These differences are most apparent in the surface modeling and facial

expression of the two works. In the _Agias_ the muscles are not

over-emphasized in detail, but show the simple observation of nature

characteristic of artists who worked before the scientific study of

anatomy at the Museum of Alexandria had reacted upon sculpture. In the

_Apoxyomenos_, on the other hand, we see an intentional display of the

new learning in the labored and detailed treatment of the muscles,

which disclose a knowledge of anatomy unknown before the Hellenistic

age. This academic treatment, culminating later in such realistic works

as the _Laocoön_ and the _Farnese Herakles_, can hardly have antedated

the beginning of the third century B. C., when anatomy was studied by

the physicians Herophilos and Erasistratos, a date after the close

of the activity of Lysippos. We see no trace of this influence in

the _Agias_. Moreover, the face of the latter discloses the intense

expression, which is elsewhere seen only in works supposed to be by,

or influenced by, Skopas, which recalls what Plutarch[2040] said of

Lysippos’ portraits of Alexander, that they reproduced his masculine

and leonine air (αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀρρενωπὸν καὶ λεοντῶδες); for a comparison

of this face with that of the _Apoxyomenos_, which exhibits the

lifelessness and lack of expression so characteristic of many early

Hellenistic works, makes it still more evident that we must be on our

guard against assuming that both works are representative of the same

sculptor. The essential differences in physical type and artistic

execution between the two statues have been well summarized by K. T.

Frost in a letter published by Prof. Percy Gardner in the latter’s

treatment of the same subject.[2041] After a careful analysis of these

differences, Frost closes by saying: “It is difficult to believe that

the two statues represent works by the same artist; it is not only

the type of man, but the way in which that type is expressed which

forms the contrast.” He compares the _Apoxyomenos_ with the _Borghese

Warrior_ (Fig. 43) as true products of the Hellenistic age.

When we consider these differences between the two statues, we see

that our judgment of Lysippan art must depend on how we interpret

them. We may either flatly reject the _Apoxyomenos_ and put the

_Agias_ in its place as representing the norm of Lysippan art, or

keep the _Apoxyomenos_ and reject the _Agias_ as evidence; or lastly

we may keep both as characteristic works of two different periods in

the artistic career of Lysippos, explaining the differences as the

result of influence or of the lapse of years. A recent writer, to be

sure, has cut the Gordian knot by rejecting both statues, and placing

the _Apoxyomenos_ of the Uffizi—which we have treated at length in a

preceding chapter (Pl. 12)—as the key to our knowledge of the art of

Lysippos.[2042] But such a solution of the problem raises even more

difficulties. Long before the _Agias_ came to light some critics,

indeed, had doubted whether the _Apoxyomenos_ really represented

the work of Lysippos, as its Hellenistic character seemed evident.

Thus, in 1877, Ulrich Koehler,[2043] following a still earlier

judgment,[2044] had come to the conclusion that the Vatican statue

was only a free reproduction of Lysippos’ masterpiece and attributed

its Hellenistic characteristics to the Roman copyist; but even yet

the school which long recognized the _Apoxyomenos_ as the norm of

Lysippos has its supporters,[2045] though many archæologists have

now supplanted the _Apoxyomenos_ by the _Agias_.[2046] Others, not

willing to renounce the _Apoxyomenos_ as evidence, accept both it and

the _Agias_ as characteristic works of the master, appealing to the

length of his career to explain the differences, and suggesting that

in his youth Lysippos was under the influence of Skopas, but later in

life attained independence, and followed a more anatomical rendering

for his athlete statues.[2047] However, despite the fact that other

artists must have influenced Lysippos,[2048] the _Agias_ can not be

shown to be a youthful work of his, nor can the special influence

of Skopas be shown to have been that of master on pupil, but rather

of one great master on another and equally great contemporary. The

difficulty about penetrating the obscurity surrounding Lysippos comes

largely from the fact that he borrowed traits from several of his

predecessors and contemporaries. The influence of Polykleitos, Skopas,

and Praxiteles, and especially of the last two, as Homolle emphasized

in his study of the Daochos group,[2049] can be certainly traced in

the _Agias_. Fräulein Bieber, in a recent article,[2050] while denying

that Lysippos had anything to do with the Delphian group, tries to

prove that one figure in it shows the influence of Praxiteles, another

that of Polykleitos, and a third that of Skopas. She believes that

the sculptor of the _Agias_ had seen the original bronze statue, the

work of Lysippos, which stood in Pharsalos. However, we may leave any

such conclusion to one side, and judge between the _Agias_ and the

_Apoxyomenos_ solely on the merits of the two statues.

The differences between them appear to us too great to be reconciled

on any such principles as those just rehearsed, for their style and

technique seem to represent two distinct periods of art. If one is

to be rejected, the connection of the _Agias_ with Lysippos certainly

rests on better evidence than does the _Apoxyomenos_. By separating

them completely, it is possible both to assign to Lysippos the early

date which other evidence points to, and to remove the _Apoxyomenos_

entirely from the fourth century B. C., thus explaining its later

modeling, comparatively expressionless features, body-build (which

shows the use of three planes, instead of two), and other Hellenistic

details. We should, then, see in its original a work not by Lysippos

at all, but by some pupil or later member of his school, a work

retaining merely traces of the style of the master. In thus eliminating

the _Apoxyomenos_ we are justified in following Homolle’s lead in

assigning the statue of Agias to Lysippos, in spite of arguments which

have been adduced against attributing it to Lysippos and in spite

of recent criticism of the inscriptions of the Delphian bases, by

which Wolters tries to prove that the inscription on the base of the

statue of Agias, and consequently the _Agias_ itself, antedate the

inscription and dedication at Pharsalos.[2051] We may, therefore, until

further discoveries prove the contrary, consider it as the centre of

our treatment of that sculptor. Whether the _Apoxyomenos_ is to be

explained as emanating from the immediate environment of Lysippos,

or is to be regarded as a work illustrating the last phase of his

development, or the innovation of another master—in any case it seems

to us clearly to belong to an age essentially different from that which

conceived the _Agias_.[2052]

As the _Agias_ is a statue of a victor in the pankration, we can learn

from it how Lysippos represented such an athlete. In giving up the

_Apoxyomenos_, we must also give up statues of athletes which have

hitherto been assigned to Lysippos on the basis of their resemblance

to it, and the future ascription of statues of this class must be

based on stylistic resemblances to the statue of Agias. Thus, for

example, we should give up the statue of a youth in Berlin, and the

two statues of athletes represented in lunging attitudes in Dresden,

which Furtwaengler, on the basis of the _Apoxyomenos_, believed were

copies of originals by Lysippos,[2053] and the Roman male head in

Turin, published by A. J. B. Wace,[2054] whose original is somewhat

later than that of the _Apoxyomenos_. On the basis of the _Agias_, on

the other hand, we may regard as Lysippan the statue of an athlete in

Copenhagen,[2055] and perhaps the Parian marble statue of an athlete

from the Palazzo Farnese now in the British Museum,[2056] with copies

in Paris and Rome.[2057] This latter statue Furtwaengler ascribed to

the school of Kalamis of the fifth century B. C., on account of the

similarity of its style to that of the _Apollo-on-the-Omphalos_ (Fig.

7B) and of its motive to that of the _Lansdowne Herakles_ (Fig. 71 and

Pl. 30); however, A. H. Smith finds it very similar to the _Agias_, and

so rightly refers it to the fourth century B. C.

THE HEAD FROM OLYMPIA.

Impressed by its remarkable likeness to the head of the _Agias_, I

hazarded the opinion some years ago,[2058] that the much discussed

Pentelic marble head from Olympia (Frontispiece and Figure 69)[2059]

was Lysippan, and attempted to bring it into relation with the statue

of the Akarnanian pancratiast (whose name I restored as Philandridas),

which Pausanias[2060] says was the work of Lysippos. Since then, after

a careful revision of the evidence, this earlier opinion has become

conviction, and I now have no hesitancy in expressing the belief that

in this vigorous marble head we have to do with an original work

by Lysippos himself. It will be our task briefly to rehearse the

reasons for making such an ascription, despite the serious and weighty

objections which might be raised against it.

[Illustration: FIG. 69.—Marble Head, from Olympia. Museum of Olympia.]

At first this head was ascribed with surprising unanimity to the

school of Praxiteles,[2061] and subsequently, after the discovery of

the Tegea heads, with almost equal unanimity to that of Skopas. Treu,

who first published the head,[2062] pointed out its near relationship

to the _Hermes_ of Praxiteles, which appeared to him to be obvious,

notwithstanding the injured condition of the chin, nose, mouth, and

brows. He found the general proportions, the shape of the cranium

and forehead, and the form of the cheeks and mouth the same in both,

while the differences, such as the deeper cut and wider opened eyes

with their γοργόν expression, the hair, and the fact that the head

is harder, leaner, and bonier than that of the _Hermes_, were all

explained by the different character given to the statue of a victor

or Herakles. Many other archæologists, as Boetticher,[2063] Laloux and

Monceaux,[2064] and Furtwaengler,[2065] have also seen sure signs of

the hand of Praxiteles or his school in the graceful attitude, delicate

chiseling, and finish of the work. Still others,[2066] however, found

every characteristic of Skopas in this head. Even Treu in his later

treatment of the head found it more Skopaic than Praxitelian, and yet,

by a careful analysis,[2067] he conclusively showed that the formation

of the eyes, the opening of the mouth, and the treatment of the hair

were so different in the heads from Tegea (and especially in that of

the _Herakles_, Fig. 73) as to preclude the possibility of assigning

them and the head from Olympia to the same sculptor, and so declared

for some independent sculptor among the contemporaries of Skopas.

However, he did not see Lysippos in this allied but independent artist,

though he admitted the resemblance of the head in question to that of

the _Agias_, as also Homolle,[2068] Mahler,[2069] and other critics

have done.

THE OLYMPIA HEAD AND THAT OF THE AGIAS.

A detailed comparison of this head with that of the _Agias_ will show

wherein the wonderful resemblance—so striking at first glance—consists

and will disclose its Lysippan character. Neither head is a portrait,

nor even individualized; the _Agias_ could be no portrait, for Agias

was the great-grandfather of Daochos, who enlisted the services of his

contemporary Lysippos in erecting his statue, and he won his victory

in the pankration more than a century before this statue was set

up.[2070] A glance at the head from Olympia also clearly discloses its

ideal character; for it is no portrait of Philandridas, but the victor

κατ’ ἐξοχήν in the pankration. The small head of the _Agias_—under

life-size—first arrests attention as the chief characteristic of the

whole statue and (taken with the other proportions of the body) as the

chief mark of its Lysippan origin. As Homolle says, it is not that

small heads are not found outside the school of Lysippos or before

his day—for Myron can furnish examples of them—but it is only with

Lysippos and after him that we see a conscious intention of having the

proportions thus reduced. Now the head from Olympia is also less than

life-size,[2071] but as the head alone is preserved, we can only assume

that the proportions it bore to the body were similar to those we see

in the statue of Agias. The conformation of the crania of both is, as

in Attic works, round, with small, only slightly projecting occiputs,

as opposed to the squareness of Polykleitan heads, which are longer

from front to back and flatter on top—showing how Lysippos in this

respect departed from the creator of the _Doryphoros_. This cranial

conformation is almost identical in the two heads, as is clearly shown

in Fig. 70, where one is drawn in profile over the other.

[Illustration: FIG. 70.—Profile Drawings of the Heads of the _Agias_

and the _Philandridas_.]

The head of the _Agias_ is turned slightly upward and to the left.

Treu found traces of the use of a file on the back of the neck of

the head from Olympia, which show from their position, what also

was clear from the muscles of the throat, that this head also was

inclined somewhat to the left and upward, possibly more than that of

the _Agias_. The outlines of the face—lean and bony in both—are oval,

in the head from Olympia somewhat broader, rounder, and fleshier

toward the chin. In both the forehead is remarkably low, with a low

depression or crease in the middle, and with a prominently projecting

superciliary arcade, which breaks the continuous line from forehead

to nose very perceptibly. This line is concave above and below, but

convex at the projection itself, though this is less prominent in the

_Agias_. The powerful framing of the eyes, which are deep-set and

thrown into heavy shadows by the projecting bony structure of the brows

and the overhanging masses of flesh, the eyeballs slightly raised and

peering eagerly into the far distance, the slight upward inclination

of the head, and the prominent forehead drawn together, all combine

to give both heads (though young and vigorous) a pensive, even a sad

look of heroic dignity, a look seemingly of one who takes no joy nor

pleasure in victory, though it is not mournful. This humid and pensive

expression was doubtless a characteristic of works of Lysippos—it was,

as we know, present in his portraits of Alexander—but he did not treat

it with as great intensity as did Skopas.

The eyeballs in both heads are strongly arched, though the inner angles

are not so deep as in Skopaic heads; the raised upper lids form a

symmetrically narrow and sharply defined border over the eyeball,

and in neither head is this lid covered by a fold of skin at the outer

corners, as in the Tegea heads; the mass of flesh at the outer corners

is heavier in the head from Olympia, and the expression of the eyes is

more free and defiant than in the more meditative _Agias_. In both, the

cheek bones are high and prominent. The elegant contour of the lips of

the _Agias_ is wholly wanting in the head from Olympia, in which the

lips are broken off, like the nose and the chin, but it is clear that

the lips were slightly parted, just showing the teeth—not, however, as

in the Tegea examples, as if the breath were being drawn with great

effort. The look of pensiveness is also increased by the open lips. The

contour of the jawbone is not so visible as in the _Agias_, where it is

clearly discernible beneath the closely drawn skin, giving the face a

look of greater leanness, as of an athlete in perfect training.

In both heads the swollen and battered ears, though small, are

prominent, and in both the hair is closely cropped, as becomes the

athlete. The hair of the _Agias_ does not show so much expression as

is displayed in that of some Lysippan heads, nor the fine detail we

should expect from Pliny’s statement that Lysippos made improvements

in the rendering of the hair[2072]—for it is in great measure only

sketched out. In Lysippan portraits of Alexander the hair is generally

expressively treated, and this is often the case in early Hellenistic

heads.[2073] However, we should not expect an elaborate treatment of

the hair in the statue of a pancratiast. The head from Olympia also

shows great simplicity in this regard. As in Skopaic heads, the hair is

fashioned into little ringlets ruffled straight up from the forehead in

flat relief, but here the curls are shorter and more tense. It covers

the temples and surrounds the ears as in the _Agias_, but it is not,

as there, bounded by a round, floating line across the forehead, nor

divided into little tufts modeled in relief radiating in concentric

circles from the top of the head. While lacking in detail, the hair of

the _Agias_ is treated carefully, and with the greatest variety. Narrow

bands, perhaps the insignia of victory, despite their small size,

encircle both heads; in the _Agias_ the band is dexterously used to

heighten the effect of variety in the hair by alternately flattening

and swelling it here and there. In neither head is there any sign of

the use of the drill to work out the tufts of the hair; only the chisel

was used.[2074]

Finally, the whole expression of these two ideal heads is one of force

and energy, of heroic dignity tempered by pensiveness and pathos,

which is, in the head from Olympia at least, even a little dramatic.

Both heads, while ideal, show close observation of nature in modeling

and expression; and both show the predilection of Lysippos for types

in which force and energy predominate, and his indifference to the

softer and more delicate types of manly beauty so characteristic of his

contemporary, Praxiteles.

In the foregoing comparison, we have tacitly assumed that this marble

head is from an athlete statue, and, moreover, that it, as the _Agias_,

represents a victor in the pankration, though many have seen in it

the representation not of a victor, but of a youthful Herakles.[2075]

The swollen ears and the band in the hair might pass equally well for

either, just as the fact that it was unearthed near the ruins of the

Great Gymnasion (if it were necessary to assume that the statue once

stood there) might be adduced as evidence for either interpretation;

for statues of athletes as well as those of Herakles and Hermes (as

we have shown in Ch. II)[2076] adorned palæstræ and gymnasia. That

the head is of marble and slightly under life-size seems to lend

some support also to the belief that it is a fragment of a statue of

Herakles, on the assumption that statues of victors in the Altis were

uniformly of bronze, an assumption, however, not supported by the

facts, as will be shown in Chapter VII. So some have seen the heroic

features of the youthful hero in the γοργόν of the eyes, the energetic

forehead, closely cropped hair, muscular neck, and almost challenging

inclination of the head seemingly corresponding with an energetic

raising of the left shoulder.[2077] In Chapter III we saw that swollen

ears were of little use in determining whether a given head belongs

to the statue of a victor or to one of Herakles, since they formed no

personal characteristic, but only a professional one common to athletes

and to gods, if these latter were concerned with athletics.[2078] Where

personal attributes are absent, it is often difficult, therefore, to

determine whether an ideal athlete or Herakles is intended, for it may

be the hero in the guise of the athlete, or an athlete in the guise of

the hero. The head under discussion, then, may furnish merely another

illustration of the process of assimilation of type which we have

already discussed. Thus it is not surprising that some have regarded

this head as that of a youthful Herakles. Yet such a view is wrong;

for, apart from all considerations which we shall adduce to identify it

with the Akarnanian pancratiast, and in the absence of distinguishing

attributes, if we compare it with another Lysippan head from a statue

generally recognized as that of a Herakles—the famous Pentelic marble

one in Lansdowne House, London (Pl. 30 and Fig. 71),[2079] which

Michaelis long ago characterized as “unmistakably in the spirit of

Lysippos”—we can see how fundamentally different is the whole spiritual

conception of the two, and how differently an athlete (even if highly

idealized) and a hero are treated by the same sculptor. If we once

recognize a victor in the head from Olympia, then the swollen ears, the

fierce, barbarous look of the eyes, and the half-painful expression of

the mouth, all concur in convincing us that we here have to do with a

victor in boxing or the pankration, the two most brutal and dangerous

contests.

[Illustration: FIG. 71.—Head of the Statue of Herakles (Pl. 30).

Lansdowne House, London.]

IDENTIFICATION OF THE OLYMPIA HEAD.

Having established, then, the Lysippan character of the head and the

probability that it comes from the statue of a boxer or pancratiast,

we shall next discuss the evidence for identifying it with one of the

monuments mentioned by Pausanias in his _periegesis_ of the Altis. He

names only five statues of victors by Lysippos: those of Troilos,[2080]

victor in the two- and four-horse chariot-races; of Philandridas[2081]

and of Polydamas,[2082] victors in the pankration; of Cheilon,[2083]

victor in wrestling, and of Kallikrates,[2084] victor in the

hoplite-race. Of these, the only two which can come into consideration

are those of the two pancratiasts; and one of these, that of Polydamas,

can at once be eliminated; for this small head can have had nothing

to do with the pretentious monument mentioned by Pausanias in these

words: ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ βάθρῳ τῷ ὑψηλῷ Λυσίππου μέν ἐστιν ἔργον, μέγιστος

δὲ ἁπάντων ἐγένετο ἀνθρώπων, κ. τ. λ. Fragments of the base of this

monument have been recovered, and it stood in a part of the Altis[2085]

too far removed from the spot where the statue of Philandridas stood,

or from that where the marble head was found. Our choice is limited

to the statue of the Akarnanian, the tenth in the series of 168

victors[2086] named by Pausanias in his first _ephodos_.

[Illustration: PLATE 30

Statue of Herakles. Lansdowne House, London.]

We can determine very closely the position of these first few statues

in the Altis. Pausanias begins his enumeration ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ ναοῦ τῆς

Ἥρας, in the northwest of the sacred enclosure.[2087] He is often

loose in his employment of words to denote locations, and especially

so in that of the terms ἐν δεξιᾷ and ἐν ἀριστερᾷ, which must sometimes be

interpreted from the viewpoint of the spectator, and sometimes from

that of a given monument. We shall show in Chapter VIII that these

words in this connection must be taken as referring to the temple

_pro persona_, and consequently to the southern side of the Heraion.

The marble head was found in this neighborhood, in the wall of some

late Byzantine huts behind the southern end of the stadion-hall of

the Great Gymnasion, 23.50 meters north of its southeastern corner

and 5 meters east of its back wall,[2088] and consequently very near

the Heraion. Inasmuch as the inscribed tablet from the base of the

statue of Troilos,[2089] the sixth statue mentioned by Pausanias, and

the inscribed base of the monument of Kyniska,[2090] the seventh,

were both found in the ruins of the Prytaneion nearby, and the basis

of the statue of Sophios,[2091] the twenty-second in the series,

was discovered also in this part of the Altis, in the bed of the

Kladeos,[2092] we can conclude that all four monuments originally

stood near together, and in the order named by Pausanias, along the

southern side of the Heraion. The remarkably good preservation of the

surface of the marble head points to the fact that it was set up in a

sheltered place.[2093] Furthermore, the unfinished condition of the

back hair, which is only roughly blocked out, so that not even the

contour of the locks is indicated, shows that the statue was intended

to be set up against a solid background, _i. e._, in front of a wall,

niche, or column.[2094] From this fact we may conclude that the statue

of Philandridas, and perhaps those of some of the other victors first

mentioned by Pausanias, stood on the southern stylobate of the Heraion,

over against the columns of the peristyle.

THE DATES OF PHILANDRIDAS AND LYSIPPOS.

The date of the victory of Philandridas is not recorded, but it

probably must lie within the years of the activity of Lysippos, who

made the statue.[2095] On the principle which has been sufficiently

demonstrated in my monograph _de olympionicarum Statuis_, that statues

of nearly contemporaneous victors were grouped together in the Altis,

as well as those of the same family and state, or those who had been

victorious in the same contest, I have already in that work[2096]

proposed Ol. 102 or Ol. 103 (= 372 or 368 B. C.) as the probable date

of his victory, as his statue stands among those of victors, none of

whom could have won later than Ol. 104 (= 364 B. C.). The first six

named by Pausanias are Eleans and the dates of their victories fall

between Ols. 94 and 104 (= 404 and 364 B. C.); the sixth, Troilos, is

known to have won his two victories in Ols. 102 and 103.[2097] None

of the next seven Spartans—among whose statues that of Philandridas

was placed—can be dated later than Ol. 97 (= 392 B. C.), while most of

them belong to the close of the fifth century B. C. Sostratos of Sikyon

won in the same contest in which Philandridas did in Ol. 104 (= 364

B. C.);[2098] and doubtless his two other known victories should be

assigned to the two succeeding Olympiads. To bring Philandridas down

as far as Ol. 107 (= 352 B. C.) is unwarranted, since no statue of so

late a date stood in this vicinity. On the other hand, to place his

victory earlier than Ol. 102, is also out of the question, owing to the

inexpediency of dating Lysippos so early. Doubtless, therefore, his

statue by Lysippos was placed in the Spartan group about the same time

that the image of Troilos, by the same sculptor, was placed among the

Eleans. This is an independent argument, then, for so early a date for

Lysippos.[2099]

Percy Gardner, in the discussion of the date of this artist,[2100] has

shown how slight is the evidence for any date later than 320 B. C.

The date of the second Olympic victory of Cheilon of Patrai, whose

statue was by Lysippos, can not be later than 320 B. C.[2101] Pausanias

quotes the inscription on the base of the statue to the effect that

Cheilon died in battle and was buried for his valor’s sake by the

Achæan people. He infers the date of his death by reference to the

date of Lysippos as either 338 B. C. (Chæroneia) or 322 B. C. (Lamia).

In another passage, VII, 6.5, he says that the Olympic guide told him

that Cheilon was the only Achæan who fought at Lamia. Gardner justly

remarks that either of these dates, the two occasions in the lifetime

of Lysippos when the Achæans took part in an important war, fall

within the dates of the artist’s activity.[2102] The dates of the two

hoplite victories of Kallikrates of Magnesia, on the Meander, whose

statue was also the work of Lysippos, must be left indeterminate.[2103]

Gardner also shows that the wish not to separate Lysippos from the

_Apoxyomenos_ has been the real reason which has influenced so

many archæologists to extend his activity to the end of the fourth

century,[2104] and to explain away the evidence for an earlier date

offered by the statue of Troilos, who won his second victory in 368 B.

C. If we once for all give up the _Apoxyomenos_, the difficulty of an

early dating disappears, as does also the theory that Skopas could have

strongly influenced the youthful Lysippos as a master would influence a

pupil, and it becomes clear that this influence must have been mutual,

that of one great contemporary upon another. Although Lysippos worked

longer, as is attested by his work for Alexander and his generals,

he could have been but little if any younger than either Skopas or

Praxiteles, from both of whom he learned. We have already quoted

Homolle[2105] as saying that an analysis of the style of the _Agias_

discloses the mixed influences of Praxiteles and Skopas, as well as the

independent work of Lysippos, in the pose, proportions, and whole type

of the figure.

Lysippos was a great reformer in art, breaking away from Argive and

Polykleitan traditions, even though he called the _Doryphoros_ as

well as Nature his master, and though the influence of Polykleitos

is visible in the body of the _Agias_, just as that of Skopas in the

treatment of its forehead, eyes, and mouth, and in the intensity of its

expression. Evidently he was strongly affected by the work of his great

predecessors and contemporaries, but developed at the same time new

and independent tendencies. Thus the _Philandridas_ must have been—just

as the lost statue of Troilos—an early work of the master, whereas the

_Agias_ was the work of his mature genius. The difference between the

two can thus be explained by the lapse of time between them, and by the

influences that surrounded the youthful artist; but the similarities

between them are, at the same time, striking, and there is little

resemblance in either to the _Apoxyomenos_. This is another link in the

chain of evidence that the latter work could not have been produced by

the same artist; for artists do not radically change their style after

many years of work, and Lysippos must have been at least fifty years

old when he created the _Agias_.

The identification of this marble head with that of the victor statue

of the Akarnanian pancratiast by Lysippos raises two questions which we

shall briefly examine: whether the statues in the Altis were ever made

of marble, and whether Lysippos ever worked in that material. The first

of these questions will be left for the following chapter; the second

will be discussed in the present connection.

LYSIPPOS AS A WORKER IN MARBLE, AND STATUE “DOUBLES.”

To regard a marble statue as an original work of Lysippos, who has been

looked upon almost universally as a sculptor in bronze exclusively,

seems at first sight to be baseless. Pliny certainly classed Lysippos

among the bronze-workers, for in the preface to his account of

bronze-founders[2106] he tells us that this artist produced 1,500

statues, and doubtless we are to infer that the historian regarded

them all as being made of metal. He further[2107] speaks of Lysippos’

contributions to the (_ars_) _statuaria_, and it seems clear that this

term, as the modern title of Book XXXIV, is to be taken in its narrow

sense of sculpture in bronze as opposed to _sculptura_,[2108] that

in marble. How firmly the belief is established that Lysippos worked

only in bronze can be seen from the following words of Overbeck: “_Zu

beginnen ist mit wiederholter Hervorhebung der durchaus unzweifelhaften

und wichtigen Tatsache dass Lysippos ausschliesslich Erzgiesser

war._”[2109] That Lysippos was preëminently a bronze-worker, and

that his ancient reputation was due chiefly to his bronze work, can

not be doubted. But to say that he never essayed to produce works

in marble, as so many other Greek artists did who were famed as

bronze-workers,[2110] is, as one writer has lately expressed it, a

_kindisches Vorurtheil_.[2111] That marble work was done in his studio,

if not by his hand, is well attested by the reliefs from the base

of the victor statue of Polydamas mentioned above, which have been

generally referred to Lysippos’ pupils.[2112] These are too damaged

to be used as exact evidence of his style, but the legs of Polydamas

himself, in the central relief, so far as their contour can be made

out, are thin and sinewy, as we should expect in Lysippan work, and

this relief doubtless would have been regarded as the work of the

master himself, if it had not been taken for granted that he worked

only in bronze. But for the same assumption some critics would have

seen an original from the hand of Lysippos in the statue of Agias at

least, if not in the others of the Delphian group.[2113] It will be

interesting to rehearse some of the arguments by which the statue of

Agias has been adjudged a copy.[2114]

It has been generally assumed that the original group of statues at

Pharsalos was of bronze (though we have no proof that it may not have

been of marble), while the one at Delphi was copied almost, if not

quite, simultaneously in marble[2115]—so faithfully, indeed, that even

the proper marble support to the figure of Agias was omitted. While

Homolle notes the absence of this support as evidence of the marble

statue being an exact copy of the original bronze, Gardner argues that

this proves a free imitation, where the support was not needed.[2116]

The inexact modeling of the hair, since hair can not be rendered so

perfectly in marble as in bronze, has been adduced as a sign that the

marble statue was a copy of the bronze original. This in itself is a

weak argument, since the slight and sketchy treatment of the hair of

the _Hermes_ of Praxiteles—which is, for the most part, merely blocked

out[2117]—might with just as good reason be used as evidence that that

statue is only a copy, especially as we know that Praxiteles also

worked in bronze.[2118] The omission of the artist’s signature on the

base of the _Agias_ has also been taken to indicate that some pupil of

Lysippos (Lysistratos, for example) did the work of transference in the

master’s studio under his supervision and doubtless from his model.

Despite all such arguments, which prove little, it must be admitted

that the careless finish of the Delphian statue is not what we should

expect in a masterpiece by so renowned a sculptor as Lysippos, as

the statue can not be said to be a first-rate work of art. But that

it was made under the direct supervision of Lysippos can hardly be

questioned. It seems reasonable to believe that Daochos, who employed

the great artist in the one case, would not have trusted a mere copyist

in the other, or one who was free to indulge his individual taste

in details,[2119] especially as the statue was to be placed in so

prominent a place as Delphi. He probably gave the orders for the two

statues at the same time, and Lysippos must have had the oversight of

the Delphian one. So it seems best to regard the statue of Agias as a

“double,” and not as a copy in the later sense of the word. The custom

of making such doubles goes back at least to the middle of the sixth

century B. C. Thus the statue of the _Delian Apollo_ by Angelion and

Tektaios, known as the “_Healer_” (Οὔλιος),[2120] had a “double” in

both Delphi[2121] and Athens.[2122] Similarly the _Philesian Apollo_ of

Branchidai near Miletos, by the elder Kanachos,[2123] had a double in

Thebes known as the _Ismenian Apollo_, which Pausanias says differed

from the one in Miletos neither in form nor size, but only in material,

for it was of cedar-wood,[2124] while the Milesian one was of bronze.

Furtwaengler[2125] has demonstrated that contemporary doubles of works

by Polykleitos, Pheidias, and Praxiteles existed. The case of the

statues of the athlete Agias at Pharsalos and at Delphi is paralleled

by that of the Olympic victor Promachos, who had statues, probably

alike, both at Olympia and in his native city Pellene.[2126] A double

of the base of the _Nike_ of Paionios at Olympia was discovered at

Delphi,[2127] and a fine head in the collection of Miss Hertz in Rome

is from the same original.[2128] A Polykleitan head in the British

Museum, similar to that of the _Westmacott Athlete_ (Pl. 19), seems

to be a contemporary replica of an original of the fifth century

B. C.[2129] Such examples (and many more could be cited) show the

difference between contemporary “doubles” and the later copies of Greek

masterpieces. The former are Greek originals in a very true sense,

made, as we assume the _Agias_ was, under the direct supervision of

noted sculptors. In this sense only the Delphian statue should be

called a copy.

HEAD OF A STATUE OF A BOY FROM SPARTA, AND THE ART OF SKOPAS.

[Illustration: FIG. 72.—Marble Head of a Boy, found near the Akropolis,

Sparta. In Private Possession in Philadelphia, U. S. A.]

We shall next discuss the beautiful Pentelic marble head of a boy,

with a lion’s scalp drawn over the top so that the muzzle comes down

over the forehead, which is said to have been discovered near the

Akropolis at Sparta in 1908 (Fig. 72). This head was for a time in the

University Museum, Philadelphia, and later was exhibited at the Boston

Museum of Fine Arts. At last accounts it was in private possession in

Philadelphia. It has been published as the head of a youthful Herakles

by my colleague, Professor W. N. Bates, in the _American Journal of

Archæology_.[2130] Of its style he says: “The points of resemblance

which the Philadelphia Heracles bears to the heads from the Tegean

pediments are so many and so striking that they must all be traced

back to the same sculptor; and that he was Skopas there can be little

doubt.” He therefore concludes that it is “probably a very good copy

of a lost work of Skopas.”[2131] A little later, Dr. L. D. Caskey, of

the Museum in Boston, found these resemblances hardly close enough,

in view of the influence of Skopas on later Greek sculpture, to

justify so definite an attribution.[2132] He found them confined to

the upper part of the face, while he believed that the lower portion

resembled heads which could be assigned to Praxiteles or his influence,

and consequently he pronounced the head “an eclectic work in which

features borrowed from Skopas and Praxiteles have been combined with an

unusually successful effect.”

As Dr. Bates points out, there is no recorded statue of Herakles by

Skopas which corresponds with this head. The stone one mentioned

by Pausanias as standing in the Gymnasion at Sikyon[2133] has been

thought by the authors of the _Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias_

to be reproduced on a Sikyonian copper coin of the age of Geta, now

in the British Museum.[2134] Many statues and busts scattered in

European museums, which represent a beardless Herakles and show Skopaic

influence, have been traced back to this original.[2135] However, the

coin represents the hero wearing a wreath, and so, if it was copied

from the original in the Gymnasion, the latter could not have been the

prototype of the head under discussion.

It is now universally acknowledged that all constructive criticism

of the art of Skopas must be based on a study of the heads found at

Tegea. Besides those discovered in 1879, and now in the National Museum

in Athens,[2136] two other male heads (in addition to the torso of a

female figure draped as an Amazon, and a head on the same scale which

probably belongs to it, as both are of Parian marble, representing

probably _Atalanta_ of the East pediment) were discovered by M. Mendel

in his excavations of the temple of Athena Alea in 1900-1901, and

referred to the pedimental groups described by Pausanias.[2137] As one

of these (Fig.73) is characterized by a lion’s scalp worn as a helmet,

the hero’s face fitting into the jaws, its teeth showing above his

forehead, it has been regarded as the head from a statue of Herakles,

although Pausanias mentions no such statue in his enumeration of the

figures composing the group of the Eastern pediment, and although it

is difficult to explain the presence of the hero in the group of the

Western pediment, which represented the battle between his son Telephos

and Achilles. Mendel considers this head to be inferior in workmanship

to the others, and so refers it to the school of Skopas rather than

to the master himself, and designates it “_un travail d’atelier_.”

In describing it, however, he says: “_tous ces caractères, qui sont

ceux des têtes du Musée central, se retrouvent dans nôtre tête

d’Héraclés_.”[2138] Here we have a head of a youthful Herakles (or of

some hero who has borrowed his attribute of the lion’s skin—perhaps

Telephos), which, if not by Skopas himself, is still a work of his

school reproducing all his characteristics; consequently, of all these

heads from Tegea, it is with this one chiefly that we should compare

the head from Sparta similarly covered with a lion’s scalp.

[Illustration: FIG. 73.—So-called Head of Herakles, from Tegea, by

Skopas. National Museum, Athens.]

Though badly injured, it is still possible to see in this head of

the so-called _Herakles_ found at Tegea, both in full view and in

profile, the characteristic Skopaic expression of passion, and to

discover the means by which the artist effected it. The expression is

due in great measure to the upward direction of the gaze, and to the

heavy overshadowing of the deep-set eyes. It is further enhanced by

the contracted brow, dilated nostril, and half-open, almost panting,

mouth, whose parted lips clearly disclose the teeth. The structure

of the head is in keeping with the strength of character portrayed;

the skull is very deep from front to back, and its framework is

massive and bony; the face is broad and short and the chin is heavy;

everything emphasizes the impression of a virile and muscular warrior

violently engaged in the fray. The subjects of the two pedimental

groups—the Kalydonian boar hunt and the battle between Achilles and

Telephos—justified the expression of unrestrained violence which

we see in this and the other male heads, and gave the sculptor an

opportunity to represent his heroes in the excitement of action and

danger. To effect this intensity of expression Skopas relied mainly on

the treatment of the eye. In one of the heads (the unhelmeted one in

Athens) the gaze is not turned upwards as in the _Herakles_, nor are

the neck-muscles strained as in the others, and yet the expression is

even more violent than in them. Thus it is the modeling of the flesh

about the eye which is the real distinguishing feature of Skopas’ work.

In describing the helmeted head in Athens, E. A. Gardner says:

“The eyes are set very deep in their sockets, and heavily

overshadowed, at their inner corners, by the strong

projection of the brow, which does not, however, as in

some later examples of a similar intention on the part of

the artist, meet the line of the nose at an acute angle,

but arches away from it in a bold curve. At the outer

corners the eyes are also heavily overshadowed, here by

a projecting mass of flesh or muscle which overhangs

and actually hides in part the upper lid. The eyes are

very wide-open—with a dilation which comes from fixing

the eyes upon a distant object—and therefore suggest the

far-away look associated with a passionate nature.”[2139]

COMPARISON OF THE TEGEA HEADS AND THE HEAD FROM SPARTA.

It is to the facial characteristics in the Tegea heads that Dr. Bates

calls attention in basing his argument for the Skopaic origin of

the head from Sparta: the forehead horizontally divided by a median

line, the swelling, prominent brow, the deep-set eyes with their

narrow lids—only 2 mm. wide—embedded in the projecting flesh at the

outer corners, and the parted mouth. He also sees a resemblance in

the small round curls bunched together above the ears. But if there

are resemblances (especially in the modeling of the eyes) there are

also great differences observable in the Tegea heads and the one from

Sparta. Let us confine our comparison of the latter with the _Herakles_

of the Tegea pediment, though the comparison with any of the other male

heads would lead to substantially the same results.

In the first place the structure of the two heads in question is very

different. As the head from Sparta is broken in two at the ears and the

whole back part is missing, we can not tell whether it had the great

depth of the one from Tegea. But of the massive, bony framework of the

latter there is little trace in the former. In the Tegea example we are

struck with the squareness of the head and the breadth of the central

part of the face; the sides do not gradually converge toward the

middle, but seem to form distinct planes. The distance between the eyes

is also in keeping with the breadth of the skull as measured between

the ears; the breadth of the face almost equals its length from the top

of the forehead to the chin, and this fact, together with the massive,

prominent chin, gives an element of squareness to the whole.[2140]

On the other hand, the head from Sparta has a long, narrow face whose

sides softly converge toward the middle in beautiful curves about the

cheeks; its cheek-bones are not so high nor so prominent as those

of the other; it ends in a delicate, almost effeminate chin, which

slightly retreats and gives the whole lower part of the face an oval

structure, thus recalling Praxiteles and fourth-century Attic works.

The length of the face is accentuated by the considerable height to

which the head rises above the forehead, in contrast with the flatness

of the skull in the example from Tegea. The eyes are not so wide-open;

they are longer and not so swollen nor compressed toward the centre; if

we view the two heads from the side, we see that the eye-socket in the

Tegea head is larger and appreciably deeper than in the one from Sparta.

Apart from these surface differences in the structure of the head

and face, it is in the resultant expression that we see the greatest

divergence from the Skopaic type. This seems to me to be fundamentally

different in the Sparta head. In the _Herakles_, as in all the other

Tegea male heads, and even in those of the boar and the dogs, the

really characteristic feature, which differentiates them from all

other works of Greek sculpture, is the passionate intensity of their

expression. The one unforgettable impression left on the spectator by

them all is this expression of violent and unrestrained passion, which

the sculptor has succeeded in imparting to the marble. This is what

marks him as the master of passion and the originator of the dramatic

tendencies carried to such lengths in the Hellenistic schools of

sculpture; it is this which explains Kallistratos’ characterization of

his works as being κάτοχα καὶ μεστὰ μανίας.[2141] The head from Sparta

shows only a little of this intensity. Notwithstanding the similar

upward gaze and slightly parted lips, the intention of the artist

seems to have been to portray the hero in an attitude of expectancy,

tempered by a look almost of calmness. The look is deeply earnest,

but not violent; it is even melancholy. It is this last feature, the

delicate and compelling melancholy of the face, which impressed me

most on first viewing it. This is further enhanced by the full, soft

modeling of the lower face, that gives to the whole a delicate, almost

effeminate character, which strongly reminds us of Praxitelean heads.

In fact, the shape of the lips and the modeling of the flesh on either

side of the mouth, together with the soft, dimpled chin, have little

in common with the massive strength and remarkable animation of the

Tegea heads. As Dr. Caskey has intimated, if we had only the lower

portion of the face for comparison, we should be inclined to ascribe it

to the influence of Praxiteles. If we considered the upper part only,

resemblances to Skopaic work seem well marked; but if we take into

account the expression of the face as a whole, we see that it lacks the

most essential of Skopaic features, the look of passionate intensity.

Consequently we shall find it difficult to bring the head into such

close relation to that artist; for here there is little analogy to

the vigorous warrior types of the Tegea pediments. For its quieter

mien it might be better to compare it with the head of Atalanta,[2142]

though none of the gentle pathos or eagerness of the Sparta head is

there visible. The _Atalanta_, though full of vigorous life, utterly

lacks the unrestrained passion so characteristic of her brothers; her

eyes are not so deeply set, nor so wide-open; they are narrower and

longer, and are not over-hung at the outer corners by heavy masses of

flesh.[2143] In speaking of the absence of these rolls of muscle, E.

A. Gardner notes a curious peculiarity: “This is a clearly marked,

though delicately rounded, roll of flesh between the brow and the upper

eyelid, which is continued right round above the inner corner of the

eye, to join the swelling at the side of the nose, which itself passes

on into the cheek.”[2144] He detects this same peculiarity in certain

other Skopaic heads, notably in the _Apollo_ from the Mausoleion and

the _Demeter_ from Knidos, though it is quite lacking in the Tegea male

heads. It all goes to show that Skopas was not strictly consistent in

his treatment of the eye. The lower face of the _Atalanta_ is also

longer and more oval than that of the male heads, and thus shows Attic

rather than Peloponnesian influence. If it is difficult, then, to

conceive of the _Atalanta_ and the male heads as the work of the same

sculptor, the contrast, both in structure and expression, between these

two heads of Herakles, the one from Tegea, the other from Sparta, makes

it more difficult to assume the same authorship for both; for here we

can not explain the difference as the contrast between the types of

hero and heroine; here we are comparing two heads which are supposedly

of the same hero.

THE STYLES OF SKOPAS AND LYSIPPOS COMPARED.

[Illustration: FIG. 74.—Attic Grave-Relief, found in the Bed of the

Ilissos, Athens. National Museum, Athens.]

[Illustration: FIG. 75.—Statue of the so-called _Meleager_. Vatican

Museum, Rome.]

In view, then, of the differences enumerated I should hesitate to

assign a Skopaic origin to the head from Sparta. In the lower part of

the face, with its small mouth and delicate chin, I see signs only of

Praxitelean influence; in the upper part I am much more inclined to see

affinities to the art-tendencies of Lysippos, as we now know them from

the statue of Agias. In the present state of our knowledge it is not

difficult to separate works of Praxitelean origin from those of Skopas;

but it is a very different thing to distinguish those of Skopaic origin

from those of Lysippos; here the line distinguishing the two masters

is much finer and harder to draw. Before the discovery of the Tegea

heads, the deep-set eye,[2145] prominent brow, and “breathing” mouth

were looked upon as characteristic features of Lysippos, as they were

known to us from representations of Alexander, especially on coins.

We now know that these traits belonged to Skopas to a much greater

extent. When the _Agias_ was found, and before its true authorship had

been determined, Homolle, as we have seen, had at first classed it

as showing the manner of Lysippos, only later to see more of Skopas

than Lysippos in it. Such a conclusion was natural so long as we

regarded the _Apoxyomenos_ as the key to Lysippan art. By assigning

these traits definitely to Skopas, we were compelled to view the work

of Lysippos as conventional and somewhat lifeless in comparison. But

with the assumption that the statue of Agias represented true Lysippan

characteristics, we were forced to recognize that the same traits

belonged to Lysippos also, though to a less degree, since the energy

of the Tegea heads was absent from the features of the _Agias_ and

their fierceness was here replaced by a look of quiet melancholy. The

study of such allied works as the beautiful and excellently preserved

_Lansdowne Herakles_ (Pl. 30 and Fig. 71), the athlete on the Pentelic

marble stele found in the bed of the Ilissos in 1874, and now in the

National Museum in Athens (Fig. 74),[2146] the so-called _Meleager_

in the Vatican (Fig. 75),[2147] and other copies of the same original

(_e. g._, Figs. 76, 77), also shows how closely the type of Lysippos

approached that of Skopas. Long ago I expressed the view[2148] that

these and similar works should be assigned to Lysippos rather than

to Skopas, to whom most critics had referred them. Thus, after the

discovery of the Tegea heads, scholarly opinion began to follow the

arguments of Furtwaengler in bringing the _Lansdowne Herakles_ into the

sphere of Skopas.[2149] But Michaelis, as far back as 1882, commenting

on the characteristically small head, short neck in comparison with

the mighty shoulders, and long legs in proportion to the thick-set

torso, had declared: “Without doubt the statue offers one of the finest

specimens, if not absolutely the best, of a Herakles according to the

conception of Lysippos.”[2150] Now opinion varies again; only those

who believe that the _Agias_ is Lysippan class the _Herakles_ as a

Lysippan work.[2151] Of the _Meleager_, Graef[2152] gives eighteen

copies besides the one in the Vatican. This number shows how common

an adornment it was of Roman villas and parks. Some of these copies

have a chlamys thrown over the arm, _e. g._, the Vatican example, and

belong to imperial times, while others without the mantle, _e. g._, the

torso in Berlin,[2153] are older. In addition to the Vatican example

we reproduce two other copies, the beautiful Parian marble head now

placed on the trunk of a Praxitelean _Apollo_ in the gardens of the

Medici in Rome (Fig. 76),[2154] and the statue without arms or legs

and without the chlamys, found in 1895 near Santa Marinella, 30 miles

from Rome, and since 1899 in the Fogg Art Museum at Harvard University

(Fig. 77),[2155] one of the most beautiful of the many replicas. At

first the original of these copies was supposed to be Lysippan, being

identified with the _Venator_ at Thespiai mentioned by Pliny as the

work of Euthykrates, the son and pupil of Lysippos,[2156] but after the

discovery of the Tegea heads it was almost universally referred to

Skopas.[2157] Here again the Skopaic group of Graef has been broken by

P. Gardner[2158] and others, and the _Meleager_, like the _Herakles_,

has been given to Lysippos.

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

Rome.]

Let us analyze a little further wherein the difference between the

closely allied art of Skopas and Lysippos lies. We saw that it

was chiefly the formation of the eye and its surroundings which

characterized Skopaic work—the depth of the balls in their sockets,

and the heavy masses of flesh above the outer corners. This was in

harmony with the breadth of brow and the massive build of the Tegea

heads. In the _Agias_ and similar works the treatment of the eye is

somewhat different. The head of the _Agias_ is of slighter proportions

than the heads from Tegea; in conformity with the Lysippan canon it

is below life-size, and consequently has no such heavy overshadowing

of the outer corners of the eyes. Moreover, as we shall see, this

overshadowing is also relatively less in the statue of the Delphian

athlete. The formation of the eye is thus described by E. A. Gardner:

“The inner corners of the eye are set very deep in the

head and very close together; the inner corners of the

eye-sockets form acute angles, running up close to one

another and leaving between them only a narrow ridge for

the base of the nose; thus they offer a strong contrast

to the line of the brow, arching away in a broad curve

from the solid base of the nose and forming an obtuse

angle with it, such as we see in the Skopaic heads.”[2159]

[Illustration: FIG. 77.—Torso of the so-called _Meleager_. Fogg Art

Museum, Cambridge, U. S. A.]

The resultant expression is therefore somewhat different from that of

the heads from Tegea; while we still see animation and even intensity

in the face of the _Agias_, we see it in a modified degree. The

far-away look of the Tegea heads is still present, but it appears to

be fixed on a nearer object, and so the look of intensity is tempered;

it is also lightened by the fact that the overshadowing of the eyes at

the outer corners is less heavy. But even this latter so-called Skopaic

trait, though it is absent in the _Agias_, is certainly present in

other Lysippan heads. Besides being prominent in representations

of Alexander the Great on coins,[2160] it is seen in busts of the

conqueror, especially in the splendid one from Alexandria in the

British Museum.[2161] In the latter example we see just such heavy

rolls of flesh as we note in the Skopaic heads. It shows that this

trait, introduced by Skopas, was used at times with equal effect by

Lysippos. We have already noted how in one example, at least, Skopas

himself laid it aside—in the _Atalanta_. Its presence on Lysippan heads

shows that too much stress can be laid on this feature in deciding

whether a given piece of sculpture is to be referred to Skopas. This

trait complicates the whole problem of the style of the two masters.

THE SPARTA HEAD COMPARED WITH THAT OF THE PHILANDRIDAS.

As the _Agias_ is considered by most critics to be a contemporary copy

of the original statue at Pharsalos, perhaps it will be more just

to compare the head from Sparta under discussion with the original

marble head from Olympia, which we have ascribed in the earlier part

of the present chapter to the statue of Philandridas by Lysippos. Such

a comparison will, of course, show certain differences, but marked

resemblances as well. We shall see that these resemblances are confined

to the upper part of the face. In both we note the same low forehead

with a corresponding depression or crease across the middle; the

similarly bulging brow which breaks very perceptibly the continuous

line from forehead to nose, concave above and below and convex at the

swelling itself; the same powerfully framed and deep-set eyes thrown

into shadows by the projecting bony structure of the brows and the

overhanging masses of flesh. The eyeballs in both are similarly long

and narrow, though they are slightly arched in the _Philandridas_ just

as in the Tegea heads, and not so close together as in the _Agias_,

but their inner angles are farther apart and not almost hidden by

the flat bridge of the nose when viewed straight from the front. In

this respect they are strikingly like those of the Sparta head.[2162]

The raised upper lids in both form symmetrically narrow and sharply

defined borders over the eyeballs. These borders, in each case, are

not partially hidden by the folds of skin at the outer corners, as

they are in the Tegea heads; and yet the masses of flesh projecting

from the brows are almost as heavy as in the latter. In both the heads

from Olympia and Sparta the upper lids slightly overlap the under at

the outer corners. The eye-sockets in both seem to be equally deep

and the cheek-bones similarly high and prominent. We remark in the

_Philandridas_ the gradual converging of the sides of the face toward

the middle, a trait which we have already observed in the head from

Sparta as in contrast with the more angular formation with lateral

planes so characteristic of the Tegea male heads. The flatness of the

nose and the curves which it makes with the brow on either side are

very similar in the two heads under discussion. In both, the hair is

treated in the same simple and sketchy manner, being fashioned into

little ringlets ruffled back from the temples in flat relief quite in

the Skopaic manner, even if the curls seem shorter and more tense.

When we come to a consideration of the lower part of each face, we

immediately detect differences. While both faces end in an oval, this

is broader, heavier, and more bony in that of the _Philandridas_, as we

should expect in the case of a more mature man. Consequently here the

mouth is larger and firmer. The elegant contour of the lips observable

in the _Agias_ is also found, to a less degree, in the head from

Sparta, whose lips are fuller and more sensuous, but can not be traced

in the _Philandridas_ owing to the damaged condition of the mouth.

It is clear, however, that the lips of the latter were also slightly

parted, just showing the teeth, but not as in the Tegea heads, as if

the breath were being forced through them with great effort.

It is, however, in the expression of these two faces that we see the

greatest resemblance. In the _Philandridas_, the powerful framing of

the eyes, the slightly upward gaze of the balls, and the contracted

forehead combine to give it a pensive, even melancholy, look of

dignity, a look seemingly of one who takes no joy or pleasure in

victory, though, as we have already mentioned,[2163] it is earnest

rather than mournful. The almost identical treatment of the eye and its

surroundings gives the still more youthful head from Sparta a similar

expression. Homolle’s analysis of the expression of the face of the

_Agias_ would apply with equal fitness to the mood portrayed in both

the heads we are discussing: “_L’expression qui résulte de ces divers

traits, c’est, dans une figure jeune et vigoureuse, un air pensif ou

lassé, une certaine mélancolie, qui ne va pas à la tristesse morne ou

à la méditation profonde, mais qui reste plus loin encore de la joie

insouciante de la vie et de la pure allégresse de la victoire_”.[2164]

Preuner remarked that a verse of the epigram found on the base of the

statue of Agias, which runs καὶ σῶν οὐδείς πω στῆσε τροπαῖα χερῶν, is

almost an exact copy of the words of Herakles in the _Trachiniae_ of

Sophocles.[2165] In these words the dedicator of the statue ends the

recital of his ancestor’s exploits with a melancholy reflection on the

vanity of his glory. They suggest with no less truth the expression of

both the heads we are discussing. This expression of pensiveness tinged

with melancholy is enhanced in both by the slightly parted lips. We can

see the same expression carried much further in many of the portraits

of Alexander which go back to originals by Lysippos, and we know from

Plutarch that this sculptor was chosen by the conqueror to make his

portraits, because Lysippos alone could combine his manly air with

the liquid and melting glance of his eyes.[2166] But how different is

the delicately indicated pathos of these heads from the violent and

unrestrained, even panting, expression of the Tegea sculptures! Here

there is no trace of the μανία which Kallistratos said characterized

the works of Skopas. If it be objected that the expression of the

_Philandridas_ is more dramatic than that of the head from Sparta, its

fierce, almost barbarous, look of defiance may well be explained by the

fact that here is represented a victor from Akarnania, a country noted

among the other Greek states for anything but culture and refinement.

THE SPARTA HEAD AN ECLECTIC WORK AND AN EXAMPLE OF ASSIMILATION.

It is, then, in consequence of these resemblances to Lysippan work,

and because of the differences between it and the Tegean heads, that I

am led to see more of Lysippos than of Skopas in this beautiful head

from Sparta. An analysis of its style permits us to discover in it the

mixed influences of Praxiteles, of Lysippos, and of Skopas. It seems

to me necessary, therefore, in view of this mixture of tendencies, to

regard it as an eclectic work, in which the unknown artist has combined

Lysippan and Praxitelean elements chiefly; and that he was also under

the influence of Skopas is evinced by the peculiarities mentioned in

the treatment of the eyes and hair;[2167] but even in the modeling of

the eyes, I believe that his chief debt was to Lysippos. The fineness

of surface modeling, commented on by both Professor Bates and Dr.

Caskey, recalls the delicacy of execution in detail which is mentioned

by Pliny as characteristic of Lysippan art.[2168] It surely points to a

date for the work not much if at all later than the end of the century

which was made glorious in the history of sculpture by the labors of

these three great masters.

In the preceding account I have tacitly assumed with Professor Bates

that the head from Sparta represents a beardless Herakles. But, as Dr.

Caskey remarks, one might hesitate to accept this identification if

it were not for the attribute of the lion’s skin above the forehead,

for here there is little indication of the strength so characteristic

of later representations of the hero. Dr. Caskey, however, observes

that a head of Herakles, now in the British Museum, which some have

regarded as an original by Praxiteles, is even more boyish than this

one. However, it is very doubtful if the Sparta head should be referred

to a statue of Herakles at all. Pausanias mentions only three statues

of Herakles in Sparta, to any one of which it seems futile to try to

refer the head under discussion; thus in III, 14.6, he speaks of an

ἄγαλμα ἀρχαῖον to which the _Sphairians_, _i. e._, lads entering on

manhood, sacrificed, as standing on the road to the Δρόμος, outside

the city walls; in the same book, 14.8, he says that an image of the

hero stood at the end of one of the two bridges across the moat to

Plane-tree Grove, _i. e._, the boys’ exercise-ground; and again in

this book, 15.3, he says that an ἄγαλμα ὡπλισμένον of Herakles stood

in the Herakleion close to the city wall, whose attitude (σχῆμα), was

suggested by the battle between the hero and Hippokoön and his sons.

The same writer enumerates only three other statues of Herakles in

Lakonia. One of these was in the market-place of Gythion (III, 21.8),

another in front of the walls of Las beyond Gythion (III, 24.6), and

the third on Mount Parnon near the boundaries of Argolis, Lakonia, and

Tegea (III, 10.6). The head under discussion is more probably only one

more example of the idealizing tendency of athletic Greek art, which

assimilated the type of victor to that of god.[2169] In the case of

the _Agias_ the sculptor plainly wished to raise the victor to the

ideal height of the hero. The same idealization is visible in the head

ascribed to the statue of Philandridas. In both these heads the ears,

while small, are battered and swollen; the remains of the ears in the

head from Sparta are too badly damaged to indicate whether these were

swollen or not. But even if they were preserved and were in that

condition, they would not be a distinguishing factor in determining

whether the head belonged to the statue of a victor or of Herakles.

In our consideration of the Olympia head we saw by a comparison with

the _Lansdowne Herakles_, a statue universally recognized as that of

the hero, how fundamentally different were the two in their whole

conception and how differently a highly idealized athlete and a hero

were treated by the same sculptor. The same might be said of the boyish

head from Sparta, when compared with a genuine head of Herakles. For

this reason, and because of the resemblance in expression between the

_Philandridas_ and the head from Sparta, I am inclined to believe that

the latter, instead of being a representation of a youthful Herakles,

is really the idealized portrait of an athlete, probably that of a boy

victor, either in the boxing or wrestling match,[2170] assimilated in

form to that of the hero.[2171]

CHAPTER VII.

THE MATERIALS OF OLYMPIC VICTOR MONUMENTS, AND THE OLDEST DATED VICTOR

STATUE.[2172]

FIGURES 78-80.

It has been assumed pretty generally by archæologists that the victor

statues set up in the Altis at Olympia were uniformly of bronze.

Scherer, in his inaugural dissertation _de olympionicarum Statuis_,

which appeared in 1885, was the first to discuss the question

fully,[2173] and his arguments and conclusions have been followed,

for the most part, by later investigators. Thus Dittenberger and

Purgold state unequivocally that these statues were “_ausnahmslos aus

Bronze_”,[2174] while more recently Hitzig and Bluemner, in their great

commentary on Pausanias, have again pronounced the dictum that “_die

Siegerstatuen waren durchweg von Erz_”.[2175] Others, however, have not

been quite so sweeping in their generalization. Thus Wolters believes

that these statues, because they were set up in the open, were “_der

Regel nach_” of bronze,[2176] and Furtwaengler and Urlichs assume that

they were “_fast ausschliesslich aus Bronze_”.[2177]

THE CASE FOR BRONZE.

The arguments adduced by Scherer and others in defense of the

contention seem at first sight, although inferential in character,

quite conclusive. In the first place, it has been pointed out that all

the statuaries mentioned by Pausanias in his victor _periegesis_,[2178]

if recorded at all in Pliny’s _Historia Naturalis_, appear there in

the catalogue of bronze founders as workers in bronze κατ’ ἐξοχήν,

while none of them is known exclusively as a sculptor in marble. As

Hagelaïdas is the first in point of time, who flourished from the

third quarter of the sixth century B. C. to the second quarter of

the fifth,[2179] Scherer believed that all statues from his date

down—_posteriorum temporum_—were of bronze; and as Rhoikos and

Theodoros, the inventors of bronze founding, flourished about

Ols. 50 to 60 (= 580 to 540 B. C.),[2180] he believed that bronze

might have been used up to their date. In the next place, the excavated

bases, which have been identified as those of victor monuments, show

footprints of bronze statues. Thirdly, actual bronze fragments,

indubitably belonging to victor statues (of which two are attested by

inscriptions), were found during the excavations of the Altis. These

consist of the following:

(_a_) An inscribed convex piece of bronze of imperial times,

“_anscheinend vom Schenkel einer Bronzestatue herruehrend_.”[2181]

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

(_c_) The remarkable life-size portrait head of a boxer or pancratiast,

which we have already discussed and reproduced (Fig. 61 A and B).[2183]

(_d_) A foot of masterly workmanship (Fig. 62) ascribed by

Furtwaengler[2184] to the end of the third century B. C. Its position

shows that the statue of which it was a part was represented in motion,

and consequently it has been assigned to a victor statue.

(_e_) A beautifully modeled right arm, somewhat under life-size,

supposedly from the statue of a boy victor.[2185]

(_f_) A right lower leg of excellent workmanship, assigned by

Furtwaengler to the same period as fragment _e_.[2186]

Still other bronze fragments of statues found at Olympia may have

belonged to statues of victors, especially to those of boys.[2187]

The small number of such fragments recovered—Scherer wrongly thought

there was none—is explained by assuming that all of these statues

were of bronze, and consequently were destroyed by the barbarians in

their inroads into Greece during the early Middle Ages, when this

metal was much prized.[2188] Another argument for believing that

these statues were of bronze is the silence of Pausanias concerning

the materials employed in them; for, in his enumeration of 192 such

monuments, he mentions the material of only two statues, those of

the boxer Praxidamas of Aegina[2189] and of the Opuntian pancratiast

Rhexibios,[2190] and he mentions these because of their great

antiquity, peculiar position in the Altis apart from the others

(near the column of Oinomaos), and the fact that they were made of

wood.[2191] Furthermore, in his book on _Achaia_ there occurs this

passage in reference to the statue of the victor Promachos, which

was set up in the Gymnasion of Pellene: καὶ αὐτοῦ [Προμάχου] καὶ

εἰκόνας ποιήσαντες οἱ Πελληνεῖς τὴν μὲν ἐς Ὀλυμπίαν ἀνέθεσαν, τὴν δὲ

ἐν τῷ γυμνασίῳ, λίθου ταύτην καὶ οὐ χαλκοῦ.[2192] Most critics have

inferred from these last words, “_the one in the Gymnasion being of

stone and not of bronze_,” that, although Pausanias says nothing

about the material of statues of victors in the Altis (barring the

two just mentioned), by implication all these statues were of bronze;

and they point out the fact that other writers furnish no evidence

concerning the material used in them—an argument _ex silentio_ to

the same effect. Besides these arguments many others have been urged

on purely a priori grounds; _e. g._, that, since these statues stood

in the open air, subject to all kinds of weathering, they must have

been made of bronze;[2193] that metal statues would have been cheaper

and more easily prepared than those of marble;[2194] that the later

Peloponnesian schools of athletic sculpture, which were characterized

by their predilection for bronze-founding, would nowhere have been more

prominently in evidence than at Olympia; etc.

Thus the case for the use of metal in these statues seems very well

substantiated, and, for the reasons given, it can not be reasonably

doubted that the vast majority of these monuments were made of bronze.

But that they were not exclusively of metal, and that there were many

exceptions to the general rule, not only can be conjectured on good

grounds, but can be proved by discoveries made at the excavations. We

shall briefly consider, then, each of the foregoing arguments in turn,

and see whether, in the light of the accumulated evidence, they are

really as well founded as they appear to be.

THE CASE FOR STONE.

As for the first point, that the statuaries mentioned by Pausanias

appear only in Pliny’s catalogue of bronze founders, we must remember

that Pausanias himself says[2195] that he is making only a selection of

the victor monuments in the Altis, those of the more famous athletes.

Therefore, the 192 monuments (of 187 victors)[2196] which he does

mention must be only a fraction of the multitude of such monuments

which once stood at Olympia. Pliny, to be sure, says that it was the

custom for all victors to set up statues in the Altis;[2197] but this

refers only to the privilege, of which many victors could not or did

not avail themselves on account of poverty, early death, or for other

reasons.[2198] Still, the number of such dedications must have been

very great. Manifestly, therefore, we should not base an argument

on the number mentioned. There must, then, have been many other

artists employed at Olympia, some of whom may well have been workers

in marble. Besides, of the statuaries actually named by Pausanias,

many do not appear at all in Pliny’s work, and many of these may have

been sculptors exclusively in stone. Of the names found in Pliny,

six at least—Kalamis, Kanachos, Eutychides, Myron, Polykles, and

Timarchides—appear both in the list of bronze-workers and in that of

marble-sculptors.[2199] Similarly, in answer to the second argument

that the excavated bases show footprints of bronze statues, we must

admit that only a fraction of the bases which once supported statues in

the Altis have been recovered. Not one-fifth of the victors mentioned

by Pausanias are known to us through these bases.[2200]

The fact that actual remains of bronze statues have been excavated at

Olympia is matched by the fact that remnants of marble statues have

also been found; and it does not seem reasonable, in the light of the

evidence adduced by Treu, Furtwaengler, and others, to reject these

as fragments of actual victor statues. These fragments include the

following:[2201]

(_a_, _b_) The two life-size archaic helmeted heads (Fig. 30) which we

have ascribed to hoplite victors.[2202]

(_c_, _d_, _e_) Fragments of statues of boy victors: _c_ = trunk with

left upper leg, three-fifths life-size (Fig. 78);[2203] _d_ = breast,

one-half life-size;[2204]

_e_ = upper part of legs of a statue, two-thirds life-size.[2205]

Besides these Treu also adduces fragments of four different boy

statues, all of which are less than life-size.[2206]

The reticence of Pausanias as to the material used in these statues

is merely in accord with his custom, for he very rarely mentions the

materials of monuments, and apparently only where monuments of bronze

and stone or other materials stand close together in a circumscribed

area, as for instance, in enumerating the various monuments in the

Heraion at Olympia.[2207] The only inference, therefore, to be drawn

from Pausanias’ statement about the statue of Promachos mentioned is

that this particular statue of a victor at Olympia was of bronze. We

are not justified in going any further. Besides this stone statue at

Pellene we have other actual notices of marble statues of Olympic

victors outside Olympia, as those of Arrhachion at Phigalia[2208] (Fig.

79) and of Agias by Lysippos at Delphi (Pl. 28 and Fig. 68). If they

existed outside Olympia, there is no reason why they should not have

existed in the Altis also, _e. g._, the Lysippan marble head found

there, which we assigned in the preceding chapter to the Akarnanian

victor Philandridas (Frontispiece, and Fig. 69). Many of the older

statues, like that of Arrhachion, conformed with the “Apollo” type, as

we have shown in Ch. III,[5] and doubtless many such at Olympia were of

marble.

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

Olympia. Museum of Olympia.]

Reinach’s argument that stone statues in Greece, because of their

patina of color, were intended to be placed under cover in the

porticoes or cellas of temples and elsewhere, while bronze ones were

meant to stand in the open air, has been sufficiently combatted by H.

Lechat,[2209] who argues that the use of paint in Greek architecture

and on temple sculptures proves the contrary. As the paint was burnt

in, it was reasonably durable, and if it did not prove so it was

readily renewed. At Olympia, among several examples, we may cite

the marble _Nike_ of Paionios, which stood in the open in the space

to the east of the temple of Zeus[2210] (see Plans A and B), while,

on the other hand, a bronze statue of Aphrodite stood within the

Heraion.[2211] The argument that metal statues were cheaper than marble

must also be questioned.[2212] In the earlier part of the present work

we saw that, for economy’s sake, many victors set up small bronze

statuettes instead of statues at Olympia, numbers of which have been

recovered. That such dedications were common elsewhere is shown by the

countless athlete statuettes—especially diskoboloi—which are to be

found in all European museums.[2213] For similar reasons victors would

choose in place of bronze the less durable and cheaper stone, as in

the cases of Arrhachion and Promachos cited, or even wood, as in those

of Rhexibios and Praxidamas. Still others, especially boy victors,

would set up small marble statues, two-fifths to two-thirds life-size,

as the fragments of the seven examples collected by Treu and already

enumerated above show.

Thus we see that the contention that the victor statues at Olympia

were exclusively of bronze, in the light of the evidence adduced, is

untenable.

THE STATUE OF ARRHACHION AT PHIGALIA.

In his description of Arkadia, Pausanias mentions seeing the stone

statue of the pancratiast Arrhachion in the market-place of Phigalia.

He describes it as archaic, especially in pose, the feet being close

together and the arms hanging by the sides to the hips; and adds

that he was told that it once bore an inscription which had become

illegible in his day.[2214] This Arrhachion won three victories at

Olympia in the pankration in Ols. 52-54 (= 572-564 B. C.).[2215]

Therefore his statue is one of the oldest victor monuments of which

we have record. At so early a date, before individual types of victor

statues had been developed, we should expect, in harmony with the

description of Pausanias, that this statue would conform in style with

the well-known archaic “Apollo” type, the most characteristic of early

Greek sculpture, which, as we saw in Chapter III, is exemplified in the

long series of statues found all over the Greek world, the oldest class

being represented by the example from Thera (Fig. 9), and one of the

youngest by that from Tenea near Corinth (Pl. 8A).

[Illustration: FIG. 79.—Stone Statue of the Olympic Victor Arrhachion,

from Phigalia. In the Guards’ House at Bassai (Phigalia).]

In his commentary on the passage of Pausanias, Sir J. G. Frazer records

that during a visit in May, 1890, he saw a recently discovered archaic

stone statue in a field just outside Pavlitsa, a village on the site of

the southeastern precincts of the old city of Phigalia, some 2.5 miles

from the temple of Apollo Epikourios at Bassai. He thought that this

statue agreed completely with Pausanias’ description of Arrhachion’s,

even to the half-effaced inscription which he transcribed from its

breast just below the neck.[2216] Through the courtesy of Dr. Svoronos,

of the National Numismatic Museum in Athens, I have been able to

procure a photograph of the monument from K. Kouroniotis, the Arkadian

_Ephor_ of antiquities stationed at Bassai, and I present it herewith

(Fig. 79). The statue is now cared for in the house of the temple

guards. This statue, like all other examples of the series, represents

a nude youth standing in a stiff, constrained attitude. It is badly

mutilated and its surface is rough from weathering. Besides having lost

its head, arms, and the lower part of the legs, it has been broken into

two parts across the abdomen. The ends of curls on either side of the

neck, extending a few inches over the breast, show that the head looked

straight forward, thus following the usual law of “frontality,”[2217]

which precluded any turning of the body; for a median line drawn

down through the middle of the breastbone, the navel, and the αἰδοῖα

would divide the statue into two equal halves. The body shows the

quadrangular form of the earlier examples, the sculptor having worked

in flat planes at right angles to one another, with the corners merely

rounded off. The remains of arms broken off just below the shoulders

show that they must have hung close to the sides. The shoulders are

broad and square, and display none of the sloping lines characteristic

of other examples, as, _e. g._, the one from Tenea. From the breast

down the body is slender, the hips being very narrow. The legs show the

usual flatness and the left one is slightly advanced, as is uniformly

the case in every one of the series. They are somewhat more separated

than in many other examples. The αἰδοῖα form a rude pyramidal mass, not

being differentiated as they are, _e. g._, in the statues from Naxos

and Orchomenos[2218] (Fig. 10). Some attempt at modeling is visible

in the muscles of the breast and lower abdomen. In general, it may be

said that the similarity in attitude of this statue to Egyptian works

impresses us, as it does in all the examples of early Greek sculpture.

As the subject of Oriental, especially Egyptian, influence on early

Greek art has given rise to very diverse views, we shall make a short

digression at this point to discuss this interesting question.

EGYPTIAN INFLUENCE ON EARLY GREEK SCULPTURE.

This question has been under discussion in all its bearings ever since

Brunn, in 1853, tried to demonstrate the originality of the Daidalian

ξόανα,[2219] but, strangely enough, archæologists are not yet agreed

as to its proper settlement. While some emphasize the spontaneous

origin of Greek art, others quite as strongly advocate that the

early Greek sculptor, at least, copied Egyptian models.[2220] Thus

Furtwaengler, who early assumed a Cretan origin for the “Apollo” type

of statues,[2221] later became convinced that it developed in Ionia

through Greek contact with the colony of Naukratis in Egypt, which

was founded in the middle of the seventh century B. C. He concluded

that this plastic type “_ist bekanntlich nichts als die Nachahmung

des Haupttypus aegyptischer statuarischer Kunst_”.[2222] Similarly

Collignon traces the archaic male type to Egyptian influence, and

assumes that this influence from the Nile valley was exerted on

the Greek artist before the latter half of the seventh century B.

C.[2223] On the other hand, H. Lechat, in his review of the evolution

of Greek sculpture from its beginning, believes that the early

sculptor owed but little to Egypt or the East.[2224] Deonna entirely

rejects the assumption of Egyptian influence, believing that all the

so-called characteristics of early Greek statues can be explained

as the result of natural evolution in Greece itself.[2225] Von Mach

also completely excludes all foreign influence when he says: “In her

sculpture at least, Greece was independent of influence of any one

of the countries that can at all come under consideration in this

connection, Phœnicia, Assyria, and Egypt.”[2226] But here, as in

so many questions about Greek art, the truth must lie between the two

extremes.[2227] The economic conditions of early Greece certainly

prove that the Greeks were dependent on outside peoples in many ways,

and there is no a priori reason for denying this dependence in art.

We clearly see Egyptian influence, for example, in the ceiling of

the treasury of Orchomenos,[2228] and that the Greeks learned many

animal decorative forms as well as a correct observation of nature

from Assyrian art is clear, if we study the best examples of the

late period of that art, the reliefs from the palace of Assurbanipal

at Nineveh (Konyonjik), now in the British Museum. Such decorative

designs could be easily transmitted to the Greeks by the Phœnicians

on embroidered fabrics. It seems reasonable, therefore, to assume that

early Greek artists, especially in the Greek colonies to the east and

south of Greece, were acquainted with earlier models and especially

with those of Egypt. The Greeks themselves of a later date recognized

this debt to Egypt. This is shown by many passages in Pausanias, which

mention the similarity existing between early Greek and Egyptian

sculptures,[2229] and by the curious tale told by Diodoros about the

Samian artist family of Rhoikos, according to which the latter’s two

sons made the two halves of the statue of the _Pythian Apollo_ for

Samos separately, Telekles working in Samos and Theodoros in Ephesos.

When joined together the two parts fitted exactly, just as if they had

been made by one and the same artist. Diodoros adds that τοῦτο δὲ τὸ

γένος τῆς ἐργασίας παρὰ μὲν τοῖς Ἕλλησι μηδαμῶς ἐπιτηδεύεσθαι, παρὰ δὲ

τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις μάλιστα συντελεῖσθαι.[2230] Such a story is valuable

in that it shows that the later Greeks believed that they had adopted

the conventional Egyptian canon of proportions. If we compare any of

the “Apollo” statues with Egyptian standing figures of any period of

Egyptian art, as Bulle has done, the resemblances in detail between the

two types will be found to be very striking. Thus from the Old Kingdom

(Memphitic), which included the first eight dynasties of Manetho,[2231]

we may cite the painted limestone statue of Ra-nefer and the wooden one

of Tepemankh in the Museum of Cairo (Fig. 80), two men prominent in

the fifth dynasty;[2232] or the wood statue of Ka-aper, the so-called

_Sheik-el-Beled_, which represents the apogee of Memphitic art, and

that of his “wife,” without legs or arms, the two statues being found

similarly in a grave at Sakkarah (Memphis), and now being in the same

museum.[2233] From the Middle Kingdom, including the eleventh to the

seventeenth dynasties,[2234] we may mention the painted statue found at

Dahshur and now in Cairo, which represents Horfuabra, the co-regent of

Amenemhat III, who was one of the kings of the twelfth dynasty.[2235]

From the New Empire, including the eighteenth to the twentieth

dynasties,[2236] we cite the draped wood statue of the priestess Tui, a

gem of Egyptian art, which was found in a grave near Gurna, and is now

in the Louvre;[2237] and lastly the draped alabaster statue of Queen

Amenerdis (or Amenartas) in Cairo, the wife of the Aethiopian King

Piankhi, who began to absorb Egypt by 721-722 B. C., just before the

twenty-fourth dynasty.[2238] After the early dynasties, the Egyptian

type of statue was reduced to a fixed and mechanical canon, which was

used over and over again with lifeless monotony. In all these statues,

whose dates extend over a period of many centuries, we note the same

technical characteristics which are observable in the Greek “Apollos,”

with the exception that the latter are always nude and lifelike. These

characteristics may be summarized thus: long hair falling down over

the shoulders in a mass;[2239] shoulders broad in comparison with the

hips; arms hanging down stiffly by the sides[2240] or crooked at the

elbows;[2241] hands closed, with the thumbs facing forward and touching

the ends of the index fingers; the left leg slightly advanced and the

soles placed flat on the ground; high ears,[2242] and the upper body

and head turned straight to the front.[2243] Only minor differences in

the two types appear. Thus the left foot is always further advanced

in the Egyptian than in the Greek statues, so that the former appear

to have less movement and life.[2244] Since there is no trace of this

type in Mycenæan art it seems impossible not to conclude that in some

way, doubtless through Ionian sources, it was originally borrowed

from Egypt. The imitation of the Egyptian models, however, was never

slavishly done. The Greek artist immediately rendered the type his

own by making it nude,[2245] and by transmuting the abstract lifeless

schema of the Egyptians into a highly individualized one characterized

by life and vigor.[2246] This Egyptian influence, it must be remarked,

was operative only in the initial stage of Greek sculpture; it was soon

lost, as the Greek artist came to rely upon himself. F. A. Lange has

truly said: “_Die wahre Unabhaengigkeit der hellenischen Kultur ruht in

ihrer Vollendung, nicht in ihren Anfaengen_”.[2247]

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

Sakkarah. Museum of Cairo.]

After this digression we will return to the statue of Arrhachion. Dr.

Frazer was unable to decipher the inscription upon the breast with

certainty, but made out the following letters, the last four of which

are plainly visible in the photograph: ΕΥΝΛΙΑΔ. He believed them to

be archaic and the first instance of an inscription on this class of

statues. He thought that the name was that of a man, which favored the

view that the “Apollo” statues represented mortals rather than gods.

The letters form a combination manifestly not Greek, and so may have

no significance; it is even possible that they were engraved in modern

times.[2248] In any case we have the statement of Pausanias that the

inscription was illegible in his day.

There seems little doubt, then, that this mutilated and weather-worn

statue is the very one seen and described by Pausanias and referred

by him to the victor Arrhachion.[2249] It is presented here for two

reasons. In the first place, it is the oldest dated Olympic victor

statue in existence. Only three older ones are recorded, and none

of these has survived to our time. These three are the statues of

the Spartan Eutelidas at Olympia, who won the boys’ wrestling and

pentathlon matches in Ol. 38 (= 628 B. C.);[2250] of the Athenian

Kylon on the Akropolis, who won the double running-race in Ol. 35 (=

640 B. C.);[2251] of the Spartan Hetoimokles at Sparta, who won five

times in wrestling at the beginning of the sixth century B. C.[2252]

The statue of Oibotas of Dyme, who won the stade-race in Ol. 6 (= 756

B. C.), was not set up until Ol. 80 (= 460 B. C.);[2253] that of the

Spartan Chionis, who won five running-races in Ols. 28-31 (= 668-656

B. C.), was made later by Myron.[2254] Pausanias’ statement (VI.

18.7) that the wooden statues of Praxidamas and Rhexibios, who won in

Ols. 59 and 61 respectively (= 544 and 536 B. C.), were the oldest at

Olympia, is of course incorrect. In the second place, the statue of

Arrhachion actually proves what has often been assumed, that some of

the statues classed as “Apollos” are really victor monuments. As this

question has provoked a good deal of discussion in recent years, I will

briefly review the arguments by which the opinion has gradually gained

acceptance.

EARLY VICTOR STATUES AND THE “APOLLO” TYPE.

As the earlier examples of the series were discovered under peculiar

circumstances, they gave no clue to their meaning. Thus the “Apollo”

of Naxos was found in the quarries of the island, while that from

Orchomenos (Fig. 10) was first seen in the convent of Skripou, its

exact provenience being unknown. From the first they were denominated

“Apollos,” chiefly because of their long hair[2255] and nudity,[2256]

while the existence of many small bronzes in the same schema dedicated

to the god,[2257] and cult statues of similar pose appearing on vase-

and wall-paintings,[2258] helped to make the identification more

probable. Certain ancient texts, describing archaic statues of Apollo

in this pose, were also cited as evidence, and it was pointed out that

many of these statues were actually found in or near sanctuaries of the

god. Thus Diodoros, in his description of the ξόανον of the _Pythian

Apollo_ made for the Samians by Telekles and Theodoros, which we have

already mentioned, says: τὰς μὲν χεῖρας ἔχον παρατεταμένας, τὰ δὲ σκέλη

διαβεβηκότα.[2259] Probably the gilded image by the Cretan Cheirisophos

in the temple of Apollo at Tegea was of this type.[2260] The later

type of “Apollo,” with the arms extended at the elbows, was doubtless

followed in the statue of Apollo made for the Delians by Tektaios and

Angelion,[2261] and in the works ascribed to Dipoinos and Skyllis

and their school. It would be easy to give an extended list of such

“Apollo” statues found in sanctuaries.[2262] We might instance one from

Naukratis, Egypt;[2263] one from Delos;[2264] two from Aktion;[2265]

several from Mount Ptoion in Bœotia;[2266] a copy of the head of the

_Choiseul-Gouffier_ Apollo (Pl. 7A) found in Kyrene.[2267] Still others

have been found in _temenoi_ of temples, _e. g._, two in that of Apollo

at Naukratis,[2268] and one in that of Aphrodite there.[2269]

However, against this exclusive interpretation doubts have been

raised with ever-increasing precision, until now we can predicate

with certainty what Loeschke long ago assumed, that the more statues

of the series there are found, the less probable will it become that

they should all be ascribed to Apollo.[2270] Conze and Michaelis

first argued on the basis of Pausanias’ description of Arrhachion’s

statue that this type was employed for victor statues.[2271] Koerte’s

objection to their view on the ground of the long hair was refuted

by Waldstein, who demonstrated that athletes were not represented

with short hair until after the Persian wars; he pointed out that the

archaic grave-figures of the mortals Dermys and Kitylos discovered at

Tanagra, which were sculptured in a constrained attitude analogous

to that of the “Apollos,” had long hair.[2272] We now know that the

hair of some of the “Apollos” is short, which shows the irrelevancy of

this argument,[2273] and we also know that nudity characterizes many

archaic statues of mortals. Nor do we learn much from dedications,

for we have examples of statues of gods dedicated to other gods and

even to goddesses.[2274] _Ex votos_ were often more concerned with the

dedicator than with the god to whom the statue was dedicated. Doubtless

the cult statues portrayed on vase-paintings are actually those of

Apollo, for at this epoch other gods, such as Hermes and Dionysos, are

bearded.[2275]

Moreover, that a more advanced _schema_ for representing the god Apollo

had already become fixed toward the end of the sixth century B. C., we

know from ancient descriptions of the statue of the god made for the

Delians by Tektaios and Angelion, which represented him in the usual

archaic attitude, _i. e._, of the statue of Arrhachion, but with the

notable difference that the forearms were outstretched.[2276] That

this was the recognized type in the early years of the fifth century

B. C., is attested by the bronze statue of the god fashioned by the

elder Kanachos of Sikyon for Branchidai, the pose of which is known

from several statuettes and from a long series of Milesian coins.[2277]

For conservative reasons this favorite pose was kept for cult statues

even into the fourth century B. C., as we learn from representations

on coins of the golden statue of the god set up in the inmost shrine

of the temple at Delphi.[2278] But that many of the earlier examples

of the “Apollo” series do represent the god, should not be denied. We

agree with Homolle that the old appellation “Apollo,” after having

received too much favor, has now by reaction become censured too

severely, and in general should still be applied to those statues

of the series which have been discovered in or near sanctuaries of

the god, and in the absence of any other indication to the contrary,

also to those which stand upon bases inscribed with dedications to

him.[2279] Such a statue was found on the island of Thasos at the

bottom of the cella of the temple of Apollo at Alki and is now in

Constantinople.[2280] The colossal statue found on the island of Delos

just south of the temple of Apollo,[2281] and the huge torso discovered

in Megara[2282] may be referred to the god, for their size favors an

ascription to a deity rather than to mortals. And many other examples

of the type found in sanctuaries may very well represent Apollo and

other gods.[2283]

That several of the series were also funerary in character is

abundantly proved by the fact that they were discovered in the

neighborhood of tombs. Thus the _Apollo of Tenea_ (Pl. 8A) decorated

a tomb in the necropolis of Tenea near Corinth.[2284] Likewise the

example from Thera (Fig. 9) was found in a rock-cut niche.[2285]

Another, now in the British Museum, was found in the _dromos_ of a

tomb on the island of Cyprus,[2286] while a fourth was unearthed from

the necropolis of Megara Hyblaia in Sicily.[2287] The one found at

Volomandra in Attika in 1900 was also found in an old cemetery.[2288]

These furnish proof enough of the sepulchral character of many of these

statues. Such funerary monuments may, of course, have been been set up

also in memory of victors.

We are now in a position, on the basis of Pausanias’ description of

Arrhachion’s statue and the actual monument itself, to maintain with

certainty what hitherto has been conjectured only, that although some

of these archaic sculptures represent Apollo and other gods, sepulchral

dedications, and _ex votos_ in general, others were intended to

represent athletes also. Doubtless the other early victor monuments

recorded, such as the wooden statues of Praxidamas and Rhexibios, and

those of Eutelidas, Kylon, and Hetoimokles, already discussed in Ch.

III, conformed with the earlier type, while that of Milo, described

by Philostratos,[2289] conformed with the later. Certain examples of

the series have already been ascribed to victors. Thus the marble

head of Attic workmanship found in or near Athens and known as the

Rayet-Jacobsen head (Fig. 22), has been referred to a pancratiast

because of its swollen and deformed ears.[2290] Certain statuettes

of the same pose as the “Apollos” have been looked upon as copies of

athlete statues.[2291] So the early doubts[2292] as to the meaning of

these archaic sculptures have been resolved in many cases. We have

added one well-attested example to show that they sometimes represented

victor monuments.

CHAPTER VIII.

POSITIONS OF VICTOR STATUES IN THE ALTIS; OLYMPIC VICTOR MONUMENTS

ERECTED OUTSIDE OLYMPIA; STATISTICS OF OLYMPIC VICTOR STATUARIES.[2293]

PLANS A AND B.

The first part of this final chapter is a special study in the

topography of the Altis at Olympia. It is an attempt to fix, more or

less exactly, the positions of victor statues erected there, so far as

these can be determined from the data furnished by Pausanias, and from

the locations of the inscribed fragmentary bases of the statues which

have been recovered during the excavations at Olympia.

STATUES MENTIONED BY PAUSANIAS.

We shall first attempt to give the positions of the statues mentioned

by Pausanias, who is our chief source of information. After describing

the votive offerings (ἀναθήματα) at the end of Book V, he begins

the enumeration of the monuments of “race-horses ... and athletes

and private individuals” at the beginning of Book VI.[2294] This

description falls into two routes (ἔφοδοι), the first of which is

concerned with the statues of 168 victors,[2295] and the second with

those of 19.[2296] Both accounts also include many “honor” monuments

erected to private persons. The first route begins at the Heraion

in the northwestern part of the sacred enclosure, while the second

begins—manifestly where the first ends—at the Leonidaion at its

southwestern corner, and extends to a point near the so-called Great

Altar of Zeus near the centre of the Altis (see Plans A and B).[2297]

Besides these meagre indications of his two routes furnished by

Pausanias himself, we are fortunate in knowing exactly the position of

one statue, that of Telemachos, the 122d victor mentioned, the base of

which still stands _in situ_ near the South wall of the Altis, a little

southeast of the temple of Zeus, showing that the route passed before

the eastern front of this temple and thence westward to the Leonidaion.

With these data and with the help of some forty inscribed bases of

statues and other monuments mentioned by Pausanias, many of which were

found in or near their original positions, it is possible to trace yet

more definitely his routes. Several attempts have been made, since the

German excavations, to define topographically the positions of these

statues, especially by Hirschfeld,[2298] Scherer,[2299] Flasch,[2300]

Doerpfeld,[2301] and the present writer.[2302]

The position of several inscribed base-fragments of statues,

corresponding with Pausanias’ order of presentation, should alone

be sufficient to confute the doubts raised by some scholars that

these routes through the Altis were not topographical.[2303] But in

any attempt to reconstruct them we must constantly be on our guard

against assuming that Pausanias describes a continuous line or row

of monuments, as both Hirschfeld and Scherer have done. Though here

and there this may have been true, still, generally speaking, we

must conceive of these statues as being strewn about the Altis in no

other order than that they stood in groups, and that these groups had

only a general direction; for we shall see that Pausanias sometimes

returns to the same spot without mentioning it and often leaves long

spaces unnoticed. Apart from the indication of such groups in the

description itself, as attested by the use of such words as παρά,

ἐφεξῆς, μετά, πλησίον, ἀνάκειται ἐπί, ἐγγύτατα, ὄπισθεν, μεταξύ, οὐ

πόρρω, οὐ πρόσω, κ. τ .λ., I have already shown in my previous work that

it is possible to reconstruct many other groups, for abundant proof

is there given that statues of nearly contemporaneous victors were

often grouped together, as were those of the same family or state, or

those victorious in the same contest, or those whose statues were made

by the same artist.[2304] So, in general, we can group only certain

statues in belts or “zones” around some building or monument which

is still _in situ_. Further than this we can seldom go. W. Gurlitt

has thus well expressed the difficulty of following these routes

of Pausanias: “_Jede folgende Statue ist nach der vorhergehenden

orientirt zu denken ... Beziehungen auf frueher oder spaeter erwaehnte

Monumente waren ueberfluessig ... wir sind ... auf wenige Fixpunkte

angewiesen und verfallen daher leicht in den Fehler, die Wegrichtungen

in den Plan zu schematisch einzuzeichnen.... Das Hin und Her auf

den viel verschlungenen Wegen der Altis koennen wir nicht mehr

controllieren_”.[2305] In his description of the scattered altars (V,

14.4-15.12), Pausanias had not the same problem to meet as in that of

the victor statues. As there was so little continuity in describing

the altars, which were strewn all over the Altis, he had to introduce

many other monuments to make their locations known; but in the case

of the victor statues there was great continuity, and consequently

such indications would have been superfluous.[2306] And, in general,

owing to the number and variety of monuments crowded together in the

circumscribed area of the Altis, he was not compelled to describe

Olympia with such definite detail as Athens. That these victor statues,

however, are described in topographical order is not only attested

by the internal evidence of Pausanias’ words,[2307] but also by the

finding of many of their bases in the order of his presentation. With

this introductory warning, let us take up the routes of Pausanias in

detail.

THE FIRST EPHODOS OF PAUSANIAS.

Pausanias begins his enumeration in the northeastern part of the Altis:

ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ ναοῦ τῆς Ἥρας[2308]—words which have been the subject of

much discussion as to whether they are to be understood of the temple

_pro persona_, _i. e._, the southern side,[2309] or of the viewpoint of

one facing it, _i. e.,_ the space (especially the northern or right hand

half) before the eastern front.[2310] From the immediate whereabouts of

Pausanias we get no clue; for at the end of Book V (27.11) he says that

he is in the middle of the Altis, and yet in the following paragraph

(27.12)—evidently added as a transition from the account of the altars

to that of the victors—he mentions the trophy of the people of Mende,

in Thrace, which he says he nearly mistook for the statue of the

pancratiast Anauchidas (131), and this, as we shall see, stood near the

South wall of the Altis far from the centre. Doerpfeld’s contention,

therefore, that Pausanias approached the Heraion from this point, and

that consequently the words ἐν δεξιᾷ must refer to its eastern front,

is untenable, and we are left dependent on the meaning of these words

as gathered from other passages in Pausanias’ work. An examination of

several such passages seems to be convincing that they are used here

of the Heraion _pro persona_.[2311] Furthermore, the finding of the

inscribed tablet from the base of the statue of Troilos (6) and the

pedestal of that of Kyniska (7) in the ruins of the Prytaneion, _i.

e._, not far from the western end of the Heraion, and the base of that

of Sophios (22) in the bed of the Kladeos still further west,[2312]

makes it reasonable to conclude that the first statues mentioned (VI,

1.3-3.7), those of the Spartan group (Kyniska-Lichas, 7-14), all of the

fifth century, B. C., flanked on either side by statues of the fourth,

mostly of Eleans (Symmachos-Troilos, 1-6, and Timosthenes-Eupolemos,

15-28), originally stood in the order named by Pausanias along the

southern front of the temple.[2313]

Leaving the Heraion, we get no further fixed point until we arrive

opposite the eastern front of the temple of Zeus. For here around the

foundation of the statue of the _Eretrian Bull_—still _in situ_ 32

meters east of the northeastern corner of the temple (see Plans A and

B)[2314]—have been found fragments of the pedestals of the statues of

Narykidas (49) and Hellanikos (65) to the south, of Kallias (50) and

Eukles (52), beneath that of Kallias, to the north, of Euthymos (56)

and Charmides (58) close together to the east.[2315] So it is clear

that the series of statues from Narykidas to Charmides (49-58, P., VI,

6. 1-7.1) stood in this neighborhood. Now the statues of the family of

Diagoras, the Rhodian athlete, stood together (59-63), as Pausanias

says (VI, 7.1-2); one of them, that of Eukles (52), seems to have been

moved from its original position later, as we learn from a scholiast on

Pindar’s seventh Olympian ode,[2316] who, on the authority of the lost

works of Aristotle and Apollas on the Olympic victors,[2317] enumerates

these statues in an order different from that adopted by Pausanias,

showing that a change in their positions must have taken place some

time between the date of Aristotle and that of the Periegete.[2318]

The statues of Alkainetos and his son Hellanikos (64-65) must also

have stood together. Inasmuch as the victors from Euthymos to Lykinos

(56-68) are, with one exception, all pugilists or pancratiasts and of

the fifth century B. C., they must have been grouped together, with the

family groups of Diagoras and Alkainetos in the centre.[2319] We may

also add the statues of Dromeus and Pythokles[2320] (69-70) of nearly

the same date, and we can also extend the group in the other direction;

for the same scholiast says that the statue of Diagoras stood near that

of the Spartan Lysandros (35 a).[2321] Pausanias (VI, 3.14 and 4.1)

says that the statue of Lysandros stood between those of Pyrilampes and

Athenaios (35-36). Thus we can conclude that the 36 statues (35-70,

VI, 3.13-7.10) stood in the zone of the _Eretrian Bull_, extending

perhaps across the Altis to the vicinity of the Echo Colonnade along

its eastern boundary.

It would follow, then, that the intervening statues from Oibotas to

Xenophon (29-34, P., VI, 3.8-3.13) stood somewhere between the Heraion

and the _Eretrian Bull_. It is idle to discuss the route between these

two monuments more definitely.[2322]

Our next fixed point is the _Victory_ of Paionios, whose foundation

is still standing in its original position, 37 meters due east of

the southeast corner of the temple of Zeus.[2323] For, of the next

few statues mentioned, the base of that of Sosikrates (71) was found

“somewhere” east of the temple, that of Kritodamos (80) before

the “Southeast Building,” and that of Xenokles (85), 4 meters to

the northeast of the _Victory_ base, presumably near its original

position.[2324] Pausanias groups the three Arkadian athletes,

Euthymenes-Kritodamos (78-80, P., VI, 8.5); then, after naming four

statues of victors from other states, he mentions two more Arkadians

together, Xenokles and Alketos (85-86, VI, 9.2); and he continues by

saying that the statues of the Argives Aristeus and Cheimon (87-88, VI,

9.3) stood together. One more statue, that of Phillen or Philys[2325]

of Elis (89), is named before he comes to the chariot of Gelo. Thus we

may conclude that the series of statues denoted by the numbers 71-89

(P., VI, 8.1-9.4) stood to the south of the _Eretrian Bull_ in the

parallel zone of the _Victory_.

We next come to the series of statues mentioned between the chariots

of Gelo and Kleosthenes (90-99). The position of the bases of these

chariots is practically certain. In describing the statues of Zeus in

Book V, Pausanias says he is proceeding north from the Council-house

(23.1), and first mentions a statue of Zeus set up by the Greeks who

fought at Platæa; in describing the victor statues he says that the

chariot of Kleosthenes stands behind this statue of Zeus (P., VI,

10.6). After describing the _Zeus_ of Platæa, he mentions a bronze

inscribed tablet as standing in front of it (V, 23.4), which recorded

the thirty years’ treaty of peace between Sparta and Athens, and

then says that the statue of the _Zeus_ of the Megarians stands near

the chariot of Kleosthenes (23.5). As he is proceeding north, this

Megarian _Zeus_ must have stood north of the Platæan one; thus in one

group we have the two statues of Zeus and the chariot of Kleosthenes.

Immediately to the north he next mentions the chariot of the Syracusan

tyrant Gelo (90), which he says is near the statue of the _Zeus_ of

the Hyblæans (23.6). Now in coming south, in the athlete _periegesis_,

he names eight statues between these chariots. Doerpfeld[2326] has

identified the base of the Platæan _Zeus_ with a large pedestal to the

northwest of that of the victor Telemachos (122) found _in situ_ near

the South Altis wall,[2327] a position which is in harmony with the

description of the statues of Zeus; just behind it he has identified

two large foundations near together as those of the two chariots. So

the eight intervening statues stood here. Of the statues between the

chariot of Kleosthenes and the base of the statue of Telemachos, the

base of that of Tellon (102) was found in the East Byzantine wall near

the South Altis wall; that of Aristion (115) nearby, embedded in the

same wall; that of Akestorides (119), whose name I have inserted in the

lacuna in the text of Pausanias (VI, 13.7),[2328] just northeast of the

base of Telemachos.[2329] Thus the series of statues from that of Gelo

to that of Agathinos (90-121a, P., VI, 9.4-13.11) can be grouped in the

zone of the _Chariots_.

As the fragment of the base of the statue of the Athenian pancratiast

Aristophon (123) was found near the base of Telemachos, but to the

east of it, and likewise that which supported the equestrian monument

of Xenombrotos and Xenodikos (133-134) still further to the east near

the Echo Colonnade,[2330] we can conclude that the twenty-one statues

from Aristophon to Prokles (123-138, P., VI, 13.11-14.13), mostly

of the fifth century B. C., stood near the South Altis wall to the

east (and not to the west of the base of Telemachos, where all other

investigators have wrongly placed them),[2331] and thus form a group

which we can call the zone of _Telemachos_. So we conclude that the

long list of statues from Pyrilampes to Prokles (35-138), nearly

two-thirds of all those mentioned in the first ἔφοδος of Pausanias,

stood in the space to the east and southeast of the temple of Zeus,

grouped in the parallel zones of the _Bull_, _Victory_, _Chariots_, and

_Telemachos_.

On the other hand, the statues beginning with the two of Aischines

(139) and extending to that of Philonides (154 a) (P., VI, 14.13-16.5)

must have stood to the west of the base of Telemachos and along the

South Terrace wall some 20 meters south of the temple of Zeus, where

many of the following pedestals were found in the order named by

Pausanias: that of Aischines (139) was found in the Council-house;

that of Archippos (140) nearby between the South Terrace wall and the

north wing of the Council-house; that of Epitherses (147) opposite the

sixth column of the temple from the west, some eleven paces from the

South Terrace wall, and the fragment of the base of the honor statue of

Antigonos (147 f) very near it; the bronze foot of one of the statues

of Kapros (150) was found in the South Terrace wall, 24.40 meters from

the southwest corner of the temple; and lastly, the base of the “honor”

statue of Philonides (154 a), Alexander’s courier, was found in the

southwest corner of the Altis at the extreme west end of the South

Terrace wall, almost, if not exactly, in its original position.[2332]

Thus Pausanias, after coming south to the statue of Telemachos, first

goes eastward as far as the statue of Prokles, then returns, repassing

the two chariots on the way without remark, and then continues westward

to the southwestern corner of the Altis. All statues west of that

of Telemachos are of the fifth and fourth centuries B. C., with the

exception of one, that of Eutelidas (148), who won in Ol. 38. This is

the oldest statue in the Altis, despite Pausanias’ statement,[2333] and

it doubtless originally stood in the area occupied later toward the

middle of the fifth century B. C. by the temple of Zeus, but was then

transferred to its new position south of the temple.

After the statue of Philonides, there are still 19 statues of victors

and “honor” men to dispose of in this first ἔφοδος, those from Brimias

to Glaukon (155-169, P., VI, 16.5-16.9). Of these statues, the base of

that of Leonidas of Naxos (155a), the founder of the great building

just outside the southwestern corner of the Altis named after him, was

discovered in a Byzantine wall before the eastern end of the north

front of that building, while that of Seleadas (159) was unearthed

within the ruins of the same building; the base which supported the

group-monument of Polypeithes and Kalliteles (160-161)—which, owing

to the early dates of their victories, some time between Ols. (?) 66

and 70 (= 516 and 500 B. C.), must have stood originally in the area

later occupied by the temple of Zeus, like that of the above-mentioned

Eutelidas—a little to the south of the Byzantine church, between the

bases of the statues of Leonidas and Glaukon; two fragments of the base

of the statue of Deinosthenes (163) have been found, one east of the

apse of the church, the other in the ruins of the Palaistra further

north; and lastly, that of Glaukon, built into late walls northwest

of the church.[2334] As the statue of Philonides stood at the extreme

western end of the South Altis wall, and as most of these fragments

were found in the vicinity of the Leonidaion, it would be natural to

conclude that the majority of these later statues stood in the spaces

just outside the West Altis wall. But at the end of the first ἔφοδος

(VI, 17.1) Pausanias says that he has so far named statues “within the

Altis”; hence most investigators have placed these 19 statues either

west of the temple of Zeus or in the space at the southwestern corner

of the Altis. A little further on we shall see that many other victor

statues, not mentioned by Pausanias, stood just outside the West Altis

wall, and it is doubtful whether his words ἐν τῇ Ἄλτει (VI, 17.1)

should be taken thus literally, especially on any theory of his use

of earlier accounts in the final compiling of his own. If they were

“within” the Altis, they could scarcely have stood to the west or

southwest of the temple of Zeus, for the second ἔφοδος, as we shall

see, passed there.

A better alternative can be found. In describing the Leonidaion (V,

15.2), Pausanias says that this building stood “outside the sacred

enclosure at the processional entrance into the Altis ... separated

from this entrance by a street; for what the Athenians call lanes,

the Eleans name streets.”[2335] Now Doerpfeld has shown that inside

the West Altis wall and parallel to it—just south of the base of

Philonides’ statue—is a line of bases ending in the later South wall

of the Altis, so that this West wall and row of pedestals form a _cul

de sac_ (see Plan B).[2336] It is clear that no such row of statues

would have been placed leading up to a dead wall; therefore these

statues must have stood there before the wall was built, and must once

have formed the eastern boundary of a broad street skirting the eastern

side of the Leonidaion, which was twice as wide as later, when the wall

cut off half its breadth and made it a “lane,” though the older name

“street” was retained. The later Roman enlargement of the Altis is

well known. The long row of pedestals to the south of and parallel to

those already discussed as standing along the line of the South Terrace

wall, westward of the base of Telemachos, once constituted the southern

boundary of the “Processional Way” (ὁδὸς πομπική), which ran from the

Leonidaion to where it debouched into the Altis at its southeastern

corner. Originally outside the Altis, they were later, together

with the road itself, included in it. The pedestals, then, in the

above-mentioned _cul de sac_, and also the fourteen (among them that

of Metellus Macedonicus; see Plan B) that adorned the south side of

the Processional Way, may be the remains of some of these last statues

mentioned by Pausanias.

THE SECOND EPHODOS OF PAUSANIAS.

We next come to the second ἔφοδος, which is introduced by these

words: Εἰ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ Λεωνιδαίου πρὸς τὸν βωμὸν τὸν μέγαν ἀφικέσθαι

τῇ δεξιᾷ θελήσειας, τοσάδε ἔστι σοὶ τῶν ἀνηκόντων ἐς μνήμην.[2337]

The Leonidaion, the site of which was still in dispute till after

the close of the excavations, was finally identified by Treu[2338]

with the so-called _Suedwestbau_, as had been already assumed by many

investigators.[2339] The site of the Great Altar, however, is still

undetermined. The elliptical depression to the east of the Pelopion,

whose dimensions (125 feet in circumference) agree with the figures

of Pausanias[2340] for the _prothysis_, or lowest stage of the

altar, identified with it by most scholars,[2341] must now be given

up since the more recent excavations of Doerpfeld, which prove it to

be the remains of two prehistoric dwelling houses with apse-like

ends.[2342] Nor can the remains of walls lying between the Heraion and

the Pelopion, formerly supposed to be those of an altar, any longer

be referred to the Great Altar (as Puchstein and Wernicke referred

them)[2343] since Doerpfeld’s recent discoveries. So we are dependent

on the words of Pausanias alone for its location, who says that it

stood “equidistant from the Pelopion and the sanctuary of Hera, but in

front of both,”[2344] therefore somewhat northwest of the elliptical

depression nearer the centre of the Altis.[2345] Our problem, then, is

to find Pausanias’ route between these two points, and here again, as

at the beginning of the first ἔφοδος, we must rightly interpret the

words ἐν δεξιᾷ. Michaelis, in his article on the use of ἐν δεξιᾷ and

ἐν ἀριστερᾷ in Pausanias’ work, made these words refer to the southern

side of the Processional Way, _i. e._, to the side at the right of

Pausanias, who was facing east after arriving at the Leonidaion.[2346]

Thus the statues already mentioned along the South Terrace wall

(Aischines to Philonides, 139-154a) would now be on his left side.

On this interpretation both Hirschfeld and Doerpfeld had the second

ἔφοδος follow the Processional Way eastward parallel to the first—thus

including the line of pedestals, which we have referred to the end of

the first—and then, near the Councilhouse, curve northward in front

of the temple of Zeus, which virtually would be a repetition of the

first ἔφοδος. On this theory Doerpfeld[2347] wrongly explained the

first route as containing statues ἐν τῇ Ἄλτει, while the second was

outside the older Altis, and so, though equally long, contained fewer

statues. But against this interpretation it must be urged that the

Periegete is describing the Altis of his day, when the road in question

was included within its boundaries, and that the Great Altar and the

two last statues mentioned (187, 188) as standing near the pillar of

Oinomaos were always inside.[2348] And neither this Processional Way

nor the space before the eastern front of the temple of Zeus were

localities for “unimportant mixed statues.”[2349] Furthermore, if he

had merely retraced his steps after arriving at the Leonidaion—and he

says nothing of returning—he would not have begun a new route[2350],

but would have said something like this: Εἰ δὲ ὀπίσω ἀναστρέψας ἀπὸ τοῦ

Λεωνιδαίου πρὸς τὸν βωμὸν αὖθις ἀφικέσθαι τῇ δεξιᾷ θελήσειας.[2351] So

it is simpler to conclude that the new route wound around the western

and northern sides of the temple of Zeus over the temple terrace.[2352]

As no building is mentioned on the way, and as the north side of the

temple would probably have been called ἀριστερὰ πλευρά (in accordance

with the usage discussed above in connection with the Heraion), and

as the Pelopion faces southwest, the words ἐν δεξιᾷ can refer only

to the right hand of Pausanias, _i. e._, the right side of the road

followed. If we assume that these words originally stood after τοσάδε

ἔστι σοί and were transferred by a later copyist, the difficulty is

resolved.[2353]

Of the nineteen victor statues in this second route (170-188, VI,

17.1-18.7) no bases have been found.[2354] But of the three “honor”

statues included, one base, that of the rhetorician Gorgias of

Leontini (184a), was recovered 10 meters northeast of the temple of

Zeus, and so probably not very far from its original position;[2355]

for Pausanias mentions only three more statues, before he comes to the

last two in this ἔφοδος, which two stood in this vicinity. The parts

of the Altis to the west and north of the temple were unimportant

till the time of Alexander the Great, and were, therefore, remarkably

free of monuments. In the whole description of Pausanias, we know of

only three altars (those of Aphrodite, the Seasons, and the Nymphs)

and a wild olive tree (the “Olive of the Beautiful Crown”) to the

west of the temple (V, 15.3), and only of the votive offerings of a

certain Mikythos or Smikythos to the north of it (V, 26.2).[2356] As

the statue of Gorgias stood among the “unimportant mixed statues”

already mentioned (184-186), these must have stood somewhere north

of the temple near its eastern end. Finally, the two ancient wooden

statues of Praxidamas and Rhexibios (187-188, P., VI, 18.7) are

mentioned by themselves as near the column of Oinomaos, which Pausanias

elsewhere[2357] says stood near the Great Altar of Zeus to the left of

a road running south from it to the temple. Pausanias, after describing

these “mixed” statues, may have finally left the route thus far

followed and introduced these last two statues as quite distinct from

the second ἔφοδος.[2358] But he does not seem to have gone far from his

route, for immediately after ending his account of the victor statues,

he begins his account of the Treasuries, which lay beyond the Great

Altar farther north.[2359] (Plans A and B.)

Thus Pausanias ends his second route somewhere short of the Great

Altar, and it appears after all to be only a continuation of the first,

forming with it one unbroken “_Rundgang_,” though in quite a different

sense of the word from that intended by Doerpfeld.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS.

From a study of these two routes, and a comparison of the dates of the

victorious athletes,[2360] we can draw the following conclusions as to

the positions of the victor statues mentioned by Pausanias as standing

in the Altis at Olympia:

1. The twenty-eight oldest statues—exclusive of the five already

mentioned as having been removed from the area of the later temple of

Zeus[2361]—dating from Ol. 58 (= 548 B. C., Pythokritos, 128 b) to Ol.

76 (= 476 B. C., Theognetos, 83), _i. e._, approximately down to the

date of the founding of the temple,[2362] stood in the space between

the eastern front of the temple and the Echo Colonnade, or to the south

of it near the South Altis wall. Only one statue (that of Protolaos,

48) stood as far north as the _Eretrian Bull_. Thus the southeastern

part of the Altis was the oldest part dedicated to victor statues.

2. After this space was mostly filled, the next statues, those dating

from Ol. 77 (= 472 B. C., Kallias, 50) to Ol. 93 (= 408 B. C., Eubotas,

75), _i. e._, from about the time of the foundation of the temple to

near the date of the battle of Aigospotamoi, fifty-one in number,

stood between the Heraion and the _Victory_ of Paionios; only one

stood as far south as the Altis wall, while seven stood around the

_Chariots_, ten around the _Victory_, twenty around the _Bull_, and

the rest further north (including 176, 185 of the second ἔφοδος, which

stood north of the eastern end of the temple). Diagoras and his family

(59-63), boxers and pancratiasts, had their statues near the older

famous boxer Euthymos (56); Alkainetos and his sons (64-66), boxers,

besides many other pugilists, had theirs near the Diagorids; Tellon

(102) had his near that of his compatriot Epikradios (101); later

Achæans had theirs near that of their countryman Oibotas (29), and

Spartans near that of Chionis (111); some, as the three victors from

Heraia (176, 177, 32),[2363] stood far apart only apparently, for the

last one had his statue near the _Bull_, and so not far from the other

two, though these are named in the second ἔφοδος.

3. From near the date of the battle of Aigospotamoi, down to about the

birth of Alexander the Great, _i. e._, from Ol. 94 to Ol. 106 (= 404

to 356 B. C.), thirty-six statues filled in the intervals left among

these older statues; fifteen stood near the Heraion; five between it

and the _Bull_, seven around the _Bull_, five around the _Victory_, one

near the _Chariots_, and three along the South Altis wall. Euthymenes

and Kritodamos (78, 80) had their monuments near that of their older

countryman (79), whose statue was made by Myron; the Ephesians,

Pyrilampes and Athenaios (35, 36), had their statues beside that of

their benefactor Lysandros (35 a).

4. After Alexander’s time, in consequence of the recent building of

the Philippeion, Leonidaion, and Theekoleon to the west of the Altis,

the western side of the temple of Zeus (and, to a lesser extent, the

northern) became important, and henceforth statues surrounded the

temple on all sides. Of the thirty-three statues of this epoch, nine

stood to the west of the temple, four to the north, and seven to the

south, while the rest stood either to the east, or, perhaps, near the

Heraion. We shall see also that many later statues, known to us from

inscriptions only, stood outside the Altis, to the west and northwest.

STATUES NOT MENTIONED BY PAUSANIAS, BUT KNOWN FROM RECOVERED BASES.

Having established these data, it is not difficult, from the positions

of the many inscribed fragmentary bases found at Olympia and referred

to victor statues not mentioned by Pausanias, from the approximate

dates of the victories as gained from the age of the inscriptions, and

by again employing the system of groups already mentioned, to state

quite definitely where many of these other statues stood. Pausanias,

who mentions 187 victors with 192 monuments in his two ἔφοδοι,

expressly states that he enumerates only those “who had some title

to fame or whose statues were better made.”[2364] The reasons for

his selection and the fact that he mentions the statue of no athlete

certainly later than the middle of the second century B. C. (although

we know from inscriptions that statues were set up far into the third

century A. D., at least)[2365] have been subjects of much discussion,

but hardly concern us here.[2366] The three latest statues of victors

mentioned by Pausanias, whose dates are fixed, may be given: those of

Kleitomachos, who won παγκράτιον and πύξ in Ols. 141 and 142 (= 216

and 212 B. C.);[2367] of Kapros, victor in παγκράτιον and πάλη in

Ol. 142 (= 212 B. C.);[2368] and of Akestorides, victor πώλων ἅρματι

sometime between Ols. 142 and 144 (= 212 and 204 B. C.).[2369] Still

later statues of victors named by Pausanias, whose dates can not be

exactly determined, are those of Sodamas, who won παίδων στάδιον some

time between Ols. 142 and 145 (= 212 and 200 B. C.);[2370] of Amyntas,

victor in παίδων παγκράτιον in Ol. (?) 146 (= 196 B. C.);[2371]

of Timon, victor in πένταθλον in Ols. 146 or 147 (= 196 or 192 B.

C.);[2372] and of Lysippos, victor in παίδων πάλη some time between

Ols. 149 and 157 (= 184 and 152 B. C.).[2373] Of the first century A.

D., Pausanias mentions three victors without statues: Artemidoros,

who won παγκράτιον in Ol. 212 (= 69 A. D.);[2374] Polites, victor

in στάδιον, δίαυλος and δόλιχος in Ol. 212;[2375] and Hermogenes,

victor in στάδιον twice, δίαυλος once, and as ὁπλίτης thrice, in Ols.

215, 216, 217 (= 81-89 A. D.).[2376] The words of Pliny, _Olympiae,

ubi omnium qui vicissent statuas dicari mos erat_[2377] refer, of

course, as we have already pointed out, only to the privilege and not

to the actual fact, for many victors would have no statues, as it

was necessary for them or their relatives or city-states to meet the

expenses of their erection.[2378] No more is the rest of his statement

to be taken literally, _i. e._, that those victors who were victorious

three times had the right to erect portrait statues in their honor;

for we have, as has already been shown, at least one exception.[2379]

Besides we know that portrait statues were practically unknown

before the fourth century B. C. Most of the victor statues were mere

types—those of Hermes and Herakles being common—without individualized

features, simply representing the various contests by position or

some characteristic, _e. g._, the helmet and shield for “hoplite”

victors.[2380]

Five of these inscriptions have been referred to the sixth and fifth

centuries B. C.[2381] Of these the inscribed base of Pantares was

found near the South Altis wall, and the statue must originally have

stood east of the temple of Zeus, near the chariot of Gelo (90), for

these two were the only victors from Gela, and won in the same kind

of contest and at nearly the same date.[2382] The statues of Phrikias

of Pelinna and Phanas of Pellene, both representing victors in the

heavy-armed race, to which I have ascribed the two archaic marble

heads (Fig. 30), the former found west of the temple of Zeus and the

latter to the south of it, must originally have stood in the area of

the later temple and then have been removed.[2383] That of an unknown

victor, whose name ended in ...αδας,[2384] the two fragments of whose

base were found, one near the Heraion and the other to the east of the

temple of Zeus, should have stood near the statues of the only other

pancratiasts of a similar age, either near those of Dorieus (61), who

won in Ols. 87 to 89 (= 432 to 424 B. C.), and Damagetos (62), who won

in Ols. 82 and 83 (= 452 and 448 B. C.), in the zone of the _Bull_, or

near that of Timasitheos (82), who won some time between Ols. (?) 65

and 67 inclusive (= 520 and 512 B. C.), in the zone of the _Victory_.

Lastly, the second inscribed base of Xenombrotos (133), found near

the Council-house outside the South Altis wall, doubtless once stood

near the first (the epigram from which is preserved by Pausanias, VI,

14.12), along this wall to the east of the base of Telemachos.[2385]

No inscribed fragments of bases dating from the fourth century B. C.

have been found.

Beginning with the third century B. C., we shall see that most of the

recovered bases were found either in the western part of the Altis,

in the neighborhood of the Philippeion, Theekoleon, and Leonidaion,

on both sides of the West Altis wall, or still farther west and

northwest, especially in or near the Palaistra and Prytaneion. We have

already seen that most of the statues named by Pausanias dating from

Alexander’s time stood to the west (and north) of the temple of Zeus.

As Pausanias enumerates only statues ἐν δεξιᾷ of his route around the

temple to the Great Altar, these statues farther west and northwest

are omitted from his account. Of the four bases of statues referred

to the third century, all belong to Elean victors; three were found

west and northwest of the Prytaneion and beyond, showing that these

statues once stood in the vicinity of this building, and the fourth

was found farther south, by the Palaistra, where it probably stood.

Thus the base of the wrestler Nikarchos, son of Physsias, was found

in a late wall west of the Prytaneion;[2386] that of the statue of an

unknown victor, son of Taurinos, was found at the southeast corner of

the Palaistra;[2387] that of another unknown victor, the son of

...phinos, was found in the _Nordwestgraben_;[2388] the base of the

statue of Thersonides, son of Paianodoros, victor κέλητι πωλικῷ, was

found northwest of the Prytaneion, between the Roman baths and east

hall of the Gymnasion.[2389]

Of the four statues referred with certainty to the second century

B. C., all but one were found to the west of the Altis, in a region

ranging from the Philippeion, northwest of the temple of Zeus, to the

Leonidaion southwest of it. Two of them were found outside the West

Altis wall, between the Leonidaion and the Byzantine church. Thus the

base of the statue of D...gonos, twice victor in πύξ, was found

outside the apse of the Byzantine church and west of the West Altis

wall;[2390] the fragments of that of an unknown boy victor in wrestling

or the pankration were found in the East Byzantine wall;[2391] that

of an unknown victor, συνωρίδι τελείᾳ (twice), and ἅρματι τελείῳ, was

found south of the Philippeion.[2392] The fragment of the base of the

statue of another unknown victor in wrestling, the son of the Elean

Aigyptos, was found to the northeast of the Leonidaion.[2393]

Of the seven bases referred to the second and first centuries B. C.,

three were found in or near the Byzantine church, showing that such

statues may have stood in the Greek building which was later converted

into the church.[2394] Two more were found near the southwest corner

of the Altis, and therefore may once have stood near the statue of

Philonides, which Pausanias mentions as standing in that vicinity.

Two others stood farther away, one inside the Prytaneion, the other

northeast of the temple of Zeus. Thus the base of an unknown victor,

the son of Aristotle, συνωρίδι πωλικῇ, was found in front of the north

side of the Byzantine church;[2395] that of Aristodamos, the son of

Aleximachos of Elis, was found in the floor of the church;[2396] that

of an unknown victor was found northeast of the temple of Zeus;[2397]

that of a victor συνωρίδι πωλικῇ, whose name ended in ...chos, the

son of the Elean Nikodromos, was found southwest of the Altis before

the West Altis wall;[2398] the base of two unknown victors from Elis

were found respectively in the Prytaneion[2399] and northwest of the

Byzantine church,[2400] while that of another Elean, Antigenes, the son

of Jason, victor συνωρίδι πωλικῇ, was found in the southwest corner of

the Altis.[2401]

The positions of the twenty-four bases (belonging to monuments of

twenty-two victors) with certainty referred to the first pre-Christian

century were very scattered. One large Pentelic marble _bathron_,

supporting the monuments of seven victors of the family of Philistos,

must have stood just south of the Philippeion, where most of the

fragments were found. The bases of the statues of two other sons and

a grandson of the same victor have been recovered, and doubtless

stood near by, thus forming a family group of ten, outnumbering that

of Diagoras (59-63 and 52) mentioned by Pausanias. The omission of

so important a monument in the description of the Periegete has, of

course, been used as an indication of his employment of earlier lists.

Of the other bases, two were found outside the South Altis wall, west

of the Council-house, and two east of it; two east of the temple of

Zeus (one of them that of the youthful Tiberius, afterwards Roman

emperor, which must have stood near the _Eretrian Bull_, where it was

found); one southwest of the temple, along the South Terrace wall,

pointing to a position among the statues there named by Pausanias;

one east of the Byzantine church, pointing to a position south of

the Theekoleon, two to the northwest of the Altis in the vicinity of

the Prytaneion; while the others were found scattered all the way

from the northeastern part of the Altis to the bed of the Kladeos.

Thus over half (13) of these statue-bases were found in the west and

northwest of the Altis and beyond; the space to the east of the temple

of Zeus—called _frequentissimus celeberrimusque_ by Scherer—seems now

not to have been greatly prized. Most of these victories were gained

in hippic contests. Horse-racing had early been discontinued, but

was revived at the end of the first century B. C., when members of

the imperial family, emulating the earlier triumphs of the princes

of Sicily and Macedonia, became competitors. Thus Tiberius won in

the chariot-race, and a few years later his nephew Germanicus in the

same event. The list of these bases of victor statues of the first

century B. C. and their provenience follows. A fragment of the base

of the victor Agilochos, son of Nikeas of Elis, victor κέλητι πωλικῷ,

was found in the East Byzantine wall.[2402] One fragment of the

_bathron_ of the family group of the Elean Philistos,[2403] victors

in hippic contests, was found southwest of the Pelopion, while four

others were discovered south of the Philippeion; the base of the

statue of Philonikos, a son of Philistos, was also found south of the

Philippeion,[2404] and that of another unnamed son was discovered to

the west of the Prytaneion,[2405] while the place of finding of that

of Charops, the son of Telemachos, has not been recorded.[2406] The

base of the monument of Aristarchos was found east of the Byzantine

church,[2407] that of Damaithidas, son of Menippos of Elis, a victor

συνωρίδι πωλικῇ, west of the Council-house (south building),[2408] and

that of Thrasymachos (or Thrasymedes) in the _Nordostgraben_.[2409] A

fragment of the base of the statue of Demokrates of Antioch in Karia

was found in the bed of the river Kladeos,[2410] that of a victor whose

name began with Demo..., northeast of the Prytaneion,[2411] while

that of Thaliarchos, the son of Soterichos of Elis, victor πὺξ παίδων

καὶ ἀνδρῶν, was found east of the Council-house.[2412] Bases from

two statues of Menedemos, son of Menedemos of Elis, victor συνωρίδι

πωλικῇ, were found, one east of the temple of Zeus, the other inside

the Heraion.[2413] Lykomedes, the son of Aristodemos of Elis, victor

συνωρίδι πωλικῇ, also had two statues; the base of one was found in

front of the West Byzantine wall on the south side of the temple of

Zeus, that of the other in the _Westgraben_.[2414] The front part of

the base of the statue of Archiadas, the son of Timolas of Elis, who

won κέλητι πωλικῷ, was discovered southwest of the temple of Zeus, on

the Terrace wall.[2415] That of an unknown victor in the δίαυλος, the

son of ...krates of Miletos, was found near the _Osthalle_,[2416]

while that inscribed with the name of Tiberius Claudius Nero of Rome,

who won a victory τεθρίππῳ just before the end of the century, was

found south of the _Eretrian Bull_.[2417]

Nineteen inscribed base-fragments have been referred to the

post-Christian centuries, thirteen to the first, three to the

second, and three to the third. The spaces around the temple of Zeus

(especially its eastern front) are again the favorite ones. Thus the

bases of three statues were found east of the temple (one _in situ_),

two near its southeastern corner, three at the northeastern corner

(one, that of Germanicus Cæsar, the nephew of Tiberius, just to the

north of the _Eretrian Bull_, and so originally standing here near

that of his uncle), while another stood opposite the fifth column from

the east on the north side of the temple. Most of these statues must

have been passed by Pausanias in his first ἔφοδος, which is, perhaps,

another evidence of his dependence on older lists in compiling his

own. Two other bases were found to the southwest of the temple, one of

them near its corner, and the other nearer the corner of the Altis,

_i. e._, near the base of the statue of Philonides (154a). Thus eleven

statues stood near the temple. Of the others, four were found in the

vicinity of the Palaistra (one inside _in situ_), one to the northeast

of the Prytaneion, another northeast of the Byzantine church, while the

two remaining ones were found in the eastern part of the Altis, near

the entrance to the Stadion and before the Echo Colonnade respectively.

The base of the last statue of a victor known to have been erected at

Olympia, that of Valerios Eklektos of Sinope, previously mentioned, was

found _in situ_ in the Palaistra. We append a detailed list of these

bases, giving the provenience of each.

Of the first century A. D., the fore part of the base of the monument

of Germanicus, son of Nero Claudius Drusus, was found east of the

temple of Zeus, north of the _Eretrian Bull_;[2418] the base of that

of Gnaios Markios was found opposite the southeast corner of the

temple;[2419] that of Markos Antonios Kallippos Peisanos, son of M.

Antonios Alexion of Elis, who won κέλητι πωλικῷ in Ol. 177 (= 72 A.

D.), was found in the West Byzantine wall at the southwest corner

of the temple.[2420] The base of the monument of Polyxenos, son of

Apollophanes of Zakynthos, victor in πάλη παίδων, was discovered at

the southwest corner of the Altis far from its probable original

location;[2421] that of P. Kornelios Ariston, son of Eirenaios of

Ephesos, victor in παγκράτιον παίδων in Ol. 207 (= 49 A. D.), in front

of the north wall of the Palaistra;[2422] the marble plate from that

of Tiberios Klaudios Aphrodeisios of Elis (?), who won κέλητι τελείῳ

in Ol. 208 (= 53 A. D.), was unearthed near its semicircular base,

which was found _in situ_ east of the temple.[2423] Four fragments

of the base of the monument of the boy pancratiast Nikanor, son of

Sokles of Ephesos, were recovered east of the temple, and another one

near its southeastern corner.[2424] The base of that of Markos Deida

of Antioch, victor in πάλη παίδων in Ol. 219 (= 97 A. D.), was found

southeast of the temple;[2425] that of an unknown victor in the δίαυλος

and as ὁπλίτης (three times) in the North Byzantine wall;[2426] that of

Hermas, son of Ision of Antioch, a victor in παγκράτιον, between the

West Altis wall and the southeastern corner of the Palaistra;[2427]

that of Diogenes, son of Dionysios of Ephesos, victor σαλπίγγι five

times, before the centre of the Echo Colonnade.[2428] The inscribed

fragments of the bronze legs of the statues of two unknown victors

have also been excavated, the one near the starting-place in the

Stadion,[2429] the other near the fifth column from the east on the

north side of the temple of Zeus.[2430]

Of the second century A. D., we have the following bases: that of Kasia

M[nasithea], daughter of M. Betilenos (or Vetulenos) Laitos of Elis,

who won ἅρματι πωλικῷ, was found northeast of the Prytaneion;[2431] the

upper part of the pedestal of the _quadriga_ of L. Minicius Natalis of

Rome, victor ἅρματι τελείῳ in Ol. 227 (= 129 A. D.), was unearthed in

the east wall of the Palaistra.[2432] The base of the statue erected to

the herald P. Ailios Artemas of Laodikeia (in Phrygia?) was found 20

meters north of the northeastern corner of the temple of Zeus.[2433]

Of the third century A. D., _i. e._, after the time of Pausanias, we

have these bases: that of P. Ailios Alkandridas, son of Damokratidas of

Sparta, twice victor in (?) πάλη, was found northeast of the Byzantine

church;[2434] that of Theopropos of Rhodes, who won κέλητι, was

unearthed east of the temple of Zeus, just south of the basis of the

_Nike_ of Paionios;[2435] the base of the statue of Valerios Eklektos

of Sinope, victor as κῆρυξ in Ols. 256, 258-260 (= 245, 253-261 A.

D.), was found _in situ_ in the Palaistra.[2436] We should add for

this century also the inscribed bronze diskos, the votive (not victor)

offering of Poplios (Publius) Asklepiades of Corinth, which was found

2.5 meters south of the Southwest gate of the Altis.[2437]

A study of these inscriptions shows that the practice of setting up

victor statues decreased in the fourth and third centuries B. C., but

was revived in the second and first, only to decrease again after

the first century A. D. On the other hand, the inscriptions show that

the number of “honor” statues correspondingly increased. Of the later

statues, most were erected to Eleans; names of victors from Sicily and

Italy, and from the older Greek states, as Sparta and Athens, are rare,

being replaced by those from Asia Minor and the newer towns of the

Greek mainland. This falling off of interest in the games was largely

due to professionalism. In the second century B. C., we begin to read

in the inscriptions of περιοδονῖκαι, _i. e._, victors winning prizes

at all the four national games, a sure indication of the professional

spirit. Even Pausanias mentions two such victors.[2438]

From these inscribed base-fragments, we have knowledge of 61 victors

(63 monuments)[2439] who had statues erected to them, though they are

not named in the lists of Pausanias. Of the 192 monuments mentioned by

Pausanias, 40 are known to us from recovered fragments of bases and

statues. So if we assume the same ratio between known and unknown for

those not mentioned by Pausanias, we should have the proportion 40 :

192 : : 63 : _x_, where _x_ would equal 302, making a grand total of

494 monuments, which number can not be far from the actual number of

victor statues adorning the Altis.[2440]

OLYMPIC VICTOR MONUMENTS ERECTED OUTSIDE OLYMPIA.

In Chapter I, we showed that frequently statues or other monuments

were erected in their native towns as a part of the honor paid to

Olympic victors. We shall now give a list of all such monuments set

up in various parts of the Greek world which are known to us from

notices in ancient literature and from inscriptions.[2441] These, like

the statues in the Altis, range in date from the seventh century B.

C. to the fourth A. D., and offer still greater variety in the kinds

of dedication. It will be best to arrange the list as far as possible

chronologically and in numerical sequence, adding the authorities for

the dates of the various victories in the footnotes.[2442]

Victors with monuments of the seventh century B. C.:

1. Chionis, of Sparta.[2443] Besides his statue by Myron and the tablet

containing a list of his victories at Olympia mentioned by Pausanias

(VI, 13.2), the same writer records a similar tablet in Sparta, erected

near the royal tomb of the Agids, likewise set up by his townspeople

(III, 14.3). The Spartan tablet, like the monuments in his honor at

Olympia, was doubtless set up long after the victory, about Ols. 77 or

78 (= 472 or 468 B. C.).

2. Kylon, of Athens.[2444] Pausanias records that a bronze statue of

this victor stood upon the Athenian Akropolis, erected, as he supposes,

in honor of his beauty and reputation as an Olympic victor (I, 28.1).

Kylon was the leader of the well-known conspiracy of 632 B. C., when

he tried to make himself tyrant of Athens.[2445] Furtwaengler has

proposed the theory that this monument was not set up in honor of Kylon

by the Athenians, as Pausanias says, but that it was a dedication by

his family after his Olympic victory.[2446] A. Schaefer,[2447] however,

more justly believed that the statue was an expiatory offering for the

massacre of Kylon’s companions on the Akropolis,[2448] set up in the

time of Perikles, the date of which would account for the “beauty” of

the statue. Still another scholar[2449] believes that Pausanias’ remark

was called forth by the epigram on the statue.[2450]

3. Hipposthenes, of Sparta.[2451] Pausanias records that a temple was

dedicated to him in Sparta, where he received divine worship (III,

15.7). It has been argued that the words of Pausanias (_l. c._) show

that Hipposthenes here was worshiped only in the character of Poseidon,

whose epithet was ἵππιος (_cf._ P., I, 30.4).[2452]

Of the sixth century B. C.:

4. Hetoimokles, son of Hipposthenes of Sparta.[2453] Pausanias mentions

a statue of this victor at Sparta (III, 13.9).

5. Arrhachion, of Phigalia.[2454] Pausanias records the stone statue

in the archaic pose, and with weathered inscription, erected to this

victor in the market-place at Phigalia (VIII, 40.1), which we have

discussed at length in the preceding chapter (Fig. 79).

6. Kimon, the son of Stesagoras, of Athens.[2455] Aelian mentions αἱ

Κίμωνος ἵπποι χαλκαῖ, very true to the originals, in Athens,[2456]

which seem to have been set up in honor of his three chariot victories

at Olympia. His first victory was won when he was in banishment at the

hands of the tyrant Peisistratos, son of Hippokrates. Having entered

his horses under the tyrant’s name for the second contest, he was in

consequence recalled, and a third time entered them and won under his

own name.[2457] The pseudo-Andokides confuses this older Kimon with the

younger, when he calls the latter an Olympic victor.[2458] Similarly a

scholiast on Aristophanes[2459] confuses him with Megakles, who won a

victory τεθρίππῳ in Ol. 47 (= 592 B. C.).[2460]

7. Philippos, son of Boutakides, of Kroton.[2461] The people of Egesta

in Sicily erected a shrine over his grave in their town, and paid him

divine honors on account of his beauty, in which he surpassed all his

contemporaries.[2462]

Of the fifth century B. C.: