Next to his judgment of the Laocoon, I was curious to know what
Winkelmann would say of the so-called Borghese Gladiator. I think I have
made a discovery with regard to this statue, and I rejoice in it with
all a discoverer’s delight.
I feared lest Winkelmann should have anticipated me, but there is
nothing of the kind in his work. If ought could make me doubt the
correctness of my conjecture, it would be the fact that my alarm was
uncalled for.
“Some critics,” says Winkelmann,[186] “take this statue for that of a
discobolus, that is, of a person throwing a disc or plate of metal. This
opinion was expressed by the famous Herr von Stosch in a paper addressed
to me. But he cannot have sufficiently studied the position which such a
figure would assume. A person in the act of throwing must incline his
body backward, with the weight upon the right thigh, while the left leg
is idle. Here the contrary is the case. The whole figure is thrown
forward, and rests on the left thigh while the right leg is stretched
backward to its full extent. The right arm is new, and a piece of a
lance has been placed in the hand. On the left can be seen the strap
that held the shield. The fact that the head and eyes are turned upward
and that the figure seems to be protecting himself with the shield
against some danger from above would rather lead us to consider this
statue as representing a soldier who had especially distinguished
himself in some position of peril. The Greeks probably never paid their
gladiators the honor of erecting them a statue; and this work, moreover,
seems to have been made previous to the introduction of gladiators into
Greece.”
The criticism is perfectly just. The statue is no more a gladiator than
it is a discobolus, but really represents a soldier who distinguished
himself in this position on occasion of some great danger. After this
happy guess, how could Winkelmann help going a step further? Why did he
not think of that warrior who in this very attitude averted the
destruction of a whole army, and to whom his grateful country erected a
statue in the same posture?
The statue, in short, is Chabrias.
This is proved by the following passage from Nepos’ life of that
commander:—[187]
“Hic quoque in summis habitus est ducibus; resque multas memoria
dignas gessit. Sed ex his elucet maxime inventum ejus in prœlio, quod
apud Thebas fecit, quum Bœotiis subsidio venisset. Namque in eo
victoriæ fidente summo duce Agesilao, fugatis jam ab eo conductitiis
catervis, reliquam phalangem loco vetuit cedere, obnixoque genu scuto,
projectaque hasta impetum excipere hostium docuit. Id novum Agesilaus
contuens, progredi non est ausus suosque jam incurrentes tuba
revocavit. Hoc usque eo tota Græcia fama celebratum est, ut illo statu
Chabrias sibi statuam fieri voluerit, quæ publice ei ab Atheniensibus
in foro constituta est. Ex quo factum est, ut postea athletæ,
ceterique artifices his statibus in statuis ponendis uterentur in
quibus victoriam essent adepti.”
The reader will hesitate a moment, I know, before yielding his assent;
but, I hope, only for a moment. The attitude of Chabrias appears to be
not exactly that of the Borghese statue. The thrusting forward of the
lance, “projecta hasta,” is common to both; but commentators explain the
“obnixo genu scuto” to be “obnixo genu in scutum,” “obfirmato genu ad
scutum.” Chabrias is supposed to have showed his men how to brace the
knee against the shield and await the enemy behind this bulwark, whereas
the statue holds the shield aloft. But what if the commentators are
wrong, and instead of “obnixo genu scuto” belonging together, “obnixo
genu” were meant to be read by itself and “scuto” alone, or in
connection with the “projectaque hasta,” which follows? The insertion of
a single comma makes the correspondence perfect. The statue is a
soldier, “qui obnixo genu,[188] scuto projectaque hasta impetum hostis
excipit,” who, with firmly set knee, and shield and lance advanced,
awaits the approach of the enemy. It shows what Chabrias did, and is the
statue of Chabrias. That a comma belongs here is proved by the “que”
affixed to the “projecta,” which would be superfluous if “obnixo genu
scuto” belonged together, and has, therefore, been actually omitted in
some editions.
The great antiquity which this interpretation assigns to the statue is
confirmed by the shape of the letters in the inscription. These led
Winkelmann himself to the conclusion that this was the oldest of the
statues at present existing in Rome on which the master had written his
name. I leave it to his critical eye to detect, if possible, in the
style of the workmanship any thing which conflicts with my opinion.
Should he bestow his approval, I may flatter myself on having furnished
a better example than is to be found in Spence’s whole folio of the
happy manner in which the classic authors can be explained by the old
masterpieces, and in turn throw light upon them.