Enkidoodle

We shall next discuss the beautiful Pentelic marble head of a boy, with a lion’s scalp drawn over the top so that the muzzle comes down over the forehead, which is said to have been discovered near the Akropolis at Sparta in 1908 (Fig. 72). This head was for a time in the University Museum, Philadelphia, and later was exhibited at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. At last accounts it was in private possession in Philadelphia. It has been published as the head of a youthful Herakles by my colleague, Professor W. N. Bates, in the _American Journal of Archæology_.[2130] Of its style he says: “The points of resemblance which the Philadelphia Heracles bears to the heads from the Tegean pediments are so many and so striking that they must all be traced back to the same sculptor; and that he was Skopas there can be little doubt.” He therefore concludes that it is “probably a very good copy of a lost work of Skopas.”[2131] A little later, Dr. L. D. Caskey, of the Museum in Boston, found these resemblances hardly close enough, in view of the influence of Skopas on later Greek sculpture, to justify so definite an attribution.[2132] He found them confined to the upper part of the face, while he believed that the lower portion resembled heads which could be assigned to Praxiteles or his influence, and consequently he pronounced the head “an eclectic work in which features borrowed from Skopas and Praxiteles have been combined with an unusually successful effect.”

As Dr. Bates points out, there is no recorded statue of Herakles by Skopas which corresponds with this head. The stone one mentioned by Pausanias as standing in the Gymnasion at Sikyon[2133] has been thought by the authors of the _Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias_ to be reproduced on a Sikyonian copper coin of the age of Geta, now in the British Museum.[2134] Many statues and busts scattered in European museums, which represent a beardless Herakles and show Skopaic influence, have been traced back to this original.[2135] However, the coin represents the hero wearing a wreath, and so, if it was copied from the original in the Gymnasion, the latter could not have been the prototype of the head under discussion.

It is now universally acknowledged that all constructive criticism of the art of Skopas must be based on a study of the heads found at Tegea. Besides those discovered in 1879, and now in the National Museum in Athens,[2136] two other male heads (in addition to the torso of a female figure draped as an Amazon, and a head on the same scale which probably belongs to it, as both are of Parian marble, representing probably _Atalanta_ of the East pediment) were discovered by M. Mendel in his excavations of the temple of Athena Alea in 1900-1901, and referred to the pedimental groups described by Pausanias.[2137] As one of these (Fig.73) is characterized by a lion’s scalp worn as a helmet, the hero’s face fitting into the jaws, its teeth showing above his forehead, it has been regarded as the head from a statue of Herakles, although Pausanias mentions no such statue in his enumeration of the figures composing the group of the Eastern pediment, and although it is difficult to explain the presence of the hero in the group of the Western pediment, which represented the battle between his son Telephos and Achilles. Mendel considers this head to be inferior in workmanship to the others, and so refers it to the school of Skopas rather than to the master himself, and designates it “_un travail d’atelier_.” In describing it, however, he says: “_tous ces caractères, qui sont ceux des têtes du Musée central, se retrouvent dans nôtre tête d’Héraclés_.”[2138] Here we have a head of a youthful Herakles (or of some hero who has borrowed his attribute of the lion’s skin—perhaps Telephos), which, if not by Skopas himself, is still a work of his school reproducing all his characteristics; consequently, of all these heads from Tegea, it is with this one chiefly that we should compare the head from Sparta similarly covered with a lion’s scalp.

[Illustration: FIG. 73.—So-called Head of Herakles, from Tegea, by Skopas. National Museum, Athens.]

Though badly injured, it is still possible to see in this head of the so-called _Herakles_ found at Tegea, both in full view and in profile, the characteristic Skopaic expression of passion, and to discover the means by which the artist effected it. The expression is due in great measure to the upward direction of the gaze, and to the heavy overshadowing of the deep-set eyes. It is further enhanced by the contracted brow, dilated nostril, and half-open, almost panting, mouth, whose parted lips clearly disclose the teeth. The structure of the head is in keeping with the strength of character portrayed; the skull is very deep from front to back, and its framework is massive and bony; the face is broad and short and the chin is heavy; everything emphasizes the impression of a virile and muscular warrior violently engaged in the fray. The subjects of the two pedimental groups—the Kalydonian boar hunt and the battle between Achilles and Telephos—justified the expression of unrestrained violence which we see in this and the other male heads, and gave the sculptor an opportunity to represent his heroes in the excitement of action and danger. To effect this intensity of expression Skopas relied mainly on the treatment of the eye. In one of the heads (the unhelmeted one in Athens) the gaze is not turned upwards as in the _Herakles_, nor are the neck-muscles strained as in the others, and yet the expression is even more violent than in them. Thus it is the modeling of the flesh about the eye which is the real distinguishing feature of Skopas’ work. In describing the helmeted head in Athens, E. A. Gardner says:

“The eyes are set very deep in their sockets, and heavily overshadowed, at their inner corners, by the strong projection of the brow, which does not, however, as in some later examples of a similar intention on the part of the artist, meet the line of the nose at an acute angle, but arches away from it in a bold curve. At the outer corners the eyes are also heavily overshadowed, here by a projecting mass of flesh or muscle which overhangs and actually hides in part the upper lid. The eyes are very wide-open—with a dilation which comes from fixing the eyes upon a distant object—and therefore suggest the far-away look associated with a passionate nature.”[2139]

COMPARISON OF THE TEGEA HEADS AND THE HEAD FROM SPARTA.

It is to the facial characteristics in the Tegea heads that Dr. Bates calls attention in basing his argument for the Skopaic origin of the head from Sparta: the forehead horizontally divided by a median line, the swelling, prominent brow, the deep-set eyes with their narrow lids—only 2 mm. wide—embedded in the projecting flesh at the outer corners, and the parted mouth. He also sees a resemblance in the small round curls bunched together above the ears. But if there are resemblances (especially in the modeling of the eyes) there are also great differences observable in the Tegea heads and the one from Sparta. Let us confine our comparison of the latter with the _Herakles_ of the Tegea pediment, though the comparison with any of the other male heads would lead to substantially the same results.

In the first place the structure of the two heads in question is very different. As the head from Sparta is broken in two at the ears and the whole back part is missing, we can not tell whether it had the great depth of the one from Tegea. But of the massive, bony framework of the latter there is little trace in the former. In the Tegea example we are struck with the squareness of the head and the breadth of the central part of the face; the sides do not gradually converge toward the middle, but seem to form distinct planes. The distance between the eyes is also in keeping with the breadth of the skull as measured between the ears; the breadth of the face almost equals its length from the top of the forehead to the chin, and this fact, together with the massive, prominent chin, gives an element of squareness to the whole.[2140] On the other hand, the head from Sparta has a long, narrow face whose sides softly converge toward the middle in beautiful curves about the cheeks; its cheek-bones are not so high nor so prominent as those of the other; it ends in a delicate, almost effeminate chin, which slightly retreats and gives the whole lower part of the face an oval structure, thus recalling Praxiteles and fourth-century Attic works. The length of the face is accentuated by the considerable height to which the head rises above the forehead, in contrast with the flatness of the skull in the example from Tegea. The eyes are not so wide-open; they are longer and not so swollen nor compressed toward the centre; if we view the two heads from the side, we see that the eye-socket in the Tegea head is larger and appreciably deeper than in the one from Sparta.

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.

[Illustration: FIG. 74.—Attic Grave-Relief, found in the Bed of the Ilissos, Athens. National Museum, Athens.]

[Illustration: FIG. 75.—Statue of the so-called _Meleager_. Vatican Museum, Rome.]

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.

[Illustration: FIG. 76.—Head of the so-called _Meleager_. Villa Medici, Rome.]

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]

[Illustration: FIG. 77.—Torso of the so-called _Meleager_. Fogg Art Museum, Cambridge, U. S. A.]

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]

CHAPTER VII.

THE MATERIALS OF OLYMPIC VICTOR MONUMENTS, AND THE OLDEST DATED VICTOR STATUE.[2172]

FIGURES 78-80.

It has been assumed pretty generally by archæologists that the victor statues set up in the Altis at Olympia were uniformly of bronze. Scherer, in his inaugural dissertation _de olympionicarum Statuis_, which appeared in 1885, was the first to discuss the question fully,[2173] and his arguments and conclusions have been followed, for the most part, by later investigators. Thus Dittenberger and Purgold state unequivocally that these statues were “_ausnahmslos aus Bronze_”,[2174] while more recently Hitzig and Bluemner, in their great commentary on Pausanias, have again pronounced the dictum that “_die Siegerstatuen waren durchweg von Erz_”.[2175] Others, however, have not been quite so sweeping in their generalization. Thus Wolters believes that these statues, because they were set up in the open, were “_der Regel nach_” of bronze,[2176] and Furtwaengler and Urlichs assume that they were “_fast ausschliesslich aus Bronze_”.[2177]

THE CASE FOR BRONZE.

The arguments adduced by Scherer and others in defense of the contention seem at first sight, although inferential in character, quite conclusive. In the first place, it has been pointed out that all the statuaries mentioned by Pausanias in his victor _periegesis_,[2178] if recorded at all in Pliny’s _Historia Naturalis_, appear there in the catalogue of bronze founders as workers in bronze κατ’ ἐξοχήν, while none of them is known exclusively as a sculptor in marble. As Hagelaïdas is the first in point of time, who flourished from the third quarter of the sixth century B. C. to the second quarter of the fifth,[2179] Scherer believed that all statues from his date down—_posteriorum temporum_—were of bronze; and as Rhoikos and Theodoros, the inventors of bronze founding, flourished about Ols. 50 to 60 (= 580 to 540 B. C.),[2180] he believed that bronze might have been used up to their date. In the next place, the excavated bases, which have been identified as those of victor monuments, show footprints of bronze statues. Thirdly, actual bronze fragments, indubitably belonging to victor statues (of which two are attested by inscriptions), were found during the excavations of the Altis. These consist of the following:

(_a_) An inscribed convex piece of bronze of imperial times, “_anscheinend vom Schenkel einer Bronzestatue herruehrend_.”[2181]

(_b_) A similar inscribed fragment of the same period.[2182]

(_c_) The remarkable life-size portrait head of a boxer or pancratiast, which we have already discussed and reproduced (Fig. 61 A and B).[2183]

(_d_) A foot of masterly workmanship (Fig. 62) ascribed by Furtwaengler[2184] to the end of the third century B. C. Its position shows that the statue of which it was a part was represented in motion, and consequently it has been assigned to a victor statue.

(_e_) A beautifully modeled right arm, somewhat under life-size, supposedly from the statue of a boy victor.[2185]

(_f_) A right lower leg of excellent workmanship, assigned by Furtwaengler to the same period as fragment _e_.[2186]

Still other bronze fragments of statues found at Olympia may have belonged to statues of victors, especially to those of boys.[2187] The small number of such fragments recovered—Scherer wrongly thought there was none—is explained by assuming that all of these statues were of bronze, and consequently were destroyed by the barbarians in their inroads into Greece during the early Middle Ages, when this metal was much prized.[2188] Another argument for believing that these statues were of bronze is the silence of Pausanias concerning the materials employed in them; for, in his enumeration of 192 such monuments, he mentions the material of only two statues, those of the boxer Praxidamas of Aegina[2189] and of the Opuntian pancratiast Rhexibios,[2190] and he mentions these because of their great antiquity, peculiar position in the Altis apart from the others (near the column of Oinomaos), and the fact that they were made of wood.[2191] Furthermore, in his book on _Achaia_ there occurs this passage in reference to the statue of the victor Promachos, which was set up in the Gymnasion of Pellene: καὶ αὐτοῦ [Προμάχου] καὶ εἰκόνας ποιήσαντες οἱ Πελληνεῖς τὴν μὲν ἐς Ὀλυμπίαν ἀνέθεσαν, τὴν δὲ ἐν τῷ γυμνασίῳ, λίθου ταύτην καὶ οὐ χαλκοῦ.[2192] Most critics have inferred from these last words, “_the one in the Gymnasion being of stone and not of bronze_,” that, although Pausanias says nothing about the material of statues of victors in the Altis (barring the two just mentioned), by implication all these statues were of bronze; and they point out the fact that other writers furnish no evidence concerning the material used in them—an argument _ex silentio_ to the same effect. Besides these arguments many others have been urged on purely a priori grounds; _e. g._, that, since these statues stood in the open air, subject to all kinds of weathering, they must have been made of bronze;[2193] that metal statues would have been cheaper and more easily prepared than those of marble;[2194] that the later Peloponnesian schools of athletic sculpture, which were characterized by their predilection for bronze-founding, would nowhere have been more prominently in evidence than at Olympia; etc.

Thus the case for the use of metal in these statues seems very well substantiated, and, for the reasons given, it can not be reasonably doubted that the vast majority of these monuments were made of bronze. But that they were not exclusively of metal, and that there were many exceptions to the general rule, not only can be conjectured on good grounds, but can be proved by discoveries made at the excavations. We shall briefly consider, then, each of the foregoing arguments in turn, and see whether, in the light of the accumulated evidence, they are really as well founded as they appear to be.

THE CASE FOR STONE.

As for the first point, that the statuaries mentioned by Pausanias appear only in Pliny’s catalogue of bronze founders, we must remember that Pausanias himself says[2195] that he is making only a selection of the victor monuments in the Altis, those of the more famous athletes. Therefore, the 192 monuments (of 187 victors)[2196] which he does mention must be only a fraction of the multitude of such monuments which once stood at Olympia. Pliny, to be sure, says that it was the custom for all victors to set up statues in the Altis;[2197] but this refers only to the privilege, of which many victors could not or did not avail themselves on account of poverty, early death, or for other reasons.[2198] Still, the number of such dedications must have been very great. Manifestly, therefore, we should not base an argument on the number mentioned. There must, then, have been many other artists employed at Olympia, some of whom may well have been workers in marble. Besides, of the statuaries actually named by Pausanias, many do not appear at all in Pliny’s work, and many of these may have been sculptors exclusively in stone. Of the names found in Pliny, six at least—Kalamis, Kanachos, Eutychides, Myron, Polykles, and Timarchides—appear both in the list of bronze-workers and in that of marble-sculptors.[2199] Similarly, in answer to the second argument that the excavated bases show footprints of bronze statues, we must admit that only a fraction of the bases which once supported statues in the Altis have been recovered. Not one-fifth of the victors mentioned by Pausanias are known to us through these bases.[2200]

The fact that actual remains of bronze statues have been excavated at Olympia is matched by the fact that remnants of marble statues have also been found; and it does not seem reasonable, in the light of the evidence adduced by Treu, Furtwaengler, and others, to reject these as fragments of actual victor statues. These fragments include the following:[2201]

(_a_, _b_) The two life-size archaic helmeted heads (Fig. 30) which we have ascribed to hoplite victors.[2202]

(_c_, _d_, _e_) Fragments of statues of boy victors: _c_ = trunk with left upper leg, three-fifths life-size (Fig. 78);[2203] _d_ = breast, one-half life-size;[2204]

_e_ = upper part of legs of a statue, two-thirds life-size.[2205] Besides these Treu also adduces fragments of four different boy statues, all of which are less than life-size.[2206]

The reticence of Pausanias as to the material used in these statues is merely in accord with his custom, for he very rarely mentions the materials of monuments, and apparently only where monuments of bronze and stone or other materials stand close together in a circumscribed area, as for instance, in enumerating the various monuments in the Heraion at Olympia.[2207] The only inference, therefore, to be drawn from Pausanias’ statement about the statue of Promachos mentioned is that this particular statue of a victor at Olympia was of bronze. We are not justified in going any further. Besides this stone statue at Pellene we have other actual notices of marble statues of Olympic victors outside Olympia, as those of Arrhachion at Phigalia[2208] (Fig. 79) and of Agias by Lysippos at Delphi (Pl. 28 and Fig. 68). If they existed outside Olympia, there is no reason why they should not have existed in the Altis also, _e. g._, the Lysippan marble head found there, which we assigned in the preceding chapter to the Akarnanian victor Philandridas (Frontispiece, and Fig. 69). Many of the older statues, like that of Arrhachion, conformed with the “Apollo” type, as we have shown in Ch. III,[5] and doubtless many such at Olympia were of marble.

[Illustration: FIG. 78.—Small Marble Torso of a Boy Victor, from Olympia. Museum of Olympia.]

Reinach’s argument that stone statues in Greece, because of their patina of color, were intended to be placed under cover in the porticoes or cellas of temples and elsewhere, while bronze ones were meant to stand in the open air, has been sufficiently combatted by H. Lechat,[2209] who argues that the use of paint in Greek architecture and on temple sculptures proves the contrary. As the paint was burnt in, it was reasonably durable, and if it did not prove so it was readily renewed. At Olympia, among several examples, we may cite the marble _Nike_ of Paionios, which stood in the open in the space to the east of the temple of Zeus[2210] (see Plans A and B), while, on the other hand, a bronze statue of Aphrodite stood within the Heraion.[2211] The argument that metal statues were cheaper than marble must also be questioned.[2212] In the earlier part of the present work we saw that, for economy’s sake, many victors set up small bronze statuettes instead of statues at Olympia, numbers of which have been recovered. That such dedications were common elsewhere is shown by the countless athlete statuettes—especially diskoboloi—which are to be found in all European museums.[2213] For similar reasons victors would choose in place of bronze the less durable and cheaper stone, as in the cases of Arrhachion and Promachos cited, or even wood, as in those of Rhexibios and Praxidamas. Still others, especially boy victors, would set up small marble statues, two-fifths to two-thirds life-size, as the fragments of the seven examples collected by Treu and already enumerated above show.

Thus we see that the contention that the victor statues at Olympia were exclusively of bronze, in the light of the evidence adduced, is untenable.

THE STATUE OF ARRHACHION AT PHIGALIA.

In his description of Arkadia, Pausanias mentions seeing the stone statue of the pancratiast Arrhachion in the market-place of Phigalia. He describes it as archaic, especially in pose, the feet being close together and the arms hanging by the sides to the hips; and adds that he was told that it once bore an inscription which had become illegible in his day.[2214] This Arrhachion won three victories at Olympia in the pankration in Ols. 52-54 (= 572-564 B. C.).[2215] Therefore his statue is one of the oldest victor monuments of which we have record. At so early a date, before individual types of victor statues had been developed, we should expect, in harmony with the description of Pausanias, that this statue would conform in style with the well-known archaic “Apollo” type, the most characteristic of early Greek sculpture, which, as we saw in Chapter III, is exemplified in the long series of statues found all over the Greek world, the oldest class being represented by the example from Thera (Fig. 9), and one of the youngest by that from Tenea near Corinth (Pl. 8A).

[Illustration: FIG. 79.—Stone Statue of the Olympic Victor Arrhachion, from Phigalia. In the Guards’ House at Bassai (Phigalia).]

In his commentary on the passage of Pausanias, Sir J. G. Frazer records that during a visit in May, 1890, he saw a recently discovered archaic stone statue in a field just outside Pavlitsa, a village on the site of the southeastern precincts of the old city of Phigalia, some 2.5 miles from the temple of Apollo Epikourios at Bassai. He thought that this statue agreed completely with Pausanias’ description of Arrhachion’s, even to the half-effaced inscription which he transcribed from its breast just below the neck.[2216] Through the courtesy of Dr. Svoronos, of the National Numismatic Museum in Athens, I have been able to procure a photograph of the monument from K. Kouroniotis, the Arkadian _Ephor_ of antiquities stationed at Bassai, and I present it herewith (Fig. 79). The statue is now cared for in the house of the temple guards. This statue, like all other examples of the series, represents a nude youth standing in a stiff, constrained attitude. It is badly mutilated and its surface is rough from weathering. Besides having lost its head, arms, and the lower part of the legs, it has been broken into two parts across the abdomen. The ends of curls on either side of the neck, extending a few inches over the breast, show that the head looked straight forward, thus following the usual law of “frontality,”[2217] which precluded any turning of the body; for a median line drawn down through the middle of the breastbone, the navel, and the αἰδοῖα would divide the statue into two equal halves. The body shows the quadrangular form of the earlier examples, the sculptor having worked in flat planes at right angles to one another, with the corners merely rounded off. The remains of arms broken off just below the shoulders show that they must have hung close to the sides. The shoulders are broad and square, and display none of the sloping lines characteristic of other examples, as, _e. g._, the one from Tenea. From the breast down the body is slender, the hips being very narrow. The legs show the usual flatness and the left one is slightly advanced, as is uniformly the case in every one of the series. They are somewhat more separated than in many other examples. The αἰδοῖα form a rude pyramidal mass, not being differentiated as they are, _e. g._, in the statues from Naxos and Orchomenos[2218] (Fig. 10). Some attempt at modeling is visible in the muscles of the breast and lower abdomen. In general, it may be said that the similarity in attitude of this statue to Egyptian works impresses us, as it does in all the examples of early Greek sculpture. As the subject of Oriental, especially Egyptian, influence on early Greek art has given rise to very diverse views, we shall make a short digression at this point to discuss this interesting question.

EGYPTIAN INFLUENCE ON EARLY GREEK SCULPTURE.

This question has been under discussion in all its bearings ever since Brunn, in 1853, tried to demonstrate the originality of the Daidalian ξόανα,[2219] but, strangely enough, archæologists are not yet agreed as to its proper settlement. While some emphasize the spontaneous origin of Greek art, others quite as strongly advocate that the early Greek sculptor, at least, copied Egyptian models.[2220] Thus Furtwaengler, who early assumed a Cretan origin for the “Apollo” type of statues,[2221] later became convinced that it developed in Ionia through Greek contact with the colony of Naukratis in Egypt, which was founded in the middle of the seventh century B. C. He concluded that this plastic type “_ist bekanntlich nichts als die Nachahmung des Haupttypus aegyptischer statuarischer Kunst_”.[2222] Similarly Collignon traces the archaic male type to Egyptian influence, and assumes that this influence from the Nile valley was exerted on the Greek artist before the latter half of the seventh century B. C.[2223] On the other hand, H. Lechat, in his review of the evolution of Greek sculpture from its beginning, believes that the early sculptor owed but little to Egypt or the East.[2224] Deonna entirely rejects the assumption of Egyptian influence, believing that all the so-called characteristics of early Greek statues can be explained as the result of natural evolution in Greece itself.[2225] Von Mach also completely excludes all foreign influence when he says: “In her sculpture at least, Greece was independent of influence of any one of the countries that can at all come under consideration in this connection, Phœnicia, Assyria, and Egypt.”[2226] But here, as in so many questions about Greek art, the truth must lie between the two extremes.[2227] The economic conditions of early Greece certainly prove that the Greeks were dependent on outside peoples in many ways, and there is no a priori reason for denying this dependence in art. We clearly see Egyptian influence, for example, in the ceiling of the treasury of Orchomenos,[2228] and that the Greeks learned many animal decorative forms as well as a correct observation of nature from Assyrian art is clear, if we study the best examples of the late period of that art, the reliefs from the palace of Assurbanipal at Nineveh (Konyonjik), now in the British Museum. Such decorative designs could be easily transmitted to the Greeks by the Phœnicians on embroidered fabrics. It seems reasonable, therefore, to assume that early Greek artists, especially in the Greek colonies to the east and south of Greece, were acquainted with earlier models and especially with those of Egypt. The Greeks themselves of a later date recognized this debt to Egypt. This is shown by many passages in Pausanias, which mention the similarity existing between early Greek and Egyptian sculptures,[2229] and by the curious tale told by Diodoros about the Samian artist family of Rhoikos, according to which the latter’s two sons made the two halves of the statue of the _Pythian Apollo_ for Samos separately, Telekles working in Samos and Theodoros in Ephesos. When joined together the two parts fitted exactly, just as if they had been made by one and the same artist. Diodoros adds that τοῦτο δὲ τὸ γένος τῆς ἐργασίας παρὰ μὲν τοῖς Ἕλλησι μηδαμῶς ἐπιτηδεύεσθαι, παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις μάλιστα συντελεῖσθαι.[2230] Such a story is valuable in that it shows that the later Greeks believed that they had adopted the conventional Egyptian canon of proportions. If we compare any of the “Apollo” statues with Egyptian standing figures of any period of Egyptian art, as Bulle has done, the resemblances in detail between the two types will be found to be very striking. Thus from the Old Kingdom (Memphitic), which included the first eight dynasties of Manetho,[2231] we may cite the painted limestone statue of Ra-nefer and the wooden one of Tepemankh in the Museum of Cairo (Fig. 80), two men prominent in the fifth dynasty;[2232] or the wood statue of Ka-aper, the so-called _Sheik-el-Beled_, which represents the apogee of Memphitic art, and that of his “wife,” without legs or arms, the two statues being found similarly in a grave at Sakkarah (Memphis), and now being in the same museum.[2233] From the Middle Kingdom, including the eleventh to the seventeenth dynasties,[2234] we may mention the painted statue found at Dahshur and now in Cairo, which represents Horfuabra, the co-regent of Amenemhat III, who was one of the kings of the twelfth dynasty.[2235] From the New Empire, including the eighteenth to the twentieth dynasties,[2236] we cite the draped wood statue of the priestess Tui, a gem of Egyptian art, which was found in a grave near Gurna, and is now in the Louvre;[2237] and lastly the draped alabaster statue of Queen Amenerdis (or Amenartas) in Cairo, the wife of the Aethiopian King Piankhi, who began to absorb Egypt by 721-722 B. C., just before the twenty-fourth dynasty.[2238] After the early dynasties, the Egyptian type of statue was reduced to a fixed and mechanical canon, which was used over and over again with lifeless monotony. In all these statues, whose dates extend over a period of many centuries, we note the same technical characteristics which are observable in the Greek “Apollos,” with the exception that the latter are always nude and lifelike. These characteristics may be summarized thus: long hair falling down over the shoulders in a mass;[2239] shoulders broad in comparison with the hips; arms hanging down stiffly by the sides[2240] or crooked at the elbows;[2241] hands closed, with the thumbs facing forward and touching the ends of the index fingers; the left leg slightly advanced and the soles placed flat on the ground; high ears,[2242] and the upper body and head turned straight to the front.[2243] Only minor differences in the two types appear. Thus the left foot is always further advanced in the Egyptian than in the Greek statues, so that the former appear to have less movement and life.[2244] Since there is no trace of this type in Mycenæan art it seems impossible not to conclude that in some way, doubtless through Ionian sources, it was originally borrowed from Egypt. The imitation of the Egyptian models, however, was never slavishly done. The Greek artist immediately rendered the type his own by making it nude,[2245] and by transmuting the abstract lifeless schema of the Egyptians into a highly individualized one characterized by life and vigor.[2246] This Egyptian influence, it must be remarked, was operative only in the initial stage of Greek sculpture; it was soon lost, as the Greek artist came to rely upon himself. F. A. Lange has truly said: “_Die wahre Unabhaengigkeit der hellenischen Kultur ruht in ihrer Vollendung, nicht in ihren Anfaengen_”.[2247]

[Illustration: FIG. 80.—Statues of Ra-nefer and Tepemankh, from Sakkarah. Museum of Cairo.]

After this digression we will return to the statue of Arrhachion. Dr. Frazer was unable to decipher the inscription upon the breast with certainty, but made out the following letters, the last four of which are plainly visible in the photograph: ΕΥΝΛΙΑΔ. He believed them to be archaic and the first instance of an inscription on this class of statues. He thought that the name was that of a man, which favored the view that the “Apollo” statues represented mortals rather than gods. The letters form a combination manifestly not Greek, and so may have no significance; it is even possible that they were engraved in modern times.[2248] In any case we have the statement of Pausanias that the inscription was illegible in his day.

There seems little doubt, then, that this mutilated and weather-worn statue is the very one seen and described by Pausanias and referred by him to the victor Arrhachion.[2249] It is presented here for two reasons. In the first place, it is the oldest dated Olympic victor statue in existence. Only three older ones are recorded, and none of these has survived to our time. These three are the statues of the Spartan Eutelidas at Olympia, who won the boys’ wrestling and pentathlon matches in Ol. 38 (= 628 B. C.);[2250] of the Athenian Kylon on the Akropolis, who won the double running-race in Ol. 35 (= 640 B. C.);[2251] of the Spartan Hetoimokles at Sparta, who won five times in wrestling at the beginning of the sixth century B. C.[2252] The statue of Oibotas of Dyme, who won the stade-race in Ol. 6 (= 756 B. C.), was not set up until Ol. 80 (= 460 B. C.);[2253] that of the Spartan Chionis, who won five running-races in Ols. 28-31 (= 668-656 B. C.), was made later by Myron.[2254] Pausanias’ statement (VI. 18.7) that the wooden statues of Praxidamas and Rhexibios, who won in Ols. 59 and 61 respectively (= 544 and 536 B. C.), were the oldest at Olympia, is of course incorrect. In the second place, the statue of Arrhachion actually proves what has often been assumed, that some of the statues classed as “Apollos” are really victor monuments. As this question has provoked a good deal of discussion in recent years, I will briefly review the arguments by which the opinion has gradually gained acceptance.

EARLY VICTOR STATUES AND THE “APOLLO” TYPE.

As the earlier examples of the series were discovered under peculiar circumstances, they gave no clue to their meaning. Thus the “Apollo” of Naxos was found in the quarries of the island, while that from Orchomenos (Fig. 10) was first seen in the convent of Skripou, its exact provenience being unknown. From the first they were denominated “Apollos,” chiefly because of their long hair[2255] and nudity,[2256] while the existence of many small bronzes in the same schema dedicated to the god,[2257] and cult statues of similar pose appearing on vase- and wall-paintings,[2258] helped to make the identification more probable. Certain ancient texts, describing archaic statues of Apollo in this pose, were also cited as evidence, and it was pointed out that many of these statues were actually found in or near sanctuaries of the god. Thus Diodoros, in his description of the ξόανον of the _Pythian Apollo_ made for the Samians by Telekles and Theodoros, which we have already mentioned, says: τὰς μὲν χεῖρας ἔχον παρατεταμένας, τὰ δὲ σκέλη διαβεβηκότα.[2259] Probably the gilded image by the Cretan Cheirisophos in the temple of Apollo at Tegea was of this type.[2260] The later type of “Apollo,” with the arms extended at the elbows, was doubtless followed in the statue of Apollo made for the Delians by Tektaios and Angelion,[2261] and in the works ascribed to Dipoinos and Skyllis and their school. It would be easy to give an extended list of such “Apollo” statues found in sanctuaries.[2262] We might instance one from Naukratis, Egypt;[2263] one from Delos;[2264] two from Aktion;[2265] several from Mount Ptoion in Bœotia;[2266] a copy of the head of the _Choiseul-Gouffier_ Apollo (Pl. 7A) found in Kyrene.[2267] Still others have been found in _temenoi_ of temples, _e. g._, two in that of Apollo at Naukratis,[2268] and one in that of Aphrodite there.[2269]

However, against this exclusive interpretation doubts have been raised with ever-increasing precision, until now we can predicate with certainty what Loeschke long ago assumed, that the more statues of the series there are found, the less probable will it become that they should all be ascribed to Apollo.[2270] Conze and Michaelis first argued on the basis of Pausanias’ description of Arrhachion’s statue that this type was employed for victor statues.[2271] Koerte’s objection to their view on the ground of the long hair was refuted by Waldstein, who demonstrated that athletes were not represented with short hair until after the Persian wars; he pointed out that the archaic grave-figures of the mortals Dermys and Kitylos discovered at Tanagra, which were sculptured in a constrained attitude analogous to that of the “Apollos,” had long hair.[2272] We now know that the hair of some of the “Apollos” is short, which shows the irrelevancy of this argument,[2273] and we also know that nudity characterizes many archaic statues of mortals. Nor do we learn much from dedications, for we have examples of statues of gods dedicated to other gods and even to goddesses.[2274] _Ex votos_ were often more concerned with the dedicator than with the god to whom the statue was dedicated. Doubtless the cult statues portrayed on vase-paintings are actually those of Apollo, for at this epoch other gods, such as Hermes and Dionysos, are bearded.[2275]

Moreover, that a more advanced _schema_ for representing the god Apollo had already become fixed toward the end of the sixth century B. C., we know from ancient descriptions of the statue of the god made for the Delians by Tektaios and Angelion, which represented him in the usual archaic attitude, _i. e._, of the statue of Arrhachion, but with the notable difference that the forearms were outstretched.[2276] That this was the recognized type in the early years of the fifth century B. C., is attested by the bronze statue of the god fashioned by the elder Kanachos of Sikyon for Branchidai, the pose of which is known from several statuettes and from a long series of Milesian coins.[2277] For conservative reasons this favorite pose was kept for cult statues even into the fourth century B. C., as we learn from representations on coins of the golden statue of the god set up in the inmost shrine of the temple at Delphi.[2278] But that many of the earlier examples of the “Apollo” series do represent the god, should not be denied. We agree with Homolle that the old appellation “Apollo,” after having received too much favor, has now by reaction become censured too severely, and in general should still be applied to those statues of the series which have been discovered in or near sanctuaries of the god, and in the absence of any other indication to the contrary, also to those which stand upon bases inscribed with dedications to him.[2279] Such a statue was found on the island of Thasos at the bottom of the cella of the temple of Apollo at Alki and is now in Constantinople.[2280] The colossal statue found on the island of Delos just south of the temple of Apollo,[2281] and the huge torso discovered in Megara[2282] may be referred to the god, for their size favors an ascription to a deity rather than to mortals. And many other examples of the type found in sanctuaries may very well represent Apollo and other gods.[2283]

That several of the series were also funerary in character is abundantly proved by the fact that they were discovered in the neighborhood of tombs. Thus the _Apollo of Tenea_ (Pl. 8A) decorated a tomb in the necropolis of Tenea near Corinth.[2284] Likewise the example from Thera (Fig. 9) was found in a rock-cut niche.[2285] Another, now in the British Museum, was found in the _dromos_ of a tomb on the island of Cyprus,[2286] while a fourth was unearthed from the necropolis of Megara Hyblaia in Sicily.[2287] The one found at Volomandra in Attika in 1900 was also found in an old cemetery.[2288] These furnish proof enough of the sepulchral character of many of these statues. Such funerary monuments may, of course, have been been set up also in memory of victors.

We are now in a position, on the basis of Pausanias’ description of Arrhachion’s statue and the actual monument itself, to maintain with certainty what hitherto has been conjectured only, that although some of these archaic sculptures represent Apollo and other gods, sepulchral dedications, and _ex votos_ in general, others were intended to represent athletes also. Doubtless the other early victor monuments recorded, such as the wooden statues of Praxidamas and Rhexibios, and those of Eutelidas, Kylon, and Hetoimokles, already discussed in Ch. III, conformed with the earlier type, while that of Milo, described by Philostratos,[2289] conformed with the later. Certain examples of the series have already been ascribed to victors. Thus the marble head of Attic workmanship found in or near Athens and known as the Rayet-Jacobsen head (Fig. 22), has been referred to a pancratiast because of its swollen and deformed ears.[2290] Certain statuettes of the same pose as the “Apollos” have been looked upon as copies of athlete statues.[2291] So the early doubts[2292] as to the meaning of these archaic sculptures have been resolved in many cases. We have added one well-attested example to show that they sometimes represented victor monuments.

CHAPTER VIII.

POSITIONS OF VICTOR STATUES IN THE ALTIS; OLYMPIC VICTOR MONUMENTS ERECTED OUTSIDE OLYMPIA; STATISTICS OF OLYMPIC VICTOR STATUARIES.[2293]

PLANS A AND B.

The first part of this final chapter is a special study in the topography of the Altis at Olympia. It is an attempt to fix, more or less exactly, the positions of victor statues erected there, so far as these can be determined from the data furnished by Pausanias, and from the locations of the inscribed fragmentary bases of the statues which have been recovered during the excavations at Olympia.

STATUES MENTIONED BY PAUSANIAS.

We shall first attempt to give the positions of the statues mentioned by Pausanias, who is our chief source of information. After describing the votive offerings (ἀναθήματα) at the end of Book V, he begins the enumeration of the monuments of “race-horses ... and athletes and private individuals” at the beginning of Book VI.[2294] This description falls into two routes (ἔφοδοι), the first of which is concerned with the statues of 168 victors,[2295] and the second with those of 19.[2296] Both accounts also include many “honor” monuments erected to private persons. The first route begins at the Heraion in the northwestern part of the sacred enclosure, while the second begins—manifestly where the first ends—at the Leonidaion at its southwestern corner, and extends to a point near the so-called Great Altar of Zeus near the centre of the Altis (see Plans A and B).[2297] Besides these meagre indications of his two routes furnished by Pausanias himself, we are fortunate in knowing exactly the position of one statue, that of Telemachos, the 122d victor mentioned, the base of which still stands _in situ_ near the South wall of the Altis, a little southeast of the temple of Zeus, showing that the route passed before the eastern front of this temple and thence westward to the Leonidaion. With these data and with the help of some forty inscribed bases of statues and other monuments mentioned by Pausanias, many of which were found in or near their original positions, it is possible to trace yet more definitely his routes. Several attempts have been made, since the German excavations, to define topographically the positions of these statues, especially by Hirschfeld,[2298] Scherer,[2299] Flasch,[2300] Doerpfeld,[2301] and the present writer.[2302]

The position of several inscribed base-fragments of statues, corresponding with Pausanias’ order of presentation, should alone be sufficient to confute the doubts raised by some scholars that these routes through the Altis were not topographical.[2303] But in any attempt to reconstruct them we must constantly be on our guard against assuming that Pausanias describes a continuous line or row of monuments, as both Hirschfeld and Scherer have done. Though here and there this may have been true, still, generally speaking, we must conceive of these statues as being strewn about the Altis in no other order than that they stood in groups, and that these groups had only a general direction; for we shall see that Pausanias sometimes returns to the same spot without mentioning it and often leaves long spaces unnoticed. Apart from the indication of such groups in the description itself, as attested by the use of such words as παρά, ἐφεξῆς, μετά, πλησίον, ἀνάκειται ἐπί, ἐγγύτατα, ὄπισθεν, μεταξύ, οὐ πόρρω, οὐ πρόσω, κ. τ .λ., I have already shown in my previous work that it is possible to reconstruct many other groups, for abundant proof is there given that statues of nearly contemporaneous victors were often grouped together, as were those of the same family or state, or those victorious in the same contest, or those whose statues were made by the same artist.[2304] So, in general, we can group only certain statues in belts or “zones” around some building or monument which is still _in situ_. Further than this we can seldom go. W. Gurlitt has thus well expressed the difficulty of following these routes of Pausanias: “_Jede folgende Statue ist nach der vorhergehenden orientirt zu denken ... Beziehungen auf frueher oder spaeter erwaehnte Monumente waren ueberfluessig ... wir sind ... auf wenige Fixpunkte angewiesen und verfallen daher leicht in den Fehler, die Wegrichtungen in den Plan zu schematisch einzuzeichnen.... Das Hin und Her auf den viel verschlungenen Wegen der Altis koennen wir nicht mehr controllieren_”.[2305] In his description of the scattered altars (V, 14.4-15.12), Pausanias had not the same problem to meet as in that of the victor statues. As there was so little continuity in describing the altars, which were strewn all over the Altis, he had to introduce many other monuments to make their locations known; but in the case of the victor statues there was great continuity, and consequently such indications would have been superfluous.[2306] And, in general, owing to the number and variety of monuments crowded together in the circumscribed area of the Altis, he was not compelled to describe Olympia with such definite detail as Athens. That these victor statues, however, are described in topographical order is not only attested by the internal evidence of Pausanias’ words,[2307] but also by the finding of many of their bases in the order of his presentation. With this introductory warning, let us take up the routes of Pausanias in detail.

THE FIRST EPHODOS OF PAUSANIAS.

Pausanias begins his enumeration in the northeastern part of the Altis: ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ ναοῦ τῆς Ἥρας[2308]—words which have been the subject of much discussion as to whether they are to be understood of the temple _pro persona_, _i. e._, the southern side,[2309] or of the viewpoint of one facing it, _i. e.,_ the space (especially the northern or right hand half) before the eastern front.[2310] From the immediate whereabouts of Pausanias we get no clue; for at the end of Book V (27.11) he says that he is in the middle of the Altis, and yet in the following paragraph (27.12)—evidently added as a transition from the account of the altars to that of the victors—he mentions the trophy of the people of Mende, in Thrace, which he says he nearly mistook for the statue of the pancratiast Anauchidas (131), and this, as we shall see, stood near the South wall of the Altis far from the centre. Doerpfeld’s contention, therefore, that Pausanias approached the Heraion from this point, and that consequently the words ἐν δεξιᾷ must refer to its eastern front, is untenable, and we are left dependent on the meaning of these words as gathered from other passages in Pausanias’ work. An examination of several such passages seems to be convincing that they are used here of the Heraion _pro persona_.[2311] Furthermore, the finding of the inscribed tablet from the base of the statue of Troilos (6) and the pedestal of that of Kyniska (7) in the ruins of the Prytaneion, _i. e._, not far from the western end of the Heraion, and the base of that of Sophios (22) in the bed of the Kladeos still further west,[2312] makes it reasonable to conclude that the first statues mentioned (VI, 1.3-3.7), those of the Spartan group (Kyniska-Lichas, 7-14), all of the fifth century, B. C., flanked on either side by statues of the fourth, mostly of Eleans (Symmachos-Troilos, 1-6, and Timosthenes-Eupolemos, 15-28), originally stood in the order named by Pausanias along the southern front of the temple.[2313]

Leaving the Heraion, we get no further fixed point until we arrive opposite the eastern front of the temple of Zeus. For here around the foundation of the statue of the _Eretrian Bull_—still _in situ_ 32 meters east of the northeastern corner of the temple (see Plans A and B)[2314]—have been found fragments of the pedestals of the statues of Narykidas (49) and Hellanikos (65) to the south, of Kallias (50) and Eukles (52), beneath that of Kallias, to the north, of Euthymos (56) and Charmides (58) close together to the east.[2315] So it is clear that the series of statues from Narykidas to Charmides (49-58, P., VI, 6. 1-7.1) stood in this neighborhood. Now the statues of the family of Diagoras, the Rhodian athlete, stood together (59-63), as Pausanias says (VI, 7.1-2); one of them, that of Eukles (52), seems to have been moved from its original position later, as we learn from a scholiast on Pindar’s seventh Olympian ode,[2316] who, on the authority of the lost works of Aristotle and Apollas on the Olympic victors,[2317] enumerates these statues in an order different from that adopted by Pausanias, showing that a change in their positions must have taken place some time between the date of Aristotle and that of the Periegete.[2318] The statues of Alkainetos and his son Hellanikos (64-65) must also have stood together. Inasmuch as the victors from Euthymos to Lykinos (56-68) are, with one exception, all pugilists or pancratiasts and of the fifth century B. C., they must have been grouped together, with the family groups of Diagoras and Alkainetos in the centre.[2319] We may also add the statues of Dromeus and Pythokles[2320] (69-70) of nearly the same date, and we can also extend the group in the other direction; for the same scholiast says that the statue of Diagoras stood near that of the Spartan Lysandros (35 a).[2321] Pausanias (VI, 3.14 and 4.1) says that the statue of Lysandros stood between those of Pyrilampes and Athenaios (35-36). Thus we can conclude that the 36 statues (35-70, VI, 3.13-7.10) stood in the zone of the _Eretrian Bull_, extending perhaps across the Altis to the vicinity of the Echo Colonnade along its eastern boundary.

It would follow, then, that the intervening statues from Oibotas to Xenophon (29-34, P., VI, 3.8-3.13) stood somewhere between the Heraion and the _Eretrian Bull_. It is idle to discuss the route between these two monuments more definitely.[2322]

Our next fixed point is the _Victory_ of Paionios, whose foundation is still standing in its original position, 37 meters due east of the southeast corner of the temple of Zeus.[2323] For, of the next few statues mentioned, the base of that of Sosikrates (71) was found “somewhere” east of the temple, that of Kritodamos (80) before the “Southeast Building,” and that of Xenokles (85), 4 meters to the northeast of the _Victory_ base, presumably near its original position.[2324] Pausanias groups the three Arkadian athletes, Euthymenes-Kritodamos (78-80, P., VI, 8.5); then, after naming four statues of victors from other states, he mentions two more Arkadians together, Xenokles and Alketos (85-86, VI, 9.2); and he continues by saying that the statues of the Argives Aristeus and Cheimon (87-88, VI, 9.3) stood together. One more statue, that of Phillen or Philys[2325] of Elis (89), is named before he comes to the chariot of Gelo. Thus we may conclude that the series of statues denoted by the numbers 71-89 (P., VI, 8.1-9.4) stood to the south of the _Eretrian Bull_ in the parallel zone of the _Victory_.

We next come to the series of statues mentioned between the chariots of Gelo and Kleosthenes (90-99). The position of the bases of these chariots is practically certain. In describing the statues of Zeus in Book V, Pausanias says he is proceeding north from the Council-house (23.1), and first mentions a statue of Zeus set up by the Greeks who fought at Platæa; in describing the victor statues he says that the chariot of Kleosthenes stands behind this statue of Zeus (P., VI, 10.6). After describing the _Zeus_ of Platæa, he mentions a bronze inscribed tablet as standing in front of it (V, 23.4), which recorded the thirty years’ treaty of peace between Sparta and Athens, and then says that the statue of the _Zeus_ of the Megarians stands near the chariot of Kleosthenes (23.5). As he is proceeding north, this Megarian _Zeus_ must have stood north of the Platæan one; thus in one group we have the two statues of Zeus and the chariot of Kleosthenes. Immediately to the north he next mentions the chariot of the Syracusan tyrant Gelo (90), which he says is near the statue of the _Zeus_ of the Hyblæans (23.6). Now in coming south, in the athlete _periegesis_, he names eight statues between these chariots. Doerpfeld[2326] has identified the base of the Platæan _Zeus_ with a large pedestal to the northwest of that of the victor Telemachos (122) found _in situ_ near the South Altis wall,[2327] a position which is in harmony with the description of the statues of Zeus; just behind it he has identified two large foundations near together as those of the two chariots. So the eight intervening statues stood here. Of the statues between the chariot of Kleosthenes and the base of the statue of Telemachos, the base of that of Tellon (102) was found in the East Byzantine wall near the South Altis wall; that of Aristion (115) nearby, embedded in the same wall; that of Akestorides (119), whose name I have inserted in the lacuna in the text of Pausanias (VI, 13.7),[2328] just northeast of the base of Telemachos.[2329] Thus the series of statues from that of Gelo to that of Agathinos (90-121a, P., VI, 9.4-13.11) can be grouped in the zone of the _Chariots_.

As the fragment of the base of the statue of the Athenian pancratiast Aristophon (123) was found near the base of Telemachos, but to the east of it, and likewise that which supported the equestrian monument of Xenombrotos and Xenodikos (133-134) still further to the east near the Echo Colonnade,[2330] we can conclude that the twenty-one statues from Aristophon to Prokles (123-138, P., VI, 13.11-14.13), mostly of the fifth century B. C., stood near the South Altis wall to the east (and not to the west of the base of Telemachos, where all other investigators have wrongly placed them),[2331] and thus form a group which we can call the zone of _Telemachos_. So we conclude that the long list of statues from Pyrilampes to Prokles (35-138), nearly two-thirds of all those mentioned in the first ἔφοδος of Pausanias, stood in the space to the east and southeast of the temple of Zeus, grouped in the parallel zones of the _Bull_, _Victory_, _Chariots_, and _Telemachos_.

On the other hand, the statues beginning with the two of Aischines (139) and extending to that of Philonides (154 a) (P., VI, 14.13-16.5) must have stood to the west of the base of Telemachos and along the South Terrace wall some 20 meters south of the temple of Zeus, where many of the following pedestals were found in the order named by Pausanias: that of Aischines (139) was found in the Council-house; that of Archippos (140) nearby between the South Terrace wall and the north wing of the Council-house; that of Epitherses (147) opposite the sixth column of the temple from the west, some eleven paces from the South Terrace wall, and the fragment of the base of the honor statue of Antigonos (147 f) very near it; the bronze foot of one of the statues of Kapros (150) was found in the South Terrace wall, 24.40 meters from the southwest corner of the temple; and lastly, the base of the “honor” statue of Philonides (154 a), Alexander’s courier, was found in the southwest corner of the Altis at the extreme west end of the South Terrace wall, almost, if not exactly, in its original position.[2332] Thus Pausanias, after coming south to the statue of Telemachos, first goes eastward as far as the statue of Prokles, then returns, repassing the two chariots on the way without remark, and then continues westward to the southwestern corner of the Altis. All statues west of that of Telemachos are of the fifth and fourth centuries B. C., with the exception of one, that of Eutelidas (148), who won in Ol. 38. This is the oldest statue in the Altis, despite Pausanias’ statement,[2333] and it doubtless originally stood in the area occupied later toward the middle of the fifth century B. C. by the temple of Zeus, but was then transferred to its new position south of the temple.