Chapter VI: Two Marble Heads From Victor Statues.2022 (2)

Apart from these surface differences in the structure of the head and face, it is in the resultant expression that we see the greatest divergence from the Skopaic type. This seems to me to be fundamentally different in the Sparta head. In the _Herakles_, as in all the other Tegea male heads, and even in those of the boar and the dogs, the really characteristic feature, which differentiates them from all other works of Greek sculpture, is the passionate intensity of their expression. The one unforgettable impression left on the spectator by them all is this expression of violent and unrestrained passion, which the sculptor has succeeded in imparting to the marble. This is what marks him as the master of passion and the originator of the dramatic tendencies carried to such lengths in the Hellenistic schools of sculpture; it is this which explains Kallistratos’ characterization of his works as being κάτοχα καὶ μεστὰ μανίας.[2141] The head from Sparta shows only a little of this intensity. Notwithstanding the similar upward gaze and slightly parted lips, the intention of the artist seems to have been to portray the hero in an attitude of expectancy, tempered by a look almost of calmness. The look is deeply earnest, but not violent; it is even melancholy. It is this last feature, the delicate and compelling melancholy of the face, which impressed me most on first viewing it. This is further enhanced by the full, soft modeling of the lower face, that gives to the whole a delicate, almost effeminate character, which strongly reminds us of Praxitelean heads. In fact, the shape of the lips and the modeling of the flesh on either side of the mouth, together with the soft, dimpled chin, have little in common with the massive strength and remarkable animation of the Tegea heads. As Dr. Caskey has intimated, if we had only the lower portion of the face for comparison, we should be inclined to ascribe it to the influence of Praxiteles. If we considered the upper part only, resemblances to Skopaic work seem well marked; but if we take into account the expression of the face as a whole, we see that it lacks the most essential of Skopaic features, the look of passionate intensity. Consequently we shall find it difficult to bring the head into such close relation to that artist; for here there is little analogy to the vigorous warrior types of the Tegea pediments. For its quieter mien it might be better to compare it with the head of Atalanta,[2142] though none of the gentle pathos or eagerness of the Sparta head is there visible. The _Atalanta_, though full of vigorous life, utterly lacks the unrestrained passion so characteristic of her brothers; her eyes are not so deeply set, nor so wide-open; they are narrower and longer, and are not over-hung at the outer corners by heavy masses of flesh.[2143] In speaking of the absence of these rolls of muscle, E. A. Gardner notes a curious peculiarity: “This is a clearly marked, though delicately rounded, roll of flesh between the brow and the upper eyelid, which is continued right round above the inner corner of the eye, to join the swelling at the side of the nose, which itself passes on into the cheek.”[2144] He detects this same peculiarity in certain other Skopaic heads, notably in the _Apollo_ from the Mausoleion and the _Demeter_ from Knidos, though it is quite lacking in the Tegea male heads. It all goes to show that Skopas was not strictly consistent in his treatment of the eye. The lower face of the _Atalanta_ is also longer and more oval than that of the male heads, and thus shows Attic rather than Peloponnesian influence. If it is difficult, then, to conceive of the _Atalanta_ and the male heads as the work of the same sculptor, the contrast, both in structure and expression, between these two heads of Herakles, the one from Tegea, the other from Sparta, makes it more difficult to assume the same authorship for both; for here we can not explain the difference as the contrast between the types of hero and heroine; here we are comparing two heads which are supposedly of the same hero.

THE STYLES OF SKOPAS AND LYSIPPOS COMPARED.

