Chapter XXXIII: Book V: , Pausanias says he is proceeding north from the Council-house (10)

[2047] _E. g._, Collignon, _Lysippe_, p. 31; Amelung, _R. M._, XX, 1905, pp. 144 f.; _id._, _Vat._, I, p. 87 (where he says that the _Agias_ offers the closest analogies in style to the _Apoxyomenos_); Michaelis, _Die archaeol. Entdeckungen des 19ten Jahrh._, 1906, p. 276; _A Century of Archæological Discoveries_ (transl. of preceding, by Bettina Kahnweiler, 1908), p. 323; _id._, Springer-Michaelis, p. 335; for others, _cf._ Wolters, _l. c._, n. 2.

[2048] Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 61 (= S. Q. no. 1444), quotes Douris as saying that Lysippos was the pupil of no artist. He tells how the painter Eupompos advised the sculptor as a boy _naturam ipsam imitandam, esse non artificem_. Such a judgment, of course, can not be literally true, as every artist is to a large extent a child of his age and circumstances. _Cf._ Jex-Blake, pp. xlviii f., for the anecdotal character of Pliny’s statement. That the statement comes, perhaps, from Eupompos is the view of Kalkmann, _Quellen der Kunstgeschichte des Plinius_, 1898, p. 165.

[2049] _B. C. H._, XXI, 1897, p. 598; _id._, XXIII, 1899, p. 471; _cf._ T. L. Shear, _A. J. A._, _l. c._ On the relation of Skopas to Lysippos, see P. Gardner, _J. H. S._, XXIII, 1903, pp. 126 f., and E. A. Gardner, _Sculpt._, p. 198. The influence of Skopas is especially observable in Lysippos’ treatment of forehead and eyes and in the consequent intensity of expression.

[2050] _Jb._, XXV, 1910, pp. 172-3.

[2051] See Wolters, _l. c._, pp. 45 f. Most scholars have followed the contention of Preuner that the statue at Pharsalos was the older: _e. g._, Kern, _I. G._, IX, 2, 249.

[2052] _Cf._ Hill, _op. cit._, p. 39.

[2053] _Mp._, p. 364 and n. 2; _Mw._, p. 597 and n. 3; for the Berlin athlete, see _Beschr. d. ant. Skulpt._, no. 471; for a copy of the Berlin head in the Museo delle Terme, Rome, see Helbig, _Fuehrer_, II, 1380 _bis_; _Jb._, XXVI, 1911, p. 278, n. 1; and _cf._ _R. M._, XX, 1905, pp. 147 f., figs. 5-7; for the Dresden statues, see Hettner, _Bildw. d. kgl. Antiken-samml._, nos. 245-6; one of these has a beardless head, which is analogous to a more beautiful head in Copenhagen: _La Glypt. Ny-Carlsberg_, no. 1072. Of this head, which is earlier than that of the _Apoxyomenos_, Furtwaengler says that it is “one of the finest and most purely Lysippan works in existence.” In _Mp._, p. 338, he mentions a bronze statuette of Hermes from Athens now in Berlin (Invent. 6305) “in the swinging posture of the _Apoxyomenos_,” and says that it is of the purest Lysippan style.

[2054] _J. H. S._, XXVI, 1906, pp. 239-40 and Pl. XVI; Duetschke, IV, 151.

[2055] _La Glypt. Ny-Carlsberg_, no. 240; Mahler ascribes this work to Lysippos: _Polykl. u. s. Sch._, 1902, p. 153, n. 1.

[2056] _B. M. Sculpt._, 1747, p. 102; _Mp._, p. 298 and fig. 126; _Mw._, pp. 515 and 517 and fig. 93; _cf._ Mrs. Strong, in _Strena Helbigiana_, 1900, p. 297. It is 6 ft. 8 in. high without the plinth (Smith).

[2057] A better copy is the torso in the Louvre, _Photo Giraudon_, no. 1289; a head is in the Lateran, no. 891.

[2058] _De olymp. Stat._, Halle, 1902, and enlarged, 1903, pp. 27 f.

[2059] _Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. LIV, 3-4, and Textbd., p. 209, fig. 237; _Ausgr. v. Ol._, V, 1881, Pl. XX.

[2060] VI, 2.1.

[2061] The head is still exhibited at Olympia in the same room as the _Hermes_.

[2062] _A. Z._, XXXVIII, 1880, p. 114; _cf._, _Ausgr. v. Ol._, V, pp. 13-14.

[2063] _Olympia_^2, 1886, pp. 343 f. and Pl. XVI (right).

[2064] _Restauration d’Olympie_, 1889, p. 137.

[2065] In Roscher, _Lex._, I, 2, _s. v._ Herakles, p. 2166.

[2066] _E. g._, Graef, _R. M._, IV, 1889, pp. 189-226, especially p. 217; von Sybel, in _Luetzow’s Zeitschr. fuer bild. Kunst_, N. F., II, pp. 253 f.

[2067] _Bildw. v. Ol._, pp. 209 and n. 1.

[2068] _B. C. H._, XXIII, 1899, pp. 456-7.

[2069] _Polyklet u. seine Schule_, p. 149.

[2070] Preuner (_op. cit._, p. 12) dates the dedication 339-331 B. C.; Homolle (B. C. H., XVIII, 1899, p. 440) more closely, 338-334 B. C. Preuner dates Agias’ victory about 450 B. C.

[2071] Treu, _Bildw. v. Ol._, p. 208, gives these measurements: height with neck, 0.270 meter; height of head alone, 0.215 meter; breadth of face, 0.127 meter; height of face, 0.155 meter.

[2072] _H. N._, XXXIV, 65.

[2073] The hair, however, of the _Apoxyomenos_ is an exception, for, even if worked out with some care, it is devoid of expression.

[2074] The use of the drill is seen in the Praxitelian _Hermes_, but is not seen in the Tegea heads, nor is it common in the first half of the fourth century B. C.: _cf._ Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p. 309.

[2075] So Treu, _Bildw. v. Ol._, p. 208 (though formerly in _A. Z._, XXXVIII, 1880, p. 114, he called it a pancratiast with Herakles features); Reisch, p. 43, n. 1; Flasch, in Baum., p. 1104 00; Furtwaengler, in Roscher’s _Lex._, _s. v._ Herakles, I, 2, p. 2166; etc.

[2076] See pp. 75 and 94.

[2077] _E. g._, Treu, _Bildw. v. Ol._, pp. 208 f.

[2078] _Supra_, pp. 167 f.

[2079] Michaelis, pp. 451 f., no. 61; _Specimens_, I, Pl. XL; Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p. 297, fig. 125, _Mw._, p. 516, fig. 92; Graef, _R. M._, IV, 1889, pp. 189 f., and Pls. VIII-IX; Springer-Michaelis, p. 336, fig. 600; Clarac, V, 788, 1973; etc. It was found in 1790 in the ruins of Hadrian’s villa at Tivoli.

[2080] VI, 1.4.

[2081] VI, 2.1.

[2082] VI, 5.1.

[2083] VI, 4.6.

[2084] VI, 17.3.

[2085] East of the temple of Zeus; see _infra_, Ch. VIII, p. 342, n. 4.

[2086] See list in Hyde, pp. 3 f. Here nos. 91 and 136 refer to the same victor.

[2087] VI, 1.3.

[2088] _Bildw. v. Ol._, p. 209. See Plans A and B.

[2089] P., VI, 1.4.

[2090] P., VI, 1.6.

[2091] P., VI, 3.2.

[2092] See _Inschr. v. Ol._, nos. 166 (Troilos), 160 (Kyniska), 172 (Sophios). See Plans A and B.

[2093] This fact, together with its place of finding not far from the Great Gymnasion, led Treu to believe that the statue once adorned the interior of the exercise-place of the athletes: _Bildw. v. Ol._, p. 209.

