close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

IONIC CHITON-CLAD MAIDENS OF THE FIFTH CENTURY

код для вставкиСкачать
Ionic Chiton Clad Maidens of the Fifth Century
By
Cleta Olmsteed bobbins
"Ionic Chiton Clad Maidens of the Fifth Century" is an attempt
to ascertain fundamental criteria by which conclusions on classical
sculpture can be definitely provable. It is specifically a study of
drapery, further limited to the one form - of the Chiton - though it
necessarily utilizes other forms and factors whenever demonstrable
similarities demand their inclusion- The preface surveys the cast
contributions to this field of knowledge, notes the numerous and vari­
ous types of divergent opinions, and explains, whenever possible, the
resultant disagreements among scholars.
The difficulties peculiar to
a study of Greek sculpture are enumerated, and methods applicable to
a study of Greek sculpture are suggested.
Style in art, and particu­
larly stylistic criticism, are defined according to the visual approach.
The three primary divisions of style - the chronological, the local,
and the personal - are discussed in relationship to the history of art
in other periods. Because the chronological criteria apply to all
fifth century art, the stylistic development according to red-figured
vases is first examined. The Introduction - a orief historical out­
line and a summary of tne literary references - is the background for
the division int., chapters under regional headings, Ionia, Attica,
the Empire, and Magna Graecia.
Based on the classical fragments from Epheeos, attributions are
made to Ionia, such as the sculptures from the Tholos at Delphi and
the reliefs by Master C on the Nike parapet.
The characteristics
which once caused the Doria - Pamfili Cybele to be rejected ore ex­
plained as optical corrections, and the original is assigned to
Northern Greece. Related to it are the Hertz bend, the Nike of Paionios, the Ince-Blundell Apollo, Master B of the Nike parapet, and a
troublesome series of Muses. The present condition of each, the
date of the copy, and the exactness of the relationship are all noted,
as well as the evidence for the localization.
While the Ionic drapery is described as "ribbed", and the nor­
thern as "pouched", the Athenian is divided into two classifications,
the "stringy" and the "chiseled or chamfered", both particularly
characteristic of the Parthenon sculptures.
To the former group are
assigned the Kore Albani, a fragmentary Artemis in the Vatican, the
Aphrodite of Gortyn, and Master E of the Niki parapet.
The latter
group, characterized by the "chiseled" or "chamfered" drapery, includes
the Niobids in Copenhagen, Master A of the Niki parapet, and the Hera
Barberini. The difficulties in the customary approach to the Eleueis
relief of Demeter, Kore and Triptoleraos are pointed out.
Western Greek sculpture, described as "linear", is discussed
from the early fifth century (Harpy Monument), predominantly Ionic, to
the late fifth century (Montecompatri statue in Berlin)s predominantly
Attic.
Locrian terracottas demonstrate the local development when
dated according to Attic red figured vases. One type of Chiton,
labeled "sn&key", remains unlocslized, while another, called "pleated"
can only be named semi-ionic. To the latter belong statues with copies
in Corinth and the so-called Aspaeia type..
In conclusion "the history of classical art is yet to be written :
recprds of all statues must be investigated in the documentary sources,
copies must be more accurately dated, and the study must be completed
finally, not with photographs or casts but from the originals them­
selves. Undoubtedly some of the theories here advanced will eventually
nave to be discarded: yet the fact that out of a mass of conflicting
opinion, some sort of unity of date, locale, and authorship has been
possible, if only tentatively so, is heartening for future research.
Since many of the f mous sculptors are known by single works, it does
not seem impossible to hope that in the Utopia of the future their persomalities can be uncovered."
In the Appendix the various local stylfs are shown to have con­
tinued from the late fifth century into the fourth, thus proving the
validity of the various native traditions.
The footnotes include all '
pertinent material, such as origin, restoration, size, and condition.
The thesis is copiously illustrated, inasmuch as the -basic proof is
visual; the text enumerates the points of comparison and why they,
rather than the dissimilarities, are fundamental. No attempt is made
UU
<44
auM OaOa
U
4 OV
ell- fomntift
evciMr>1i
(» S/X
WUIV/UD t
A W U U X P|p
ncl Mlcp4O j•■•* G-4'}"*• V*
V . «*.•J o v
statues which prove themselves related, are included.
It is to be hoped
with such a direct and theoretical approach, uninspired and detailed
analysis, careful and generhl observation, the greatness of Greek
sculpture can.be more accurately examined, better understood, and more
perfectly visualized in the future.
IIG CHITON-CLAD MAIDENS OF THE FIFTH CENTURY
CLETA OLLiSTEAD ROBB12TS
Submitted to the Faculty of Bryn Mawr College
in lartial Fulfillment
of the Requirement for the Degree of
Do ctor of i'hilo sophy
table
of
contents
P r e f a c e ................ ..............................................p . i
I n t r o d uc ti on . ............................................
Chapter I Ionic S c u lp tu re ...............................
F e t e s ..................................
Chapter II lelephanes of Phocae.a............................
N o t e s ..................................
Chapter III Northern Greek Sc ul pt ur e ................................. 24
N o t e s ..................................
Chapter IV Athenian S c u l p t u r e . ...............................
No t e s ..................................
Chapter V Western Greek S c u l p t u r e ...............................
Notes.
......................................
Chapter VI Unlocalized S c u l p t u r e . . ..........................
Notes,.
...............
.73
Chapter VII Semi-Ionic Sc ul pt ur e , . . . . ....................
N o t e s ....................................
Chapter VIII Co nc lu si on ................................................ 89
N o t e s ..............................
Appendix.
....................................
PREFACE
Scholarship, even of classical antiquity, is subject to trends
which are datable by reference to contemporary events, social,political,
and intellectual. The scholar who lives and works in a vacuum, thus
avoiding the influence of the first two categories, is still not immune
from the last and most virulent of the germs, discoveries in other fields
of thought. And these new vogues which are characteristic of the passing
period, invade each scholarly pursuit with little challenge concerning
their applicability. Today the watchword is "significant"; yesterday it
was"scientific". The enthusiasm for the novel excites research according
to the newest xdsas of the xnomsxxt, and obscures tiie fact tha t there exists
for each subject variant primary problems. In other words, the control
for the investigation comes from the contemporary environment of the schola
and not from the conditions peculiar to his material,
A history of these trends in scholarship is profitable, particularly
when set against the background of fundamental questions unasked and un­
solved, Indeed, though for classical art the bibliographical literature is
enormous (and thus there is adequate source material for such a history),
and though the different generations of thought are perfectly recognizable,
definite conclusions
have been seldom acceptable except to single periods
or to single scholars. Actually, handbook generalizations, the common ling©
of classical archaeologists, are the most easily attacked and destroyed.
But nowhere, apparently, has there been published a frank statement of the
fundamentals upon which all research in ancient art which would not be
temporary must be based.
There are three primary questions (each to be answered separately but
all to be correlated): when, where, by whom. Until there is an established
chronology, localization, and authorship, no scholarship of any period,
even of our own, has the right to inquire about such secondary questions
as how, and why, and, particularly, what does it mean. The pressing necess­
ity of discovering when, where, and by whom ancient works of art were
created permits the use of any method of investigation, provided it offers
solutions; and consequently a principle has been employed in this disserta­
tion which at the moment is being discarded by art historians and archaeolo
gists as outmoded
stylistic criticism,As a preface, an apologia for the
method and a review of its past contributions to the knowledge of ancient
art, its successes and failures, might determine its strength for possible
future research and its weakness from inherent limitations.
It is quite natural that stylistic criticism should suffer in the
present disillusionment concerning the scientific approach, for it was
originally introduced into the realm of the fine arts from a process
perfected in the study of the physical world. The object was analysed by
an exhaustive examination for the purpose of recording and cataloguing its
individual details. Theoretically, a collection of objects based upon one
detail common to all should form a group containing members each of which
possessed other related characteristics, and the whole should therefore be
*
classified under one determining title. Actually, the number of details
of one object was large, and from their single agreement usually no total
relationship could be discovered. This was necessarily true, for the value
of each detail varied. Without human judgement in sorting them, the result
would have been complete confusion. There was no quarantee, however, that
those selected as proof of the unity of the group were more important than
those neglected because they destroyed the group, since the meaning of
iii
each had not yet been determined. Already the ultra-scientific method had
been abandoned.
But oceassionally a group of objects did exemplify the repetition of
enough details to warrant a conclusion, and, if these similarities were
exact, the only possible explanation was that the objects were made at the
same time, in the same place, by the same hand. Thus arose the long lists
of attributions to painters of pots, which have now reached the appalling
number of then thousand in the publication of one mastermaker
Beazley.
The method was demonstrably successful in vase painting because of peculiar­
ly favorable conditions. The period was comparatively short, the objects
were originals, they were made in one locale (with few exceptions), they
exist in quantities, they were the work of craftsmen who produced many in
rapid succession, and the forms analysed were simple drawings easily differ­
entiated. Thus two of the primary questions were already answered by the
selection of the subject matter
Attic red-figured vases of the fifth
century. Yet even when successful, the inherent danger of the method was
demonstrated; the relationships must be complete, and the only possible
conclusion was an attribution to one master; when the similarities were
not exact another master must be created, and the process continues until
the total number of craftsmen producing Attic pots baffles the imagination.
How much has been discovered concerning classical art?
Earlier the same method had produced for Greek Sculpture a tome of
Masterpieces by Eurtwftngler; but the conditions were not as favorable as
for Attic red-figured vases and the method was a demonstrable failure.
Artists names were not a figment of the imagination, but were taken from
the ancient sources which limited the types to be assigned. The material
available was not original,but copied; and exactly the details which were
the criteria for the attribution varied from one copy to another. The
iv
period of classical sculpture was followed by other times when the earlier
styles were reused and re-adapted. Sculpture was produced in widely
scattered locales, not in Athens alone. Comparatively few major works of
art, instead of quantities of minor objects, were made in each decade.
Great artists produced slowly, handicraftsmen rapidly; yet the careers of
of the former might last as long as half a century, during which time art
itself changed radically, whereas the vogue for pot painters apparently
lasted no more than a couple of decades. And finally the three dimensional
forms of sculpture are more difficult to understand and to compare, parti­
cularly from photographs, than the simple linear drawings on vases.
Some of these limiting conditions have been recognized and altered.
n
1
ie+e
X A O v O
r\
"f* f
omnn o
X
W x
oWwAf iV XaW■+v«w o n H
t»
W41VXX
0
+ 0 + 1 1 * 0 Vipir*
W V A V M V U «X<X f V
Vva
a vi
MW V i i
4 rpwnt »*4
o r »4 n
wVVA
b b iiu
MiJ~
Xg^liWX
named masters have been created from a closed group of objects(Carpenter).
Originals have been substituted for copies by the introduction of the
small handicrafts, bronze and terracotta figurines, ©r reliefs on grave
monuments and on decrees. Spall bronzes, could not be attributed to great
or even minor masters; therefore there has been an attempt to group them
into local schools (Langlotz).Terracottas, furnished in quantities by the
excavators, have usually be distinguished only typologically because their
poor quality retains few stylistic details; any other use could not be
successful (Poulsen). Relief decrees have been classified according to
their accompanying
dates; but perhaps because they were executed by
stone cutters, not by master handicraftsmen or major artists, they too
are stylistically almost useless, and typologically they are as conser­
vative as coins. Grave stelae also should be dated according to their
inscriptions; but the epigraphist is wary of transferring his criteria
to works of art, and they too, often reflect older, not contemporary,art.
Therefore it seems that original objects of the minor arts can never
V
replace Roman copies in the study of ancient sculpture*
^ases,bronzes,
terracottas, and architectural sculptures are usuable only when they have
been examined in toto* Then when the characteristics peculiar to their
own technique have been noted and their own particular chronology and
locality have been established, they can be correlated with the major arts
to suggest the tendencies of time and place.
The scientific cataloguing of details had contributed to the history
of European art the segregation of one artist's works from those of his
imitators.With the completion of the study of the major artists, only the
personalities of his followers remained to be investigated in this manner.
In classical art, the result of this method was the individualization of
innumerable masters of pots to whom vases were assigned in long lists of
attributions. Thus these scholars, whose choice of subject had already
supplied the "where", themselves have answered "by whom", and some of them,
(though not always the greatest authorities) have ventured to suggest "when"
in their decade dating. But they have never correlated the three groups to
write a picture of the development of classical art. v/hen it was realized
that this process could produce no more important results, to the histori­
ans of art the remuneration seemed insufficent for the dull and laborious
toil.
In classical archaeology the reaction produced a new definition of
stylistic criticism. If, as had been proved, the different series -of definit<
details seldom agreed, they alone could not compose style; style must there­
fore be more general, for example the softenss or hardness, the roundness
or squareness of the object (Langlotz). Unfortunately this mystical aware­
ness of style introduced the personal speculation of the observer into
the study of ancient art, and there was possible a wide variety of opinion
and outright disagreement. This shift from the examination of the object
vi
itself to the reaction of the observer was to have a fatal consequence.
Liberated from the confines of the detailed examination the observer
with his background of purely illustrative art and with the change in
contemporary art from the formal to the significant, soon asked himself
the question:"What does it mean?"The devious and dubious development of
stylistic criticism in ancient art from the scientific cataloguing of
details to the reaction of the observer to the general art form has
been traced to contemporary scholarship. The study of ancient art has
returned to its first function, that of a literary explanation.
The misunderstanding of style in ancient art and the paucity of
acceptable conclusions in contrast to the wealth of established funda­
mentals
in the more recent arts, are explainable by the two major
influences on classical archaeology. The study of Greek and Roman art
originated as a supplement to philology, in which art was only an illus­
tration of the written word of the Greek and Roman authors. As the study
of the history of ancient art grew slowly towards those of other periods,
the two were suddenly divorced by new influences in both fields. In
ancient art the search for buried treasure had produced the excavator,
who now became the dominant classical archaeologist.For him the scien­
tific detailed analysis was the only method of approach, and his coll­
eagues, the other archaeologists, returned to the cataloguing of details.
At the same moment in the late nineteenth century French artists were
demonstrating in an obvious manner to the art historians that style
was the analysis of form. It was this most important lesson which
taught the art historians how to look at objects and how to draw con­
clusions; it is the formal stylistic analysis which has always been
and still remains a mystery to most classical archaeologists.
Thus again style must be redefined before stylistic criticism
vii
can become a functioning method. To an art historian it is neither
created scientifically nor mystically and'it can be analysed neither
scientifically nor mystically? it does and should remain tangible only
to the initiates, the artist, the poet, the composer, and their critics
and historians. Furthermore, style must always be considered in the three
variant terms, that of the individual, that of the period, and that of
the locale.
Attributions to one master of pots have been based upon a similari­
ty of details. Perhaps a craftsman can be identified by the analysis of
details because he possessed little individual style but produced only
by rote. On the other hand, the personality of a great artist should be
identifiable by the analysis of form because he created with a personal
style. Thus on analogy with literature and music the details represent
the words and notes, but the identifying element is the pattern of their
arrangement
or the individual style. Some types of phrases or melodies--
or art forms-- are favorites of their creator.lt is in his use of details
that his own personality expresses itself from his immature youth to his
advanced old age.
Chronological criteria ( beside the few details which can be recog­
nized by experts as out of place except in one period) are in general
the relations of the details, one to another;in other words, the proportions of the figures in the representative arts, the use of the scale in
music, and of the vocabulary in literature. This must be discovered first,
inasmuch as on their variations the development of style is based, and
no history, whether it is of politics or art, can be written without an
established chronology. This fundamental is often overlooked in the
history of European art (though never in pure hi story)for there it is
provided by the extraneous information of signatures and dates on paint­
viii
ings, sculptures, and architecture (the cornerstone) supplemented by
ponderous documentary evidence. In classical art the chronology must
be established from undocumented objects; but fortunately there is the
A
necessary quantity of source material of high quality in the figures
on vases.
The emphacized individualization of each feature (which w a s .inherited
from archaic art) was modified at the beginning of the 'transitional Period
from a drawn into a modeled form. The result was a heavy chin, a thick
mouth, a large nose, full eyes, and projecting eyelids. Gradually each
feature
^as related to its neighbor without these barriers, and thus the
plane of the forehead was extended to the tip of the nose producing what
is commonly known as the Greek profile (which,however did not continue
throughout the fifth century). Eventually all of the features were inter­
related to produce a continuous outline of the face, extending from the
crown of the head to the neck. The jaw was included in this linear outline,
and thus it was dropped low and separated the= fh>.oe from the head (datable
to the sixties). In the following decade when the profile line was lower­
ed
to begin at the nape of the neck in the back, in the front it was
abruptly ended by a firmly horizontal chin. As soon as the head was con­
ceived as a whole, it was enlarged to contrast with the body (forties).
By the time of the completion of the Parthenon sculptures (432) the entire
figure including the head had become a unit. As a result the proportions
were later attenuated to a new gracefulness corresponding with the new
profile which had small features, and the figures were often grouped
together harmoniously as twins (twenties). Then in the next decade not
only the human figure but the objects of the setting were conceived as a
whole. But, shortly thereafter, in a reaction against the former insig­
nificance of man, figures were made majestic again. This development can
ix
be checked
by dividing the attributions to one master of pots into his
early, middle (characteristic) and late periods; each of these stages
can be correlated with those of his predecessors and successors without
employing the details peculiar to the masters themselves.
Local characteristics must be those which
can be neither attributed
to one artist (because they are more common than personal) nor to one
period (because they continue within the chronological development); in
general they seem to be typological or iconographical. They are neither
the manner of the arrangement nor the relationship of the details, but
rather more general. It has been proved that one pose differs slightly in
each locale (the Mourning Female Pose) and the same is true of the garment
(the Daochos group at Delphi repeats the reliefs from Pharsalos in this),
the hairdress, and other accessories. These attributes occur on absolutely
localized objects such as coins whicn bear the name of the city where they
were struck. To determine a local art style from numismatic evidence,how­
ever, is difficult inasmuch as on account of their restricted space coins
usually have represented either animals or heads.Stylistic comparisons
between heads are not easily evaluated accurately, first because in them
the Greek artists were more conservative and they developed less rapidly
and changed less radically than the drapery and the nude, second because
in them Roman copyists were most apt to generalize, and third because on
account of their human appeal they are approached by scholars more sub­
jectively than objectively. Whether statues as they are represented on
coins faithfully copy an original, particularly in the movement of the
arms and legs, is doubtful because, as can be proved for reliefs, these
appendages were often altered to fit the new environment. Statues, as a
matter of fact, are not common on coins until the Roman period and then
one type was used for a wide geographical region. But unless proved other-
X
wise, architectural sculptures and reliefs discovered on the spot are
a sound "basis for determining a local art style, and if they are some­
what contemporary and also imitate originals copied in Roman statues,
a close relationship seems assured.
Master, date., site, these would "be difficult but possible to deter­
mine, were it not for the unfortunate fact that few Greek origj. nals
exist and many Roman copies. Again on analogy with the other fine arts,
the scholar must treat the copies as transcriptions in music and trans­
lations in literature of the lost original. These copies, which might
be called transformations, combine two styles, that of the original and
that of the copy, and it is therefore necessary to date their execution
and to exclude their contemporary
qualities in order to disclose the lost
and secret masterpiece behind them. On the other hand the originals of
architectural or relief sculpture, although undoubtedly related to their
great contemporaries, again can be compared to the Roman copies only with
the caution necessary for the use of the other minor arts (vases,terra­
cottas, and bronzes) when their own peculiar style, limited by their
material and use is recognized.
These are the enumerated difficulties in attempting a study of classic
cal art; yet their number does not excuse the failure to solve date, author­
ship and localization. When it is recognized that style is not a catalog­
uing of details, when the styles of master, period and locale are dis­
entangled, when the peculiarities of the different techniques are under­
stood, it seems probable that the unanswered questions of classical art
will have disappeared. Though the great originals can never again return
to Greece and her admirers in their pristine beauty, they can be adequate­
ly glimpsed in forms no longer shadowy.
INTRODUCTION
A survey of political history must always provide the intro­
duction to any cultural history, for it is a categorical statement
of fact that influences in art follow the paths opened by trade
and treaties and conquests. The story of the fifth century is con­
cerned with the struggle between the East (Persia) and the West
(Greece) with a fringe of no-man*s land between (Asia Minor). It
was from the age-old East that the great traditions of culture had
heretofore come, and even as late as the end of the sixth century
it was Ionic art which had impressed itself upon Athens.Then the
expanding Achaemenid empire had enclosed Asia Minor, and in revenge
for help sent from the mainland to the coast and islands, Persians
invaded Greece itself and sacked Athens. After the "barbarians"
retired, and to prevent their return, a league was set up between
free and equal states and its treasury was established on the sacred
island of Delos. But only a mighty empire could resist another
empire, and Athens with her new maritime power, recognizing the
strategic urgency and her own opportunity, became powerful enough
to move the treasury of the league and to nominate herself as
protector of all the Ionians. Tradition sanctioned her position,
for Athens according to the useful legends was the original home
of the Ionians. Persia was comparatively far away, at least as
regards classical art, and so the story must be cut in half and
concern itself only with the West; but it must be remembered that
particularly those regions which had formerly been connected with
the East and then had been pro-Persian,--Karia,Ionia, the islands,
northern Greece*-- were the divisions of the new defensive empire.
1
2
From Ionia had come the original cause,influence, and background;
but it was Athens as the capital which became the focal point in the
history of the fifth century.But the story is not one of a steadily
increasing power which eventually overwhelmed the world and crushed
all else; it is rather one of local self-consciousness stimulated by
the Persian enemy. As a result, inland regions which felt themselves
safe from both the “barbarian" and their domineering neighbor dared
refuse submission to Athena, while coastal cities and islands first
accepted
the protection of her aegis and then revolted periodically
when her control became too strong (e.g. 440/39 and 430). It was only
after the beginning of the Peloponnesian Wars, which were the military
objections of non-Atticized Greek states, only after the completion
of the Parthenon sculptures in the history of art, that the Athenian
empire was truly unified. This close bond between Athens and her
provinces remained until her disastrous defeat at Syracuse, when
Athenian conquest overspread itself, and when new insurrections
crumbled the once mighty empire. Athens, proud as she was of her own
self-sufficiency, could not protect herself against the counteracting
influences from her own dependencies in the empire when she was in
need of more men.
Thus it is safe to assume that instead of a general internation­
alism of art during the fifth century, there was rather a jealously
guarded localism. The interior of Greece would have remained outside
Attic influence but the coast (which would have continued the Ionic
tradition) gradually became more Atticized, at first without sacri­
ficing its own native integrity, but after 430 less individualized,
until about 410 it would have reacted against Attica and returned to
3
its earlier independence. Athens herself would have been filled
with foreigners whose homes then belonged within the empire’s
boundaries.
When the treasury of the Delian league was moved to Athens,
one tenth of the tribute belonged to Athena. In the resultant erect­
ion of mighty monuments worthy of the conquering goddess and of the
capital, especially remarkable for their sumptuous decorations and
the rapidity of their construction, the city alone could not have
supplied the hordes of craftsmen necessary for the gigantic under­
taking. These imported craftsmen were later noted by Thucydides for
their (naturally) unpatriotic behaviour during the Peloponnesian
War.But great artists also rushed to the Paris of antiquity. JCresilas
came from Kydonia, Alkamenes from Lemnos (in view of the general
situation the testimony of Suidas and Tzetzes that he was an islander
must be accepted instead of the prevailing opinion that he was an
Athenian by birth; he might, of course, have come from an Attic
family of kleruchs), Agorakritos came from Paros, and Paionios from
Mende.Myron of Eleutherai, as he signed himself, was from a town
within the confines of greater Attica only after 460. Of all the
great sculpors of the fifth century, the Athenian citizenship of
only one is without doubt, Pheidias, son of Charmides, the Athenian;
but there were other less famous sculptors, Praxia?,pupil of Kalamis,
Pyrrhos, and Nikeratos.
In painting Athens possibly had her own Mikon, and certainly
Apollodoros»and Panainos, brother of Pheidias. But she did not reject
Polygnotos because he came from Thasos; instead she selected him to
decorate her most famous buildings, and in return rewarded him with
4
what she considered her highest honor, Athenian citizenship. Other
foreign painters, such as Agatharchos from Samos, worked in Athens.
From this admittedly sketchy survey of the source material
(for
either the homes or the dates of many Greek artists are
unknown), how much localism in art can "be inferred?Kydonia had
already produced a predecessor to Kresilas, Aristokles. From Faros
had come Arkesilaos before Alkamenes, and later there was Aristandros.
The father and teacher of Paionios of Mende was a painter. Thasos
nourished a family of painters of which Polygnotos, trained by his
father, was not the youngest member; and the local traditions must
have been continued by Neseus, the Thasian contemporary of Zeuxis.
The cities of Ionia are represented--Phocaea by Telephanes the
sculptor and Theodoros the architect, Ephesos by Parrhasios, and
Kyzikos by Androkydes.
Art of the Athenian empire should therefore be Ionic in origin
and local in interpretation, until around 430 when it should become
predominantly Attic. Ionic chiton clad maidens should exemplify
related styles in Ionia, the islands, northern Greece, southern
Italy, and Athens.
CHAPTER I
IOHIO SCULPTURE
It is fitting that the study of Ionic sculpture should begin
with the chiton clad maidens, both because the subject is limited
(with the result that the variations of style in the one type are
more easily discernable) and because the word chiton itself was
1
derived from the Semitic (the garment was a favorite in the East).
But if the Ionic chiton was particularly characteristic, it was not
confined to the East.Already its diffusion had begun in the sixth
century(for example, it is worn by most of the Acropolis Korai),
and consequently in the fifth century its mere appearance cannot be
evidence for recent Ionic influence. Furthermore, maidens definitely
localized to the East because of their discovery in excavation there
2
(such as those from Xanthos) are often clad in a peplos and not in
a chiton.
There is a difference, however, between the eastern and western
garments. In contrast to mainland Greece, where the woven material
was taken directly from the loom and simply donned with pins fastened
at the shoulders and a gridle belted around the waist, in the East
the woven bolt of cloth was not ready to wear until it was cut and
sewn. Thus the peplos neckline on the western figures was straight
and sagged in a cowl, while on the eastern ones it was curved and
hemmed. Thus the garment was opened on the side in the art of main­
land Greece, whereas in that of Ionia it was stitched to below the
arm pit.
The possible variations of a garment which was cut and seamed
5
6
and hemmed and gathered, are therefore numerous; and trousers, long
jackets, short cloaks, narrow shawls, and capes with circular edges
cut on the bias, all were common in Ionia. Chiton sleeves were usually
made in the same piece as the blouse, and thus were deep at the arm
pit; but they could be either large or cut to fit at the elbow or
wrist; and tight sleeves, which were made separately and inserted
into the rounded arm hole, are not unusual in the East.
Since in mainland Greece nob the covering but the supple body
beneath interested the public, artists in such an environment, in
their concern for naturalism, concentrated their attention upon re­
producing athletic anatomy. Drapery which was always secondary,
merely reflected the bodily structure, until its folds revealed the
body beneath, and finally drapery itself was discarded when the fe­
male as well as the male was represented nude. Naturalism in the East
produced a drapery style which arbitrarily disregarded the body
beneath in favor of an elaborated surface.