In view, then, of the differences enumerated I should hesitate to assign a Skopaic origin to the head from Sparta. In the lower part of the face, with its small mouth and delicate chin, I see signs only of Praxitelean influence; in the upper part I am much more inclined to see affinities to the art-tendencies of Lysippos, as we now know them from the statue of Agias. In the present state of our knowledge it is not difficult to separate works of Praxitelean origin from those of Skopas; but it is a very different thing to distinguish those of Skopaic origin from those of Lysippos; here the line distinguishing the two masters is much finer and harder to draw. Before the discovery of the Tegea heads, the deep-set eye,[2145] prominent brow, and “breathing” mouth were looked upon as characteristic features of Lysippos, as they were known to us from representations of Alexander, especially on coins. We now know that these traits belonged to Skopas to a much greater extent. When the _Agias_ was found, and before its true authorship had been determined, Homolle, as we have seen, had at first classed it as showing the manner of Lysippos, only later to see more of Skopas than Lysippos in it. Such a conclusion was natural so long as we regarded the _Apoxyomenos_ as the key to Lysippan art. By assigning these traits definitely to Skopas, we were compelled to view the work of Lysippos as conventional and somewhat lifeless in comparison. But with the assumption that the statue of Agias represented true Lysippan characteristics, we were forced to recognize that the same traits belonged to Lysippos also, though to a less degree, since the energy of the Tegea heads was absent from the features of the _Agias_ and their fierceness was here replaced by a look of quiet melancholy. The study of such allied works as the beautiful and excellently preserved _Lansdowne Herakles_ (Pl. 30 and Fig. 71), the athlete on the Pentelic marble stele found in the bed of the Ilissos in 1874, and now in the National Museum in Athens (Fig. 74),[2146] the so-called _Meleager_ in the Vatican (Fig. 75),[2147] and other copies of the same original (_e. g._, Figs. 76, 77), also shows how closely the type of Lysippos approached that of Skopas. Long ago I expressed the view[2148] that these and similar works should be assigned to Lysippos rather than to Skopas, to whom most critics had referred them. Thus, after the discovery of the Tegea heads, scholarly opinion began to follow the arguments of Furtwaengler in bringing the _Lansdowne Herakles_ into the sphere of Skopas.[2149] But Michaelis, as far back as 1882, commenting on the characteristically small head, short neck in comparison with the mighty shoulders, and long legs in proportion to the thick-set torso, had declared: “Without doubt the statue offers one of the finest specimens, if not absolutely the best, of a Herakles according to the conception of Lysippos.”[2150] Now opinion varies again; only those who believe that the _Agias_ is Lysippan class the _Herakles_ as a Lysippan work.[2151] Of the _Meleager_, Graef[2152] gives eighteen copies besides the one in the Vatican. This number shows how common an adornment it was of Roman villas and parks. Some of these copies have a chlamys thrown over the arm, _e. g._, the Vatican example, and belong to imperial times, while others without the mantle, _e. g._, the torso in Berlin,[2153] are older. In addition to the Vatican example we reproduce two other copies, the beautiful Parian marble head now placed on the trunk of a Praxitelean _Apollo_ in the gardens of the Medici in Rome (Fig. 76),[2154] and the statue without arms or legs and without the chlamys, found in 1895 near Santa Marinella, 30 miles from Rome, and since 1899 in the Fogg Art Museum at Harvard University (Fig. 77),[2155] one of the most beautiful of the many replicas. At first the original of these copies was supposed to be Lysippan, being identified with the _Venator_ at Thespiai mentioned by Pliny as the work of Euthykrates, the son and pupil of Lysippos,[2156] but after the discovery of the Tegea heads it was almost universally referred to Skopas.[2157] Here again the Skopaic group of Graef has been broken by P. Gardner[2158] and others, and the _Meleager_, like the _Herakles_, has been given to Lysippos.

Let us analyze a little further wherein the difference between the closely allied art of Skopas and Lysippos lies. We saw that it was chiefly the formation of the eye and its surroundings which characterized Skopaic work—the depth of the balls in their sockets, and the heavy masses of flesh above the outer corners. This was in harmony with the breadth of brow and the massive build of the Tegea heads. In the _Agias_ and similar works the treatment of the eye is somewhat different. The head of the _Agias_ is of slighter proportions than the heads from Tegea; in conformity with the Lysippan canon it is below life-size, and consequently has no such heavy overshadowing of the outer corners of the eyes. Moreover, as we shall see, this overshadowing is also relatively less in the statue of the Delphian athlete. The formation of the eye is thus described by E. A. Gardner:

“The inner corners of the eye are set very deep in the
head and very close together; the inner corners of the
eye-sockets form acute angles, running up close to one
another and leaving between them only a narrow ridge for
the base of the nose; thus they offer a strong contrast
to the line of the brow, arching away in a broad curve
from the solid base of the nose and forming an obtuse
angle with it, such as we see in the Skopaic heads.”[2159]

The resultant expression is therefore somewhat different from that of the heads from Tegea; while we still see animation and even intensity in the face of the _Agias_, we see it in a modified degree. The far-away look of the Tegea heads is still present, but it appears to be fixed on a nearer object, and so the look of intensity is tempered; it is also lightened by the fact that the overshadowing of the eyes at the outer corners is less heavy. But even this latter so-called Skopaic trait, though it is absent in the _Agias_, is certainly present in other Lysippan heads. Besides being prominent in representations of Alexander the Great on coins,[2160] it is seen in busts of the conqueror, especially in the splendid one from Alexandria in the British Museum.[2161] In the latter example we see just such heavy rolls of flesh as we note in the Skopaic heads. It shows that this trait, introduced by Skopas, was used at times with equal effect by Lysippos. We have already noted how in one example, at least, Skopas himself laid it aside—in the _Atalanta_. Its presence on Lysippan heads shows that too much stress can be laid on this feature in deciding whether a given piece of sculpture is to be referred to Skopas. This trait complicates the whole problem of the style of the two masters.

THE SPARTA HEAD COMPARED WITH THAT OF THE PHILANDRIDAS.

As the _Agias_ is considered by most critics to be a contemporary copy of the original statue at Pharsalos, perhaps it will be more just to compare the head from Sparta under discussion with the original marble head from Olympia, which we have ascribed in the earlier part of the present chapter to the statue of Philandridas by Lysippos. Such a comparison will, of course, show certain differences, but marked resemblances as well. We shall see that these resemblances are confined to the upper part of the face. In both we note the same low forehead with a corresponding depression or crease across the middle; the similarly bulging brow which breaks very perceptibly the continuous line from forehead to nose, concave above and below and convex at the swelling itself; the same powerfully framed and deep-set eyes thrown into shadows by the projecting bony structure of the brows and the overhanging masses of flesh. The eyeballs in both are similarly long and narrow, though they are slightly arched in the _Philandridas_ just as in the Tegea heads, and not so close together as in the _Agias_, but their inner angles are farther apart and not almost hidden by the flat bridge of the nose when viewed straight from the front. In this respect they are strikingly like those of the Sparta head.[2162] The raised upper lids in both form symmetrically narrow and sharply defined borders over the eyeballs. These borders, in each case, are not partially hidden by the folds of skin at the outer corners, as they are in the Tegea heads; and yet the masses of flesh projecting from the brows are almost as heavy as in the latter. In both the heads from Olympia and Sparta the upper lids slightly overlap the under at the outer corners. The eye-sockets in both seem to be equally deep and the cheek-bones similarly high and prominent. We remark in the _Philandridas_ the gradual converging of the sides of the face toward the middle, a trait which we have already observed in the head from Sparta as in contrast with the more angular formation with lateral planes so characteristic of the Tegea male heads. The flatness of the nose and the curves which it makes with the brow on either side are very similar in the two heads under discussion. In both, the hair is treated in the same simple and sketchy manner, being fashioned into little ringlets ruffled back from the temples in flat relief quite in the Skopaic manner, even if the curls seem shorter and more tense.

When we come to a consideration of the lower part of each face, we immediately detect differences. While both faces end in an oval, this is broader, heavier, and more bony in that of the _Philandridas_, as we should expect in the case of a more mature man. Consequently here the mouth is larger and firmer. The elegant contour of the lips observable in the _Agias_ is also found, to a less degree, in the head from Sparta, whose lips are fuller and more sensuous, but can not be traced in the _Philandridas_ owing to the damaged condition of the mouth. It is clear, however, that the lips of the latter were also slightly parted, just showing the teeth, but not as in the Tegea heads, as if the breath were being forced through them with great effort.

It is, however, in the expression of these two faces that we see the greatest resemblance. In the _Philandridas_, the powerful framing of the eyes, the slightly upward gaze of the balls, and the contracted forehead combine to give it a pensive, even melancholy, look of dignity, a look seemingly of one who takes no joy or pleasure in victory, though, as we have already mentioned,[2163] it is earnest rather than mournful. The almost identical treatment of the eye and its surroundings gives the still more youthful head from Sparta a similar expression. Homolle’s analysis of the expression of the face of the _Agias_ would apply with equal fitness to the mood portrayed in both the heads we are discussing: “_L’expression qui résulte de ces divers traits, c’est, dans une figure jeune et vigoureuse, un air pensif ou lassé, une certaine mélancolie, qui ne va pas à la tristesse morne ou à la méditation profonde, mais qui reste plus loin encore de la joie insouciante de la vie et de la pure allégresse de la victoire_”.[2164] Preuner remarked that a verse of the epigram found on the base of the statue of Agias, which runs καὶ σῶν οὐδείς πω στῆσε τροπαῖα χερῶν, is almost an exact copy of the words of Herakles in the _Trachiniae_ of Sophocles.[2165] In these words the dedicator of the statue ends the recital of his ancestor’s exploits with a melancholy reflection on the vanity of his glory. They suggest with no less truth the expression of both the heads we are discussing. This expression of pensiveness tinged with melancholy is enhanced in both by the slightly parted lips. We can see the same expression carried much further in many of the portraits of Alexander which go back to originals by Lysippos, and we know from Plutarch that this sculptor was chosen by the conqueror to make his portraits, because Lysippos alone could combine his manly air with the liquid and melting glance of his eyes.[2166] But how different is the delicately indicated pathos of these heads from the violent and unrestrained, even panting, expression of the Tegea sculptures! Here there is no trace of the μανία which Kallistratos said characterized the works of Skopas. If it be objected that the expression of the _Philandridas_ is more dramatic than that of the head from Sparta, its fierce, almost barbarous, look of defiance may well be explained by the fact that here is represented a victor from Akarnania, a country noted among the other Greek states for anything but culture and refinement.

THE SPARTA HEAD AN ECLECTIC WORK AND AN EXAMPLE OF ASSIMILATION.

It is, then, in consequence of these resemblances to Lysippan work, and because of the differences between it and the Tegean heads, that I am led to see more of Lysippos than of Skopas in this beautiful head from Sparta. An analysis of its style permits us to discover in it the mixed influences of Praxiteles, of Lysippos, and of Skopas. It seems to me necessary, therefore, in view of this mixture of tendencies, to regard it as an eclectic work, in which the unknown artist has combined Lysippan and Praxitelean elements chiefly; and that he was also under the influence of Skopas is evinced by the peculiarities mentioned in the treatment of the eyes and hair;[2167] but even in the modeling of the eyes, I believe that his chief debt was to Lysippos. The fineness of surface modeling, commented on by both Professor Bates and Dr. Caskey, recalls the delicacy of execution in detail which is mentioned by Pliny as characteristic of Lysippan art.[2168] It surely points to a date for the work not much if at all later than the end of the century which was made glorious in the history of sculpture by the labors of these three great masters.

In the preceding account I have tacitly assumed with Professor Bates that the head from Sparta represents a beardless Herakles. But, as Dr. Caskey remarks, one might hesitate to accept this identification if it were not for the attribute of the lion’s skin above the forehead, for here there is little indication of the strength so characteristic of later representations of the hero. Dr. Caskey, however, observes that a head of Herakles, now in the British Museum, which some have regarded as an original by Praxiteles, is even more boyish than this one. However, it is very doubtful if the Sparta head should be referred to a statue of Herakles at all. Pausanias mentions only three statues of Herakles in Sparta, to any one of which it seems futile to try to refer the head under discussion; thus in III, 14.6, he speaks of an ἄγαλμα ἀρχαῖον to which the _Sphairians_, _i. e._, lads entering on manhood, sacrificed, as standing on the road to the Δρόμος, outside the city walls; in the same book, 14.8, he says that an image of the hero stood at the end of one of the two bridges across the moat to Plane-tree Grove, _i. e._, the boys’ exercise-ground; and again in this book, 15.3, he says that an ἄγαλμα ὡπλισμένον of Herakles stood in the Herakleion close to the city wall, whose attitude (σχῆμα), was suggested by the battle between the hero and Hippokoön and his sons. The same writer enumerates only three other statues of Herakles in Lakonia. One of these was in the market-place of Gythion (III, 21.8), another in front of the walls of Las beyond Gythion (III, 24.6), and the third on Mount Parnon near the boundaries of Argolis, Lakonia, and Tegea (III, 10.6). The head under discussion is more probably only one more example of the idealizing tendency of athletic Greek art, which assimilated the type of victor to that of god.[2169] In the case of the _Agias_ the sculptor plainly wished to raise the victor to the ideal height of the hero. The same idealization is visible in the head ascribed to the statue of Philandridas. In both these heads the ears, while small, are battered and swollen; the remains of the ears in the head from Sparta are too badly damaged to indicate whether these were swollen or not. But even if they were preserved and were in that condition, they would not be a distinguishing factor in determining whether the head belonged to the statue of a victor or of Herakles. In our consideration of the Olympia head we saw by a comparison with the _Lansdowne Herakles_, a statue universally recognized as that of the hero, how fundamentally different were the two in their whole conception and how differently a highly idealized athlete and a hero were treated by the same sculptor. The same might be said of the boyish head from Sparta, when compared with a genuine head of Herakles. For this reason, and because of the resemblance in expression between the _Philandridas_ and the head from Sparta, I am inclined to believe that the latter, instead of being a representation of a youthful Herakles, is really the idealized portrait of an athlete, probably that of a boy victor, either in the boxing or wrestling match,[2170] assimilated in form to that of the hero.[2171]