[2094] The Praxitelian _Hermes_ similarly shows an unfinished treatment of the back hair; in fact the entire back of the statue is carelessly done (_Bildw. v. Ol._, p. 203, fig. 233), though chisel-rasps show a subsequent attempt to better it. This condition led Treu at first (_Ausgrab. v. Ol._, V, p. 10; followed by Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p. 308, n. 7; _Mw._, p. 531, n. 3) to believe that the statue was made at Olympia with regard to its position in the Heraion. Later (_Bildw. v. Ol._, pp. 204-5) Treu believed that this merely indicated that the statue was intended to stand against a wall; and since the present base is not the original one (see Bulle, _apud_ Purgold, _Ergebnisse v. Ol._, II, pp. 157 f.), that the statue was not originally meant for the temple, but was moved thither, perhaps in Nero’s day; _cf._ also Wernicke, _Jb._, IX, 1894, pp. 108 f. For the _Hermes_, mentioned by P., V, 17.3, and found in the cella of the Heraion on May 8, 1877, see _Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pls. XLIX-LIII; Textbd., pp. 194 f. and figs. 225-234.

[2095] However, Lysippos made the statue of Polydamas of Skotoussa, who won the pankration in Ol. 93 (= 408 B. C.), many years after the victory: see P., VI, 5.1; Hyde, 47; Foerster, 279; H. L. von Urlichs, _Ueber Griech. Kunstschriftsteller_, Diss. inaug., 1887, p. 26.

[2096] P. 27.

[2097] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 166; _cf._ P., VI, 1. 4 (both victories wrongly in Ol. 102); Hyde, 6; Foerster, 338 and 345.

[2098] Date given by P., VI, 4.2. See Hyde, 37; Foerster, 349, 353, 359.

[2099] For the earlier dating of Lysippos, see Winter, _Jb._, VII, 1892, p. 169 (who begins the artist’s activity with the seventies), Treu, _Bildw. v. Ol._, p. 211, and Milchhoefer, _Arch. Stud. fuer H. Brunn_, p. 66, n. 2; see also Hyde, pp. 26-7, (who gives the sculptor’s artistic activity as Ols. 103-115 = 368-320 B. C.); E. A. Gardner, _Sculpt._, pp. 216-217, who dates his activity 366-316 B. C.; P. Gardner, _infra_, next note.

[2100] _J. H. S._, XXV, 1905, pp. 243-249; on p. 245 he says: “There is some evidence for work by Lysippos at a later date than B. C. 320. And if he were born, as seems probable, about B. C. 390, he may well have accepted commissions, to be executed mainly by his pupils, for several years after 320.”

[2101] P., VI, 4, 6-7; Hyde, 41; Foerster, 384 and 392, who, on the basis of _I. G. B._, p. 75, to no. 93b, dates the victories Ols. (?) 112 and 113 (= 332 and 328 B. C.).

[2102] _L. c._, p. 246.

[2103] P., VI, 17, 3; Hyde, 175; Foerster, 390 and 397 (= Ols. ? 113 and 114, = 328 and 324 B. C. on the basis of _I. G. B._, p. 75).

[2104] _E. g._, Furtwaengler, who gives 350-300 B. C. as the period of his artistic activity: _Mw._, p. 523, n. 3.

[2105] _B. C. H._, XXI, 1897, p. 598 (and copied in XXIII, 1899, p. 422). The _Agias_ is but slightly later than the _Hermes_, if we accept Furtwaengler’s dating for the latter, about 343 B. C.: _Mp._, pp. 307-308; _Mw._, pp. 529-531. Brunn had regarded the _Hermes_ as a youthful work of Praxiteles: _Deutsche Rundschau_, VIII, 1882, pp. 188 f. Purgold, _Aufsaetze E. Curtius gewidmet_, pp. 233 f., and S. Reinach, _Gaz. Arch._, 1887, p. 282, n. 9, had assigned it to the year 363 B. C.

[2106] _H. N._, XXXIV, 37.

[2107] _Ibid._, 61 f.

[2108] The two are contrasted in XXXV, 156: _[Varro] laudat et Pasitelen qui plasticen matrem caela turae et statuariae scalpturaeque (= sculpturae) dixit_, etc. _Cf. infra_, Ch. VII, p. 324, n. 4. They are also contrasted in XXXVI, 15. _Sculptura_ is the modern title of Bk. XXXVI.

[2109] II, p. 150. See also Bulle, p. 137. Amongst recent writers who oppose this view are Koepp, _Ueber d. Bildnisse Alex. d. Gr._, p. 29, and Preuner, _op. cit._, pp. 46-7.

[2110] Thus the Sikyonian Kanachos worked in marble, bronze, gold and ivory, and cedar-wood: Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 50 and 75; XXXVI, 41; P., II, 10.5; IX, 10.2; etc.

[2111] F. Spiro, _Woch. f. kl. Philologie_, XXI, 1904, col. 792 (in his review of my _de olymp. Stat. a Paus. commem._).

[2112] See _Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. LV, 1-3; Textbd., pp. 209 f.

[2113] This is substantially Preuner’s view: _op. cit._, pp. 39-40 and 46-47; the later view of P. Wolters that the Delphi group was older than the statue at Pharsalos has already been mentioned _supra_, p. 292; see _Sitzb. Muen. Akad._, 1913, III, no. 4, pp. 44-45.

[2114] In _A. J. A._, XI, 1907, pp. 414-16, I argued that the statue of Agias was an original and not a copy; in the present work this view is somewhat modified.

[2115] So Homolle, _B. C. H._, XXIII, 1899, pp. 445 and 459; S. Reinach, _C. R. Acad. Inscr._, 1900, pp. 8 f.; H. Lechat, _Rev. des Études anciennes_, II, 1900, pp. 195 f.; Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 441; P. Gardner, _J. H. S._, XXIII, p. 127; _cf._ Preuner, _op. cit._, p. 38; etc. Homolle, _l. c._, p. 471, says that if the _Agias_ is a copy, “_c’est celui d’une copie authentique immédiate, contemporaine du modèle_.” The view that the Delphi group was not original is well expressed by P. Wolters, _l. c._, p. 50, who says that “_niemand die delphischen Statuen fuer Originale des Lysippos erklaeren wird_.”

[2116] _Hbk._, p. 441, n. 2; only two small marble props, reaching to the calves, support the ankles.

[2117] This treatment gives the impression of texture and profusion; see Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p. 309.

[2118] Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 69-71 (list of bronze works).

[2119] Mechanically exact copies were unknown in the fourth century B. C. Furtwaengler has shown that such copies began to be made in the second century B. C., or possibly at the end of the third, and became common only in the first: _Ueber Statuencopien im Altertum_, 1896.

[2120] It is mentioned by Pausanias, IX, 35.3, and the Surname “_Oulios_” by Strabo, XIV, 1.6 (C. 635); it is described by Plutarch, _de Musica_, 14 (= 1136 A), and Macrobius, _Sat._, I, 1713.

[2121] Schol. on Pindar, _Ol._, XIV, 16, Boeckh, p. 293.

[2122] Bekker, _Anecd. gr._, p. 299, 8-9; _cf._ Athen., X, 24 (p. 424 f.). It appears on Athenian coins also: see Frazer, V, p. 174, figs. 8-9.

[2123] P., VIII, 46.3; Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 75. _Cf._ Brunn, I, pp. 74 f.

[2124] P., IX, 10.2.

[2125] _Op. cit._ The transference to the minor arts—reliefs, coins, gems and vase-paintings—was, of course, especially common at all times. See also F. Hauser, _Die neu-attischen Reliefs_, 1889, and Flasch, _A. Z._, XXXVI, 1878, p. 119.

[2126] P., VI, 8.5 and VII, 27.5. He won the pankration in Ol. 94 (= 404 B. C.): Hyde, 81; Foerster, 286.

[2127] _B. C. H._, XXI, 1897, pp. 616-20 (Homolle).

[2128] See Amelung, _R. M._, IX, 1894, pp. 162 f. and Pl. VII. _Cf._, Treu, _Bildw. v. Ol._, pp. 190-191, and fig. 222 B, on pp. 188-189.

[2129] _J. H. S._, XXIX, 1909, pp. 151-2, fig. 1 a and b (F. H. Marshall).

[2130] XIII, 1909, pp. 151-7, with Pl. IV and figs. 1-3 (A head of Heracles in the style of Scopas.)

[2131] _Ibid._, pp. 156 and 157.

[2132] _Museum of Fine Arts Bulletin_, VIII, no. 46 (Aug., 1910), p. 26.

[2133] II, 10.1.

[2134] F. Imhoof-Blumer and P. Gardner, p. 30 (reprinted from articles which appeared in the _J. H. S._, VI-VIII, 1885-1887).

[2135] Discussed by Graef, _R. M._, IV, 1889, pp. 189-226. For the coin, see _ibid._, pp. 212-14.

[2136] For the two heads of heroes, see Kabbadias, pp. 154 f., nos. 179, 180; Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, p. 33; B. B., no. 44; Collignon, II, pp. 239, figs. 118 and 119; _Ant. Denkm._, I, 3, 1888, Pl. XXXV, 2-3, 4-5 (from casts); Milchhoefer, _A. M._, IV, 1879, pp. 133-4, nos. 24-25; G. Treu, _A. Z._, XXXVIII, 1880, pp. 98 f.; Luetzow, _Zeitschr. f. bild. Kunst_, XVII, 1882, pp. 322 f.; Baum., III, pp. 1667 f. and figs. 1733 and 1734; von Sybel, _Weltgesch. d. Kunst_, pp. 255 f.; Springer-Michaelis, p. 306, figs. 544, a, b; Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 412, fig. 105; von Mach, 469.

[2137] VIII, 45.6-7; see Mendel, _B. C. H._, XXV, 1901, pp. 257 f., and Pls. IV, V (= head of Atalanta?), VI (= torso of Atalanta?), VII, VIII (= heads of Herakles); Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 416, fig. 106, has reconstructed the _Atalanta_ from Pls. IV and VI just mentioned.

[2138] _L. c._, p. 259. The head has been restored by a German sculptor, and the chin appears to have been made too retreating: see _Encyl. Brit._, 11th ed., vol. XII, _s. v._ “Greek Art,” Pl. III, fig. 63.

[2139] From his Atalanta of Tegea, in _J. H. S._, XXVI, 1906, pp. 172-3, quoted in part by Dr. Bates, _l. c._, pp. 155-6.

[2140] It was chiefly the preponderance of the lower part of the face over the upper, in consequence of the large chin and strongly marked cheek-bones, that led Treu to predicate Peloponnesian rather than Attic influence in the Tegea heads: _A. M._, VI, 1881, p. 408. He found them Polykleitan in character, as did also Graef, _l. c._, p. 210, Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p. 523, and Collignon, II, p. 238. L. R. Farnell, however, long ago combated the theory of Peloponnesian influence, and found analogies in fifth-century Attic works of the time of Pheidias, as well as in works from the beginning of the fourth century B. C.: see _J. H. S._, VII, 1886, pp. 114 f.

[2141] _Descriptiones stat._, B (in _Philostrati opera_, ed. Kayser, p. 891). He also says (_ibid._) that Skopas ὥσπερ ἔκ τινος ἐπιπνοίας κινηθεὶς εἰς τὴν τοῦ ἀγάλματος δημιουργίαν τὴν θεοφορίαν ἐφῆκε. The words with which Diodoros (Fragm. 1, Bk. XXVI) characterized Praxiteles, as ὁ καταμίξας ἄκρως τοῖς λιθίνοις ἔργοις τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς πάθη, apply much better to Skopas, for Praxiteles’ “emotions of the soul” are mood and temperament rather than emotion and passion.

[2142] _B. C. H._, XXV, 1901, Pls. IV-V.

[2143] The same overhanging masses of flesh, which we see in the male heads, are, however, visible in several other female heads attributed to Skopas: _e. g._, in the colossal one called _Artemisia_ from the Eastern pediment of the Mausoleion: Gardner, _Sculpt._, Pl. LIX; in the head of an _Aphrodite_ found in the sea off Laurion: _J. H. S._, XV, 1895, pp. 194f. and fig. (Aphrodite?); in the head of a goddess found south of the Akropolis (and in the copy of it in Berlin): Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 457, fig. 119; and in the Dresden statuette of a _Mænad_: Treu, _Mélanges Perrot_, Pl. V; Gardner, _Sculpt._, Pl. LII; etc.; they are also plainly visible in the _Demeter of Knidos_: Gardner, _Sculpt._, Pl. LIII; etc. These heads are discussed by Gardner, _Sculpt._, pp. 190f., and are ascribed by him to Skopas.

[2144] _J. H. S._, XXVI, 1906, p. 174. Gardner (_ibid._) does not explain this contrast in expression between the _Atalanta_ and the surrounding heroes on the analogy of the contrast in the calmness of _Apollo_ among the struggling _Lapiths_ from the Olympia pediment, since the action in the torso of _Atalanta_ shows that she was no mere spectator. He finds the explanation rather in the sex and youth of the heroine; for this reason he thinks that the sculptor did not represent her as sharing equally with the others the passion of the combat. He finds a truer analogy in the contrast between calm and passion in the _Lapiths_ and _Centaurs_ of the Parthenon metopes, where the human and bestial are thus distinguished; just so the heroine-goddess is here distinguished from her human companions. He also supposes that Skopas was not ready thus early in his career (just after 395 B. C., when the temple of Athena Alea was destroyed by fire) to apply his new extreme of expression to female heads. However, it must not be overlooked that these male heads—because of their marked individuality—presuppose a more mature genius, and so can just as well be assigned to the period of the Arkadian revival of 370 B. C. It has recently been seriously disputed whether the _Atalanta_ should be assigned at all to the Eastern pediment, where the French excavators placed it; thus Cultrera has looked upon it as an akroterion figure, while Thiersch and Neugebauer have identified it with a single figure representing _Nike_. See Cultrera, _Atti dell’ Accad. dei Lincei_, 1910, pp. 22f.; H. Thiersch, Zum Problem des Tegeatempels, _Jb._, XXVIII, 1913, p. 270; Neugebauer, _Studien ueber Skopas_, Leipsic, 1913; the latter has argued that the head and torso do not belong together, while Dugas has maintained the older view, that the turn and position of the neck fit the torso: _Rev. de l’art anc. et mod._, 1911, pp. 9f.

[2145] The effect in the Tegea heads is heightened by the abrupt transition from the brow to the socket—the outer end of the upper lid being almost hidden.

[2146] Kabbadias, I, p. 416, no. 869; Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, pp. 168 f. and fig.; Conze, _Griech. Grabreliefs_, IX, 1897, no. 1055 and Pl. CCXI; B. B., 469; Bulle, 267; von Mach, 369; P. Gardner, _Sculptured Tombs of Hellas_, 1896, Pl. XIV and p. 152; Gardner, _Sculpt._, Pl. LXV and p. 208; Graef, _R. M._, IV, 1889, pp. 199 f.; von Sybel, _Weltgesch. d. Kunst_, fig. 204; _id._, _Zeitschr. f. bild. Kunst_, N. F., II, p. 293; _cf._ Wolters, _A. M._, XVIII, 1893, p. 6. It is 1.68 meters in height and 1.07 in breadth (Staïs). The likeness of the head of the athlete in this relief to that of the _Agias_ is striking.

[2147] It was formerly in the Sala di Meleagro, but was later removed to the Sala degli animali; Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, 128, and Nachtrag; _Guide_, I, p. 78, no. 133; Amelung, _Vat._, II, p. 33, no. 10, and Pls. II and XII; B. B., 386; von Mach, 216; _id._, _Greek Sculpture, Its Spirit and Principles_, 1903, pp. 279 f.; Bulle, p. 484, fig. 145; _Ant. Denkm._, I, 4, 1889, Pl. XL, 1a, 1b (head); Graef, _R. M._, IV, pp. 218 f.; Reinach, _Rép._, 1, 479, 2; Clarac, 805, 2021. It is 2.10 meters high (Amelung).

[2148] _De olymp. Stat._, p. 28.

[2149] _Mp._, 296 f.; _cf._ Homolle, _B. C. H._, XXIII, 1899, p. 450, n. 2. Furtwaengler thought that the head was Attic and believed that it was the direct successor of the Munich _Oil-pourer_ (Pl. 11), the _Standing Diskobolos_ of the Vatican (Pl. 6), the Florence _Apoxyomenos_ (Pl. 12), and analogous to the Ilissos relief (Fig. 74), two bronze heads from Herculaneum (a = F. W., 1302, and Comparetti e de Petra, _La Villa Ercol._, Pl. VII, 3; b = _ibid._, Pl. X, 2), and other works; Graef, _op. cit._, p. 199, and Gardner, _Sculpt._, pp. 198-9, regard it as Skopasian; Kalkmann, Die Proport. d. Gesichts in d. gr. Kunst, _53stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr._, p. 60, n. 3, believes that it shows Polykleitan influence.

[2150] _Ancient Marbles in Great Britain_, p. 451.

[2151] P. Gardner, _J. H. S._, XXIII, 1903, p. 128 (_cf._ XXV, 1895, p. 240), has called it “definitely a Lysippic work”; similarly Cultrera, Una Statua di Ercole, _Mem. della R. Accad. dei Lincei_, p. 188; recently, T. L. Shear, _A. J. A._, XX, 1916, pp. 297-298.

[2152] _Op. cit._, pp. 219 f.

[2153] Von Mach, 214; Reinach, _Rép._, I, 484, 1; another in Copenhagen: Furtw.-Urlichs, _Denkm._, Pl. XXXII (opp. p. 98); a head is also in the Ny-Carlsberg collection there: _La Glypt. Ny-Carlsberg_, no. 362 and Pl. 100.

[2154] _Ant. Denkm._, I, 4, 1889, Pl. XL, 2a, 2b, p. 29 (Petersen); Collignon, II, p. 250, fig. 127; Bulle, 212 and fig. 144, on p. 481; Furtw., _Mp._, Pl. XV. For the _Apollo_ torso, see M. D., I, no. 215.

[2155] Mentioned in _Not. Scav._, 1895, p. 196, and figs. 1-2, and in _R. M._, X, p. 92 (Petersen); briefly described by R. Norton, _Harvard Graduates’ Magazine_, VIII, 1900 (June), pp. 485 f.; von Mach, 215; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 555, 6. _Cf._ _A. J. A._, IV, 1900, p. 275 and V, 1901, pp. 29 f. (latter = abstract of paper by von Mach). The Cambridge copy was found about 300 feet from the spot where the Berlin copy was discovered.

[2156] _H. N._, XXXIV, 66; in the text, _et Alexandrum Thespiis venatorem_, it is best to understand _venatorem_ as an appositive, therefore indicating a statue of Alexander as hunter. As the boar (in the bronze original no support was necessary) is a Roman accessory like the chlamys, it is best to call the work under discussion not _Meleager_, but merely hunter and dog (so Furtw.-Urlichs, _Denkm._, _l. c._). It was probably dedicated by a successful hunter to Artemis, or else it was a grave-monument, as such figures are common on sarcophagi: see Robert, _Ant. Sarcoph. Reliefs_, IV, Pls. XLVII, 154, and XLIX, 155, pp. 188 f.; and also on Attic grave-reliefs: _e. g._, on the Ilissos relief mentioned above (Fig. 74).

[2157] Furtw., _Mp._, pp. 304-5; Furtw.-Urlichs, Amelung, Helbig, von Mach, Arndt, E. Sellers-Strong (see introduction to Furtw., _Mp._, p. XIII), etc.

[2158] _J. H. S._, XXIII, 1903, pp. 128-129.

[2159] _Sculpt._, p. 219.

[2160] _Cf._ P. Gardner, _Types of Greek Coins_, 1883, Pl. XII, 16.

[2161] Pl. LXIX in _Six Greek Sculptors_. E. A. Gardner (p. 226) is doubtless right in believing that this form of brow was a personal peculiarity of Alexander, as it recurs so often in his portraits. It is seen in the head of Alexander on the sarcophagus from Sidon (either by a pupil of Lysippos or by some sculptor under his influence), the reliefs from which portray the same subject as the bronze group by Lysippos in Delphi mentioned by Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 64, dedicated by Krateros on the occasion narrated by Plutarch, _Vita Alex. Magni_, 40, who states that the group was executed conjointly with Leochares: see Hamdy Bey et Th. Reinach, _Une nécropole royale à Sidon_, 1892, Pl. XXXIII, no. 6 (reproduced by Gardner, _Sculpt._, Pl. LXXI). So far as I know, it occurs in Lysippan work to a prominent degree only in likenesses of Alexander. We know that Lysippos created the Alexander-type of head, as he alone could reproduce his manly and leonine air (_cf._ Plut., _de Alex. M. fortuna aut virtute_, _oratio_ II, 2, = p. 335). It is, to a less extent, present in the Azara head in the Louvre, which, owing to its likeness to the head of the _Apoxyomenos_, used to be taken as the nearest copy of the original by Lysippos.

[2162] It should be observed that the axis of the right eye in the head from Sparta droops slightly, which causes the eyeball to turn in. This seems to me to be merely the result of imperfect skill in modeling. It has a tendency to give to the face a look of greater intensity.

[2163] See _supra_, pp. 295-6.

[2164] _B. C. H._ XXIII, 1899, p. 455. Furtwaengler, _Bronz. v. Ol._, pp. 10 f., has shown that it was a favorite device to represent boxers and pancratiasts with a sombre look (“_der finstere Blick_”).

[2165] 1102: κοὐδεὶς τροπαῖ’ ἔστησε τῶν ἐμῶν χερῶν.

[2166] In the passage already cited from _de Alex. Magn. fort. aut virtute_, Orat. II, 2, (= p. 385c); ... καὶ τῶν ὀμμάτων τὴν διάχυσιν καὶ ὑγρότητα, κ. τ. λ.; _cf._ also his _Vita Alex. Magni_, IV (= p. 666), ... τὴν ὑγρότητα τῶν ὀμμάτων.

[2167] The hair of the head from Sparta, like that of the _Agias_ and the _Philandridas_, has not the expression displayed in some Lysippan heads (notably in portraits of Alexander), nor the detail which we should expect from Pliny’s statement that Lysippos excelled in his treatment of hair (_H. N._, XXXIV, 65; see next note). But the _Agias_ and the _Philandridas_ represent pancratiasts, and here we should not expect such expression. In the _Agias_, the hair, even if lacking in detail, is treated carefully and with variety.

[2168] _H. N._, XXXIV, 65: _propriae huius videntur esse argutiae operum custoditae in minimis quoque rebus_. Here the word _argutiae_ means “subtlety,” rather than “animation,” as given in Harper’s Latin Dictionary.

[2169] I need hardly add that such an idealizing tendency should be carefully distinguished from the deification of mortals which came into prominence after the time of Alexander, but existed in Greece from the early fifth century B. C., at least. The case of heroizing the Thasian Theagenes, who won at Olympia in boxing and the pankration in Ols. 75 and 76 (= 480 and 475 B. C.), has been discussed with similar ones in Ch. I, p. 35. But the fact that a victor wanted his statue to be more or less assimilated to the ideal type of the hero, whom he regarded as his athletic prototype and ideal, does not mean that he had any idea of looking upon himself as a god.

[2170] This would explain the simple, even sketchy, treatment of the closely cropped hair, just as in the _Agias_ and the _Philandridas_. The similarly parted lips of the Sparta head are certainly more appropriate to an athlete represented as weary with his toil than to a youthful Herakles. The slightly fierce expression of the face, augmented by the already noted imperfection in the modeling of the right eyeball, recalls the γοργόν look characteristic of boxers and pancratiasts; _cf. supra_, p. 317, n. 2. On the threatening eyes of contestants in general, see Xenophon, _Mem._, III, 10, 6-8, and _supra_, p. 59.

The head appears to me to be that of a boy of about sixteen years; its style is too early for a victor in the boys’ pankration, as this event was not introduced at Olympia until the 145th Olympiad (= 200 B. C.): see Paus., V, 8.11 and Ph., 13. The wrestling match for boys was introduced in 01. 37 (= 632 B. C.): see Paus., V, 8.9, and Afr. Boys were first allowed to box in Ol. 41 (= 616 B. C.): see Paus., _ibid._ (though Philostratos, 13, gives two traditions, Ols. 41 and 60).

[2171] We have record of only one statue of a victor set up in Sparta, that of the wrestler Hetoimokles, who won at the beginning of the sixth century B. C.: see Paus., III, 13.9, and _cf. infra_, Ch. VIII, p. 362, no. 4.

[2172] In the present chapter I have partly rewritten two articles which have appeared in the _A. J. A._; the first, entitled, Were Olympic Victor Statues Exclusively of Bronze?, in vol. XIX, 2d Ser., 1915, pp. 57-62; the second, The Oldest Dated Victor Statue, in vol. XVIII, 2d Ser., 1914, pp. 156-164 and Fig. I. I am indebted to Dr. J. M. Paton, former editor-in-chief, for permission to use them in the present work.

[2173] On p. 16 he says: _id unum dubitari non potest quin Olympionicarum statuae posteriorum temporum omnes ad unam aeneae fuerint_; on p. 17 he again says: _fieri non potest quin existimemus illas statuas omnes ex aere factas fuisse_.

[2174] _Inschr. v. Ol._, p. 235.

[2175] II, 2, p. 530 (note on P., VI, 1.1).

[2176] F. W., under no. 213, p. 101.

[2177] _Denkm._^3, p. 101; Engl. ed., p. 117.

[2178] VI, 1.1-18.7.

[2179] Pauly-Wissowa, VII, pp. 2189 f.; and _cf._ Brunn, I, p. 72. See _supra_, Ch. III, School of Argos, pp. 109-110.

[2180] Brunn, I, p. 34; etc.

[2181] The inscription gives a fragmentary enumeration of various victories: _Inschr. v. Ol._, 234, p. 346; see _infra_, Ch. VIII, p. 360 and n. 3.

[2182] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 235, pp. 346-347; see _infra_, Ch. VIII, p. 360 and n. 4.

[2183] Ch. IV, pp. 254-5; _Bronz. v. Ol._, pp. 10-11; Tafelbd., Pl. II, 2, 2a; F. W., 322; etc.

[2184] _Bronz. v. Ol._, pp. 11-12; Tafelbd., Pl. III, 3, 3a; F. W., 324. See _supra_, p. 255.

[2185] _Bronz. v. Ol._, p. 12; Tafelbd., Pl. IV, 5, 5a. Furtwaengler assigned it to a statue “_freien Stiles_.” _Cf._ F. W., 325.

[2186] _Bronz. v. Ol._, p. 22; Tafelbd., Pl. VI, no. 63. Even the veins are here indicated.

[2187] _Bronz. v. Ol._, pp. 12-13; Tafelbd., Pl. IV, nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, etc., and see text on p. 16. In this connection we have omitted bronze fragments in modern museums known to have once stood in the Altis, _e. g._, the head from Beneventum (Fig. 3) in the Louvre: B. B., 324; von Mach, 481. These have been already discussed in Ch. II, pp. 62 f.

[2188] E. Curtius, _Peloponnesos_, 1851-2, I, p. 85; II, pp. 16 and 96, n. 14; F. Dahn, Die Germanen in Griechenland, in _A. Z._, XL, 1882, pp. 128 f. Of course, long before the barbarians entered Greece many of the best of these statues had been removed to Italy by Roman generals and emperors, especially Nero, and others were destroyed in various ways.

[2189] He won in Ol. 59 (= 544 B. C.): P., VI, 18.7; Hyde, 187; Foerster, 113.

[2190] He won in Ol. 61 (= 536 B. C.): P., _l. c._; Hyde, 188; Foerster, 120.

[2191] That of Rhexibios was of fig-wood and that of Praxidamas of cypress, and consequently less decayed than the other. We know that cypress-wood was largely used for the early ξόανα because of its hardness and durability: _e. g._, the gilded statue in Ephesos, mentioned by Xenophon, _Anab._, V, 3.12. Theophrastos speaks of the durability of this wood: _de Plant. hist._, V, 4.2 (χρονιώτατα δοκεῖ τὰ κυπαρίττινα εἶναι). _Cf._ Hehn, _Kulturpflanzen und Haustiere_^6, 1894, pp. 276 f.; H. Bluemner, _Technologie und Terminologie d. Gewerbe und Kuenste bei Griechen und Roemern_, 1879, II, pp. 257 f.; Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, p. 625.

[2192] VII, 27.5. Scherer also, p. 18, n. 4, adduces a passage from the work of the second-century A. D. rhetorician Aristeides, κατὰ τῶν ἐξορχ., II, p. 544 (ed. Dindorf), which he thinks points to the exclusive use of metal for victor statues: τοὺς ἐπὶ στεφανιτῶν ἀγώνων σκεψώμεθα, οἷον τὸν Δωριέα ... καὶ πάντας, ὧν εἰκόνες χαλκαί; he also refers to a passage in Dio Chrysost., _Orat._, XXVIII, A, p. 531 R (289 M).

[2193] F. W., no. 213, p. 101; Scherer, p. 18, n. 3; Vischer, _Aesthetik_, III, §607, p. 377; and _cf._ S. Reinach, _R. Ét. Gr._, XX, p. 413.

[2194] See Koehler, _Gesam. Schriften_ (ed. Stephani), VI, p. 345.

[2195] VI, 1.2.

[2196] See Hyde, _op. cit._, Catalogue, pp. 3-24. There 188 victors are listed, Philon of Corcyra appearing twice, nos. 91 and 136.

[2197] _H. N._, XXXIV, 16.

[2198] P., VI, 1.1, says that not all victors set up statues. This has been discussed in Ch. I, p. 27.

[2199] Pliny differentiates carefully between _ars sculptura_ (_i. e._, sculpture in stone) and _ars statuaria_ (_i. e._, in bronze): thus Bk. XXXIV of the _H. N._ is concerned with the latter, Bk. XXXVI with the former. In XXXVI, 15, he says that _sculptura_ is the older, and that both bronze statuary and painting began with Pheidias in Ol. 83 (= 448-445 B. C.), a statement which is inconsistent with XXXIV, 83, where he speaks of Theodoros (of the middle or second half of the sixth century B. C.) as casting a likeness of himself in bronze. But it is well known that Pliny in his long work quotes from a variety of sources, without any attempt to reconcile them.

[2200] Gurlitt, _Ueber Pausanias_, p. 414, says, less correctly, one-sixth. Forty inscribed bases may be referred to victor statues mentioned by Pausanias, while 63 others have been referred to victor statues not mentioned by him: see _infra_, Ch. VIII, pp. 340 f., 353 f.

[2201] Taken from Treu’s account in _Bildw. v. Ol._, pp. 29-34 and 216-218.

[2202] Chapter III, _supra_, pp. 162-3; _a_ = _Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. VI, 1-4 (with fragments, _ibid._, 5-6, 7-8, and figs. 30-32 in the text); _b_ = _ibid._, Pl. VI, 9-10.

[2203] Textbd., p. 216, fig. 241; Tafelbd., Pl. LVI, 2. Furtwaengler, despite the size and material of this torso, ascribed it to the statue of a boy victor: _50stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr._, 1890, pp. 147-148; similarly Treu, _l. c._; both refer it to the fifth century B. C. and to a Peloponnesian sculptor.

[2204] Tafelbd., Pl. LVI, 3; F. W., 330.

[2205] Tafelbd., Pl. LVI. 4.

[2206] P. 216, n. 4 and fig. 242; _a_ = buttocks; _b_ = right upper leg; _c_ = bent upper leg with knee; _d_ = upper arm bent at elbow.

[2207] V, 17.3; here he enumerates images of ivory and gold, the marble _Hermes_ of Praxiteles, an _Aphrodite_ in bronze. Similarly, in II, 17.6, he mentions dedications, of different materials, in the Heraion of Argos; in I, 26.3, he mentions a bronze statue of Olympiodoros at Delphi dedicated by the Phokians, but says nothing of the material of two statues at Athens, where most of the offerings were marble; in I, 28.1, he speaks of a bronze statue of Kylon on the Akropolis; etc.

[2208] P., VIII, 40.1; to be discussed in the second part of the present chapter, pp. 326 f.

[2209] _R. Ét. Anc._, X, 1908, pp. 161 f.

[2210] _Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pls. XLVI-XLVIII; Textbd., pp. 182 f. and Figs. 210 f.; and _Ergebnisse_, II (_Baudenkmaeler_), Pl. XCIII (basis) and pp. 153-5; _cf._ P., V, 26.1.

[2211] P., V, 17.3 (already mentioned on p. 325, n. 3).

[2212] See Treu, _Bildw. v. Ol._, p. 216. To-day marble is far commoner than bronze for artistic work; the reverse was true in antiquity. Many varieties of bronze—a combination of copper and tin in varying proportions—were named from places where it was manufactured: _e. g._, Corinthian, Delian (the favorite with Myron), Aeginetan (the favorite with Polykleitos), etc.

[2213] _Cf._ Furtwaengler, _Bronz. v. Ol._, pp. 21-2; _50stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr._, p. 147; Reisch, p. 39. Good examples are the Tuebingen bronze hoplitodrome discussed in Ch. IV, pp. 206 f. (Fig. 42) and the παῖς κέλης from Dodona (Carapanos, _Dodone et ses Ruines_, Pl. XIII. 1). For diskoboloi, see E. von Sacken, _Die ant. Bronzen des k. k. Muenz- und Antiken-Cabinetes in Wien_, 1871, Pls, XXXV, 1, XXXVII, 4.

[2214] VIII, 40.1: Φιγαλεῦσι δὲ ἀνδριάς ἐστιν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀγορᾶς Ἀρ<ρα>χίωνος τοῦ παγκρατιαστοῦ, τά τε ἄλλα ἀρχαῖος καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα ἐπὶ τῷ σχήματι· οὐ διεστᾶσι μὲν πολὺ οἱ πόδες, καθεῖνται δὲ παρὰ πλευρὰν αἱ χεῖρες ἄχρι τῶν γλουτῶν. πεποίηται μὲν δὴ ἡ εἰκὼν λίθου, λέγουσι δὲ καὶ ἐπίγραμμα ἐπ’ αὐτὴν γραφῆναι. καὶ τοῦτο μὲν ἠφάνιστο ὑπὸ τοῦ χρόνου, κ. τ. λ.

On the various spellings of the name, Arrhachion, Arrhachon, Arrhichion, etc., see critical note in Rutgers, p. 19, and Foerster, no. 103.

[2215] Both Africanus (see Rutgers, _l. c._), and Pausanias (_l. c._) date the third victory. Pausanias and Philostratos, 21, place the other two victories in the Ols. just preceding. _Cf._ Rutgers, p. 20, n. 1, and Foerster, nos. 98, 101, 103. The story how Arrhachion expired at the moment of victory, throttled by his adversary, whose toe he succeeded in putting out of joint, is told by Africanus, Pausanias (VIII, 40.2), and Philostratos (_Imag._, II, 6 = p. 411); Pausanias also mentions that the body was crowned.

[2216] Frazer, IV, pp. 391-2; III, pp. 40-1. The statue has otherwise not been published. In all probability it is the same one listed by Waldemar Deonna, in his _Les Apollons archaïques_, Geneva, 1909, p. 187, no. 79. This was seen at Phigalia in 1891 by M. Chamonard and notices of it are to be found in the following works: _B. C. H._, XV, 1891, pp. 440 and 448; _Chroniques d’Orient_, II, p. 36; _R. Ét. gr._, 1892, p. 127; Mueller, _Nacktheit und Entbloessung in d. altoriental. und aelteren griech. Kunst_, Diss. inaug., 1906, p. 100; Rouse, p. 307.

Pausanias’ description of Arrhachion’s statue is discussed by the following: Scherer, pp. 16 and 23; Iwan v. Mueller, _Handbuch_, VI, p. 530: Dumont, _Mélanges d’ Arch._, p. 53; Lange, _Darstellung des Menschen in der aelteren griech. Kunst_, 1899; Brunn, _Griech. Kunstgesch._, II, p. 73; Overbeck, _Griech. Kunstmythol._, III, _Apollon_, p. 12, no. 9; Klein, p. 146; Reisch, p. 40; Collignon, I, p. 117, n. 1, and _B. C. H._, V, 1881, p. 321; _cf._ Deonna, _op. cit._, p. 13, n. 4.

[2217] See Lange, _op. cit._, pp. XI f., who states the formula, which we have already given _supra_, Ch. IV, p. 175, _cf._ Loewy, _Die Naturwiedergabe in der aelteren griech. Kunst_, 1900, pp. 25, 27; _id._, _Lysipp und seine Stellung in der griech. Kunst_, pp. 17-18. On the pose, _cf._ S. Reinach, _Manuel de Philologie classique_ (ed. 2), 1907, II, p. 91 n. 2.

[2218] Deonna, _op. cit._, p. 85, says that the size of the αἰδοῖα is an indication of archaism, as the earlier artists exaggerated them in order to show the sex better. Figs. 7 (example from the Kerameikos) and 72 (example from Delphi), on pp. 132 and 179 respectively of his work, resemble our statue in this feature.

[2219] I, pp. 21 f.; _cf._ _Rhein. Mus._, N. F., X, 1856, pp. 153 f.

[2220] See bibliography in Collignon, I, pp. 117-18; _cf._ G. Kieseritzky, _Jb._, VII, 1892, pp. 182 f.

[2221] _A. Z._, XL, 1882, pp. 55 f.

[2222] _Mw._, p. 712.

[2223] I, pp. 117-19; more fully in _Gaz. Arch._, 1886, pp. 235 f.; _cf._ also his later treatment in _Mon. Piot_, XX, 1913, pp. 5 f.; he assumes less influence in the corresponding archaic draped female type. _Cf._ also, for a similar view, F. W., p. 11 (to no. 14); von Sybel, _Weltgesch. d. Kunst_, p. 114; Kieseritzky, _l. c._; Loewy, _Jh. oest. arch. Inst._, XII, 1909, pp. 243 f.; _cf._ _id._, _ibid._, XIV, 1911, pp. 1 f,; _id._, _Griech. Plastik_, 1911, p. 5. While Loewy believes Egyptian influence reached Greece via Crete, Poulson believes that it came via Phœnicia: see the latter’s _Der Orient u. d. fruehgriech. Kunst_, 1912, and _cf._ his article in _Berl. Philol. Wochenschr._, XXXIV, 1914, cols. 61 f.; Richardson, p. 39; E. Kroker, _Jb._, I, 1886, pp. 114 f.; etc.

[2224] _Gaz. B.-A._, XXI, 1899, pp. 177 f.; 313 f.; for a similar view, see also Overbeck, I, pp. 37 f.

[2225] _Les Apollons archaïques_, pp. 21 f.; _id._, _L’Archéologie, sa valeur, ses methodes_, II, pp. 193 f.; _id._, L’influence égyptienne sur l’attitude du type statuaire debout dans l’archaïsme grec, in _Festgabe H. Bluemner ueberreicht_, 1914, pp. 102-142.

[2226] _Greek Sculpture, Its Spirit and Principles_, 1903, p. 84. On p. 324, however, he admits Oriental influence on the Greek minor arts, especially that of Assyria on early vases.

[2227] So Pottier, _B. C. H._, XVIII, 1894, pp. 408 f.; _cf._ Gardner, _Hbk._, pp. 47 f.; _Sculpt._, pp. 17 f.; etc.

[2228] Schliemann, _Orchomenos_, Pl. I (restored); Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, p. 543, fig. 220 (fragment), (restored on p. 544, fig. 221, from Schliemann); Springer-Michaelis, p. 115, fig. 246; etc.

[2229] _E. g._, I, 42.5; II, 19.3; VII, 5.5; _cf._ IV, 32.1.

[2230] I, 98.

[2231] Bulle dates the Old Kingdom from the 30th to the 25th centuries B. C. But early Egyptian dates are too unsettled to be discussed here. For a tabular view of the chronology of the Egyptian dynasties as given by different scholars—Sethe, Meyer, Petrie, Breasted, Maspero, etc., see _Encycl. Brit._, eleventh ed., vol. IX, p. 79 (in the article on Egypt, Chronology and History, by R. S. Poole and F. Ll. Griffith). Breasted, _A History of Egypt_^2, 1916, chart on p. 21, dates dynasties I-VI, 3400-2475 B. C.; XI-XVII, 2160-1580 B. C.; XVIII-(part of) XX, 1580-1150 B. C.

[2232] Both are given by Bulle, Pl. 5; _cf._ _id._, Pl. 37 (“Apollos” of Tenea and Volomandra); Ra-nefer, in Maspero, _Art in Egypt_, 1912, p. 82, fig. 148; Perrot-Chipiez, I, 1882, p. 655, fig. 436; Tepemankh, in Maspero, p. 84, fig. 155, and in Perrot-Chipiez, p. 678, fig. 461. The statue of Ra-nefer is 1.73 meters tall, that of Tepemankh 1.66 meters.

[2233] Ka-aper in Bulle, Pls. 6 and 7 (two views of the head); von Bissing, _Denkm. aegypt. Skulpt._, I, 1914, Pl. XI; Perrot-Chipiez, I, p. 11, fig. 7; Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 83, figs. 151, 152; _id._, _Manual of Egyptian Archæology_, 1895, p. 218, fig. 188, and p. 221, fig. 191. The “wife,” in Bulle, Pl. 9 (two views); Maspero, p. 83, fig. 154; _id._, _Manual_, p. 222, fig. 192.

[2234] Breasted, _A History of Egypt_^2, _l. c._, dates dynasties XI-XII, 2160-1788 B. C.; the Hyksos, dynasties XIII-XVII, 1788-1580 B. C.

[2235] Bulle. Pls. 11 (two views) and 12 (head); von Bissing, _op. cit._, I, Pl. XL, A (left); Maspero, _Art in Egypt_, p. 110, figs. 203-204.

[2236] We should add to the New Empire the Deltaic dynasties, from the twenty-first on. Breasted, _l. c._, assigns to the New Empire dynasties XVIII-XIX and part of XX, 1580-1150 B. C.

[2237] Bulle, Pl. 17 (left); Maspero, _Hist. anc. des peuples de l’Orient classique_, II, p. 531; _id._, _Art in Egypt_, p. 201, fig. 390 (= the Lady Naï); _Mon. Piot_, II, 1895, Pls. II-IV.

[2238] Bulle, Pl. 17 (right); von Bissing, II, Pl. LXIV; Maspero, _Hist._, III, pp. 503-504 and Pl. II; _id._, _Art in Egypt_, p. 238, fig. 455; Perrot-Chipiez, I, p. 714, fig. 481 (profile). Though the face is lifeless, the bust and lower trunk are delicately modeled.

[2239] We see the Egyptian treatment of the hair especially marked in the upper part of a stone “Apollo” discovered at Eleutherna in Crete, which is now in the Candia Museum: _Rendiconti della R. Accad. dei Lincei_, 1891, p. 599 (Loewy); _Rev. Arch._, 1893, Pls. III-IV (Joubin); Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 147, fig. 21; Perrot-Chipiez, p. 431, fig. 208; etc.

[2240] _E. g._, in the statue of Ra-nefer.

[2241] _E. g._, in the statue of the _Sheik-el-Beled_.

[2242] High-placed ears are common to many archaic Greek works other than the “Apollos.” They persist even in some of the figures on the Parthenon frieze.

[2243] On these common characteristics, see Richardson, p. 39; _cf._ H. N. Fowler, _History of Sculpture_, 1916, pp. 59-60; etc.

[2244] Pottier, _op. cit._, p. 414, assumes a religious reason for the left foot being advanced in both types. For another, natural explanation, see Homolle, _de antiquiss. Dianae Simul._, p. 95, quoted by Collignon, I, p. 118, n. 3.

[2245] The Greeks first copied the type in statuettes: _e. g._, alabaster figurines from Naukratis: W. Flinders Petrie, _Naukratis_^2, 1888, I, Pls. 1, 3, 4; G. Kieseritzky, _Jb._, VII, 1892, Pl. VI (with head, three views); _ibid._ p. 189 (figure in Boston). Pottier, _op. cit._, p. 409, cites two alabaster examples from Egypt (probably from Naukratis) which are nude, and on Pl. XVII, he reproduces four terra-cotta draped figurines in the Louvre, of Phœnician manufacture, similar to Egyptian works. The nudity of the “Apollos” marks the distinction between Greek and barbarian art.

[2246] Brunn, in his _Kunst bei Homer_, 1868, quoted by Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 47, showed by a very true analogy the way in which the Greek artist became an imitator. The Greeks borrowed their alphabet from Phœnicia, but wrote Greek and not Phœnician with it; just so the Greek artist borrowed the alphabet of art from Egypt, but with it wrote his own language of art.

[2247] _Gesch. des Materialismus_,^3 I, p. 127 (quoted by F. W., on p. 12).

[2248] This is the view of K. Kouroniotis, who carefully examined them. I quote his words incorporated in Dr. Svoronos’ letter to me of Dec. 29, 1911: τὰ γράμματα ἐπὶ τοῦ κορμοῦ, νομίζω ὅτι δὲ ἔχουσι καμμίαν σημασίαν, ἴσως δὲ μάλιστα εἶνε τὰ χαράγματα νέου τινός.

The inscriptions on the great majority of victor monuments found at Olympia were engraved upon the horizontal upper face of the base in front of the feet—at least down to the fourth century B. C.: see _Inschr. v. Ol._, p. 235. Dittenberger and Purgold have referred two inscribed convex bronze fragments found in the Altis to the flanks of victor statues set up in imperial times: _ibid._, nos. 234-5.

[2249] Only one other victor from Phigalia is known, Narykidas, who won πάλῃ some time in the first half of the fourth century B. C., as the mutilated epigram and artist’s name found upon fragments of the pedestal of his statue at Olympia attest, a date out of the question for our statue: see _Inschr. v. Ol._, no. 161: _cf._ P., VI, 6, 1; Foerster, no. 324.

[2250] P., VI, 15.8; Hyde, 148; Foerster, 61, 62.

[2251] P., I, 28.1; _cf._ for the date, Foerster, no. 55. See _infra_, p. 362.

[2252] P., III, 13.9; Foerster, nos. 86-90. See _infra_, p. 362.

[2253] P., VI, 3.8; Hyde, 29; Foerster, 6.

[2254] P., VI, 13.2; it was accordingly set up about Ols. 77-8 (= 472-468 B. C.): see Hyde, no. 111, and _cf._ p. 48; Foerster, 39, 41-46. See _infra_, p. 362.

[2255] The god was so described in the Homeric Hymn to the Delian Apollo, v. 134, and that to the Pythian Apollo, v. 272. On the grounds of long hair and nudity G. Koerte identified the example from Orchomenos: see his article, Die Antiken Skulpturen aus Boeotien, _A. M._, III, 1878, pp. 305 f.

[2256] So Vitet, _Gaz. B.-A._, XII, 1862, p. 29.

[2257] See list in Deonna, _Les Apollons archaïques_, p. 13, n. 1.

[2258] _E. g._, on an amphora from Vienne: see _Annali_, XXI, 1849, Pl. D., and pp. 159 f.; on another from Nola, now in the British Museum: _B. M. Vases_, III, p. 230, E 336; _cf._ also _ibid._, E 313; on a wall-painting from Pompeii: _A. Z._, XL, 1882, p. 58; on a marble bas-relief in the Palazzo Corsini in Florence: Duetschke, II, p. 114, no. 283. These examples represent the god only.

[2259] I, 98. _Cf._ Brunn, _Griech. Kunstgesch._, II, p. 76, and _Griech. Kuenstler_, I, pp. 36-37, no. 11; Mueller, _Nacktheit und Entbloessung in d. altorient. und aelteren griech. Kunst_, Diss. inaug., 1906, pp. 112 and 122; Roscher, _Lex._, I, _s. v._ Apollon, p. 450; Overbeck, I, pp. 38 and 78.

[2260] P., VIII, 53. 7-8.

[2261] P., II, 32. 5; _cf._ IX, 35. 3; described by Plut., _de Musica_, 14 (p. 1136); _cf._ _Annali_, XXXVI, 1864, p. 254; etc. Discussed _infra_, p. 335 and n. 7.

[2262] See list in _B. M. Sculpt._, I, pp. 81 f. (from which we have taken some of the following examples).

[2263] Petrie, _Naukratis_, I, Pl. 1, fig. 4.

[2264] _A. Z._, XL, 1882, p. 323.

[2265] Deonna, _op. cit._, nos. 1, 2; _cf._ _Gaz. Arch._, 1886, p. 235.

[2266] See Deonna, nos. 28 f.; _B. C. H._, X, 1886, pp. 66 f.; B. B., 12; etc.

[2267] _B. M. Sculpt._, no. 210.

[2268] _B. M. Sculpt._, nos. 202 (torso = Petrie, _Naukratis_, I, Pl. I, fig. 9) and 204 (torso = _Naukratis_, I, Pl. I, fig. 3).

[2269] _Ibid._, no. 203 (= _Naukratis_, II, Pl. XIV, fig. 13).

[2270] See _A. M._, IV, 1879, p. 304.

[2271] _See_ Rapporto d’un viaggio nella Grecia nel 1860, in _Annali_, XXXIII, 1861, p. 80.

[2272] _J. H. S._, I, 1880, pp. 168 f., already quoted. For the monument of Dermys and Kitylos, see _Gaz. Arch._, 1878, Pl. 29; _A. M._, III, 1878, Pl. XIV; F. W., 44.

[2273] On the subject of hair on “Apollo” statues, see Overbeck, _Griech. Kunstmythol._, III, _Apollon_, p. 14 (_cf._ note f); and _cf._ Milchhoefer, _A. Z._, XXXIX, 1881, p. 54, who discards this feature as a criterion.

[2274] For examples, see Deonna, _Les Apollons archaïques_, p. 12, n. 4 and n. 5.

[2275] _Cf._ the colossal bearded statue of Dionysos found in the quarries on Naxos (Komiaki), described by Deonna, p. 221. In a preceding note (p. 334, n. 4) we have already listed examples of the type of Apollo appearing on vases, etc.; see _B. M. Sculpt._, I, p. 82.

[2276] The date of these sculptors is fixed by that of their pupil, the Aeginetan Kallon, who lived at the beginning of the fifth century B. C.; _cf._ Akropolis inscription, _I. G. B._, no. 27. This statue is mentioned by P., IX, 35. 3, as holding the _Graces_ in one hand. Plutarch, who cites Antikles and Istros as his authorities, gives a better description of it in _de Musica_, 14; he says that it held the bow in the right hand and the _Graces_ playing on musical instruments in the left. A scholion on Pindar, _Ol._, XIV, 16, Boeckh, p. 293, mentions such an image of Apollo in Delphi, manifestly a copy of the Delian one. Both the scholiast and Macrobius, _Saturnalia_, 1, 17. 13, place the bow in the left hand and the _Graces_ in the right, an arrangement confirmed by Athenian coins which are copied from the replica of the statue in Athens (Bekker, _Anecdota gr._, I, p. 299, ll. 8-9). Frazer, V, p. 174, figs. 8-9, reproduces two of these coins.

[2277] This image, known as the _Philesian Apollo_, already discussed on pp. 118f., is described by Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 75. It was made between 494 and 479 B. C.: see Frazer, IV, pp. 429-30. It is copied on Milesian coins, which represent the god nude, holding a stag in the right hand and a bow in the left: see Overbeck, _Griech. Mythol._, III, _Apollon_, Muenztafel I, 22 f. P., IX, 10.2, mentions a cedar replica of the statue in Thebes. In the British Museum is a bronze, the so-called Payne Knight statuette, a copy of the one on the coins; it is reproduced by Frazer, _l. c._, p. 430, fig. 45 (= _B. M. Bronzes_, no. 209); Frazer mentions as other copies a statuette in Berlin, described in _A. Z._, XXXVII, 1879, pp. 84-91, and one from the Ptoian sanctuary, described in _B. C. H._, X, 1886, pp. 190-6, and Pl. IX. On Milesian reliefs, see one published by Kekulé von Stradonitz, Ueber d. Apoll. des Kanachos, _Sitzb. Berl. Akad. d. Wiss._, 1904, I, fig. on p. 787, and p. 797, and another by Th. Wiegand, Siebenter vorlaeufiger Bericht ueber Ausgrabungen in Milet und Didyma (_Abh. Berl. Akad. d. Wiss., Philosoph.-histor. Cl._, 1911), p. 21.

[2278] Mentioned by P., X, 24. 5, and Philochoros, in _F. H. G._, I, fragm. 22 on p. 387. Imperial Delphic coins from the time of Hadrian on represent the god nude with outstretched arms; such coin-types may be copies of this statue; _cf._ Frazer, V, p. 352.

[2279] See _B. C. H._, XII, 1888, p. 468.

[2280] In the Ottoman Museum, Invent. no. 374; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 1, 78, 2. It is described by Mendel, in _B. C. H._, XXVI, 1902, pp. 467 f.; _cf._ Deonna, _Les Apollons archaïques_, p. 226, no. 127.

[2281] See Deonna, pp. 191 f., no. 81 and figs. 84-90; _cf._ Annali, XXXVI, 1864, p. 253 (Michaelis).

[2282] _Ibid._, pp. 185 f., no. 77 and fig. 82.