Knowledge of classical Ionic sculpture discovered in Asia Minor
3
is virtually limited to architectural fragments from Ephesos.A female
figure4 (Pl. Ia) from the temple of Artemis there of the late archaic
period, has a heavy fullness and drooping softness applied to the
drapery with little regard for the muscleless body beneath. This is
an aesthetic point of view clearly distinguishable from that of main­
land Greece. Geographically this style was not narrowly limited but
must have been characteristic of all Ionia, for it is also that of a
5
draped female discovered at Theagela in Karia (Pl.I b & c). Then
came the Persian conquest; but sculpturing of the column drums con­
tinued at Ephesos as proved by the fragments of official Achaemenid
7
boots (PI. I d). When the city was freed after the battle of
7
Eurymedon (464), the older Ionic style was revived. Fragments
(PI. I e,f,g) arranged in chronological sequence exemplify the
rapid progress towards a greater animation of the more substantial
drapery, but at the same time the smoothed lifeless surfaces of the
8
nude remain unanatomized (PI.
II a&e) and the archaic globuled
9
schematization is retained for the hair (PI. II b). Folds are
sculptured as half-spherical ribs, each continuous and all in
orderly file. The members;of this company are at first few and un10
n
important (PI. II c, before 450); later (PI. II d, after 450) they
12
become numerous and small (compare the gabled relief from Xanthos
13
PI. Ill ), and finally (PI. II e) they are individually segre­
gated by broad intervening spaces. The arrangement has always im­
itated draped cloth rather than forced drapery to conform to the
lines of the body.
But Ionia was not destined to continue its development un­
disturbed by outside influences. I'he Athenians grew stronger in
their empire, acquired when they had freed the Ionians of Asia
Minor from Persian control, and by the beginning of the Peloponnesian
Wars they were strictly suoervising their provinces. Consequently
14
in the sculptures at Ephesos the chiton becomes crinkly (Pl.IV a&b),
15
an introduction from the Attic Parthenon sculptures, and later
(PI. IV c) the parallelism of the himation folds becomes irregularized, imitating prototypes such as the Erectheion figures.
This Ionic adaptation of Attic formulae is exemplified in free
16
standing sculpture by a citharoid Apollo in Copenhagen (PI. IV d).
Its attribution to this period of strongest Athenian influence upon
8
the East is assured by its contemporaneity to the Nike by Paionios.
Yet though in true Attic fashion the garment has become transpar­
ent (earlier Ionic sculpture, because the body was fleshy, was re­
vealing, but the drapery lines never contributed to the corporeality
and its drapery folds outline the natural protrusions of the human
body) still in the local tradition, these folds cross the figure
and cover the surface and are heavy to fill the hollows of the
body. The flesh itself is flabby and unanatomized. The figure when
seen from the front appears stiffly upright because of the vertical
axis; but actually there is a twist to the upper half of the body,
\
which from some angles adds awkwardness to the pose, but which
from the correct point of view, by the crossed position of the arms
and lines of the drapery, further obscures the body but clarifies
the sculptural outline.
The all-over drapery lines which decorate the surface are more
prominent on a less Atticized maiden, of which there are three copies
one in Dresden17!?!* V )» another in the Vatican* and the last,
made into a fountain herm and reversed,
in the Villa AlbaniP(pl. Vi).,
The schematic arrangement of the folds between the breasts is com­
parable to that of the Apollo;
for the lines,which never quite join
are, above, oblique but set straight and, below, half circular. On
both,
the drapery flutes disappear and reappear in the same manner,
and they are edged as though open. The figure is again cut at the
waist so that the upper and lower bodies are not equally frontal,
and this disjoining has produced in the Vatican copy a twist of
the entire body.
Apollonios son of Eperatos had built a tholos to Athena Pronaia
9
at Magnesia on the Maeander. Another Ionian, Theodoros of Phocaea,
toward the end of the fifth century described in writing, and there­
fore undoubtedly erected, a building of the same form and to the
20
same goddess at Delphi. Attic and Ionic details are combined in the
21
22
architecture as they are in the sculpture (PI. VII), for the allover ribbed surfaces of the drapery, the softened finish of the
marble, and the fleshy bonelessness of the nude, are by now complete­
ly familiar and recognizable as eastern.
Theodoros had apparently seen the new buildings on the Athen­
ian Acropolis, for he copied them in many ways. An Ionic sculptor
at the same time left his home and went to Athens, the capital of
the empire to which he belonged, for the products of his chisel are
to be seen there, surprisingly enough on the Nike Temple parapet.The
style of Master C has already been separated from that of his com­
panions and recognized as unique in Athens. It has already been des23
cribed in words which are applicable to all Ionic art. On his figures
there is a "peculiarly arbitrary flow of drapery line" and an "incon­
sistency between the actual nude and the plastic suggestions of the
curveting drapery lines". "It is doubtful whether any expert in Greek
art, confronted by the two details" of Master C,"would place them
correctly in their period and school". It was one of the contribu­
tions of the master historian of ancient art--the segregation of
these sculptors and the determination of their date; it is the timid
suggestion of his student that their original locales can now be
fixed.
10
1- Studniczka, Beitr&ge zur Geschichte der alt-griechischen Tracht,
p.15; Bieber, Griechische KLeidung,pp.19f
2-Pr yce, Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Homan
Antiquities of the British Museum, I i,B.316-318,pis.xxxiif
3-Hogarth, British Museum Excavations at Ephesos; Pryce,op. cit .»p p .
47-99
4- Hogarth, op.cit..pl.xvi,no.i; Pryce,op.cit.,B.119,p.59,fig.61
5- Prvce.op.cit..B. 319,pp.l49f,fig.188
6- Hogarth. o p . cit.,pl.xyii.no.32;Pryce.op.cit.,B.230,pp.90f,fig.146
The bull's head (Pryce, B.146,p.65,fig.l3) and the famous male
torso (Hogarth, pl.xvi,no.1; Pryce, B.121,p.59,fig.63) in­
correctly restored with a head to which it does not belong, could
also either date from the Persian period or be Ionic forerunners
of Achaemenid art.
7- Pryce.op.cit., B.222,p.89,fig.139; B.224,p.89,fig.141; B.230,
p . 91,fig.146
8- Pryce, op.cit., B.155,fig.87
9- Pryce, op.cit., B.102,p.54,fig.52
10- Pryce. op.cit.. B.196,fig.121,p.83
11- Hogarth.op.cit., pl.xviii,no.25; Pryce.op.cit., B.148,p.70,
fig.80
12- Prvce. op .cit.. B.289,pl.xxv; Collignon, St.fun.,p.78,fig.41;
Gardner, Sculptured Tombs of Hellas,p.75,fig.28; Langlotz,
Frflhgr.,p,105; Strong, Apotheosis and After Life, p.150,pi.20
13- Hogarth, op.cit.. pl.xvii,no.2; pryce,op.cit., B.154,p.72,fig.
86
14- Hogarth.op.cit., pl.xviii.no.53;Pryce,op.cit.,B.220,p.88,fig.
11
13?
IS™ Hogarth, op»c 1 1 .. pl.xvi, nos.22f
16- Br_.Br. 175; Pfuhl,J.d.I. xli,1926,pp.l45ff
h. 1.26m. (under life); marble: fine-grained Parian,light blue
in breaks; preservation: has not been cleaned; origin: bought
in Rome from Eliseo Borchi;
Arndt and Lippold compare to
Nereid iponument and date 445-25
17- Hermann, Skulpturcnsammlung, no.45,p.20
18= Amelung, Vat.Hat, i, no.683,pi.83,pp.7?5f;
h.1.64m.; origin: Ostia, where found; restorations: head and
neck (plaster), part of drapery,second fold from right (marble)
The snake symbolizes Hygieia though probably it does not belong
to the original (Arndt and Lippold). pfuhl, J.d.I. xliii,1928,
pp.9f relates the figure to terracottas from Tiryns. The statue
is usually dated to the fourth century, though Arndt and Lippold
point out the classical characteristics.
3.9- E.A. 4025f
h. (of antique part) c. lm.; marble: fine grained and golden;
restorations: right arm with hand, left lower arm with hand,
both urns, lower part of shaft to which the figure originally
did not belong. Another copy is mentioned in the Maillol coll­
ection in Paris, and a related bronze Nike is in Lyons.
20- Vitruvius,vii,praef.l2; the manuscript tradition is treated
elsewhere,ch.ii,n.l
Fouillcs de D elnhes ii,"Topographie et architecture-Le sanctuaire d ’Athena Pronaia'*,pp.30ff; Anderson,Spiers and Dinsmoor,
The Architecture of Ancient Greece,p,147;Robertson, A Handbook
12
of Greek and Roman Architecture,pp.141;328
22- Delphes iv. "Sculpture",pi.lviif
23- Carpenter, Sculpture of the Hike Temple Parapet.pp.56-45
"It is remarkable that the flow of line is discordant also with
the modeling and tends to counter and destroy the plasticity of
the nude. There is only one other figure in which the lines sc
wilfully disregard the plastic curves," "Curves so ill adapted
to the roundings of the body that they produce illusions of
complete mismodeling".
CHATTE
n.
r
IONIC
SCULPTURE
F
PLATE
r
I C O l P T u q E
=> I S d O U E R £ o
a o c f < 3 EPi-tesos
f r a g m e n t s
T3 C T V - t g A N C j P L A H A I O E M
1 AI
T pr„
A.
R
» L A T E
Li
T
I O N
S C U L P T U R E -
e '-:>fc:S O
1C
S C O
O ' S C O V E R E O
FRAQnEMTo
M\ |
T O N'l A
t H A P T E
R
X
XO/v/ie
S C U L P T U R E
*
RELl e F
C H A P T E R
PlATE
Wf.
t\-13- C
O
X
S C. U L P T U R E
r O N 1c.
tPMfSOS
C O P E N
H
a q
E
SCULPTURES
m
a ,p
O L i.. o
Plate
I O m \C
c'
Te j d e
m
r\ a, i d e i\1
co oy
C
hAPTF. n
p l a t e
X
s /jl
VILLA
I oi'J'C
r
oni
\c
SCULPTURE
m m o e
A I Q A M I
COPS'
i\i
CHftPfcc
PLATE UJJ
METOPES
FROM
r
DELPHI
i O Ki ic
T H G
S x x >; P •' --> P E
l
)S
TIT
T
va
E O Q OR
O
O T P
h o
CAl A
13
CHAPTER II
TELEPHAUES OF PHOCAEA
To Telephanes of Phocaea, the greatest Ionic sculptor of the
fifth century, and the only one known by name, the Mourning Female
(pl.l) discovered at Persepolis has already been attributed wit|i a
degree of plausibility^- The Ionic origin of the figure was determin­
ed by several facts. The statue, of coarse-grained marble apparently
from the islands, was already damaged before it reached the capital
of the Persians; furthermore, after it had arrived it was stored as
loot in the Treasury. Since therefore it must have been taken on a
raid into Greek territory,its original locale must necessarily be
limited to Ionia. The Ionic naturalistic, superficial drapery style
of the Persepolis statue has already been recognized on the arch­
itectural sculptures from the temple at Ephesos and from the tholos
by Theodoros, also a Phocaean. The political and artistic history of
Phocaea itself, to judge from its coins, was an interrupted sequence
of eastern and western influences, and Telephanes himself, as re­
corded by Pliny, had his own personal difficulties with the Achaemenid kings.
There is a possibility that the new statue can actually be
identified. Certainly it must have had some significance in the
eyes of the raiders,for a mere grave figure would scarcely have
merited its position in the royal Treasury; nor would
it have been
the aesthetic appeal of its beauty which caused its removal, for it
was never reerected in Persia. Of all the related figures only one
maiden is posed exactly like the Persepolis statue, and that is the
much later Antiochea by Eutychides, and Telephanes is credited with
14
a statue which might have symbolized, a city--Larissa. There were
several fortresses hy this name in Asia Minor (two of which were
not far from phocaea) and they passed back and forth between the
o
«-1
Athenians and the Persians.
'Telephanes (or his unknown compatriot) might be identified as
the sculptor of the fifth century statue from Persepolis. At least
the same hand can also be detected in other sculptures no longer
preserved in the original nor listed in the ancient sources. The
copies of his charioteer are three; but two of t’
nese--from the
■7
4
Palatine in Rome’ and from Benevento (Pl.II),-- are such obviously
debased Roman replicas that from them neither personal, local, nor
chronological characteristics can be discovered. Their sad state of
Roman deformation, not infrequent for archaeological studies and
honelessly confusing Greek sculpture, is fortunately not that of the
5
marvelous copy in Berlin (Pis. Illf), which has retained not only
the original stylistic qualities but also the classical appearance.
Indeed on the Benevento copy the twisted shoulder straps of the
middle fifth century have been lost, but there has been added to the
round cut chiton neckline the straight edge and sagging cowl of the
peplos. The skirt has become crinkly in the Attic fashion and its
transparency discloses the body beneath, the figure has grown taller
and thinner, and there is a sharper twist of the upper body. Alone,
this copy would have dated its original in the period following the
Parthenon sculptures, and localized it to Athens, but the same style
is repeated in an Artemis on a sarcophagus on the second century A.D.
(PI.lie) which dates the copy and proves its unworthiness.
On the Palatine relpica the garment has become thin as silk, and
15
its drapery lines emphacize the fuller breasts which have been
given nipples to make the figure unquestionably a female dancer.
7
Only below the breasts, there to reaffirm their fullness, are the
curving folds of the original allowed to remain, but for the skirt
and particularly at the neck, new straightened lines are introduced
to cover the surface. The blouse over the belt has lost its "puffs",
and all of the original charm has been subordinated to a linear
stiffness in order to conform to the new aesthetic aims of the copy­
ist’s times. Superficially it is related to figures from the arch
8
of Constantine.
The pose of the excellent Berlin copy (Pls.IIIf) is the same as
that of the Ionic maiden, the citharoid Apollo, and the Persepolis
statue. There is a slight twist to the upper body, which, however,
scarcely affects the upright impression. On the charioteer the
shoulders are not horizontal, for the right is lowered because the
hand grasps the drapery, and the left is raised because the hand
swings free. For greater freedom of the limbs the chiton has been
belted and shortened and its ends at the neck and arms are twisted
together into a compact strap over the shoulders. Such a garment is
worn by figures in action, charioteers, dancers, and huntresses; yet
the undeveloped breasts are not feminine as those of the persepolis
maiden, but compare rather to the fleshy male chests of the cithar­
oid Apollo and of the Theodoran metope figures, and the shoulders and
arms are correspondingly plump.
The arrangement of the chiton has provided the sculptor with
the opportunity of duplicating in the drapery the patterns he had
employed on the Persepolis maiden. Thus is repeated, on both, the
16
irregularly bloused chiton which by its forward projection hides the
horizontal belt line with edges elaborately sagging and rippling
in variegated sizes and shapes (with almost the same outline as the
scallops on the Acropolis maidens, Attic imitations of Ionic art of
the sixth century). Also comparable on the two statues are the long
folds hanging perpendicularly between the arms and chest, of which
two or three are deeply cut to heavily outline the upper part of the
body. The skirt could not have been duplicated on the seated Perse­
polis statue; but in its compostion the lines, each not quite parallel
but slightly oblique to its neighbor, form a series of narrow invert­
ed triangles, the favorite motif of the artist. These triangles are
shorter near the tightened belt at the waist and longer near the hem
above the knees, and their scheme is generally similar to that of
the somewhat related Charioteer of Delphi. But the corrugated drapery
folds on the bronze skirt have nothing in common with the numerous
lengthy ribs, half-spherical in cross section, which animate both
the Berlin Charioteer and
the Persepolis statue. The most personal
motif of the drapery on the Persian maiden is duplicated in the
pattern of the inverted triangle between the breasts, its lower
boundary being the hemmed chiton neckline and its sides being
the
pleats from the straps at the shoulders. These are actually not
straight but curved, for though they begin at the shoulders and end
at the waist with an outward motion, they are pushed inward by the
projection of the breasts.
It has already been maintained elsewhere that after the Persians
had removed the Mourning Female to Persepolis, the Ionians erected
a second dedication as the Athenians had done for their Tyrannicides.
17
This later statue, under strong Athenian influence, is reflected by
9
a statuette in the Conservatori (Pl.Va) which should be dated after
the Erectheion caryatids. Exactly contemporarytand by the same hand,
was the original copied in a statuette at Naples^Pl.Vb). Particu­
larly alike are the interruptions of the slicing chiton lines, the
multiplication of the folds between the breasts, the spacing of the
ribbed himation drapery, the shortening of the sleeves, the lengthen­
ing of the proportions. Also the sculptor has conceived
the figure,
both body and head (although it is not preserved), as a whole. But he
has not forsaken the typically Ionic plump and formless body, and he
is to be absolutely identified in the treatment of the chiton by his
personal form of the inverted triangle between the breasts, his type
of the elaborated buttoned sleeves, and his fashion of the irregular­
ly curled edges bloused in a projecting ledge.
These four statues grouped together
because of peculiarly per­
sonal mannerisms common to all, reflect a marble style par excellence.
The discussion concerning the material was ended when the Persepolis
original was discovered in marble, though previously both the Berlin
charioteer and the "Penelope" had been classified as copying a bronze
technique.^ Yet the soft instead of hard style should have made it
obvious that only by directly sculpturing in marble could the in­
tricately elaborated edges and the delicately finished surfaces have
been obtained.
Each of these statues has been designated as Attic
12
in origin,
a simple reflection upon contemporary enthusiasm for Pheidias and the
13
Parthenon sculptures. The "Penelope" has been attributed to Kalamis,
though its brother the Charioteer has been labeled "by a follower of
18
of Pythagoras",
14
because of its delicacy. The small Naples statuette
has been considered a reflection of the prototype of the Kora
Albani which was copied on the Parthenon metopes, but "abweichend ist
nur,dass sich bei der Statuette zwischen den Bril':ten einige Palten
spitzwinklig senken, und dass der Chiton an der r* Htlfte weniger
ttber das Himation f&ll.t".^ These differences are enough to discred­
it the formerly accepted Athenian localization.
The originals copied by these four statues and the fifth century
Persian maiden can be arranged in chronological sequence as a devel­
opment of the artist’s style. Earliest, around the middle of the
century, is the Persepolis statue,
ant* shortly after is the Berlin
charioteer; ^later, under Attic influence, are the Naples statuette
(an imitation, not the prototype,of the Kora Albani), and the Con­
servator! statuette, contemporary with the Erectheion caryatids.
The head of the Persepolis statue has already been recognized,
18
not in the Berlin copy
VI a & *>) with its strengthened char19
acteristies, but in the Giustiniani head now in Copenhagen
(Pis.
Vila & Villa). The mid-fifth century form of the hairdress, short
curls
over the brows and ears, was discovered to have been popular
for maidens during a short period, and though the actual treatment
is free as in the late fifth century (for it copied the later dedi­
cation) the original was perfectly recognizable through both the
later Greek and Roman copies. As a matter of fact, the differences
between the heads of these two dedications are dissolved by another
head which can be definitely attributed to Telephanes of Phocaea,
20
a youth in Berlin (Pls.VIIb & VUIb).
The sculptor dressed the hair in a similar fashion on both the
19
heads, and thus he was able to reproduce the same pattern on the
youth as on the maiden. The mass of the curls projects from the
face, and between these two layers a padding of hair is added. There
is no parting, hut an irregular triangle marks the center, and both
locks on either side are spiralled in the same direction. The tip of
the neighboring curl on the right is twisted under, and that of the
twin locks on the left is formed by their juncture. Four longer and
straighter locks over the ears have less spiralled curls. It is
difficult to compare the shape of the heads from photographs, for on
them the Copenhagen head is tilted at an angle; yet it can be seen
that
both have the same outline. A mass of hair protrudes over the
forehead, is limited on the female head by the sakkos and on the male
by nothing, and above is confined by the oblique lines of the veil
and braid. The crown is angular with first an upward then a downward
slope, and ends in a point beyond which the back of the head is ab­
ruptly rounded. Nor are the shapes of the face, the ears, the eyes,
the mouth, dissimilar, although they are again altered by the differ­
ent angles of the photographs.
Exactly the same angular shape of the head recurs on another
.21 ,
youth, copied in a statue at Rome in the Villa Albani
(Pls.IXa,Xa,
XIa). The curls follow the same arrangement as described above in the
case of the Copenhagen and Berlin heads, and the narrow eyes and thin
lips and sharp nose are definitely recognizable as personal traits
of the sculptor here identified as Telephanes of phocaea. Two other
copies of the type also exist, both of which are in Copenhagen. One
22
head is of better quality than the Albani one, but it has (Pis. Xb &
Xlb) additional features such as the general roundness of hair,eyes,
20
nose, and mouth. These can all he dated in the period of the copy­
ist, for superficially the head resembles those discovered at
Pompei and H e r c u l a n e u m . t o r s o 2^(Pl.IXb) in the same collection
is reputedly of the same marble, and it resembles, when each broken
appendage is removed, the Albani youth (Pl.IXa). Its head (pis. Xc
& XIc) is a strange mixture of the style of the other Copenhagen
youth with more archaic qualities; probably it is no more than a
clever forgery as has already been suggested.
Thus emerges an Ionic artist of the fifth century with an
understandable personality. He forsook realism of bodily structure
and substituted soft plumpness for athletic anatomy as his compat­
riots did; he gave little life to his figures by complicated poses,
yet he never obliterated the sculptural outline; but his great
search for naturalism was in his rendition of drapery. He worked in
marble, to which he applied himself with loving care and which he
finished with softness and delicacy. He was identified by a few per­
sonal patterns which throughout the course of his career he never
abandoned. Yet he was not isolated from mainland Greece (for in the
general development of classical art he employed each of the newest
inventions) though only late in life did he come under strong Attic
influence. This sculptor, if he is to be correctly named as Tele­
phanes of Phocaea, was indeed worthy of his great contemporaries,
Myron, Polykleitos, and Pheidias, as he was described by those who
long ago wrote on the history of classical art.
21
1- "A Greek Fifth Century Statue from Persepolis'1 in a forthcoming
issue of the A.J.A.The publication of this important statue was
undertaken at the suggestion of the Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago. The discussion of the locality of Telephane
properly
belongs there.
2- Larisa south of Alexander Troas was in 403 under Persians (Xen­
ophon, Anab.vii,8,8ff;Hell.iii,l; Meritt,Wade-Gery,McGregor,
The Athenian Tribute Lists.p.510).Larisa Phrikonis, north of
Smyrna,was in 401 under Persians (Xenophon, Anab. vii,8,8ff;HeIl.
i,l,6ff; Meritt,Wade-Gery,McGregor, op.cit.,p330 show that it was
absent from full panels in 443-39 and again in 425) This site
was excavated by Schefold.J.d.I.. xlviii,1933,Beib.pp.141-58;
J.d.I.. xlix,1934,Beib.pp.363-92.
There was another Larisa
between Ephesos and Sardis.
3- A.A.. 1935,p.545,fig.6
4- Blttmel, Rflmische Ko-pien griechischer Skulpturen des fUnften
Jahr.v.Chr. ,p.38,figs.; N.S. .1904.x). 112,fig.6;p. 129,no.4; h.
same as Berlin copy
5- Bltlmel, on. cit.. pp. 37f ,pl.66 ,K. 175; Schrdder. J.d. I. xxx,1915,
p.97,fig.3
h.0.973m.; marble: white; origin: unknown, bought in
Rome in 1341 by Gerhard von Vescovali
6- A_jD. Ill i ,pl. 22; dated c. 165 A.D. because the hair style of
the other figures is comparable to that of Faustina the younger
and Lucilla.
7- It is usually labeled a female dancer and therefore restored on
tip-toes.
8- Strong, La scultura romana,pl.lxviii
22
9- H.Stuart Jones, •‘•he Sculptures of the Palazzo Conservatori, text,
pp.217ff; Mon.Arch, x,p.217,pi.81; A.D. I,pi.31c; Bull.Comm, xvi,
1888, pp.204-8,pi.xi
10-E.A.497; origin: from Pompei; restorations: head with neck and
arms
11-according to Blttmel for the charioteer, and to Six, J.d.I. xxx,
1915,pp.77 for the ''Penelope", followed by Kjellberg, Attische
Reliefs,p.37.On the other hand, Buschor, because he disagreed
with the attribution, made the impossible suggestion that the
marble Roman copies disproved the bronze prototype.
12-Attica has generally been considered the home of the copies of
the Persepolis statue because of the label applied to the marble:
Hymettan for the Chiaramonti relief, by Graef, A.M. xv, 1890,
p.17,n.2a; by Anti, Ann.iv-v,1921/2,p.94;perhaps, by Lippold,
K.u.U. ,p.H9; Pentelic of the Chiaramonti relief, by Klein, J.d.I.
xxxi,1916,p.250; if not, then Attic, by Amelung, Vat.Eat.i,p.615;
Attic, of the Chiarmonti relief, by Caskey, Catalogue of Greek and
Roman Sculpture in Museum of Pine Arts, Boston,p.45; by Conze,
Beitr&ge zur Geschichte der gricchische Plastik.p.16,3; by Helbig,
Ftthrer, I 2,1899,no.94,p.53; Attic, related to Boeetian limestone,
by Studniczka, A.D. I,p.18.
But the marbles have also been labele
Parian, of the Berlin head, by Collignon, St.fun.,p.121; "Parian",
of the Berlin head, of the Galleria relief, of the Conservatori
statuette, by Studniczka, or.cit.,pp.!7ff. That the Attic origin.,
is uncertain has been expressed by Collignon, St.fun.p.120^ though
in Sc.gr.,p.407, he thinks it is Attic), and by Dttmmler, J .d.I.
ii,1887,p.171. The type has been considered Attic under Pelop­
23
onnesian influence, by Helbig, on. cit. I 3,1912,p.56, though
elsewhere he called it non-Attic and related to northern Greece,
the Peloponnesos,lower Italy, Sicily, and Olympia. It was only
Kjellberg, op.cit..p.36. who excluded the "Penelope" from Attic
art "because it disagreed with the small Eleusis relief, and it is
this relief which has "become the "basis for the discussion of Attic
sculpture in a following chapter.
13- Klein, J.dl.xxxi, 1916.r>.249; Six, J_tdi I.xxx,19l5,pp.77f; Furtw&ngler, Slg.Sab.,pls.xivf; Picard, Man.arch.gr.sculpt.II.1,p. 5 2
14- hy Blttmel
15- Sauer, Festschrift fttr Overbeck. pp.73ff (quoted by Arndt,text
to E.A.497)
16- usually dated earlier in comparison with the Boston Throne and
the Olympia pediments
17- Blttmel and Picard date to the second quarter of the century
18- Blttmel, op.cit..
A.D.,I.pl.32D; Collignon.op.cit.,p.121,figs.63f
19- S jlA*4622-4; 1 , pl.32E
20- Blttmel, op.cit..
Amelung, J.d.I.,xli,1926,p.250,fig.5, compares
to the Omphalos Apollo
21- E.A. 1095f; h. (without plinth) 1.39m.; h. of head:0.20m. marbles
"golden-grained Greek"
22- Arndt, La Glvptotheque lTv-Carlsberg.pls.23f; h. 0.25m.;marble:
fine-grained; origin: bought in Campania "probably from Formiae"
23- e.g.Br.Br.337
24- Arndt,op.cit.,p.36 ,pls.21f; h. 1.50m.;marble: antique torso,fine­
grained differs from material of head and arms; restorations:
r.half of skull,point of nose,1.half of upper lip,r.arm,1.lower
arm;both legs from middle of thigh,head broken off
CHAPTER.
13
TELELP M A N t S
OF
PHOCAEA
1i
P L A T E
I
f "\ A \ Q E r\l
P
Ron PEASE P O L iS
CHAPTER
ii
T E L.ELP H A M E 3
C-AATEMlS
FROM
OF
PMOCAEA.
ARC O P H A & U 5
Chapter
P L
£T
l
_LL
Th
or
a m e s
c ih
ro
ph
o ca
e a
C IiA P T E R
p l a t e
w
TELER/h
C3 E R
O
N
a a
/EJ
o f
p h o c a e a
C H A R I O T E E R
C H A P T E r\
KL/\I' V,
L_L
^r
Oiir^Ul/Ni
lt£/\Q
O F Ptis/ELOPJI
t WAPI't A
PL/HTE
V.I.V
t e l e p h o n e
A - G l U S r t N 1A N \
P3- (3£ F .L I N H E A D
s>
of-
HEftO
OF
p >a o e a e s\
OF PGNELOPt
TOUTH
tl
P L A T L.
-y I I \
A - & IU S T iN (
B- S E R LI
M
A Ni l
tiE A O
H E A O
OF P E N E L O P E
0_ i-va r=T e a
O
r E L E ij \-i a m e 3
of
ph o ca e a
\3
P3 ^
T
\3
t
Ch -
X
c O
/X - '■/
P
e
I L. ^
A
A t t-t A B &
A
Al
U
(3
A
W \
Y O O T
\-\
V O U
F H
C H A p r c n
T £ L t P H A M EES
\_3
PLATE
A- V \
13- c O
a
v.
of
A L <3 A l\l \
P M O tft.E A
VO UTH
p e n h a g e nj y o v t v-\
C_ - C O f > E M H » & E N
YOOTH
£ H A PTE n. IT T e l E P H A KIT S
PLAT-E
XV
A-
V \
L A
t 3- C O P E N H A 5
OF
P H O CA tSA
A LQ A N W
eM
C-C.OPEWHA6EIV
Y O yT H
YOUTH
YOUTH
24
CHAPTER III
NORTHERN GREEK SCULPTURE
Related to the Ionic group, "because of the circular-triangular
arrangement of the buttoned chiton sleeves, are other statues. But
the personal mannerisms of the Persepolis master are lacking, and
the drapery is not treated with the typical Ionic stylization. Dis­
tinctive for these sculptures is the diagonality of the composition,
formed by lines across the body. This is often produced by an unusual
garment, a diplax. which is cut in a square, folded in a rectangle,
and worn diagonally. Although it occurred on many different statues
in various styles, it was at first identified by modern scholars as
2
3
Ionic. Later it was labeled Parian because the marble of a wellknown Thasian relief was reported as having come from that island.
In this example, the nymphs and Apollo (Pi.XV) wear the diplax.
Since Eurtw&ngler
had already identified the Athena Albani, similar4
ly clad, as the Athena Itonia by Agorakritos, he assumed that it was
introduced into Attic art by this Parian sculptor, and further attri5
buted to him, as his Mother of the Gods, another wearer of the diplax
6
the Doria Pamfili Cybele (Pis. I & II)# the original of which he
dated in the forties of the fifth century. Obviously, as was soon
7
8
remarked, "the attribution did not follow the description of Arrian,
nor did it correspond in date and type to the numerous small bronzes
and dedicatory reliefs which might be considered as reflecting the
famous original. Consequently the attribution was discredited for a
more plausible one, in contrast to which the Doria Pamfili goddess
9
seemed so dissimilar that the statue was discarded as "klassistisch".
Most criticized were the "absurd" use of the tympanon under the arm
and the unpleasant contours which are apparent from a front view
25
photograph.
As a matter of fact, not only is the position of the tympanon
remarkable, but also requiring explanation are the tilt of the head
towards the spectator's left, the slant of the raised arm from the
right to left, the width of the shoulders and legs, broad on the
spectator’s right and narrow on his left, and the level of the
shoulders and ornaments of the throne, high on the
right and low
on the left. The solution of the puzzle comes from the observation
of the shape of the throne, the top of which forms a triangle with
the point at the tip. These sides are of equal length; but from a
front view, in relation to the head, they project unequal distances.
To place this apex directly behind the center of the head so that
its outline is the same on both sides, the spectator must stand be­
fore the left front corner of the base. From this vantage point he
would see that the high levels of the right side appear to subside
to normal, and from his oblique line of vision he would think that
their extra breadth has vanished, that the tilt of the arm upon the
tympanon is straight, that the inclined head with its otherwise over
balancing kalathos is justified, and finally, as a result, that new
and pleasing contours of the body are repeated in the lines of the
drapery. Such distortion to make statues appear normal was remarked
by Plato in his ’’Sophist1* and was employed by Paionios on his Nike.
Now it is clear that it was in use already before the building of
the Parthenon where it has become famous in architecture. The com­
position of the statue has been discovered to be truly classical,
and chronologically it belongs between the pure profile views of the
Doryphoros by Polykleitos and of the Diskobolos by Myron and the
26
full front view of the Agorakritan Cybele.
Further criticisms as to the classical authenticity of the
Doria Pamfili copy can likewise he discarded. That the pleats of
the garment hide the hody rather than disclose it, is to be admitted,
but this is a criterion of classical sculpture before the middle of
the fifth century. That the seated figure is posed awkwardly and
that the relation of the body to the chair is unconvincing, are again
to be accepted, but they also date the statue by the solution of the
fundamental problem of fifth century art-- the integration of the
parts of the figure to a whole. Although the stages, first (470s)
when the individual features were separately considered, second
(460s) when they were combined to form a face contrasting with the
rest of the head, third (450s) when the
head was conceived as a
whole but in opposition to the body, and fourth (ca.450) when the
outline of the figure was continuous but the setting was still
separate-- although all of these stages in the develooment of the
figure had been reached by the date of the erection of the Doria
Pamfili statue, not until the period of the Agorakritan Cybele
could sculptors conceive figures with all details subordinated to
the whole.
Finally there can be no objection to the complicated folds at
the shoulders and waist, nor to the ''precious" (v.Salis) gesture
of the hand, once described as " nicht der besseren Zeit" (Matz-Duhn),
because
both occur in the new Mourning Female discovered at Perse-
polis. Indeed the Doria Pamfili goddess is "eine ganz andereu Formensprache" from the Attic Gybele type, but its associates are not to
be found in the Roman art world.
27
Beneath the admittedly coarsened black-and-white handling of
the Roman copy is discernable the peculiar drapery style of the
classical original. The chiton is endowed with a heavy material
body which majestically gathers into pouches filled over the diplax
and cut over the feet, and each of these is merely the conclusion
of a thick fold, which is deeply and continuously outlined from its
point of departure, either the button on the sleeves or the hem of.
the diplax.
The broad pleats, turned upward, which cover the draped
surface, are allowed to overlap around the hips because the figure
is seated, and they are permitted to fall from the right thigh
between the legs because the edges are opened. This preference for
folded layers of cloth is the cause of the horizontal line at the
bottom of the d iplax.
The squareness of the diplax
is rendered
by the sharp and pointed corner, and again the folds are turned
back upon themselves. The body lacks charm as does the drapery, but
both possess a certain majesty. The proportions of the figure are
ponderous and rectangular, the thick neck is elongated, and the
massive head is a long and narrow oval.
The pose is made of simple
motions, the one foot slightly forward and the one hand touching
the shoulder. The hair is waved from a central parting with circular
outlines produced by the weaving of the individualized strands. The
mouth is broad with deep dimples at the corners, and a similar
depression separates the jowls and chin. The ear is extremely long
and narrow and its line belongs to that of the jaw.
These peculiar mannerisms recur on a statuette in the Helbig
11
Musee (Pl.III). Alike are the poses, one foot slightly advanced and
one hand near the shoulder, the majestic proportions of the body
28
and head, the scalloped outline of the hair, and the plump jowls.
But most similar is the drapery on the two figures, illustrating
the characteristics of the local style. The chiton is deeply cut
in regular lines and ends in pouches drooping over the outer gar­
ment, the folds of which are hunched over the hips and repeated
horizontally at the lower edges. But there is a new influence in
the ends of this heavy mantle, arranged and worn as an Attic himation, and the differences in the proportions date the statuette
after, not (like the Cybele) before, the middle of the fifth century.
There are two other heads in which the hair is dressed in this
same fashion, its outline scalloped around the face by use of the
12
interlocking strands. The earlier is in the Villa Albani (pl.IVa,b,c
on which are repeated the unusually broad mouth and the exception­
ally long ears. Since both of these later characteristics occur on
13
a head of Hermes in Dresden (PI. IVd), its original should also be
14
attributed to this master. The later female head is in Copenhagen
(Pl.Va & b) and here the slightly bent elongated neck (which is
preserved) is related to that of the-Cybele. The hair has become
freer but the usual comparisons made to the Hera Farnese prove
exactly its fundamental non-Attic qualities.
The artist discussed above, or one of his compatriots, was
enabled to learn Athenian sculpture at first hand, for his style is
15
that of Master B on the Nike Temple Parapet. Although his figures
illustrate that during his career the artist had kept pace with the
swift development of Greek sculpture (for they have grown taller
and slimmer and wear fluttering garments), yet they still retain
his identifiable characteristics. The drapery falls in long folds
29
regularly and deeply outlined, ending in filled pouches. Pleats
are massed upon other pleats, they reiterate the horizontal edges
of the garments, and their compositional arrangement follows the
simple hut swinging curves of the earlier Cyhele.
Closely related to the heads carved by Master B (PI. Via) is
16
a female herm in the Vatican (pi. VIb), which is even more inti­
mately
connected with the Cybele by its interweaving strands of
hair, its broad mouth with dimples at the corners, its plump jowls
and its long ear which seems to have become part of the jaw. This
head if it were unique would have been dated between the Helbig
statuette and the Nike Parapet maidens.
But the Vatican herm has
been accepted as a copy, together with the famous Hertz head
17
(Pis. Vila & Villa), of the head of the Hike by Paionios at Olympia,
18
preserved in a fragmentary state, and this is firmly dated after
424. Furthermore the drapery of the Hike has none of the personal
mannerisms discovered in the Cybele goddess and the Helbig statuette.
First the relationship of the Vatican herm to the fragmentary head
of the Nike must be determined. Totally unlike is the arrangement
of the bands, three on the Nike which are drawn tight to fluff the
hair between, and two on the herm which end in pleats over the ear.
Also the interlocking strands of hair on the herm are not like the
waved mass on the Nike. Thus there seems no reason to retract the
attribution of the herm to the master of the Cybele. Next the re­
lationship of the herm to the Hertz head must be investigated. In
profile view the most striking differences are the shape of the
ears, the end
of the band, the proportion of the head; in front
view they are the treatment of the hair and the shape of the mouth.
30
Therefore it seems impossible to include the Hertz head in the
closed group of the Doria Pamfili goddess, the Copenhagen and
Albani females, the Dresden Hermes and the Vatican herm.
The Hertz head and the Nike by Paionios are not dissimilar in
general but only in details. If the loss of the face of the Nike
were not so disheartening as to make acceptable a replacement by
any possible means (the Hertz head) these differences would have
been recognized, for the earlier date of the Hertz head has often
been noticed. Indeed, the large staring eyes and the offset hair
are exactly the same as on the contemporary Parthenon sculptures.
But the Nike head by its own hair proves its later date. It is
treated as a mass separated from the face and comparable to that of>
19
the Nemesis by Agorakritos in a manner heralding the fourth century;
on the crown the waves flattened to the skull and projected at their
ridges are also later than the simply striated surface of the Hertz
head, and the plastically fluffed hair between the bands is a
feature of such statues as the two Diadumenoi, the one from the
20
21
Farnese collection, the other by Polykleitos.
For the Hertz head (Pis. Vila & Villa) just those features of
the face which excluded it from the preceeding group compel the
recognition of its kinship to the Apollo in the Ince Blundell collection
21
(Pis. Vllb & V UI b ).
In both there are wavy locks rather
than strands, the surface is treated linearly, and there is no inter­
weaving and consequently no scalloped outline over the forehead.
The ear is broad and has a bulbous lobe, the face is almost square,
the chin is flat, the mouth has thick lips, and the nostrils are
open as though breathing heavily. Formerly, because of the stiffened
31
pose, and the lack of anatomical proficiency in execution, the
statue was labeled as eclectic and archaistic.
23
But its relation
to the Hertz head has restored it to favor as the Apollo by
.
24
paionios. As a matter of fact, severe cleaning has obliterated
the ancient surface and poor photographs have concealed the re­
maining musculature; thus a mid-fifth century date for the original,
without archaism and comparable to the Apollo at Olympia, is not
to be doubted. The stiffened body also is explainable, not as
"following the type of an older statue" (Ashmole and Sauer) but as
a counterpart to another statue, a Muse (PI. IX), which has the
same upright posture as well as a similar action of the arms. Since
this Muse in Venice carries a
mask (PI. X) of a good fifth century
type, there are provided two heads (Pis. VIIc, VIIIc, X) both of
which are closely related to those from the Ince Blundell and Hertz
collections. The square face, the thick lips, the linear hair, the
flat chin, the prominent ear lobe, all are the same.
But the Muse type exists in four quite different examples,
of which two have remained in Venice, one has been transferred to
the Ermitage, and still another has stayed in mantua. Each statue
with its own peculiar style has its own personal history; but all
four can be traced to northern Italy in the Renaissance period.
Inasmuch as the differences are in the copies, they cannot be
grouped together and assigned to one building, as for instance to
the Roman theater at Ossa near Pola in Venetian territory, where
tradition localizes the discovery of one of the statues in Venice.
On the other hand it ?/ould seem unfortunate to accept the different
style of the copies as characteristics of four separate originals
32
of the fifth century (as Levi would do) until the Possibility of
divergent
adaptations is investigated. Furthermore it cannot be
dismissed
as mere chance (as Lippold and Arndt believe)
that the
dates and locales of their single appearances agree while their
styles of execution do not. The relationship of each copy to its
original and to its own period must always be determined before con­
clusions are possible.
For one of the statues in Venice
25
(Pis. VII to X).
*
-
-
t 9
\
(the one
which corresponded to the Hertz and Apollo heads), this is not
difficult, for it is comparable to such Roman togata figures as that
26
of Bonius Balbus. Thus it is allowable to imagine the removal from
the Roman copy of the contemporary multiplicity and coarseness of
the drilled lines of the drapery, disclosing irregular box pleats
characte ristic of a Greek original of the fifth century. The other
copies,however, have features
less recognizable, and their diver­
gencies must be explained before the Venetian Muse with the mask can
be accepted as the only true representation of the original.
Closest to the Venetian example, although the drapery and gar27
ment are reversed, is the figure in the Ermitage (pi. XI). Some of
the statue is obviously restored,viz., the drapery below the knees,
the nude parts of the arm, and the attributes held in the hand. Two
factors, however (at least apparently visible on the photograph), are
disconcerting if one would accept the remainder of the statue as
antique. First, the brown surface, which might have been caused by
fire, seems to cover the restored appendages as well as the body and
face, proving that this damage must have occurred late. Second, the
execution of the chiton sleeves cannot be differentiated from that
33
of the restored chiton skirt, nor is the heavier drapery dissimi­
lar in the sections of supposedly different dates. The statue had
a Venetian origin, for it was exhibited in the Palazzo Algarotti
(with an unknown date of discovery and place of origin) when it was
28
first mentioned in literary sources by Moechini in 1815. There
29
was a tradition, recorded no earlier than 1826 by Thiersch,
that
it belonged to Francesco Morosini (1618-94) who brought it home
from Athens during the wars against the Turks. The Athenian connect­
ion belongs under the heading of romantic fabrication, although
accepted
by such scholars as those who would insist that the marble
is Pentelic (Levi). The connection with the Palazzo Morosini,how­
ever, is not impossible, for it is to Venetian sculpture of the late
Renaissance that the statue is comparable in style and technique.
For example, given the Muse with the mask in Venice, whose
hair is badly damaged, an artist could reproduce in a slipshod
manner such strands with island holes on the Ermitage head (pi. XI),
exactly like those on the Christ from a Noli me tangere terracotta
30
“
7
in Florence attributed to Giovanni Francesco Rustici (1474-1554),
or like those on an allegorical figure in Ss. Giovanni e Paolo in
31
Venice by Tullio Lombardo. Or again, reversing the Muse with the
mask and subordinating the Roman drilled lines of the drapery to
the contemporary Venetian preference for an irregular outline of
the figure, such cupped folds as those on the Ermitage statue would
result. Not only are the drapery flutes at the side carved with
circular edges ( and one is in the "antique" section), not straight
as on the
Muse with the mask, but the edges of the himation also
are irregular. Venetian sculptors insisted on such swinging box
34
pleats as restored around the knees, and liked such tall and thin
proportions as those of the statue as it stands today. Also the
"antique" neck is abnormally long, more Venetian than Greek or
Roman.
32
The copy in the Ducal palace at Mantua
(pi. x i l )
is absolutely
dated before 1571, for at that time it was reproduced there on the
tomb of Pietro Strozzi in the church of S. Andrea. Although the
left hand and the right arm are broken off. the figure is otherwise
in perfect preservation and the execution has remained
startlingly
fresh. Hence it has usually been considered the copy of the best
quality. But the figure was carved in one piece with the round base,
whereas that of the Muse with the mask was originally square before
the corners were broken and then rounded. The maiden wears sandals
with curved straps like those restored on the Ermitage figure and
unlike those of the Roman Muse, and the long jointed toes of the
feet are absolutely paralleled in Renaissance sculpture.
33
The tall
and thin proportions of the figure recall the Ermitage statue as it
i8 restored, but with a new slimness of later Renaissance date like
figures from the -beheading of John the Baptist in the Florence
34
Baptistry by Vincenzo Banti, also dated 1571.
The projecting
ridge of drapery extending from the covered breast to the hem of
the himation, which had become a soft pleat on the Ermitage statue,
has flattened out, while the evenly spaced continuous ridges of the
restored skirt on the Ermitage statue
have invaded the himation
around the hips. The chiton is no longer linear as it was on the
Ermitage figure (although the oblique position of the folds across
the right ankle is not yet forgotten) but has a flimsy quality like
35
that of a Madonna with Child in Berlin by Jacopo Sansovino
35
(1486-
1570). But most spectacular is the addition to the drapery folds
between the legs of the swinging box pleat, quite unantique, which
has undergone the same flattening as the ridge from the breast.
The head also has received a new shape and a new lifelessness. Par­
ticularly interesting is the smoothed surface suggesting a cap
36
instead of hair, into which the long curls are tucked, while the
unbound mass of hair which once fell across the back has been
entirely omitted.
37
ihe fourth copy, in Venice
(pi. XIII), follows the Mantua
statue in the swinging box pleat of the lower skirt. But the pro­
portions have shrunk, as in still later sculpture,while the chiton
and himation have attained a new plasticity exactly comparable to
Venetian sculpture of the later sixteenth century.
As an example of the development and dependence of each succeed­
ing figure upon its predecessor, the pattern of the chiton below
the breast can be traced, non-existent on the Muse with the mask,
incipient in the Ermitage copy, developed in the Mantua figure,
and part of a larger scheme in the other Venetian replica. On none. *
of the three statues in reverse is there an attachment for an attri­
bute in the hand at the skirt. The most plausible conclusion seems
to be therefore, that early in the sixteenth century the Muse with
38
the mask was discovered in the theater at Ossa, wthat the type was
reversed soon after for the figure in the Ermitage to make a pair.
The Dukes of Mantua were satisfied with their own modern version of
the antique, for it was in the best state of preservation; and
eventually another copy was produced for a private collection in
36
Venice itself, and incidentally was given a head which is as brown
(from fire?) as both the Ermitage and the muse with the mask. The
brown coating of the latter occured before the break in the legs,
and it was cleaned away later by scraping the surfaces of the arm
and the hair of the mask.
The Attic origin of the Muses has been seen to be a mythical
fable, based upon an incorrect analysis of the marble of which the
copies are made and an overestimation of the role of pheidias in
Greek classical sculpture. The relation of the Venetian
Muse with
*
the mask, minus the other replicas, to the contemporary Ince hlundell
Apollo of the fifties and to the Hertz head of the forties, is firmly
established, and they in turn are not to be separated from the hike
39
at Olympia by Paionios
(pi. XIII). Yet it would seem impossible at
first sight to discover two more opposite forms of drapery; but if
the relation of the heads is correct, aside from the artistic devel­
opment in the span of years between the Nike and the Muse, some
identification tags in the folds should remain. In general the pose
is the same, one arm lowered and one arm raised, and when viewed from
below the two feet of the Nike seem to be parallel. A few details
are repated on both (such as the irregular hollow at the throat, unlike
the Cybele), but these are not of sufficient uniqueness or importance
to establish a common authorship. The most striking peculiarity of
the Muse which might be personal, is the parallel arrangement of the
three curls with the central one touching the nipple, and this is
comparable to the placement of the five parallel folds of drapery
below the breast on the Nike. Probably the vertical flutes on the
right side from shoulder to waist and from waist to knee with their
37
straight edges are reminiscent of those on the Muse, again
accompanying the ends of the garment opened on the side, perhaps
the "bifurcation of the drapery on the leg of the former recalls
those of the latter around the body. But it must be remembered that
after all, the Muse is a very poor Roman copy.
The Pamfili Cybele, the Helbig statuette, the Albani and
Copenhagen females, the Dresden Hermes and the Vatican herm can be
accurately localized in northern Greece by their relation to reliefs
discovered there. From Thasos, famous for its family of painters,
Aglaophon,Aristophon, and Polygnotos, has come the relief of Apollo
40
and the Muses
(pi. XV), on which several figures wear the diplax.
Their drapery is also comparable to that of the Cybele in the sharp
points at the lowest corners, a formula which is repated on north41
ern grave reliefs, and both are alike in the heavily falling chiton
lines, which are the same as on the somewhat later statuette from
Olynthos.
42
The
diagonality of lines across the body is repeated on
43
another relief, which in this way is a northern adaptation of a
common Greek type. The interlocking strands of hair are to be found
44
45
46
on coins from Maroneia,
from Lamia,
and from Pharsalos.
It might be thought that Paionios was responsible for both
groups, and that statues of the heretofore unidentified sculptor
are merely products of his early stage, -but each artist repeats
details peculiar to himself, such as the shape of the ear, the
arrangement of the hair, and the borders of the drapery,-- the
unnamed sculptor in his early (Cybele) as well as his late (Master
B) works, and Paionios in his late (Hike) as well as his early
(Muse and Apollo) products.
38
Paionios is the only northern artist known by name, who is
dated to the classical period. He owes his literary fame to a gilt
Nike at Delphi and his mistaken identity with a master of an
Olympian pediment, while his archaeological importance rests on the
fortunate discovery of his Nike at Olympia with an attached inscript­
ion. utherwise he too would have remained unknown, like his still
unnamed compatriot. Paionios received an earlier and more lasting
influence from Attic sculptors than his relative; for both Alkamenes
48
and
Agprakritos made statues with the same broad heads and thick
lips and crinkly hair as his Apollo, Muse, iJ-ertz head, and Nike,
49
but exactly the same profile occurs on a coin from Aenianes and on
50
two reliefs from phalanna.
47
39
1- Studniczka, Griechische Tracht.-p.77
2- Collignon, Mon.Piot. x,1903,p.19
3- Furtwdngler ,M. Y/. , p . H 3
4- idem.-p. 114
5- Furtw&ngler, "Uberstatuenkopien im Altertum11.Abh.d.bayer.Akad.
d.Wiss. xx,1397,pp.53-56,pi.x,2
6- Br.Br.636f;M.D. no.920; h.1.70m.; restorations:none
7- Bieber,AM xxxvii,1912,p.169 retained the statue as a cult image
from the circle of Pheidias of the forties,explaining the
differences from her choice for the Agorakritan statue by the
later date of the latter.- Gf. Strong, op. ci t.,f ig. 312.
8- Overbeck, S chriftquellen,833
9- v.Salis.J.d.I. xxviii,1913,pp.l4-9,fig.l5; the Attic type of
the Cybele holds the tympanon outstretched, Svoronos.op.cit.,
pis. cxvi=cxx;ccxxxixf;lxxx; the eastern type rests her arm
upon the tympanon, reliefs from Smyrna,E.A.3196f, coins from
Smyrna, Br.Mus.Gat.Ionia.pl.xxix.no.10,pi.xxxix.no.7,coins from
Ancyra.idem., Phrygia.pl.ix.no.5,coins from Hyrgaleis,ibid.pl.
xxxiii,no.5, coins from Saitta.idem. Lydia.pl.xxxiii,nos.3f.
10- Plato,So phist,236
11- Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek,Helbig Museet,no.l7, Schmidt.Antike
Plastik.p.226,figs.6f
12- E.A. 4025f; restorations: nose,mouth; marble:
"streifig";copy
in Rossie Priory,Poulsen, Portraits in English Country houses,
p.24,figs.28f
13- Hermann,no.80,p.27; Clarac, pi.664,no.1535; Amelung, R .M. xl,
1925,pp.l97f.figs.lOf, compares to Syracusan coins
40
14- Arndt, La Glyptotheque Ny Carlsberg.pls.29f; h.0.45m.; res­
torations; nose,lip,chin; marble: labeled Italian; origin:
bought in Rome
15- Carpenter, op.cit., pls.viif
16- Ibid.,pi.x; Richter, G.S.&S.,pl.556,fig.641
17- Richter.op.cit.. pi.556,figs.639f; R.M. ix,1904,pl.vii,Schrader,
pheidias, p.179,figs.157 & 159
18- R.M. ix,1904,pp.165f,figs.
19- Richter, op.cit.,pi.554,fig.663; A.M. xv,1890,pp.64ff; Smith,
B ritish Museum Catalogue, i ,no.460
20- Richter, op.cit., pi.550,fig.621
21- Richter, on.cit., pi.560,fig.650
22- Ashmole, Ancient Marbles at Ince, no.15,pis.5f,pp.lOf; h. (ex­
cluding plinth) 1.53m.; restorations: right hand; state: re­
touching and severe cleaning,none of ancient surface remains
23-Michaelis, op.cit., p.340,no.15; Conze, Arch.Zeit.,1864,pp.221f;
Mahler, Bolyklet und seine Schule,p. 130; K.iellberg,A.R. ,pp.95ff
24- Hauser, J.O.A.I. xvi,1903,p.76; Schrader,op.cit.,pp.!81ff;
Pfuhl, J.d.I. xli,1926,p.160 (possibly)
25- E.A.2461-4; D.120; Guedeonoff,A.d.I. xxiv, 1852,pp.74-85,pi.B;
Collignon, Mon.Piot.x,1903,p.25,fig. 11
26- Hekler, Die Bildniskunst der Grieehen und Rflmer,pl.l5Qa;
It has been suggested by Professor Mtiller that northern Italy
produced sculpture which was flatter and sharper and more
multiple than contemporary sculpture in Rome, and these are
the only differences between the Muse and the togata figure,
although he himself would prefer a later Roman date for this.
41
27- Waldhauer, on.cit.. iii,no.260,pls.xviiif,pp.26f; A.d.I. xxiv,
3.852,pi.C; Mon.Piot. x, 1903,p. 25, fig. 11; h. (of antique part)
1.30m.
28- Moschini, Guida di Venezia i,640
29- Thiersch, Reisen nach Italien,pp.242ff
30- Venturi, Storia dell* arte italiana, x,l,p.78,fig.65
31- idem., p.375,fig.282
32- D.720; A . d.I. xxiv,1852,pi.D; Mon.Piot. x,1903,p.24,fig.10;
Lippold. g.u.U.iUi166;Alda Levi, Sculture greche e romane del
Palazzo Ducale di Mantova.pls.xviif would date the Mantua copy
early and the Ermitage replica later Pheidian; h.2m. (includ­
ing base)
33- Gf. the Geremia in the Santa Casa, Loreto, by Aurelio Lombardo,
Venturi,op.cit.. x 2,p.695,fig.584
34- ibid.,p.528,fig.429
35- ibid.,p.624,fig.513
36- Cf. the basalt head of "Octavia" in the Louvre, Hekler,op.cit. .
pi.207
37- E.A. 457; A.d.I. xxiv,1852,pi.A; Mon.Piot.x.1903.p.2.fig.7:
here Brendel, Gnomon xiv,1938,p.230 would see the decorative
taste of the copyist
38- although this tradition has been transferred to the other
Venetian copy
39-Br.Br. 444f
40- Br.Br.61; Louvre, Encyclopedic iii,pls.148f; marble: labeled
Parian; the inscription is usually dated 490-80 (I.G. xii,8;
no.358) but (I.G. xii,8,no.390) another dated 494-2 is less
42
developed according to some scholars. Stylistically the relief
should date after the Persian invasions.
41- All of the northern reliefs have the same type of heavy gar­
ment, often with such pouches: a) relief for
Hestia and
Symmachos in Larisa from Pharsalos,B.C.H.xii,1888,pl.v;
h) stele of Echenikos from Kalogerai, Deltion v,1919,p.123;
c) Odysseus relief from Gomphoi, Athens National Musem 1914,
A.M. xxv,1900,pi.xiv; d) fragment from Gonnos, A.M. xxxiv,1909-,
p.80; except for one under very strong post-Parthenon influence
e) funereal banqueting relief from Giachalar,Eph. ,1914,p.244
42= A.J.A xliii,1939,p.72,fig.27
43- Enh..1900.nl.2.2 from Larissa; Svoronos.op.cit..pi.lx.no. 1400
44-Allen B.West, "Fifth and Fourth Century Gold Coins from the
Thracian Coast".Numismatic Notes and Monographs lx,pl.ix,A25
45- B.M.C.Thessaly to Aetolia.pl.iii,13;pl.iv,3
46- idem.,pl.ix,12
47i» e.g.herm from Pergamum.Richter.G.S.& S. ,pl.553,fig.628;Boethos,
ibid.,pi.603,fig.762, almost copied his Dionysos which is strik
ingly similar to the Hermes and the representations on coins,
ibid.,pi.553,fig.631
48- fragments from the base of the Nemesis at Khamnous.ibid. ,pi.554
f igs. 663f f ;K.iellberg.A.R. ,pls. i-vi
49- B.M.C.op.cit.,pl.ii,2
50- A.M. viii .1883.-pl.vii;A.M. xv,1890,p.206,fig.2,pi.iv; B.C.H.
xii,1888,p.273,pi.xvi; cf.reliefs from Thessaly,Br.Br.233
Chapter
KL
_A r E
LU
X
NO^rHE^N
DO ra,
1A
PA
Cj^E E K
MFI
LI
S CDLPT U RE
CX TJ £ L E.
CM ARTun.
!i_i
N 'O R T H tR N
G P.CLK
bCULPTUf?E
C H A PTER
PL A
Hi
T F*
w o r a r n tln .N
*’■ •
P
C
/M ii A A E
o q e c k
N
c c u L
V 1 r A. c;
pt
u
r
£
C H A P T t
R
l.lA
INI O R.T H E R n
G R E E K
5 C O C P T U R E
C H A P T t R
1_M
A /O R T H
E R
N
VT|
PAi OAj 105
G R E E K
O f
M E MD E;
HEAD
Q - l NCE
0
c- v-e
L J M' OE L U
(si i c e
K
/^p O lK o
U i e
S C U L
PT D R
E"
H
p
T E n.
PLATE
n r
vi j Y
1^0 R
i M E R M
P A lO N
a-hertl
a
INC E
c
i
05
OP
A
r-\ o
P O
i
SC U LPTU R E
M E-NDE
neAo
Q L J I M D E L l
Vic N I C E
Ci- R L tE K
£•
L L O
t
H A P T E
P
a.
l a t e
MJ.
n r
w o a T H E ^ N i
o
A
i o n
ve NILE
>03
(jf5EL-K
o f
I ^ Of o E
/- it
3 C U l P T U n t
n d e
C H A P T E R
p
l
i .1
J
~T£"
P"l
M O R T N t
X_
A S K
PA
A N
IO N
OF
IQ S
V f
N
i
SCULPTURE
A E -
OF
I C E
O
E IV O £
M US E
CMM PTE R
\\\
NOATHb^. W
^
t
(o R E 1
—K
o C U LP
*U
\ZCM1 CE
MANTUA
COPY
MlJiE
C H A P T E R
I \J
J £
W O Q T N tfii\J
!\i ' C E
i 1 •. J_G
Cr R E E K
- o e CO INI D
v'G /\l 1C C C OPT
CHAPTER
P
T]_i
M O R r n E R M
GPEEk
S C U L P T U R E
A \ ;/
O i
. ;ENO£
N/ t K E
PAi
O N i
T
OF
O L T H Ol A
c.wApTe:r3
p l a t e
XV
i_n.
n o p i t h e r m
APOLLO
M/VJC3 N Y M P H S
Sc
FROM
o l p t u r e
TH/VoO-S
43
CHAPTER IV
ATHENIAN SCULPTURE
Athenian sculpture at the end of the sixth century is
represented by the metopes of the Treasury at D e l p h i ,"'"where the
drapery on the figures is schematized either as regularly spaced
2
ridges, each fold incised down its center,
or as a few curved
3
scratches upon an otherwise smoothed surface. These formulae
were taken directly from the East. But although this Ionic con­
vention of incised ridges is followed on some of the Acropolis
maidens,
4
the rendition of the chiton by innumerable small lines,
5
each with its own projection,
on the majority of statues,
suggests
the local Athenian style. On these figures the two edges of the
chiton sleeve are marked by a long line across the shoulder to
which the folds are directly attached.
For the Transitional Period after the Persian wars, Attic
sculptured figures wearing the chiton are not yet recognized,
but
the development of the linear style can be traced on Attic red-
7
figured ware. At the time of Euphronios,
the chiton is rendered by
8
regular fine wavy lines, but with Euthymides they have become more
9
irregular and are drawn closer together, and with Phintias they
10
are multiplied.
With the Brygos Painter
the small numerous
lines have become livelier because they folio?/ the curves of the
body,
and in M a k r o n ^ t h e
still more tightly packed lines are edged.
These edges of the chiton sleeves are crossed and jagged like those
drawn by the Pan Painter
12
in the sixties. Because the same scheme
of rendering the chiton is used on an Athena torso in Madrid
(PI.
I) where in addition,
13
the type of aegis is comparable to
44
those on vases
and the shape and size of the overfall is like
those on his figures
15
and the drawing of the drapery edges as "hows"
-j ^
is related on both,
the torso should copy a contemporary Athenian
statue. On the vases of the fifties the fine lines representing thin
1?
JO
cloth cover the surface, reproducing both sculptures
an£ paintings.
These fine chiton lines recur on a contemporary bronze statuette in
19
Vienna
20
and on a relief from Eleusis
(PI. II). Not far removed in
21
date is the Muse on a white-ground cup in the Louvre
(PI. III).
After the middle of the century the development of this "stringy"
chiton can be traced on the sculptures of the Parthenon.
Pa rt icu la r­
ly characteristic is the even greater " stringiness" on the Parthenon
22
north metope number xxxii
(pi. I V ) . These individualized "strings" >
fall from their attachment at the shoulders in profusion and discorder
and are edged with a key pattern.
The other folds of the drapery,
such as those at the neck and breasts,
Exactly the same "stringy"
Albani
(pi, V).
follow the same schematization.
treatment is employed on the Kore
In this the ma ny copies correspond,
though the one
23
in Copenhagen
(PI. Va)
is softer and slimmer,
were later, and the one in the Albani
as though the original
collection
24
(pi. VI)
is hard-
25
ened in the Roman transformation.
The Capitoline copy
comparison with the Parthenon metope,
26
hut the ma jor ity are
in
seems to be the best reflection
of the original. There are other copies,
Cherchel,
(PI. Vb),
such as the one from
poorly photographed and in any
case apparently would add nothing new.
The general composition of
°8
this figure is found on Attic red-figured vases'- (pi. Vila)
and was
29
repeated on later reliefs in the guise of the Kore Albani
(pp.
v ilb
3°
& c) and a citharoid Apollo
(pi. Vlld);
and this comparison seems
45
more fundamental
than the relationship of the figure to the large
31
Eleusis relief
two copies:
(pi. VIII). The head of the Kore is known from
that in the Czartoryski
collection in the chateau of
32
Goluchow
torso
is hasty and poor;
the one attached to the Villa Albani
33,
(PI. IXa & b), though damaged and hardened in the Roman
manner, preserves the type for other comparisons.
Related and certainly Attic because of the similar key pattern
on the bloused chiton, which is such a characteristic treatment
that the statue is possibly by the same sculptor as the Kore Albani,
34
is a mutilated figure in the Vatican.
It has been labeled Bacchus,
but because the breasts of the Kore have no swelling fullness, pr oba b­
ly it was originally intended for an Artemis. The locale where the
statue was erected can be discovered from the copy discovered in the
35
excavations in the Athenian Agora.
To be included in this group,
although the subject is almost
too complicated to be adequately discussed in a few paragraphs,
the Aphrodite of Gortyn.
omitted,
The ma ny copies of the original
is
cannot be
since exactly the same key pattern of the bloused chiton
and the "pancaked" arrangement of the himation recur on the terra­
cotta reproducing this type, which was formerly in the collection of
36
the Athenian Rhusopulos.
it is the pose, not the drapery,
terracotta which is troublesome for a classical dating,
on the
since the
figure as there represented has a more than Praxitelean curve. But
37
on the relief from Baphnae,
which certifies that the original
stood there in the precinct of Aphrodite,
of the hips,
there is no swinging motion
and the lines of them and of the shoulders are almost
horizontal. The sentimental action of the Aphrodite towards the non-
46
classical Cupid is changed,
and instead of caressing him, her
right hand hears the patera outstretched,
as on the reliefs of the
Kore Albani. Her left hand on the r e l i e f ,ho w e v e r , has no function,
whereas on the terracotta it grasps the veil in feigned modesty
common to Aphrodites and her votaries in classical art. On the
other hand,
the laxness of the leg,
typical of a romantic period
(today used by chorus girls and in Greek times by the goddess as
she became seductive later in the fourth century)
is not repeated
on the relief where the feet are modestly crossed. This pose was
38
used in the fifth century for other statues,
such as the "Thusnelda"
and this figure when viewed from an incorrect angle appears more
unbalanced than she actually is. Therefore,
from the details and
the handling of the drapery on the terracotta and from the pose on
the Daphnae relief,
one would expect to find true copies of a
fifth century original.
Such a hone, however,
is not to be realized in most of-the
39
extant replicas of the Aphrodite. The beautiful torso from Smyrna,
indeed, has an upright axis and recognizable drapery,
though the
latter would be independently placed with the pedimental sculptures
from the temple of the Athenians at Delos. The copy from Gortyn
40
is correct in that her right arm is outstretched and her left bent
at the elbow to grasp the veil. But there is proof
not only in the
pose but also in the drapery (though that on the back does compare
closely to the "Tauschwestern" of the Parthenon pediments),
Gortyn Aphrodite must be considered an "Umbildung".
that the
In contrast to
the terracotta, where it is the himation which is "pancaked" under
the arm (as on the Parthenon metope), here it is the chiton which is
so arranged. Also the multiplied himation folds which are added to
47
cover and
moved to exaggerate the prop upon which
absent in
both the terracotta and the relief.
she
leans, are
Whether the original actually should be dated as early as the
drapery on the terracotta implies,however, must remain doubtful,
since the
"stringy" Attic technique of renderning the chiton lasted
late into
the fourth century, and all of the copies agree in the
curving of the body axis. They must all have had one prototype, for
that
they are like in the action of the arms and the baring of the shoulder
are reversed from that of the terracotta and relief.
Some of course,
are always suspect. The example in the Gapitoline Mu se um
41
is question­
able because it comes from the Villa d ’Sste and all of the statues
from this collection seem (at least from photographs)
to have the
same superficial style and finish which is that of the late Venetian
42
Renaissance. The one in the Louvre
(pi.
x) is doubtful because (as
in the himation below the waist) hollows are carved where breaks
43
exist on the other Louvre
and Maples copies. On the other hand,this
A A
Aphrodite in Maples
a preserved head,
45
which alone of all the copies is veiled, has
and this,
though the reproduction is poor and
filled with fourth century details,
is strikingly similar to the Kore
Albani in the fundamental shapes of the head,the face, the eyes,
the
mouth, and the ear. But again it is the Bo n n terracotta whi ch re­
produces the hair of the Aphrodite the more accurately. Perhaps the
difficulties are best relieved by the one copy which has been d i s ­
covered in excavations,
at Gortyn in Pythion.
It is nearest the
terracotta in pose, and although part of the drapery has been m o d e r n ­
ized,
the arrangement of the chiton as it is pleated at the neck and
of the himation as it covers the body and hangs from the arm,
is
48
46
gratifyingly similar to that of the Kore Albani.
Neither the Nike
temple sculptures nor those of the Erectheion have influenced the
drapery and,
there, the original should he dated around 430.
The formula of representing the chiton folds as strings had
continued its development on the Parthenon, as on the figure from
47
the East frieze
(which is iconographically related to the Kore
\
Albani),
as on fragments,
and as on the "Tauschwestern"
of the Eastern and the daughter of Gecrops
ments,
50
4Q
(pi, XIc)
of the Western p e d i ­
and it was still in favor when the frieze of the Hephaisteion
(PI. XIa) was carved in the twenties. Pew of the preserved
from the frieze of the Erechtheion
52
figures
wear the Athenian "stringy"
chiton; but maidens from the temple of the Athenians at Delos
so dressed
and,
though badly weathered,
53
are
are obviously carved in
the old traditional Attic style. Likewise the two female figures on
54
the Nike temple frieze, which are clad in a chiton, prove that the
"stringy"
style was still in use.
There is a beautiful Greek original dating from the twenties :
55
with the S9me Attic "stringy" chi ton--an Aphrodite now in Berlin
(PI. Xlb). An Aphrodite with her foot upon a tortoise is assigned
to Pheidias himself by Pausanias who saw such a figure at Elis,
56
and the relation of the Berlin goddess in type and date to the Parth­
enon sculptures has never been questioned. Yet whether she originally
had her foot upon a tortoise
(for the animal is entirely reconstruct­
ed),
especially since there are other types with the tortoise pre57
served,
is questionable. Furthermore, if it actually were the
Aphrodite seen by Pausanias at Elis,
it might have been only by a
Parthenon sculptor 'who accompanied the master in his exile, or it
49
might have merely reminded the traveler of Pheidian statues he had
seen in Athens. On the other hand,
the severe weathering of the
surface suggests that the figure was exposed,
and therefore it may
have originally "belonged to an architectural group.
In quite a different respect the Aphrodite in Berlin is helpful--in the
relation of its pose to that of the Aphrodite of Gortyn.
When seen frontally,
the axis of the Berlin figure is indeed vertical,
hut her left shoulder is strangely thrust out and her left thigh is
unnaturalistically drawn in;
thus in a back view taken from a slight
angle, her right hip appears to have the same troublesome curve as
that of the Aphrodite of Gortyn. Yet for both, because of the fifth
century form of the drapery and the vertical axis,
there can be no
doubt that they date from the classical period. The Berlin Aphrodite
proves again that a judgement of poses and their development is
quite impossible from photographs,
for they are often distortions
of the statueJTortunately the correct angle
Aphrodite can be ascertained.
of
of vision for the Berlin
Her left thigh is drawn in, a position
which when viewed from below and from the right would seem normal,
and which would provide the naturalistic sculptural contours. Prom
this vantage point
there v/ould be no un-classical twist of the
body. The prop upon which her left arm rested would have been almost
hidden behind her left thigh,
exactly in the same half concealed
position of the Baphnae relief copying the Aphrodite of Gortyn.
Unfortunately most of the photographs of the Aphrodite of Gortyn are
taken, not from full front views, but from the spectator's right
(except for the Smyrna torso whose upright axis has already been re­
marked). But if they were taken from the spectator's left,
the prop
50
would have been almost hidden,
though the drapery between it and
the body would have been emphacized, her otherwise raised right
shoulder would have been lowered,
and her relaxed hip would have
seemed less curved. Thus the fifth century date of the Gortyn
Aphrodite need no longer be doubted.
Attic sculpture reached its great climax in the Hike parapet,
built to celebrate a victory which was about to be lost. Two of the
sculptors (it has already been observed),
foreigners to Athens but
empire subjects whose home countries had
helped to win the war for
which the monument was a trophy, had contributed their share to the
glory of the common victory. But Athens ?/as the leader politically,
and artistically her own sculptors must have carved the major part
58
of the frieze. Master D
drapery into ribbons,
(pi.
flic & d) flattened his "strings'* of
in an anti-traditional manner. The great master
59
E
(PI# XII a & b) in the chiton of his Athena employed the old
Attic "stringiness";
but he was more interested in displaying the
female nude and therefore abandoned most of the "strings" of the
drapery, allowing only the few which did not cover the body to re­
main.The same "stringy"
chiton style is repeated on a series of
60
figures often grouped together with the ^era Barberini and the
61
Venus Genetrix.
Related to the works of Master E on the Nike Parapet,
especially
62
to his Hike tying her sandal, is the Roman statue of an old woman
(PI. XIII)
in the Hew York Metropolitan Museum. Beneath the careless
handling of the folds -are discernable the drapery formulae of the
late fifth century in startling contrast to the non-classical head.
But in the British Museum
63
there is another head of an old woman,
51
reflecting the style of the same date as the torso of the Hew York
figure,
and the two together are adequate proof for originals con­
temporary to the hike parapet.
a further interest,
The old woman with the basket has
for the figure is carved from the block in the
same way (with extreme flatness and forward projection of the upper
torso)
as the pedimental figures of the Hiobids.
The hiobids in Copenhagen and in the Terme belong to a group of
statues which as a whole possess a drapery technique utterly unlike
the Athenian.
Instead of drapery "strings"
there are sharply chiseled
drapery planes. This is the style employed by master A of the hike
64
Parapet
(PI. Xiv a & b), but it had already had a past history m
Athens. The influence of this "chiseled"
style grew from the time
65
that it was introduced into the metopes of the Parthenon
until it
bo
became predominant on the frieze
acteristic of the pediments.
65
and finally it was almost char- , .
The
transition to the time of the hike
parapet is represented by figures from the Erechtheion.
This "chamfered"
°
style is best represented by the Hera Barberini,
69
for though the copy in the Terme
(pi. xVa ) has additional baroque
features of the late second century B.C.,
Vatican
70
from which the Copenhagen version
that of the copy in the
71
is restored (pi. X V b ) ,
has the recognizable forms of the latest fifth century. The garment
slips from the shoulder and the breasts are full, but most decisive
for the post-Parthenon date is the female torso beneath the chiton.
There are three double curves,
at the waist,
the first at the breasts,
and the third at the abdomen,
peated on Attic red-figured vases.
72
the second
and this outline is re-
These same proportions occur on
73
the female from a Roman relief in Hew York
(pi. XVIc)
together with
52
the "chamfered" chiton, and also alike are the himation folds
around the hips.
But the New York relief is a Roman version of the most famous- >
of all reliefs--that of Demeter, Kore, and Triptolemos, from Eleusis
74
now in Athens
(11, XVII). It has usually been dated to the middle
of the fifth century because on the peplos figure the drapery is
stiff and the hair does not fall naturalistically around the face,
But it was obvious to the inquisitive in Athens, where the Eleusis
relief in the National Museum is not far from the Parthenon sculpt­
ures in the Acropolis Museum, that the superficial style of the two
monuments had nothing in common. The proportions, the profiles, the
disappearing relief lines, as well as the sophistications of the
foreshortened poses and of the combined transitional and classical
styles of the Eleusis relief had no counterpart in the finest of
all fifth century sculptured reliefs--the Parthenon metopes and
friezes. The fragmentary remains of the second New York version
(PI. VIII), which fit so well into the great Eleusis relief that
they can be inserted into a cast, are exactly related in the one
variation upon the great relief in Athens (the "clipped" chiton
75
edges) to a grave relief in New York'^pi. XVIII) with the same
"chamfered" style. An Augustan date has been suggested for the
fragments in New York; perhaps the Athenian relief is of the same
date.
The peplos figure on the obviously Roman version in New York
(PI. XVIc) is not too stiff for a post-Parthenon date, and there is
76/
a head of Demeter also in Hew York (PI. XVIb) which is so similar
in form and hairdress to that from the Eleusis relief (pi. XVIa)
that it should actually copy the original statue. Pausanias
77
in
his
53
description of Eleusis mentions (in addition to the numerous tombs
along the road) only one group of sculptures--Demeter and her
daughter, Athena and Apollo in the sanctuary of the Mother. It is
entirely possible (with the omission of the Triptolemos on the Athens
relief) that the Roman relief in New York,plus the Demeter head also
in New York, copy half of this cult group. In 429 the Eleusinian
was not yet finished, for when Pericles died in that year, Ictinus
the Athenian was replaced by Goroebus,Metagenes, and Xenocles, other­
wise unknown.
The New York Demeter head is intimately related to that of the
. 78
Terme Niobid (pi. XIX), and if the New York Roman version of the
E l e u s i s relief be ac ce pt ed
instead of the At he n i a n example,
there
is
an obvious relationship in the poses of the figures. It was in this
post-Parthenon period that artists first attempted to foreshorten
their figures by projecting limbs into space, and therefore when
the shoulders
are'fro nt al
on the Kore and Niobid,
the arms and legs
are thrust forward or backward. In drapery details, the himation is ■*
deeply gouged, the edges are overlapped, and the surfaces are "chipped
on both statues. The drapery on the shoulders of the Demeter (which
is p r e s e r v e d only on the At he n i a n version)
has the
"bunched" folds. The running Niobid in Copenhagen
79
same f or mu la of
(pl.XX) shows
fundamentally the same development of the pose and the same styli­
zation of the drapery as the Terme Niobid, but the surfaces are
entirely different, perhaps cleaning has reduced the crispness of
the drapery edges,for below the breasts and between the legs (that
is, in the hollows which could not be easily reached) they appear
more classical in execution. The third Niobid,the reclining youth in
54
Copenhagen
SO
(pi. XXI) has drapery of the Athenian Erechtheion phase,
but he need not necessarily be dated so early, for even in Athens
the style lasted as late as a relief in the Louvre dated 409/8.
He is related to the youth on a relief from Aegina
(pi. XXII)(in­
correctly labeled from Salamis) not only in head and body but also ■
in drapery. The head of the "Salamis" youth has already been correct
83,
ly compared to that of the Terme Niobid (although their combination
with sculptures discovered in Paros is not convincing). The drapery,
however, has been compared to the Parthenon sculptures. As a matter
84
of fact, only one figure has comparable drapery forms, though they
are still undeveloped, and certainly are not characteristic of the
Parthenon. Consequently the style of this group is not necessarily
Attic, but where it is to be localized is not yet definite,
Thus there were two methods of carving the chiton in Athens,
both "stringy" and "chamfered". The "stringy" chiton was traced
back to the end of the archaic period in Athens, and therefore
could be labeled as typical. The "chamfered" chiton did not appear
until after the middle of the century on the Parthenon metopes, and
was intimately related to the "bunched" himation with sharp edges
and deep gouges. 7/hether it was a foreign technique introduced into
the capital of the empire, is not yet certain; but the statues of
which it is most characteristic do not seem to be unquestionably
Athenian, although on them the influence of the Parthenon sculptures
is strong.
55
1- ffouilles de Delph.es,v,"Sculpture",pls.xxxvii-xlv
2- idem.,Theseus with Athena,pi.xxxviiijTheseus with Minotaur,pi.
xxx ix
3- idem..pl.xlvi,no.5
4- Payne, Archaic Marble Sculpture from the Acropolis,no.682,pi.
40; no.670,pl.65;nos.628 &638,pl.96
5- idem., no.671,pi.42; no.1360,pi.45; nos . 6 6 6 & 675,pl.49;no.681,
pls.5lf; no.602,pi.60; no.625,pi.116; no.620,pi.117; no.627,pi.
121;
6-
no.581,pi.126
idem., no.619,pi.20; no.677,pi.19, which differs from its Samian
cousins (Buschor, Altsamische Standhilder ii) for only it (pis.
80ff) and the Olympian bronze (pls.llSf) apparently do not have
the circular openings between the buttons, although many of the
Acropolis maidens show the Ionic formula
7- Pfuhl, M.u.Z.. no.392,pis. 125f
8-
idem.,nos. 368f,pls,108f; no.364,pi.105;
9- idem.. no.379,pls.115f; no .380,pi .117
10- idem.,no. 423,pls.l42f
11-
idem., nos.435 & 448,pis. 149-155
12- Beazley, her Pan-Maler, pls.31f; 29,11; 26,1; 9;5,2
13- B r .Br. 502; EhA. 1508
14- Beazley,op.cit.. pi.5,1
15- idem.,pis. 12,1; 14,1} 19,2
16- idem.,pi . 1
17- T.B.L.Webster, Per ITiobidenmaler, pis.2-5 copies Athenian
statuary and not Polygnotan paintings, for the figures have a
sculptural outline.
56
18- The Amazonomachies by the Niobid. Painter are completely pictor­
ial: Webster, op,cit., pis, 1,6,13,16,23
19- J.O.A.I. xiv, 1911, p.46,fig.51
20- Buschor, Die Skulpturen des Zeustempels zu Olympia, text,p.28,
fig.27;- Alinari 24804; Ann. iv-v,pl.iii
21- Mon.Piot. ii,1895,pi.v
22- Smith, British Museum. Sculptures of the Parthenon,p1.26,fragment no.233
23- E.A. 4416; h. 1.58m.
24- Br.Br. 255; Schrader, Pheidias. pp.50ff,figs.21f; p.77,fig.62;
p.79,fig.65
25- Canitol, Salone 17; E.A. 449-51; restorations: both lower arms
with parts of sleeves, much of drapery, particularly in back;
quality: true (Arndt)
26- Gaukler, Musee Oherchel,pp.144f,pl.xvi,fig.l;h.l.7Qm.
27- a) Venice, Furtw&ngler, A b h . d . b d v . Akad. xxi,i,p.285; b) Crete,
from Aptera, Reinach,ii,pl.660,no.1; Gaz.Arch. 1876,pi.12;
c) f m m Epidauros, Reinach,ii,pi.672,no.8; d) Seville, Mus.
Espanol,ix,pl.to p.137; e) Vatican, Reinach,ii,pi.662,no,9;
f) Torlonia 495, Reinach, ii,pi.658,no.10
28- as early as Pfuhl, M.u.2 . pi.224,fig.571; later, Richter, Redfigured Vases, pi.146
29- a) Villa Albani E.A.5523; b)Doria Pamfili,E.A.2359
30- from Sparta, A.M. xii,1387,pl.xii
31- Svoronos.op.cit., pl.xxiv
32- Schrader, op.cit., pp.56ff,figs.31-4
33- E.A. 1115f
57
34- Giardino della Pigna,no.236; Amelung Vatikan Kat.i,pl.120,text,
p.909; h. (in back) l.lom.; marble: labeled Italian,similar to
the Apollo Belvedere
35- A.J.A. xlii,1938,p.11,fig.12 (reversed)
36-a) in Bonn, Schrader, op.cit., p.210,fig.191; Br.Br'-.. 673r.text,
fig.3; J.d.I. xii,1926,p.191,fig.1; Beil,5,no.2;p.196,fig.2; A .A.
1919,p.128,fig.1; b) in Berlin, J.d.I. xii,1926,Beil.5,no.1,pi.5
37- B r.Br. 673r.text,fig.4; Schrader,op.cit.,p.208,fig.189; Eph.,1910,
p . 52,no.13; Svoronos, o p . cit., p i . clxv,no.l601
38- Br.Br.266; cf. Attic relief, Svoronos,op.cit., pi.ccxxiv,no.2787
39-Schrader, op.cit., p.209,fig.190; B.C.H.,1881,pI.13,pp.279ff
40- in Gandia, Schrader, op.cit., p.268,fig.45;p.270,fig.247; Mon.
Ant, xviii,1907,pp.265f, figs. 38f
41- from Villa d ’Este,inv.l572,no.32, Del Re.Antichita Tiburtine,p.
30; H.Stuart Jones, The Sculptures of the Museo Capitolino,
Galleria, no.52,pi.21; h. 1.38m. (with incorrectly restored
head); marble: Luna; restorations: neck with r. shoulder, toes of
r. foot, various folds- of drapery, r.arm from middle of upper
arm,
1
. forearm, plinth, l.foot with lower half of shin and
drapery folds over it
42- Louvre Er8hner,no.379; Schrader, op.cit.,p.206,fig.185; Br.Br.
text to 673,fig.5; restorations: neck, 1. arm, r. lower arm,
part of pillar
43- Louvre Erflhner, no.380; Schrader, op.cit., p.206,fig.186;
restorations: both lower arms, details on garment; state:
antique head supposed to belong
44- Naples, Br.Br. 673r; Schrader, op.cit.,p.207,fig.187; restor-
58
ations: lower arm; state: head not broken off and plinth
antique
45- B r.Br. text to 673,figs.If; B.A. 512f; restorations: point of
nose
46- The later (Ionic?) version in Berlin (Br.Br.6731; Blttmel, op.cit
K.6,pi.80) should be compared to the Bike from Xanthos,see
Appendix
47- Smith, optcit., pi.35,fig.33; Collignon, Le Parthenon,ii,pi.
127,fig.33
48- Smith,
op.cit..pi.14c,fragment 107
49- Smith,
op.cit.,pi.5; Collignon, op.cit., i,pl.51
50- Smith,
op.cit.,pi. 8 ; Collignon, op.cit.,pl.56
51- Br .Br.
406f
52- A.D. ii,31ff; Br.Br.51ff
53- Delos. Fascicule xii. Courbey,"Les Temples d ’Apollon",pp.237241,figs.270-8;pl.xxvii; B.C.H. iii,1879,pp.515-26;pls. x-xii;
Deubner, R^M. Iii,1937,pp.245f
54- Blttmel, Pep Bries des Tempels der Athena Bike, fig.21,pl.vii;
figs.
1
55- Berlin K
Sc
6
3
,pl.viii
; Blttmel, Kat.,pls. 6 f; h. 1.58m. (to shoulder);
marble: Pentelic; origin: apparently in the seventeenth century
at the time of the Morosini brought from Attica to Venice;
damage: weathering on f^ont (not reworked); folds hanging from
left arm (cut away); restorations: two edges of folds in himation over thighs, l.foot with tortoise shell, l.knee
56- v,25,l
57- bronze statuette in Br. Mus. J.O.A.1. xiv,1911,p«117,fig.117;
59
cf. also J.O.A.I. xxi-ii,1922-4,p.222
58- Carpenter, op 8 c-it., pp.47-55
59- idem., pp.57-65
60- a) in Vienna, Br.Br. 507; origin: from Ephesos; b) in Naples,
inv. 6027; c) in Florence, Giardino Boboli, E . A . 280; cf. Vati­
can, Braccio nuovo, Amelung, Kat.,i,pl. 18; the fourth centurytype, Vatican, Museo Chiaramonti,no. 6 2 ,Amelung, Kat. i,pl.37;
pp.251^; Roman reliefs, Vatican, Museo Chiaramonti,no . 5, Amelung
Kat. i,pl.31,pp.313f
61- for good photographs , Schrader, op.cit.,p.352,fig.517;p.544,fig.
311;p.318,fig.287jp.316,fig.285
62- Richter, C-.S. & S. ,pi. 412. fig. 219; B.M.M.A. , 1909,pp.201, 204-6
63- inv. 2001, Smith, Catalogue of Sculpture in the department of
Greek and Roman Antiquities, iii,p.188,pi.xix; Delbrueck, Antike
Portraets,pl.21; h. lo in.; marble: Greek; origin: bought in
Rome in 1887
64- Carpenter, op.cit., pp.10-21
65- Smith,
66-
o p .cit..
pi.28,fgarments 353,355,360
idem., pi. 47,figs.56f; Collignon, op.cit., ii,pl.114,figs.56f;
(north); Smith, op.cit..pi.63.fig.8; Collignon, op.cit., i,pl.50;
(west)
67- Smith, fi.Pa.cit., pi.14c,fragments 108,133; idem.,pi.4; Collignon,
op.cit., i, pi.50
68-
e.g. A .D. ii,pl.33, fig.16
69- Faribeni , L e Terme di Diocleziano e il Museo I-Tazionale Romano,
no. 458,p.173; IRS. , 1878,p.93; IRS.,1879,p.3 ,pl.i; origin:
from the Palatine
60
70- Vatican, Sala Rotonda,no.546; Lippold,_Kat.iii,pls.37ff; h,
2. 835m. 1. of head o.39m.; marhle: (body) "feinkdrnig mit
Lftngstreifen", (head) "weiss,grosskdrnig"; restorations: r. arm,
1
. arm, fragments in chiton on r. shoulder,bits of folds in
chiton, edges of three cornered point in mantle,
1
. foot, back
of r. foot with drapery. Vatican, Braccio Nuovo, Amelung, Kat.
i, pl,13,pp.98f; h. 2.2om.; marble: golden,fine-grained; res­
torations: head and neck, nude part of bust, shoulders and r.
arm,
1
.lower arm with hand, large toes of r. foot, upper edge of
chiton
71- Arndt, o n ^ i t . , pls.56ff, pp.QOff; h. 2.13m. (without plinth);
restorations:
two feet with adjacent chiton, front surfaces of
statue from middle of body (plaster), himation folds over
stomach (plaster), folds under
r. breast (plaster),
1
1.
1
. arm (plaster), garment above
breast (marble different from antique,)
. arm and garment nearby, r. arm and part of drapery nearby,
1.
part of nose, upper lip;
thigh, part of
1
state: ancient surface, r. knee, r.
. breast, nude parts of chest; cleaning: almost
none on head; origin: discovered with Anacreon in April, 1835,
in excavations by Francesco Gapranesi in Roman villa at foot of
Monte
Calvo, between Rieti and Aquila; date: Augustan (Arndt).
There are other copies: a) Gapitoline, Salone, no.11; H. Stuart
Jones, op.cit., pi.6 8 ; b) in crypt of Sta. Croce in Gerusalemme
at Rome;
c) statuette in Orto botanico at Rome. Cf. E. A. 1186
in art dealer’s at Rome.
72- early form: e.g. Ifuhl, M .u.Z., pi.215, fig.549; late form: e.g.
Richter, op.cit., pi.140,fig.138; fourth century form: pfuhl,
61
op.cit,, pi.255,fig . 6 2 6
73- Richter, G.S.,_& S., pi. 514, fig. 510; B .M.M.A. xxi ,1926, ii ,p. 8 ,
fig.
2
Br.Br.7; Svoronos, op.cit.. pis. xxivf,no.126; Mon. Ant. vi,pl.45
75- Richter, G .S.& S .. pi. 435,fig.294; Diepolder, Die attische
Grahreliefs.p.14. pi . 6
76- photograph from Metropolitan Museum, ilew York
77- i, xxxvii ,6
78- Br.Br. 706-9; h. 1.49m.; marble: labeled Parian
79- Arndt, op.cit., pls.38ff; Br.Br. 7l2ff. s chrader, op.cit.,pp.324ff|
80- Arndt>pp.cit., pls.51f; Br.Br. 710ff
81- Stlsserott, Griechische Plastik des 4 Jh.v.Ghr . ,p 1. i ,1
82-
513; Conze, Die attischen Grahrelief s. pi. cciv; .Velter,
A.A.. 1938,pp.533f; the earliest sources give Aegina as the find
spot. An early date is proposed hy Mdbius, D ie Ornamente der
griechischen Grahstelen.pl.5.pp.7f and Diepolder.op.cit.,p.14,
pi . 6 (430-20). A late date is suggested hy Gurtius, B erliner
Philol. Wochenschrift xl, 1920,1160, and Kjellherg,
pp.74, 143 (c. 400).
83- Krai.ker, R.M. Ii, 1936, pis. 13-6
84- Smith,
op
. cit.. pi.41, fig. 10, north'frieze
op
. cit. .
C H A P T E P ,
p L ft r E
\ V
r
A T H E N I r t W
EA
A
O R
' O
A
E H
S C U I P T O I ^ E
E
M
A\
R
PLATE
yj "
VJV?
A T T IC
ATHENIAN
RF
HE
F
S CUL PT URE
FROH
ELEU5/S
CHAPTE R
pla te
LX-
m
a t h e n
c u p
!N(
^
n
s c u l p t u r e
l o u v r e
c h a p t e r
O2
PLATE
E7
A t h e n ia n
s c u l p t u r e
P A R T H E N O N
METOPE
CHAPTER
OZ
ATH EMI A N
SCULPTURE
13
PLATE
A
V
KORA
COPENHAGEN
G CAPIT OLIME
ALOANI
COPY
C OP Y
CHAPTEP.
PLATE
W
SZ3
ftTHENIAM
KORA
SCULPTURE
ALQAM\
CHAPTER
iV
ATHENIAN
SCULPTURE
'-i, '
6
is
vn
A- R E D
KORA
FIGURED
ALQAM |
VASE
O- A L D A M 1 RE L I E F
C DORIAPANFILI
O 5 PA R T f t M
RELIEF
TT P E
C H A P T E R
PLATE
v \7
A T I j E l \ l I/ARI
SCULPTURE
VTQ
M EAI
YO R K
COPY
PLATE
rg
KORA
ALDAMI
PLATE
X
& ORT YM A P H R O O i r E
TYPE
LOuvRE
COPY
C-
P A R T H
E N O W
P C o v M fiN T S
C H f t P T t R
P
L A r
t
*
'
\ J
A T H E N I A N
H T H t
A
N a
m i k e
i3 M A S TC A E
c_ - o
i
i a s r e a.
d
S C U L P T U R E
P A R A P ET
f HA PTE rx
vv
AT VIE N(A M
SCULPTURE
fraSfw
plat
e
y\ \v
OLO
V O M ^ N
N £ U Y O R K
c h a
p
r t
r>>
\ v
ATH
C A\l I A\ M
tAASTb' R
A\
C h A PT E a
\V
H E N I
N/
w Eo a
5 A r r:
(HE c O P V
S C U LP T U r^e
CHAPTER.
PV-ATE
5CVT A- M E A D
157
OF
A T H E M
VAN
SCU LPTU R E
O E N E T E R
FR.OIA E L E U S I S
H E A D
>M N E W
YORI*'
RELVEF
O - Q E M E T E R .
c- R. O r-1 A AI
C O PX
OF
E LE U
VS
R E l_ \ E F
IM
MEW
M'ORK
c H A P T £ R.
\_V
A TH
E N
IA M
SCULPTURE
r |j
nt
p
'Tw
/ \ Y H E N (A ^
Sc^^-PTur\ t
GnAsve ReLier
i™
w
Yon, jc
C H A, PT £ R
l v
plate
A T H E N IA N
srp>r
r E R M E
SC U L P T O R E
NtOQI
D
tHAPTER
A T H F W I A vW SC UCPT OR e
N
i o q i q
t(v c o p f ^ H ^ 5 e N
AT H £ N ! A M
P l AT £
XX \
N IO tilD
1N
SCULPTURE
COPf N M A S t N
C H A P TE R
W
ATH EN
SALAhl5"
LAM
RELIEF
FROrA
A EG I M A
62
CHAPTER V
WESTERN GREEK SCULPTURE
1
The history of western sculpture
begins with the East, for
Sicily and south Italy, as well as the rest of the Mediterranean
world, were under strong Ionic influence at the end of the sixth
century. After such statues as the seated goddess from Tarentum
2
in Berlin (PI, I) had been made, they furnished the prototypes for
later sculpture, for the West was always conservative and, instead
of reacting against the East, clung tenaciously to types which had
already been superseded elsewhere.
Thus on the Leucothea relief in the Villa A l b a n i a n .
II) the
great goddess is depicted in a manner not unlike the Berlin goddess,
and particularly similar are the draped forms of the folded edges.
But the more obvious comparison in compostion and style is to such
a predecessor as the relief friezes as the Harpy monument from
Xanthos^(Pl. III). Not only are three females grouped in the same
way before the goddess, wearing the same garments with a long over­
hang; not only are the children conceived as the same beings with a
similar gesture of the outstretched arm, but the hairdress and the
pose and the proportions of the deities on both reliefs are intimately
related. One might almost suppose that some Easterner had set up a
cult image which this Albani relief later copied, except for the fact
5
that a late archaic head on a Syracusan coin is of the same type,
and another head of a different form on a contemporary coin (after
480) from the s'-me place
shows a related style. Two early metopes
from Selinus represent the goddess in a compa.rable garment fighting
warriors. Erom the Harpy monument had come the treatment of the
63
chiton sleeve, baggy below the arm and drawn from the back, with
its surface covered with parallel shallow lines. Also from the
eastern chiton had come the drapery formula of a raised ridge in­
cised down its length in the center, but in the West this was
flattened into a typical pattern of double stripes.
This was the pattern employed so successfully on the relief of
the maiden with a dove, the Esquiline relief in the Conservatori
Q
museum (pi, IV). Comparable in date from Attica is the running
maiden from Eleusis, and also related is the dedicatory relief to
9
the great goddess there; comparable in locale is the female statuette
10
in the Louvre whose fine drapery recalls that of the Hera on a
11
metope from Selinus (PI. Va). Her profile is like that of a head on
12
13
another Syracusan coin, and like that of the Vatican Athena,
for all have the same sharp jaw. The edgings both of the mantle,
which are circular (compare those of the males on the relief from
Xanthos) and of the chiton, which are banded (same comparison) had
come from the East as well as the linear treatment of the thin gar­
ment. The chiton is still almost archaic in this form on the Locrian
terracotta
14
(PI. Vb) though the chin is fully rounded as in the
seventies.
Exactly the same fully rounded chin is characteristic of another
Locrian terracotta
15
(PI. Via) though the jaw has begun to sag; and
that on the Selinus metope of Heracles and the Amazon
16
(PI. VIb)
is combined with a drooping lower lip as profiles were drawn by the
Pan Painter around 470.
At the same time that the profile line was drawn from the
forehead around the face to the ear, two coins of the river gods at
64
„ ,.
oelmus
were struck,
17
and their thin and elongated proportions
correspond with those of peplos clad maidens on Locrian terracottas.
18
Chiton clad females of a slightly later date--for the figures are
19
tall and thin, though their jaws are no longer sagging (pi. VII),-show that earlier types have remained unchanged although their char­
acteristic linear drapery has become thicker. Sleeves are still worn
long and retain the earlier bagginess below the arm, but their lines
have swollen. This same thickness of the parallel ridges is the styl­
ization employed for the chiton on the second relief of the Mother
Goddess in the Villa Albani
20
(PI. VIII}, If the restorations by Pir­
anesi are removed (and the line of the break is quite obvious) the
left half of the relief becomes purely classical. The purpose of
these reliefs, here in the Villa Albani, of different dates but of
the same type, (and probably originally discovered together and sold
together to one collector) which represent the goddess in whose
sanctuary they were erected
and are of the same kind as those at
Eleusis, must be considered as dedicatory rather than architectural.
When the chiton lines became finer they began to wave, as on
21
another Selinus metope; and later in the fifties they lose their
strict parallelism and become irregular, a stage again represented
by a Locrian terracotta
22
(PI, IXa). As the process continued further,
23
the Selinus metope of Athena (pi. IXb) and a giant was carved. The
iconography and the ornamentation of the figure follow an Attic Athena
of almost a decade earlier, but the chiton belongs to the later Locri­
an period. Athenian influence had begun when the Herakles of another
metope had been copied from the Tyrannicides; now it was becoming
stronger and bolder.
65
Af t er
the m i d d l e
of the
century u nd er more
obvious A t h e n i a n
influence, the linearism of the chiton became more intricate, as it
34
is stylized on the relief of a maiden in the Conservatori museum
!
(11. X) where the skirt around the legs is actually crinkly. The
Athenian empire was consolidated and the capital was beginning to
look toward the West,
L a t er
these
chiton lines
spread themselves,
tho ug h the sleeves
were still cut to fit at the elbow, which pattern occurs on a con25
temporary Locris.n terracotta(ll. XIa). Exactly the same stage of
development
now in Berlin
is shown on an interesting half-lifesize seated female
26
(pis. Xib,XII,XIII}. It is a Greek original of good
workmanship, which was found at Montecompatri, near Tusculum, above
the modern Frascati. Here were the luxurious villas of wealthy and
successful Romans; here lived Cicero who thundered in his orations
against generals who sacked towns and carried off art objects from
the south to the north. We can well imagine that one of his neighbors
was guilty ,too, for undoubtedly the Montecompatri female is a south
Italian or a Sicilian statue. The treatment of the chiton is typical,
but that of the himation is new. It is arranged with Athenian "pan­
caked" folds over the hips and around the chair. Athens was. at this
time making treaties with the West and looking longingly at her
maritime wealth.
Not yet had the Erechtheion and the Nike parapet frieze been
carved, not until the period of another Locrian terracotta
27
(PI. XIV),
where the sleeves are at last short and the chiton lines are free.
Contemporary with the sculptures of the Athenian temple at Delos,
and almost indistinguishable in style, is the draped goddess in the
66
„
. 28
G-erace Ma rina museum from i o c n .
But ^hen Athens overreached her
ability and lost even her own allies by her defeat at Syracuse,
and
Athenian influences departed from the western world.
There is a peplos st y l e ,exemplified in the Selinus metope pf
Actaeon and the dogs
29
(PI. XV), where the figures seem so insigni-
cant that one would like to date them late.
The anatomy of the youth
has swelling muscles comparable to those of the Hephaisteion frieze,
and the few scratched lines in the garment of the Artemis which are
returning to the old Ionic stylization (cf.
the Ephesos fragment,
PI. XVIa) recall the fact that the Ionic sculptor of the Nike parapet was also carving thus. Two Locrian terracottas
30
(Pi. XVI b
&,
c)
show the same style, but unfortunately they cannot be accurately
dated,
and probably this peplos style which is not Attic existed
for several decades in the ¥est.
Not only is the style of the reproduction ultra-conservative
in
• stern art, but also
archaic fashions,
the garments worn by the maidens follow the
and the form of the hairdress which continues into
the classical pe riod is little
changed from that of the Harpy tomb
females and the Berlin goddess.
The hair is parted in
the center
and strands hang loosely by the cheeks and are gathered up over the
bare ears. Fifth century faces 'with this style of hairdress should
therefore belong to the West,
and&leads comparable to those of the
31
Selinus metopes
nizable.
and of the Locrian terracottas should be recog­
'there is a not quite archaic head in the Borghese collect­
ion (PI. XVII) with wide
staring eyes and hair drooping over the
32
ears. There is a head in the Villa Albani' with the
and uplifted eyebrows,
same startled
and with strands of hair dangling over the
67
ears. Under Attic influence,
tight hand,
for the mass of hair is fluffed hy the
is another head in Copenhagen.
33
Finally (as on the peplos
maidens ofthe terracottas which were not Atticized)
come straighter but still hang before the ears,
Athena head preserved in two copies,
the strands b e ­
the style of an
one in the Capitoline in R o m e ^
(rl. XVIII), and the other in the Prado at Madrid
35
(pi. XVIII), Just
in this western fashion is the Athena distinguishable from the
Peloponnesian bronzes
36
where the strands are straight and often cover
the ears. Again the peplos with occassional striations for folds are
37
typical for the bronzes,
and it was Peloponnesian influence which
warred with Attic in the W e s t ,eventually to completely supersede it.
68
1- Ashmole, Late A r c h a i c and Early Classical Greek.Sculptures in
Sicily and South It a l y , has the best approach and information.
2- AjjD.
iii,37ff
3- B r . B r .228
4- That the long overhang continued also in the East is proven by
a fourth century relief from Peraea across from Rhodes,now in
Munich (J . d . I . I,1935,p.28,fig.l4)
sarcophagus
(Collignon,
and by the Mourning Women
St. f u n , p . 207,fig.132; Hamdey Bey and
Theodore Reinach, L a iTecropole
royale de S i d o n tpp . 238-71,pis.
iv-xi. Br .Br .146f
5- Ashmole,
6-
op .ci t.,pl.ix,no.35
id em. , pl.x,no.37
7- B r . B r . 289
8- Br.Br.417b
9- A*A*.,1925,p . 315; J.d.I. xli ,1926,p. 139,fig. 1; Kourouniotis,Eleusis,
n o . 35,fig.31,p . 84
10- Langlotz,
op .cit. ,pi.74a
11- B r . B r .290a
12- As hmo le. o p . cit . ,pi.x,no.42
13- idem.,pl.xi,nos.43f
14- Ausonia i i i ,1908,p.147 ,fig.9. Locrian terracottas are usually
dated much earlier,
e.g. Jacobsthal, Lie Melischen R e l i e f s ,
who dates them from the seventh century to 460.
13" B p ll.d*arte iii ,1909,p . 415,fig.8
16- B r . B r .291a
17- A s h m o l e ,op .c it .,pl.iii,no.l6;pl.xvi,no,69
18- id e m . ,pl.xv,no.24
69
19-
Ausonia i i i ,1908,p . 17 6 ,f ig.30; p . 175, fig.29; p,167,fig.23;p.
197,fig.47; p . 194,fig.45; p . 18 6 , fig.39
20« B r . B r .516 a
21- B r . B r .287
22- Ausonia iii,1908, p . 19 3, fig.44
23- B r . B r . 291 B;
onski
cf. the contemporary Athena relief in the Lanckor-
collection,
J . O . A . l . x v i , 1913, p . 7,fig.3 ,p.3,fig.1
24- B r . B r . 417a
25- ^usonia iii, 1908,p. 210,fig.58
26-Bltimel, on. cit. . K7 ,pis.8-11;
Collignon, S t .f u n , pp. 1 3 4 f f ,figs. 73f
also atticized is the bronze figure from Locri, A . A . .1921.p.147.
fig.8
27- Ausonia iii,1908,p. 209,fi g. 57
28- Bo l l . d* arte i i ,7,1927/8,p p . 1 60- 7,figs.2-7
29- B r . B r . 29Oh
30- Au so nia i i i ,1908,p . 191,fig.42; p . 162,fig.22; p . 220,fig.69; p . 219,
fig.68; undoubtedly all of t h e s e peplos maidens are not late, but
just as certainly they are not Atticized.
Perhaps they explain
w hy Athens lost the west, because not all of the cities at all
times were under dominant Athenian influence,
even cultural ly
31- B r . B r . 293a
32- E . A . l l l l f ; Treu,
text to B r . Br.591,figs.3f relates it to western
sculpture; Arndt, La Glytotheque N y- Ca rlsb e r g .p.50,fi g s. 25 f;
restorations:
33- E. A . 4476f;
nose, neck, bust;
state: badly damaged
already compared by Poulsen.op . c i t .,p,107,
to Locrian
sculptures, with a related head in Budapest and another in Naples
34- Capitol,Salone 17 E . A . 450f;
restorations:
point of nose;
state:
70
strongly gone over with rasp; remarks: lolyklei tan according to
Helbig; Arndt disagreed hut knew no striking parallels
35- E . A . 1641f; Treu,text to Br .B r .591,no.10;
chin, helmet plume, neck, hust;
state:
restorations: nose,
cleaned;
remarks: Arndt
compares it to the "Mourning Athena" and relates it to Myron's
Marsyas group
36- Arndt,
* to pls.31f;
Langlotz,
op.cit. pi.8 (Boston);
pi.96d (Boston, labeled Athenian); pi . 34 (New York,labeled
from Kleonai)(Richter,
F e stschrift fttr Ame l un g) ; pi.33c (in Berli
from Lamia? labeled from K l e o n a i ) ;pl.2.5 (Athens, labeled Argive)
pi.15c (in Athens from Attica,
labeled Sikyonian)
37- id em . ,pi.16b (in London from Sounion,labeled Sikyonian)
38- but Corinth has been mistrusted as the site for the bronzes,
by Ifuhl, J. d. I. xli,1926
C H A P T E R
P LA T E
T
</
D E I U ' N
E S TL R M
GOODE.5S
bCOLPTURE
F P .O M
TARtM
fU M
R
p l a t e
W E S T E R N
Li .
v
i l
e
k
S CULPTURE
a l b a m i
r e l i e f
c i- ift P T ir r\
v/
E s r ? n, i \j
S
c u l p t u r e
c H A P r ER
P LA T E
W
TX
E5T£P.M
e 5 O w \ U I N E
SCULPTURE
r^E- U \ E F
C H A P T E
R
-w
e s t c r n
SCOLRT-URE
R u A T E
A-u.OCn.IAV.IXI
Ei
5 E
l i n
u
S
TE
RRAC
METOPE
OT TA
__
V^M
i. O C R \ A N
TERRftCOVT A
l/>Tl
e
P L A, r E
C H A P T E R
W
E ST £ R M
S C U U P \u r^ .t.
A-*
KUU
r.
-i-:"i*.
■i/*
.
*•£
*V
•*i»«j*
*'
%-.*
W^^iPJwJa
ttffcciL
vm
\ \
/\ U G A
^
P £ L \ t F
C HA PT£ n.
p V. A T E
\/
lY
ft.
LOC R I A N
ra-SEEINV)S
TE
r\ £ T O p E
CO
C H A P T E R
<Z W E S T E R N
SCULPrURt
chapter
n
7
wEsrt rm
Sc u
U R E
C M A p r e n .
WE5TEr\Pvi
s c u l p
r o n E
3ti£&
m
o i\i r
E
c
Oh
p a t r
i
c H A P T E n.
CHAPT EO .
V t S f E ( \ M
S t u i p r u
^{TK*r-<1*y^VW'jMV'"''*'•1
'SSBSSRi
plat
£
^ O C f\ 1 A Ni
Tn
^ A C
. O TTA
cH
APTlTP
P U A T £•
vf W E 5 T E A M
x v
s e:
L i n
j
5
S C U L P T O P E
C h A P i" E n.
w
EE>Tt.tXM
scu
u PTO
n. C
C H /> r-»i a R
N/
,v '
c ST
LL
R N
S cu l _ P T O R e
ERW
p l a t e
i _Li
C *
O-
a
* B - C
P AAD O
a
P
i
T O
l i
m e
A T I i E N A
a
.r \ a c
m
A
71
CHAPTER VI
UNLOCALIZED SCULPTURE
There is a peculiar mannerism which came into classical art
at the time of the carving of the Olympia pedimental sculp tu res ,of
1
v/hich it is characteristic.
Whether it actually belonged, to one
locale is, however, doubtful; yet it had a longer life in one pa r t­
icular region. Host interesting is an unpublished half of a grave
relief (pi. Ib) built into a nearby church at Haritsa above the
side door. Obviously it had come from the nearby city of Dion and it
is the earliest example of sculpture from that site. It was seen and
noted by Professor Charles Edson in his survejr of Macedonian inscrip­
tions,
and it was his suggestion that photogrpahs and a further study
of it be made. The drapery style is curiously
folds which twist as though they were snakes.
mo.de of interrelated
This "snaky"
nique has also invaded the treatment of the hair,
exactly
tech­
compar-
2
able to that of another grave relief (pi, ia ) whose locality is
also known, and the two faces are comparable in the features of the
profiles.
Is this style related to the "snaky" drapery of the parth-
4
enon sculptures? Is it to be seen in an earlier example— the relief
4
of Philis from Thasos
(PI. II)? And is there a relationship between
it and the Sounion sculptures? such questions cannot be answered at
the moment.
There are two statues
which fit into none of the previous
chapters, but for different reasons both must be considered. The
6
Ludovisi Hermes
(Pis.
Ill & IV), which Eurtw&ngler attributed to
Telephanes of Phocaea by comparing
the head to that represented on
72
7
a coin from his native city, has,
arm,
indeed,
in the mantle upon his
remnants of the "snaky" treatment just described,
below his hand,
long
and hanging
flutes with sharp edges related to the drapery
of the liuse type attributed to paionios of hende. But except for
these northern suggestions,
localized,
there is nothing which can be definitely
and obviously the head of the Hermes does not belong with
those grouped under the name of Paionios,
8
The second troublesome statue is a maiden from Corinth (Pis. V,
VI,VII)
clad in an Ionic chiton. Again the drapery resembles styles
previously noted,
as the Athenian Artemis in the Vatican, but the
chiton is not rendered in the typically Attic manner,
and the similar­
ities seem to be of date and not of locale. Perhaps because the pose
of the Ludovisi Hermes and the Corinthian maiden is the same (out­
stretched bent arm above bent l e g ) , because the folding of the drapery
edges is related (compare the outer himation on the Hermes to the
front diplax on the m a i d e n ) t because the arrangement of the ridges
and pleats is comparable
(circular under the elbow of the Hermes and
across the body of the maiden),
and because the toes of the feet are
the same (the broad plumpness behind the small toes on the Hermes which
has become as a sixth toe on the maiden)--perhaps because of these
similarities the almost contemporary originals of the two copies should
be attributed to one master -who is not yet localized.
ever, he was under strong Ionic influence,
Certainly, ho w­
as testified by the tight
curls of the Hermes (indeed compa.rable to those represented on phocaea coins)
and by
the triangular-circular arrangement of the chiton
sleeves (like that on the Persepolis statue).
73
1- Buschor-Hamann, Die Skulpturen des Zeusteirrpels zu Olympia,pis,
xv, iv
2- from Liatani in Boeotia, now in Hew York, Diepolder, Attische
Grabreliefs,pi.i
3- e.g. Collignon, op. cit. ,pl. 114,fig. 51,ii ,pls. 56f
4- Br.Br.332a
5- A.A.,1922,pp.260ff,figs.3ff;Eph.,1917,p.198,fig.11
6-
a) Br.Br. 413, Paribeni, Le Terme di Diocleziano e il Museo Nazionale Romano .no. 132. pp. 93ff;b) Palazzo Colonna, E. A. 1127, h.
1.80m. (Bead does not belong); marble; "feinkdrnig gelblicher
(wohl pentelischer)"; heads, a) Terme E.A.270f; b)Elorence,
Uffizi, E.A. 83f; c)Broadlands coll. Furtwdngler, M.W. ,p.87,fig.6
Michaelis.op.cit.. p.219,no.9; d)lateran,Benndorf, Schdne 49;
e) Villa Albani 596, E.A. 1102f; h. of head 0.23m.; h. of face
0.155m.; b. of face 0.14m. The Dresden one, usually called a copy
comes from a different original, see Northern Greek Sculpture
7- Furtw&ngler, M.W.,pp. 8 6 ff; it has also been attributed to
the
Samian Pythagoras, 50 W r .Pr.~p.152; to the circle of Pheidias and
and Myron by Amelung; to the early Pheidian manner still under
strong Myronic influence by Paribeni
8-
a) copy in Corinth, Tucker, A.J.A. vi,1902,pp.431-5,Johnson,
Corinth ix, "Sculpture",pp.14f,no.7; b)Vatican copy, Amelung,Kat.
1,p.825, Giardino della Pigna,no.28,pl.xli, Lippold, K.u.K. ii,
n.37b; origin; found in Coliseum
p l a t e
r
^
fi- R F L \ e F
' r l h
e p
F f\O h
(=Aof-\
gion
i_ I A T A I"-' \
CHAPTER.
[->i.ate
sZI
o m
l o c a l i z e d
iti rieRnes
s c u l p t u r e
luoovi b i
:
C H A P T E R
y_f
U M L O C A L I T E O
S C U L P T U R E
L U
D
O V
I S i
C H A P T E R
y j
P L A T E
O M L O C A L I E L O
V.
C O R '
M T H
l -l A ' O
E ru
C H A
PTER
SZJ
U W LOCAL I Z E O
masetXA'i'&x;'
x/ r
COR\
IVI T H
Cl A t O E
IX/
74
CHAPTER VII
SEMI-IONIC SCULPTURE
The Ionic chiton as represented in Attic, Eastern, Northern,
and
Western Greek art was elaborated "by frills and ruffles
blouse.
of the
Consequently when such delicate complications do not occur
on statues,
they must be localized in a region which had adopted the
form of the Ionic chiton but whi ch had been uninfluenced by the
eastern formulae of representation.
and
The boric islands,
Central Greece,
the Peloponnesos are the only possible districts which could have
produced maidens in simple chitons wh i c h look as though they had been
freshly starched and pressed into pleats.
was
An example of this "stashed linen" stylization in the
chiton
the original copied in a statue at Corinth and at Rome
in the
Conserva.tori M use um (Lis. I to IV).
There are box pleats in the skirt
around the ankles and simple pleats in the blouse even around the
breasts,
for their protrusions do not interrupt the regular p a ra ll el ­
ism of the folds. Neither does the buttoning of the sleeves (which
elsewhere had produced triangles and circles)
affect the pleats which
fall parallel between the arms and the breasts and continue u n i n t e r ­
rupted as they sag over the himation.The parallelism of lines is the
identifying element of this style. The same straight lines create
the compostion of the pose,
at
of which the whole is a rectangle bounded
the top by the broad shoulders in front view, and at the bottom
by the separated feet each equidistant from the front base,
and at
the sides by the stiffened legs and arms. The horizontals are re­
peated in the straight edges of the himation at the ankles and the
75
feet,
and the verticals are reiterated in the upright folds hang-
ing from the "bent arm. Within this rectangle there are long, also
p a r a l l e l ,curves which cover the surface.
1
The "best copy is that excavated at Corinth (11.1), the antique
surface of which is prac tically undamaged,
though the arms and head
are lost. Since none of its details are out of place in the classical
period, all of them must he attributed to the individuality of the
original sculptor and not of the copyist (as Johnson would do), who
can he dated only hy his workmanship which seems to he of the first
century A.I). The
Conservator!
2
copy (pis.
~
II to iV) on the other hand,
is made up of many drapery fragments joined
in restoration, and con­
sequently differs fold for fold from the more trust
statue, for example,
the sagging
.vorthy Corinth
chiton over the himation under the
left arm is completely aibsent, al.ihough
it seems almost impossible
to believe from a photograph that the entire section is not antique.
The copy in Rome, however, although the torso is not of the
quality of that in Greece, preserves the type of the head (pis.IV,
V,VT).
The chin and nose and left cheek are white on the photograph
and thus must be reworked; but whether retouched or not,
the flat
waves at the forehead could not have been characteristic of a Greek
3
original of the fifth century.
The head in Jioston (pi. VII) has the
proper classical mass of hair,
the typical fifth century eyes, and,
since its "loftiness11 belongs rather to the classical than to the
Roman period,
it should be selected in preference to the Conservator!
head for the best reflection of the original.
Prom it one learns
that the waves are peculiarly pyramidal over the forehead,
and that
the broad mouth has the form of a straggling M. The homely head in
76
4
Venice (pis. VIII,IX)
again proves that the hair was originally
thicker than the cap on the Conservatori example,
and further ex­
plains that the break in the lock on the right temple of the Boston
5
head was once a short "spit-curl". Because of the same short locks
and the pyramidal arrangement of the waves around the face, another
6
head,
in Catajo
(PI. X) must also be considered a copy of an original
by the same master.
The Catajo head was for long considered another copy with the
many replicas of the most famous type,
indeed there are close similarities.
the so-called "Aspasia", and
On all there is a thickness of
hair (which reproves the conclusion drawn above that the Boston and
not the Conservatori head was to be trusted)
of the "Aspasia"
and the Berlin example
(PI. XIa) has the same short lock beside the right
s
eye, while the Sphesos copy (pi. Xlb)
shows the same tucking under of
another lock. Only the Berlin example with the flat cap of hair has
eyes similar to those of the Conservatori head,
and both copies,
therefore, because of their Romanized characteristics,
are probably
contemporary in execution. The treatment of the eyes on the Louvre
9
head (PI. XIc)
is closer to that of the Boston head,
reflect the original more accurately.
and should,
thus,
The Ephesos copy proves that
the lips were thinner than these on the already distrusted Berlin
example,
and their straggling HI shape,
Venice replica
10
.
.
(PI. XII), was therefore part of the original and
comparable to that of the Boston head.
of the "Aspasia"
-which is repeated on the poor
The other copies of the head
type11are poorly photographed but seem to add not h­
ing new to the discussion.
Can the drape.ry and the pose of the
"Aspasia" likewise be compared to those of the Conservatori-Corinth
1
77
maiden?
Both feet of the '’Aspasia"
are at the same starting line, and
the relaxed leg is opposite the bent arm and the head is inclined in
this direction,
repeating exa.ctly the pose of the Corinth-Conser-
vatori maiden. Within this outlined compostion of the figure are
secondary verticals and horizontals,
and the inner surface is filled
with repetitious ovals of the drapery and face.
Indeed,
the branching
;
I
i
of the drapery folds, which does not affect the predominantly p ar­
allel circular lines,
is the same schematization as was employed on
the Corinth-Conservatori
statues.
characteristic of the locale,
the ankles,
The starched and pressed pleats,
ere visible in the chiton only around
for elsewhere they are covered by the himation.
This
cloak provides the two features decisive for the common authorship of
both originals,
the oblique edges hanging from the bent arm and the
accompanying flutes.
From the preceeding description it is clear
that the original of the "Aspasia" must be attributed to the same
master whose other maiden
was copied in the Corinth and Conserva­
tori statues. But this description was made by excluding some repli­
cas which did not have the requisite characteristics;consequently
each copy must now be examined by itself.
One of the copies of the "Aspasia"
statue)
exists today as e mass of restored fragments which are with
difficulty separated into
antique and modern,
much of the drapery is the latter.
hymnia,
(like the Conservatori
The figure,
although admittedly
once labeled Toly-
formerly stood in the Court of the Palazzo G i u s t i m a n i ,
but its place of discovery does not seem to be known.
supposed from the poor state of preservation that,
12
It would be
in the restora­
78
tion, many mistakes had been made,
as happened with the Conserva­
tori statue, Lost unusual are the edges of the himation over the
bent arm, which do not have the form of the Corinth statue, and
which,hecause they are separated,
underneath.
allow the chiton to become visible
This disturbing opening of the himation under the left
arm is filled with the Attic crinkly chiton, which also billows
around the ankles on a copy in the Louvre.
13
(pi. XIII), Also,
in the
himation,not only are the angular edges absent,but the accompanying
flutes have disappeared,
to be replaced by
hollows which have
grown from the folds with a slight curve at their base. The statue
would be completely excluded, were it not proved by a replica in
Naples
14
(which should be ancient because it was discovered in the
walls of a private house in the locality of the " Q,uartuccio" at
Castellammare di Stabia)
that the crinkly Attic chiton had already
been introduced into the type in ancient times, let here the "sottile
chiton is rendered more heavily and does not hide the original pleats
nor is there a visible side opening.
The arrangement of the himation
under the arm on the Louvre co p y,h o w e v e r , seems to come from a replica in the Capitoline
restored.
15
(FI, X l V a ) , where this section is obviously
Indeed, line for line the curved ridges over the body are
the same, unlike the pattern on the other copies.
Twelve Capitoline figure is antique,
If this Number
it must have been refinished,
for the two short vertical ridges above the breaks at the legs do
not appear in the other copies,
restoration.
and join directly with those of the
This Capitoline statue, Number Twelve, apparently can
be traced back to the Giustiniani
restored replica of this type,
collection where there was a much
and from this it has been concluded
79
1^
("by Lippold)‘‘"''that in Roman times the figures were paired. But
duplications are known to he characteristic of the Renaissance
attitude toward sculptures. Whether this Capitoline copy, Humber
Twelve, has the same origin as the second replica there, Humber
17
Twenty-two
Amelung)
(pi. XI Vb)
is questionable.
consider these two Capitoline
Some scholars (Jones, fielbig,
statues with the same -museum
history to have been the original pair. Humber Twenty-two was one of
four "donne auguste in figura di Vestale" which until 1818 stood on
a cornice stone above the Marforio,
and for this reason the copy has
been dated to the first century B.C.;
yet it may have been erected
much later than the Augustan period. At least it is obvious that none
of these copies, nor the.
are to be trusted,
one in the Barracco Museum.
18
.
especially since they were never made to wear the
himation as a veil, and the Romans knew that the type had a veiled
head,
as is proved by the grave statue from the Antonine period
in Berlin
(pi. XIVcj.
It is this Berlin copy which has exactly the same
angular edging of the himation,
the same
the same pressed chiton folds, and
the same square pose as the Corinth-Oonservatori
although the workmanship is poor,
statues.
Therefore,
it must be considered as unchanged
in style and a good reflection of the original. The arrangement of
of the curves across the body differs from the replicas previously
discussed,
as does also the deep pouch above the clenched hand under
the himation, which exists in the above copies not in that spot but
has been moved under the arm.
above the hand,
It is this position of the hollow
as on the Berlin copy, which occurs on the three
statuettes discovered in excavations. One,
1
nor in ^antua,
of good quality,
with
80
the preserved head inclined like the Corinth-Conservatori
statues,
21
comes from Hama in Syria
22
in Crete,
Gortyn.
23
(pi. XlVd),
another comes from Lappa
and a third,now in the museum at Candia,
comes from
But there are other statuettes of the type. One is in
24
Venice
(PI. XV)
and its personal history is confused.
It b el on g­
ed to the Grimani antiquities which in 1586 cameinto the po ss es s­
ion of the Republic,
although another statuette of the same type
but with head and profiled base, was still in the Museo Grimani
25
in 1831.
This second pairing is as suspicious as the others, and
indeed, on the Venice example,
the chiton around the ankles is
crinkly while the smooth,hard surface and the remarkable state of
preservation with its prominent drapery ridges
(although its p u b ­
lishers label it as a good work and only a little cleaned)
seem to
date it to the early nineteenth century. There is another statu26
ette in Aquileia,
and a final one in the New York Metropolitan
27
Museum
(PI. XVI) which has the same profiled base as that des­
cribed in the Grimani
collection,
although the head is missing.
This Hew York statuette bears the name E uro pa upon it,
because it is followed by a palm branch,
though
the inscription has been
dated to the early Christian period (by Richter). But of those
who would accept a date contemporary with the carving of the statu­
ette, cne has translated the word Europ a by "dunkle", and since a.
black Lemeter was made by Gnatas,
the original has been assigned
'~*Q
to him and attributed to the Aeginetan school.* To this has been
added the Omphalos Apollo, which has been compared to the A eg in e­
tan Sphinx and to the pedimental sculptures from the Eastern
gable of the Aphaia temple.
29
The relationship of the Omphalos
81
Apo ll o ha d p r e v i o u s l y
called fo rt h a K a l a m i d i a n label,
it has b e e n ob je c t e d that
if the i n sc ri pt io n
a t t r i b u t i o n to K a la mi s mu s t be
30
thou gh
is accepted,
the
fo rsaken and the original mu s t be
31
relat ed
to the
i d e n t i fi ed
cult of E u r o p a in Crete.
as the S o s a n d ra by Kalamis,
l ab el ed Ka la midian,
from
32
Especially
in the
to the
those
consid er ed
"Aspasia",
d i s c l a i m the
w he re as
similarity,
"Penelope" was
of the folds h a n g i n g
conclusive
critics who w o u l d
Corinth-Conservatori
the
and the b o s t o n Throne was
similar ar r an ge me nt
the arm on all these was
bution.
mis
the
When
or iginal
for the attri-
see the hand of K a l a ­
accept
its rel ati on sh ip
those who w o u l d deny the a t t r i b ut io n
furthermore,
hasbeen
co mp ar ed
to that
and the
"Aspasia"
have been g r oup ed
the earnest and m o u r n f u l
of the H e s t i a Giustiniani,
to ge the r wi t h
face
and the ilestia
the P e t e r s b u r g
33
Eros
to form one
The Attic
all
de di c a t i o n of T r i p t o l e m o s w i t h h e x a e ter and Kore.
or A e g i n e t a n origin,
scholars,
"Aspasia"
and there
fro m Kanea,
Hone
me n t
that
two
chiton
statues,
their
angu la r edges,
Since
to
a pepl os m a i d e n
chapter on Attic
so r a d i ca ll y from that here
seems
re se mblance
impossible.
in the
the Bo st o n and Lu do v i si
of the
it is like
and the H e r c u l a n e u m dancers.
But
of
treat­
em­
it is c e rt ai n
starched plea ts of these
circular fillin g of a square,
the p a r a l l e l i s m
that the
because
to Myron),
th ou g h from the above
(v/hich differ s
is a close
3^
to
are 'without their partia l degree
such a l o c a l i z a t i o n now
there
insisted
or Arg iv e
at tr i b u t e d
conclus io ns
ob se rvation,
of the
ployed)
(otherwise
34
a B r i t i s h M u s e u m bronze,
of these
has not seemed obvious
are those who have
is S i c yo n o- Co ri nt hi an ,
the D r e s d e n A t h e n a
acc ur at e
however,
Throne s
and their long
(Pis.
chiton trea tm en t of the
XVIIF).
Homan w i t h
82
O u t s t r e t c h ed Hand on the B o s t o n Throne,
elsewhere,
since
cn the Ol y m p i a p ed ime nt al
it did not
relationship,
is repeated only once
sculptures
seem to occur on the L o cr i a n
either of locale
or influence,
(PI. XVIII),
terracottas,
and
some
seems re asonable at
the moment.
The mag ic name of Kalamis,
Conservatori
statues and the
the Spinario
(as pr es e rv ed
War d head
36
(PI. XVIId)
b e e n objected,
which gr oup ed with the Corinth-
"Aspasia" has in addition
in bronze
a R o m a n adaptation)
(certainly related
however,
so labeled
that the head
and the
to the Thrones).
of the
" A s p a s i a 11 has
It has
too
37
little
right
and too m u c h loftiness for nalamis.
Thus,
foot is on the ground and almost p a r a l l e l
so-called
she has
criterion for di sc ove ri ng Attic
"stateliness
comparable
and opulence
to a figure
distinguishing
the Attic
va gue ly repeats
the
chiton treatment
type)
?i9
40
, and because
and because
she is
(though the female only
and wi t h an over ap pre cia tio n
famous of sculptors,
at tri but ed to Phe idias h i m s e l f ,
ma.ster Hegias.
,38
on the Eleusi s relief which above aided in
"Aspasia"
of the role of the mo s t
to her left (a
statues)
and ease"
because her
One di sse nti ng
or,
the
as second
voice has
statue has been
.
choice,
insisted
to his
that it should
41.
be Polyi-cleitan
(though the draoer y is far removed from the one
p r o b a b l y Po ly k l e i t a n female,
the Sosi.kles A m a z o n ) .
An exact locali zat ion of the mas te r of these two
almost
were
impossible
at the moment.
discove red are not helpful,
two from Crete,
and
two from
The locales where
for one
the Sast
statue
(Sphesos
m a y have been moved there by the R o m a n s . 1he
statues
the Ro ma n
seems
copies
comes from Corinth,
and Hama)
simple
but
they
chiton has a
83
spirit far removed from those attributed above
wi th in the A t h en ia n empire;
b e l o w the arm comparable
lar edges
yet
to Ionic
in the hi ma t i o n there
to those
statues
centers
are flutes
so localized,
and a n g u ­
closely related to the B o s t o n and Ludovisi Thrones,
considered Ionic.
The only aid to the
a relief in Athe ns
42
(pi. XIXa)
where
solution of the puzzle
two figures,
draped in the m a n n e r of the "Aspasia".
us u a l l y
is
one a youth,
are
Th e y are a c c o mp an ie d by a
female w i t h o u t s t r e t c h ed hand who wears a hi m a t i o n fas ten ed upon
one shoulder in the
style of the d i p l a x S h e , again,
the m a n y p r e c e e d i n g d i p l a x figures,
"Aspasia"
her
and she is comparable
and the Go ri nt h- Conservatori
composed figure w h i c h is
is related
to the
statues in her squarely
covered wi t h long curved folds,
chiton w h i c h is as thick as her himation,
the typical angul ar edges.
to
and in
while the latter has
If a group mu s t be made,
the
"Aspasia"
should be joined to the wearer of the diplax.
There
is another
the "Aspasia"
square
curves,
and the Corinth ma id en s
a similar re la ti on of the feet
ment of the
It has a similar
to each other,
of the arms
and a similar tr ea t­
chiton with folds freshly starched and p r es se d parallel.
the
influences
in the drapery,
folds pul le d aside under one bre as t
to the A g o r a k r i t a n Cybele),
and p l ea te d
the P a r t h e n o s by Pheidias,
pasia"
(pi. XX).
and of the head to the figure,
the statue has new and strong Attic
for example,
tc
43
co mpostion the re ct an gu la r form of w h i c h is filled wi t h
to the body,
But
statue in four replicas w h i c h is related to
(comparable
from the knee
(comparable
though it occurs also on the
"As­
and had a long past histo ry in the P e l o p o n n e s e ) . These
innovations
so cover the personal m a n n e r i s m s
from ph o t o g r a p h s
of the artist,
that
it remains doubtful w h et he r this later LJemesis
84
(or Tyche
of the
or Artemis)
"Aspasia"
is act ua ll y Toy the
and the
r e l a t io n s hi p
is close
same locale.
There
are four
ad ap t a t i o n of classical
ance w i t h the
Cor in th -C on se rv at or i
e n o u g h to assure
qu ar i u m Comunale at Rome
same hand as the or ig ina ls
44
statues,
XXa)
ex e mp li fi es
forms in the
c o n te mp ora ry b a roq ue
the
the at tr ibu tio n to the
copies of the type.
(pi.
though
second
taste.
in the Anti-
the H e l l e n i s t i c
century B.C.
But
the h a r d e n e d and R o m a n v e rs io n in T o r l o n i a
That
45
the
in a c c o r d ­
choice b e t w e e n
(PI. X X b ) , the
soft-
46
ened and Gr eek
ri b b o n e d
copy from H i e r a p y t n a in Crete
fragme nt in Co ri nt h
the original,
47
(PI.
XXd)
is im possible w it hou t
Obviously,
however,
first ha nd observation.
the Artem is
is the latest
show, wh en ar ra n g ed
increas e
in the e l a b o r at io n of the drapery.
of the
the p e r i o d whe n
century,
are
in chronol ogi cal
statue;
in the Ba r r a c c o
XXII),
48
(PI.
for b o t h have
of the waves
over
XXI)
sequence,
the
"Aspasia";
there was
in this
steady
just before
w o u l d be dated the
and final ly
two heads w h i c h mu s t be me n t i o n e d
in a group whose
Ear liest,
w o u l d be dated the
the he a d was enlarged,
Conservatori-Corinth
X X c ) , and the
as the best r e f l e c t i o n of
exa m p le s
the m i dd le
(PI.
later,
Corinth-
the Artemis.
connection,
the forehead.
recognizable,
py r a m i d a l
In the Terme hea d the
Th er e
one (antique?)
and a mor e he lp fu l one in the Te rme
the by n o w
at
49
(pi.
a r r an ge me nt
strands
of
h a i r are pu ll e d over the ear exact ly as on a bron ze m i r r o r handle.
Ce rt ai nl y all of these
copies repro duc e in mar bl e bronze
50
originals.
85
1- Johnson,
Co rin th ix,
4-03 f , pl.xv;
n,
" S c u l p t u r e " ,p p . 9 f , n o . 5; A . J . A . v i , 19 02 ,pp.
Carpenter,
Guide,
p . 73, n o . 9; A n t ike v, 1 9 2 9 , fig. 1;
1.92m.
2- Jones, 1'alazzo dei
Conservatori .-n.108.no. 56 .p l . .xxxviiii B o l . C o m ,
x x x i i , 1 9 0 4 ,pp.2 9 9 - 3 1 6 , p l s . v i i i f ; A n t i k e v,15 29, pls .vi i-x ii, pp.
85-97;
the
there
is also
an u n p u b l i s h e d .statuette of this type
c ol le ct i on of Signor bassanti.
3- Caskey,
C a t a l o g u e . p p . 1 2 9 - 1 3 1 , n o .62; Ant ik e v,
A . J . A . xxi,15l7,
4- E,.A, 2485-7;
pis.
xif;
pp,102f;
A n t ike v,
B A B ^ M ^ F j A.
xiv,
19 16 ,pp .28 f
19 29, p . 9 2 , fig .4; Bol.
restorations:
bust,nose;
192 9,p . 9 3, f i g . 6;
antique;
C o m , x x x i i , 1904,
neck, mouth;
"grobkflrniger pa ri sc he r •...armor"; Arndt and L i p p o l d
an A s k l e p i o s
5- There
in the Uffizi
is anoth er
tioned by Anti,
nose;
7- B e r l i n K.166;
compare it to
and to a S p h i n x in Copenhagen.
men­
A n n .S c u o l .I t . A t . iv -v ,1 9 2 1 - 3 , p . 75
wSLngler, A. ¥ . , n.736;
restorations:
marble:
copy w h i c h was di sc o v e r e d on the Palatine,
6- Catajo n o . 509; S . A . 36f;
b.
in
Amelung,
idem.,
state;
Bltimel,
(of gr ea te st part)
J . d . I. xv,
1 9 0 0 , p . 1 8 5 n . ; Furt-
S t a t u e n k o o i e n in A l t e r t u m ,p. 541,n.4;
eyebrows reworked?
on. c i t . ,pls. 5 1 f ; h.
0.207m.;
origin:
(of antique part)
unknown;
0.295m.
restorations:
almost w ho le of nose, m u c h of garme nt aro un d face;
quality:
Blttmel considers best
8- J . 0 . A . I . xxiv,
1929, Bei.
p . 5 0 , f i g . 25
9- Louvre, B n c y c l o p e d i e ,i i i , p l . 160;
date
(Arndt and Lippold):
Anton-
ine
1 0 “ E . A . 2419f;
ing of eyes
restorations:
(for they were
bust,veil,
and h a i r beside
o ri gi na ll y ho ll ow )antique:
it,
fill­
chin,lips,
86
nose;
state:
reworked);
(Lippold,
little
marble:
cleaning
(Arndt considers
"grobkflrniger"; date:
L u J . f p .253,n . 7 to c’
n .vii,
outlined w i t h
it completely
before Ant inous
because
iris of eye is
circle for painting)
11- a) Ermitage,no.1000a; Waldhauer,op.cit . ,i i i ,p.72,no . 331,figs.
82f; h, o.o5m.; marble: Pentelic;
origin:unknown;
date:"Wohl
viertes Jah rh undert"; b) Mustelli,
II Museo Mussolini',inv.
1488,p i , x x i x , n o . 105 ,p . 35;
only upper part of he a d w i t h
covering;
century;
origin:
quality:
antique:
di sc ov er ed on Pal at in e
Greek original
in late ni ne t e e n t h
(M o n . A n t .v,1895),
"geringe
A r b e i t " ( A m e l u n g ) ; c) Gabinetto arc heologico d e l l ’u n i v e r s i t a
in Pavia;
marble:
undocumented;
12- M.D.n o.1 448 ;
Gr eek wi t h large grain;
quality:
good work,
Clarac,pl.
origin:
p ro ve na nc e
perhap s Greek
506a,no.l092C;
B o l l . C o m . x x x i i i ,1905,
p p . 1 3 f , n o .13
13- a ) L o u v r e , n o .2899;
Frtthner,no.384; R e i n a c h , i i , p l . 6 7 2 ,no .2;
C l a r a c , n o . 2003; Louvre, E n c .pl.160a (cast);
1.91m.;
b)Louvre
103 5, n o . 167
head)
i n v . 558;
Erflhner,no.383;
(labeled Thalia);
1.895m.;
restorations:
h.
h.
(as restored)
C l a r a c , p l s . 335 and
(with incorre ct ly res tored
h e a d , 1.hand,mask,
arm bel ow
elbow,r.f oot
14- M a p l e s , i n v . 137885; Elia,
p . 2 8 5 , fi g . 4; h.
B o l l . d 1arte x x v i , 1932,p.286,no.3;
1.58m.; marble:
labeled Parian;
quality:
Greek
w or km ans hip
15- K .3tuart J o n e s , T h e Sculptures of the Mus eo
no,12,pl.4,p.30;
restorations:
h.
Capitolinc , A t r i o ,
(with incorrectly res tored head)
1.95m.;
1. f o rea rm and hand with m a s s of drapery fallin g
from them,l owe r part of torso
from midd le
of s h i n s ,plinth;
87
marble:
labeled Pentelic
16- lippold, K. u . U . . p . 264.n.2 to ch. xv
17- Jones, o p. ci t. , A tr i o , n o .22,pi.4 ,p.32; Helbig,no.418; h.
1.915m.
(with incorrectly restored head);
restorations:
1.
hand, pieces of drapery folds, forepart of r. foot, plinth;
quality: whole surface much weathered and cleaned; marble:
labeled Pentelic
18- Barracco Catalogue,pi.41
19- Lusee de l'Academie,ii,pl.42
20- Berlin K.167; Bltimel, op .cit.,pls.53f,pp.27ff,fig.4; Langlotz,
op.cit..p.174; Schweitzer, A . A . xliii,1928,p.5l6;
Lippold,
a n n m n n iv,1928,p . 417;
h. 1.97m.; marble:
and Pentelic;
fuund in workshop of Roman art dealer
in 1900;
origin:
labeled both white
from Aquino?
2 1 -Inghol t, Ra pr o rt rrelim inair e su r la premiere
campagne des
fouill es de H a m a , pi .vi i,pp.25ff; Picard, R . A . ,1935,i ,pp.124f
22- I.L.ff. . Oc t. 12, 1929; A . J . A . , xxx v,1 9 3 1 ,p.378,fig.4
23- Savignioni, R .M. xv, p . 185; Lippold, K . u . U .,p.46 (eastern
copy);
quality:
"Arbeit nicht he r vo roa ge nd" ,eyes particularly
"nicht sehr stilgetreu"
(Amelung)
24-Venice inv.262; S . A . 2538f;
restorations:
plinth,
25- A. Sanquirico, Monument! del Museo ur i m a n i ,pl.58 (quoted by
text to E . A . 2538); marble:
"in pietro fasfato di calce";
labeled Mnemosine
26- Anti, A t t i .In s t .Yeneto I xx x ii ,lS2 2/ 3,p .1114,no.4
B .il.M.A. xx, 1925,p.l06,fig.3
28- Amelung, R . M . xx,1925,p . 193 had already assigned the "Aspasia"
88
to the school of Corinth or Aegina
29- Lippold, Phil. W o c h . xlviii,1930,p.403
30- kurtw&ngler, M.W.,p .ll5; Studniczka, Ka l a m i a . pp,17f
31- Amelung,
J . d . I .xli. 1926,p . 249,n . 2
32- Six, J . d . I . xxx,1915,p . 89,p . 240,fig.52
33- Schrader,
S t ftde 1 .iahrhuch i,pp.23ff;
confirmed hy Curtius,
Antike i, 1 9 2 5 ,pp.40ff,hy comparison to the Cista Barberini
and a white-ground lekythos in Lew York,
although he objects
to the frontal composition of S c hr ad er ’s group
34- Arndt,
35- Treu,
op .c it.,p.53.text to pls.31f
text to Br .B r.591,p. 5 1 Strong,
36- Buschor,
op.cit..p.35; Strong,
37- Johnson,
op.cit.p.12
Strena H e l bi gi a na ,p.296
Strena He l b ig ia na .pp.293-8
38- Lippold, K . u . U .,pp.IQf and Johnson
39- Caskey and Johnson
40- Anti, A n n . iv-v,1921-3
41- Lehman-Hartleben,Antike v, 1929
42- Svoronos,
on .c it ., pis.civ, no s . 2420 and 2497
43- The relationship has already been pointed out by Johnson
44- Antike P l as ti k:Walter A m e l u n g , p. 22 3, fig.2
45- Reinach,ii,pl.
658,n o . 10; Museo Torlonia,no.495,pi.cxxvii;
Antike P l a stik,p.222,fig.1; restorations:
head does not belong
46- Antike Plastik. p p .23f,figs.5f
47- Johnson,
o p.c it.,p.1 2 ,no.6
48- Alinari 34876
49-Anderson 28854
50- L an g l o t z , or.cit . , pi.25b;in Athens, labeled Argive
C H A P T t a
V _i_i
P C AT E
5CM I
I
-
I o N 'C
C O pa 1 <M T \-\
SCO
LPru
PA Al \ rb £ IM
A t
c h a p t e
P V. A -T E
U
VI (
\_J.
S E h l -
[o wic
C O M s E n. V A r o R. 1
i c u L P r u
riAl O E |\[
e HA PT E
\/ M
S t'M I- IO M
\ c
SCULPrU(\E
\'T*
COMSEfV^A.TOH.V
*A'-A ^ O c fxj
C l-IA P T E R
P L /A r C
V
IV
M
5EM
C O N
5E
I - I O N
R
1C
^ A T O M
S C U L P T U R E
/I A
i
U IT IM
CM A P f L P
PLATE
u
C I V
S e M '
C O
n
i c
C O M S E P UA, r o |< s
S
c u l p
r -\A .
t u r l
1 y_jE IN
c
h a p t e (A
P L A v E
\/1
i
s t h i
C O N
- I o n i c
5h K ^ a T OR\
s c u l p t u r e
r-\AIOCIM
P L A T E
V
I I
D
O
S
T
U
M
H
t A
O
tR
vii
P V A T E
s i- r\
i- ion \e
V I VI
V E N IC E
s c u l p t u r e
H E A D
Ch
a
P
te
r\ \/ n
SE MI
- Tonic
SCULPTURE
CH ^ P f E R
1
SEMI
P EA T E
A
XJ_
I O N I C
SCULPTUP.E
"A S P A S >,V
OE n. L IN H E A D
13-EPHESOS
C - L O U V R E
H E A lj
HEAD
CHAPtE
SE M \ -
IONIC
PLATE
LOPvrce
w
I T 1I
\R
VLLL
SCULPTURE
XI I I
A S P A S I A - c A S T
KESTORED
HEAO
C h a p t
£
rv
V »'
S ept' -
I
O IM \ C
S C U l p T u l\E
c
■
P LA I e
A VV
A s
a - c a p i t o l ' m e
nu
O - CAPITOL.' ME
h a h
S ' At"
r\
M UA Q E P
t - B E R L I N
n -
pA
trne
a
COPT
c o p t
\ s_
S S,
c h
^
p
1 t ^
\/ m
sem i
-
i o n i c
s c u l p t u r e
:
Ch a p t e
pLftTE
p.
v i i
it\s:
s e m i
Ni
e
^
- i o n i c
v
o
r k
s c u l p t
"u r
s t a t u e
: r r e
PLATE
X V
i I
A
Q -C - 1_ \J O O \ / \ 5 1
A-
h
e
a o
T H r\O N E
CHAPTE
P
II
SEMI-
IO N IC
SC ULPTURE.
A
p l a t e
SCu 1i T~i
O - O LY A P I A
a
- O- c -
1305 t o n
P E . D I M E A I TA L
t h a o i m e
S T A T U E
:
chapter
x/11i $e r-y\ - ro/sjic
s c u l p t u re:
B
PLATE
XVX
A - R E LI E F
B -C O N SE B V ATORi
C r o
IM
s t a t
" AS PA S I A"
A T H E N S
Oe.
c h a p t e r
PLATE
\/1»
XX
Se n
I-
I o n >c s c u l p i u r e
A - S T A T U E
D- 5 T A T O E
C._STATOE
O - S T A T U e
IN
F AOh
IN
lrs.1
R O H E
T O P u a N iA
H l C R A P'fTNA
C O R I N T H
PLAT E
X X )
SU SPECT
T) E. A D
i
M
OAR.R)\cc
O
CHAPTER
V IA .
SEf A^ -
lO N 'C
SCULPTURE
89
OOii
O .1CiM
"The Ionic Chiton-G lad Maiden "
fashions in dress and therefore,
drapery.
The
the East,
is pr im ar il y a subject of
in art,
a subject of style
in
study of the art istic rend it ion of cloth b eg an w i t h
where
"among the Lyd ians"
.
_
Teos,hdoazomenai^hocaea
1
( c i t i e s : E p h e s o s ,Aolop hon ,Le bed os,
'
) "and indeed among the b a rba ri ans gener2
ally,it
is rec kon ed a deep dis grace even to a m a n to be
"The Ionic
chiton in very truth ,ho wev er- -is
but narian"
(cities; L:iletus,Myus,Jrriene
Ath en s wit h an ex pl ana tor y tale of the
ian attack on Aegina,
m u r d e r e d by
who,
them to wear the
not o ri gi na ll y Ionic
), It was
introduced
into
sole survivor of an A t h e n ­
upon his return to his ho me l a n d was
the w o m e n with their brooches.
not kn ow h o w to pun is h
seen naked".
them,
they
"As,
however,
they did
changed their dress and compelled
costume of the lonians.
h e n c e f o r t h they were made
ft
to wear the linen tunic w h i c h did not
require b r o o c h e s . ' 1
It was the E a s t wh ic h had pro vi de d
cal art;
it was from the ^a st
m a n y lonians
ho me lan ds
the b a c k gr ou nd for cl as s i ­
that the danger had
(such as the T ea ns who left
for A b d e r a m
Thrace).
6
it was Athens
("of all its tribes
and the least
esteemed,
ex cepting Athens")
7
their P e r s i a n - c o n t r o l l e d
the threat
w h i c h created an empire
for all
from the Eas t
the Ionic was by far the fee blest
not p o s s e s s i n g a single
h is t o r y of the fifth century.
the focal point
To me et
come w h ic h exile d
Li k e w i s e
state of any m a r k
to write
the polit ica l
it was Ath en s w h i c h beca me
culture during her b ri ef but decisive p e r ­
iod of influence,
attracting and impressing
of Kali car nas sos .
Thus,
in her
such m e n as He ro do to s
art, her own native
style,
the
90
" s t r i n g y *1 chiton continued its development, hut it was a c c o m p a n i e d
hy others.
chiton,
One,
rt was tentatively
may nave been non -Attic.
suggested,
There were
the
"chamfered”
other styles in the
regions of the At hen ia n empire, where E a s t e r n e r s h a d settled and
still had
contacts with their cousins left at home,
such as the
"pouched” chiton in the North, the " l i n e a r ” chiton in the west,
the
" s n a k y ” chiton perha ps
in central Greece,
quest io na bl y in Corin th or the islands.
the
" p l e a t e d ” chiton
Ath en s at tracted artist s
and artisans and then educated them in her own art forms,
influenced even
those who did not visit
exp or ti ng her own art products.
m a t i c language of the world,
eign accent,
fifth
Just as Fre nc h has been the d i p l o ­
usually s p o k e n , h o w e v e r , wit h a f o r ­
if not in politics,
its share,
" r i b b o n e d ” chiton,
"pouched"
empire,
chiton.
to victory,
supplying a ma s te r fro m Ionia wi th his
in
to
local
and a mas t e r from the n o r t h wi t h his na ti v e
Finally it was
time
to include
for it had already been wo n culturally;
h e n c e f o r t h b o w e d before
the ’
W est in the
but
this a t te mp t
and Attic
influences
the superior Pe loponnesian.
A h i s t o r y of classical
form,
eternal
she allowed her .^an-Ionic empire
failed p o l i t i c a l l y and actually ruined Athens,
embryo
style
she h e r s e l f did not rem ai n
unto uc he d and in her be autiful m o n u m e nt
contribute
second half of the
A t h e n i a n forms pr od uc ed an international
w h i c h was local only in details. But
sculpture
she
the laris of a n t i q u i t y by
so in the realm of art in the
century,
and
sculpture has thus been ou tl i n ed in
for if the li mitation of the
subject m a t t e r
to Ionic
chi to n-clad m a i d e n s has be e n an aid in d i s t i n g u i s h i n g and i s o l a t ­
ing
the varia nt
styles of the treatment of this eastern ga r m e n t
w i t h i n the
same
the re ma ini ng
statues
clad m a i d e n was
understanding
statues,
chro no lg ic al
development,
(unless their re la t i on to an Ionic
s t a r t l i n g ly close),
the pictu re
r eg ar dl es s
it has become
as it sho ul d be,
locale
and au tho rsh ip
conclus ion s are
checke d wi th these here
chiton-
a hi nd ran ce
complete.
of their sex or garment,
and their date,
any ju st if i c a t i o n
b y its excl usi on of all
in
On l y wh e n all
have be e n include d
established,
advanced,
only when those
will
for the a s s u m p t io n that fu nd ame nt al
there be
q uestions
and be en u n c o n t r o v e r t i b l y answered.
The h i s t o r y of classical art
all
statues mu s t be
mu s t be more
pleted,
a c c u r a t e l y dated,
not wit h p h o t o g r a p h s
un do ub te dl y
some of the
to be discarded;
opinions,
some
be en possible,
research.
works,
yet
if on ly t e n ta ti ve ly
seem im pos sib le
their p e r s o n a l i t i e s
l ol ykl eit an^
or Western,
present.
it m u s t
not the only p e r i o d
century,
a d a p ta ti on s have
the
the famous
but w i t h the originals,
ad va nce d will e v e nt u a l l y have
locale,
so,
and autho rs hi p has
sculptors are k no wn by single
to hope
that in the U t o p i a of
can be uncovered.
statues are Ionic,
At least
it should
Northern,
Attic,
as it has been in the pa s t and is n o w in the
always be r e m e m b e r e d
of classical art.
that the fifth century was
T hi rd
R o m a n and R e n a i s s a n c e
a lr e a d y b e e n m e n t i o n e d
of the
of con fl ic ti ng
is h e a r t e n i n g for future
four th century.
century and p e r g a m e n e
and N i n e t e e n t h centur y
in their p r o p e r places;
first p e r i o d of N e o - c l a s s i c i s m has yet
early decades
copies
study m u s t be fi nal ly com­
casts,
theories here
longer be d e b a t ab l e wheth er
and first
the
sort of u n i t y of date,
it does not
But
and
and
records of
in the d o c u m e n t ar y sources,
the fact that out of a m a s s
Since m a n y of
the future,
no
in ve st i g a t e d
is yet to be written:
to be recognized,
the
but
1
- Herod. i ,142
2-
Herod.
i,10;
3- Hero d « ir R R
4- Kerod.
i ,142
5- Herod.
v, 87
Herod.
i ,168
7- Herod.
i ,143
6-
Thuc.i, 6
93
APPENDIX
Greek art
could not have
ceased abruptly at the end of the
P e lo po nn es ia n Wars;
as a matt er of fact there was
little destruction,
and the succeeding poli ti ca l and literary
h i s t o r y reads
Pheidias,
as a continuation of the earlier.
had died; but others,
Athens, were
comparatively
Some artists,
like
alt hough they pro ba bl y had left
still alive and productive.
The relief of Athe na and
He ra kl es by Alkam ene s was dedicated after the Tyranny of the Th ir t y
(403)
at Theb es
Boeotia,
was
at
in Boeotia,
Eoroneia,
and 388.
celebrating the battle
indeed,
of Aig ospotomci
(405)
active on trophies erected by victorious
such as Dai da lo s whose
Art,
in
Pe l o p o n n e s i a n sculptors as a group were
and indivi dua lly they were
athletes,
contemporary and also
a bronze group of A t h e n a Itonia and Zeus
cast by Agorakritos.
bu sy wi th the mon ume nt
and perhaps
statues are dated after 400,396,
was not dead;
but Athens was no longer the
capital of a m i g h t y empire and on her Akrop oli s foreign artists
such as Deinomenes, D emetrios,
B ut
the last named
eration,
colloborated wi t h the first of a new Att ic g e n ­
K e p h i s o d o t o s , in a group of Pluses on Mt. Kelikon.
former pr ov in ce s of the empire,
native
and St'rongylion were erecting figures.
self-
Attic past,
The
as they ret urn ed to their own
sufficiency with a lingering influence from their
were part of a new in te rn ati ona lis m dominated by the
Peloponnesos.
As a m a t t e r
nized,
istics,
there are
yet none
of fact,
for most of the locales already re co g­
statues with the same obviously native
of them could be dated exactl y
c h a r ac te r­
contemporary with
94
the figures above
as a whole,
described.
they are found
//hen these outcasts are g r o u p e d
to
belong t.o ^ t 3
7
to gether
nsitional p 0 r*ioci (& s
impo rt an t
as that of the earlier Strong
Style)
b e tw e e n
the p u r e l y
classical
sculpture ending about 410 and the fourth centu ry art of
Skopas and P r a x i t e l e s beginning; about 370.
For I on ia the p e r i o d is well
ure
from the N e r e i d mo n u m e n t
shows that
the native
cloth be re pr ese nt ed
as a long
there
angle be twe en
the br eas ts
comparable
at X a n t h o s 1 (P1#
still
continuous
rib,
as on the p e rs e p o l i s
the garment h a d be c o me
tran spa ren t
the arr an ge me nt of the
folds
( a late
still does not
in the wide
a statuette
The
same
The bo d y is
and a l t h o u g h
clarify
the
structure
of the Tra ns it io na l
spacing of the ribbe d folds,
and in the
in
sharpen­
tendenc ies are to be o b s e r v e d on
of A t h e n a from Lep ti s Major n o w in Istambul 2 (pi#l b ) ,
wh ic h differs from her
of dr ape ry lines across
ealier pr e d e c e s s o r s
In no r t h e r n Greece
edges into
the local
g r a d u a l l y more g e n e r a l i z e d during
a h e r m of a pr et t y
II),
in the n ew a r r an ge me nt
the bod y from ankle to hip,
r e s tr ic ti on of the folded
m u s e u m ^ (pi.
statue.
tri­
fifth centur y Atticism),
the extra b u l k in es s of the dr a p e r y at the neck,
ed edges of the garment.
had not disappeared,
stuffed w i t h sawdust,
The new c h a r a c t eri st ics
P e r i o d are dis ce rn ib le
that a fold of
remained a suggestion of the inv er te d
to that of a doll
of the body beneath.
I a ). The pe p i o s N e r e i d
a.esthetic, w h i c h pr e f e r r e d
and actually,
still
r e p r e s e n t e d by the ea rl i e s t f i g ­
kthena,
small,
short
forms.
interloclced strands of h a i r were
the
early fourth century,
of w h i c h one
and the other
sharp,
and in the
as on
copy is in the Ga pit oli ne
is in Naple s ori gi na ti ng from
A
Herculaneum.*The
sma llness of the
features,
the deep
ir re gul ar
95
cutting
— of the hair*.
a--n H t.Vio
y
-i y'it r»n to -i rro
nViAvk'f
x
~j.w*i*^x v <_ o
Uuj u
second ha lf of the fifth century date
fourt h century,
x i_ _
UIi6
to one of the early
than that to p h ei di as
(F u r t w d n g l e r ) for
sculptors were Attic.
Before
this local
"Farnese"
and
_____ x
U^ U_ i
TCIjb
although the a t tr ibu tio n to Kephisodotos (falters)
seems no more p l a u si b l e
bot h
(Arndt)
^
One of these
decline,
collect io ns
(ll.
conies has be en
in the V i l l a Albani"
however,
the Ath en a from the Hope
Ill) was ma d e by a no rt h er n artist.
identi fie d as the
"oft-quoted Pallas
of w h i c h 7/inckelmann pu bl is he d an account
5
in 1776,
and w h i c h had been di sc o v e r e d in 1743. He describes
it
o
as:
7/or thy of the great artists
we are e n ab le d to form an
since we
see the hea d in
has not been injured even
br il li an t as wh e n it came
of the age of w h i c h we speak,
and
opini on up o n it the mor e correctly,
its entire original beauty; for it'
by a ha rs h wind, but is*as pure and.
from the m a s t e r ' s hands. It has, in
connection w i t h the lo ft y b e a u t y w i t h which it is endowed,
the
ch ara cte ris tic s of this style which we noticed; a certain
har dn es s is visible, but it is a h a r d n e ss mo re easily felt than
described. lie s i g h t wish to see in the face a certain grace
w h i c h it would receive th ro ug h mor e rou ndness and softness.
Her sandals are
furthe r described:
7
O c c a s i o n a l l y five
laminae are sewn together, -which is in d i ­
cated by five incised lines on the sandal of a beautiful
Ath en a in the Albani villa; the sole in this instance is two
fingers^ thick.
8
Furthermore:
O cca sio nal ly,
the h a i r of w o m e n is dressed as we see it on
Etruscan figures of both sexes.
It is tied at a distance from
the back of the head, and hangs down, beyond the band which
confines it, divided into large tresses lying close to each
other. On the Pallas in the Albani villa, wh ich has been man y
times quoted, also on a smaller Athenar w h i c h has been carried
to Eng land,
and most us ua ll y on figures of this goddess,
the
96
hair is thus arranged;
Uegroni villa,
so likewise on the Caryatids in the
on the ?dtruscan Diana at tcrtici,
and many other
figures.
9
In 1768 the Dallas Athena was drawn by Cavaceppi
with the restored
lance in the left hand, as the English Athena was later drawn by
10
Clarac.
In 1797,
one year after Thomas Hope returned to England
after a collecting sojourn in Europe,
Athena, were excavated by Eagan
11
a Hygeia, and supposedly his
at Ostia on the spot of the Tor
Bovacciano,
among the ruins of a magnificent palace,
and thirty feet below
the surface of the ground, broken into fragments,
and buried
immediately under the niches in which they had once been placed
19
13
according to Be a in 160?.. "Hie had written in 1783
and Horcelli
14
in 1785
about the Pallas Athena. In 1798, two years after Hope
had returned to England and one year after the excavations at Ostia,
the Breach confiscated and packed the Athena
ection,
in the Albani
coll­
and in 1799 the packed antiquities were carriedoff from
Rome to Haples. But in 1801 they were reclaimed by the Erench,
in 1802 she was in Hanles waiting to be shipped to Brance,
and
In 1805
the Athena was inventoried as "incassata." In 1811 H. Bteyer published
a drawing of profile and mouth of the Pallas Athena Albani after
she could no longer be properly so called. Thirteen years later a
cast of the Hope Athena head was already in the V/ilhelm von H u m ­
boldt collection and another is recorded after 1827 in the castle
at Charlottenburg.
Pour other casts are still preserved,
Albertinum. and in the Kunstgewerbesmuseum in Dresden,
in the
in the
Akademisches Kunstmuseum in Bonn, and in the collection of casts
15
in Rome.
97
rruiu L-he description two statues might have been the Pallas
Albani--the Athena Hope at De e p d e n e ,England
Athena Farnese in Naples
identified,
17
16
(pi. Ilia) and the
(PI. Illb). The latter has been so
and the former, although in perfect preservation,
has
been labeled the Athena discovered at Ostia with the broken Hygeia
in the same collection,
although P e a ’s description:
gli occhi nel bulbo d ’avorio, la pupilla incavata per modo,
che supponevra materia di altro colore; e le pennanze di
lastre d ’ottone finissime,
was quoted by Michaelis,
18
who then comments "This last statement
is incomprehensible to me, and is certainly not borne out by the
statue."As a matter of fact Winckelmann could scarcely have wished
to see the plump face of the Parnese Athena still rounder, nor
could he have meant the Naples goddess but only the Hope Athena
with her hair "tied at a distance from the back of the head, ha ng ­
ing d o w n , beyond the band which confines it, divided into large
tresses lying close to each other."
The English Athena is in a good state of preservation except
for cleaning and a few restorations, particularly the snakes on
her aegis.
It is worth noting on the Neapolitan Athena that though
the twisting snakes of the aegis are labeled as restorations,
there
seems to be no break in the marble on the back of the statue where
they have the same friskiness. The lobe of the right ear on the
Hope head has been broken off near the cheek; perhaps this accounts
for its unusu'l shape on the Farnese head. Again the restored
flaps on the bslmet of the Farnese Athena are unique, but they fit
the unbroken bases. The treatment of the hair and the strangely
sprawling legs of the animals on the helmet
(only the front ones
-
98
are
1visX1 ei c ht " restored seconding to the commentators) seen con-
temporary with the small "bronze head in the Albani collection
19
where the great Pallas once belonged. The little Athena is a com­
posite of admittedly m o d e m
parts;
an insistence on its antiquity,
only for the head has there been
and this illusion seem? misplaced.
There are other copies of the torso, particularly a sad figure from the Musee Napoleon, now in the Louvre,
20
and the style of
its execution (visible even on a photograph) must be dated around
1800. This suggests that the wary Italians supplied off hand each
and every demand in their market. A fragmentary and incorrectly
21
restored torso in the Vatican,
a lifeless copy in the Ny Garlsberg
??
O
Glyptothek,"'~ and a final reduction in the Ermitage
(pi. IIIc)
(either to be dated to the time of Nerva or to be suspected)
com­
plete the list of replicas.
A plausible story can be mode from the facts--a wealthy E n g ­
lishman paying a large sum of money for a statue he had seen and
admired in Rome,
a large and "better"
copy made to replace it (at
the same time as the little bronze head) and this finally stolen
by the Neapolitans who substituted a poorer copy for the unknowing
Napoleon.
At least, because the Engl ish statue is undoubtedly
antique, because she better fits the description of Winckelmann,
and because casts of her "oft-quoted" head are numerous in early
nineteenth century collections,
it seems that she should be iden­
tified as the Pallas Albani. The Harness Athena,
though suspect,
cannot be definitely excluded, but certainly none of her qualities
are truly classical.
It is only the Hope Athena which can be d epe nd ­
ed utson as an accurate reflection of the lost original.
99
with the exclusion of the small bronze head in the Villa
Albani and the Farnese Athena,
aistic head in Palermo,
24
and with the omission of the arch-
the three other heads,
though fragmentary,
°5
become important. The copy in Richmond,^ i s weathered and poor in
quality, but the one formerly in the Antiquarium in Rome
other in Dresden
27
are stylistically recognizable.
and the
The free waves of
the hair, uncontaminated by stiffened retouching,
face and of the features,
26
the shape of the
recall the Perseus once related to My r o n a n d
the related Hygeia, both recently and correctly dated to the beginning of the fourth century,
28
in contrast to these the Athena Hope
has other characteristics which are to be found on the so-called
29
"Lemnian"Athena in Bologna.
Superficially,indeed,
they are so
much alike that the two copies must have been contemporary.
turally, however,
the reworked Athena head is more similar to those
in Rome and Dresden,
different angles.
Struc­
as shown by photographs of casts taken from
30
On the copy thus discovered to be the best,
the Athena Hope,
the drapery also can be dated. The heavy folds are pressed together
in hard pleats and the insignificant edges are sharp and stiff. The
more
complicated chiton folds are elaborately pretty on the arms
and conquettishiy lifted at the foot, and for this style the best
parallels are to be found on the Hegeso releif,
At this time a new ma.iestas
dating from c. 400,
imposed upon the charming and slender
bodies heavier proportions and enlarged heads.
It would seem that
now when sculptors had freed themselves from the limitations of
the original planes of their marble blocks or the rectangular
mould for their bronze
casting,
they reverted to the older models
100
in an attempt to improve upon them. But, though the Athena is
posed with outstretched
arms which create an angular outline
such as was popular about 400,
the raised left shoulder and the
lowered right shoulder towards which the head is inclined are
reminiscent of the Doria-Pamfili Cvbele by an unnamed northern
artist. Also primarily his are the peculiar bending of the folded
edges of the opened garment,
the curls on the breast,
the inter­
locking strands of hair around the face, and the unusual upper lip
of the mouth. Perhaps the Cybele, his earliest dated statue, was
the first,
and the Athena the last in his long career, for almost
half a century must have elapsed between them.
The sharpening of the edges,
the hardening of the pleats,
the shrinking of the folded ends,
and the shifting of the drapery lines
across the body, as well as the angularizing of the pose, had only
just begun when another goddess,
made.
the Athena Albani
31
(PI. IV) was
It cannot be a Flavian adaptation as Waldhauer believed. A l ­
though the head (FI. V) might seem strong and sturdy (much of it
is not original)
it is the elaborate treatment of the hair which
forbids an early date. The curls are cut short and brushed from
the face so that they resemble flames of fire, while on the neck
they twist over one another and at the forehead they are deeply
marcelled in waves.
It is exactly the personally peculiar treatment of the hair
which allows other heads to be assigned to this master. An Aphro­
dite head, preserved in many conies(lL.VI a& b) has the seme
general proportions of the face as the Athena,
and the some
flaming curls brushed back from the cheeks. But the single mar-
101
celled waves are here "between the "bands tied around the head and
they are deeply outlined exactly as on the Hegeso relief.
The
date of 400 must therefore "be approximately that for the Aphrodite
head. There are two copies in the Villa Borghese m
such duplication,
as seen above,
Rome
32
and
is always worthy of suspicion.
Fortunately one of these, whose features differ radically fro m
those of the Athena and the other Aphrodites,
can he excluded;
for the photograph shows a marble and surface obviously dating
from the classicizing period of the early nineteenth century.
double herm in Madrid
33
has sufferered severely; when it
" sawed in two in the middle and wrongly put together",
was probably reworked,
The
was
the face
for indefinite eyes and mouth and cheeks are
apparent from the photograph. Another copy in the Robinson collect-
'ZA
ion in London'
reveals such a lack of understanding by the artist,
that p er se one is inclined to feel that it would have satisfied
not an ancient but a modern public. The clearest reproduction is
'7C
that in Naples
(Tl. VI a T b) from Herculaneum, but its exaggerat­
ion of style is exactly that of Pompeian bronzes to which it must
be contemporary in execution. Though undoubtedly- the Naples A p h r o ­
dite is a careful copy of the original in details,
perhaps the
best reflection is the harshly executed head in the Riccardi
ion
36
collect-
if its antiquity is not disputed.
Later in his career the Master of the Flaming Hair produced
37
his strategos,
copied by a head in Berlin,
he still brushed the curls from the face,
(11. VI),
and though
in his increasing ability
to disregard the surface planes, he twists each lock like an u n ­
ruly snake. Unfortunately the helmet has been restored too far
102
over the face, "but the ha.ir on the forehead is probably like that
of the Athena Albani.
Short locks became increasingly popular during the fourth
century, but only one other head can be attributed to this master
with any degree of plausibility,
York copy
the tetworth Diadumenos.
The hew
313
seems almost Traxitelean in the softness of the face and
39
40
the unruliness of the hair,
but the tetworth copy has none of
these later influences. On it the sneering upper lip of the A p h r o ­
dite is repeated and the exposed ends of the band around the head
explain the otherwise unintelligible square on the forehead of the
Maples Aphrodite.
Completely personal are the brushing of the flam­
ing locks and the marcelle d waves at the central part. These same
marcelled waves as worn by Hegreso and the Aphrodite occur on another
statue--the Barberini Suppliant (11.VII) and therefore she is con­
temporary with the other statues certainly by his hand, Thus the
marcelled waves of hair are not his alor£ (here there are no short
flaming locks of hair) but the proportions of the head,
the sneer­
ing mouth and the peculiar ear are definitely related in date. The
chiton has exactly the same crumpled treatment as his Athena,
and
the manner of the hanging folds at the waist is almost a compar­
able characteristic. The best copy of the Suppliant is in the
41
42
Louvre;
the Vatican maiden has fewer recognizable characteristics
of the chiton treatment and the drapery on the Antonine
the Srmitage
43
copy in
is completely misunderstood.
Only one other statue has the deeply outlined marcelled waves
of hair contemporary with the Hegeso relief (tl. Villa)
and the
44
Master of the flaming Hair--the Berlin-Oherchel Lemeter
(11. V U I b ) .
103
Her mid-fifth century date and her attribution to pheidias or to
his followers Alkamenes or Agorakritos is usually undisputed ex­
cept hy those who would insist upon an Argive influence (Bltimel).
But in contrast to a truly mid-fifth century statue like the Hera
45
also in Berlin
there is a new plasticity in the drapery over the
shoulders. The flat hard pleats of the period around 400 have almost
disappeared, but those hanging from the breasts and the relaxed
leg are still sharp. The extra heavy folds at the neck are super­
fluous in the same way as they are on the Epidauros pedimental
sculptures and exactly comparable to the Eirene by Kephisodotos
dated around 375 (FI. VIIIc). Likewise the filling of the surface
of the blouse with short lines, a direct reaction to the immediately
preceeding smoothed planes on the Hegeso relief, reiterates the
fourth century date. But it is in the outlining of the massive bent
leg, and the long angling striation down the central fold of the
skirt that the resemblance
between the Sirene and the Demeter is
the closest. One might almost attribute this Demeter to Kephisodo­
tos himself in the decade before he produced the Eirene and Flutos.
Attic art also continued the technique of long stringing
chiton lines during this transitional period, as is shown by the
little statue of Themis from Rhamnous (FI. I X a ) , a copy from a great
work of art, probably the Hemesis by Agorakritos. This is the op­
inion of Frofessor Carpenter and I can find nothing in it with
which to disagree. The pose, however,
slightly,
is already beginning to sway
and the himation over the shoulder has become plastic
and the cowl neckline has surplus drapery.
It is impossible to
date the original to the time of the Hegeso relief, and though an
104
earlier date would be satisfactory,
at the moment it is more
tempting to make it slightly later. When the succeeding genera­
tions of Attic sculptors, Praxiteles and his followers, used the
Ionic chiton for such figures as the Artemis of Gabii
(ll. IXb)
they employed the same "stringy" technique which had been handed
down to them from, the fifth century.
Brom the same unidentified region of the"Aspasia" and the
Corinth-Conservatori statues discussed above, where there was
little Ionic influence and where the traditional technique was in
bronze,
.46
came the original of the Athena-Velletri
(pi.
Louvre.
Its early fourth centaury date is assured by the angularity
of the pose,
x) in the
comparable to that of the Berlin Amazon (pi. Vllld)
(■perhaps the style of the Athena Velletri is related to that of
the Dexileos relief which would date it to the nineties)
locale by the hard, pressed pleats which have
those of the fifth
century
and its
changed little from
.
Another unidentified region, which contributed the original
copied in the Vatican and Corinth statues, produced in the early
decades
the fourth century an apparently unpublished draped
47
female in Delos (ll. XIa & b). The archaistic maidens from Eleusis
(ll. XIc)
with an inscription which has been restored as an Athe n­
ian dedication (though they now seem to have
come from elsewhere)
are closely related to the Delos statue.
The fifth century Muse type from northern Greece was not with­
out a successor. The later adaptation was copied on a sarcophagus
from Salonika
48
where she holds her skirt in her hand and wears a
kalathos upon her head.; the greatest change is that she has become
105
an architectural caryatid and here she is repeated at the four
corners to carry the entablature. She is to he found again as a
caryatid in Tarentum.
49
The free standing inspiration for these car­
yatids came from an original
chel.
50
copied in a statue discovered at Cher-
The diagonal folds are straight- and sharp and short and cover
the draped surface in the same manner as those on the Mantinea base;
therefore the original
should have belonged to the fourth century.
The missing head should have resembled that of the archaistic Tyche
in Munich.
x In addition to its appearance in the Ionicized regions
of northern Greece and southern Italy,
the caryatid occurs in its
original home in Ionia. Once again she is part of a sarcophagus,
this time discovered at Kertsch;
is that from Tralles
(11. Xlla).
production of the same type,
surfaces round,
50
but most, famous of all caryatids
In contrast to the Cherchel re­
the planes have become smooth and the
and the pleats have changed,
the long and sharp ones
have become ridges and the rest have been lost. She is in the style
is
not of the fourth century but of the third, as her compatriot, the
Youth leaning on a pillar" 4 (ll. Xllb). He,
his "Traxitelean"
too, in his pose and in
eyes goes back to a fourth century prototype, but
though both originals mere not quite
contemporary,
there in Tralles
they were both so adapted (for they a.re not accurate
copies)
that
the results are closely related. There are superficial resemblances
between the youth and the maiden in the treatment of the eyes,
the dimpled chin,
the
shape of the mouth,
the fleshy knee,
in
and in
the rendering of the drapery flutes.
Though the Tralles caryatid is an Ionic chiton-clad maiden,
she
is no longer of the classical fifth century, nor even of the tran­
106
sitional fourth century. Like the Athenian empire,
this thesis
has overreached itself and passed "beyond its natural "boundaries.
107
1- Er.Mus.
Smith,
Catalogue of Greek Sculptu r e ,ii,no.909; Richter,
G.3. & S. ,131, 438, fig. 304
2- Istanbul, Guide i1lustre ,n o .532,pi.viii,p.58
3- Gapitoline, Stanza dei Pilosofi,no.54; E . A . 4 3 3 f ; restorations:
point of nose,
4- Naples,
1 . back of helmet,
inv.6282;
1 . shoulder of herm
Rurtw&ngler, II.IV. ,p.9 , fig.9; J .d .I . viii,1893,
p . 176, p i . 3
5- G eschichte der Kunst des Altertums VIII,ii,4
6 - trans.
G. Henry Lodge, 1872, ii,p,132
7- VI,ii,5;
8 - VI,ii,ll;
trans.
trans.
9- R a c c o l t a II.
10- Clarac,
ii,p.23
ii,p.26
cited by Preyss,
J.d.I.
x x v i i ,1912,p.97
ii, pi.459,no.850
11- IIichae 1 i s , Ancient M a r b les in Great B r i tain ,p .106
12- Rea, Viaggio ad O stia,p.45, quoted by Hichaelis,op .cit. , p . 283,
from Daliaway, Cf Statu ary
13- Rea, Winckelmannausgabe , quoted by Preyss
14- Mo r c e l l i , V i l la Albani,
15- Freyss, J.d.I. xxvii,
Indicazio n e , A 659, quoted by Freyss
1912, p . 104
16- Deepdene coll., Hichaelis,
1896, pl.l;
Carrara;
op . c i t . , p . 240,no .39; Mon, r i o t , iii,
Rurtwdngler, M . V . ,p . 106,p . 73; marble:
so-called
restorations: both arms and small parts of chiton,
sepents of aegis, nose and chin of Gorgoneion,
tip of nose; head, made separately,
toes of r.foot,
certainly belongs
17- J. d .I . xxvii,1912, B e i l .2,fig.6;3eil.3a,pp.98f,figs.
18- Hichaelis,
op.cit. , p . 291
19- J.d.I. x x v i i ,1912,pp.IlOf,
figs. 19f
some
5 A 7
108
20- J. d . I . xxvii,
1912, pp,117f,fig.27; Louvre, n o .331;Frflhner
(1896) no. 115;
Schweigh&user, Musee iTapoleon (1804)
quoted by Preyss;
i,pl.ll,
Clarac, pl.462F; pi. 320,no.852
21- Vatican, Braccio nuovo, J . d . I . xxvii,
1912,p . 114,fig.24
22- Ny Garlsberg no. 102; J .d.I. xxvii, 1912, p . 115,fig.25,* i-reyss
dates this copy late Roman
23-Ermitage, Y/aldhauer, Die Antiken Skuln tu r e n ,iii , no. 216,pi. iii ,p. 3
J.d.I. xxvii,
1912, p p . U 5 f ,fig.26; h. 2.05m.; marble:
grained,
Italian"; restorations:
of aegis
(contradicted in n . ), both arms, garment;
"fine
upper part of breast with whole
state: broken
in middle across hips
24- ialermo, Museo Nazio na le,inv. n o . 710; ii. A.
554; J.d. I. xxvii,
1912
p . 113,figs.21f
25- Richmond, Michaelis,
o n.c it . , no. 50; J .d . I . xxvii,1912, B e i l , 4,
fig s.!5f: J.H.3. xx vii i,1908, p. 8 ,no .2 , ,pl.i; B urlington Fine
Arts Club E x h ibition (1904) p . 257,pi.xl; h. o.43,
torations:
1.0.18;
res­
nose, mouth,chin,most of both eyes, part of hair on
l.side
26- formerly Rome, Antiquarium, now, Mustilli,
pl.lxxxv,
figs.
313f;
II iluseo U u s 3 olini,
J.d.I. xxvii,1912, Beil .4 , fig s.15f;
state:
"damaged but not restored"; i-reyss dates to early imperial times
and calls it "grosszdgige Unbildung der Hope Athena"
27- Dresden,
AIbertinum,no.130; J. d . I. xxvii,1912, Beil.4,f i g s .1 7 f ;
i-reyss: "Vir lernen aus den verschwoin m e n
en
ZiXgen
nichts Neues
ftir den in der Albani-Farnese besser dberlieferten und sharf
ausge prdgten Tvpus hinzu".
28- Carpenter, ii.A.A.R. xviii,
1941,pp.l8ff
109
29_
J.d .I. xxvii,
1912, Be i l . 3, fig.9
30-
J .d.I. xxvii,
1912, neil.3 & 4
31- F ur tw &ng le r, S tat uenkorien.n. 54, and A. '.V. ,p. 112,
the Athena Itonia by Agorakritos;
identified as
Amelung, J . d . I. xli, 1926,p.
249,n . 2 compares to Gassel Apollo; licard,
op . c i t .,ii,2,p.533
relates the head to the iiestia Giustiniani,
Vatican
Lemeter,
Berlin Aspasia, Omphalos Apollo, Esquiline Charioteer,
and as­
cribes o.ll to ha.lamis
32- a) lalazzo Borghese,Relbig
text,p.2,fig.3;
state:
(1899)
restorations:
"stark.abgeputzt"
i i ,n o . 973,p . 141; B r . B r . 576,
tip of nose, back part of head;
(iielbig), excellent copy (Arndt)
b)Palazzo Borghese, Iielbig,ii ,no .964 ,p. 135; restorations:
r.
e y e ,n o s e ,part of lower lip, bust
33- Madrid double herrn
a. A . 1648; Furtwdngler, m. >V. ,p. 97, fig. 11, p. 99,
fig. 1 2 b; restorations:
point of nose
34- Robinson coll. London, Burlington Bine Arts Club, Ex hibition,pi.
xl ,no.62,p . 257
35- L’aples inv.6369;
r.
shoulder lock;
36- Palazzo Riccardi,
restorations:
antique:
lower part of herrn, outer point of
nose;
Florence, E.A.
state:
cleaned
307; B r . E r . 576,text,p.2 , fig.2;
comments: has no shoulder locks, head turns towards r. unlike
all other copies except that in Kaples;
quality: Arndt considers
it excellent except for the eyes which are too large and widely
spaced;
add copy now in Bunich Glyptothek,formerly in coll.
Lu c a di Poggio Rativo
37- Berlin K 128; Bltimel, on. cit. , p i . 10,pp. 5f; h.
helmet o . 4 2 m . , greatest breadth 0.235m.;
of head with
restorations:
front
of
110
half of nose, whole upper part of helmet,
of helmet,
belong:
front part of vizor
almost whole of neck, 1 . shoulder;
state:
face cleaned;
shaft does not
coGmients: Rurtw&ngler attributed
to Kresilas and dated to the time of the Peloponnesian wars
38- Richter,
G.S.&. S . .pi. 404, fig. 195; B.il.u.A. , 1912, pp.47f ; 1.
of face 0.17m.
39- Richter,
; marble:
“apparently irentelic"
op.cit.; "Its resemblance to the petworth head is so
close as to leave no doubt of a common derivation,
but it is
distinctly the more beautiful of the two, and in the subtlety
of the modeling is probably the more faithful reproduction of the original,
full of the spirit of fifth century work."
from the beauty of the features,
the head
"Aside
has a certain roman­
tic quality which is unusual in Greek art, especially of this
period,
and which doubtless adds to its attractiveness from a
modern point
of
view, though itis
be explained
on
other grounds."
40- Wyndham,
largely accidental and can
Catalogue of the L e confield Colle ction of ureek and
■■■inman Ant 1 ouities .n o . 2 4 .dp. 44f ,pl .2 4 ; Rurtw&ngler ,
■>*. , atlas,
pl.xvi; R.P . .figs.64f; marble:"fine-grained" ; 1. of face o.l9m.;
restorations:
tip of nose, parts of r, and 1 . ears
41- Louvre, Sn c ., pls .1 74f ; B r . B r . 415; A. A. 483f
42- Vatican, Arnelung,
on.cit.,ii,no.393,pp.584-8,pi.57; origin:
found in Civitavecchia;
r. shoulder,
restorations; head and neck with part of
r. lower arm with edge of chiton and hand,
fingers
of 1 . hand and altar below, edge of himation on 1 . hip, l.foot
with much of
chiton,
r. knee, all
of
five himation folds between legs
and under
base; see masse Indicazione -antiquaria (1792)p.
I l l
79,no.xxi
43- Ermitage,
part)
no. 261, Waldhauer,
0.7 5m. 1 . 1.16m.;
1 . thigh with knee,
Carrara;
origin:
bp. cit. , iii, pl.xx; h.
restorations:
whole 1. arm and shoulder,
feet with garment around them, basis; marble:
from Golitzyn coll;
the copy to the Antonine period,
fifth century,
(of antique
comments: Waldhauer dates
and the original to the m i d ­
identifies as Lrinys because she holds a snake,
and attributes to Kalamis because he made an Erinys in the pr e­
cinct of Semnai in Athens
44- a) Berl in K.168,
o p . c i t . , figs.
Bltinel, o .cit. , pp. 29ff ,pls. 5 5 f f ; Schrader,
15, p . 46, 18,p . 48; h. 2.34m. h.
greatest br ea d t h of face 0 . 26m. ; marble:
ed before
ta de la c it t a d i R o m a , 1562,
restorations:
b)
Cherchel,
Schrader,
white;
1550 when seen in house of ri. Laolo
m a u s o l e u m of Augustus and S.Rocco
(of head)
origin:
discover­
So derini, near the
(ulisse Aldroandi,
4th, ed. ,p. 199,
0.30m.,
Le anti chi -
quoted by Bltoel);
only tip of nose, bits over all of drapery
G-aukler,
o n . c i t . , p.
op . c i t. , fi g . 60,p . 79,
102,p i . 5;
57 W . l r . ,p i s . 1-5;
fig .17,p . 4 8 , f i g . 20,p . 49
45- merlin K 172, LI to e1, on.ci t., pls.61f
46- Louvre,
S’rflhner,n o .114; marble:
torations:
coarse grained "Thasian";
res­
( Furtw*Lngler, ii.I. ,p.141,n o .2 } "The two hands and the
lower half of the right forearm;
the rest of the right arm is
antique, but has been twice broken;
at the right elbow there
seems to be a bad join, the forearm was certainly more bent.
The arm with the nude part under the arm pit is antique, made in
a separate piece.
The nose is intact."
Broadbands coll., Michaelis,
statuette copies: a)
or.cit.,p . 225,n o . 31; b)Lalazzo
112
C ons ervatori, Rome
47- B r . B r . 563
48- Louvre, A .d .I . xxiv, 1852,pi,E; Mon. L i o t . x, 1903,p . 16,fig,4
C.Robert, Die antiken Sarkonhag R e l i e f s ,ii.pis, xxviiif; Baumeister,
on. c i t . ,i ,p. 63,pl. 6 6 ; .cf, Br. Mu s. , R o b e r t , op. cit . ,
pls.xif
49- 1.0.A . I. i,1 3 9 8 ,p.19,fig,18
50- Gaukler,
on . c i t . , pl.iv
51- Glyptothek 49, Schmidt, Arch ai stische Kunst,p.2Q,pl.ix,2
52- Ermitage, Robert,
op.cit ., pls.viiif,
xxi
53- 3 chede, H e i s terwerke der Xttrkischen Museen zu Con stantinople,
pi.
28
54- Lawrence, Later Greek S culptur e , pls.74f; Mon. L i o t . x, 1902,
pl.iv;
Schede,
o r .cit., pi.15
a p p e n d i x
P L A T E
I
0- ATH
A -f\jEtT E\D
E N A
FRO A
FROH
L t P T
X A N T H O S
I S
RJ O A
APP E N D H t
p l a t e
n capitoli n e
at h e n
a
A , P PEND\X
PLATE
B-
Mi
A-ATHENX
O E M I D O E F
F A R N E 5 E
A T H E N A
A P P E N D \X
P i ftT E
M_\ A T H E INIA
HOPE
A PPE MO' X
PLAT E
\V
ALQAN\
A T H E N A
APPENDIX
tit,‘
k
PLATE
v
A l Q A M l
ATHENA
a p p e n d i
VI
A»T3
X
A P H R O D I T E
C «• D - S T R A T E & 0 5
IN
IN
O
NAPLES
E R . I- I N
APPE
P L A T E
VJ_I
M D \ X
Q A R Q E R t N I
S U P P L I A N T
APPENDIX
p 1-A T E
VP U_ A - H E G E S O
Q - O E RL l N - C H
C-ClrREIME
C-- Q E
ERCHE L
Qv
^
RELIEF
D E nE TE p
KEPV-USOOOTOS
AhA^QN
a
P
p
e
k i d k
o
P
L A
T E
Vx.
C »
0
A -
T h E M I S
_/XP,'T Ef^ ls
F R O M
FROM
.
c
R H A M N O U 5
G A U M
APPENOIi
PLATE
><
|sjA
FRQr,
v
FLLETRI
APPENDIX
F rxo P\
DELOS
PLATE
113
VITA
I, Gleta Margaret Olmstead Robbins, was born in Columbia,
Missouri,
on February 15,1915,
Ten Eyck u lmstead.
and Chicago,
to Cleta Bayne C'mstead and Albert
I was educated in the public'
Illinois.
schools of Urbana
I was graduated from the University of
Chicago in 1335 with Ihi Beta Kappa and as a University Aide,
I
was awarded a Master of Arts degree in 1936 as a history of Art.
Scholar,
I was honorary Mellow at the American School of Oriental
Research in Jerusalem during 1936/7,
University of Chicago
to the American School of Classical Studies
at Athens during 1937/8.
during 1938/9,
and Ryerson Fellow from the
I was Fellow in Classical Archaeology
special Scholar during 1940/1,
and Riegel Fellow
during 1941/2 at Bryn Mawr College. My final examination for the
degree of Doctor of Ihilosophy was taken May 14, 1942,
in Classical
Archaeology and history of Art.
I am indebted to my father for the fascination of scholarship,
to professor Shapley for the understanding of the Fine Arts,
Irofessor Eachhofer for the theories of style,
dorf for the awareness of the Renaissance,
to
to Irofessor Mittle-
and to Irofessor Johnson
for knowledge of Greek art without bibliographical bias. But it is
most of all in accordance with the researches of the members of the
departments of Art and Archaeology at Bryn Mawr College,
Utlller in his
of Brofessor
comprehensive grasp of non-Greek arts, of Dr. lease
in her detailed knowledge of red-figured vases,
of Irofessor Swindler
in her keen analysis of troublesome periods and materials,
of P r o ­
fessor Sloane in his information of nineteenth century art, and of
114
professor Carpenter in his thorough appreciation of the problems
of ancient sculpture and his helpful criticisms on all my work,
that this thesis was begun and finished.
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
11
Размер файла
22 191 Кб
Теги
sdewsdweddes
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа