter. But the Roman populace demanded
that the arts of Greece should be made a show in its triumphs,
just as it demanded wild beasts from Africa, or gold and silver
treasures from Asia. And Roman amateurs also came to affect
a taste for Greek statues and other works of art, such as was
sure to create a supply to meet the demand. The record of
Greek art under such conditions cannot but be painful and
humiliating, and here we will be content with the merest sketch
of its later activity.
Rome, indeed, is not without sculpture of its own, which,
though dependent upon Greece for its technical expression, is
national in character ; this is historical sculpture, and its pro-
ducts are of two kinds — the portraits of men whose features
are worth recording because of the personality they represent,
and reliefs which record the exploits of Roman emperors, their
campaigns, and the people against whom they fought, with an
accuracy that makes them invaluable to the historian and the
ethnologist. But here it is the subject rather than its artistic
treatment that interests us. Reliefs like those of Trajan's
column rank, from the point of view of sculpture, with the
wall reliefs of Assyrian palaces ; and both alike are outside
the domain of Greek sculpture, which is our present theme.
vi GRAECO-ROMAN AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 495
Graeco-Roman sculpture, in the stricter sense of the word, is
interesting to us mainly because it was the medium through
which much of the art of Greece was transmitted to the
Renaissance, and also because we ourselves, though to a less
degree than our predecessors, are dependent upon it for our
knowledge of the originals which it imitates or reproduces.
§ 74. The Carrying off of Masterpieces. — The first material
result of the conquest of Greece by Rome, so far as sculpture
is concerned, affected the great works of the artists of earlier
periods rather than the art of the day, and those who were
employed in its practice. The first Greek cities to suffer the
loss of their artistic treasures, carried off" as plunder to decorate
the triumph of a victorious Roman general and then to be set
up by him at Rome, were those of Southern Italy and Sicily.
When Syracuse and Capua and Tarentum fell into the hands of
Rome, though Hannibal was still in Italy, the terror of his
victories was waning ; and, in the confidence of ultimate suc-
cess, the Romans began to decorate their city with the spoils
of the Greek colonies. The great Roman victories that soon
followed in Macedonia and in Asia Minor each added to the
artistic plunder, and a whole day in the triumph of the general
was given to the mere procession of captured statues. It is
said that M. Fulvius Nobilior carried off from Ambracia no less
than 785 statues in bronze and 230 in marble; and these had
doubtless been already accumulated there by Pyrrhus. The
triumphs of Flamininus, of Scipio Asiaticus, and of Aemilius
Paulus were as rich in sculpture. But so far Greece itself
was, at least by a political fiction, regarded as independent,
and its central shrines were spared. A new epoch begins with
the sack of Corinth by Mummius in 146 B.C., and the reduction
of Greece to a Roman province. From this time forward even
the most sacred centres of Greek religion — Athens and Olympia
and Delphi — were not only open to plunder by generals like
Sulla, who respected no place or person, but also to the more
quiet and gradual robbery of Roman proconsuls, who carried oft
the most famous works of Greek masters, either to enrich their
own private collections, or to set up in public buildings at
Rome, and so to win the favour of the people. The extent to
which this practice was carried is sufficiently attested by Cicero's
Verrine orations. In Imperial times the shrines of Greece were
again and again denuded of their choicest treasures : no statue
496 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
was spared for its sanctity or for the difficulty of its transport.
Caligula is said to have attempted to move even the colossal
Olympian Zeus of Phidias, though portents prevented the com-
pletion of the work. It is true that occasionally a statue was
sent back to its own place by the compunction of an emperor
for the rapacity of his predecessors ; but these few exceptions
made no appreciable difference to the steady influx of master-
pieces from Greece to Eome. Nero is said to have carried off
500 bronze statues from Delphi alone. In the great fire at Rome
countless works of art must have perished ; and he sent envoys
to ransack Greece in order to fill up the gaps. After all these
depredations, it is astonishing to find how much was still left
for the traveller to see in the days of Pausanias.
With the foundation of Constantinople there was a yet
further drain on the apparently inexhaustible resources of
Greece. Not only were numerous statues transferred from
Rome to the new capital of the world, but works like the great
bronze Athena of Phidias at Athens, and, according to some
accounts, his Olympian Zeus, were carried off to Constantinople,
there to. await their final destruction at the hands of ignorant
mobs or barbarian conquerors.
§ 75. Centres of Art and Migration of Artists. — We have
already followed the developments of the local schools of Asia
Minor, mainly dependent upon Pergamum, even beyond the
strict chronological limits of the period to which we assigned
them upon artistic grounds. The sculptors of these schools, how-
ever, were mainly devoted to working for those among whom
they lived ; and if their works found their way to Rome, it was
mostly as a result of the same system of plunder that carried
away the statues made by earlier masters. They did not lay
themselves out to meet the demands of the Roman market. In
Greece, and especially in Athens, it was otherwise. We have
already noticed the absence of any original work of merit or
interest in Greece during the Hellenistic age, and so we are
prepared to find the artists of Athens ready to turn their skill
to the service of their new masters, and to supply either copies
of well-known works of art, or new statues of a more or less
conventional and imitative character. Such statues were
required to furnish the galleries and villas and gardens which
were considered necessary by a rich Roman who had any pre-
tension to taste or culture. And it was- natural that sculptors
vi GRAECO-ROMAN AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 497
working under such conditions should also transfer themselves
and their studios to the place where they found the best market
for their wares. We accordingly find many Greek sculptors,
especially of Attic origin, working in Italy and in Rome. Their
signatures are found upon works of sculpture which, in some
cases, we can identify as copies of earlier works by known
masters; and to their name is usually added the adjective
'A^vcuos, which suffices to show that they were working away
from their home.1 And the only schools of sculpture in which
we notice any coherence or growth of tradition are those which
flourished in Rome itself, to supply, both for public dedications
and for the collections of amateurs, the examples of Greek art
which were indispensable.
Though the extant statues of Roman period are for the most
part signed by Attic artists, they are not to be taken as repre-
senting exclusively a continuation of the Attic school of sculp-
ture. The fact is that in art, as in dialect, there was by this
time established a KOIV-JJ — a stock of types and traditions which
were regarded as the common property of all sculptors, irrespec-
tive of their origin ; and if an Athenian received a commission
from a Roman amateur, he was just as ready to reproduce
a work of Lysippus as of Praxiteles. And we may expect him,
if a faithful copyist, to introduce less of his own Attic training
into his work than we should expect to find at an earlier period.
Of course every case must be judged separately, and we must
allow for the modifications introduced by the copyist in the
original. But the mere assertion of nationality in a sculptor's
inscription need not in itself count for very much, and certainly
does not imply that he regards the statue on which it occurs as
a specimen of Attic workmanship.
§ 76. Statues of the Gods. — The galleries of all the museums of
Europe are full of statues of the gods, of the most various
degrees of excellence in execution ; and the great majority of
these were made by late Greek sculptors to meet the Roman
demand. Most of them are merely variations upon a limited
number of well-known and conventional types. Some are
doubtless direct copies from earlier originals ; such copies can
in some cases be recognised, but more often we have no data to
1 The artist's signature in these cases is usually on some part of the statue
itself, not on the basis. This implies that the artist merely supplied the work,
and did not superintend its erection.
498 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAJ
help us in their identification. Many are not so much copie
from any one well-known original as reproductions of the
established type of some deity ; and though this type may hav<
been originated by one of the great sculptors of the fifth
fourth century, it has been repeated so frequently and with sue!
freedom of modification that it is hard to say exactly wh*
belongs to the original conception. The type, in fact,
become common property ; and when a sculptor of Grace
Roman period made a Zeus or an Aphrodite, we cannot conside
him as copying the work of Phidias or Praxiteles, althougl
those masters had contributed in the highest degree to th(
formation of the type on which their successors worked witl
more or less ingenuity of variation.
Now that most of the original masterpieces of Greek sculpture
are lost, and cannot even be identified with certainty in dire
copies, the work of Graeco-R-oman artists is chiefly of value
us because it reflects, however indirectly, the conceptions of ai
earlier age. Inferences from later works as to the earlier froi
which they were derived, where there is no direct extern,
evidence to serve as a clue, offer a fascinating scope for stud;;
and conjecture ; but with such we are not here concerned. T<
wander through a gallery of statues, and to gather from
number of later productions and variations the character
the original from which they are derived, requires a memorj
and a faculty for generalisation such as few possess, and evei
those few cannot exercise without long and patient study,
that we can do now is to notice one or two of the more coi
spicuous examples which preserve to us the form recognised ii
later art as appropriate to one or another deity.
The bust, or rather mask,1 found at Otricoli, is the finest
example we possess of the normal Greek conception of the head
of Zeus. It is of Carrara marble, and so is doubtless the work
of a Greek sculptor resident in Italy ; and even if it be a
direct copy from an earlier original, that original cannot be
earlier than the Hellenistic age. Though it is most impressive
in its majesty and dignity, it lacks the breadth and simplicity
of the great age of Greece ; the modelling is emphasised in all
details, and, above all, the heavy overhanging mass of the mane-
like hair is not such as we should find before the days of
1 The back of the head is cut away, and it is intended to be seen from the
front only.
vi GRAECO-ROMAN AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 499
Lysippus. It gives to the god a certain leonine aspect which
reminds us of Alexander, and is, indeed, derived from him. We
can see the transformation from the earlier and simpler type
actually in process on the coins of the beginning of the Hellen-
istic age. When we turn to the Zeus of Otricoli, we can
recognise in it every feature that we expect in the King and
Father of gods and men, the expression of energy and benignity ;
and the skill of the artist in rendering them compels our admira-
tion. Yet there is a certain restlessness and lack of repose about
the face ; it shows energy rather than power ; and when we
compare it even with the inadequate representations on coins of
the Olympian Zeus, we can see how far it is from the ideal of
Phidias, with its severe and divine calm.
Another conception which, though it does not start upon so
high a level, has sunk much lower in Graeco-Roman art, is that
of Aphrodite. The Zeus of Otricoli, whatever be its defects, has
preserved the majesty and grandeur that befit a god. But we
can hardly say as much of the numerous statues of Aphrodite
that reflect with more or less variation the great Cnidian statue
of Praxiteles. The best known, and perhaps the most typical,
is the " Venus dei Medici " at Florence (Fig. 124).1 The motive
of the Cnidian statue, which is but delicately hinted in the work
of Praxiteles, is differently treated in these later modifications.
Praxiteles had represented the goddess as preparing for the
bath, with a gesture of almost unconscious modesty at the
unveiling of her beauty. There is nothing unconscious about
the gesture of the Venus dei Medici ; it is an affected coquetry,
and gives us the impression that it is assumed rather to attract
the gaze of the spectator than in any modest desire to veil her
charms. And it is in accordance with this effect that while the
eyes of the Praxitelean goddess are dreamy and vague, as those
of one who is alone and is lost in a soft reverie, the eyes of the
Medicean figure are directed upon a certain spot, doubtless upon
the spectator, of whose gaze she is conscious. Nevertheless we
must not ignore the high merit of the work in its own sphere.
The modelling is exquisitely soft ; the form is one of great
physical beauty ; and if it has not the breadth and grandeur
that we might expect in a goddess, it certainly represents a
woman of the most perfect proportions and the most graceful
1 The artist's signature on this statue, Cleomenes son of Cleomenes of Athens,
is now generally admitted to be a forgery of the seventeenth century.
124.— Venus dei Medici (Florence, Uffizi).
CHAP, vi GRAECO-ROMAN AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 501
contour. It is neither a mere study from a beautiful model, nor
a conventional and academic reproduction of a normal type, but
shows us what a Greek sculptor could do, even at so late a
period, to rise above the individual to the creation of an ideal
type, without losing touch with nature in a lifeless convention-
ality. His ideal was not a high one ; but he is successful in its
attainment.
§ 77. Works of the Neo- Attic School. — We have already noticed
the preponderance of Attic artists among those who worked,
whether in Greece or Italy, for Eoman patrons. A description
of some of the sculpture which is certainly to be assigned to
such artists, on the authority of inscriptions or other clear
evidence, will show the varied nature of the work they under-
took. They are usually classed together by the convenient
name of the Neo- Attic school ; and their activity is sometimes
described as " the Attic renaissance," a title hardly deserved by
a movement so limited in its aims and so imitative in its
character.
The first work with which we have to deal may surprise us
for the moment. The Farnese Hercules (Fig. 125) is obviously
a copy of a Lysippean original,1 though full of the exaggeration
which is the chief fault -of the later schools which are derived
from the art of Lysippus. We have seen that the conception of
Heracles as a man tired of his superhuman task, and resting a
little from his labours as if in weariness, almost in depression,
was due to Lysippus. Here we see a variation on the theme : the
hero is not seated, but standing ; he leans heavily on his club,
covered with the lion skin ; in his right hand 2 he holds behind
his back the apples of the Hesperides, which testify to the com-
pletion of one of his labours. But the sculptor, in his attempt to
portray the superhuman strength of the hero, has simply given
to all his muscles of body and limbs a heaviness and clumsiness
that are little short of grotesque; they suggest the "strong
man " of a show rather than the chief of Greek heroes. Al-
though the pathos of the Lysippean conception is not entirely
lost, the execution goes far towards destroying its effect.
1 Another copy of the same work has the inscription A wiinrov tpyov : but this
inscription is a modern forgery, f The tope appears in the Telephos group on the
smaller frieze of the altar at Pergamum ;! but that also is borrowed from an earlier
statue, which is reproduced on coins as early as 300 B.C. See Friederichs-Wolters,
No. 1265, where further references are given.
2 The right" arm is a restoration, but probably a correct one.
502 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP, vi
On the rock below the club is an inscription, recording as the
sculptor Glycon the Athenian : it is in characters which probably
belong to an early date in the Imperial epoch. Thus we have
an indication of the weight we must attach to such signatures, of
which we shall come across other examples. We have seen that
the type of the statue is a well-known one, and that it did not
originate in Athens; the signature of the Attic sculptor simply
means that he is responsible for this particular copy, in which he
has emphasised the external signs of bodily strength, probably to
suit the demand of his patrons for what they could at once
recognise as a typical Heracles. The result is creditable neither
to them nor to the artist.
Another work which will serve as an example of the same
school of sculpture is the famous Torso Belvedere of the Vatican,
signed by Apollonius son of Nestor, an Athenian. Here again
modern criticism is at variance with the admiration with which
the statue was regarded by Winkelmann and his followers,
because we now judge such works by a different standard. It
represents a man whose powerful build and finely developed
muscles are rendered with wonderful skill ; he is seated upon a
rock, and turns the upper part of his body to his left in a way
that affords excellent scope for the sculptor to show his know-
ledge of the human form. Various restorations of the statue
have been proposed. It was usually supposed to represent
Heracles resting from his labours, and either holding out a wine-
cup or playing the lyre ; recently it has been maintained with
much probability that the statue should be restored as the
Cyclops Polyphemus,1 with one hand raised to shade his eyes as
he looks out across the sea, perhaps to look for his beloved
Galatea. If so we have a subject characteristic of Hellenistic
art ; in any case the original from which the statue is derived
is probably later than the time of Lysippus. Of the actual
workmanship of Apollonius it may well seem presumptuous
to say anything in disparagement, when we remember that
the torso is said to have excited the admiration of Michael
Angelo, and that Winckelmann saw in its absence of veins an
intention to represent the deified Heracles, with body etherial-
ised. We shall rather see here a conventional and academic
representation of the human form, for which the copyist alone is
responsible ; of the original we may get some notion from the
1 Sauer, Torso von Belvedere.
Fio. 125.— Farnese Heracles, by Glycon (Naples).
504
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
CHAP.
Pergamene treatment of kindred subjects. Yet Apollonius
has preserved enough of the merit of his original to make mV
statue seem filled with life and vigour, when compared with the
more ordinary specimens of Graeco-Koman art.
There is a whole class of imitative reliefs proceeding from
the same Neo-Attic school; one of them, which is signed by
Sosibius of Athens, will suffice to show us the character of all.1
FIG. 126.— Marble Vase with relief by Sosibius (Louvre). After Bouillon III.
Vases et Urnes, PI. 8.
It is a marble vase, now in the Louvre, with a rich and delicate
decoration that reminds us of the sarcophagi from Sidon, partly
of architectural ornaments, partly of carved wreaths. Eound
the vase is a row of figures which show the strangest medley of
types collected from the most various periods and styles of art.
It appears to be useless to seek any explanation of the subject,
which merely represents a series of figures advancing from
1 A complete and thorough study of these reliefs has been made by Hauser.
die Neu-attische Reliefs.
vi GRAECO-ROMAN AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 505
either side towards an altar, some walking, some in dancing
step. The first figure on the left is Artemis, with bow and
stag as conventional attributes ; the stiffness and zig-zag folds
of her drapery betray archaistic imitation ; but she has both
feet planted firmly on the ground, the left advanced, and so
looks like a copy from a really early statue. She is followed
by Apollo playing the lyre, in a tolerably free style, with only
one or two touches of convention ; and behind him is a satyr
dancing and playing the flute, and poised on tip-toe — a figure
impossible before the fourth century. On the other side of the
altar the front figure is Hermes — the most stiff and conventional
of all, with the usual archaistic tricks of the walk on tip-
toe, the curved zig-zag ends of drapery, and a short caduceus
held up between finger and thumb. Behind him, in strange
contrast, comes a raving maenad, with a sword and half of a kid
she has slain, an ecstatic dancing figure, with rich folds of
drapery, dating originally from the epoch of Scopas and Praxi
teles. She is followed by a Pyrrhic dancer, nude, with sword
and shield, like those on Attic votive reliefs. On the side
opposite the altar are two more dancing figures in rich drapery,
of a familiar type. Though so great a mixture as this is
exceptional, the character of the work of Sosibius is that of all
these Neo-Attic reliefs. They have a certain limited repertoire
of figures, which are repeated again and again on different
reliefs, in various permutations and combinations, sometimes
appropriate, sometimes inappropriate. The skill of the artist
consists merely in the use he makes of this stereotyped material,
and the decorative effect he produces by its arrangement. How-
ever graceful the result may sometimes be, it is of little interest
for the history of sculpture except to show how mechanical the
repetition of the well-worn types had become. When such was
the case in relief, we need not be surprised to find something of
the same wearisome monotony in free sculpture also.
§ 78. Arcesilaus. — Among the Greek sculptors working in
Rome about the middle of the first century -B.C., Arcesilaus is
the most conspicuous. He was much admired by the antiquarian
Varro, to whom we probably owe a good deal of our information
about Greek art. Our chief interest in Arcesilaus lies in the
fact that he made a statue of Venus Genetrix for the Forum of
Julius Caesar. This statue was adopted as the embodiment of
Venus, as patron goddess of Rome, and ancestress of the Julian
506 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
family — Aeneadum genetrix, as Lucretius calls her. A statue
of Venus, with the superscription Veneri Genetrici, occurs
FIG. 127. — Venus Genetrix, probably after Arcesilaus (Louvre).
upon more than one series of Imperial coins, and it is natural to
recognise upon these coins a copy of the work of Arcesilaus.
vr GRAECO-ROMAN AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 507
The difficulty is that the figure varies upon different coins ; but
upon some of them is a statue similar to one of which several
copies exist in our museums (Fig. 127). The goddess is clad in a
long transparent chiton, on her left shoulder it has slipped down,
leaving the breast bare ; a short mantle hangs over her left
arm, and with her right she holds the other end of it over her
right shoulder ; in her left hand she holds the apple awarded to
her when she was victorious at the contest of beauty decided by
the judgment of Paris. The statue is a remarkable study of
the forms of the body and limbs as seen through clinging,
transparent drapery. Everything is in favour of the attribution
of this statue to Arcesilaus. His fame among Eoman amateurs,
and the popularity of the subject in Imperial Rome, suffice to
explain the number of the copies that have been discovered.
And the work itself, with its affected pose, and its elaborate
study of clinging drapery, is just what we should expect from a
sculptor like Arcesilaus, who was renowned for his technical
skill and his delicate fancy. The attribution is confirmed when
we notice the resemblance of the figure to the Electra grouped
with Orestes (Fig, 128), especially in the pose of the legs and
the arrangement of the transparent drapery over them and on
the left arm, and the straight folds falling between the knees
and outside the left hip. For this group of Electra and Orestes
comes from the school of Pasiteles, a sculptor who was, as we
shall see, a contemporary of Arcesilaus, and the representative
of the same artistic tendencies.
