[1] See also GREEK ART, GREEK LANGUAGE, GREEK LAW, GREEK LITERATURE,
GREEK RELIGION.
[2] For the Geology of Greece see: M. Neumayr, &c., _Denks. k. Akad.
Wiss. Wien, math.-nat. Cl._ vol. xl. (1880); A. Philippson, _Der
Peloponnes_ (Berlin, 1892) and "Beitrage zur Kenntnis der
griechischen Inselwelt," _Peterm. Mitt._, Erganz.-heft No. 134
(1901); R. Lepsius, _Geologie von Attika_ (Berlin, 1893); L. Cayeux,
"Phenomenes de charriage dans la Mediterranee orientale," _C. R.
Acad. Sci. Paris_, vol. cxxxvi. (1903) pp. 474-476; J. Deprat, "Note
preliminaire sur la geologie de l'ile d'Eubee," _Bull. Soc. Geol.
France_, ser. 4, vol. iii. (1903) pp. 229-243, p. vii. and "Note sur
la geologie du massif du Pelion et sur l'influence exercee par les
massifs archeens sur la tectonique de l'Egeide," _ib._ vol. iv.
(1904), pp. 299-338.
[3] No state survey of Greece was available in 1908, though a survey
had been undertaken by the ministry of war.
[4] It would be more accurate to say to the year 1500 B.C. At Cnossus
the palace is sacked soon after this date, and the art, both in Crete
and in the whole Aegean area, becomes lifeless and decadent.
[5] See T. W. Allen in the _Classical Review_, vol. xx. (1906), No. 4
(May).
[6] It has been impugned by J. Beloch, _Griechische Geschichte_, i.
149 ff.
[7] _History of Greece_ (Eng. trans., i. 32 ff.); cf. the same
writer's _Ioner vor der ionischen Wanderung_.
[8] If the account of early Athenian constitutional history given in
the _Athenaion Politeia_ were accepted, it would follow that the
archons were inferior in authority to the Eupatrid Boule, the
Areopagus.
[9] The dates before the middle of the 7th century are in most cases
artificial, e.g. those given by Thucydides (book vi.) for the earlier
Sicilian settlements. See J. P. Mahaffy, _Journal of Hellenic
Studies_, ii. 164 ff.
[10] At Syracuse the _demos_ makes common cause with the Sicel
serf-population against the nobles (Herod. vii. 155).
[11] An exception should perhaps be made in the case of Thucydides.
[12] The Peisistratidae come off better, however.
[13] The numbers given by Herodotus (upwards of 5,000,000) are
enormously exaggerated. We must divide by ten or fifteen to arrive at
a probable estimate of the forces that actually crossed the
Hellespont.
[14] It has been denied by some writers (e.g. by A. H. J. Greenidge)
that Athens interfered with the constitutions of the subject-states.
For the view put forward in the text, the following passages may be
quoted: Aristotle, _Politics_ 1307 b 20; Isocrates, _Panegyricus_,
105, 106, _Panathenaicus_, 54 and 68; Xenophon, _Hellenica_, iii. 4.
7; Ps.-Xen. _Athen. Constit._ i. 14, iii. 10.
[15] The evidence seems to indicate that all the more important
criminal cases throughout the empire were tried in the Athenian
courts. In civil cases Athens secured to the citizens of the
subject-states the right of suing Athenian citizens, as well as
citizens of other subject-states.
[16] After this date, and partly in consequence of the change, the
archonship, to which sortition was applied, loses its importance. The
_strategi_ (generals) become the chief executive officials. As
election was never replaced by the lot in their case, the change had
less practical meaning than might appear at first sight. (See ARCHON;
STRATEGUS.)
[17] For an estimate of the numbers annually engaged in the service
of Athens, see Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 24. 3.
[18] Foreign is not used here as equivalent to non-Hellenic. It means
"belonging to another state, whether Greek or barbarian."
[19] It failed even to create a united Arcadia or a strong Messenia.
[20] See Demosthenes, _On the Crown_, 235. Philip was [Greek:
autokrator, despotes, egemon, kurios panton.]
[21] See _Archidamus_, 68; Philippus, 96, [Greek: oste raon einai
sustesai stratopedon meizon kai kreltton ek ton planomenon e ek ton
politeuomenon.]
[22] The _Liturgies_ (e.g. the trierarchy) had much the same effect
as a direct tax levied upon the wealthiest citizens.
[23] His extreme caution in approaching the question at an earlier
date is to be noticed. See, e.g., _Olynthiacs_, i. 19, 20.
[24] e.g. the two expeditions sent to Euboea, the cavalry force that
took part in the battle of Mantinea, and the army that fought at
Chaeronea. The troops in all these cases were citizens.
[25] For the altered character of warfare see Demosthenes,
_Philippics_, iii. 48, 49.
[26] It is known that the councillors were appointed by the states in
the Aetolian league; it is only surmised in the case of the Achaean.
[27] Strictly speaking, to 411 B.C. For the last seven years of the
war our principal authority is Xenophon, _Hellenica_, i., ii.
[28] Possibly some of his information about Persian affairs may have
been derived, at first or second hand, from Zopyrus, son of
Megabyzus, whose flight to Athens is mentioned in iii. 160.
[29] For a defence of Thucydides' judgment on all three statesmen,
see E. Meyer, _Forschungen_, ii. 296-379.
[30] On the discrepancies between Xenophon's account of the Thirty,
and Aristotle's, see G. Busolt, _Hermes_ (1898), pp. 71-86.
[31] The fragment of the New Historian (_Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, vol.
v.) affords exceedingly important material for the criticism of
Xenophon's narrative. (See THEOPOMPUS.)
[32] Vol. iii. goes down to the end of the Peloponnesian War.
GREEK ART. It is proposed in the present article to give a brief account
of the history of Greek art and of the principles embodied in that
history. In any broad view of history, the products of the various arts
practised by a people constitute an objective and most important record
of the spirit of that people. But all nations have not excelled in the
same way: some have found their best expression in architecture, some in
music, some in poetry. The Greeks most fully embodied their ideas in two
ways, first in their splendid literature, both prose and verse, and
secondly, in their plastic and pictorial art, in which matter they have
remained to our days among the greatest instructors of mankind. The
three arts of architecture, sculpture and painting were brought by them
into a focus; and by their aid they produced a visible splendour of
public life such as has perhaps been nowhere else attained.
The volume of the remains of Greek civilization is so vast, and the
learning with which these have been discussed is so ample, that it is
hopeless to attempt to give in a work like the present any complete
account of either. Rather we shall be frankly eclectic, choosing for
consideration such results of Greek art as are most noteworthy and most
characteristic. In some cases it will be possible to give a reference to
a more detailed treatment of particular monuments in these volumes under
the heading of the places to which they belong. Architectural detail is
relegated to ARCHITECTURE and allied architectural articles. Coins (see
NUMISMATICS) and gems (see GEMS) are treated apart, as are vases
(CERAMICS), and in the bibliography which closes this article an effort
is made to direct those who wish for further information in any
particular branch of our subject.
1. _The Rediscovery of Greek Art._--The visible works of Greek
architect, sculptor and painter, accumulated in the cities of Greece and
Asia Minor until the Roman conquest. And in spite of the ravages of
conquering Roman generals, and the more systematic despoilings of the
emperors, we know that when Pausanias visited Greece, in the age of the
Antonines, it was from coast to coast a museum of works of art of all
ages. But the tide soon turned. Works of originality were no longer
produced, and a succession of disasters gradually obliterated those of
previous ages. In the course of the Teutonic and Slavonic invasions from
the north, or in consequence of earthquakes, very frequent in Greece,
the splendid cities and temples fell into ruins; and with the taking of
Constantinople by the Franks in 1204 the last great collection of works
of Greek sculpture disappeared. But while paintings decayed, and works
in metal were melted down, many marble buildings and statues survived,
at least in a mutilated condition, while terra-cotta is almost proof
against decay.
With the Renaissance attention was directed to the extant remains of
Greek and Roman art; as early as the 15th century collections of ancient
sculpture, coins and gems began to be formed in Italy; and in the 16th
the enthusiasm spread to Germany and France. The earl of Arundel, in the
reign of James I., was the first Englishman to collect antiques from
Italy and Asia Minor: his marbles are now in the Ashmolean Museum at
Oxford. Systematic travel in Greece for the discovery of buildings and
works of art was begun by Spon and Wheler (1675-1676); and the discovery
of Pompeii in 1748 opened a new chapter in the history of ancient art.
But though kings delighted to form galleries of ancient statues, and the
great Italian artists of the Renaissance drew from them inspiration for
their paintings and bronzes, the first really critical appreciation of
Greek art belongs to Winckelmann (_Geschichte der Kunst des Altertums_,
1764). The monuments accessible to Winckelmann were but a very small
proportion of those we now possess, and in fact mostly works of inferior
merit: but he was the first to introduce the historical method into the
treatment of ancient art, and to show how it embodied the ideas of the
great peoples of the ancient world. He was succeeded by Lessing, and the
waves of thought and feeling set in motion by these two affected the
cultivated class in all nations,--they inspired in particular Goethe in
Germany and Lord Byron in England.
The second stage in the recovery of Greek art begins with the permission
accorded by the Porte to Lord Elgin in 1800 to remove to England the
sculptural decoration of the Parthenon and other buildings of Athens.
These splendid works, after various vicissitudes, became the property of
the English nation, and are now the chief treasures of the British
Museum. The sight of them was a revelation to critics and artists,
accustomed only to the base copies which fill the Italian galleries, and
a new epoch in the appreciation of Greek art began. English and German
savants, among whom Cockerell and Stackelberg were conspicuous,
recovered the glories of the temples of Aegina and Bassae. Leake and
Ross, and later Curtius, journeyed through the length and breadth of
Greece, identifying ancient sites and studying the monuments which were
above ground. Ross reconstructed the temple of Athena Nike on the
Acropolis of Athens from fragments rescued from a Turkish bastion.
Meantime more methodical exploration brought to light the remains of
remarkable civilizations in Asia, not only in the valley of the
Euphrates, but in Lycia, whence Sir Charles Fellows brought to London
the remains of noteworthy tombs, among which the so-called Harpy
Monument and Nereid Monument take the first place. Still more important
were the accessions derived from the excavations of Sir Charles Newton,
who in the years 1852-1859 resided as consul in Asia Minor, and explored
the sites of the mausoleum at Halicarnassus and the shrine of Demeter at
Cnidus. Pullan at Priene, and Wood at Ephesus also made fruitful
excavations.
The next landmark is set by the German excavations at Olympia (1876 and
foll.), which not only were conducted with a scientific completeness
before unknown, and at great cost, but also established the principle
that in future all the results of excavations in Greece must remain in
the country, the right of first publication only remaining with the
explorers. The discovery of the Hermes of Praxiteles, almost the only
certain original of a great Greek sculptor which we possess, has
furnished a new and invaluable fulcrum for the study of ancient art. In
emulation of the achievements of the Germans at Olympia, the Greek
archaeological society methodically excavated the Athenian acropolis,
and were rewarded by finding numerous statues and fragments of pediments
belonging to the age of Peisistratus, an age when the promise of art was
in full bud. More recently French explorers have made a very thorough
examination of the site of Delphi, and have succeeded in recovering
almost complete two small treasuries, those of the people of Athens and
of Cnidus or Siphnos, the latter of 6th-century Ionian work, and adorned
with extremely important sculpture.
No other site of the same importance as Athens, Olympia and Delphi
remains for excavation in Greece proper. But in all parts of the
country, at Tegea, Corinth, Sparta and on a number of other ancient
sites, striking and important monuments have come to light. And at the
same time monuments already known in Italy and Sicily, such as the
temples of Paestum, Selinus and Agrigentum have been re-examined with
fuller knowledge and better system. Only Asia Minor, under the influence
of Turkish rule, has remained a country where systematic exploration is
difficult. Something, however, has been accomplished at Ephesus, Priene,
Assos and Miletus, and great works of sculpture such as the reliefs of
the great altar at Pergamum, now at Berlin, and the splendid sarcophagi
from Sidon, now at Constantinople, show what might be expected from
methodic investigation of the wealthy Greek cities of Asia.
From further excavations at Herculaneum we may expect a rich harvest of
works of art of the highest class, such as have already been found in
the excavations on that site in the past; and the building operations at
Rome are constantly bringing to light fine statues brought from Greece
in the time of the Empire, which are now placed in the collections of
the Capitol and the Baths of Diocletian.
The work of explorers on Greek sites requires as its complement and
corrective much labour in the great museums of Europe. As museum work
apart from exploration tends to dilettantism and pedantry, so
exploration by itself does not produce reasoned knowledge. When a new
building, a great original statue, a series of vases is discovered,
these have to be fitted in to the existing frame of our knowledge; and
it is by such fitting in that the edifice of knowledge is enlarged. In
all the museums and universities of Europe the fresh examination of new
monuments, the study of style and subject, and attempts to work out
points in the history of ancient art, are incessantly going on. Such
archaeological work is an important element in the gradual education of
the world, and is fruitful, quite apart from the particular results
attained, because it encourages a method of thought. Archaeology,
dealing with things which can be seen and handled, yet being a species
of historic study, lies on the borderland between the province of
natural science and that of historic science, and furnishes a bridge
whereby the methods of investigation proper to physical and biological
study may pass into the human field.
These investigations and studies are recorded, partly in books, but
more particularly in papers in learned journals (see bibliography),
such as the _Mitteilungen_ of the German Institute, and the English
_Journal of Hellenic Studies_.
An example or two may serve to give the reader a clearer notion of the
recent progress in the knowledge of Greek art.
To begin with architecture. Each of the palmary sites of which we have
spoken has rendered up examples of early Greek temples. At Olympia there
is the Heraeum, earliest of known temples of Greece proper, which
clearly shows the process whereby stone gradually superseded wood as a
constructive material. At Delphi the explorers have been so fortunate as
to be able to put together the treasuries of the Cnidians (or Siphnians)
and of the Athenians. The former (see fig. 17) is a gem of early Ionic
art, with two Caryatid figures in front in the place of columns, and
adorned with the most delicate tracery and fine reliefs. On the Athenian
acropolis very considerable remains have been found of temples which
were destroyed by the Persians when they temporarily occupied the site
in 480 B.C. And recently the ever-renewed study of the Erechtheum has
resulted in a restoration of its original form more valuable and
trustworthy than any previously made.
In the field of sculpture recent discoveries have been too many and too
important to be mentioned at any length. One instance may serve to mark
the rapidity of our advance. When the remains of the Mausoleum were
brought to London from the excavations begun by Sir Charles Newton in
1856 we knew from Pliny that four great sculptors, Scopas, Bryaxis,
Leochares and Timotheus, had worked on the sculpture; but we knew of
these artists little more than the names. At present we possess many
fragments of two pediments at Tegea executed under the direction of
Scopas, we have a basis with reliefs signed by Bryaxis, we have
identified a group in the Vatican museum as a copy of the Ganymede of
Leochares, and we have pedimental remains from Epidaurus which we know
from inscriptional evidence to be either the works of Timotheus or made
from his models. Any one can judge how enormously our power of
criticizing the Mausoleum sculptures, and of comparing them with
contemporary monuments, has increased.
In regard to ancient painting we can of course expect no such fresh
illumination. Many important wail-paintings of the Roman age have been
found at Rome and Pompeii: but we have no certain or even probable work
of any great Greek painter. We have to content ourselves with studying
the colouring of reliefs, such as those of the sarcophagi at
Constantinople, and the drawings on vases, in order to get some notion
of the composition and drawing of painted scenes in the great age of
Greece. As to the portraits of the Roman age painted on wood which have
come in considerable quantities from Egypt, they stand at a far lower
level than even the paintings of Pompeii. The number of our
vase-paintings, however, increases steadily, and whole classes, such as
the early vases of Ionia, are being marked off from the crowd, and so
becoming available for use in illustrating the history of Hellenic
civilization.
The study of Greek art is thus one which is eminently progressive. It
has over the study of Greek literature the immense advantage that its
materials increase far more rapidly. And it is becoming more and more
evident that a sound and methodic study of Greek art is quite as
indispensable as a foundation for an artistic and archaeological
education as the study of Greek poets and orators is as a basis of
literary education. The extreme simplicity and thorough rationality of
Greek art make it an unrivalled field for the training and exercise of
the faculties which go to the making of the art-critic and art
historian.
2. _The General Principles of Greek Art._--Before proceeding to sketch
the history of the rise and decline of Greek art, it is desirable
briefly to set forth the principles which underlie it (see also P.
Gardner's _Grammar of Greek Art_).
As the literature of Greece is composed in a particular language, the
grammar and the syntax of which have to be studied before the works in
poetry and prose can be read, so Greek works of art are composed in what
may be called an artistic language. To the accidence of a grammar may be
compared the mere technique of sculpture and painting: to the syntax of
a grammar correspond the principles of composition and grouping of
individual figures into a relief or picture. By means of the rules of
this grammar the Greek artist threw into form the ideas which belonged
to him as a personal or a racial possession.
We may mention first some of the more external conditions of Greek art;
next, some of those which the Greek spirit posited for itself.
No nation is in its works wholly free from the domination of climate and
geographical position; least of all a people so keenly alive to the
influence of the outer world as the Greeks. They lived in a land where
the soil was dry and rocky, far less hospitable to vegetation than that
of western Europe, while on all sides the horizon of the land was
bounded by hard and jagged lines of mountain. The sky was extremely
clear and bright, sunshine for a great part of the year almost
perpetual, and storms, which are more than passing gales, rare. It was
in accordance with these natural features that temples and other
buildings should be simple in form and bounded by clear lines. Such
forms as the cube, the oblong, the cylinder, the triangle, the pyramid
abound in their constructions. Just as in Switzerland the gables of the
chalets match the pine-clad slopes and lofty summits of the mountains,
so in Greece, amid barer hills of less elevation, the Greek temple looks
thoroughly in place. But its construction is related not only to the
surface of the land, but also to the character of the race. M. Emile
Boutmy, in his interesting _Philosophie de l'architecture en Grece_, has
shown how the temple is a triumph of the senses and the intellect, not
primarily emotional, but showing in every part definite purpose and
design. It also exhibits in a remarkable degree the love of balance, of
symmetry, of a mathematical proportion of parts and correctness of
curvature which belong to the Greek artist.
The purposes of a Greek temple may be readily judged from its plan.
Primarily it was the abode of the deity, whose statue dwelt in it as men
dwell in their own houses. Hence the cella or _naos_ is the central
feature of the building. Here was placed the image to which worship was
brought, while the treasures belonging to the god were disposed partly
in the cella itself, partly in a kind of treasury which often existed,
as in the Parthenon, behind the cella. There was in large temples a
porch of approach, the _pronaos_, and another behind, the
_opisthodomos_. Temples were not meant for, nor accommodated to, regular
services or a throng of worshippers. Processions and festivals took
place in the open air, in the streets and fields, and men entered the
abodes of the gods at most in groups and families, commonly alone. Thus
when a place had been found for the statue, which stood for the presence
of the god, for the small altar of incense, for the implements of cult
and the gifts of votaries, little space remained free, and great spaces
or subsidiary chapels such as are usual in Christian cathedrals did not
exist (see TEMPLE).
Here our concern is not with the purposes or arrangements of a temple,
but with its appearance and construction, regarded as a work of art, and
as an embodiment of Greek ideas. A few simple and striking principles
may be formulated, which are characteristic of all Greek buildings:--
(i.) Each member of the building has one function, and only one, and
this function controls even the decoration of that member. The pillar of
a temple is made to support the architrave and is for that purpose only.
The flutings of the pillar, being perpendicular, emphasize this fact.
The line of support which runs up through the pillar is continued in the
triglyph, which also shows perpendicular grooves. On the other hand, the
wall of a temple is primarily meant to divide or space off; thus it may
well at the top be decorated by a horizontal band of relief, which
belongs to it as a border belongs to a curtain. The base of a column, if
moulded, is moulded in such a way as to suggest support of a great
weight; the capital of a column is so carved as to form a transition
between the column and the cornice which it supports.
(ii.) Greek architects took the utmost pains with the proportions, the
symmetry as they called it, of the parts of their buildings. This was a
thing in which the keen and methodical eyes of the Greeks delighted, to
a degree which a modern finds it hard to understand. Simple and natural
relations, 1:2, 1:3, 2:3 and the like, prevailed between various members
of a construction. All curves were planned with great care, to please
the eye with their flow; and the alternations and correspondences of
features is visible at a glance. For example, the temple must have two
pediments and two porches, and on its sides and fronts triglyph and
metope must alternate with unvarying regularity.
(iii.) Rigidity in the simple lines of a temple is avoided by the device
that scarcely any outline is actually straight. All are carefully
planned and adapted to the eye of the spectator. In the Parthenon the
line of the floor is curved, the profiles of the columns are curved, the
corner columns slope inward from their bases, the columns are not even
equidistant. This elaborate adaptation, called entasis, was expounded by
F. C. Penrose in his work on Athenian architecture, and has since been
observed in several of the great temples of Greece.
(iv.) Elaborate decoration is reserved for those parts of the temple
which have, or at least appear to have, no strain laid upon them. It is
true that in the archaic age experiments were made in carving reliefs on
the lower drums of columns (as at Ephesus) and on the line of the
architrave (as at Assus). But such examples were not followed. Nearly
always the spaces reserved for mythological reliefs or groups are the
tops of walls, the spaces between the triglyphs, and particularly the
pediments surmounting the two fronts, which might be left hollow without
danger to the stability of the edifice. Detached figures in the round
are in fact found only in the pediments, or standing upon the tops of
the pediments. And metopes are sculptured in higher relief than friezes.
"When we examine in detail even the simplest architectural decoration,
we discover a combination of care, sense of proportion, and reason.
The flutings of an Ionic column are not in section mere arcs of a
circle, but made up of a combination of curves which produce a
beautiful optical effect; the lines of decoration, as may be best seen
in the case of the Erechtheum, are cut with a marvellous delicacy.
Instead of trying to invent new schemes, the mason contents himself
with improving the regular patterns until they approach perfection,
and he takes everything into consideration. Mouldings on the outside
of a temple, in the full light of the sun, are differently planned
from those in the diffused light of the interior. Mouldings executed
in soft stone are less fine than those in marble. The mason thinks
before he works, and while he works, and thinks in entire
correspondence with his surroundings."[1]
Greek architecture, however, is treated elsewhere (see ARCHITECTURE); we
will therefore proceed to speak briefly of the principles exemplified in
sculpture. Existing works of Greek sculpture fall easily into two
classes. The first class comprises what may be called works of
substantive art, statues or groups made for their own sake and to be
judged by themselves. Such are cult-statues of gods and goddesses from
temple and shrine, honorary portraits of rulers or of athletes,
dedicated groups and the like. The second class comprises decorative
sculptures, such as were made, usually in relief, for the decoration of
temples and tombs and other buildings, and were intended to be
subordinate to architectural effect.
Speaking broadly, it may be said that the works of substantive sculpture
in our museums are in the great majority of cases copies of doubtful
exactness and very various merit. The Hermes of Praxiteles is almost the
only marble statue which can be assigned positively to one of the great
sculptors; we have to work back towards the productions of the peers of
Praxiteles through works of poor execution, often so much restored in
modern times as to be scarcely recognizable. Decorative works, on the
other hand, are very commonly originals, and their date can often be
accurately fixed, as they belong to known buildings. They are thus
infinitely more trustworthy and more easy to deal with than the copies
of statues of which the museums of Europe, and more especially those of
Italy, are full. They are also more commonly unrestored. But yet there
are certain disadvantages attaching to them. Decorative works, even when
carried out under the supervision of a great sculptor, were but seldom
executed by him. Usually they were the productions of his pupils or
masons. Thus they are not on the same level of art as substantive
sculpture. And they vary in merit to an extraordinary extent, according
to the capacity of the man who happened to have them in hand, and who
was probably but little controlled. Every one knows how noble are the
pedimental sculptures of the Parthenon. But we know no reason why they
should be so vastly superior to the frieze from Phigalia; nor why the
heads from the temple at Tegea should be so fine, while those from the
contemporary temple at Epidaurus should be comparatively insignificant.
From the records of payments made to the sculptors who worked on the
Erechtheum at Athens it appears that they were ordinary masons, some of
them not even citizens, and paid at the rate of 60 drachms (about 60
francs) for each figure, whether of man or horse, which they produced.
Such piece-work would not, in our days, produce a very satisfactory
result.
Works of substantive sculpture may be divided into two classes, the
statues of human beings and those of the gods. The line between the two
is not, however, very easy to draw, or very definite. For in
representing men the Greek sculptor had an irresistible inclination to
idealize, to represent what was generic and typical rather than what was
individual, and the essential rather than the accidental. And in
representing deities he so fully anthropomorphized them that they became
men and women, only raised above the level of everyday life and endowed
with a superhuman stateliness. Moreover, there was a class of heroes
represented largely in art who covered the transition from men to gods.
For example, if one regards Heracles as a deity and Achilles as a man of
the heroic age and of heroic mould, the line between the two will be
found to be very narrow.
[Illustration: PLATE I.
_Photo, Brogi._
FIG. 50. HARMODIUS AND ARISTOGITON. (NAT. MUS. NAPLES.)
_Photo, Brogi._
FIG. 51. FARNESE BULL. (NAPLES.)
_Photo, Anderson._
FIG. 52. LAOCOON GROUP. (VATICAN.)
_Photo, Anderson._
FIG. 53. GANYMEDE OF LEOCHARES. (VATICAN.)]
[Illustration: PLATE II.
_Photo, Anderson._
FIG. 54.--FLYING OF MARSYAS. (VILLA ALBANI, ROME.)
_Photo, Anderson._
FIG. 55.--APOLLO OF THE BELVIDERE. (VATICAN.)]