ffliiiaisanyiainyiiuiiaiByiaimiiainunaisyigmsyg DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY MANUAL OF ANCIENT SCULPTURE. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from Duke University Libraries https://archive.org/details/manualofancients01pari MANUAL ii OF ANCIENT SCULPTURE. BY PIERRE PARIS, Late Member of the Ecole Frangaise at Athens. EDITED AND AUGMENTED BY JANE E. HARRISON, Author of “ Myths of the ‘ Odyssey* ” “ Introductory Studies in Greek Art,” etc. WITH ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SEVEN ILLUSTRATIONS . LONDON: H. GREVEL AND CO., 33, KING STREET, COVENT GARDEN, W.C. 1890. Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury. 733,3 TZ3Z,IA PREFACE. NDER the title of Ancient Sculpture the CP present volume will deal with the sculpture of Egypt, the Asiatic East, Greece, and Italy. With reference to the general plan of the book a word of explanation is necessary. In each of the manuals of Egyptian Archccology, by G. Maspero, Oriental Antiquities , by Ernest Babelon, and Greek Archce- °l°gy, by M. Collignon, a chapter is devoted to sculpture; but it seems desirable that side by side with this admirable book there should appear a volume in which the masterpieces of sculpture, which deserve special study, should be detached from other arts, and made the subject of separate and continuous treatment. Such a survey, it must be distinctly understood, necessarily lays no claim to be a history of ancient art, still less of archaeology ; it is inevit¬ ably rather critical than historical, and being in the main devoted to the study of masterpieces, addresses itself rather to the art student than the archaeologist. Dealing largely with questions of taste rather than of fact, it contains necessarily much that is matter rather VI PREFACE. of opinion than proof,—opinion for which the author, not the translator, is naturally responsible. Correc¬ tions have been restricted to archaeological fact, where they have been freely made. That the book aims at meeting a want felt by the art student is evident; that it may also be of use to the beginner in archaeology I have been at pains to refer him, so far as space will admit, to the original sources, and have added a somewhat copious bibliography. The many excellent histories of sculpture cited were all written before the recent excavations on the Acro¬ polis. They are, therefore, without exception, neces¬ sarily, in their early chapters, out of date. It is hoped that the notice of these discoveries, though unavoidably slight, will open up a rich field of enquiry to the student. To M. Paris’s account considerable additions and some illustrations have been added. In the portion of the book which relates to Egypt I have gratefully to acknowledge the skilled help of Miss M. Brodrick. She kindly undertook for me the troublesome task of altering the French form of Egyp¬ tian names, a form wholly unintelligible to the English student, and quite peculiar to the French school. The transliteration accepted by the best English and German Egyptologists has been uniformly adopted. I . owe to her also many minor suggestions, and especially the interesting notice of the newly-acquired cuneiform tablets of the British Museum. JANE E. HARRISON. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE PREFACE . v BOOK I. THE EAST. I. Egypt .i II. Mesopotamia. (Chald/ea. Assyria.) . . . .47 III. Phcenicia and Cyprus — The Hittites — Media and Persia . . 74 BOOK II. GREECE AND ITALY. I. Beginnings . . 101 II. Early Artists . . . . . . . 113 III. Kanachos—The Pediments of .TEgina — Antenor . . 157 IV. Kalamis and Myron.179 V. Pheidias . . . . 197 VI. The Pediments and Metopes of Olympia . 225 VII. The School of Pheidias.235 VIII. POLYKLEITOS . 255 IX. Scopas and Praxiteles ...... 265 X. Lysippos . .. . . 296 XI. The School of Pergamos.303 XII. The School of Rhodes. The School of Tralles . 314 XIII. Greek Sculpture under the Roman Empire . . 324 XIV. Sculpture in Etruria and Rome.334 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. FIGURE PAGE 1. The Great Sphinx, Gizeh . . . .3 2. Ra-em-ka, the Sheikh-el-beled ...... 6 3. Head of Ra-em-ka ......... 7 4. The kneeling scribe ........ 8 5. The cross-legged scribe ........ 9 6. Khafra ........... 10 7. Knoumhotep . . . . . . . . . .11 8. A slave baker ......... 12 9. Phtah-hotep surveying the return of his flocks . . 13 10. Ti hunting .......... 14 11. Scribes reckoning the harvest . . . . . -14 12. Ra-hotep and Nofert.15 13. Thothmes III. ..18 14. Head of Menephtah.. . 19 15. Head of Taia .......... 20 16. Amenhotep IV. ......... 22 17. Seti I. ........... 25 18. Ramses II. victorious. External face of northern wall . 26 19. Funeral dance. From tomb in necropolis at Memphis . . 27 20. Queen Ameniritis ......... 29 21. Head of scribe.30 22. Hor. 31 23. The goddess Sekhet. -35 24. Soldiers marching in line ....... 40 25. Battalion on the march. From the battle of Kadesh, on the walls of the temple at Karnak . . . . .41 26. Canal flowing between trees ....... 43 27. House and garden ......... 44 28. The Vulture Pillar ......... 49 29. The Vulture Pillar.50 X LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. FIGURE PAGE 30. Statue of Gudea, Tell-Loh . . . . . . .51 31. Chaldsean archaic bas-relief ....... 52 32. Head from Tell-Loh ........ 53 33. Asshur-nasir-pal offering a libation . . . . -55 34. Sargon and his Vizier ........ 57 35. Feast of Asshur-bani-pal ... .... 58 36. Isuv, the “ Burner,” demon of the south-west wind . . 62 37. Winged bull of Khorsabad.64 38. The hounds of Asshur-bani-pal . .... 67 39. Onager hunt .......... 68 40. Wounded lion ......... 69 41. Cypriote statue in the Assyrian style.80 42. Cypriote statue in the Egyptian style . . . . .81 43. Cypriote statue of blended styles.83 44. The Priest with the Dove ....... 85 45. Carthaginian stele ......... 86 46. Bas-relief of Iasili-Kaia ........ 94 47. An archer of Darius ........ 98 48. Sword blade of Mycenae ....... 102 49. Funeral stele of Mycenae ....... 103 50. Xoanon of Nicandre ........ 106 51. Archaic fragment of Beotia ....... 107 52. Statue of Chares ......... 108 53. Plate in Oriental style ........ 109 54. Vase-painting. Scene of worship. . . . -US 55. Archaic statue of Delos . . . . .118 56. Archaic female figure. 123 57. Archaic female figure ........ 123 38. Poros head of Typhon. 124 39. Archaic head. .125 60. Early temple statue, vase-painting . . . . .127 61. “ Apollo ” of Orchomenos ....... 128 62. Apollo Ptoos .... ..... 129 63. Apollo of Thera, front view ....... 130 64. Apollo of Thera. . 131 65. Apollo of Tenea ......... 132 66. Stele of the Discophoros . . . . . . . 136 67. Stele of Aristion. 137 68. Bas-relief of Samothrace ....... 138 69. Stele of Alxenor of Naxos . . . . . . 139 70. Woman in a chariot ........ 140 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. XI FIGURE PAGE 71. Athene and worshippers ..... . 142 72. “ Harpy ” tomb of Xanthos ..... •43 73. Apollo and Nymphs ...... ■ 144 74. Bas-relief of Assos ...... ■ 145 75. Hera of Samos. . 146 76. Winged Nike of Delos ...... ■ H 7 77. The “Athena of Endoios” ..... • 149 78. Hermes Moschophoros. • 150 79. Stele of Chrysapha ..... • iS 3 80. Metope of Selinus ....... ■ 156 81. The Piombino Apollo ...... . 159 82. Bronze head from Herculaneum .... . 160 83. Archaic head ........ . l6l 84. Archaic head ........ . 162 85. Head of an athlete ....... ■ ■ 163 86. Herakles (?) in combat; bronze .... . 164 87. Athena of TEgina ....... . 167 88. Wounded warrior of AUgina ..... 170 89. Herakles, the archer of AJgina .... . 171 90. Harmodios ........ . 174 91. Harmodios and Aristogeiton ..... ■ i 75 92. Hermes Kriophoros, Ram-bearer . . l8l 93. The “Apollo” Choiseul-Gouffier .... • • '83 94. Vatican copy of Discobolos after Myron . . 185 95. Bronze head of athlete ...... . 190 96. Marsyas ......... . 192 97. Bronze cow ........ • 194 98. Bronze boy ........ • 195 99. Metope from the Parthenon ..... ■ 203 100. Three gods ........ . 208 101. Eastern pediment of the Parthenon . 211 102. Western pediment of the Parthenon . 211 103. Olympos (?)........ . 214 104. River-god, Eridanos or Ilissos .... • 215 105. Horae (?). . 216 106. Gaia and Thalassa (?)...... . 217 107. Varvakeion copy of the Athena Parthenos . . 218 10S. Head of Parthenos on medallion .... . 219 109. Athena of the Parthenon ..... . 220 no. Olympian Zeus ....... . 220 III. Olympian Zeus ....... . 221 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. xii FIGURE PAGE 112. Olympian Zeus. . . 221 113. Olympian Zeus. . . 221 114. Archaic Zeus, Olympian bronze ... . 222 115. Blacas Asklepios.223 116. Nike of Paionios ......... 227 117. Herakles and the Cretan bull.229 118. Kladeos ........... 230 119. Head of a maiden . . . . . . . . 231 120. Apollo ........... 231 121. Head of an old man . ..232 122. Head of a Lapith . 233 123. Caryatid porch ..236 124. Caryatid.. . . .237 125. Nike crowning a trophy ....... 238 126. Nike stooping to tie her sandal ...... 240 127. Alliance between Athens and Coreyra . . . . .241 128. Heading of a decree of Proxenia ...... 242 129. Athena Parthenos. Heading of a treasurer’s account . . 243 130. Offering to ^Esculapios and Hygieia, or to heroized ancestor 244 131. Stele of Pharsalos . .245 132. Funeral banquet ......... 246 133. Stele of Dexileos ......... 247 134. Stele of Polyxene ......... 248 135. Stele of Hegeso . ... . 249 136. Stele of Prokles, Prokleides, and Archippe .... 250 137. Demeter, Kore, and Triptolomos, stele of Eleusis . . . 251 138. Zeus and Hera .252 139. Fragment of the frieze of Phigalia . ..... 253 140. Slab of the frieze of Phigalia . ...... 254 141. Copy of the Doryphoros of Polykleitos ..... 258 142. Copy of the Diadumenos of Polykleitos .... 260 143. Amazon ..263 144. Sculptured column of Ephesus ...... 267 145. Bas-relief of the Mausoleum of Halicarnassos . . . 270 146. Niobe and her young daughter ...... 271 147. Ilioneus ........... 272 148. Eirene and Ploutos ........ 274 149. Aphrodite of Praxiteles ........ 277 150. Head of Aphrodite ........ 278 151. Satyr, after Praxiteles ........ 280 152. The Apollo Sauroctonos of Praxiteles.281 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Xlll FIGURE PAGE 153. The Hermes of Praxiteles . 282 154. Head of the Hermes of Praxiteles . • 283 1 55 - The Demeter of Knidos . . 287 156. The Victory of Samothrace . . 290 157. Venus of Milo, Melos . 292 15S. Head of the Venus of Milo, Melos . • 293 159. The Apoxyomenos of Lysippos • 297 160. The seated Herakles of Lysippos . . 298 161. The Belvidere torso . 299 162. The Farnese Herakles . ■ 3 00 163. Zeus fighting the giants, from great altar of Pergamos . • 307 164. Athena fighting the giants • 309 165. Wounded Amazon. • 3 ii 166. Fighting Persian .... • 312 167. Laocoon . ..... • 3 i 5 168. The Farnese Bull .... • 320 169. Venus de Medici ... • 326 170. Sleeping Ariadne .... • 327 171. The Belvidere Apollo • 328 172. Ares Ludovisi .... • 330 173. The “ Borghese Gladiator ” . • 33 > 174. The Venus of Vienne • 332 175. Etruscan sarcophagus • 338 176. Sacrificial offerings • 34 i 177. Fortune ...... • 342 178. Portrait of a Roman • 343 179. Augustus ..... • 344 180. Agrippina ..... • 345 1 Si. Portrait of a Roman • 346 182. Portrait of a Roman lady • 347 183. Pseudo-Seneca .... • 348 1S4. Fragment of a Roman frieze . • 349 1S5. Bas-relief of Trajan’s column . • 350 186. Head of Zeus . .... • 353 187. Pseudo-archaic Artemis. • 354 BIBLIOGRAPHY.* BOOKS OF GENERAL REFERENCE. Mythology. 1. Preller, L., Griechische Mythologie. 2. Roscher, Ausfiihrliches Lexicon der Mythologie. 3. Baumeister, Denkmdler der Antiken Kunst. 4. Daremberg and Saglio, Dictionnaire des Antiquites. 5. Harrison, J. E., and M. de G. Verrall, Mythology and Monuments of Athens (Introductory Essay). In the press. 6. Overbeck, Kunst Mythologie (Text and Atlas). 7. Muller, K. O., Denkmdler der Antiken Kunst. Vase-Paintings. 1. Klein, W., Meister-signaturen. 2. Klein, W., Euphronios . 3. Rayet and Collignon, Histoire de la Ceramique Grecque. 4. Robert, C., Bild und Lied. 5. Smith, Cecil H., Handbook of Greek Vases. In the press. FOREIGN AND OTHER PERIODICALS FOR REFER¬ ENCE, AND ABBREVIATIONS USED. 1. Publications of the German Archaeological Institute, up to 1885. a. MonumentiIneditiPubblicati da!I Instituto A rchceo- logico Germa 7 iico, 1829 seq. Plates only. Rome. (Mon.) b. Annali dall Inst., etc., from 1829 Texts to these plates. Rome. ( A?in.) c. Bulletino dall Inst., etc., from 1829. Current report of discoveries for each year, accompanying the above. Rome. (Bull.) d. Mittheilungen des Deutschen Archceologischen In¬ stitutes, from 1876. Athens. (Mitt.) * In this and in the three mythological dictionaries full reference will be found to the monographs on each subject which have appeared in the various archaeological periodicals. XVI BIBLIOGRAPHY. e. Archccologische Zeitung, from 1829, from 1886. Berlin. (. A.Z .) These publications were reorganized as follows:— ( a) Antiken Denkmaler her aitsgegeben vom Kaiser- lich Deutsclien Archceologischen Institut, from 1886. Berlin. ( A. D .) {b, c) Mittheilungen des K. D. A. I. Rcemische Abtheilung, from 1886. {Mitt. R. A.) ( d) Mitt, des K. D. A. I. Athenisclie Abtheilung, from 1886. Athens. {Mitt.) (- Apollo of Tenea, but the features of the race are now The action of the outstretched arms is fined down. ANCIENT SCULPTURE. 160 still very uncertain; the advancing foot gives to the body, which is still a little short and massive, more equilibrium than lightness. The anatomy of the muscles still shows a want of science, notwithstanding a visible effort after natural modelling. It is apparent, however, that the artist felt the need of freeing his art somewhat from the restraint of conven¬ tions. If the arms are by the sides, the elbows, at any rate, are drawn back, thus breaking up the parallel vertical lines. The shoul¬ ders slope, the head is bent forward, and the chest breathes in and out. There is no longer merely facility, but almost life, and we can understand what the talent of Kanachos was,—rude still, but delighting in the tranquil posing of robust limbs; still faithful to the consecrated typesof theantique idols, andyetinstinctivelyprompted to weaken the conventions, if not to break with them utterly. Fig. 82.—Bronze head from Herculaneum (Naples Museum). KANACHOS. I 6 I If the criticism of the ancients is to be trusted, the bronze head found at Herculaneum (reproduced by fig. 82), will, together with the Apollo Piombino, be particularly valuable in enlightening us upon the style of Kanachos. A marked advance is evident from the period, not so very far distant, when the archaic statues of Thera and Orcho- menos were hewn. Under this head, it is well to insert the archaic head from the British Museum, shown in fig. 83, which forms a strik¬ ing contrast with the preceding one. But, perhaps, if one of the statues of victorious athletes from the hand of Kanachos, to which ancient writers refer, had , , , , , Fig. 8;.—Archaic head (British Museum) reached us, we should have been astonished to see what liberties the sculptor had taken with the artistic traditions which he found obtaining at his time. The thought of him rises naturally to the mind, in the study of certain archaic fragments,—the marble head in the Rampin collection (fig. 85), for instance, or that which has passed from M. O. Rayet’s possession to the Jakobsen collection at Copenhagen. 162 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. This last (fig. 84) distinctly recalls the archaic Apollos. It is of brutal aspect, with its great, oblique eyes, separated by a big, flat nose, the prominent cheek-bones, thick-lipped mouth, blunt expression, and large muscular neck. But a new influence is felt, the hand of an original artist, a frank observer of reality, a lover of nature, rendering even her de¬ formities. There are the swollen ears of the prize¬ fighter, the flesh puffed by blows received, the thick hair, cut close for convenience in fighting, arranged with a sym¬ metry which expresses force rather than grace. The other, the Rampin head (fig. 85), possesses the same very clear characteristics; it is of great antiquity, but not quite so rough. The eyes are less dull, the thinner Fig. 84.—Archaic head (Jakobsen lips are more expressive, collection). but the originality of the sculptor is shown above all, and that very forcibly, in the crimping of the hair and beard, of exaggerated elegance and too artificial regularity, following a fashion as yet unknown. An important detail must be observed, the oak-branch which crowns the athlete. This token of victory which identifies the person, marks an advance, and is the first step towards distinction between the THE PEDIMENTS OF FEGINA. 163 different types represented. A little later these types became so clearly differentiated that the attribution of a statue is rarely doubtful. It is not improbable that the statues of the pediments of the temples of iEgina may give an exact idea, if not of the style of Kanachos himself, at least of the stimulus given to their art by the masters of his era. The talent of Onatas, the most celebrated of the iEginetan sculptors, and of his son Kalliteles, was in all its glory about the year 465 ; therefore they are contemporary with Kanachos. To gain some idea of the style of these old masters, it is perhaps best to examine a small bronze in the medal-room of the National Library in Paris (fig. 86) ; it is probably a Herakles in combat. The left out¬ stretched arm holds a fragment, which may be as if to parry an attack, and with the right he is about to deal a great blow with a club. Friederichs (. Bausteine ) and M. O. Rayet (Monuments dc I’Aii Antique) are inclined to consider this statuette as a reduced copy of a celebrated work of Onatas, consecrated by the Thasians at Olympia between 510 and 465 b.c. Undoubtedly the same qualities noticeable in the little bronze will be seen Fig. 85.—Head of an athlete (Rampin collection). I 64 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. to re-appear in certain statues of the JEginetan pediments. Such characteristics are the bold action, the already advanced scientific knowledge shown in skeleton and muscular anatomy, and the same archaic Fig. 86.—Herakles'(?) in combat; bronze (Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris). faults of stiffness and immobility which prevail, in spite of the effort after life. If it cannot be proved that Onatas and his son had a hand in the zEginetan pediments, they did at least sculpture groups which, in style and composition, closely resemble these pedi- THE PEDIMENTS OF HIGINA. 165 ment sculptures now in the Munich Museum. It is known that Onatas represented the scene where Nestor draws lots for the warrior who should meet Hector in single combat. The scene comprised ten figures : Nestor, and nine competing heroes. It was in 1811 that a party of English and German travellers discovered these ^Egina marbles ; nineteen statues in Parian marble, broken into many fragments, and fallen down around the temple of Athene, which they had once adorned. They were skilfully restored by Thorwaldsen, and are now the chief glory of the Glyptothek at Munich. As now set up there, each pediment includes eleven figures, but M. Lange has shown that each group is pro¬ bably composed of fourteen persons, arranged in strictly symmetrical order. Only one of the pediments, the west one, is complete. It represents the fight between the Greeks and the Trojans over the body of Patroclus, with Athena presiding. Of the eastern group, which represented Herakles and Telamon fighting with Laomedon, only five statues and a few fragments remain. But the composition is in the main identical both on the east and west sides. In the centre, Athena stands erect, and witnesses or takes part in the fray. At her feet is a wounded hero, over whom five warriors are contending on the right, and five on the left, standing or kneeling, armed with spear or bow. At either angle, to the right as well as the left, a fallen hero reclines on his elbow, and draws an arrow from his thigh or leg. At the summit of each pediment two little statues of women stood erect, by way of acrotcria, supported by the traditional palm-ornaments. I 66 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. The composition is both simple and scientific. The bodies stand, bend, kneel, or recline in a very clever way, accommodating their attitudes to the inflexible shape of the triangle; and the interest is centred, quite naturally, in the very middle of the space to be decorated, upon the principal person—the wounded hero whom they are dragging away, or possibly upon the goddess who directs the combat. The instinctive feeling for symmetry and parallelism, which bound the primitive sculptors to cold and stiff monotony, has to the TEginetan sculptor been more serviceable than embarrassing. The eye as well as the mind is satisfied in following the natural, strict, and almost necessary development of these epic scenes. But this rigid parallelism is not the only vestige of archaism. Each figure, considered separately, bears, as is natural, the mark of its date, and betrays the influence of the works of the past. The iEginetan marbles are by no means freed as yet from the fetters of tradition, and the advance marked by them, though very great, is not complete. But here a caution must be entered ; the nineteen statues are certainly not from the same hand; between them there are obvious differences. It has been asserted— and the assertion is a safe one—that the statues of the eastern side are more finished, perhaps more recent, than those of the west. To take some examples, the Athena of the western pediment has all the appearance of an archaic image (fig. 87). Standing in full view, her feet are posed in profile ; the aegis is plastered against the shoulders and breasts with a metallic harshness. A heavy, stiff robe falls from beneath it to the feet, whose 168 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. dry regular folds are imposed, not by the form of the body it envelopes, but by the sculptor’s will. It might be compared to the folds of stuff stiffened with starch and polished with ironing. The firm, upright head is attached to the shoulders by a powerful neck, with no pliancy whatever; the action of the arms, one bearing the spear and the other the shield, is natural, but un¬ graceful. The blunt-featured and expressionless face has no beauty, save an air of strength and divine impassivity, to which is added the dubious expressive vacancy of the iEginetan “ smile.” The name is not inappropriate, as it is ,in the statues of Munich, and especially in the Athena which has just been described, that the archaic smile was first noticed ; and this is the very place to quote some lines in which that discerning critic, M. Heuzey, has explained its source and meaning. “It is a pure affectation, one of those conventions by which artists believe they can increase human beauty. I see in it, above all, an endeavour after expression, closely linked to the great original effort of the ancient Greek schools to animate the face. The artist, after having turned up the corners of the mouth with a marked smile, sees that the balance of the features is lost, and in obedience to a naive law of parallelism, he carries out the same principle in the eyes, forcing them to smile with the same upward slant as the lips. Eastern etiquette imposed an im¬ movable face upon the images of the kings and gods ; in the free life of Greek cities, the chiefs of the people, and even the gods themselves, like to appear amiable, and seek to become popular.” THE PEDIMENTS OF HLGINA. 169 The statues of the warriors, on the other hand, are much more natural than the hieratic figure of the goddess; they seem almost alive. The fallen Patroclus, the two heroes reclining at the tw T o angles of the group, certainly bear no marks of suffering on their faces, as wounded men should. Their bodies show signs neither of the weakness nor the con¬ vulsions which in turn prostrate or shake the dying. Their muscles neither stiffen nor swell with pain; they are simply cast down upon the ground, in very natural, though already somewhat complicated, attitudes. Patroclus is leaning upon his left hand, which still bran¬ dishes a short sword, as if to continue the struggle. It seems as if he refused to accept the fatal blow, and still resisted death. The two wounded men, stretched on their sides, supported on their elbows, are drawing out the arrow' which has pierced them. But they do not suffer from their wounds; their bodies are robust and healthful as those of the upright or kneeling warriors who are still fighting with spear or bow; life beats strongly and obstinately in these bodies from which the blood is not drained. If all those fierce combatants must still be accounted archaic, it is because of their cold, rigorous faces, uncontracted by passion, and their muscles, strong and stiff', and unsoftened by grace. The artists who sculptured them were no longer the slaves of an obsolete tradition. They knew not only how to vary the attitudes, to give independence to each limb, and to shift the momentum and vary the balance, of the human bodies. But they have made advances in what is a more difficult and delicate matter,—better and almost complete knowledge of human anatom}-, the i/o ANCIENT SCULPTURE. proportions of the skeleton, and the details of the muscular system ; in a word, the play of motion and life. They retain the old ignorance of what makes a body individual. The type which they continue to reproduce has changed; it is less na'ive, no longer coarse, and is more real, only keeping from the former type to which they had become attached, the strange, frozen smile and careful dressing of the hair. But this type, like the first, is ceaselessly reproduced; the same head and body can be recognised in various attitudes, and as it has been very well said by the ancients them- Fig. 88.—Wounded warrior of FEgina (Glyptothek, Munich). selves, the characteristics of this school and this era are still the stiffness and hardness from which the Dorian genius was so rarely able to free itself. These qualities and failings reappear, though less strongly marked, in some statues of the Eastern pediment. The central Athena, entirely resembling the other as to armour and dress, has emerged from hieratic torpor. The goddess is no longer covered by, but armed with, the aegis which she spreads out, its edges all bristling with serpents’ heads. She no longer holds, but brandishes her spear; she is not only a witness of the battle which rolls by her sides, she is THE PEDIMENTS OF HLGINA. 1 7 1 now a combatant. But she is still very awkward, and petrified, as it were, even in her warlike impulse. The bearded, dying warrior in the left angle (fig. 88), on the contrary, and Herakles shooting with his bow, (fig. 89), belong to a much more advanced conception, and a much more scientific execution. The demi-god, 172 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. who is balanced upon his right calf and heel, having the bod}' bent slightly backwards to resist the forward action of the arms, which pull the string, and propped on the left leg, the head very upright, with fixed look, will remain, in spite of all this, the type of the strong, muscular archer, sure of his aim. He is a little heavy too, and the modelling of his naked limbs is somewhat hasty ; but the heaviness is force here : simplicity when intentional should rather be called restraint. The lion’s head which forms the helmet, the stout leathern breastplate, from which small plated scales are sus¬ pended round the waist, and out of the sleeve holes of which a thin pliable shirt appears, all show that the sense of the picturesque is already alert. As for the wounded man (finely reproduced in fig. 88), he really is wounded, and is not merely a body stretched on the earth. In a last effort, the hero tries to support himself against his shield, but his head, weighted with the helmet, heavy with anguish, droops to the earth. His face is almost lit up with the gleam of pain, the muscles of the body are convulsed, whilst the legs stretch out and give way already, in death. The warrior, in spite of some surviving relics of archaism, may be said to be the most beautiful statue of any in the two pediments, even surpassing the Herakles, who is, nevertheless, accurate in action and design. The wounded warrior is little short of a masterpiece. If these precious marbles could now be placed above the architrave of their temple, restored with their bronze ornaments, and the brilliant colouring of which several retain the traces; if these pediments of Aigina could be viewed in such a brilliant restoration as that conceived in the ANTENOR. •73 rather extravagant vision of Mr. Charles Gamier, it would be frankly admitted that the childish gropings are at an end, and that Greek statuary is fast reaching perfection. This also authenticates the only Athenian monument of this period,—an almost unnecessary proof. As may be supposed, the Ionian genius in Attica was rather in advance of the Dorian than otherwise. The statues of the Acropolis, whose date is certainly previous to the Persian wars, possessed rare qualities. There was more than a promise in them, nor need we be surprised that the ancients themselves asserted that the group of the Tyrannicides was almost a masterpiece. This group was the work of Kritios and Nesiotes, and its date can be fixed without much dispute about the year 476 b.c. Even the error of Pliny the elder is comprehensible ; by a serious anachronism he made these two sculptors the rivals of Phidias. When Harmodios and Aristogiton had killed the tyrant Hipparchos, the sculptor Antenor,* by order of the Athenian people, chiselled a bronze group of the two martyrs to liberty. The group, borne off, as a victorious trophy, by Xerxes to Ecbatana, was replaced in the Athenian Agora by the work of Kritios and Nesiotes. The two marble statues in the Museum * It is a point much disputed whether extant copies echo the original group by Antenor, or the copy by Kritios and Nesiotes. The question cannot be decided, but it certainly seems more probable that the earlier group, made more famous by its temporary loss, would be the more popular of the two. The question does not seem to me of much importance, as undoubtedly Kritios and Nesiotes would do their utmost to be faithful to the styles and compositions of their predecessors. — T ranslator. 174 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. Fig. 90.—Harmodios (Museum of Naples). of Naples (fig. go only reproduces the younger of the two heroes), in spite of some inaccurate re¬ storation, probabty give a fairl}' adequate notion of the character of the original group. Harmodios and Aristogiton, as is shown by a coin of Athens (fig. 91) and other monu¬ ments, are rushing forward straight to the attack. The first, the younger and more eager of the two, is naked, like an athlete. He brandishes a short sword above his head, and his left hand, hanging down, grasps a dagger. The second, calmer, though quite as valiant, with his outstretched left ANTENOR. 175 arm, which is draped with a short mantle, holds the sheath of a sword. The sword itself arms his right hand, which is drawn back. His attitude is less violent, being that of the attack which takes thought for defence. The young and beardless head of Aristo- giton on the statue at Naples does not belong to the group, it is of far later date ; the elder hero, as sculptured Fig. 91.—Harmodios and Aristogiton (Athenian coin). Design enlarged. first by Antenor and then by Kritios and Nesiotes, was no doubt bearded. Whatever distrust certain details of the Neopolitan statues may inspire, admiration must be conceded to the boldness of the artists who laid aside without difficulty the narrow conventions which twenty years afterwards, or more still, bound the Athenian sculptors. i;6 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. They created instinctively an art which was free, sincere, and very individual. The sculptors of AEgina were guided by the form of the pediment itself in the group¬ ing of their figures, and upon the whole the grouping denotes a skill which is more happy than scientific ; in that matter their art was merely the handmaid of architecture. But Kritios and Nesiotes, in the full independence of their sheer genius, have made of the two conspirators, rushing to a common action, a real group, not a mere symmetrical juxtaposition. Each of them, indisputably, has separate life; neither the pose nor the action of the one is repeated in the other, and nevertheless they rush forward with common impetus to perform the same heroic deed. The force of each seems to double that of his friend, and Aristogiton without Harmodios would seem to dwindle, and in like manner would Harmodios without Aristogiton. It is characteristic of a well-arranged group that it gives a single impression ; that each figure, without losing any¬ thing of its personality, is but a part of the whole, a factor necessary to the perfect balance as well as to the complete intelligibility of the scene reproduced. Moreover, one of the greatest difficulties of statuary, especially in groups, is overcome ; to speak simply, one can go all round the Tyrannicides. From whatever aspect it is viewed, in front, from the sides, or behind, the lines of the two bodies are seen to cross or follow each other in a harmonious design. As for the execution of the statues, it is easy to determine to what point Kritios and Nesiotes felt the influence of their predecessors. The Neapolitan marbles bear many traces of archaism borrowed from ANTENOR. 177 their bronze model. Lucian, in his Rhetorical Precepts (p. g), characterizes archaic art in a passage so charming, that it must be quoted : “The old- fashioned teacher,” he says, “ will bid the young orator, if he would attain perfection, imitate the ancients, and he will place before him forms not easy to be imitated, like the works of the old masters Hegesias, Kritios, aud Nesiotes, and their fellows, constrained, severely rigid, and exactly outlined, and he will tell him that watching and water-drinking and perseverance are essential and inexorable." This is rather a severe, and of course a purely comparative, criticism, since this hardness which Lucian notes is modified by bold attitudes and lively action. The head of Harmodios certainly resembles the work of Antenor and the predecessors of Kritios and Nesiotes more than that of Kalamis and Myron or their successors. In this head the hasty technique of the ancient bronze work is displayed, — in the hair, for instance, in the low brow, large eye, little sunk beneath the arch of the eyebrow, in the thick mouth, and the aspect of the face, cut short and square at the chin. Even the bodies, long and thin, in the Ionian style, have the slender waist and flattened belly which were observed in several of the archaic Apollos, in contrast with their large shoulders and the ample muscles of the breast. If the recent conjecture of Dr. Studniczka be correct, there is among the archaic statues found in the Acropolis one which is actually from the hand of Antenor, who has inscribed his signature on the base to which the statue has been fitted. As we are unable to reproduce this statue here, detailed criticism of it would be useless ; i 7 8 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. but it may be noted that the head in question, placed side by side with the head of the Harmodios in the Naples Museum, certainly presents striking analogies. If the conjecture be ultimately confirmed, which seems at present doubtful, it is of course to the Acropolis statue rather than to the Harmodios group that we must henceforth look as the undoubted expression of the style of Antenor. IV. KALAMIS AND MYRON. For the Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo controversy: Conze, Beih iige zur Geschichte d. Gricchischcn Plastik , 1869; C. Waldstein, J. H. .S'., i., pp. 168, etc., and ii., p. 332; Winter, Jahrbuch , ii., 1887, p.234. For Kalamis : Benndorf, Festschrift (Vienna, 1879). The criticisms of Lucian will be less surprising if we remember that Kalamis and Myron, the contemporaries of Pheidias, were open to them just as much as Ivritios and Nesiotes. Kalamis, if he was not himself an Athenian, was the master of an Athenian sculptor, Praxias, and himself worked at Athens. Some are of opinion that he played the same part during the administration of Cimon as, it will be seen, Pheidias played under Pericles. This would date his activity between 500 and 460 b.c. The loss of few works is so much to be regretted as those of this sculptor, who, by the unanimous testimony of antiquity, was famous for a style quite peculiar to himself, a style which endowed Attic art afresh with a charm she already had in a measure attained, that of grace. As many as twelve masterpieces of this peculiarly-gifted master are on record : statues in marble, bronze, gold, and ivory, and especially two race-horses, destined to perpetuate the victory of Hieron of Syracuse, at ANCIENT SCULPTURE. 18o Olympia, m 468 b.c., a group which was declared by the ancients to be unsurpassable. A female statue, also, which stood in the Acropolis, was specially celebrated ; it went by the name of Sosandra. Lucian said, when he was trying to picture an ideal type of feminine beauty with features borrowed from the most famous masterpieces : “ Sosandra and Kalamis will adorn her with modesty ; her smile shall be grave and discreet like that of Sosandra, from whom also she will borrow the fair and seemly folds of her drapery, save that the head shall be uncovered” (Lucian, Imag., 4 and 6.) We can only judge of these wonders by hearsay; possible copies, however, of another famous work of Kalamis have come down to us, i.e., of the Hermes bearing a ram consecrated at Tanagra in Boeotia. Of these possible copies, one statue, in the Pembroke collection, in England, should specially be noted. The god is bearing a ram upon his shoulders, as before the Moschophoros has been seen bearing a calf. As in this statue, he has seized the animal by the feet, which he holds against his breast. He is standing with his legs close together and the feet joined and level. The two ends of a drapery fall to the right and left with perfect symmetry, behind the shoulders, down to the middle of the calves of the legs. Hermes is bearded, his carefully-dressed hair is crimped on the brow, and enclosed with a band from which two curled tresses hang down on the breast. The pose and the details of costume are certainly tinged, and more than tinged, with archaism. Ancient critics had, we may suppose, some occasion for slight strictures on Kalamis ; but KALAMIS AND MYRON. 1 81 side by side with these vestiges of a dying art—vestiges which Kalamis seems to have purposely retained, for he was certainly capable of freeing himself of them— that grace is also to be found which was his peculiar glory. It is dis¬ played here in the pliant and firm youth of the body, the grace of the slender waist and purity of outline, even in the ingenious adaptation of the winged heels, whose little curved pinions, rising on either side of the ankles, seem to give the statue more to stand upon with¬ out making it at all heavy. If the theory of certain authorities is ac¬ cepted, that the Hermes sculptured in bas-relief upon an Athenian altar (fig. 92) is directly inspired by the statue of Tanagra, we have a by no means unworthy echo. Fig. 92.—Hermes Kriophoros, Ram-bearer (Central Museum, Athens). I 82 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. The profile of the face, framed with crimped hair, gracefully lengthened into the pointed beard, is exceed¬ ingly fine ; the bend of the waist, and action of the arms holding the ram’s feet, are very pliant. This shows, as well as the Pembroke statue, in what particulars Kalamis still clung to archaism, but it expresses better than it the peculiar genius of this great sculptor. It must, however, be frankly owned that, save for the subject and the peculiarly delicate grace of its treatment, there is no reason whatever for connecting this lovely relief with Kalamis. The theory has been started that another work of Kalamis is very familiar to us, in the Apollo found at the Ceramicus in Athens. Of this several good copies might very easily have been preserved, and a statue in the British Museum, known as the Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo, has been supposed to be a replica. This opinion it would be difficult to support, but the statue nevertheless deserves careful study. The “ Choiseul- Gouffier Apollo ’’ (fig. 93) is a tall, robust, young man, stout and large-shouldered, who stands in a very simple attitude of repose, the left leg being slightly bent. His body is fully and simply built, not without some traces of archaic heaviness. In spite of this, however, the god, if he is one, is refined and graceful. The irresistible impression of the whole is due, doubtless, to the felicitous harmony of the lines and to the striking effect of the youthful muscles, generously and soberly modelled. The head, taken by itself, sums up the good qualities of this interesting work. The hair, bound by a tress a little back from the brow, falls round the head in thick, short tufts and is divided KALAMIS AND MYRON. 183 on the forehead in two unequal masses. This is the first time that symmetry has been neglected, and the effect is certainly a graceful one. The face, framed in this finely-arranged hair, also bears the mark of a new art, which recalls the art it supplants. The sculp¬ tor has not as yet the distinct intention of creating an ideal type; a man, or rather an individual, whose face had an exceedingly personal expression, must have sat for him. This may be guessed from the marked way in which the lower lip protrudes, and from the rather heavy and roundly prominent chin. But though the artist has kept those distinc¬ tive features of the model, his instinct and his genius have weak¬ ened their faults by Fig. 93.—The'“ Apollo’’Choiseui- Gouffier (British Museum). 1 84 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. bringing into harmony with them the length of the nose, the width of the face, and the rather liberal fulness of the oval. He has succeeded so well that this half real and half idealised portrait of a vigorous athlete leaves us with a distinct impression of grace—of manly grace, be it understood, very far removed from all affectation or delicacy. There is, perhaps, no statue in existence which has been the subject of more controversy. One group of archaeologists see in it an athlete statue after the manner of Pythagoras of Rhegium; another a replica of an Apollo by Kalamis,—a lesson indeed, if one were needed, as to the extreme uncertainty of such conjec¬ tural attributions. The Berlin Museum statue, however, and the group with which it is associated, should, none the less, be carefully studied, as in them only can a certain moment of transition be clearly apprehended. This transitional style is perhaps better understood after the study of the sculptures of the Olympian pediments, with which these Attic transitional sculptures have much in common. It is noticeable that when in the first century b.c. there came a revival of early influence, a return to something of archaism of manner, it is these transitional sculptures that influence the works of art of the school of Praxiteles. There is about these statues, still bound as they are in the fetters of tra¬ dition, yet to whom life has already come, a curious air of restraint—expectancy that gives a certain melancholy and a wholly indefinable charm. This is nowhere so well seen as in the beautiful head of a youth recently found in the Acropolis, and which cannot be figured here.* * See “ Archaeology in Greece,” J. E. Harrison,/. H. S., 1888, fig. 3. KALAMIS AND MYRON Fig. 94.—Vatican copy of Discobolos after Myron 186 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. Grace is by no means the leading characteristic of the art of Myron, whose work, by good fortune, is more distinctly known to us than that of Kalamis or Pythagoras. Myron, born at Eleutherae, between Athens and Thebes, a pupil, like Pheidias, of Ageladas of Argos, and a contemporary of Kalamis, was a bold innovator, whose boldness was thoroughly appreciated by the ancients. That grace, always so charming, which Kalamis added to art deservedly struck the ancients. It is a quality whose characteristic is that of delicate gradation, made up entirely of a certain refinement, and even slightness, as difficult to express by the chisel or pencil as by the pen. But the advance made by Kalamis, which it was difficult for inferior artists to imitate, did not appear to the ancients so important as the achievement of Myron in sculpturing the Discobolos. Lucian* has described this great statue delicately and truthfully. It represents an athlete stooping to gather force that he may throw a discus as far as possible. His head is turned towards the right hand, which is thrown back, holding the discus, and the whole body follows, so to speak, the motion of the head. The right leg, firmly planted on the ground, is bent at the knee to keep the balance; the left leg, almost doubled, touches the ground with the end of the foot, without resting on it. The Discobolos was in bronze. A famous marble of the Massimi alle Colonne Palace in Rome, and another of the Vatican (fig. 94), are copies of unmistakable merit. This is proved by the attitude * Philopseitd , iS. KALAMIS AND MYRON. 187 of the figure, corresponding so exactly to the antique descriptions, by the vigorous style, by certain details in the muscles and methods of modelling, and by the dry technique peculiar to bronze statues and to marble copies of them. But the opinion of Quintilian * may be taken, with some mitigation, as the true one: “ What could be more contorted and laboured than the famous Discobolos of Myron ? ” For the fact is that if the Discobolos were suddenly perceived at the end of a gallery, containing exclusively such statues as have been hitherto studied, i.c., archaic statues, simply, even monotonously posed, exception might be taken to the rather violent attitude. The inference would be that Myron’s effects were unduly studied and elaborate. But it is in this very matter that the art of Myron is singularly bold. Before his time the sculptors were restricted by the necessities of an immature technique, and were guided, perhaps, by an intuition of the general conditions of statuary. They usually arranged their figures in a restful attitude, or at least chose positions which could be preserved by the whole body and each of the limbs for long periods without strain or fatigue. Neither their imagination nor their skill was tempted by exceptional attitudes, violent, unenduring moments, as things beyond the proper limits or resources of their art. Sculpture arose, doubtless, from the need of giving bodily forms to the Divinities, dimly conceived of in the dreams of the devout. Its scope could easily be restricted to uprearing petrified idols in the silence of the sanctuaries, images whose cold stiffness, gestureless immobility, and heavy, sleepy * lust. Orat., iii. 13-8. 188 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. repose gave them an indefinable and mysterious majesty. The infant art of sculpture, possessed ol few tools and of very rudimentary processes, was timid; it did not dare to detach an arm from the body, nor to make one leg in advance of the other. To these material hindrances was added the conser¬ vative popular veneration for the oldest images of the gods. All this, if it did not arrest progress, prescribed to it a narrow path. Kritios and Nesiotes, and the group of the Tyran¬ nicides, must not be forgotten. The two heroes are hastening to their exploit with one impetuous rush ; they lift their hands, armed with daggers, with a violent gesture. This gesture, however, is not a simple, passing movement, a momentary disposition of the muscles ; it is not merely material, it is the strong and living expression of the feeling which impelled Har- modiosand Aristogiton—that prompted their vengeance. The attitude of the two heroes, full of action as it is, yet remains very restful, and posterity could not figure to itself in any other way the heroes of Athenian liberty. Myron, on the contrary, has turned his Discobolos to stone at the exact moment when the quoit is about to fly from the hand which throws it. In this moment, or rather in this fugitive second, the whole vigour and pliancy of the limbs is concentrated, soon to be followed, though the eye cannot easily seize the transition, by a general relaxation of the muscles, when the body is again erect and motionless. It might be one of those specimens of rapid photography (the comparison, of course, must not be overstrained) where the movements of the muscles are seized in the very ICALAMIS AND MYRON. 189 midst of their development; where, for instance, a man is seen mounting steps, with his foot suspended between the step he has just left and that upon which he is about to tread. But supposing the Discobolos to be alive, it is evident that flesh and blood could not sustain without fatigue, save for a moment, the tension of the right leg and arm, and the bending of the left leg, hardly supported by the extremity of the toes. Though this is undeniable, Myron’s exact observation and the sureness of hand which served him in his bold conception may be admired without reserve. For the action of the Discobolos was all the harder to seize because of its brief actual duration. A clear, quick vision was re¬ quired to see it, bold resolution to select it, and a rare knowledge of the play of the muscles and the laws of equilibrium to reproduce it. It is the honour of Myron and the crowning praise of the Discobolos that everything in this masterpiece, the general position of the body as well as anatomical details, is in accord¬ ance with nature. Yet it is certainly not a realistic art which forces itself to copy slavishly the chosen model even in its faults, but one w’hich, disliking to improvise recklessly, in a free or irregular style, observes with a wide and judicious vision, aiming at truth without loss of independence. For if accuracy is carried too far in some things, as in the movement of the hanging left arm, and the true and natural disposition of the fingers, other particulars are treated with perfect liberty. The head is of great interest on this account. Athletes, whose profession it was to develop their muscular forces, certainly had rare bodily vigour and suppleness. 190 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. They were generally beautiful — their perfect forms offered excellent models to the sculptors. But if one may judge from some heads which are certainly por¬ traits, the works of true realists (figs. 81, 82, 95), the mere life and the exercise of the athletes only gave rough and sometimes animal characteristics to their faces. Of such realistic treatment the bronze head in the Olympian Museum is a marvellously fine specimen, but athlete heads are not always brightened by that light of intelligence without which even material beauty is imperfect. We say nothing of the wounds which defaced the nose, ears, and mouths, and produced actual ugliness and de¬ formity. The head of the Discobolos has not this quality of truth¬ fulness, and is in this sense an idealistic work. The short hair in large masses, unspoiled by parallelism or symmetry, the bulging brow, the large features, are well in keeping with the vigorous frame of the body, and are really those of an athlete. But the repose of the face must be noticed, in which not a muscle is contracted, as would appear the necessary effect of such an effort. Doubtless Myron had an ideal of a beautiful masculine Fig. 95.—Bronze head of athlete (Olympia Museum). KALAMIS AND MYRON. I 9 I face, and any alterations in its lines appeared to him merely as contortions; he probably reserved to himself the right to deal quite freely with nature. It is well to compare the head of the Discobolos with the head of the more ancient Choiseul-Gouffier statue, less original indeed in style and execution, but which seems akin because of the same inspiration and concern for the ideal type. The same conception of the fitness and limitations of statuary which have been admired in the Discobolos reappear in the Marsyas, “seized with astonishment at the sight of the flutes.” If it is admitted that the well-known statue of the Lateran Museum at Rome was directly inspired by this famous bronze, it will be recognised with no difficulty that Myron has again boldly chosen an exceptional movement, or rather the rapid phase of a movement. He has rendered it with admirable truth and feeling for nature. The astonished Marsyas throws himself backwards quickly, supported on his bended left leg. The arms of the statue are broken off at the shoulder, but it is known that the right, raised in front, seemed to shelter and protect the head, whilst the left, held back, had the large hand open in token of fear (fig. 96). It would be impossible to express better, by attitude or gesture, astonishment and amazed repulsion ; and the choice of the pose and gesture prove a rare faculty of observation. This has been confirmed by the single fact that a sculptor, wishing to restore the broken statue of the Lateran Museum, made it into a dancing satyr, because a sculptor always seemed to him to be more in his element when reproducing continuous movement. 192 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. Also because the rhythm of the dance alone, according to his opinion, could give some permanence to the action in¬ dicated by the pose of the body. This attempt of Myron’s at the expression of rapid move¬ ments so espe¬ cially charac¬ terises hiswork that a certain subtle critic would see in the Marsyas something re¬ moter still, the struggle be¬ tween two op¬ posed motions, the right leg expressing a forward action which is con¬ cluding, the left arm and leg a Fig. 96.—Marsyas (Lateran Museum). ' backward one, which is just beginning. This is very ingenious, but KALAMIS AND MYRON. 193 by no means impossible, and Myron's chisel was equal to so delicate a task. The head of the Marsyas reveals a new originality of this inventive genius. It is an expressive head. The sculptor wished to express in the face the same sentiments as in the attitude of the body. This is to be noted as the first attempt of the kind, for the archaic smile has been explained and justly estimated. The stupefaction and fright painted on the half-brutal face of the satyr show how well Myron succeeded.* Finally, it would be rendering scant justice to Myron to leave unnoticed the great variety in his choice of subjects. They are borrowed for the greater part from every-day life. But his great talent for sculpturing animals must be clearly recognised, as indeed it was by the ancients themselves. The bronze cow of Myron was eulogized in numerous epigrams. “ Shepherd,” says Anacreon, “pasture thy flock at a little distance, lest, thinking thou seest the cow of Myron breathe, thou shouldst wish to lead it away with thine oxen.” The small bronze cow given in fig. 97 serves to show the possible lively realism of such a subject, though of course it cannot be taken as an evidence of Myron’s style. Henceforth, thanks to Myron, sculpture emerges not only from childhood, but from youth. Mistress at length alike of her forces and her materials, the human form and its anatomy have now few secrets for her. Sculpture has attained the power of reproducing every * For a discussion of the Lateran Marsyas, the somewhat analogous British Museum bronze, and various other depictions of the same scene, see O. Rayet, Monuments de I'Art Antique. 13 1 94 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. attitude, and has discovered her right to represent every kind of gesture. She has learned that the face, the soul’s mirror, must reflect its emotions, and that bronze and marble lend themselves, owing to the perfection of certain tools and methods, to the expres¬ sion of the artist’s every wish. The smallest effort will now be enough to free sculpture of the relics of dryness and hardness with which a very severe critic might still reproach her. Fig. 97.—Bronze cow. It is not surprising that Myron founded a school— certain works of exceptional value are so like as almost to be mistaken for his own work. The statue in the Munich Museum, -of the athlete pouring oil into his hand, may be quoted as an instance. Others are due to the same inspiration, and show the same aesthetic feelings in the sculptor. A special interest is attached upon this score to a little bronze found near Sparta (collection of Mr. Edmund Rothschild). It is the most ancient surviving copy of an original which must have KALAMIS AND MYRON. 195 been a great favourite, if we may judge from the number and value of the reproductions. A young shepherd or athlete, possibly a runner, seated upon a rock, is trying to extract a thorn from his left foot. The exceptional Fig. 98.—Bronze boy (Rothschild collection). attitude and rare freedom of the action, the simple and vigorous anatomy of the body, the strong head, with its thick close crop of hair, and the expression of the attentive face, all remind us of the observations sug¬ gested by the study of the Discobolos and the Marsyas 196 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. (fig. 98). Finally, some features of the type personified by the Discobolos were adopted for years after by very great sculptors, such as the marked prominence of the bridge of the nose, a singular detail, which appears, among a thousand other instances, in the reclining god the east pediment of the Parthenon, the Diadumenos of Polycleitos, and of the Hermes of Praxiteles. V. PH El DIAS. C. Waldstein, Essays on the Art of Pheidias, in which previous litera¬ ture is cited; popular resume by M. Collignon, Pheidias; and Boetticher, Acropolis von Athen. On the frieze especially should be read the chapter by Mr. A. S. Murray in his History of Greek Sculpture, vol. ii. Recently-discovered head of Iris, C. Waldstein, American Journal of Archaeology, 1889. Pheidias, the Athenian, the son of Charmides, was born probably between 490 and 485 b.c. Possibly, like his kinsman Panainos, his first efforts were made in painting, but he soon preferred sculpture, which he learned at the school of Hegias (or Hegesias—the name is variously written) a contemporary of Kritios and Nesiotes, and afterwards at the school of the famous Argive Ageladas. It is a critical common¬ place that Pheidias is the greatest sculptor of all time. His name has become the synonym for ideal perfection, and the word divine seems the most natural word for the glory of his genius. If Pheidias had come after Kalamis and Myron, if he had only carried to its zenith the art which they raised so high, and consummated a progress already so far advanced, his glory would be very great. But we obtain another and a higher con¬ ception of his genius when it is remembered that he started from exactly the same point as these two 198 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. masters, his early contemporaries. At the beginning of his career he had the same models, the same patterns, as they, and he surpassed both, and, in spite of their great works, left them so far behind that they cannot even be called his rivals. Moreover, the style of Pheidias was so perfect that even the great origin¬ ality of Kalamis or Myron seems to have had no influence upon him, just as he himself apparently rendered no service to them. It must, however, always be remembered that we possess no certain work by either Kalamis or Myron; and even of Pheidias, as will be seen, only sculptures of which we can certainly say that they were executed under his direction. There are two artists in Pheidias, the sculptor of the Athena “ Promachos,” of the Athena Parthenos, of the Olympian Zeus; and the decorator of the Parthenon. Pheidias carried on simultaneously the two divisions of his work which contribute equally to his fame, but they remain distinct. Unhappily, nothing remains of the first—which, according to the ancients, was the most personal, as it was the most perfect—of the statues which were entirely the work of his hand, and which would have revealed to us all the secrets of his incom¬ parable genius. We have only obscure and incomplete descriptions, clumsy or inaccurate copies, often more treacherous than a translation. Many fragments of the pediments, frieze, or metopes of the Parthenon have survived, sublime still in spite of the ravages of time, and of men more barbarous than time ; but the pedi¬ ments, the frieze, and the metopes themselves are either not at all or are only in part due to the master’s PHEIDIAS. 199 chisel. Even if the theories most favourable to their connection with Pheidias are to be accepted, the con¬ ceptions of his genius and his sovereign guidance are to be recognised throughout, but his hand can only be conjecturally traced in a few figures of the pediments and in the design of the frieze, the models of which he must have worked out in close detail. In the case of Pheidias it is well worth while to break the rule for once, and to describe the “ Pro¬ machos,” the Parthenos, and the Olympian Zeus as if these masterpieces still dazzled our wondering eyes in all their splendour of bronze, gold, and ivory. The Athena Promachos, a colossal bronze which stood at the entrance to the Acropolis, is a work of the master’s youth. It is ascribed to the last years of the rule of Cimon, but even then Pheidias was famous. The first statue attributed to him was a chrysele¬ phantine Athena, destined for the temple of the Pellene in Achaia. It was doubtless between the years 465 and 460 b.c. that he executed a votive group in bronze, dedicated by the Athenians at Delphi in remembrance of Marathon. It consisted of an assembly of divinities— Athena, Apollo, the tribal heroes Erechtheus, Kekrops, and others, and finally Miltiades, the great conqueror. A temple at Plataea received the Athena Areia, a statue of gilded wood, about the same time. But the Pro¬ machos is by far the most famous. It should be noted that there is no evidence that the statue was called Promachos in the days of Pheidias. The type was that of Athena Polias, a type reproduced on countless vases, and in several votive bronzes recently discovered in the Acropolis ; possibly the statue obtained the title 200 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. Promachos when the new chryselephantine Athena was finished. (The first actual use of the word Promachos, as applied to the statue, is by a scholiast on Demos¬ thenes). A little over nine yards high, it stood upon a large pedestal some way behind the Propylsea, the site of which can still clearly be seen. The end of the spear held by the goddess rested on the ground, while her left hand upheld the buckler, afterwards decorated with bas-reliefs by Mys. The helmeted head was bent towards the city of Athens, at which the goddess gazed with fond, protective eyes. So at least the statue appears upon several Athenian coins. It would appear from these doubtful memorials, and some rather vague texts, that the statue had scarcely any originality except its enormous height. The motionless, almost cold, attitude, and the style of the two tunics, falling in regular folds, recall the old masters and the tendency of the archaic school. Pheidias had not freed himself as yet from traditions. But it should be recollected that, according to Zosimus, in a passage possibly referable to the Promachos, the Goths who invaded the Acropolis recoiled in terror from the apparition of the goddess, armed to bar their passage. This shows with what an expression of majesty and superhuman courage Pheidias had replaced the melancholy stiffness or cold smile of the ancient idols. But now Pericles succeeds Cimon. Athens, free and powerful, enriched with gold and the treasures of her allies, aspires to surpass the Hellenic world incontest¬ ably in all the glories of peace. Athens, the Piraeus, Eleusis, the whole of Attica, are adorned with temples, and the temples are peopled with statues. Pericles PHEIDIAS. 20 I appreciated the genius of his friend Pheidias, and con¬ fided to him the management of his vast artistic projects. From the first he surrendered the Acropolis to his hands, on which was to be upreared that most magnifi¬ cent of sanctuaries, the divine Parthenon, dwelling of the great goddess the maiden Athena, a temple intended to cast the earlier hecatompedos, which the Persians had sacked in their fury, wholly into the shade. The Parthenon in its entirety is really the master¬ piece of Pheidias. Ictinus was formally the architect; but no doubt Pheidias gave to every portion of the work its special impulse; the authority of his in¬ fallible taste is felt in the smallest details of the building or decoration. He conceived the marvellous compositions of the pediments, and possibly sculptured the most admirable figures in them. He designed the model of the freize, which unfolds its lordly pro¬ cessions and cavalcades round the body of the temple. He chose the subject and conceived the arrangement of the ninety-two metopes. He had a galaxy of famous collaborators—the architects Iktinos, Kallikrates, Mne- sikles ; the sculptors Alkamenes, Agorakritos of Paros, Kresilas, Ivolotes, Paionios, and his kinsman Panainos the painter. But these he dominated so completely that no other monument owes its perfection more to the unity of the whole and the harmony of detail. Finally, he himself erected in the centre of this splendid sanc¬ tuary the great statue of Athena Parthenos, for which in ancient days men never found praise adequate to their admiration. The beaut}’ of the metopes may be said to have been over-estimated. In Doric temples it is known that the 202 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. recesses formed above the columns by the arrangement of triglyphs could be left empty, or decorated with bas-reliefs, according to the pleasure of the architect or the resources at his command. Thus the metopes were only accessories in the decoration; their import¬ ance in comparison with that of the pediments is very secondary. It was natural that Pheidias should surrender their execution to his pupils, and none of those which survive seem to bear the sign-manual of his own peculiar genius. Those best preserved belong to the south side of the temple, and their theme is one dear to the ancient sculptor, the struggle between the Centaurs and the Lapithae. At the wedding of Pirithoos, where his friend Theseus, the great Athenian hero, was a guest, the drunken Centaurs wished to do violence to the wives of the Lapithae, and a terrible struggle took place, in the very hall of the feast, between the aggressors and their victims. It is the same combat which reappears in the temple of Apollo Epikourios, at Bassae, and upon the western pediment of the temple of Zeus, at Olympia. In the Parthenon it was difficult to evade monotony in dealing with such a theme, for it was necessary there to break it up into episodes, and none of the bas-reliefs could hold more than two figures. The sculptors were, doubtless, inspired by Pheidias, for all the pliancy of his fancy and his delicate taste are displayed. They happily avoid the danger, first by introducing other metopes, treating of other themes, among the metopes of the combat of the Centaurs; and secondly by an end¬ less renewal, with variety of detail, of the simple theme of the monstrous combat between Lapith and PHEIDIAS. 203 Centaur. As it has been very well said, there is a distinct unity amongst all the metopes in which the idea of the struggle between a Centaur and a Lapith is seen to develope. The sculptor traces it from its very beginning through all its phases. It is easy to imagine Fig. 99.—Metope from the Parthenon (British Museum). the varied and ever-fresh combinations to which this ingenious conception can be adapted. Thus, sometimes the undecided struggle between a man and a Centaur (fig. 99) is displayed, rarely the defeat of the man, some¬ times that of the monster. One or other in turn lies 204 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. prostrate, or stands in conqueror’s attitude, with foot or hoof planted upon the fallen foe. Here the Centaur is upon the right hand, there on the left, without any repetition whatever of an attitude or gesture which has been seen already. From time to time (there are two examples of this extant), the fighting Lapith is replaced by one of the captured women, w'hose floating robes and veils and more slender shape are a happy change from the nakedness and emphatic anatomy of the male figures. This happy variety is completed by a difference in the execution. Merely to bring a few of the metopes together and compare the technique is a sufficiently convincing proof that they are not from the same hand. The relief in each is so bold, that the persons might as well be statues in the round, leaning against a marble background, as figures in bas-relief. This feature, foreign to the era of Attic tradition which we are studying, is a sure sign that the different sculptors received inspiration, perhaps teaching, or even commands from a common master. But when one comes to the details of composition and execution, here a group is to be found much more freely posed, with much more verve and well-chosen movement, whilst there is another which is less bold, less pliant, recalling too much the archaic hardness. Here again is a more massive Centaur ; his feet are not so slender, he rears with less nervous force; there is less accuracy in the study of his limbs, like those of the Lapith, and they are less truthfully rendered. Some of the metopes are certainly superior to others ; they come from the same workshop, but one is the work of a more practised sculptor. PHEIDIAS. 205 As it has been stated before, the frieze is not chiselled by Pheidias any more than the metopes. The innumerable crowd of divinities, priests, youths, maidens, horsemen, and victims, who unfold their splendid procession round the interior of the temple for the length of about one hundred and sixty yards, sometimes majestically and sometimes gracefully, must have been the collective work of the ablest disciples formed in the school of Pheidias. As for the metopes, it has been long seen that the style of certain groups is unmistakeably inferior, although, at the same time, it is impossible to state that the sculptor relaxed on this point, for a different hand is to be recognised, different methods, and, above all, some reminiscences of archaic stiffness and dryness. But to no one but the master himself can the composition as a whole, and moreover the design, or, as artists say, the cartoon, of the frieze be ascribed. For it would seem that he alone was capable of such a novel and original con¬ ception. “ A sculptor of the old school,” says a dis¬ cerning critic, “ would have made the procession wind round the temple without beginning or end, like the bands of people figured by the painters of pottery on the Greek vases of the old style. Pheidias, on the contrary, has with marvellous skill contrived to over¬ come difficulties of perspective, to give his procession a starting-point and a conclusion, and all the figures are carried along by the same movement.” Starting from the south-west angle of the Parthenon, one going to the right and one to the left, the two files of the train join again in the middle of the eastern facade on either side of the central group of deities. 20 6 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. The frieze represents, probably, the preparations for the sacrifice of the Panathenaia, and not the sacrifice itself. Even the central scene is only an episode of this prologue—the priest is giving his carefully folded sacred robe into the charge of a youth, or receiving it from him, before slaughtering the victims. This scene is supposed to take place inside the temple. If it be recollected how even the smallest details of religious rites were of the greatest importance to the Greeks, the skill of Pheidias will be appreciated in selecting for repre¬ sentation the moment when the procession is forming, and when the sacrifice has not yet begun. He gains in this way a freedom in the grouping, gait, and posture of the figures that move in his immense picture, which would have been inappropriate a few moments later, at the solemn time when the priest plunged his knife into the throats of the victims, amid a crowd of reverent spectators, symmetrically arranged according to custom. Owing to this happy choice, familiar groups of youths, women, or old men are seen to break the monotony of the procession already partially formed. The noble Athenian maidens bearing the sacred vessels, or the youths bearing the amphorae, or the most beautiful old men chosen from the tribes to present olive-branches to the goddess, are already formed in grave and regular procession. But there are also citizens and magistrates of the city, leaning on their sticks in familiar talk. And farther off the victim cows are lowing in a confused struggle, seeking to break from their attendants, whilst a brilliant squadron of young cavaliers is being organised, the jcunesse dore'e, the ornament and cherished hope of Athens. Up to this point, familiar and homely scenes PIIEIDIAS. 207 are intermingled with this splendid procession. Here is an Athenian busied in putting on his tunic; and near him a horse, while its master talks with his friends on foot, rubs off with his nose a fly which is stinging his foot close above the shoe. To exalt with their presence the simplicity of these pictures, the gods, recognisable from their superhuman dimensions, by their majestic faces and noble-seated attitude, contemplate in two groups the magnificent procession which is forming in honour of Athena. One slab of the seated gods is given in fig. 100. The position of the metopes, outside the temple in the open air and sunlight, allowed the figures to be hewn in a relief almost like round sculpture. The frieze, at the summit of the interior wall, in the softened light the peristyle, required a much less salient relief, and here lay a valuable possibility of success for the pupils of Pheidias, prepared for these works by archaic tradition. The funeral stelae of Marathon must be called to mind, and those of Orchomenos or Naples, or the chariot-goddess of the Acropolis. For here again Pheidias made an innovation. He first realized that by giving to each of the figures a very low relief, several could be placed one above the other in different planes, and some figures could even be cut back into others, and the number of persons could thus be increased ; whence come life and variety and the illusion of nature. Everywhere it is noticeable that the technique is carefully calculated on the supposition that the frieze is seen from beneath. It is not exactly known to what extent colour was used. The holes, which are visible here and there in the 208 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. mouths of the horses, for instance, point very clearly to the presence of gold or bronze in the ornaments and accessories, and they happily break up the white monotony of long surfaces of marble. -Three gods (Acropolis Museum, A thens). PHEIDIAS. 209 Each group, each figure, would require a long de¬ scription ; but for the present only the majesty, and yet the freedom, of the general conception can be pointed out, together with the crowning qualities of the whole. The gods are seen to mingle with mortals, as certain episodes of every day are mingled with the religious sublimity of the procession. In the same way Pheidias, who towers above his workers from a great height, passes from delicate imitation of reality to the creation of the ideal. Here the devotees of Athena are displayed in the sacred train, draped in their ceremonial robes, dressed and adorned like real human beings. There, naked, or nearly so, are the gods, their supple, strong, and yet graceful bodies visible in the clear glory of daylight. Convention, truly, had found its place by the side of an exact observation of nature. “The artist,’’ writes M. Collignon, “has borrowed largely from convention. Real life has only furnished him with the elements of variety, which, scattered here and there in the ideal cavalcade, by a master’s hand, take away from its uniformity and monotony. Here is the secret of the inimitable grace possessed by the figures of the frieze. These figures, so much alive, have an immaterial reality. This sacred procession, harmonious and orderly, slowly winding along; this train of cavaliers advancing in close, tumultuous crowds, all seem to move in an ideal atmosphere under the light of a divine sky.” As for the actual qualities of the execution, they are those which at this epoch chiefly characterise the Athenian genius, and which can be summed up in one word—Atticism. That is to say, in literature and politics as well as in art, an exquisite 14 2 IO ANCIENT SCULPTURE. feeling for the right tone and natural proportions; an effort to attain pliancy without softness, grace without affectation, the love of sober and refined elegance ; and all these gifts put at the service of a rich, original, and unfettered imagination. In this sense it can be said that the frieze of the Panathenaia deserved to become a model, and it is scarcely going too far to attribute to its direct influence some of the most lovely bas-reliefs that have descended to us from Attica. For instance, the balustrade of the temple of the Wingless Victory, and many a beautiful grave relief, which, signed by no artist’s name, must be left unnoticed for the present. Finally, the statues of the pediments demand our attention. People have often said that it is impossible that Pheidias could himself have sculptured more than forty colossal figures, or even that he could have made all the rough models. But his influence on the com¬ position can be recognised without much fear of error. As in the case of the metopes and the frieze, it is right to attribute to him, first and foremost, the invention of the subjects and the arrangement of the figures in the triangular pediments. The archaic abuse of symmetry in the Tlginetan marbles must be recalled, the reproduction of similar attitudes on either side of the central figure. Pheidias has cast off this restraint. For although the form of the pediments exacts that the angle figures should have a lower position, Pheidias is, at any rate, the first to recognise and demonstrate that a geometrical arrangement, the regular character of the lines, slant¬ ing increasingly, is just enough to give to the whole PHEIDIAS. 2 I I motive the character of architectural decoration. So the artist is entirely at liberty to compose scientific groups, to vary the attitudes, untram¬ melled by exact sym- “ metrical correspondence, | —to break, so to speak, i- # y with the rules of a super¬ s' animated convention, and ^ seek for the variety and T freedom of accident in O g life and nature. X £ The sculptures of the ^ east pediment were, it is " known from Pausanias, O g entirely concerned with E the birth of Athene, and \ that, the examination of E the remaining sculptures £ may convince us, was | conceived after the fashion 5 of the Homeric hymn, bb Homeric influence is in- ” deed traceable in the frieze, but it comes out most clearly in this eastern pediment. First we have Helios and his horses rising from the sea,—Helios-Hyperion. “ . . . And in Heaven Hyperion’s bright son stayed His galloping steeds for a space.” 2 I 2 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. And just in front of him, leaning on his own moun¬ tain, is the mountain god Olympos, who was terribly shaken at the birth of the goddess. Guarding his very gates are seated the figures of the two sisters Horae, and to them comes the winged messenger, Iris, to tell of the news of the birth. The centre group of the birth itself has utterly perished. It can only be conjectured that Zeus himself was present, Athene, Hephaestos, and some other of the principal gods, such as habitually appear on vase paintings representing this scene. Passing to the north angle, Selene, riding on her horse, sinks into the sea, the sea herself (Thalassa) is reclining near at hand, in the bosom of Gaia, the earth. Both in the Homeric hymn were present at the birth— “And Earth on every side Rang with a terrible cry, and the Deep was disquieted With tumult of purple waves and outpouring of the tide Suddenly.” Near them is seated a goddess, to whom it is hard to give a satisfactory name, but she may be Hestia, symbol of the hearth of Olympos, where the birth took place. Thoroughly Homeric though the main conception is, it need scarcely be pointed out how independent is the attitude of Pheidias,—how thoroughly plastic, how little pictorial, his imagination. Fully to appreciate the pediment as a composition, it must be contrasted with its long line of predecessors, with the archaic “ poros ” pediments of the Acropolis, that of the Megara Trea¬ sure House at Olympia, the Afgina pediments and those of the temple of Olympian Zeus. Then, and then PHEIDIAS. 213 only, does its matchless rhythm come out, by contrast with their somewhat rigid symmetry. Thalassa, Gaia, and Hestia are three figures that balance the two Horae and Olympos, a counterpoise both in posture and content; but with a rhythm how skilfully broken. Helios and Selene are an instance of balance no less satisfactory, yet no less delicately various. Selene, as has been well shown by Mr. Cecil Smith, rides a horse; she does not, as before supposed, drive a chariot. In the western pediment, Poseidon is seen at strife with Athene. It is the contest of the semeia, or tokens offered by the god and goddess,—the horse and the salt sea spray of Poseidon, against the olive tree of Athene. Only one figure remains sufficiently intact to display the master’s genius. It is the statue of the river god, who is reposing in the north-west angle, a figure the modelling of which is a marvel of pliancy. It is by the drawings of various travellers, and especially of Carrey (figs. 101, 102), that the grouping of the figures in the pediments is known to us. The grievous history of the Parthenon marbles has been often related. It is well known that in 1687 a Venetian shell shattered the temple, which for two hundred years had been transformed into a mosque, and how the Venetians broke the statues and com¬ pleted the ravages their shells had begun; how Lord Elgin took down many of the metopes, and two hundred feet of the frieze, and such statues of the pediments as time or war had spared. Now these precious spoils, reverently stored in the British Museum, are represented at Athens only by casts. We may not admire the masterpieces of Pheidias 214 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. in their own place, and, in spite of every effort, the imagination can scarcely figure the splendid lustre of all those gods, bathed in the pure and brilliant light of Athens, lifted upon the coloured background of the pediments, and themselves adorned with colours which we may judge from the genius of Pheidias to have been subdued and artistically harmonious. Fig. 103.—Olympos (?) (Briti sh Museum). And yet, wonderful is the life they still possess, even amid the British fogs, and in spite of the outrages of time and barbarians, these masterly fragments before which we are driven, as if instinctively, to utter the name of Pheidias. Expressions of praise have long been exhausted which could describe these statues, the most perfect which have issued from human hands. When only one or two instances can be quoted, we PHEIDIAS. 215 may select as a model of supple strength the divine body of the youthful reclining river-god* (fig. 104). It is not a slavish copy of nature, for nature has her shortcomings. The most beautiful man, most splendidly formed in living, full, healthful, and throbbing flesh, has some muscular imperfection, wasted by the action of daily life. The noblest and most graceful of his attitudes, taken from an unfavourable point of view, always display some collection of discordant lines, some unexpectedly prominent outlines. But this Fig. 104. — River-god, Eridanos or llissos (British Museum). river-god, be he llissos or Eridanos, like the heroes and gods of Homer, is splendid with an entirely ideal beauty to which no mortal ever attained, and which nevertheless is only the quintessence of mortal beauty. Pheidias did not require to fall back upon the childish subterfuges of the naive ages to give the impression of divine superiority. This god is no monster; he is * Since Dr. Dorpfeld’s investigations have shown that the Eridanos and llissos, not the Kephisos and llissos, were the two principal rivers of Athens, it seems to me probable that the name Kephisos, long sanctioned by custom, must be given up.—J. E. H. ANCIENT SCULPTURE. 2 16 unlike the river-gods on the Sicilian coins, with human face and the body and horns of a bull. But his divinity is revealed in his manly form, so pure in his accurate proportions, so natural in his unimpeachable anatomy, so pliant in his attitude of repose and calm. The two statues in fig. 106 have now been severed from the third, which has been provisionally called Fig. 105.—Horas (?). Hestia. So long as the group was considered to consist of three, the statue usually bore the name of the Fates. Believing as we do that the main inspiration of the pediment was Homeric, the Fates would be out of place, and appear indeed at the Birth of Athene only in monuments of Roman art, such as the well-known puteal of Madrid. Our conception PHEIDIAS. 217 of the meaning of the figures is in this instance an undoubted help in the criticism of their technique. Even before the name Thalassa was given to the reclining figure, artists and critics alike had been struck by the marvellous undulation of the lines of her body, the ripple and flow—the words may be used here in a very determinate sense—of the drapery. The upright pose of Gaia, her steadfast energy, now also gain a new significance.* Fig. 106. — Gaia and Thalassa (?) (British Museum). Admiration has no words in the presence of such a perfect art, and yet it was not these masterpieces at which the ancients marvelled most. Pheidias had reserved all his genius for the divinity dear above all others to the citizens of Athens, for her for whom the Parthenon was only an earthly tabernacle, for her * Various other interpretations may be seen in tabular view in the Official Guide to the Parthenon Marbles. The view here adopted, which is quite opposite to that of M. Paris, is, in the main, that of Dr. Brunn, but modified by Dr. Waldstein. — J. E. H. 2 I 8 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. who was to shine as queen in the shadowy sanctuary, for Athena. To the world in general she displayed power, but to her cherished city, protection. Armed in the front of the precinct, she defended the Acropolis, her sacred fortress; in the recesses of the temple itself she was to dwell supreme, in calm and grave Olym¬ pian majesty. Marble and bronze were not adequate to so much grandeur and royalty, to such lofty divi¬ nity ; the Athena Parthenos must be embodied in daz¬ zling gold and ivory. This masterpiece has perished ; a few copies give a very vague and remote idea of it (figs. 107, 108). Of these, one is specially valuable, because in technique it somewhat approaches to the necessary complexity and elaboration of the chryselephantine style, the medallion figured in 108, from the Her¬ mitage Museum at St. jS&lu-k Fig. 107,—Varvakeion, copy of the Athena Parthenos (Central Museum, Athens). Petersburg. It was found at Kertsch, an Athenian colony, and it is not unlikely that some Attic gold¬ smith may have actually copied the masterpiece of Pheidias for export. The details of the helmet PHEIDIAS. 2 19 decoration accord very closely with the account of Pausanias. Minute though the technique is, the style of the head is large; if magnified to colossal size it still retains its grandeur,—a good test of style. The type of the face may not be what modern taste calls beauti¬ ful, but its somewhat sullen majesty is undeniable. Moreover, the head of the Varvakeion statue (fig. 107), though much vulgarized, has somewhat of the same air, a fact that adds to the probability that the medallion is, if not an actual copy, at least a faithful reminiscence. It is best to pass over in silence the laborious and scientific restorations, and the criticisms and praises, Fig. 108.—Head of Parthenos on medallion (Hermitage Museum). 220 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. of chryselephantine sculpture. Confiding in the taste of the ancients, let us rather marvel at the genius of the man who could create something finer than the metopes, than the frieze of the Panathenaic procession, or the reclining river-god—the Athena Parthenos, standing, her helmet on her head, leaning on her shield, bearing in her right hand the golden-winged victory. For he created a finer thing even than this, the Olympian Zeus. The Athena was consecrated in 438 b.c. ; in 435, in all probability, Pheidias was to be found installed Fig. 109.—Athena of the Par¬ thenon (Athenian coin). Fig. 110.—Olympian Zeus (coin of Elis). with his pupils in Elis. The legends which were current in antiquity about the last years of his life and his death are familiar. The great artist, accused of theft, of abstracting the public gold, is reported to have had to fly from his ungrateful country. The trial is authentic, but there is not even likelihood in the legends of the condemnation of Pheidias and of his death in the Athenian dungeons. It is much more likely that he cleared himself easily of the insulting accusations, prompted by envy, which, like lightning, as it has been said, strikes what is highest. It is quite PHEIDIAS. 22 I impossible that the priests of Zeus at Olympia would have chosen to confide the precious heaps of gold and ivory destined to form the immortal image of their god to a convicted and condemned betrayer of his trust.* “ Zeus,” in the words of Pausanias, “ is seated on a throne of ivory and gold ; upon his head is placed a garland made in imitation of olive leaves. He bears a victory on his right hand, also crowned and made in gold and ivory, and holding in her right hand a little fillet. In his left hand the god holds a sceptre, made of all kinds of metals ; the bird perched on the tip Fig. 111.—Olympian Zeus Fig. 112.—Olympian Fig. 113.—Olympian (coin of Elis). Zeus. Zeus! of the sceptre is an eagle. The shoes of Zeus are also of gold, and of gold his mantle, and underneath this mantle are figures and lilies inlaid.” This cold description certainly indicates the richness of the masterpiece. Pausanias afterwards enthusiastically reviews the magnificent decoration of the throne and * M. Paris takes throughout the view that the art of Pheidias culminated in the Olympian Zeus. That may possibly be the case, but I think it probable, for reasons that cannot be detailed here, that he went to Olympia and executed the statue of Zeus first, and then returned to Athens to execute the Parthenos.—J. E. H. 222 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. the pedestal, but of the actual beauty which constituted the gigantic statue a world’s wonder he says not a word. An idea of the altitude and general outlines of the Zeus can be gathered from a few indistinct images upon some coins of Elis (figs, no, ill, 112, 113). But the testimony of the ancients must be believed, who say that the sovereign majesty of this statue struck the beholder with unbounded reverence and Fig. 114.—Archaic Zeus, Olympian bronze. unspeakable admiration. “ The son of Kronos lowered his dark eyebrows, the hair of the god shook on his immortal head, and vast Olympus trembled.” The masterpiece of the greatest sculptor recalled to every¬ one these lines of the greatest poet; the conception of Pheidias was no doubt, as in the pediment, prompted by that of Homer. Dion Chrysostom declared that it was an august work of perfect beauty, which gave PHEIDIAS. 223 inexpressible delight to the e}'es. Epictetus considered it a misfortune to die in ignorance of this marvel, whose beauty, according to a phrase of Quintilian, “added a new element to religion.” The loss is irreparable; the Olympian Zeus has perished, and even the history of Fig. 115.—Asklepios Blaces (British Museum). the loss is a secret. All that can be done to imagine its beauty is to compare an archaic type of Zeus which has survived in a bronze (fig. 114), and an Olympian terra-cotta, cold, dry, and only giving a delusive majesty by the motionless gravity of the face, and the 224 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. symmetrical arrangement of the beard and hair, with the coins of Elis and with a head of Asklepios, very like Zeus in type, and in which, more than in any other, something may possibly be felt of the lofty ideal rendered by Pheidias. The statues of the “ Promachos ” and the Parthenos do not exhaust the list of Athena statues from the hand of Pheidias. Amongst many other admirable works, the Athena made for the people of Lemnos, and dedicated on the Athenian Acropolis, was, according to Pausanias, beauty itself, many preferring it to all the other works of the master. So this astonishing genius would seem to have surpassed himself at the age when the skill and ardour of the bravest and strongest spirits begin to fail, and to have reached a still higher degree of ideal perfection, to which it is difficult even for the imagination to rise. VI. THE PEDIMENTS AND METOPES OF OLYMPIA. West pediment: G. Treu, Jahrbuch, iii., 1888, p. 175. Popular resume: Boetticher, Olympia , 2nd edition. Pheidias has brought us to Olympia ; the pediment sculptures of the temple of Zeus, which contained the statue of the god by Pheidias, are still extant. The fortunate excavations of the French expedition to the Morea in 1831, followed up from 1875 to 1885 by Germany, brought to light a priceless treasure of bas- reliefs and statues. These had suffered much from the wear and tear of time ; that they are preserved at all was owing, not, as has been often stated, to the alluvial deposit of the Alpheios, but to the sand and marl formation of the hills round about, which, being specially friable, suffered speedy degradation from the action of the river Kladcos. Tradition, which is probably wrong, ascribed the sculptures of the east pediment to Paionios of Mende, and those of the west to Alkamenes. Paionios was contemporary with Pheidias, and even survived him ; Alkamenes, rivalling him in genius and glory, appears at first to have been his disciple. Fortunately an authentic statue has been discovered, signed by Paionios, the famous Victory (Nike), erected on a 15 226 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. high triangular base, which the Messenians and the men of Naupaktos consecrated to Zeus of Olympia, probably as a tithe of the booty taken from the enemy during the affair of Sphakteria. This tall goddess, with the strong outlines, whose draperies cling as if moistened to the front of the body, which is thrown forward in impetuous flight, and swell behind at the will of the wind, might well be the work of an able disciple of Pheidias. It has not exactly the emotional style, which is foreign to the Attic temper, and has more the feeling of the Dorian school (fig. 116). The masterpiece of Alkamenes, the Aphrodite, whose title was “ In the Gardens,” is only known to us by descriptions. The goddess was worked in marble, simply clothed in a diaphanous chiton. The ancients are lavish in their praises of the scientific modelling of the cheeks, the delicate oval of the face, the just proportions of the wrists, the delicacy of the hands, and especially of the fingers. Both the Nike and the traditions about the Aphrodite leave considerable doubt about the tradition as to the pediments. The eastern pediment, representing the preparations in the presence of Zeus for the struggle between Pelops and Oinomaos, owe nothing to Attic influence. Even although the Nike was the work of his old age, it is improbable that Paionios could have changed his manner so much. The western pediment, upon which the furious fight between the Centaurs and the Lapithae is represented in bas-relief, has not any of the qualities which were demanded of Alkamenes by his masterpieces. Between them and the pediments of the Parthenon there is difference in style and distance in time. The THE PEDIMENTS AND METOPES OF OLYMPIA. 227 inspiration and execution of the Olympian sculpture Fig. 116.—Nikos of Paionios (Olympia). are frankly archaic, and take us to an era consider¬ ably before Pheidias. The building of the temple of 228 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. Zeus was complete about 442 b.c., had lasted since 472 b.c., and it is most likely that the sculptural decoration goes somewhat far back in the long period of thirty years. The metopes of the temple of Olympia, twelve in number, representing the labours of Herakles, are not introduced between the triglyphs, like those of the Parthenon, by means of sliding grooves. They are an integral part of the building, and must have been sculptured on the spot. They probably date from the first years of the building. So far as they remain, they are naive in character, and all bear the impress of a masculine Dorian austerity. At the Louvre and at Olympia there remain of these metopes Herakles subduing the Cretan bull; Herakles uphold¬ ing the heavens, whilst a Hesperid looks at him from the background and Atlas offers him the apples ; Herakles offering Athena the birds of the Lake Stymphalus; Herakles contemplating the grand and expressive figure of the fallen Nemean lion; and several other fragmentary compositions. The violent action with which Herakles turns the bull's head round (fig. 117) is as bold as it is accurate; the simply modelled muscles of the demi-god are quite correctly swollen with the effort. Herakles bearing the heavens is simple, strong, and firm as a Dorian column. Athena, seated in a homely fashion upon a rock in front of Herakles, near the Lake Stymphalus, is distinguished by the aegis, and is soberly dressed rather than draped in a long robe without folds. The heads, like the bodies, whose anatomy is hasty, are modelled in large surfaces, almost with no concern for the hair THE PEDIMENTS AND METOPES OF OLYMPIA. 229 and beard, which are very faintly indicated, and were probably finished with colour. This contrasts with the custom of the Attic artists, who loved to dress, crimp, and curl the hair. All the Olympian figures Fig. 117.—Herakles and the Cretan bull (Louvre). belong to a time when art was naive, to a school which was either unskilful as yet, or persisting in clinging to an archaic tradition and deliberately ex¬ pressed simplicity, which was almost crudity and stiffness. 230 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. The same characteristics are to be found in the statues of the pediments. The composition of the eastern pediment recalls iEgina rather than the Acro¬ polis. The figures, with inflexible symmetry, bend, kneel, recline, and decrease in height according as the sides of the triangle approach. The figures are in juxtaposition rather than in groups, and the poses are repeated a little monotonously on either side of Zeus, who stands in the centre. The grouping of the western pediment, on the con¬ trary, is far more complex. The Centaurs, the Lapithae, and their women are grouped, even entangled, in twos and threes, in real hand-to-hand struggles, carried on with deter¬ mined violence. Only in the midst Apollo (fig. 120) stands, calm, drawn Fig. 1.8,-Kladeos (Olympia). up tQ h j s fuU height> the arm stretched out with an imperious gesture ; while in the acute angles of the extremities, two divinities, probably nymphs of Elis, peacefully reclining, leaning on their elbows, contemplate the tumultuous battle scene. The technical execution of the statues is, however, much the same in the two pediments. It is a simple anatomy, modelled without detail, in large surfaces, with little care in blending one with the other, or uniting them with skilful transitions. It is very far THE PEDIMENTS AND METOPES OF OLYMPIA. 23 I removed from the infallible science and ever-wakeful care of Pheidias. Some are of opinion that the sculptors have taken into account the fact that accuracy in detail and finish in execution were not important in statues raised to the summit of a monument. But this is exceedingly unlikely; the work of & \ j r / pheidias proves in¬ contestably that ancient artists did not make these kind of calculations. They sculptured each figure for its own sake, striving after ideal perfection of forms, just as if it were to be well within reach of the sight, as in a museum, and to be submitted to minute criticisms. It was thus that the painters of the Renais¬ sance frescoed the dark chapels and the lightest cupolas or naves of the churches with exactly the same care and love of finish. It may be that time was lacking for complete finish, and that this simplicity is only the sign of a hasty and, as it has been said, a somewhat feverish Fig. 120.—Apollo (Olympia). 232 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. execution. This is possible; and the state of certain figures, which are hardly hewn out behind at all, strengthens the theory. But it is more probable still that these distinctive features, not to call them faults, are only archaisms (figs. 118, 119). The execution of the statue of Apollo (fig. 120), to quote one in¬ stance, is neither hasty nor pur¬ posely simplified, but carefully finished. Still many things in it recall the primitive statues of the same god, which have been studied—the attitude of the body, quite up¬ right and firm on the legs set close together, with none of the Fig. 121.—Head of old man (Olympia). sinuous lines of the hips or torso, to give pliancy and grace. The face bears the imprint of a grave majesty, which is well in keeping with the imperious gesture of the outstretched right hand, and gives evidence in the sculptor of a power of expression which has no longer anything primitive about it. The hair falls in regular locks from the back of the head towards the brow, where it hangs in symmetrical curls, and is gathered THE PEDIMENTS AND METOPES OF OLYMPIA. 233 up in a mass on the back of the neck and enclosed with a little band. In this it is the very reflex of the Apollo Ptoos, or, better still, the Strangford Apollo of the British Museum. Added to this, there is an exceedingly distinctive feature, the realism of some of the poses, and above all of certain faces. The old man, for instance, seated upon the ground behind the horses of Oinomaos (fig. 121) (eastern pediment), leaning with his left hand upon the ground, and resting his bent head upon the right. The attitude is more than homely—it is almost trivial, but taken direct from life, and rendered as truthfully as it was observed. As for the head, it is a portrait, and doubtless the portrait of an old, bald, wrinkled man, with his scanty locks hanging on the neck and his beard uncombed. It has been suggested with some probability that the figure represents the mountain-god Kronion. Be it god or mortal, it is strikingly realistic. In the same way the young Lapith (fig. 122) from the western pediment gives the impression of a strong animal ; his brow is low, his eyes are narrow and sombre, his nose big, and his lips thick; his hair is coarse and thick, and his short, powerful neck is squarely set upon a massive body. He is like one of the Fig. 122.—Head of a Lapith (Olympia). 2 34 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. extremely muscular stout porters, brutalized by the labours of a beast of burden, who encumber the quays and bazaars of the East. This is indeed a far cry from Pheidias, the idealist interpreter rather than the copyist of nature ; and, to return to our starting-point, how very far is this from Paionios and his flying Victory, from Alkamenes and the Aphrodite of the gardens, that unknown masterpiece of grace and refinement. VII. THE SCHOOL OF PHEIDIAS. For sepulchral stelae in connection with Pheidias: C. Waldstein, Essays on Art of Pheidias. For grave reliefs in the Cerameicus see J. E. Harrison, Mythology and Monuments of Athens , sec. xxiv. It is not at Olympia, but at Athens itself, that we must seek both for the influence of Pheidias and the master¬ pieces of his disciples, of those who really formed what may be called the new Attic school. The Parthenon was complete in 438 b.c. ; the Erech- theion was not finished before 409 b.c.. The porch of the Caryatids (fig. 123) has been usually held deserving of the admiration which it never fails to excite in those to whom it is given to tread the sacred rock of the Acropolis. These stately figures, steadfast and motion¬ less as the columns they replace, possess not only the strength and size requisite to their function as supports, but also the pliancy and grace of youth and maiden¬ hood. They are, in fact, successful individually, though as an architectural feature they strike us as whimsical and out of place. To realize the genius of their creators, they must be compared with the melancholy shapes, meagre and pitiful beneath superabundant ornaments and draperies, crushed under the burden of an architrave less massive than those superfluities, which fill our ANCIENT SCULPTURE. 236 museums under the usurped title of Caryatids. At the Erechtheion, and there only, has the sculptor grasped under what conditions the womanly bodies could be u o a c3 b dJ u r-O N bh made at all compatible with architectural functions without losing their beauty and peculiar charm. The swelling capital, adorned with ovolo ornament, set on THE SCHOOL OF PHEIBIAS. 237 as a sort of pad (rv\r)) for the burden sus¬ tained, shows well above the thick locks which overhang the brows, and are thickly knotted up behind. The double tunic, a pliable and yet firm material, sometimes clings to and outlines the rounded curves of the body, some¬ times hangs freely in draperies or falls in straight folds, stiffly hollowed out, recall¬ ing the flutings of a column. The arms, hanging straigh t down, but without stiffness, give the appearance of width and strength to the bust. The simple bending of the leg is enough to destroy the absolute paral¬ lelism of the vertical lines, and adds an impression of light¬ ness to what is and Fig 124.—Caryatid (British Museumj. 238 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. Fig. 125.—Nike crowning a trophy (Acropolis Museum). ought to be the chief one— force (fig. 124). The delicate art of propor¬ tion, of the perfect adaptation of means to an end, the taste for sobriety, for the harmo¬ nizing of the details with the whole—all this is what Attic sculpture owes to Pheidias. These are the qualities even of the age that succeeded him, and specially of the bas-reliefs of the little temple of Wingless Victory (Nike Apteros). The Victory who THE SCHOOL OF PHEIDIAS. 239 stoops to tie her sandal (fig. 126), and the Victory stretching out her arms to crown a trophy (fig. 125), both headless and sadly damaged, are still a source of inexhaustible joy for those eyes that delight in plastic perfection. They are now set up to excellent advantage in the Acropolis Museum. Ancient sculp¬ ture has rarely created anything more delicate and charming. The bodies appear to live and breathe under the transparent draperies, and the proportions, forms, and attitudes of these bodies are combined with an exquisite feeling for grace and refinement. Pheidias has done greater, nobler, more refined things; he has conceived powerful combinations, de¬ signed scientific groups, and sculptured, sheer out of the marble, men as beautiful as gods. He has carved out of gold and ivory divinities, the sight of whom gave a still higher place in the human soul to thoughts of religion and divinity. The unknown author of the Victories, in a humbler sphere, with a slighter manner, has, like Pheidias, touched perfection with his chisel. In comparison with the few fragments that have survived, very many, not less precious, have disappeared from the Athenian soil. No work exists of Alkamenes, Agorakritos, of Kresilas, of Kolotes, and many other fellow-workers or disciples of Pheidias. But their tradition long endured, living and forcible, and to them, in conjunction with Pheidias, was owing the incomparable blossoming of statues and bas-reliefs, which covered the soil of Attica and the whole of Greece, and which during several generations were produced without effort by the hands of simple artizans as well as of artists. After their time, sculpture occupies an exceedingly 40 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. Fig. 126.—Nike stooping to tie her sandal (Acropolis Museum). THE SCHOOL OF PHEIDIAS. 241 prominent position in Greek, and more especially in Athenian, life—in private life as well as in that of religion, society, and politics. Art is usually cultivated for its own sake; and, as in the past, the sculptors continued to make their work chiefly religious, and concerned themselves chiefly to represent the gods and to decorate their temples. But side by side with this official art, another arose, which scarcely deserves, so valuable is it, to be called industrial or commercial. This art will be found to produce works which are often beautiful, and almost always more than tolerable, works marked by purity of style and ease of execution, and by a constant inspiration from and imitation of precedin'* master- Fig. 127.—Alliance between Athens and F o Corcyra. pieces. Athens concluded a treaty with some rival city. The text of the treaty, graven on a marble stele, will be surmounted by a bas-relief displaying personifica¬ tions of the two cities in the presence of Zeus Orkios, the god of vows ; or of Demos, the personification of the people (fig. 127). If Athens gratefully accorded the rights of Proxenia to some illustrious foreigner, Athena appears above the decree, crowning her new protege (fig. 128). Fig. 129 represents Athena and one of her treasurers. All the gods are displayed, all the 1 6 242 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. great bodies of the state are personified, one after another, and each new excavation adds fresh riches to the valuable collection of political bas-reliefs. Quite recently a very beautiful instance of the class of work Fig. 128.—Heading of a decree of Proxenia. was discovered in the Acropolis excavations. Athena, simply clad in chiton and helmet, is represented gazing intently, and even sadly, on a stele by her side. It is difficult to say how the sadness of the goddess is to be accounted for. THE SCHOOL OF PHEIDIAS. 243 The collection is completed by the iconic or portrait statues awarded to the great, or to the useful servants of the country. On the other hand, if a devotee wished to gain the good graces of a god, or to thank him for some benefit, he went into the sanctuary and hung up a bas-relief, as a votive offering. Numbers of these Fig. 129. — Athena Parthenos. Heading of a treasurer’s account. were prepared by the marble-masons of Athens, and on the bas-relief the donor, his wife and children, and even his domestic animals, were grouped in the pre¬ sence of the guardian divinity (fig. 130). Finally, upon graves costly bas-reliefs by the favourite craftsman of the day replaced the humbler 244 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. stelse where the name of the dead or perhaps a single figure sufficed. The cycle of subjects represented is not large. Archaic bas-reliefs will be remembered where the dead man appears standing simply as he did in life, such as the stele of the Discophoros, of Aristion, or Alxenor of Naxos. A little later the theme becomes complicated; there is a group of several persons, as in the famous stele (possibly funeral) brought from Pharsalos to the Louvre by Fig. 130.—Offering to Aisculapios and Hygieia, (or to Heroized Ancestor). M. Heuzey (fig. 131), where two young women are seen offering gifts to one another. The eyes, taken from full view in profile faces, the strongly marked features, and arrangement of the hair, some details of anatomy and costume, betray the hand of a novice and an epoch which is still naive. But they do not destroy the impression of sweet melancholy, of calm dignity which is given by this simple and touching picture. A little later than the time of which we are THE SCHOOL OF PIIE1DIAS. 24s treating the favourite subject for funeral tablets seems to be the funeral feast, the dead man banqueting, and wife and family, about him or approaching, sculptured as inferior statues, to do him worship (fig. 132). In the fifth and fourth centuries, and yet later, these monuments were multiplied, and unfortunately are re¬ peated in a tedious manner. But here the important Fig. 131.— Stele of Pharsalos (Louvre). fact is, that the sculptors rarely lose their technical ability, the instrument of their pure taste, and sure, correct eye for plastic forms. It is even worth while to give some time to criticizing a whole class of these stelae, for works of the first order are to be found among them. Amongst these are the bas-reliefs found in great numbers in the burial-place of the Ceramicus 246 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. in Athens and at the Piraeus, which in size and beauty surpass the ordinary standard of funeral monuments. Some have been popularized through engravings or photographs, such as the stele of Dexileos, one of the five warriors who died in a fight at Corinth (394 b.c.). Dexileos, with floating mantle, is mounted on a charger which rears and tramples underfoot a fallen foe. The animal, with body gathered together, rounded croup, Fig. 132.—Funeral banquet (Central Museum, Athens). slender limbs, and nervous head, would not disgrace the frieze of the Panatheneia. The warrior, an accomplished horseman, with firm and graceful mount, is an honour to the gilded youth of Athens, though the style of the relief is somewhat touched by sensationalism. The vanquished combatant knew how to fall gracefully, and with a brave gesture seems, as Aristophanes says, to wish to fight against defeat. He is a worthy descendant THE SCHOOL OF PHEIDIAS. 247 AE £ I AE A ^ .A Y > A N I 0.0 O P 1 K I O * ETENETOEn TEI^ANAP \oA P X ONTO 1 apeganeepeyboai - - irrEn n Fig- 133 -—Stele of Dexileos (Street of Tombs, Athens), of those ancestors who fell on one shoulder, shook oft’ 248 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. the dust, and then arose and denied that they had fallen (fig. 133). The gravestone of Amenokleia, daughter of Andro- rnenes; those of Polyxene, especially, and of Hegeso, daughter of Proxe- nos, have often been described (figs. 134, 135). In this last the dead woman is seen fully draped in chiton, himation, and veil, with a sweet and serious air, in familiar talk with the favourite slave who hands the toilet- casket. The large bas- relief, reproduced for the first time in these pages (fig. 136), is remarkable for the fulness of its style and conception. Discovered in the cemetery of the Ceramicus, it is now placed in the Central Museum of Athens. Prokleides, son of Pamphilos, an old man with a long beard and long hair, with naked torso, is seated in a homely Fig. 134.—Stele of Polyxene (Central Museum, Athens). THE SCHOOL OF PHEIDIAS. 249 attitude upon a chair. His son Prokles stands in front of him, and holds out a hand to him. He is a soldier, clad in his coat of mail, and grasping the sheath of his sword. His body is robust and very muscular; his head is strong and very beautiful, with its restrained lines and simple hair and beard. He looks down quietly upon his father, whilst Archippe, daughter of Megakles, wife of the one and mother of the other hero, completes the picture of a family united in death, as they were doubtless in life. She has the rather heavy butdignified maturity of the matron; and drawing her veil aside with one hand, she gathers her mantle about her with the other. Un¬ happily it is difficult to express the deep and dignified restraint which ani¬ mates this group, giving to the three faces a majestic calm—what the Greeks call holy awe (to ae/xvov). Doubtless many faults in chiselling may be pointed out in this work, or in anatomy, as in the hand of Prokles, and weaknesses such as that in the muscles of Pro- kleides’ breast, or in the arm of Archippe. But these Fig. 135.—Stele of Hegeso (Street of Tombs, Athens). 250 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. failings are more than atoned for by the inspiration and profoundly ideal impression of the whole. Analogies to the style of Pheidias may be found in many directions ; such are perceptible, in some degree, both immediately before and after his time. To quote at random from memory, this is to be seen very clearly in a much earlier stele of Eleusis. In this simple and religious com¬ position, of pure and sober grace, Demeter and Ivore are depicted in company with a youth, who may be Triptolomos or Bacchus (fig. 137). It is also to be seen in a very Fig. 136.—Stele of Prokles, Prokleides, and beautiful metope Archippe (Central Museum, Athens). a temple g.t Selinus (fig. 138) ; in which are represented Zeus and Hera. The king of the gods, with naked torso, as in the frieze of the Parthenon, is seated upon a rock, and with his right hand seizes the left wrist of Hera to draw her towards him. The goddess is standing, as in the THE SCHOOL OF PHEIDIAS. 25 ‘ Parthenon frieze, and is wrapped in the large veil which is her distinguishing characteristic. The composition ot the scene is simple and chaste, the modelling of the nude and the drapery of the veils are splendid in style. If the head of Zeus, and especially his coiffure and beard, as well as the folds of Hera’s robe, keep some relics of archaism, it would seem, when com¬ pared with the free¬ dom and pliancy of the rest, to be purely voluntary. The spirit of the age that produced Pheidias is only very indirectly felt in a large number of monumental sculp¬ tures, and, above all, in the frieze of a temple of Apollo Epikourios at Bassae, near Phigalia. To Iktinos, the immortal architect of the Par¬ thenon, was entrusted 137.—Demeter, Kore, and Tripto- lomos (stele of Eleusis). the construction of this sanctuary, in the remote hill- country of Arcadia. Considerable remains of the temple are still in situ, but the frieze has been removed to the British Museum. It is probable, too, that the frieze must have been executed by famous artists, but scarcely any of the qualities of Pheidias and his Attic 252 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. disciples are to be found in this long series of bas- reliefs. A double subject is represented. The somewhat hackneyed motives of the battle of the Centaurs and the Lapithae, and the battle between warriors and Amazons, Fig. 138.—Zeus and Hera (Palermo Museum). are developed in a narrow band about seventy-six centimetres wide and thirty-one metres long, which ran round the interior of the temple. If anything in it deserves praise (and the Parthenon marbles in the ad¬ joining room of the British Museum make appreciation difficult), it is the fury of the struggling foes, the THE SCHOOL OF PHEIDIAS. 253 desperation of the battle, and some bold attempts at flying draperies (fig. 139). But the figures are short and thickset, without the somewhat slender grace and justness of proportion to which the Attic school has now accustomed the eye. It must even be said that a bad taste which is surprising has got the upper hand in the drawing of certain attitudes, and in the com¬ position of most of the groups. Fig. 140 is an Fig. 139.—Fragment of the frieze of Phigalia (British Museum). instance of a somewhat savage group. A Lapith has been seized from behind by a Centaur, who is biting his neck ; the unfortunate man nevertheless can plunge his spear into the monster’s breast. But he, doubtless in the anguish of his sufferings, kicks out and strikes the buckler of a second Lapith, who recoils in terror. And as a space remained on the surface of the frieze, below the kicking Centaur, the sculptor has stretched a second Centaur on the ground. 254 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. He is wounded, and has fallen face downwards on the earth, in so complicated a posture that the head and limbs are hardly distinguishable. There is dexterity perhaps in this, but it is the outcome of an ill-regulated Fig. 140.—Slab of the frieze of Phigalia (British Museum). or rather quite irregular imagination, which unhappily has inadequate skill of hand at its service to help out its awkward audacities. The frieze of Phigalia is, upon the whole, merely a tolerable display of a pro¬ vincial art which is far from first-rate. VIII. POLYKLEITOS. For Amazon statues see Michaelis, Jalirbuch, i., 18S6, p. 14, taf. 1-4. For the Diadumenos: Sidney Colvin, ii., 353 ; A. S. Murray, J.H.S., vi., p. 243. Polykleitos, the most famous contemporary of Pheidias, born at Sicyon, but really Argive, was considered by the ancients to be the equal of the Attic master, some even proclaiming him superior. Their works, however, cannot be compared, and it is rash to try and classify such different geniuses. Polykleitos passed almost the whole of his life at Argos. This little town was an artistic centre before his day. Ageladas, with whom Pheidias went to study in his youth, has been men¬ tioned in connection with the place. He also was the master of Polykleitos. Polykleitos had many reasons for remaining in his own province, which kept its peculiar traditions of glory, even side by side with Athens, and this residence determined the path which he was to follow. At the moment when Athens, over¬ flowing with riches, began to erect splendid monuments, Pheidias, the friend of Pericles, was led by these very circumstances to display his genius in vast decorative combinations. The result of this was the conception of the metopes frieze and pediments of the Parthenon. 256 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. Polykleitos, on the other hand, had in some sort to clip his wings and limit his flight to works of a less vast and superb order, but his glory lost nothing by it. It consists precisely in his attaining perfection in a line which, without having the sublimity of Pheidias, does not lack nobility or grandeur. Polykleitos sculptured several statues of divinities— a Zeus at Argos, an Aphrodite at Amyclae, a Hermes which was in Pliny’s days at Lysimacheia (in the Tauric Chersonese), and perhaps a group of the Delian trinity, Leto, Artemis, and Apollo, on Mount Lykone. The chryselephantine Hera, which he sculp¬ tured for a temple at Argos, was famous beyond the rest. “The goddess,” says Pausanias, “of great stature, is seated upon a throne; she is of gold and ivory. Upon the diadem which she wears are depicted the Graces and the Hours. In one hand she holds a pomegranate, the meaning of which it is not right to divulge ; in the other, a sceptre. They say that a cuckoo is perched upon the sceptre, because the legend runs that Zeus, when in love with the maiden Hera, changed into a cuckoo in order to pursue her.” Strabo (viii., p. 372) affirms that this statue was beyond all the others in technical ability, but places it below those of Pheidias in perfection and grandeur. The best notion of the style of this statue is to be obtained not from uncertain copies in Graeco-Roman busts of Hera, but from the head of Hera on the coins of Argos. Happily, there are tolerably certain copies of the three statues which give the exact note of the genius of Polykleitos—the Doryphoros, the Diadumenos, and the wounded Amazon. Quintilian said, that under the POLYKLEITOS. 25 / chisel of the Argive master the human body became beautiful " beyond reality,” whilst the gods were lacking in majesty. It appears obvious that the gods of Poly- kleitos lost by comparison with those of Pheidias. But as for his men, the Doryphoros, for instance, has justly deserved to be a model of ideal perfection to a long line of artists. This is the statue in the Naples Museum supposed to be a copy of the Canon or model, and some have gone so far as to suppose that Polykleitos sculp¬ tured it with the definite notion of really making it a model for the studio. He was as able in theory as in practice, and, in a special treatise on the subject, he laid down the laws of proportion and perfect beauty in the human body. These he is supposed to have applied in this statue with quite geometrical strictness. Unluckily the ancients have left us no very precise record of the Canon of Polykleitos. Here is Lucian’s abridgment of these rules: “ The body must not be too tall, nor immoderately lengthened out, nor, on the other hand, too short, like a dwarf, but exactly proportioned. It must not be too plump, in case of being unnatural, nor excessively thin, for then it would be like a skeleton.” Galen is rather less vague: “ Beauty, according to Chrysippos, consists in the harmony, not of lines merely, but of the limbs, in the exact proportion of the fingers to one another, and of all the fingers together to the wrist and the metacarpus ; the pro¬ portion of the latter to the forearm, and of the forearm to the arm, as it is written in the Canon of Polykleitos.” Hence it would seem that the finger was the measure by which the Argive master established the scale of proportion. To make this question clear, one would 17 258 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. Fig. 141.—Copy of the Doryphoros of Polykleitos (Naples Museum). have to be able to measure, upon the Doryphoros itself, the different parts of the body and the limbs, and try to establish a relation between the measurements. But only very untrust¬ worthy copies of the Canon have de¬ scended to us ; in¬ deed, it is uncertain whether the Dory¬ phoros is in the Canon at all. The small, though exceedingly graceful, Doryphoros of a bas-relief pre¬ served in the votive or funeral museum at Argos cannot be regarded as an actual copy, but it un¬ doubtedly justifies the restoration of the spear. This young, naked man, walking by the side of his horse, the right hand hanging down, the left bearing a spear, POLYKLEITOS. 259 is certainly in the attitude ascribed by the ancients to the statue of Polykleitos. It is visibly inspired by him, but cannot give us any information concerning the actual scale of proportion. A bronze head at Naples, signed by Apollonios, son of Archias, the Athenian, is fine enough to be an actual reproduction of the head of the Doryphoros ; but this and the remarkable torso of the Berlin Museum (Doryphoros Pourtales) are only fragments. As for the statue of the Naples Museum (fig. 141), in spite of its technical inferiority, it is a very valuable copy, because the most complete we possess. It is evidently the work of an artist who was not talented enough to reproduce faultlessly the specially original type of the model. The Doryphoros of Polykleitos was virilitcr pner. or a youth with the strength of a man. This descrip¬ tion is not unsuitable to the rather heavy, stout body, and strong, square head of the athlete reproduced by our figure. He is a grown man, and no longer young; and even judging him as a man (for one may mistrust the impressions or dicta of Pliny), it must be admitted by the unprejudiced, that if the parts of the body are in exact proportion, these very proportions are not the best chosen to produce an impression of perfect beauty. Indeed, to judge from this example, it is difficult to join in the passionate admiration of the ancients. As in the case of the Doryphoros, few copies have survived of the Diadumenos, an athlete who was raising his two arms to bind his brows with a long fillet. The Farnese Diadumenos, the Diadumenos of Vaison (now in the British Museum, fig. 142), are 26 o ANCIENT SCULPTURE. Fig. 142.—Copy of the Diadumenos of Polykleitos (British Museum). POLYKLEITOS. 26l the best, but not so good as they might be; in some respects they may be supplemented by a terra-cotta Doryphoros, also in the British Museum. We do not discover in them the molliter Juvenem, the young man with the somewhat effeminate outlines of a stripling, whom Pliny contrasts with the Doryphoros, the young man, still remaining a stripling. But it must be stated, rather to the detriment of Polykleitos, that the Diadumenos, like the Doryphoros, is a little wanting in grace. In both copies there is a tendency, which was pointed out by the ancients, towards squareness of form, as they put it—thickset ” is the modern adjective—from which a certain heaviness is inseparable. This must necessarily have been the character of the masterpieces of Polykleitos, for it is to be found in copies which evidently came from different hands. Yet to explain to us the enormous renown of this artist, it must always be noted that the works of Pheidias were, and are still, inimitable by their very excess of perfection, the height of their inspiration, and the splendid brilliancy of their forms. But a Doryphoros, a Diadumenos, could very well serve as models to several generations of artists. They are athletes, and in consequence human beauty was enough for their bodies and faces—idealized certainly, but yet material, and much easier to express in marble than the sedate and somewhat abstracted beauty of the gods of Pheidias made in the image of eternal youth and celestial majesty. Further, these athletes stand in the simplest and most natural attitudes, leaning with the weight on one leg, the typical Polykleitos attitude, posed, like models 262 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. on the platform of the studio, whose movements and posture have been directed by the artist, and the muscles made to start out which are wanted in relief. These models, moreover, are not emotionally expressive or agitated ; their faces express none of the feelings which are reflected from the emotions of the soul. It is a bodily rather than a spiritual perfection. The glory of Polykleitos is by no means small, to have established, once for all, according to the verdict of posterity, the type of human beauty, as Pheidias did that of divine majesty, and to have encouraged, by his happy example, the sculptors whom the genius of Pheidias had possibly discouraged and left untouched. If, as there are many reasons for supposing, he sculp¬ tured an original, which is echoed more or less faintly in the Amazon of the Berlin Museum (fig. 143), and countless others, it would seem as if the copies of the Doryphoros and the Diadumenos have caused us to judge him too severely. The story runs,—and, as Mr. Murray very truly says, “ must be read running,”— that the most famous sculptors in Greece were called upon to compete, and each made an Amazon for the temple of Diana, at Ephesus. When they were asked which was the finest, each gave to his own statue the first place ; to that of Polykleitos, the second; to Pheidias, the third ;• to Kresilas, the fourth ; to Kydon, the fifth; and to Pradmon, the sixth; this conclusively proved that Polykleitos was the real victor. The art of Polykleitos might well triumph in sculpturing an Amazon, manly force in a woman’s body, firm flesh and hard muscles under the supple curves. The woman- warrior, wounded in the right breast, is leaning upon a POLYKLEITOS. 263 pillar. She raises her right arm above her head with no impatient gesture of anguish. The pose is not theatrical ; only the face declares the presence of pain, bravely borne. Poly- kleitos may have made laws for representing the body of a woman, as well as that of an athlete, according to a Canon mathematically fixed. The ancients say nothing of it, but it is certain that he has not here put aside his science. The proportions of the Amazon are in rare harmony; here force does not destroy grace, as in the Doryphoros of Naples, nor do the full, square forms take away from her slim¬ ness. The face of the Doryphoros might be any one, and is even spoiled by the full, heavy jaws; it is also expressionless. That of the Amazon, on the contrary, in spite of the ex¬ cessive flatness of the oval, and the purposely large features, is that of an actual, beautiful person, which the expression of restrained suffering makes more distinct and interesting. Finally, Fig. 143.—Amazon (Berlin Museum). 264 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. there is a novel and very felicitous arrangement of the short chiton. It is held in its place on the shoulder by a strip crossing it, and at the waist by a narrow thong. It then falls in little folds from the hips to the middle of the thighs, with great grace and pliancy, due to the absence of archaic symmetry and parallelism. It leaves the two breasts and the back uncovered, and gives to the splendid nakedness of the Amazon the proud chastity which becomes her. SCOPAS AND PRAXITELES. The Cnidian Aphrodite : Michaelis, J. H. S., viii., 324. School of Scopas, Farnell, L. R.,/. H. S., vii., 114. Hermes of Praxiteles : Von Rohden’s article in Jahrbuch des Archceol. Inst., ii., 67. For the recently-identified Praxitelean head of Eubonleus, see ijth Hallischcs Winckelmann's Programnt, Marmorkopf Riccardi, 1888 ; and Ephemcris Arch., 1886, pi. x. ; and Benndorf, Am. Ph. Hist., 16th November, 1887. M. Guillaume, a great sculptor, as well as a discerning and erudite critic,—like Polykleitos, an artist as well as a theorist concerning art,—-has said that the Canon was the resume of a school, and not the starting-point of a new one. This chapter will merely serve to confirm this opinion. But the term “school” requires explana¬ tion. A double current—Ionian and Dorian—can no longer be distinguished in Greek art. Mixture of races, interchange and blending of thought and feel¬ ing, have made of the civilized Hellenes one people, divided into little states, whose mutual independence is more apparent than actual. Outside of them there is a Greek art, a Greek sculpture, which artists, no matter what is their original birthplace, carry from one shore of the zEgean Sea to another, and perhaps even towards the West, even into Magna Graecia, and 266 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. farther still, to remote Italian towns. The galaxy of sculptors, whose most brilliant stars were first Scopas and Praxiteles, and then Lysippos, scarcely deserve the name, given to them by some historians, of the Neo-Attic school, if the name is supposed to indi¬ cate their origin. Scopas certainly came from Paros ; Praxiteles was probably an Athenian; as to Lysippos, he was born in Sicyon. But all these artists, like their contemporaries and disciples, have a common tendency, which is, upon the whole, towards Attic tradition. They move farther away day by day from the precision and rather realistic Dorian heaviness of Polykleitos, and advance nearer and nearer the ideal of Ionian grace to which Pheidias had attained. Finally, an effort which overshot the mark led them into the abuse of elegance, into mannerism. Scopas, who flourished we know for certain from 395 to 35 1 b.c., had a long and productive career. His work, which was very various, included great decorative designs, like the pediments of the temple of Athena at Tegea. One of these represents the hunt of the boar of Kalydon, and contains more than twenty figures; the other, the combat of Achilles and Telephos, in the plain of Ka'ikos. Of the pediment representing the boar hunt important frag¬ ments remain, and- are now in the Central Museum at Athens. They are our most certain index of the style of Scopas. If we accept the statement of Pliny, Scopas sculptured one of the bases of the columns for the temple of Ephesus, the Columnce Coclatce. The best preserved, which Mr. Wood has taken to the British Museum (fig. 144), is, however, SCOPAS AND PRAXITELES. 267 quite unworthy of the master, and, happily, cannot be proved to be his. The figures are cleverly grouped, the modelling of the naked men is delicate, and the Fig. 144.—Sculptured column of Ephesus (British Museum). feminine draperies are full of richness and grace; but the whole leaves an impression of weakness. Some of the bas-reliefs of the Mausoleum of Halicarnassos are also ascribed to him, and a number of statues of heroes, 268 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. divinities, and mortals. Among these are Asklepios and Hygieia, at Tegea, two furies (Erinnyes), at Athens ; Eros, Himeros, and Pothos, at Megara; and probably the children of Niobe, dying around their mother, of which the famous statues of the Uffizii Museum, in Florence, are only inferior copies. Fur¬ ther, there were the Aphrodite Pandemos, at Elis; the Hekate, at Argos; a Herakles, at Sicyon; an Apollo, at Rhamnos, in Attica; a statue of a Bacchante in par¬ ticular, renowned for the boldness of its action ; the Apollo Smintheus, at Chryse, in the Troad. The ancients do not say that he sculptured athletes; his art was chiefly religious. Abundant ancient tradition has handed down to us the praises of Scopas, but his peculiar characteristics are not very clearly distin¬ guished. Happily, to some extent, we can appreciate the originality of his genius with our own eyes in the fragments of Tegea, and possibly in some of the mausoleum sculptures. It is known that to the Carian king, Mausolos, there was upreared, by the wifely piety of Artemisia, a splendid tomb, worthy to be reckoned among the seven wonders of the world. Scopas, with the help of three of his contemporaries, Bryaxis, Timotheos, and Leochares, adorned it with friezes and statues. The mausoleum measured four hundred and eighty feet in circumference, and was surrounded by thirty-six columns. Surmounted by a pyramid with steps, which a quadriga of marble crowned (the work of Pythios), it rose to a height of one hundred and forty feet. Scopas, according to Pliny, decorated the eastern side. Until the twelfth century the monument remained SCOPAS AND PRAXITELES. 269 unharmed by time or barbarians; an earthquake destroyed it then, and the materials, especially the bas-reliefs, were used by the Knights of St. John in the construction of the stronghold of Budrun, the modern Halicarnassos. Lord Stratford de Redclifife, in 1846, and Mr. Newton, in 1857, caused numerous fragments of the frieze and relics of the gigantic statues to be conveyed to the British Museum. But it is difficult to distinguish the hand of Scopas from those of his fellow-workers. It would be perhaps too bold to ascribe to the most famous of the four sculp¬ tors the fragments which seem to belong to a par¬ ticularly perfect and original art, like those of the battle of the Amazons, of which an example is given. These two scenes are boldly composed and executed with spirit. They take us far from the Centaurs and Lapithce, or the Amazons of the temple of Phigalia, for instance, with their broad, short, thick-set bodies, quite without pliancy or grace, and clumsily complicated scenes. Here the incidents are simple and striking, as becomes a furious struggle when the sole concern of the combatants is to kill without being killed. Some are dealing blows with all their might, others hastily recoil to avoid them. Each one is using all his strength and activity, and consequently the attitudes are violent. The draperies, agitated by the blows or the impulses of the bodies, flutter and swell behind, or cling in front to the legs, arms, and trunks. The bodies of the warriors, like those of the Amazons, tend to delicate and slender forms, with a grace which is little in keeping with this savage and desperate battle of barbarians (fig. 145). The reliefs of this Amazon fight are beautiful, but they 270 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. fall far behind the figure of a charioteer from another frieze, presumably a chariot race. One well-preserved figure from this frieze has striking analogies with the Tegea sculptures. Of the statues of Niobe and her children in the Museum of Florence, we can only say they are pos¬ sible copies of a group possibly of Scopas. The principal figure, Niobe in rapid flight, scarcely sus- Fig. 145.—Bas-relief of the Mausoleum of Halicarnassos (British Museum). tains her youngest daughter, who kneeling, half naked, clings to her dishevelled garments (fig. 146). The master and his pupil, the children of Niobe, wounded or dying, the dead one stretched upon the ground, are all tall and well made, like the heroes and heroines of the frieze of the mausoleum. Like them, they are violently agitated, but even with this excessive action they retain a refined grace. The figure known as the Chiaramonti Niobid is probably a much earlier and 271 SCOPAS AND PRAXITELES. Fig. 146.—Niobe and her young daughter (Uffizii Gallery, Florence). 272 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. closer copy of one figure from the same original group. The Munich statue (fig. 147), known as the Ilioneus, which all agree is a son of Niobe, gives perhaps the highest idea of this refined art. This youthful body is exquisitely supple and graceful, and has rarely been surpassed in these qualities. The pathos of the terrified gesture makes one regret keenly the loss of the head. The spirit, at any rate, if not the hand of the master, is to be felt in this perfect piece of work. The archaic smile is merely a naivete; it is frozen, and neither expresses nor reflects a state of the soul. The gods of Pheidias, being gods, were therefore unmoved, and had merely majesty, a vague calm, immortally motionless upon their sublime features. The athletes of Polykleitos are models, that is to say, young and healthy bodies, with no private sorrows or joys, except that of being strongly muscular and in perfect proportion. Their Fig. 147.—Ilioneus (Glyptothek, Munich), SCOPAS AND PRAXITELES. 2 73 flesh is everything, and they have no visible soul, and the face remains that rather of a type than an individual. But in the fourth century, with Scopas, the heart begins to beat beneath its marble covering. Niobe suffers; her children and servants are the prey of terror, wounds, and anguish. Deadly fear, physical pain, is painted, so to speak, upon their faces, and is clearly expressed in the eyes, in the wrinkled brow, and contracted mouth. However, let us not say too much ; there is as yet no abuse of power. It is a new concep¬ tion, a more cultured understanding of the rights and province of sculpture, and does peculiar honour to Scopas. It did nothing less than, enlarge the cycle of subjects in which Greek statuary till then somewhat monotonously moved—gods of Olympus, fabulous heroes, Olympian conquerors. Actual man, impassioned, or, in other words, alive, body and soul, may now appear upon the scene. But, unluckily, with man there also appeared the idea, the feeling, clothed with a body—personifica¬ tion. It is pleasant to think of the three passions which Scopas grouped in human form—Love, Eros ; and his two companions, Himeros and Pothos, Longing and Regret, as glowing with every grace, with the impetuous, young life of the half-ideal and half-natural fictions of Greek poetry. Scopas, indeed, may well have sculptured three delicate embodiments of minor gods as real for him as Zeus or Aphrodite, but the door was opened by which one day the frozen figures of allegorical divinities were to glide in among the Olympian train. This evil, however, is as yet far in the future. 18 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. Fig. 148.—Eirene and Ploutos (Glyptothek, Munich) SCOrAS AND PRAXITELES. 275 Praxiteles was the famous contemporary of Scopas. He was Athenian, of the deme of Eresidae. The date of his birth is uncertain, but he was still very young, probably, when Scopas came to live at Athens, about 375 b.c. He was probably the son of Kephisodotos, the author of a famous bronze group in the Athenian agora of which there is a fine marble copy at Munich, the Eirene (Peace) carrying the infant Ploutos (God < f Riches). This group is reproduced in fig. 148; it stands half-way between the austerity of Pheidias and the pliant grace of Praxiteles. Little is known of the life of Praxiteles. By wonderful good fortune, an absolutely authentic statue, coming from this immortal hand, has been found almost intact, and several others are known to us by very fair copies. These memorials are sufficient for our study. People of taste, lovers of pure masterpieces, made the voyage to Knidos in order to admire the statue of Aphrodite, which shone in the light of eternal youth and beauty in the midst of the temple which was always open. “ Kythereia, Queen of Paphos,” says an epigram, “came to Knidos, across the waves, wishing to see her own image; and, after long contemplation, she said : ‘ And where did Praxiteles see me quite naked?’” It is not Aphrodite herself whom the charming sculptor saw naked, but Phryne, the splendid courtesan, his mistress. She it was who, at an Eleu- sinian festival, throwing off her raiment and untwisting her hair, plunged into the sea in the presence of all the Greeks, before the eyes of Apelles, who was enchanted to find the ideal model for his Aphrodite 2 j 6 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. Anadyomene (Aphrodite rising out of the sea), of which he had long vainly dreamed. Knidos, situated on its promontories of golden rocks, which the splendid heavens and sparkling sea bathe in sunlight and clear blue, shines with all the radiant beauty of an Oriental island. In its famous temple the statues of the great masters were treasured; the Dionysos of Bryaxis, side by side with the Athena of Scopas. But the Aphrodite of Praxiteles might have stood there alone, for it effaced all the other master¬ pieces. “ The goddess stands in the midst of the sanctuary, hewn out of a dazzling block of Parian marble; her smile is somewhat proud and disdainful; and her beauty is entirely naked and without veil. The shrine has doors all round, so that the back view of the goddess may also be seen and no detail may escape admiration. . . . What graceful shoulders; what broad hips ; what sweeping curves in the thighs; without too much suggestion of bones, and yet without excess of flesh ! The two dimples on the hips are inexpressibly sweet. And how accurate is the straight line prolonged from the calf of the leg into the foot.” Lucian is still more enthusiastic about the pure design of the hair, brow, and eyebrows, for the eyes that seemed to be shining with tears, and were yet full of brilliancy and kindness. These many charms explain a famous legend, of the strange, mad love of the young Greek, a new Pygmalion, whose embraces, however, could not lend life to the marble goddess. The descriptions, like the legends and epigrams, make us feel that the Aphrodite of Knidos must have been so perfect that it is impossible for us to recognise her in the innumerable SCOPAS AND PRAXITELES. 2 77 statues of our museums. For they are not distinct likenesses, but only vaguely recall her, by their atti¬ tudes, and sometimes, too, by their attempt at a some¬ what too elaborate and affected elegance and grace. The Aphrodite of the Vatican, disfigured by modern drapery, and the Aphrodite of Munich, are the most faithful copies amongst all those which have survived. Some idea of the pose may be gathered from a coin of Knidos (fig. 149), but it is of course only such a transcript as is possible to a reduced copy. A bronze can hardly give the effect of marble; but a head of Aphrodite in bronze, found at Ar¬ menia (fig. 150, British Museum), is very in¬ teresting, as, with Englemann, we may consider it to have been inspired by the master¬ piece of Praxiteles. In Fig. 149.—Aphrodite of Praxiteles , ,, , .. (coin of Knidos). no copy do the beauties pointed out by Lucian appear so plainly. “ The pure brows, the majestic arches of the eyebrows, are one of the principal charms of this bronze, and it is easy to imagine a calm, frank look in the cavity of these great, open eyes, which gaze with something of menace, but more of fascination, as Lucian says of the Knidos statue. The half-concealed smile, which he praises, indeed flutters upon those lips, voluptuous in their delicate lines. The somewhat unconfined tresses, the curls which stray coquettishly about the neck, the 278 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. full, sensual lips, the sweet, soft look of the skin, are all peculiarly suitable to the Aphrodite of the type which Praxiteles wished to fix” (O. Rayet). With the head was found a left hand, holding a fragment of drapery. Fig. 150.—Head of Aphrodite (British Museum). Praxiteles, with a rare discrimination of his own practical powers, usually chose to represent the youngest and most attractive members of the Hellenic Pantheon. To the Aphrodite of Knidos, to those of Kos, Thespiae, of Alexandria in Caria, and many others, he added a SCOPAS AND PRAXITELES. 279 whole train of Loves, as refined and graceful as they. These Loves are by no means the chubby little boys, so often represented by the commonplaces of decorative Roman arts; they are youths on the verge of man¬ hood, and conscious of the power of youth. Gods who charm us and yet inspire fear, they can take sure aim with their new arrows, of which the poet wrote this epigram : “ My love-philtres are no longer arrows, but amorous glances.” Next there are the wanton divinities of the woods and waters ; the naked nymphs on the banks of the fresh springs, and the silens and satyrs, who spy through the green leaves at nymphs and maidens who lie at ease after the bath. But Praxiteles has nothing to say to those fearful and sensual monsters, half goat and half clown, displayed by the satyric drama in all their ugliness upon the stage. The only relics of their mon¬ strous nature in the Satyr of the Street of the Tripods at Athens were the pointed ears and the fawn’s skin. The ears are hidden by the hair, and the fawn-skin, carelessly worn scarf-wise, is transformed from a coarse garment into a graceful ornament. The best idea of this great work of Praxiteles—which with the Eros of Thespiae he cherished beyond all his other statues—is to be got from a very much mutilated torso of the Louvre, the same in outline but far superior in execution to the faun and satyr of the Capitol. The Ivephisos of Pheidias alone seems to possess such pure, healthful, radiant youth, such perfect grace, as this. But the Ivephisos is a strong, wiry youth, touched with Olympian majesty; whilst the Satyr, expanding with mere joy of life, lean¬ ing up against the trunk of a tree, displays with indolent 280 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. Fig. 151,—Satyr, after Praxiteles (Capitoline Museum, Rome). grace the full, round forms of his soft young body. The softened angle of the hip, giving a sweeping curve to the outline of the body, adds to his exquisite slightness an indescribable air of nonchalance. The eye loves to follow the gentle curves of the marble, which seems to be alive and warm. The copy reproduced in fig. 151 has only one advantage over the torso of the Louvre — that it shows us the com¬ plete statue, and helps us to grasp the pose. The Apollo with the lizard, too, differs greatly from the archaic Apollos, stiff and strained in the effort to appear majestic and awful. SCOPAS AND PRAXITELES. 28l This is indeed far removed from the old masters— from Kanachos, from the sculptor who conceived the imperious Apollo of the Olympian pediment. The Apollo Sauroctonos, the lizard- slayer (fig. 152, which reproduces a small bronze of the Villa Albani), is a young god come down from Olympus, a lovable youth, fond of play and laughter, with no care for the destinies of the world. He is absorbed in threatening with his dart a poor little lizard which is climbing up the trunk of a tree. The conception of the god of light has wavered, in the same way, doubtless, as the faith in his divine power; but such is the force of a masterpiece, that down to our own day Apollo has remained in men’s minds as a slim, graceful god, with a touch of feminine delicacy and F'g- I S 2 - — The Apollo Sauroctonos , . , , r of Praxiteles (Villa Albani). bearing, with the face and headgear of a maid—in fact, as he was seen by Praxiteles. Finally, the genius of Praxiteles can be admired in a 282 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. statue of uncontested authenticity. On May 8th, 1877, in the ruins of the temple of Hera at Olympia, at the very spot where it so long stood, the group of the Hermes, carrying the infant Dionysos, was discovered. This is the group, famous to-day, which Pausanias saw in old times, and pointed out as “ the art of Praxiteles ” (j^XyV npa'^iTeXovs), an invaluable treasure, whose possession the richest museums will always envy to the new Museum of Olympia (figs. 153, 154). The fine Parian marble was broken in its fall; the right arm of Hermes has dis¬ appeared. The two legs from the knees down¬ wards cannot be found ; only one foot remains. The child has lost his left arm, and his head, which had rolled far away from the body, has suffered some injury. But all that remains is in a perfect preservation rarely equalled, without the least scratch or splinter, shining and polished as it emerged from the studio. Hermes has nothing of the primitive god about him, Fig- I53-—The Hermes of Praxiteles (Olympia). SCOPAS AND PRAXITELES. 283 any more than the Satyr or the Apollo Sauroctonos— neither the pointed cap, the wand, nor the winged heels. He is a man, but ideally young and beautiful. He is the messenger of the gods, and he is charged to take the young Dionysos back to the nymphs; but he seems in no haste to fulfil his mission. Standing by a tree, upon which he leans lightly with his elbow, he has gently placed the divine babe upon his left arm, over which is folded drapery, and is amusing himself with inciting the child by the promise or sight of some object, a bunch of grapes probably, which he holds up in his right hand. Dionysos leans one hand upon the shoulder of Hermes, with the other he reaches after the object of his desire, all his little body stretched eagerly in the effort and the excitement of his greed. No new words can be found to praise the supreme beauty of the Hermes of Praxiteles; they were exhausted long ago, and it is a commonplace to Fig. 154.—Head of the Hermes of Praxiteles. 284 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. admire the simple and natural grouping of the figures, the grace of the attitudes, and pliancy of the move¬ ments. As in the Satyr and the Apollo, but with yet more grace, the curves of the hip break up the naturally hard parallelism of the lines of the legs and torso. This prominence of the muscles changes the natural balance of the body in repose, and gives an indefinable impression of life and motion. But what must be specially pointed out, as constituting the real originality of the genius of Praxiteles, is the indivi¬ dual character of the beauty, the personal conception of an ideal type. There is nothing realistic about the Hermes ;—this remark does not apply to the child, as, owing possibly to the injuries received, it appears to possess less merit. But the head of the Hermes—the youngest, most living, and beautiful, in short, of any statue—is beyond though not outside all tradition. Seen from front view or profile, everything in it recalls and yet transcends the conventional type—the so-called Greek profile, delicate, distinguished, pure in outline, and certainly very admirable, but too often repeated, like a cold and impersonal stereotype. The forehead, whose prominences remind one of the heads of Myron’s athletes, is low and rounded. The rounded, thick nose is broad at the bridge, a little arched in the middle, and growing thin at the nostrils, which are small but wide open. The eyes, set very far apart, are large and almond-shaped, and are in low relief from the deep socket. The little thin-lipped mouth is half open, and a smile lurks in the corners. The small chin is deeply dimpled. The hair is arranged in masses of short but wavy tufts, stirred by the air. All these SCOPAS AND PRAXITELES. 285 features, with the square-cut face, form an entirely new type, with an exceedingly individual feeling about it, for it is made younger and more beautiful than nature by the free inspiration of the artist. The same may be said of the body; it is not constructed according to the Canon of Polykleitos, too narrow a rule to contain the genius of Praxiteles. The shoulders are too large for the size of the waist; the hips and thighs are rather narrow, and the muscles are modelled with scientific accuracy, but without dryness. The forms are somewhat rounded, but not too soft, giving the idea of youth and grace as well as force. There is extreme care in detail; the right foot, which happily has been recovered, is unique for careful study. The Hermes is too incomplete, owing to the loss of the legs, perfectly to satisfy the eye. We miss that last look of the whole which embraces a perfect statue at the moment before leaving it. The iron supports which uphold the marble, and the heavy, square pedestal upon which the framework stands, are exceedingly pain¬ ful to the eye. But this very feeling, so exceptional, this regret, which is almost a pain, prove the perfection of the work. The Kephisos of Pheidias and the Hermes of Praxiteles are the two supreme heights of Greek sculpture. In those two statues (to speak only of those surviving of which we ourselves can judge), the two greatest sculptors of antiquity succeeded in expressing their ideal, the noblest that has ever been conceived. To the works associated with the name of Praxiteles quite lately has been added the very beautiful head of the youthful under-world hero, Eubouleus, found at Eleusis, and now in the Central Museum at Athens. 286 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. We are unable to figure it here, but it cannot be left unnoted, for there is a high probability that it was actually from the hand of the master himself. After Praxiteles, there is a pause in Greek sculpture ; and, in artistic matters, not to advance generally means to go back. It is impossible, however, to speak of decadence before pointing out some of the most perfect works of the period of Praxiteles left to us by Greece. Around Scopas and Praxiteles a multitude of sculptors are grouped, their rivals or disciples, whose glory only pales beside the genius of the two masters. Leochares and Bryaxis of Athens, Timotheos, Pythios, and Kephi- sodotos the younger, Timarchos, Sthennis of Olynthos, Silanion of Athens, Polyeuktos, and many others, whose names and famous works are known to us by inscriptions or texts, and others too whose names are lost, but whose works are preserved, and ranked amongst the finest. To one of the sculptors of the school of Praxiteles the Demeter must doubtless be ascribed, which Mr. Newton brought from Knidos to the British Museum, in 1858 (fig. 155). It certainly dates from this era, when the hitherto uncertain types of the Hellenic divinities were fixed. What Praxiteles did for Aphro¬ dite, for Apollo, for Hermes, for the Satyr, the unknown master who sculptured the statue of Knidos did for Demeter. In the beginnings of art, the goddess- mother prefers hieratic attitudes. Here (we speak especially of votive terra-cottas) she is simply seated upon a throne, with her hands resting upon her knees, awaiting the homage of men. Upon painted vases various episodes of her legendary career are repre¬ sented, such as the rape of Kore, or the sending SCOPAS AND PRAXITELES, 87 Fig. 155.—The Demeter of Knidos (British Museum), forth of Triptolemos; but the features of the goddess 288 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. —as opposed to her mere attributes and attitudes— cannot as yet be said to have been characterized. No artist up to this time had succeeded in embodying one purely Greek conception of the goddess, as poetic as it is religious—the idea of a pagan Mater dolorosa. The Demeter of Knidos is the symbol of suffering mother¬ hood. The sculptor wished and succeeded in evoking “ that motherhood, full of love, in which all her life is summed up. On her face the weariness of present loneliness is tempered by the hope of a future meeting, and, at the same time, in the soul of the spectator, the sadness of a wretched mortal is lightened by the heavenly thought of the happy life which will begin for him to-morrow. For such were the necessities im¬ posed by the religion, already steeped in the philosophy of the end of the fourth century, upon the sculptor who was charged to make an image of Demeter, which was to be the object of a cult. . . . The large, full proportions, the rather heavy attitude, all indicate motherhood. The head, sculptured in Parian marble, whose alabaster-like transparency gives a most life¬ like appearance, is that of a woman past her first youth, but upon whom age, as yet, does not weigh ” (O. Rayet). Grief is vividly impressed upon her face, without theatrical exaggeration; her veil frames, with much dignity, the face upon which mute anguish rests. Ample and richly-folded draperies are majesti¬ cally wrapped about the mother’s mature body, so that one is tempted to believe with the critics, that were the Demeter to be transported to a Christian church, she would receive the mistaken homages of men, the worship due to the madonnas. SCOPAS AND PRAXITELES. 289 The great naval Nike (Victory) of Samothrace may possibly echo something of the style of Scopas, but is largely imbued with less familiar influences. It was discovered by M. Champoiseau in 1863, and con¬ veyed to the Louvre. Its date is uncertain. The type of Nike in the prow of a ship appears on the coins of Demetrius Poliorcetes (306 b.c.), but it cannot safely be asserted that these coins are copied from this actual statue. It has recently been completed by the addition of new fragments, and by the reconstruction of the ship’s prow, which served for base. The Victory rises boldly, with her great wings open. Her ample tunic is swollen by the winds, and it is easy to imagine the goddess once more blowing her triumphant trumpet, her whole body swayed by the impetuous action. The Nike of Paionios, boldly launched forward, and, so to speak, suspended in mid-air, received due praise; but the unknown artist who sculptured the masterpiece of Samothrace was far ahead of Paionios. The lively attitude, the ample action, the flutter of the flying draperies blown back in the wind, grandeur, majesty, and life—these are the qualities that strike the least observant beholder at the sight of the splendid marble. But beyond all that, the hardy chisel has hollowed out and cut the marble in folds as light and supple as folds in wool, at times stirred by the air, at times clinging lovingly to the robust and healthy forms of the Nike seen through the marble. It must be admitted that in this drapery there is a boldness and technical ability to be found which even the Iris of the Parthenon does not possess in the same degree. These qualities assure for ever to the Victory of Samothrace a glorious 19 290 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. rank, not only in the Louvre, where it is splendidly placed at the head of the great staircase, but as compared with the treasures of all other European museums (fig. 156). Such qualities, though in a less degree, also mark and date the in¬ teresting statues of the Nereids which have passed from the Agora of Xanthos, in Lycia, to the British Museum. A large sub-basement, de¬ corated with friezes in bas-relief, sup¬ ported an Ionian colonnade, and in between the columns stood fifteen figures of women — the Nereids, doubtless, who gave their name to the whole monument. They stood in an attitude of flight, with draperies flying in the wind. The art of the friezes is Fig. 156.—The Victory of Samothrace (Louvre). SCOPAS AND PRAXITELES. 29 I commonplace, and probably local. They represent a battle in the open country, the siege, assault, and capitula¬ tion of a fortress, the levying of tribute, and other warlike scenes, recalling the exploits of the Lycian monarch Pericles, whose tomb this monument formed. With a certain taste for grouping, and the varied composition of vast scenes, with action, sometimes with originality, there is also a certain coarseness to be found, and faults in anatomy and drawing. With a praiseworthy attempt at originality, and a very individual sense of decoration, there is almost always an awkward and often coarse realism. It requires a great effort to see, as people generally do, the influence of the great Attic sculptors, to some degree, in this decorative work. Even the horses, which have been supposed to be in the style of those of the Panathenaic frieze, have only one feature in common, and that is their small stature. As for the statues, however, they are purely Greek work, even Attic, much more originally conceived, and of an almost finished execution. They occupy a place between the Olympian Nike (of Paionios) and that of Samothrace, both of which they recall, the former by the rather heavy forms, the latter by the arrangement and exe¬ cution of the flying draperies. It is an aesthetic feeling, stronger than any archae¬ ological reasons, which causes us also to ascribe to this privileged era of Scopas and Praxiteles the Venus of Milo. This anonymous masterpiece was bought, in 1820, for the Louvre Museum, by the Marquis de Riviere, Ambassador of King Louis XVIII. at Constantinople (figs. 157, 158). The island of Milo (Melos) is a favoured spot; most of the works 292 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. Fig. 157.—Venus of Milo, Melos (Louvre). discovered there have a high artistic value. The head of the Melos Asklepiosin the British Museum has been cited already ; and a marble Poseidon, in the National Museum of Athens, has still to be reconstructed. All broken as it is, lying in scattered pieces in a melancholy temporary room where the statues are ranged along the walls like corpses, its majesty and haughty air fill the visitors with admiration. And yet, it would have been glory enough for the little island to have given its name to the Aphrodite of the Louvre. It is of small im¬ portance that we do not know what was the action of the lost arms of the goddess ; whether she held a buckler, or stretched SCOPAS AND PRAXITELES. 293 her arms to a little Eros standing above her, or drew near to her lover, Ares, with a caressing gesture. As we see her at the end of the gallery in the Louvre, her divine nakedness standing out from the dull back¬ ground of velvet, in a sober and silbdued light, with her broken arms, so will she always remain in the memory Fig. 158.—Head of the Venus of Milo, Melos. of those who have visited her. And in the spirit of the spectator, dazzled by such pure and brilliant beauty, there is for the moment little room for regrets concerning the ravages of time, or for dreams of needless restoration. The Venus of Milo moves some minds to such artistic delight as to allay any antiquarian curiosity, and it is 294 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. difficult to know whether to envy or to blame those who do not allow an ever-lively admiration at the sight as at the thought of this masterpiece, to prevent them from trying to discover its meaning. For some of us,* it is the Aphrodite, goddess of love, the highest and holiest feeling, when it is not merely the vulgar stirring of the senses. It is Aphrodite,—not she whom, in the arms of Ares, Hepha’istos snared in his net amidst the loud laughter of the gods, but such an Aphrodite as the great Lucretius saw : “ The desired of men and gods, mother of all things, who beneath the moving stars gives increase to the sea that bearest ships, gives increase to the earth that bringest forth harvests, who favourest the conception of every living creature, and their birth, into the light of day. Goddess, before whom the winds and the clouds of the heaven fly, before whose feet the teeming earth brings forth fragrant flowers. At thy coming the earth be¬ comes peaceful, and a great light rises. At the first breath of Spring the hearts of the birds begin to beat louder, the wild creatures leap in their rich pastures, and, thrilled with sweet delight, all living nature is the prey of desire. And upon the seas, upon the moun¬ tains, by rapid rivers, by leafy retreats of the birds, in the green plains, every heart is filled with sweet love, and the creatures increase and multiply.” This, verily, is the goddess whose nakedness is displayed without false shame, frank and chaste ; Aphrodite that * I feel bound to record my view, that whatever may be thought of the statue by the author and others, to me it appears not an Aphrodite at all, but a Victory, and a work—possibly the copy of an earlier original—not to be dated before the second century b.c.— J. E. H. SCOPAS AND PRAXITELES. 295 rules the desires of men, but unmoved, as befits a divinity, nor stirred by them herself. Her serious head, her indefinable smile, breathing grave, calm love, and not light or restless passion; her healthful mother’s breasts, her large limbs, expanding in the sober light of their maternity, awake thoughts solemn and sane rather than voluptuous. The soft falling drapery which is arrested half way by the curved lines of the hips and the half-raised knee, could have slipped lower, or fallen in folds about the feet of Aphrodite ; entirely naked, or only half so, the goddess would remain the Genetrix, the nurse, the mother, the ideal woman who could not touch impure desire with the sole of her scornful foot. It is difficult to know which is more deserving of praise, the imagination which conceived such a simple, noble, and pure type, or the hand which hewed out of a block of the finest, most transparent, and polished Parian marble, the material forms of the purest and holiest image of a woman that ever artist dreamed of. X. LYSIPPOS. For Herakles Epitrazezius of Lysippos, see Murray, A. S., J. H. S., iii. 241. For portrait sculpture among the Greeks, see P. Wolters, “Beitrage zur Griechischen Ikonographie,” Mitt, des K. D. Arch. Inst. Rome , 1889, vol. iv. Lysippos of Sicyon had a very long life, which filled three-quarters of the fourth century, and a fruitful as well as glorious career. Pliny affirms that he was the author of more than fifteen hundred statues, any one of which would have made an artist famous. This somewhat later contemporary of Scopas and Praxiteles, and compatriot of the Argive Polykleitos, was in his own days an independent worker, a self- taught man, and was held to be the founder of a school. He used to boast that he owed nothing to personal influence, and was the student of nature. Men, not as they are, but as they seemed to him to be, these were his models; and the characteristics he sees in them are these : small heads, slender and wiry bodies. It is easily seen that Lysippos re¬ pudiated the canon of Polykleitos, which prescribed rather close-set forms to men, broad, thick-set bodies, and strong heads. Pliny said that Lysippos, being pre-eminently careful to retain the symmetry, or so to speak the balance of proportions, modified those LYSIPPOS. 2 97 which had been in vogue before his day, and transformed the square-bodied statues so dear to the ancients. These theories, this system applied un¬ flinchingly by Lysippos, give him a place apart, and add an exceptional value to the statue in the Vatican called the Apoxyomenos (fig. 159), an authentic copy of one of his most famous bronzes. The Apoxyomenos is an athlete, who is passing under his right arm the strigil—a little instrument which served to scrape off the oil and sand with which the athletes anointed their bodies in the public wrestling places. The new canon is clearly revealed. The man is tall, slim, and slender, but wiry and robust. Owing to the length of his limbs and the slim- Fig. 159.—The Apoxyomenos of Lysippos (Vatican). 298 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. ness of the torso, which is thin at the waist and narrow at the shoulders, and yet muscular, he has an air of great activity combined with force. The head is small, in the characteristic style of Lysippos—noted by the ancients; the features of the face are extremely refined. The hair is freely modelled in separate tufts. This is the masterpiece which Marcus Agrippa placed before his Baths; and of which Tiberius, seized with enthu¬ siasm, took possession for his own palace, but was soon forced to yield back to the demands of the people. If we could look upon the original bronze statue, we should realize more clearly the new type conceived by Lysippos, for it is one of the qualities of bronze statues that the illusions of light lengthen the forms yet more, and soften down the curves. The works of Lysippos are of more than one kind. He went through the whole cycle of young, strong, and beautiful gods—Zeus, Poseidon, Dionysos, Eros, and above all, Herakles : Herakles seated (fig. 160) ; Herakles Epitrapezios seated eating and drink¬ ing ; Herakles standing at rest, leaning upon his club. These famous statues have often been described in the epigrams. Some would recognise a copy of the seated Herakles in the celebrated torso of the Belvidere, the work of Apollonios, son of Nestor the Athenian (fig. 161); a more probable copy is the stone statuette in the British Museum. The resting Herakles may have suggested the famous Farnese Herakles of the Naples Fig. 160.—The seated Herakles of Lysippos. LYSIPPOS. 299 Museum, the work of Glykon of Athens (fig. 162). It is indeed possible that as to the poses which they both give to the god, these two statues were inspired by the bronze of Lysippos. But we do not discover in them any of the peculiar characteristics of Lysippos, and they are more probably works of a later date, and belonging to a totally different school, with only a reminiscence of the works of Lysippos. The Apoxyomenos is decidedly the best example of the talent of Lysippos, as not even one authentic portrait of Alexander the Great has sur¬ vived, though Ly¬ sippos, the official sculptor of the con¬ queror, Executed many such. Lysip¬ pos, and he alone, , . Fig. 161.—The Belvidere torso (Vatican). had the right to re¬ produce the august visage of the monarch in bronze, just as Pyrgoteles only might engrave it on a gem, and Apelles paint it. It is easy to believe, on the testimony of the ancients, with what rare ingenuity of observation Lysippos has seized the very likeness of the king, his head inclined on the left shoulder, his 300 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. LjJaurent. Fig. 162.—The Farnese Herakles (Naples Museum). LYSIPPOS. 301 eyes raised to heaven and, spite of his brilliant hardi¬ hood and lion-like looks, seemingly wet with tears. As for the allegorical statue of Kairos, Opportunity, so famous in antiquity, it can best be described by the following epigram :—“Whence is thy sculptor? From Sicyon. What is his name ? Lysippos. And thou, what art thou ? Opportunity, which masters all things. Why dost thou stand on tip-toe ? I am always run¬ ning. Why hast thou double wings to thy feet ? To fly in the air. Why this sharp knife in thy right hand ? To show mortals that I am keener than any point. And thy locks, why do they fall over thine eyes ? By Zeus, it is by the hair that I must be seized in the struggle. And behind, why art thou bald ? He whom I have once outstripped with my winged feet, in spite of his desire, shall never catch me from behind. And why did the artist sculpture thee ? For your sake, unknown one; he has placed me in this vestibule to teach you a lesson.” The allegory certainly is very pretentious and cold ; its ingenuity may be praised, but perhaps we could better have endured the loss of the epigram than that of the statue of Lysippos. Numerous disciples at Sicyon and all over Greece followed the canon of Lysippos. His three sons, Da'ippos, Boedas, and Euthycrates, who had famous disciples of his own, gave the example of this imitation to Phanis, to Tisicrates, Eutychides, to Chares of Lindos, and to many more. Euthycrates was distinguished by his choosing to follow his father’s genius in its austerer aspect; he delighted in a grave rather than in a lighter kind of subject. We cannot judge him accurately, as none of his works have survived. 302 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. As for Chares of Lindos, he it was who conceived and sculptured the colossus of Rhodes. This enormous bronze, sixty-two cubits in height, represented the sun. Overturned by an earthquake, in Pliny’s time it still astonished people by its bulk. Few men, said he, can span its thumb, whilst its other fingers are higher than most statues. Vast caverns are opened up in its disjointed limbs, full of great blocks of stone, which were originally destined to keep it erect. It took twelve years to make it, and thirteen hundred talents were expended upon it, the sum realized by the apparatus abandoned by Demetrius, when he grew tired of besieging Rhodes. Probably the only wonder¬ ful thing about this world’s wonder was its bulk; enormous grandeur is frequently attained at the sacrifice of artistic perfection and beauty. Lysippos may be perhaps reproached with having urged his disciples towards the sensational, and what is sensational is frequently false. The following chapter will show numerous and memorable examples of this unfortunate tendency. XI. THE SCHOOL OF PERGAMOS. The Pergamene frieze: Farnell, L., J. H. S., iii., 301 ; iv., 135; vi., 102; Article in Baumeister's Dcnkmaler, “Pergamos.'’ Votive figures of Attalos, P.Wolters’ article in Jahrbuch, i. t p. 85 ; Mayer's article in Jahrbuch , ii., p. 77. The conquests of Alexander, the dismemberment of his vast empire into powerful rival kingdoms, gave to Hellenic civilization, which was already widely spread beyond Greece, a new impulse and fresh brilliancy. Great artists must no longer be sought in European Greece alone, or in the adjacent islands. The suc¬ cessors of the fifth and fourth century masters follow' in the train of the successors of Alexander; there is no longer a school confined to Athens, Argos, or Sicyon ; there is no longer, so to speak, any school at all, or, at any rate, any dominant school. In all the capitals of the newly-founded kingdoms, in every rich town, each artist, in the measure in which his sovereign, his circumstances or his own genius favoured or for¬ warded him, chose a line for himself without holding to the doctrine or example of a master, and without undergoing influences of which, perhaps, he is not conscious. Therefore, henceforth, any attempt to classify or date the works of sculpture is attended with confusion and great difficulty. These works 304 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. arose after the end of the fourth century b.c. in infinite numbers all over the new Greek world, and our museums are crowded with them. The survey of the sculptured monuments ascribed to this happily named era of Hellenism, must, therefore, be cautiously undertaken. The era which begins with the successors of Alexander includes the whole of the struggle with Rome of the Greek kingdoms in Asia, and stretches, through the Roman Empire, to its irre¬ trievable decline. In this long, various, and vexed period, the political and military spirit of Greece first grew torpid, and finally slept, with only rare and un¬ important awakenings. The commercial spirit, on the other hand, was roused to all its first life and force, and the artistic spirit, more fertile if not more powerful than ever, spread its wings afresh and flew over the whole world. Overthrown by the arms of Rome, Greece vanquished her victors by letters and arts. But this cannot be spoken of as a renaissance, for since the great classic period of Pericles, until the triumph of Christianity,—which killed the heathen arts, and was the beginning of a new history, independent and upon a new basis, in plastic as in politics,—there was no interruption in the artistic production of the Greeks. This is abundantly proved by one fact. The Venus of Milo, whose beauties have been described, and which has been studied as one of the purest and most perfect statues of the classic era, is often classed amongst the works of the Greco-Roman era, upon doubtful evidence, and that, moreover, by archaeologists who are unquestionable authorities. It is impossible to agree, even with weighty critics, upon this point; THE SCHOOL OF PERGAMOS. 305 but it must be admitted that with many works it is easy to make a like mistake. If only aesthetic reasons are considered in dating them, they can be dated two or three centuries later or earlier without the charge of carelessness being incurred, so long did the inspira¬ tion of sculptors remain fertile and various, and their execution bold and able. If, amidst this confused heap of riches, order must be obtained at any price, the distinctions made by most historians may be accepted,—the School of Pergamos, the School of Rhodes, and the School of Tralles. But the artificial and inadequate character of the classification must be strongly insisted upon. Pergamos, Rhodes, and Tralles were important centres at different times before the Roman Conquest, where art flourished brilliantly. But they were not the only towms, and they did not issue the word of command to the rest of the Hellenic world. The use of the word school in this sense of the word would be inaccurate ; the names oniy indicate groups, and at most, artistic tendencies. Pergamos, a humble city in the north of Smyrna, only began to be important in the third century b.c. It was the capital of one of the kingdoms born, about 283 b.c., of the dismembering of the Empire of the Seleucidae. It was occupied by the dynasty of the Attalidae, who happily numbered among their kings such men as Attalus I. He was the first to take the title of king; he reigned forty-four years, and was chiefly famous for the great victory over the Asiatic Gauls. Attalus deserved the honours of heroi- zation for his overthrow of these hordes of invaders, for driving them back and restricting them to a few 20 306 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. districts in the north of Phrygia. They came rushing in from the west to the east, plundering and massacring all that came in their way, just as later on the Huns came from the west to the east. A successor of Attalus, Eumenes II., celebrated another triumph over the Gauls, by the erection of a splendid monument on the Acropolis of Pergamos, an altar sacred probably to Zeus. A large portion of the sculptured frieze of this altar has been dis¬ covered by the very fortunate German excavators. The great bas-reliefs which adorned the basis, and the staircase of the altar, can be seen and admired in Berlin. Two reliefs represent Zeus and Athena in combat with the giants (figs. 163, 164). The entire frieze, 2‘3 metres in height, must doubtless have been 144 metres in length. These colossal representations are a long way from the simple sobriety of the decorative sculptures of Attica, and also from the anatomical simplicity of the gods or athletes of Polykleitos, or even of Lysippos. The vio¬ lence, the rage of the barbarians arrested by Attalus and Eumenes in their ravages, seem to have entered deeply into the imagination and the work of the artists of Pergamos. There is more than movement in the battle which the huge sons of earth, half men and half serpents, wage against the whole company of the Olympian gods. It is, indeed, a battle between gods and giants, passing the strength of men. These gods, these giants, clash, stand up, or fall and roll in the dust, in accurately audacious attitudes, which are occasionally disconcerting to the taste. The forms of their powerful bodies, their muscles, swollen with the THE SCHOOL OF PERGAMOS 307 Fig. 163.—Zeus fighting the giants, great altar of Pergamos (Berlin). 3°S ANCIENT SCULPTURE. strain, sometimes unnaturally distended, are altogether in excess of what is natural. But the faults of taste, the excess and overflow of life, the revelling in starting muscles, subtract from, though they do not wholly mar, the grandeur and power of this colossal work. The sculptors have aimed at effect, and it would appear that they attained their end. The arrangement of the whole series of slabs has been successfully reconstructed by Bohn, who has replaced the bas-reliefs at the foot of the vast and heavy porticoes which served to enclose the gigantic altar of Zeus, and rose above the imposing steps of the monumental staircase. Seen from below, at some distance, the excesses are softened down, the search for unusual movements and the strain is diminished ; the exaggeration of the muscles seems almost necessary to make the forms clear, and the relief strong enough. If viewed from a short distance, and close in front, certain figures stand out in an exceptionally lifelike manner, even striking us with the daring and intense feeling which they express. Thus Zeus (fig. 163) with one hand has launched his thunderbolts against a fallen giant, and brandishes the aegis with the other. He strikes terror right and left of him, and his two arms, stretched out on either side of his muscular breast, seem to embrace the whole of the vast battle-field. Zeus is splendidly impetuous and majestic in his power. He is not the calm Olympian of Pheidias, grave and serene upon his golden throne ; he is the god of arms, the van¬ quisher of giants, impotent in revolt. Another splendid slab (fig. 164) represents Athena in full flight. She grasps a dying, youthful giant by Pig 164.—Athena fighting the giants (Berlin). 3 io ANCIENT SCULPTURE. the hair, and drags him along in her triumphant pro¬ gress. Nike flies forward to crown her; while from the earth below the pathetic figure of Ge, the earth mother, uprises to implore pity for her giant sons. It must be added that these same sculptors, who might even be called idealists, who see nature, and par¬ ticularly the human body, through a magnifying glass, very often, also, try to express the passions realistically. The young giant, stricken by the thunder of Zeus (fig. 163), is a case in point. “ With the left arm,” says Mrs. Lucy Mitchell, “he is feeling his wounded shoulder; his head is falling back, and soon his young body will fail in death. In this attitude doctors see very dis¬ tinct symptoms of convulsions, probably caused by the awful effect of the aegis. Thus the strained muscles of the right arm, the contraction about the groin, and the whole body, denote convulsive agony. It is terribly realistic, and would be revolting, were it not tempered by wonderfully skilful modelling.” The same qualities, the same failings, are charac¬ teristic of the works of this era,-—of this “ school ” if we will. In the same place, upon the Acropolis of Pergamos, Attains consecrated to the same divinities, Zeus and Athena, statues in bronze, representing the vanquished Gauls. The names of the artists quoted as fellow-workers are Isigonos, Phyromachos, Stratonikos, and Antigonos, who wrote a treatise upon his art. Two of these works are known to us by probable copies : one is a group of the Villa Ludovisi —a Gaul who, after having killed his wife, is killing himself to escape slavery—the so-called Peetus and Arria; the other is a statue in the Museum of the THE SCHOOL OF PERGAMOS. 3 I I Capitol—a wounded Gaul, known as the “ dying Gladiator,” in the death agony, the drooping head being raised and supported with difficulty by the right arm. The two works are fine, the execution being more sober and the feeling more delicate than in the frieze of the grand altar. There is more idealism, mingled with a less brutal realism; the figures are living and vigorous, freely posed, and originality is sought in rare and novel effects. These two works should be compared with certain statues scattered over the European Museums, almost undoubtedly authentic reproductions of a votive offering sent by Attalus to the gods of Athens, his faithful ally, and which were consecrated on the south wall of the Acropolis itself. One feels that perhaps the copyist may have softened down the family features of the School of Pergamos. At Naples, in Rome, at Venice, at Aix in Provence, a series of Gauls, of Greeks, of fighting or wounded Amazons are to be found, in which the inspiration and execution is unmistakably that of the sculptors of the frieze and the Dying Gaul. The statues are less ANCIENT SCULPTURE. than life size, which is vexatious, for the violent poses and action in these figures, with their reduced propor¬ tions, become grimaces and contortions. The departure from nature and the convention are much more apparent in the fragments of the Athenian votive offering than, for instance, in the frieze. Perhaps the most strikingly original figure among all that survive is the dead Amazon (fig. 165), stretched all her length upon her back, lying as she fell. The sculptor has had no thought, as one would naturally fear, of arranging the body of the woman-warrior in some theatrical attitude. With the Amazon, the kneeling Persian of the Vatican Museum may also be placed. It is an energetic and THE SCHOOL OF PERGAMOS. 313 brutal figure of a barbarian, eager for the fray, huddled together, ready to spring like a deer, wiry and strong under his trousers or mantle, which cling after the fashion of his country (fig. 166). The influence of Pergamos was far-reaching. Certain ancient copies of some parts of the frieze of the great altar, made at the very time when it was sculptured, are quoted. Some particularly famous works, too, such as the frieze of the temple of Priene, for instance, have been compared with the frieze of Pergamos, on account of their bold and dramatic style; but with reference to this frieze it must be owned that it is quite possibly of the preceding century. The conquest of the kingdom by the Romans caused this influence very soon to pass into Italy, where, especially in Rome, its effects will be seen in the works known as Greco-Roman. XII. THE SCHOOL OF RHODES. THE SCHOOL OF TRALLES. Just as the frieze of the great altar is typical of sculpture at Pergamos, so the famous group of the Laocoon, discovered in Rome in 1506 on the site of the Palace of Titus, is the most complete and significant expression of the sculpture of Rhodes (fig. 167). Pliny the elder ascribes the work to three artists, Agesandros, Polydoros, and Athenodoros. According to him, this work is superior to anything ever produced by painting or sculpture, and he quotes it as a rare instance of a masterpiece by more than one hand. Pliny’s opinion has long prevailed in modern times; Winckelmann accepted it without reserve, and his school is unanimous in exaggerated eulogy. It is well known that Lessing, wishing to fix the limits of the domain allowed to each of the plastic arts, chose the Laocoon as a starting-point for his study. The force and intensity of expression of a Laocoon, has, in fact, never been surpassed by any Hellenic sculptor; the sensation of physical suffering has never been reproduced more clearly or vividly in marble. This old man, still vigorous and robust; these two youths—the one already of almost virile maturity, the other younger and slighter, whom huge serpents enfold THE SCHOOL OF RHODES. 315 and bite, regardless of their vain defence, do in ^STTriA Fig. 167.—Laocoon (Vatican). very truth suffer, and display their suffering. In the 316 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. stiffened bodies the veins are swollen, the muscles start out in a desperate effort, the bellies are con¬ tracted and sunken, whilst the chests, constricted by the pressure of the serpents, are swollen and dilated with air, while the tortured and convulsed bodies writhe in anguish. The heads thrown back, the failing eyes and open mouths from which issues not so much a cry as the sound of the death groans and rattle, produce upon the mind of the spectator, as much and even more than the convulsed bodies, the most tragic effect possible. Nevertheless, in spite of this display of bodily pain, which sets on the whole work the seal of materialism, there is in the grouping of the figures, in their frank nakedness, above all in the expression of the faces, where feeling shows through the merely animal sensations of suffering, undeniably a height of ideal inspiration which singularly raises the level of the work and doubles its interest. This is especially true of the two sons of the Laocoon, particularly the elder, who turns a beseeching look upon his father. The speaking mouth, the eye sunk in the socket and wrinkled with lines of suffering, all plead for impossible help. And with singularly just observation, fear, anguish and desperate entreaty are blended with the involuntary contraction of the muscles under the influence of physical pain. In short, in spite of some exaggeration in the pathological anatomy, and in spite of the attitudes and sufferings being rather too much emphasised, the effect of the whole is so vivid, so real and complete, that the obvious faults perpetrated by the sculptors are easily forgotten. For instance, the three bodies are THE SCHOOL OF RHODES. 317 out of proportion, and so also are the two heads of the children, which are too small for their bodies. In comparison with their father, and considering their own size, the two youths ought to have quite childish forms, whereas they have merely those of smaller men, and their heads seem to be borrowed from statues whose dimensions were less even than their own. A fault arising from clumsy restoration must also be noted ; the right arms of Laocoon and his youngest son were not raised, as they appear in the engraving, but bent at the elbow and brought in front of the heads. The effect of the body thus gathered together was more striking, and the group much more regular ; it formed a pyramid, whose highest point was the head of the Laocoon, and had a more united and vigorous aspect. As it is now, its characteristics are still exceedingly accurate and interesting. It belongs to the school of Lysippos in its anatomy ; in its composition and intensity of expression, to that of Scopas ; in its faults, exaggera¬ tion, and theatrical aspect, to the school of Pergamos. As for the date, it is not easy to choose one between those contended by archaeologists. Lessing spoke of the age of Titus, and was of opinion that the group was sculptured by that prince himself; this is of course impossible. A painting at Pompeii, of the first century a.d., is manifestly inspired by the marble group. Besides, artists contemporary with Titus would cer¬ tainly have carefully followed the account of Virgil in the second book of the yEneid, and there is no trace of such influence in the sculpture. It belongs much more probably to the middle of the second century before Christ, for that is the date of the frieze of the altar of 318 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. Pergamos, and there are striking resemblances between the two works. Not to speak of style, the young giant struggling with a serpent in the Athena group (fig. 167), as has been already remarked, is extremely like Laocoon. The head is thrown back in the same way, the arm is bent behind the head, the body leans towards the right, and the leg is stretched out all in the same manner. M. Wolters is probably right in preferring this date to that of the third century b.c., proposed by those who see numerous links between the chief work of the School of Rhodes and that of the School of Tralles, the Farnese Bull (fig. 168). This monument, the largest surviving specimen of Greek sculpture in the round, was discovered in 1546 or 1547, in the time of Pope Paul III., in the hot baths of Caracalla, in Rome. Since 1786, it has been in the Naples Museum. Excavated in a grievous state of mutilation, it has been ably restored by Giovan- Battista della Porta, from the indications given by the fragments themselves; and the conception and com¬ position of the whole, at any rate, if not the technical details, can be perfectly realized. The theme is the punishment of Dirke, the unnatural daughter of Antiope, who was fastened to the horns of a fierce bull by her brothers Amphion and Zethos. The animal is rearing, one cord already wound round its horns, and the two brothers, Amphion on the right (distinguished by his lyre), and Zethos on the left, are seizing it by the muzzle and the horns, pulling violently at the cords in their effort to constrain it. In front of them, at their feet, is Dirke. She is half-naked, and terror-striken, for the bull grazes with its hoofs the arm THE SCHOOL OF TRALLES. 3 1 9 and head of the unhappy victim, and she turns imploringly to her destroyers. The scene takes place on a rock with trees growing on it; Amphion and Zethos are standing, perched on the points of the rock. A woman, doubtless Antiope, a mountain deity, smaller than the other figures, and a dog, witness the torture. Here and there, on the windings of the rock, animals are sculptured, leaves and emblems of the worship of Dionysos, a basket, thyrsos, etc., because the vengeance took place during a Dionysiac fete. According to Pliny, the group, hewn out of a single block of marble, was the work of Apollonios and Tauriskos of Tralles. A mere glance even at the engraving (fig. 168) reveals grave faults. The odd composition of the group has been criticized : the men suspended, unstably poised on the points of the rock or leaning against the trunks of trees which grow, one scarcely knows how, out of the stones : the allegorical animals sculptured on the rock with their minute dimensions, like the god seated upon the right, who is smaller than the dog. It has been said in jest that Dirke has nothing to do with the others, and that it would have been quite easy for her to escape. More¬ over her attitude is contorted, and the awkward « position of her body is utterly unnatural. It is a slight excuse that the Farnese Bull was very probably destined to adorn a garden, intended possibly to rise amidst a group of plants, and the odd shape of the rock, with its sharpness and points, was to stand for a mountain top. It must be remarked, moreover, that the group is symmetrical ; Zethos agrees with Amohion, Antiope 320 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. with Dirke ; the bull forms the centre, and his head is the apex of a pyramid. Moreover, the group is so arranged that from whatever point of view it is approached, it appears to be the front view, which proves conclusively that it was destined to serve in some way as the central ornament. The good qualities are as obvious as the faults; verve, imagina¬ tion, action, a very clear feeling for a great decorative whole. The sculptors worked for effect, and they attained it. THE SCHOOL OF TRALLES. 321 But the chief interest of the group lies in the vivid impression, gained at first sight, that Apollonios and Tauriskos have gone beyond the domain of sculpture. The Laocoon in its effort to produce expression touched the extreme limits of this art. The Farnese Bull exceeds them by the complication of its theme. The sculptors have conceived their work in the spirit of a painter, and it is a serious fault. They have not grasped the fact that the chisel necessarily gives to all the figures, to all the accessories, of a group the same intensity of relief and of life. There is no gradation, as in painting, of importance in different planes and different details. And thus, all the ac¬ cessories, like the animals and the Dionysiac attributes, which a painter would have justified in giving them, by means of some artifice of colour or composition, their exact value, are prejudicial here, out of propor¬ tion, and obtrusive. The Farnese Bull is, as it were, a translation of a picture into marble. The attempt is novel and bold, but its success is more than doubtful. The work, however, although it is so imperfect, has the great merit of exciting criticism, and of awakening grave aesthetic questions. Another instructive point cannot be passed over. When Virgil relates the death of Laocoon, he first tells of the serpent approaching, and then of how it enfolds the priest; there are, so to speak, two acts in the drama, the first leading up to the second. The sculptors of the Laocoon chose the second, as the most terrible and moving. Apollonios and Tauriskos, on the contrary, have chosen the first act in the drama of Dirke’s punishment, the preparatory 21 322 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. act. It seemed to them that there was something brutal and material about the punishment itself, and that there would have been no room for expressing the feelings of the soul. On the other hand, the calm confidence of the two brothers, firmly preparing to avenge their mother by the death of their sister; the physical terror of the victim in front of the stamping bull, and moral horror excited by the thought of the sufferings to come—this whole scene produces anxiety in the spectator, an involuntary oppression while awaiting the bloody event. Such was the theme that excited and warmed the fancy and verve of refined artists, at a period when sculpture had become before all things an expressive art. Such a theme tempted the chisel which was by turns accurate and scientific, or free and fantastic; which could conquer every difficulty,— for it could carve out of an enormous block either the delicate and fragile twists of a cord, or the agonized face of a young and beautiful woman about to die ; the muscular bodies of athletes subduing a bull, or the soft and childish outlines of a young god wreathed in flowers. With the group of Apollonios and Tauriskos, this so important creation of the school of Tralles, the history of Greek sculpture proper comes to an end. Artistic life does not cease in all Hellenic countries, but it is at Rome mainly, if not there only, that the great artists now work. The resources of creative art are well-nigh played out. Sculpture has been seen to become self-conscious by degrees, to grow, to progress, to reach perfection and long to maintain it. It has been seen to explore its domain in every direction, THE SCHOOL OF TRALLES. 323 to traverse open roads and to make new ones, to reach and overreach its natural limits. None of its possibilities now are a secret to it; if its history is unfinished, if some of its beautiful and grand achieve¬ ments have still to be recounted, before its decline sets in, at any rate it is certain that this beauty, this grandeur, will now have little that is novel to us; Greek sculpture henceforth ceases to be creative. GREEK SCULPTURE UNDER THE ROMAN EMPIRE. Apollo Belvidere : Kieseritzky, Archceol. Zeitung, 1883, p. 29; Gercke, Jahrbuch, ii., p. 260. The works of this long period fill our European museums; they are innumerable. They have been discovered in multitudes, first at Rome, in the sump¬ tuous villas and palaces, where the grandees or emperors had amassed them in their pride and avarice; and then in the towns or provinces, where the rich people, often Roman citizens, affected to keep pace with the ostenta¬ tion of the capital. This work cannot attempt to give a complete survey, which would demand large volumes ; only a few of the most famous statues can be described, without any attempt at classification, for to assign to them any date or school is, in such small compass, impossible. The genius of the sculptors of this era is eminently eclectic. Since the kingdom of sculpture seems to have been explored to its farthest limits, and origi¬ nality is impossible, each one appears, whether con¬ sciously or not, to choose a master amongst the famous ones of old, and to abandon himself to imitation of models. It can at least be affirmed that, when there is no signature, or other precise indication, it is almost GREEK SCULPTURE UNDER ROMAN EMPIRE. 325 always easy to recognise the works of the period, some because they bear the obvious seal of imitation, and others because they begin to display that conventional¬ ism from which classic masterpieces have hitherto been free. And, together with this conventionalism, there are qualities which are already ominous of decay, which by their very excess become almost faults: utterly unnatural refinement, and grace exaggerated to affecta¬ tion. Three statues are illustrative of this : the Venus de Medici, the Ariadne of the Vatican, and the Apollo Belvidere. The first is signed by Kleomenes, son of Apollodoros the Athenian, but the inscription is untrustworthy. Moreover, the interest of the statue lies not in the inscription, but entirely in the subject and technique. The Venus de Medici is quite obviously the Venus of Praxiteles arranged to suit the taste of the Roman era. If nothing is altered in the typical attitude of the goddess rising from the sea, the impression produced upon the spectator is different. The innocent and naive gesture, admired for its modesty by the de¬ votees of Knidos, has now lost something of its chaste reserve. Like Virgil's shepherdess, who flies to the willows and yet wishes to be gazed at, Venus seems to veil herself the better to display her charms. She is no longer the goddess of Knidos, emerging from her mother-waves, but a young and coquettish mortal, who, whilst sporting in the bath, takes good care to display her beautiful figure and wonderfully dressed hair. Or, if she is a goddess, as the little love astride of a gamboling dolphin would seem to indicate, the Olympus where she dwells is no longer the Olympus 326 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. of Pheidias and Praxiteles. The fact is, that the artist has ceased to believe in Venus and in Olympus ; he does not respect the goddess whom he creates, one who ought never to receive the vows of any worshipper in a temple. He only works to charm the eyes by the brilliance and grace of a naked woman ; and as he had incomparable mastery of the chisel, and as the fine, amber-coloured Parian marble lends itself under his hands to all the deli¬ cacy of breathing flesh, the work rises to be ranked as one of the finest. At Florence, in the centre of the Tribune, that celebrated salon whose narrow space en¬ closes canonical master¬ pieces enough to make twenty museums famous, the Venus de Medici, before all, attracts and Fig. 169.—Venus de Medici (Uffizii, captivates a certain class Florence). Q f S p ec tato r by its very studied self-conscious perfection. GREEK SCULPTURE UNDER ROMAN EMPIRE. 327 The famous Ariadne of the Vatican (fig. 170) con¬ veys almost the same impression. It is impossible to recognise in this beautiful but self-conscious young woman asleep, the passionate lover of Theseus. Softly extended on the folds of her waving robe, the rounded arms about her head in a gracefully studied attitude, her face expressing a soft sentimentality, she seems to sleep for fatigue rather than anguish. She reminds one of Cynthia, Lesbia, Corinna, of any of those amorous ladies who wept the inconstancy of a Titullus or an Ovid, while she waited for the next lover. But this is not the Ariadne of Catullus, who “ bore in her soul rage untamable,” who “gazed afar on the sea¬ weed with sad eyes like the stone image of a Bacchant, with great waves of bitterness surging in her heart.” Such grief would have burst the soft bosom, such invectives would have torn the tender lips, of the Ariadne of the Vatican, this Greek lady of the De¬ cadence. And yet, like the Venus de Medici, though less perfectly, and in spite of the most obvious faults ANCIENT SCULPTURE. ! 2 8 Fig. 171.—The Belvidere Apollo (Vatican). (like the unmeaning folds of drapery around the knees), GREEK SCULPTURE UNDER ROMAN EMPIRE. 329 the statue attracts by reason of its languid grace ; and the type, so degenerate, treated by a sceptical sculptor, is engraved in the memory, side by side with the stronger, truer, and more beautiful type created by the imagination of the poet. The Apollo Belvidere (fig. 171) has fallen much below the rank given to it by Winckelmann. It is no longer considered to be the finest of Greek statues, and justly. Still the work has a value of its own, and no mean one. The young god advances lightly, in all the brilliance of his youthful forces; his gesture is full of pride, he really has an Olympian aspect. But here, again, the lack of original inspiration and of simplicity of execution is to be regretted, qualities which elevate the masterpieces of the century of Pericles. The sculptor has not that ironical irreverence for his god which is so striking in some other statues; he evi¬ dently has tried to give him a majestic and noble air, but unhappily the effort is felt. The effect, indeed, is produced, but not naturally and at the first attempt; the work is able, but cold. Apollo is worthy, indeed, to serve as a model to beginners in drawing, so perfect is the form and so pure are the lines ; it is most academi¬ cally correct. But artists who wish to move or charm should choose another ideal; the tiresome and common¬ place works which have been, and are still, produced by imitating that too classic type are only too familiar. The Belvidere Apollo recalls Scopas, whose school fixed the plastic types of the Greek divinities as they were conceived by the religion and poetry of the classic era. The Ares Ludovisi (fig. 172) apparently belongs to the same group in its attributes and attitude. The 330 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. /Satt/e/i/-. Fig. 172.—Ares Ludovisi (Villa Ludovisi, Rome GREEK SCULPTURE UNDER ROMAN EMPIRE. 33 I little Love alone, placed in an amusing manner between the feet of the god of war, roguish and laughing, shows it to be of the Roman epoch. But the head is in the Fig. 173. — The “ Borghese Gladiator” (Louvre Museum). manner of Praxiteles (head of Hermes, fig. 154) and the tall bod}' follows the canon of Lysippos. A like blending of schools is to be found in the so-called “ Borghese Gladiator,” the famous work of Agasias 33 2 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. of Ephesus (fig. 173). The statue, more properly called the “ armed runner,” is visibly inspired by Lysippos—tall, slender, and wiry, with accurate and scientific anatomy, and small, delicate head. But the violent and rapid gesture, chosen like that of the Discobolos, takes us farther back, as far as Myron. Agasias of Ephesus shows himself here to be a clever worker, know¬ ing the masterpieces and understanding them well; but feel¬ ing his genius a little dry, and his inspira¬ tion to be limited, he resigns himself to a free and tasteful imi¬ tation. These statues have not the value of the Venus of Vienne (in Dauphine), also an imitated work, but Fig. 174.—The Venus of Vienne (Louvre). ... singularly sincere and individual. No type is commoner in antiquity than the crouching Venus, for there is not a more graceful motive, nor one better calculated to display the pliancy, or to bring into relief the harmonious curves, of a woman’s body. There are innumerable reproductions of it, but the statue at Vienne has almost GREEK SCULPTURE UNDER ROMAN EMPIRE. 333 the air of an original. It is a woman’s body, blossom¬ ing in full maturity, with ample, healthy breasts, strong waist, and round, firm legs. The marble is amber- coloured, like a warm, southern skin, and seems to breathe. It recalls the luxuriant nakedness in which the exuberant and overflowing genius of Rubens de¬ lighted. And yet, the work is sober, so much so that, but for the tedious commonplace of the theme, which serves to date the statue, one would be tempted to take it out of this chapter and put it in better company. XIV. SCULPTURE IN ETRURIA AND ROME. Popular resume of Etruscan and Roman archaeology, J. Martha, Manuel d’Arche'ologie fctntsque et Romaine. Archaistic works, and specially the Pompeian Artemis : Studniczka, Mitth. Roemische Abthg., iii., 4, p. 277. A school of sculpture undoubtedly existed at Rome, but it cannot be called Roman sculpture. Roman genius was for politics, practical architecture, and war. Long absorbed in conquest, they left the care of adorn¬ ing their temples, palaces, and public places to their neighbours—soon to be their subjects—of Etruria and Magna-Graecia. Roman sculpture, especially since the Tarquins, is primarily Etruscan. Its simple history must now be rapidly sketched and the chief features noted. The Etruscans are the first and the only ancient people of the Italian race who seem to have been gifted with an artistic sense. Herodotus maintained that the Etruscans were the Tyrrhenian Pelasgi who came from the coasts of Lydia. Dionysius of Halicarnassus says that they were natives of the Rhaetian Alps. Modern historians, constructing more or less ingenious systems, founded chiefly upon hypotheses, have seen in the Etruscans by turns Egyptians, Celts, Italians, Sclaves or Tartars. Thus much only is certain—that, once esta- SCULPTURE IN ETRURIA AND ROME. 335 blished in Tuscany, their civilization received an impetus whose force is every day attested by fresh discoveries. They dated back, by their own account, from long before the foundation of Rome to the eleventh century b.c. Their power, of which we have sure testimony, dating from the tenth century b.c., reached northwards beyond the Po, and southwards over the whole Campania. Latium, which gave birth to Rome, was part of their domain. The Romans had long to struggle against the Etruscans, and it was only in the third century b.c. that they succeeded in reducing them to impotence, and finally absorbing them. The enormous vitality of this people is revealed by the manner in which the plastic arts developed among them. The necropolises of Vulci, Chiusi, Corneto, Cervetri, and others yet more numerous, whose sub¬ terranean tombs are adorned with frescoes in excellent preservation, are deservedly famous. From them hundreds of sarcophagi have been taken, thousands of vases, mirrors, bronze vessels, and precious jewels, which prove the wealth of the Etruscans, their flourish¬ ing import trade with Greece, and also their enlightened taste for the decoration which makes useful objects pleasant to the eye, and for painting and sculpture, which each, in their own language, reproduce living forms, scenes in the life of men, or myths in the life of gods. This art is not always, nor in all its manifestations, original. In contact, like all the other border countries of the Mediterranean, at once with the Phoenicians, with Greek traders, with the Hellenic settlers of Sicily and Magna-Graecia, Etruria early became an importing 336 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. country. Commerce by sea brought to it innumer¬ able products of Phoenician or Greek industry, which are to be found there in all their original purity. The famous treasure of Palestrina (Praeneste), discovered in 1876, is a case in point. Here, mingled with other pre¬ cious objects, were cups chased in gilded silver, exactly like Cypriot cups, one of them bearing a Phoenician inscription. On the other hand, the infinite collection of painted vases may be quoted, long known as Etruscan, but now owned on all hands to be almost entirely of purely Greek manufacture. These works, both Phoenician and Greek, possessed such a decided value and character that they must have greatly influenced the local art and industry. Thus in judging Etruscan art there are three elements to be distinguished— Oriental, Greek, and Etruscan. In sculpture these elements reduce themselves almost always to the two last. In the study of sculpture in primitive Greece, we saw how and why the sculpture of Egypt and Assyria had only influenced it indirectly. Etruscan sculpture escaped eastern influence for the same reasons. The artists of central Italy never saw Egyptian or Asiatic statues, nor even those of Phoenicia, because the Phoenicians could not have sold the images of Asiatic gods or kings, any more than those of their own gods or chiefs, in a country whose religion and culture differed entirely. On the other hand, Greek influence is evident, not merely at the still recent epoch when Etruria was wholly Hellenised, but in more distant times, as the monuments testify. The fact is, that in Etruria it is with funeral sculp¬ ture exclusively that we are acquainted. It is known SCULPTURE IN ETRURIA AND ROME. 337 that their temples had sometimes pediments decorated with statues, but only unmeaning fragments of those survive : no statue of a deity has been preserved. Their art must be judged from the terra-cotta sarco¬ phagi exhumed from the necropolises. These are, indeed, documents of first rate value, in acquainting us with beliefs and customs, but they are, upon the whole, more the products of manufacture than of art. Too much must not be expected of them, nor must it be inferred that Etruscan sculpture merely possessed the good qualities or faults displayed in them. An example may be taken from amongst the most ancient sarcophagi discovered at Caere, and instances no wise inferior may be studied in the Etruscan room of the British Museum. The subject is the usual one; the coffin is in the form of a bed of state, and upon it two figures, supported upon their elbows, are stretched—doubtless the dead man and his wife (fig. 175). The grouping of the figures is simple and de¬ cidedly delicate. The husband, placed behind his wife, is leaning upon higher cushions, and thus rises above his companion, whom he seems affectionately to protect. The two busts are well separated, the attitude of the man does not embarrass that of the woman, and though they are closely united, each has an individual life. This sarcophagus is also a highly commend¬ able instance as to the disposition of the draperies thrown about the bed—the cushions and garments are treated with considerable skill. The folds cross or follow one another not ungracefully. They are even pliant in places, and the stuffs are in this way rather superior to those of the Greek archaic statues. The 33 8 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. frieze which adorns the supports and crossbar of the bed is obviously in Greek style, and slight and sober. Fig. 175.—Etruscan sarcophagus (I.ouvre) SCULPTURE IN ETRURIA AND ROME. 339 Moreover there is great care bestowed in the adjust¬ ment of the woman’s headdress, and in the arrangement of the man’s hair and beard. The faces are singularly living and individual, as if the effort of the sculptor had been expended in trying to get an exact likeness, which may have been demanded by Etruscan beliefs. The colour, which in the bodies is quite uniform and con¬ ventional, is tastefully and naturally used to animate the faces. In all these details the influence of the taste, sobriety, and ingenious technique of the Greeks is easily to be recognised. But alongside of these good qualities are many faults for which the Etruscan genius must be held responsible. The anatomy is coarse; not only are the busts badly hewn, heavy, large, and soft, but there is no modelling in the arms, the hands are shapeless, and the bodies bisected at the waist; and it seems impossible that the legs, rigorously stretched out on the bed, can be attached to the hips. It is astonishing that in the same work so much inexperience is to be seen, united to the skill which has just been commended. This is the dominant feature of Etruscan sculpture. Although Greek art largely pervaded Etruria, so that Etruscan sculpture became, so to speak, a section of Hellenic art, the good qualities have developed with¬ out the faults vanishing. The sarcophagi become richer, the fronts of the funeral couches are covered with bas- reliefs, and the attitudes in which the dead recline are more and more choice. Their clothes are more grace¬ fully draped, their adornment is more elaborate, their faces are more lifelike ; but their bodies are always badly put together, with no real anatomical feeling. In 340 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. the same way, the themes of the bas-reliefs, which are generally scenes borrowed from Hellenic mythology, have variety and action. The composition is sober and simple, and even scientific at times; but the bodies of men, women, and animals are inaccurate in form and drawing. All these works bear the stamp of a narrow mind and a clumsy hand ; the Etruscan ceramic sculptors were never more than bad pupils of the Greeks. In the days of the Tarquins, Etruscan sculpture was entirely Hellenised. Etruria introduced into Rome the sculptors who decorated the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol, erected the statue of the god in the sanctuary, and sculptured several statues which are mentioned in the texts, such as Tanaquil spinning at her distaff. But the Roman spirit, though as little as possible occupied with art, was yet too original and domineering not to impress upon its Etruscan guests a little of its own character; their works were bound to be touched with something more naive and austere. For instance, the memorial statues with which the Forum was filled, the number and variety of which Cato scoffed at, the iconic busts of ancestors, piously preserved by the patricians, could not but keep the masculine severity of their models. Thus in the best times of the Republic, the famous sarcophagus of Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus, who was consul in 298 b.c., is of Etruscan manufacture, strongly Hellenised—as the Doric entabla¬ ture, joined to the volutes of the Ionian order, testify. But this sarcophagus is distinguished from those found in Etruria itself, by the severe simplicity of its outlines, and its sober decoration. SCULPTURE IN ETRURIA AND ROME. 341 The Greeks, who from the fifth century b.c. were attracted by the increasing glory of Rome, and who were summoned by the pomp and pride of the great men, were certainly not the best artists of their country. Their works have not survived ; they were scorned, and disappeared at the time when men like Marcellus, Fabius Maximus, Flamininus, iEmilius Paulus, and Mummius, not to speak of those like Verres, crowded the city with the spoils of Tarentum, Corinth, and of all Greece. But it may be asserted that these ancient statues, just because they came from the hands of more obscure artists, received a Roman impress, just like the Etruscan Fig. 176.—Sacrificial offerings (Forum, Rome). statues. For even in the most flourishing times of the empires, when the arts of Greece were received with enthusiasm by the Romans,—an enthusiasm, sincere with some, with others artificial and servile,—the Greek sculptors who set their faces towards Rome, as the new artistic centre of the world, impressed upon their works, whether willingly or not, a style which is justly called Roman. We cannot speak in detail of the themes which, naturally, were often adapted to the Roman religion. But this line of victims (fig. 176), this pig, ram, and bull,—this suovetaurilia ,—their heads adorned with 342 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. fillet - ribbons, their bodies bound with rich girdles, are marching with a pompous and pontifical gravity, which carries us far from the Greek proces¬ sions, from the Panathenaic f r i e z e, f o r i in¬ stance, where the lowing cattle were crowding in confusion, quite' unmindful of their brief dignity. Nor can we speak of the gods, whose Hellenic type was naturally modified at times, out of respect to the Roman beliefs. For instance, that beautiful and majestic statue of Fortune (fig. 177) is no longer the Greek T y c h e, Fig. 177.—Fortune (Naples Museum). SCULPTURE IN ETRURIA AND ROME. 343 with her graceful tendency to happy chance; she is the austere and wise Fortune, who fixed for ever the happy destinies of Rome, who, as her rudder indicates, directs human affairs, but reasonably. She is, besides, the really Roman goddess, who early assumed the name and attributes of the Egyptian Isis, the diadem, the hanging veil, and the horn of plenty, symbolical of riches. Again, take, for instance, the so-called Germanicus of the Louvre (fig. 178), the work of Kleomenes the Athenian. The real name of this remarkable statue has long been disputed, and it is still undecided whether it is a dead man made demi-god, an ambassador, a Hermes, indicated by the tortoise to his left, or an orator, or merely a portrait. It really matters little. The statue shines with a scienti¬ fic and accurate beauty ; the purity of the outline, the Fig. 178.—Portrait of a Roman frank nakedness, the sober (Louvre), perfection of the lines, all have a feeling of the ideal which betrays a Greek hand. But it is a Greek who has been greatly struck by the vigorous character of the Roman. The thick, short hair, the angular face, with marked 344 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. Fig- 1 79 -—Augustus (Vatican) SCULPTURE IN ETRURIA AND ROME. 345 features, do not belong to the Greek type—be it artist or voluptuary ; but rather, to the thinker, the reasoner, the man with Roman ambitions. So we conceive the great men of the Republic, a Scipio or an ^Emilius Paulus. In the same way, the portrait of Augustus, known as the Augustus of the Vatican, found in 1863 at Fig. 180.—Agrippina (Naples Museum). Prima-Porta in the ruins of a villa of Livia (fig. 179), is idealised in a high degree, but the ideal is Roman. It is the deified prince, made greater, finer, and nobler by the imagination of the Romans. His superhuman stature, his form enlarged and strengthened by the heavy breastplate and ample draperies, his bare arms and legs, his noble gesture, above all the calm and haughty gravity 34*5 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. of his face, proclaim him a god. The work has the value of a portrait, and the still greater value of being a finished work of art. Everything about it is interest¬ ing, the inspiration of the sculptor, and the masterly ability of his execution, the majesty of the whole, and the finish of the detail, the prince’s attitude, his truly august features, the small bas-reliefs on the breastplate, the dolphin and the little Love which recall his origin and history. The Augustus of the Vatican deserves a place apart from the confused and commonplace crowd of imperial statues, amongst which very few are deserving of attention. This, never¬ theless, is the place to point out the Agrippina of the Naples Museum (fig. 180). Seated upon a chair, her feet stretched out upon a stool, her hands crossed upon her knees, her head slightly bent forward, with a hard, wicked expression upon her face, the mother of Nero appears as history shows her, more imperious than beautiful, absorbed in scheming crimes. As might be expected, it is especially in portraits that the Roman style is to be found ; but this style is not always of the same ideal character. Many busts of Fig. 1S1.—Portrait of a Roman. SCULPTURE IN ETRURIA AND ROME. 347 Romans survive, in which the sculptors have striven to get an absolute likeness, without any attempt to attenuate the faults of the faces. Sometimes, even, there is a distinct effort to emphasise typical ugliness. The three busts reproduced here are extremely interesting on this account. The first (fig. 181) was found in Kyrene. Some would ascribe this bronze to the school of Lysippos, actually dating it as far back as the third century before our era. But surely it is much more pro¬ bably a Roman portrait of a far later era, as several characteristics of the execu¬ tion prove—for instance, the hollow line which surrounds the lips. One divines resem¬ blance without ever having seen the model, for all the features which gave to the face its original expression are carefully studied and soberly rendered : the pro- Fig. 182.—Portrait of a Roman minent cheek-bones, the thick lad -' mouth, the scanty beard which grows so oddly. In the same way, the marble bust, found at the Farnesina Palace (fig. 182), is individual and very lifelike. In this portrait of a Roman lady, there is a frankness and sincerity about the elaboration of the hair, and about the eyes, the mouth, and especially the chin, and the suggestion of roundness in the cheeks, which is seldom to be found in the same degree in purely 348 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. Greek works. As to the so-called Seneca of Naples (fig. 183), it can be described in one word—it is realistic. The sculptor has taken pleasure in displaying, in this old man’s head, all that one would naturally wish to conceal. Here are the uncombed tufts of hair, the wrinkled brow, the sharp thin nose, the toothless mouth, the bristling beard, the neck whose flabby skin lies in folds and creases upon the straining nerves,—the uncouth aspect in all its details of the cynic philoso¬ pher. The realistic works of the finest eras of Greek art which have been quoted, lack this utterly Roman frankness. This study of Roman style need not be extended. It is certainly manifested very charac¬ teristically in works which are not portraits. But in the works of sculpture related to decoration or manufacture, in ornamental friezes, historical bas-reliefs which cover the triumphal arches and columns, in the bas-reliefs of sarcophagi, in familiar or mythical scenes— this style, far from producing anything beautiful or novel, is only the style of the Decadence. With the exception of a few happily inspired friezes, or graceful pieces of foliage like those in fig. 184, all the ornamental sculp¬ ture of the Romans errs by way of heaviness of motive or laziness of execution. Too much richness is hurtful, Fig. 183.—Pseudo-Seneca (Naples Museum). SCULPTURE IN ETRURIA AND ROME. 349 especially in art; and the extravagant tastes of the 350 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. Romans had a very grievous influence upon their architecture. The historical bas-reliefs of Trajan’s column (fig. 185), of the column of Antoninus, of the arches of Septimus Severus or of Marcus Aurelius, which attempt to represent on a level surface designs and groups of figures arranged in rows, one above the other, trenching upon the domain of painting, take us, by a rapid and fatal descent, to the barbarities of the arch of Constantine (fourth century a.d.). They have no artistic value, just as the bas-reliefs of the sarco¬ phagi—the work of vulgar hands—have only a religious value. Drawing, modelling, and perspective, every- SCULPTURE IN ETRURIA AND ROME. 35 I thing is clumsy and inaccurate; the traditions of Greek bas-relief, slight and simple, so well aware of its capacities, so sure of its effects, are lost for ever. There is no longer any Greek art, nor any Roman ;— the Middle Ages are beginning. Before closing, a hasty retrospective glance must be given to a group of works which have a peculiar place apart—pseudo-archaic works. It has often been remarked that, just as prolonged sublimity becomes tedious, so classic perfection, maintained by several generations of artists, becomes cold and monotonous. These men of marked talent, in an attempt to kindle their imagination by contact with more naive and sincere works, become enamoured of archaism. But their scientific imitation refuses merely to reproduce exactly. The subjects and types borrowed from primi¬ tive artists seem to them unworthy of their tools, unless adorned by the refined qualities which dis¬ tinguish works of art at the approach of the Decadence (fig. 187). In Rome the pseudo-archaic, or as it may be con¬ veniently termed, archaistic style, early found adherents. The word “archaistic” is used somewhat loosely, and usually as a term of reproach, and some distinction between the very various kinds of work included in this broad term is certainly necessary. The first class of archaistic works are of a very peculiar character. They consist of a small group of statues which are conveniently classified as belonging to the school of Pasiteles. Of Pasiteles himself no certain work is known. Pliny says he lived about the time of Pompey, 352 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. and notes that he wrote five volumes of art criticism. It is, perhaps, safe to conclude that his style was learned and correct; and, from the manner of his pupil Stephanos, it is clear that the whole tendency of the school was towards a sober, austere style, a marked reaction from the excesses of Pergamos, Tralles, and Rhodes. Of Stephanos a signed statue is extant, the well-known nude youth of the Villa Albani. This figure is no return to the early archaic style, but it has about it all that curious, almost intangible air of repression and restraint, and that consequent tinge of melancholy, already noted in connection with the work of the transitional period. It is remarkable that the Albani figure is repeated almost identically in the male statue of a group in the museum at Naples. A group by Menelaus, pupil of Stephanos, still remains in the Villa Ludovisi ; it is usually, though no doubt incorrectly, called the Orestes and Electra. The archaism of this group is much less distinctly marked. With this school of Pasiteles may be associated such statues as the Esquiline Venus (in the palace of the Conservatori at Rome), the Running Girl of the Vatican, and many others, notably a beautiful lifesized bronze figure of Apollo in the Naples Museum. The next class of archaistic works are those which, instead of drawing a subtle inspiration from the tran¬ sitional period, simply and directly copy statues and bas-reliefs of earlier date. This was, no doubt, done partly with the hope of deceiving the ignorant, partly to gratify popular taste, which certainly, in the time of Hadrian, had a reaction towards archaic severity. Such works abound in modern museums. As an SCULPTURE IN ETRURIA AND ROME. 353 instance may be cited the Altar of the Twelve Gods in the Louvre, and probably also the head (fig. 186) of Zeus —known as the Jupiter Talleyrand. It is interesting to compare it with several of the genuine archaic heads of Olympia. In the Talleyrand head, the severely Fig. 186.— Head of Zeus (Louvre). mannered arrangement of the hair and beard, the crown of palm-leaves, the grave air, the correct nose and mouth, the scientific simplicity of execution, betray the hand of a clever and practised sculptor, but leave an impression of singular unreality and lifelessness. 23 fees Fig. 187.—Pseudo-archaic Artemis (Naples Museum). SCULPTURE IN ETRURIA AND ROME. 355 The third class of archaistic works remains, a class of high interest and value, a class to our knowledge and appreciation of which recent discoveries of genuine archaic sculptures have added much : i.e. archaistic works which are honest and intentionally faithful copies of noted statues, for the most part cultus images in antiquity. Of these a very interesting instance is the well-known archaistic Artemis, in the Naples Museum. The statue, when it was first found in a small shrine in a Pompeian house, excited much atten¬ tion. The drapery, pose, smile, were obviously archaic; the modelling of the flesh, cheeks, arms, feet, were thought to be too soft and round for archaic art. The archaic female figures of the Acropolis have taught us, however, that such modelling was quite within the compass of the artist just before the Persian war, and it is to that date that we must look for the original statue. Dr. Studniczka, by a long train of reasoning that cannot be detailed here, has most sagaciously and clearly shown that the Artemis of Naples is a careful copy, executed about the time of Augustus, of a famous statue made by two Naupactian artists, Menaichmos and Soidas, of Artemis Laphria, a statue which had been transplanted from its original home by Augustus, and was set up at Patrae, and there worshipped with due honours down to the time of Pausanias. The Naples statue, copy though it is, is every way worthy to be a cultus image. The pose, the regular, sym¬ metrically folded draperies, the crimped hair, the vivid colour, the frozen smile, may possibly, to us, after a long study of the Acropolis statues, seem common¬ place enough ; but compared to the eastern heraldic 356 ANCIENT SCULPTURE. type of Artemis, the figure is full of life and charm. Its small size was usual at that date for temple statues. Dr. Studniczka is right when he says that the work of classifying and identifying these copies of ancient images has only begun, and when it is complete a new chapter in the history of archaic types must needs be written. THE END. INDEX. Abydos,— ruins of, 23. temple of, 24. tombs of, 34. Achaia, 199. Achilles, 226. Acraiphiae, 128, 129. Acropolis,— the Athenian , 121, 123, 140, 141. 142, 145. i47, 148, 1 53. 156, 157. '73, 177, ■78, 180, 184, 199. 201, 207, 212 218, 224, 230, 235- 242, 3”. 355- museum of, 121, 140, I4b 239- of Pergamos, 310. Acroteria, 87, 165. TEgean Sea, 265. vEgina, 157, 230. Athena of (fig. 87, Munich), 165, 166, 168, 170. Herakles, the archer of (fig. 89, Munich), 171, 172. marbles of, 165, 166, 210. pediments of, Bk. II., Chap. III., 163-73, 212. sculptors of, 163, 166, 176. temples of, 163, 165. wounded warrior of (fig. 88, Munich), 171, 172. “TEginetan smile,” 85, 168. rEgis, 141, 170, 228. iEmilius Paulus, 341, 345. Africa, 77, 93. African orientalism, 87. Agalma, 114 (note). Agamemnon, 138. Agasios of Ephesus, 331, 332. Ageladas of Argos, 197, 255. Agesandros, 314. Agorakritos, 201, 239. Agrippina, 346. Aix, in Provence, 311. Aleppo, 90. Alexander the Great, 30, 299, 303. 304- Alexandria, in Caria, 278. Alkamenes, 201, 224, 226, 239- Almehs, or nautch girls (fig. 19, Boulaq), 27. Alphaeus river, 224. Altar of the twelve gods (Louvre), 353. Alxenor of Naxos, 139, 244. Amanus, the, 91. Amazon,— the dead (fig. 165, Naples), 311. 3 12 - the wounded, of Polycleitos (fig. 143, Berlin), 256, 262, 263, 264. Amazons,— the, 252, 269, 311. of Mausoleum of Halicar- nassos(fig. 145, Brit. Mus.), 269, 270. the, made for temple of Diana at Ephesus, 262. 353 INDEX. Amenhotep III., Theban king, 16. colossi of, 17. confounded with King I Khuenaten, 21. letters to Tashratta, King of Mesopotamia, in series of cuneiform tablets in British Museum, 20. Queen Taia, wife of, 20. Amenhotep IV., 21. statue of (fig. x6, Louvre), 22. Ameniritus, Queen, statue of (fig. 20, Boulaq), 29. Amenokleia, 248. Ammon, 36. Amphion, 318, 319. Amrit, 76. Amyclae, 256. Ancyra, 95. Andromenes, 248. Antenor, 173, 175, 177, 178. Antigonos, 310. Antiope, 318, 319. Antoninus, 350. Anubis, 35. Apelles, 275, 299. Aphrodite, 273, 278, 292, 294, 295. Anadyomene, 276. head in bronze, found at Armenia (fig. 150, British Museum), 277. of Alexandria in Caria (Praxi¬ teles), 278. of Amyclae (Polycleitos), 256. of Kos (Praxiteles), 278. of Munich, 277. Pandemos, 268. of Praxiteles (coin of Knidos, fig. 149), 275, 276, 325. “ of the gardens ” of Alka- menes, 226, 234. of Thespiae (Praxiteles), 278. of the Vatican, 277. Apis, the ox, 35. Apollo, 256, 268, 281. Ambraciot, 126. Belvedere, (fig. 171, Vatican), 3 2 5 . 329 - Branchidae, temple of, 107, 146, 149, 152. Choiseul-Gouffier (fig. 93, Brit. Mus.), 182, 183, 191. Epikourios, 202, 251. Ismenian, 158. of Naples, 352. of Naxos (Berlin), 158. of Olympia (fig. 120, Olym¬ pia), 230, 231, 232, 281. of Orchomenos (fig. 61, Athens), 126, 127, 128, 129, 133, 154, 161. Payne-Knight, of Kalamis (Brit. Mus.), 158, 159. Philesios of Kanachos, 158, ! S 9 - Piombino (fig. 81, Louvre), 158, 159-61. Ptoos (fig. 62, Athens), 106, 128, 130, 158, 233. Sauroctonos of Praxiteles (fig. 152, Villa Albani), 280, 281, 283, 284, 286. Smintheus, 268. Strangford (Brit. Mus.), 158, 233 - of Tenea (fig. 65, Munich), 131 - 37 , 142, 154 , 156, 159 - of Thasos (fig. 73, Louvre), 145 - of Thera (figs. 63 and 64, Athens), 130, 131, 137, 155, 161. Apollodoros, 325. Apollonios, 259, 298, 319, 321, 322. Apoxyomenos of Lysippos (fig. 159, Vatican), 297, 298. Arabia, 75. desert of, 63. Arad, 75, 78. Arad-Sargon, 90. INDEX. 359 Arcadia, 251. Archais, 259. Archaistic works, 351-56. Archermos, 148, 153. Archippe, 249. Ares, 293, 294. Ludovisi (fig. 172, Rome), 329-3D Argolis, 101. Argos, 157, 255, 256, 258, 268, 3 ° 3 - Ariadne of the Vatican (fig. 170), 325- 327 - Aristion, stele of (fig. 67, Athens), 137, 139, 244. Aristocles, 137. Aristogiton (fig. 91, Athenian coin), 173-76, 188. Aristophanes, 246. Artemis, 256, 356. Laphria at Patra:, 355. Pseudo - Archaic (fig. 187, Naples), 355. statue of, from Delos, votive offering of Nicar.der (fig. 50, Athens), 105, 106, 117, 118, 140. the Persian, 109. Artemisia, wife of Mausolos, 268. Asia, 146, 304. Asia Minor, 75, 89, 92, 96, 97, 105, 108, 158. Asiatic,— convention, 138. Gauls, 305. Orientalism, 87. statues, 336. Asiatics, the, 112. Asklepios, 224, 268, 292. Asshur-bani-pal,— feast of (fig. 35, British Museum), 56, 5S, 61, 65,66. hounds of (fig. 38, Brit. Mus.), 66 . Asshur-nasir-pal (fig. 33, Louvre), 54, 55, 59. Assos, frieze in Doric temple at (fig. 74, Louvre), 146. Assyria, 28, Bk. I., Chap. II., 47 - 73 - 54 , 76, 77 , 80, 81, 82, S3, 84, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 96, 97 , 99 , i° 4 , 105, 152, 336. Astarte, 64. Athena, 114, 141, 199, 207, 209, 211, 212, 213, 216, 218, 228, 241, 266. Areia (Plata;a), 199. made by Pheidias for people of Lemnos, 224. of iLgina (fig. 87, Munich), 165, 166, 168, 170. of Endoios (fig. 177, Acrop. Mus.), 149, 154, 156. of Metope of Silenus (fig. 80, Palermo), 156. of Pergamos (fig. 164, Berlin), 306, 308, 318. of Scopas, 276. of temple of Pellene in Achaia, 199, 200. Parthenos, 198, 199, 201, 218, 220, 224. Polias, 199. Promachos, 198, 199, 200, 224. Athenodoros, 314. Athens, 145, 200, 206, 213, 217, 235, 241, 243, 246, 248, 255, 256, 266, 268, 275, 286, 303, 311. Agora of, 173, 275. Central Museum of, 118, 131, 248, 285, 292. Ceramicus in, 182, 246, 248. street of Tripods, 279. wall of Themistocles at, 136. Athienau, 79, 81, 82. Atlas, 228. Attalidae, dynasty of, 305. Attalus I., 305, 306, 310, 311. Attic,— artists, 85, 229, 238, 252, 291. 360 INDEX. Attic ( coiitd .),— influence and tradition, 226, 266. school, 235, 253. Attica, 142, 158, 173, 210, 239, 306. Atticism, 209. Augustus (fig. 179, Vatican), 345, 346, 355. Ayazeen, 108. Babylon, 47, 72, 81. Bacchante, 268. Bacchus, 95, 250. Bas-relief, 134, 135, 139, 1S1, 200. Attic, 138, 140, 210, 226. Chaldeo-Assyrian, 69, 70,71. Egyptian, in tombs, 13-18. three kinds, 38-46. Greek, 136, 351. monumental, 243-48. political, 241, 242, 249, 250. votive, 243. Hittite, 95. of Acropolis, 142. of Euiuk, 95. of Pagasonides and Perse- polis, 97, 98. of Parthenon, 202-10, 226. of Samothrace, 135, 138. Spartan, 154. Syrian, 93. Bassae, 202, 251. Bassorah, 48. Belvedere torso (fig. 161, Vatican), 298. Berlin Museum, 152, 259, 262, 306. Berytus, 75, 78. Bey-cheir, lake of, 95. Bible, the, 89. Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, 86, 87. Biredjik, 91. Boedas, son of Lysippos, 301. Boeotia, 106, 158, 180. Boghaz-keui, 93, 95. Borghese Gladiator, 331, 332. Boulaq, Museum of, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 20. Bretas, 114 (note). British Museum, 9, 20, 91, 108, 127, 150, 158, 161, 213, 233, 251, 252, 259, 261, 266, 269, 277, 286, 290, 298, 337. Budrun, stronghold of (modern Halicarnassos), 269. Bull,— the Cretan, 228. the Farnese (fig. 168, Naples), 318-23. Caere, 337. Cambyses, 98. Canon,— of Lysippos, 301. of Polycleitos, 257, 258, 265, 285, 296. Campagna, the, 335. Capitol, the, 279, 311, 340. Cappadocia, 93. Caracalla (Rome), 318. Carchemish, 89, 91. Carthage, 77, 78, 86. Caryatids, porch of (figs. 123, 124), 235, 236, 237. Cato, 340. Catullus, 327. Celts, 75, 334. Centaurs and Lapithae, struggle between, 24, 202-4, 2 26, 230, 252, 253, 269. Ceramicus of Athens, 182, 246, 248. , Cervito, 335. ! Clialdcca , Bk. I., Chap. II., 47- 73 , 74 , 105. Chaldaeo-Assyrian sculpture, 48, 59, 66, 70, 72, 73, 76. Chaldaeo-Babylonian,— cylinders, 109. sculpture, 74, 108. INDEX. 361 Chares,— of Lindos, sculptor of the Colossus of Rhodes, 301, 302. statue of (fig. 52, Brit. Mus.), 107, 108. Charmides, 197. Chersonese, the Tauric, 256. Chians, the, 148. Chiton, 226, 242, 248, 264. Chiusi, 335. Chrysapha, stele of, 151, 152, 154. Chryse, 268. Chrysippos, 257. Cicero, 159. Cimon, 177, 179, 200. Columnae Caelatae in temple of Ephesus, 266. Conservatori, 352. Constantine, 350. Copenhagen, 161. Corinth, 246, 341. Corneto, 335. Cow, bronze, of Myron, 193. Cretan Bull, the, 228. Crete, 107. Cyclades, the, 88, 96. Cypriote art, 79-87, 92, 336. Cyprus, Bk. I., Chap. 111 ., 74- 92. Cyrus, King, 97. Dredalus, 116, 126. Daippos, son of Lysippos, 301. Dance, funeral (fig. 19, Boulaq), 27, 42. Darius, 98. Deiokes, King, 97. Delos, 105, 107, 117, 120, 121, 122, 126, 145, 156. Artemis of, 105, 106, 117, 118, 140. Trinity of, 256. Delphi, 199. Demeter, 250. of Knidos (fig. 155, Brit. Mus.), 286, 288. Demetrius Poliorcetes, 289, 302. Demos, 241. Demosthenes, 200. Dexileos, stele of (fig. 133, Athens), 246. Diadumenos,— Farnese, 259. of Polycleitos (copy, fig. 141, Naples), 196, 256, 259, 261, 262. of Vaison (Brit. Mus.), 259. Diana, 262. Dibbara, Chaldaean plague deity, 63. Dion Chrysostom, 222. Dionuso, 137. Dionysiac,— attributes, 321. fete, 319. Dionysius of Halicarnassos, 334 - Dionysos,— of Bryaxis, 276. of Praxiteles, 282, 283, 298, 3 ! 9 - Dioscuri, of Sparta, 126. Dirke (fig. 168, Naples), 318, 320, 321. Discobolos, of Myron (copy, fig. 94, Rome), 186-91, 195, I 9 6 - 332 - Discophoros, stele of (fig. 66, Athens), 136-38, 142, 154, 244. Dorian school, 156, 158, 173, 226, 265, 266. Doric temples, 201. ; Doryphoros,— of Polycleitos (fig. 141, Naples), 256, 257, 258, 1 259, 261, 262, 263. Pourtales (Berlin), 259. Double, 5,11. 362 INDEX. Ecbatana, 97, 173. Eflatoun, monument of, 95. Egypt, Bk. I., Chap. I., 1-46, 77, 82, 83, 87, 88, 90, 92, 101, 102, ill, 133, 136, 336. Egyptian art, 48, 76, 81, 82, 96, 108, no, 133. Egyptians, 59, 74 , 82, 84, 102, 135 , 334 - Eikon, 114 (note). Eirene (fig. 148, Munich), 275. Electra, 352. Eleusinian festival, 275. Eleusis, 121, 200, 250, 285. Eleutherae, 186. Elis, 220, 224, 268. nymphs of, 230. Endoios, pupil of Daedalus, 149. Epeios, 138. Ephesus, 262, 266, 332. Ephraim, 89. Epictetus, 223. Erechtheum, the, 121, 235, 236. Erechtheus, 199. Eridanos, 215. Erinnyes or furies, 268. Eros, 268, 273, 293, 298. or Loves of Praxiteles, 279. of Thespiae, 278. Ersidre, 275. Ethiopia disputes possession of Egypt with Assyria, 28. Etruria, Bk. II., Chap. XIV. Etruscan sarcophagi, 335, 340. Eubouleus, 285. Eumenes II., 306. Euthycrates, son of Lysippos, 301. Fabius Maximus, 341. Farnesina Palace, 347. Flamininus, 341. Florence, tribune, 326. Uffizii Museum, 268, 270. Fortune, the (fig. 177, Naples), 342 , 343 ' Forum, the, 340. Gaia, 212, 217. Galen, 257. Ge, 310. Gebel, 75. Germanicus (fig. 178, Louvre', 343 > 345 • Ghiaour-Kalesi, 95. Giovan-Battista della Porta, 318. Gjoelbaschi, 135. Gladiator, the Borghese, 331, 332 - dying, 311. Gods and giants, struggle between, 24, 306, 308, 310. Graces, the, 256. Graeco-Roman era, 304, 313. Greece, 73, 83, 87, 88, 96, 99; Bk. II., Chaps. I.-XIII., 335, 336. Greek art, 54, 65, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 92, 99; Bk. II., Chaps. I-XIII., 337, 339 , 341 , 342, 343 , 345 , 348 , 351 - Greeks, the, 74, 75, 84, 96; Bk. II., Chaps. I.-XIII., 335, 339 , 340 , 341 - Gudea, 51. Gykon of Athens, 299. Hadrian, Emperor, 31, 352. Halicarnassos, 266-69, 334. Halys, 93. Hamath, 89, 90. Harmodios (fig. 90, Naples ; 91, Athenian coin), 173-78. Hathor, 35. headdress, 95. Hebrews, the, 89. Hedos, 114 (note). Hegesias or Hegias, 177, 197. Hegeso, 248. Hekate, 268. Helios Hyperion, 211, 213. Hephaestos, 212, 294. INDEX. 363 Hera, 250, 256. chryselephantine of Poly- kleitos at Argos, 256. of Samos, 126 (fig. 75, Louvre), 146, 147, 148, 152. of temple of Olympia, 282. Herakles, 109, 146, 155, 163, 165, 171, 172, 228, 268. seated, of Lysippos (fig. 160), 298. the Farnese (fig. 162, Naples), 298. Herculaneum, 161. Hermes, 343. Kriophoros (ram-bearer) of Kalamis (copy in Pembroke collection, England), 180, 181, 182; in bas-relief (fig. 92, C. M., Athens), 181, 182. Moschophoros (calf-bearer), (fig. 78, Acropolis Mus.), 149, 150, 151, 155, 156. of Polykleitos (at Lysima- cheia), 256. of Praxiteles, 37, 196, 282- 86, 331. of Thasos, 145, 146. Hermitage Museum, St. Peters¬ burg, 218. Herodotus, 93, 334. Heroonof Gjoelbaschi (Vienna), I 35 - Hesperia, shores of, 75. Hesperid, 228. Hestia, 212, 213, 216. Himation, 154, 248. Himeros, 268, 273. Hittites, the, Bk. I., Chap. III., 89-97. Holy Land, the, 89. Homer, Homeric hymn, 211, 212, 215, 216, 222." Hor, statue of (fig. 22, Boulaq), 30 , 31 - Horace, 43. Horae, 212, 213. Horemheb or Menepthah (fig. 14, Boulaq), 19, 34. Horus, 35. Hours, the, 256. Hygeia, 268. Hyksos invasion, the, 16. Hypogea,or underground cham¬ bers, 34. Iasili-Kaia, or the Written Stone, 93, 94. Ibriz, 95. Ibsamboul, Colossus of Rhodes at, 17. ruins of, 23. Iktinos, 201, 251. Ilionios, the (fig. 147, Munich), 270. Ilissos, 215. Indians, 334. Ionian school, 158,173,265, 266. Iris, 212, 289. Ishtar, 64. Isigonus, 310. Isis, 343. Isur, Chaldean demon of the S.W. Wind (fig. 36, Louvre), 62, 63. Jerusalem, temple of, 88. Jews, the, 88. Judah, 89. Jupiter, Talleyrand (fig. 186, Louvre), 353. temple of, 340. Kadesh, 89. Kai'kos, plain of, 266. Kairos, or “ Opportunity,” of Lysippos, 301. Kalaat-Jerablus, 90. Kalah or Nimroud, 54. Kalah-Shergat, 108. Kalamis, 157, 177, 179, 180-84, „ 197 . i 9 8 - Kallikrates, 2or. Kalliteles, 163. 364 INDEX. Kalydon, hunt of the boar of, 266. Kameiros, 101. Kanachos, 157-63, 281. Karnak, colonnade of, 17 ; pic¬ ture at, 26. Kekrops, 199. Kephisodotos, 275, 286. Kertsch(Athenian Colony), 218. Khafra, statue of (fig. 6, Boulaq), 10. Khikki, land of, 63. Khiti, 89. Khorsabad, palace of, 54, 63, 77. Khuenaten (“ Splendour of the Sun’s Disc ”),— confounded with Amenhotep, 21, 22. Eunuch king who brought in worship of the sun, 21. Kizil-Irmak, or red river, 93. Kladeos, river, 224. Klaft , or headdress, 10, 82. Kleomenes, 325, 343. Knidos, 275, 276-78, 286, 288, 325 - Knoumhotep, the dwarf, statue of (fig. 7, Boulaq), 11. Kolotes, 201, 239. Konbos, 151. Konyunjik,— bas-relief of, 65. palace of Asshur-bani-pal at, 61. Kore, 250, 286. Kresilas, 201, 239, 262. Kritios, 173, 176, 177, 188, 197. Kronion, the mountain-god,233. Kos, 278. Kurddagh, the, 91. Kutha (modern Tell-Ibrahim), 63 - Kyaxares, King, 97. Kydon, 262. Kyrene, 346. Kytheria, Queen of Paphos, 275. Laocoon, the, 37, (fig. 167, Vatican) 314-18, 321. Laomedon (TEgina), 165. ! Lapith, head of a young (fig. 122, Olympia), 233. Larsa, 47. Lateran Museum, 191. Latium, 335. Laz, Chaldsean goddess of famine, 63. Lebanon, 75, 88. Leochares, 268, 286. Lepsius, 21. Leto, 256. Lion, the Nemean, 228. Lion-gate, the (Mycenae), 108. Livia, 345. Louvre, the, 4, 8, 22, 29, 49-61, 63, 64, 68, 83, 87, 98, 99, 108, 135, 158, 224, 228, 279, 280, 289, 291, 292, 293, 343, 353. Lucian, 177, 178, 180, 186, 257, 276, 277. Lucretius, 294. Lycaonia, 93, 95. Lycia, 107, 290, 291. Lycian, tomb of Harpies, 142. Lydia, 93, 96, 334. Lykone (Mount), 256. Lysimacheia, 256. Lysippos, 266, 296-302, 306, 3 1 7 » 332 , 347 - Madrid, 216. Magna-Graecia, 265, 334, 335. Malta, 77, 78. Marach, 91, 92, 94. Marathon, 199, 207. soldier of, 99. warrior of, 137. Marcellus, 341. Marcus Agrippa, 298. Marcus Aurelius, 350. Marsyas (fig. 96, Lateran Museum), 191-95. Mastabas, 5, 6, 12, 34, no. INDEX. 365 Mausolos, the Carian King, 268. Mausoleum of Halicarnassos, 267, 268. Media, Bk. I., Chap. III., 97-9. Medes, the, 97. Medo-Persians, 97. Mediterranean Sea, the, 75, 93, 335 - Megakles, 249. Megara, treasure - house at Olympia, 212, 268. Melas, 148. Memnon,— colossi of, 108. statues of, 17. Memphite art, 15. Empire, 15, 16, 45. period, 4-29. school, 4, 34. sculptors, 11. statues and bas-reliefs, 16,42. tradition, 15, 18. Mena, 2. Menarchmos, 355. Mende, 225. Menelaus, 352. Mesopotamia, Bk. I., Chap. II., 47 - 73 . 93 . 96 - Messenians, the. 226. Mikkiades, 148, 153. Miletus, 107, 158. Milo or Milos, 291, 292, 293. Miltiades, 199. Mnesikles, 201. Morea, the, 224. Mosaic Law, the, 89. Munich, Museum of, 131, 165, 194, 270, 27-5, 277. Mussulman law, 89. Mycenae, 101-5. Acropolis of, 108. Myconos, Museum of, 118. Myron, athletes of, 37, 157, 177, 179, 186-89, 190-94, 197, 198, 284, 332. Mys, 200. Nabo-polassar, King of Babylon, 9 7 - Naples, Museum of, 174, 175, 176, 178, 207, 257, 259, 263, 298, 311, 318, 346, 348, 352, 355 - Naupaktos, 226. Nebo, 64. Nekht-Har-Heb, kneeling scribe, statue of (Louvre), 29. Nemean lion, the, 228. Neo-Attic school, 266. Nereids, 290. Nergal, Chaldaean god of war. 63- Nero, mother of, 346. Nesiotes, 173, 1767177,188, 197. Nestor, 165. Nestor l’Hote, 2. New York Museum, 83, 84, 87. Nike,— crowning a trophy (fig. 125, Acropolis Museum), 238, 2 39 - Naval of Samothrace (fig. 156, Louyre), 289, 290, 291. or Flying Victory of Paiomos (fig. 116, Olympia), 225, 226, 234, 289, 291. stooping to tie her sandal (fig. 126, Acropolis), 239, 240. winged, of Mikkiades and Archermos (fig. 76, Athens), 148, 153. Nile, the, 75, 110. Nimroud, 54, 55. Nineveh, 47, 58, 72, 81, 97. Niobe (fig. 146, Florence), 268, 273. 275. Niobid Chiaramonti, the, 270. Nofert (fig. 12, Boulaq), 15. Oinomaos, 226, 233. Olympia, 109, 163, 180, 202, 212, 221, 224, 235, 281, 282. Bk. II., Chap. VI., 225-34 INDEX. 366 Olympia ( contd .), — metopes and pediments, 184. Museum of, 190, 282. Zeus (figs. 109-13), 109, 198, 199, 220-24. Olympos, mountain god, 212, 213. Olympos, 222, 273, 281, 325, 326. Olynthos, 286. Onatas, 163-65. Orchomenos, 139, 207. Orestes (Sparta Museum), 156. (Villa Ludivisi), 352. Orontes, 89-91. Osiris, 36. Ovolo, 236. Paetus and Arria, the, 310. Paionios, 201, 289, 291. Palestrina (Praeneste), 336. Palos, 151. Pamphilos, 248. Panainos, 201. Panathenaia, 206, 210, 220, 246, 291, 342. Pantheon, 278. Paphos, 275. Parthenon, 67, 125, 196-224, 235, 250, 251, 255. Pastiles, 351, 352. Pathos, 268, 273. Patrae, 355. Patroklos, 169. Pausanias, 211, 219, 221, 224, 256, 282, 355. Peloponnese, 151, 158. Pelops, 226. Pentelicus, 45. Peplos, the, 138. Pergamos, 305-6, 314. Acropolis of, 306, 310. frieze of, 318. school of, Bk. II., Chap. XI., 303-13, 317, 352 . Pericles, 200, 255, 304, 329. Lycian monarch, the, 291. Perseus, 155. Persia, 97. Persian,—■ gulf, 78. the kneeling or fighting (fig. 166), 312, 313. war, 355. Phanis, 301. Pharaoh, 10, 16, 17, 36, 82. \ Pharsalos, 244. Phath, 36. Pheidias, 37, 156, 173, 179, 186, Bk. II., Chap. V., 197-224, 227, 231-38, 239, 250-62, 266, 272-79, 326. Phigalia, 251, 254, 269. Phoenicia, Bk. I., Chap. III., 74- 8, 88, 102, hi. Phoenician art, 81, 83, 85. Phoenicians, 84, 86, 88, 101, 103, hi, 112. Phoenico-Cypriotes, 79. Philis, stele of, 135. Phrygia, 93, 95, 96, 306. Phryne, 278. Phtah-hotep (fig. 9, Sakkarah), 13 - Phyromachos, 310. Piraeus, the, 200, 246. Pirithoos, 202. Pliny, 173, 256, 259, 261, 266, 268, 296, 314, 351. Ploutos (fig. 148, Munich), 275. Po, river, 335. Polychromy, Egyptian, 33. Polydoros, 314. Polyeuktos, 286. Polykleitos, 37, Bk. II., Chap. VIII., 255-64, 265, 266, 272, 285, 306. Polyxene, 248. Pompeii, 317, 335. Pompey, 351. Poros (soft stone), 124, 212. Poseidon, 213, 292, 298. Pradmon, 262. Praxias, 179. INDEX. 367 Praxiteles, 37, 266, Bk. II., Chap. IX., 275-95, 296, 325, 326, 331. school of, 184. Priene, temple of, 313. Priest with the dove, statue of, from Athienau (fig. 44, New York Museum), 84, 85. Prima-porta, 345. Prokleides, 248. Prokles, 249. Propylaea, the, 200. Proxenia, rights of, 241. Proxenos, 248. Pschcnt , 76, 83. Pteria, 93. Ptolemies and Caesars, 3, 30, 31. Punic stelae, 87. Pyrgoteles, 299. Pythagoras of Rhegium, 184, '186. Pythios, 268, 286. Quintilian, 187, 256. Ra-em-ka(figs. 2 and 3, Boulaq), also called Sheikh-el-beled, 6, 7, 9, 12. Ra-hotep (fig. 12, Boulaq), 15. Ramesside dynasty, 28. Rampin collection, head of athlete in (fig. 85), 162. Ramses, 16. colossi of, at Ibsamboul, 17, 36 . Ramses II. victorious (fig. 18, Karnak), 16, 27, 41. Ramses III., 89. Rannu, 35. Rhaetian Alps, 334. Rhamnos, 268. Rhodes, 101. colossus of, 302. school of, Bk. II., Chap. XII., 314-18, 352. River-god of Pheidias (fig. 104, British Museum), Kephisos (see note, p. 215), 215, 220, 279, 285. Roman Empire, Greek sculp¬ ture under, Bk. II., Chap. XIII., 324-34. Rome, 311, 322, 323. sculpture in, Bk. II., Chap. XIV., 341-56. Roum-Kale, 91. Rubens, 333. “ Running Girl ” (Vatican), 352. Saite era, 30, 31. Sai'te renascence, 28. Sakkarah, scribes of (fig.11), 13. ' 4 , 33 - Saktchegheuksou, 91. Samos, 126. Samosata, 277. Samothrace, 135, 138, 289, 291. Sardinia, 77, 78. Sargon, King (fig. 34, Louvre), 54 , 56. 59 , 63. Sargonides, 54. Satyr of Praxiteles (fig. 151, Capitol), 279, 280, 283, 284, 286. Schenti , 76, 82, 83. Scipio, Lucius Cornelius Bar- batus, 340. Sclaves, the, 334. Scopas, Bk. II., Chap. XI., 265- 72, 273, 275, 286, 289-91, 296, 3 1 7 . 329 - Scribe,— head of, in Louvre (fig. 21), 29, 3 °- the cross-legged (fig. 5, Louvre), 8, 9, 12. the kneeling (fig. 4, Boulaq), 7, 12. Scribes reckoning harvest (fig. 11, Sakkarah), 14. Sekhet goddess (fig. 23, British Museum), 35. INDEX. 368 Selene, 212, 213. Seleucidte, Empire of, 305. Selinus, metopes of (fig. 80, Palermo), 155, 156, 250. Semeia, the, 213. Seneca, the Pseudo- (fig. 183, Naples), 348. Sennacherib, King, 56-9. Septimus Severus, 350. Serapeum, 8. Seti I., statue of (fig. 17, Abydos), 24, 25, 27, 42. Setis, the, 16. Shalmaneser, 59, 108. Sicily, 77, 78, 86, 158, 216, 335. Sicyon, 157, 158, 255, 266, 268, 296. 3 0I > 3 ° 3 - Sidon, 75. Silanion, 286. Sindjirli, 91. Slaves, Egyptian, statues of (fig. 8, Boulaq), 12. Smyrna, 96, 305. Soidas, 355. Solomon, 89. Solunta, 86. Sosandra, 180. Spain, 77. Sparta, 126, 151, 152, 156, 194. Spata, 101, 105. Sphakteria, 226. Sphinx of Gizeh (fig. 1, Gizeh), 2, 4. Stephanos, 352. Sthennis, 286. Strabo, 256. Stratonikos, 310. Stymphalus, lake, 228. Susa, 98, 99. Syracuse, 179. Syria, 41, 59, 75, 77 , 88, 89, 92, 93 , 94 - Syrtes of Libya, 75. Taia, Queen (fig. 15, Boulaq), 20, 21, 22. Talthybios, 138. Tanaquil, 340. Tanis, 23. Tarentu'm, 341. Tarquins, the, 334, 340. Tartars, the, 334. Tashratta, King of Mesopota¬ mia, 20. Tauriskos, 319, 321, 322. Taurus, 93. Tegea, 226, 268, 269. Telamon, 165. Telephon, 266. Tell-Loh, 49, 51, 52, 53, 64. Tello, 108. Thalassa, 212, 213, 217. Thasos, 142, 145. Theban,— art, 24. empire, 15, 16, 28. era, 24. Pharaohs, 89. Thebes, 23, 34, 108, 158. Theseus, 202, 327. Thespise, 278, 279. Tlioth, 35. Thothmes III., 16. colossal head of (fig. 13, Brit. Mus.), 18. Thothmes IV., 34. Ti (fig. 10, Sakkaralj), 13, 14436. Tiberius, 298. Tiglath-pileser I., 90. Tigris, 47, 54, 63, 81, 88, 138. Timarchos, 286. Timotheos, 268, 286. Tisicrates, 301. i Titus, 314, 317. , Toueris, 35. Trajan's column, 350. Tralles, school of, Bk. II., Chap. XII., 318-23, 352. Triptolemos, 250, 289. j Troad, the, 268. Tuscany, 335. Tyane, 95. Tyche, 342. Typhon, 125. INDEX. 369 Tyrannicides, 173, 176, 188. Tyre, 75, 86. Tyrrhenian Pelasgi, 334. Uraeus, the, 22, 25, 76, 82, 83. Ur, 47. Varvakeion, copy of the Athena Parthenos (fig. 107, Athens), 219. Vatican, the, 297, 325, 327, 345, 346 , 352 . Venetians, the, 213. Venice, 311. Venus, 326. de Medici, 325-27 (fig. 169, Florence). of Milo, 291-95, 304. of Praxiteles, 325. of Vienne (fig. 174, Louvre), 332 , 333 - the Esquiline, 352. Verres, 341. Victories, the, 239. Victory, the Wingless, temple of, 210, 238. Vienna, 135- Vienne (in Dauphind), 332. Villa Albani, 352. Villa Ludovisi, 310, 352. Virgil, 317, 321. Vulci, 335. Vulture Pillar (figs. 28, 29, Louvre), 49, 51, 52, 70. Xanthos, 142. Agora of, 290. Xerxes, 173. Xoanon, 113 (note), 114, 117, 118, 119, 126, 157. Zethos, 318, 319. Zeus, 125, 202, 212, 221, 224, 226,230, 250,251,256, 273, 298, 301, 306, 310, 353. head of, in Louvre (fig. 186), “Jupiter Talleyrand,” 353. of Polykleitos, at Argos, 256. Olympian, the (figs. 109-13), 109, 198, 199, 220-24. Orkios, god of vows, 241. Zosimus, 200. Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury. THE STUDENT’S FINE ART LIBRARY. Crown S vo. cloth extra, price lew. 6 d. each volume. EGYPTIAN ARCHiEOLOGY. By Prof. G. Maspero and Amelia B. Edwards. With 299 Illustrations. New Edition, revised. MANUAL OP ORIENTAL ANTIQUITIES. By Ernest Babelon and B. T. A. Evetts, M.A., of the British Museum. With 241 Illustrations. EMBROIDERY AND LACE. By Ernest Lef^bure and Alan S. Cole, .of the South Kensington Museum. With 150 Illustrations. HISTORY OP MUSIC AND MUSICAL INSTRU¬ MENTS, from St. Ambrose to Mozart. By James E. Matthew. With 137 Illustrations. MANUAL OP ANCIENT SCULPTURE. By Pierre Paris and Jane E. Harrison, Member of the Hellenic Society. With 187 Illustrations. MANUAL OP MYTHOLOGY IN RELATION TO GREEK ART. By Maxime Collignon and Jane E. Harrison, Member of the Hellenic Society. With 140 Illustra¬ tions. “The Student’s Fine Art Library takes a deservedly high position both for the general accuracy of its statements and the excellent character of its illustra¬ tions.”— Athencewu. DIEGO VELAZQUEZ AND HIS TIMES. By Prof. Carl Justi, of Bonn, and Prof. A. H. Keane. With an Etching and 52 Woodcuts. Royal 8vo, Roxburgh, £\ 16s. (l Contains a large amount of otherwise inaccessible matter, to collect which must have been the result of many years’ labour and research .” — Saturday Review. THE WAGNER AND LISZT CORRESPONDENCE from 1841 to 1861. By Dr. Francis Hueffer. 2 vols., crown 8vo, cloth, £1 4s. “ The most important documents of musical biography in existence.”— Times. H. G R E V E L & CO., LONDON.