This brings us to the question whether the Yenus Genetrix
of Arcesilaus was, like several of the works of the school of
Pasiteles, a reproduction of some statue by an earlier master.
There seems to be little doubt that the type, in its general
character, dates from an earlier age, though we cannot identify
with certainty the original from which it is derived.1 However
this may be, the execution of the work may be taken as charac-
teristic of Greek sculpture in Rome, with its imitation of earlier
models, and the delicate affectation with which it transforms
them to suit the taste of the day.
Arcesilaus also made a fanciful group, representing a lioness
1 The Aphrodite in the Gardens by Alcamenes has been suggested, but there is
not sufficient evidence for the identification. Furtwangler, in Reseller's Mytliologie,
p. 413, accepts it, and also admits the probability that Arcesilaus adopted the type
originated by Alcamenes.
2 L
508 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
in marble, with whom winged cupids were playing, some holding
her captive, while others made her drink from a horn, and others
put boots on her feet. Such themes of playful genre are
common enough in Pompeian paintings and mosaics. In
sculpture they seem less appropriate, and their translation into
marble is probably to be regarded as a tour de force on the part
of the sculptor. He also made groups of nymphs riding on
Centaurs, another subject familiar from Pompeian paintings ; we
shall meet with a repetition of a similar subject in the time of
Hadrian, but we have no evidence as to how it was treated by
Arcesilaus. The only other fact we know about him is that he
made models in clay or plaster (proplasmata), which were bought
by artists at a higher price than the finished works of others, and
that he supplied a plaster model for a vase for which he charged
a talent. This shows, in the first place, that he undertook the
design of decorative work, like Sosibius ; but it also shows that
the art of sculpture had sunk to a low ebb, since one of its chief
masters contented himself with making a model, and took no
further care about its execution whether in marble or in bronze.
When we contrast this with the care with which the surface of
the statue, in its final form, was finished by earlier sculptors, we
realise that Greek sculpture in Rome had degenerated into a
mere commercial pursuit.
§ 79. Pasiteles and his School. — Pasiteles was a contemporary
of Arcesilaus. He was an Italian Greek, and obtained Roman
citizenship when it was given to the other inhabitants of Italy
after the social war, in 87 B.C. He was a most versatile artist :
we hear of works from his hand in silver and in gold, and
ivory, as well as more ordinary materials; and he is said to
have possessed consummate skill in all these branches of sculp-
ture. It is clear, therefore, that he was not content to simply
make a clay model for others to execute, although he declared
the art of modelling in clay to be the mother of all kinds of
sculpture, whether in the precious metals, in bronze, or in
marble ; and he is said never to have worked free-hand, without
a complete model before him. He is also one of the writers
whom Pliny quotes as his authorities for the history -of art.
Though he was prolific as well as versatile, Pliny cannot tell
the names of many of his works ; one of those recorded is an
ivory statue of Jupiter, which stood in a temple erected by
Metellus. We must probably recognise in this an attempt on
vi GRAECO-ROMAN AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 509
the part of Pasiteles to imitate the materials as well as the
style of the great chryselephantine statues of the fifth century.
Another of his works was in silver, and represented Roscius,
the great actor, as a young child, with a snake coiled about
him. This representation of an early incident in the actor's
life reminds us of the skill in silver work and in the representa-
tion of children that characterised Boethus.
We are, however, mainly dependent upon the works of his
pupils for our knowledge of the artistic character of Pasiteles.
He founded a school which lasted through at least two genera-
tions, since we have works signed both by Stephanus, who calls
himself in the inscription a pupil of Pasiteles, and by Menelaus,
who calls himself the pupil of Stephanus. Such forms of
signature imply an organised and well-known school ; but even
without them the uniformity in style and character of a certain
class of works which dates from the early Imperial period would
suffice to show that such a school existed. Its products consist
chiefly of a set of statues which reproduce, in all probability,
certain works of the fifth century that are now lost ; but they
are not ordinary copies ; for they all show a certain mannerism
and affectation in style, and a certain system of proportion,
which must be attributed to the sculptors who actually made
them, rather than to the originals in imitation of which they
were made. They have a squareness of shoulders which recalls
Polyclitus, joined to a slimness of body and limbs which
resembles the canon of Lysippus ; and, in general, they give us
an impression of eclectic art. The sculptor has neither worked
directly from nature nor followed the tradition of any one
earlier school, but has combined such features as pleased him
in various early works to form a new convention for himself.
The face, too, with its eyes set in too shallow sockets, and the
meaningless imitation of an archaic smile, is a recollection of
various specimens of transitional works rather than a close
imitation of any one style. But apart from these mannerisms
we may recognise a more direct imitation of a particular school
in a male figure like that signed by Stephanus, which reappears
combined with a similar female figure in a group of Pasitelean
style (Fig. 128). When we compare this figure with the bronze
found at Ligourio (Vol. I., fig. 39), the resemblance of the two,
both in pose and in general character, is striking, in spite of
the affected mannerisms which we have already noticed as char-
510 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
acteristic of the school of Pasiteles. When these mannerisms
are, so far as possible, eliminated in our imagination, we realise
that the figure which supplied the type of which Stephanus has
given us a Pasiteleari version must have been very like this
small bronze. Since the bronze is, as we have seen,1 a char-
acteristic product of the Argive school of the earlier part of '
the fifth century, the time of Ageladas, it seems a fair inference
that the Pasitelean sculptors who made these works were con-
sciously imitating the statues of Ageladas and his associates,
though they introduced into them much that was foreign to the
severe simplicity and strength of the early Argive school.
The figure above quoted as closely resembling that made
by Stephanus is repeated in conjunction with a female figure
to form the group now at Naples, and commonly known as
Orestes and Electra (Fig. 128). The interpretation is probably
correct. The relation of the two figures is clearly that of
affection such as that of an elder sister and a younger brother ;
and the raggedness of Electra's garment fits her neglect and
poverty as described by the dramatists. But it is clear
that, whatever was the meaning of the sculptor in this group,
it cannot be regarded as an original work, except in the
same sense in which a decorative composition like that of
Sosibius is original ; for one of the figures at least is a mere
repetition of a type already familiar. The female figure
may or may not be an original conception. Its resemblance
to the Venus Genetrix, probably made by Arcesilaus, has
already been noticed, but it is less graceful and less skilful
in design ; it has the same mannerisms as the nude figure
of which it is a feminine counterpart ; and the way in which
the left breast is seen through a hole in her garment con-
trasts with the same effect, as attained by a simpler and
more natural treatment, in the Venus Genetrix; there is a
contrast, too, between the naturalistic touches in the drapery
on the upper part of the body with the conventional treatment
of its lower portion. There is no spontaneity about the work,
whether in design or in execution. All that it can claim is a
certain skill in the adaptation and combination of certain given
types. It is interesting to compare this group with another,
representing the same subject, by Menelaus, the scholar of
1 P. 197. Furtwangler, 50th Programm zum Winckelmannsfeste, Berlin.
FIG. 128.— Orestes and Electra, Pasitelean group (Naples).
512 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CH
Stephanus.1 His work is translated from Greek into Romai
surroundings, both in figures and in drapery, and so has mucl
more claim to originality of work ; yet it is merely a variatior
on the same theme, and testifies again, though in a differen
way, to poverty of invention.
It would be easy to multiply examples of Pasitelean figures
Some have been found even in Greece itself, and the influence
and fame of Pasiteles were evidently very great. But what we
have already noticed will suffice to give us a notion of the
character of his school, and of the strict limits within which its
work was confined. Pasiteles himself may have been a master
of more originality, but it is hardly to be supposed that his
own work differed in its essential nature from that of his pupils.
§ 80. Portraiture. — The study of Roman portraiture is inter-
esting, both for its own sake and for the light which it throws
upon history by its vivid portrayal of the features and the
characters of those it represents. Iconography, however, is a
subject for separate treatment, and it would be impossible here
even to consider its more general aspects. But even in a
history of Greek art it cannot be entirely omitted ; for Roman
portraiture is in many ways only a continuation of the por-
traiture of the Hellenistic age in Greece, though there are
certain elements of realism in it which may claim a more or less
independent origin. The continuity is most obvious when we
compare the coins made by Greek die-cutters of the Hellenistic
age2 for Eastern princes with the portraits which appear on
Roman Republican and Imperial coins.3 In both classes we see
the same skill in catching the individual likeness, which some-
times almost approaches caricature in its lifelike expression.
And what is true of coins is doubtless, in the main, true of
sculpture also. But we must not ignore another factor which
counts for something in Roman portraiture. It was the custom
in all Roman families of rank to preserve a series of waxen
masks representing the ancestors of the house ; these were
made as lifelike as possible, being coloured in imitation of
nature ; and at the funeral of any member of the family the
masks were actually worn by men who personated the ancestors
1 Baumeister, Fig. 1393.
2 See P. Gardner, Types of Greek Coins, PI. xiii. 33-35 ; xiv. 29, 32.
3 These may be found under the various names in Baumeister. For a collection
see Tmhoof-Blumer, Portraitkopfe auf Rb'mischen Munzen.
vi GRAECO-ROMAN AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 513
of the deceased. We do not know whether these wax masks
were actually moulded from the faces of those they represented ;
but they cannot have been mere death-masks. Such things
would have been too ghastly for the purpose ; we may, however,
suppose that the custom attributed to Lysistratus, of taking a
wax impression from a mould made on the face of his subject,
and then working on the wax, would commend itself to the
Komans, whose chief object was to have as exact a presentment
as possible of the features of their ancestors. Every house
of any pretension to nobility and fame had a whole gallery of
these masks, which were kept in* shrines like frames ; and such
collections cannot have failed to influence portraiture when it
began to be practised in more durable materials. The close
study of individual characteristics and the realistic style of
some Hellenistic sculptors would recommend itself to people
accustomed to the life-like masks.
Honorary statues appear to have been set up in Rome from
early times. Varro l quotes, in corroboration of his statement
that barbers were first introduced into Rome in 300 B.C., the
fact that statues earlier than that date are bearded and have
long hair. It is a significant fact that perhaps the first historical
record of an honorary statue refers to the Greek Hermodorus,
who helped the Decemvirs in their legislation. From the fifth
century B.C., honorary statues to distinguished Romans are not
uncommon ; but this is no proof of an indigenous art, since in
the Greek colonies of Italy there was no dearth of sculptors
who could supply the Roman demand, and to them we must
probably attribute all statues of distinguished Romans which
have come down to us from Republican times. The portrait of
Julius Caesar in the British Museum (Fig. 129) will serve as a
specimen of the portraiture of Rome at the end of the Republic.
It shows us the man as he lived, his features and expression
rendered with the most unsparing realism, no detail softened,
if it could add to the individuality of the portrait, and it shows
in its lean and expressive features the wear and waste due to a
restless and fiery genius. If we contrast this face with that of
Pericles and with that of Alexander, we see the difference not
only between the men, but also between the art that portrayed
them. Pericles is almost an ideal abstraction, representing the
calm and moderation of the statesman and leader. In Alexander
1 R. R. ii. 11, 10.
514 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
...
there is more individuality, but it is tempered with an idealism
which raised him above mortality, and gives to his face the
character of one whose career was too astonishing to be due to
mere human aims or means. But in Caesar the sculptor has
portrayed the conqueror who owed his success to his own
consummate genius, which was too strong for the human frame
Fia. 129.— Portrait of Julius Caesar (British Museum).
that it wasted and consumed in its service. It is the man
himself that the sculptor brings before us. This criticism
implies that, viewed merely as portraiture, the work of the
Roman sculptor — or rather of the Greek sculptor working for
Romans— fulfils its object the most completely. But, for that
very reason, it is of the less importance for the history of
sculpture. Though it is a more valuable document for the
vi GRAECO-ROMAN AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 515
character of the man it represents, it does not show in the same
way the impression he produced upon his contemporaries. The
portraits of Pericles and of Alexander embody a conception of
wider and more lasting influence than the individual traits of
the man they represent ; and there are other portraits of Caesar
himself which seem more adequate to represent a name that
has become synonymous with empire.
At the end of the Eepublican period, and in Imperial times,
portrait statues usually belonged to one of two classes ; they
were either effigies togatae — that is to say, they represented men
in the usual garb of civil life — or statuae Achilleae — fancy
portraits in a conventional heroic pose, usually nude, and hold-
ing a spear.1 Examples of both kinds are to be seen in our
museums. The heroic convention was sometimes carried even
further, and Eoman men or matrons were represented in the
character of gods. This practice was especially common in the
case of members of the Imperial family. An example is the
statue known as Germanicus, which represents a Roman,
probably an ambassador, in the act of speaking, with his right
arm raised. He is nude, and has the attributes of Hermes, the
god of ambassadors. This statue is also valuable for its signa-
ture by Cleomenes of Athens, and shows the nationality of at
least one of the artists employed upon this kind of sculpture.
The convention of the nudity is the more remarkable, as the
statue is a very fine portrait. In Imperial times it was usual
to represent the emperors in gorgeously ornamented breast-
plates, which offered considerable scope for decoration and
allegorical design. Most statues, especially those of women,
follow the fashion of the day in hair and other details, and some
even have movable wigs, of the same material as the statue.
The character and even the features of the reigning emperor
and empress are often reflected in contemporary portraits of
other persons, so that it is often possible to date them by this
resemblance. Such a change as the custom of allowing the
beard to grow, under the Antonine emperors, is one of the
most obvious criteria.
The freaks of emperors like Nero or Domitian, who caused
their own heads to be set upon statues of the gods, colossal and
others, are but an extreme example of the common practice of
making use of old statues with a new application. Sometimes
1 Overbeck, 8. Q. 2350.
516 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CH,
the statues were left as they were, sometimes they were altered
to suit the new conditions. Many works of Greek sculpture
owed their destruction to this practice.
§ 81. Historical Monuments. — The magnificent series of his-
torical reliefs in Rome, which record the exploits and the
administration of various emperors, from Augustus to Con-
stantine, are in the first place of the highest value as historical
documents. They also teach us much about the life and in-
stitutions not only of the Romans themselves, but also of
the various peoples with whom they come in contact during
this period. We depend on Roman reliefs for our knowledge
alike of an object like the Golden Candlestick of Jerusalem,
and of the dress, houses, and customs of the people of Dacia.
Here, however, we are concerned only with the artistic side of
these representations, and even that to a limited degree. For
these historical monuments have considerable claim to be
regarded as the products of a national Roman art, and although
Greek influence must count for something in their execution,
their subjects and designs are really outside the sphere of a
study of Greek sculpture.
Roman historical monuments fall also under the class of
architectural sculpture ; but there is a difference from most of
the examples of architectural sculpture which we have noticed in
Greece. Most of those were intended to decorate the exterior
or interior of some temple or other building, and were sub-
servient to its architectural purpose and design. But in the
Roman monuments, which were set up to record great events,
whether of peace or war, the sculpture was at least as important
as its architectural frame. They were not designed for any
purpose of use or worship, but were merely set up in Rome or
elsewhere as memorials of those by whom they were erected.
Their most conspicuous forms were the triumphal arch and the
huge single column, surrounded with a spiral band of sculpture
and surmounted by a statue. The finest of all is the column of
Trajan, which records all the details of his campaigns against
the Dacians. It is an invaluable document for the historian,
the student of Roman antiquities, and the ethnologist. The
sculptors employed shrink from nothing in their representation,
whether it be the building and crossing of a bridge, the con-
struction of fortified posts, the attack and defence of towns and
stockades, or any other incident of the campaign. But there
vi GRAECO-ROMAN AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 517
is no artistic composition ; scene succeeds scene without a break
in the continuous sculptured chronicle. It is evident that the
desire of the artist and his employer is merely to record facts,
not to translate the impression they give into sculptured form.
The technical skill with which everything is rendered is due
to the influence of Greece ; but the selection — or rather want
of selection — of the subjects, and the way in which scene after
scene, objects possible and impossible to represent, follow one
another on the long winding band of relief, remind us of the
reliefs of Egyptian tombs or Assyrian palaces rather than of
the compositions of a Greek artist. We saw the essential
distinction in this matter between Greek sculpture and what
had preceded it. In Rome, again, we find the same conditions
and requirements leading to a similar result as soon as the con-
trolling genius of Greece ceased to guide the hand of the artist.
There is a continuous development in style to be seen in the
historical reliefs of Rome. In the time of Augustus they are
of a more conventional and dignified character. We have
already noticed the variety and vigour that mark the monu-
ments of Trajan. After the Antonine age we can see a rapid
decline, until the sense for sculptural composition and execu-
tion is almost entirely lost. The Contrast is clearest on the
arch of Constantine, where the pieces of sculpture taken from
the demolished arch of Trajan stand out in marked superiority
to the scenes added at the time when the arch was built. The
wearisome iteration of type and gesture, and the absence of
life or reality in the figures make one realise that the power of
classical sculpture had passed away, and that its lifeless forms
alone remained to offer material for the new inspiration of
Byzantine and Mediaeval art.
§ 82. Antinous and the Hadrianic Revival. — The gradual and
steady decadence of ancient art was relieved by a brief revival,
due chiefly to the personal influence of the Emperor Hadrian.
He not only travelled throughout the civilised world, and made
his visits the occasion for erecting the most sumptuous build-
ings and monuments, but showed a real devotion to art, and
did his utmost to encourage its practice. It is true that a
considerable proportion of the sculpture set up during his
reign consisted of statues of the emperor himself ; but we may
quote as a specimen of his munificence the temple of the Olym-
pian Zeus at Athens, which he not only completed after it had
518
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
CHAP.
remained unfinished since the time of Pisistratus, but provided
with a colossal gold and ivory statue, which must have rivalled
in its cost the great chryselephantine works of the fifth century.
Of course he could not make a new Phidias arise at his bidding;
but his encouragement appears to have really raised the tone
FIG. 130.— Relief ; portrait of Antinous (Rome, Villa Albani).
of sculpture. To his period we owe many of the finest copies
of Greek masterpieces that exist, and also many original works
which, if slighter and more fanciful in their subjects, are not
devoid of artistic skill and merit.
Examples of this class are the Centaurs, one fettered by a
Cupid, another snapping his fingers at the little god, made by
Aristeas and Papias of Aphrodisias.1 The theme, indeed, is not
1 See Baumeister, fig. 132.
vi GRAECO-ROMAN AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 519
a new one, and is probably imitated more or less closely from
originals of the Hellenistic age. But the execution in hard
black marble shows high technical skill, and the figures are full
of life and humour. The statues were set up in the emperor's
villa at Tivoli, which has been the richest of mines for the
recovery of the treasures of ancient art accumulated there by
the emperor.
There is another figure, beside that of the emperor himself,
which exercises an influence on the art of the time similar in
nature and in degree to that of Alexander upon his own age.
Antinous was a Bithynian youth, famous for his beauty, and
was a favourite of the emperor. It is said that while Hadrian
was travelling in Egypt some mystic rite required the sacrifice
of a life on the emperor's behalf, and Antinous voluntarily
offered himself as the victim, and drowned himself in the Nile.
Hadrian, in his grief for his loss and appreciation of the devotion
of Antinous, ordered that divine honours should be paid to him.
Statues were set up in his honour throughout the empire, and
his features influenced contemporary sculpture so strongly, that
many works have been called Antinous from their resemblance
to him, though there is no direct intention to represent him on
the part of the sculptor. A relief in the Villa Albani (Fig. 130)
is among the finest of the portraits of Antinous. It shows
him to have possessed features of great beauty and regularity,
though of a somewhat heavy type. The same heaviness, almost
clumsiness, of proportions may be seen in the limbs and body,
which are, however, well formed and symmetrical. The
expression is melancholy, almost morose in character; but
we can readily believe that the man to whom it belonged was
capable of true, if fanatical, devotion in giving up his life for
his friend. The fact that such a type, which has little of
intellectual character about it, could influence the whole course
of art, suffices to indicate the poverty of ideas and the lack of
originality which mark the sculpture of the time, although it
still retained a considerable amount of technical skill.
§ 83. Sarcophagi.1 — The monuments erected over the dead
1 The name sarcophagus as applied to a stone coffin is so well established that
it is useless to protest against it. Even St. Augustine says that the Tise of the
word had come in at his time. The flesh-eating stone of Assos, \tdos <rapKO(j>dyos,
was not, as far as we know, extensively used for coffins. It is hard to find how
the confusion arose.
520 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
have furnished us with material for the history of sculpture in
every period of Greek art. These, however, are usually erected
above the ground, over the spot where the deceased was buried.
The practice of decorating with sculpture the actual receptacle
in which the body of the deceased was placed is foreign to the
Greeks. It was, of course, usual among the Egyptians, who
often gave to the stone coffin the form of a house, since it was
the dwelling of the dead, and this form survives even in the
Roman sarcophagus. We have already noticed how the sarco-
phagi found at Sidon were made in the form of temples. These
sarcophagi from Sidon are also an example of the imitation,
common enough in Phoenicia, of the Egyptian custom. Though
the art which decorated them is Greek, the burial customs that
they represent are foreign to Greece. In Lycia it appears to
have been usual to combine the functions of coffin and of
monument by erecting the receptacle in which the body was
placed upon a lofty pedestal, and giving it an architectural form.
We do not find sarcophagi commonly employed in Greece itself
until the Hellenistic age. Then they are mere empty monu-
ments, set up over the grave, and their coffin -like shape is
purely conventional. Such sarcophagi usually have a dis-
tinctly architectural form. The design is often only decorative ;
when it consists of figures, they are not usually allowed to
interfere with the structural lines ; and often the subject is
subordinated to the decorative effect. Thus groups of children
are preferred, because their short and chubby forms adapt
themselves easily to the available fields on the sides of the
sarcophagus.
The Eoman sarcophagus is intended for a different purpose.
Like the boxes to hold ashes commonly found in Etruria, they
were intended to contain the remains of the deceased, and were
buried in a subterranean chamber, usually with one side set
against its wall. It was a natural result of this arrangement
that only the front and sides of the sarcophagus came to be
decorated with sculpture, while the back was left plain. At
the same time its architectural design was obscured, and the
sculptured scenes covered all the available space, the figures
often projecting beyond the limits of the field, and standing
out at the corners.
Such sarcophagi were made in enormous numbers after the
second century of our era, and afforded the chief scope for such
vi GRAECO-ROMAN AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 521
sculpture as existed outside public monuments. Even now
they are counted by the thousand in museums and collections.
The subjects are usually mythological, and they offer a whole
gallery of illustration for ancient myths.1 Their artistic value
lies mainly in the fact that they repeat conventional notions
which are often derived from original Greek treatments of the
same themes. Sometimes the subjects are appropriate to the
tomb, as when we find scenes symbolical of the course of
human life, or myths, like that of Prometheus or of Cupid and
Psyche, which are connected with the origin and destiny of
humanity, and a belief in the immortality of the soul. But
almost all classes of myth are represented, including even such
as seem to us offensive to nature and to morality. It is not
probable that in these cases we have to look for any occult or
mystic significance to justify the selection ; but when once the
custom of carving mythological scenes upon sarcophagi had
become prevalent, the whole stock of mythical types was open
to the choice of the sculptor, and the less refined of his patrons
probably looked no farther if they got something showy for
their money.
The execution of the Roman sarcophagi varies from a fairly
high level of excellence to the rudest and most careless work-
manship. But their value for the history of art lies mainly in
the fact that they preserve much of what would otherwise have
been entirely lost to us ; and that they were instrumental in
transmitting to the Italian sculptors of the Renaissance some
faint reflection of the art of Greece.
§ 84. Summary. — The story of the decadence of Greek art
under Roman patronage forms but a sorry sequel to the tale of
its origin and development ; yet it is a necessary part of our
study, partly for the sake of the warnings which it offers,
partly because we should hardly be in a position without it to
estimate the true value of the contents of our museums. We
have but few originals of Greek workmanship, and consequently
we are dependent to a great extent upon copies or imitations
made for the Roman market. When we realise the conditions
under which those copies were made, we are better able to
appreciate their relation to their originals, to eliminate what
the copyist has himself contributed to the work, and so to
1 For illustrations of sarcophagi, see Robert, Die antike Sarcophagreliefs. See
also Baumeister, passim, in illustration of various myths.
522 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE CHAP.
carry back our imagination to the originals themselves. This
is the most difficult, as it is the most fascinating branch of th<
study of sculpture. No better training for the eye and for tl
mind can be thought of ; but the greatest care and circumspec
tion must be used in its pursuit. Above all, no conclusioi
attained by this method can be made the basis for furth(
inference until it has been subjected to the most searching
tests.
The archaistic and conventional character of all the work of
this period that is not crudely realistic or historical shows how
completely the originality of Greek art had become extinct.
The limits of our subject have compelled us to notice only the
decline and final extinction of sculpture. There is no need to
recapitulate its phases, as they have been traced in the various
sections of this chapter. The rise of Byzantine art in the East
was precluded by the tenets of the Greek Church from a renewal
of religious sculpture; and so it was reserved for Italy to
renew with a fresh inspiration the art which her patronage had
previously destroyed. It was reserved for the Tuscan sculptors
to break the repose of ten centuries ; and even in the last
degradation of the sculpture of Greece they could find material
aid, such as the early sculptors of Greece had themselves
borrowed from the decadence of their predecessors.
INDEX
ACARNANIA, sculpture from, 141
Achaeans, employers of Onatas, 198
Achilles, apotheosis of, by Scopas,
383 ; shield of, in Iliad, 67, 68 ; on
Tegean pediment, 379 ; statue by
Silanion, 370
Achilles and Memnon in group by
Lycius, at Olympia, 315
Achilles and Telephus, pediment at
Tegea, 40
Acragas, colossal figures in Temple of
Zeus at, 347 (see Agrigentum)
Acrolithic statues, 17 ; statue of Ares
at Halicarnassus, 375 : works, by
Damophon, 401
Acropolis at Athens, offerings at, 3 ;
I sack of, 5 ; terra cottas, 27, 28 ;
\ statues on, 30 ; pediments from,
[ 38 ; name of Archermus in Ionic
inscription, 101; name of Theodorus
on sixth-century base, 101 ; style
of two statues like that dedicated
to Hera of Samos, 114, 115 ; female
statues on, 164 - 175 ; beautiful
1 archaic head from, 172 ; athlete
head on, 187 ; basis of statue of
I Athena by Cresilas on, 319 ; colossal
' wooden horse by Strongylion on,
I 319
Acroteria, 37 ; at Rome, by Bupalus
IT and Athenis, 101 ; at Olympia, by
t Paeonius, 230, 341 ; victories as,
: 248 ; by Timotheus, 372
Actaeon on Selinus metope, 346
Actium, statues found at, 19, 141
Aegean Islands peopled by Greeks,
57, 112
Aegiria, sculpture from, 8, 22 ; pedi-
I ments, 36, 38, 201; restoration, by
2
Thorwaldsen, 201; wounded warrior
on, 201, 202 ; composition and
style, 202 ; difference between the
two in treatment of wounded
warriors, 203, 204, 206 ; modelling
of figures, 203 ; figure of Athena
on, 204 ; date of, 206
Aeginetan bronze, 24 ; used by Poly-
clitus, 242
Aeginetan figures, modelling of, 223 ;
school, colossal bronze statues of,
200 ; evidence of inscriptions, 200 ;
artistic affinities of, 200 ; history
of, 200 ; sculptors, 181, 197, 198 ;
sculpture, 197 ; work, difference
between Attic and, 179 ; influence
in Attic sculpture, 315
Aegis of Athena, 163.
Aegospotami, group in commemora-
tion of, by scholars of Polyclitus,
338
AemiKus Paulus, statues carried off
by, 495
Affectation of simplicity a sign of
decadence, 490, 491
Agamemnon, 58
Agasias, inscription with name of,
475 ; son of Dositheus, Borghese
warrior by, 475 ; son of Meno-
philus, basis at Delos, with name
of, 475
Aged seer from eastern pediment of
Olympia, 226
Ageladas, Pasitelean imitations of
works of, 510
Ageladas' career, length of, 192
'Ayefjub, inscription on statue, 138
Agesander, one of the sculptors of
Laocobn, 469
M
524
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
Agoracritus of Paros, Nemesis at
Rhamnus by, 305
Agrigentum, dedication of bronze
boys of Calamis by people of,
235 (see Acragas)
Ajax and Cassandra on throne of
Olympian Zeus, 261
Alcamenes and the statue of Neme-
sis at Rhamnus, 305 ; contrasted
with Polyclitus by Quintilian, 312
Alcestis, Thanatos, and Hermes Psy-
chopompus, scene on Ephesus
drum, 421
Alcinous, golden youths in palace of,
69
Alcmaeonidae, rebuilding of temple
at Delphi by, 314
Alcmena by Calamis, 235
Alexander, admission to Olympian
games of, 435 ; character of, 488 ;
connection of Lysippus with, 412 ;
descent from Heracles of, 435 ;
dying, 436 ; features of, 488 ; |
hunting and in battle by Lysippus,
409 ; as a hunter by Euthycrates,
413 ; influence of, on sculpture,
433, 434-437 ; in literature, 435 ;
portraits of, by Lysippus, 409, 412,
435, 436 ; portraits of, 432,
451 ; statuette of Hercules made
by Lysippus for, 411 ; portraits
of companions of, by Tisicrates,
414
Alexander sarcophagus, 428-431
Alexander's successors, portraits of,
451
Alexandria, school of sculpture at,
437
Alexandroid type, origin of, 451 ;
of so-called Eubuleus head, 488 ;
of Inopus in Louvre, 488
Allegorical subjects, preference of
Cephisodotus for, 354
Altar of Zeus at Pergamum, 460-468 ;
small frieze from, 468 ; mytho-
logical character of gods on, 462 ;
names of gods incised above each
on, 462 ; probable date of, 468
Alypus, pupil of Naucydes, 338
Amazon Hippolyta on metope at
Olympia, 229 ; competition statue
for Ephesus by various sculptors,
248, 332, 336 ; at Ephesus by
Phidias, 25 8; wounded, by Cresilas,
319 ; Eucnemus, by Strongylion,
320 ; queen, on Phigalian frieze,
323 ; by Polyclitus, 332 ; using
spear as jumping pole, 336 ; from
Epidaurus, 374 ; frieze of Mauso-
leum, 387, 389, 392
Amazons on throne of Olympian Zeus,
263 ; fallen figures from Attalid
battle-groups, 457-459
Ambracia and Amphilochian Argos,
141 ; statues taken from, 495
Amphiaraus on Tegean pediment,
379
Amphicrates, statue of Leaena by,
316
Amphion in group with bull, 473
Amphitrite on Parthenon pediment,
278
Amyclae, throne of Apollo, 36, 134 ;
sculptors of group dedicated to
commemorate Aegospotami at, 378 ;
tripods and statue of Cora at,
198
Anatomical study, Borghese warrior
an, 475, 477
Anatomy, Myron's treatment of, 194
Ancaeus at Tegea, 379
Androsthenes, pediments of temple
of Apollo at Delphi by, 313
Ancient sites, change of level in, 7
Animal forms borrowed from Assyrian
art by early Greek artists, 49
Antenor inscription, 181
Anthropomorphic symbolism in sculp-
ture, 446
Anticyra, statue of Artemis by
Praxiteles at, 368
Antigonus, sculptor employed by
Attalus, 456
Antinous and the Hadrianic revival,
517 ; influence of, 519
Antioch, Fortune of, by Eutychides,
446-448
Antiope in group with bull, 473
Autonine age, decline of sculpture
after, 517
Apelles, artificial allegory of, 411
Aphrodite from Pompeii, 30 ; at
Naucratis, offerings at temple of,
82, 101 ; from Cythera, 139 ; type
found on coins of Cnidus, 139 ; at
Sicyon, statue of, 195 ; probably
the Sosandra by Calamis, 235 ;
competition statue by Alcamenes
and Agoracritus, 248 ; rising from
waves on pedestal of throne of
INDEX
525
Olympian Zeus, 261, 263 ; Pan-
demus by Scopas at Elis, 263 ;
Urania at Elis, 263 ; of Melos,
' drapery of, 286 ; in the gardens,
statue by Alcaraenes, 308, 309,
310, 313 ; at Amyclae by Poly-
clitus, 332 ; of Cnidus by Praxi-
teles, 359, 360-362; by Praxiteles
compared with Hermes, 362 ; by
Praxiteles, influence of in later
art, 363 ; of Melos, 477 (see
Venus of Melos) ; and Ares,
motive of group as a clue to re-
store arms of Venus of Melos, 484 ;
drapery of, at different dates, 484 ;
in Graeco-Roman times, 498, 499
Apobatae on Parthenon frieze, 289
Apollo, of Amyclae, 24, 81 ; with
Muses at Delphi, 39 ; Telchinius
at Rhodes, 66 ; throne of, at Amy-
clae, 74, 78 ; of Delos, temple
statue of, by Tectaeus and An-
gelion, 82, 153, 198 ; at Bran-
chidae, date of statue, 82 ; name
applied to statues, 93, 94, 127, 139,
164 ; Pythius at Samoa, 100 ; at
Branchidae, 105, 194 ; Ptous in
Boeotia, male statues from sanctu-
ary of, 116, 147, 149, 207 ; at Delos,
great shrine of, 126 ; of Tenea,
139 ; at Actium, two headless
statues of, 141 ; of Orchomenus,
141, 147 ; at Tegea, gilt statue of,
by Chirisophus, 153 ; at Olympia,
head at Athens similar to, 189 ; of
'Piombino, in Louvre, 190, 209 ;
Ismenius at Thebes, 194 ; at Aegira,
statue of, 195 ; atPergamus, bronze
statue of, by Onatus, 199 ; Strang-
ford, 207 ; Sciarra, 209 ; at Phig-
alia, 221 ; from Olympian pedi-
ment, style of, 225 ; Alexikakos by
Calamis, 234 ; on the Omphalos,
235, 247 ; colossal, by Calamis, 235 ;
by Myron, 242 ; transfixing the
serpent with arrows, by Pythagoras,
246 ; Choiseul-Gouffier, 247 ; Par-
nopius at Athens, 258 ; [and Ar-
temis slaying Niobids on throne of
Olympian Zeus, 260 ; on eastern
pediment of temple of Apollo at
Delphi, 313 ; Epicurius, temple of,
at Bassae, 321 ; and Artemis on
Phigalian frieze, 322 ; Sauroctonus
by Praxiteles, 366 ; on Mantinean
relief, 366 ; at Daphne, near Anti-
och, by Bryaxis, 374 ; Musagetes,
374 ; Citharoedus by Scopas,
384 ; Smintheus by Scopas, 384 ;
Niobe group set up at Rome, in
temple of, 421 ; Rhodian Helios,
a variant of, 444 ; from Pergamene
frieze, 466 ; Belvedere, 470, 477-
480 ; Stroganoff, 478 ; as an archer,
478 ; Belvedere, attribution by
modern writers to Leochares, 480 ;
as spectator of flaying of Marsyas,
489 ; on Neo- Attic relief, 505
Apollodorus, statue by Silanion of,
370, 371
Apollonia in Epirus, group dedicated
at Olympia by, 315
Apollonius, bronze head by, 327 ; one
of the sculptors of Farnese bull,
473 ; son of Nestor, torso Belvedere
signed by, 502
Apoxyomenus of Lysippus, 331, 406,
408 ; later version, 414
Arcesilaus, Venus Genetrix by, 505;
sale of proplasmata by, 508
Arch of Constantine, 517
Archaic decorative art, 64, 65 ; sever-
ity of Gallon's style, 198 ; smile,
133 ; smile, meaningless imitation
of, in Graeco-Roman times, 509 ;
technique of Myron, 243
Archaistic character of all late work,
521 ; works, 14
Archer, Apollo as an, 478
Architectural orders, 37
Archon Basileus on Parthenon frieze,
291
Archons on Parthenon frieze, 290
Arctinus, version of Laocoon story by
poet, 472
Areia, statue of Athena, 250
Ares, statue by Alcamenes, 309 ;
acrolithic statue at Halicarnassus,
375 ; statue at Pergamum by
Scopas, 384
Argive art, its influence on Attic
during fifth century, 249 ; reliefs,
24 ; style, female statue from
Acropolis of, 187 ; school, Poly-
clitus head of, 325
Argonauts, statues of, by Lycius, 315
Argos, statue of Hera at Heraeum by
Polyclitus, 331 ; American excava-
tions at, 339 ; Parian marble head
from, 339 ; statue of Leto at, by
526
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
Praxiteles, 369 ; works by Scopas
at, 382
Argos and Sicyon, 190 ; athletic
school, 211 ; connection of, 325 ;
latest development of school of,
475
Ariadne in Crete, dance devised for,
by Daedalus, 80
Aristeas, Centaurs and Cupids by, 518
Aristion, early Attic relief at Athens
by Aristocles, 179, 293
Aristogiton, Lysippean head of, 183
(see Harmodius)
Aristonidas, statue of Athamas by,
469
Aristophanes, group for Tegeans by,
338
Aristotle, Alexander and, 435
Arrhachion, statue of, at Olympia,
191
Arria and Paetus in Museo Boncam-
pagni, 455
Artemis at Ephesus, offerings of
Croesus at temple of, 55 ; at Ephe-
sus, columns dedicated by Croesus,
79 ; mask of, at Chios, 101 ; at
Eph.esus, 105 ; name applied to
statues, 127 ; on coins of Patras,
154 ; at Rhamnus, 306 ; on eastern
pediment of temple of Apollo at
Delphi, 313 ; Brauronia, temenos of,
315 ; Soteira at Megara by Stron-
gylion, 319 ; in late Greek art,
dress of, 319 ; Amazons in temple
of, at Ephesus, 332 ; of Versailles,
drapery of, 337 ; on Selinus metope,
346 ; in group at Megalopolis, 354 ;
Brauronia at Athens, statue of, by
Praxiteles, 368 ; at Anticyra, by
Praxiteles, 368 ; at Rome, by Tim-
otheus, 374 ; later temple of, at
Ephesus, 382, 419 ; in group at
Lycosura, 400, 401 ; from Perga-
mene frieze, 466 ; of Versailles in
the Louvre, 480-482 ; on Neo-Attic
relief, 505
Artemisia, death of, 378 ; commission
to Scopas by, 382
Asclepius by Calamis, 235 ; on pedi-
ment of Parthenon, 279 ; at Cyl-
lene, statue of, by Colotes, 307 ;
statue at Mantinea by Alcamenes,
310 ; Timotheus supplying sculp-
ture for temple of, at Epidaurus,
372 ; statue by Scopas, 382 ; at
Epidaurus by Thrasymedes, 397,
416 ; at Epidaurus, ceilings and
doors of temple by Thrasymedes,
398 ; on reliefs from Epidaurus,
399 ; on coins, 399 ; or Zeus from
Melos, 416
Asea in Arcadia, statue from, 138
Asia Minor, influence of, 52, 60 ;
works from, 109 ; sculptors of, 211 ;
sculpture brought to Rome from,
421 ; monuments of Greek sculp-
ture in, 435 ; artistic plunder from,
495 ; local schools, subsequent to
Pergamene, 496
Assos, sculptured architrave from,
36 ; sculptures, subjects of, 111,
112 ; Centaurs, 272
Assyrian art, influence of, 48, 60 ;
close observation of nature in, 50
Astylos of Croton, statue of, by Py-
thagoras, 245
Atalanta at Tegea, 378
Athamas, statue of, by Aristonidas,
469
Athena Alea at Tegea, heads from the
temple of, 11 ; Parthenos, 13, 251,
255, 264, 265, 267 ; and Poseidon
on Parthenon pediment, 39 ; Tel-
chinia atTeumessus in Boeotia, 66 ;
in Troy, statue of, 68 ; at Erythrae,
99 ; Chalcioecus at Sparta, 79, 153 ;
head of, from gigantomachy at
Athens, 163 ; seated figure on
Acropolis, 180 ; Alea at Tegea,
of ivory, 180; Polias at Erythrae,
of wood, 180 ; Sthenias at Troezen,
statue of, 198; temple of, at Aegina,
201 ; in Aegina pediment, 201, 204 ;
on metope at Olympia, 229 ; and
Marsyas on Acropolis at Athens,,
by Myron, 240, 242 ; competition
statue by Phidias and Alcamenes,
248 ; colossal bronze on Acropolis of
Athens by Phidias, 249, 250, 255 ;
promachos, 249 ; of gold and ivory
by Phidias for Pellene, 249, 250 ;
described by Mcetas, 250 ; Areia,
statue by Phidias for Plataeans,
250 ; Lemnian by Phidias, 255 ;
Parthenos, 256 ; Parthenos, Pandora
on pedestal of, 257 ; Parthenos, por-
traits of Pericles and Phidias on
shield of, 257 ; chariot and horses
of, in pediment destroyed, 269 ;
birth of, on Parthenon pediment,
.
INDEX
527
274 ; oil coins, 276 ; and Poseidon,
vase from Kertch representing con-
test of, 277 ; chariot of, on Par-
thenon pediment, 278 ; birth of,
assistant figures, 279 ; puteal in
Madrid, with birth of, 280 ; mourn-
ing, from Acropolis, 301 ; Itonia,
statue by Agoracritus at Coronea,
306 ; at Elis, statue by Colotes or
Phidias, 307 ; and Hercules, group
by Alcamenes, 310 ; Hygieia, bronze
statue by Pyrrhus, 316 ; on Acro-
polis, by Cresilas, 319 ; and Giant
on Selinus metope, 346 ; statue by
Cephisodotus, 354 ; Alea at Tegea,
temple rebuilt by Sco'pas, 378 ; of
Phidias taken to Constantinople,
496 ; on Pergamene altar, 462, 464 ;
and Giant, from Pergamene altar,
464
Athenians and Amazons, battle on
Attalid dedication on Acropolis,
457 ; and Persians, battle on Attalid
dedication on Acropolis, 457
Athenodorus one of the sculptors of
the Laocoon, 469
Athens, early sculpture of, 132, 133 ;
male head from, in Paris, 177 ;
male torso in, 177 ; statue of rider
in Acropolis museum, 177 ; male
head from, in Copenhagen, 177 ;
statue of Heracles Alexicacos at,
193 ; results of Persian wars at, 214 ;
under Pericles, 215 ; Phidias work-
ing at, 251 •; statue of the Mother
of the gods by Agoracritus at, 306 ;
fourth-century head in, 417, 418 ;
girlish type of head in, 419 ; figures
dedicated by Attalus, on Acropolis
at, 457 ; statues taken from, 495
Athlete head on Acropolis, 187 ;
statues by Polyclitus, 1 90 ; statues,
material of, usually bronze, 190 ;
statues at Olympia, 191, 227 ;
wooden statues at Olympia, 191 ;
statues, Canachus' study of, 195 ;
by Alcamenes, 311; statues atOlym-
pia by Polyclitus, 326 ; with strigil
by Polyclitus, 331 ; athletes,
statues of, 432
Athletic female type, 336 ; festivals,
influence upon sculpture, 191 ;
school of Polyclitus, 338; last
development of, 475
Atlas and the apples of the Hesper-
ides, on metope at Olympia, 227 ;
and Heracles enthrone of Olympian
Zeus, 261
Attalids, dedication of, 452 ; and
Galatians, 452
Attalus, sculptors employed by, 456 ;
works dedicated on Acropolis at
Athens by, 457
Attic art, exuberance of, shown in
metopes of Parthenon, 273 ; artists,
reproductions by, in Graeco-Roman
times, 498 ; colonists in Lemnos,
258 ; influence in Lycia, 427 ;
lecythus with wounded warrior,
conjecturally by Cresilas, 318 ; pro-
file on early tombstones, 178 ; relief,
man mounting chariot, 178 ; re-
naissance, so-called, 501 ; school,
examples of, in museums at Athens,
157 ; schools, athletic and graceful,
238 ; sculptors, relations between,
193, 194, 313 ; tombstones, sculp-
ture on, 393, 394 ; farewell scenes
on, 397 ; influence of Scopas shown
on, 433 ; analogies of, with
mourners' sarcophagus, 428 ; vases,
birth of Athena on, 279
Auge, at Tegea, 378
Augean stable on metope at Olympia,
228
Augustus, statue of Apollo by Scopas
set up by, 384
Ausonius, epigrams on statuette of
Heracles by, 411
avrdpKeia, 238
Autolycus, athlete statue, by Lycius,
315
BABYLONIAN empire, primitive sculp-
ture of, 48
Bacchante of Scopas in Byzantium,
384
Balustrade of temple of Wingless
Victory, 298
Basis of Mantinean group by Prax-
iteles, with Muse and Marsyas,
366 ; found with Venus of Melos,
482
Bassae, temple of Apollo Epicurius
at, 321 ; Corinthian capital at, 321
Bath, as a motive for Aphrodite, 362,
499
Battle, Greeks and Amazons, on
cross bars of throne of Olympian
Zeus, 260 ; Athenians and Amazons
528
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
on Attalid dedication on Acropolis,
457 ; Greeks and Amazons on west-
ern front of Parthenon, 270 ; Greeks
and Amazons on Epidaurus pedi-
ment, 374 ; Athenians and Persians
on Attalid dedication on Acropolis,
457 ; Centaurs and Lapiths on
Parthenon, 270 ; Greeks and Cen-
taurs from Epidaurus pediment,
374 ; Gods and Giants on eastern
front of Parthenon, 270 ; Gods
and Giants on metopes at Argos,
339 ; Gods and Giants on Attalid
dedication on Acropolis, 457 ; Gods
and Giants from altar of Zeus at
Pergamum, 461 ; Pergamenes and
Galatians on Attalid dedication on
Acropolis, 457 (see Combats)
Battle scene, treatment of, on Alex-
ander sarcophagus, 430
Battles in art typifying struggle
between Greeks and barbarism, 215
Battles on tomb from Trysa, 344
Bearded Asclepius, by Thrasymedes,
382, 399 ; statues in Rome, 513
Beardless Asclepius, by Scopas, 382,
399.
Belvedere, Apollo, 477-480; torso,
restorations of, 502
Berlin, torso after Polyclitus, 327 ;
praying boy in, 414 ; Pergamene
sculpture in, 8, 461 ; bronze satyr
from Pergamum at, 490
Birth of Athena, assistant figures,
279 ; local setting of, on Parthenon
pediment, 280 ; on puteal in Ma-
drid, 280 ; on early Attic vases,
279 ; of Pandora on pedestal of
Athena Parthenos, 257
Black Demeter at Phigalia, 198
Blush represented by mixture of
metals, 32, 469
Boedas, scholar of Lysippus, 414
Boeotia, statues found in, 19 ; inde-
pendent development of, 147 ;
foreign influences on, in the fifth
century, 151 ; statue from, show-
ing veins, 203
Boethus, children by, 441, 442
Boetian, style of early sculpture,
148 ; head resembling Attic work,
149 ; figure with dedication, show-
ing Aeginetan influence, 149 ;
style, female figure on Acropolis
of, 149
Boghaz Kevi in Cappadocia, momi/
ments from, 53
Bologna, head of Athena at, 265
Boreas carrying off Orithyia, 37
Borghese warrior by Agasias, 475
Bowmen on Aegina pediment, 201.
202
Boxer, Euthymus, 247
Boxers in Olympian Games, statues
by Pythagoras of, 245, 246
Boys, statues of, by Lycius, 315 ;
boy, statue by Strongylion, 320 ;
with strigils by Daedalus, 338 ;
boy and goose by Boethus, 442 ;
boy drawing thorn from his foot,
marble statuette in British Mu-
seum, 490
Branchidse, Apollo of, 194
Brass, use of, 24
British Museum, marbles in, 8 ;
Elgin marbles in, 269 ; Parthenon
pediments in, 274 ; Caryatid in,
300 ; fragments of Nemesis from
Rhamnus in, 305 ; Phigalian frieze
in, 322 ; Vaison Diadumenus in,
329 ; Nereid monument in, 345 ;
Mausoleum frieze in, 386 ; head
from Melos in, 416 ; boy drawing
thorn from his foot in, 490 ; por-
trait of Julius Caesar in, 513-515
Brocklesby Park, head of Niobe at,
426
Bronze, melting down of, 6 ; sculp-
tors' workshop, 26 ; plate from
Crete with ibex, 64 ; reliefs,
mostly Argive or Corinthian, 75 ;
foundry, invention of, 96, 100 ;
usual material for statues of
athletes, 190 ; material in which
Onatas worked, 198 ; material used
by Aeginetan masters, 200 ; head
at Naples, 210 ; boys for people
of Agrigentum by Calamis, 235 ;
heifer by Myron moved from
Athens to Rome, 240, 243 ; used
by Myron, 242 ; colossal Athena
by Phidias on Acropolis at Athens,
249, 250, 255 ; statues by Poly-
clitus, 326 ; head by Apollonius,
327 ; statuette in Louvre, Diadu-
menus, 329 ; works of Lysippus
entirely, 404, 411 ; vessels with
subjects similar to those on
Hellenistic reliefs, 440 ; Colossus
of Rhodes by Chares, 442 ; original,
INDEX
529
Apollo Belvedere a marble copy of I
a, 478 ; from Pergamum at Berlin, j
490 ; Athena of Phidias at Athens,
taken to Constantinople, 496
Broom Hall, marble chair from
Athens at, 183
Bryaxis, basis by, with horsemen on
three sides, 374
Budrum, castle of, 386
Burial customs, 520
Byzantine art, exclusion of sculpture
from, 521
CABIRI, 66
Cadmus, introduction of alphabet by,
97 ; and Phoenicians in Thebes, 51
Caelatura, 26, 60
Caeneus and Lapiths on Theseum
frieze, 297 ; 011 Phigalian frieze,
323
Calamis, his place among sculptors,
232, 234 ; animals by, 287 ;
scholars of, 313
Caligula, attempts to move colossal
Zeus from Olympia by, 496
Callias, statue made by Endoeus for,
102
Callimachus, works by, 320, 321
Callirhoe on pediment of Parthenon,
279
Callistratus, 3
Calydonian boar at Tegea, 40, 378
Canephori, 300
Canon of Polyclitus, 326, 327 ; modi-
fied by Lysippus, 405
Canova, 10
Capitoline Amazon, 333 ; with name
Sosicles inscribed, 336
Capitoline faun, 364
Caria, art of, 55 ; Greek sculpture in,
435
Carian armour, 55 ; statuettes, 55
Carians said by Thucydides to have
shared the Aegean with the
Phoenicians, 55
Carrara marble, 20 ; Otricoli head of,
498
Carrey's drawings of Parthenon pedi-
ment, 247, 274
Carrying off of masterpieces, 495
Carthage, Boethus a native of, 441
Caryatids of Erechtheum. 37; carrying
Pandroseum at Erechtheum, 300 ;
dancing maidens of Artemis, 320
Castor on Tegean pediment, 379
Casts first taken from the face of the
model, 413
Catatexitechnus, 320
Cecrops on pediment of Parthenon,
279; and heroes of Attica as judges
in Athena's quarrel with Poseidon,
276
Centauromachy on Phigalian frieze,
323
Centaurs at Assos, 112, 272 ; on
western pediment at Olympia, 221,
225, 272, 273 ; on metopes of Par-
thenon, 270, 272, 273 ; on frieze of
Mausoleum, 387 ; nymphs riding
on, by Arcesilaus, 508 ; and Cupids,
time of Hadrian, 518
Cephisodotus, relationship of, to
Praxiteles, 352 ; works of, 352,
353
Cephisus on pediment of Parthenon,
279, 284 ; liquid surface of, 448
Ceramicus, tombs from, 393, 395
Cerberus on metope at Olympia, 228
Cerynian stag on metope at Olympia,
229
Chalcidian vases, 76
Changes in Greece before 600 B.C., 84
Chares of Tichiussa, 106 ; scholar of
Lysippus, 414 ; bronze Colossus by,
442
Charges against Phidias, 247
Chariot on pediment at Olympia,
218 ; of Athena arid Poseidon on
Parthenon pediment, 277 ; by
Pythis, 386 ; frieze of Mausoleum,
387, 389
Charioteer from Mausoleum, 390
Chessboard patterns on Phrygian
tombs, 53
Chest of Cypselus, 36, 72, 75 ; re-
storation, 74, 77
Chian artists, 101, 116, 151
Chiaramonti Gallery, Niobe's daughter
in, 423 ; Niobid, drapery of, 287
Child, statue by Pasiteles of Roscius
as a, 509
Children in fourth-century sculpture,
354, 356 ; in sculpture in Hellen-
istic age, 441
Chionis of Sparta, 191
Chios, mask of Artemis at, 101
Chiton in early Attic sculpture, 167,
168
Choice of subject for display of skill
in Hellenistic art, 473
530
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo, 223, 247
Christian saints, statues venerated
as, 6 ; church, Parthenon converted
into, 269
Chryse, Apollo Smintheus, by Scopas,
at, 384
Chryselephantine work of Phidias,
251 ; statues, 256 ; technique,
workers in, 398, 399 ; statues, imi-
tations of, 402, 509 (see Gold and
ivory)
Cimmerians, devastation of Phrygia
by, 54
Cimon erects trophy at Delphi, 249 ;
Phidias working for, 251 ; and
Pericles, influence of, on art, 216
Circumlitio, 29, 430
Cire perdue process, 25 ; used by
Lysippus, 413
Cithaeron, seated figure personify-
ing, on small frieze from Pergamum,
473
Cities, impersonations of, on vases,
reliefs, and decrees, 446 ; imper-
sonations of, as statues, 446 ; plun-
dered by Romans, 495
Cladeus, 220
Claw chisel, use of, 22
Clay models, 33, 34
Cleomenes of Athens, statue by, 515
Cleon of Thebes, statue of, by Pytha-
goras, 245
Clinging drapery of Venus Genetrix,
507
Cnidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles, 233,
359, 360-362
Cnidus, statue of Demeter from, 414 ;
precinct of deities of lower world
in, 414
Cnossus, marble relief at, 80
Coans, choice of draped statue by,
362
Cockerell, Phigalian sculptures ex-
cavated by, 322
Coins, evidence concerning sculpture
afforded by, 5 ; early statues on, 81 ;
of Athens, Apollo with three
Graces, 153 ; with Athena and
Marsyas, 240 ; Olympian Zeus on
late, 259 ; figure of Athena derived
from Parthenon pediment on, 276 ;
of Athens, with Eirene and Plutus,
353 ; with replicas of statues by
Praxiteles, 368 ; with statue of
Asclepius at Epidaurus, 397, 399 ;
with statue of Apollo, from Chrys
384 ; resemblance between Hel-
lenistic and Roman, 512
Colonists of Ionia, historical kings
known to, 52
Colossal statues by Onatas, 199
bronze Athena by Phidias on
Acropolis at Athens, 249, 250, 255 ;
Athena Parthenos, 254 ; Zeus at
Olympia, 259 ; Athena by Phidias,
288, 311 ; Athena by Alcamenes,
311 ; wooden horse by Strongylion,
319 ; figures as pilasters in temple
of Zeus at'Acragas, 347 ; figures
from Mausoleum, 386 ; statue of
Mausolus, 387, 388 ; chariot from
Mausoleum, 387 ; group at Lyco-
sura by Damophon, 400 ; statues
of gods, 432 ; works in Greek art,
445 ; statues in Rhodes, 469 ;
statues of gods, heads of emperors
set on, in Roman times, 515 ; gold
and ivory statue given by Hadrian
to temple of Olympian Zeus at
Athens, 518
Colossus of Rhodes by Chares, 442 ;
overthrown by an earthquake, 444 ;
cost of, 445 ; of Tarentum by
Lysippus, 409
Colotes, works of, 306, 307
Colour in sculpture, 28 - 32, 175 ; in
architectural friezes, 31 ; effect left
to, 142 ; on female statue, 187 ; on
Olympian sculptures, 227, 229 ; on
Sidon sarcophagi, 427, 431 ; on
throne of Olympian Zeus, 260
Column, early sculptured, atEphesus,
108 ; of temple of Artemis at
Ephesus by Scopas, 382 ; as a
support for right hand of Athena
Parthenos by Phidias, 256 ; of
Trajan, 516
Combatants, statues of, in museums,
457
Combats with Persians in sculpture
206 ; between Athenians and Pal-
lenians on Theseum frieze, 297 ;
on frieze of temple of Wingless
Victory, 298 ; on Phigalian frieze,
322 (see Battles)
Cometes at Tegea, 379
Competition in making a statue be-
tween Agoracritus and Alcamenes,
305 ; between Phidias and Alca-
menes, 310, 311
INDEX
531
Constantine, Marcus Aurelius taken
for. 6 ; arch of, 517
Constantinople, sarcophagi in museum
at, 427 ; statues taken from Greece
to, 496
Contest of Athena and Poseidon on
Parthenon pediment, 274 ; on vase
from Kertch, 277
Contrast of subject on front and back
pediments of temples, 39, 314
Convention, in early art, 45 ; in
Aeginetan pediments, 204 ; and
realism in conjunction on Perga-
mene altar, 464 ; and realism in
Laocoon, 472 ; undiscriminating
use of, in^Hellenistic art, 473 ; in
attributes^' Hellenistic art, 482
Copenhagen, male head in, 177
Copies as evidence, 11 ; of earlier
statues by Greek sculptors in
Roman times, 496, 497 ; of Greek
masterpieces in Hadrian's time,
518
Cora, statue of, at Amyclae, 198
Corinna, statue by Silanion, 370
Corinth, statues of Poseidon at, 410 ;
sack of, by Mummius, 495
Corinthian artists, 153 ; capital, in-
vention of, attributed to Calli-
machus, 321 ; capital at Bassae,
321 ; general, portrait by Demet-
rius, 450 ; reliefs, 24 ; vases, analogy
with chest of Cypselus, 75
Coronea, statue of Athena Itonia by
Agoracritus at, 306
Cows and sheep on Parthenon frieze,
289
Cratisthenes, with Victory in a
chariot, statue of, by Pythagoras,
245
Cresilas, works by, 317, 318 ; Ama-
zon attributed to, 336 ; portrait of
Pericles by, 317, 351
Cretan bull on metope at Olympia,
229
Crete as centre of early civilisation,
65 ; sculpture from, 133
Critius, school of athletic sculpture
of. 273 ; and Nesiotes, Tyranni-
cides by, 183 ; compared with
Agasias, 447 ; technique of, 295
Croesus, gold and silver craters made
by Theodoras for, 101 ; probable
date, 107
Croton, statue of Astylos of, 245 ;
Apollo transfixing the snake on
coins of, 246
Crouching slave in Florence, 489
Cupid and Psyche myth on late
sarcophagi, 521
Curetes, 66
Cybele, worship of, in Asia Minor,
52 ; from Pergamene frieze, 466
Cyclades, artistic affinities of, 112
Cyclopes, 65 ; from Lycia authors of
Mycenae lions, 59
Cyclops, torso Belvedere restored as,
502
Cyllene, statue of Asclepius at, 307
Cyniscus, statue of, by Polyclitus,
326
Cyprus, stone used for sculpture in,
19 ; statuettes, 27 ; and Etruria,
silver and bronze bowls from, 50,
51 ; characteristics of art of, 84,
85
Cypselids of Corinth, 26, 75
Cypselus, 16
Gyrene, Mnaseas of, 245 ; pottery of,
86
Cythera, connection with the main-
land. 112 ; bronze head from, in
Berlin, 139
DACIA, people of, 516
Dactyli, in Phrygia or Crete, 66
Daedalids, 17, 22; works of, at
Ambracia, 98 ; works of, at Sicyon,
etc., 99
Daedalus, wooden statues by, 16 ;
statues attributed to, by Pausanias,
79 ; value of name, 80 ; his con-
nection with Athens and Crete,
80 ; pupils of, 98 ; Clearchus of
Rhegium, a pupil of, 102, 154 ;
accompanied by Endoeus to Crete,
102 ; Endoeus a companion of, 180
Daedalus of Sicyon, scholar of Poly-
clitus, 338 ; group for Tegeans by,
338
Damophon, works by, 399-402
Daphne, statue of Apollo by Bryaxis
at, 374
Darius, golden vine and plane-tree
made by Theodorus for, 101
Death genius carrying off souls, 110 ;
early beliefs concerning, 111 ; on
sculptured drum from Ephesus,
421 ; treatment of, in Niobids,
423 ; in sculpture, 471, 472
532
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
Decadence, final, of Greek art under
Roman patronage, 521 ; affectation
of rustic simplicity a sign of, 490,
491 ; study and criticism charac-
teristics of an age of, 491
Decay of sculpture, 508
Decorative works, 73 ; at Alexandria
in Hellenistic times, 437
Dedicated statues, nature of, 83, 191 ;
multitudes of, 164 ; on Acropolis
of Athens, 164-177
De Laborde head from Parthenon, 283,
284
Delian bronze, 24 ; used by Myron,
242
Delian confederacy, end of, 215
Delos, acroteria at, 37 ; Carian graves
at, 55 ; and Lesbos, works of
Archermus at, 101 ; as representing
Ionia in art, 112 ; early winged
figure from, 116, 117 ; works from,
126 ; draped female type at, 126 ;
statue of Apollo at, 198 ; Diadu-
menus from, 329 ; basis with name
of Agasias at, 475 ; wounded
warrior at, 475
Delphi, 5, 9 ; Alyattes' and Croesus'
offerings at, 55 ; group at, Apollo
and Heracles struggling for tripod,
153 ; nude male statues at, 192 ;
trophy by Cimon at, 249 ; group
of statues, from spoil of Marathon,
by Phidias at, 249 ; dedication by
Spartans at, >in 405 B.C., 307 ;
Attic artists employed by Alcmae-
onidae at, 314 ; pediments and
metopes of temple referred to by
Euripides, 314 ; statues taken from,
495, 496
Delta, sites in, 7
Demeter at Phigalia as a horse -
headed monster, 82 ; Persephone
and Triptolemus on relief from
Eleusis, 303 ; Chthonia at Her-
mione, by Cresilas, 319 ; in group
at Lycosura, 400 ; . of Cnidus,
414
Demetrius, portrait of Pellichus by,
351 ; portraits by, 450 ; Phalereus,
honorary statues to, 451 ; Polior-
cetes, Colossus made from spoils
left by, 444 ; Victory set up by,
485
Demosthenes, statue of, 351 ; Alex-
ander and, 435
Depredations of Roman emperors,
496
Dermys and Citylus, 147
Despoena in group at Lycosura, 400
Dexileos, tombstone of, 394
Diadumenus of Polyclitus, 27, 326,
329
Diane ci la biche, in the Louvre, 480-
482
Diitrephes, statue by Cresilas of,
318 ; compared to Myron's Disco-
bolus and Ladas, 319
Diomed, horses of, on metope at
Olympia, 227
Dionysus at Thebes, 24 ; with
Maenads at Delphi, 39 ; Moryclms
at Athens, 99 ; by Calamis, 235 ;
by Myron, 242 ; statue in gold and
ivory by Alcamenes, 309 ; on
western pediment of temple of
Apollo at Delphi, 313 ; as an
infant with Hermes, 356 ; at Elis,
by Praxiteles, 368 ; statue of, from
Attalid dedication blown over,
458 ; from Pergamene frieze, 466
Dioscuri of Monte Cavallo, 445
Diplois in early Attic sculpture, 167
Dirce in group with bull, 473
Discobolus, by Myron, 236, 238, 243 ;
by Naucydes, 338
Display of skill in Hellenistic art,
473 ; in Borghese warrior, 477
Dog as attribute of Asclepius, 399 ;
by Myron, 242
Doliana, marble from, 20 ; marble
used at Bassae, 322
Dolphins as an attribute of Poseidon,
Domitian, heads of, OR colossal
statues of gods, 515
Doric order, 37, 40 ; sculpture, early,
133
Doryphorus, by Cresilas, 319 ; by
Polyclitus, 326, 327 ; bronze head
by Apollonius, 327 ; of Polyclitus,
proportions of, 327 ; influence of,
404 ; attitude of, 408
Dramatic groups by Asia Minor
School, influence of Scopas on,
433
Draped female, early sculptural type,
92
Drapery, primitive, 92 ; treatment of,
in archaic female statues 011 Acro-
polis at Athens, 115, 116; onThes-
INDEX
533
salian reliefs, 132; early Attic treat-
ment of, 167, 168 ; of Attic relief of
charioteer, 178 ; of seated Athena,
181 ; of Calamis, 234 ; of metopes
of Parthenon, 270 ; of the three
Fates, 285, 286, 287 ; of Aphrodite
of Melos, 286 ; of Chiaramonte
Niobid, 287 ; of Iris from eastern
Parthenon pediment, 287 ; of Vic-
tories on balustrade of temple of
Wingless Victory, 298 ; on Phy-
galian frieze, 323 ; of Mattei Ama-
zon, 337 ; of Aphrodite of Melos,
337 ; of Artemis of Versailles, 337 ;
of fragments from Argos, 339 ; of
Victory by Paeonius, 343 ; of
Hermes of Praxiteles, 359 ; of
Cnidian Aphrodite, 362 ; of Tan-
agra statuettes, 368 ; of Acrotina
by Timotheus, 372 ; of Mausolus,
388 ; of Amazons on Mausoleum
frieze, 389 ; from Lycosura, tech-
nique of, 401 ; of Demeter of Cnidus,
414 ; on sculptured drum from
Ephesus, 419, 420 ; of Niobe group,
426 ; addition of colour to, on
Alexander sarcophagiis, 430 ; of
terra - cotta statuettes, 448 ; of
Antioch by Eutychides, 448 ; of
Zeus on great Pergamene altar,
464 ; translated from bronze to
marble, 478 ; of Artemis of Ver-
sailles, 482 ; of Venus of Melos,
483, 484 ; of Aphrodite at different
dates, 484 ; of Zeus in Pergamene
frieze, 484 ; of Victory of Samo-
thrace, 485-487 ; of Maenad on
Neo- Attic relief, 505 ; of Venus
Genetrix, 507, 511
Dresden Athena, 265
Drill, use of, in marble, 22, 321
Dromeus of Stymphalus, statue by
Pythagoras, 245
Drunken flute-player by Lysippus,
412
Dying Alexander, 436
Dying Gaul, 204, 454; and TuUcen
of Pliny, 457
EARTH, dramatic figure from Perga-
mene altar, 464, 468
Echidna, Heracles fighting, 159
Effigies togatae at Rome, 515
Egypt, introduction of bronze foundry
from, 23 ; wooden statues from, 16
Egyptian art, influence of, on Greek
art, 47, 60 ; general effects of con-
tour sought for in, 50
Egyptian influence, 100 ; in Boeotia,
149
Egyptian records of Hittite empire,
53 ; of Libyan invasions, 58
Eleans, Phidias employed by, 252 ;
temple at Olympia built by, 231
Electra with Orestes at Naples, 510
Eleusinian relief, 302
Eleusinian stone, 21 ; in front of
pedestal of Olympian Zeus, 262 ;
black, used in Erechtheum, 300,
302
Eleusis, head from, in Athens, 487,
488
Eleutherna, statue from, 133
Elgin marbles, 8, 10, 36, 269
Elis, Aphrodite Urania at, 263 ; statue
of Dionysus by Praxiteles at, 368
Embroidery the means of transmitting
Oriental types to Greece, 49
Encrinomenos, 311
Eos carrying off Cephalus, 37 ; from
Pergamene frieze, 466
Ephesus, sculpture from, 8, 37, 107 ;
frieze of temple of, 109 ; and
Miletus, artistic affinities of, 112 ;
Amazon at, by Phidias, 258 ; Ama-
zons in temple of Artemis at, 332 ;
temple of Artemis at, 419 ; sculp-
tured drum of column from, 419,
420 ; school of sculpture at, in
Hellenistic times, 438 ; as an
Amazon, 449 ; a geographical im-
personation of Hellenistic times,
449
Ephesian school, 475
Epicharinus, statue of, by Critius
and Nesiotes, 190
Epidaurus, pediments of the temple
at, 374 ; sculptures by Timotheus
at, 392 ; Asclepius by Thrasymedes
at, 397, 416
Epigonus, child and dead mother by,
456 ; trumpeter by, 456
Epochus at Tegea, 379
Equestrian statues on Acropolis by
Lycius, 315 ; of Mausoleum, 387
Erechtheum frieze, uses of Eleusinian
marble and Pentelic marble in, 262,
300
Erechtheum, symbols of Athena and
Poseidon preserved in, 276 ; sculp-
534
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
tures, 300 ; Ionic frieze, 300, Carya
tids or Maidens, 300, 347 ; lamp
by Callimachus in, 321
Erechtheus by Myron, 242
Erichthonius snake as attribute of
Athena Parthenos, 256
Erinna, portrait of, by Naucydes, 338
Erinnys in Athens by Calamis, 235
Eros,'of Thespiae, 31; development of,
95 ; on pedestal of throne of Olym-
pian Zeus, 261 ; by Praxiteles at
Parium on the Propontis, 363 ; of
Thespiae by Praxiteles, 363 ; type
introduced by Praxiteles, 363 ;
statue by Scopas, 382 ; on sculp-
tured drum from Ephesus, 421 ;
Pothos and Himeros of Scopas, 446
Erymanthian boar on metope at Olym-
pia, 227
Eteocles and Polynices, group by
Pythagoras, 245
Ethiopians, bowl wrought with figures
of, in hand of Nemesis at Rhamnus,
306
Etrurian ashboxes, 520
Eubuleus, Alexandroid type of, 488 ;
head, so-called, date of, 487, 488
Eucnemus, statue of Amazon by
Strongylion, 320
Eumenes II., dedications of, 459
Euphorbus, shield of, 70
Euphranor, works by, 371
Eupompus, influence of, 404
Europa on the bull, statue by Pytha-
goras, 245 ; on early Selinus metope,
346
Eurotas by Eutychides, 279, 448
Eutelidas of Sparta, statue of, at
Olympia, 191
Euthycrates, characteristics of, 413
Euthymus the boxer of Locri in Italy,
245, 247
Eutychides, statue of Eurotas by,
279 ; scholar of Lysippus, 414 ; as
a painter, 448 ; fortune of Antioch
by, 446-448
Explosion destroying Parthenon in
1687, 269
Exportation of antiquities from
Greece, 7
Eyes in bronze statues, 32 ; treat-
ment of, in early Attic work, 160,
169, 171, 175 ; in athlete head on
Acropolis, 187 ; by Scopas, 380 ;
in Demeter of Cnidus, 416 ; on
Alexander sarcophagus, 430 ; in
the Apollo Belvedere, 478
FACE and hands of statue, Pentelic
marble used for, 251
Faces in early work not displaying
conventional beauty, 160
Family groups on tombstones, 395
Fantastic winged animals, where
derived from, 49
Farnese bull, 472 ; Hercules, a copy
of a Lysippean original, 501
Fates on Parthenon pediment, 281,
282, 285 ; style and technique of,
286, 287 '
Fayum, tenanted by foreign allies of
the Libyans, 58
Fekedamos, tomb relief, 131
Female draped statues on Acropolis
at Athens, 164-175, 187
Fetish stones as symbol of a god, 81
Fifth century, style in Athens at
beginning of, 189 : statues of the
gods, 349
Files, use of, 22
Finlay vase at Athens, 240
Fish forms in pedimental sculptures,
159
Flamininus, statues carried off by,
495
Florence, crouching slave in Uffizi
gallery at, 489 ; Niobe statues in,
425 ; Venus dei Medici in, 499
Flute player by Lysippus, 412
Footstool at throne of Olympian Zeus,
261
Foreshortening in fallen figures on
Theseum frieze, 298 ; ou temple of
Wingless Victory, 298
Fourth - century sculpture, personal
character of, 350
Fran9ois vase, 76
Frieze of Parthenon, 268, 270, 288,
289, 292, 293; of Theseum, 296,
297 ; of temple of Wingless Vic-
tory, 298 ; of temple at Bassae,
322 ; on tomb from Trysa, 343,
344 ; of Nereid monument, 345,
346 ; in Munich, 383 ; from Mau-
soleum, small, 387 ; of Greeks and
Centaurs from Mausoleum, 387 ; of
Greeks and Amazons from Mauso-
leum, 387 ; from altar of Zeus at
Pergamum, 461 ; from Pergamum,
high relief of, 467 ; small, from
INDEX
535
altar of Zeus at Pergamum, 468,
473
Fulvius Nobilior, statues carried off
by, 495
Funeral banquets on tomb reliefs, 137
GALATIAN warrior and his wife, 455,
456
Galatians and Attalids, 452; fallen
figures of, from battle-groups, 457-
459
Games, influence of, on sculpture,
86, 87
ydvttxris, 29
Ganymede, by Leochares, 375, 376, 392
Gaul, Dying, of Capitol, 454
Gelon of Gela, chariot made for, by
Glaucias, 199
Gems, evidence concerning sculpture
afforded by, 5
Genre, religious, 316 ; athletic, 329,
406 ; in Pergamene school, 490 ;
group by Arcesilaus, 508
Geometric style of bronze work, 23
Geometry and optics in colossal statue
of Athena by Phidias, 311
Germanicus, so-called, 515
Geryon on metope at Olympia, 227 ;
in Theseum metopes, 295
Giants on Selinus metope, 145 ; fallen
figures from Attalid battle-groups,
457, 458 ; from Pergamene group,
459, 466, 467, 468; with wings
from Pergamene frieze, 467 ; snake -
footed form, 467
Gigantomachy (see Gods and Giants)
Gilded wood as a material for a statue,
251
Gilding of statues, 31
Gjolbaschi, tomb from, 343
Glycon the Athenian, name inscribed
on Farnese Hercules, 502
Gods on Parthenon pediment, 290 ;
heads of emperors set on colossal
statues of, 415 ; on Pergamene
altar, attributes of, 462 ; later ideals
of, 477 ; as children, 491
Gods and Giants, battle between, on
Megarian pediment, 142 ; on early
Attic pediment, 163 ; on eastern
metopes of Parthenon, 270 ; on
temple of Apollo at Delphi, 314 ;
on Attalid dedication on Acro-
polis, 457 ; on great frieze from
altar of Zeus at Pergamum, 461
Gold and ivory, use of, 26 ; at Sparta,
152 ; statues by Phidias, 255, 259,
268, 288 ; portraits of family ot
Philip by Leochares, 374; technique,
reproduction of, inmarbleand gilded
wood, 403 (see Chryselephantine')
Golden candlestick of Jerusalem, 516
Golden shield at Olympia, 231
Gorgon in Selinus metopes, 144
Gorgoneion of Athena Parthenos, 256
Gortyna, coins resembling Selinus
metopes, 145
Graces and Hours in sculpture, 180 ;
on back of throne of Olympian Zeus,
260
Graeco - Roman work, influence of
Praxiteles on, 370 ; sculpture, 493 ;
copies of ^earlier works, 497, 498 ;
sculpture a clue to lost master-
pieces, 498
Graver, use of, for details, 26
Great altar of Zeus at Pergamum,
457, 468 ; smaller frieze, 473
Greek colonies in Aegean, 52 ; in
Asia Minor, 52 ; spread of, 84
Greek influence on Rome, 493 ;
monuments in Asia Minor, 435 ;
statues, Roman demand for, 494
Greek and Trojan heroes in group by
Lycius at Olympia, 315
Group by Myron, Zeus, Athena, and
Heracles, 242 ; by Polyclitus,
Apollo, Artemis, and Leto, 332 ;
dedicated at Megalopolis, 354 ;
at Mantinea by Praxiteles, repre-
senting Leto, Apollo, and Artemis,
366
Groups of statues by Praxiteles, 368,
369 ; of Hellenistic period, 370
Gryphons supporting crests of Athena
Parthenos, 256
Gyges of Lydia tributary of Assur-
banipal, 49, 52
HADES, statue by Agoracritus of,
306
Hadrian, personal influence of, 517;
statues of Antinous made for, 519
Hair, early treatment of, 93 ; treat-
ment of, in early winged figure
from Delos, 119 ; in Apollo of
Thera, 123 ; in statue from Eleu-
therna, 133 ; in Hera at Olympia,
138 ; in Tegean statue, 138 ; in
Tenean Apollo, 139 ; in early
536
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
Attic work, 160 ; in Aeginetan
pediments, 204 ; in early bronze
head at Athens, 208 ; corkscrew
treatment of, 210 ; treatment of,
in Olympian metopes, 229 ; by
Myron, 243, 329 ; by Polyclitus,
329 ; in Cnidian Aphrodite, 362 ;
in Mausolus, 388 ; bronze devices
for representing, 405, 406 ; treat-
ment of, by Lysippus, 405 ; by
Praxiteles, 406 ; by Polyclitus,
406 ; on Alexander sarcophagus,
430 ; in head of Zeus from Otricoli,
498 ; in Roman female statues,
515
Halicarnassus, Mausoleum at, 385 ;
acrolithic statue of Ares at, 375 ;
excavated by Newton, 386
Hannibal, statuette by Lysippus, in
possession of, 411
Hare, figures carrying, on tomb
relief, 131
Harmodius and Aristogiton, 181-183,
185, 238, 475
Harpy tomb, subjects of reliefs, 55,
109
Head of Harmodius, not belonging,
185 .
Heads in Aeginetan pediments, differ-
ence of style from bodies, 204
Hebe of gold and ivory by Naucydes,
338
Hecate by Myron, 242 ; by Alca-
menes, 309 ; from Pergamene frieze,
466
Hector in Aegina pediment, 201
Hegeso, tombstone of, 394
Hegias, note concerning, 265
Heifer in bronze by Myron, 240, 243
Helen, the daugher of Nemesis, 306
Helios on pedestal of throne of
Olympian Zeus, 261 ; Parthenon
pediment, 280, 287 ; statue at
Rhodes by Lysippus, 410 ; colossal
statue of, at Rhodes, 444 ; from
Pergamene frieze, 466
Hellas and Salamis on throne of
Olympian Zeus, 261
Hellenes, 56
Hellenism, spread of, in the East,
431, 434, 435, 493
Hellenistic age, characteristics of
beginning of, 411, 412 ; centres,
437 ; reliefs, 438 - 441 ; scenes
from country life in, 440 ; treat-
ment of landscape in, 440 ; panels
in walls, of Alexandrian origin,
440, 473 ; art, character of, 480,
490 ; drapery, 484 ; sculpture,
botany, zoology, etc., in, 491 ;
coins compared with Roman, 512 ;
sarcophagi, 520
Helmet of Athena Parthenos, 256
Hephaestus as a metal worker, 66 ;
gold and silver dogs and maidens
made by, 69
Hephaestus and Daedalus compared,
80
Hephaestus assisting at the birth of
Athena, 279
Hephaestus, statue by Alcamenes,
309
Hera Telchinia at Rhodes, 66 ; at
Samos, 100, 197 ; statue dedicated
to, by Cheramyes, 114 ; at Olym-
pia, 138 ; Lacinia, statue in temple,
245 ; at Plataea, statue of, by Cal-
limachus, 320 ; in gold and ivory
at Heraeum of Argos by Polyclitus,
331 ; type of, in art, 331 ; on coins
of Argos and Elis, 331
Heracles, Telamon of, 69 ; on Seli-
nus metope, 144 ; on Acropolis at
Athens, 159 ; Alexicacos, statue of,
at Athens, 193 ; at Sicyon, statue
of, by Laphaes of Phlius, 195 ; at
Olympia by Onatas, 199 ; as a
kneeling archer in Aegina pedi-
ment, 202 ; on metope at Olympia,
228, 230 ; statue of, by Ageladas
of Argos, 235 ; by Myron, 242 ;
and the Nemean lion on throne of
Olympian Zeus, 261 ; on Theseum
metopes, 40, 295 ; and Perseus on
temple of Apollo at Delphi, 314 ;
on Phigalian frieze, 323 ; jit Rome
byPol^clitiis^ 332 ; and Hippolyta
onSelmus metope, 346 ; at Tegea,
378 ; in Lansdowne House, 385 ;
statues of, by Lysippus, 410 ;
statuette by Lysippus, 411 ; by
Euthycrates, 413 ; descent of
Alexander from, 435 ; Lysippean
conception of, 501 ; Farnese, 501 ;
resting from his labours, 502
Heraeum, statue of Hera at Argos by
Polyclitus in, 331 ; Hebe by Nau-
cydes as pendant of Hera by Poly-
clitus in, 338 ; at Olympia, Hermes
by Praxiteles in, 355
INDEX
537
Herculaneum, bronzes from, 9
Herm and bust, intermediate form
between, 487
. Herm-portrait of Pericles, 450
Hermes of Praxiteles, 8, 10, 20, 27,
31, 355-360 ; at Olympia by On-
atas, 199 ; by Calamis, 235 ;
Criophorus at Wilton House, 236 ;
on Parthenon pediment, 277 ; in
Lysimachia by Polyclitus, 332 ; by
Naucydes, 338 ; on sculptured
drum from Ephesus, 420 ; on Neo-
Attic relief, 505
Hermione by Calamis, 235
Hermione, statue of Demeter Chtho-
nia at, 319
Hermodorus, honorary statue to, 513
Hermolycus, statue dedicated by, 318
Hermon, statue by Theocosmus, 308
Herostratus, of Naucratis, 85
Heroum of Trysa, 344-346
Hesiodic poems, art contemporary
with, 64
Hesperides on throne of Olympian
Zeus, 261 ; on metope at Olympia,
229
Hiero of Syracuse, a commission
given to Calamis by, 234, 235
Hieron of Gela, chariot made for, by
Onatas, 199!
High relief of Olympian metopes,
229
High relief of Pergamene frieze, 467
Himerius on Lemnian Athena, 258,
265
Himeros, statue by Scopas, 382
Hippodamia, 217 ; on throne of Olym-
pian Zeus, 261
Hippolytus at Troezen, by Timotheus,
374
Hipponax, his deformity caricatured,
101
Hippothous on Tegean pediment, 379
Historical reliefs in Rome, 494, 516
Hittite art derived from Babylonia
and Assyria, 53
Holy water sprinkler on Acropolis,
315
Homer, 4 ; sculpture in, 16 ; decora-
tive bronze work familiar to, 23 ;
decorative works in, 36 ; poetical
description of shield by, 47 ; social
state depicted by, 57 ; and Hesiod,
art in, 66-70 ; decorative metal
work in, 69 ; portrait of, 451
Honorary statues in Rome, 513
Hoplite-runner, statue of, by Pytha-
goras, 245
Horae on Parthenon pediment, 281
(see Hours)
Horse from Parthenon pediment in
British Museum, 280 ; from Acro-
polis, 287 ; from Olympia, 287 ;
colossal, by Strongylion, 319 ; and
bulls by Strongylion, 318 ; and
rider from Mausoleum, 389
Horses, statues of, dedicated by Tar-
en tines, 193 ; by Calamis, 199 ;
Calamis famous for, 235
Hours and Fates on throne of Zeus at
Megara, 307
Humorous treatment occurring on
vases, 162
Humour of treatment of monsters,
162
Huntress, Artemis as a, 319, 480
Hyacinthus, tomb of, 78
Hygieia on pediment of Parthenon,
279 ; Athena, by Pyrrhus, 316 ;
statue by Scopas, 382
Hymettian marble, 20 ; statue of, on
Acropolis, 175
IAPYGIAN, King Opis, death in battle,
199
Ictinus, temples on which he worked,
321
Idaean Dactyli as early metal workers,
66
Ideal statue described by Lucian, 233 ;
character of works by Phidias and
Polyclitus, 243
Idealism of Apollo Belvedere a re-
action against realism of Perga-
mene sculpture, 480
Ideals, later, of the gods, 477
Ilissus on pediment of Parthenon, 279
Ilithyiae at birth of Athena, 279
Ilium, capture of, on metopes at
Argos, 339
Imitative reliefs, Neo- Attic school,
504, 505
Individual character given to gods by
Praxiteles, 432
Infant Asclepius by Boethus, 442
Inopus in the Louvre, 436
Inscriptions concerning sculpture, 4
lolaus with chariot of Heracles, 159 ;
at Tegea, 378
Ion of Euripides, subjects of pedi-
538
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
ments of temple of Apollo at Delphi
referred to in, 314
Ionia, art of, 427
lonians and Danai as allies of the
Libyans, 58 ; influence of, 211
Ionic order, place of frieze in, 40 ;
frieze of Erechtheum, 300 ; and
Attic art, preference of female
draped figure by, 102 ; style, 107 ;
drapery. 111 ; art, influence of,
in Lycia, 344 ; S, introduction
of, 181 ; temple, tomb as a minia-
ture model of, 458
Irene and Plutus, by Cephisodotus^s
353, 356
Iris on Parthenon pediment, 277, 281,
287
Isigonus, sculptor employed by Atta-
lus, 456
Island gems, subjects on, 62, 63 ;
provenance of, 63 ; and early bronze
reliefs, 62 ; connection with My-
cenaean art of, 63
Island schools of sculpture, 98, 112
Isocephalism, 112
Isocrates, portrait by Leochares, 374,
376
Isthmian Poseidon by Lysippus, 410
Italy, sculpture in museums of, 12
Ivory, used for nude parts of female
figures, 75 ; statue of Jupiter by
Pasiteles, 508 (see Gold and Ivory)
JERUSALEM, golden candlestick of, 7,
516
Jocasta, statue by Silanion, 32, 371 ;
colour of, 469
Julius Caesar, portrait of, 513-515
Jupiter, ivory statue by Pasiteles,
508 ; Tonans, Zeus by Leochares
as, 375
Kai/)6s, statue of, by Lysippus, 411
Kertch, vase from, representing con-
test of Athena and Poseidon, 277 ;
resemblance of, to Madrid puteal,
280
Knights on Parthenon frieze, 289
Knights of St. John, destruction of
Mausoleum by, 386
KOIVTJ in art in late times, 497
/c6\7ros, 168
Kdpcti, architectural figures, 320
LABOURS of Heracles and Theseus on
friezes, 40 ; on throne of Olympian
Zeus, 263
Labyrinth at Lemnos, 100, 197
Laconian maidens, dancing figur
by Callimachus, 320
Ladas, statue of, by Myron, 239
Lamp in Erechtheum by Callimaclius,
321
Lancelotti, Discobolus in Palazzo,
238, 243
Landscape, treatment of, in Hellen-
istic reliefs, 440
Lansdowne House, Heracles in, 385
Laocoon, sculptors of, J#8\ 468, 499 ;
essay by Lessing on, 469 ; Virgil's
description of, 476 ; false restora-
tion of, 472 ; only meant for front
view, 473
Lapiths on western pediment at
Olympia, 221, 223, 225 ; and Cen-
taurs on sandals of Athena Par-
thenos, 257 ; and Centaurs on Phi-
galian frieze, 322 ; and Centaurs on
tomb from Trysa, 344 (see Centaurs)
Larissa, tombstone from, 131
Lateran, Marsyas in museum, 240
Leaena, statue of, on Acropolis, 316
Lebadeia, statue of Trophonius by
Euthycrates at, 413
Lemnian Athena, by Phidias, 32,
233, 255 ; Himerius on, 258 ; note
concerning, 265, 266
Lemnian labyrinth, 100, 197
Lenormant statuette, 254, 255
Leochares, works by, 374-376
Leonine conception of Alexander,
409 ; of Zeus, 499
Leontiscus of Messina, statue by
Pythagoras, 245
Lernaean Hydra, Heracles attacking,
159 ; on metope at Olympia, 229
Lessing on Laocoon, 469
Leto on eastern pediment of temple
of Apollo at Delphi, 313 ; at Argos,
statue by Praxiteles, 369 ; and her
children, group by Praxiteles, 366 ;
by Euphranor, 372 ; and Niobe, 421
Libyan, statue by Pythagoras of a,
245
Libyans, Greek allies of, 47
Ligourio, near Epidaurus, bronze
from, 195, 196 ; compared with
statue by Stephanus, 509
Lioness, Leaena as, 316 ; and cupids,
by Arcesilaus, 507, 508
in
••
INDEX
539
Lions, horses, and dogs in Assyrian
art, 49
Lions on gold plaque from Fayum,
' 59
Lions and bull, group in Athens
museum, 161
Lions of gold flanking footstool of
throne of Olympian Zeus, 261
Lions from Mausoleum, 387
Literary evidence not coincident with
monumental, 155
Long-haired statues in Rome, 513
Louvre, Hera from Samos in, 113 ;
Thasian relief in, 128 ; bronze
statuette in, 329 ; Inopus in, 436 ;
Artemis of Versailles in, 481 ; Venus
of Melos in, 482 ; Victory of Samo-
thracein, 485-487 ; Venus Genetrix
in, 506
Lozenge pattern on sculpture, 178
Lucian, 3
Luna, marble of, 20
Lycia, Greek sculpture in, 435
Lycian monuments, 55 ; sculpture in
the fifth century, 343 ; sarcophagus
with ogival top, 427 ; sarcophagi,
520
Lycius, equestrian statues on the
Acropolis by, 315 ; group by at
Olympia, 315
Lycone, group by Polyclitus at,
332
Lycosura, group by Damophon from,
8 ; sculptures by Damophon at,
8, 259, 400
Lydia, art of, similar to that of
Phrygia, 55 •
Lysias and Isocrates, compared to
Phidias and Polyclitus, 234
Lysimache, portrait by Demetrius,
450
Lysippean athlete, influence of Scopas
shown in, 433 ; heads at Monte
Cavallo, 445 ; original, Farnese
Hercules a copy of, 501
Lysippus, works of, 403-410 ; posi-
tion of, 404, 405 ; weary Heracles,
characteristic of, 411 ; pupils of,
412 ; influence of, 432 j portraits of
Alexander by, 435 ; colossal Zeus
at Tarentum by, 444 ; influence of,
in Borghese warrior, 475
Lysistratus, pupil of Lysippus, casts
from the face of model first taken
by, 413, 513
MACEDONIA, artistic plunder from,
495
Macedonian warriors on sarcophagus,
430 ; kings, spread of Hellenism
by, 434, 435
Madrid, portrait of old man at, 210 ;
puteal with birth of Athena at,
280, 281
Maenad by Scopas, 369, 384 ; on Neo-
Attic relief, 505
Maenads, groups of, by Praxiteles,
369
Magna Graecia, artistic peculiarities
of, 146
Maidens of Erechtheum, 300
Male forehead in fourth century
sculpture, 359
Man carrying calf, statue on Athenian
Acropolis, 176 ; sacrificing ram by
Naucydes, 338
Mannerisms of earlier artists imitated
in Hellenistic times, 492 ; of Pasi-
telean copies, 15, 509
Mantinea, Pratolaus ofj"245
Mantinean relief with Marsyas, 366 ;
analogy of, with mourner's sarco-
phagus, 428
Marathon, relief found on a tomb
near, 179 ; temple statues dedicated
from spoils of battle at, 249, 250
Marble, preponderance of sculpture
in museums, 9 ; use and technique
of, 18-23 ; used in Athens in sixth
century, 162 ; use of, for faces and
hands of female figures in Selinus
metopes, 346 ; perfection of tech-
nique in, by Praxiteles, 432
Marcus Aurelius, statue of, preserved
by mistake, 6
Marpessa, marble from, 20
Marsyas in Lateran museum, 240 ;
on Mantinean relief, 366 ; subject
as treated by Myron and Praxiteles,
489 ; flaying of, by Zeuxis, 489 ;
flaying of, in Pergamene art,'
489
Mask of Zeus from Otricoli, 498
Masks of wax in Roman times, use of,
512, 513
Masquerading as a god, expression of
the custom in sculpture, 451
Massive build of figure chosen by
Peloponnesian sculptors, 284
Masterpieces, carrying off of, by
Romans, 495
540
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
Mattel Amazon, 335, 336 ; period of,
337
Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, decora-
tion of, 42, 345, 385-393 ; share of
Bryaxis in, 374 ; Scopas employed
on, 382 ; sculptures compared with
Alexander sarcophagus, 428 ; pa-
nels in walls of, 440
Mausolus, colossal statue of, 387, 388
Medusa, head of, at Argus, 65
Megalopolis, group dedicated in
temple of Zeus Soter at, 354 ;
temple statue hy Damophon at,
399
Megara, early sculpture from, 142 ;
treasury of, at Olympia, 142 ; colos-
sal torso from, 142 ; Hours and
Fates above the head of Zeus at,
307 ; unfinished statue of Zeus
at, 307 ; statue of Artemis Soteira
hy Strongylion at, 319 ; group by
Scopas at, 382
Megarian treasury, pediment of, 142
Melas family, 22
Meleager at Tegea, 378
Melos, sculpture in museums from,
124 ; Apollo from, 125 ; head in
British Museum from, 416 ; Aphro-
dite of, 477 ; objects found at,
with Venus of Melos, 482 ; Venus
of, 482
Mende, victory by Paeonius of, 247
Menecrates, name of, on Great Altar
of Zeus at Pergamum, 468
Menelaus, bowl given to, by king of
Sidon, 69 ; or Ajax in Agina pedi-
ment, 201
Menelaus, pupil of Stephanus (school
of Pasiteles), 509 ; group by, 510-
512
Menophilus, inscription with name
of, 475
Messene, temple statues by Damo-
phon at, 399
Messenians of Naupactus, victory
made by Paeonius for, 231, 232
Messina, bronze group, by Gallon,
for, 154 ; Samian exiles at, 244 ;
Leontiscus of, 245
Metal as a material for sculpture, 15,
23-26
Metopes, 40, 41 ; of Selinus, 142 ; at
Olympia, 227, 228, 229 ; of Par-
thenon, 268, 270, 273 ; Cen-
taurs on, 272, 273 ; in place before
cornice of outer colonnade, 27*
uneven quality of, 288 ; of The
eum, 295 ; at Argos, 339 (see
inns)
Michael Angelo, 35 ; restorations of
ancient sculpture by, 9
Midas, 52 ; tomb of, 53
Migration of artists in Grseco -Roman
age, 496
Miletus, Apollo at, 194; sack of, 194
Miltiades, central figure of group by
Phidias at Delphi, 249
Minos in Crete, 57 ; and Agamemnon,
mention of, by Thucydides, 55
Mithridates, statue made by Silanion
for, 370
Mnaseas of Gyrene, statue of, by
2thagoras, 245
lling of the body, beginnings
of, 92 ; in clay, invention of, 100
Models for sculpture made by Timo-
theus, 372, 373
Monotony of early types, reason of,
96
Monsters in early Attic art, 162; in
early Attic pediments, 202
Monte Cavallo Dioscuri, 445
Morosini's secretary, De Laborde head
brought to Venice by, 284
Mother of the gods, statue by Agora-
critas at Athens, 306
Motye, people of, 235
Mount Olympus on Parthenon pedi-
ment, 280
Mourner's sarcophagus, 427
Mouth, development of, in early
Attic sculpture, 171, 172 ; treat-
ment of, by Scopas, 381 ; in Artemis
at Lycosura, 400 ; in Demeter of
Cnidus, 416
Mummius, sack of Corinth by, 495
Munich, sculpture in, 8 ; pediments
from Aegina at, 201 ; Aphrodite
in, 362 ; frieze in, 383
Muscles and sinews, treatment of, in
early Attic work, 160
Muscular exaggeration of Borghese
warrior, 477
Muse by Ageladas, 193
Muses on eastern pediment of temple
of Apollo at Delphi, 313 ; on
Helicon, by Strongylion, 320 ; on
Helicon, group by Cephisodotus,
354 ; on Mantinean basis, 368
Mycenae, civilisation of, 57 ; art of,
INDEX
541
59-62 ; lion gate at, 54, 59, 60 ;
dagger blades, 70
Mycenae and Tiryns, work of Cy-
clopes, 65
Mycenaean period, 23
Myrina, figurines, 27
Myron, place of, among sculptors,
236 ; literary traditions concerning,
239 ; works of, 242 ; athletic sculp-
ture of, 273, 276; animals by, 287;
technique of, 295 ; scholars of,
313 ; treatment of hair by, 329 ;
scene from myth of Marsyas by,
489
Myrtilus, the charioteer, 217, 218,
220
Mys, shield of statue embossed by,
249
Mythical traditions, Cyclopes, Dac-
tyli, and Telchines, 65 ; person-
ages in Hellenistic reliefs, 440
Mythological canon, formation of, 76
Myths, unscientific treatment of, 66 ;
on late sarcophagi, 521
NAPLES, bronzes at, 8 ; relief like
that of Alxenor of Naxos in, 130 ;
group of Harmodius and Aristogi-
ton at, 183 ; bronze head of youth
at, 210 ; Doryphorus at, 327 ;
Farnese bull at, 472 ; Orestes and
Electra at, 510
Naucratis, alabaster used for sculp-
ture at, 19 ; artistic importance of,
85 ; name of Rhoecus at, 101
Nancy des, scholar of Poly clitus, works
by, 338
Naupactus, artists of, 154
Naxian colossus, 121, 122
Naxos, statues found in, 19 ; marble
of, 119 ; sculptures from, 119 ;
three examples of nude male type
from, 121 ; statue dedicated by
Nicandra of, to Artemis, 121 ; work
by Alxenor of, 122 ; small bronze
from, 122
Nemean lion on metope at Olympia,
229
Nemesis by Agoracritus, legends
about, 305 ; originally intended to
represent Aphrodite in the gardens,
305, 310 ; Victories and stags on
crown of, 306 ; subjects on pedestal
of statue of, 306
Neo-Attic reliefs, 14, 42, 299 ; origin
of, 320 ; limited repertoire of fig-
ures in, 505 ; school, 501 ; school,
imitative reliefs of, 504, 505
Nereid monument, 37, 345
Nereids on Assos sculptures, 112 ; by
Timotheus, 372
Nero, statue carried about with, 320 ;
statues taken from Delphi by, 496 ;
heads of, on colossal statues of gods,
515
Nestor, statue at Olympia by Onatas,
199
Nicias, circumlitio applied by, 430
Night, statue of, at Ephesus, 100
Nike, first with wings, 101 ; winged,
117; by Calamis, 235 ; as an ac-
cessory of Athena Parthenos by
Phidias, 256 ; in Hellenistic times,
485 (see Victory)
Nimrud, reliefs from, 48
Nineveh, reliefs from, 49
Niobe of Mount Sipylus, 52 ; and her
children, 368, 421-426; attributed
to Scopas and to Praxiteles, 421,
422 ; various copies of, 426
Niobid, drapery of Chiaramonti, 287 ;
male, 424
Niobids, slaying of, on throne of
Olympian Zeus, 260, 263; treat-
ment of death in, 423
Nude female, early sculptural type
of, 94 ; male, early sculptural type
of, 93, 94 ; male form in Aeginetan
pediments, 202 ; male figure on
metopes from Argos, 339 ; male
form in Borghese warrior, 475
Nudity in art influenced by athletics,
93 ; during gymnastic exercises,
191 ; preparation for the bath as
motive for, 362 ; as a convention
in a Persian, 459 ; in Roman
statues, 515
Nymphs, groups of, by Praxiteles,
369 ; riding on Centaurs, group by
Arcesilaus, 508
ODYSSEUS on tomb from Trysa, 344
Old man from Olympian pediment,
218
Oli ve- tree J symbol of Athena, 274,
277
Olympia, 5, 8, 9 ; workshop of
Phidias at, 18 ; works of Spartan
masters at, 134, 152 ; treasury of
Megara at, 142 ; statues of ath-
542
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
letes at, 191; great group by Onatas
at, 199 ; Hermes by Onatas at,
199 ; Heracles by Onatas at, 199 ;
Megarian gigantomachy at, 202 ;
chariot on pediment, 218 ; demand
for statues of athletes at, 227 ;
sculptured metopes over colonnade
of temple, 227 ; acroteria by
Paeonius at, 230 ; temple built by
Eleans at, 231 ; golden shield at,
231 ; Ladas a runner at, 239 ;
Phidias working at, 251 ; Centaurs
at, 272, 273 ; table of gold and
ivory by Colotes at, 306, 403 ;
group by Lycius at, 315 ; statues of
athletes at, by Polyclitus, 326;
portraits in Philippeum at, 374 ;
statues taken from, 495, 496
Olympian excavations, heads from,
138 ; games, statues by Pythagoras
of victors in, 245 ; games, admis-
sion of Philip and Alexander to,
435 ; metopes, subjects on, 227,
230 ; metopes, resemblance of Sel-
inus metopes to, 346 ; pediments,
216-231 ; pediments, differences
betw.een eastern and western, 221 ;
pediments, Pentelic_marble in, 222 ;
pediments, use of colour in, 227 ;
pediments, Pausanias' attribution
of, to Paeonius and Alcamenes dis-
cussed, 231 ; pediments, composi-
tion of, 282 ; pediments, author-
ship of discussed, 308, 310 ; Zeus,
statue of, by Phidias, 26, 251, 259,
262-267 ; Zeus, throne of, 259-261 ;
Zeus, dimensions of statue of, 262 ;
Zeus, religious character of, 262 ;
Zeus, made by Phidias and Colotes,
306 ; Zeus type reproduced, 397 ;
Zeus, statue of, repaired by Damo-
phon, 399 ; Zeus, Niobe story on
throne of, 421 ; Zeus at Athens,
temple of, finished by Hadrian,
517, 518
Omphalos, Apollo on the, 235, 247
Opis, death in battle, 199
Opportunity, statue of, by Lysippus,
411
Orchomenus, Apollo from, 141, 147 ;
tomb relief signed by Alxenor at,
149
Orestes and Clytemnestra, 135 ; and
Electra at Naples, 510
Oriental models, influence of, 52 ;
influences in early times, direct
channel of, 84
Orontes, swimming figure to represent
the river, 446
Otricoli, mask of Zeus from, 498
PAEONIUS, his connection with Olym-
pian pediments, 231, 341, 343 ;
Victory by, 342
Pagae, statue of Artemis Soteira by
Strongylion at, 319
Paint, used with coarse stone, 158 (see
Colour)
Painting, technique, translated into
marble, 141 ; influence of, on sculp-
ture of Lycia, 344
Paintings on throne of Olympian
Zeus, 261
Palatine, statue of Apollo by Scopas,
in temple, 384
Palermo, metopes of Selinus at, 142,
346
Palladium, 69
Pallene, combat between Athenians
and wild inhabitants of, on Theseum
frieze, 9-97
Panaenus, paintings by, on throne of
Olympian Zeus, 261 ; shield of
Athena at Elis painted by, 307
Panathenaic amphorae at Gyrene,
and in Italy, 87
Pancratiast at Delphi, statue of, 244
Pandion, statue of, 242
Pandora, on pedestal of Athena Par-
thenos, 257
Panels from Mausoleum, 387; Hellen-
istic, 440, 473
Panhellenic Zeus, 255
Pantarces, statue of, at Olympia, 263
Papias, Centaurs and Cupids by, 518
Parallel folds in Delian works, 127 ;
planes in sculpture, 137
Parian marble, 19 ; in Theseum
metopes, 295 ; head from Argos,
339 ; in Nereid monument, 346 ;
Hermes by Praxiteles of, 355 ;
head of Demeter of Cnidus of, 416
Paris on Aegina pediment, 201 ;
statue of, by Euphranor, 371
Parium, Eros by Praxiteles at, 363
Parnopius, Apollo by Phidias, 258
Paros, statues found at, 19 ; draped,
seated statue from, 125 ; flying
Gorgon from, 125 ; nude male
statue from, 125
INDEX
543
Parrliasius, designs by, for shield of
Phidias' colossal bronze Athena,
249
Parthenium, herbal remedy, 316
Parthenon, as a church, 6, 269 ; sculp-
tures, 10 ; place of frieze on, 40,
41; destruction of, by gunpowder
in 1687, 269 ; sculpture, 267, 293 ;
metopes, 270-273 ; resemblance to
Theseum frieze, 296 ; pediments,
274-289 ; Carrey's drawings, 274 ;
connection of Phidias with, 288 ;
frieze, 289-293
Parthenos, statue of Athena, by
Phidias, 251, 255-258, 264, 267
Pasitelean copies of fifth - century
statues, peculiarities of, 509 ; group,
Orestes and Electra, 510
Pasiteles and his school, 508 - 512 ;
works by pupils of, 509
Pastoral tendency in Hellenistic times,
438
Pathology in sculpture, 472
" Pathos " in Greek sculpture, 385
Patrocles, brother of Polyclitus, 338
Patroclus in Aegina pediment, 201
Pausanias, 3
Peace nursing the infant "Wealth,
statue by Cephisodotus, 352, 446
Pedestal of Athena Parthenos, sculp-
ture on, 257 ; of throne of Olym-
pian Zeus, relief in gold on, 261 ;
of Nemesis at Rhamnus, 306
Pediments, sculpture of, 38 ; chariots
on, 38 ; combat scenes on, 38 ; at
Olympia, 38, 39, 216-227 ; contrast
of eastern and western scenes on,
39 ; river gods in, 39 ; of Athena
Alea at Tegea, 40, 378, 379; of
Megarian Treasury, 142 ; in Athens
museum, 158 ; fish and snake forms
in, 159 ; of Aegina, 201-206 ; mon-
sters in early, 202 ; of Parthenon,
268, 274-289
Pegasus on Selinus metope, 144
Peitho on pedestal of throne of Olym-
pian Zeus, 261
Pelasgians, 56
Peleus at Tegea, 378
Pellene in Achaea, Athena by Phidias
for, 249, 250
Pellichus, portrait by Demetrius of,
351, 450
Pelopid dynasty of Atridae, origin of,
54
Pelopids in Mycenae, 57
Peloponnese, marble from, 20 ; sculp-
ture from, 137 ; and Sicily, artistic
connection between, 154
Peloponnesian war, 18 ; sculptors,
type of figure preferred by, 284
Pelops, legend of, 217
Pentathlus, by Alcamenes, 311
Pentelic marble, 20 ; in Olympian
pediment, 222 ; used for face and
hands of statue, 251 ; in Erectheum
frieze, 262 ; used by Alcamenes,
310 ; used in metopes from Argos,
339 ; Alexander sarcophagus of, 428
Penthesilea and Achilles on throne of
Olympian Zeus, 261
Peplos, in early Attic sculpture, 167,
168 ; of Athena, 289, 291, 292
Pergamene sculptor, methods con-
trasted with Aeginetan, 204 ; art,
character of, 385 ; sculptures, re-
plicas of earlier, 453 ; under At-
tains I., 453-459 ; under Eumenes,
II., 459-468 ; artists trained in the
school of Lysippus, 454 ; altar,
460-468; art, last example of,
469 ; art, morbid taste of later,
489
Pergamenes and Galatians, battle on
Attalid dedication on Acropolis,
457
Pergamum sculpture in Berlin from,
8 ; statue by Onatas at, 198 ; statue
of Ares brought to Rome from, 384 ;
school of sculpture at, 437; position
in Hellenistic art, 452 ; altar of
Zeus at, 457, 460 - 468 ; bronze
satyr at Berlin from, 490
Pericles, influence of, in art, 216 ;
portrait of, on shield of Athena Par-
thenos, 257 ; Phidias' connection
with, 251, 258, 288, 301 ; statue of
slave of, on Acropolis, 315 ; portrait
of, by Cresilas, 317, 351, 450 ;
Attic artists under, 394
Perseus on Selinus metope, 144 ; by
Myron, 242 ; with wings by Pytha-
goras, 245
Persia brought into relation with
Greece by the fall of Croesus, 56
Persian art, 56 ; enamelled brick-
work, 56 ; wars, and their results,
5, 43, 157, 214, 347, -434 ; dress in
sculpture, 389 ; nude, with cap
from Pergamene group, 459
544
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
Persians, combat scenes with, in
sculpture, 206 ; on Alexander sarco-
phagus, 430 ; fallen figures from
Attalid battle groups, 457, 458
Petasus, on tomb relief from Larissa,
130
Petworth, Amazon at, 337
<f>a,idpvvTal, 252
Phalaris of Agrigentum, 104
Pharsalus, tomb relief from, 131
Pheneans, employers of Onatas, 198
Pherecydes, portrait of, 210
Phidias, only copies after, extant, 248;
pupil of Ageladas, 248 ; works by,
249-266 ; connection of, with Par-
thenon, 267, 273, 288 ; portrait of,
on shield of Athena Parthenos,
257 ; and Pericles, 251, 258, 288,
301 ; scholars of, 302 ; and the
statue of Nemesis at Rhamnus,
305 ; colossal Athena by, 311 ; in-
fluence of, 312, 313, 351 ; Amazon
attributed to, 336
Phigalia, temple of Apollo near, 221,
321
Phigalian frieze, 8, 41, 322-324
Phigalians, employers of Onatas, 198
Philetaerus, founder of Attalid dyn-
asty, 452
Philip, gold and ivory portraits of
family, 374, 376 ; conquests of, 434
Philippeum at Olympia, gold and
ivory portraits in, 374
Philo, victor at Olympia, 199
Philoctetes, by Pythagoras, 245,
309 ; on gems, 246 ; treatment of
wounded, 337
"Philosophers," statues of, 307
Phoenician art, influence of, 50 ; as
known to Homer, 51
Phoenician traders in Thera and
Rhodes, 51 ; in Corinth, 51 ; in the
Aegean, 50, 51 ; bowls, concentric
bands of relief on, 70 ; princes, em-
ployment of Greek sculptors by, 427
Phrixus on Acropolis, statue of, 338
Phrygia and Lydia, their art derived
from Hittite conquerors, 53
Phrygian lions on tombs, 53 ; art,
resemblance to early Greek 54 ;
tombs, 59 ; slave with knife on
Mantinean basis, 368
Phryne, statue presented to, by Praxi-
teles, 363, 364 ; statues of, by
Praxiteles, 369
Phyromachus, sculptor employed by
Attains, 456
Pilasters, colossal figures in temple of
Zeus at Acragus as, 347
Piombino, Apollo of, 190, 209
Piraeus stone used for sculpture, 19
Pirithous on western pediment at
Olympia, 221, 225 ; bridal of, on
Parthenon, 270 ; on Tegean pedi-
ment, 379
Pisatans, conquered by Eleans, 231
Plaque in r£pouss6 work from Olym-
pia, 64
Plaster model of statue of Zeus at
Megara, 307 ; models by Arcesi-
laus, 508
Plataeans, statue of Athena Areia
by Phidias for, 250
Plato the philosopher, statue by Si-
lanion, 370
Pliny, 2, 3
Pliny's comparison of Myron and
Polyclitus examined, 243, 244
Pointing from a modelj 32
Polish of surface characteristic of
later Pergamene art, 458
Polished surface of crouching slave in
Uflizi Gallery at Florence, 490
7r6Xos, 195
Polychromy in sculptural reliefs, 144,
145 ; of early sculpture, 158, 162,
163 (see Colour).
Polyclitan Amazon, 332 ; canon modi-
fied by Lysippus, 405
Polyclitus, pupil of Ageladas, 324 ;
works by, 326-332; treatment of
hair by, 329 ; scholars of, 337 ; the
younger, 338
Polycrates, ring of, 100
Polydeuces at Tegea, 378
Polydorus, one of the sculptors of the
Laocoon, 469
Polygnotus, influence of paintings of,
344, 348 ; paintings at Athens and
Delphi by, 348
Polynices and Eriphyle, 135
Polyphemus, Torso Belvedere restored
as, 502
Polyxena, tomb relief, 131
Pomegranate in hand of statue on
Acropolis of Athens, 115
Pompeian paintings and mosaics,
genre scenes on, 508
Pompeii, bronzes from, 9
7rc6pu>os \i6os, 158
INDEX
545
Portrait of athlete at Olyrapia by
Phidias, 263 ; work in fifth century,
318 ; of Mausolus, 388 ; statues in
libraries, etc., 451 ; head from
Eleusis, 487, 488 ; of a man posing
as a god, 488 ; sculpture, Roman,
494 ; of Julius Caesar in British Mu-
seum, 513-515 ; of Antinous, 519 ;
portraits of Pericles and Phidias on
shield of Athena Parthenos, 257 ;
of Alexander, 432 ; by Demetrius
of Alopece, 450 ; of kings as gods,
451 ; in early times always herms
or statues, 452 ; in Roman times,
resemblance of, to reigning em-
peror, 515
Portraiture, 449-452 ; Roman, as a
phase of Greek art, 512
Poseidon and Athena on Parthenon
pediment, 274, 276 ; dolphins as
an attribute of, 277 ; crowning Ly-
sander, 338 ; Thetis and Achilles
group in Rome by Scopas, 383 ; in
Isthmian sanctuary by Lysippus,
410 ; and Amphitrite from Perga-
mene frieze, 466
Pothos, statue by Scopas, 382
irbrvia. 0rjpuv, 306
Pourtales torso at Berlin, 327
Pratolaus of Mantinea, statue of, by
Pythagoras, 245
Praxias, a pupil of Calamis, 313 ;
pediments of temple of Apollo at
Delphi by, 313
Praxidamas of Aegina, statue of,
191
Praxiteles, characteristics of style
of, 355 ; copies after, by Roman
sculptors, 355 ; resemblance to style
of, in sculpture on drum from
Ephesus, 421 ; influence of, on
succeeding age, 432 ; work done
for barbarians by, 435 ; scenes from
myth of Marsyas by, 489
Praxiteles, Pergamene artist, 456
Praying boy in Berlin, 414
Priestess of Athena, portrait by De-
metrius, 450
Pristae, statues of, by Myron, 242
Promachos, epithet of Athena, 249
Prometheus and Heracles on throne
of Olympian Zeus, 261 ; assisting
at the birth of Athena, 279 ; myth
on late sarcophagi, 521
Proplasmata by Arcesilaus, 508
Propylaea, date of, 315 ; equestrian
statues on buttresses of, 315
Prothoiis at Tegea, 378
irpoTojAal, 452
Provenance, importance of, 156
Psammetichus I., Greek and Carian
mercenaries of, 48, 58
Ptous Apollo, 207
Punch and mallet, use of, 22
Punic wax, use of, 29
Puntelli, 33, 34, 35
Puteal in Madrid, with birth of
Athena, 280, 281
Puteoline basis, 449
Pyramidal composition of Laocoon
and of Farnese bull, 473
Pyrrhic dancer on Neo- Attic relief,
505
Pyrrhus, statues accumulated by, 495
Pythagoras, confusion concerning, of
Rhegium and Samos, 245 ; artistic
affinities and date, 244, 246
Pythis, chariot on Mausoleum by, 386
RAMPIN head, style of, 177
Realism and impressionism in fourth-
century sculpture, 352 ; in sculp-
ture, 405 ;- of Lysippus, 413 ; and
convention in Laocoon, 472 ; of
Pergamene art, reaction against,
480 ; in portraiture, Julius Caesar,
513
Relations of archaic schools, literary
evidence as to, 151
Relief, high, of metopes of Par-
thenon, 270 ; technique of Erech-
theum, 300 ; of Pergamene frieze,
467
Reliefs, different planes in, 293 (see
Hellenistic and Neo-Attic)
Religious spirit of Greek sculpture,
81 ; conservatism in sculpture, 82 ;
character of Olympian Zeus, 262,
263 ; genre, 316
Repetitions of figures in Neo-Attic
work, 505
Repousst work, 24
Reproductions of earlier statues in
Graeco-Roman times, 497, 498
Restoration of sculpture, 9, 10
Rhamnus, Nemesis by Agoracritus
at, 305
Rhegium, Samian exiles at, 244
Rhexibius the Opuntian, statue of,
191
546
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
Rhodes, art of pottery in, 85 ; statue
of Helios by Lysippus at, 410 ;
school of sculpture at, 438 ; bronze
Colossus by Chares at, 442 ; pros-
perity of, in Hellenistic age, 469 ;
Farnese bull set up at, 472
Rhodes and Crete, early art in, 66
Rhodian art, character of, 385 ;
school, 468
River gods on pediments, 39, 220,
279
Rock-cut sculptures in Asia Minor,
52
Roman copy of Athena Parthenos,
253 ; sculpture, 493, 494 ; view of
Greek art, 494 ; portrait sculpture,
494 ; province, reduction of Greece
to, 495 ; proconsuls, statues taken
by, 495 ; portraiture as a phase
of Greek art, 512 ; historical
monuments, 516, 517 ; sarcophagi,
520 ; copies of Greek originals, 12,
521
Romans as gods, 515 ; carrying off of
statues by, 495
Rome, statues conveyed to, 6 ; statues
set up in public buildings at, 495
Roscius, silver portrait of, by Pasiteles,
509
Round chisel, use of, 22
Roundness of shape a characteristic
of early Boeotian statues, 148
pv6fj.bs, attributed to Pythagoras,
247, 248
SACK OF CORINTH, by Mummius, 6,
495
Samian exiles at Rhegium and
Messina, 244 ; school of sculptors
in the time of Croesus at Ephesus
and Magnesia, 78
Samos, 18, 19 ; the Heraeum at, as a
museum of early sculpture, 112 ;
artistic affinities of, 112, 156, 157 ;
Hera at, 197 ; Pythagoras born at,
244 ; and Rhegium, connection of,
244 ; and Athens, treaty between,
with relief of Hera and Athena,
301
Samothrace, relief from the arm of a
chair from, 129 ; victory of, 485-487
Sandals of Athena Parthenos, sculp-
ture on, 257
Sappho, statue by Silanion, 370
Sarcophagi with Niobe, 421 ; from
Sidon, 427 ; flaying of Marsyas on,
489 ; in form of temples, 520 ; left
plain at back, 520 ; in Roman
times, 520 ; late, with mythological
subjects, 521
Sarcophagus, Lycian, with ogival top,
427 ; les pleureuses, 427 ; Alex- •
ander, 428
Sargon, extension of his rule to Syria
and Cyprus, 49
Satan, throne of, 461
Satrap, tomb of the, 427
Satyr with flutes by Myron, 240 ; by
Praxiteles, 364 ; in bronze from
Pergamum at Berlin, 490
Satyrs, groups of, by Praxiteles, 369
Sauroctonus, Apollo by Praxiteles,
366
Scenes from country life in Hellenistic
reliefs, 440
Schools of sculpture, local, when
established, 90 ; in the sixth
century, 152
Sciarra, Apollo in the Palazzo, 209
Scipio Asiaticus, statues carried off
by, 495
Scopas, dramatic tendency of, 276 ;
works by, 377 ; rivals of, 385 ;
influence of, in Asia Minor, 412 ;
column of Ephesus temple by, 419 ;
employment of, in Asia Minor,
431 ; influence of, 432, 433 ; work
done for barbarians by, 435
Scythian archer, statue of, in Athens,
178
Sea-creatures after Scopas, 383
Selene on pedestal of throne of
Olympian Zeus, 261 ; on Parthenon
pediment, 280, 281, 287 ; from
Pergamene frieze, 466
Seleucus, restoration of Apollo of
Branchidse to Milesians by, 194 ;
portrait of, by Bryaxis, 374
Selinus, metopes of, 17, 36, 142-145 ;
treatment of wounded giant, 204 ;
fifth-century set, 346
Sentimental pathos in later Per-
gamene art, 458
Seventh-century work in Egypt, 48
Shape of primitive statue, 17
Shield of Achilles, 69, 71, 74 ; Flax-
man's conception of, 68 ; of Her-
acles, 72, 73 ; of Athena Par-
thenos, portraits on, 257
Sicilian sculptures (see Selinus)
INDEX
547
Sicily, cities of, plundered of statues
by Romans, 495
Sicyon, Dipoenus and Scyllis at, 98 ;
gold and ivory Aphrodite at, 195 ;
works by Scopas at, 382, 385
Sicyonian sculptors, 194 ; school,
Lysippus, head of, 404 (see Argos)
Sidon sarcophagi, 409, 427 ; com-
pared with relief by Sosibius, 504
Silanion, works by, 370, 371
Silver, use of, 26 ; statuette from
Alexandria in British Museum,
boy and goose, 442 ; vessels with
subjects similar to those on
Hellenistic reliefs, 440 ; portrait of
Roscius, 509
ffKLafia'x&v, 199
Smintheus, Apollo by Scopas, 384
Snake forms in pedimental sculptures,
159 ; as an attribute of Athena, 256,
277 ; as attribute of Asclepius, 399
Snake-footed Giants, 467
Snakes of Laocoon group, 472
Solid bronze statues, 24
Sosandra, 233
Sosias, Niobe group brought to Rome
by, 421
Sosibius, work of, compared with
Sidon sarcophagi, 504 ; typical
Neo-Attic artist, 505
Sosicles' name inscribed on Capito-
line Amazon, 336
Southern Italy, cities of, plundered
of statues by Romans, 495
Sparta, cups from Vaphio, 58 ;
migration of Bathycles to, 79 ;
sculpture from, 133 ; school founded
by Cretan sculptors at, 152 ; bronze
Zeus at, 154 ; and Argos, archaic
statues, numerous at, 154
Spartan tomb reliefs, analogy of, with
Harpy tomb, 17, 110 ; school of
sculptors, 134, 152, 244 ; reliefs,
135, 136, 137 ; sculpture, gold and
ivory, 152
Spartans, group dedicated by, after
Aegospotami, 338
Spearmen on Aegina pediment, 201,
202
Sphinx on Selinus metopes, 145 ; on
helmet of Athena Parthenos, 256
Sphyrelata, 26
Squareness of early statues, 127
Staining the face of statue with wine
lees at vintage time, 99
State documents with sculpture, 301
Statuae Achilleae of Rome, 515
Statuettes, usual material for early,
91
Stephanus, male figure by, 509
Sterope on pediment at Olympia, 217
Stolidity of expression of early
Boeotian work, 148
Stone as a material for sculpture, 15,
19
Strangford Apollo, 207 ; shield in
British Museum, 257
Stratford de Redcliffe, slabs of Mauso-
leum frieze given to British Museum
by, 386
Stratonicus, sculptor employed by
Attains, 456
Strigil, athlete with, by Polyclitus,
331
Strongylion, works by, 319, 320
Stuart's drawings, 7 ; drawings of
Theseum metopes, 295
Study of nature by Lysippus, 404
Stymphalian birds on metope at
Olympia, 229
Stymphalus, Dromeus of, 245
Styppax of Cyprus, statue of slave
roasting entrails by, 315
Subjects of fifth-century art, 347
Sulla, statuette by Lysippus in pos-
session of, 411 ; states plundered
by, 495
<rv/j,fj.eTpia attributed to Pythagoras,
247
Symmetry the aim of Poly cly tus, 243,
244
Syracuse, statue of chariot and
charioteer for, by Onatas, 198
Syro-Cappadocians, Hittites of Scrip-
ture, 53
TABLE of sculptors known from litera-
ture, 104
Tanagra, golden shield dedicated at
Olympia by Spartans after victory
at, 231 ; drapery of statuettes, 368
Taras and Phalanthus by Onatas,
199
Tarentines, employers of Onatas, 198
Tarentum, statue of Europa at, 245 ;
colossal Zeus by Lysippus at, 409,
444 ; statue of Heracles by Lysip-
pus at, 410
Tauriscus, one of the sculptors of
Farnese bull, 473
548
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
Technical improvements attributed
to Theodorus, 100
Technique of Greek sculpture, 15-35;
of gold and ivory statues, 307 ; of
statue of Jocasta by Silanion, 371
Tegea, marble from, 20 ; seated
statue from, 138 ; temple of Athena
Alea rebuilt by Scopas at, 378
Tegean heads by Scopas, 36, 137, 381,
383, 385, 391, 392, 393, 416, 418,
430 ; pediments, extant remains,
379.
Tegeans, group dedicated by, 338
Telamon at Tegea, 378
Telchines as early metal workers, 66
Telephus at Tegea, 378, 379 ; small
frieze from Pergamum, with scenes
from the life of, 468
Temple offerings, number of, 82
Tenea, Apollo from, 139, 141
Terra-cotta idols, 91 ; as a material
for sculpture, 15, 26, 27
Terra-cottas, drapery of, 448
Teucer on Aegina pediment, 201
ddXaaffa symbol of Poseidon, 274
Thalassa and Gaia on Parthenon pedi-
ment, 281
Thasians, employers of Onatas, 198
Thasos and Samothrace, artistic affi-
nities of, 112 ; peculiar alphabet of,
127 ; relations with Paros and
Siphnos, 127 ; relief from, 127, 129;
tombstone of Philis, 129
Theagenes, Olympian victor, 199
Theban sphinxes on throne of
Olympian Zeus, 263 ; sage, portrait
by Tisicrates, 414
Thebes, statue of Apollo Ismenius at,
194 ; singer Cleon of, 245 ; statue
set up by Thrasybulus at, 310 ;
statue by Xenophon at, 354
Theocritus, subjects chosen by Perga-
mene artist similar to those in
idylls of, 490
Theodorus, statue of, by himself, 100
Thera, nude male statue from, 123
Theseum, place of frieze on, 40, 41 ;
date of, 294 ; sculptures of, 294-
298 ; metopes, Stuart's drawings
of, 295 ; frieze, resemblance to
Parthenon metopes, 296 ; frieze,
foreshortening of fallen figures, 298
Theseus and Minos, legends concern-
ing, 80 ; on western pediment at
Olympia, 221 ; and Pirithous on
throne of Olympian Zeus, 261 ; and
Amazons on throne of Olympian
Zeus, 261 ; on Parthenon pediment,
280, 283, 284, 285 ; bringing back
by Cimon from Scyros of bones of,
294, 295 ; and the bull in Theseum
metopes, 295 ; on tomb from Trysa,
344 ; statue by Silanion, 370 ; at
Tegea, 378
Thespiae, statue of Eros by Praxiteles
at, 363
Thessaly, marble of, 20 ; tomb-reliefs
from, 131
Thorwaldsen, restorations of ancient
sculpture by, 9 ; restoration of
Aegina pediment by, 201
Thrasybulus, statue set up at Thebes
by, 310
Thrasymedes, works by, 397-399
Throne of Apollo at Amyclae, 78 ; of
Olympian Zeus, 259 ; of Satan, 461
Thyiades on western pediment of
temple of Apollo at Delphi, 313 ;
groups of, by Praxiteles, 369
Tiber, bronzes from, 7
Tiberius and cities of Asia Minor, 449
Timotheus, one of the sculptors em-
ployed on Mausoleum, 372 ; and
Leochares, 374
Tisicrates, pupil of Euthycrates, 413;
portraits by, 414
Titan Anytus in group at Lycosura,
400
Tivoli, statues at, 519
Tombstones with reliefs, early Attic,
178 ; not portraits, 449
Torso in Pourtales collection, 327 ; in
Louvre, Satyr, 364 ; Belvedere, re-
storation as Polyphemus, 502
Traditional preservation of composi-
tions, 91
Trajan's column, 516, 517 ; historical
interest of, 494
Tralles, school of sculpture at, in
Hellenistic times, 438, 472
Triton (see Heracles)
Triumphal arches at Rome, 516
Troezen, statue of Athena Sthenias at,
198 ; Hippolytus at, 374
Trojan war on metopes at Argos, 339
Trojans and Dardanians as allies of
the Libyans, 58
Trophonius, statue by Praxiteles, 368;
statue of, at Lebadeia, by Euthy-
crates, 413
INDEX
549
Troy, wooden horse of, 16 ; statues of
nine of the Greek heroes before, 199
Trysa, tomb from, 343
Tiibicen of Pliny and Dying Gaul, 457
Tuscan sculptors indebted to Greek
art, 522
Tyche, statue of, at Thebes, 354 ; or
Fortune as a tutelary deity, 446
Tyndareus and Trojan heroes on
pedestal of statue of Nemesis at
Rhamnus, 306
Type, in early Greek sculpture not
invented, 64 ; of early sculpture
inherited and borrowed, 91, 96 ;
sculptural, nondescript draped, 91 ;
early sculptural, male and female
standing, 92, 93; seated, 95, 107;
characteristic of school, 155 ; of
faces of Argos metopes, 339 ; influ-
enced by features of Alexander,
435, 437 ; of deities convention-
alised in Hellenistic times, 491
Typhon, in pediment, 28, 159
Tyrranicides, 223, 238 (see Harmo-
dius)
> UFFIZI Gallery (see Florence)
1 Ulysses, brooch of, 69
Unfinished statues in National Mu-
seum at Athens, 21 ; statue from
Naxos, now in Athens, 122 ; of
Zeus at Megara, 307
Uranian Aphrodite at Elis, 263
VAISON Diadumenus, 329
Vaphio cups, 60, 62
Varro, 2
Varvakeion statuette, 13, 253, 255,
256
Vase with Athena and Marsyas, 240
Vase of Sosibius, 504
Vatican, Amazons in, 333-337; Aphro-
dite in, 362 ; Ganymede in, 376 ;
Apoxyomenus in, 406, 408 ; Niobid
in, 424 ; Antioch by Eutychides
in, 446 ; fighting Persian in, 460 ;
Apollo Belvedere in, 478 ; Zeus of
Otricoli in, 498
Veins, first indicated by Pythagoras
of Rhegium, 203, 244 ; omitted on
Torso Belvedere, 502
Venus as patron goddess of Rome,
505 ; of Melos, where found, 6, 15,
482 ; basis found with, 482 ; restora-
tion of arms, 484 (see Aphrodite)
Venus del Medici, 470, 499
Venus Genetrix by Arcesilaus, 505-
507
Versailles, Artemis of, 480-482
Victories as acroteria, 37 ; at Olym-
pia, 231 ; by Timotheus, 372 ; as
legs of throne of Olympian Zeus,
260 ; on balustrade of temple of
Wingless Victory, 298
Victors, honours paid to athletic,
191
Victory of Paeonius, 8, 216, 247, 341 ;
development of, 95 ; in a chariot,
figure of, by Pythagoras, 245 ; on
right hand of Olympian Zeus, 259 ;
as an attribute of Athena, 277 ;
crowning newly -born Athena on
puteal at Madrid, 280 ; on Par-
thenon pediment, 281 ; of Samo-
thrace compared with victory of
Paeonius, 343, 485 ; on frieze of
Pergamene altar, 464 ; of Brescia,
motive of figure as a clue to restore
arms of Venus of Melos, 484 ; in
Hellenistic times, 485 ; of Samo-
thrace, 485-487
Vienna, tomb from Trysa at, 343
Villa Albani, relief in, 130 ; Antinous
in, 519
WAIST-CLOTHS on early vases, 94
Warrior, head of, from Athens, 207
Waxen masks in Roman times, use
of, 512, 513 ; impressions from
mould, their influence on portrait-
ure, 513
Wig of early statue, bronze, 406
Wigs of Roman statues, marble, 515
Wilton House statue of Hermes Crio-
phorus, 236
Winckelmann, point of view of, 470,
477
Winged figures, 95 ; Artemis, 95 ;
Giants from Pergamene frieze, 467
Wingless Victory, frieze of temple of,
298 ; balustrade of temple of, 298 ;
decoration of temple of, 346
Wings, treatment of, 95
Wood as a material for sculpture, 15,
17
Wooden statues of athletes at Olym-
pia, 191
Wounded Amazon, 333, 336 ; wounded
warrior in Aegina pediment, 201,
202 ; warrior at Delos, 475
550
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
XANTHUS, examples of Lycian art
from, 109
Xenocrates, Pergamene artist, 456
Xenophon, victory by Athenian
knights under, 314
Xerxes, sack of Acropolis of Athens
by, 211
£6avov, 81, 82, 242
ZETHUS in group with bull, 473
Zeus at Girgenti, Giants in temple of,
14 ; at Olympia, 18 ; at Megara,
18 ; at Sparta, 24 ; at Olympia,
36 ; the arbiter at Olympia, 39 ;
at Olympia, two heads of, 138 ;
Ithomatas, statue of, 192 ; and
Heracles, youthful Aegium type,
193 ; at Olympia, colossal statue of,
by Ascarus of Thebes, 195 ; colos-
sal statue of, by Anaxagoras, 199 ;
statue of, by Ptolichus, 199 ; of
Phidias a national ideal, 215 ; at
Olympia on pediment, 217 ; Ammon
for Pindar, by Calamis, 235 ; at
Olympia, statue by Phidias of,
251, 259, 264, 267 ; decorations on
different parts of throne of, at Olym-
pia, 260 ; of Homer, 265 ; statue by
Agoracritus of, 306 ; in the Olym-
pieum at Megara, statue of, 307 ;
Thetis and Eos, in group by Lycius
at Olympia, 315 ; weighing the souls
of heroes in a balance, 315 ; Meili-
chius at Argos, by Polyclitus, 332 ;
birth of, on metopes at Argos, 339 ;
and Hera, wedding of, on Selinus
metopes, 346 ; at Acragas. colossal
figures in temple of, 347 ; Soter,
group dedicated in temple of, at
Megalopolis, 354 ; at the Piraeus,
statue by Cephisodotus, 354 ; set up
as Jupiter Tonans at Rome, 375 ;
Olympian type reproduced, 397 ;
four statues of. by Lysippus, 409 ;
or Asclepius from Melos, 416 ;
bearded type, 417 ; colossal statue
of, at Tarentum, 444 ; altar of, at
Pergamum, 460-468 ; on Pergamene
altar, 462 ; at Olympia, Caligula's
attempt to move, 496 ; in Graeco-
Roman times, 498 ; from Otricoli,
498 ; leonine aspect of, derived
from Alexander, 499
Zeuxis, flaying of Marsyas by, 489
INDEX OF SCULPTOBS
(FOR PART II.)
AGASIAS, 475, 477
Ageladas, 324, 325, 510
Agesander, 469, 470
Agoracritus, 304-307, 310
Alcamenes, 304, 305, 308-313, 343
Amphicrates, 316
Androsthenes, 313
Apelles, 411
Apollodorus, 370
Apollonius (son of Arcliias), 327
Apollonius (of Tralles), 473
Apollonius (son of Nestor), 502, 504
Arcesilaus, 313, 505-508, 510
Aristandros, 378
Aristeas, 518 ;
Aristocles, 293
Aristonidas, 469
Aristophanes, 338
Atlienodorus, 469
Antigonus, 456
BOEDAS, 414
Boethus, 441, 442
Bryaxis, 372, 374, 385, 386, 392
CALAMIS, 287, 308, 309, 313, 314,
320, 347
Callimachus, 320, 321
Cephisodotus, 352-355, 356, 441, 446
Chares, 414, 442-445, 468
Cleomenes, 499, 515
Colotes, 304, 403
Cresilas, 317-319, 332, 336, 351, 450
Critius and Nesiotes, 273, 477
Critius, 295
DAEDALUS, 338
Damophon, 397, 399-403
Demetrius, 351, 450
EPIGONUS, 456
Euphranor, 370-372
Eupompus, 404
Euthycrates, 413
Eutychides, 414, 446-449
GLYCON, 502
ICTINUS, 315, 321, 324
Isigonus, 456
LEOCHARES, 372, 374-376, 385, 386,
392, 480
Lycius, 314-316
Lysippus, 331, 403-412, 414, 428, 432-
435, 444-446, 451, 454, 475, 490,
497, 499, 501, 502, 509
Lysistratus, 413, 513
MENELAUS, 509, 510
Menophilus, 475
Myron, 273, 276, 287, 295, 313-315,
319, 329, 347, 368, 489
NAUCYDES, 338
Nesiotes, 273, 477
Nicias, 430
ON AT AS, 315
PAEONIUS, 308, 341-343, 485
Papias, 518
Pasiteles, 313, 508-512
Patrocles, 338
Phidias, 267-293, 301, 304, 305, SOS-
SIS, 320, 324-326, 332, 336-339,
341, 348-353, 363, 394, 397, 399,
403, 448, 485, 496, 498
Phradmon, 332
552
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE
Phyromachus, 456
Polyclitus, 311, 312, 320, 324-332,
336, 339, 348, 371, 378, 404, 406,
408, 413, 509
Polyclitus, the younger, 332, 338
Polydorus, 469
Polygnotus, 344, 348
Praxias, 313
Praxiteles, 286, 309, 351-353, 355-370,
376, 377, 380, 384, 394, 406, 416,
419, 421, 426, 428, 430, 432, 433,
435, 441, 487, 489, 497, 498, 499,
505
Praxiteles (Pergamene), 456
Pyrrhus, 316
Pythagoras, 308, 309, 337, 347
SCOPAS, 351, 360, 368, 371, 376-385,
391-394, 399, 412, 416, 418-421,
426, 430-435, 446, 490, 505
Silanion, 370, 371
Sosibius, 504, 505, 508, 510
Sosicles, 336
Stephanus, 509, 510, 512
Stratonicus, 456
Strongylion, 319, 320, 337, 480
Styppax, 315, 316
TAUBISCUS, 473
Theocosmus, 304, 307, 308
Theotimus, 372
Thrasymedes, 382, 397-399, 416
Timotheus, 372-374, 375, 386, 392,
399
Tisicrates, 413, 414
XENOCRATES, 403, 405, 456
Xenophon, 354
ZEUXIS, 489
-gonos, 456
-xander, or -sander 482
THE END
Printed by R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, Edinburgh.
HANDBOOKS OF
ARCH/EOLOGY AND ANTIQUITIES.
Edited by Professor PERCY GARDNER, Litt.D. of the University
of Oxford, and Professor F. W. KELSEY of Ann. Arbor.
University, Michigan.
Each volume will be the work of a thoroughly com-
petent author, and will deal with some special Depart-
ment of Ancient Life or Art in a manner suited to the
needs both of the scholar and of the educated general
reader.
The Series will be characterised by the following
features : —
(i.) The size of the volumes will be extra crown
octavo ; each volume to contain not less than 200
pages.
(2) The illustrations, taken from works of ancient
art, will be made as complete and satisfactory as
possible.
(3) Each volume will contain a concise biblio-
graphy, together with complete indexes of Greek and
Latin words and quotations, and of Subjects.
(4) Thus the volumes will together form a handy
encyclopaedia of Archaeology and Antiquities for the
fields covered.
(5) The different treatises will not be uniform in
respect to length or price.
The following volumes are already in preparation : —
GREEK RELIGION. By Louis DYER.
ROMAN RELIGION. By W. WARDE FOWLER, Lincoln
College, Oxford.
HOMERIC ANTIQUITIES. By THOMAS D. SEYMOUR, Yale
University.
GREEK SCULPTURE. By Prof. ERNEST A. GARDNER, M.A.,
University College, London. Part I. 53. (Ready.)
Part II. (Ready)
HANDBOOKS OF ARCHEOLOGY AND ANTIQUITIES,— Continued.
A HANDBOOK OF GREEK CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. By
A. H. J. GREENIDGE, M.A., Hertford College, Oxford.
With Map. 55. [Ready.
GREEK PRIVATE LIFE. By Prof. J. WILLIAMS WHITE,
Harvard University.
ROMAN PUBLIC LIFE. By A. H. J. GREENIDGE.
GREEK COMMERCE. By Prof. PERCY GARDNER, University
of Oxford.
ANCIENT SLAVERY. By FRANK B. JEVONS, Litt.D.
University of Durham.
THE ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS. By Professor M. L. D'OoGE,
University of Michigan.
GREEK ARCHITECTURE. By Prof. ALLAN MARQUAND,
Princeton University.
ROMAN ARCHITECTURE. By Prof. FRANCIS W. KELSEY,
University of Michigan.
THE DESTRUCTION OF ANCIENT ROME : A History of the
Monuments. By RODOLFO LANCIANI, University of Rome.
CHRISTIAN ROME. By A. L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., Princeton
University.
ROMAN SCULPTURE. By SALOMAN REINACH, Musee St.
Germain.
GREEK AND ROMAN COINS. By GEORGE F. HILL,
British Museum.
ANCIENT PAINTING. By CECIL SMITH, LL.D., British
Museum.
GREEK VASES. By CECIL SMITH, LL.D., British Museum.
SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE ANCIENTS. By PAUL
SHOREY, University of Chicago.
LATIN INSCRIPTIONS IN RELATION TO LITERATURE AND
LIFE. By Prof. MINTON WARREN, American School,
Rome.
MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD., LONDON.
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
NB Gardner, Ernest Arthur
90 A handbook of Greek
G28 sculpture
v.2
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11