7 1981





NB 90 G35

Gardner, Ernest Arthur Six Greek sculptors






See p. 217





To face
p. 158





LIMITED Tavistock Street.All rights reserved 91/4 Printed by BALLANTVNE Sr* Co. Covent Garden. London .

But when the editor of the series suggested to me that the great sculptors of Greece should be grouped together. and appreciation of the work of the leading There is no need to defend the to selection of the six sculptors whom the chapters of the book are devoted. without follow- ing the whole course of the history of Greek sculpture from its origins to its decadence . Alike in their influence on their contem- . There are probably many people who wish to acquire some grasp of the character of the chief sculptors. and there are others who desire to supplement what general outlines of this learnt history they may have by a more vivid realisation artists.PREFACE To each of the six Greek sculptors from its whom this book takes title a separate volume might well series have been assigned in a such as the present. I accepted the suggestion because it seemed that a definite need might thus be met.

in their place in the estimate critics. Une Necropole Royale a Sidon. I would especially quote I among these the Fouilles de Delphes. above pieces Master- of Greek Sculpture. all This photograph and also the reproduction of the . Strong I am in- debted for her help in the choice of illustrations. must also acknowledge the permission to photograph and reproduce the statue of Heracles in the Lansdowne collection. Reinach. also to both authors and publisher for permission to reproduce some details from the magnificent plates of Hamdy-Bey and Other Th. these six stand out beyond rivals. but I would more especially mention Collignon's I Histoire de la Sculpture poraries PREFACE and successors. and for the loan of many photographs. acknowledge my obligation to all my M. To Mrs. publications from which I have borrowed are mentioned in the list of illustrations . of ancient and in the material we possess for all the study of their work. though there are others who excite our imaginaregret. predecessors. to which have made constant reference. and the various all his works of Professor Furtwangler. or offer subjects for the tion and most ingenious and sometimes convincing It is impossible to investigation.

Emery Walker itself. speaks for I have to thank my brother. LONDON December 1909 A.PREFACE plates have been undertaken vii in by Mr. Professor Percy Gardner. for his valuable assistance in revising the proof-sheets. ERNEST UNiysBsiTY COLLEGE. GARDNER . a manner whiclv I trust.




. After Antike DenkToface PI. LXIII. 20 4.ILLUSTRATIONS PLATE 66. Frieze of the "Treasury of the Cnidians at Delphi . .. XL Museum . Bronze statuette in the British Museum . After Fouilles de Delphes. XLI.33 47 Head of warrior. Stag. . : . . Head copy) of Vatican Meleager (Graeco-Roman Head of Villa Medici Meleager . 29 Metope of the Treasury of the Athenians at Delphi Heracles and the Cerynian . Female figure Athens from the Acropolis at 21 " 5. Statue of Agias. IV. Battle of Gods and Giants.. IV. IV.. maler. Bronze Charioteer at Delphi xi 49 . Frontispiece After Fouilles de Delphes. X II I. 19 3. . I. 1 . 6.. (Greek Version). from the Acropolis at Athens 8. 5 Bronze statuette in the British Apollo with the Stag . at Delphi. PAGE by Lysippus. probably ^Eginetan. 7. After Fouilles de Delphes. 2.

.. . Pediment of the Parthenon 23. in Jacobsen Collection. 100 103 24.. 11. after Myron bronze cast from statue in the Vatican. Head of Athena. Iris. Copenhagen 21. Marsyas. .. Figure . .. Demeter. Relief from the "Ludovisi Throne" . bronze statuette in Museum 67 73 15. Pediment of Parthenon from . Diomed with the Palladium Munich " Riccardi Head.. .. 75 17. restored cast.xii PLATE 9- ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE of Bronze Charioteer at Delphi . 18. 16.. Discobolus.90 98 from W. . in Museo delle . Frieze of Parthenon . Discobolus. from the E. and Persephone. " ' statue in 77 . Head To face 50 53 10. after the British My roii .. Strangford Shield/' in British Museum 82 20. Torso from . ... head from Massimi statue 63 Head of Massimi Discobolus 64 14. head from Massimi statue 12. Marble statuette of Hercules Metope of the Parthenon: Lapith and Centaur . Small . 6l Myron statue . Style of Myron 78 19. Chariot horses S. Terme 13.87 in copy of Athena Parthenos Madrid 22. after ..

" 129 Head of Athlete (" Nelson Head 130 . head in Bologna in . . Youths with Cows.. xiii PAGE Athenian Knights. 33. . ." op. . after Polyclitus. 37. . 35.. Side Lycian Sarcophagus. in Boston .. 116 and 117 To face 34.. in Dresden of Diadumenus. . PL XVI from "Lyciaii PI.125 127 Head Museum Museum ") .115 Head of Terme of Apollo. statue in Dresden. from 124 .. 38. . After HamdyBey and Reinach. 30. . Heads After Hamdy-Bey and Reinach. . 104 26. . Between pp. on dt. Necropole Royal a " Sidon. } detail XIV. . ... Frieze of Parthenon .. Rome 31. Frieze of Parthenon . in British in British . .. 39. . at Naples 122 Diadumenus.ILLUSTRATIONS PLATE 25." Sidon in Constantinople. . delle . from N. Apollo. at in the Museo delle Rome from 32..105 108 27. the . Terme ... 36. . . at . . Doryphorus.114 . TO face. with Bologna head added 29. from W. Head of Diadumenus.116 Sarcophagus. 28.111 112 " Lemnian Athena ".. Museo . "Lemnian Athena". . Delos. "Westmacott Athlete. Head of Zeus." After Polyclitus. . .

Portrait of a lady.192 . Head of Hermes. VII . by Scopas. . in 49. 1901.. . in Vatican (from a cast) .. of Aphrodite (or Phryne).146 152 45 Aphrodite of Cnidus. 130 and 131 Louvre . . in the between pp. Aries. Necropole Eoyale a Sidon. .143 . . Hermes.. . 157 47.. in Dresden 51 . by Praxiteles. of Mourning Women. XLI. . Hellenique. 50.. Amazon House after Polyclitus Lansdowne Toface 131 42. Head Museum of Demeter of Cnidus.. PL VII. After Praxiteles. After Melanges . .158 1 48.." After Antike Denkmaler. Maenad... in 41. .174 Head of Heracles.... Head of Amazon. by Praxiteles . . 44... type of Venus of . from Herculaneum.183 Scopas.188 in British . 132 43. . Torso of Aphrodite. after PL V. . . . . 59 of "Sarcophagus Sidon. . in Lansdowne House Olympia . . I. . ILLUSTRATIONS PAC Bronze Head from Beneventum. . "Kaufmami Head. " Pet- worth Head" Athens . After Bulletin de Corr." from After Hamdy173 Bey and Reinach. Side . Head Head of Aphrodite. 52. Perrot. . at . 46. from Tegea.xiv PLATE 40. 53. ..

LX1V. Athens . After Fouilles de Delphes. in British in Museum . .. . . 207 208 6 5. 227 . Artemisia. Stele from the 67. 59.. . Frieze of Mausoleum and Amazons . 197 56. 196 and 197 To face Head of " Ares Ludovisi " . Head of Agias. Heracles. . 70.. . .... combat. ." in Vatican 218 220 69. in 57. Between pp. IV. Charioteer. Frieze of Mausoleum and Amazons .. 199 Mausoleum 60. ... Battle of Greeks . from Sidon SarcoDetail from Hamdy-Bey and Royale Reinach. from Frieze of Mausoleum . Battle of Greeks 206 62. from 204 205 . . of of Lansdowne Heracles Bettoeenpp. " Ares Ludovisi 55. Between pp. 58.. . Lansdowne House . . Frieze of Mausoleum and Amazons . 225 Alexander phagus.. Apollo. 61. PI. d Sidon. xv PAGE .ILLUSTRATIONS PLATE " 54. XXX. N&ropole . from Mausoleum llissus at . 206 and 207 To face 64. . " Apoxyomenos. 206 and 207 63. Head of Alexander. Between pp. . Battle of Greeks . . . Lansdowne Heracles probably of . .198 198 and 199 To face Head Head Head. .. 68.

.. 73. Rome Head of Warrior.. 72. 81.. Victory... from Samothrace.. at Naples 244 Bronze statue. 80.. TO face 229 238 Youth.. off Cerigotto. HamdyBetween pp.. 78. cit. Museum. in British 242 243 . in British Museum .. Detail from cit. Hamdy-Bey XXXII. 74. from wreck in Athens . 76. PI. Bey and Reinach. in British 241 A Son of Niobe. Detail from op. ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE Head of Alexander. . . and Reinach. Statue of a op. Museum Head of bronze Hermes. 228 and 229 Head of Persian . Disc with Death of Niobids. in the Louvre in Capitoline 246 248 Dying Gaul. . XXXIII. in Florence Museum 75. 77.. PI.. 250 . Head. 245 79.xvi PLATE 71.. from Subiaco .

and above all in I CHARACTERISTICS OF GREEK SCULPTURE the history of art. and fostered their growth or we may concentrate our attention on the attainments of individuals. their national character. and the contributions which they to the general progress. there are two main aspects from which the subject may be considered. must supplement and confirm each other . We may either devote ourselves to the study of general tendencies. realise as far as possible their aims and stances that surrounded their personality. and that whichever principle we may adopt to guide the selection and arrangement of the facts.CHAPTER IN any history. first is In production it may seem at genius of the individual master sight that the less trammelled social and circumscribed than that of a political or . we cannot follow artistic it to the entire exclusion of the other. the development of types and ideas. and the circum. It is true respectively made that in any comprehensive study the two must be blended.

and vindi- Myron and for Phidias their acknowledged position as the earliest ture. among the great masters of sculp- But they are also the end of a long and laborious Phidias been born a development. there would have been for the execution of the colossal statues of Phidias. and to acquire and in the treatment of the perfect a skilled technique nude and of drapery. to attain mastery over the stubborn substance of marble and bronze. they could no more have produced these works than if they had lived at the present day. SIX GREEK SCULPTORS artist is Yet the no less dependent upon external circumstances for the occasion and the material of his works. material side is And Had this not the most important. and the accumulated treasures of the Delian no resources available league. . no sculptor of the fifth century could have conceived or executed the bold yet symmetrical contortions of the Discobolus. But for the defeat of the Persian invasion there would not have been that exaltation of national sentiment which finds its in the sculptures of the Parthenon spoils symbolical expression bat for the Persian . or the exquisite grace of the Fates in the Parthenon pediment. are the beginning of all that cate for is To us these things best in art. not their predecessors worked through genera- tions of experiment and observation to improve the familiar types.2 reformer. Had Myron and century earlier.

and from the testimony of their con- temporaries and successors. In the earlier days of our modern appreciation of Greek art. in the latter part of the eighteenth and the begin- ning of the nineteenth centuries. in the present volume. and their contribution to the characteristic excellence of Greek sculpture. Since then we have had many histories of art. significant that one of the earliest books which brought all order into the chaos. the study of the great profitable as well as fascinating. partly way was it possible to all and order systematically the scattered refer- ences to the history of art in classical literature. or copies of them. on the other hand. with a view rather to realising their personal attainments as it can be ascertained and artistic character.GREEK SCULPTURE masters themselves is 3 But. . such considerations apart. was a history of artists. of course. so far from their extant works. been considered each in his place . there was not historical much it is discrimination of styles and periods. no doubt. in which the great sculptors have. and on which is based. Brunn's subsequent study " Geschichte der griechischen Kunstler." owing to the fact that only in this collect This was. they will be considered one at a time. In this way it may also be possible to appreciate more clearly their place in the general course of development. and so to construct a chronological framework into which a study of the extant monuments could be fitted.

and the intellectual aesthetic training is subordinated to the purely . at the present day among those who have any practical mechanical acquaintance with the matter the prejudice against them is increased by the supposition that they are held up for imitation to the exclusion of the student's own observation of nature. They are. and that have been endorsed. though not. called "antique"" at all. by some of the Chief among these greatest art teachers of our time. " the of as it is is a false conception antique. Moreover. as contrasted with earlier later styles. the . the casts so selected are not infrequently from frequently. in whole or in part. too works of inferior merit -often indeed from works restored so as to have no claim to be indeed. This is because of certain prejudices that exist. its study intelligent and sculpture are Sometimes casts of Greek and used as a mere exercise in drawing. but remote such statues may be from the originals that they represent may be realised by a most one of instruc- comparison in the case of them. too frequently without any teaching to make educative. how tive mostly taken from well-known statues .4 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS more general survey the more necessary Before we approach the study of individual masters it may be and advisable to take a of the character of Greek sculpture." commonly presented to students in art schools. I believe.



we see the very less opposite of perfection. many modern classical art. if not the original. at least so near to execution and in the spirit of its it in the date of its expres- sion as to enable us to realise like. above all. the absence of individuality. 5 Meleager of the Vatican. more is individuality. the vacancy of expression and character. but the one is the fresh and . these qualities the forms show and. and reproduced with a are. Both a ideal works . now placed on a statue to which it does not belong in the Villa Medici at Rome. the expression full of character. and shows a passionate realised and fiery nature. who evidently had a conception of the Greek art he was copying. what the original was We have only to side place these two examples of the same head by side to see what is the relation of a Grseco-Roman copy to a Greek statue. Other copies exist of the head of this statue and one of them. which modern critics usual qualities wont to regard as the " the of antique." But we have only are too often to look at the Medici head to see that these qualities do not belong to the but have been imported into it by the copyist.GREEK SCULPTURE . the vapid generalisation of type. critics and of some modern imitators of In all the Medici head . sense. in marvellous directness of observation. not unlike that of original. is. The Vatican Meleager shows just the perfection of form.

with the art which sought To bring the invisible full into play. apart from the influences already mentioned. strength virtue " there and swiftness. is. This is a matter to which we must return later . that people who have made no study of the deals with cold Greek sculpture and colourless generalisation. to be found in an expressed or implied contrast with Tuscan or with modern sculpture ." careful study of The best answer to this charge .6 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS . to is quote Ruskin. a general feeling. From these and other causes there is. for the present we are rather concerned with the characteristic excel' lence of Greek sculpture than with its alleged defects . is Greek art but its origin. that. even among educated subject. Greek art no personal character in true abstract ideas of youth and age. vigorous embodiment of the master's conception of this passionate head the other is the cold and academic generalisation of a conventional school. no doubt. but there is no a individuality. later copies like this Vatican it is Meleager to and necessary to realise how much them as we must make before quoting evidence for the work of the Greek masters themselves. I think. In many cases we hare only guide us allowance . Let the visible go to the dogs what matters ? or the art which regards any departure from the individual model as a sin against artistic truth. and vice yes .

But there is a tendency. with the masterpieces of the fourth century . we must not regard it as beginning and ending with some thirty this instance led us to years in the middle of the fifth century. It may be that time and chance have in a truer judgment. espe- cially at the present day. he would very likely have Polyclitus. to withhold due appreciation of Hellenistic and not only from the ordinary run Graeco-Koman work. excellence universally admitted in the case of fifth- century work. named even Praxiteles. and Lysippus before Phidias himself still when his colossal statues were extant.GREEK SCULPTURE or its 7 This contrast with mediaeval or is modern work. such as those of the Parthenon. if he were asked to name the most representative sculptors of Greece. he would not have dreamt of comparing mere architectural sculptures. Scopas. But if we would appreciate Greek sculpture as a whole. To a Greek such a preference would have seemed an absurdity. which have compelled the admiration of critics of every school and of sculptors as far removed from one another as Canova and Rodin. It that may be instructive in this the men to whom we owe context to remember the first impulse to a scientific and systematic appreciation of Greek art Winckelmann and Lessing and their contemporaries . but even from Praxiteles himself. and especially of the Elgin marbles.

generalisation realities which loses touch with the as example Winckelman's suggestion that the absence of veins in Greek statues of the gods was intended to imply a l The Apollo Belvedere is by many regarded as a copy of a fourthBut even if of nature we may take an century original. and is responsible for some of the prejudices especially and misconceptions of the present day in its too indiscriminate praise of an academic of forms . and these infer- ences have been confirmed rather than set aside fuller by a knowledge of the work of the best period. But the detailed criticism of a century or more ago often falls short of its power of appreciation.8 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS . like these.Roman works . the extant statue may be quoted in . qualities The same which we admire in the sculptures of the Parthenon must be present. in Hellenistic and Graeco. or the Laocoon. the spirit that inspired Greek sculpture as a whole. by the Apollo Belvedere* Yet from works fitted to which to us sometimes seem more be quoted as warnings against the defects of Greek art in its decline. and we cannot but respect the insight and receptiveness which caught. knew nothing of the Elgin marbles sculpture was represented to them Greek the Venus de Medici. they drew just and far-reaching inferences as to the character of its excellence . even from things like these. this and Winckelmann's appreciation this connection* of its character view be correct. though in a less degree.

as far as principles that guided the what were the main Greek sculptors and led to their unrivalled excellence. This view of academic generalisation. is directly at variance with both the theory and the many modern artists and critics. as in other similar tion. Here. that " " it is a mistake to try to and one which. whether rightly or wrongly regarded as characteristic of Greek art. we may say that there are three main factors that contribute to the creation of a work of art convention. practice of who a saying doubtless true in a sense. observation. if applied too literally. and to be merely Hellenistic art. for example. of sculpture as to ascertain. reduces the artist to a mere machine. to But at present it is not so much our aim investigate the true theory and correct practice of the art possible. say. it is probable that the truth lies between the two extremes. and . Apart from the imagination and invention of the artist and his technical skill in dealing with the material is in which his work to be executed. improve on nature but capable of a very narrow and misleading applica. who hardly regard any departure from the model as justifiable. cases.GREEK SCULPTURE glorified or transfigured 9 lapses body a suggestion that colof itself now that we know this peculiarity to be characteristic of a certain phase of absent from statues of the gods of the best period. selection. But much Grseco-Roman it art. sculpture was reduced to a mechanical canon. SIX The GREEK SCULPTORS character of each of these three. and the degree to which they affect the artist. Perhaps the most obvious and after familiar example is that of Egypt. The not at sight so obvious. where. because the originals less from which the imitations are derived are mannered artificial and nearer in touch with nature. an undue preponderance of one or other of the influences. so far at least as monumental sculpture is concerned. harmony in the contributions of all and I believe that the characteristic is Greek Sculpture due to such harmony. The conditions that lead to the happiest results seem to consist of a due three elements excellence of It is . absence of such har- easy enough to see how an mony. variety in size and in technical skill of execution . so that the character of the imitations may easily be overlooked . no room for the individual observation of the artist. and the the early dynasties. is is modern classical art of the conventional really in first much the same case. no direct contact with nature. the art of same types were reproduced again and again in lifeless monotony. may tend to the detriment of art. There was. but. are to a great extent due to circumstances over which he has little or no control. their combination with one another. and through defect here imitation of type.

and why a modern sculptor finds it so difficult to produce work that is both dignified and original. Bacon says that " men's thoughts are made according to their inclination their discourse and speeches . adherence to convention generally admitted but the danger.GREEK SCULPTURE and nature. It is 11 their truth to their originals mistaken for truth to this misconception that we have already noticed as in a great degree responsible for the reaction on the part of some modern artists and critics towards the view that all Greek art is conventional and lacking in individuality. ever. on the other hand. is some emphatically denied. and finds just appreciation so hard to attain. In the greatest age of sculpture in Greece. howjust as real as the other. the most original artists were often content to reproduce again and again. that it is not so universally recognised. of a too great freedom from convention. of too exclusive dependence on individual observation. The detriment is to art of a too strict . and is by I venture to think. with slight variation. This absence of fixed types and recognised conventions is one of the reasons why the modern public is so bewildered in its study of modern sculpture. as in the greatest age of painting at the Italian Renaissance. a limited number of well-known types. and that it is the cause of the chaos which we see in a modern exhibition of sculpture. .

12 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS . fully render what he sees . Graffiti on walls are often just as local is characteristic pictures. of national or style as finished Even observation. taught. Each may faithstances is evident . he often places himself . then. not a matter that depends entirely on the individual artist . be found not first only in the works of trained 11 but also in the " the attempts of children or the crude productions of man in the street." If we apply that this saying to art. according to their learning and infused opinions but their deeds are often as they have been accustomed. but what he sees is different in each case. I think we may assert men draw or model as they have been . and observe as they have been accustomed what they do as they please is in this case frequently eliminated. And this difference will artists. It is virtually on his own observation impossible for a man to depend alone . and a modern impressionist. if he attempts to do so. Doubtless imagination is free it is . but the expressed form it takes and the means by which depend greatly on external conditions. a Japanese. he must be affected by the custom of his compatriots and his contemporaries. as well as by the perception and tastes which he inherits from his predecessors. That neither observation nor technique is untrammelled by circumone has only to think of the way the same subject would be rendered by a Greek.

impossible to discuss here Professor Lowy^s stateillustration of this theory . if it sometimes confines him too narrowly. ment and it is for the most and illuminating. while his legs are in profile. as a him. that it is so in early art to find the body of a man repreIt sented from the front. for example. It is common is owing to this principle.GREEK SCULPTURE at the mercy of fortuitous 13 and often disadvantageous surroundings. There is no doubt. instead of having to guide him a tradition which. the front view and the profile. which contains the most familiar or the most essential features of the object represented. it is best period of Greek not until the . But its application to the history and development of sculpture is part both convincing a more complicated and in some ways a more disputable matter. limitation persists And this to some extent throughout the sculpture. rule." He points out that neither the child nor the primitive draughtsman represents. for example. The relations of tradition and observation have been put in a new " The light by Professor Lowy's suggestive book on Representation of Nature in Early Greek Art. saves losing his him from way altogether. that the rigid position and square shape of many fact that they early statues is due to the embody the two main aspects of the figure. what he sees before They produce rather what may be called a memory picture.

The its theory of continuous advance seems to imply as underlying assumption that imis pressionism or illusionism the ultimate aim of art. for example. . adhered to these conventions and principles of their art. is and that the violation of these canons not to be regarded as an is advance. the case of sculpture in relief the limitations or conventions are still more persistent. of the slab. Are we in such a case to recognise continuous advance in the freedom and the resources of the art of sculpture earlier ? Or should we rather maintain that the as the canons sculptors. for example. and we do not really find it broken through until the Flavian age of in the reliefs of the Roman sculpture . with the ground cut away round its outlines and in this way there comes into being the conventional front plane which was the original surface . is precluded by this limitation . and therefore most intelligence? satisfying to the eye is and to its the Neither opinion tenable in extreme form. the giving of an atmosphere within the relief. con- sciously or unconsciously. but as a loss of the finer instinct for what fitting.H SIX GREEK SCULPTORS we find statues Hellenistic age that and groups that In are really thought out and composed in the round. of the Parfrieze. thenon Depth of effect. Arch of Titus. An early relief is often a mere silhouette. and which all is the controlling condition of the finest Greek reliefs.

artists And what applies to the two different publics for ing. even more than how to express from the student in art. in reproducing his memory-picture. it distinguishes the master this power of selection undoubtedly contributes to illusion in a very high But here also convention and custom play degree. The primitive artist. he regards way of attaining his artistic aim. And and a work of art. not as they actually are factos quales essent homines. but in the one instance unconsciously. because this as the best . because he has not yet attained to full powers of observation and expression in the other instance consciously. Lysippus is said to have made an advance on his predecessors by representing men as they appear to the eye. applies also to the which they are respectively worka It has been said that the power of selection confident and accurate knowledge what to express. Again. or of any other kind. and this is another essential principle illis "ab of impressionism. their part .GREEK SCULPTURE Even it if this 15 be granted. and one of this surely is impressionism according to its definitions. seeks to produce on his public the same impression that has been produced in his own mind. In both these cases the artist avoids it is in representing an object exactly as nature . the matter is not so simple as seems. a se quales " viderentur esse . whether painting or sculpture. will miss its aim if it is .

The is character of Greek art. its to a great extent derived from happy combination of tradition and observation. fill every local shrine with innumerable in votive offerings. fact. and favourable given for observation. there was many deities were probably intended to represent and. in the earliest times an aniconic symbol or fetish to have some resemblance to but it very soon came ." Yet even if this highest creation can be better it understood we realise the conditions under which came to be made. and many of them were of these human or The meaning of them . it In order to realise this seems advisable to consider more in detail the circumstances that led to this combination. discuss. we need not now them.16 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS is too far removed from what looked for by the artist's contemporaries or compatriots. human form for the tendency of the Greeks was always towards anthropo- . art and all creates something that conventions and limitations " not for an is but for age. as has already been said. Even before anything which we can call Greek sculpture had begun to exist. time. it was customary to animal form. in addition to usually in the temple an image of the deity to whom it was dedicated. does indeed rise beyond all At its highest. and the historical and social conditions under which tradition opportunities were was transmitted. This may have been .

whether in religion or imagination. it is certain that the primitive Greek sculptor. Telecles and Theodorus. by the story that his two sons. temple statues but it was not these. at least at first. As soon as the skill of the sculptor was far enough advanced. The borrowing of Egyptian methods is attested. made the two halves of a statue separately. there was thus an abundance of demand for his productions. we find almost every detail imitated. with the additional advantage that their form certain limits. was already prescribed by ritual or custom within This was particularly the case with the . one of them being at the time in .GREEK SCULPTURE 17 morphism. at colonies. Rhodes and elsewhere. It was rather the multitude of votive statues or statuettes. and among of these. in the case of the family of Rhcecus of Samos. especially The immediate effect upon his work may Egypt. Whether by these or other means. that offered scope for the development of sculpture. be seen by comparing such a statuette of primitive Greek workmanship with its Egyptian prototype . in Greece as in Cyprus. probably skilled among the rude home as well as in the eastern and southern came to be acquainted with the types and of the art of conventions of earlier art. the only difference lies in the skill of the artisan. there were foreign workmanship examples attempts of native artificers.

together. may well have studied this Egyptian and Rhrecus. the canon during a visit : artificial to Egypt. Samos. had a share Greek sculptors borrowed not only the proportions and some points of technique. if true. harmonised so as to appear the work of a single man. where his native place. and that the two parts. at first sight. this is the promise of advance and improvement that is found in the one and not in the other. but also a limited number of types. certainly seems to imply an adoption of the canon of proportions for the figure father. I found a bowl dedicated by Rhcecus. a vital distinction between them and mere seems. the other at Ephesus. 1 The early they repeated again and again with variety of meaning. even from the first. when cavating in the Temple of Aphrodite at Naucratis. never copied in this mechanical manner. It is true that. . If we wish to see how lifeless and mechanical such boiTowed types can be.1 8 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS when put Samos. collection of Cypriote statues. This story. however. owing to the small number of selected types. mechanical repetitions such as we see in Cyprus. and their frequent repetition. There is. we only have to look at any But the Greek sculptor. there a certain monotony about the attempts of archaic Greek sculpture. i If we try to ex- As a confirmation of this may be quoted the fact that. which in the colony of Naucratis.



and the con- stant opportunities afforded by the various shrines. by adding to of his it own. As of the artist increased. absent and it shows . or in the fold of skin at the elbow . And. if ever. his skill over an effort Thus. tried to make it his stamp. but confield. while content to repeat the conventional type. clay or bronze.GREEK SCULPTURE analyse more closely wherein exactly this promise 19 lies. we shall find that almost every archaic statue in Greece bears a trace in some part or other of direct study and observation of nature . to the prominent place of sculpture in the of the nation. whether wood or stone or marble. own direct observation. centrating it on a restricted well within his compass. owing to the grouping life of artists in families and schools. he became more . and in the struggle with the material. but it is rarely. that the artist. when once gained. which served as perpetual exhibitions of art. by not diffusing beyond his power. it may be in the treatment of hands or knee-joints or toes. he made a real contribution to the general advance in the knowledge of anatomy. both in knowledge and technique which was necessary before the great sculptors of the fifth century could the skill fulfil their destiny. towards that mastery. to give it some individual something. however insignificant. and the whole mass of Greek sculpture moved steadily onwards. each advance. was not easily lost again.

was allowed to be slightly higher than the other. noticing how the forms of the figure were the drapery that at first gradually realised through them like a solid mass . or for a monument over a tomb. by degrees. and which merely further developed in the statues of Polyclitus and even of Praxiteles. how the various texenvelops . At first he did this only in the rigidly erect position.20 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS realise venturesome. with no variety except that which was in the foreign type which he borrowed. as served alike for god or for athlete. this change once introduced. but it A single offered most opportunity for its development it a type too of almost universal application. one hip . with its left foot advanced . the position of bones and muscles in the torso. and which illustration. he tried to for himself. the hips were on the same level. as the weight was divided unevenly between the two legs . the variety offered by this pose was grasped Then. but even so. body could no longer remain acquired but in the elastic curve which we find already is works of the transitional age. type has served us so far for was the type which is the most characteristic of early Greek sculpture. for dedication in a shrine. the proportions of limbs and body. and. and to improve in rendering. It would be possible to trace a similar evolution in the case of the draped figure and its drapery. the central line of the rigidly vertical.




To face
p. 21

ture of wool



linen, of finer

and thicker


by mere conventional parallel lines, closer together or farther apart, and then gradually varied and made more natural, until it reached first the refined

delicacy of Attic

work of the early


century, and

then the mastery which we see in the pediments of the But one type suffices to illustrate the Parthenon.
general character of the



was not,

however, only by thus fostering the concentration of
effort that conservatism of types

contributed to the

advance of art.

It also

had a most important influence

on the technique of sculpture, especially in marble. For the very fixity of the type led to a freedom of hand
in the execution, such as could

be attained in no other

a sculptor, trained in the production of these types, set to work upon a new statue, he did not need to make a wax or clay model, or to transfer its


shape to his block of stone by any mechanical appliances or calculations. He was so familiar with his subject that

he could go straight at his block of marble free-hand ; it was not until it was to a great extent roughed out that
individual niceties of finish

he did come to these,
fidence inspired


came into play ; and when was with the facility and con-

And, even

by the ready performance of a familiar if he did spoil a block, as must some-

times have been the case, the loss was not so great as in




a costly imported material. Marble of various qualities is found in many different parts of Greece, and almost

were used at


by the

local artists,

though in


times the superiority of a few quarries, such as those

of Paros and Pentelicus, caused them to be usually

employed for sculpture. Nor do these conditions apply only to the archaic period; we find equally free-hand work in unfinished
statues of a later period also.


the reason



the same.


in later times,

though the artists were

much more

free to give scope to their individual bent,

there was a constant


for slight variations


well-known types, very often based upon original works

by the great masters.

statues, neither exact copies

nor truly original works, are familiar to us from the
ordinary contents of our museums. And a sculptor, asked to produce such a statue, would be able, if





of sculpture

and trained


the great local schools, to

go straight to work upon

marble block without

All this applies, of course, only in a hesitation. limited degree to the original creations of the great

But they too had gone through the same

and acquired their confidence and facility paradoxical as it by the same methods of work may seem at first sight, the very freedom of Greek









adherence to tradition.

of course, none the


true that tradition


is lifeless.

No art, and especially that of sculpture,


make true progress unless it be constantly kept in Here again the touch with nature by observation. social surroundings of the Greek artist gave him an

immense advantage over all


daily exercises

the palaestra or

recurring athletic

gymnasium and the [frequently festivals gave him constant oppor-

tunities for observing the

human form both

in rest




this too in perfection of condition

and of

all-round muscular development

and with the help of

a well-trained memory he gained a variety in truth to nature such as no study of a posed model can ever give, that very multiplicata veritas which is noted by critics
as one of the chief attainments of


For the

observation of drapery, too, he had constant opportunities in the figures that surrounded


in daily

and there he could

see a variety

texture and of folds such as

and grace of no draping of a model in
same opportunities for

unfamiliar garments and materials could ever have
It is true that the

varied observation did not exist in the case of the nude

female figure; and



perhaps for this very reason

that Greek statues of this type, however beautiful




form, rarely

ever impress us with the same breadth

and nobility of conception as the corresponding male The feeling of the figures, whether of gods or men. Greeks themselves about the matter is well illustrated

by the story of Zeuxis at Croton, how the people of that town, when they commissioned him to paint a picture of
Helen, and wished to give him every opportunity for excelling himself in such a subject, allowed him to see a
selection of the

most beautiful of

their maidens just as

freely as he could see their brothers exercising in the



evidently the meaning of the story,


it is

misinterpreted by some later authorities in

accordance with the eclectic spirit of their



This brings us to the question of selection a question which requires careful consideration, because misunderstandings


easily occur



Lucian, usually

a good art


makes a lapse about



serve as a warning; in describing a


of ideal beauty, he selects for her various features



from various famous statues

form of head and face generally from the Cnidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles, the cheeks and hands from
the Aphrodite in the Gardens of Alcamenes, the outline of the face and proportion of the nose from the Lemnia
of Phidias, the

mouth and neck from the same


Amazon, the nameless grace of the smile and expression



of modesty from the Sosandra of Calamis, and so on.

however, himself that a figure so composed

would be not a work of art but a monstrosity. The author of the Ad Herennium was nearer the mark when he said, " Chares did not learn the art of sculpture from
Lysippus by his master showing him a head by Myron, an arm by Praxiteles, a chest by Polyclitus, and so on, but he saw his master at work on all kinds of things,
and, of himself, he could study the works of others."




eclecticism implied in such suggestion, whether

accepted or rejected,
Hellenistic or

actually to be seen in


Graeco-Roman statues, but the incongruity

of the various parts

often obvious.

When, however,
works of art

the selection


made, not from


but from various living models,

may seem

more subtle and more defensible


it is


contrary both to nature and to art.
selection, as

This kind of

understood by the later eclectics, must then be altogether excluded from consideration. But
selection, in its

artistic production.

proper use, is an essential part of all Even a modern artist who follows
in every detail


model exactly

must at

least allow

himself to select a suitable model.

the case

even with a photograph, a cast from
mechanical reproduction.
to have been a

or any other

It does not, however,


method ever adopted by the Greeks,


and then,


even as an aid to sculptors, at least until the Hellenistic
too, to a very limited degree.

sculptor so familiarised himself with living

forms, so stored his

and moving memory with the outline and

might require, that he was able, his theme or subject once selected and
composed, to cut straight to it in the marble, just as Michael Angelo also is said to have done. He was
thus able not to copy nature but to create after nature,

surface modelling of every part he

and hence he attained freedom

in his

work and a

Whether he harmony between its various parts. worked with a model before him or not is a actually
matter on which
it is

impossible to obtain any trustbut, if he did,

worthy information

was only to

supplement some observation in detail. Yet his work was not an academic generalisation ; it

was always, in the best times, dependent upon the artist's own observation, though both his eye and his

hand had doubtless been trained by familiarity with the work of his predecessors. And he was thus enabled to

which, though the perfection of their

proportions was perhaps beyond what could be found in any individual, yet had a life and individuality of
their own, based

upon the master's

familiarity with his

subject and his exact realisation of




advocates of close adherence to the


But this advantage is j ust what the sculptor a later age.GREEK SCULPTURE sculpture are unwilling to admit that any good 27 work to can be done from memory and selection. An appeal the analogy of another art here. May not a statue made in this way have is as much individuality as a chain this latter case racter in a play or a novel. A similar freedom in artistic creation who has of course. in Greece possessed to a degree that has never been attainable by any of his successors of . plenti- only possible to the sculptor as free and ful opportunities for observing the living form as the dramatist or novelist has of studying manners and character. may perhaps be it is allowed No one maintains that impossible for a dramatist or a novelist to create a real and life-like character without reproducing in detail the character and even the physical type of some person whom he studies and who serves as his model. though an actual model sary ? not usually thought desirable or necesis.

CHAPTER IN the last II EARLY MASTERPIECES chapter we have seen something of the conditions under which the art of sculpture arose in Greece. they transcend it all and temporal conditions. seem to show a perfection in human form and in drapery such as does not readily suggest development leading up to local it . there are to think of their his- Yet even among the Elgin marbles some reminders of human imperfection. but the masterpieces of the sculptors of the fifth century. show distinct survivals of the awkwardness or stiffness of archaic schools. often show little trace of the process through which the art that created itself them had from the been evolved. for example. though they 28 . The pedimental figures Parthenon. viewed by themselves. and therefore first sight. and of the perfection. and therefore of the possibility of rise and decline some of . the metopes. seems almost superfluous. for example. at tory or surroundings. influences that were to lead to its unrivalled The growth was indeed a very rapid one .



are the Elgin marbles themselves. indeed. or while they were serving their apprenticeship to their art. and among these sculptures none frieze of itself is are more remarkable than the the Treasury of the Cnidians.C. But some of them were almost certainly designed by wellknown sculptors. sculptures. The recent French excavations of Delphi have been late archaic or particularly rich in sculpture of this transitional period . Many of these early works are architectural as. Its sculptures include a pedimental group on its principal . in a position to understand We shall therefore be more and to appreciate the work of the great sculptors of the fifth century B. though the execution must in many cases have been left to assistants. The Treasury a little gem of is Ionic architecture of the most ornate type. if we first take a brief survey of a few of the works that were being made in Greece just still before their time. distinguished by a crispness of carving and accuracy of form that to be matched in but few buildings of any age. and we can sometimes recognise this fact in the inequality or the inadequacy For the present purpose. as giving some indication of of parts of the work.EARLY MASTERPIECES show also the promise that 29 other was to be fufilled in parts of the same building. three or four of these must suffice. the general level of artistic attainment in Greece about the time when the first great sculptors arose.

a giant who reproduced. The finest part is belong to the same buildthe frieze with scenes from the battle of the gods and giants which ran along the north side of the building . each drawing a bow just before them is . with teeth and claws. others see in him a giant who flies before . and even suggesting a doubt as to whether they all ing. front as well as the frieze that goes all round There are considerable differences in style tures. Behind it is Heracles. though some prefer to'recognise it as Dionysus. on so large a scale as to fill the whole frieze. has generally been identified as the Mother of the Gods.30 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS it. evidently Apollo and Artemis. In front of the car advance a pair of gods side by side. who wears a leopard-skin over long drapery. he is protected by the lion-skin. among these sculp- showing probably the employment of various hands in their execution. running forward but turning his head to look back. which he stretches out on his left arm. while with his right he directs his above the tails spear against an antagonist who is seen of the lions. a fully armed warrior. From the wine-cup which supports the crest of his helmet this figure has been identified as Dionysus . a portion of this frieze. here a striking and original group representing a figure in a chariot drawn by two lions who seize and tear. includes is borne down before their advance. The figure in the chariot.

to such a frieze. Yet in spite of these defects the variety and vigour of the composition is most impressive. . the forms of letters. the life in which the eye of the spectator and energy of the whole. his head in exact profile to the left. * these show mastery of the essential principles of design suitable And in spite of the usual inability or From suggested that the inscription on a Rhodian plate. 31 Beyond him there advance to meet the gods three giants in close array. while his body is full-faced. archaic technique to be seen in the execution of this frieze. is Again. especially that of X. On the shield of the nearest giant is an inscription in a strange ornate character. though he mainly seen in has his scalp and muzzle turned full-face so as to conform to the familiar find type of the lion mask which we on coins and on decorative works.EARLY MASTERPIECES the advancing gods. and another lies dead on the ground below them. The warrior with the wine-cup on his helmet. the way is earned on from all group to group in alternating motion. shows the inability of realise an early is artist to a figure in the round . and his legs in profile to the right. it has been is Argive . profile. and containing the signature of the artist 1 There is of course much unfortunately his name is lost. but the same form occurs . for example. The contrast in the positions and weapons of the various combatants. the lion tearing the giant.

these experiments but. the Dorian city on the south-west corner of Asia Minor. It is unfortunate that there identification of this tive if some doubt possible as to the Treasury. It certainly has all the and exuberance of the Ionic art of Asia Minor. though he is to some extent put together from inconsistent sections. without them. the giant who is being torn by the lion. thrown across the lion's mane. yet shows a most vigorous true perspective. his arm. for it would be instrucis we could know for certain whether the Cnidians or the Siphnians are responsible for so characteristic a monument richness of early sculpture. associate with the At Siphnos one would rather expect a connection with . It is easy enough to explain this combination at Cnidus. conception of a distorted figure . it may be doubted whether Myron. could have made his marvellously distorted Discobolus. but combines with them a correctness of form and close study of the human figure and limbs such as we rather Dorian masters of athletic sculpture. we see here and there a bold and even a successful attempt at a different effect. is a very bold attempt to realise a portion of a figure in high relief in a new position.32 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS two hesitation to represent any figure except in one or simple aspects. which is almost in Again. There is of course some confusion and awkwardness in . in the next generation. as in the upper part of the body of Apollo.



while it body bends over it. representing Heracles capturing the Cerynian The hero sets his bent knee on the hind-quarters it of the beast. The treatment of these subjects reminds us of the designs upon the Attic red-figured vases of the same period. whence both the finest 33 the neighbouring islands. In the contorted position of the body thus produced. most of them restricted to a simple group of two figures in combat or in conversation. and so forces his down to the ground. severer surroundings correspond in style of the sculptures. and the simpler and some degree to the The subjects are the exploits of Heracles and Theseus. his hands doubtless seizing by the horns. take as an example one of the best preserved metopes. We may stag. especially those of Paros and marbles and the in skill to work them spread throughout Greece century B. This is the one dedicated happily. Here the sculpture is restricted to the square that alternate with the triglyphs of the Doric metopes 490 entablature all round the building .C.C. and in all probability erected immediately after the battle in B.EARLY MASTERPIECES Naxos. the sculptor has a splendid opportunity for . the sixth As to another of the Delphian treasuries there is. and also of the decorative bronze figures that have been found on the Athenian Acropolis. by the Athenians from the spoils of Marathon. no such uncertainty.

there the greatest contrast to the crude efforts of primitive sculptors in this direction. The mirable illustration of Lowy's remark. close to the scalp in minute reminds us of the But. life-time of As a work it made in the earlier part of the Myron. The pedimental groups from the temple at JSgina. with its short hair set curls. the bold modelling of the figure. challenges comparison even with position rendered offers an ad- his Discobolus. for all this resemblance to works of a decorative natuie. make it worthy of notice in its departure from the rigid frontality ' of ' early art. but in a somewhat dry and conventional manner. technique of vase-painters and bronze-workers. and is in accordance with his principle is that the broadest aspect of every part of the figure selected. The name . is But when the result is as we see it here.34 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS the display of his study of the muscles of the torso. that departure from strict frontality is easiest in the case of a relief figure in profile. the outlining of the muscles on the front of the body. in particular. too. which we now know to have been dedicated to the goddess Aphaea. These are treated with great vigour. reminding us of the regular pattern by which these are usually drawn on vases. and the skill with which the twist of the body is rendered. The head. have long been amongst the most familiar examples of early Greek sculpture.

" have led him to propose a . which had been found at ^Egina in 1811. But it has no traditional authority . criticism schools. and set up in the Munich museum and it has now become so familiar as were restored . to have acquired something like a prescriptive right. The whole question of ^Eginetan art has been put in a new light by the recent investigations of Professor Furtwangler. This old arrangement rested on no good authority. which have shown that the old notion of the conventional arrangement of the pediments cannot be maintained. and from a comparison of other approximately contemporary compositions in sculpture and vasepainting. as collected by Professor " Furtwangler in his ^Egina. when they by Thorwaldsen. from a closer study of what was found before. These new data. the most typical example of the work of the transitional period. it is merely the conjecture of archaeologists who had not access to more than a portion of the data now available from more recent discoveries. 35 ^Eginetan was indeed used by some ancient writers and though modern shows more discrimination between the early the JEginetan sculptures are still. It happened that tion was followed in the arrangement of the sculptures.EARLY MASTERPIECES as almost equivalent to archaic. but this sugges- was based on one out of several alternative suggestions sketched by Cockerell. perhaps.

and file. on the east front the head of the procession approaching from both ends simultaneously see . pediments. while both show a . it was said. will be remembered that the groups from the Mgma. all is convincing in main features. we and what we must really be supposed to see are the two Then the difference from sides of the same procession. all facing towards the centre of the composition. so that a spectator sees each rank on each side being opened one of them in extenso. Analogies for such an arrangement were sought in early Greek art. though in many details uncertain. appearing to be advancing in single though those at the back. where. and the generally accepted theory has seen in it a kind of conventional perspective. JSgina would lie in the fact that. the fighters in the front two parallel lines of out. and of a row of combatants on each side of her. consist in each case of a central figure of the goddess Athena. so as to fit into the narrowing space confined by the line of the sloping roof. so to speak. as we are familiar with them in the It Glyptothek at Munich.36 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS it is still its new arrangement which. spearmen and archers alike. Much critical ingenuity has been spent upon the explanation of this arrangement. and in numerous reproductions. and must in future treatises on Greek sculpture supersede the old. are kneeling. and even in such a composition as the frieze of the Parthenon.

. as also many of the earlier criticisms of works like the Apollo Belvedere and the Laocoon are sound in principle. because it is the result of some sound and accurate observations of early conventional perspective. case. who had fallen between them . is In each pediment there group on each side of the central figure an almost precisely similar and this . so to speak. though the data on which they are based have been shown by fuller knowledge to be erroneous. however. led to an arrangement of the figures which makes the ^Egina the earlier pediments. explanations inapplicable to In the two pediments the figure of Athena retains its central position . on each side of her is a group of pediment two standing combatants facing one another over a in the east pedithird. . in the is ^Egina in the space be- It seems worth while to dwell on see reason to reject its this explanation. in the Parthenon frieze we are. even if we now applicability. Professor Furtwangler's investigations have. as if 37 each were swung round on a pivot till the two were in one line. who is in the act of collapsing into the outstretched arms of a comrade who stands forward ready to catch him.EARLY MASTERPIECES conventional expansion of two parallel lines. three figures similarly composed in the west ment a spearman advancing upon a wounded adversary. spectators from outside the procession in each pediments our imaginary position tween the two lines.

goes far to confirm the correct- new restoration. there is hardly a doubt that this restoration would have met with general accept- ance. to the groups of combatants which we constantly find on Greek vases and ness of the reliefs. figure to figure. ment must suffice as an example of the whole.38 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS is duplication. the other is a new inference from somewhat scanty evidence. see very like what we on the Olympian pediments. and on other early There is. of the old arrangement. indeed. rather like it even in the pediments of the Parthenon . with slight variations. Even here there jectural . something architectural sculptures. to face one another. but it is a very different thing from the rigid corre- spondence. one has long been placed either in or near the centre of the pediment . and gives us a much higher notion of the power and elasticity of pedimental composition in the early fifth The central portion of the western pedicentury. Were the whole of the sculpture a new discovery. though hitherto the pair on each side of the central figure have not been set. is a certain amount that is con- it has for some time been known that there were probably four standing spearmen in this pediment. and a not unnatural prejudice in favour of a . as here. fallen warriors Of the mainly of one extant hand resting on the ground. But the similarity of these groups of three figures each.

ment we can now the middle. and the other each of which contains a contrary motion within itself. which is far more satisfactory to the eye than the mere static balance of single standing figures. is the balancing of groups of three figures. JSginetan artist has centration. but it is for the first time realised and subordinated to the whole effect. The introduced two new elements. which is broken up into a series of pairs of combatants. the chief pair in at Olympia. so to speak. it is not of course a new thing at ^Egina. within the various groups that position is This principle of motion make up the whole com- one of very wide application in pedimental sculpture .EARLY MASTERPIECES restoration 39 not that has long been familiar should make us hesitate to be guided by a study of the is evidence old and new to what certainly the most probable conclusion. but showing no organic unity and adaptation to the space to be filled. as compared with earlier figures in . and so gives a dynamic balance. and this change is as great an invention as the concentration of effort which we may see in Myron's Discobolus. itself which contribute greatly to the effect of unity and conThe one is the quiet central figure. as in the west pedisee a development from the early type of pedimental group. which does not form a part of any of the fighting groups . the rest balancing one another in number on the two little artistic sides. At JSgina.

mental As there regards the modelling of the figures themselves. . same prinThere the kneeling spearmen in the west pediment face towards the corners. is not so much to be added to our previous knowledge from the new discoveries. such as the rows of small which the hair ends above the forehead. but enough has been said to show that our notions of pedi- composition have been greatly modified and enlarged by that work. For these and other details. and for the evidence on which the new reconstruction is based.40 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS Other details carry out the violent action. What is essential to the style consists rather in the proportion of the body and in the modelling of torso and limbs. and may be accidental. The ^Eginetan style and the ^Eginetan type of figures are so clearly marked that they can easily be recognised without the help of external evidence. and the form of the lips. but such things as this are easily imitated. the reader must be referred to the exhaustive " treatment in Professor Furtwangler's " jEgina . and so a motive is gained for their position as well as variety in the direction of their actions. ciples in the subordinate parts of the pediments. partly The recognition depends upon technical details. and form a group with the fallen warriors who occupy the extreme ends . which run up from a central spiral curls in incision to a point at each end .

confined to figures at rest. so as to make century. to judge from literary with the records. seems to have been a speciality . for great variety of treat- ment. on the conventional scheme familiar on vases. Harmodius and Aristogiton. The characteristic type of the ^Eginetan school evidently contains in itself the dition summary of long traand accurate observation. The proportions give the impression of a smaller and more compact figure than is suggested by contemporary Attic work for example.EARLY MASTERPIECES Here. and exact. everything figure is is 41 concise. narrow at the waist the muscles are definitely planned out and clearly outlined. the statues of the tyrannicides. The and well knit together. The aims of the ^Eginetan sculptors seem less ambitious. and shows us how the possible the later masterpieces of the fifth knowledge of the human form was being acquired. vigorous. broad at the shoulders. support the wounded. . though in a very different sense from that in is There room in early which those terms are used in connection with later art. Greek sculpture for both tendencies which may roughly be called realistic and idealistic. Nor was the study of the JEginetan artists The various positions of and of those who press forward to call the battlefield. but also of the fallen and falling. but are carried out with more certainty in execution. and such variety of pose. not only of combatants.

such as that of the bearded warrior who reclines. The combatants and wounded men on the ^Egina pediments thus anticipate in many ways the works of Myron and Cresilas. Another defect is that in the treatment of the face. the sculptor is himself conscious of this. are peculiarly their own. in the corner of the east pediment. wounded. the upper and lower half of the body are modelled independently and inconsistently with each other. considerable influence.42 ^Eginetans. and her artistic individuality is consequently lost also. The other great series of architectural sculptures that . and in contorted bodies. particularly in expression. in share with other athletic schools. After the archaic period ^Egina disappears politically before her rival Athens. But vigour and preciseness of work. But the continuation of this development must be sought elsewhere. This defect they their merits. They show indeed many of the defects that are inherent in the principal of frontality has always early work . and form a most important contribution to the development of art. a boxer sparring. rather than of rest for instance. and contrives to hide the junction behind the arm or some other object. SIX GREEK SCULPTORS represented athletes in who sometimes and positions of motion activity. the ^Eginetan sculptors fall short of their excellence in rendering the body. and in variety of pose.

At Jgina. The Olympia. the sculptor far more ambitious his conception is grander. an arrangement which is by some authorities restful regarded as canonical. and lapses into utterly inadequate work. its or front. with a chariot framing the . . are the occasional conspi- more cuous. is The choice of the subjects for the two pediments the most notable example of the selection of a quiet or group for the front. his very . and there it nowhere so strongly marked as at must be intentional. pediment has in middle five erect figures standing side by side. The eastern. and an active or violent one for the back. These are now so familiar that It is it is needless to speak of fortunate for them here at any length. one feels that the art finished and finite. At Olympia. is in is spite of any defects of detail. however. us that the two sets of early archiand tectural sculptures that are of the finest execution the most complete preservation should be those of ^Egina and Olympia. is is certainly to be many later temples.EARLY MASTERPIECES 43 immediately precede the finest period are those of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia. For the contrast between the two is remarkable. type of figure larger and more dignified and its for this reason the unevenness of the execution. and either alone would have given us a very inadequate notion of the art that preceded that familiar to us in the Parthenon. and which observed in the pediments of contrast.

The effect is monotonous. fill the west a tendency for the composition to break up into groups of three. being placed over the entrance to the cella. it was calculated to send the worshipper. who . but remark- ably successful in its dignity and calm . such do not hold. the other effect best is suited to the massive architectural frame violent motion. has a calm majesty far beyond that of Athena at uEgina. because of the possible concentration of its grouping. and a man Here. a Lapith woman. sacrifice to Zeus is which preceded the actual and which evidently chosen by the artist. siderations At the back of the temple the same conBesides rigid simplicity. into the presence of the god. there is coming to her rescue. and also because it enabled him to get the effect of stability and repose which he regards as appropriate. it SIX The GREEK SCULPTORS subject of the first were. on each side where the space becomes or typical chariot is race between Pelops and CEnomaus here represented by the contest. as narrower. as we find in the east pediment. as at JSgina. in itself.44 group. in the But the central figure of Apollo. that of extreme example of violent and even contorted motion is to be seen in the struggling And an group of Lapithae and centaurs which pediment. preference to the race as more suitable to a pediment. fittingly prepared. here consisting of a centaur. middle of the Olympian pediment.

within himself a task which was for the most part well within his powers. but. find once we There all more the greatest contrast to the ^Eginetan. the keen interest of the spectators all are in some degree expressed and .EARLY MASTERPIECES 45 almost seems to take part in the fray. His . On the other hand the groups of combatants are wilder in type and bolder in composition types followed . on the other hand. The majesty of the gods. his work the sculptor are more ambitious if less attainable. At Olympia. the cen tauromachy was hardly common as a subject of early decorative art than combats between warriors . we feel that the aims of them. was " finished and finite. indeed. and this were not so less not merely because the familiar. the agony of the victims. the courage and resource of the heroes. It is true that the resources of the artist are often insufficient to express all he has attempted." the artist had set His limitations are obvious. human but because the sculptor of the Olympian so pediment has given free play to his imagination. not a mere When we come to repetition of a stereotyped form. consider the execution of the Olympian sculptures. though there is much that is unsuccessful and even uncouth. and has produced a really new creation. is complete and successful. with an attempt at reality in the positions and expressions that is far removed from the conventions of earlier work.

especially of the athletic male figure. his symmetry forced. All these characteristics show us that the work must have been earned out by a body of artists such as one might expect to find at Olympia. Without Olympia. however.46 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS grouping is sometimes awkward. sheer sense of style cases his realism is study of drapery has Sometimes he succeeds by . For us they are invaluable. but at Olympia we see at least an aspiration towards the power and majesty of design which was to be the work of Phidias. and of the nude than of drapery. above often defective. It is fulfilled in not. But the . because of the comparative certainty with which they can be assigned a date and place. The modelling all in of the limbs is the female figures. and his evidently been inadequate. and power of observation in other timid or ineffective. is excellent . but in female figures he is less successful. more used to representations of the male than of the female form. through the drapery. because he has no tradition behind him. in architectural sculptures only is that a rapid progress to be traced. But the originality and nobility of design and conception that underlie the whole of the work transcend the convention under which the JEginetan masters had been content to work. the wonderful advance from JEgina to the Parthenon would be unintelligible . His knowledge of the human figure.



and of other athletic is very well preserved of the eyes. the material which the sculptors of Mgina. and we know from inscriptions that some ^Eginetan sculptors. which were actually made by their own hands. was found in the excavations on the Athenian Acropolis.EARLY MASTERPIECES great sculptors usually employed 47 of Greece were not always or even free statues that they upon such works . with its rendering of iris and pupil as we see them in the Charioteer of Delphi. they were less dependent on their surroundings and their assistants. the expression full must have been wonderfully of life and individuality. must we turn to the great masters these two or three are undoubtedly the work of eminent sculptors. were authors of works that were dedicated on the Acropolis. The ^Eginetan school. The bronze head It has generally of a man. been recognised as a product of ^Eginetan art . . however. The head but for the paste still intact. When this was filling schools mostly worked. sculptures are the work of the same the same artist. including Onatas himself. their individuality and in the case of these statues. it was indeed in had most scope for the exercise of . evidently once he! meted. although confidence it may not be possible for us to assert with who those sculptors were. as this bronze head but it has the in advantage of them. . because it is in bronze. possibly of . suffice before Two or three examples.

above all. But the carefully rounded modelling of lips and cheeks gives reality to what would otherwise be a conventional mask." and so suggests that the artist has done his best to catch the transient if lively expression of his model. but we must remember that this head comes from a free statue. shows us another tendency which contributed to the perfection of the fifth century. which were meant to show as a sort of fringe below the front of the helmet . the sharp outlines and finely combed surface of the moustache and beard the in.48 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS characteristics in the There are indeed many archaic technique the fine series of points along the edge of the hair. a head like this. When we compare the restraint that mark especially the Pelo- and dignity of style ponnesian schools of this period. A head such as this to the work breaks shows us how the desire to give life through the conventions of archaic art. . the projecting ridge along the eye-brows . sufficient depth of the eye-sockets archaic smile. such as we shall . genial and friendly about this head. or some of the Attic statues of the same time. This may seem in contrast to the character of ^Eginetan work as we see it in the pediments . the tendency towards the expresThere is something sion of life and even of mood. the some- what crude which here resembles a "photographic expression. in all probability from a portrait statue.



we and severity of style. the lips inlaid in a different metal. stiffness. in contrast to the exuberance of The bronze nothing superfluous or accidental either in the modelling of the head and arm is some contemporary work. which owing to the way in the pupils are shaded by the projecting margins of the bronze eyesockets. even of feel which one may upon seeing feeling of this statue. worked in the flat all over its though the small surface. about it. the hair clinging so close to the scalp as hardly to affect its outline curls. The first impression of severity. This severity enhanced by some archaic survivals in the technique the clear definition of brows and lips. or of the folds of the drapery. There and is find the utmost simplicity feet. and the white its natural colour and their effect. brown in the iris. Here. which are cut into fine points to represent the eye-lashes. black in the . 49 hardly meet again in Greek art until the Hellenistic Charioteer of Delphi is perhaps the admirable example of transitional art that has come most down to us. . The eyes still remain intact. are most delicately rendered. with their paste filling. a soft pupil.EARLY MASTERPIECES age. though extraordinarily life-like. such as is sometimes technique partly in later has nothing staring seen in a similar This is Greek or modern times. gradually gives way to a its wonderful .

The face has much re- semblance.50 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS '^ combination of dignity and grace. Many of the most famous sculptors of Greece are recorded to have worked for this princely family. the brother of Gelon and Hiero of Syracuse. The heavy folds of the long tunic proper to a charioteer are studied with the utmost care. Their proportions are fine and graceful. there can be no question of assigning the Charioteer of Delphi to that school. The relations of the various schools to one another in the period immediately following the Persian Wars were very close and very complicated. The identification of this statue of a charioteer depends on its basis. especially in profile. to the heads on Attic vases of about the too much insisted same period but this must not be on as evidence for the authorship . whether they are gathered over the shoulders and arms. The attribution to Calamis is more tempting. of the statue. The one arm and hand and the feet are modelled with a perfection for which the careful study of these parts in archaic art had prepared the way. and has actually been pro- . among others Onatas and Calamis of Athens. partly upon the inscription that was engraved and that has been read as a dedication of the chariot group by Polyzalos. or hang in parallel pleats from the belt. and seem to suggest an aristocratic type. and Glaucias of JEgina After what we have seen of jEginetan work.



name it is of the original dedicator as ending in and almost certain that this must be the end of the name of If so 1 Anaxilas. 51 the grace and dignity of the work and its Attic affinities favour such a suggestion. Tiie whole matter is full of controversy. 404 B. as has been pointed out to base any further inferences on such a succession of probabilities as this. certainly not a reprebut a sentation of the crafty tyrant of Rhegium . Svoronos suggestion of Arcesilaus of Gyrene and (he identification of the statue as the Sattus of Arnphiun is improbable chronologically for Amphion's pupil Pison worked at the JSgoapotami offering in . i This restoration of the name. and the consequent attribution of the statue to Pythagoras. see here We evidently no individual portrait. Mittheil. It would not perhaps be wise it is most probable. been superseded by that now . But an has erased and only partly legible inscription. But in any case is what the Charioteer shows us at like Pindar's Odes. sets the matter in a new light for it gives the tXa?. that the statue was by the most famous artist of Rhegium. Pythagoras. in the great victories found its theme of the Olympian and Pythian games. by Professor von Duhn. ." M. though one would like to associate clearly a masterpiece with one of the greatest of the recorded masters of the period.EARLY MASTERPIECES posed in several quarters . its best the sculpture which. which visible.C. I had occurred to me independently " before saw Professor von Duhn's article in the Athen. the well-known tyrant of Rhegium.

and to the criticism of various more or less probable theories. might seem desirable to But give a chapter to Pythagoras and to Calamis. whoever he was. figure of the ideal charioteer. youthful and of race. however. would have to be devoted mainly to the such chapters discussion of literary evidence. is here skill immortalised together with the team which his had guided to victory. mainly in virtue of his position as the leading In a book devoted to the it Attic artist of the time. and this evidence must supersede earlier conjectures as to the character of his art. be admitted that the evidence only amounts to probability. and certainly the driver. great sculptors of Greece. we have at last some first-hand knowledge of one of the three early sculptors who are classed together by Brunn as the immediate forerunners of Phidias . As to Myron. we have more information. so that it is possible to assign is him a separate chapter. a distinction and nobility of type which testifies to his know from tke Electro.52 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS and alert. another claimant to the authorship of the Charioteer. the second of the three. Calamis. In the present volume. not to certainty. our object is to deal only with artists who can . If the master who made the statue was Pythagoras of Rhegium. It must. of Sophocles that it We was thought fitting for a hero such as Orestes to drive his own chariot. the third.



combines the severe dignity and nobility of type that marks the Peloponnesian schools with a delicacy also with a and grace of execution and power of ideal treatment that are peculiarly Attic. as it was in the days of marvellously rapid progress that intervened between the Persian invasion and the glory of Athens under Pericles. as we can see from the record of their training and their commissions. This relief is on three sides of a curious rectangular block of marble called the Ludovisi Throne from its former owners at . time a relief. this and philosophy. The great artists of this time. or than many consee jectural identifications of later copies. it is now in the Museo delle Terme Rome. was to draw to itself and embody work all that was best and most characteristic in literature Greek art as in Greek Another work. and thus they prepared the way for the time when Athens. did not work for their own city alone. under Pericles in its and Phidias. as an original work of the time of these sculptors. is of more value to us than many descriptions of lost statues. In it we can the spirit of the art of Greece. On the two shorter . may be quoted here as representative of one at least of the tendencies of this age of transition.EARLY MASTERPIECES actually be brought before us 53 . but for all Greece. it To whatever individual master it be assigned. by their works and for that reason the Charioteer.

and feeding a censer from a small box of incense .54 sides are SIX GREEK SCULPTORS figures. the too masculine proportions of the the placing of the breasts right at the side. however. all these are characteristic of the transitional age . the other nude. while her other hand supports a piece of drapery that falls in graceful folds across the front. The subject of this group has been much disputed. It would. no less so are the technical defects of the execution. under the shoulder of the rising and being helped up by two each of whom places one hand figure. and also with the evident reference to the season in the two figures on the sides of the throne. and playing on the double flute. with a cloak drawn over her head and arms. shows a slender girlish arising out of the ground. relief. . The larger which is here reproduced. to recognise here either Perse- phone or the earth goddess arising out of the ground. be more in accordance with mythological probability. two seated female one fully draped. the upward aspiration of the central figure. a favourite subject upon Attic vases. the evident care with which every detail of modelling and of drapery has been worked out. The originality and expressive grace of the composition. the want of harmony between the drapery central figure. planation is that it Perhaps the most popular exrepresents Aphrodite arising from the sea. figure draped female figures.

. But the poetical imagination and power of pictorial composition which we can see in such a relief as this sup- plement the more sculptural qualities which we noticed in the Charioteer of Delphi. in the next generation. both good and bad. Some of these qualities. especially in the days frescoes when Polygnotus was painting his great at Athens and at Delphi. to produce the sculptures of the Parthenon.EARLY MASTERPIECES and the limbs which it 55 sometimes envelops entirely. This influence. sometimes reveals in a manner untrue to its own texture. In the case of this Ludovisi exact local Throne we are again uncertain as to the school to which it should be assigned. are more proper to drawing than to sculpture. and doubtless show the influence of the sister art. as exemplifying the ten- dencies of the art that was. probably contributed much to the sum of fifth-century art.

Happily. who charges with an affectation of superiority as con- noisseurs. in one case at least giving an 66 . That is to say. Quintilian.CHAPTER MYRON III ACCORDING to the common verdict of antiquity. we are not compelled to judge the work of Myron on hearsay evidence. to be admirable alike for the skill boldness and originality of their design and the their execution. he was the earliest sculptor whose works appeared. with Phidias and Praxiteles. of breath with Polyclitus and who was spoken of in the same and Lysippus. even to critics who were familiar with the whole range of later art. Myron was the earliest of the great masters of Greek sculpture. himself declares that to find fault with the Discobolus argues a lack of appreciation of art. Nor was this high estimate of his prefer the uncouth its excellence confined to those who but promising attempts of art in masterpieces of infancy to the such critics its prime. since we possess copies of some of his statues.

in his prime.MYRON excellent notion of the original. 57 But the testimony of shows us that the ancient writers is useful. about Myron's life. and technical excellence would in any case have vindicated for him the same estimation among modern critics which he commanded in the ancient world. have enjoyed a reputation throughout Hellenic * It is mis. Pythagoras and Calamis. vigour. . and that his contemporaries. It is true that there were lacked a Myron. and that they have not entirely chronicler. but there are various theories about this statue. He was a town on the frontier of Attica the list To judge from of his works and the places where they were set up. because it prominent position among sculptors now held by Myron is not due merely to the accident that his works have survived while those of his rivals and contemporaries are sculptors before lost. assumed here that we possess no statue certainly by CalaThe French excavators were inclined to attribute the Delphi Charioteer to him . however fascinating the delicate grace of Calamis 1 would probably have proved to a taste that prefers the Pre-Raphaelite painters to all later art. little We and know but native of Eleutherae. he must. a Boeotia. But. are spoken of by some ancient critics in terms which tantalise us with the beauties they imply. though they did not equal his fame. there is little doubt that Myron's originality.

SIX GREEK SCULPTORS hand were to statues of athletic victors from his be seen at Olympia and at Delphi. and at the beginning of the fifth century. The story has met with much criticism. and the career of though it barely overlaps that of Myron. the time of Myron's youth. to have been a pupil of the Argive sculptor Ageladas. made by men who were familiar with works that are now lost to us or only identifiable by conjecture. . Even rests on no good authority as to the fact. there is abundant evidence that the various local schools were having considerable influence upon one another. who was for a long time the acknowledged leader of the Peloponnesian school of athletic sculpture . Myron. lasts to a much later date. however. The error in chronology need not. have studied under the recognised master of this branch of art . But several of his most famous works were in Athens. and it is said that his fellow-pupils were Phidias and Polyclitus. for Phidias was probably younger than Polyclitus. as a young man especially interested in the sculpture of athletic subjects. and it is probable that his artistic career was mainly associated with that city. He is recorded. and in particular that the influence if it of Argos was being felt in Athens. the tale may be based on a sound artistic criticism. discredit the whole story.58 lands . however. Nothing is more probable than that should Myron.

C. His son Lycius was commission. therefore. His early manhood must But Eleutherae ranked have coincided with the period of the Persian wars. direct or indirect. arms firmly fixed to the two sides of its . the employed on an important statues set up by the knights of Athens at the entrance 446 B.C. The days were past when a rigid and erect figure.. had already made considerable progress. himself to the first assign the artistic activity of Myron half of the fifth century.. and TimanLadas probably in 476 but so famous an athlete may have had a statue set up in his honour some years after the event. Athletic sculpture. its sides. and the Boeotians had no share in the victories that freed Greece from the barbarian invader. but no work of his is recorded which has any reference. . as it was understood before the time of Myron. about We must. to the Acropolis. Myron's sym- pathies were probably with Athens . to the events that had so great a share in the inspiration of Phidias. Lycinus won in 448 B. as Boeotian until 460 B.MYRON 59 The dates of Myron's artistic career can be fixed with certainty by the Olympiads of the victors whose statues he made .C. its left leg its advanced in the conventional Egyptian pose. The traditional date given thes in 456 . by Pliny which is makes Myron a contemporary public of Polyclitus evidently wrong.

so that one hip was higher than the other. by inclining the head slightly to one side and by throwing the weight of the body on one leg. skilful and All this Myron could learn from his master Ageladas . preferred a position of had learnt to ease the and to bend its stiffness of the standing figure. the most familiar example of such actions to be seen in the battle groups that have survived to our day in the . and a corresponding variety was introduced into the lines of the muscles on the chest and abdomen. might serve alike for athlete or Apollo. such as found its most characteristic example in the works of Polyclitus. they had won a familiarity with the visible forms of body and limbs which found expression by means of a accurate technique. though they rest. median line into a graceful curve. for an ornament to the precinct of a god or for a monument over a tomb. moreover. still The sculptors of the Argive school.60 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS body exactly matching. by a constant sequence of study of nature in detail. The more exu- berant side of Myron's genius would have been more in sympathy with the attempts of the ^Eginetans to represent figures in vigorous or violent action is . but the general tendency of the Argive school was undoubtedly towards a somewhat stiff and formal perfection. and by a school tradition which ensured that knowledge or observation once gained was not lost again. And.



that a statue or a sculptural of the spectator within the work itself. the famous boxer Glaucus the act of sparring as the (a-Kia/uLaxcov). must possess a certain unity and concentration. statues in strong the tyrannicides Harmodius and Aristogiton were repre- sented in the midst of their impetuous onset upon Hipparchus. will not stand this test the two advanc- ing heroes imply the presence of the tyrant against . In Athens. and their statues. for . show an astonishing dash and vigour of invention. all its vigour. 61 but the ^Eginetan sculptors made single figures of the same kind. nor even to allow it to wander away. as exemplified by the Discobolus. was no new departure in art for Myron to repreexercise in which he His great attainment. too. He appears to have been the first to realise the principle. was the choice of a subject and a moment that was suitable to representation in sculpture. so as to attract and contain the interest period. . Such works may well be regarded motion were not unknown direct predecessors of the Discobolus. The group of the tyrannicides.MYRON pediments of the temple also . in for instance. still preserved in copies to the present day. It sent an athlete practising the excelled. and not to direct it to other extraneous objects. never afterwards violated in Greek sculpture of the best group must be complete in itself.

or to the statue. as Quintilian result is says. It may be. because every part in harmony with the carried on by an easy and pleasing succession of outlines round the whole contour of the figure. whether he was thought of as facing an antagonist. the clever choice of the right moment for representation which such a moment and of an occurs athletic exercise in must also be allowed their merit. of Glaucus sparring. as might have been expected. is . The disc or . something is implied outside the statue itself to complete the action. of Heracles striking with his club. but the not. A similar criticism applies.62 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS is whom they advance. so to speak. whole. and the eye is restless in effect or tiring to is the eye. or merely punching a ball or pad. the result. to the well-known statuette. in the Louvre. the self-contained completeness in the action finds its expression and counterpart in the lines of the composition itself. known to us only by description. laboured and contorted. in a the realm of artistic composition as well as in that of gravity. Beside this excellence of artistic composition. there is an unstable equilibrium. In the Discobolus. from the artistic point of almost as unsatisfactory to the eye as if the apparent centre of gravity of the group lay outside its base . and thus the central point both placed outside the of composition and of interest actual group view. though in less degree.



the position of the feet sufficing to define the direction of the throw. in treatment of hair. it was formerly in the Palazzo Massimi Colonna. and therefore is sometimes Massimi Discobolus. and we can hardly doubt that the difference brings it nearer to the work .MYRON as far as possible in a given direction. but the one which stands out conspicuous among them for the care and accuracy of its execution and its evident fidelity to the original is that in the Palazzo Lancelotti alia at Rome . which makes the thrower turn his head toward this direction. differs greatly it from other copies. but merely hurled modem competitions of putting the weight or throwing the hammer. in the rendering of the muscles and the surface of the body. not only produces a painful and even im- possible attitude. The extant copies of the Discobolus are numerous. but also destroys the harmony of the composition. A false restoration. by breaking in upon the system of concentric curves in which every member of the body follows the swing of the extended arm. Therefore there was no need for the eye of the competitor to be turned towards a distant goal. as in the 63 quoit was not aimed at any mark. but the head could follow the motion of the arm that swung the quoit. It is not only referred to as the as preserving the is correct pose of the original that this copy of value to us: in the type of face.

The other illustration (PI. in the earlier years of the fifth century apart from the external evidence. now in the Museo The torso only was found. . especially long oval of the face. but The illustration (PI. The modelling is simple and severe. the original of these would hardly have been assigned to so early a date. and their outlines are indicated with a distinctness that is partly conventional. especially in the outline above the forehead . and especially in early Attic sculpture. marble. The form of the in the head shows early Attic proportions. but the head and delle Terme at Rome. In the case of other copies. so many made later elements have been introduced that it is difficult to realise that they are derived from a statue . the treatment of the hair conventional. XII. muscles and masses of flesh are clearly defined. and the descriptions of Lucian and Quintilian.) is is taken from a cast in which the head of the Massind Discobolus added to the Vatican torso. XI.64 of SIX Myron GREEK SCULPTORS 1 himself. we often see the muscles outlined i by incised grooves . and that reminds us of the drawing of the muscles of the torso upon Attic vases of the In early sculpture. legs are restored from the Massimi and other copies. the expression is calm and impassive. Lancelotti Discobolus it is But with the otherwise. and has no relation to the vigorous In the body and limbs the various action of the figure. both in bronze and severe type. and the whole cast then bronzed over.) shows a recently discovered and very fine copy.



and even the tension of muscles that would not be exerted at the moment of action is porthoroughly harmonised with the results of fresh observation as to give trayed. on the other hand. seen by Pausanias on the Acropolis The goddess had thrown down in disgust at Athens. The best known of these the statue of Marsyas in the Lateran Museum satyr. and coins." Before considering further the artistic character of Myron. as a copy of the Marsyas who was associated with Athena in a famous group by Myron. the clear lines of demarcation are not inconsistent with a correct and modelling of the surface. at Rome. In the Discobolus. the flutes which she could not play without unseemly . and what other extant statues may be attributed to him or is associated with him. seems advisable to review briefly what other literary evidence we possess as to his work. The effect is perhaps somewhat dry. and to justify the criticism applied to Myron by ancient critics. But what convention is left is so the impression of a living body. by the help of repre- sentations on vases. that he " could all but enclose in bronze the very life of men and beasts. This statue is restored as a dancing but it has been identified. reliefs.MYRON 65 they are indicated by drawing rather than by modelling. and suggests the appearance of a man in skilful hard training. which is known to us chiefly from the study of it the copies of the Discobolus.

that of the Discobolus in the satyric face also resembles absence of any attempt to represent an excitement or emotion corresponding to the violence of the action. since it repremoment of rest immediately succeeding violent motion . but in the Discobolus still this moment is the preparation for while in the Marsyas there implied. 1 The Athena has perhaps been identified .66 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS . especially in the dry. distortion of her features and Marsyas approached to the sculptor is pick them up. whether at the flutes themselves or at the approach of the goddess . The Lateran statue. shows a good deal that is characteristic of Myron. In some ways sents the a counterpart to the Discobolus. unfortunately. but we must remark that the Marsyas is part of a group. . see p. the extant copies of the group vary so much that it is impossible to attain any certainty on this point. is no succeeding action subject is In this respect the less con- spicuously fitting for sculpture. The mask-like. sinewy forms of the body and the clearly outlined muscles. more vigorous action to succeed. and was not itself. however. but the motive of the figure of Marsyas it offers is evident enough. The moment chosen by that in which the satyr starts back in sudden astonishment. 1 intended to be complete in No copy of the Marsyas is to be compared in quality with the Lancelotti Discobolus. 72.



Hist. It is rather than to any is momentary identified expression. however. 1890. is. Literary evidence about a sculptor little practical use. of except so far as it can be brought into relation with extant sculptures that are either In the derived from his works or show his influence. which is merely a Hellenistic variation on the subject devised by Myron. the ancient criticisms that are recorded are more explicit and definite. half-bestial character. they belong to the physical type of the satyr. and so have still a value i for us. but even if an ancient copy of the this identification be accepted.MYRON The deep furrows on his brow and on at first 67 his cheeks may seem But with its sight to contradict this statement. l by M. case of Myron. but has nothing Myronic either in its composition or in its We have seen in the case of the Discobolus execution. de 1'jfccole frangaise de Home." x. Such are the statements that he et "Melanges d'Arch. as an artist of the transition from archaism to freedom. . Collignon Marsyas.ii. the copy need bear no nearer relation to the original by Myron than does the well-known bronze statuette the British in Museum. as a rule. true that there more expression in the head from the Barracco as collection. also how the face is modified in ancient copies to suit the taste of a later age.

and Roman times A perfection like this in the representation of beasts is by no means improbable at the very beginning of the age of freedom in art. on the other hand. indeed. in the absence of any figure of an animal that can be referred with any probability to Myron. especially the famous Heifer and the Ladas.68 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS kept to the archaic rendering of the hair. that he enlarged the field within which true observation of nature was possible. But it is useless. it may be paralleled by the unrivalled skill of Calamis in the rendering of horses. that he devoted his attention to the forms of the body and did not give expression to emotion or passion (animi senms\ that his art had more variety than that of Polyclitus. to pursue this matter any further. became a common- place for the exercise of poetical ingenuity in Hellenistic but the numerous epigrams tell us little or nothing about the work itself. In addition to such general criticisms we find many epigrams referring all he " could enclose in to particular statues. . The two epigrams about the Ladas. which is said to have been such as to deceive both herdsmen and cattle. The saying that bronze the very life of men but " and beasts has already been quoted. tell us Its fame was partly due rather more about the statue. The Heifer. and how his victory . except by vaunting its extraordinary truth to life. to the picturesque tale about Ladas.

He did not indeed* ." little There can be doubt from these two epigrams and. and calling up all the reserves of his strength and endurance for the concentrated effort from which he was l I Qv(j. " Like as thou wast in life. allowing for what is rhetorical in the description. which is nonsense.6i>. with every sinew at full strain. sometimes said. Ladas." " He is filled with hope. Such art is swifter than the wind. 4>TrON is a very easy corruption for ^>TFftN. and the E would naturally be added by a scribe to correct the scansion^ .MYRON in the long foot-race cost as is 69 him his life. straining wind and limb to the utmost. read " <{>v<rwv Ovpov for Qcvyuv. such hath Myron wrought thee in bronze. we must infer that Myron embodied we in this statue the conception of the athlete that the epigrams see in the story and the long-distance runner in the eager tension of his final spurt. even after that Ladas must have been represented as a runner at full speed approaching the goal . and you may see the breath caught on his lips from deep within his flanks ." does not seem to me so probable a reading. stamping on thy whole body thy eagerness for the victor's crown of Pisa. surely the bronze will leave its pedestal and leap to the crown. on tip-toe. flying from Thymus. breathing forth : * thy panting soul. and died on his way home The two epigrams run as follows to Argos. fall dead at the goal but he never recovered from the strain of the race.

. how- ever.70 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS The technical difficulty of full never destined to recover. though doubtless the panting breath may also have been indicated. has something Myronic about i it . at least by half opening the lips. and action of physical the sculptor. to be noted that the eagerness mentioned in the first epigram is said to be stamped on the whole body. indeed. life is the expression of the vigour rather than of emotional or spiritual character that the aim and attainment of The contrast between this and the eager charioteer of Scopas on the Mausoleum 1 shows the wide gulf between the two artists. This is quite in accordance with the impression as to Discobolus . The would subject recalls the Perseus of Benvenuto Cellini. Myron's work which we derive from the it is here too. attention of Pausanias was especially attracted by a statue of Erechtheus at Athens. This hero was A The represented just after his exploit against Medusa. and by a statue of Perseus on the Athenian Acropolis. How far the attempt was successful from the artistic point of view we cannot now judge. rendering in bronze a runner at speed is one from which the sculptor of the Discobolus may not have shrunk. which. but it Page 205. not expressed in the face. mere enumeration of Myron's other recorded works gives us some indication of the subjects he preferred. It is.

Pausanias especially Helicon. in saying the original must be sought . and Heracles in the Heraeum at Samos statues are recorded. from their it is possible to judge do not seem to go back to an they . Various statues of gods were attributed to Myron . so far as original of so early a date. though it is not easy for us to conjecture Finally. Dr. teach us caution in this matter Myron may have made the statue from which all are ultimately derived. pristce. and a colossal group of Zeus. but. including representations of almost every form of contest. athletic . we have the mysterious to which have Furtwiingler's attempt to attribute the head of Perseus in the British Museum to Myron seems me unsuccessful . One is a good deal a famous marble statue of a rise to drunken old woman.MYRON 71 1 be unsafe to infer any similarity in its treatment. A. besides the concluded by two that have given of controversy. The later modifications of . The list of his works is victors. Several copies of a statue of this subject are known style. another at Agrigentum. expressly attributed by Pliny to the great Myron. S. the chariot-race amongst others. however. 1 how he would have treated such a subject. the Marsyas. Athena. praises his Dionysus on Mount Other statues of gods made by him were a Hecate at ^Egina. an Apollo at Ephesus. at least two other He also made several statues of famous Ladas. Murray in the seems nearer the mark fourth century.

the reconstituted group may be seen in the Jahrbuch of the German Institut. both in groups the only one associated with the Marsyas has been conjecturally : identified in a statue which resembles that on the coins . the list The chief defect in of his works lies in the comparative absence of female figures . . do not usually contribute in any high degree to our knowledge of the artist. it is true. 1908. Jahreshefte. the statue in Oester.72 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS been variously interpreted as sea-monsters. not to speak of various emendations. apart from the Hecate on ^Egina we hear of two statues of Athena. players such as Loeschcke's Discussions of pyctas boxers. of an athletic type far His subjects. he seems to have used the theme as a pre- text for statues making one of the most of ancient times. and may explain the variation which we . be selected by Pausanias for special praise such a statue of the god of wine and of bacchic frenzy can hardly have been commonplace. such matters. are mainly but his treatment of athletes was . or at see-saw. It is striking and original significant also that among his statues of the gods that of Dionysus should . though they offer scope for the ingenuity of the critic. But the mere show list of works attributed to Myron suffices to his originality and his versatility. Its effect is not very satisfactory. sawyers. 1909. removed from the conventional in the case of Ladas. for example.



as was to be expected style. There were. and It is is especially associated with Lysippus. The connection is confirmed by a most interesting to find a work which must be about a . stand out This is rather more strongly from the head. the group. and also the close-set and beard. however. his lion-skin on his left arm : his pose. subject. three statues of Heracles in the of his works and this fact seems to justify us in connecting with him a affinity statuette of Heracles which evidently shows with his from its This statuette. the hero overwhelmed with his labours. projecting curls are almost a typical adjunct of great physical strength. head suggests something of weariness. especially the gentle inclination of his left. and which suggests association with Myron. but the clear and dry rendering of the muscles curls of hair is similar. his right hand leaning on towards the his club. an anticipation of it in century and a half earlier. shows a heavier and more massive type of figure than the Discobolus.MYRON find in the figure of the 73 goddess in other copies of seen. which. quite in accordance with the rendering of Heracles in Attic vases . as we have list at least . is a common one in later art. the close-set. The hero is represented at rest. The type of the weary Heracles. But the outline of both hair and beard is strictly defined. The re- position and general character of the work are markable.

in his Ladas. is have created the conception of the hero who. it is the Discobolus and the Marsyas on which we . The first place where one naturally looks for his influence is in the great mass of architec- tural sculptures that was made in Athens during the generation next following his own. Nor is it improbable that the who could.74 colossal SIX GREEK SCULPTORS in the British head of Heracles Museum. and thus peculiarly suited to Myron's But. which shows the same characteristics. some of them may be attributed to his pupils. and which Furtwangler. should also in his rest. predilections. moments of his labours. and others may be copied more or less directly from his works. though it is not likely that any of them are originals from his hand. referred to a Myronic sculptor original. after all. by the set of artists among whom his son was working. express the enthusiasm of the effort that cost the victor his life. knowledge of Myron and with their help we can associate with him a certain number of extant works in our museums chiefly depend for our . oppressed by the consciousness of Both alike are phases of the psychology of the athlete. The pediments and who can be no other the frieze of the Parthenon are so dominated by the personality of one great master than Phidias himself that it is not easy to distinguish . in spite of some later modifications.



Some of these show an angularity and some an awkwardness of pose. especially in the torso. there another set. of Myron's Such mannerisms are just what a pupil or imitator might copy. attributing at least justified in pupil of Myron possibly to his son Lycius. It therefore comes every way we may be perhaps these metopes to a closer in to the work of Myron himself.MYRON different 75 hands or variations of style in their execution. while it still retains the hard and dry treatment of muscles. characterised by great vigour in composition. and that recalls the defects and mannerisms. however. inter- mediate in character between them last and the most advanced in style. while he missed the higher qualities of his master's attainments. But with the metopes it is otherwise. and by familiarity with athletic devices. The spirited treatment of the centaur would . were the case. but at the same time it must be admitted that the noticed peculiarities that we have may have belonged Even if this to Myron's age rather than it to himself. the excellence. and a hard and dry rendering of the muscles that is distinctly archaic. by study of balance in pose. and Besides these. though not work. was probably his reputation that served to perpetuate to transmit them. which we may attribute to the This intermediate set are influence of Phidias himself. the least successful of is the Parthenon metopes.

with the help of a succession of links. common It seems to me that they have far with the Tyrannicides than with the Discobolus. The most familiar of intermediate examples is a beautiful statue of an athlete standing and pouring oil above his head. . but we can see in them the and trace his influence upon his contemporaries and successors. This series has been traced. The metopes Theseum. or at least as showing Myron's influence. all prob- head ably of Attic workmanship. indeed.76 well suit SIX an GREEK SCULPTORS who was selected artist to make the up at of the equestrian statues of the Athenian knights set the entrance to the Acropolis. raised left. and may be attributed to the same influence. i from his right hand. the head of the Massimi Discobolus has enabled us to recognise a whole series of heads as Myronic. which is held in front o* This athlete was attributed by Brunn to of I see no reason for the preference Furtwangler and others for less in Critius as the source of the athletic influence in the metopes of Parthenon and Theseum. into his his body. sculptures about learn much from these architectural reflection of his style. Myron. and the same predilections for angular and even uncouth 1 positions. right through to the of the Hermes of Praxiteles. have an affinity with the earlier metopes of the Parthenon. they show the same delight in athletic motives. To pass from such architectural work to independent statues. as has generally been recognised. We cannot.



It is 77 now generally regarded as the work of a later Attic artist 1 who fell under his influence. 296. . Another set of statues. also shows distinct traces of the influence of Myron. Palladium. i is a head in the Palazzo Riccardi at " . but these works are is most quoted because they perhaps help us to trace a further development of the style of Myron. place here to discuss the work of Cresilas. in which the pain of the wound is made the motive of the whole figure. Among these is the well-known portrait of Pericles. . which has survived in several copies to these Furtwangler would add the wounded Amazon of the Capitoline type. intermediate link that there is an affinity between the two. and the pathetic effect It would be out of skilfully attained. which has been with much ingenuity and a high degree of probability assigned by Furtwangler to Cresilas. Intermediate in them and the rather impassive head of the Massimi Discobolus.MYRON Myron himself. whole motive and pose of the figure are intermediate between Myron and Praxiteles. Here not only the head but the perhaps Alcamenes. though a whole century of rapid development intervenes. of which there the British is a good copy in and the statue of Diomed with the Museum. but extremely similar to the character between latter in type. Furtwangler suggests Lycius Masterpieces." p. and help one to realise what we might easily miss if we had no.

the same rather full lips. It has the same closely curling hair as the Discobolus. This head has long been recognised as Myronic. There is. but we should be if limiting unduly the scope of his originality other. 1 SIX This GREEK SCULPTORS well be a copy of a may work of Myron's later years. in this respect as Even if we do not follow Furtwangler in the problematic series of identifications which he adds.78 Rome. but narrower. recorded by ancient writers. though it is not advanced as the Diomed. "Bausteine. the same marked eyelids. howmore attempt at expression." No. that life. Myron. we him the Wolters. it mental or emotional qualiwas for the first that he was most later famous among the altogether denied i Greeks . though excellent Doubtless in rendering physical was deficient in the expression of ties. . ever. we may admit the truth of his inference that the Riccardi head should make us modify the opinion. 458. See FriedrichsA similar. head is in j the Ince-Blundell collection another at Ny Karlsberg. far and a similar shape of face.



The causes that have led in modern times to a general acknowledgment of the supremacy of Phidias are twofold. the extraordinary excellence of the Elgin marbles has met with so universal recognithe sculptor to whose influence they must be attributed in a position tion among artists and critics as to place 79 . and the enthusiastic appreciation rhetorical writers. For example. especially by later has impressed the imagination of modern students.CHAPTER PHIDIAS IV THE estimate which sets Phidias in the foremost place is among Greek sculptors probably a just one . and which was probably derived from a writer of the Sicyonian School. regards Phidias rather as a forerunner of Polyclitus. the canon of sculpture from which Pliny borrows much of his criticism. in and. In the first place. as a pioneer in the art which Polyclitus brought to the highest perfection. the second place. the description of his colossal statues of the gods. of them. but it has not always met with acceptance.

in the sculptures of the Parthenon. fair We from various indications. and all these are . a marvellous grace and delicacy. in who dismisses them a few words. the two quite independent of each other . and of these we either possess no copies at all. new elements of striking we find a mastery free from exaggeration originality . It follows from the fragmentary and series of infer- unsatisfactory nature of the evidence that our know- ledge of Phidias is mainly derived from a ences or even of assumptions. may thus be summarised. executed just after that date.8o SIX all GREEK SCULPTORS rivalry. while the Elgin marbles were. or copies so unsatisfactory as to transmit to us but the faintest reflection of their originals. to the Greeks. above a breadth and nobility of conception alike in the type and pose of the figures. a notion of the attainments of sculpture in Athens about the middle of the fifth century . the ancient writers who refer to Phidias are thinking of his separate statues. and in the ideas that are expressed . ascertained The facts which can be can gather. in the composition of the groups. and we can see. merely architectural sculptures. apart from reasons seem Curiously enough. in the treatment of the nude. not thought worthy of mention by any ancient writer except Pausanias. especially of his colossal gold and ivory Zeus and Athena. yet absence of anything like affectation or all over-refinement in the rendering of drapery.

PHIDIAS far 81 beyond anything that has gone before. and it is impossible to suggest as the author any other than Phidias. ground . we are on more was surrounded by a group of sculptors of similar aims and tendencies Agoracritus. So far as mere technical skill is concerned. we also find a change in the statues of the gods of the same period. In both cases alike we must see the work of individual genius . for Phidias Alcamenes. But and it is no more the possible to attribute the pediments frieze of Parthenon to such general progress than it is possible to attribute the Prometheus or the Agamemnon to a general advance in literary skill and appreciation. however. and especially in the Athenian school. to the influence of Phidias. and it is uncertain how much we must concede to the personal qualities of these . this advance may be partly attributed to the wonderful progress among Greek sculptors. whose work was sometimes hard to distinguish from his own . Apart from architectural sculptures. and may well infer that this change was due. and to the colossal masterpieces that were regarded in ancient times as his representative works. and others. and who was associated with Pericles in the direction of all the artistic activity that was at this time expended upon the Athenian Acropolis. mainly or in part. that is the characteristic of the age. who made the colossal statue within the temple. difficult Here.

with the exception of a few fragments . As a would remember the victory of Marathon. with him. he know otherwise as to his artistic career. If. they made have in no case survived. since he was taking an active The statue part in the battle of Greeks and Amazons. . and although we may infer something from the reflection of these great works in all later art. this only shows the more how completely they were dominated by his But the colossal statues which personality. they embodied those which were accepted as canonical by all later generations. was dedicated in 438 B. said to be a portrait of himself. was that of a bald-headed old man. yet of a man still in the full vigour of his strength. however. in later years.C. the Elgin marbles still remain the most trust- worthy record of the work of Phidias. a date that fits in very well with what we boy. The date of Phidias' birth can only be inferred from the fact that the figure on the shield of the Athena Parthenos. even ancient to distinguish what critics sometimes found it difficult was his from what was clearly artistic theirs. and the glory it gave to his people of Athens and to their faithful allies the Plataeans. and it seems a reasonable inference that Phidias was born about the end of the sixth century.82 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS They must undoubtedly have fallen other masters. for whom also. and. ideals of the chief gods under his influence. he .



Tradition Ageladas of Argos. as a painter also in his He is said to have worked youth . and in supervising the work of other painters. partly by the more indirect reference which made the battles of the Greeks against Centaurs or in the art of the fifth century. Amazons a favourite theme This personal commemoration reminds us of the epitaph of JCschylus. he said to have had for his first master Athens Hegias. .PHIDIAS 83 was to make a statue commemorating their share in the battle. for the victories over the Persians were com- memorated partly by trophies erected from the spoil of the enemy. he must have fought at Salamis and at Plataea . art. as representing the hardness and accuracy and nervous vigour of the early masters of athletic gives. such as his brother Panaenus. the sculptors of the Tyrannicides. who worked is in association with him. it was perhaps a reminiscence of his valour on these occasions that led him to place himself as a combatant upon the shield of the Athena Parthenos. As a young man. The pupilage to the time of the Persian wars. who counted his valour against the Persians at Marathon the event of his life most worthy to be of Phidias belongs recorded on his tomb. as the next master of Phidias. As in a sculptor. the knowledge he gained would be most useful to him in designing the orna- mentation and accessories of his colossal statues. who is coupled by Lucian with Critius and Nesiotes.

The left severity nesian art have their and dignity of Pelopontrace upon the work of Phidias . but the disgrace of Miltiades soon after his great victory makes it improbable that a group in which he was a prominent figure would have been set up by the Athenians before the rehabilitation of his memory by his son Cimon. to 461 B. and the Some of these works are expressly said to have been provided from the spoils of Marathon. The earliest period of Phidias' which we have any clear record is the artistic career of time of Cimon's predominance at Athens. commemorative of the Persian and especially of the glory of Cimon's father Miltiades. indeed. the bronze group of the Athenian Heroes dedicated at Delphi. he might. which lasted from about 472 B. but hardly the quiet and unobtrusive mastery which we see in the treatment of the nude in the Parthenon sculptures. been set up immediately after the battle for instance. The group represented Athena and .C. the head of the athletic school of the Peloponnese whether the story be true or not and there is no improbability about it it certainly represents a correct artistic criticism. It is probably to this time that we must attribute the directly series of monuments wars. Athenian victory of Marathon.84 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS . have learnt from his Attic master the strenuous accuracy that marks the Tyrannicides .C. and so might at first sight appear to have .

and also Theseus. their statues were added to this Marathonian trophy. was a high one. with the face and hands and feet of marble a technique commonly called acrolithic. it implies association with mythical persons such as neither a claim to superhuman honours nor a purely allegorical we are used to in a seventeenth-century subject. may seem to us lacking in simplicity and sincerity but it was of a kind not unknown in Greece both earlier and later. .PHIDIAS 85 Apollo. Codrus. from among the Macedonian and Egyptian kings. the heroes of the ten Athenian tribes. merely juxtaposed upon a common base. of gilded wood. Plataeans' share of the spoils of made from the This was Marathon. and . had there been any common action or motive it of relation between the various figures it would seem in all even more strange. and historical persons . in being dedicated in such company. mythical. Such a combination of divine. Another work that had direct relation to the Persian wars was the statue of Athena Areia at Plataea." this Beyond the times is we have no information what it group was like that was held in high esteem in later shown by the fact that when. " apotheosis. But the statues were. and though the compliment to Miltiades. in Hellenistic new tribal heroes were adopted by the Athenians times. and Miltiades himself. probability. Had is been a group in the usual modern sense that to say.

we may see a well- known Phidian characteristic. especially in the way in which one leg is modelled through the drapery. Copies of this statue are preserved on the coins of Pellene. in imitation of woven designs. On the bands. but so unlike our preconception of the design of Phidias for a statue of the goddess. The largest and most famous of all the early works of Phidias was the colossal bronze Athena. in the pose of the statue. such as suit both the subject and the technique. moreover. while its heavy folds completely envelop and conceal the other. that some doubt may occur as to the correctness of Pausanias' attribution of the work to Phidias. which skirt are horizontal may well represent rich lines of relief or damascening. and repeated. her shield on her left arm a type common in archaic art. young Athenian and. It was. An which he was to apply later to his most famous works. set up in the . the type at Pellene may an early have been fixed by a hieratic tradition too strong for the artist to ignore . in Achaia. however. in appropriate surroundings. in at least one of the pediments of the Parthenon. and show that the goddess was repre- sented as striking with her spear in her raised right hand.86 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS similar producing an effect to that of the costlier early statue of Phidias materials of gold and ivory. admittedly work . was an Athena at Pellene in this chryselephantine technique.



set up during Cimon's predominance in Athens. shows the goddess standing. The statue is represented upon the views of the Acropolis which we find upon some Athenian coins of Roman date it stands out conspicuous between the Parthenon and the Propylaea. and her head this. of which the butt rests it upon the ground.PHIDIAS 87 open on the Acropolis at Athens. sloping a good deal outwards. her right holding the spear. but also as indicating its pose the spear must have been . so that its point stood out resting upon above the head of the goddess. 1 This was the statue of which the point of the spear and the crest of the helmet were visible from the sea to those coasting along from Sunium to the Piraeus. while the point. and therefore was most probably. but there is no consistency in the pose of the . the ground. is turned towards customary now to doubt but on no sufficient grounds. reaches above the level of her head on her . This statement is not only valuable as showing the great size of the statue. . with both arms lowered. figure is on these coins . the scale too small to allow of any details. even if there were. this was said to have been provided from a tithe of the spoils of Marathon. left i arm Jt is is her shield. like the other Marathonian trophies. and. a figure of Athena which appears on coins has been thought to be derived from the colossal bronze statue . On the other hand.

But some charac- teristics seem to rest on direct observation. original. the attributes. the eyes a way that suggests a bronze are hollowed out But although the identification is probable. chronicle in somewhat rhetorical a late Byzantine description of a colossal bronze statue standing in the Forum 1203 of Con. it is not certain enough to form the basis of a study of the earlier manner of Phidias. at seem to have been behind. it is tanta- have survived so long. such as the turn of the head to the right. . stantine. the length and beauty of the neck.D. and destroyed in a riot in A. A and also to work of Phidias. and the hair is wells out beneath the helmet . and then only have been destroyed by an accident. and a work of the in fifth century .88 SIX a GREEK SCULPTORS There is her right shoulder. about the statue left . lising to think that it should If so. head in the Jacobsen collection at Copenhagen corresponds both to the description and copies of the statue. it has been suggested that this was the identical statue made by Phidias for the Athenian Acropolis. what we should expect of the earlier The head is turned over the right the whole shoulder in a way that displays the beauty of the neck. treated with a breadth and dignity that suggest a colossal work. The later description does not in every detail agree with earlier information least. and the hair welling out beneath the helmet.

prepared the Athenian Phidias. was the exile of Cimon and the beginning of the predominance of Pericles in 460 B. With the age of Pericles came the transference of the treasure of the Delian league to Athens. which enriched with incomparable masterpieces of architecture and sculpture. under the direction of Phidias. the city All this work. Even the huge foundation on which the Parthenon now stands. gave his supervision to the whole. is now generally attributed to an earlier date than that of Cimon. many distinguished architects and other artists assisting him. was. Cimon had. and its application to the splendour of Athens by the construction of such buildings as the Parthenon and the Propylaea.C. so as to enlarge its area but there is little evidence that he set up any monuments within it except the colossal bronze statue of the goddess. and ter. in these . as w are expressly told. that brought with But it it also the era of the supreme artistic influence of indeed.PHIDIAS It is 89 probable that other works of Phidias may belong to the time of Cimon's predominance in Athens. it Acropolis to receive the great buildings of the Periclean age by surrounding racing it with magnificent walls. its transformation from a contribution into a tribute. who. It is somewhat difficult. out of his friendship for Pericles. and which was evidently prepared for a previous temple of slightly different plan.

ample. We possess. This statue all has. only part of the work which is But the directly attributed to him by non as the ancient authorities is the colossal gold and ivory statue of Athena Parthenos in the cella of the Parthe- a statue which ranked with the Zeus at Olympia most characteristic work of Phidias. we have already noticed that there is every reason to believe that Phidias exercised a more direct supervision and was more im- mediately responsible. would deny Ictinus the credit of designing the Parthenon. of course. completely disappeared that can now be seen upon the site are the traces of the pedestal upon which it stood. at least for the design. however. They serve. They do not really give us much information beyond what we can derive from the description of the statue by Pausanias and from our general knowledge of the sculpture of the time. for exindividually to Phidias. as a help in an endeavour . . In the case of sculpture.90 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS circumstances. or Mnesicles of designing the Propylaea. to estimate exactly how much is to be attributed No one. though both buildings formed part of a general scheme laid out by Pericles in consultation with Phidias. a good many more or less direct copies from the statue. however. though it unfortunately happens that their artistic merit is almost exactly in inverse proportion to their fidelity to the original from which they are derived. however.



either side of it ." he says. her left hand rest- ing upon her shield. the statue and its common device in Every available part of was covered with the accessories richest decoration. must have been its artistic even they preserve us very little of character. and rigid folds." may supplement " On the convex surface of her shield this from Pliny We was embossed the battle of the Amazons. her left leg was as the knee projected forward. in front of which the dress fell in heavy bent. of which the below her waist and was confined by a in . was a modelled through the drapery the sculpture of the period. on her sandals were the Lapithae and Centaurs Phidias indeed regarded every available field as suited to the exercise . She was clothed upper fold girdle. on her breast is wrought a head of set Medusa. concave Gods and the Giants . The goddess was represented standing. The show " is description of Pausanias would of itself suffice to this. and so.PHIDIAS to imagine what the original if 91 like. and also holding her spear . within the hollow of her shield was coiled the sacred serpent. " On the middle of her a Sphinx. . fell a simple Doric chiton. a figure of Victory on her extended right hand. and gryphons on helmet. . And : on the basis of the statue is repre- sented the birth of Pandora. on side was the fight of the its . . meeting in front in a snaky clasp her weight rested mainly on her right leg.

only detail . while the mention of the gryphons must be taken either from his notes made on the spot or from an authority from which he borrowed. . is as gryphons. affect matters of it is their general correspondence in pose. we find an inconsistency between the descriptions and the copies lateral crests. But. projecting from the frontlet of the helmet above the forehead of the goddess. again. Such discrepancies. thus the animals supporting the two described by Pausanias winged horses. to some extent. of decorative effect details while some copies show us even more of decoration not mentioned by the literary authorities.92 SIX It GREEK SCULPTORS of his art. and. sufficiently at least judge of its position. however. hardly probable . with the exception of the relief on the margin of the sandals paralleled elsewhere which can be we find all of it indicated on one or another of the copies for us to its we possess. In some cases. . seems more probable that Pausanias the fact that he adds a disquisition about the gryphons does not really add to the weight of his evidence . such as a row of the fore-parts of horses. . appear in several copies as A coincidence in mistake between these copies and therefore was mistaken it . for this was evidently added in his study at home." was hardly to be expected that any small copy of a colossal statue would preserve for us all this ornamentation.

as the Varvakeion is statuette. coins both of Athens and of other . a common thing for such colossal statues to be copied upon a smaller scale . known. indeed. and its original.* cities which reproduce the Athena Parthenos then there are reliefs that are evidently intended to represent not merely Athena but the Athena Parthenos . we have. an unfinished sketch. recognised in three statuettes is one. in the place. a base and mechanical piece of work. possess any other certain example of a life-size copy of a colossal work. and we do not. in various connections. known as the Lenormant statuette. complete and in good preservation. Complete copies have been . and useful as showing the position of various therefore is accessories.PHIDIAS attributes. however. Apart from such correspondence. It was nob. it would by no means have been necessary to assume that any extant statues of Athena were directly copied from the colossal figure in the Parthenon. another. perhaps. 93 led to the identifica- and decoration that has tion of various copies as directly derived from the great chryselephantine statue of Phidias. from the place where it was found in modern Athens. In this case. but useful for its indication of figures on the basis and on the outside of the shield . shows no feeling for the grandeur of The . the evidence first is convincing . but it is though it omits the reliefs upon the shield .

and another in Paris which are evidently meant to reproduce the Athena Parthenos. The vast amount of this sculpture ninety-two metopes. but is valuable as preserving a portion of the shield with its reliefs. can do little but show us the nature of the attributes and drapery. is impossible to pass over the extant sculptures that stand in the closest relation to him. and there are two or three heads also which seem to show some attempt to imitate in marble the surface and colouring of the chryselephantine work one in Berlin. the pose of the statue. In addition to these statuettes there are several statues notably one in Madrid.94 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS . allowing for their difference of work- manship. but in an it attempt to estimate the artistic qualities of Phidias. The character of the statue itself we must infer from other sources. however. they are fairly in agreement. A complete description of the sculpture that decorated the Parthenon cannot be given here . Odeum of Herodes All these. third statuette was recently discovered at Patras headless it is and armless. about fifty colossal . and the physical type of the face matters on which. and which must be considered later. partly in other statues which preserve the Phidian tradition. about half life-size. These are partly to be found in the surviving sculptures from the Parthenon. another found in the at Athens.

figures in the pediments,

feet of con-

and over 520

tinuous frieze

precludes the possibility that one


could have even designed the whole in detail, much less executed it in marble. On the other hand, a great deal
of the sculpture differs so greatly from what


find in

Athens at a

slightly earlier date that

we seem


in recognising in it the



and there


stamp of a great and original no artist but Phidias himself to


so marvellous an advance can with

any prob-

In this matter, however, we may ability be assigned. make a distinction between the different parts of the

The metopes which stood over the outer colonnade must have been placed in position at an
early stage in the building

and their separation into



of isolated groups


easy to distribute

them among

different artists, subject only to a general

scheme of decoration.

Those which survive show


traces of such a distribution.

Most of them come from

the south side of the building, and represent combats
of Lapithae and Centaurs
for the

those from the other sides are

indications of style.

most part too much damaged to afford any clear Even the Centaur metopes, for all

their similarity of subject,

show the most astonishing

of artistic





those which contain female figures

have the


awkward execution of archaic




others show an




exaggerated angularity of action, and a delight in the tricks of the wrestling school, which harmonise well
with the dry treatment of the surface and over-emphasis of the muscles and which betray the work of a school
trained in athletic subjects.



that such a

school existed in Athens in the earlier part of the fifth





was natural enough that it should share in the new activity under Pericles,

before Phidias had yet gathered around

him a group

of sculptors trained in his

own methods and imbued
work of Phidias himself

with his



far as the

concerned, these earlier metopes may be ignored but there are others which show the same qualities

which we admire in the pediments and in the best

of the


a majestic conception of the a modelling true to nature and free figure,


exaggeration, a masterly composition, and

perfect adaptation of the design to the space.


the harmonious impression conveyed by the whole,

the avoidance alike of the conventional and the accidental,

are found in these


rest of the sculptures of the

metopes as in the Parthenon, and seem to

carry the


stamp of the genius of Phidias.
however, fuller expression in the.

This genius


have, indeed, only a few figures from

the pediments


and those

for the

most part sub-

ordinate ones.



to the composition as a whole,

its artistic effect,

these figures can give us little infor-

In the case of the eastern pediment, which represented the birth of Athena, a careful archaeological

study of


extant data has led to various reconstruc-

group which probably, viewed as mere diagrams, give a fairly correct notion of its arrangement but the complete restorations that have
tions of the whole

been based on them only
bility of recovering


to show the impossiartistic effect of the

anything like the


In the case of the western pediment we have

a more satisfactory record in the drawings attributed to Carrey, made in 1674, when the group was still fairly

Of course

it is

impossible for a slight sketch

such as his to convey any adequate impression of the
great group; but

does at least indicate the general

of the composition.


can see from



example, the relation of the two principal figures of Posidon and Athena, who had met in rivalry to claim
the land of Attica.



in vigorous

motion away

from the centre, their paths apparently crossing each other, and each half turned back towards the opponent.

Thus we have an appearance of
effective as the centre of




a great architectural

composition, and which


find also in

one of the


of the Centaur metopes.


it is,


to the




extant figures that we must turn

we wish

to appre-

ciate the character of the sculptures of the Parthenon.

We have still

left, in

the British


in addition

to the figures of the rising sun

and the setting moon
so far as this

that framed the whole, the three extreme figures of the

group at each side part of the work


and thus

it is possible,


concerned, to judge even of the



and varied symmetry with

which the two

of three figures balance each other

has often been pointed out.


it is,




sculptured forms of the extant figures that place their author immeasurably above his predecessors, and cause

him to be recognised by

all artists as

attaining a per-

fection in sculpture such as has never been surpassed in

any other age. His treatment of the nude male figure, as it may be seen in the Theseus and the Ilissus,
contrasts alike with the muscular emphasis of Myron's

work and with the formal perfection of Polyclitus both figures have individuality and character, the one
in his



repose, the other in the delicacy


quality of his flesh, which goes far to But confirm his usual identification as a river-god.
almost, fluid

perhaps, for their contrast with the work of a slightly
earlier date in

Athens, the draped


such as the

Three Fates or the Demeter and Persephone, are even

more wonderful.



Attic sculptors had,

indeed, given great pains to the study of drapery


the result was the elaboration of a


and formal

system of folds rather than an approximation to the

pedimental figures we find the most wonderful richness and variety, and the


in these

most perfect truth to nature.


it is





dividuality of style so marked that

easy for


one who has made a study of the sculptures of the Parthenon to pick out portions of them from a heap of
miscellaneous fragments.
this character in It

impossible to express



but one may notice certain

qualities which at

least contribute to



perhaps the chief



the harmonious relation

of every part to the whole, of the drapery to the human

form, of every minute fold to the general scheme of

arrangement, the absence of anything accidental to mar the complete satisfaction and repose with which the eye can travel over the whole surface of the marble. Closely
associated with this



the complete absence of

exaggeration or of striving after

The forms of

the body are revealed or suggested by the drapery which

but in a way that is not at all inconsistent with the material and texture of the drapery itself, whether thicker or thinner. The stuff never clings, as



damp, to the limbs of the






contorted into tempestuous or disordered folds.


whole of



separated into masses of broad and flowing composition ; and each of these masses is subdivided into minor folds, and even the surface of each of
these folds


in careful relation to its texture


yet with

all this

elaboration there

nothing laboured.

Later Greek

artists, not to speak of more

modern imiwonderful

who have been




treatment of drapery, have almost always fallen into one extreme or the other either its breadth and sim;

plicity has led them to an undue severity, and even, sometimes, to a dry mannerism ; or else its richness

and sense of texture has induced them to adopt those
devices of clinging, sweeping, or contorted folds of which


notice the absence in the Parthenon



most fortunate that chance should have preserved us these figures, which enable us to see what Greek
like in Attic originals of the greatest period

work was

without them, we could never have inferred their


from any copies or imitations. The draped show the same figures from the Parthenon pediments breadth and majesty of type that we may see in the

nude male



horses' heads, too,




the breath of morning, or those of the

both those of the Sun, flung up to catch Moon ; for mere

sense of texture nothing can rival the head


in the



from the extreme end of the east



the architect Ictinus may be held directly responsible. the animals. the resident foreigners. and thereby suited to the lighting from below in its avoiding of heavy shadows. the sacrificial colonists. that it is here again the effect ness marble and not living flesh . For a position on the subject. yet is gained with the utmost directis.PHIDIAS pediment. difficult not to believe that some. The frieze of the Parthenon has much in common skill it is far with the pediments. and simplicity. as we look at it. but quality of its more uneven its in the execution. for the choice of processional admirably suited to be seen between the columns as one walks along outside the building. is 101 The soft. temple. it by the hand would be even more wonderful that he should have been able to inspire his assistants with a and sureness of work so worthy of the design. It in fact. and even for the low relief. And in the selection of the Pan-Athenaic festival as the representation of of all a theme which gave scope for that was most characteristic of Attic life in the service officials. at of the sculpture of the pediments as well as designed must have been executed of the master . the goddess the magistrates and other the noble maidens. if not. least. though doubtless in consultation with Phidias. quivering skin around the nostril is difficult so delicately rendered that it to realise. . slightly higher at the top than at the bottom.

of the work as There is. As an example of the latter. and a goddess which . figures or composition as this and a careful study of the work all in not enable us to distinguish the hands employed. at least allows us to pick out certain pieces showing the same characteristics. attribute to a single master. and to assign to each his portion of the whole. indeed. the relation and distribution its groups and which we must design figures. as we may infer from inscriptions.102 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS we may recogBut the the chariots and the knightly cavalry nise the political designs of Pericles himself. and so almost certainly to be attributed to the same sculptor. a certain uniformity of style through- out which shows that Phidias had by this time trained a staff of assistants fit to carry out his designs . but some of them do this with a vigour of touch. it But was the custom. composition of the of its frieze. we may take the slab with the three deities Posidon. the arrangement of show clearly a common assign at least a preliminary sketch of the whole. while others show a somewhat dry and mechanical method of attaining the prescribed result. and this master can hardly be any other than Phidias. to whom we must probably various parts. Apollo. to groups in such a allow a good deal of initiative to the individual assistants who undertook detail. if it does different . a certainty and boldness of work worthy of the master himself.



touches of a painter's pencil and then. and the one in front does not in reality project more than the one behind it. the Greek has struck the tresses out with angular incisions. he has taken away all look of see the sculptor has flatness nostrils from the necks. his of this piece that Mr. An instance of the more spontaneous work is to be seen in the heads of the chariot-horses reproduced in It is PL XXV. every one in a point of them. yet flowing you cannot alter. nor extend. yet. if he had modelled the thing in clay first) would have lost himself in laborious imitation of hair. no less " . the bending of any single ridge. got them to appear to recede in due and by the soft rounding of the flesh surfaces. than three-quarters of an inch from the flat ground. you horses. when he comes with their to the manes. and order. hand and chisel and where a base workman (above all. as Ruskin says. by mere drawing. modulation of the veins. altogether. deep appointed place and deliberate so free under his noble hand that curve. without harm." Here. careful as the . he has let fly full force . the sculptor's " you may recognise the decision of " thought and glow of his temper. He has drawn the eyes and finest with dark incision. Ruskin wrote. one behind the other. in "Aratra Pentelici": "The projection is of the four certainly not more. nor contract. at last. driven.PHIDIAS is 103 one of the best preserved pieces of the whole.

104 in the SIX GREEK SCULPTORS design. either breadth or delicacy tends to be in some degree lost. perhaps. those we noticed see the in the we with delicacy in the modelling. XXV. for instance."" workmanship than the It is a tempting inference to refer the execution of the few bits of the frieze that are on this level of excellence to Phidias himself. In the less successful portions of the frieze. teristics are similar to In any case. example of variety may be seen if we compare the horses' heads just mentioned with the horses. of the An two riders from the west is full frieze (PI. too. . if this were not the case. as we might expect would be the case in the work of subordinates who were unable to attain the high standard set them by the master. the execution of life and spirit. and so. and to suggest that he may have done them as an example to the assistants who were to carry out the rest. and also the same breadth combined figures of the pediments . the less surprising in architec- tural sculpture such as this. but Here. the same subordination of every minute touch to the general effect. it is all the more remarkable to find such qualities in the work of a subordinate.). and it makes us realise that Phidias had the power of inspiring his pupils and assistants to produce work hardly to be distinguished from his own a fact attested in the case of certain well-known statues. the charac- draped same harmony.





indeed. by the Greeks was the of the colossal gold a little more knowledge of the statue itself. We have. assign to his direct influence and teaching the fact that a body of sculptors could be found capable of producing in a short time all this mass of sculpture its on the Parthenon sculpture which. us to say exactly It is evidently very difficult for how much of all . can easily be distinguished not only from earlier work. 105 is the treatment of the eyes and manes of the horses and the whole modelling slab with the cows (PI. including many rhetorical appreciations and a long and detailed description by Pausanias but we would gladly exchange all of these for .) shows a very beautiful and restrained treatment of drapery. apart from .PHIDIAS totally different. more literary information about this statue than about any other work of his. The XXVI. in character. perhaps as simple and effective as anything in the Parthenon sculptures. is of another character. It is probable that during his activity on the Parthenon and his general direction of work at Athens. but even from contemporary work elsewhere and from later imitations. Phidias also produced some other statues. without hesitation. but the second great undertaking with which his ciated name was asso- making and ivory statue of Zeus at Olympia. this work is to be attributed to Phidias individually but we may.

We have already man with bald noticed this portrait of a vigorous old head as our only evidence for the age of the artist. Phidias was first charged with embezzlement of the gold supplied to him for the great statue . likely. or went to Olympia after his disgrace and exile from Athens. he was afterwards employed at Olympia.io6 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS it details or accessories. a part of the attack on Pericles in the days of his waning influence. He appears to have been condemned but if. and when he was able to refute this accusation by weighing Pericles it. even a matter of dispute whether Phidias worked at Olympia before he went to help Pericles to beautify Athens. and its but uncouth in execution as compared with those of the Parthenon. This disgrace was a purely political matter. a new charge was brought against him of sacrilege. a fitting architectural frame to the colossal statue . up was already built. or for a little information as to the time when conditions under which it more trustworthy was made and the It is was prepared. it seems that the Greeks generally did not take the matter seriously. as appears . same as at Athens. in placing his own portrait and that of on the shield of the goddess. At Olympia the conditions were not The great temple in which impressive the the statue was to be set sculptures. were in their All that could be done to give places on the building.

being seated. with his head slightly left bent forward. the He seems painter Panaenus. as at Athens. The description of Pausanias gives excellent notion of the rich accessories. who was seated upright. The statue. and other collaborators. The throne was supported by figures of Victory. in 107 and additions in the which Phidias was helped by his brother. his cloak. left the upper part of his his right hand held a figure of Victory. and it is noted that the god could not have arisen from his throne without putting his head through the roof a proportion between temple and statue that would hardly have been chosen if. and on its seat and cross-bars were series of figures representing such subjects as the slaying of the children of Niobe and the . falling over his shoulder and across his knees. was even more colossal in size than the Athena Parthenos. the god. left rested on a long sceptre surmounted by an eagle . both had been part of a great and uniform Copies on coins suffice to show the position of design.PHIDIAS consisted of certain modifications cella. and provided with a studio the same size as the cella of the temple studio was shown to visitors even . his body bare. to have been given every facility. this down to the time of Pausanias as a memorial of the master. in contrast with the some- what theatrical attitude which we find in some later us an statues. the whole effect is of simple dignity.

the hair tresses. which distinguishes the whole statue of this we can judge partly from reproductions on Roman coins. It is Boston head possible that in this we may see certain . in and beard are treated in smoothly waved contrast to the mane-like and dishevelled . but in front were left plain blue. was a variegated mass of ivory and ebony. In the Boston head. which we can. identify as far nearer to the Phidian type than the imposing but somewhat theatrical heads of Zeus produced by later Greek art. precious stones. battle of Heracles and there were groups of the Graces and the Seasons surmounting the back of the throne. The richness of this decoration was reflected light well suited to the subdued and which came through the great door or filtered through the marble roof of the temple. The golden garments of the god. were damascened with figures of animals and lily and the whole. locks of later art the eyes are not deeply set in the so broad head. The expression of the face shows the same calm dignity and simplicity of style . too.io8 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS and the Amazons . There were screens between the supports. as on the coins. the Zeus of Otricoli. nor is the brow and massive. which were ornamented with paintings at the sides and back. so as to show up the figure. by the help of these coins. of gold and flowers . partly from a head now in Boston. for example. both throne and statue.



" or that those who had seen it could not easily imagine the god in any . and although some of them are in- by the rhetorical strain of their time. they seem to express something like the common feeling of cultured Greeks about the matter. the only way in which a literary description can really help us is when it describes the effect produced by such a work upon those who see it. Thus we are told that " the beauty of this statue actually contributed an addition to the received religion so adequate to the majesty of . the god was the grandeur of the work. we must admit that both alike fail to give us. as descriptions of ancient writers. in this last respect. the original.PHIDIAS qualities that 109 have been introduced by a copyist under the influence of fourth-century art there is a certain . reduced to the Such descriptions. after all. Lessing pointed out. indeed. by themselves. the Otricoli head may even preserve for us more of the Phidian is character. But if the Otricoli head the inspired with something of if majesty of the Olympian god. We have such testimony from many ancient writers fected . any complete notion of For this we are. and preserves for us the Boston head much of the general appearance of the masterpiece of Phidias. are of little use describe a when they try to work of art in detail . softness of modelling and lack of the breadth and majesty of design which we can recognise in the coin .

the mere contemplation of which could take a man out of him- self. this statue. in part at least. The most perhaps. suffered many tunes and sorrows in his and who has no comfort of if he sweet sleep. and of a Hellas united and harmonious as her If no copy wisest citizens sometimes dreamed of her. Phidias himself stated that the in his Homeric conception of Zeus was mind . " any is man who misfor- heavy-laden in soul. stood opposite of this would forget all the dangers and hardships mortal life." Such an ideal creation. was of great importance not only to the history of art but to that of religion also. from the influence of the and no description is master. and his statue was regarded as the guardian and saviour of Hellas. a monotheistic impersonation of the supreme deity. . the one in which Dio Chrysostom says. as it can be traced in the statues of the gods made by his contemporaries and immediate successors? with their new expression of a majesty and divinity such as earlier sculptors had been unable to render. who has life.i io SIX GREEK SCULPTORS striking passage of all is. we must be content to realise its character. even such a one. I think. and elevate him to a region of imagination outside the petty worries and accidents that surrounded him. But we must guard against the impression that the Zeus of Phidias was a mere philosophical abstraction. adequate to convey to us an impression of the statue. other form.



and it has been The statue inferred. in addition to the colossal ones we have just noticed .PHIDIAS same nobility in its ideals. with great acumen. was probably in bronze. HI while later art. aroused the greatest interest . and above all in a beautiful head recognised as belonging to which Furtwangler. the identification of this Lemnian Athena in two or three at Bologna copies. that she was bare-headed. however skilful. a type of Athena repre- sented by two statues at Dresden. Pausanias tells us that the statue was so called from those who dedicated it.C. the B. on somewhat doubtful evidence. never attains to the Several other statues of the gods are recorded as due to the hand of Phidias. In view of the enthusiasm of so competent a critic as Lucian. The goddess was especially worshipped in the island of Lemnos in association with Posidon. and although there have been some or sceptical voices. that is to say.. to the statue known as the Lemnian Athena^ which Lucian even goes so far as to call the most beautiful of the works of Phidias. Athenian colonists who settled in Lemnos about 450 and who dedicated to their goddess in her own city her image as she was worshipped in Lemnos. and among them the precritics so eminent place as is assigned. the dis- sentient great majority of . in all probability. by widely different Pausanias and Lucian.

find in the neither architectural sculptures nor late copies of a colossal chryselephantine quate criteria work can supply us with adefor judging what a life-size bronze statue like. does not resemble those we Parthenon sculptures. The head. by Phidias would be In that case. and which we may recognise also in other works. indeed.ii2 SIX Where GREEK SCULPTORS accepted the identification is archaeologists have as proved. which we see in the Athena Parthenos. . and the two statues at Dresden show the simple and dignified arrangement of drapery. The type of the draped figure clearly belongs to his period and school. that show strong Phidian influence. such as the Caryatids of the Erech- theum. and on the other modelling the form of the knee. the ultimate appeal must be to the evidence of style. and the Lemnian Athena was probably of bronze . the external evidence so scanty. There can be no doubt that the Bologna head is derived from a bronze original. it may be answered. But. falling on one side in heavy columnar folds. it is impossible to deny the right of scepticism to those whose study of the art of Phidias has led them to a It is to be remembered that different conclusion. we are reduced to inferences and probabilities and though the result may meet with general acceptance. however. nor those of the copies of the Athena Parthenos. before Furtwangler's identification the Bologna head was .



it shows a more personal and individual presentation of the goddess than we find in the colossal statues . while it divests her of her more formidable attributes and of her more abstract ideal of divinity. was a one in fifth. The Bologna head certainly belonged to a statue of Athena. as we shall see in the case of Polyclitus. especially when they were accustomed to the more individualistic work of the fourth century. we certainly cannot assert with confidence that he may not. If the identification of his shall see in his Lemnian Athena be accepted. this fact weight in the discussion. the action and reaction on each other of the although Peloponnesian and Attic schools in the fifth century were very strong. her hand.century We its need not beauty to later critics. we work a versatility .PHIDIAS 113 and generally regarded as Polyclitan rather than Attic . wonder that such a type appealed by Here we have a statue of Athena. Whether this statue was by Phidias or made its must be allowed under strong Phidian influence. which does not lose anything of the majesty and dignity of the goddess. favourite carrying her helmet in art. the bare-headed type of Athena. have also anticipated something of what was best and most interesting in the rendering of the gods by those who followed him. When we consider the marvellous advance that Phidias made beyond his predecessors in other respects. in this statue.

though probably Polyclitan in character. This . name his Aphrodite was a curious inversion of mythological fact. and which the . by Phidias on the Athenian we know nothing but Urania was probably inspired by the same distinction between heavenly and earthly love which we find in Plato and later poets. We may see very much the same effect in the beautiful head of the Farnese Hera which. better worth mention here than Among other extant statues that have been associated is with Phidias. Lucian especially selects from the Lemnia the outline of the whole face. Of his Amazon. He made another statue of this same goddess for Elis.u4 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS and a charm which may possibly attract some modern admirers even more than the unrivalled qualities of the Elgin marbles. Of another bronze Acropolis. for Ephesus. and now exhibited in the Museo delle Terme at Rome. the delicacy of the cheeks. probably during his employment at Olympia. none the marble statue of Apollo found in the Tiber. made we shall have to speak under Polyclitus. There is no difficulty in recognising these excellences in the Bologna head wells . them we may add the way in which the hair out from beneath the band and overshadows to the brow. shows the same combination of severity and delicacy which is conspicuous in the Bologna head. and the symmetry of the nose. Apollo of statue the Locusts.





who remind us irresistibly. in pose and proportions very like the figures from the Parthe- non frieze. allowing for their affinities. but Phidias lighter and more graceful. more type careful execution. one side of the Sarcophagus is a group of horsemen employed in a boar hunt. give perhaps as beautiful an example as we possess of . The hair and face also. It is compare with this the reflection of the same influence on a piece of sculpture found far interesting to away from Athens. of the Athenian knights on the Parthenon frieze . is show the same The a more advanced example of that we see in the Choiseul Gouffier Apollo and the lacchus of the British Museum. the so-called Lycian Sarcophagus from Sidon. It has been suggested that we should see here an early work of . and it may well represent the stage that had its been reached by Attic sculpture at the beginning of new inspiration under its greatest master. Here we have a work made for an eastern prince by a Greek artist who probably was one of those who worked with Phidias upon the Parthenon. in the ease of their bearing and the grace and variety of the design. On on the other are Amazons in chariots at a lion hunt. reproduced here. and the heads of these figures. and who has caught both the spirit of the design and the perfection of technique which we see in the Elgin marbles.PHIDIAS 115 shows a charming figure of the youthful god.

yet with its regular and simply the richly waved hair. the artists who had worked with him again diffused the tradition whereby Athens seemed to have drawn to itself and to have glorified. soft in tex- no accidental disorder to is distract us from the harmony of the whole design. that was best and most characteristic in the attainearlier schools of Hellas. in the sculpture all made in the time of Pericles and Phidias. the Phidian type of head. The dis- covery of such sculpture as this at Sidon shows us how far the influence of Attic art under Phidias had spread.ii6 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS . with modelled features ture. also comparable to that of the most careful work in the frieze. In Greece itself. ments of the .

p* -g 5 .a M B 3 il w 5 .




for this very reason. that he affected with monotony certain poses and proportions. 7 The athletic statues . his personality may seem at first sight less interesting than that of others whose work was less perfect. and perhaps. Even we make some allowance for the fact that this last appreciation was the product of a school especially to extol the of criticism which set itself Argive and Sicyonian schools of it sculpture. we are often more impressed by all the statement that his statues were almost of a uniform type.CHAPTER POLYCLITUS POLYCLITUS is V Greek sculptors the most typical of all . we must remember that represents the view of many of those best acquainted with Greek art. When we read the ancient criticisms of his style. have already noticed how the very limitation of early Greek sculpture contributed in no small degree to its We rapid and certain advance. than by the estimate which ranks him even above Phidias as the if most con- summate master of sculpture.

many archaic statues clearly marked schemes %<f>i) rb ykp v irapa /UK/JOP &d yii>i<rOai. much light on the character of his attainment in art multitude is One is that " Successful the result of minute accuracy in a 1 of arithmetical proportions. Two sayings of his are quoted. he tried to introduce them some this. and on consummate skill in technical execution in bronze. the ordinary nude male type of Greek its sculpture in primitive stage. but few if any of them were content to adhere to it with mechanical precision. into or. trace in 1 We can. slight modification or Apart from he concentrated his efforts improvement. He did not com- originality or especial appropriateness of position or pose. as we have seen.ii8 SIX which GREEK SCULPTORS with the early made by series Polyclitus really form the culmination of a begins Apollo statues. he accepted these as laid down by custom or convention. at most. . in all probability borrowed entire by some of the early Greek sculptors . The canon adopted by the Egyptians was. on the highest perfection of bodily type and proportions." We must remember that a study of theoretical proportion of parts to one another and to the whole figure has often been attractive to artists. as TroXXw? &p idnuv a matter of fact. his superiority to those who made different aim was not essentially aim at from theirs. And great as was his technical these early statues. which throw art.

His excellence was in great measure due to his minute observation of nature in detail and his careful finish of the surface. and the mouth. and the estimate in which he was held by the Greeks. as characteristic saying : is attested by another is " The work 2 most difficult when the clay comes to the nail. on the is conformation of the Again. The it exact meaning of it but must imply that the last finishing of the surface that taxes the highest i See Kalkmann. a system at once more it and less more scientific. a method may seem likely to lead to So systematic lifeless and . the divisions usually falling at the eye.POLYCLITUS of proportion detail . as in later Egyptian art but extant copies of the works of Polyclitus. the head made one-seventh of the total height." 53rd Berlin Winc- k elinannspr ogram m. clitus. it is impossible here to follow suffice to notice them in but it may that most of the earlier sculptors divide the face vertically in varying proportions. the tip of the nose. In the canon of Polyis on the other hand. and all other details are worked out with a similar accuracy. " Proportionen des Gesichts. . the brow taken as the most artistic essential division." this expression is disputable is . 119 l . mechanical results. since substitutes for more or accidental points a structural line depending skull. show that this was not the case.

. He was employed in making the of statues of athletic victors before the middle of * fifth century in the .120 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS shows that accuracy of exact calculation of proportion was it powers of the artist. " that Polyclitus not only published his theory of sculpture in a work called " The Canon.C. and by calling this statue.C." having taught in that treatise all the pro- portions of the body. and finish as well as characteristic of the art of Polyclitus. The great dedicatory group set up after the battle of JEgospotami in pupils. as well as the treatise. his colossal gold and ivory statue until fire in Hera Herasum at Argos was not begun after the destruction of the earlier temple by 42# B. We are informed but also that. Cyniscus won in 460 and Pythocles and Aristioa in 452 B. Of the victors he commemorated.C. these we must consider when we come to discuss the extant works that can be attributed to Before this we must take a brief survey of as to his life Polyclitus. was made by his and he himself made a statue of Aphrodite B. what is known and connections.C. a generation Polyclitus belonged to somewhat younger than that of Phidias.. The Canon" There are in our museums several statues this which have been identified as copies of Canon . i 405 B. he carried his theory into practice by constructing a statue according to the prescriptions in the treatise.

The tradition all pupils of of Argos has already been quoted. He was probably born during the age of the Persian Wars . The appropriateness of assigning him as a master the sculptor whom he was to succeed as the leader is of . led to the arts of peace . and even possibility. in 418 B.C.POLYCLITUS set 121 up on the same occasion at Amyclae. Apart from this one we know nothing of his life except what we can gather from his works. held aloof from the Peloponnesian War. tradition. a massacre. which. two earlier This probability. for the most part. has been denied in the case of Polyclitus . but the early date which must statues now be assigned to some of his athletic makes his career overlap that of Ageladas. one of which.C. the great athletic school of Argive art obvious it cannot be doubted that his study of athletic proportions and his skill in the working of bronze were directly inherited from the school in which Ageladas was his most famous predecessor. From these dates we can infer that the period of his artistic activity must have been much prolonged. and his pupilage would fall before 460 B. Phidias.. In propitiation for this Polyclitus made . He probably lived entirely at Argos. and so had more leisure to cultivate though it was by no means exempt from internal factions. and Polyclitus were chronologically probable in the case of the masters. It is Ageladas that Myron.

and for this reason was often called the Doryphorus or spearHis head is turned towards the side on which bearer. all The extant date. We cannot. seem to belong to his later years. only the toes resting on the ground. the Merciful. carries advanced. But the most famous of his public commissions was the Hera in the Heraeum. Doryphorus are of Roman therefore. his right foot planted firmly front.122 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS a statue of Zeus Meilichios. with the exception of the Amazon. and supporting the whole weight of the body. and mostly in marble. as a maker of gods as well as of His figures of gods. the foot is A certainly have aimed at variety by turning the head the copies of the other way. museums several copies is the best of them was found at It represents a Pompeii. which he is said to have made in competition with Phidias. and now in at Naples. look to them for those refinements of bronze . In his left hand he a spear sloped over his left shoulder. while the left trails behind. thus emphasising the monotony later sculptor would almost which the critics mention. and vindicates for Polyclitus a fame athletes. which was extolled by some as even more beautiful than the Zeus of Olympia. Cresilas. Ephesus and Phradmon. so far as they can be dated. possess in our for Of his statue called The Canon we . young athlete advancing at a walking pace. His earlier works seem to have been mainly athletes.



and so . mostly broad surfaces with clear demarcation between them. may serve as trust- worthy evidence as to their original in they even preserve the marble many is characteristics borrowed from bronze. It is evident that the sculptor's aim neither interest of subject nor of expression. All. are mechanical copies. with expression beyond that of passive little is physical existence. the fifth century. and one of them. the other hand.POLYCLITUS On 123 technique for which Polyclitus was especially famous. This he has attained to a wonderful produced on the eye by the Doryphorus probably in the main due to the same unconscious appreciation of a subtle system of proporsatisfying effect is The tion that we feel also in looking at a Doric temple of it. less itself in bronze. degree. but perfection of bodily form and proportion. they agree with one another in their style and proportions. especially when compared with Attic work . the hair clings close to the scalp. however. the clitus. and cannot give us an adequate notion of the beauty of the work of Poly- more or proportions of the figure are somewhat heavy. and is rendered in a series of wavy curls. The head little also is very square and massive in build. the head from Herculaneum now in Naples. Though we may not know we . The muscular structure in is very clearly lines of mapped out.

so far as we can judge it from extant copies. But no one who will resign himself for a time to the contemfail plation of a Polyclitan statue can restful to find in it that harmony and self-contained perfection that are. there effort in a sense of restlessness or mental the the contemplation of the work. has neither the en- nobling ideals or ethical conception of Polygnotus and Phidias. and it is by no means easy to decide . the sculpture. Where ratios are simple and easy to grasp. If the most characteristic of Greek monotony of Polyclitus is to some extent borne out by our evidence as to the Doryphorus. a great surprise awaits us when we come to consider his other famous athletic statue. which the beauty of form has the monotony of Polyclitus .124 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS probably are constantly seeking to realise the proportion of different parts of a figure or a building to one another. nor the subtle characterisation and psychological interest of the masters of the fourth century. To many first may seem at uninteresting his work. the Diadumenus . but the mind of the its strain. not only is a harmonious impression produced. qualities perhaps. beholder can relax and fall into a mood of its passive receptivity in full effect. for the extant copies of this work vary among themselves in a re- markable way. When these proportions are accidental or is complicated.





but it is less appropriate here. allowing for the effect of the But other this. which head and wells out strongly from beneath the fillet. and freedom the in the hair. If we had no other to copy of this statue besides that from Vaison in the British Museum. fillet. This motive gives an admirable opportunity for a display of the beautiful proportions of the upper part of the torso. copies of the statue vary very greatly from Notably two heads at Cassel and Dresden (the latter here reproduced) to take the most extreme examples first show great softness of marble technique in the treat- ment of the stands face. His position is similar younger in the slow advance indicated by the position of the legs. this Dresden head out from was actually quoted by Conze. shows the same heavy forms. as an example of Attic as opposed to Argive technique. the same clearly defined muscles and even the face and hair are not dissimilar. The statue represents a youth somewhat than the Doryphorus. it would be classified without hesitation as similar in type it and style to the Doryphorus . This comparison of . indeed. in contrast to the Bologna head of the Lemnia. for the athlete has both arms raised in the act of binding around his head the flat fillet over which the victor's wreath is be placed.POLYCLITUS which of them is 125 to their most faithful common original.

have softened its character under Attic influence. and the Attic character to be Nevertheless recognised in the Dresden Diadumenus. and it is evidently a much freer copy than some of them. but a mere variation upon a Polyclitan type . an example of this later the other. especially in transphorus. It One of is. alternatives. of Hellenistic date. is most in the first place. the Dresden head is evidently not an independent the work. There are two possible explanations of is The one in his that Polyclitus himself changed his style years. like most of the other copies . instructive. it has many of the characteristics. not because he or would now maintain but because itself. the Doryphorus. found in Delos. its and treatment of surthis fact. other copies.126 Conze's is SIX GREEK SCULPTORS any one else it. it is Diadumenus was not In order to decide between these two necessary to consider the evidence of these. instructive. In the body as well as in the head. which we see in difference is mainly in texture face. and that the Diadumenus style . later under direct or is indirect Attic influence. not Roman. it records an obser- vation quite sound in seen in the Argive quality to be Lemma. we find here a substitution of far slighter proportions and softer modelling for those . as to proportions and structure. that the original of the dissimilar in style to the Dorybut that various copyists. lating it into marble.



and in the minute wiry lines of the The expression and character of the head also is are nearer to those of the Doryphorus than the case with the Dresden head. On all this evidence it is upon the Doryits treat- difficult to resist the conclusion that the Diadumenus of Polyclitus did show a distinct advance phorus . and the British Museum head would seem to be the copy of the original. and the somewhat slighter proportions. 127 and the substitution doubtless made in accordance with the taste of the period. seem to have imported into the Diadumenus something of that heaviness which was regarded. resembles the vigorous way in which fillet. especially in the greater freedom of ment of the most hair.POLYCLITUS we have learnt to associate with Polyclitus is . At the same time we must admit that later copyists sometimes carried faithful this Atticising influence much further than Polyclitus himself had done . Here the imitation visible in the clear-cut outlines of of bronze technique is brow and hair. mainly because of the Doryphorus^ as charac- . eyelids. such as the author of the Vaison statue. Yet another variation is to be seen in a head found in Greece British Museum (see and acquired by the PL XXXVII). though not it in treated in the marble style of that head. it stands out from under the in contrast to the hair of the little Doryphorus^ which projects very at any point. while others. But the hair.

One the " Journal of Hellenic a terra-cotta. and has by some been identified as a copy of a Boy Binding on a Fillet. including the early works which. between the copies a warning against any too con- fident inferences as to an original. Whether an ancient or a modern copy. have a record of several portraits of victorious athletes by Polyclitus. be mentioned here. but closely assimilated in modelling to its the Hermes of genuineness has Praxiteles so closely indeed. where less evidence exists for its reconstruction. . but because some confusion exists upon the matter.128 teristic SIX of GREEK SCULPTORS In any case. Two more examples of the Diadumenus type is may also (vol. it and proportions are all of them Attic. it shows us how a type created by one artist can be modified to conform to the style of a later master. not because has any relation to Polyclitus. as We we have seen. The bases . and the Farnese statue it is mentioned here. that been suspected. date the beginning of his artistic career well before the middle of the fifth century." Plate LXI. known as the Diadumenus Farnese. the variation is Polyclitus. vi. this is not derived from the work of Polyclitus its position. The subject is a common one at all periods of Greek sculpture . This is clearly derived from the work of Polyclitus. style. Another.). published in Studies. made by Phidias. British is in the Museum .



POLYCLITUS 129 of several of these have been found at Olympia and the marks for fixing the feet of the statue show that in them also. as in the Doryphorus and Diadumenus. It much less in the earliest of his recorded seems more probable that we see here a work of one of his scholars or successors. left Some have gone foot further. obvious also . do not seem probable in a work by the locks resembles that of the Doryphorus. propose to identify copies of that statue in a figure of a Boy crowning himself. and noting that the was advanced in the Cyniscus. of which a well- known example are also several is the Idolino at Florence. There heads of athletes in our museums which were evidently made under the influence of Polyclitus. the other merely touching it with the toes. master himself. That this statue of Polyclitan the close clinging hair in small wavy But the slender forms. works. the exaggeration of the attitude. imitating very closely his earlier style. notably in the Westmacott Athlete is of the British character is Museum. mostly more slender in form and more sentimental in character. advanced Polyclitus adopted the position with one foot and planted firmly on the ground. There is a whole series of such later Polyclitan works. but show too strong an individuality to be . especially in the droop of the head and the sinking of the right hip. that has survived in several examples.

known to us as the author of the portrait of Pericles . found at itself Beneveiitum. especially in the lower part of . But the fact is clear that we have in this head the work of a sculptor of strong originality. There is a remarkable similarity between this head and that of one of the Wounded Amazons. Cresilas years. howthe with much more freedom than in Doryphorus .130 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS One of the finest of these is attributed to him. has the great advantage of being a bronze and not a translation into marble. possibly both may be the work of a sculptor more directly dependent on Polyclitus than seems probable in the case of Cresilas. perhaps. especially in the clear outline of lips and brow. Philip Nelson. and the indication of the inset border of the eyelids. treated The hair is. carrying on the traditions established by Polyclitus. and there is an amount of expression in the face far beyond what we see in Polyclitan heads. ever. a marble head recently in the possession of Dr. and now in America. in the Louvre. Another head. In it we . which we must consider Furtwangler would attribute both to Cresilas. soon. even. see the Polyclitan tradition softened and modified the proportions are slighter. though Furtwangler infers that worked with Polyclitus at Argos in his later is All this problematical. This shows all the indications of derivation from a bronze original. a tendency to sentiment.










To face p. 130

the face, and the hair


much more varied. But the beauty
greater than in later and

of the work




mechanical copies


gives one, in


ways, a


satisfactory notion of the attainments of the

Argive school of bronze-workers in the age of Polyclitus or his immediate successors.



of extant statues that can be associated


with Polyclitus are connected with the following tale " The most famous artists, though born by Pliny.

in different ages, entered into contest with

one another


making Amazons.


these were dedicated in

the temple of Artemis at Ephesus,

was decided to

choose out the most admirable by the verdict of the

who were present ; and this proved to be the one each had put second to his own, namely, that of Polyclitus ; the next was that of Phidias, the third
artists themselves

of Cresilas the Cydonian, the fourth of Phradmon."






little historical




not even

consistent with itself;

but the Amazons at Ephesus

attributed to these masters certainly existed, for some of


are elsewhere referred to, notably that of Phidias,

" by Lucian for the setting of the mouth and " the neck," and that of Cresilas, described as wounded."

There are many statues of Amazons preserved in our museums, and some of these have nothing to do with the

The obvious mistake

in Pliny is here corrected.




Ephesian series. But there are two types in particular, both representing wounded Amazons, which evidently
have a close relation to each other

and one of these


so evidently Polyclitan in character that there has been

no hesitation among archaeologists as to





copy of this Polyclitan



Lansdowne House and

here reproduced,

both the whole figure and the head on a larger

Here we

see the characteristic Polyclitan attitude in the

walking position, with the right foot advanced and But a firmly planted on the ground, the left raised.

new motive


introduced in the pillar on which the


though this rest hardly seems to affect the general pose, and is even, perhaps, inconsistent with it. The right arm is raised and the hand touches the head,
thus offering variety of composition and an excellent opportunity, as in the Diadumenus, for displaying the

modelling of the chest.


head, like that of the

Doryphorus, is turned towards the advanced right leg ; it is more bent than in the Doryphorus, thus resembling the Westmacott Athlete; but here the motive is
evidently to be


also indicated

found in the physical exhaustion or by the motive of leaning

upon a support. It is not until we examine the statue more closely that we notice a deep incised wound beside
the right breast.

The Amazon






To face
p. 132










around the wound and so




has even

been suggested for this reason that the
in the original,

wound cannot have

but was

introduced into extant copies in imitation of another
statue which did represent a

wounded Amazon.


suggestion can hardly be maintained, in view of the

agreement of


extant copies




would seem that




choose a beautiful and

effective pose,

has ignored the physical effect of the

wound he has





in direct

contrast with that of Cresilas,

who was famous

for his

representation of a
to speak of his


fainting from



return directly

Wounded Amazon, to which we must and even of Pythagoras, whose vivid

rendering of the Wounded Philoctetes

made those who


his pain. The contrast is probably characboth of the master and of the Argive school to which he belongs. His object is not to represent the


it feel

psychological or even the physical interest of a


but rather to produce a perfect type of Amazon,

just as his

types of athletes

Doryphorus and Diadumenus offered perfect and the wound is a mere incident.

As such a

typical figure, the



admirable, and

one easily understands the verdict on the Ephesian

For beauty of pose and of proportions


delicately. to appreciate the artistic character The other Wounded Amazon 1 known to us by copies need only be quoted here to emphasise by its contrast the qualities we have noticed in the Polyclitan statues. 78. cannot be surpassed. without any pathetic In all alike exaggeration. The hair is simply treated in wavy masses." Fig. and subordinate pieces with folds curving effective. shows the same predilection for breaking up the whole into clear and distinct masses that we see in the Polyclitan . . and give themselves time of his work. indeed. which first sight. and the head of Fig. is up to it on each side. treatment of the muscular structure of an athlete here the effect. make his work not. secured only on one shoulder and round the waist. See my " Handbook Greek Sculpture. teristics we see the Polyclitan charac- of harmony and restraint. In this other i Amazon of the wound (or rather wounds. something of pain and weariness.134 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS The drapery of the short chiton. imposing at but satisfying to those who will attune themselves to his mode. and to shadow the forehead and cheeks alike are given a slight projects enough eyes and mouth droop which suggests. especially in the in Lansdowne copy. is most The head. it . for 77. in and the simple disposition of the central part drawn up through the girdle. also very beautiful proportions.

She has loosened her chiton from her right shoulder. master. especially as regards his ignoring of the wound. The whole effect is softer and more feminine. that almost a conscious protest against Polyclitus treatment of the theme. is 135 made the chief motive of the whole composition. it admirably rendered. the different. working under the influence of the Argive This is not the place to discuss who that . the hair also is a little more elaborately treated. The statue must then be attributed to an artist of originality. It is hardly too 1 much it is to say.POLYCLITUS there are two). as some archaeologists have done. of the position very It is impossible to regard this statue as an independent variation on the same motive. and less clearly arranged . as if the artist had tried to excite the pity of the spectator by not dwelling too virile much on the qualities of these is Amazonian warriors. and holds with her hand away from the wound. The position of the legs practically that of the Polyclitan still Amazon reversed . towards which she is looking down with an expression of pathos. it is evi- dently derived from the work of Polyclitus with intentional modifications. far from being incidental. but the head being effect inclined is towards her right. but in contrast to the restraint of the Poly cli tan head. The drapery is much less simple than in the Polyclitan figure. though similar in character.

though perhaps the most characteristic side.136 artist was. SIX 1 GREEK SCULPTORS as Furtwangler. it is more probable that both should be attributed to a sculptor who. But the most famous of . was to carry much further in a later generation. Amazon wounded. but also towards a pathos of expression which another great follower of the Argive tradition. So far our estimate of the artistic attainments of Polyclitus has been based mainly upon extant statues which may be derived from his work. emphasising the description of Cresilas his. Scopas.) are much alike that they must almost certainly be attriCresilas or another. He also made statues of gods is and heroes notably a Heracles. whose head for us in probably preserved more than one copy. finds his natural place among the They show a modification of the severe Polyclitan forms not only to slighter proportions and softer modelling. buted to the same sculptor. thinks the statue this is and infers from and other fell evidence that Cresilas migrated to Argos and under the influence the of Polyclitus in his later years. whether that sculptor be Perhaps. But we must not forget that his athletic statues only showed one side. Argive Phradmon. The Amazon and so Head of an Athlete discussed above (PL XXXIX. of his activity. in view of his obvious dependence upon Polyclitus. like the scholars of Polyclitus.

and although the head of the goddess appears upon contemporary coins upon which it is that we could not gather of Argos. and cannot be regarded as direct copies of the statue. the one that came into the mind of any Greek when the name of Polyclitus was mentioned. especially worshipped as the bride we learn that she was her great ginity as the whose marriage with Zeus was annually celebrated at festival. This statue.C. made of gold and ivory. granate. Roman represented show us little from the description of Pausanias. and such a subject would suit well his preference for youthful forms and physical beauty. upon a throne. good reason for believing that Polyclitus fixed . Of the coins statue itself we have no extant copies .POLYCLITUS all his 137 works. was the colossal Hera at Argos. with a high crown upon her head wrought with figures of the Graces and the Hours in one hand she held a pome. indeed. for the temple in which it was placed was built to replace the one burnt in 4$4 It represented the goddess seated B. and who annually renewed her vir- by bathing in a sacred spring. belongs to the later years of his career. these merely give us the type under which the goddess of the city was worshipped. as has already been stated. It was probably maiden bride that Polyclitus portrayed her. There is. in the other a sceptre surmounted by a cuckoo. From what we know of the Argive ritual of the goddess.

Amazon and the Farnese Hera. very much as Phidias and there are some extant heads of Hera which his closely resemble what we can recognise Chief as work in other cases. But in the absence of the high crown it is difficult to prove any so direct relation. which has been generally recognised as Polyclitan. Professor Waldstein in III. in which he points out how the square and broad forehead adds to the majesty of the head.. Another head. The head is the subject of an interesting study by Brunn. and the severe dignity and simplicity of modelling also recalls his style. though with the as a Polyclitan female head it may help us. among these is the ful face Farnese Hera. as a copy of the Argive Hera. of Polyclitan statues.).138 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS all later art the type of Hera for fixed that of Zeus . They show in many ways Polyclitan . Plate Museum. also The American excavations at the Heraeum have to light brought some architectural and other sculptures that must date from the time when Polyclitus was making the great statue. is is in the British It published by the "Journal of Hellenic Studies" (xxi. yet youththe shape and build of the head are like those . though it was thought to be male. to realise what the Argive statue by Polyclitus may have been. and how it shows a passive and receptive nature rather than the actively intellectual type that characterises Apollo or Athena. a very beautiful and queenly.

if we admit that Polyclitus himself fell under the same influence in his later years. but combine them with other especially in the treatment of drapery. and which exercised the greatest influence on his successors. It is. This need not surprise us. which show that the influence of the Attic artists employed under Pericles had spread even to Argos. 139 qualities. fortunate that our evidence as to the work of Polyclitus is fullest in the case of those athletic statues which were the most distinctive products of his art. however.POLYCLITUS characteristics. .

Praxiteles. was probably. the most famous of ail Greek sculptors. the personal and individual his charm of his statues all combined to make works the most highly prized in the Graeco-Roman Horace's prescription for literary work applied age. the . The tales about his Aphrodite of Cnidus Eros of Parium or of Thespise attest a general appreciation and even a sentimental devotion such as and was hardly accorded to the works of any other ancient sculptor. The sensuous beauty of form.CHAPTER VI PRAXITELES IN Phidias we have seen the master whose work has won for Greek sculpture the most enthusiastic admiration among modern artists and critics in Polyclitus. in popular estimation of his own and his later times. on the other hand. sculptor whose formal perfection and technical skill were chosen by at least one school of ancient critics as the highest attainments of Greek art. then to art also 140 . the facile and sweeping lines of his composition.

141 Praxiteles is described as the man who " in the highest " degree infused into marble the emotions of the soul not. he can also appreciate the dramatic vigour and intensity of expression which the Pergamenes learnt from Scopas. more truly Hellenic in character than either. in literature. the grandeur of who are ready enough to recognise jEschylus or the subtlety It and pathos of Euripides. In modern days a kind of reaction has set in against this high estimate of Praxiteles. a synonym for easy and graceful beauty of form. requires . but the softer moods more pleasing to the taste of the cultured amateur. indeed. the somewhat cles similar qualities fail not infrequently shown by the art of Sophoto move modern readers. But the beauty and moderation of Praxiteles. to be fully appreciated. The critic of to-day finds it easy enough to admire the strenuous accuracy of archaic or transitional art. just as.PRAXITELES Non dulcia sunto satis est pulchra esse poemata Et quocunque volent animum auditoris agunto. . may be contended that this very fact shows that the artist or all poet in question was rather for an age than for time. even if it produce a harsh or uncouth result . this reason the adjective Praxitelean has almost become a common- place. since his work. the passion and intensity which we For see in the work of Scopas. often does not appeal so much to the modern imagination.

work naturally came to be most frequently imitated. thus he was approximately a contemporary of Scopas.142 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS and some familiarity with some historical imagination. often reproduced and exaggerated the less admirable qualities of the originals. but little. the softness of flesh. consulting their own taste and that of their patrons. however. In future all study of the works of Praxiteles must begin with the Hermes at Olympia. even if it be only one of his minor works. . It is here that the discovery of an undoubted original from his hand. the study of his works tive. however. the grace and ease of pose and composition. What we know of Praxiteles from external sources of his is works can be exactly dated. reason. has proved invaluable to us. all Greek sculptors. None but they all fit in with most probability to the time immediately before the middle of the fourth century . the spirit and conditions of the period. and failed to realise or to reproduce the breadth and nobility of type and conception which were probably to be seen in most of the master's own works. the sentimentality of expression. and the imitators. is For this very most instruc- and helps us to understand the thought and history It is of his day. this difficulty of appre- ciation of the original is work of the master himself that Since he was the most popular of his mainly responsible for the current view of Praxiteles. not.

PRAXITELES There is. modulation of surface and delicate play of light and The shade which we find in his work. which often claimed him as its greatest and most representative master. and the no which is less beautiful marble of Pentelicus. the most beautiful among women. and he followed throughout the traditions of the Attic school. 143 indeed. He was an Athenian. His favourite material was marble. of which the Olympian Hermes is made. He is said to have been the either his pupil of Cephisodotus. the most famous of Aphrodite of Cnidus. interesting about him refer to his relations with the famous Phryne. But Praxiteles seems to come development of sculpture. no chronological evidence to place the one master before the other. father or his elder stories who was probably The most brother. He a statue of her. Hermes carrying the infant Dionysus was found by the German excavators in the Heraeum statue of The . said to have served as his statues. the Eros which she dedicated at Thespiae. He gave her what he himself esteemed the best of his works. and his work was rather the perfection of what preceded than earlier in the the origin of what was to follow. both that of Paros. which was set up at the same another for Delphi. and she the model for the is also made and place. said to have been used for the Cnidian material was best suited for the exquisite goddess.

such as those of the Parthenon or the heads from the temple they were subsequently discovered. and an example Hermes. left arm rests upon a tree trunk. by Thus an extra support is provided. This is the only example in which we actually possess a is statue which attested by direct evidence to be an original by one of the great sculptors of Greece. and there reason for doubting the correctness of the attribution. partly enveloped the chlamys of the god. is of incalculable service to the historical study of art as well as to its is appreciation. We have. which were seen by Pausanias where which may be assigned with some confidence to the influence. numerous architectural sculptures. and of Athena Alea at Tegea. and we have several statues in museums or private collections which have been claimed. as originals in these cases there is by Greek masters. on internal evidence. which enables the This . of the sculptors employed on the temple . Hermes represented by the sculptor as standing left with the child Dionysus supported on his arm. is at Olympia. But often room for difference of like the opinion . if not to the hand. to which we can refer such doubtful cases for comparison. which has fallen over it.144 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS had centuries before. of course. just below the spot where Pausanias seen it more than seventeen by He no describes it as an original Praxiteles.

the interest being centred in the personality and mood of the god. towards which the child is up a bunch of its reaching out hand. Here the and in its treatment. is Hermes Such a description might suit. This does not mean tha a mere abstraction. as holding grapes. made under Praxitelean influence. An alternative suggestion. to assume the graceful and easy curve characteristic of Praxiteles and of his successors. that the right arm of Hermes Which- was resting on a sceptre or a long caduceus. it is evident from the and the expression of the god that the subject not treated after the manner of what may be called mythological genre. ever solution position is we may accept. his right hand is raised. in accordance with later representations that are clearly reminiscent of this statue. are to be regarded merely as attributes. on the other hand. and is usually restored. and both child and such existed.PRAXITELES figure. of a bearded satyr or silenus dangling a bunch of grapes to amuse interest lies in the action the infant Bacchus. if subordinated. a representation of the idea of the protector and nurturer of youth (Kovporp6<t>o<i). the Eirene of . 145 whose weight is mostly carried by the right leg. supported also is by some later variations. His head is slightly turned towards the child. a manner exemplified by a later group. but not so as to look straight at it . is In the Hermes. perhaps. the action plaything.

almost effeminate modelling removed that we find in many imitations or copies of the work of Praxiteles. He is not looking straight at the child. rather than of any definite activity either physical or intellectual. The position of the figure also. Praxiteles also brought the gods nearer to men by making them more human. but away past him . not to realise the genial and human character with which he has endowed the god. when we look at his Hermes. a work of fifth-century character. Body and face alike are those of a young man of perfect physical and mental development. without concentration. the forms throughout are far from the over-soft. but as if resting. left though an ease the extra support under the elbow gives it and grace beyond what we find in fifth-century sculp- . We feel this above all in the Hermes. a clearly expressed and individual peris Such the sympathetic power of the artist that it is impossible. The is one of rest and reverie. whole expression upon some object not far away. and by raising those who saw his statues into a diviner atmosphere. but not unduly trained or specialised. his eyes are not wide open. Praxiteles has art is done and it is characteristic to take this mythological conception and to it in embody sonality.146 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS What of his Cephisodotus. If Phidias " added something to the accepted religion" by ennobling the current conception of the gods.



combined with these. 147 which only gives variety by the varying amount of weight thrown on the two legs. but he does not loll. to be dis- . more characteristic of the work of Praxi- teles as we see it in the Hermes is the wonderful facility and truth of the modelling. and the Eubuleus good preservation The is similarity of the impression pro- these partly due to the . and. What however. Hermes rests.PRAXITELES ture. the easy sweep of all the lines and surfaces of face and figure. and these have almost been claimed by one authority or another as originals from the hand of Praxiteles. . however. We see a healthy and vigorous nature in a moment of relaxation. the distinction of the features. a treat- ment of the surface which gives to it the apparent elasticity warmth and of flesh. duced by all are the Petworth Aphrodite. The treatment of the surface is. not a morbid or indolent one in its habitual attitude is. of the original surface but that surface certainly shows careful and beautiful treatment of marble that is the peculiarly characteristic of Praxiteles and his school. the Aber- the British Museum. all among them deen Head in from Eleusis. has nothing of the affectation of a somewhat similar pose in later art. There are only very few pieces of sculpture surviving from Greek times which have this last quality in a degree approaching that in which it may be seen in the Hermes.

ness of the surface. when it in detail . and texture. when seen from a short distance. one examines but the general effect. is a matter to which we must return In the Hermes the nude parts are treated with simplicity and directness. as in fifth-century art. it is difficult to believe . gives the most admirable impression of texture this is due partly to the rough. This. we have here no attempt. The hair is apparently only roughly blocked out. as contrasted with the smoothness of the skin. to imitate the actual form of hair. in its is marsuch vellously skilful rendering of folds as almost to deceive the eye.148 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS is tinguished from the style of the modelling. which by no means identical in all the works just mentioned. again. however. and delicacy in the transitions. Even those who attribute them all to Praxiteles assert that they show the variety of the master's attainments a somewhat precarious argument when their attribution to him is mainly dependent upon internal evidence from their style. but a frankly impressionist treatment. later. but with wonderful subtlety and a play of light and shade on the polished and transparent surface such as is almost entirely lost in a cast. The drapery. but more still to the masterly manner in which the separate masses are designed and struck out . though it may be appreciated to some extent in a good photograph.



one cannot recognise these qualities. is 149 There not so clear a system of folds as in the sculptures of the Parthenon first but while their arrangement looks at sight more spontaneous and accidental. as a characteristic conception of Greek art in the . Perhaps the sense of tex- ture is nowhere seen so clearly as in the right foot and sandal. the careful . its But all these though each contributes but details. the fulness of that animates it. only to be appreciated properly in the presence of the original itself straps and the things. the intellectual quality of the face. are What part to the general one feels as one looks at the Hermes is the wonderful combination of strength and life grace in the figure. effect. the contrast between the leather live skin beneath them. avoidance of anything exaggerated or awkward. shows again the subtle discrimination and inimitable technical skill of Praxiteles. as well as of its technical skill in execution. such as we usually find in earlier or later attempts at realism.PRAXITELES that we have merely a piece of marble before us. the clearly realised personality of the . copies of other works Praxiteles. or can only see a faint reflection of them. in as expressed in his mood by of reverie and if. god. this Hermes helps us to appreciate spiritual how much the copyist has lost of the and intellectual character of the original. So far we have been considering the Hermes by itself.

A copy of this work exists at Munich. it group may be called. in fact. this Eirene of Cephisodotus to the fourth century . for the sake of contrast.ISO SIX GREEK SCULPTORS But it also fourth century. which was made by Cephisodotus. we have already later noticed. if its characteristic tendencies. The group. and as a trustworthy example of the style of Praxiteles. Peace carrying the Child Wealth. either the father or the elder brother of Praxiteles. probably belongs in date but it was before that century had developed however. and the interest lies in the action of the also earlier two figures. in which the treatment is more or less dramatic. though the tradition of the great age gives it a beauty and dignity of form that is rarely missing in works made under the Phidian influence. and among these one naturally selects for comparison with the Hermes the Eirene and Plutus. have suggested may . As regards subject. There are examples of a figure of a god or goddess carrying a child . and shows the severe and dignified traditions of the fifth century it was in bronze. and warmth that Praxian uninspired teles has put into his work it is. and of course the copy may have lost some of the qualities of the original . the groups of Silenus and the Infant Bacchus. foreshadows but little the life . series takes its place in several of sculptures that reach both backwards and forwards far beyond his period. but it . It is true that allegory.

and in no way detracts from the originality and individuality of Praxiteles. to have been sought rather amid the cycle of Aphrodite and Dionysus. Praxiteles has freshness is made the subject his own by the and originality of his treatment. though recorded by Pausanias and invaluable to us as an identified statue. dotus. In any case. subject is And what true of the composition and true also of the proportions of the body and the character of the head. we have. This does not mean that Praxiteles. was by no means These seem among the best-known works of Praxiteles. his gods and goddesses mostly repre- . may be traced back to Alcamenes and Myron yet this fact merely emphasises the regular and organic development of Greek sculpture. if which Pliny attributes to Cephisowe are to trust Pliny's statement. but it is possible the compiler to the may have confused some reference two works.PRAXITELES to Praxiteles the composition of his indeed. The Hermes. In both alike we may re- cognise the Attic tradition which . a 151 more direct anticipation in Hermes . deities more identified with human and delights. action or emotion like his great contemporary Scopas^ preferred to represent figures in violent or passionate . There was more scope here for " that " infusion of the passions of the soul into marble passions which Diodorus attributes to Praxiteles. a Hermes nursing the Infant Dionysus.

The most famous of the works of Praxiteles perhaps the most famous statue of the was the Aphrodite which he made for the Cnidians. by Praxiteles We may make use of . finish though they probably missed his inimitable and distinction and it is probable that some of . had many pupils his and imitators whose work came very near to own in character. are to be regarded rather as variations upon the type which Praxiteles had established.iS2 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS and receptive nature rather than the his methods are more subtle and . Vatican and one in Munich. some superior the complete statues. sent the passive active or passionate less forcible. Vatican copy here reproduced The photograph is taken from a cast those familiar with the original in the Vatican may its be confused by the tin drapery placed around legs. original is regarded by Furtwangler as an himself. while one of them. There are also several other copies or variants of the in head alone. and by their help it. especially those of Greek period. all It is workmanship to either of somewhat difficult to deter- mine whether or any of these are to be regarded as Praxiteles copies of the Cnidian statue. and which was set up in her temple close to ancient world the two harbours of Cnidus. the Petworth head. This statue is on the coins of the city. it reproduced has been possible to recognise extant copies of one in the of the . these heads.



attempt to In the fifth century. goddess by none of them approached the Cnidian in although As to the pose and motive of the statue the fame. are found in the earliest time of Greek art . though we cannot be sure what details are derived from the Cnidian statue . true that figures of nude goddesses. if it had been. and is certainly characteristic. and show no realise the divinity of their subject. so far as goddess was made .PRAXITELES all this 153 evidence. no statue of a nude but. and we must of the also remember that Praxiteles several other statues recorded. with due reserve. The motive is in all probability a new one. entirely It is The representation of a goddess undraped was probably in itself a new departure. and an explanation of her nudity was supplied by the indications that she is preparing for the bath . her garment is j ust slipping down from her left hand on to a vase that stands beside her. The goddess was represented as nude ." The feeling is century about the matter by the tale . She holds her right hand in front of her body. but these were of symbolic character. as if half consciously shrinking from the complete unveiling of her beauty. as giving us a general notion of the Aphrodite of Praxiteles. we may be sure of Greeks of the fourth illustrated that she would have been represented as " naked and unashamed. possibly of Oriental origin. are extant copies give us sufficient evidence. we know.

dignity and modesty the nude one. who were given its the choice. how she put off her clothes and loosed her hair and bathed before the whole assembly at a festival. preferred the draped statue for . was acquired by the Cnidians. With this statue of a goddess it is otherwise. This absence of drapery in fourth- century representations of the gods is. whether woman or goddess. men and boys constantly without any the more august and dignified conceptions of the fifth century were more often embodied in fully draped figures. statues of Aphrodite. which became immensely more famous.154 whether Praxiteles SIX true GREEK SCULPTORS or invented does not matter that made two . The gods are constantly represented nude in the fourth-century art because the practice of athletic exercises had accustomed the Greeks to see clothes on . one draped and one nude and the people of Cos. not as a common type of everyday life. the Cnidian Aphrodite certainly does not transcend it by her divinity. an example of the tendency which we notice on every side towards bringing the gods nearer to the feelings and habits of our common humanity. Modesty is But essentially a human rather than a divine virtue. a nude female figure. In her the humanity of the Praxitelean conception of the gods is emphasised. was evidently regarded as requiring some explanation or special motive. Whatever be the all tales about Phryne. . therefore.

whose gesture seems to imply a consciousness of observation. almost as in primitive Graeco-Oriental images the same gesture is used as a symbolic accentuait tion of sex. for doubtless had other opportunities beauty. There is nothing of this in the Cnidian figure. she shrinks not from human eyes. who was a favoured lover of Phryne and also made a portrait statue of her. her human moods and consciousness. nor even a noble conception of womanhood. less famous picture of Aphrodite arising from the Considering that Greek sculptors appear not to have been in the habit of posing models. But the restraint and good feeling of the fourth century prevented any such obvious coquetry as we see in later imitations of the Praxitelean statue such 1 as the Venus de Medici. it is treated with delicacy as well as consummate skill. but.PRAXITELES It is 155 said that the unconventional act of Phryne suggested to Praxiteles his Cnidian goddess. But. . though Praxiteles. the story is perhaps probable. as one used to the decent veil of drapery. from exposing her body even to the breezes and to the sunlight. not a divine conception. her expression and gesture alike suggest the absence rather than the presence of any observer . it may be said. such as it is. observing her All this emphasises the individuality and clearly realised personality of the goddess. and to Apelles his no sea. is This. and to emphasise the nudity seems to hide.

though something of the same effect is given by the drapery that falls from the hand but the delicate poise of the figure and the strong curve of the median line are as characteristic. though here we have only copies to deal with. shows the The hair. especially in the modelling of the chest. and is contrasted with the . as in so many Praxitelean represented as supported partly on one elbow. and heavy probut they have a breadth.156 SIX position GREEK SCULPTORS and the modelling of the figure are distinguished by the same qualities which we noticed in the Hermes. which we have more and better which frames the high triangular space of the forehead. mean between too portions . of copies. justifies and illustrates Lucian's enthusiastic description outlines of of the exquisite curves and body and limbs. as Lucian says. which contrasts strongly with the too rounded and narrow forms of later Aphrodites. in these copies we can which see something of the same ease and flow of line. The head. statues. has a wavy texture and a roughness of surface which. The form of the body. suggests rather than reproduces the texture of the material. hits the happy on to the vase . less The and therefore cannot expect to find the same matchBut even subtlety in the treatment of the marble. The figure is not. as in the Hermes. simplicity and slight or too soft dignity of type. delicate oval characteristic of Attic art.



on which the expression to a great extent depends. which gives the impression of a sensitive and receptive nature rather than of any strong emotion. the lower lid. being claimed as an original work ot But the life is above all in the expression.PRAXITELES smooth and above all 157 . They were long and not widely open. has lost much of its delicacy. The half-open lips add to the effect. as of " Lely's sleepy is eye that speaks the melting soul. and that has led to Praxiteles." Yet there nothing here of languor or voluptuousness . which appears to be a good copy of the original. but we can judge of it from the Hermes and from the Petworth head. Above all. elastic skin of the face it is this latter that in the Petworth head shows the same life warmth and that we noticed in the Hermes. part to the avoidance . especially at the outside. almost fading into invisibility. which seems to be of maturer age. its This may be appreciated partly from the head of the Vatican statue. and the resultant vagueness of outline contributes to the soft dreamy expression. and that contrasts with the Petworth head. the expression is rather of innocence and simplicity that accords with the youthful and rounded contour of the face. there is a grace and charm about both face and figure which are due in of anything extreme or excessive. as was to be expected . partly from the Kaufmann head in Berlin. The treatment of the eyes.

it certainly belongs. Among these the Petworth head is not to be regarded as We a copy from the Cnidian statue. like the Hermes. this model for Aphrodite. but there are no criteria for a certain have already noticed that many heads of Aphrodite of Praxitelean type are known. but is distinguished from it by the less rounded form of the face. and also by a heavier roll of flesh round the neck all of them characteristics which seem to be studied from a model of maturer age. live make marble and breathe. we know to have been possible that we possess copies of some of these. and greater accentuation of the features. Such a suggestion is not to be pressed in the case of any But from the nature of the case it Greek statue. In this connection it is to be likely to more . but he did not. to his later years. it is only one of several repre- sentations of the goddess which . is be applicable in the case of a female than of a male figure.158 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS and to the beauty Praxiteles could as well as to the easy flow of line of the physical type. nor did he attempt to it make pulsate with passion like the works of Scopas. as the Cnidian goddess it may even be suggested that. and his if Phryne served as Petworth head may represent her later characteristics. corresponds to the first bloom of her womanhood. If the head is to be attributed to Praxiteles himself. The Cnidian Aphrodite was made by Praxiteles identification.

and without further information as to their pose be conjectural and motive. well-known examples are the Venus of Aries in the Louvre and the Townley Venus in the British Museum . indeed.PRAXITELES 159 remembered that Praxiteles made two portrait statues oiPhryne which were set up. being of Greek and not Roman workmanship. any such identification can only but it has been suggested with some . probability that one of the Praxitelean figures represent- ing a goddess or a in one woman at her toilet. that is The type The many variations in the sculpture figure is that owes inspiration to Praxiteles. and the other in gilt bronze at We have no certain criteria by which these Delphi. simpler in treatment than the more complete statues. a beautiful example of the torso only is to be seen It is broader and in Athens. standing. and is here reproduced. they may help us better than those copies to imagine what Praxiteles' statue may have It has been suggested that this . and the proportions and beauty of form remind us of the best copies of the Cnidian statue . so as to leave the upper part of her body bare . her drapery fixed in a coil about her waist or her hips. one in marble at her native town of Thespise. portraits or copies of them may be recognised among extant statues. been. holding a mirror other. is hand and doing up her hair with the familiar with its may one be derived from the statue of Phryne.

and the other at Thespiae in Boeotia. One of these was statues of set up at Parium. and goes back to a very different mythological conception from that which became current in Greece as the child . and had only ventured by slow degrees to remove more and more of her garments. be doubted whether any such gradual process is either proved or figure employed on her toilet. is perhaps less easy to reconcile with any divine ideal than one with no clothes at all.160 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS intermediate stage half-draped figure represents an between the draped goddesses of earlier art and the completely nude statue of Cnidus . A drapery hitched up round her waist. however. Without going so far as this. The less Eros made by Praxiteles were hardly famous than those of Aphrodite. a colony on the sea of Marmora. and therefore does not necessarily belong to an earlier type. one admit that such a figure represents the goddess under a peculiarly human aspect. with her probable. even in such variations as the Aphrodite of Melos or the Victory of Brescia. In both places the worship of Eros was the chief cult of the town. shows us its popularity. and might even be regarded as a compromise worthy only of the artificial devices of later Greek art. It may. as if Greek sculptors had hesitated to unveil all the charms of Aphrodite. The per- may certainly sistency with which it is repeated in later art.

He . is rather a beautiful and intensely human personality the dreamy " youth whose fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love. the philosophical impersonation of the force of attraction in nature dear to mythological theory. . But Praxiteles 1 treatment of the subject was calculated to break down His Eros is is no august and mysterious deity nor he. This was statue. on the other hand. his head was turned to his left. the weight of the body was supported on the right hip. 161 of Aphrodite. upon it. As to the Thespian we have no such certain information. which we may see in The Eros of Parium is reproduced on the coins of the town. similar to that of the The pose of the statue was Hermes and of some other Praxilater on." who shows in his own character the mood of pensive and vague desire that he inspires in his votaries. she made him select it for her himself by means of a trick. telean statues that we must notice Eros was leaning his left elbow on a column.PRAXITELES and constant companion any such distinction. or variations our museums. over which his cloak hung down . with a strong upward inclination. When Praxiteles had promised to give Phryne the most beautiful of his works. He L is . even the more famous of the two. which projected so as to give a strong curve to the figure. telling him his studio was on fire. Thus much we may gather from the many copies of a Praxitelean Eros.

that the serves better than original . Eros was merely a winged boy. It is. though not the effeminate type which we imitations or travesties of Praxitelean art. indeed. and so for example. It has been suggested. as it is sometimes called. she chose the Eros. The playful baby type that is beloved by Hellenistic . represented as a youth. the Genius of the Vatican. as we may Thespian statue. Eros of Centocelle.162 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS as said to have named most valuable in his eyes the it Satyr and the Eros . In the see on the Parthenon frieze. any other to give us a notion of the but we have no evidence that in position and accessories it reproduces the fifth century. beside her portrait own con- and an Aphrodite by Praxiteles. Many jectures have statues been made as to copies of these two among extant works. It was Praxiteles who made him the embodiment of tender sentiment and familiar to us in soft reverie that is many variations. without much further characterisation. must be a copy of the Thespian Eros. and gave him the find in later and delicate forms appropriate to his character. and was dedicated at Thespia?. tions are as far Such imitaas are removed from the Praxitelean Eros the similar degradations of the type of the Cnidian But he is usually in the fourth century Aphrodite. the most beautiful example that we possess of the Praxitelean type. almost between boy and man. her native town.

This is in accordance with the character of the half. but it had been rendered with a half-comic. This statue is by general consent is identified with the figure of a satyr preserved to us in many copies. Faun. original.PRAXITELES Praxiteles. the best in execution a torso which has even been claimed to be the This Satyr have noticed in same position that we the Hermes and in the Parian Eros. had been a theme familiar to Greek interesting. so as to make the pose more of a lounge. orderly satyrs and sileni. half-brutal directness that was in accordance with the primitive orgies in which these figures had their origin.human. the right elbow giving the . support. art from the earliest times . The is right leg is more bent at the knee. soulless creature that is here represented with wonderful subtlety and power. of which the most familiar that known as the Capitoline in the Louvre. bacchantes and maenads. and the foot placed just behind the other. . is in the one elbow being supported on a pillar but the sides are in this case inverted. 163 and Renaissance art does not belong to the age of The Satyr is coupled with the Eros in the story of Phryne's device. choice of the subject The and its treatment are alike The god Dionysus and his rout of disand ecstatic followers. In the fifth century there is more dignity and moderation in such representations .

This satyr cup-bearer has the Praxitelean qualities of grace in proportions and flowing modelling. in the same street. The Satyr of irresponsible Praxiteles. shows the and pleasure-loving nature of the wild creature of the woods. his indolence and passive enjoyment. and now is content to be at rest all a charming and graceful figure. of a well-known athletic figure of the fifth . a group by Praxiteles of a satyr pouring a cup of wine for the god . but others are recorded and prob- ably preserved in copies. There was in Athens. He has been amusing himself with the flute that he holds in his right hand. This is Praxitelean Satyrs probably the most famous of the . also but it resembles century. We tensity of orgiastic frenzy in the Mcenad of Scopas. free from moral or intellectual restraint. pouring wine into a cup held in the left hand. a contrast alike to the sombre and to the enthusiastic sides of the Bacchic religion. on the other hand. to find in the attendants of the god a theme of the shall see the in- highest psychological interest.1 64 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS is and the god himself often has a sad or thoughtful expression. which probably to be explained with reference to the deeper meaning of the Bacchic mysBut it was reserved for Praxiteles and Scopas teries. and this is probably to be recognised in the graceful figure standing with a jug in the right hand raised above its head.

with his right hand holding the oil-flask above his head. and that many extant less figures of them in our museums are derived more or directly from him or from his pupils. There are none among the gods in whose representation we should expect the art of Praxiteles to find a more congenial task than Apollo and Artemis. only the basis has been found . which he Of a group of made for Mantinea. became common in later offer branches of the Praxitelean school.PRAXITELES 165 an athlete anointing himself. and we find accordingly that several statues of these deities are recorded among his works. it usually assigned to the earlier years of Praxiteles. The origin of the . As the Satyr is also somewhat simpler is and severer in style than other Praxitelean works. of his art. standing in much the same position. They an admirable opportunity for contrast and harmony in the composition and relation of the god and his attendant. such as this of Dionysus and still the satyr who attends him. and to this we must recur later when considering another aspect Perhaps the best known statue of Apollo attributed to him is one of some mythological interest. the two with their mother Leto. as well as for the pleasing variety of their character and mood. the Sauroctonus. Groups of two figures. or lizard-slayer. while he was under the influence of his predecessors.



but Praxiteles' treatment of

was so

popular as to be preserved to us in several copies.


a youthful



leans towards a treeleft

trunk on which he rests his raised
right he holds an arrow as



in his

about to stab at a lizard
have, in fact, a serious

that runs up the tree.


mythological subject treated as a mere sport or pastime ; there is but a slight allusion to the religious type. On
the other hand, the artist revels in the grace and

beauty of the youthful boyish form, the easy curve of


and the delicacy of



It is

probable that in the copies of the Sauroctonus, as in other figures of Apollo, evidently derived from a
Praxitelean original, the copyist has exaggerated the
softness of the figure almost

to effeminacy


but the

general character of the statue can hardly be misrepresented.


statue of Artemis Brauronia on the Acropolis


also recorded


the works of Praxiidentifica-


we accept Professor Studniczka's

tion of the Artemis of Gabii as a copy of this statue,



see in it a

good example of the treatment of an

earlier religious conception in the art of the fourth


was customary for the women and maidens of Athens, before their marriage and on other occasions,

to dedicate a

garment to


and long


of such



garments are recorded in the inventories of her temple. The early image of the goddess, an idol of primitive
type, was the centre of this worship,

and the garments,

or some of them, were actually placed upon

In the

Artemis of Gabii we see the goddess, clad in the short

and doubly
hands she

girt chiton of a huntress


with her two


in fastening with a brooch,


her right shoulder, a short folded cloak.

In this action

we may

see a symbolical acceptance

by the goddess,


use, of the garments offered by her votaries.

Curiously enough






dedicated garments continued to be placed on the
statue as they
incline us to


might doubt whether the Artemis of Gabii could

had been on the old one



be the statue in question.

But the doubt


Religious conservatism, and the

probably desire of

the worshippers that their offerings should be brought
into actual contact with the goddess,




might well overdue to a masterpiece of respect It has also been inferred from the fact that

the old statue

described in the inscription as the

marble one, that the new one by Praxiteles was of bronze and this may well have been the case with the

original of the Artemis of Gabii


it is difficult

to judge

of style from a copy, but the clearly cut folds and

Cf. Roberts

and Gardner,


Attic Inscriptions," No. 102.





simple modelling would suit bronze technique well


do not recognise here the subtlety the treatment of marble that distinguishes other


Praxitelean works.


the Brauronian


was, in her worship at Athens, an august goddess of

marriage and childbirth, here we find her represented as the huntress maiden familiar to Greek art. Such a
is fully in

of Praxiteles,


accord with what we should expect selects the lighter and more graceful

aspect of his subjects

the delicately symbolic allusion

to the dedication of garments

also in accordance

with his style and with that of the period which he




made simultaneously by


Benndorf and Professor Furtwangler claimed to add This is another to the extant works of Praxiteles.
a head found close to the temple of Hades at Eleusis, and it was suggested that it represented the Eleusinian
hero Eubuleus, a head of whom, after Praxiteles, was

upon a herm of which the shaft only remained in Rome. The external evidence for the



not in





should be accepted or not depends entirely on the There is no doubt that in the style of the head itself. treatment of marble and in the delicate

finish of surface

resembles the work of Praxiteles.




of a

youthful but


and rounded type the small eyes and somewhat heavy jaw give it an expression at once melancholy and sensual. Indeed it is difficult to resist
the impression that
it is

based, at least, on an idealised

portrait rather than on a purely ideal conception of a

mythological character.

The luxuriant hair, The

that frames

the face and shadows the brow, reminds us of that of the Praxitelean Satyr. shoulders are clad in a light

clinging garment that seems hardly to be finished,


statue or set

doubtful whether the head was placed upon a up on a herm-like shaft. The appropriate-

ness of the type to Eubuleus, the swineherd of Eleusis

who was swallowed up with

his herd,

and afterwards

became one of the heroes of the mysteries, does not seem obvious, though the expression of brooding melancholy



such a character.

Several copies or

replicas of the

head have been found both at Eleusis

and elsewhere


must, therefore, have been a well-

known work.

meaning must, however, remain somewhat of an enigma and although its technical qualities

close affinity to the style of Praxiteles, there seems


reason for assigning
lacks the grace


to the master him-


it certainly

and distinction of touch

that we expect to find in an original from his hand.

Another head claimed by good authorities as an original by Praxiteles is the head from the Aberdeen






in the British

a far

more pleasing work, and has the same exquisite finish of surface, the same appearance of life and warmth of
modelling which we see in the Hermes. The expression is indeed more alert and less dreamy, and there is

more indication of physical strength about the Aberdeen head these characteristics have led to the suggestion



represents a

young Heracles.


in addition

to the Praxitelean qualities in the head there are others

of a different kind.

The whole

build of the skull, with


compact shape, and above

the form

of the brow,

in constrast with the usual Praxitelean

proportions and the easy sweep of line from front to The side which we usually find in Praxitelean figures.

brow projects at the sides, and the cushion of flesh swells over it to shadow and



which the

almost hide the outer corners of the eyes, reminds us

of the work of Scopas.


impossible in

perhaps one great sculptor adopting a
of his con-





peculiarly characteristic


but it

see the qualities

is, perhaps, more likely that where we of the two combined, as we do here,

we should rather

assign the



under the influence of both.

work to a colleague or pupil The head is

certainly an original of fourth-century workmanship.

would be easy to multiply examples of sculpture



may be

attributed to the immediate surroundings

of Praxiteles.




being in our own be mentioned the head of

Asclepius from Melos, with

wonderful characterisa-

tion of the half-divine, half-human physician, its benign

dignity and thoughtful tranquillity


and the bronze

head of Sleep, which may be restored to a statue with the help of another copy in Madrid. Here again, in
the graceful figure of the god as he floats over the earth
to pour the

balm of

sleep for mortals,


in the easy

flow of the modelling,
Praxiteles, if

we recognise the
is full

influence of

not the hand of the master himself.


Greek and Graeco-Roman art

of the grace


delicacy, of the love of beautiful forms


lines for



sake, that were derived above all from him



the result

sometimes too lacking in vigour and

originality, too ready to sacrifice strength to grace, the

fault of this does not rest with



for his



so far as

we possess them, never lack the higher
in modelling.


of sculpture, nobility of type, directness of observation,

and distinction

in the

lighter side of his



also to be seen reflected

innumerable statuettes of terra-cotta that have

been found in Greece, and above
with the name of Tanagra.

those associated

These varied studies of



female figures, in every variety of



in the

graceful pose

and endless change of motive

arrangement of their richly flowing drapery, have long won the admiration of collectors and amateurs, and

seem to bring us into touch with everyday Greek life in a way impossible to the more imposing masterpieces
of monumental sculpture.

had long been surmised and above

that these terra-cotta figurines owed their inspiration
to the Attic school of the fourth century, to Praxiteles

when the French excavators discovered

and the surmise received strong confirmaat Mantinea


that had ornamented the basis of his group

of Leto and




subject of these reliefs,

which are referred to by Pausanias, is the musical contest between Apollo and his lyre and the satyr

Marsyas with the

flutes in

the presence of the nine


design of the composition, though not


probably be assigned to and in his figures of the Muses, seated


or standing in graceful poses and varied arrangements of drapery,


see a set of figures that


well have

served as prototypes to


of the Tanagra statuettes.





only that these

Praxitelean Muses find their counterparts.



dency, inherited by Greek art from

its earliest

days, to

a few favourite

types with



of detail was continued into

the fourth century and


whether Praxiteles was the first to adapt them to the these representation of the nine Muses he may probable that here be following his father or elder brother . women. set between the columns of an Ionic temple. the gentle and restrained pathos which characterise the graves of the Athenian cemetery. on which it was not uncommon to set up a statue. We are informed that works . Similar figures are also to be seen in great numbers upon Attic tombstones. but ideally commemorative of her.PRAXITELES than in 173 even into Graeco-Roman art. des Pleureuses. it is Cephisodotus. Such sculpture in Athens was especially associated with tombs. had a dominating influence upon later portrait sculpture. and also monument which clearly owes its inspiration upon a to the same artistic tendencies. who made a famous group of the Muses on Mount Helicon. not indeed an exact portrait of the deceased. we see a series of female These " mourning figures in various attitudes of grief. the sarcophagus of a Sidonian prince. enveloping artificial originating in Athens in the fourth century. often one or both arms. are not too overwhelmed In the careful and somewhat arrangement of their cloaks. upon each of the four sides of which. from whom the work 1' is generally known as the Sarcophage with their grief to preserve the grace and dignity. we see a fashion which. in no case more readily We do not know draped figures.

What such a statue of a mourning lady could be in the Athenian cemetery of shown us by the statue from Trentham recently acquired by the British Museum. of which one is here reproduced. in this direction A good deal has been done by previous . the We and see. to treat the works of Praxiteles in chronological so to trace the development of his style. in the two portrait statues from Herculaneum. is by Praxiteles were and the reference this. set very probably to a statue such as up in the cemetery. perhaps. perhaps the mourning lady (flens matrona\ the who reminds It us of the title of Sidon sarcophagus. influence to which It we must may be and noticed that no attempt has here been made order. alike in the delicacy of its execution and the gentle melancholy pose. was probably only a critics rhetorical device such as pleased the later Greek to contrast it with the " smiling courtesan. the fourth century is This statue. as its inscription shows. and late Graeco-Roman sculpture fre- quently repeated the type with variations. for example. was used again in Roman times." doubtless the portrait of Phryne. Such statues are sometimes as a described as Roman Lady Muse.174 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS to be seen in the Athenian Ceramicus . but the type was not restricted to Muses. in Trentham lady the of its earliest finest example. worthy of the Praxitelean assign its origin.



Again. for example. elsewhere often with copies that may either have lost the character of the original altogether. It has even been suggested that at this period Praxiteles may have fallen under the influence of the Polyclitan school. but here we must remember that we have to deal with an original. or have imported into earlier Praxitelean works certain characteristics that the master himself did not adopt until his later period. The external data for fixing the chronological sequence of the various statues are scanty. in 370 B. work at Mantinea was contemporary with that of Cephisodotus at Megalopolis. as we have seen. is based to a is great extent on an earlier statue of an Athlete that admittedly Attic. when. But for it does not seem necessary to look outside Attica the influences that affected the earlier work of Praxiteles. whether we assign it to the school of Myron or to Alcamenes. Where so much dispute is is possible it has seemed safer to proceed is from what certain to what uncertain. that Praxiteles' It has been suggested.PRAXITELES writers..C. the perfection of technique in the Hermes leads us naturally to assign it to the sculptor's maturity . the cities of the Peloponnese were reorganised under Epaminondas. to study an original work before turning to copies. The Satyr. and well-attested . 175 though their results do not always agree. which may be seen in the modelling of his Satyr as cup-bearer.

1 76 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS examples before such as can only be attributed to Praxiteles by inference or conjecture. . In whatever order we artistic may study his works. the individuality and the master character of stand out clearly enough.

whether in the actual energy of or feeling. and well thus escape appreciation." and we have seen to what degree and in what manner we can trace this attain- ment of in his extant works. tion cannot be upon the features by a His wonderful power in this direc- overlooked even by the most casual observer . indeed.CHAPTER SCOPAS SCOPAS is VII in . or in the character stamped passionate nature. and it marks him as the originator of that '77 M . is now known to us as the master of strife passion. Scopas. many ways the most modern of all ancient sculptors works give the most direct denial to the often repeated assertion that Greek art lacks indihis viduality and the power to express emotion. It consists rather of a study mood may or temperament than of actual emotion. on the other hand. We are. told that Praxiteles also "infused into marble the emotions of the soul. especially where we are dependent upon copies that are sure to miss the subtler qualities of the original.

178 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS is dramatic tendency in art which one of the chief characteristics of the sculpture of the Hellenistic age. after its destruction fire in 395 B. His artistic career by fire in must therefore be assigned any work time. probably the elder of the two.C. He made. and whose monument. This .. and also provided it with sculpture. it is said. He by built the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea..C. he was sculptors.C. who died either in 353 or 351 B.C.C. He was also one of the four sculptors employed on the tomb of Mausolus. ment which we see in its sculpture shows that he had already developed the artistic character that distinguishes him from all other Greek sculptors. was not completed until after her death in 350 B. We have than 350 no evidence of B. erected by his wife Artemisia. one of the sculptured columns of the temple of Artemis at Ephesus when rebuilt after its destruction 356 B. It is for this reason that Scopas naturally comes to be placed later than Praxiteles in a series of Greek So far as actual chronology goes. too. unlike those The dates of his artistic of Praxiteles. his undertaking though the completion of the Mausoleum may have occupied some considerable The recorded work temple at Tegea is generally regarded as his earliest but the marked individuality of treat. are well attested. later to the years preceding the middle of the fourth century. career.

the design There is an interesting coincidence in the almost simultaneous employment of two sculptors. And this coincidence is yet more note- worthy. Scopas and the younger Polyclitus. The temple of Athena Alea Pausanias as easily excelling at all Tegea is described by others in the Pelo- ponnese. re- sembles the famous Tholos at Epidaurus of another sculptor. 179 indeed. though. perperiod of the Arcadian revival in 370 B. both in size and in beauty of construction and seems to have shown a happy combinaDoric and Corinthian without tion of the three orders ornament. so remarkable as to have led some authorities to assign the work at Tegea to the It is. in the case of such an artist. and also in the it exquisite finish of its architectural mouldings. if we accept the conjecture that the Aristandros of who worked at Amyclae with the elder on a trophy for the victory of JEgospotami. haps. Polyclitus Paros. on selects two buildings which Pausanias especially to praise for the beauty of their proportions and workmanship. the younger Polyclitus.C. an argument from improbability cannot be pressed and his employment as architect is perhaps more likely at .SCOPAS individuality is. it and Ionic within. an earlier date. In this respect. . improbable that they should precede the time of Scopas' mature activity on the Mausoleum by as much as forty years.

Peleus. Beside the statue of Athena (within the temple) stand on the one side Asclepius. we shall see. and lolaus. Meleager. we might well infer that the two younger artists were brought up in the common tradition of the Argive school as as is attested for Polyclitus. dropped is his supported beside . and probable. Telamon. who helped Heracles in most of his labours. Polydeuces. In the pedi- ment at the back is the battle of Telephus against . Cercyon the son of Agamedes the son of Stymphalus and last of all is represented Pirithous. " The . The front sculptures of the temple at : Tegea are described by Pausanias as follows pedimental group in the is the hunt of the Calydonian boar the boar is almost exactly in the centre of the composition on . is wounded and has Epiochus . Achilles in the plain of the Caicus. on the other Hygiem. and the sons of Thestius and brothers of Althaea. who axe. . Prothous and Cometes. for Scopas also. the one side of it are Atalanta. . if so. the other side of the boar is On now by Ancaeus. and Theseus. him Castor and Amphiaraus the son of Oicleus beyond'them Hippothous the son of . of Pentelic marble. .i8o SIX GREEK SCULPTORS was the father of Scopas. 1 For. i The conjecture rests on the fact that the names Scopas and Aristandros occur in alternating generations in a Parian family of sculptors of later date.

this central . child of Teiephus also. Theseus. unfortunately. Pausanias . brief reference does not help us but the composition of the other pediment can be reconstructed from his description. by Atalanta herself when it had been awarded to her for her valour in saving Ancaeus and being the first to wound the monster. are associated it with the was preserved the skin of the Calydonian boar. It is not easy to see how this could have been introduced even by implication into the scene of combat. dedicated. was said to have been the who led an Auge. group was evidently formed by Meleager. and the boar. who landed near Pergamus on their feature in the story way to Troy a romantic a favourite theme in later drama and art was the tale of how the wound that Achilles had given Teiephus could only be healed by the hand of him who had inflicted it.SCOPAS the work of Scopas of Faros. and of Heracles. and who subsequently recognised his son being suckled by a doe on the neighbouring Mount Parthenium . the priestess of Athena Alea. Teiephus and his followers fought against the Greeks . The Atalanta. made the most of the pathetic interest 1 Here. but it can hardly be doubted that Scopas of the story. it was said. Arcadian colony to Mysia." 181 The subjects of the pedimental groups closely traditions of the temple within . who had met her near the temple.

M. balance each other on the two sides of the group . have been known for a considerable time. are the boar's head and two heads of heroes. one helmeted and one bare.1 82 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS . together with some other fragments of limbs. it is useless to con- jecture the position of the remaining figures. Mendel. which of the sculpture found at Tegea. Castor and Polydeuces. by . group was bounded on each side by a hero supporting a wounded comrade for we learn from other central sources that Telamon was said to have stumbled. but the strictly symmetrical composition is sufficiently in- dicated by the description to justify the following scheme & p3 s fr r^j ^ F O <j o o ' '$ cd PH HM OW^"*^ 3rgl P^ S* fl 2 * -+j -r\ a S r c~] * "^5 os S^ 1 <J l>Oir o p ! "/s i i ^ p>| ^_j ^H ^ Q_( be better to reserve any further discussion of this pediment until we have noticed the extant remains It will Some of these. The more recent excavations. of the French school at Athens have added two more heads of warriors. . evident that the two Dioscuri. one of them covered with a lion's scalp. It is and to have been rescued by Peleus.



is less coloured. and very probably belonging to this torso. while the male figures would probably be more or especially in architectural work. can hardly represent any other figure than is Atalanta herself. the heroine . Other portions of figures found in the recent excavations are in Parian marble . that all probable these fragments come from the pediments of indeed. and a head on the same It is scale. The boar and pediment. as was usual in Greek sculpture. among these are a torso of a female figure in Amazonian dress. has chosen Parian marble as allowing the finer surface and finish he required in the head of the goddess. so far as we know two For a sculptor might they would be well prefer to use the finer material to render the face and arms and legs of left. All these are in the marble from the local quarries of Doliana. . the temple. A striking analogy . in the natural colour of the marble.SCOPAS after the 183 custom of Heracles. content with an inferior local marble for the drapery. The difference of material the only difficulty but this may be in the explained by the fact that the Parian marble belongs to the only female figure groups. to be seen in the Demeter of Cnidus there the sculptor. and it the dogs must come from the east can hardly be doubted that the female . the torso. and some portions of other figures and of dogs.

fragments with any certainty between the two pediments. Possibly some other hero may here have borrowed his attribute of the lion's scalp perhaps Telephus himself. this intensity of expression that sculptures. nor is group of the boarespecially as a combatant between his son Tele- to be expected in the fight phus and Achilles. though it may be suggested that the helmeted heads are more likely to belong to the battle scene.184 torso is SIX GREEK SCULPTORS impossible to distribute the rest of the that of the huntress Atalanta from the same It is pediment. gaze and the deep overshadowing of the eye these are enhanced by the choice of a massive physical type which . to which the pedi ments must probably be assigned we may and justly infer that Scopas seems early in his career to have formed the style which seems to have so great lasting is an influence. It is and that distinguishes them from all earlier the more remarkable from the early date . the bare heads to the hunt. All the heads alike with the exception of the one that may be assigned to Atalanta that are marked by an It intensity of expression stress may find its motive in the is. for he was not in the his presence hunt . Heracles is a difficulty in either case . The means by which this expression attained are mainly the direction of the . is the chief characteristic of the Tegean work. either of the battle or of the hunt. indeed.

a bedded in it. with the dilated nostril. curving out from beneath the brow.SCOPAS lighter emotions. in sculpture. 185 lends itself to strength and passion rather than to the and which. The subjects of the two pediments. which also shortens the eye from side to side. overshadows the outer corner of the eye. in the other a combat with a terrible monster. and the half-open. so that the upper eyelid is actually emthat characteristic. gives a feeling of strain and intensity to the faces such as is hardly to be matched in any other work of ancient mouth. The impression of the eye being fixed on the distance is produced by a wide opening of the eyelids. tends to confirm the conjecture that the training of Scopas was obtained in the Argive rather than in the Attic school. were such as to justify the intense and passionate expression of the faces. It is above is all the modelling of the flesh around the eye heavy roll of it. So far all the characters represented have been spoken of together. there seems no need to draw any distinc- . in the absence of certain criteria for identification. and a combat that ended in a tragic rivalry. panting which the teeth are clearly visible. and. involving the death of several of the principal participants. at the same time. in the one case a conflict in which intensity of passion was succeeded by a pathetic and even dramatic situation. This.

Some authorities would therefore . though . Even in the heads of the beasts.186 tion SIX GREEK SCULPTORS . roll of flesh overshadowing the eye. apply to though differ in accessories and in degree of preservation. with the human The face passions of the heroes who surround her. between them a description applying to one all. eyes into deep shadow. in all essential matters. expressed in the mobility of the lips and the soft rendering of the flesh between brow and eyelid. we find the same trick. he should apply the new method only to the male heads and not to the Atalanta. deny the attribution of this head to the pediments but the difference may be explained by the intention of the sculptor to contrast the serenity of the heroine. who is shows by no means a commonplace type of the early fourth century. something more than human. as we may almost call it. would they also. of the in the heavy one female head. but is worthy of a sculptor noted for If in this case he has not thrown the his originality. But be rightly joined to the torso and identified as Atalanta. Though her face is full of life. and that it was still it was natural enough that. we must remember that such a device was comparatively new. it shows a remarkable absence of the intensity which marks the expression of the other faces. wanting a contrast. in the experimental stage . we find a great contrast in this if it respect. the boar and the dogs.

may be Here. broader contours varied by smaller realistic touches in detail. also in but many other fourth-century and later works that show leum his influence frieze. But Besides the in this case the question is complicated by the mention of three other sculptors associated with him and it seems . Tegean pediments. if criteria as to his style from other works attributed to only as later copies. directly assignable to Scopas. we must remember that the extraordinary originality and subtlety of Scopas work was certain to suffer greatly at the hand 1 on external evidence. are characteristic of the It is to be seen not only in copies of statues master. and the Demeter of Cnidus.SCOPAS 187 female heads made later by him or under his influence show something of the same intensity of gaze. expressed by similar modelling. The torso of Atalanta is also valuable as giving us 1 for the first time a clear example of Scopas* treatment of drapery. however. such as the Maenad. better to reserve these sculptures until we can obtain him some further which. and the detail execution. notably the Amazons of the Mausothe statues of Mausolus and Artemisia. of studied simplicity yet effect. we have in the sculpture of the Mausoleum another example of extant works assigned by ancient authorities to Scopas. . Its aiming at of its and attaining a strong its arrangement.

might well seem at first sight beyond the bounds that Greek sculpture usually set itself. senting the bacchic frenzy in Such a subject.1 88 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS much of his personal touch as of a copyist. on her shoulders and held together by her girdle. and she carried body in her hand." . had slain a fawn. The Mcenad. and lose so to degenerate on the one hand into exaggeration. floats open l Published by Professor Treu in " Melanges Perrot. For this reason if we shall find contemporary sculptures. her hair still unbound. even they can only be assigned to his associates or pupils. recur to any attempt to estimate the work of Scopas as a whole. repreits most ecstatic form. and the drapery. and we must. Her head fastened is thrown is back so that the face is almost horizontal. it. Here we see the Mcenad advancing in a kind of rhythmic motion that serves to counterbalance the unbridled wildness of her passion. in her inspired its lifeless madness. on the other into the comparatively commonplace. epigrams and rhetorical descriptions emulate one another in testifying to the life of the work. satisfactory in more many ways than them in later copies . little Descriptions of such a statue would if be of they had not led to the l as a copy of identification of a statuette in Dresden use to us. therefore. Among the recorded works of Scopas none is perhaps so characteristic as his Mcenad.



Even in a copy of Roman life date and on a small scale possible to appreciate the about two-fifths of it is firm beauty of the youthful figure. where she had slung the dead body of her victim her right hand. lowered. even apart from had probably suffered much at the hands of the Yet we can recognise in it the same intensity copyist. above all the composition. the skill with which the broad folds of the drapery are enlivened. filled it with life and reality. . we find this Mcenad is in every all way characteristic of the master. by realistic touches of detail. left leg 189 and the left side On her left shoulder are traces showing . The subject was not a new one in the time of Scopas. as in the Atalanta. even the dancing step and the head thrown back are to be found in Attic works of the fifth century. and. This above the case with the face in its is damaged condition.SCOPAS below so as to leave bare her of her body. the cha- racter of the expression this. which have thema certain affected grace and refinement. doubtless held the knife or sword. come to consider details. which transforms what in some hands might be a painful or even a brutal subject into an impersonation of orgiastic enthusiasm. When we imitators. it obscured. qualities that were exaggerated into a mannerism by later selves Scopas has. of expression that we see in the Tegea heads. the same . without sacrificing the beauty of the type.

has not hitherto met with the appreciation which it deserves. p. probably Aphrodite. as showing very strongly the influence of Scopas. but the In it face lacks nothing of perfection in workmanship.190 roll SIX of flesh GREEK SCULPTORS overshadowing the eyes and even embedding the upper eyelid. owing to its discoloration from being sub- merged in the sea amidst the refuse of the Laurium mines." xv. lips. is we have come to recognise partly a head from Laurium which. Here then Scopas must have followed. in the With the help of this head we may identify. the intense. far-away gaze. some other female heads that have survived from the fourth century. as it. the same means of expressing passion which he used male heads at Tegea. the distended nostril. The we hair and hand are only roughly finished. 194. 1 This head is clearly that of a goddess. Benson in the Journal of Hellenic Studies. in the rendering of a woman's head. drawing together with one hand on the top of her head the long tresses into which her hair has been plaited. He rightly rejects the old interpretation as Apollo Lyceus. the half-open and all the other indications which we have learnt to 1 regard as Scopas favourite expressions of a passionate i " Published by E. see again the full. perhaps for the bath. rounded proportions. Closest of all these to his style. F. .

as there or of its is original in Berlin. and in the wide- open and deeply shadowed crisp and rippled texture. in the simple and massive forms. the parted lips and dilated nostrils. 1 This seems to a copy of it have been a well-known work. another work that must certainly be placed in the same category. The motive of the bath.SCOPAS nature. Though it has not quite the same correspondence in details to the Tegea heads that we see in the Laurium head. i Handbook. is Praxitelean eyes. suggests the we seem to have comparison . . 191 life Above all. if it is in this head some kind of contemporary replica of Scopas' work. 101. there is a warmth of such as is to be seen in only a few of the heads that have survived from ancient times. and. evidently present in this statue as in the Cnidian Aphrodite. in which he is said to have rivalled Praxiteles himself in his rendering of the goddess nude. one of them later in Rome. with its in contrast with the soft treatment of female hair. The hair. even if its relation to Scopas himself be not closer. Another head of a goddess that has often been quoted as showing resemblance to the style of Scopas is the one found to the south of the Acropolis in Athens. justified. but resembles what we see in the Demeter of Cnidus. it shows a good deal of the same character. Fig. Various statues of Aphrodite by Scopas are recorded.

work of about the middle of the fourth century are told that Cnidus possessed many marble by famous masters. among them some by and the fact that others were by Praxiteles Scopas and Bryaxis suggests that the Cnidans took advantage of statues the presence of these famous sculptors at Halicarnassus. was not. originally set up in the precinct of the in Gods of the Lower World It many ways interesting. have. it is surpassed by Christian art in depth of expression. original B. statue in the narrower sense. Perhaps a more careful examination will justify us in going even further. we .192 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS at Cnidus. where the built under their direction. but in dedication. as in this case. The statue is the one selected by " Brunn in his " Griechische Gotterideale to illustrate and to justify his criticism of the common assumption " while Greek art is that. indeed. Mausoleum was being and were thus enabled to enrich the shrines of Cnidus with works of the most dis- tinguished masters of fourth-century art. a deviation When.C. a temple all probability a it is But there can be no doubt that an We . since it deal of what an expression of sorrow such as is alien to a great is most characteristic of Greek art. is This statue of Demeter. however. 11 Its subject lends itself to offers such comparison. The Demeter evidently belongs to this time and to this set of statues. supreme in beauty of form. just across the gulf.



the . though here directed not upwards. the contrast all this contrast. But. . and if the effect seems mild in comparison with the emaciated and ascetic forms and the distortion Christian art of feature which we sometimes see in and. in some products of Hellenistic art artist's yet the very restraint which the sense of sculptural fitness has imposed upon really him should work. Here we see the impersonation of the mother mourning the loss of her child and the beauty of the form and the subtlety with which the sorrow is expressed may serve at first But sight to conceal the intensity of the expression. for a much in common same far-away look in the eyes. the power is there. notice in it is 193 instructive to what the deviation consists. finement that we are hardly conscious of impression it although the . it may be added. produces is not for that reason lost this and when we compare the head of sorrowing mother with the passionate goddess that we have recognised in the Laurium head. increase our appreciation of face closely. it is the slightly hollow but rendered with such restraint and reit. the same treatment of nostrils and similar physical type. there his is when we study the and in even emaciation to be found in the wasted tissues around the cheeks . eye-socket. but on the distant horizon. For. the two have is striking.SCOPAS from the healthy and normal type.

no confusion. There is in this the germ of that some- what exaggerated treatment of drapery for effect that we find in many works of the Hellenistic age but here the drapery as well as the face shows the restraint . The treatment it is of the drapery drawn across and across the body in a somewhat restless manner. curious thing about this Cnidian Demeter is that the sculptor. and the reason probably in is both cases the same. very different from the harmonious and simple folds which we usually find in Praxitelean works . also characteristic . characteristic of a fourth-century master. Here we are reminded of other pedimental for the choice the Atalanta of Tegea figures of local is among the marble . however. in order to face. with an inferior local marble which will not take or preserve so fine a surface.194 mouth. and which is absent both from the severer work of an earlier age and from the conventional or exaggerated efforts of the Hellenistic period. for the body and the drapery. All this is what we should expect of Scopas. and the realistic touches that give life to the folds do not obscure their general arrangement. in both alike that warmth which we only see in a few originals of fourthcentury date. and although the . above all. there is. has A do justice to his modelling of the made the head of Parian marble. though he has contented himself. of life SIX There GREEK SCULPTORS is.

A comparison between the Vatican and Medici facilitated heads. hand perhaps. the original itself. from the Berlin instructive. PL L).SCOP AS attribution of the statue to his 195 is. The life. as some suggest. Another statue that has survived to our time in several copies. and in the head recently acquired from the Carlisle collection at Castle Howard by the British Museum. statue exists at The remains of the short hunting-spear and the boar's head in the Vatican copy show the identification of the ideal hunter to be correct. which finer is well known from the Vatican much and more accurate copies of this head can be seen on a statue (to which it does not belong) in the Medici gardens. is most allows us to compare an ordinary Roman copy of a of fourth-century head with what. beyond the legitimate limits of artistic criticism. there can be no doubt that it is full of his spirit. A fine though much-damaged copy of the Boston. and the mobility of feature so . is that of a hero whose tragic and untimely end gives a peculiar interest to his personality . if we do not possess the original. PL I. the more than pages of description. if not by himself.. and made by one of his contemporaries and associates. if not. for " Antike Denkmaler. at least preserves much the chararacter and quality of the original." it PL XL. as by the reproductions on I. this plate tells A glance at individuality. this is the Meleager (see statue .

case of earlier work. in preserving the beauty comparative crudity and exaggeration saved it from the possibility of being refined away by an academic its imitator. conventional treatment and vacancy of expression which we see in the later copy are clearly intentional. as he often and dignity of his original.196 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS not due merely to the inability of conspicuous in the one are entirely lost in the other. comparatively large empty of meaning. the warmth of life. failed from lack of power rather than from intention. the copyist. It is the very subtlety and delicacy with . on the other hand. and so has substituted for these a more generalised type. And this is more particularly the In the case with the sculpture of the fourth century. did. sculptor who made the Vatican Meleager evidently thought that the expression of a passionate nature. And The The this is evidently the later copyist to reproduce what he saw before him. When we realise that a number of the copies on which we are dependent knowledge of Greek originals were made under for our conditions similar to those of the Vatican Meleager. In reproduction of Hellenistic work. and the individuality of character shown by such a face as that of the Medici Meleager was unsuited to the severe dignity of classical art. see we in how much allowance it is necessary to make quoting these copies as evidence for the masters of Greek sculpture. if he failed.

196 and 197 .PLATE LIV ARES LUDOVISI" Between pp.




The face alone show that the statue was made under his influence.SCOPAS which so much expression fourth century that is 197 given by the masters of the make it copies of their is work so often possess into mere travesties. Roman and showing in accessories. Ludovisi. colossal seated statue of Ares. But the device is not a new one. and occurs. and is appropriate both to Scopas as a sculptor and to the war-god as a subject. the taste of a later age. originals or replicas by which the Other statues might easily of the style of Scopas. itself a copy of its be quoted in illustration Among these is the Ares date. especially in the baby Cupid playing between the feet of the god. fortunate that we some contemporary copies can be tested. But the original almost certainly goes back to the time of Scopas. with one knee drawn up and his hands clasped about it. . in the Ares of the Parthenon frieze. evidently shows the difficult self-restraint of a passionate nature. for example.C.. but he or his associates may well have pro- suffices to duced other variations on the type. Though Scopas made a which was carried off to no sufficient Rome in the second century B. there is reason to identify the Ludovisi statue as a reduced copy of this . and the type of face has to the Meleager. much resemblance which the god is The manner in seated.

from unambitious works such as such as the Lansdowne Attic tombstones to Heracles.198 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS statues Many fluence other extant show the direct in- of Scopas. and in some others. In the massive build of head. we can the original may have been less easily imagine that heavy and more vigorous. . and the freshness of the modelling smoothed away. See P. not indeed an original. the case complicated by in another resemblance for the style of Lysippus. Gardner in " Journal of Hellenic Studies. as revealed to us by the that of in statue of Agias^ has 1 much common with it Scopas. came an incalculable accession to the predominance of Scopas over the more vigorous branches of Hellenistic art. The resemblance of the head of the Lansdowne Heracles to the Tegea heads has a general acceptance of the view that it led to should be It is attributed directly or indirectly to Scopas. p. and the character of the expression has been somewhat conventionalised. and seems to be combined with some on instances. though not so much so as in the Meleager of the Vatican ." . The artist. the deep eye-sockets with i their curve of flesh overxxiii. 128. but a copy . statues But is in this last example. question of the influence of Scopas Lysippus must be considered when we are dealing with the later But in any general estimate of the work of Scopas for this through it element can scarcely be overlooked.







that we find work of Polyclitus. The weight is more is evenly divided between the two feet. and so confirms the dependence art. literary A happy application of evidence to the of identification of extant works concerns a series . of Scopas upon the Argive school of athletic in the proportions of It is body and limbs.SCOP AS 199 shadowing and enveloping the outer corner of the eye. and this accords well with its attribution to Scopas. has the massive type. and emphasised the more by the This position similarity in is position of the two statues. In the Lansdowne Heracles we see. that agile we see the contrast with the lighter and more Lysippean type which we see in the Agias a contrast too essential to be explained by the fact that heavier proportions are suitable to the type of Heracles. with the muscles clearly in the mapped out. the Lansdowne Heracles again recalls. we can recognise all the characteristics that we have learnt to look for in the work of Scopas. too. a variation on the rigid walking pose which we see in the Dory- phorus of Polyclitus. as well as of the head. and the thigh swung out further to the side. an intermediate stage between the style of Polyclitus and that of Lysippus. in the broad nose and half-open lips. The body. in the similarity of the position of the arms and upper part of the torso. which. giving greater elasticity of appearance. indeed.

with his intuitive criticism. few which show a distinctive character. ever longing for the earth and its creatures. no such evidence as would justify us in regarding any of these representations of Tritons or other inhabitants of the sea as direct copies from the work of Scopas artistic character . with Nereids on sea monsters and Tritons. wayward and passionate. its readiness to receive every impulse typified by the mobile features. We have. Noting that quotes as of the highest estimation among the works of Scopas a group of sea creatures. In the heads of a Triton and other similiar works. he observed that many sculptures of this and similar subjects existed in museums. indeed. Posidon and Thetis and Achilles. Many of these are merely decorative works of later style but among them are a . but when we consider both their and the nature of the influence which . was able to recognise as characteristic of Scopas. In these semi-human forms we may see a wilder and more unbridled passion than in the heroes of Tegea. or even in the Maenad. Brunn saw a vivid impersonation of the genius of the sea. yet never pacified. and suggest association with a sculptor who could express the soul through the features.200 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS representations which Brunn. and even to make the basis of many inferences as to the master's style which have since been confirmed by the Pliny discovery of the Tegean heads.

since he known to have been employed upon and a considerable amount of the it sculpture with which covered. Scopas was not the only sculptor employed. Timotheus on the south. and Leochares on the west. with A book was written about the Scopas at their head. . So far we have not considered the Mausoleum. which in may seem many ways it.SCOPAS 201 he exercised. we can hardly doubt that his treatment of the subject must have dominated all later imitators. Bryaxis on We the north. It is instructive to compare this predilection of Scopas for the wild creatures of the sea. nature given creature the wild is of the woods. to offer the most satisfactory is evidence as to Scopas. their passionate long- ings and intense eagerness. In this comparison sum- marised the whole contrast between the two sculptors. was decorated has been the British re- and is now in Museum. as Whether we accept this version of the story probable or not and there are rival traditions which bring in Praxiteles there can be little doubt that the sculpture of the Mausoleum was produced by five the co-operation of four or sculptors of the of the most famous middle of the fourth century. a most circumstantial statement by Pliny that indeed. The difficulty of using this evidence lies in the fact that have. Scopas undertook the sculpture on the east. with the happy and passive by Praxiteles to his Satyr.

Though there are numerous divergencies of opinion as to details. surrounded by columns. been recovered consist of the remains of three several statues in the round. very probably have been placed in some of which may the two pediments of the temple-like portion of the monument. The more important and of portions of the sculpture that have friezes. was not very explicit about the distribution of the sculptural work.202 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS and with such an authority Mausoleum by wrong. for the no sufficient evidence is what concerns us most at present to know whether they . and carrying above it a pyramid that formed a pedestal for the colossal chariot that crowned the whole structure. if not entirely. went round case all four sides of the building if for in that they would. before them. the variations that occur treatise. How . all the friezes were placed decision of which there is is a disputed question. it affects we are only concerned here so far as the position of the sculpture. a problem that has exercised and still exercises the ingenuity of architects. the literary tradition be taken . it is generally agreed that the Mausoleum was more or less in the shape of a temple. the later compilers can hardly be entirely At the same time. supported on a lofty basis. its architects. With the architectural restoration of the building. which probably was from the architectural point of view. seem to show that this written mainly.

173. In both of these there are pediments on the two narrower sides . The seated male figure from the Mausoleum has sometimes is been called Zeus . and the western by a hunting scene. 1. in conjunction with Lysippus. and M. exploits in Alexander's lion-hunt at Delphi to this western pedi- ment the splendid figure of a prancing horse with a rider in Oriental dress would belong. among the four sculptors concerned. S. . is likely to be arranged.. p. J. . If so. 203 have to be distributed. H. represented the heroised pair. made a similar hunting scene in commemoration of a monarch's . is quite in accordance with analogy. in the form of an Ionic temple. Mausolus and Artemisia. The enthroned these doubtless. each of them. mutilated condition 2 See p. figures would be the work of Scopas on the analogy of the Nereid monument. but the high boot more approback it priate to Mausolus.SCOPAS literally. The analogy of the Nereid monument in the British Museum and of the l Sarcophagus with the mourning women from Sidon may give us a very fair notion of how the sculpture on such a monument. of Six's suggestion 2 that the eastern pediment the Mausoleum was occupied by enthroned figures and a scene of sacrifice. suits The absence of In its finish at the a pedimental l figure. Leochares. xxv. these two would doubtless be by Scopas and Leochares respectively.

in the dilated nostrils and half-open lips. the recorded distribution of the sides among the different sculptors is of little use to us. the various friezes must probably have round the building. So far as can be ascertained. overshadowed by the flesh beneath the brow. It is therefore impossible An attempt to say which slabs belong to which side. hardly rash to see a reminiscence of the wifely mourning which expressed itself in so splendid a It is unfortunate that the face of the monument. female head. in the wide-open eyes. loses something of its from the conventional head-dress of three rows doubtless a local Court fashion.204 is difficult SIX GREEK SCULPTORS its artistic to form any very clear notion of character but the treatment of the drapery is again similar to what we saw in the Atalanta. The colossal . which probably belongs to the figure of effect Artemisia in this same pediment. sidering the authorship of the friezes of the Mausoleum. presumably. recalling that of the Cnidian Demeter. we have all the characteristics which we noticed in the . to do this on the ground of style was disproved by run all technical indications in the thickness or finish of the . by In con- Scopas is not preserved for comparison. standing statue of Artemisia not. Tegea heads here transferred to an ideal portrait it is and in the expression. of spiral curls But in the massive proportions and simplicity of modelling.





spirit and his own skill in execution to those who were . and of one of these. there is only one figure left in this one figure But anything like a complete state. Mausoleum . his hair is difficult to assign to any other master than Scop as If it is not by him. in the case of a continuous frieze round the building it is not easy to imagine that it was independently designed by four different men. his associates in the decoration of the Mausoleum . 205 but on the other hand these technical indications suffice for any systematic division of the slabs between the sides. that we have of the sculpture of the it shows us the ideal charioteer. perhaps. the most characteristic of all is. the execution being carried out by assistants under his supervision. do not whatever division between the different masters in the case of pedimental groups may have been possible and other sculptures. This is the less to be regretted since. More probably each frieze was designed as a whole by one of the sculptors.SCOPAS slabs . and very likely completed in detail by the master's own hand. the frieze of racing chariots. the whole with a warmth of life and passion such as it parted lips. with eager eyes and and drapery streaming in the wind. then it testifies to the marvellous degree in which ho had imparted his own himself. There are only two friezes well enough preserved to be of much value from the artistic point of view .

i combatants The In the Parthenon there are twenty-two figures in each pedi- ment. as in the Moenad. too. as in the Moenad. the way in which the garments of the Amazons often float open. There There are many which resemble the work of Scopas for instance. Here again. so that we can obtain a very fair notion of the composition of the whole. at Olympia twenty-one. . far more left. and a continuous rhythm harmonising the violence of action. The way. where there were only fifteen to fill the field of the gable of a large temple. on external evidence. there are so many points of resemblance between th? frieze and his extant works that him. the inference must be that his influence dominated his companions. Of the other representing the combat is of Greeks and Amazons. Even if there were no literary record connecting Scopas with the Mausoleum. rather than that he designed the whole himself. the authorship of Scopas has not a high degree of probability and if we .206 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS frieze. and display the beauty of their form. details. too. held in only by the girdle. in which each individual figure stands out by itself must have been found in l the Tegea pediments. see in it many touches that recall his work elsewhere. it must inevitably have been associated with is a tense eagerness about the position and expression of the various figures which recalls the Tegea heads.









but the whole spirit of its with its dramatic and impetuous vigour. . The type is clearly that of the impassioned musician. is a head and probably the draped shoulders also of an Apollo. 207 some other must rather be due to the . but it is the . while Timotheus. and therefore presumably to be assigned to one or other of its sculptors. shows how much they owed to his inspiration. is evidently out of question. remind us of the work of Scopas. his eyes upraised as if to seek inspiration the massive build of the head. the representative of the older Attic tradition. touches of pathos and of passion. projecting strongly in the middle. and the heavy over-shadowing of the eyes at the side. does not preclude the possibility of its being made by one of the others who were under his influence.SCOPAS slender proportions of the figures. is characteristic of the god rather than of the sculptor . the high and rather narrow fore- head. Among the various statues found in or near the Mausoleum. Attic collaborators of Scopas the frieze. There is again no external evidence to show to which of the sculptors this see in it head should be assigned and if we can many resemblances to the work of Scopas. this . Both Leochares and Bryaxis must have been quite young men at the time . as well as characteristics in the work. and the resultant expression has again the intensity we usually find in them .

Finally. filtered down to such everyday works as the m tombstones of Athens. and we have seen in the case of the Meleager what a difference this may imply. among ably extant example. On one of these we see an athlete whose massive proportions. the intensity of emotion the great sculptor had taught even the makers of these reliefs to express . we may notice an example of the way in the fourth which the influence of Scopas had. . with a Roman copy. his head raised and is his lips half open. which is probApollo Citharcedus of the as represented by the Vatican. This represents the god the inspired musician. here with a Greek original of the fourth century.208 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS type of the god which we find in later fourth-century and Hellenistic art. it interests us as the prototype of many later representations of the god. once more. possibly in its original occurOther statues of Apollo are recorded by Scopas them that of the Palatine Apollo. and which we here find in its earliest rence. The head from the Mausoleum by no means similar to the head on the Vatican statue but we have there to do . even century. Even if the Apollo of the Mausoleum be not assigned to Scopas himself. and facing him is an old man whose expression of sorrow shows. advancing in flowing robes as he sings to the lyre. square brow and deep-set eyes suggest the influence of Scopas.



keener than the gentle melancholy that pervades many of these monuments.SCOPAS the little 209 feet of the athlete boy huddled up at the shows a new touch of pathos. here we see an example of the way in which even the private and personal emotion of his contemporaries found fuller expression owing to his influence. . We shall have occasion to see how the dramatic and passionate qualities imported into Greek sculpture by Scopas pervade the later art of Greece .

and has. is clearly 210 . Hitherto we have been dependent for our estimate of Lysippus upon literary notices of his style and attainments. upon some rather remote copies or imitations of his well-known works. based merely on probabilities. been made the basis of all discussion of his style It is and of the type which he affected. true that the weakness of the evidence on which was recognised by some critics. and on one statue. the Apoxyomenos of the Vatican.CHAPTER LYSIPPUS VIII IF our information as to Scopas has been considerably supplemented by recent discoveries. Such a view. but its being given the foremost place among his works. in the case of Lys'ppus the new evidence has been revolutionary in its character. therefore. this identification rests has generally been held that the extant statue accorded so well with the description of ancient writers it But as to justify not only its attribution to Lysippus. which has generally been regarded as a direct copy of the Apoxyomenos made by Lysippus.

which have hitherto been generally regarded as It showing the influence of Scopas.LYSIPPUS untenable that is 211 be confronted with any positive evidence In the French excavations inconsistent with it. This statue is quite unlike the Apoxyomenos of the Vatican. necessary to therefore becomes reconsider our estimate of the work and character of Lysippus in the light of this new discovery . I think. On the one hand he is. and has a strong semblance to a recognised series re- of statues. if it at Delphi a statue has been found which. on the other. according to our records. but also to give us a clearer and more consistent notion of the master himself. and the result will. he is the man to whom the chief schools of the Hellenistic age look back as all to their acknowledged master. and who carried to their development the tendencies and traditions of the Hellenic schools . the last of the great masters of and worked full in Greek sculpture who lived Greece itself. and his pupils appear to have originated many of the most characteristic . be found not only to be more consistent with our present notion of the development of sculpture in the fourth century. The literary evidence represents Lysippus as the sculptor who stands between two epochs. has good claims to be considered as representative of the work of Lysippus. the Hellenic and the Hellenistic. with clearly marked characteristics. as we shall see.

This .212 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS developments of Greek art in the East. and practice of Like Polyclitus. by making the body more slender. It certainly seems. to have been the embodiment of an athletic type or ideal rather than the statue of an individual athlete . is said to have modified the proportions of the Poly- clitan type smaller. a on the subject. like his predecessor. he made many statues of Olympian and other victors. Lysippus thus came to be regarded as the successor of Polyclitus in the theory athletic art. under him as under Agelades. though it is treatise not recorded that he wrote. and was the head of the school of Sicyon. though position it is to some extent justified his by the prominent the among works given by Pliny to Doryphorus^ Apoxyomenos. like the but its importance to our present study to a great extent now that we cannot with any probability assume that we possess an accurate copy of it. to Polyclitus which town the immediate successors of had transferred the school of sculptors which had. the head the muscles drier and more sinewy and so to . Lysippus disappears. had its centre in Argos. have increased the apparent height of the figure. He was a Sicyonian by birth. The supposition that he em- bodied his theory in a statue is based mainly on the analogy of the famous Doryphorus of Polyclitus. and he is also said to have made a special study of athletic proportions.

notably said to have so far exaggerated the slimness of the limbs as to make the joints stand out . in the variety he introduced into the square build used earlier sculptors. who is tions. . therefore. and to have shown remarkable originality in his treatment of symmetry. probably to be sought in a criticism emanating from and regarding him as the last of the great in masters. to have made great improvements and rendering of the hair. l as they appeared to the eye. like that of his etse. has been disputed. and the general tendency in the fourth century was towards lighter and more graceful forms. evidence confirms the statement that Lysippus established a type that was art. The saying is attributed to as by him that " while others had made men they were. The Latin though quotes viderentur The meaning seems^ quite clear. But we need other not." He also carried delicacy of execution into every detail of his A good is it deal of this criticism.LYSIPPUS was no 213 artists sudden innovation . he had l made them work. other between Polyclitus and Lysippus had made a study of proporEuphranor. it sums up the development of a century. is The source of our information about Lysippus his school. regarded as normal by later He is also recorded. probably on the in same the authority. doubt that it is true in the main . describing his peculiar attainments.

is It is to be observed that this tendency of the fourth century . of impressionism in and. that he made men not as they actually were. put into his own mouth. like surface of the hair of the Dorypliorus the close. however. and also to some extent in the Hermes of Praxiteles. Yet it is appropriate in its context .214 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS study of proportion. to later artists. as a matter of fact. applies not so much to Lysippus himself as to the whole art of the fourth century. but as they appeared to the eye. of Greek sculpture as developed in the fourth century it was through him that these attainments were transmitted to Hellenistic art. remember that We throughout this criticism of Lysippus there is an implied comparison with Polyclitus . Lysippus represented the sum of the attainments . wireis evidently an attempt to render the actual form and texture of . Perhaps the most remarkable of all these statements about Lysippus is the assertion. and in his work that they were probably seen in their completest form. must. only found in originals in copies made from them it almost always disappears with the other subtler qualities of expression. especially in the treatment of the hair. Here we seem to recognise the essential principle art . for. we do find some traces of in the surviving sculpture an impressionist treatment of the fourth century notably in the works of Scopas.

if we may credit the tale that he placed a gold coin from every commission he received in a special receptacle. and to have had no artistic training in his youth . and probably not from the master's About the life of Lysippus we know very own hand. He is said to have begun as a workman in a bronze-foundry. " Imitate nature. it is the new statue from Delphi a marble work.LYSIPPUS the natural object freer. temporaries. little. not another artist. In scale. exceptionally long career. he pointed to a crowd of men perhaps athletes exercising on the palaestra and said. was an extraordinarily prolific sculptor. for valuable as is to us. 215 and so offers a strong contrast to the more pictorial treatment common even in bronze criticism his con- work of the fourth century. But the innovations which he introduced into the athletic type were the result of his own original observation . when his heirs broke this open. " This tale seems at first sight inconsistent with the current notion of Lysippus as an academic sculptor. it was found Such a number also implies an to contain 1500 coins. he was encouraged to venture on sculpture by a saying of the painter Eupompus that no master was necessary . his works varied . it is difficult Whether the more than to applies to Lysippus in particular. He and that. . for us to judge. it was not his fault if his successors reproduced them in a mechanical and unintelligent manner.

This the more remarkable. Though his artistic connection with Alexander was of the greatest influence both on his career and on the whole subsequent history of Greek sculpture..C. .C. would make him a con- temporary of Praxiteles and Scopas.216 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS from a colossal figure forty cubits high to a statuette fit to place on a dining-table. as the eastern schools of Greek sculpture were to a great extent founded by his pupils. Cassandrea in 316 for his portrait of Seleucus may well have been made title before 312 B. have survived them both by many years. He must. however. His works were widely distributed over the mainland of Greece and Magna Graecia.. his statue of the athlete Troilus. when Seleucus assumed the of king.C. he probably did not live long enough to share in the spread of Greek culture and art to the East in the wake of Alexander's conquests. The latest work of his that can be dated is in connection with the founding of B. with the exception of one at Lampsacus. are recorded as existing in Asia Minor. but no works of his. though in this it is specially noted that the minute scale was not in- compatible with grandeur of conception. where so much of the best is work of Scopas and Praxiteles was to be seen. who won for the second time in 368 B. On the other hand. and his most famous works seem to fall into the later half of .

the two were often same hand. was doubtless set up in Thessaly. of the name of Lysippus as sculptor. But. and in Thessaly there existed a with the identical inscription. though it is likely enough when statues of famous athletes were set up in their own native town as well as in the great Panhellenic shrine where their victories had been gained. to us of such replicas. When we statues turn from literary evidence to the extant that can be first associated with the name of place must be assigned to the statue of the pancratist Agias. for our replicas by the immediate purpose.C. it not indeed likely to be from has not the finish we should expect It is . presumably in bronze. . but the statues in Delphi replicas in marble. may perhaps the half-century from be taken as probably covering the . the excavators at Delphi. the chief importance of the statue of Agias lies in the fact that it must bear a very close relation to the work of Lysippus himself. period of his artistic activity. his own hand . This statue was one of a series dedicated by a Thessalian named Daochus duplicate set. and the addition.LYSIPPUS the fourth 217 century 366-316 B. found by the French Lysippus. original by Lysippus. in the case of The Agios. must have been contemporary well-attested examples They first are of interest to the history of art as being the known that.

The lower part of both legs. The sketchy but masterly modelling contrasts strongly with the rather laboured anatomy of the Apoxyomenos. in all probability. 1 The general for proportions of the body are such as in a Lysippean we should look work the small head and the lithe and active but somewhat slender proportions of body and limbs and the well-balanced poise of the figure increases this appearance of lightness. as a contemporary replica. But it is above all in the treatment and expression of the face that the Agias gives us a new conception of the art of Lysippus. fully in accordance with our expectations. vigour and individuality of the work are . been generally considered as made under i restoration. since the discovery of the Tegea heads. there is. indeed.218 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS and its in a masterpiece. it has a claim original. in the master's own studio. The eyes have the same depth of socket and consequent intensity of expression that we have noticed a in heads by Scopas . considerable resemblance in the Agias to a whole series of works that have. and serves at once to relegate the latter to the more academic sur- roundings of the Hellenistic age. on our attention beyond any later copy and the freshness. being in marble has probably modified to some extent the character of the bronze But. is a clumsy . about the and a little too short. made. ankle.



until a few years ago. different. Technically . but a more concentrated expression the gaze of the eyes is fixed upon some object not very far away.LYSIPPUS There 219 the influence of Scopas. with a keenness that almost forces the spectator to look in the same direction. a contrast as well as a resemblance is . if not copied from his works. which was consistent with the breadth of the brow and the massive build of the head. and forming an obtuse angle with the Scopaic heads. was unknown in the extant remains of Greek art. the effect similar. there no such over-shadowing of the outer corners of the eye but the inner corners of the eye are set very . not the far-away look that of the . such as we see in is The resultant expression. is. Scopaic heads. duced are different. which is In is of slighter proportions. thus they offer a strong contrast to the line of the brow. is In the Agias we characteristic see. running . arching away in a broad curve from the solid base of the nose it. also. but the means by which it is proIn the Scopas heads we observed the heavy mass of flesh above the outer corner of each eye. however. deep in the head and very close together the inner corners of the eye-sockets form acute angles. it though in both alike has a vigour and intensity such as. up close to one another and leaving between them only a narrow ridge for the base of the nose . the Agios.

p. but even after allowing for this. they are characteristic of the traditional reputation of Ly'ppus. in a statue. As regards the proportions of body and limbs. we may still see of proportion and muscular development between the Agios and the Apoxyomenos which are differences essential. The contrast has been well by Mr.220 this SIX GREEK SCULPTORS as a deviation may be noted is from the true prinin a ciples of sculpture. the whole athletic ideal. we have already noticed that in their slimness.. "In the Apoxyomenos the whole conception Frost: of the human figure. seems able to spring off in either direction waist tapers more. the limbs are yet longer. not accidental. is alert. . 130 note (quoted by Prof. T. S. The Apoxyomenos has The Agios . is summarised 1 in the following description different. it though not group . Gardner). xxiii. the tendencies of Agios toward length of limb and lightness of frame carried a step further. certainly an anticipation of the dramatic tendencies of the Hellenistic age. body H. but it is the alertness of stability the Apoxyomenos. K. as compared with the Polyclitan Doryphorus. and are made i to seem even longer in proportion to the J. P. The somewhat sketchy character of the work seems to imply that we have to do with a freely carved replica rather than with a laboured copy of the bronze original. lightly : the poised.



and outwards below. and whose waist. whose back treated rather sketchily. the calf muscles are longer and the lower portions of the legs the Apoxyomenos. the lower (allowing. The Apoxyomenos. art seems to have progressed. for example. It is difficult to believe that the : two statues represent works by the same artist it is not only the is type of man. while the tendons which taper from calf to ankle contribute to the grace which permeates the entire design. 221 Compare. though fine. In the Agias. the fuller. but the way in which that type ex- pressed that forms the contrast.) however. and towards which Greek If.LYSIPPUS than they really legs of the two " are. compares well with the Fighting Warrior of Agasias: both have the physical character which we associate with the thoroughbred. and in the elder Sisyphus. for the fact that the thick and rather clumsy ankles of the Agios are a " in the restoration) Apoocyomenos the muscles of the calf are short and swelling. in while the steel-like subsidiary tendons and sinews prevent the slimness from suggesting any lack of strength. not only . we admit this essential difference. The hollow back of which the muscles sweep way inward at the waist from above. depends more for its strength on the general solidity of the frame than on specially developed muscles. of course." then. find no counterpart in the is A guts.

If so. notice in the next chapter nise the systematic and in this series we recog- and academic development of the . if one of the two must go. art. or else we must regard one of the two as characteristic and reject the other as only showing traces of his influence. . perhaps. Either we must characteristic of the master. the it it may even be a recorded work by one of 1 Those. he fell under the influence of Scopas. latter course is. between the Agias and the Apoxyomenos^ any further attempt to appreciate and to criticise the work of Lysippus in must depend on the manner difference. the safer and more logical is and. The .222 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS of physical type. but also of artistic execution. canons of art laid down by Lysippus admissible to recognise in his pupils. cit. though he must i As suggested by Prof. must appeal to the length of the artistic career of Lysippus they must suggest that when he was young . and others which we must . which we explain this accept both works as for the great variation in and devise some explanation his style. who hesitate to give up an identification that is so ever. there no doubt that the connection of the Agias with Lysippus rests on the stronger evidence. Gardner. familiar and has met with so universal an acceptance. P. including the Praying Boy at Berlin. we may series see in the Apoxyo- menos one of a well-known of works. howPerixyomenos of Daippus.

from the fresh vigour and impressionable nature of youth to the academic and laboured style of mature age. have been still This expression may. works of Lysippus were more famous in ancient times than his portraits of Alexander . further toned down by the copyist. if the Apoxyomenos is also to be assigned to him.LYSIPPUS 223 at an early stage have adopted the lighter proportions which are characteristic of his work. at least in judging as to the attribution hardly justified by the evidence. of course. and have preferred a different athletic type. Then. is But the it assumption seems better. in association with his pupils. as hitherto. to that of the Apoxyomenos. No At . and of other statues to Lysippus. It is possible to imagine such an artistic development. At the same time he must have substituted for the keenly individual glance we see in the Agias a more generalised and meaningless expression. a more studied and anatomical rendering of the body. as we have seen in the case of the Meleager. and have attained the vigour and intensity of expression by a different method. and there has been much speculation among modern writers as to which of the many portraits of Alexander that we possess should be assigned to a Lysippean origin. he must in the latter part of his career have cultivated. to refer them to the standard of the Agias rather than.

for Plutarch says that to Lysippus alone was given the privilege of making portraits of Alexander. the Philippeum at Olympia idealised and the great demand for portraits cities the many of the conqueror to set up in he or his successors had founded must have led to a corresponding supply. and was preferred by Alexander himself because Lysippus alone " displayed his character and showed his manliness as well as his beauty of feature.224 first SIX GREEK SCULPTORS sight the problem seems a simple one. the finest of all. We have records. . " I set the earth beneath my feet 'tis thine to rule the sky. The portrait by Lysippus was. lost his virile and leonine aspect. But this cannot mean more than that Lysippus was appointed portrait sculptor to the Macedonian Court . striving to imitate the turn of his neck and the liquid and melting glance of his eyes. also. epigrams about the portrait is perhaps the following : will speak with eyes upraised to Zeus on high." . methinks. for Plutarch states that Lysippus was so selected because Alexander preferred his portrait to those made by others. however. of other portraits. There are many the most instructive The bronze. notably that by Leochares in ." Most of the attempts hitherto made to select is among to the portraits of Alexander the type which be assigned especially to Lysippus have started from the assumption that the Apoxyomenos must be taken as . while others.



LYSIPPUS typical of his style . 225 and. the Azara head is out of the question. there was a tendency to assign But the Tegea heads this head to the Hellenistic age. have enlightened us as to vigour of expression in the fourth century. notably that of the Pergamene sculptors this. The modelling of the British Museum head shows a directness and simplicity that contrasts with the laboured and often exaggerated mannerism with which strong dramatic effect is often associated in Hellenistic . So long as it was thought that intense individuality and vivid portrayal of character were alien to the calm dignity of Greek art time appears in in the fourth century. One might head one certainly misses the well hesitate about this inference. except as showing some faint reflection of the Lysippean school. and the Agias has shown us that this vigour must be assigned to Lysippus as well as to Scopas. an idealised portrait of com- paratively cold and correct workmanship. for in this fire which one of the epigrams attributes to the work of Lysippus. But now that we have the Aglas for comparison. here reproduced. the Azara head in the Louvre. the splendid head from Alexandria in the British Museum. now its for the proper light. has often been taken as nearest to the Lysippean original. as a not unnatural result. art. On the first other hand. to realise one has only to compare the smooth brow and p .

that of a generous if unbridled nature though his weaknesses are i not altogether concealed as in the See P. When we examine the Alexander more we find in it a curious combination of characteristics that we have already noticed in other works attributed to masters of The eyes set in deep at remind us of the Agios . gives just that impression of power combined with passionate sensiis recorded as peculiar to the portrait by bility which Lysippus. for we see it strongly indicated in his 1 portrait on coins. The hair. . 16. LXXXI. their inner corners noticed in the Tegean heads of Scopas.226 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS even sweep of the muscles in this Alexander and the knotty and restless treatment which we see in such a head as that represented on PI. in detail. is full. however. so much so that one is sometimes tempted " to call the Eubuleus " Alexandroid in type . The mouth . reminds us of the Eubuleus. This form of brow may. curving beneath the brow. With the upturned gaze and the it delicate rendering of the lower eyelid. Gardner. and general contour of the face. too. " Types of Greek Coins. but they are also overshadowed at their outer corners by the heavy roll of flesh. with a hint of sensuality and even of cruelty face is but the whole expression of the . have been a personal peculiarity of Alexander. yet no one disputes that it belongs to the fourth century." xii. which we fourth-century sculpture.


M Pi .

Lysippus also made some groups in which the Macedonian king was represented in battle or in the chase. representing Alexander in combat with a lion. These groups are lost. donians and Persians on horseback and on foot and several of these figures are evidently portraits. new knowledge the prefer- we need not head which hesitate to ascribe to justifies him the original of a ence given by Alexander himself to his chosen sculptor. On the other two sides arc . set up in Macedonia in . memory of those who fell at the battle of the Granicus another was a group of bronze figures dedicated at Delphi. but we are enabled to form some notion of what they were like from the reliefs that ornament the marble sarcophagus of a king of Sidon who was evidently an associate of Alexander. One of these was a group of bronze equestrian portraits. On two sides of this sarcophagus we see combats between Mace. Beside this portrait all the others sink into insignificance. who could not merely win battles but could spread through- out the civilised world the ideas to which he himself was passionately devoted. surrounded by his chosen companions. and in our of the style of Lysippus. including one of Alexander himself. In addition to individual portraits of Alexander. and Craterus coming to his aid.LYSIPPUS slight 227 virile twist of the neck is yet the and leonine aspect that of the great champion of Hellenism.

is most and seems to phagus is justify us in supposing that the sarco- the work of a pupil of Lysippus or of a sculptor working under his influence.228 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS which hunting scenes. the son of Lysippus. however. Persian dress. and the action. is here reproduced as an example of the combat scenes. the probability of such an assumption is increased by the fact that similar scenes of hunting and battle are recorded as made by Euthy crates. even though it figures suggests the meUe breaks up into the usual series of pairs of combatants. above all the expression and character in . whose horse has been The at a warrior in spirited group of Alexander striking wounded or borne down by the charge. suggestion of depth. howalmost all in ever violent. gallops up resemblance in subject between these bronze groups attributed to Lysippus to his aid. while a Greek. its own is where every figure stands out clearly defined bit of background. Here there is a one plane. is. reliefs The and the striking. in Greeks and Orientals are engaged together. We find leum against a marked contrast to the slabs of the Mauso- frieze. probably again Alexander. The chief group represents a horse- man in Persian dress attacked by a lion. From this one can realise how the crowded composition and the varied action of the of battle. and the figures sometimes seem to It recede into the background or to advance out of it.





even in groups of combatants such as he made for Alexander. the impetuous Macedonian. We see the effect is re- of this addition of colour in the head of a Persian. the two is notable on the one hand. not. be associated directly with Lysippus but they supplement our knowledge of his work and of that of his pupils and associates. in many cases. of course. as well as the head of Alexander himself. These reliefs can. with his solid and powerful build and irresistible force of intellect . and it is by the fortunate circumstance that the original colouring is. and show us how. the expression of passion was no more alien to the art of Lysippus than to that of Scopas. well preserved. sity of the expression in each case is The inten- yet another example to refute the current notion that Greek art cannot express character and individuality. with his refined features eyes. varying in size from a colossus . The contrast between on the other. even though the theme be the triumph of Hellene over barbarian. and expressively dark There is even a beginning of cosmopolitan feeling in the sympathetic rendering of the contrasted national types. which. produced here on a larger scale.LYSIPPUS the faces that is 229 greatly increased remarkable. we find among them many statues of gods and heroes. the sensitive and delicately made Oriental. Returning now to statues recorded as the work of Lysippus himself.

and leaning head on his hand. and in some of them he probably fixed the type that became prevalent in the Hellenistic age. colossal figure. and see may almost be said to dominate later it We another example of in the well-known Farnese Heracles at Naples. was also a chariot group by Lysippus himself. the expression of the face. made by Chares. as if brooding over his labours. A counterpart to this conception to be seen in the Heracles Epitrapezius. and thence to Constantinople. suffers is that of the hero who is and is weary. repreAt Tarentum there was another senting the Sun. a representation of Heracles seated his upon a rock. weary Heracles as the man of sorrows This conception of the is not altogether it new . a bronze statuette . there we and see the hero not seated but leaning upon his club . a age. the pupil of Lysippus and at Rhodes there . itself a later exaggeration of a type that probably goes back to Lysippus . too. But it manner characteristic of a more now emphasised reflective art. The colossus just mentioned was a statue of Zeus set Tarentum an anticipation in its scale of the up at more famous colossus of the Sun-god at Rhodes. transferred later to Rome.230 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS workmanship statues sixty feet high to a statuette of exquisite suitable for a table ornament. we could even see some anticipation of is in the in Myronic Heracles. He made many of gods.

has statues occasion to mention deities. which is said to have formed part of the table service of Alexander. If we saw Myron the beginnings of the study of the psychology as well as of the physical type of the athlete. surely see the culmination of that study in Lysippus and in the ideal athlete. to his art. as well as his Heracles. we may . personality in monumental art shows us once more Lysippus as abJe. as if carousing himself and inviting others to do the same. criteria for selecting the of Lysippus. This side litera- of the life of Heracles is not new either to ture or art. Heracles. also. in his Zeus Tragoedus. no less express individuality and mood by in than Scopas and Praxiteles. it finds its fullest expression. and very .LYSIPPUS less 231 than a foot high. In this statuette Heracles was represented in relaxation. the most representative of various and quotes both the Position and the Dionysus Unfortunately. it is familiar to us in Euripides'* Alcestis. Lucian. But in the case of the sea-god at least we find a type of face common in Hellenistic times. where the hero's drunken praises of love and wine form the foil to his strenuous labours and heroic enter- But the expression of this human character and prise. seated upon a rock with a wine-cup in his hand. we have no certain Lysippean from the numerous extant statues of these two type gods.

which represents the god standing with his It has right foot raised on the prow of a ship and his right elbow resting on his knee. In earlier times Posidon is scarcely differentiated from Zeus. a copy of the statue by This position. which therefore. We may see a later variation of of the Lysippean . though the position also in a statue not unknown in earlier sculpture frieze. is The motive later of the raised art. by some authorities.232 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS probably going back to a Lysippean origin. but in these later heads we nature of see the indications of the wild and restless the sea. is suitable both to the artistic tendencies of the time and to the impatient and fretful nature of the If not to be attributed to Lysippus. viduality of the type. and is just such a statue as he might have produced. certainly shows his influence. foot not is uncommon is in Greek and its prevalence often attributed to Lysippean influence. figure. been suggested that we may with some probability recognise in the Lateran Posidon. for example. attributed to Lysippus.turn of the Lysippus. in the Parthenon It appears is of Alexander at Munich. except by his attributes . with its half. and even in some instances the weather-beaten features that suit an old sea-captain rather than a god. Lysippus very likely did not go so far as this but in this case also it is likely that he originated the indi. it elemental god. it.

Some even go so far as to infer that . it To us seems rather forced and . a more or less free copy of We evidently have here an allegory of an elaborate type. Another is side of the versatile invention of Lysippus seen in an allegorical figure which has been of great influence on all later art and imagery. we have already noticed a notably the Meleager and the Lanswhich have considerable resemblance series of statues downe Heracles to the Agias. So much we statue. being masculine. and this and other similar conceits are derived from the statue but in Greek Kaipos. " Occasion turneth a bald noddle after she hath pre: his statue of common verse " sented her locks in front. " the Bacon quotes Opportunity. feet on tip-toe.LYSIPPUS school. and In persisted in Roman and Renaissance speaking of Scopas. was balanced the beam of the scales that typified the sway of fortune. most probably. similar to that we find in the picture of Calumny by the contemporary painter it Apelles. in the statue of 233 his sandal Hermes binding on (sometimes called Jason). and holds in one hand a razor. but certainly hit the taste of the time for it led to many art. in the Louvre. on the by Lysippus . learn from various epigrams that describe the relief that is and from a it. and no hold taken " . frigid. is He glides forward with winged personified as a boy. edge of which. imitations.

. though we have to look to the centuries that followed him for their full development. Our discussion of Scopas has not favoured this view of such a suggestion shows . and how much the two Both had a great influsculptors have in common. but the possibility influence of how much the Scopas has affected Lysippus. ence on the art of the Hellenistic age. Lysippus through his sons and pupils. tendencies of later art. above all He seems.234 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS one or both of these statues must be assigned to Lysippus rather than to Scopas. to have anticipated in his work many of the indeed.

so it instructive to notice a few at least of the more characteristic productions of 235 . There were. it seems. superfluous to say anything about the art of the Hellenistic age. but in a book which professes sculptors. we found it necessary to take a brief survey of pre-Myronic sculpture. to deal with six representative Greek perhaps. a period of stagnation in critics And although modern statement to are disposed to attribute this the fact that the authorities on whom he depended happened to fail him at this point. sculptors after Lysippus. doubtless. it is still true that we know the names of no sculptors of this time who can be placed in the same category as the masters with whom we have so far been concerned.CHAPTER IX HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE AFTER the great their sculptors of the fourth century and immediate pupils. in order to understand what were fifth the achievements is of the masters of the century. Pliny states that there followed art. however. just as there were sculptors before Myron . As.

Scopas and Lysippus. he would follow the lead of . and these because in many cases copies were made in the Hellenistic age. The isolation of the various schools seems to have been to a great extent broken down and as. necessary. or later for the It is Roman market. first a Panhellenic and then even a cosmopolitan it spirit would depend more the individual predilections of the artist than on upon his local origin to which of the earlier masters he looked prevailed. therefore. so in sculpture also chiefly for inspiration . post-Lysippean because in them we see reflected. sometimes in varying combinations. Praxiteles. If grace and beauty of form were his chief aim. the influence of the masters of the fourth century. much might also depend on the subject with which he was dealing. and sometimes exaggerated. sometimes separate.236 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS artists. . still paramount. And this is the more desirable. after the conquests of Alexander. in any attempt to appreciate the art of the fifth and fourth century in Greece. we only have copies or imitations of the works of these masters themselves. In the earlier part of the Hellenistic age we find the influence of three great sculptors. to make allowance for such ten- dencies or characteristics in extant statues as belong to the time when they were actually made rather than to the time to which we must assign the originals from which they are derived.

in illustration of their style. though they doubtless owe much to Scopas. for example. Owing to the scarcity of statues that can be assigned with certainty to the great sculptors. . therefore. probably looked mainly to Lysippus as their master it is probable. some of the examples referred to there perhaps belong to the fourth century is in some cases even a dispute whether they should not be assigned to one or other of the masters discussed. while those who sought either to carry still further the special study of athletic types. Scopas . appendix to the three that immediately this border-line An instance that lies upon is offered tells by the well-known group of the Niobids. in the present chapter . Some of these . if 237 that of passion and dramatic force. or to com- memorate historical events by monumental sculptures. various works which can only be assigned to their pupils or their influence. group was made by Scopas or Praxiteles and many .HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE Praxiteles. may belong chrono- logically to a later period and on the other hand. us that in his time this it Pliny was a matter of dispute whether . that the sculptors of the school are to be ranked great Pergamene among his followers. in some degree be regarded as an precede it. it has already been necessary to quote. It is whom we : have the hard to draw a definite line present chapter must.

the softness and sensitiveness of the modelling. There is hardly any figure surviving from ancient times about which tion artists are more enthusiastic . however. and that a work which was Before open to such dispute could hardly be by either. the elastic appear- ance of living flesh sons of the master. any final explanation all that can be said is that the whole character of the figure precludes the notion of any athletic explain subject. The position is may be difficult to . considering these Niobids. the elasticity and warmth of the flesh it would be hard to quote a better example of the marble that seems to live. and there seems no chance of . the Kneeling Youth found at Subiaco.238 SIX writers GREEK SCULPTORS modern on sculpture have assigned them to the one or the other. according to their own opinion. now that the statue mutilated but it is . All these are Praxitelean qualities. rise especially noted in a group by the The motive of the statue has given to endless discussion. perhaps. more probable that it we should see in a work of the Praxitelean school is . . But it is now more generally held that such a statement as Pliny's carries little weight. and it is no wonder that a suggestion has been made to identify the It is statue as an original by Praxiteles himself. and their admira- is justified by the extraordinary beauty of the figure. it will be better to look at another statue that has sometimes been associated with them.



though works the desire for grace and softness of modelling is rarely if ever coupled with the distinction of form and direct observation of nature which contribute to the charm of this figure. and this seems to be the intention of the artist rather than the simple and direct rendering of any definite action. new beauties from almost any point of view it is. In this. as well as in the choice of pose. The The question of the Niobids is a very large one. punishment of Niobe and her children for her overweening boast is a common one of the in the art of all periods. both sons and daughters. we see characteristics that belong to the early Hellenistic age or perhaps the close of the fourth century rather than to an earlier may then probably recognise in the youth from Subiaco the most perfect extant example of the date. which can only be touched on here subject in its main outlines. thought out as well as worked completely in the round. We Praxitelean tradition a tradition which survives into in later Graeco-Roman art. It is also to be noted that the figure chief aspects. but displays . as is is not worked from any two or three usual with Greek statues of the fifth or even the fourth century. in fact.HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE clearly chosen in order to display to the 239 utmost the beauty of the modelling . transfixed by the arrows of Apollo and . is The form it usually takes a representation of her children.

corresponding statue at Florence tained a fourth-century origin yet those for who main- the group were constrained to regard it as less faithful to its original than the tamer copies. but less simple. been much widened in scope by the discovery. or identification. however. which . while she herself appeals for mercy or vainly strives to shield them. however. more vigorous and spirited than the . due to Professor Furtwangler. shows. though the . flowing drapery is treated in a more impressive. brought by Sosius to Rome were mostly found near the They Lateran at Rome. but repeat some of the identical groups and figures which we see in the later set.240 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS Artemis. of the fifth century and these not only deal with the same subject. not the originals Cilicia. some of the notably the fine Chiaramonti one of the statue in the Vatican. of a set of statues of Nwbids which belong to about the middle . The discussion has. It is. style than we see in it most of the figures at Florence . The set of statues now in Florence is generally associated with the statement of Pliny as to the authorship of Scopas or Praxiteles. though from it is generally admitted that they are only copies. represents daughters advancing rapidly her rich. more than one example exists of figures. indeed. something of the restless and tem- pestuous character we often find in Hellenistic work.



But the extant seem mostly to belong to a set that were mounted upon a rocky basis. it is Whether Scopas or Praxiteles con- tributed anything directly to the treatment of the figures group hard to say. where the tragedy occurred. it is frequently repeated upon the marble disc now in the British Museum. none more familiar than that of the mother clasping her youngest daughter close to her knees. as if in a vain effort to shelter her from the . figures in the same position and action It recurring again and again. that it was represented by Phidias on the throne of the Olympian Zeus. This group probably appeared in the centre of the Q . suggesting the heights of Mount Sipylos. and that later reliefs .HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE style 241 and execution are us. and holding a fold of drapery over her head. and carried them out in detail according to his own style and technique. seems that each artist appropriate to selected from a repertoire of figures the scone those that best suited his composition. totally different. Upon these various works we find the same figures upon for example. and here reproduced. that Of the is various groups made up the composition. This need not surprise when we remember that the subject of the slaying of the Niobids occurs on fifth-century vases. that is to say. destroying arrows in the agonised expression of her is face the influence of Scopas certainly to be traced.

sister. It is interesting to note how motive of the overshadowing drapery has been translated by the sculptor of the disc into a comparatively commonplace treatment of the rich folds of drapery as a background and frame to the figures. without that of the from the statue this series. and an intensity of expression. and left are directly They must rather be arms is The position of the right inverted on the disc probably to effective. which we can see to the left upon the disc. here reproduced shows the character of a softness and elasticity of modelling. But these resemblances to the work of Scopas and Praxiteles do not imply that either of these masters made a group figures i of the Niobids from which the extant copied. leaning back against his knee. GREEK SCULPTORS upper curve of her drapery can though only the foot of Niobe and the now be seen. Another group. 1 who is already wounded and has sunk down. represents a brother holding up his chlamys to shelter one of his sisters. that resembles what we see in the this work of Scopas. enhanced by the shadow thrown on the eye by the brow and on the brow by the overhanging mass of draper v. and a graceful realism in the treatment can see in it We of drapery that reminds us of Praxiteles . make the representation in relief easier and more . in Florence.242 marble SIX disc. The separate figure of the brother.





probable action of the statue unless. light and agile pose of the figure. resembling the it Apoxyomenos rather than the Agias . with its tendency to imitate the work of the great masters of the fourth century. actually identified it as one of the sons of Niobe . it was once part of a statue. indeed. it be rightly identified as belonging to the Lysippean type a certain of Hermes. in any case.HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE 243 regarded as a characteristic product of the early Hellenistic age. dramatic quality in this head. though this is has something of the vigour of expression of the latter. and often to combine together the qualities of different schools. is The seated bronze Hermes of Naples another statue of about the same period and tendencies. and Stark looking up with an anxious expression. binding his sandals while he looks up for orders to Zeus. as in the Niobids also. probably to be interpreted in relation to the . seated on a rock from which at any moment he seems ready to start . but the type of head is rather that which is generally assigned to the school of Lysippus. and recognised as belonging to The is generally the school of Lysippus. which anticipates the more sensational work that we find later among the Pergamene sculptures. There is. Another head that has sometimes been connected with the Niobids British is is that of a youthful hero in the Museum .

individuality in ancient is. character. since we have a bronze original. is among the most interesting romances of modern days. The and face. Whether the cargo was due it is to military or commercial enterprise. and giving place to the vague generalisation which we see in much Grseco-Roman essential in genuine work. This is the statue from Cerigotto now in Athens. the most Greek work of the fourth century is already fading away. together with the rest of a wrecked cargo of sculptures which was evidently among the plunder of Greece on its way to Rome. has shows a tendency towards that prevails in generalised Hellenistic academic style which often work. though pleasing. The same may be and graceful proportions of the figure and of the type of effect head j but here. The chance discovery of this statue. and has gone far to create the modern notion of the lack of sculpture. we can judge better of the by the less artist. Another example showing even more marked degree size is this same tendency in an also among the few life- bronze statues that have survived from ancient times. not a intended marble copy. and gives no clue as to the nature of any statue forming . evidently miscellaneous. Thus the quality that perhaps. GREEK SCULPTORS reminds us of the agile poise of the said of the slight Apoxyomenos.244 upon SIX his mission. however.





It represents an athlete standing with his right arm extended. essentially teristics an eclectic work.HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE part of it. his pose recalling to some extent that of the Apoxyomenos . on the other hand. as elaborate as in the The modelling and laboured. but the position figure. have seen. and as skill preserving much of the beauty of form and in . combining the charac- of several of the fourth-century schools. is as we probably to be connected with Scopas. 245 off is except that all must have been carried from Greece before the time of the wreck. of the body. without its heavy Apoxyomenos. in fact. but It is. which dated by the contents of the ship about the beginning of the first century B.C. and holding some round object that has now disappeared. an attempt that cannot bear the test of a careful analysis of the style of the statue. Some writers have tried to identify this bronze as a fifth work of the fourth or even the century. It is a most valuable acquisition to us as a bronze of undoubtedly Greek workmanship. which. is highly strung muscles. the exact meaning of chosen to show off the his action appears is to be an insoluble problem. evidently deal The head has a good of resemblance both to that of the Hermes of Praxiteles and to that of the Lansdowne Heracles. yet falling short of all of them by a lack of distinction in work and an academic quality that again betrays the Hellenistic age.

Perhaps. as she leans forward to meet it. and the tempestuous lines of the drapery. but the these qualities need not lead us to place among it original works of the masters whose influence shows. may is be learnt from a reproduction of the figure which found on contem- porary coins. however. The whole force composition . the goddess was represented as standing on the prow of a ship. and with the other carrying a trophy over her shoulder. is a favourite device in Hellenistic art . These details.246 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS still execution of which the tradition was preserved it . holding a trumpet to her lips with one hand. now mounted on one of the staircases in the Louvre. and was set air up in the open amid suitable surroundings. even in is full its of imposing vigour and dramatic damaged condition it makes an overwhelming impression. no statue is so characteristic of the early Hellenistic age as the splendid Victory from Samothrace. The half turn of the body above the waist. She appears to have just alighted on the Her rich drapery ship. This figure was island of Samothrace to set up in the commemorate a naval victory . & 1 is swept against and away from her limbs by the rush o the wind. as it . and this must have been even more vivid when the figure was complete. and her wings are half folded. which gives variety and life to the pose. so far as they cannot be seen in the extant portions of the statue.



It seems peculiarly fitting that this final Victory should . which has considerable affinity with in vain to reproduce the Modern art has striven of the fifth century . up at a half centuries Olympia some two and There we see the messenger of the gods. following Alexander. It is instructive to notice the difference that has come over the Greek sculpture between the time of this Victory Victory and the by Pseonius. on the other hand. floating calmly carry their down from Olympus to award . If the gods became human men in the fourth century. and the victories they won were marked by their own restless genius. in the Hellenistic age. sculpture. seems to bear the impress of the stress and storm of the combat from which she has come. themselves. accordance with this conception of the The Victory of Samothrace. have found her home in Paris it has had no small influence on modern French it. were raised to the position of gods. and the simple and dignified treat- ment is in subject. But this stormy and restless vigour. in the Hellenistic age. calm dignity of the sculpture nor does the more human grace of the fourth century seem easier to attain without affectation. set earlier.HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE is 247 blown across and across the figure. enhances the feeling of exultant haste with which the goddess prospirit of claims her joyful tidings. the art of Hellas was . with which.

nor A is wounded warrior is the representation of . though more than a century had elapsed activity. it though few of them can rival conception and skill of execution. nothing new in Greek art.248 SIX and GREEK SCULPTORS less spread over the civilised world. since that master's We have seen in the Alexander Sarco- phagus from Sidon an example of the kind of work that was done for Oriental princes by the pupils of At Pergamum we have on a monumental Lysippus. scale the sculptures victories commemorate the great of Attalus and Eumenes over the Gauls who to made had invaded Asia. where the kings of the Attalid dynasty made their capital the rival of Alexandria in science and literature. in originality of the new centres in which the art of sculpture flourished under the successors of Alexander. The sculptors were attached by tradition to the school of Lysippus. finds unapproach- many parallels among modern works. that of the well-known far Dying Gaul in the Capitoline Museum at Rome. It would lead us too sculptures . and beyond all it rivals in the architecture and sculpture with which they employed was enriched. all these from our subject to discuss one figure. the most Among prolific and original was Pergamum. must suffice to show the relation of the Pergamene sculptures to what had preceded them. seems able.



ject. figures. we find new ideals as well as novelty of sub- that cosmopolitan Hellenism which. while the spirit of it derives the technique and much of its . this century. an appreciation of a nonHellenic type in expression of face as well as in racial characteristics . in the uncouth and massive strength of the Gaul. as even the among the Niobids. there abundant knowledge both of anatomy and ethnology.HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE a barbarian . in his matted hair and wrinkled brow. and that not merely superficial. same for Greek and Here. indeed. they show an immense difference from the work of the fourth Curiously enough. Dying Gaul resembles in pose the Dying Warrior we see of the ^Eginetan pediment. but deep is and sympathetic. The Persian warriors on the Sidon Sarcophagus showed. In the study both of the physical type and of the character of the Northern barbarian the quality of Pergamene art is most clearly shown . and which had been to some extent submerged during the great period of Hellenic sculpture. but the style of the sculpture was the for foreigner. in his hardness of skin and muscle. . in the stubborn fortitude with which he meets his death. above all. graceful both alike contrasting with such in death. 249 but as we find them in this statue. Nor is resemblance altogether accidental in the is Hellenistic work we in see a return to the realism which to be found much of the finest archaic work.

knotty and exaggerated rendering of sinews and veins. The sculptor who made the portrait of Mausolus could do justice to a Philhellenic prince without entirely obscuring his foreign traits . It repre- most likely a though his nationality combatant. in which New New anticipates in date. the . certainly. but the sculptor who made the Dying Gaul has gone beyond this. and the way they are shadowed by the brow. effect The modern produced by such a head as this. fears aggrandise the rags and tatters. and the restless and mobile brow. has the existence of much that is admirable outside the Hellenic pale. will also serve to illustrate this side of Hellenistic art. and probably. even if it is never absent from be as vigorous as the Tegea heads or the portrait of Alexander. In the is not easy to determine. and embodied with sympathy and insight an altogether un-Hellenic conception. hopes shine through the flesh they fray.250 SIX GREEK SCULPTORS artistic expression come to realise from Scopas and from Lysippus. in the British Museum. of a Another head Warrior. again of foreign type. many ways the Christian art of a later and suggests at the same time that the reason . intense expression of the eyes. there is a contrast to the restraint and moderation which fourth-century work. of though not sents Pergamene work. we recognise a treatment derived from Scopas but in the rough and matted hair.



consciously or unconsciously. and that the difference is between ancient and modern art least It in some degree at due to these limitations.HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE why such things are not found in Hellenic art is 251 not because earlier sculptors could not. new and to some extent non-Hellenic influences were at work throughout the Hellenistic world. among the master- pieces of Hellenic art. the traditions of the great masters of Greek sculpture persisted through many generations of their successors. see It is impossible for us now to those masterpieces as the Greeks saw them. . Whether their notions of the limitations of the sculptor's art be right or wrong. and there- for us to appreciate. But the examples already given must to show how. in the somewhat academic style of Greece itself. but because they would not produce them. or in the numerous branches of Graeco- Roman suffice art. on the other hand. Some of these influences need detain us the less because they are surprisingly modern in character. and Instead of standing as they were meant to be seen. whether in the vigorous and imposing and other if exaggerated work of the Pergamene Asiatic schools. how. on the one hand. is and we are here concerned rather to note what fore is difficult not modern. it can hardly be disputed that they kept within them. would be easy to pursue further the developments of Hellenistic art.

if We need imagination as well as knowledge it we would understand and appreciate them. Often they are mutilated beyond recognition. they now have to be studied in the galleries of our museums. or restored by unsympathetic hands. meaning is hard to appreciate often they are themselves but later imitations or travesties which contaminate the finer ideals and more distinuntil their original . And should help us in any such attempt if we can realise in any degree the spirit and the character of the great of Hellas. sculptors who are representative of the art . Instead of glowing with the life they owed to the chisel. upon beautiful by nature and by art.252 in the sites SIX made GREEK SCULPTORS luminous and transparent air of Greece. and hallowed by the most sacred associations. guished workmanship of the original master with the commonplace conceptions and mechanical technique of a later age. painter's brush they have emerged from their long burial the colourless abstractions of form that appeal with little force to the eye or to the less no than to the sculptor's heart of the uninitiated.

Sculpture Grecque. 1903. A. A." in Early London. 1905. COOK." Paris. " Ancient Athens. " Delphes (Homolle).SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY (a) GENERAL la COLLIGNON." London. das Heiligtum der Aphaia. 1892-7." Paris. to the Greek and Roman AntiMuseum. P." Trans." Two vols. E. Sidon. Handbook quities in the British FURTWAENGLER. 1905." "The Rendering of Nature " The Art of the Greeks. " " Histoire de Paris. B. Acgma. FOTHERGILL. LOEWY. GARDNER. TH." London. 1906. 1895. M. Greek Trans. A. HAMDY-BEY and REINACH. (6) SPECIAL COLLIGNON. 1 906. London. E. York. E. "A Grammar of Greek Art. E. E. London. SELLERS. Paris. GARDNER. " FURTWAENGLER. 1902. H. T. 1892. WALTERS. J. London. A. 1907. " Une N^cropole Royale 253 . Art. " Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture." London and New GARDNER. " Fouilles de "Lysippe." Munich. 1907." Revised Edition. M. " Handbook of Greek Sculpture.

" Handbook of Greek and Roman Sculpture. 1902. Journal of Hellenic Studies. A. large plates. " Praxitele. WALDSTEIN. Athens.. Berlin.k. BRUNN. arch. (c) COLLECTIONS OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Instituts in Athen. 1897. MAHLER. Paris. 1905. H. 500 small plates. H. Recent Articles in the following periodicals : Bulletin de Correspondence Hellenique. Mittheilungen des Mittheilungen des k. " Denkmaler griechischer und Over 600 romischer Skulptur. Rom." Athens and Leipsic. deutsch. 1909- VON MACH.254 KLEIN. 1903. London. 'E0f//zepte 'AjO^cuoAoyiKj. Oesterreich. . " The Sculptures of the Parthenon. Athens. G. Vienna. 1907. C." Munich. LECHAT. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY W." Vol." Cam- Olympia bridge. and ARNDT. Instituts. Jahreshefte des k." London.. III. "Essays on the Art of Pheidias. k." Berlin. Instituts. Revue Archeologique. "One HILL. MURRAY. 1904. deutsch. G. Instituts in Paris. PERROT. Polyklet und Seine Schule. 1898." London. "Bildwerke in Stein und Thon (Treu).. Jahrbuch des k. arch. 1885. 1894-7." Boston. " S." te Leipsic. arch. A. Die Ausgrabungen. " Praxiteles. F." "Phidias." Paris. Hundred Masterpieces of Sculpture. deutsch.

114 on Olympian pediment. 186. Phidias and Polyclitus. 165 Sauroctonus. 154 of Melos. of. 97 . 9 Acrolithic technique. 140. 166 by Scopas. 121. 166. 178 Artemisia. Greek dency to." 4 Aphsea. by Phidias. 167. 184. from Melos. 212 Aries. 160 ten- by Praxi168 teles. various portraits of 227 . 216. 1 15 Citharcedus. 85 Asclepius ' 172 255 birth of. 114 and Marsyas. Antique. 147. by Phidias. 167 by Praxiteles. 44 in by Praxiteles. by Lysippus. Anthropomorphism. Apollo. 86 ^Egina. 189 Athena on Acropolis at Athens. by Phidias. by Lysippus.INDEX ABERDEEN Head. by Scopas. 178 ~Areia at Plataea. 48 Architect of Parthenon. 60/117. Academic 34-42 ^Eginetan style. 191 Urania. 138 school. 131 sqq. 208 of the Locusts. by Praxiteles. 185. 87 Alea at Tegea. 101 Architectural sculptures. 204 by^Polyclitus. 207 Museo delle Terme. 58. 218 Archaic smile. 166. Alcamenes. 197 Argive Hera. at Ephesus. 171 Asclepius. his connection with Lysippus. 120 by Praxiteles. sculptures of temple of Gabii. 143 of Cos. teacher of Myron. 40 Agasias. Venus of. 178. 114 Apollo. 187 Apoxyomenos. Praxiteleanheadof. 114 Polyclitus. 8 Artemis JBrauronia. 122 Scopas. 165. 221 Ageladas. 198. 180 Atalanta from Tegea. the. 199. 187. 151 Alexander. Fighting Warrior of. 208 statues. 133. temple of. 210. 217 sqq. 118 Amazons. temple of. 16 " 34-42 Aphrodite of Cnidus. 170 generalisation. found near Mausoleum. wife of Mausolus. 211. 159 Art critics of last century. pedimental groups from. 223 sqq. 165 by Praxi- Artemis. 131. teles. 60 Agias. 199. 29 Ares Ludovisi. Choiseul Gouffier. 151-54 by Scopas.

29-34. from Samothrace. figures on. 124128 Diomed. by Myron. 20. 187 Athena Parthenos. 67 Calydonian boar hunt on temple at Tegea. by Phidias. 208 of figures in /Egina pediments. 82. 136 showing influence of Scopas. by Praxiteles. 97 Caryatids. 59. 149 Lemnian Athena. 133. 21. 120 work by Lysippus. 30 Dionysus. 212 Drapery of early statues. 173 Cresilas. 230 representative of Phidias. 61-65 head. 95. by Polyclitus. 29 Colossal Hera. 173 Centaur Metopes of Parthenon. 160 Hermes. 76 Brunn. use of. 112 Casts. 32 Doryphorus of Polyclitus. 89 Cnidians. 206 Atalanta. 192-195 Diadumenus of Polvclitus. 217-223 Demeter of Cnidus. 112 Ludovisi Throne. by Lysippus. Charioteer of Delphi. by Phidias. 130 Birth of Athena. 122 of proportions. 53. 81. 119. 90 of Delphi Charioteer. 113 Boy binding on a Fillet. 33 Cows 105 from Parthenon frieze. 90. sculpture from. 246 . 205 Dorian sculpture. 23 99. sculpture in. 86 Athenian Heroes at Delphi. 21 Amazons on Mausoleum. 97 Centaurs on Olympian pediment. 148. 163 Carrey's drawings of Parthenon pediments. 189 observation of. 154. 50 Demeter of Cnidus. 215 by Myron. 130 Amazon Cyniscus. 81 treasury at Delphi. 38. 194 gods in different periods. 49. Parthenon 100 Victory pediments. 84 Athenian school. 118. mourning Athletes. 4 Cemetery at Athens. 129 Attic tombstones. 97 Bologna head. 153. 129 by. 174 statue from. 91. 39 Beneventum head. 175 heads. 120 Capitoline Faun. of Mausoleum. 77 Dionysus on Cnidian Treasury. 72 Discobolus. 52. 58. 49 sqq. Treasury of.INDEX Athena Parthenos. 50. 122124. 129 BALANCE DELPHI. 51. 53 Mcenad. 44 Ceramicus at Athens. by Polyclitus. 128 Boy crowning himself. 106 Convention in art. 180. 181 Canon of Polyclitus. 244 Cerigptto. 10 at Pellene. 83 Cirnon. by Scopas. 9. 71. by Scopas. 3 CALAMIS. 212. 93 portrait of Phidias on shield of. 159.

147. 6. 55 Dying Gaul. 101 Idolino at Florence. 28. 42 Furtwangler on ^Eginetan sculpture. 143-151. 160 Eubuleus head from Eleusis. 35. 136 from Tegea. 111. 214 Praxiteles. by Hellenistic sculptors. 150 Eleusis. 73 by Polyclitus. 168 Elgin marbles. 142. 13. 140. 175 Horse's head from Parthenon 160 Human aspect of divinity. 114. in the Louvre. 47 his sandal. 31. 128 Hera. 184 Heracles and Theseus on Athenian treasury. 100. 168. 101 GOLD and ivory work by 80. 68 Hera at Argos. 131-133 temple of Artemis at. characteristics Hellenistic 82 Epheaus. by Poly178 124 age. 195 Heifer. of statues. 163 Hermes binding on Free statues. by Myron. 179 Erechtheus. Scopas. 96 Eclecticism of Hellenistic art. 230 of Capitol. 34. 230 Farnese. 21. 137 Farnese. Amazon* at. by Lysippus at Tarentum. 129 . 113 Dionysus. 138 by Polyclitus. 215 Expression in Greek 193. by Polyclitus. 156 25 Eirene and Plutus. 22 Frieze of Cnidian Treasury. 108 Phidias. 33 Faun Heracles. by Myron. 213 Eupompus. 70 Eros of Centocelle. Frontality in sculpture. 192. 205 of Parthenon. 191 Harmony clitus. Hygieia. 29. 170 Epitrapezius. 171 Graeco-Roman art. 226 of sculpture in. 24.century sculpture in Athens. Tholus at. 138 by Myron. by Praxiteles. by Cephisodotus. 137 lacchus in British Museum. 86. influence of. Aberdeen head. 180 pediment. head found near temple of Hades at. 30 of Mausoleum. 248-250 257 Grace. ideas. 114.INDEX Drawing. 230 Farnese. 122 Heracles. 162 as infant. 37-40 on Lemnian Athena. Hair treatment by Lysippus. 198. by Polyclitus. 115 Ictinus. strength sacrificed to. 178 Epidaurus. Diadumenus. 14 by Euphranor. 10 Greeks and Amazons. 204. 80. by Scopas. 233 Freehand modelling. 79. 82 EARLY fifth. 32. 137 on Argive coins. 162 Praxiteles. 169. 199 art. architect of Parthenon. 230 Lansdowne. 101 et seq.

175 by Opportunity. 5. working from. 173 Muse. by. 46 Ludovisi Throne. 172 Lowy. 96 on temple sculpture. 105. 187. pediments Victory at. 98 Model. 69 132. 87 Marsyas." INDEX Miltiades. 165. Eros of. 22. 93 Leochares. use of. 9. 208 Parian marble. 115 treatment of.2S 8 " Ilissus. 111. 189 Mantinea. artistic use of spoils from. by 188. 148. 26 Illusionism. 231 on Lemnian Athena. 54. by Praxiteles. 18 Nelson head. 165. 14. by Praxiteles. 177 Mount Helicon. 177 Individuality in Greek art. 24. 23 V Lateran Posidon. 85 from Parthenon pediment. 173 Muses Mourning women. 33 Parium. 95. 173 LADAS. 198. 150 . 112 Lenormant statuette. 5 Meleager. Mausoleum sculpture. 178. 172. 160. 47 43 J statues made Praxiteles for. 21. by Myron. 55 Lucian. 161 P NONIUS. 153 of. 198. at. 16. 92 at Olympia. 75. 164. 199 a. 177 Pausanias. 84. 91. 178. 203 Niobids. 114 on Praxiteles. 25. 98 by Praxiteles. 198 OBSERVATION 19 in art. 111. 6. 190. 191 Lemnian Athena. 179. 232 Laurium head. 65. 76 of Parthenon. 247 Onatas. 74 Marsyas and Apollo. 56-78. 174 Muses. Roman Lady as Lapithse on Olympian pediment. 187 Parthenon. 187. 44 Heracles. Olympia. by Praxiteles. group of on. 84 by Phidias. Scopas. in Parthenon sculptures. 134 Lansdowne Amazon. 203 Leasing. 10. 27 Metopes of Theseum. 172 Victory by. 130 Nereid monument. 12. 181 Peace carrying the Child Wealth. 111 Medici head. 53. 59. 156 Lycian Sarcophagus. 247 Palatine Apollo. Maenad. 195. 68. 85. description of Athena Parthenos. 106 on Lemnian Athena. 28. 13 at Olympia. 8 Leto. 7. 233 Marathon. Myron. 203. tomb of." sarcophagus with. 155 Lysippus. 179. 210-234 influence of Scopas on. 94-106 Passion in Greek art. 15 Mood " in Greek art. 196. 201-206 Mausolus. by Lysippus. 223 Memory. 237-244 Nude as seen by Greek sculptors. 151 NAUCRATIS.

181 sqq. 98. 14 Restoration of Athlete. by 178. youth from. bv Scopas. by. 248. 97 231 (Athena. Victory from. 171 Spiritual character of Praxiteles' work. 172 ium. 175. 200. head. Ins. 52 \ . rth . 173. 155. 230 Ruskin on gods in Greek art. 159 I >pment in. 15 Seleucus. 98 143. 22 mene sculpture. 227 Silenus and the Infant Bacchus. 222 I Berlin. 106 lend of Pericles. 89 Id and ivory work. ' 259 false. 171 Tarentum. 91 popas. 93. 70 jhone. 135. 103 SAMOTHRACE. 97. 154. 99 of Mausoleum. 162. 203 from Tegea. 87. 180 of sculpture. 48. 80. 222 It*. 98 on Sidon sarcophagus. by Praxiteles. 93. Heracles by Lysippus at. 160 8 -centred Sidon sarcophagus. T Tegean pediments. 161. by Lysippus. 239 Sun-god at Rhodes. 164. t diment. 216 . date of. 203. 201 id art. 86 characterart. by. 230 Zeus. by Lysipus. 44 die marble. 94 Subiaco. 230 atment of V nude by. 90. 93. 246 Satyr. 181. 42 117-139 y Praxiteles. &c. 177 Terra-cotta figurines from Tanagra. 115. 6 on horses of Parthenon frieze. by Myron. 108 rtrait of. 63 Rhodes. W TAN AGRA. 147. 200. Pellene. Sun-god by Lysippus at. Praxitelean head of. 201 Scopas. 53. 149 Statuette copies of Athena Parthenon. temple of Athena Alea at. 238. 177-209 Sea creatures. 82 150 Sisyphus. Peloponnesian istics of. 249 /omenos. 79-116 thena at Pellene.s. 10. 201 Selection in art. 157. portrait of. Temperament in Greek art.INDEX Pedimental figures from Parthenon. 230 Tegea. 84 Pelops and (Enomaus on Olym>an pediment. 237 ription of Athena Par- \^nos. 163. 81. RELIEF. 51. 86 )lossal i work of. 152. by Lysippus at. -176 I \ used -p^body -p. 20 on Parthe^ . 159. nature of Greek sculpture. 221 Sleep. 179. 61 Semi-draped Aphrodites.

125 Vatican genius OtricoZi-. head j British Trentham statue. ai- Pbidian 108. 122 108 109 ot. x statue. by Lysip ' by . 162 1 3 VintnTV Victory 4heseus. 109 head .'' t.260 W 149 INDEX renamed from 98 P*** Parthenon 16 i. 174 'S^vSSF* 216 pus. Warrior .


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful