| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Olympic Victor Monuments and Greek Athletic Art
Author: Hyde, Walter Woodburn
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Olympic Victor Monuments and Greek Athletic Art" ***
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)
[Illustration: MARBLE HEAD FROM OLYMPIA. MUSEUM AT OLYMPIA.]
OLYMPIC VICTOR MONUMENTS
AND
GREEK ATHLETIC ART
BY
WALTER WOODBURN HYDE
[Illustration]
PUBLISHED BY THE CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON, 1921
CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON
PUBLICATION NO. 268
PRESS OF GIBSON BROTHERS, INC.
WASHINGTON, D. C.
PREFACE.
The purpose of the present work is to study what is known of one of
the most important genres of Greek sculpture—the monuments erected
at Olympia and elsewhere in the Greek world in honor of victorious
athletes at the Olympic games. Since only meagre remnants of these
monuments have survived, the work is in the main concerned with the
attempt to reconstruct their various types and poses.
The source-material on which the attempt is based has been indicated
fully in the text; it is of two kinds, literary and archæological. To
the former belong the explanatory inscriptions on the bases of victor
statues found at Olympia and elsewhere, many of which agree verbally
with epigrams preserved in the _Greek Anthologies_; the incidental
statements of various kinds and value found in the classical writers
and their scholiasts; and, above all, the detailed works of the two
imperial writers, the elder Pliny and Pausanias. Pliny’s account of
the Greek artists, which is inserted into his _Historia Naturalis_
as a digression (Books XXXIV-XXXVI)—being artificially joined to the
history of mineralogy on the pretext of the materials used—is, despite
its uncritical and often untrustworthy character, one of our chief
mines of information about Greek sculptors and painters. The portions
of Pausanias’ _Description of Greece_ which deal with Elis and the
monuments of Olympia (Books V-VI), although they also evince little
real understanding of art, are of far more direct importance to our
subject, since they include a descriptive catalogue, doubtless based
upon personal observation, of the greater part of the athlete monuments
set up in the Altis at Olympia, the reconstruction of which is the
chief purpose of the present work.
To the archæological sources, on the other hand, belong, first and
foremost, the remnants of victor statues in stone and metal which have
long been garnered in modern museums or have come to light during the
excavation of the Altis. To this small number I hope I have added at
least one marble fragment found at Olympia, the head of a statue by
Lysippos, the last great sculptor of Greece (Frontispiece and Fig.
69). To this second kind of sources belong also the statue bases just
mentioned, on many of which the extant footmarks enable us to determine
the poses of the statues themselves which once stood upon them.
Furthermore, an intimate knowledge of Greek athletic sculpture in all
its periods and phases is, of course, essential in treating a problem
of this nature. Here, as in the study of Greek sculpture in general,
where the destruction of original masterpieces, apart from the few
well-known but splendid exceptions, has been complete, we are almost
entirely dependent upon second-hand evidence furnished by the numerous
existing antique copies and adaptations of lost originals executed in
marble and bronze by more or less skilled workmen for the Roman market.
Finally, not only are the innumerable statuettes and small bronzes
surviving from antiquity of great value in any attempt to reconstruct
the pose of a given athlete statue, but also the representations
of various athlete figures on every sort of sculptured and painted
work—vase-paintings, wall-paintings, reliefs, gems, coins, etc.
By using all such sources of information, it is possible to attain
tolerable certainty in reconstructing the various types and poses of
these lost monuments, and in identifying schools of athletic sculpture,
masters, and even individual statues. But it must be stated at the
outset that such identifications, from the very nature of the problem,
are at best tentative in character. The attempt to see in Roman copies
certain statues of athletes has often been made by archæologists.
However probable such identifications may seem, we must not forget the
simple fact that up to the present time not a single Roman copy has
been conclusively _proved_ to be that of an Olympic victor statue.
Only as our knowledge of Greek sculpture is gradually extended by
discoveries of additional works of art, and by future researches,
will it be possible to attain an ever greater degree of probability.
The further identification of these important monuments, as that of
masterpieces of Greek sculpture generally, will thus remain one of
the chief problems for the future archæologist. In the present book,
where the body of material drawn upon is so immense and the scientific
writings involved are so voluminous, manifestly the author can lay no
claim to an exhaustive treatment. With due consciousness of the defects
and shortcomings of the work, he can claim only to have made a small
selection of such works of art as will best illustrate the various
types of monuments under discussion.
The plan of the book is easily seen by a glance at the table of
contents. After a preliminary chapter on the origin and development
of Greek athletic games in general and on the custom of conferring
athletic prizes on victors, the more specific subject of the work is
introduced in Chapter II by brief discussions of the more general
characteristics common to Olympic victor statues—their size, nudity,
and hair-fashion, their portrait or non-portrait features, and the
standard of beauty reached by some of them at least, as shown by the
æsthetic judgments of certain ancient writers and by the fragmentary
originals which have survived. The enumeration of these characteristics
is followed by a brief account of the various canons of proportion
assumed to have been used and taught by different schools of sculptors.
The chapter ends with a more extended account of the little-known but
important subject of the assimilation of this class of monuments to
athlete types of gods and heroes.
In Chapters III and IV, which are the most important in developing the
problem of reconstruction, a division has been made into two great
statuary groups: those in which the victor was represented at rest,
where the particular contest was indicated, if indicated at all, by
very general motives or by particular athletic attributes; and those
in which the victor was represented in movement, _i. e._, in the
characteristic pose of the contest in which he won his victory.
Chapter V relates chiefly to the monuments of hippodrome victors, those
in the various chariot-races and horse-races, and ends with a very
brief notice of non-athlete victor dedications—those of musicians.
Chapter VI gives a stylistic analysis of what are conceived to be
two original marble heads from lost victor statues, one of which is
ascribed to Lysippos, the great bronze-founder and art-reformer of
the fourth century B. C., while the other is regarded as an early
Hellenistic work of eclectic tendencies. The publication of these
marble heads and of the oldest-dated victor statue, which is also of
marble and which is discussed in Chapter VII, reinforced by other
evidence adduced in the latter chapter, overthrows the belief that all
victor statues were uniformly made of bronze. The publication of the
Olympia head also controverts the usual assumption of archæologists
that Lysippos worked only in metal. The last chapter is concerned with
a topographical study of the original positions in the Altis of the
various athlete monuments discussed, and with a list of all the victor
monuments known to have been erected outside Olympia in various cities
of the ancient world. These last three chapters are based on papers
which have already appeared in the _American Journal of Archæology_
(Chapters VI, VII, and the first half of VIII) and in the _Transactions
of the American Philological Association_ (the last half of Chapter
VIII). Permission to use them in the present book has been kindly
granted to the author by Dr. James A. Paton, former editor-in-chief
of the _American Journal of Archæology_, and by Professor Clarence P.
Bill, the secretary of the American Philological Association.
Although it has been my aim throughout to present my own views in
regard to the various works of art under discussion, I must, of
course, acknowledge that the book is largely based upon the work and
conclusions of preceding scholars who have treated various phases of
the same subject. It would, however, be unnecessary and even impossible
here to acknowledge all the works laid directly or indirectly under
contribution in the composition of the book. Most of these have been
recorded in the footnotes.
But I wish here to express, in a more general way, my indebtedness
to the standard histories of Greek sculpture, by Brunn, Collignon,
Gardiner, Lechat, Murray, Overbeck, Richardson, and others, which must
form the foundation of the knowledge of any one who writes on any phase
of the subject. Among these, two have been found especially valuable:
Bulle’s _Der schoene Mensch im Altertum_, which is justly noted for
its comprehensive views and sound judgments; and Furtwaengler’s _Die
Meisterwerke der griechischen Plastik_, which, although it has been
known to English readers in its enlarged edition by Miss Eugénie
Sellers for over a quarter of a century, is still prized for its
extensive firsthand knowledge of the monuments and for its brilliant
inductions, even if the latter at times are carried too far.
Perhaps my greatest debt has been to the excellent volume entitled
_Greek Athletic Sports and Festivals_, by E. Norman Gardiner, M. A.,
a scholar whose practical knowledge of modern athletic sports and
wide familiarity with the ancient source material, both literary and
monumental, has well fitted him to deal afresh with the subject treated
so learnedly over three quarters of a century ago in Krause’s _Die
Gymnastik und Agonistik der Hellenen_. I have also constantly drawn
upon Gardiner’s collection of vase-paintings which illustrate athletic
scenes.
I should also note here several other works which have been of great
assistance in writing this book, such as Juethner’s _Ueber antike
Turngeraethe_ and edition of Philostratos’ _de Arte gymnastica_,
Reisch’s _Griechische Weihgeschenke_, Rouse’s _Greek Votive Offerings_,
and Foerster’s _Die Sieger in den Olympischen Spielen_. The
chronological list of victors in the latter compilation was, in large
part, the foundation of my earlier work _de olympionicarum Statuis_.
I have also received most valuable help from the standard catalogues of
modern museums, _e. g._, those by Amelung, Dickins, Helbig, Kabbadias,
Lechat, Richter, de Ridder, Staïs, Svoronos, and especially the
admirable ones of the classical collections in the British Museum. I
regret that, owing to the recent war, some of the latest catalogues,
those especially of the smaller foreign museums, have not been
available.
For illustrative matter, I have made no effort to reproduce merely
striking works of art, but have, for the most part, presented
well-known works which readily illustrate the problems treated in the
text. I have availed myself of collections of photographs kindly placed
at my disposal by Professors Herbert E. Everett of the School of Fine
Arts of the University of Pennsylvania, D. M. Robinson of the Johns
Hopkins University, A. S. Cooley of the Moravian College at Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania, and Dr. Mary H. Swindler of Bryn Mawr College. The
various collections of plates and the books and journals from which I
have taken illustrations are duly noted in the List of Illustrations.
In addition, I wish to thank the following corporations and individuals
for permission to reproduce plates and text-cuts from the works cited:
the Council of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies,
of London, for the use of four plates appearing in the _Journal of
Hellenic Studies_ (Figs. 44, 54, 55, and 59); the Trustees of the
British Museum in London for seven plates from _Marbles and Bronzes
in the British Museum_ (Pls. 7A, 17, 19; Figs. 14, 28, 31, and 35);
Professor E. A. Gardiner and his publishers, Duckworth and Co., of
London, for two plates from _Six Greek Sculptors_ (Pl. 30; Fig. 71);
Mr. H. R. Hall, of the British Museum, and his publisher, Philip Lee
Warner, of London, for one from _Aegean Archæology_ (Fig. 1); Professor
Allan Marquand, of Princeton University, for one text-cut from the
_American Journal of Archæology_ (Fig. 49), and Dr. J. M. Paton,
former editor-in-chief, for three other text-cuts from the same journal
(Figs. 70, 72, 79).
To the following I am also indebted for individual photographs: Dr. J.
N. Svoronos, Director of the Numismatic Museum, Athens, Greece, for
one of the oldest-dated statues of an Olympic victor (Fig. 79), which
has already appeared in the _American Journal of Archæology_; Dr. A.
Fairbanks, of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, for those of the statue
of a Charioteer (?) and of the fragmentary head of the _Oil-pourer_ (Pl.
27; Fig. 23); Dr. Edward Robinson, of the Metropolitan Museum of Art,
New York, for those of the fine Kresilæan and Praxitelian heads (Pls.
15, 20), and of the bronze statuette of a diskobolos (Fig. 46); Prof.
Alice Walton, of Wellesley College, for one of the Polykleitan athlete
(Pl. 13); the Director of the Fogg Art Museum of Cambridge, Mass., for
that of the so-called _Meleager_ (Fig. 77); Dr. S. B. Luce, recently of
the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, for photographs of two
vase-paintings showing athletic scenes (Figs. 50, 56), and Dr. Eleanor
F. Rambo, formerly of the same Museum, for a copy of the Knossos
wall-painting (Pl. 1).
A word might be added as to the spelling of Greek proper names. Since
consistency in this matter seems unattainable, I have adopted the
method outlined in the _British School Annual_ (XV, 1908-09, p. 402),
whereby the names of persons, places, buildings, festivals, etc., are
transliterated from the Greek forms, except those which have become a
part of the English language. But even here I have sometimes deviated
from the practice of using familiar English forms.
In abbreviations of the names of journals (see pages XVI-XIX) I have
largely conformed with the usage long recommended by the _American
Journal of Archæology._
For convenience in identifying the many works of art, discussed or
mentioned in the text and foot-notes, I have constantly referred to
well-known collections of plates, such as those of Brunn-Bruckmann,
Bulle, Rayet, and von Mach. For further convenience, I have also in
most cases referred to the outline drawings of statues in Reinach’s
_Répertoire de la statuaire grecque et romaine_, and in some cases
to the older ones found in Clarac’s _Musée de sculpture antique et
moderne_, and in Mueller and Wieseler’s _Denkmaeler der alten Kunst_.
In closing, I have the pleasant duty of thanking generally the many
friends who have given me valuable suggestions and assistance,
especially Professor Lane Cooper, of Cornell University, for reading
the proof-sheets of the entire work, and Professor Alfred Emerson, now
of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, my former teacher, for revising the list
of _Corrigenda_.
WALTER WOODBURN HYDE.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.
_Philadelphia, October, 1921._
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
PAGE
EARLY GREEK GAMES AND PRIZES 1-42
Sports in Crete 1
Athletics in Homer 7
Origin of Greek Games in the Cult of the Dead 9
Early History of the Four National Games 14
Early Prizes for Athletes 18
Dedication of Athlete Prizes 21
Dedication of Statues at Olympia and Elsewhere 24
Honors Paid to Victors by their Native Cities 32
Votive Character of Victor Dedications 37
Miscellaneous Memorials to Victors 40
Honorary Statues 41
CHAPTER II.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTOR STATUES AT OLYMPIA 43-98
Size of Victor Statues 45
Nudity of Victor Statues 47
The Athletic Hair-fashion 50
Iconic and Aniconic Statues 54
Portrait Statues 55
Aniconic Statues 58
Aesthetic Judgments of Classical Writers 58
Greek Originals of Victor Statues 62
Canons of Proportion 65
Assimilation of Olympic Victor Statues to Types of Gods and Heroes 71
Athlete Statues Assimilated to Types of Hermes 75
Athlete Statues Assimilated to Types of Apollo 88
Athlete Statues Assimilated to Types of Herakles 93
Athletes Represented as the Dioskouroi 96
CHAPTER III.
VICTOR STATUES REPRESENTED AT REST 99-172
The Apollo Type 100
The Affiliated Schools of Argos and Sikyon 109
The School of Argos 109
The School of Sikyon 118
Aeginetan Sculptors 122
Attic Sculptors 126
General Motives of Statues at Rest 130
Adoration and Prayer 130
Anointing 133
Oil-scraping 135
Libation-pouring 138
Resting after the Contest 144
Attributes of Victor Statues 147
Primary Attributes of Victor Statues 148
The Victor Fillet 148
Fillet-binders 150
The Crown of Wild Olive 155
The Palm-branch 160
Secondary Attributes of Victor Statues 161
Hoplitodromoi 161
Pentathletes 164
Boxers 165
Wrestlers 165
Caps for Boxers, Pancratiasts, and Wrestlers 165
The Swollen Ear 167
CHAPTER IV.
VICTOR STATUES REPRESENTED IN MOTION 173-256
The _Tyrannicides_ 173
Antiquity of Motion Statues in Greece 176
Pythagoras and Myron 178
Motion Statues representing Victors in Various Contests 188
Runners: Stadiodromoi, Diaulodromoi, Dolichodromoi 190
The Statue of the Runner Ladas 196
Statues of Boy Runners 200
Hoplitodromoi 203
Pentathletes 210
Jumpers 214
Diskoboloi 218
Akontistai 222
Wrestlers 228
Boxers 234
Pancratiasts 246
CHAPTER V.
MONUMENTS OF HIPPODROME AND MUSICAL VICTORS 257-285
Programme of Hippodrome Events 259
Representations of the Chariot-race 262
Chariot-groups at Olympia 264
Remains of Chariot-groups 269
The _Apobates_ Chariot-race 272
Statues of Charioteers 274
Dedications of Victors in the Horse-race at Olympia and Elsewhere 278
Monuments Illustrating the Horse-race 280
The _Apobates_ Horse-race 282
Dedications of Musical Victors at Olympia and Elsewhere 283
CHAPTER VI.
TWO MARBLE HEADS FROM VICTOR STATUES 286-320
The Group of Daochos at Delphi, and Lysippos 286
The _Apoxyomenos_ of the Vatican, and Lysippos 288
The _Agios_ and the _Apoxyomenos_ compared, and the Style
of Lysippos 289
The Head from Olympia 293
The Olympia Head and that of the _Agias_ 294
Identification of the Olympia Head 298
The Dates of Philandridas and Lysippos 300
Lysippos as a Worker in Marble, and Statue “Doubles” 302
The Head of a Statue of a Boy from Sparta, and the Art
of Skopas 303
Comparison of the Tegea Heads and the Head from Sparta 308
The Styles of Skopas and Lysippos Compared 311
The Sparta Head Compared with that of the _Philandridas_ 316
The Sparta Head an Eclectic Work and an Example of Assimilation 318
CHAPTER VII.
THE MATERIALS OF OLYMPIC VICTOR MONUMENTS, AND THE OLDEST-DATED
VICTOR STATUE 321-338
The Case for Bronze 321
The Case for Stone 323
The Statue of Arrhachion at Phigalia 326
Egyptian Influence on Early Greek Sculpture 328
Early Victor Statues and the “Apollo” Type 334
CHAPTER VIII.
POSITIONS OF VICTOR STATUES IN THE ALTIS; OLYMPIC VICTOR
MONUMENTS ERECTED OUTSIDE OLYMPIA; STATISTICS OF OLYMPIC
VICTOR STATUARIES 339-375
Statues Mentioned by Pausanias 339
The First Ephodos of Pausanias 341
The Second Ephodos of Pausanias 348
Summary of Results 352
Statues not Mentioned by Pausanias, but known from Recovered
Bases 353
Olympic Victor Monuments Erected Outside Olympia 361
Summary of Results 374
Statistics of Olympic Victor Statuaries 375
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
PLATES.
FACING
PAGE
Marble Head, from Olympia. Front view. Museum of Olympia.
After _Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. LIV, 3 _Frontispiece._
1. Bull-grappling Scene. Wall-painting, from Knossos. Museum
of Candia. After Photograph from copy in watercolor
by Gilliéron in the Museum of Liverpool 2
2. Marble Statue of a Girl Runner. Vatican Museum, Rome. After
Photograph by Anderson 50
3. Bronze Head of an Olympic Victor. Glyptothek, Munich. After
B. B., No. 8 62
4. Statue of the _Doryphoros_, from Pompeii, after Polykleitos.
Museum of Naples. After Photograph by Alinari 70
5. Statue of _Hermes_, from Andros. National Museum, Athens.
After Photograph by Rhomaïdes 72
6. Statue of the _Standing Diskobolos_, after Naukydes (?).
Vatican Museum, Rome. After Photograph 76
7 A and B. Statues of so-called _Apollos_. A. The _Apollo
Choiseul-Gouffier_. British Museum, London. After _Marbles
and Bronzes in the British Museum_, Pl. III B.
The _Apollo-on-the-Omphalos_. National Museum, Athens.
After Photograph by Merlin 90
8 A and B. Statues of so-called _Apollos_. A. The _Apollo
of Tenea_. Glyptothek, Munich. After Photograph by Bruckmann.
B. _Argive Apollo_, from Delphi. Museum of Delphi. After
_Fouilles de Delphes_, IV, 1904, Pl. I 102
9. Statue of an Athlete, by Stephanos. Villa Albani, Rome.
After Photograph 114
10. Bronze statue of the _Praying Boy_. Museum of Berlin. After
Photograph 132
11. Statue of so-called _Oil-pourer_. Glyptothek, Munich. After
Photograph by Bruckmann 134
12. Statue of an _Apoxyomenos_. Uffizi Gallery, Florence. After
B. B., No. 523 136
13. Statue of an Athlete, after Polykleitos. Farnsworth Museum,
Wellesley College, U. S. A. After Photograph 138
14. Bronze Statue known as the _Idolino_. Museo Archeologico,
Florence. After B. B., No. 274 142
15. Marble Head of an Athlete, after Kresilas (?). Metropolitan
Museum, New York. After Photograph 144
16. Bronze Statue of the _Seated Boxer_. Museo delle Terme,
Rome. After _Ant. Denkm._, I, 1 , 1886, Pl. IV 146
17. Statue known as the _Farnese Diadoumenos_. British Museum,
London. After _Marbles and Bronzes in the British Museum_,
Pl. VI 150
18. Statue of the _Diadoumenos_, from Delos. After Polykleitos.
National Museum, Athens. After Photograph by Alinari 152
19. Statue known as the _Westmacott Athlete_. British Museum,
London. After _Marbles and Bronzes in the British Museum_,
Pl. XXII 156
20. Head of an Athlete, School of Praxiteles. Metropolitan Museum,
New York. After Photograph 168
21. Statue of _Diomedes with the Palladion_. Glyptothek, Munich.
After Photograph 170
22. Statue of the _Diskobolos_, from Castel Porziano, after
Myron. Museo delle Terme, Rome. After Photograph by
Anderson 184
23. Statue of the _Diskobolos_, after Myron. A bronzed Cast from
the Statue in the Vatican and Head from the Statue in the
Palazzo Lancellotti, Rome. After B. B., No. 566 186
24. Statue of a Kneeling Youth, from Subiaco. Museo delle Terme,
Rome. After Photograph by Anderson 196
25. Marble Group of Pancratiasts. Uffizi Gallery, Florence.
After Photo, by Alinari 252
26. Racing Chariot and Horses. From an archaic b.-f. Hydria.
Museum of Berlin. After Gerhard, IV, Pls. CCXLIX-CCL 262
27. Statue of a Charioteer (?). Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
After Photo. by Coolidge 276
28. Statue of the Pancratiast Agias, from Delphi. Museum
of Delphi. After _Fouilles de Delphes_, IV, Pl. LXIII 286
29. Statue of the _Apoxyomenos_. After Lysippos or his School.
Vatican Museum, Rome. After B. B., No. 381 288
30. Statue of _Herakles_. Lansdowne House, London. After Gardner,
_Sculpt._, Pl. LVI 298
PLANS.
FACING
PAGE
A. The Altis at Olympia in the Greek Period (Third Century
B. C.). After Doerpfeld, in _Ergebnisse von Olympia,
Karten und Plaene_, No. III 376
B. The Altis at Olympia in the Roman Period (Second Century
A. D.). After Doerpfeld, in _Ergebnisse von Olympia,
Karten und Plaene_, No. IV 376
TEXT-FIGURES.
PAGE
1. So-called _Boxer Vase_, from Hagia Triada. From a Cast
(with handle restored) in the Museum of Candia. After
H. R. Hall, Aegean Archæology, Pl. XVI 6
2. Bronze Statuette of a Victor, from Olympia. Museum of Olympia.
After _Bronz. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. VIII, No. 57 28
3. Bronze Head of an Olympic Victor, from Beneventum. Louvre,
Paris. After Photograph 64
4. Bronze Head of an Olympic Victor, from Herculaneum. Museum
of Naples. After B. B., No. 323 (Right) 65
5. Bronze Portrait-statue of a Hellenistic Prince. Museo delle
Terme, Rome. After Photograph by Alinari 73
6. Bronze Statuette of _Hermes-Diskobolos_, found in the Sea
off Antikythera. National Museum, Athens. After Photograph
by Rhomaïdes 79
7. Bronze Statue of a Youth, found in the Sea off Antikythera.
National Museum, Athens. After Photograph by Rhomaïdes 80
8. Statue of the so-called _Jason_ (_Sandal-binder_). Louvre,
Paris. After Photograph by Giraudon 86
9. Statue of so-called _Apollo of Thera_. National Museum,
Athens. After Photograph 101
10. Statue of so-called _Apollo of Orchomenos_. National Museum,
Athens. After Photograph 102
11. Statue of so-called _Apollo_, from Mount Ptoion, Bœotia.
National Museum, Athens. After Photograph 102
12. Statue of so-called _Apollo of Melos_. National Museum,
Athens. After Photograph 103
13. Statues of so-called _Apollos_, from Mount Ptoion. National
Museum, Athens. After Photograph 104
14. Statue known as the _Strangford Apollo_. British Museum,
London. After _Marbles and Bronzes in the British Museum_,
Pl. II 105
15. Bronze Statuette of a Palæstra Victor, from the Akropolis.
Akropolis Museum, Athens. After Photograph 108
16. Bronze Statuette, from Ligourió. Museum of Berlin. After
_50stes Berliner Winckelmannsprogramm_, 1890, Pl. I
(Center and Left) 112
17. Statue of an Ephebe, from the Akropolis. Akropolis Museum,
Athens. After Photograph 115
18. Head of an Ephebe, from the Akropolis. Akropolis Museum,
Athens. After Photograph by Rhomaïdes 116
19. Bronze Statuette of Apollo, found in the Sea off Piombino.
Louvre, Paris. After Photograph by Giraudon 119
20. Figure, from the East Pediment of the Temple on Aegina.
Glypothek, Munich. After Photograph by Bruckmann 124
21. Two Figures, from the West Pediment of the Temple on Aegina.
Glyptothek, Munich. After Photograph by Bruckmann 125
22. Archaic Marble Head of a Youth. Jacobsen Collection,
Ny-Carlsberg Museum, Copenhagen. After Arndt,
_La Glyplothèque Ny-Carlsberg_, 1896, Pl. I 128
23. Head of so-called _Oil-pourer_. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
After Photograph 134
24. Bronze Statuette of an Athlete. Louvre, Paris. After
Furtwaengler, _Masterpieces_, Pl. XIII 139
25. Bronze Head of an Athlete, from Herculaneum. Museum of Naples.
After B. B., No. 339 (Left) 140
26. Marble Statue of an Athlete (?). National Museum, Athens.
After Photograph 143
27. Head from Statue of the _Seated Boxer_ (Pl. 16). Museo delle
Terme, Rome. After Photograph by Anderson 146
28. Statue of the _Diadoumenos_, from Vaison, after Polykleitos.
British Museum, London. After _Marbles and Bronzes in the
British Museum_, Pl. IV 153
29. Head of the _Diadoumenos_, after Polykleitos. Albertinum,
Dresden. After Furtwaengler, _Masterpieces_, Pl. X 154
30. Marble Heads of two Hoplitodromoi, from Olympia. Museum of
Olympia. After _Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. VI, 1-2
and 9-10 162
31. Head of Herakles, from Genzano. British Museum, London. After
_Marbles and Bronzes in the British Museum_, Pl. XXI 170
32. Statue of _Harmodios_. Museum of Naples. After B. B., No. 327 174
33. Head of an Athlete, from Perinthos. Albertinum, Dresden.
After B. B., No. 542 (Right) 180
34. Statue of the _Diskobolos_, after Myron. Vatican Museum,
Rome. After Photograph 185
35. Statue of the _Diskobolos_, after Myron. British Museum,
London. After _Marbles and Bronzes in the British Museum_,
Pl. XLVII 186
36. A and B. Athletic Scenes from a Bacchic Amphora in Rome.
A. Stadiodromoi and Leaper. B. Diskobolos and Akontistai.
After Gerhard, IV, Pl. CCLIX 192
37. Athletic Scenes from a Sixth-century B. C. Panathenaic
Amphora. Stadiodromoi (Left) and Dolichodromoi (Right).
After _Mon. d. I._, I, 1829-33, Pl. XXII, 6 b, 7 b 193
38. Statue of a Runner. Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome. After
Photograph by Anderson 198
39. Statue of a Runner. Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome. After
Photograph by Anderson 198
40. Statue of the so-called _Thorn-puller_ (the _Spinario_).
Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome. After B. B., No. 321 200
41. Hoplitodromes. Scenes from a r.-f. Kylix. Museum of Berlin.
After Gerhard, IV, Pl. CCLXI 205
42. Bronze Statuette of a Hoplitodrome (?). University Museum,
Tuebingen. After _Jb._, I, 1886, Pl. IX (Right) 206
43. Statue of the so-called _Borghese Warrior_. Louvre, Paris.
After Photograph 208
44. Pentathletes. Scene from a Panathenaic Amphora in the
British Museum, London. After _J. H. S._, XXVII, 1907,
Pl. XVIII 211
45. Statue of a Boy Victor (the _Dresden Boy_). Albertinum,
Dresden. After Furtwaengler, _Masterpieces_, Pl. XII 213
46. Bronze Statuette of a _Diskobolos_. Metropolitan Museum,
New York. After Photograph 220
47. Bust of the _Doryphoros_, after Polykleitos, by Apollonios.
Museum of Naples. After Photograph by Alinari 224
48. Statue of the _Doryphoros_, after Polykleitos. Vatican
Museum, Rome. After Photograph by Anderson 225
49. Wrestling Scenes. From Obverse of an Amphora, by Andokides.
Museum of Berlin. After _A. J. A._, XI, 1896, P. 11,
Fig. 9 230
50. Wrestling and Boxing Scenes. From a r.-f. Kylix. University
of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia. After Photograph 231
51. Bronze Statues of Wrestlers. Museum of Naples. After B. B.,
No. 354 232
52. Bronze Arm of Statue of a Boxer, found in the Sea off
Antikythera. National Museum, Athens. After Svoronos,
Pl. V, No. 4 237
53. Forearm with Glove. From the Statue of the _Seated Boxer_
(Pl. 16). Museo delle Terme, Rome. After Juethner, Fig. 62 238
54. Boxing Scenes. From a r.-f. Kylix by Douris. British Museum,
London. After _J. H. S._, XXVI, 1906, Pl. XII 240
55. Boxing and Pankration Scenes. From a r.-f. Kylix. British
Museum, London. After _J. H. S._, XXVI, Pl. XIII 241
56. Boxing Scene. From a b.-f. Panathenaic Panel-amphora.
University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia. After
Photograph 242
57. Statue of a Boxer, from Sorrento. By Koblanos of Aphrodisias.
Museum of Naples. After B. B., No. 614 242
58. Statue known as _Pollux_. Louvre, Paris. After Photograph
by Giraudon 245
59. Pankration Scene. From a Panathenaic Amphora by Kittos.
British Museum, London. After _J. H. S._, XXVI, 1906,
Pl. III 248
60. Bronze Statuette of a Pancratiast (?), from Autun, France.
Louvre, Paris. After Bulle, Pl. 96 (Right) 250
61. Bronze Head of a Boxer(?), from Olympia. A (Profile);
B (Front). National Museum, Athens. After _Bronz. v. Ol._,
Tafelbd., Pl. II, 2a and 2 254
62. Bronze Foot of a Victor Statue, from Olympia. Museum
of Olympia. After _Bronz. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. III, 3 253
63. Charioteer Mounting a Chariot. Bas-relief from the Akropolis.
Akropolis Museum, Athens. After Photograph 270
64. _Apobates_ and Chariot. Relief from the North Frieze of
the Parthenon, Athens. After Photograph 273
65. Charioteer. Relief from the small Frieze of the Mausoleion,
Halikarnassos. British Museum, London. After Photograph 274
66. Bronze Statue of the Delphi _Charioteer_. Museum of Delphi.
After _Fouilles de Delphes_, IV, Pl. L 277
67. Horse-racer. From a Sixth-century B. C. b.-f. Panathenaic
Vase. British Museum, London. After Gerhard, IV, Pl.
CCLVII (Bottom). 280
68. Head from the Statue of Agias (Pl. 28). Museum of Delphi.
After _Fouilles de Delphes_, IV, Pl. LXIV 287
69. Marble Head, from Olympia. Three-quarters Front View
(_Cf._ Frontispiece). Museum of Olympia. After _Bildw.
v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. LIV, 4 293
70. Profile Drawings of the Heads of the _Agias_ and the
_Philandridas_. After _A. J. A._, XI, 1907, p. 403,
Fig. 6 295
71. Head of the Statue of Herakles (Pl. 30). Lansdowne House,
London. After Gardner, _Sculpt._, Pl. LVII 298
72. Marble Head of a Boy, found near the Akropolis, Sparta. In
Private Possession in Philadelphia, U. S. A. After
Photograph 305
73. So-called Head of Herakles from Tegea, by Skopas. National
Museum, Athens. After _B. C. H._, XXV, 1901, Pl. VII 307
74. Attic Grave-relief, found in the Bed of the Ilissos, Athens.
National Museum, Athens. After A. Conze, _Attische
Grabreliefs_, Pl. CCXI 312
75. Statue of the so-called _Meleager_. Vatican Museum, Rome.
After Photograph 313
76. Head of the so-called _Meleager_. Villa Medici, Rome. After
_Ant. Denkm._, I, Pl. XI, 2a 314
77. Torso of the so-called _Meleager_. Fogg Art Museum, Cambridge,
Mass. After Photograph 315
78. Small Marble Torso of a Boy Victor, from Olympia. Museum
of Olympia. After _Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. LVI, 2 325
79. Stone Statue of the Olympic Victor, Arrhachion, from
Phigalia. In the Guards’ House at Bassai (Phigalia). After
Photograph 327
80. Statues of Ra-nefer and Tepemankh, from Sakkarah. Museum
of Cairo. After Bulle, Pl. 5 331
THE MOST COMMON ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE NOTES.
_A. A._
_Archaeologischer Anzeiger_, Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch, 1889-.
_Afr._
S. Iulii Africani Ὀλυμπιάδων ἀναγραφή, _apud_ Euseb., _Chron._, ed.
A. Schoene, I, pp. 194-220. Berlin, 1875. See also Rutgers.
_A. G._
_Anthologia Graeca_, cur. F. Jacobs, I-III. Leipsic, 1813-1817.
_A. Pl._
_Anthologia Planudea_, in _A. G._, II, 1814.
_A. J. A._
_American Journal of Archæology_, 1st series, 1885-1896; 2d series,
1897-.
_A. M._
_Mitteilungen des kaiserlich deutschen archaeologischen Instituts_,
Athenische Abteilung. Athens, 1876-.
Amelung, _Fuehrer_
W. Amelung, _Fuehrer durch die Antiken in Florenz_. Munich, 1897.
Amelung, _Vat._
W. Amelung, _Die Skulpturen des Vatikanischen Museums_, Textbd.,
I-II: Tafelbd., I-II. Berlin, 1903, 1908.
_Annali_
_Annali dell’ Instituto di Corrispondenza archeologica._ Rome,
1829-1885.
_Ant. Denkm._
_Antike Denkmaeler_, herausgegeben vom kaiserlich deutschen
archaeologischen Institut. Berlin, 1886-.
_Arch. Eph._
Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἐφημερίς. Athens, 3d Per., 1883-. (The title before 1910 was
Ἐφημερὶς Ἀρχαιολογική.)
Arndt-Amelung
_Photographische Einzelaufnahmen antiker Skulpturen_ (with text).
Munich, 1893-1902. Cited in German publications as _Einzelverkauf_.
_A. Z._
_Archaeologische Zeitung._ Berlin, 1843-1885.
Baum.
A. Baumeister, _Denkmaeler des klassischen Altertums_, I-III. Munich
and Leipsic, 1889.
B. B.
Brunn-Bruckmann, _Denkmaeler griechischer und roemischer Skulptur_.
Munich, 1888. Text from No. 500 (1897-) by F. Arndt. (Plates cited by
number).
_B. C. H._
_Bulletin de Correspondance hellénique._ Paris, 1877-.
_Bildw. v. Ol._
_Olympia, Die Ergebnisse_, Text- und Tafelbd., III, _Die Bildwerke
von Olympia in Stein und Thon_. By G. Treu. Berlin, 1897.
_B. M. Bronz._
_Catalogue of the Bronzes, Greek, Roman, and Etruscan, in the British
Museum._ By H. B. Walters. London, 1899.
_B. M. Sculpt._
_Catalogue of Sculpture in the British Museum_, I-III. By A. H.
Smith. London, 1892-1904.
_B. M. Vases_
_Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the British Museum._ I,
2, II, IV, by H. B. Walters; III, by C. H. Smith. London, 1893-1912.
Boeckh
A. Boeckh, _Pindari Opera_, II, _Scholia_. Leipsic, 1819.
_Bronz. v. Ol._
_Olympia, Die Ergebnisse_, Text- und Tafelbd., IV, _Die Bronzen
und die uebrigen kleineren Funde von Olympia_. By A. Furtwaengler.
Berlin, 1890.
Brunn
H. Brunn, _Geschichte der griechischen Kuenstler_, I (Bildhauer).
Brunswick, 1853. (Reprinted, Stuttgart, 1889).
_B. S. A._
_Annual of the British School at Athens._ London, 1894-1895-.
Bulle
H. Bulle, _Der schoene Mensch im Altertum_. Second edition, Munich
and Leipsic, 1912. (= Vol. I of G. Hirth’s _Der Stil_.)
_B. Com. Rom._
_Bulletino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma._ Rome,
1872-.
_Bull. d. Inst._
_Bulletino dell’ Instituto di Corrispondenza archeologica._ Rome,
1829-1885.
_C. I. A._
_Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum_, I-IV. Berlin, 1873-1897. (I, ed. A.
Kirchhoff; II, Pts. 1-4, and IV, Pts. 1-2, ed. U. Koehler; III, Pts.
1-2, ed. W. Dittenberger).
_C. I. G._
_Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum_, I-IV. Berlin, 1828-1877. (I-II, ed.
A. Boeckh; III, ed. J. Franz: IV, ed. E. Curtius and A. Kirchhoff.)
Clarac
F. de Clarac, _Musée de sculpture antique et moderne_. Text, I-VI:
Plates, I-VI. Paris, 1826-1853. See also Reinach, _Rép._
Collignon
M. Collignon, _Histoire de la sculpture grecque_, I-II. Paris, 1892,
1897.
_C. R. Acad. Inscr._
_Comptes-Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres._
Paris, 1857-.
Dar.-Sagl.
C. Daremberg, E. Saglio, et E. Pottier, _Dictionnaire des antiquités
grecques et romaines_. Paris, 1877-1918.
Dickins
G. Dickins, _Catalogue of the Akropolis Museum_, I (Archaic
Sculpture). Cambridge, 1912.
Duetschke
H. Duetschke, _Antike Bildwerke in Oberitalien_, I-IV. Leipsic,
1874-1880. (Works of art cited by number.)
_F. H. G._
_Fragmenta historiorum Graecorum_, coll. C. Muellerus, I-IV. Paris,
1841-1851.
Foerster
H. Foerster, _Die Sieger in den Olympischen Spielen_.
Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum Programm des Gymnasiums zu Zwickau,
1891, 1892. (The numbers refer to victors in chronological order.)
Frazer
Sir J. G. Frazer, _Pausanias’s Description of Greece_, I-VI. London,
1898.
Froehner, _Notice_
W. Froehner, _Notice de la sculpture ant. du musée impérial du
Louvre_. Paris, 1869.
Furtw., _Mp._
A. Furtwaengler, _Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture_. Translated and
enlarged from the following work, by Miss Eugénie Sellers (now Mrs.
Strong). London, 1895.
Furtw., _Mw._
A. Furtwaengler, _Meisterwerke der griechischen Plastik_. Leipsic and
Berlin, 1893.
F. W.
C. Friederichs, _Bausteine zur Geschichte d. griech.-roem. Plastik_,
1868. Revised edition, entitled Die Gipsabguesse antiker Bildwerke,
by P. Wolters. Berlin, 1885.
Gardiner
E. Norman Gardiner, _Greek Athletic Sports and Festivals_. London,
1910.
Gardner, _Hbk._
E. A. Gardner, _A Handbook of Greek Sculpture_. Second edition
revised. London, 1915.
Gardner, _Sculpt._
E. A. Gardner, _Six Greek Sculptors_. London, 1910.
_Gaz. arch._
_Gazette archéologique_. Paris, 1875—.
_Gaz. B.-A._
_Gazette des Beaux-Arts._ Paris, Pér. I, 1859-1868; II, 1869-1888;
III, 1889—.
Gerhard
E. Gerhard, _Auserlesene Vasenbilder_, Vol. IV (_Alltagsleben_).
Berlin, 1840.
Helbig, _Fuehrer_
W. Helbig, and others, _Fuehrer durch die oeffentlichen Sammlungen
klassischer Altertuemer in Rom_. Third edition, I-II. Leipsic, 1912,
1913.
Helbig, _Guide_
_Guide to the Public Collections of Classical Antiquities in Rome._
Translation from the preceding work (1st ed.) by J. F. and F.
Muirhead, I-II. Leipsic, 1895, 1896.
Hitz.-Bluemn.
H. Hitzig et H. Bluemner, _Pausaniae Graeciae Descriptio_. I-III
(Each in 2 Parts). Leipsic, 1896-1907.
Hyde
Gualterus (= Walter Woodburn) Hyde, _de olympionicarum Statuis a
Pausania commemoratis_. Halle, 1902; enlarged, 1903. Numbers cited
refer to victors in the order given by Pausanias.
_I. G._
_Inscriptiones Graecae_ (for contents and numbering of volumes, see
_A. J. A._, IX, 1905, pp. 96-97).
_I. G. A._
_Inscriptiones Graecae antiquissimae praeter Atticas in Attica
repertas._ Ed. H. Roehl. Berlin, 1882.
_I. G. B._
_Inschriften griechischer Bildhauer._ Ed. E. Loewy. Leipsic, 1885.
_Inschr. v. Ol._
_Olympia, Die Ergebnisse_, Textbd., V, _Die Inschriften von Olympia_.
By W. Dittenberger and K. Purgold. Berlin, 1896.
_Jb._
_Jahrbuch des kaiserlich deutschen archaeologischen Instituts._
Berlin, 1886—.
Jex-Blake
K. Jex-Blake and E. Sellers, _The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on
the History of Art_ (chiefly Bks. XXXIV-XXXVI of the _Historia
Naturalis_, cited as _H. N._). London and New York, 1896.
_Jh. oest. arch. Inst._
_Jahreshefte des oesterreichischen archaeologischen Institutes in
Wien._ Vienna, 1898—.
_J. H. S._
_Journal of Hellenic Studies._ London, 1880—.
Joubin
A. Joubin, _La Sculpture grecque entre les Guerres Médiques et
l’Époque de Périclès_. Paris, 1901.
Juethner
J. Juethner, _Ueber antike Turngeraethe_. Vienna, 1896.
Juethner, _Ph._
J. Juethner, _Philostratos ueber Gymnastik_. Leipsic and Berlin, 1909.
Kabbadias
P. Kabbadias, Γλυπτὰ τοῦ Ἐθνικοῦ Μουσείου. Athens, 1890-1892.
Klein
W. Klein, _Geschichte der griechischen Kunst_, I-III. Leipsic,
1904-1907.
Krause
J. H. Krause, _Die Gymnastik und Agonistik der Hellenen_, I-II.
Leipsic, 1841.
Lechat
H. Lechat, _La Sculpture attique avant Phidias_. Paris, 1904.
Lechat, _Au Musée_
H. Lechat, _Au Musée de l’Acropole d’Athènes_. Lyon, 1903.
Mach, von
E. von Mach, _A Handbook of Greek and Roman Sculpture_, I-II (Text
and University Prints). Boston, 1914.
M. D.
F. Matz and F. von Duhn, _Antike Bildwerke in Rom_., I-III. Leipsic,
1881-1882.
Michaelis
A. Michaelis, _Ancient Marbles in Great Britain_. Translated from the
German by C. A. M. Fennell. Cambridge, 1882.
_Mon. d. I._
_Monumenti inediti dell’ Instituto di Corrispondenza archeologica._
Rome, 1829-1885.
_Mon. ant._
_Monumenti antichi publicati per cura della Reale Accademia dei
Lincei._ Rome, 1889—.
_Mon. gr._
_Monuments grecs publiés par l’Association pour l’Encouragement des
Études grecques en France_, 1872—. (Vol. I, containing reprints of
articles from 1872, appeared in 1881).
_Mon. Piot._
_Monuments et Mémoires publiés par l’Académie des Inscriptions et
Belles-Lettres._ Fondation Eugène Piot. Paris, 1894—.
Murray
A. S. Murray, _A History of Greek Sculpture_. Second edition, I-II.
London, 1890.
_Museum Marbles_
_A Description of the Ancient Marbles in the British Museum_, Pts.
I-XI. London, 1812-1861.
M. W.
K. O. Mueller and F. Wieseler, _Denkmaeler der alten Kunst_.
Goettingen, 1854-1877.
_Not. Scav._
_Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità comunicate alla Reale Accademia dei
Lincei._ Rome, 1876—.
Overbeck
J. Overbeck, _Geschichte der griech. Plastik_. Fourth edition, I-II.
Leipsic, 1893-1898.
_Oxy. Pap._
_The Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, ed. by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, II,
pp. 22 f. London, 1899.
P.
_Pausaniae Graeciae descriptio_, rec. F. Spiro, I-III. Leipsic, 1903.
Pauly-Wissowa
G. Wissowa and W. Kroll, _Pauly’s Real-encyclopaedie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft_. Stuttgart, 1894—.
Perrot-Chipiez
G. Perrot and Ch. Chipiez, _Histoire de l’art dans l’antiquité_: VI
(_La Grèce primitive_); VIII, _La Grèce archaïque_. Paris, 1894, 1903.
Ph.
Philostratos, _de Arte gymnastica_, ed. Juethner, 1909 (see Juethner,
_Ph._).
Pliny, _H. N._
See Jex-Blake.
_P. l. G._
_Poetae lyrici Graeci_, rec. Th. Bergk. Fourth edition, I-III.
Leipsic, 1878-1882. I, Pt. 1 = ed. 5, rec. O. Schroeder, 1900.
Rayet
O. Rayet, ed. _Monuments de l’Art antique_, I-II. Paris, 1884.
Reinach, _Rép._
S. Reinach, _Répertoire de la statuaire grecque et romaine_, I,
second edition; II, Pts. 1, 2, second edition; 111-IV, first edition.
Paris 1904-1910. I = Reprint of Clarac = _Clarac de poche_.
Reinach, _Têtes_
S. Reinach, _Recueil de têtes antiques ideales et idealisées_. Paris,
1903.
Reisch
E. Reisch, _Griechische Weihgeschenke_. Vienna, 1890.
_R. Arch._
_Revue Archéologique._ Paris, Sér. 1, 1844-1860; II, 1860-1882; III,
1883-1902; IV, 1903—.
_R. Ét. Gr._
_Revue des Études grecques._ Paris, 1888—.
Richardson
R. B. Richardson, _A History of Greek Sculpture_. New York, 1911.
Ridder, de
A. de Ridder, _Catalogue des bronzes trouves sur l’acropole
d’Athenes_. Paris, 1896.
_R. M._
_Mitteilungen des kaiserlich deutschen archaeologischen Instituts_,
Roemische Abteilung. Rome, 1886—.
Robert, _O. S._
C. Robert, Die Ordnung der Olympischen Spiele und die Sieger der
75.-83. Olympiade: _Hermes_, XXXV, 1900, pp. 141 f.
Roscher, _Lex._
W. H. Roscher, _Lexikon der griechischen und roemischen Mythologie_.
Leipsic, 1884—.
Rouse
W. D. Rouse, _Greek Votive Offerings_. Cambridge, 1902.
Rutgers
J. R. Rutgers, _S. Julii Africani_ Ὀλυμπιάδων ἀναγραφή. Leyden, 1862.
Scherer
Chr. Scherer, _de olympionicarum Statuis_, Diss. inaug., Goettingen,
1885.
_Sitzb. Muen. Akad._
_Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-philologischen und der
historischen Klasse der koeniglich Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Muenchen._ Munich, 1871—.
_Specimens_
_Specimens of Ancient Sculpture ... Selected from different
Collections in Great Britain by the Society of Dilettanti_, I-III.
London, 1809-1835.
Springer-Michaelis
A. Springer and A. Michaelis, _Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte_, I. _Das
Altertum_. Ninth edition. Leipsic, 1911.
_S. Q._
_Die Antiken Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der bildenden Kuenste bei
den Griechen_, ed. J. Overbeck. Leipsic, 1868.
Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_
V. Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes du Musée National d’Athènes_. Second
edition. Athens, 1910.
Svoronos
J. N. Svoronos, _Das Athener National Museum_. Text and Plates,
I-III. Athens, 1908-1911.
Other abbreviations will be readily understood.
_CORRIGENDA._
Besides the following, there are a few other corrections which are so
obvious that they scarcely need to be listed.
Page 2, note 1, _for_ ragmentary _read_ fragmentary.
10, line 2, (and Index), _for_ Archermoros _read_ Archemoros.
14, note 2, _after_ 202f. _add_ Dar.-Sagl., IV, i, pp. 194 f., list
34 local _Olympia_.
15, line 6, _for_ Dorian Eleans _read_ Dorian allies, the Eleans.
24, line 27, _for_ 173 A. D. _read_ 173 or 174 A. D. 26, line 27,
_for_ archaistic _read_ archaic.
31, lines 8-9, _for Papyrus_ read _Papyri_; line 20, _for_ Aigira
_read_ Aigeira.
46, note 1, line 2, _add_ The Solonian cubit of 444 mm. gives 17.53
inches, the finger .73 inch, which makes Diagoros’ statue 6 feet 1.75
inches tall.
58, note 2, _for_ statues of all _read_ statues by all.
60, note 1, for _Vespes_ read _Vespae_; note 5, for Koponios _read_
Coponius.
77, line 18, _for_ staute _read_ statue; note 3, line 11, _for_
Encrinomenos _read_ Encrinomenus.
82, lines 14-15, _for_ in and not outside _read_ outside and not
inside.
83, line 15, _for_ Svonoros _read_ Svoronos.
84, line 2 (and Index, _s. v._ Ball-playing), for φανίνδα _read_
φαινίνδα.
96, note 1, line 6, for _Hermes_ read _Herakles_.
110, line 20, and note 1, line 9 (and Index), _for_ Argeidas _read_
Argeiadas.
128, note 4, for _Glyptothek_ read _Glyptothèque_.
131, line 12 (and Index, _s. v._ Praxiteles), _for_ ψελιομένη _read_
ψελιουμένη.
149, note 2, _for_ ξωστήρ _read_ ζωστήρ.
153, line 3, _for_ arms _read_ hands.
166, line 17, _for_ Stronganoff _read_ Stroganoff.
185, lines 4 and 8, and 186, line 3, _for_ Lancelotti _read_
Lancellotti.
188, note 8, line 3, _for_ Perseus _read_ Akrisios.
189, note 1, for _Papyrus_ read _Papyri_; _for_ Beilage _read_ Beilag.
191, line 21, _for_ eponymous _read_ eponymus.
196, line 25, and 197, note 2, _for_ Θῦμον _read_ Θυμόν.
210, line 5, _for_ αλμα _read_ ἅλμα.
235, note 1, line 2, _omit_ as.
253, line 27, _for_ 1202 _read_ 1204.
265, line 14, _for_ Paunasias _read_ Pausanias.
268, line 26 (and Index, _s. v._ Nikomachos and _Victoria_), for
_sublimine_ read _sublime_.
288, line 10 (and Index), _for_ Tenerari _read_ Tenerani.
321, line 29, _for_ inventors _read_ so-called inventors.
327, line 3, _for_ stautes _read_ statues.
341, line 33, _last word of line should be_ δεξιᾷ.
348, line 28, for _prothusis_ read _prothysis_.
CHAPTER I.
EARLY GREEK GAMES AND PRIZES.
PLATE 1 AND FIGURES 1 AND 2.
Before attempting to trace historically the development of monuments
of victors in the gymnic and hippic contests at Olympia, and before
attempting to reconstruct their different types, it will be useful to
devote a preliminary chapter to the early history of Greek athletics
and victor prizes in general.
It is a truism that the origin of Greek athletics is not to be found in
the recently discovered Aegean civilization of Crete, nor in the latest
phase of the same culture on Mycenæan sites of the mainland of Greece.
Their origin is not to be sought in the indigenous Mediterranean stock
which produced that culture, but rather among the northern invaders of
Greece, the fair-haired Achæans of the Homeric poems, and especially
among the later Dorians in the Peloponnesus. It was to the physical
vigor of these strangers rather than to the more artistic nature of the
Mediterraneans that the later Greeks owed their interest in sports.
As these invaders settled themselves most firmly in the Peloponnesus,
Greek athletics may be said to be chiefly the product of South Greece.
It was here that three of the four national festivals grew up—at
Olympia, Nemea, and on the Corinthian Isthmus. It was in the schools of
Argos and Sikyon that athletic sculpture flourished best and in later
Greek history physical exercise was most fully developed among the
Dorian Spartans.[1]
SPORTS IN CRETE.
Centuries before the Achæan civilization of Greece had bloomed, there
developed among the Minoans of Crete a passion for certain acrobatic
performances and for gymnastics. These Cretans, though strongly
influenced by Egypt and the East, did not borrow their love of sport
from outside any more than did the later Achæans. On the walls of the
tombs of Beni-Hasan on the Nile are pictured many athletic sports,
including a series of several hundred wrestling groups,[2] but these
sports did not influence, so far as we know, Cretan athletics. At
Knossos bull-grappling seems to have been the national sport, as we
see from the frescoes on the palace walls. In the absence of the
horse, which did not appear in early Aegean times in Crete, it is
not difficult to understand the development of gymnastic sports with
bulls. At Knossos a seal has been found which shows the rude drawing
of a vessel with rowers seated under a canopy, superimposed on which
is drawn the greater portion of a huge horse. In this design, dating
from about 1600 B. C. and synchronizing with the earlier part of
the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty, we doubtless see a graphic way of
indicating the cargo, and consequently a contemporary record, it may
be, of the first importation of horses from Libya into Crete.[3]
The Cretan bull seems to have been a much larger animal than the
species found upon the island to-day.[4] Bull-grappling at Knossos
was the sport of female as well as male toreadors. A fragmentary
rectangular fresco, dating from about 1500 B. C. (Pl. 1), was
discovered there by Sir Arthur Evans in 1901 and is now in the Candia
museum. It is executed with extraordinary spirit and shows a huge bull
rushing forward with lowered head and tail straight out. A man is in
the act of turning a somersault on its back, his legs in the air, his
arms grasping the bull’s body and his head raised, looking back to the
rear of the animal, where a cowgirl is standing, holding out her arms
to catch his flying figure as soon as his feat is concluded. Another
cowgirl, at the extreme left, seems to be suspended from the bull’s
horns, which pass under her armpits, while she catches hold further up.
However, she is not being tossed, but is taking position preliminary to
leaping over the bull’s back. Both the man and the women wear striped
boots and bracelets; the women are apparently distinguished by their
white skin, short drawers, yellow sashes embroidered with red, and the
red-and-blue diadems around their brows.[5] On the opposite wall a
similar scene was pictured; among its stucco fragments was found the
representation of the arm and shoulder of a woman grasping a bull by
the horns. The fragmentary representation of another woman and man was
also found.
[Illustration: PLATE 1
Bull-grappling Scene. Wall-painting from Knossos. Museum of Candia.]
A very similar scene has long been known from a fresco painting from
Tiryns, now in Athens.[6] A bull is represented galloping to the left,
while a man[7] clings to its horns with his right hand and is swept
along with one foot lightly touching the bull’s back and the other
swung aloft. Most early writers interpreted this scene as a bull-hunt,
the artist having drawn the hunter above the bull through ignorance
of perspective. The execution is very inferior, three attempts of the
bungling painter being visible in the painting of the tail and the
front legs. Others saw in it the representation of an acrobat showing
his dexterity by leaping upon the back of an animal in full career,
recalling the description of such a trick in the Iliad, where Ajax is
represented as rushing over the plain like a man who, while driving
four horses, leaps from horse to horse.[8] But this figure must take
its place side by side with the one from Knossos just described as
another bull-grappling scene. That such sports were not held in the
open air, but in an enclosed courtyard, is shown by the seal from
Praisos now in the Candia Museum, which depicts a man vaulting on
the back of a gigantic ox within a paved enclosure.[9] Doubtless the
theatral areas discovered at Phaistos by the Italian Archæological
Mission[10] and at Knossos by Sir Arthur Evans in 1903[11] were not
large enough for bull scenes and were used merely for ceremonial
dancing and perhaps for the boxing matches to be described.[12] Similar
acrobats are doubtless to be recognized in the two beautiful ivory
statuettes, only 11.5 inches in height, of so-called leapers, found
by Dr. Evans at Knossos in 1901.[13] These masterpieces of the late
Minoan II period represent acrobats (one is probably a woman) darting
through the air. “The life, the freedom, the _élan_ of these figures is
nothing short of marvellous,” writes Dr. Evans, who calls attention to
the careful physical training shown in their slender legs and in the
muscles, even the veins on the back of the hands and the finger-nails
being plainly indicated as well as the details of the skinfolds at the
joints. They doubtless formed a part of an ivory model of the bull-ring
and are meant for miniature toreadors, who were hung in the air by
fine gold wires[14] over the backs of ivory bulls who stood on the
solid ground. The heads of the figures are thrown backwards, a posture
suitable for such vaulters, but not for leapers or divers. Minoan art
culminated in these statuettes and in certain stucco figures in half
relief found also at Knossos. Only a few fragments of these reliefs
have survived, most of which were decorative or architectonic in
character, though among them were also found human _disjecta membra_
in high relief, such as the fragment of a left forearm holding a horn,
and not a pointed vase, as Dr. Evans thought. Here the muscles are well
indicated, though the veins are exaggerated.[15] This fragment may well
be a part of the same bull-grappling scenes as those in the frescoes,
as also the life-like image of a bull, the details of whose head,
mouth, eyes, and nostrils are full of expression, and whose muscles are
perfectly indicated.
When compared with the monuments described, the similarity of details
on the design of the Vapheio cups ornamented in repoussé, the “most
splendid specimens known of the work of the Minoan goldsmith,”[16]
never again equalled until the Italian Renaissance, makes it more than
possible that here again we have scenes of bull-grappling rather than
of bull-hunting. On one cup is represented a quiet pastoral scene—a man
tying the legs of a bull with a rope, while two other bulls stand near,
amicably licking one another, and a third is quietly grazing. On the
other, however, are represented scenes of a very different character.
In the centre is a furious bull entangled in a net, which is fastened
to a tree; to the left a figure, doubtless a woman, is holding on to a
bull’s head, while a man has fallen on his head beside the animal, both
man and woman being dressed in the Cretan fashion. A third bull rushes
furiously by to the right. Most commentators have seen bull-hunting
scenes on both these cups. Thus, on the first cup were represented
three scenes in the drama of trapping a bull by means of a tame decoy
cow; to the right the bull is starting to go to the rendezvous, while
in the center the bull stands by the cow’s side and to the left he is
finally trapped and tied.[17] On the other cup the furious animal at
the left was supposed to have thrown one hunter and to have caught
another on its horns. But Mosso’s interpretation of this design seems
to be the right one.[18] The two persons struggling with the bull have
no lasso and so can hardly be hunters; besides, if the bull had impaled
a hunter with its horns, the hunter would have been represented with
his head up and not down. The figure is, however, uninjured and holds
on with its knee bent over one horn and its shoulder against the other;
it is merely, therefore, intended for a woman acrobat. The net shown
in the centre was never used for hunting wild bulls; more probably it
was intended as an obstacle in racing. The fallen man has been standing
on the netted bull, which, with the gymnast on its back, was expected
to have leaped over the net, but has not succeeded; consequently, the
acrobat has been tumbled over the bull’s head.
This ancient Cretan sport seems to have been similar to that known in
Thessaly and elsewhere in historical days as τὰ ταυροκαθάψια.[19] A
survival of it still persists to our day in certain parts of Italy, as,
_e. g._, in the province of Viterbo.[20]
Acrobatic feats of various sorts were attractive to the later Greeks
from the time of Homer down. We have already mentioned one passage
from the Iliad in which a driver of four horses leaps from horse to
horse in motion. On the shield of Achilles tumblers appeared among the
dancers on the dancing-place.[21] Patroklos ironically remarks over
the body of Kebriones, as the charioteer falls headlong like a diver
from his chariot when hit by a missile, that there are tumblers also
among the Trojans.[22] In later centuries the Athenians evinced a great
attraction to acrobatic feats. The story told of Hippokleides[23]
reveals that high-born Athenians did not disdain to practice them. They
appear to have formed a sort of side-show attraction at the Panathenaic
festival, as such scenes occur frequently on Attic vases. Thus on an
early (imitation?) Panathenaic vase from Kameiros in the Bibliothèque
Nationale in Paris,[24] there is represented behind the driver a man
standing on the back of a horse, armed with a helmet and two shields,
while in front another appears to be balancing himself on a pole.
But such acrobatic scenes as those of Crete and later Greece can
not properly be classed as athletic. They betoken more the love
of excitement than of true sport. The only form of real athletics
represented on Minoan monuments, one which was classed in later Greece
as one of the national sports, was that of boxing, which seems to have
been the favorite gymnastic contest of the Cretans, as it always was
of the later Greeks. Boxing scenes appear on seals,[25] on a steatite
fragment of a pyxis found in 1901 at Knossos and, in conjunction with
a bull-grappling scene, on the so-called _Boxer Vase_ found by the
Italians at Hagia Triada (Fig. 1). The vase is a cone-shaped rhyton
of steatite, 18 inches high, originally overlaid with gold foil. It
belongs to the best period of Cretan art, late Minoan I.[26] This
vase alone, if no other monumental evidence were at hand, would
suffice to show the physical prowess and love of sport of the Minoans.
Because of its scenes of boxing and bull-grappling Mosso calls it
“the most complete monument that we have of gymnastic exercise in the
Mediterranean civilization.”[27] The later Greek tradition of the high
degree of physical development attained by the Cretans is proved by
this monument.[28]
[Illustration: FIG. 1.—So-called _Boxer Vase_, from Hagia Triada
(Cast). Museum of Candia.]
The reliefs are arranged in four horizontal zones.[29] One of these,
the second from the top, represents a bull-grappling scene, showing
two racing bulls, upon the head and horns of one of which a gymnast
has vaulted (not being tossed and helpless, as most interpreters
think).[30] The other three represent boxers in all attitudes of
the prize-ring, hitting, guarding, falling, and even kicking, as in
the later Greek pankration. Some are victorious, the left arm being
extended on guard and the right drawn back to strike; one (in the
top zone) is ready to spring, just as Hector was ready to spring on
Achilles;[31] others are prostrate on the ground with their feet in
the air. The violence of the action recalls the boast of Epeios in the
famous match in the Iliad that he will break his adversary’s bones.[32]
The method of attack by the right arm and defense by the left is the
same as that formerly used by English pugilists. In the topmost zone
the combatants wear helmets with visors, cheek-pieces, and horse-hair
plumes, and also shoes; in the third zone down the pugilists also wear
helmets, though of a different pattern, while the bottom zone shows
figures, perhaps youths, with bare heads. Some of the boxers appear to
wear boxing-gloves. In the lowest zone we see the well-known feat of
swinging the antagonist up by the legs and throwing him—if we may so
conclude from the contorted position of the vanquished, whose legs are
in the air.
A similar figure appears in relief on the fragment of a pyxis found at
Knossos.[33] A youth with clenched fists stands with left arm extended
as if to ward off a blow, while his right arm is drawn back and rests
on his hip; below we see the bent knee of a prostrate figure, evidently
that of his vanquished opponent. The boxer has a wasp-like waist and
wears a metal girdle. His left leg is well modeled, the muscles not
being exaggerated.
ATHLETICS IN HOMER.
We have evidence, therefore, that the love of sport existed in Crete
as it has existed in all countries since. But the comparatively
unathletic character of the Aegean culture is shown by the complete
absence of athletic representations—apart from bull-grappling scenes—in
the art of its last phase at Mycenæ and Tiryns on the mainland.
This is an independent argument for the view that the civilization
of the mainland was chiefly the product of the old Mediterranean
stock, which was finally conquered by the invading Achæans, who are
represented in Homer as skilled gymnasts. In Homer we are immediately
conscious of being in another world, for here we are in an atmosphere
of true athletics, which are fully developed and quite secular in
character.[34] They are, however, wholly spontaneous, for there are as
yet neither meets nor organized training, neither stadia, gymnasia,
nor palæstræ; for such an organization of athletics did not exist
until the sixth century B. C. But Homer’s account of the funeral games
of Patroklos is pervaded by a spirit of true athletics and has a
perennial attraction for every lover of sport. Walter Leaf says of the
chariot-race, which is the culminating feature of the description,
that it is “a piece of narrative as truthful in its characters as
it is dramatic and masterly in description.”[35] Such a description
could have been composed only by a poet who belonged to a people long
acquainted with athletics and intensely interested in them. Nestor
often speaks of a remoter past, when the gods and heroes contended.
Odysseus says he could not have fought with Herakles nor Eurytos,
heroes of the olden time, “who contended with the immortal gods.” The
Homeric warrior was distinguished from the merchant by his knowledge
of sport. Thus Euryalos of the Phaiakians says in no complimentary
tone to Odysseus: “No truly, stranger, nor do I think thee at all like
one that is skilled in games ... rather art thou such an one as comes
and goes in a benched ship, a master of sailors that are merchantmen,
one with a memory for his freight, or that hath charge of a cargo
homeward bound, and of greedily gotten gains.”[36] It is beside the
point whether the chief passages in the poems which relate to sports
are late in origin or not, even if they are later than 776 B. C., the
traditional first Olympiad. In any case the later poet merely followed
an older tradition. At the funeral games of Patroklos all the events
are practical in character, the natural amusements of men chiefly
interested in war. They are, however, not merely military, but are
truly athletic. The oldest and most aristocratic of all the events
described is the chariot-race—in which the war-chariot is used—the
monopoly of the nobles then, as it was always later the sport of kings
and the rich.[37] Boxing and wrestling come next in importance, already
occupying the position of preëminence which they hold in the poems of
Pindar. The foot-race between Ajax, the son of Oileus, and Odysseus
follows. Of the last four events, three—the single combat between
Ajax and Diomedes, the throwing of the _solos_, and the contest in
archery—are admitted to be late additions. The last event of all, the
casting of the spear, may be earlier, but we know little about it,
as the contest did not take place, Achilles yielding the first prize
to Agamemnon. Most of these later events are described in a lifeless
manner and have not the vim and compelling interest of the earlier
ones. Indeed the contest in archery seems to be treated with a certain
amount of ridicule, which shows the contempt of the great nobles for
so plebeian a sport. The armed contest, though it is pictured in
art certainly as early as the sixth century B. C.,[38] never had a
place in the later Greek games.[39] Jumping, an important part of the
later pentathlon, is mentioned but once in the poems, as a feature of
the sports of the Phaiakians. But the later pentathlon, as Gardiner
says, is certainly not suggested in Homer’s account, though many have
assumed it,[40] merely because Nestor mentions his former contests at
Bouprasion in boxing, in running, in hurling the spear, and in the
chariot-race.[41] This, however, is not the combination of contests
known much later as the pentathlon, in which the same contestants
had to compete in the series of events—running, jumping, wrestling,
diskos-throwing, and javelin-throwing.
ORIGIN OF GREEK GAMES IN THE CULT OF THE DEAD.
In these games described in the Iliad we see an example of the origin
of the later athletic festivals in the cult of the dead. Homer knows
only of funeral games[42] and there is no trace in the poems of the
later athletic meetings held in honor of a god.[43] However, the
association of the later games with religious festivals held at stated
times can be traced to the games with which the funeral of the Homeric
chief was celebrated. The oldest example of periodic funeral games in
Greece of which we have knowledge were those held in Arkadia in honor
of the dead Azan, the father of Kleitor and son of Arkas, at which
prizes were offered at least for horse-racing.[44]
Though the origin of the four national religious festivals in Greece—at
Olympia, Delphi, Nemea, and on the Isthmus—is buried in a mass of
conflicting legend, certain writers agree in saying that all of them
were founded on funeral games, though they were later dedicated to
gods.[45] Thus the Isthmian were instituted in honor of the dead
Melikertes,[46] the Nemean in honor of Opheltes or Archemoros,[47] the
Pythian in honor of the slain Python,[48] the Olympian in honor of the
hero Pelops.[49] To both Pindar and Bacchylides the Olympian games
were associated with the tomb of Pelops; Pausanias, on the other hand,
records that the ancient Elean writers ascribed their origin to the
Idæan Herakles of Crete.[50] It was a common tradition that Herakles
founded the games, some writers saying that it was the Cretan, others
that it was the Greek hero, the son of Zeus and Alkmena.[51]
Despite the variation in legends relative to the institution of the
four national games, we should not doubt the universal tradition that
all were funerary in origin. The tradition is confirmed by many lines
of argument: by the survival of funeral customs in their later rituals,
by the later custom of instituting funeral games in honor of dead
warriors both in antiquity and in modern times, and by the testimony of
early athletic art in Greece.[52] We shall now briefly consider these
arguments.
As an example of the survival of funeral customs in later ritual,
Pausanias says that the annual officers at Olympia, even in his day,
sacrificed a black ram to Pelops.[53] The fact that a black victim was
offered over a trench instead of on an altar proves that Pelops was
still worshipped as a hero and not as a god. The scholiast on Pindar,
_Ol._, I, 146, says that all Peloponnesian lads each year lashed
themselves on the grave of Pelops until the blood ran down their backs
as a libation to the hero. Furthermore, all the contestants at Olympia
sacrificed first to Pelops and then to Zeus.[54]
Funeral games were held in honor of departed warriors and eminent
men all over the Greek world and at all periods, from the legendary
games of Patroklos and Pelias and others to those celebrated at
Thessalonika in Valerian’s time.[55] Thus Miltiades was honored by
games on the Thracian Chersonesus,[56] Leonidas and Pausanias at
Sparta,[57] Brasidas at Amphipolis,[58] Timoleon at Syracuse,[59] and
Mausolos at Halikarnassos.[60] Alexander instituted games in honor
of the dead Hephaistion[61] and the conqueror himself was honored
in a similar way.[62] The _Eleutheria_ were celebrated at Platæa at
stated times in honor of the soldiers who fell there against the
Medes in 479 B. C.,[63] and in the Academy a festival was held under
the direction of the polemarch in honor of the Athenian soldiers who
had died for their country and were buried in the Kerameikos.[64]
Funeral games were also common in Italy. We find athletic scenes
decorating Etruscan tombs—including boxing, wrestling, horse-racing,
and chariot-racing.[65] The Romans borrowed their funeral games from
Etruria as well as their gladiatorial shows, which were doubtless
also funerary in origin.[66] Frazer cites examples of the custom of
instituting games in honor of dead warriors among many modern peoples,
Circassians, Chewsurs of the Caucasus, Siamese, Kirghiz, in India, and
among the North American Indian tribes. Gardiner notes the Irish fairs
in honor of a departed chief, which existed from pagan days down to the
last century.[67]
The testimony of early Greek athletic art also points to the same
funerary origin of the games. The funeral games of Pelias and those
held by Akastos in honor of his father were depicted respectively
on the two most famous monuments of early Greek decorative art, on
the chest of Kypselos dedicated in the Heraion at Olympia and on
the throne of Apollo at Amyklai in Lakonia, the latter being the
work of the Ionian sculptor Bathykles. Though both these works are
lost, the description of one of them at least, that of the chest, by
Pausanias,[68] is so detailed and precise that the scenes represented
upon it have been paralleled figure for figure on early Ionian
(especially Chalkidian) and Corinthian vases, contemporary or later,
and on Corinthian and Argive decorative bronze reliefs. Many attempts
have been made, therefore, to restore the chest, and as more monuments
become known, which throw light on the composition and types, these
attempts are constantly growing in certainty, even though conjecture
may continue to enter in.[69]
The figures were wrought in relief, partly in ivory and gold and partly
in the cedar wood itself, deployed on its surface in a series of bands,
such as we commonly see on early vases. This use of gold and ivory is
the first example in Greek art of the custom employed by Pheidias and
other sculptors of the great age of Greek sculpture. We have already
noted its use in the ivory acrobats from Crete, which were made,
perhaps, a thousand years before the chest.[70] Out of the thirty-three
scenes depicted on its surface all but two or three were mythological,
and among these were scenes from the funeral games of Pelias, including
a two-horse chariot-race (P., §9), a boxing and wrestling match (§10),
a foot-race, quoit-throwing, and a victor represented as being crowned
(§10), and prize tripods (§11).
The most valuable parallel to some of the scenes described by Pausanias
is found on the Amphiaraos vase in Berlin,[71] dating from the sixth
century B. C., on which the wrestling match and chariot-race correspond
surprisingly well with the descriptions of Pausanias, despite certain
differences in detail. Another archaic vase depicts a two-horse
chariot-race and the parting of Amphiaraos and Eriphyle.[72] The scenes
on this latter vase appear to have been copied from those on the chest,
and it is possible that the scenes on the Berlin vase had the same
origin.
Funeral games are commonly pictured on early vases. Thus on a
proto-Attic amphora, discovered by the British School of Athens in
excavating the Gymnasion of Kynosarges, there are groups of wrestlers
and chariot-racers. The wrestling bout here, however, seems to be to
the death, as the victor has his adversary by the throat with both
hands. It may be a mythological scene, perhaps representing the bout
between Herakles and Antaios. A still earlier representation of funeral
games is shown by a Dipylon geometric vase from the Akropolis now in
Copenhagen, dating back possibly to the eighth century B. C.[73] On
one side two nude men, who have grasped each other by the arms, are
ready to stab one another with swords. This may represent, however,
as Gardiner suggests, only a mimic contest. On the other side are two
boxers standing between groups of warriors and dancers. A similar
scene in repoussé appears on a Cypriote silver vase from Etruria now
in the Uffizi in Florence.[74] We should also, in this connection,
note again the reliefs representing funeral games, which appear on
the sixth-century sarcophagus from Klazomenai already mentioned.[75]
Here is represented a combat of armed men; amid chariots stand groups
of men armed with helmets, shields, and spears, while flute-players
stand between them; at either end is a pillar with a prize vase upon
it; against one leans a naked man with a staff, doubtless intended to
represent the spirit of the deceased in whose honor the games are being
held.
Games in honor of the dead tended to become periodic. The tomb of the
honored warriors became a rallying-point for neighboring people,
who would convene to see the games. While some of these games were
destined never to transcend local importance, others developed
into the Panhellenic festivals. As the worship of ancestors became
metamorphosed into that of heroes, the games became part of hero cults,
which antedated those of the Olympian gods. But as the gods gradually
superseded the heroes in the popular religion, they usurped the
sanctuaries and the games held there, which had long been a part of the
earlier worship. We are not here concerned, however, with the difficult
question of the origin of funeral games. They may have taken the place
of earlier human sacrifices, which would explain the armed fight at the
games of Patroklos and its appearance on archaic vases and sarcophagi;
or they may have commemorated early contests of succession, which
would explain many mythical contests like the chariot-race between
Pelops and Oinomaos for Hippodameia, or the wrestling match between
Zeus and Kronos. In any case such games would never have attained the
importance which they did attain in Greece, if it had not been for
the athletic spirit and love of competition so characteristic of the
Hellenic race. Whatever their origin, therefore, there is little doubt
that out of them developed the great games of historic Greece. The
constant relationship between Greek religion and Greek athletics can be
explained in no other way.[76]
EARLY HISTORY OF THE FOUR NATIONAL GAMES.
By the beginning of the sixth century B. C. the athletic spirit
displayed in the Homeric poems had given rise to the four national
festivals—at Olympia, Delphi, Nemea, and on the Isthmus. On these
four, many lesser games were modeled.[77] The origin of all these, as
we have already remarked, is lost in a mass of legend. The myths of
the origin of Olympia are particularly conflicting. We are practically
certain, however, that Olympia as a sanctuary preceded the advent of
the Achæans into the Peloponnesus, and that the foundation of the games
preceded the coming of the Dorians, but was probably later than that
of the Achæans. The importance of the games dates from the time after
the Dorian invasion of the Peloponnesus, when the warring peoples
finally became pacified.[78] For centuries Olympia was overshadowed by
Delphi and the Ionian festival on Delos. The importance of the latter
festival in the eighth and seventh centuries B. C. is shown by the
Homeric Hymn to the Delian Apollo. Only by the beginning of the seventh
century had Olympia begun to gain its prestige. The pre-Dorian Pisatai,
in whose territory the sanctuary was situated, probably controlled
it early. The Dorian allies, the Eleans, whom legend had King Oxylos
lead into the Peloponnesus from Aitolia,[79] tried to wrest this
control from the Pisatai, who, however, aided by religious reverence
for the sanctuary, were able to maintain their rights. On account of
the conflict the games languished, until finally a truce was made by
the two factions and the games were re-established under their common
management. This work was ascribed to Iphitos and Kleosthenes, kings
respectively of Elis and Pisa, and to Lykourgos of Sparta.[80] The dual
control was not successful, as the jealous Pisatai constantly tried
to regain their old honor; but the Eleans, supported by the Spartans,
prevailed and finally, after the Persian wars, destroyed Pisa and the
other revolting cities of Triphylia and henceforth remained in sole
control. The restoration of the games under Iphitos and his colleagues
took place in 776 B. C., from which date the festival was celebrated
every fourth year, until it was finally abolished by the Roman emperor
Theodosius at the end of the fourth century A. D. In 776 Koroibos of
Elis won the foot-race and this was the first dated Olympiad in the
Olympian register,[81] and from it, as Pausanias says,[82] the unbroken
tradition of the Olympiads began. This history of Olympia is very
different from the orthodox mythical story told by Pausanias and Strabo
and based on the “ancient writings of the Eleans.”[83] According to it
the games were originally instituted by the Eleans under Oxylos and
refounded by Iphitos, his descendant, together with Lykourgos, still
under the management of the Eleans. In Ol. 8 the Pisatans invoked the
aid of the Argive king Pheidon and dispossessed the Eleans, but they
lost the control of Olympia in the next Olympiad. In Ol. 28 Elis,
during a war with Dyme, allowed the Pisatans to celebrate the games.
Six Olympiads later the king of Pisa came to Olympia with an army
and took charge. The story leaves the Pisatans in control from about
Olympiads 30 to 51, but some time between Ols. 48 and 52 the Eleans
defeated Pisa and destroyed it, and henceforth controlled the games.
Such a story was manifestly a contrivance by the later priests of
Elis to justify their control of the games through a prior claim. It
is contradicted by all the evidence.[84] The antiquity of Olympia is
known to us from the results of excavations and from its religious
history. The latest excavations on the site have disclosed the remains
of six prehistoric buildings with apsidal endings, below the geometric
stratum, upon the site of what used to be considered the remnants of
the great altar of Zeus.[85] Such an inference is borne out by many
primitive features in the religious history of the sanctuary. The altar
of Kronos on the hill to the north of the Altis was earlier than that
of Zeus; an earth altar antedated that of Zeus, while a survival of the
earlier worship of the powers of the underworld is seen in the custom,
lasting through later centuries, of allowing only one woman, the
priestess of Demeter Chamyne, to witness the games. We also know that
the worship of the Pelasgian Hera antedated that of the Hellenic Zeus;
her temple, the Heraion, is the most ancient of which the foundations
still stand, a temple built of stone, wood, and sun-dried bricks, whose
origin is to be referred to the tenth, if not to the eleventh, century
B. C.[86] We have already remarked that the worship of the hero Pelops
preceded that of the god Zeus.[87] All such indications attest the high
antiquity of Olympia. That it is not mentioned in Homer, while Delphi
and Dodona are, only proves that in the poet’s time it was still merely
a local shrine. Not until the beginning of the sixth century B. C. did
it attain the distinction, which it retained ever afterwards, of being
the foremost national festival of Hellas.[88]
The periodical celebration of the three other national festivals was
not dated—except in legend—before the early years of the sixth century
B. C., though local festivals must have existed also on these sites
long before.[89] The old music festival at Delphi, which finally was
held every eight years,[90] was changed in 586 B. C., in consequence of
the Sacred War,[91] into a Panhellenic festival celebrated thereafter
every four years (_pentaëteris_). It was under the presidency of the
Amphiktyonic League, which introduced athletic and equestrian events
copied from those at Olympia[92] and replaced the older money prizes
with the simple bay wreath. About the same time the Nemean and Isthmian
games were instituted. The local games at Nemea, said to have been
founded by Adrastos in honor of a child, were reorganized some time
before 573 B. C., the first Nemead.[93] Thereafter they were celebrated
every two years, in the second and fourth of the corresponding
Olympiads.[94] They were administered in honor of Zeus by the small
town of Kleonai under Argive influence. The games were transferred to
Argos some time between 460 B. C. and the close of the third century B.
C. Centuries later, Hadrian revived the prestige of the games at Argos.
The games held on the Isthmus also originated as an old local festival,
which was revived in 586 or 582 B. C. We are not sure whether they
were refounded in Poseidon’s honor by Periandros or after the death of
Psammetichos in commemoration of the ending of the tyranny at Corinth.
The geographical location of Corinth, the meeting-place of East and
West, involved it in many wars, and therefore the Isthmian games never
attained the prestige of the other national festivals; they were held
every two years in the spring of the second and fourth years of the
corresponding Olympiads and were administered by Corinth.[95]
Besides the four national games, many Greek cities had purely local
ones, some of which originated in prehistoric days in honor of hero
cults, while others were founded at historical dates. Athens was
particularly favored in having many such local festivals. The most
important of these were the _Panathenaic_ games in honor of Athena,
which developed from earlier annual _Athenaia_ or _Panathenaia_. The
festival was remodeled, or perhaps founded, just before Peisistratos
seized the tyranny (561-560 B. C.), possibly by Solon, who died 560-559
B. C. The name certainly points to the unity of Athens promoted by
Solon, if not to the earlier unification of the village communities
of Attika ascribed to Theseus. In any case, under Peisistratos it
became something more than a local festival, as the recitation of Homer
became a feature of it. Following the games at Delphi and Olympia,
the _Great Panathenaia_ were held every four years (the third year of
each Olympiad) in the month of Hekatombaion (July), while the more
ancient annual festival continued yearly under the name of the _Little
Panathenaia_. There were musical, literary, and athletic contests. The
central feature of the festival was the procession which ascended from
the lower city to the Parthenon on the Akropolis to offer the goddess a
robe woven by noble Athenian maidens and matrons.[96] This procession
is known to us in detail from the great Parthenon frieze. The _Theseia_
exemplify a festival whose origin can be definitely dated. Kimon, the
son of the hero of Marathon, in 469 B. C., discovered the supposed
bones of the national hero Theseus on the island of Skyros. The
Delphic oracle counseled the Athenians to place them in an honorable
resting-place. Perhaps there was a legend that the hero was buried on
Skyros; in any case a grave was found there which contained the corpse
of a warrior of great size, and this was brought back to Athens as the
actual remains of Theseus. Thereafter an annual festival was celebrated
by the Athenian _epheboi_, comprising military contests and athletic
events—stade, dolichos, and diaulos running races, wrestling, boxing,
pankration, hoplite running, etc. It began on the sixth of Pyanepsion
(October), and was followed by the _Epitaphia_, a funeral festival
in honor of national heroes and youths who had fallen fighting for
Athens.[97] Athletic games were held at the _Herakleia_ in honor of
Herakles at Marathon in the month of Metageitnion, and had attained
great popularity by the time of Pindar.[98] The _Eleusinia_, in honor
of Demeter, took place annually in Athens in the month of Boëdromion,
when horse-races and musical and other contests were held. This Attic
festival claimed a greater antiquity even than Olympia. The great
national festivals encouraged these smaller local ones, so that they
attracted competitors from the whole Greek world.
EARLY PRIZES FOR ATHLETES.
The prizes which were offered at the early games in Greece were
uniformly articles of value. Their value, however, was regarded not so
much in the light of rewards to the victors as proofs of the generous
spirit of the holders of the games, who thereby celebrated the dead in
whose honor the contest was held. In Homer’s account of the funeral
games of Patroklos, each contestant, whether victorious or not,
received a prize. In one case a prize was given where the contest was
not held. In the chariot-race five prizes were offered: for the winner
a slave girl and a tripod; for the second best a six-year-old mare in
foal; for the third a cauldron; for the fourth two talents of gold; and
for the last a two-handled cup.[99] For the wrestling match the winner
received a tripod worth twelve oxen, while the vanquished received a
skilled slave woman worth four oxen.[100] For the boxing match a mule
was the first prize and a two-handled cup the second.[101] For the
foot-race a silver bowl of Sidonian make, an ox, and half a talent of
gold were the prizes.[102]
Hesiod records his winning a tripod for a victory gained in singing at
the games of Amphidamas at Chalkis.[103] Tripods were the commonest
prizes at all early games and it was not till later that they became
connected especially with Apollo’s worship. They were presented for
all sorts of contests, for chariot-racing,[104] horse-racing,[105] the
foot-race,[106] boxing,[107] and wrestling.[108] They were presented at
various games in honor of different gods and heroes: _e. g._, those in
honor of Apollo at the _Triopia_[109] and _Panionia_ of Mykale;[110]
of Dionysos at Athens and Rhodes;[111] of Herakles at the _Herakleia_
of Thebes and elsewhere;[112] of Pelias;[113] of Patroklos.[114] They
were kept in temples dedicated to various gods: _e. g._, in those of
Apollo at Delphi, at Amyklai,[115] and on Delos,[116] at the Ptoian
sanctuary[117] and in the Ismenion at Thebes;[118] in the temples
of Zeus at Olympia and Dodona;[119] of Herakles at Thebes;[120] at
the Hierothesion in Messene,[121] etc. Later, because it served the
Pythian priestess, the tripod became a part of the Apolline cult and
the special attribute of that god.[122] Gold and silver vessels and
articles of bronze were everywhere used as prizes. In early days
bronze was very valuable. Pindar proves this for games held in Achaia
and Arkadia;[123] and it continued to be used in later times, as,
_e. g._, at the _Panathenaia_, where a hydria of bronze was a prize
in the torch-race.[124] At the lesser games all sorts of articles
were offered, merely for their value. Thus a shield was offered at
the Argive _Heraia_,[125] a bowl at the games in honor of Aiakos on
Aegina,[126] silver cups at the Marathonian _Herakleia_[127] and at
the Sikyonian _Pythia_,[128] a cloak at Pellene,[129] apparently
a cuirass at Argos,[130] and jars of oil from sacred trees at the
_Panathenaia_.[131] A kettle is mentioned in the Anthology;[132] an
inscribed cauldron from Cumae, which was a prize at the games there in
honor of Onomastos, is in the British Museum,[133] while measures of
barley and corn were prizes at the _Eleusinia_.[134] While presents of
value continued to be given at the local games,[135] a simple wreath
of leaves gradually came to be the prize offered the victor at the
great national festivals. Pausanias[136] says that this was composed
of wild olive (κότινος) at Olympia, of laurel (δάφνη) at Delphi, of
pine (πίτυς) at the Isthmus, and of celery (σέλινον) at Nemea. Phlegon
says that the olive wreath was first used by Iphitos in Ol. 7 (= 752
B. C.), when it was given to the Messenian runner Daïkles,[137] and
that for the preceding Olympiads there was no crown.[138] Probably
before that date tripods and other articles of value were the prizes
at Olympia, as we know they were elsewhere. Pausanias says that the
wild olive came from the land of the Hyperboreans.[139] Pindar calls it
merely olive (ἐλαία), and not wild olive.[140] The Athenian tradition
was that the olive which Herakles planted at Olympia was a shoot of
a sacred tree which grew on the banks of the Ilissos in Attica.[141]
Phlegon also says that the first crown came from Attika. In later days
the Olympic wreaths were cut from the “Olive of the Faircrown”;[142]
its branches were cut with a golden sickle by a boy whose parents
must be living;[143] it grew at Olympia in a spot near the so-called
Pantheion,[144] which was probably a grove behind the temple of
Zeus.[145] The laurel prize at the Pythian games replaced the older
articles of value or money in 582 B. C.[146] It came from Tempe and
was plucked by a boy whose parents must be living.[147] The wreath
is seen on late Delphian coins of the imperial age.[148] Lucian also
states that apples were given as prizes at Delphi.[149] Wild celery was
the prize at the Isthmus in the time of Pindar.[150] It was dried or
withered to differentiate it from the fresh celery used at Nemea.[151]
Later writers say that the wreath was of the leaves of the pine,[152]
which was the tree sacred to Poseidon. Probably pine leaves composed
the older wreath, a practice certainly revived again in later Roman
imperial days;[153] for while on coins of Augustus and Nero celery is
represented, those of Antoninus Pius and Lucius Verus show pine.[154] A
row of pine trees lined the approach to Poseidon’s sanctuary.[155] The
prize at Nemea was celery and not parsley, as many wrongly interpret
the wreath appearing on Selinuntian coins.[156] Pausanias also states
that at most Greek games a palm wreath was placed in the victor’s right
hand.[157] The palm as a symbol of victory occurs first toward the end
of the fifth century B. C.[158]
DEDICATION OF ATHLETE PRIZES.
Just as soldiers on returning from successful campaigns might dedicate
their spoils of victory, victors in athletic contests might consecrate
to the gods their prizes. In the Homeric poems we have no certain
evidence of such a custom. A Delphic tripod was ascribed to Diomedes
and possibly this was a prize won at the funeral games in honor of
Patroklos.[159] The first literary example of such a dedication of
which we are certain is the prize tripod dedicated to the Helikonian
Muses by Hesiod.[160] Frequently such dedications were tripods; thus
a Pythian tripod was dedicated to Herakles at Thebes by the Arkadian
musician Echembrotos in 586 B. C.;[161] a tripod was dedicated in the
sixth century B. C. or perhaps earlier at Athens for some acrobatic or
juggling trick;[162] a victorious boxer dedicated one at Thebes.[163]
It became customary by the fifth century B. C. for victors at the
_Triopia_ to offer prize tripods to Apollo.[164] Tripods or fragments
of them have been found at Olympia[165] and elsewhere. Many other
objects were also offered.[166] Sometimes a victor would dedicate the
object by which he won his victory instead of his prize, just as a
soldier might dedicate his arms instead of his spoils of war. Certain
types of victors, _e. g._, those especially in running, the race in
armor, singing, etc., would be excluded from making such dedications
owing to the nature of the contest. Pausanias[167] tells us, for
instance, that twenty-five bronze shields were kept in the temple
of Zeus at Olympia for the use of hoplite runners, which shows that
these runners did not use all at least of their own armor. In some
cases diskoi were lent to pentathletes. Pausanias[168] says that three
quoits were kept in the treasury of the Sikyonians at Olympia for use
in the pentathlon. There are, however, as we shall see, instances of
quoits being dedicated by victors. The pentathlete might consecrate
either his diskos, javelin, or jumping-weights.[169] Perhaps the huge
red-sandstone block of the sixth century B. C., weighing 315 pounds and
inscribed with the name and feat of Bybon, may have been such an _ex
voto_,[170] since Pausanias says the contestants at Olympia originally
used stones for quoits.[171] A stone, weighing 480 kilograms (about
1,056 pounds), was found on Thera, inscribed “Eumastos raised me from
the ground.”[172] Poplios (Publius) Asklepiades, who won the pentathlon
at Olympia in the third century A. D.,[173] dedicated a bronze diskos
to Zeus, showing the old custom was kept up till late. Many bronze
diskoi have been found in the excavations of the Altis.[174] We have
instances of the dedication of jumping-weights (ἁλτῆρες).[175] Examples
of dedicated strigils have been found at Olympia.[176] Torches were
dedicated at Athens.[177] Actors dedicated their masks,[178] while
some of the ivory lyres and plectra conserved in the Parthenon were
probably offerings of musical victors at the Panathenaic games.[179]
Equestrian victors dedicated their chariots, or models of them, and
their horses. These models might be large or small. We have notices of
large chariot-groups at Olympia of Kleosthenes,[180] Gelo,[181] and
Hiero of Syracuse;[182] of small ones of Euagoras,[183] Glaukon,[184]
Kyniska,[185] and Polypeithes.[186] A large number of miniature models
of chariots and horses in bronze and terra cotta have been found at
Olympia,[187] some of which have no wheels. Many very thin foil wheels
have also been found.[188] Furtwaengler[189] believes that these
wheels are conventional reductions of whole chariots. Some of them
are cast[190] and they are generally four-spoked, but two mule-car
wheels are five-spoked.[191] These various models are so common and of
so little value, however, that they may have had nothing to do with
chariot-races.[192]
Many great artists, _e. g._, Kalamis,[193] Euphranor,[194] and
Lysippos,[195] are known to have made chariot-groups and it is
reasonable to assume that some of these were votive in character.
Besides dedications of chariot victors, we find at Olympia also those
of horse-racers. These were similarly both large and small, with and
without jockeys. Thus jockeys on horseback by Kalamis stood on either
side of Hiero’s chariot.[196] Krokon of Eretria, who won the horse-race
at the end of the sixth century B. C.,[197] dedicated a small bronze
horse at Olympia.[198] The monument of the sons of Pheidolas of
Corinth,[199] representing a horse on the top of a column, must have
been small. Pausanias, in mentioning the two statues of the Spartan
chariot victor Lykinos by Myron,[200] says that one of the horses which
the victor brought to Olympia was not allowed to enter the foal-race,
and therefore was entered in the horse-race. This story was probably
told Pausanias by the Olympia guides and may have arisen from the
smallness of one of the horses in the monument.[201] The sculptors
Kalamis,[202] Kanachos,[203] and Hegias[204] are known to have made
groups representing horse-victors, and Pliny derives the whole _genre_
of equestrian monuments from the Greeks.[205] Great numbers of small
figures of horses and riders have been excavated at Olympia[206] and
elsewhere.[207] Equestrian groups of various kinds were also known
outside Olympia. Thus Arkesilas IV of Kyrene offered a chariot model at
Delphi for a victory in 466 B. C;[208] the base found on the Akropolis
of Athens and inscribed with the name Onatas probably upheld such a
group;[209] the equestrian statue of Isokrates on the Akropolis was
also probably a dedication for a victory in horse-racing.[210]
DEDICATION OF STATUES AT OLYMPIA AND ELSEWHERE.
Not only did equestrian contests and the pentathlon give the victor
an opportunity to represent the means by which he gained his prize,
but any victorious athlete could set up a statue of himself in his own
honor, which might either represent him in the characteristic attitude
of his contest (perhaps with its distinguishing attributes) or might be
a simple monument showing neither action nor attribute. This brings us
to the main subject of the present work—the discussion of the different
types of victor statues at Olympia.
Of all the national games of Hellas, our knowledge of Olympia is
fullest, both because of the detailed account of its monuments by
Pausanias, who visited Elis in 173 or 174 A. D., and because of the
systematic excavation of the Altis by the German government in the
seventies of the last century. We shall not be concerned, except
incidentally, with monuments set up at the other national games, which
are known to us in no such degree as those of Olympia. The interest
of Pausanias in Delphi was almost entirely of a religious nature,
and the lesser renown of both Nemea and the Isthmus caused him to
treat their topography and monuments in a most summary manner. Though
the _Pythia_ as a festival were second only to the _Olympia_, as an
athletic meet they scarcely equalled the _Nemea_ or the _Isthmia_.
From the earliest days music was the chief competition at Delphi;
the oldest and most important event in the musical programme there
all through Greek history was the Hymn to Apollo, sung with the
accompaniment of the lyre, in which was celebrated the victory of the
god over the Python. By 582 B. C. singing to the flute (αὐλῳδία) was
also added, but was almost immediately discontinued. In the same year
a flute solo was also inaugurated.[211] In 558 B. C. lyre-playing was
introduced. Under the Roman Empire poetic and dramatic competitions
were prominent, but the date of their introduction is not known.
Pliny mentions contests in painting.[212] After music the equestrian
contests were the most important, even rivalling those of Olympia.
By 586 B. C., as we have seen, athletic events were inaugurated. The
athletic importance of the games on the Isthmus was inferior to that
of Olympia and its religious character to that of Delphi, though these
games were the most frequented of all the great national ones, because
of the accessibility of the place and its nearness to Corinth.[213]
The inferiority of the athletics here may be judged by the fact that
Solon assigned only 100 drachmæ to an Isthmian victor, while 500 were
given to one from Olympia.[214] We have little knowledge of these games
through the great period of Greek history, only a reference here and
there to a victor.[215] We know much more of them under the Romans,
when the prosperity of Corinth was revived; at that time, however,
there was little true interest in athletics. Corinth then spent great
sums in procuring wild animals for the arena.[216] Excavations have
added little to our knowledge of these games.[217] The interest at
Nemea in athletics was second only to that of Olympia.[218] While music
was the most important feature at Delphi, and the Isthmian games were
attended chiefly for the attractions of the neighboring Corinth, there
was nothing but the games themselves to attract people to the retired
valley of Nemea. Athletic contests were the only feature here until
late times and great attention was paid to those of boys.[219] The
records of the victors at these games are very scanty.[220]
At all these three games victor monuments were set up, though in no
such profusion as at Olympia.
Of those set up at Delphi, Pausanias shows his disdain by these
words: “As to the athletes and musical competitors who have attracted
no notice from the majority of mankind, I hold them hardly worthy
of attention; and the athletes who have made themselves a name
have already been set forth by me in my account of Elis.”[221] He
mentions the statue of only one victor, that of Phaÿllos, who won
at Delphi twice in the pentathlon and once in running. A score or
more of inscriptions in honor of these men whom Pausanias treats so
contemptuously have been recovered. Some of them record offerings
dedicated for victories, though most of them record decrees passed by
the Delphians, who voted the victors not only wreaths of laurel, but
seats of honor at the games and other privileges.[222] Victor statues
seem to have stood outside the sacred precinct at Delphi and not
within it, as at Olympia, since Pausanias mentions the sanctuary after
mentioning the statue of Phaÿllos.[223] Other Greek and Roman writers
give us stray hints of these statues. Thus, Pliny mentions a statue
at Delphi of a _pancratiastes_ by Pythagoras of Rhegion[224] and says
that Myron made _Delphicos pentathlos, pancratiastas_.[225] A scholion
on Pindar[226] mentions the helmeted statue of the hoplite runner
Telisikrates as standing in the precinct. Justin, in speaking of the
Gallic invasion of Delphi, mentions _statuasque cum quadrigis, quarum
ingens copia procul visebatur_, thus referring to large chariot-groups,
which would be very sightly on the slope of the precinct.[227] An idea
of the beauty of such groups may be gathered from the remnant of one,
the bronze _Charioteer_ discovered by the French excavators, which
is one of the most important archaic sculptures from antiquity (Fig.
66).[228]
We know from the words of Pausanias[229] that victor statues also stood
on the Isthmus, and we should assume the same for Nemea, though in
both places they must have been few in number. At the various local
games it was customary for victors to erect statues of themselves. Thus
we know of such dedications at the Bœotian games in Thebes,[230]
at the Didymaion,[231] and at the _Lykaia_ in Arkadia.[232] Many
such victor statues decorated different localities of Athens. Thus,
on the Akropolis, we know of the statues of the hoplite runner
Epicharinos,[233] of the pancratiast Hermolykos,[234] of a helmeted
man by the sculptor Kleoitas,[235] of a παῖς κελητίζων representing
Isokrates;[236] in the Prytaneion, of the statue of the pancratiast
Autolykos.[237] Lykourgos, the rhetor, mentions victor statues in the
agora of Athens.[238] Some of these Athenian statues may have been
those of Olympic victors;[239] and of victors certainly Olympic we
know of the statues of Kallias the pancratiast,[240] of the charioteer
Hermokrates,[241] and of the bronze mares of Kimon.[242] Of the statues
of Nemean victors at Athens we know of that of Hegestratos, victor in
an unknown contest.[243] Of Isthmian victors there we know of that of
the pancratiast Diophanes,[244] and of other examples.[245] We have
inscriptional record of the statues at Athens of a boy victor at the
_Panathenaia_ and the _Thargelia_ in chariot-racing,[246] of a victor
at the _Pythia_, _Isthmia_, _Nemea_, and the _Panathenaia_,[247] of
one at the _Nemea_ and _Herakleia_ at Thebes,[248] of one at the
_Eleusinia_,[249] of one at the _Panathenaia_ and _Dionysia_,[250] and
of others at several games.[251]
[Illustration: FIG. 2.—Bronze Statuette of a Victor, from Olympia.
Museum of Olympia.]
The erection of a statue in the Altis at Olympia was an honor which the
Elean officers in charge of the games[252] gave to victors to glorify
their victory.[253] Pliny, in a well-known passage of the _Historia
Naturalis_,[254] says it was customary for all victors to set up
statues, while Pausanias[255] says not all athletes did this, for “some
of those who specially distinguished themselves in the games ... have
had no statues.” This apparent contradiction in the statements of the
two writers is to be explained, as Dittenberger[256] and others have
pointed out, on the ground that Pliny states the general privilege
extended to the victor, while Pausanias states its practical working
out, since the setting up of a statue was an undertaking which would
be limited by the early death, poverty, or some other disability of
the victorious athlete. The cost of making, transporting, and setting
up a statue was considerable, and very often a victor must have
been too poor to do it. In such a case he would often be contented
to set up merely a statuette or small figure in bronze or marble.
Several such bronze figures have been unearthed at Olympia,[257] one
of which we reproduce in Fig. 2, and we have many examples found
outside the Altis: _e. g._, a group of wrestlers,[258] a boxer,[259]
and the arm of a quoit-thrower[260] from the Athenian Akropolis,
an archaic girl runner from Dodona,[261] an archaic statuette from
Delphi with a loin-cloth,[262] a bronze quoit-thrower dedicated in the
Kabeirion,[263] the Tuebingen bronze hoplite runner[264] (Fig. 42),
and the statuette of a παῖς κέλης from Dodona.[265] We should also
mention the great number of statuettes of diskos-throwers in modern
museums.[266] Boy victors especially would use the less expensive
marble for such statuettes and we have the remnants of many such found
in the excavations of the Altis.[267] Pausanias mentions several
monuments which were less than life-size, _e. g._, a horse among the
offerings of Phormis, which he says was “much inferior in size and
shape to all other statues of horses in the Altis,”[268] and the
equestrian monuments already discussed. Even reliefs and paintings,
in some cases, were offered in lieu of larger monuments, not only for
reasons of economy, but also because they gave a better representation
of the contest. This custom was common at the lesser games, especially
at the _Panathenaia_.[269] Pausanias mentions painted iconic reliefs
vowed by girl runners at the games in honor of Hera at Olympia.[270] On
an Attic vase in Munich a victor is represented as holding an iconic
votive _pinax_ in his hands.[271] Pausanias speaks of a painting by
Timainetos at Athens, which represented a boy carrying hydriæ,[272]
and one of a wrestler by the same artist in the Pinakotheke on the
Akropolis. Pliny mentions paintings, the works of great masters,
representing victors: thus the _currentes quadrigae_ by the elder
Aristeides of Thebes,[273] a _victor certamine gymnico palmam tenens_
by Eupompos,[274] an athlete by Zeuxis,[275] the victor Aratos with a
trophy by Leontiskos,[276] an athlete by Protogenes,[277] two hoplite
runners by Parrhasios,[278] a _luctator tubicenque_ by Antidotos and
a warrior by the same artist, in Athens,[279] which represented a man
fighting with a shield, and a man anointing himself, the work of the
painter Theoros.[280]
Apparently the Hellanodikai allowed but one statue for each victory.
Aischines the Elean had two victories and two statues.[281] Dikon of
Kaulonia and Syracuse had three victories and three statues.[282]
The Spartan Lykinos had two victories and two statues by Myron, but
we have already said that the second statue was probably that of his
charioteer, the two forming part of an equestrian group.[283] Kapros
of Elis won two victories and had as many statues.[284] On the other
hand Troilos of Elis, who won in two events, had only one statue.[285]
Similarly Arkesilaos of Sparta had two victories in the chariot-race
and only one statue.[286] Xenombrotos of Cos, who appears to have won
once only, had, however, two monuments, one mentioned by Pausanias and
the other known to us from the recovered inscription.[287] But this
last case seems to be the only known exception.
When the victor was unable to set up his monument, whether because of
youth, poverty, early death, or other reason, sometimes the privilege
was utilized by a relative, a friend, or by his native city. In any
case it was a private affair with which the Elean officials had no
concern. We have examples, consequently, of the statue being set up
by the son,[288] father (especially in recovered inscriptions after
the time of Augustus),[289] mother,[290] and brother;[291] also
several examples of statues reared in honor of athletes by fellow
citizens.[292] There are cases in which the trainer set up the
statue.[293] Frequently the native city performed the duty, dedicating
the statue either at Olympia or in the victor’s city. Thus Oibotas,
who won the stade-race in Ol. 6 (= 756 B. C.), had a statue at Olympia
which was erected by the Achæan state out of deference to a command of
the Delphian oracle in Ol. 80 (= 460 B. C.).[294] The statue of Agenor,
by Polykleitos the Younger, a boy wrestler from Thebes, was dedicated
by the confederacy of Phokis, because his father was a public friend of
the nation.[295] The boy runner Herodotos of Klazomenai had a statue
erected by his native town at Olympia because he was the first victor
from there.[296] Philinos of Kos had a statue set up by the people of
Kos at Olympia “because of glory won,” for he was victor five times in
running at Olympia, four at Delphi, four at Nemea, and eleven at the
Isthmus.[297] Hermesianax of Kolophon had a statue at Olympia erected
by his city.[298] The pancratiast Promachos of Pellene had two statues
erected to him by his fellow citizens, one at Olympia, the other in
Pellene.[299] We know of three state dedications of statues at Olympia
from inscriptions, those of Aristophon of Athens,[300] of Epitherses of
Erythrai,[301] and of Polyxenos by the people of Zakynthos.[302] Lichas
of Sparta, at a date when the Spartans were excluded from the games,
entered his chariot in the name of the Theban people, and Pausanias
says that his victory was so entered on the Elean register.[303] We
learn from the _OxyrhynchusPapyri_ that the public horse of the Argives
won at Olympia in Ol. 75 (= 480 _B. C._) and the public chariot in
Ol. 77 (= 472 _B. C._).[304] In these latter two cases the public
was directly interested, and had there been monuments erected to
commemorate the victories they would naturally have been set up by the
state.
It has been wrongly assumed that monuments of boy victors were
dedicated in the name of their parents or relatives.[305] On the
contrary, we have examples dating back to the fifth century B. C. of
boys setting up statues at Olympia. Thus the inscription from the
base of the statue of Tellon, who won in the boys’ boxing match in
Ol. 77 (= 472 B. C.), states that he dedicated his own statue.[306]
Pausanias says that the Eleans allowed the boy wrestler Kratinos from
Aigeira to erect a statue of his trainer.[307] Of course the boy might
need assistance in the undertaking, but this again was no concern of
the Elean officials, who granted the privilege to the victor and not
to his relatives. Usually the statue of a victor was erected soon
after the victory. We have some examples of the statue being erected
immediately after the victory, especially in the case of men victors.
Thus Pausanias says that the victor Eubotas of Kyrene, in consequence
of a Libyan oracle foretelling his victory in the foot-race, had
his statue made before coming to Olympia and erected it “the very day
on which he was proclaimed victor.”[308] The famous Milo of Kroton
spectacularly carried his statue into the Altis on his back before he
entered the contest.[309] There are also examples of statues being
erected long after the victory, sometimes centuries later. We have
already mentioned that a statue was erected to Oibotas in Ol. 80,
though his victory was won in Ol. 6. Chionis, who won in running races
in Ols. 28-31 (= 668-656 B. C.) had a statue by Myron erected to his
memory Ol. 77 or 78 (= 472 or 468 B. C.).[310] Cheilon of Patrai, twice
victor in wrestling between Ols. (?) 103 and 115 (= 368 and 320 B. C.),
had his statue set up after his death.[311] Polydamas of Skotoussa won
his victory in the pankration in Ol. 93 (= 408 B. C.), but his statue
by Lysippos could not have been erected until many years later.[312]
Glaukos, who won the boys’ boxing-match in Ol. 65 (= 520 B. C.), had a
statue by the Aeginetan sculptor Glaukias much later.[313] In the case
of boy victors, the time between boyhood and coming of age was often so
short that in many cases we may assume that the statue was set up some
time after the victory.[314]
HONORS PAID TO VICTORS BY THEIR NATIVE CITIES.
Since the victor was deemed the representative of the state, he often
received a more substantial reward than a statue erected at the cost of
his fellow citizens. The herald, in proclaiming his victory, proclaimed
also the name of his town, which thus shared in his success. At Athens
it was customary for a victor at the great games to receive a reward of
money. To encourage an interest in athletics there, Solon established
money prizes for victorious athletes. We have already said that 100
drachmæ were given to a victor at the Isthmus, while 500 were allotted
to one at Olympia. Solon further ordained that victors should eat at
the Prytaneion at the public expense.[315] Probably other Greek states
followed the Athenian custom. We know from an inscription that the
Panathenaic victors in the stade-race received 50 amphoræ of oil, the
pancratiast 40, and others 30.[316] Later, in Rome, victors had special
privileges granted them, including maintenance at the public expense,
a privilege which Mæcenas advised the emperor Augustus to limit to
victors at Olympia, Delphi, and Rome.[317] Augustus in other ways
enlarged the privileges of athletes.[318] When we consider the intimate
connection between religion and athletics and the Panhellenic fame of a
victor at the great games, we can easily understand the indignation of
the native town when its athletes did anything dishonorable. Sometimes
a victor was bribed to appear as the citizen of some other state. Thus
Astylos of Kroton, who won in running races in Ols. 73-76 (= 488-476
B. C.), had himself proclaimed in his last two contests a Syracusan to
please King Hiero. The citizens of his native town burned his house and
pulled down his statue, which had been placed there in the temple of
Hera.[319] The Cretan Sotades, who won the long running race in Ol. 99
(= 384 B. C.), was bribed at the next Olympiad by the city of Ephesos
to proclaim himself an Ephesian, and was in consequence exiled.[320]
Dikon, a victor in running races at the beginning of the fourth century
B. C., proclaimed himself first a citizen of Kaulonia, but later,
“for a sum of money,” entered the men’s contest as a Syracusan.[321]
Sometimes such attempts at bribery proved unsuccessful. Thus the
father of the boy boxer Antipatros of Miletos, who won in Ol. 98 (=
388 B. C.), accepted a bribe from some Syracusans, who were bringing
an offering to Olympia from Dionysios, to let the boy be proclaimed
a Syracusan. But the boy himself refused the bribe and had inscribed
on his statue by the younger Polykleitos that he was a Milesian, the
first Ionian to dedicate a statue at Olympia.[322] The Spartan chariot
victor Lichas has already been mentioned as having entered his chariot
in the name of Thebes. The reason was that at the time the Spartans
were excluded from entering the games at Olympia. He won, and in his
excitement tied a ribbon on his charioteer with his own hands, thereby
showing that the horses belonged to him and not to Thebes. For this
infraction of the rules he, though an aged man, was punished by the
umpires by scourging.[323] A more disgraceful act was selling out, of
which we have two examples at Olympia. The Thessalian Eupolos bribed
his three adversaries in boxing to let him win. All four were fined
and from the money six bronze statues of Zeus, known as _Zanes_, were
erected at the entrance to the stadion, inscribed with elegiac verses
which warned future athletes against repeating such attempts.[324]
More than fifty years later Kallippos, a pentathlete of Athens, bribed
his opponents and, being detected, all were fined and from the money,
finally collected from the recalcitrant Athenians through the influence
of the oracle at Delphi, six more _Zanes_ were erected.[325] Straton
(or Stratonikos), of Alexandria, won in wrestling and the pankration on
the same day in Ol. 178 (= 68 B. C.). In the wrestling match he had two
adversaries, Eudelos and Philostratos of Rhodes. The latter had bribed
Eudelos to sell out and, being detected, had to pay a fine. Out of this
money another _Zan_ was set up and still another at the cost of the
Rhodians.[326] In Ol. 192 (= 12 B. C.) and in Ol. 226 (= 125 A. D.), we
hear of fines for such corruption out of which additional _Zanes_ were
erected.[327] In Ol. 201 (= 25 A. D.) Sarapion, a pancratiast from
Alexandria, became so afraid of his antagonist that he fled the day
before the contest and was fined—the only case recorded of an athlete
being fined for cowardice at Olympia.[328] In Ol. 218 (= 93 A. D.)
another Alexandrine, named Apollonios, was fined for arriving too late
for the games at Olympia. His excuse of being detained by winds was
found to be false, and it was discovered that he had been making money
on the games in Ionia.[329]
Cases of bribery were known at other games. A third-century B. C.
inscription from Epidauros records how three athletes were fined one
thousand staters each διὰ τὸ φθείρειν τοὺς ἀγῶνας.[330] The venality of
Isthmian victors is shown by the account of a competitor who promised
a rival three thousand drachmæ to let him win and then, on winning on
his merits, refused to pay, though the defeated contestant swore on
the altar of Poseidon that he had been promised the amount.[331] The
emperor Nero, in order to win in singing at the Isthmus, had to resort
to force. A certain Epeirote singer refused to withdraw unless he
received ten talents. Nero, to save himself from defeat, sent a band of
men who pummelled his antagonist so that he could not sing.[332]
Often the home-coming of a victor at one of the national games was the
occasion for a public celebration. Sometimes the whole city turned
out to meet the hero.[333] The victory was recorded on pillars, and
poets composed songs in its honor which were sung by choruses of
girls and boys. Sometimes a statue was set up in the agora or on the
Akropolis. In the cities of Magna Græcia and Sicily such adulation
of Olympic victors became at times very extravagant. Thus Exainetos
of Akragas, who won the stade-race in Ols. 91 and 92 (= 416-412 B.
C.), was brought into the city in a four-horse chariot drawn by his
fellow-citizens, and was escorted by 300 men in two-horse chariots
drawn by white horses.[334] It is also in the West that we first hear
of victors being worshipped as heroes or gods, though the custom soon
took root in Greece. It was but natural to account for the great
strength of famous athletes by assigning to them divine origin and by
worshipping them after death.[335] Philippos of Kroton, who won in an
unknown contest about Ol. 65 (= 520 B. C.), had a _heroön_ erected in
his honor by the people of Egesta in Sicily on account of his beauty,
in which he surpassed all his contemporaries, and he was worshipped
after his death as a hero.[336] The famous boxer Euthymos of Lokroi
Epizephyrioi, who won in Ols. 74, 76, 77 (= 484, 476, 472 B. C.), was
worshipped even before his death and was looked upon as the son of no
earthly father, but of the river-god Kaikinos.[337] Fabulous feats
were ascribed to him, _e. g._, the expulsion of the Black Spirit from
Temessa.[338] During and after his lifetime sacrifices were offered
in his honor.[339] The equally famed boxer and pancratiast Theagenes
of Thasos, the opponent of Euthymos, who won in Ols. 75 and 76 (=
480 and 476 B. C.), was heroized after his death.[340] The Thasians
maintained that his father was Herakles.[341] The boxer Kleomedes of
Astypalaia, who won in Ol. 71 (= 496 B. C.), was honored as a hero
after death.[342] Having killed Ikkos, his opponent, he became crazed
with grief. Pausanias recounts his curious death.[343] The worship of
such athletes was supposed to bestow physical strength on their adorers
and consequently statues were erected to them in many places and were
thought to be able to cure illnesses.[344] The life of a successful
athlete was looked upon as especially happy. In Aristophanes’ _Plutus_,
Hermes deserts the gods and serves Plutus “the presider over contests,”
thinking no service more profitable to the god of wealth than holding
contests in music and athletics.[345] Plato thought an Olympic victor’s
life was the most blessed of all from a material point of view.[346]
In the myth of Er the soul of Atalanta chooses the body of an athlete,
on seeing “the great rewards bestowed on an athlete.”[347] The great
Rhodian pancratiast Dorieus, who won in Ols. 87, 88, 89 (= 432-424
B. C.), was taken prisoner by Athens during the Peloponnesian war,
but was freed because of his exploits at Olympia.[348] The honor in
which a victor was held may also be judged by the story of the Spartan
ephor Cheilon, who died of joy while embracing his victorious son
Damagetos.[349] To quote from Ernest Gardner: “The extraordinary,
almost super-human honours paid to the victors at the great national
contests made them a theme for the sculptor hardly less noble than
gods and heroes, and more adapted for the display of his skill,
as trained by the observation of those exercises which led to the
victory.”[350] Some of the greatest artists were employed, and great
poets from Simonides of Keos down, including such names as Bacchylides
and Pindar, were employed in singing their praises. Although it must
be confessed that the majority of the artists of victor statues at
Olympia are little known or wholly unknown masters, Pausanias mentions
among them such renowned names as Hagelaïdas, Pythagoras, Kalamis,
Myron, Polykleitos, Lysippos, and possibly Pheidias. Certain other
great names, however, are absent from his lists, _e. g._, Euphranor,
Kresilas, Praxiteles, and Skopas. Such extravagant reverence of Olympic
and other victors as we have outlined met, of course, with violent
protests all through Greek history, just as the excessive popularity
of athletics has in our time. The philosopher Xenophanes of Kolophon,
who died 480 B. C., was scandalized at the offering of divine honors
to athletes.[351] While he denounced the popularity of athletics,
Euripides later denounced the professionalism which had begun to creep
in after the middle of the fifth century B. C.[352] Plato, though a
strong advocate of practical physical training for war, was opposed
to the vain spirit of competition in the athletics of his day. He
complained that professional athletes paid excessive attention to diet,
slept their lives away, and were in danger of becoming brutalized.[353]
The last attack on professional athletics in point of time was made
in the second century A. D. by Galen, in his _Exhortation to the
Arts_.[354] In this essay the eminent physician contended that the
athlete was a benefit neither to himself nor to the state. When we
study the brutal portraits of prize-fighters on the contemporary
mosaics of the Baths of Caracalla at Rome, we can see to what depths
the old athletic ideal had sunk, and the justness of his rebuke.[355]
VOTIVE CHARACTER OF VICTOR DEDICATIONS.
That chariot and hippic monuments were votive in character can
scarcely be doubted. Pausanias distinguishes between gymnic victors
and equestrian ones.[356] All authorities agree that equestrian
monuments were different in origin and character from those of other
victors.[357] Gardiner believes that if the Olympic games developed
out of a single event, it was not the stade-race, but the chariot-race
or heavy-armed-race. He shows that the custom of making the stade
runner eponymous for the Olympiad is not earlier than the third century
B. C., and did not arise from the importance of that event, but from
the accident of its coming first on the program and first on the list
of victors.[358] Equestrian monuments were dedicated at Olympia all
through antiquity, from the sixth century B. C. to the second A. D. The
oldest was that of the Spartan Euagoras already mentioned, who won in
the chariot-race three times in Ols. (?) 58-60 (= 548-540 B. C.).[359]
The latest dated example is that of L. Minicius Natalis of Rome, who
won in Ol. 227 (= 129 A .D.).[360] Some of the inscriptions pertaining
to equestrian groups are in verse,[361] while others are in prose.[362]
Most of them have the usual dedicatory word ἀνέθηκε,[363] or the
formula Διὶ Ὀλυμπίῳ,[364] while others have the word ἔστησε[365] and a
few have no dedicatory word at all.[366]
The question arises, then, whether ordinary victor monuments in the
Altis were votive in the sense that these equestrian ones were, or
merely honors granted to the victors. The crown of wild olive was
merely a temporary reward suiting the occasion of the victory. The
privilege of setting up a statue was granted in order to perpetuate
the fame of that occasion. In a well-known passage Pausanias makes a
sweeping generalization about monuments at Athens and Olympia.[367] He
says that all objects on the Akropolis—including statues—were ἀναθήματα
or votive offerings, while some of those at Olympia were dedicated to
the god, but that the statues of athletes were mere prizes of victory.
In another passage[368] also, in distinguishing the various sorts of
monuments at Olympia, he expressly says that the statues of athletes
were not devoted to Zeus, but were marks of honor (ἐν ἄθλου λόγῳ)
bestowed on the victors. These statements of the Periegete have given
rise to a good deal of fruitless discussion. Furtwaengler follows
Pausanias in saying that the right of setting up statues was _ein
wesentlicher Theil des Siegespreises_.[369] That such erections at
Olympia were considered as high honors is implied by the wording of
many of the inscriptions which have been recovered from the bases of
the statues. Thus on that of the boxer Euthymos are the words εἰκόνα
δ’ ἔστησεν τήνδε βροτοῖς ἐσορᾶν.[370] Furtwaengler, therefore, has
promulgated the theory that the victor statues at Olympia were in no
sense votive, though they were considered to be the property of the god
in whose grove they stood. He cites the fact that the inscribed bases
of such monuments down to the first century B. C., with the exception
of a few metrical epigrams, make no mention of dedications, and that in
these exceptions the word ἀνέθηκε was added for metrical reasons,[371]
while during the same centuries regular votive offerings (ἀναθῆματα)
invariably have the word ἀνέθηκε.[372] One inscription, that from the
base of the statue of Euthymos of Lokroi, is both metrical and in
prose;[373] but it seems to have been changed later in two places, the
second line originally ending in a pentameter, and the third line, with
ἀνέθηκε, being added afterwards.[374] Also the prose inscription[375]
referred by Roehl to the statue of the wrestler Milo is rejected
by Dittenberger. The oldest prose inscription which makes a votive
offering out of a victor statue at Olympia is that of Thaliarchos,
who won his second victory in boxing some time between 40 and 30 B.
C.[376] Then follow certain prose inscriptions of imperial times.[377]
Dittenberger concludes that for four hundred years there is no case
of such a dedication.[378] From the evidence of the inscriptions
from statue bases, therefore, it is clear that the distinction made
by Pausanias between honor and victor statues did not hold good
in his day, since the words ἀνάθημα and ἀνέθηκε were then used on
victor monuments at Olympia, as the inscriptions of the imperial age
just cited show, but that it did hold good for centuries before the
Roman period. Pausanias must have based his statement, therefore,
not on observation, but on the words of some earlier writer.[379]
Furtwaengler’s reasoning has been followed pretty generally by
archæologists.[380] While some, however, leave the question in
doubt,[381] others are opposed to the idea that these statues were not
votive. Thus R. Schoell believes that the victor monuments were as
truly ἀναθήματα as the olive crowns.[382] Reisch, who has discussed the
question at length,[383] believes, in opposition to the earlier view of
Furtwaengler, that everything within the Altis must always _ipso facto_
have been regarded as dedications to the god. This would explain the
frequent omission of the name of the god, which would be superfluous,
the victor being content with inscribing his own name and the contest
in which he was victorious. Even the name of the contest does not
always appear.[384] Reisch explains the omission of the formula ἀνέθηκε
in earlier inscriptions on the ground of epigrammatic brevity.[385]
The truth must lie somewhere between the extremes represented by
the views of Furtwaengler and Reisch. Some athlete statues may have
been votive, while others were not. Thus Rouse argues[386] that
originally all victor statues at Olympia were as truly votive as
equestrian groups, and as truly as those athlete statues continued to
be, which were dedicated in the victors’ native towns. Those inscribed
with ἀνέθηκε at Olympia must have been votive, for we should take
the dedicator at his word, instead of believing the formula to be
added merely to make the verse scan.[387] There is no reason why an
athlete should not dedicate a statue of himself, representing himself
as forever standing in the presence of the god, as well as a diskos
or jumping-weights; for it was customary to make votive offerings
representative of the events, and this could be done best by presenting
the athlete in a statue which showed the characteristic attitude or the
appropriate attributes. Rouse furthermore believes that a change was
slowly wrought in the course of centuries, by which the original votive
offering became a means of self-glorification. Equestrian victors owed
their victories not to themselves, but to their horses, cars, drivers,
and jockeys; in such cases the group was a thing apart from the owner.
Only seldom did such victors dedicate statues of themselves alone. Even
when the victor added a statue of himself to the group, still it was
the chariot and not the statue which was emphasized.[388] On the other
hand the ordinary gymnic victor relied on himself—on his strength,
endurance, courage, and other qualities; and in representing the
contest the victor himself had to be represented. Consequently, by the
fifth century B. C., if not earlier, the statues of athletes had become
memorials of personal glory.
MISCELLANEOUS MEMORIALS TO VICTORS.
A statue was not the only memorial erected in honor of an Olympic
victor, though it was by far the commonest. We have already mentioned
the bronze inscribed diskos dedicated by the pentathlete P. Asklepiades
in the third century A. D.[389] A green stone leaping-weight inscribed
with the name Κῳδίας appears to have been dedicated by a victor.[390]
In two cases stelæ were set up in honor of victors.[391] A curious
dedication was a bronze chapel, which the Sikyonian tyrant Myron
dedicated to Apollo at Olympia.[392] In later days it became part of
the treasury of the Sikyonians.[393] Outside Olympia various monuments
commemorating Olympic victors were set up. These will be discussed in
Chapter VIII.
HONORARY STATUES.
At Olympia, as elsewhere in Greece, statues were set up to men
_honoris causa_. Such statues would be dedicated by admirers, either
individuals or states. They were in no sense intended to honor the god,
though at Olympia they might be classed as ἀναθήματα, just as victor
statues, merely because they were erected in the sacred precinct. They
were granted to individuals not as a privilege, as victor statues
were, but as free gifts. Dio Chrysostom gives the difference between
victor statues—which he classes as ἀναθήματα—and such honor statues
in these words: ταῦτα (_i. e._, victor statues) γάρ ἐστιν ἀναθήματα·
αἱ δ’ εἰκόνες τιμαί· κἀκεῖνα (victor statues) δέδοται τοῖς θεοῖς,
ταῦτα δὲ (honor statues) τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ἀνδράσιν οἵπερ εἰσὶν ἔγγιστα
αὐτῶν.[394] Pliny records that the Athenians inaugurated the custom
of a state setting up statues in honor of men at the public expense
with the statues of the tyrannicides Harmodios and Aristogeiton by the
sculptor Antenor, which were erected in 509 B. C., the year in which
the tyrants were expelled.[395] He adds that a “refined ambition” led
to a universal adoption of the custom and that statues began to adorn
public places everywhere and later on even private houses. The custom
grew apace in the later history of Greece. Demetrios of Phaleron is
said to have had over three hundred statues erected in his honor during
his short régime of about a year in Athens. The Diadochoi and the Roman
emperors enthusiastically took over the custom. Pliny gives several
Roman examples of it.[396]
At Olympia Pausanias mentions honorary statues erected to thirty-five
men for various reasons.[397] To several of these men more than one
statue was erected.[398] The greater number of these statues were
erected to kings and princes, to those of Sparta,[399] Athens,[400]
Epeiros,[401] Sicily,[402] Macedonia, and Alexander’s Empire.[403]
One was erected in honor of the philosopher Aristotle,[404] one in
honor of the rhetorician Gorgias of Leontini,[405] one in honor of a
hunter,[406] another in honor of a flute-player,[407] and many others
in honor of public and private men. These statues were set up for
various reasons. Archidamas III of Sparta had his statues erected
to his memory because he was the only Spartan king who died abroad
and did not receive a formal burial. Kylon had a statue erected
by the Aitolians because he freed the Eleans from the tyranny of
Aristotimos.[408] Pythes of Abdera was thus honored by his soldiers
because of his military prowess.[409] Philonides of Crete was, as
we learn from the recovered inscription on his statue base, the
courier of Alexander the Great.[410] Pythokritos was honored for his
flute-playing, though he does not appear to have been a victor.[411]
The Palaians of Kephallenia honored Timoptolis of Elis,[412] and the
Aitolians honored the Elean Olaidas[413] for unknown reasons. At least
seven, if not eight, of those thus honored with statues were Eleans.
Some of the men who had honor statues were also victors at Olympia, a
fact which would appear on the inscribed base. Thus Aratos, the son
of Kleinias of Sikyon, the statesman, had a statue erected to him by
the Corinthians. This was doubtless an honor statue, though Pausanias
also says he was a chariot-victor.[414] On the other hand, the statue
erected in honor of the pentathlete Stomios was probably a victor
monument, though Pausanias says that its inscription records that he
was an Elean cavalry general who challenged the enemy to a duel, in
which he was slain.[415] In some cases it is hard to decide whether the
statue is honorary or victor in character. In the course of time honor
statues multiplied, while those of athletes decreased. The recovered
inscriptions on the latter decrease steadily in the fourth and third
centuries B. C., revive again in the second and first, and decrease
in the first Christian century. They cease almost entirely after the
middle of the second century A. D.
CHAPTER II.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTOR STATUES AT OLYMPIA.
PLATES 2-7 AND FIGURES 3-8.
Only a few insignificant remnants of the forest of victor statues
which once stood in the Altis at Olympia were unearthed by the German
excavators. Most of these statues already in antiquity had been carried
off to Italy,[416] while those which escaped the spoliation of the
Roman masters of Greece were destroyed at the hands of the invading
hordes of barbarians in the early Dark Ages. Consequently only here and
there in modern museums can isolated fragments of these originals be
discovered, which have accidentally survived the ravages of time and
man.
In the almost complete absence of originals, therefore, we depend
for our knowledge of them on a variety of sources. In attempting to
reconstruct them we have two main sources of information to aid us,
the literary and the archæological. To the former belong the many
inscriptions found on the statue bases recovered at Olympia, which
contain the name and native city of the victor, the athletic contest
in which his victory was won, and frequently some account of his
former athletic history; epigrams preserved in the Greek anthologies
and elsewhere, some of which agree with those inscribed on the statue
bases; more or less definite statements of scholiasts and the classical
writers in general, especially the detailed account of the monuments
of Olympia contained in the fifth and sixth books of the Ἑλλάδος
περιήγησις of Pausanias, who visited the Altis during the reign of
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,[417] and also the somewhat systematic
treatment of Greek sculptors and their works in the elder Pliny’s
chapters on the History of Art.[418] To the latter source belong the
remnants of statues in bronze and marble found at Olympia, as well as
the recovered bases, on many of which the extant footmarks enable us
to recover the pose of the statues which formerly stood upon them.
Finally, in reconstructing these athlete statues, an intimate knowledge
of Greek sculpture in all its phases and periods is essential. Here,
as in the general study of Greek sculpture, where the destruction of
originals has been almost complete, we are largely dependent on Roman
copies which were executed by more or less skilled workmen, chiefly
for wealthy Roman patrons of art who wished to use them to decorate
the public buildings, baths, palaces, and villas of Rome and other
Italian cities. A careful study of these copies has evolved a series
of groups, which have been assigned with more or less probability to
this or that artist.[419] Representations of the various poses of the
athlete statues of Olympia and elsewhere are found also on every sort
of sculptured and painted works—reliefs, vases, coins, gems—which are,
therefore, valuable in any attempt to reconstruct the attitude of a
given statue.
Taking into account all these sources of knowledge, it has been
possible to reach tolerable certainty in reconstructing the main types
of these victor monuments, and in identifying schools, masters, and
individual works. This identification of athlete statues, especially
those belonging to the fifth and fourth centuries B. C., among the
countless Roman works which people modern museums, has already been
achieved in many cases by archælogical investigations. The work of
many masters of the archaic period and of the most important bronze
sculptors of the great period of Greek art has been illustrated by
such ascriptions; especially that of Myron, who represented figures
in rhythmic action full of life and vigor; of the elder Polykleitos,
who was a master in representing standing figures at rest fashioned
according to a mathematical system of proportions; of Lysippos, who
introduced a new canon of proportions in opposition to that of his
predecessor Polykleitos, and who inaugurated the naturalistic tendency
in Greek art, which was destined to he carried to such unbecoming
lengths in succeeding centuries. The further identification of such
statues, as our knowledge of the tendencies and traditions of the
schools of Greek sculpture and our sources of information about
athletic art become more and more extended, will be one of the most
important tasks of the archæologist in the future.
Before discussing the appearance of individual types of these
monuments, we shall consider certain general characteristics common to
all of them. Long ago K. O. Mueller[420] summed up the common features
of victor statues in these words: _Kurzgelocktes Haar, tuechtige
Glieder, eine kraeftige Ausbildung der Gestalt und verhaeltnissmaessig
kleine Koepfe characterisiren die ganze Gattung von Figuren; die
zerschlagenen Ohren und die hervorgetriebenen Muskeln insbesondere die
Faustkaempfer und Pankratiasten._ Though in the main this excellent
summary still holds good, we are now in a position to correct it in
part and to add other equally characteristic features to it. We shall
briefly discuss, therefore, in the light of recent investigations,
certain of the characteristics common to this _genre_ of sculpture—the
material and size of these statues, their nudity and fashion of wearing
the hair, their twofold division into iconic and aniconic, their
proportions, and, lastly, the assimilation of their appearance to
well-known types of hero or god.
SIZE OF VICTOR STATUES.
In another section[421] we show that the overwhelming majority of the
statues in the Altis were of bronze, though other materials, stone and
wood, were also used in some cases. As to the size of these statues,
no hard and fast rule seems to have been followed, but we may assume
from the evidence at hand that they were in general life-size.[422]
Lucian would have us believe that the Hellanodikai did not allow
victors to set up statues larger than life.[423] We know, however, that
there were exceptions to such a rule. In all probability the statue
of Polydamas of Skotoussa by Lysippos, which Pausanias says stood on
a high pedestal, was larger than life-size, if we may conjecture from
its elevated position and the probable source of Pausanias’ remark that
he “was the tallest of men, if we except the so-called heroes and the
mortal race which preceded the heroes.”[424] The traces of footprints
on the recovered pedestal of the statue of the Athenian pancratiast
Kallias by the sculptor Mikon show that the statue was larger than
life-size.[425] The footprints on the base of the statue of the Rhodian
boxer Eukles by the Argive Naukydes are about 33 cm. long, and so the
statue was slightly over life-size.[426] We know the actual size of
at least two of these Olympic statues. The scholiast on Pindar, _Ol._
VII, Argum., on the basis of a fragment from Aristotle’s lost work
on the Olympic victors and one from the little-known writer Apollas
Ponticus,[427] says that the statue of the Rhodian boxer Diagoras was
4 cubits and 5 fingers tall,[428] _i. e._, about 6 feet 4.5 inches,
somewhat over life-size.[429] From the same scholiast we learn that the
statue of the son of Diagoras, the pancratiast Damagetos, was 4 cubits
high, or less than that of the father by 5 fingers, and consequently
just under 6 feet.[430] The footprints on the base of the statue of
the boxer Aristion by the elder Polykleitos are 29 cm. long, and so
the statue was just life-size.[431] There are several examples of such
life-size statues,[432] while others are slightly below life-size.[433]
The Polykleitan statue of a boxer in Kassel is under life-size.[434]
The marble head of a statue found at Olympia, which we ascribe to
Philandridas, the Akarnanian pancratiast, by Lysippos, (Frontispiece
and Fig. 69) is also under life-size,[435] as is also that of the
pancratiast Agias found at Delphi (Pl. 27 and Fig. 68). These two are
in harmony with Pliny’s statement that Lysippos made the heads of his
statues relatively small.[436] Perhaps this statement of Pliny was the
basis of the opinion of Mueller recorded above that “comparatively
small heads” characterize the whole _genre_ of victor statues. We
have in the preceding chapter mentioned the marble fragments of the
statues of boy victors, two-fifths to two-thirds life-size, found at
Olympia.[437] The two marble helmeted heads of the archaic period
found there, which we shall later ascribe to hoplite victors (Fig.
30), are exactly life-size.[438] Of the bronze fragments recovered at
Olympia,[439] the head of a boxer of the fourth century B. C. (Fig.
61, A and B) is life-size,[440] while the extraordinarily beautifully
sculptured right arm ascribed to a boy victor by Furtwaengler[441] is a
little under life-size.
NUDITY OF VICTOR STATUES.
Most of the victor statues at Olympia were nude.[442] In the early
period all athletes wore the loin-cloth. Cretan frescoes show it
was the custom in the early Mediterranean world. The athletes of
Homer girded themselves on entering the games of Patroklos,[443] and
the girdle appears in the earliest athletic scenes on vases.[444]
Throughout the historic period, however, the Greeks entered their
contests in complete nudity, and this nudity naturally was carried over
into athletic sculpture. Pliny’s[445] statement, _Graeca res nihil
velare_, is, therefore, correct, despite another of Philostratos to
the effect that at Delphi, at the Isthmus, and everywhere except at
Olympia, the athlete wore the coarse mantle.[446] The beginning of the
change from wearing the loin-cloth to complete nudity was ascribed
to an accident. The Megarian runner Orsippos in the 15th Ol. (= 720
B. C.) dropped his loin-cloth while running, either accidentally or
because it impeded him.[447] The story was commemorated by an epigram,
perhaps by Simonides, which was inscribed on his tomb at Megara.[448]
A copy of this epigram in the Megarian dialect, executed in late
Roman or Byzantine times, when the original had become illegible, was
discovered at Megara in 1769 and shows that its original was the source
of Pausanias’ remarks.[449] Philostratos says that athletes contended
nude at Olympia, either because of the summer heat or a mishap which
befell the woman Pherenike of Rhodes. She accompanied her son, the boy
boxer Peisirhodos, to Olympia disguised as a trainer, and in her joy
at his victory she leaped over the barrier and disclosed her sex.[450]
The practice does not appear to have become universal with all athletes
in all the competitions at Olympia until some time after Orsippos’ day,
since Thukydides says the abandonment of the girdle took place shortly
before his time and that in his day it was still retained by certain
foreigners, notably Asiatics, in boxing and wrestling matches.[451] The
change is not illustrated in sculpture. The earliest victor statues,
_i. e._, those of the “Apollo” type, are all nude. The nudity of
this type shows an essential difference between Greek and foreigner
and also between the later Greek and his rude ancestor. Plato gives
the use of the loin-cloth as an example of convention, by which what
seems peculiar to one generation becomes usual to another.[452] We see
the change, however, in vase-paintings. The loin-cloth is common on
seventh-century vases, but is gradually left off in later ones.
There were exceptions to the rule of nudity. Statues of charioteers
were usually partly or wholly dressed in the long chiton, a custom
explained in various ways.[453] The Delphi bronze _Charioteer_ (Fig.
66) is a good example of a draped one. Another _auriga_ almost nude is
shown on a decadrachm of Akragas in the British Museum, dating from the
end of the fifth century B. C.[454] There are also several examples
of nude charioteers.[455] The Olympic runners and athletes generally
were also bareheaded and barefoot. The only exceptions were the
hoplite-runners, who wore helmets, and possibly charioteers, who wore
sandals.[456] Statues of women victors also were draped. Though Ionian
women could witness games,[457] and Spartan girls took part in athletic
contests with boys,[458] women were rigorously excluded from crossing
the Alpheios during the festival at Olympia.[459] They were allowed,
however, to enter horses for the chariot-race and, if victorious, to
set up monuments.[460] Only one woman was allowed to witness the games,
the priestess of the old earth cult of Demeter Chamyne, who could
sit at the altar in the stadion during the contests.[461] Pausanias
notes but one exception of a woman infringing the rule of admission,
Pherenike, the mother of the Rhodian victor Peisirhodos already
mentioned. She was pardoned because her father, brothers, and son were
victors, but the umpires passed a law that thereafter even trainers
should be nude.[462] While excluded from the games proper, women had
their own festival at Olympia in honor of Hera, which was known as the
_Heraia_. These games occurred every four years[463] and included a
foot-race between virgins, in which the course was one-sixth less than
the stadion. The victress received an olive crown and also a share of
the cow sacrificed to Hera, and was allowed to set up a painted picture
of herself in the Heraion.[464] It has been generally assumed that the
statue of a girl runner in the Galleria dei Candelabri of the Vatican
represents one of these victresses (Plate 2),[465] since Pausanias
says they ran with their hair down and wore a tunic which reached to
just above the knees, leaving the right shoulder bare to the breast.
That the statue represents a girl runner seems certain,[466] but that
it can be referred to one of the Olympic girl victresses is doubtful.
The description of Pausanias fits it in many respects, except that
the chiton of the statue is too short, and he does not mention the
girdle just below the bosom. Furthermore, he does not mention statues
of girl victresses, but only pictures. Nothing can be argued from the
palm-branch on the tree-stump, except that the Roman copyist thought it
the statue of a victress. It does not necessarily refer to a victress
at Olympia, for Pausanias elsewhere says that the palm-branch was given
at many contests.[467] The statue represents a young girl leaning
forward awaiting the signal to start,[468] but it is impossible to say
to what games we should refer it. There were girls’ contests in and out
of Greece—such as at the _Dionysia_ in Sparta[469] and in her colony
Kyrene.[470] Such games were also held in the stadion of Domitian at
Rome.[471] In fact the Palatine estate of the Barberini, from whom the
Vatican acquired the statue, embraced the area of the old stadion of
Domitian on the Palatine. It is probably of Doric workmanship, as it
certainly represents a Dorian victress, though not necessarily by a
Peloponnesian sculptor.[472]
THE ATHLETIC HAIR-FASHION.
[Illustration: PLATE 2
Marble Statue of a Girl Runner. Vatican Museum, Rome.]
The assumption long held that short hair was always characteristic of
the athlete is incorrect.[473] It is controverted equally by literary
evidence and by the monuments. The Homeric Greek took pride in his
long hair,[474] and doubtless the contestants at the games of Patroklos
in the Iliad had long hair. Long hair was worn by some Athenians
throughout Athenian history. From the end of the fifth century B. C.,
long hair was regarded as a mark of effeminacy[475] and was regularly
worn only by the knights.[476] Short hair was worn as a sign of
mourning in Athens from early days down.[477] Only the slaves regularly
wore very short hair in the fifth century B. C.[478] The change to
short hair in Athens was certainly due to the influence of the palæstra
and to athletics in general.[479] We see just the opposite custom in
vogue in Sparta. There, according to the code of Lykourgos,[480] men
were compelled to wear long hair and children short hair. Thus the
heroes of Leonidas entered the battle of Thermopylæ after combing
their long locks.[481] After the Persian wars only children and men
with laconizing or aristocratic sympathies[482] wore their hair long
at Athens. When boys arrived at the age of ἔφηβοι, they had their
hair cut at the feast of the οἰνιστήρια[483] and dedicated it to a
god.[484] Soon after the Persian war period, athletes wore their hair
short. Before that time, the wearing of long hair had already been
discarded for obvious reasons in wrestling.[485] Similarly, in boxing
and the pankration long hair was in the way, and was therefore early
braided into two long plaits which were wound around the head in a
peculiar way and tied into a knot at the top, the so-called Attic
κρωβύλος, the oftenest mentioned manner of dressing the hair in Greek
literature.[486] The oldest notice of this style of wearing the hair
is found in a fragment of Asios.[487] Herakleides Ponticus[488] says
it was used up to the time of the Persian wars. The _locus classicus_
is in Thukydides, who says it was worn in his day by old people
only.[489] Earlier young men wore it,[490] but it went out of fashion
between 470 and 460 B. C. In this connection we should mention that the
professional athlete under the Roman Empire wore his hair uncut and
tied up in an unsightly topknot known as the _cirrus_.[491]
The monumental evidence bears out the literary. Thus, on old Corinthian
clay tablets freemen are represented with long hair, while slaves
have short hair.[492] Hydrias from Caere (Cerveteri) and paintings
from Klazomenai show that the Ionians wore their hair short for the
first time in the sixth century B. C., the custom not becoming general
until the fifth. Older Spartan monuments represent the hair long.[493]
Attic vases show long hair on men until the second half of the sixth
century B. C., when the black-figured vase masters began to represent
them with short hair, a custom becoming general in the first half of
the fifth. In statuary the _Diskobolos_ of Myron (Pls. 21, 26, and
Figs. 34, 35) has short hair, and most statues of athletes before it
have long hair, while most after it have short. Before the time of the
_Diskobolos_, b.-f. and early r.-f. vase-painters often represented
athletes with braided hair in the fashion of the warriors on the Aegina
pediments. When short hair began to be used on athlete statues, these
older braids were often replaced by victor bands.[494] We may roughly
summarize by saying that statues before the date of the _Diskobolos_
which do not have long hair are probably those of athletes and not of
gods, and, in any case, if they have braids bound up in the fashion of
the κρωβύλος, they are almost always statues of athletes.[495] As for
short hair on representations of gods, Furtwaengler has shown that it
appears only after the middle of the fifth century B. C.[496] Prior
to that date the hair of divinities fell over the neck and shoulders
in curls, as in the statue of the _Olympian Zeus_ by Pheidias. By the
time of Perikles, however, short curly hair reached only to the nape
of the neck on statues of Zeus, and this style frequently appears on
figures of the god on Attic vases of that period. Dionysos has short
hair for the first time on the Parthenon frieze.[497] Furtwaengler has
shown that Pheidias did not invent the short bound-up hair for goddess
types, as we see it in the _Lemnian Athena_, but that he borrowed it
from works already in existence.[498] Though the style was unknown in
the archaic period, it appears on helmeted heads of Athena of the early
fifth century B. C. showing Peloponnesian style—on coins, statuettes,
reliefs, etc. It appears in Attic art exclusively on bareheaded types
of Athena of the period just prior to that of the _Lemnia_.
Bulle[499] has gone carefully into the technique of the hair by
different Greek artists. In archaic times this was “_ein, man darf
sagen, unmoegliches Problem_.” The primitive means at the disposal
of the early artist made it impossible to render the hair naturally
and hence it was conventionalized. Two styles arose in archaic times,
which endured with modifications all through Greek art. The one was the
pictorial (_malerisch_), where only the general appearance of the hair
was represented, the merest necessary plastic form being added.[500]
Painting here helped the shortcomings of the sculptor to some extent.
The second style was the plastic (_plastisch_), where individual locks
were attempted. The plastic use of light and shade made the use of
color now less necessary. Such examples as the _Korai_ of the Akropolis
Museum and the Rampin head in the Louvre show the difficulty which
the early artist encountered in representing hair plastically. In
the Rampin head[501] we see examples of three sorts of plastic hair
treatment: the pearl-string (_Perlschnuerre_) on the neck, grained hair
(_Koerner_) in the beard, and snail-volutes (_geperlte Schnecken_) on
the forehead. None of the three seems to belong integrally to the head,
but each appears to have been pasted on. The pearl-string fashion was
first used in the soft _poros_ stone and was only later successfully
transferred to marble. During the severe style of Greek sculpture,
both fashions, pictorial and plastic, were used, as we see them in the
pediment groups from the temple of Zeus at Olympia. In the period of
Pheidias the plastic treatment was used almost exclusively, as we see
in the _Lemnian Athena_. In the next century impressionism came in,
though the plastic treatment still continued, for we see it in the
bronze work of Lysippos and the marble work of Praxiteles. The old
pictorial treatment was revived again in the later Hellenistic age.
ICONIC AND ANICONIC STATUES.
In a well-known passage Pliny says that “the ancients did not make
any statue of individuals unless they deserved immortality by some
distinction, originally by a victory at some sacred games, especially
those of Olympia, where it was the custom to dedicate statues of
all those who had conquered, and portrait statues if they had
conquered three times. These are called iconic.”[502] Many solutions
of this passage have been offered. Older commentators, as Hirt and
Visconti,[503] interpreted Pliny’s word _iconicas_ as life-size
statues. Scherer, however, easily refuted this idea and showed that the
adjective εἰκονικός, though ambiguous in its meaning, had nothing to do
with size, but referred rather to an individual as opposed to a typical
sense in relation to statuary. In his explanation he referred to the
words of Lessing in the _Laokoön_: _es ist das Ideal eines gewissen
Menschen, nicht das Ideal eines Menschen ueberhaupt_.[504] Nowadays
all scholars agree that Pliny’s word refers to portrait statues.[505]
However, Pliny’s dictum about the right of setting up portrait statues
is certainly open to doubt.[506] It can not have been true of monuments
erected before the fourth century B. C., when portrait statues were
rare. Portraiture was a form of realism and was a product of the later
period of Greek art—especially after the time of Lysippos. In the
fourth century B. C. we find one well-attested exception to Pliny’s
rule. The discovered inscription from the base of a monument erected to
the horse-racer Xenombrotos of Cos,[507] reads (fifth line): τοῖ[ος],
ὁποῖο[ν] ὁ[ρ]ᾷς Ξεινόμβροτο[ς]. These words indubitably point to a
portrait statue. However, neither the recovered epigram nor Pausanias
indicates anything about this victor being a τρισολυμπιονίκης, and
consequently he appears not to have merited a portrait statue.[508]
Pliny’s statement can be explained in many ways: it may be apocryphal,
or different usages may have fitted different periods; or the rule may
have held good only for gymnic victors and not for equestrian ones,
which, being strictly votive in character, may not have been restricted
to its operation.[509]
PORTRAIT STATUES.
Pausanias mentions the monuments of several victors at Olympia who
were entitled to portrait statues on the strength of Pliny’s rule,
though we have no indication that they were so honored. Thus he
mentions the statues of Dikon,[510] Sostratos,[511] Philinos,[512]
and Gorgos.[513] The early fifth-century boxer Euthymos[514] also won
three victories, but at a time before we should expect a portrait
statue. The Periegete also mentions several victors who won three or
more times, though he does not say that they had any statues, portrait
or otherwise.[515] Percy Gardner[516] has shown how erroneous is the
prevailing view that the Greeks neglected portraiture in their art and
left it for the Romans to develop. He shows that Greek artists of the
third and second centuries B. C. left a great many portraits of the
highest artistic value and that portraits of Romans before the time
of Augustus, and the best Roman examples during the Empire, were made
by Greek sculptors. The number of Greek portraits in our museums,
especially in Rome, is very great.[517] From archaic times down to the
middle of the fifth century B. C. we should not expect portraiture. In
the earlier period, therefore, it is difficult to distinguish between
statues of gods and those of men. In the great period of Greek art,
from the time of Perikles on to that of Alexander, the general tendency
of Greek sculpture was so ideal that portraits, when they existed,
seem impersonal. The later copyists of portraits also idealized them.
Thus Pliny, in speaking of Kresilas’ portrait of Perikles, says that
this artist _nobiles viros nobiliores fecit_—in other words, that
he idealized them.[518] The portraits of Alexander were especially
idealized. In the first half of the fourth century we first hear of
realistic portraiture. Thus Demetrios, who flourished 380-360 B.
C.,[519] made a “very beautiful” statue of a Corinthian general named
Pelichos, which Lucian[520] says had a fat belly, bald head, hair
floating in the wind, and prominent veins, “like the man himself.”[521]
Except for the hair this description by the satirist seems to have been
correct. At the end of the fourth century B. C. anatomical detail began
to be shown in sculpture. Largely under the influence of Lysippos,
the personality of victors began to be emphasized in figure and face
in a very realistic way. We can distinguish between such portraits of
victors before and after the time of Lysippos.[522] Pliny[523] says
that Lysistratos, the brother of Lysippos, was the first to obtain
portraits by making a plaster mould on the features and so to render
likenesses exactly, as “previous artists had only tried to make them as
beautiful as possible.” In any case, by the time of Lysippos realistic
portraiture began to be emphasized. We see it at Olympia in the later
bronze pancratiast’s head found there (Fig. 61, A and B), and in a
still more revolting style in the _Seated Boxer_ of the Museo delle
Terme (Pl. 16, and Fig. 27).
The reason why the privilege of erecting portrait statues was given
so seldom to Olympic victors was probably not because it was a highly
esteemed honor. The real reason seems to have been that portraiture,
with its tendency to realism, subordinated beauty to that realism and
so conflicted with the Greek artistic ideal. The Thebans had a law
which forbade caricature and commanded artists to make their statues
more beautiful than the models. The Greeks worshiped beauty and hated
ugliness. Many games in Greece were held in honor of personal beauty.
Thus a contest of manly beauty among old men (ἀγὼν εὐανδρίας) was a
part of the Panathenaic games at Athens.[524] A contest of beauty among
women, originating in the time of Kypselos, king of Arkadia, was kept
up until the time of Athenæus.[525] We hear of contests of beauty in
Elis, at which three prizes were given,[526] and of similar ones on the
islands of Tenedos and Lesbos.[527] The Crotonian Philippos, who won at
Olympia in an unknown contest about 520 B. C., was honored after his
death by the people of Egesta with a _heroön_ and sacrifices because of
his beauty.[528] At Tanagra, in Bœotia, the most beautiful ephebe
was chosen to carry a ram on his shoulders around the city wall at
the festival of Hermes Kriophoros.[529] At Aigion in Achaia the most
beautiful boy was anciently chosen to be priest of Zeus.[530] The most
beautiful youths among the Spartans and Cretans dedicated offerings
to Eros before battle.[531] These and similar examples show the Greek
feeling for beauty. The representation of passion and violence was
foreign to the spirit of the best Greek art; it was rather the “quiet
grandeur” (_Stille Groesse_) or “repose,” of which Winckelmann made so
much, that was characteristic of that art. In Homer both men and gods,
when wounded, shriek. Philoktetes, in the drama of Sophokles, wails
throughout a whole act, when suffering from a gangrened foot. With
the poets Zeus casts his thunderbolt in anger, but Pheidias has him
hold it quietly in his hand. So we can see why portrait statues were
rare at Olympia, where the representation of manly beauty and vigor
was the rule. They were ruled out, not because of their increasing
the honor accorded to the victor, but rather because they honored his
egotism.[532]
ANICONIC STATUES.
Accordingly, since only victors who had won three or more contests at
Olympia could set up iconic statues, the great majority of statues
there represented some ideal type of common applicability, in which
there was no attempt to show the individual features of this or that
victor, but rather the typical athlete of muscular build. The older
statues were merely variations of a few types which were held to be
appropriate to the purpose. In process of time these few types in their
treatment of details gradually approached truth to nature; this was
especially characteristic of the Peloponnesian schools, which adopted
the _Doryphoros_ of Polykleitos as their norm of proportions. Statues
of victors were the stock subject of the closely related schools of
Argos and Sikyon.[533] Doubtless, as E. A. Gardner says,[534] there
existed at Olympia itself a school of subordinate artists, who filled
the regular demand for victor statues. However, some of these statues,
especially those of the fifth and fourth centuries B. C., as we see
them in originals and in Roman copies, and read the æsthetic judgments
of them in Greek writers, were real works of art.
ÆSTHETIC JUDGMENTS OF CLASSICAL WRITERS.
The literary evidence for Greek sculpture is, for the most part, very
unsatisfactory. Though classical writers were uncritical and not fond
of analysis, still they have left us some useful opinions about works
of sculpture and painting. The history and criticism of sculpture
began in Greece, in the fourth century B. C., with the Peripatetics.
Aristotle, whose observations on painting and sculpture were slight,
did not despise the “mimetic” arts as did the Socrates of Plato.[535]
In the _Rhetoric_[536] he speaks of the beautiful bodies of youths who
trained as pentathletes, since the varied exercises of the pentathlon
made them so. We have a similar opinion expressed by Xenophon in what
is, perhaps, the most interesting passage in Greek literature on
criticism of art.[537] He has Sokrates go to the sculptor Kleito and
compliment him on his power of representing different physical types
produced by various contests, noting differences between statues of
runners and wrestlers and between those of boxers and pancratiasts.
When asked how he makes statues lifelike, Kleito has no answer, and
the philosopher says it is by the imitation of real men, _i. e._,
nature. He adds: “Must you not then imitate the threatening eyes of
those who are fighting and the triumphant expression of those who
are victorious?” Though some have thought that these words refer to
portrait statues, which were spoken of as a matter of course at the
beginning of the fourth century B. C., it is more reasonable to suspect
that Sokrates was speaking of the older sculptors—for we may recognize
Polykleitos in Kleito[538]—and consequently that he is not referring
to portraiture. In the _Symposium_ of Xenophon[539] Sokrates also
complains that the long-distance runners (δολιχοδρόμοι) have thick
legs and narrow shoulders, while boxers have broad shoulders and small
legs, and he therefore recommends dancing as a better exercise than
athletics. As such differences in physique occur in vase-paintings of
the date, but not in statuary, the philosopher seems to be speaking of
athletics and not of sculpture. From these quotations of Aristotle and
Xenophon, we gather that the all-round development of the pentathlon
made beautiful athletes, and this beauty must have been carried over
into their statues. It is essentially the young man’s contest,[540]
and some of the pentathlete victors at Olympia and elsewhere were
noted for their strength in after life. Thus Ikkos of Tarentum, who
won at Olympia in Ol. 76 (= 476 B. C.), was the best teacher of
gymnastics of his day.[541] Gorgos of Elis was the only athlete to win
the pentathlon four times at Olympia, besides winning in two running
races.[542] Another Elean, Stomios, who won three prizes at Olympia
and Nemea, later became a leader of cavalry and beat his enemy in
single combat.[543] The Argive Eurybates, victor in the pentathlon at
Nemea, was very strong, and later, in a battle with the Aeginetans,
killed three opponents in single combats, but succumbed to the
fourth.[544] The Spartans and Krotonians seem to have been the best
pentathletes.[545] Noted sculptors made statues of these athletes.[546]
Plato, in the _de Leg._,[547] has the Athenian stranger praise Egyptian
art because of its stationary character. This bespeaks but little
artistic insight for the philosopher, though he was surrounded by the
wonderful artistic creations of the end of the great fifth century
B. C. The later classical writers were fond of expressing criticisms
of art. Thus Pasiteles, a Greek sculptor living in Rome in the first
century B. C., wrote five books on celebrated works of art throughout
the world.[548] The opinions on art of the Roman Varro appear in the
pages of Pliny.[549] Of all the ancient critics, Cicero was perhaps the
most superficial. In a passage in the _Brutus_[550] he gives us his
judgment of several sculptors. He finds the works of Kanachos too rigid
to imitate nature truthfully, while those of Kalamis, though softer
than those of Kanachos, are hard; Myron, though not completely faithful
to nature, produced beautiful works and Polykleitos was quite perfect.
The most trustworthy critic of sculpture in antiquity, on the other
hand, was certainly Lucian, as we see from many of his utterances,
especially from his account of an ideal statue, which combined the
highest excellences of several noted sculptures.[551] His criticism
of Hegias, Kritios, and Nesiotes, to the effect that their works were
“concise, sinewy, hard, and exactly strained in their lines,” might
have been made in the presence of the group of the _Tyrannicides_
(Fig. 32).[552] Unfortunately he touches the subject only casually,
though he might have written a fine history of Greek art. We must also
refer to two other imperial writers, the elder Pliny and Pausanias.
Pliny’s abstracts on art, though our chief ancient literary authority
on Greek sculpture and painting, are neither critical nor trustworthy.
A careful analysis of his chapters shows that he was a borrower many
times removed, though he seldom acknowledged it. This is excusable
when we consider the custom of literary borrowing in antiquity and
also the fact that his chapters on art form merely an appendix to
his _Natural History_, being joined on to it by a very artificial
bond, for his abstract on bronze statuary (Bk. XXXIV) is brought in
merely to complete his account of the metals. His knowledge of the
older periods of Greek art is small and his bias in favor of the
two Sikyonian sculptors Lysippos and Xenokrates is very evident. His
worst mistakes are in chronology. He puts Pythagoras after Myron, and
both after Polykleitos, while Hagelaïdas, who is made the teacher of
Myron and Polykleitos, lives on to the beginning of the Peloponnesian
war. His real criticism of sculpture is seen in his dictum of the
_Laokoön_ group, that it is a “work superior to all the pictures and
bronzes of the world.”[553] Our debt to Pausanias, especially for
our knowledge of the victor monuments at Olympia, is immense. This
debt may be gauged by the fact that he mentions in his work many
times more statues than any other writer and that a large portion of
the _Schriftquellen_ of Overbeck is concerned with him. However, he
shows little real understanding for art. His interest in statues is
confined almost entirely to those which are noted for their antiquity
or sanctity, and his account of them is usually the pivot around which
he spins religious or mythological stories. Throughout his work his
chief interest is religious; his interest in art for its own sake is
very small. He devotes many pages to the throne of Zeus at Olympia,
and describes the temple sculptures merely because the statue of Zeus
is within. His detailed account of the athlete statues in the Altis is
made chiefly because of his religious and antiquarian interest. Though
imitating the style of Herodotos, he does it badly, so that his book is
without much charm. In concluding this rough estimate of the ancient
criticism of art, we might mention the fragmentary information to be
gathered from many other writers, Dio Chrysostom, Quintilian,[554]
Plutarch, and others, whose names occur frequently in the footnotes.
All such references to works of art in ancient writers are conveniently
collected in the great compilation of Overbeck so often quoted.[555]
As for æsthetic judgments of the statues of victors at Olympia we
have a few direct hints from different writers. The epigram from
the base of the statue of the boy wrestler Theognetos by Ptolichos
of Aegina reads in part: Κάλλιστον μὲν ἰδεῖν, ἀθλεῖν δ’ οὐ χείρονα
μόρ[φης].[556] Pliny says of the sculptor Mikon, who made the statue
of the Athenian pancratiast Kallias: _Micon athletis spectatur_.[557]
The same writer says of the horses of Kalamis: _equis sine aemulo
expressis_.[558] Kalamis with Onatas of Aegina made a chariot-group
for the Syracusan king Hiero.[559] Pausanias, in mentioning the statue
of the boxer Euthymos by Pythagoras, says that it is καὶ θέας ἐς τὰ
μάλιστα ἄξιος.[560] In mentioning the statue by the same sculptor of
the wrestler Leontiskos, he says: εἴπερ τις καὶ ἄλλος ἀγαθὸς τὰ ἐς
πλαστικήν.[561] Of the Argive sculptor Naukydes he says, when speaking
of the statue of the wrestler Cheimon, that it is among the finest
works of that artist.[562] In another passage, in which he describes
the dedication of Phormis at Olympia, he speaks of an ugly horse,
which, besides being smaller than other sculptured horses in the Altis,
has “its tail cut off, and this makes it still uglier.”[563] However,
here he is not so much interested in its lack of beauty as in the
curious fact which he adds, that despite its ugliness this bronze mare
attracted stallions.
GREEK ORIGINALS OF VICTOR STATUES.
[Illustration: PLATE 3
Bronze Head of an Olympic Victor. Glyptothek, Munich.]
We are not, however, dependent upon such meagre scraps of evidence from
classical writers, nor upon contested Roman copies,[564] for an idea
of the workmanship of some of the Olympic victor statues. We can judge
it in no uncertain way by the few originals found at Olympia and by
others which are to be found in European museums. As an example of the
former we have only to recall the life-size bronze bearded head of a
boxer or pancratiast of the third century B. C., which is now in the
National Museum at Athens[565] (Fig. 61, A and B). Its only decoration,
an olive crown whose leaves have disappeared, proves it to be from the
statue of a victor, and its wild locks, brutal look, flattened nose,
and wide mouth represent a naturalistic study of the utmost strength
and fineness, which could only have been produced after the time of
Lysippos. We shall discuss this remarkable head more fully in Chapter
IV. As examples of original victor monuments in European museums
we shall mention three. The bronze head of a boxer in the Glyptothek
at Munich (Pl. 3) is an original of the first rank.[566] It is from a
statue found near Naples in 1730, which was later destroyed, and it
probably represents the head of a boy of about twelve years, a victor
in boxing, to judge from the victor band in the hair and the fact
that the visible part of the right ear is swollen. Like the head of
the _Diadoumenos_ of Polykleitos (Figs. 28, 29) this beautiful head
exemplifies fully the “ethical grace” or modesty[567] so characteristic
of the best Greek art, and it certainly merits Furtwaengler’s praise
of being the “most precious treasure of the Glyptothek.”[568] Another
head, found in Beneventum and now in the Louvre (Fig. 3)[569] is a
splendid Greek original of the last decade of the fifth century B. C.,
and, as Mrs. Strong says, should arouse in us a sense of what precious
relics may still lie hidden in our museums.[570] The victor fillet
in the hair, consisting of two sprays of what seems to be wild olive
(remnants of which appear in front), shows that the statue must once
have ornamented the Altis. Like the one in Munich, this head shows
Polykleitan inspiration tempered by Attic influence.[571] Lastly, the
bronze head of a youth from the _tablinum_, of the so-called villa of
the Pisos at Herculaneum, now in Naples,[572] is, to judge from its
technique, an excellent original Greek work (Fig. 4). Here again the
hair fillet shows it is from a victor statue, though its provenience
from Olympia can not be established.
[Illustration: FIG. 3.—Bronze Head of an Olympic Victor, from
Beneventum. Louvre, Paris.]
Such beautiful works of art as these last show the influence which the
great athletic festivals, and especially the Olympian, exerted on the
development of Greek sculpture. In the gymnastic training carried on in
the gymnasium and palæstra, which culminated in these festivals, the
Greek sculptor found an unrivaled opportunity to study the naked human
figure in its best muscular development and in every pose. In fact, we
may say with Furtwaengler that without athletics Greek art would be
inconceivable.[573] To quote from another work of the same scholar:
“The gymnastically trained bodies of these slim boys and
youths and vigorous men are evidence of the ennobling
effect of athletics. Presented in complete nudity they
are not faithful portraits from life, but motives or
models from the palæstra transformed and exalted to the
highest ideal of physical beauty and strength. They are
the most splendid human beings that the art of any period
has created.”[574]
CANONS OF PROPORTION.
In attempting to identify a given statue as the copy of a work by this
or that master, certain well-known canons of proportion, which were
taught and practiced by various Greek sculptors and schools, must be
taken into consideration.
[Illustration: FIG. 4.—Bronze Head of an Olympic Victor, from
Herculaneum. Museum of Naples.]
Greek art may, like Greek philosophy and poetry, be summarized under
the names of three qualities which constantly occur in classical
literature—συμμετρία, εὐρυθμία or ῥυθμός, and ἀναλογία.[575] Symmetry
may be defined as “that technical regard for the placing of the parts
to the best advantage,” the symmetrical arrangement of the parts of a
statue or group of figures.[576] Rhythm, following Vitruvius,[577] is
that _tertium quid_ which is indispensable to true art. Analogy (Latin
_proportio_)[578] refers to the measured ratio of part to part in any
given work of art, whether in architecture, painting, or sculpture.
Most scholars nowadays interpret symmetry and analogy as the same
thing. Pliny[579] says that _symmetria_ has no Latin equivalent, and
in several passages[580] keeps the Greek word, as does Vitruvius. Here
Otto Jahn rightly says _proportio_ or _commensus_ would have adequately
translated it.[581] P. Gardner explains the word properly as “the
proportion of one part of the body as measured against another.”[582]
Brunn held that, as symmetry was the relation of part to part in a
statue at rest, rhythm expressed this relationship in one represented
in motion.[583] The simplest illustration of rhythm is seen in walking:
when the right foot is advanced the left arm swings out in rhythm,
and so the balance of the body is kept. Rhythm, therefore, has to do
with balance in motion, and may refer equally to cadence in poetry and
music and to movement in sculpture. An excellent example in sculpture
is afforded by Myron’s _Diskobolos_ (Pls. 21, 22, and Figs. 34, 35),
while the balancing of figures on many Greek reliefs—especially on
Attic funerary stelæ—illustrates symmetry (_cf._ Fig. 75). Pliny
characterizes certain artists by their success in effecting symmetry
and rhythm. Thus Myron surpassed Polykleitos in being more rhythmic
and in paying more attention to symmetry.[584] He says that Lysippos
most diligently preserved symmetry by bringing unthought-of innovations
into the square canon of earlier artists.[585] Parrhasios was the
first to introduce symmetry into painting.[586] Diogenes Laertios says
that the sculptor Pythagoras was the first to aim at rhythm as well
as symmetry.[587] In all such passages it is clear that canons of
proportion are meant.
The doctrine of human proportions is very ancient, originating in
Egyptian art.[588] It appears early in Greek architecture in the
proportions of columns and other members of a temple,[589] and it
was soon transferred to sculpture. As Greek sculpture evolved on
traditional lines,[590] we should assume that it paid attention to the
doctrine of proportions in the human figure, based on numerical ratios,
and that such a doctrine would vary from age to age in the various
schools of sculpture. Such an assumption is borne out by both literary
and archæological evidence. Toward the end of Hellenism many writers
refer to just such a measured basis of proportion in Greek art.[591]
Archæologists have shown by the careful study of multitudes of statues
that such proportions exist in Greek sculpture. Thus A. Kalkmann[592]
has proved that there are sets of ratios in the treatment of the face
used by successive schools of sculpture, which were canonical, whether
formulated or not. G. Fritsch[593] has done for the whole body what
Kalkman has done for the face. In fact, anthropometry in relation to
Greek sculpture has now become an exact science.[594]
The greatest artists—architects, painters, and sculptors—of all times
have taught and practised the doctrine that certain proportions are
beautiful, _e. g._, the proportion of the height of the head or the
length of the foot to the whole body, or the length of parts of
the head or body to other parts. In modern times we have only to
mention such names as those of da Vinci, Duerer, Raphael Mengs, and
Flaxman.[595] In Greek days there were many artists who formulated
such canons of proportions. Greek sculptors followed ratios of
proportions so closely that we have statues of various schools, which
are distinguished by fixed proportions of parts, such as the Old Attic,
Old Argive, Polykleitan, Argive-Sikyonian or Lysippan, etc. Some of
these schools used the foot as the common measure, while others used
the palm, finger, or other member.[596] The earliest works on Greek
art were treatises, now lost, by artists in which they worked out
their theories of the principles underlying the proportions of the
human figure.[597] We shall briefly consider a few of these canons,
together with the usual pose of body which conformed with them. The
earliest Peloponnesian canon, which we can analyze, was that followed
by Hagelaïdas of Argos and his school, a canon which was still used in
the Polykleitan circle. Here the weight of the body rested upon the
left leg, while the right one was slightly bent at the knee, its foot
resting flat on the ground; the right arm hung by the side and the left
was usually in action, and the head was slightly inclined to the left
side; the shoulders were extraordinarily broad in comparison with the
hips, the right one being slightly raised. These qualities produced a
short stocky figure, firmly placed.[598] In the middle of the fifth
century B. C., Polykleitos worked out a theory of proportions in the
form of a commentary on his famous statue known as the _Doryphoros_.
This canon was characterized by squareness and massiveness of build.
The weight of the body generally rested on the right foot, while
the left was drawn back, its foot touching the ground with the ball
only. Sometimes this pose was reversed, the left foot carrying the
body-weight, as in the three bases of statues by the master found
at Olympia (_i. e._, those of the athletes Pythokles, Aristion,
and Kyniskos, to be discussed later), and in the works of some of
his pupils, notably in those of Naukydes, Daidalos, and Kleon.[599]
Euphranor, who flourished, according to Pliny, in Ol. 104 (= 364-361 B.
C.), and wrote works on symmetry and color, was the “first” to master
the theory of symmetry.[600] Pliny, however, found his bodies too
slender and his heads and limbs too large, a criticism of his painting
which must have been equally applicable to his sculpture. His canon
did not make much headway, as the majority of sculptors in his century
were still under the domination of the canon of Polykleitos. It was
left for Lysippos, in the second half of the fourth century B. C.,
finally to break this domination of the great fifth-century sculptor.
Pliny quotes Douris as saying that he was the pupil of no man, and
that because of the advice of the painter Eupompos he was a follower
of nature—which appears to be a cut at the schools which mechanically
followed fixed rules.[601] His statues had smaller heads, and more
slender and less fleshy limbs, than those of his predecessors, in order
that the apparent height of the figure might be increased.[602] While
Polykleitos made his heads one-seventh of the total height of the
statue, Lysippos made his one-eighth—if this change may be seen in the
_Apoxyomenos_ (Pl. 28), which is certainly a work of his school, if not
of the master himself. Pliny further records his saying that while his
predecessors represented men as they were, Lysippos represented them as
they appeared to be. This means that Pliny regarded him as the first
impressionistic artist.[603] Pliny mentions other artists who wrote on
art, and it is probable that theories of proportions formed the main
element of such works.[604]
The best example of symmetry, _i. e._, of the ratio of proportions, in
Greek sculpture is afforded by the _Doryphoros_ of Polykleitos, which
Pliny says was called the _Canon_, and he adds that this sculptor was
the only one who embodied his art in a single work.[605] The identity
of the canon with this statue seems to be attested by the anecdote
told of Lysippos that the _Doryphoros_ was his master,[606] and by
Quintilian’s statement that sculptors took it as a model.[607] The
best-preserved copy of the _Doryphoros_, despite its rather lifeless
character, is the one discovered in Pompeii and now in Naples (Pl.
4).[608] As other late Roman copies do not conform to the identical
proportions of this copy, it is perhaps difficult to say exactly what
the canon of Polykleitos was. Possibly the original, if it had been
preserved, would also strike us as somewhat lifeless; but we must
remember that the statue was made merely to illustrate a theory of
proportions. The dimensions of the Naples statue are known from very
careful measurements and the proportions agree with those given in the
description by Galen to be mentioned. It is almost exactly 2 meters,
or 6 feet 8 inches, high.[609] The length of the foot is 0.33 meter,
or one-sixth of the total height, while the length of the face is 0.20
meter, or one-tenth of the height. E. Guillaume[610] has made a careful
analysis of it in reference to Galen’s[611] statement that Chrysippos
found beauty in the proportion of the parts, “of finger to finger,
and of all the fingers to the palm and wrist, and of these to the
forearm, and of the forearm to the upper arm, and of all the parts to
each other, as they are set forth in the canon of Polykleitos.” He has
found that the palm, _i. e._, the breadth of the hand at the base of
the fingers, is a common measure of the proportions of the body. This
palm is one-third the length of the foot, one-sixth that of the lower
leg, one-sixth that of the thigh, and one-sixth that of the distance
from the navel to the ear, etc. Such a remarkable correspondence in
measurements would seem to show, if we had no other proofs, that the
Naples statue reproduces the canon of Polykleitos more closely than any
other.
[Illustration: PLATE 4
Statue of the _Doryphoros_, after Polykleitos. Museum of Naples.]
A good example of asymmetry is afforded by the so-called _Spinario_
of the Palazzo dei Conservatori in Rome[612] (Fig. 40). This justly
prized statue shows more asymmetry, perhaps, than any other down to
its date—just before the middle of the fifth century B. C. Though its
composition is such that there is no vantage-point from which it forms
a harmonious whole, still its effect on the beholder is far from
displeasing. Such a creation shows that a Greek artist, even without
paying attention to the symmetrical arrangement of parts, could at
times produce an attractive piece of sculpture.
ASSIMILATION OF OLYMPIC VICTOR STATUES TO TYPES OF GODS AND HEROES.
Since Greek art in the main was idealistic, we should not be surprised
to discover in athletic sculpture a tendency toward assimilating
victor statues to well-known types of gods or heroes, especially to
those of Hermes, Apollo, and Herakles, who presided over contests or
gymnasia and palæstræ. This phenomenon is only a further example of the
extraordinary, almost superhuman, honors which were paid to victors at
the great games. In the absence of sufficient means of identification,
it is often very difficult to distinguish with certainty between
statues of victors and those of the gods and heroes to whom they were
assimilated. This difficulty, as we shall see, is especially observable
in the case of Herakles. Even later antiquity recognized that statues
of athletes were sometimes confused with those of heroes, just as those
of heroes were with those of gods, as we learn from a passage in Dio
Chrysostom’s oration on Rhodian affairs.[613] This difficulty is one
of the most perplexing problems that still face the student of Greek
sculpture.
It was not an uncommon custom in Greece to heroize in this way an
ordinary dead man.[614] One of the most striking instances of this
custom is afforded by the so-called _Hermes of Andros_, a statue found
in a grave-chamber on the island in 1833 and now in Athens[615] (Pl.
5). It has been a matter of dispute among archæologists whether this
statue represents the god Hermes or a mortal in his guise. Although
Staïs[616] looks on it as _un problème peut-être à jamais insoluble_,
there seems little reason for doubting that it represents a defunct
mortal. Its place of finding in a tomb along with the statue of a woman
of the Muse type, which probably represents the man’s consort,[617]
the presence of a snake on the adjacent tree trunk, the absence of
sandals and kerykeion, and the portrait—like features—all point to
the conclusion that a man and not a god is represented. The downcast,
almost melancholy, look seems also to make it a funereal figure. The
powerful proportions of a perfectly developed athlete, displaying no
tendency toward the representation of brute force, show that the man
is idealized into the type of Hermes, the god of the palæstra, rather
than into the light-winged messenger of Olympos. The _Belvedere Hermes_
of the Vatican,[618] and a better one known as the _Farnese Hermes_
of the British Museum,[619] are noteworthy replicas of the type. The
latter carries the kerykeion in the left hand and wears sandals, with
a small chlamys over the left arm and shoulder. These attributes show
that Hermes was intended in this copy. Probably the original of these
various replicas, a work dating from the end of the fourth century
B. C., and ascribed to Praxiteles or his school in consequence of
similarity in pose and build of body and head to the _Hermes_ of
Olympia, was intended to represent Hermes. In the one from Andros,
at least, the copyist intended to heroize a mortal under the type of
the god. Similarly, the statue known as the _Standing Hermes_ in the
Galleria delle Statue of the Vatican,[620] which has the kerykeion and
chlamys, whether its original represented Hermes, hero or mortal, has
been made by the copyist to represent Hermes, the god of athletics, as
the late attribute of wings in the hair proves. Other examples of dead
men represented as Hermes are not uncommon. Thus a Greek grave-stele in
Verona[621] shows the dead portrayed as a winged Hermes, and a similar
figure appears on a stele from Tanagra.[622] The so-called _Commodus_
in Mantua[623] is interpreted by Conze and Duetschke as the figure of
a dead youth in Hermes’ guise. But this custom of representing defunct
mortals as gods was less common in Roman art. The bust of a dead youth
on a Roman grave-stone in Turin,[624] set up in honor of L. Mussius,
is a good example. Here the cock, sheep, and kerykeion, symbols of the
god, show that the youth is represented as Hermes.
[Illustration: PLATE 5
Statue of _Hermes_, from Andros. National Museum, Athens.]
[Illustration: FIG. 5.—Bronze Portrait-statue of a Hellenistic Prince.
Museo delle Terme, Rome.]
Not only dead men, however, were heroized in this manner. It was not an
uncommon practice in later Greece for living men, especially princes,
to have their statues assimilated to types of gods and heroes, a
practice which was very common in imperial Rome.[625] Thus many of the
Hellenistic princes were pleased to have their statues assimilated
to those of the heroic Alexander. One of the best examples of this
process is furnished by the original bronze portrait statue of such a
prince, which was unearthed in Rome in 1884 and is now in the Museo
delle Terme there (Fig. 5).[626] It has been identified as the portrait
of several kings of Macedon and elsewhere,[627] but the similarity
of the head of the statue to heads portrayed on Macedonian coins is
only superficial.[628] All that we can say is that this beautiful
work, representing the prince in the heroic guise of a nude athlete
of about thirty years, belongs to the third century B. C., the epoch
following Lysippos. The sculptor, wishing to combine the ideal with the
real, appears to have copied the motive directly from a bronze statue
by Lysippos, which represented Alexander leaning with his left hand
high on a staff.[629] The pose also recalls that of the third-century
B. C. statue of Poseidon found on Melos and now in Athens.[630]
The free leg, body, and head modeling correspond so nearly with the
_Apoxyomenos_ (Pl. 28) that it was at first called a work of Lysippos,
but its lack of repose[631] shows that it must be a continuation of the
work of that sculptor by some pupil, who wished to outdo his master in
both form and expression.
Before discussing the subject of the assimilation of victor statues
to types of god and hero, we must make it clear that often, for
certain reasons, statues of athletes were later converted into those
of gods, and _vice versa_. Such examples of metamorphosing statues
have nothing to do with the process of assimilation under discussion.
A few examples will make this clear. An archaic bronze statuette from
Naxos,[632] reproducing the type of the _Philesian Apollo_ of Kanachos,
since it has the same position of hands as in the original, as we see
it later reproduced on coins of Miletos and in other copies,[633]
holds an aryballos in the right hand instead of a fawn. As it is
absurd to represent Apollo with the bow in one hand and an oil-flask
in the other, it seems clear that in this statuette the copyist has
converted a well-known Apollo into an athlete by addition of an
athletic attribute. Famous statues were put to many different uses by
later copyists. Thus Furtwaengler has shown that the statue of the boy
boxer Kyniskos by Polykleitos at Olympia,[634] which represented the
athlete crowning himself, was modified to represent various deities,
heroes, etc. Thus a copy from Eleusis of the fourth century B. C.,
because of its provenience and the soft lines of the face, suggests
a divinity, perhaps Triptolemos.[635] A copy of the same type in
the Villa Albani (no. 222) has an antique piece of a boar’s head on
the nearby tree-stump and, consequently, may represent Adonis or
Meleager. A torso in the Museo Torlonia (no. 22) represents Dionysos,
another in the Museo delle Terme has a mantle and caduceus and so
represents Hermes, while on coins of Commodus the same figure, with
the lion’s skin and club, represents Herakles.[636] No ancient statue
was used more extensively as a model for other types than the famous
_Doryphoros_ of Polykleitos. Furtwaengler[637] has collected a long
list of later conversions of this work into statues both marble and
bronze, statuettes, reliefs, etc., representing Pan, Ares, Hermes, and
in one case an ordinary mortal.[638] Other examples of the conversion
of statues will be given in our treatment of assimilation.
ATHLETE STATUES ASSIMILATED TO TYPES OF HERMES.
Hermes was one of the principal ἐναγώνιοι or ἀγώνιοι θεοί, _i. e._,
gods who presided over contests, or who were overseers of gymnasia
and palæstræ, or were teachers of gymnastics (γυμνάσται).[639] Greek
writers often mention these athletic gods. Thus Aischylos[640] often
uses the term, not in the sense of ἀγοραῖοι θεοί, “the great assembled
gods,” (ἀγὼν = ἀγορά),[641] but in the sense of gods who presided
over contests.[642] This is evident from the fact that Zeus, Apollo,
Poseidon, and Hermes are the gods especially mentioned by Aischylos
in this sense, and the first three correspond with the Olympian and
Nemean games (Zeus), the Pythian (Apollo), and the Isthmian (Poseidon),
while Hermes is concerned in them all. Thus the epithet ἀγώνιοι, in
the _Agamemnon_ of Aischylos refers to Zeus,[643] Apollo,[644] and
Hermes.[645] If the word referred to the twelve greater gods, as some
have thought, other deities more important than Hermes would have been
included. Elsewhere the word ἀγώνιος always refers to contests.[646]
Hermes was worshipped at Athens and elsewhere as a god of
contests.[647] The agonistic character of this god is shown by the fact
that statues and altars were erected to him all over Greece.[648] He
was sometimes coupled with Herakles as the protector of contests,[649]
and the images of the two often stood in gymnasia.[650] A fragmentary
votive relief of the second century A. D. is inscribed with a
dedication to both by a certain Horarios, victor in torch-racing.[651]
Athenian ephebes made offerings to Hermes,[652] and to Hermes and
Herakles in common, after their training was over. Thus Dorykleides
of Thera, a victor in boxing and the pankration at unknown games,
dedicated a thank-offering to the two.[653] Hermes was early the god
of youthful life and sports, especially those of the palæstra. He is
said to have founded wrestling[654] and inaugurated the sports of the
palæstra.[655] Pausanias mentions a Gymnasion of Hermes at Athens[656]
and an altar of Hermes ἐναγώνιος together with one of _Opportunity_
(Καιρός) at the entrance to the Stadion at Olympia.[657] He says that
the people of Pheneus in Arkadia held games in his honor called the
_Hermaia_,[658] and he records the defeat of the god by Apollo in
running.[659] With such an athletic record there is little wonder that
the Greek sculptor would often take his ideal of Hermes from the god
of the palæstra and gymnasium, representing him as an athletic youth
harmoniously developed by gymnastic exercises. It was but natural that
a victor at Olympia or elsewhere should wish to have his statue—which
rarely could be a portrait—conform with that athletic type.
[Illustration: PLATE 6
Statue of the _Standing Diskobolos_, after Naukydes (?). Vatican
Museum, Rome.]
An excellent instance of this tendency seems to be afforded by the
so-called _Standing Diskobolos_ in the Sala della Biga of the Vatican
(Pl. 6),[660] known since its discovery by Gavin Hamilton in 1792.
It represents a youth who is apparently taking position for throwing
the diskos, the weight of the body resting on the left leg, the knees
slightly bent, the feet firmly planted, and the diskos held in the left
hand, just prior to its being passed to the right. This position is one
which immediately precedes that of Myron’s great statue. The bronze
original dates from the second half of the fifth century B. C., and
has been variously assigned to Myron by Brunn, to Alkamenes by Kekulé,
followed by Overbeck, Michaelis and Furtwaengler,[661] and to Naukydes,
the brother and pupil of Polykleitos.[662] The head of the Vatican
statue shows no trace of Peloponnesian art, but rather resembles Attic
types of the end of the fifth century B. C. However, as we shall
see, this head does not appear to belong to the statue. Among the works
of Alkamenes Pliny mentions a bronze pentathlete,[663] called the
_Enkrinomenos_, and this work has been identified with the statue under
discussion.[664] Such an assumption is tenable only if the statue fits
Pliny’s epithet. This epithet appears to mean “undergoing a test,” and
should refer not to the statue, for we know nothing of any principle
of selecting statues, but to the athlete represented, the ἔγκρισις
referring to the selection of athletes before the contest.[665] Pliny’s
statue, then, presumably, represented a pentathlete, not in action
as the Vatican statue does, but standing at rest before his judges.
An all-round athlete like a pentathlete would especially fit such an
ordeal, and his statue, albeit lighter and more graceful, would be
an ideal one like the _Doryphoros_ of Polykleitos.[666] We know how
Alkamenes treated Hermes from the bearded herma of that god found
in Pergamon in 1903 and inscribed with his name.[667] Its massive
features, broad forehead, and wide-opened eyes bear no analogy to the
head on the Vatican statue, nor to the one with which Helbig would
replace it. The ascription of the statue to Naukydes is better founded.
As the head of the statue is Attic and not Argive, it is difficult to
connect the work with a Peloponnesian artist. However, the present head
of the statue can not be shown to belong to it, and no other replica
has a head which can be proved to belong to the body. A fragmentary
replica of the statue, of good workmanship, was found in Rome in 1910,
and nearby a head, which must belong to the torso.[668] This head
fits the Vatican statue better than the head now on it, and certainly
comes from the Polykleitan circle—both head and body showing elements
of Polykleitan style. This new head represents the transition from
Polykleitan art to that of the next century, _i. e._, to the head-types
of Skopas, Praxiteles, and other Attic masters. Presumably, then,
in the original of this fragment and its replicas, we have a famous
statue—the one by Naukydes mentioned by Pliny.[669]
A more important question for our discussion is whether the Vatican
statue represents a victor (diskobolos) or Hermes. G. Habich has argued
that the pose of the statue, standing with the right foot advanced,
is not that of a diskobolos taking position. He quotes Kietz[670]
to the effect that no vase-painting or other monument has the exact
position of this statue, and that the natural position for such a
motive is to advance the left foot.[671] Moreover, the fingers of the
right hand, which are supposed especially to uphold the diskobolos
theory, are modern in all the replicas. On a coin of Amastris in
Paphlagonia, dating from the Antonines, and on one of Commodus struck
at Philippopolis in Thrace, a figure of Hermes is pictured, which, in
all essentials, reproduces the Vatican statue.[672] Since the figure
on the coins has a kerykeion or training-rod in the right hand and
a diskos as a minor attribute in the left—merely a symbol of the
god’s patronage of athletics—we should see in the Vatican statue a
representation of Hermes as overseer of the palæstra. Pliny’s words—if
we omit or transpose the first _et_—refer, therefore, to a statue
of _Hermes-Diskobolos_ and to the _Ram-offerer_ which stood on the
Athenian Akropolis, to two, therefore, and not to three different
monuments. We should restore all the replicas of the statue, then,
with the caduceus, to represent Hermes as gymnasiarch. Though this
interpretation of the statue has found opponents,[673] the evidence is
strong that in it and its replicas we have an athlete in the guise of
Hermes. If we think that the caduceus can not be brought into harmony
with the chief motive of the statue, we must conclude with Helbig that
the copyist in one isolated case—the one copied on the coins—changed
an original victor statue into Hermes by adding the herald staff.
This would make it an instance, not of assimilation of type, but of
conversion.
A small bronze statuette standing upon a cylindrical base, which was
found in the sea off Antikythera (Cerigotto), reproduces almost
exactly the attitude of the statue of Naukydes (Fig. 6).[674] Here the
left hand is stretched out horizontally at the elbow, but the right
arm is lost, so that we get no additional evidence as to the attribute
carried. Because of its correspondence with the aforementioned
coins[675] even in detail, Bosanquet, followed by Svoronos, looks upon
this “little masterpiece” as a copy of the Argive master.
[Illustration: FIG. 6.—Bronze Statuette of _Hermes-Diskobolos_, found
in the Sea off Antikythera. National Museum, Athens.]
The statue discovered in the ruins of Hadrian’s villa in 1742 and now
in the Capitoline Museum,[676] which represents an ephebe nude, except
for a chlamys thrown around the middle of his body, standing in an easy
attitude with his left foot resting upon a rock and bending forward
with the right arm extended in a gesture, was formerly looked upon as
a resting pancratiast. Because of its general likeness to Praxitelean
figures—the head is especially like the Olympia _Hermes_—Furtwaengler
interpreted the figure as that of Hermes Logios or Agoraios, the god of
eloquence, and assigned it to an artist near to Praxiteles. However,
it is probably nothing else than an idealized portrait of the age of
Hadrian or the Antonines, and represents an ephebe, probably a victor,
assimilated to the type of Hermes.[677]
[Illustration: FIG. 7.—Bronze Statue of a Youth, found in the Sea off
Antikythera. National Museum, Athens.]
Another example of assimilation may be the much-discussed bronze statue
in the National Museum at Athens, which was accidentally discovered
in 1901, along with the rest of a cargo of sculptures which had been
wrecked off the island of Antikythera as it was on its way to Rome
about the beginning of the first century B. C. (Fig. 7).[678] This
statue, the best preserved of the cargo, is a little over lifesize
and represents a nude youth standing with languid grace, the weight
of his body resting upon the left leg, while the right is slightly
bent and the right arm is extended horizontally, the hand holding
a round object now lost and variously interpreted. In short, the
pose strongly resembles that of the Vatican _Apoxyomenos_ (Pl. 29).
Opinions as to the age and authorship of this statue have been very
diverse, ranging from the fifth century B. C. down to Hellenistic
times and ascribing it to many masters and schools. Kabbadias, who
published it, in conjunction with the other objects, directly after
their discovery,[679] thought it would prove to “rank as high among
statues of bronze as does the _Hermes_ of Praxiteles among those of
marble,” and characterized it as “the most beautiful bronze statue
that we possess.” Waldstein praised it in no less exaggerated terms,
and classed it along with the _Charioteer_ from Delphi (Fig. 66) as
among the first Greek bronzes, if not among the finest specimens of
Greek sculpture.[680] He followed Kabbadias in assigning it to the
fourth century B. C. and in interpreting it as Hermes. He at first
ascribed it to Praxiteles or his school, but later he thought it more
Skopaic.[681] Th. Reinach placed it in the early fourth century B. C.,
but regarded it as the work of a sculptor influenced by Polykleitos,
naming the youthful Praxiteles or Euphranor.[682] He explained the
pose as that of a man amusing a dog or a child with some round object.
A Greek scholar, A. S. Arvanitopoulos, assigned the work to the fifth
century B. C. and to the Attic school, referring it possibly to
Alkamenes.[683] However, as soon as the statue was properly cleansed
and pieced together, its early dating was seen to be untenable, and its
Hellenistic character became evident.[684] E. A. Gardner found little
resemblance in the head to that of the Praxitelean _Hermes_, but more
in the treatment of hair and eyes to that of the _Lansdowne Herakles_
(Pl. 30, Fig. 71,), which he ascribes to Skopas.[685] He saw in its
labored and even anatomical modeling similarity to the _Apoxyomenos_
of the Vatican and concluded that it was, therefore, later than the
fourth century B. C., being an eclectic piece disclosing influences of
several fourth-century sculptors, the work of an imitator especially
of Praxiteles and Skopas. K. T. Frost also assigned the work to the
Hellenistic age, but believed it was the statue of a god and not of
a mortal, and so followed Kabbadias and Waldstein in interpreting it
as a Hermes Logios.[686] Gardner had interpreted it as probably the
statue of an athlete “in a somewhat theatrical pose,” though admitting
it might be a _genre_ figure representing an athlete catching a ball,
even if its pose were against such an interpretation. In any case he
was right in saying that the pose, even if incapable of solution, was
chosen by the sculptor with a desire for display, as the centre of
attraction is outside and not inside the statue, and so is against the
αὐτάρκεια of earlier works. More recently, Bulle has asserted that it
is not an original work at all, but, as evinced by the hard treatment
of the hair, merely a copy. He also interprets it as a _Hermes_,
restoring a kerykeion in the left hand, and he likens its oratorical
pose to that of the _Etruscan Orator_ found near Lago di Trasimeno in
1566 and now in the Museo Archeologico in Florence, or the _Augustus_
from Primaporta in the Vatican.[687] For its date he believes the
statue marks the end of the Polykleitan “_Standmotif_” (the breadth
of the body showing Polykleitan influence, the head, however, being
too small and slender for the Argive master), and the inception of the
Lysippan (the free leg not drawn back, but placed further out), as we
see it in the _Apoxyomenos_. He concludes that its author can not have
been a great master.[688] Doubtless, the statue, which is the pride of
the Athenian museum, is merely a representative example of the kind of
bronze statues made in great numbers in the early Hellenistic age; but
it shows the high degree of excellence attained at that time by very
mediocre artists.[689]
Apart from its period, our chief interest in the statue is to determine
whether a god or a mortal is portrayed. As there are no certain
remnants of the round object held in the right hand, and no other
accessories, many interpretations have been possible. Especially the
gesture of the right arm has been the centre for such interpretations.
Some have looked upon this gesture as “transitory,” _i. e._, the
sweeping gesture of an orator or god of orators, and this has led to
the interpretation of the statue as Hermes Logios.[690] However, the
round object in the fingers is against this assumption. Others have
therefore regarded the gesture as “stationary,” _i. e._, the figure
is holding an object in the hand, which is the main interest of the
statue, and this view has therefore also given rise to many different
explanations. Among mythological interpretations two have received
careful attention. Svoronos has reasoned most ingeniously that the
statue represents Perseus holding the head of Medusa in his hand,
and finds a similar type on coins, gems, and rings. Thus, almost
the identical pose of the statue is seen on an engraved stone in
Florence, which shows Perseus holding the Gorgon’s head, and Svoronos
has restored the bronze similarly.[691] But certainly the right arm
of the statue was not intended to carry so great a weight. Others
have seen in it the statue of Paris by Euphranor, mentioned by Pliny
as offering the apple as prize of beauty to Aphrodite.[692] But the
statue scarcely reflects the description of the _Paris_ by Pliny.
Other scholars have interpreted the statue as that of a mortal. S.
Reinach believes that it may be a youth sacrificing.[693] Kabbadias
and E. A. Gardner admitted it might be the statue of a ball-player
as well as of Hermes. Since this latter interpretation has become
popular, let us consider its possibility at some length in reference to
ball-playing in antiquity. Now we know that ball-playing (σφαιρίζειν,
ἡ σφαιρικὴ τέχνη) was a favorite amusement of the Greeks from the
time of Nausikaa and her brothers in the Odyssey[694] to the end of
Greek history, and that it was practiced at Rome from the end of the
Republic to the end of the Empire.[695] It seems to have been regarded
less as a game than as a gymnastic exercise. Its origin is ascribed
to the Spartans and to others.[696] A special sort of ball-playing was
known as φαινίνδα,[697] and this is described in a treatise by the
physician Galen, of the second century A. D., in which he recommended
ball-playing as one of the best exercises.[698] Because of his ability
in the art of ball-playing, Aristonikos of Karystos, the ball-player
of Alexander the Great, received Athenian citizenship and was honored
with a statue.[699] The philosopher Ktesibios of Chalkis was fond of
the game.[700] A special room, called the σφαιριστήριον, was a part of
the later gymnasium.[701] The game was specially indulged in at Sparta.
Several inscriptions, mostly from the age of the Antonines, commemorate
victories by teams of ball-players there.[702] The name σφαιρεῖς
was given to Spartan youths in the first year of manhood. These
competitions took place in the Δρόμος at Sparta.[703] Though, then,
we should naturally expect statues of ball-players, like the one in
Athens of Aristonikos already mentioned, the calm mien of the Cerigotto
bronze and the direction of the gaze are certainly, as Th. Reinach said
earlier, against interpreting it as the statue of one engaged in so
active a sport. Von Mach, because of its voluptuous appearance, thought
it might represent merely a _bon vivant_. While Lechat interpreted it
as possibly an athlete receiving a crown from Nike,[704] Arvanitopoulos
would have the right hand either hold a lekythion or be quite empty,
and the left a strigil, thus restoring the statue as an apoxyomenos. S.
Reinach would regard it merely as a funerary monument.
In all this discrepancy of opinion it is not difficult to recognize
elements of both god and mortal blended. The resemblance in the
expression and features of the face to those of the Praxitelean
_Hermes_, even though superficial, as well as the pose of the right arm
recall the god; the muscular build of the figure fits either the god
Hermes, in his character of overseer of the sports of the palæstra, or
an athlete. It therefore seems reasonable to see in this Hellenistic
statue of varied artistic tendencies merely the representation of an
athlete, perhaps of a pentathlete, who is holding a crown or possibly
an apple as a prize of victory in the right hand, whose form and
features have been assimilated to those of Hermes.
How the statue of an indisputable Hermes Logios, on the other hand,
appears, may be seen in the _Hermes Ludovisi_ of the Museo delle
Terme, Rome,[705] and in its replica in the Louvre. The original of
this marble copy, dating from the middle of the fifth century B. C.,
has been variously ascribed to Pheidias,[706] Myron,[707] and others.
In this statue the petasos, chlamys, and kerykeion indicate the god,
while the position of the right arm raised toward the head[708] and
the earnest expression of concentration in the face bespeak the god of
oratory. The careful replica of the statue, except the head, in the
Louvre, is the work of Kleomenes of Athens, a sculptor of the first
century B. C. The copyist, however, has given to the original a Roman
portrait-head, whence it has been falsely called _Germanicus_.[709] The
Paris statue, then, is merely another example of the conversion of an
original god-type, for the sculptor wished to represent a Roman under
the guise of Hermes Logios, since the inscribed tortoise shell retained
at the feet is a well-known attribute of the god.
Another excellent example of a true Hermes head is the fine
Polykleitan one in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, which is a
copy of a well-known type represented by the _Boboli Hermes_ in
Florence and other replicas.[710] Though S. Reinach classed this
head as Kresilæan,[711] its true Polykleitan character has been
established,[712] even if it does not merit the praise formerly given
it by Robinson, of being “easily the best extant copy of a work by
Polykleitos.”[713]
[Illustration: FIG. 8.—Statue of the so-called _Jason_
(_Sandal-binder_). Louvre, Paris.]
The so-called _Jason_ of the Louvre and its many replicas[714] (Fig.
8) probably represent athletes in the guise of Hermes. These statues
are copies of an original of the end of the fourth century B. C., when
the favorite motive originated—probably with Lysippos—of representing
a figure, as in this case, with one foot on a rock, bending over and
tying a sandal. Since the replicas in Munich and Paris extend both
arms to the right foot, while those in London and Athens extend the
left arm over the breast, with the hand resting on the right knee,
Klein has argued two different versions of a common type. He compares
the former with figures on the west frieze of the Parthenon, the
latter with the well-known relief of Nike tying her sandal, from the
Nike balustrade now in the Akropolis Museum. The one type he assigns
to Lysippos, the other (with both arms down) to an earlier artist.
However, the proportions of both groups agree with the Lysippan canon
and so we should assume only one artist. The discussion whether the
figure is tying or untying the sandal is as barren as the similar
one raised about the Athena from the Nike balustrade;[715] but the
question as to who is represented by the type is worthy of careful
consideration. The statue in the Louvre at first was believed to
represent Cincinnatus called from the plough, but Winckelmann, without
evidence, gave it its present name of _Jason_. In recent years it has
been interpreted as Hermes tying on his sandals, his head raised to
hearken to the behest of Zeus before going forth from Olympos on his
duties as messenger. This interpretation was based on the description
of a statue of the god by Christodoros,[716] and the fact that the type
conforms with a representation of Hermes on a coin of Markianopolis
in Mœsia.[717] Arndt has argued from the coin and from the motive
of the statue that Hermes and not an athlete is intended; thus the
inclination of the head, he thinks, is not that of an athlete looking
out over the theatre, since the regard is not far off, but merely
upward; the presence of the chlamys and the sandals also fits the god.
He therefore refers the copies to a Hermes-type originated by Lysippos.
But Froehner’s idea that they represent athletes, even if the type were
invented for Hermes, is in line with our idea of the assimilation of
athlete types to that of Hermes. In this connection it may be added
that the head of an athlete in Turin,[718] dating from the late third
or early second century B. C., is very similar to that of the Louvre
figure, and especially to the Fagan head in London. The pose of an
athlete binding on a sandal was doubtless chosen by the sculptor merely
to show the play of the muscles.
Heads of Hermes are often found with victor fillets,[719] and some
of these doubtless are from statues of victors. The beautiful
fourth-century B. C. Parian marble head of a beardless youth in the
British Museum, known as the Aberdeen head,[720] which resembles so
strongly the Praxitelean _Hermes_, although lacking its delicacy,
may be from a victor statue assimilated to the god, for holes show
that it once wore a metal wreath. In Roman days the _Doryphoros_ of
Polykleitos, as we have seen, was adapted to represent Hermes, and
was set up in various palæstræ and gymnasia. The Naples copy of the
_Doryphoros_ stood in the Palaistra of Pompeii,[721] and statues of
ephebes carrying lances (hastae, δόρατα) and called _Achilleae_ by
Pliny,[722] which must have been largely copies of Polykleitos’ great
statue, were set up in gymnasia. A later type of Hermes-head often
appeared on bodies of the _Doryphoros_,[723] while other statues,
showing the body of the _Doryphoros_ draped with the chlamys,[724] and
many torsos following the attitude and form of this statue, have the
chlamys, which shows that they were intended for the god.[725] Hermes
in the _Doryphoros_ pose, in a bronze of the British Museum,[726] is
probably intended for an athlete. Furtwaengler has shown[727] that the
old Argive schema of the boxer Aristion at Olympia by Polykleitos[728]
was used in the master’s circle for statues of Hermes. The best
preserved example of a number of existing statues of this type is one
in Lansdowne House, London,[729] in the pose of the Aristion, holding
an object—probably a kerykeion—in the hand and a chlamys over the left
shoulder.
ATHLETE STATUES ASSIMILATED TO TYPES OF APOLLO.
Apollo figures in mythology as an athlete. In the Iliad, at the opening
of the boxing match between Epeios and Euryalos,[730] he is mentioned
as the god of boxing, which refers, perhaps, to his presiding over the
education of youths (κουροτρόφος) and to his gift of manly prowess.
Pausanias records that he overcame Hermes in running and Ares in
boxing.[731] He gives these victories of the god as the reason why the
flute played a Pythian air at the later pentathlon. Plutarch says that
the Delphians sacrificed to Apollo the boxer (πύκτης), and the Cretans
and Spartans to Apollo the runner (δρομαῖος).[732] Apollo’s fight with
Herakles to wrest from the hero the stolen tripod of Delphi,[733]
which is the subject of many surviving works of art,[734] is outside
the realm of athletics. As with Hermes, it is often difficult to
distinguish between statues of Apollo and those of victors assimilated
to his type. A good instance of this doubt is afforded by the long and
indecisive discussion of the monument represented by several replicas,
especially by the _Choiseul-Gouffier_ statue in the British Museum
(Pl. 7A), and the so-called _Apollo-on-the-Omphalos_ (Pl. 7B) found
in 1862 in the ruins of the theatre of Dionysos at Athens, and now in
the National Museum there.[735] The bronze original of these marble
copies must have been famous, to judge from the number of replicas
of it. It has been ascribed to many different artists—to Kalamis,
Pythagoras, Alkamenes, Pasiteles,[736] to one on more, to another
on less probability. As A. H. Smith has pointed out, the _krobylos_
treatment of the hair almost certainly indicates an Attic sculptor
of the first half of the fifth century B. C. But here again the
main interest in these copies is to determine whether the original
represented Apollo or an athlete. The connection between the Athens
replica and the _omphalos_ found with it is all but disproved[737]
and can not be used as evidence that the statue represents the god.
However, the original has been called an Apollo because of the
presence of a quiver on certain of the copies. Thus, while we have a
tree-trunk beside the _Choiseul-Gouffier_ example, we have a quiver
on the copy in the Palazzo Torlonia in Rome,[738] and on a similar
statue in the Fridericianum in Kassel,[739] and both tree and quiver
on the fragment of a leg from the Palatine now in the Museo delle
Terme.[740] The Ventnor head in the British Museum[741] has long locks
suited to Apollo, and the head from Kyrene there[742] was actually
found in a temple of Apollo. It has also been pointed out that the
head of a similar figure, undoubtedly an Apollo, appears on a relief
in the Capitoline Museum,[743] and a similar figure is found on a
red-figured krater in Bologna, which shows the god standing on a
pillar with a laurel wreath in the lowered left hand and a bowl in the
right.[744] On coins of Athens, moreover, we see the figure of Apollo
in a similar attitude with a laurel wreath in the lowered right hand
and a bow in the left.[745] From such evidence a good case for an
Apollo has been made out by many scholars—A. H. Smith, Winter,[746]
Helbig,[747] Conze,[748] Furtwaengler,[749] Schreiber,[750] Dickins,
and others. The evidence of the quiver in the delle Terme fragment
and the Torlonia replica is looked upon as a deliberate device of the
copyist to indicate the god. The attempt especially to connect it with
the _Apollo Alexikakos_ of Kalamis[751] must certainly fall, since the
date is about the only thing in its favor. In the long list of statues
ascribed to this sculptor,[752] there is none of an athlete, and the
_Choiseul-Gouffier_ type, whether it represents Apollo or an athlete,
has a markedly athletic character. If the Delphi _Charioteer_ (Fig. 66)
be ascribed to Kalamis, certainly this type of statue can have nothing
to do with him or his school. Nor is the type at all identical with the
_Alexikakos_ appearing on coins of Athens,[753] in which the locks of
hair, in the true archaic fashion of a cultus statue, fall down over
the god’s shoulders. Besides, the work of Kalamis, characterized by
λεπτότης and χάρις,[754] must have been of the delicate later archaic
style of the transition period.
[Illustration: PLATE 7A
Statue of the so-called _Apollo Choiseul-Gouffier_. British Museum,
London.]
[Illustration: PLATE 7B
Statue of the so-called _Apollo-on-the-Omphalos_. National Museum,
Athens.]
Waldstein, however, has made a good case against the evidence adduced
for interpreting the original as Apollo and he believes that the
statue represents an athlete.[755] The thongs thrown over the stump
in the _Choiseul-Gouffier_ statue, doubtless those of a boxer, seem
to point to an athlete for that copy at least. The muscular form and
athletic coiffure of all the copies also point to the same conclusion,
even if Waldstein’s ascription of the original statue to the boxer
Euthymos, whose statue by Pythagoras of Rhegion stood in the Altis at
Olympia,[756] is only a guess. Wolters thinks the _Choiseul-Gouffier_
statue may represent an athlete, but is against Waldstein’s
ascription of the work to Pythagoras.[757]
Though differing in detail, the rendering of the hair, common to
all the replicas, is a purely athletic coiffure. The argument for
attributing the original to Apollo, based on the curls around the
face, is of no importance, since a similar coiffure appears on many
ephebe heads by various Attic masters of the same or a slightly
earlier period. The hair treatment on a little-known replica of the
head in the British Museum[758] gives us an additional argument in
determining whether the original was an Apollo or not. On this head
there are two corkscrew curls side by side just back of the ears,
which are so inorganically attached and so unsuited to the style
of head as to make us believe that they were added by the copyist,
even if their absence in other copies were not proof enough of this
fact. Apparently the copyist adopted a well-known type of athlete and
tried to convert it into an Apollo by the use of this Apolline hair
attribute. The only other Apolline attribute, the quiver on the copies
in the Palazzo Torlonia[759] and Museo delle Terme, may have been
added as a fortuitous adjunct by the copyists, who were converting an
original athlete statue into one of Apollo. It may be added, also,
that the quiver does not always indicate the god, as we shall see
in discussing the Delian _Diadoumenos_ (Pl. 18). When we consider,
therefore, the athletic pose, the massive outline and proportions, the
high-arched chest, the muscular arms and thighs, the accentuation of
the veins,[760] the fashion of the hair, and the relatively small size
of the head, together with the presence of the boxing-thongs on the
London example, it seems reasonable to conclude that in this series of
copies we may see an original athlete statue, which in certain cases
was later transformed into statues of Apollo. Even if the original
was actually an Apollo, its proportions were far better suited to the
patron of athletic exercises than to the leader of a celestial choir.
An instance of the similar use of the same type of head is shown by
the colossal statue of Apollo unearthed at Olympia.[761] Here we see
the same coiffure as in the heads discussed, but the presence of the
remnants of a lyre indubitably shows that this copy was intended for
Apollo, and so it has been rightly assigned by Treu, not to the fifth,
but to a later century. When long hair was no longer the fashion for
athletes, a later artist might mistakenly think that the earlier plaits
were genuinely Apolline, though we know that they were common to all
early athletic art. Another head in the British Museum has been ably
discussed by Mrs. Strong,[762] who shows that it comes from an Apollo
and not from an athlete statue. It is similar to an Apollo pictured on
a stater struck at Mytilene about 400 B. C.,[763] and consequently,
like the statue from Olympia, it is merely an instance of the process
of converting an athlete statue into that of an Apollo.
The marble copy of the _Diadoumenos_ of Polykleitos, found on the
island of Delos in 1894, and now in the National Museum in Athens[764]
(Pl. 18), has a chlamys and a quiver introduced on the marble support
against the right leg. Until recently these attributes were regarded
as the arbitrary introductions of the Hellenistic copyist, who wished
to convert the famous athlete statue into one of Apollo, but lately it
has been suggested that they belonged to the original statue, which
is assumed to have represented Apollo. Thus, Hauser has propounded
the theory that the _Diadoumenos_ was originally an Apollo.[765] He
does not believe that the Delian sculptor could have transformed a
short-haired athlete into an Apollo, since the typical Apollo after
the time of Praxiteles was never represented as athletic. He later
supported his theory that the _Diadoumenos_ was originally an Apollo by
the evidence of a bronze statuette and a Delphian coin, and reasserted
his view that so virile a short-haired Apollo did not originate with
the later copyist, but in the fifth century B. C.[766] Hauser’s
argument that Apollo was the original of the _Diadoumenos_ seems as
unsuccessful as his contention that Polykleitos’ other great creation,
the _Doryphoros_, is to be classed as an _Achilles_.[767] Loewy has
sufficiently opposed Hauser’s theory of the _Diadoumenos_, by showing
that the palm-tree prop in all the marble replicas of that statue
points to athletic victories.[768] He rightly explains the Apolline
attributes of the Delian copy as the perfectly natural additions of an
artist who lived on the island reputed to be the birthplace of the god.
His ascription of the Polykleitan statue to the pentathlete Pythokles,
the base of whose statue at Olympia has been found,[769] is doubtful.
More recently Ada Maviglia has shown the literary grounds for regarding
the _Diadoumenos_ as an athlete, and not an Apollo.[770]
The difficulty of distinguishing between statues of athletes and Apollo
is also shown by the very beautiful fifth century B. C. Parian marble
head in Turin,[771] which is certainly a copy of an original Greek
bronze. Furtwaengler, because of the hair, wrongly believed it the head
of a diadoumenos, and connected it with Kresilas,[772] while Amelung
and Wace[773] have found in it Attic and Polykleitan influences. The
hair is parted over the centre of the forehead, as in the _Diadoumenos_
and the _Doryphoros_, and in other works attributed to the Polykleitan
school, while the locks over the ears and the plaits wound round the
head have Attic analogues.[774]
ATHLETE STATUES ASSIMILATED TO TYPES OF HERAKLES.
Herakles was the reputed founder of the games at Olympia.[775] He
was a famous wrestler, Pausanias frequently mentioning his combats
with giants.[776] He won in both wrestling and the pankration at
Olympia.[777] In connection with the victory of Straton of Alexandria,
who won in these two events on the same day,[778] Pausanias names
three men before him and three men after him who won in these events
on the same day.[779] We learn their dates from Africanus.[780] After
the date of the last of these victories, Ol. 204 (= 37 A. D.), the
Elean umpires, in order to check professionalism, refused to allow
contestants to enter for both events.[781] To win the crown of wild
olive in both these events was therefore regarded as a great honor,
and in the Olympic lists a special note was made of such victors, who
were called πρῶτος, δεύτερος, τρίτος, κ. τ. λ., ἀφ’ Ἡρακλέους.[782]
They also received the title of παράδοξος or παραδοξονίκης.[783]
Statues of Herakles, like those of Hermes and Theseus, were commonly
set up in gymnasia and palæstræ throughout Greece,[784] and it was
but natural that Olympic victors, especially those in the two events
mentioned, should want their statues assimilated to those of the hero.
The difficulty of deciding whether a given statue is one of Herakles
or of a victor is even greater than that of distinguishing between
statues of victors and those of Hermes or Apollo. To quote Homolle:
“_Maintes fois, comme pour la tête d’Olympie, comme pour plusieurs
autres encore, on peut se demander si le personnage représenté est le
héros luimême sous les traits d’un athlête ou un athlête fait à l’image
du héros_.”[785] In reference to the statue of Agias by Lysippos
discovered at Delphi, which is an excellent example of the assimilation
process which we are discussing, he continues: “_Ici en particulier,
étant donnée la nature du monument, il est permis de supposer que
l’auteur ... ait voulu élever le personnage à la hauteur idéale du type
divin en qu’ Agias ait été assimilé à Héraclès_.”[786]
We shall discuss a few examples of this process of assimilation to
types of Herakles. Our ascription of the head from Olympia mentioned
by Homolle, which was found in the ruins of the Gymnasion, to the
statue of the Akarnanian pancratiast Philandridas by Lysippos[787]
(Frontispiece and Fig. 69) will be discussed in a later chapter.[788]
The swollen ears and hair-fillet might pass for hero or mortal, for
in deciding whether a given head represents Herakles or a victor,
the ears are not the deciding criterion, since many heroes had the
“pancratiast” swollen ear, as we shall see later. A good example of
assimilation is seen in the beautiful little marble head of a man,
found in Athens and now in the Glyptothek Ny-Carlsberg in Copenhagen,
dating from the early Hellenistic age.[789] As traces of color remain
in the hair, some have thought that this head came from the reliefs
on the “Alexander” sarcophagus from Sidon, belonging to the body of
a headless youth represented there. Though the marble (Pentelic)
and the dimensions would fit, it would be the only head on the
sarcophagus with a band in the hair, and so the question can not be
definitely decided.[790] The head was at first called a Herakles,
though Furtwaengler rightly saw in it an ideal representation of an
athlete, even if the ears are not swollen. A bronze head of a youth
from Herculaneum, now in Naples, is evidently a part of the statue
of a victor or of Herakles.[791] A Polykleitan ephebe head-type,
with rolled fillet around the hair and swollen ears, represented by
replicas in Naples, in Rome, and elsewhere, may represent a boxer in
the guise of the hero.[792] In the Roman copy of the group of Herakles
and Telephos in the Museo Chiaramonti of the Vatican, Herakles, still
the god, wears a fillet.[793] Similarly, a colossal head of mediocre
workmanship in the Sala dei Busti of the Vatican represents the hero
with a fillet,[794] while another head in the Capitoline Museum, with
fillet and swollen ears, seems to represent Herakles as a victorious
athlete.[795] Many other heads in various museums, which are commonly
called heads of Herakles, may represent athletes in the heroic guise. A
good example is the Parian marble terminal bust of the fourth century
B. C., representing a young Herakles wreathed with poplar, now in the
British Museum (Fig. 31).[796] In this head the ears are bruised.
It seems to have been copied from some well-known statue of Lysippan
or Skopaic tendencies. Another head in the British Museum shows the
beardless hero, his hair encircled by a diadem, and his ears broken
and crushed.[797] This almost certainly comes from a victor statue.
Many bronze statuettes in the British Museum may be interpreted either
as Herakles or as victors.[798] A bronze from Corfu represents a nude
Herakles or an athlete, with the left foot advanced and the left hand
extended. The objects held in both hands are lost, but the challenging
pose and expression indicate a boxer.[799] Similarly a small bronze
in Berlin, represented with a fillet and in the walking pose, may be
a Herakles or a victor.[800] Duetschke gives two examples of heads
in the Uffizi, both of them having fillets, and one of them having
swollen ears, which may come from statues of the hero or victors.[801]
Heads of the hero with the rolled fillet can not, however, according
to Furtwaengler, be classed as victors, since he believes that this
attribute was borrowed from the symposium, to distinguish the glorified
hero rejoicing in the celestial banquet.[802]
ATHLETES REPRESENTED AS THE DIOSKOUROI.
Kastor is said to have won the foot-race and Polydeukes the boxing
match, at Olympia.[803] They had an altar at the entrance to the
Hippodrome there,[804] and were called “Starters of the Race”
at Sparta.[805] A stadion, in which they were fabled to have
contended, was shown in Hermione, in Corinthia.[806] Kastor was a
famous horse-racer in Homer and later writers,[807] and Polydeukes
a famous boxer,[808] both being κατ’ ἐξοχήν the rider and boxer
respectively.[809] Scenes showing Athena setting garlands on
victorious hoplite racers (?) appear on reliefs of the Dioskouroi
from Tarentum.[810] An archaic Argive inscription tells how a certain
Aischylos won the stade-race four times and the hoplite-race three
times at Argos, for which he dedicated a slab to the Dioskouroi, which
depicted them in relief.[811] An inscribed bronze quoit of the sixth
century B. C. from Kephallenia(?), now in the British Museum, was
dedicated to the two heroes by Exoïdas for a victory (apparently in
the pentathlon).[812] A bronze four-spoked wheel with a dedicatory
inscription in their honor was found at Argos, probably the remnant
of a monument erected for a chariot victory.[813] Doubtless certain
victor statues were assimilated to them, though we have no direct
evidence of the fact. Ordinary dead men appeared in the guise of the
Dioskouroi on sepulchral reliefs, just as we have seen that in statuary
they were heroized into statues of Hermes. Thus a grave-relief in honor
of Pamphilos and Alexandros in Verona shows on the projecting lower
rim the two Dioskouroi, the figure to the right carrying a lance in
the right hand and holding the bridle of a horse in the left, while
the figure to the left holds a lance in the left hand and touches a
horse’s head with the right.[814] A votive relief in the British Museum
represents two youths on horseback, who, despite the absence of the
conical cap or pilleus, are probably the Dioskouroi.[815] Their short
hair is bound with diadems, which shows that the dead men may have been
victors.
Sufficient examples of the process of assimilation have now been given
to prove that it was not an uncommon device of the ancient sculptor
and to show the difficulty of distinguishing between types of gods and
athletes.
CHAPTER III.
VICTOR STATUES REPRESENTED AT REST.
PLATES 8-21 AND FIGURES 9-31.
We have seen[816] that it was a very old custom in Greece to dedicate
statues of victors at the great national games to the god in whose
honor the games were held. On many sites, especially at Olympia, tiny
statuettes of clay or bronze of very primitive technique have been
found in great numbers, which represent victors in many attitudes and
ways—as horsemen, warriors, charioteers, etc. By the sixth century B.
C. this ancient custom, as we learn from literary, epigraphical, and
monumental sources, had developed, with the rapid progress attained by
the sculptor’s art, into the regular practice of erecting life-size
statues of athletes at the site of the games or in the native city
of the victor. Especially at Olympia hundreds of such monuments were
gradually collected, whose numbers and beauty must have exerted an
overwhelming impression on the visitor to the Altis. We shall now begin
the consideration of these monuments in detail.
The victor statues at Olympia, as elsewhere, may be conveniently
divided into two main groups—those which represent the victor as
standing or seated at rest, before or after the contest, and those
which represent him in movement, _i. e._, in some contest schema.[817]
Examples of statues of athletes represented at rest are common in Greek
athletic sculpture. We need only mention the so-called _Oil-pourer_
of Munich (Pl. 11), who is represented as pouring oil over his body
to make his limbs more supple for the coming wrestling bout; the
_Diadoumenos_ of Polykleitos (Pls. 17, 18, and Fig. 28), who is binding
a victor fillet around his head after a successful encounter; the
_Apoxyomenos_ of the school of Lysippos (Pl. 29), representing an
athlete scraping off the oil and dirt from his body after his victory.
In this class of statues, which forms by far the greater number and
shows the richer motives, the poses are quiet and reserved, the figures
are compact, and the expression earnest and even thoughtful. As
examples of statues represented in movement we need only recall such
well-known works as the _Diskobolos_ of Myron with its rhythmic lines
and vivacious expression (Pls. 22, 23, and Figs. 34, 35); the bronze
wrestlers of Naples, who are bending eagerly forward watching for a
grip (Fig. 51); or the artistically intertwined pancratiast group of
Florence (Pl. 25). Such monuments show us the varied poses, the choice
of the critical moment, the truth to life, and the masterly rhythm
attained by certain sculptors.
THE APOLLO TYPE.
In this chapter we shall confine ourselves almost entirely to the
statues of victors represented at rest, discussing those represented
in motion chiefly in the next. Most of the oldest statues at Olympia,
dating from a time when there were few variations in the sculptural
type, must have been represented at rest and in the schema of the
so-called “Apollos.” Ever since the discovery of the _Apollo of Thera_
in 1836 (Fig. 9), this _genre_ of sculpture, the most characteristic of
the early period, extending from the end of the seventh century B. C.
to the time of the gable groups of Aegina, has been carefully studied.
Though we now know that the type passed equally well for gods and
mortals,[818] we still keep the name, because of its familiarity and
for the sake of having a common designation. That this type actually
represented Olympic victors we have indubitable proof. Pausanias
mentions the stone victor statue of the pancratiast Arrhachion, dating
from the first half of the sixth century B. C., which stood in the
agora of his native town Phigalia. He describes it as archaic in pose,
with the feet close together and the arms hanging down the sides to
the hips—the typical “Apollo” schema.[819] Moreover, this very statue
has survived to our time (Fig. 79).[820] A study, therefore, of this
type of statue will give us an idea of how some of the early statues at
Olympia looked.
[Illustration: FIG. 9.—Statue of so-called _Apollo of Thera_. National
Museum, Athens.]
[Illustration: FIG. 10.—Statue of so-called _Apollo of Orchomenos_.
National Museum, Athens.]
[Illustration: FIG. 11.—Statue of so-called _Apollo_, from Mount Ptoion,
Bœotia. National Museum, Athens.]
The “Apollo” statues,[821] because of differences in facial expression,
have been conveniently divided into two groups: those represented by
the examples from Thera, Melos, Volomandra, Tenea, etc., sometimes
named the “grinning” group, because the corners of the mouth are turned
upwards into the so-called “archaic smile,” and those represented
by the examples from Orchomenos, the precinct of Mount Ptoion, and
elsewhere, named the “stolid” group, because in them the mouth forms a
straight line.[822] There are, however, essential differences between
the statues of each group. Thus, while some of both groups—_e. g._, the
examples from Melos, Volomandra, and Orchomenos—have square shoulders,
most of the others have sloping ones. The type gradually improved, as
in each successive attempt the sculptor overcame difficulties, until
finally revolutionary changes had taken place in the original form.
This improvement is seen in the treatment of the hair, in the modeling
of the face and body, and in the proportions of the statues. In a
head of a statue from Mount Ptoion[823]—which is broken off at the
neck—we seem to see the sculptor in wood making his first attempt in
stone. In the archaic example from Thera[824] (Fig. 9) the arms hang
straight down close to the sides, as in the statue of Arrhachion, being
detached only slightly from the body at the elbows, showing that the
artist was afraid that they might break off. In other examples, as in
the one from Orchomenos[825] (Fig. 10) and one from Mount Ptoion[826]
(Fig. 11), the space between the arms and the body has become larger,
while in the example from Melos[827] (Fig. 12) only the hands are
glued to the thighs. In the “Apollo” found at Tenea in 1846, and now
in Munich[828] (Pl. 8A), the arms are free, but the hands are held
fast to the body by the retention of small marble bridges between them
and the thighs. The final step has been taken in two examples from
Mount Ptoion (Fig. 13), in which the arms from the shoulders down are
free from the bodies.[829] The bridges shown on the photograph in the
figure to the left, which connect the forearms with the thighs, are of
plaster, being added at the time the statue was set up in Athens.[830]
The figure to the right is smaller and clearly discloses Aeginetan
influence. The audacity of the sculptor in entirely freeing the arms
in both examples was rewarded by the arms being broken off. Similarly,
in the _Strangford Apollo_ of the British Museum (Fig. 14),[831] the
arms, which hung loose from the shoulders, are broken away. The larger
statue from Mount Ptoion just mentioned also has the arms slightly
crooked at the elbows, the forearms being extended at an oblique angle
to the body. This represents an intermediate stage between the earlier
“Apollos,” in which the arms adhered vertically to the sides of the
body (as _e. g._, in the ones from Orchomenos, Thera, Melos, and
Tenea), and the later ones, in which the arms were bent, the forearms
being extended at right angles to the body (see Figs. 15 and 19).[832]
[Illustration: FIG. 12.—Statue of so-called _Apollo of Melos_. National
Museum, Athens.]
The example from Thera shows the archaic method of working in planes
parallel to front and side and at right angles to one another, the
corners of the square block being merely rounded off. The outlines
of muscles are indicated by shallow grooves, which do not affect the
flatness of the surface, and there is but little facial expression. We
see the chest outlined in some examples from Aktion.[833] In the Melian
example the rectangular form is modified by cutting away the sides
obliquely in arms and body; here there is more expression in the face,
and the treatment of the hair and the proportions of the body are more
developed. In the example from Orchomenos we see a great improvement in
form. Here, as in later Bœotian examples, the original rectangular
form of the example from Thera has become round, so that a horizontal
cross-section through the waist is almost circular; the muscles of
the abdomen are indicated and the skin is naturalistically shown in
the back and at the elbows. In later Bœotian examples from Mount
Ptoion, which are directly developed from the Orchomenos type,[834]
the form is lighter and the proportions more graceful. In one example
(Fig. 13, left) even the veins are shown. In the example mentioned
above as showing Aeginetan influence, and dated about 500 B. C.,[835]
the muscles are clearly marked, just as in the _Strangford_ example
and in the statues from the temple at Aegina, showing that foreign
art had been introduced into Bœotia by that time. In the example
from Volomandra in Attica,[836] we see affinity to the examples from
Thera and Melos, but Attic softness in the carving of the shoulders
and in the proportions. In the _Apollo of Tenea_ (Pl. 8A), “by far
the most beautiful preserved statue of archaic sculpture,”[837] a
statue most carefully worked, we see a Peloponnesian example of the
beginning of the sixth or even of the end of the seventh century B.
C. Here the sculptor has shown great care in executing details and in
the proportions. The eyes are not flat, but convex, and are wide open
as in most of the earlier examples. The downward flow of the lines of
the statue is striking, which is caused by the sloping shoulders and
the elongated triangular-shaped abdomen. The slimness of the figure,
with the contour of bones and muscles, is remarkable at so early a
date. The fashioning of the knees is detailed. When we contrast this
tall, slim, agile statue with the massively square-built Argive type
found at Delphi (Pl. 8B), we find it reasonable to suspect that
the _Apollo of Tenea_ is an imported work, coming probably from the
islands.[838] The two statues of (?) Kleobis and Biton, discovered at
Delphi in 1893 and 1894, and inscribed with the name of the sculptor
Polymedes of Argos, have added much to our knowledge of early Argive
sculpture (Pl. 8B, = Statue A).[839] This Polymedes may have been
one of the predecessors acknowledged by Eutelidas and Chrysothemis,
among the first victor statuaries known to us by name, in the epigram
preserved by Pausanias from the base of the monument of Damaretos and
his son Theopompos at Olympia.[840] The epigram, in any case, implies
that the reputation of the Argive school in athletic sculpture was
already well established by the end of the sixth century B. C. These
massively built statues, dating from the beginning of the sixth century
B. C., outline the muscles to a certain extent, even showing the line
of the false ribs by incised lines. They display, however, but little
detail in modeling, except in the knees, where the artist has tried to
indicate the bones and muscles. The features of the large heads are
without expression; the large eyes are flat and not convex, as in the
example from Tenea, though the Argive artist was, perhaps, later than
the Corinthian one, and a long distance removed from the later artist
of the Ligourió bronze (Fig. 16), to be discussed later.
[Illustration: FIG. 13.—Statues of so-called _Apollos_ from Mount
Ptoion. National Museum, Athens.]
[Illustration: PLATE 8A
A. Statue of so-called _Apollo of Tenea_. Glyptothek, Munich.]
[Illustration: PLATE 8B
B. So-called _Argive Apollo_ from Delphi. Museum of Delphi.]
[Illustration: FIG. 14.—Statue known as the _Strangford Apollo_. British
Museum, London.]
In all these “Apollos,” which have been found all over the Greek world
from Naukratis in Egypt to Ambrakia, and along the Asian coast and
on the Aegean Isles, the archaic artists have attempted, by their
modeling of the muscles, especially of the chest and abdomen, to
express trained strength. The heavy Argive examples, which may be said
to be the prototypes of the Ligourió bronze and of the _Doryphoros_
of Polykleitos (Pl. 4 and Fig. 48), are in strong contrast with the
lighter type best represented by the example from Tenea. In the former,
with their big heads and shoulders and their powerful arms and legs,
we may see early boxers or pancratiasts; in the latter a long-limbed
runner, with powerful chest, but slim and supple legs. In the _Apollo
of Tenea_ there is no flabbiness nor softness, and yet no emaciation.
We see very similar runners on Panathenaic vases. Between the two
extremes we have a long series, those from Mount Ptoion and elsewhere.
We do not doubt that the early statues of athletes at Olympia showed
all the variations we have discussed in these “Apollos.” Of this
type, then, were the statues at Olympia of the Spartan Eutelidas,
the oldest mentioned by Pausanias,[841] those of Phrikias of Pelinna
in Thessaly,[842] and of Phanas of Pellene in Achæa,[843] to whom,
later on in this chapter, we shall ascribe the two archaic marble
helmeted heads found at Olympia (Fig. 30), the wooden statues of
Praxidamas and Rhexibios,[844] the statue of Kylon on the Akropolis
of Athens,[845] and that of Hetoimokles at Sparta.[846] The statue of
the famous wrestler Milo of Kroton by the sculptor Dameas, mentioned
by Pausanias[847] and described by Philostratos,[848] must also
have conformed with the “Apollo” type, though it showed a step in
advance of the earlier ones by having its arms bent at the elbow, the
forearms being extended horizontally outward. This statue needs a
somewhat detailed account. The description of Philostratos seems to
have been founded on the account in Pausanias[849] of Milo’s prowess,
which, in turn, may have arisen from the appearance of the statue and
the cicerone’s description. Philostratos says that it stood on a
quoit with the feet close together and with the left hand grasping a
pomegranate, the fingers of the right hand being extended straight out,
and a fillet encircling the brows.[850] Philostratos has Apollonios
explain the attributes of the statue on the ground that the people of
Kroton represented their famous victor in the guise of a priest of
Hera. This would explain the priestly fillet and the pomegranate sacred
to the goddess, while the diskos, on which the statue rested, would be
the shield on which Hera’s priest stood when praying. Scherer, however,
rightly pointed out that the statue in the Altis was of Milo the victor
and not the priest. He therefore explained the diskos[851] merely as
a round basis on which the statue, of the archaic “Apollo” type with
its feet close together, stood, and the _tainia_ as a victor band. He
followed Philostratos in believing that the gesture of the right hand
was one of adoration.[852] He looked upon the object in the left hand
not as a pomegranate at all, but as an alabastron, a toilet article
adapted to a victor. He, therefore, believed that the _Apollo_ of the
elder Kanachos of Sikyon,[853] the so-called _Philesian Apollo_,[854]
represented nude and holding a tiny fawn in the right hand and a bow
in the left, would give a good idea of the pose of Milo’s statue.[855]
Hitzig and Bluemner believe this explanation of Scherer probable,
although they rightly disagree with him in his exchanging the
pomegranate for an alabastron, since Pausanias expressly mentions a
pomegranate in the hand of another victor statue at Olympia.[856] Pliny
speaks of a male figure by Pythagoras, _mala ferentem nudum_,[857]
and Lucian says apples were prizes at Delphi,[858] and we know that
Milo was also a Pythian victor. The same commentators believe that
Pausanias’ story of Milo bursting a cord drawn round his brow by
swelling his veins arose from the victor band on the statue, and the
story of the strength of his fingers from the position of the fingers
on it.
[Illustration: FIG. 15.—Bronze Statuette of a Palæstra Victor, from the
Akropolis. Akropolis Museum, Athens.]
We have seen in the “Apollo” statues a considerable variety of
physical types. In the sixth century B. C. the artist was feeling
his way and was hampered by local school tendencies. At first he
knew only how to produce rigid statues in the conventional Egyptian
attitude with the arms glued to the sides, the two halves of the
body being symmetrical and the hips on the same level. He gradually
improved on this model, making the position more elastic—as in the
statue of Milo—rightly indicating bones and muscles and giving to the
figure natural proportions. Bulle has shown on one plate[859] three
statuettes which illustrate the improvements reached in bronze in
various parts of Greece by the end of the sixth century B. C. To the
left is represented a victorious palæstra gymnast—as is indicated by
the remnants of akontia in the hands—in the Akropolis Museum (Fig.
15);[860] in the center is the Payne Knight statuette of the British
Museum,[861] carrying a fawn in the right hand, which is a copy of
the _Philesian Apollo_ which stood in the Didymaion near Miletos; to
the right is Hermes with the petasos, short-girded tunic, and winged
sandals, holding a ram in the left and probably a kerykeion in the
right hand.[862] The attributes of the three, then, attest respectively
a victor, Apollo, and Hermes. In all three the arms are freed from the
body, and the muscles of the breast, chest, and abdomen are indicated,
though carelessly in the case of the victor. The proportions of the
three vary greatly; the Attic victor has a large head, broad shoulders,
powerful chest, long body, and short legs; the _Apollo_ has long
legs, shorter though slimmer body, and small head;[863] the _Hermes_
has a clearly outlined figure and shows the careful modeling so
characteristic of the schools of Argos and Sikyon in the fifth century
B. C. Bulle shows that the further development of the “Apollo” type was
halted by the Argive school, which, while continuing the restful pose
of these figures, counteracted their rigidity by inclining the head
to the side and throwing the weight unevenly on the legs by lowering
one hip and further advancing one foot. The central line was no longer
vertical, but curved, and it was now possible to give greater detail to
chest and abdomen. Polykleitos finally perfected this curve and threw
back the left foot, resting the weight of the body on the right—from
which time on we have the regular scheme of “free” and “rest” legs.
Despite all these later improvements, Olympic victors continued to
set up statues in the rest attitude of the “Apollo” type down perhaps
into the third century B. C. Such dedications were the result both of
school tendencies and economy, especially in the case of equestrian
victors, who frequently were content to use such “actionless” statues
in place of groups. We have only to mention the monuments of Timon of
Elis, whose statue was the work of the Sikyonian Daidalos,[864] and
of Telemachos of Elis, whose statue was made by the otherwise unknown
sculptor Philonides.[865]
Before systematically considering victor statues at Olympia and
elsewhere with general motives, _i. e._, represented at rest, we shall
now rapidly sketch the development of athletic sculpture in four great
centres, Argos, Sikyon, Aegina, and Athens, even though some of the
works mentioned were represented in motion. Sculptors of other schools
known at Olympia will be treated incidentally in both this and the
following chapters.
THE AFFILIATED SCHOOLS OF ARGOS AND SIKYON.
While in general it is unprofitable to discuss sculptors who have
not surely left any example of their art behind, there are two early
schools of Peloponnesian sculpture, those of Argos and Sikyon, which,
though we may assign work to them only by conjecture, can not be
summarily passed over, owing to their great importance in the history
of Greek athletic art. The bronze used in their works was too valuable
to escape the barbarians, and, furthermore, the monotony, which must
have characterized early Peloponnesian sculpture, militated against
these works being reproduced to any great degree by later copyists.
THE SCHOOL OF ARGOS.
The Argive school was devoted mainly to athletic statuary. The greatest
name in old Argive art is that of Ageladas or Hagelaïdas,[866] the
reputed teacher of Myron and Polykleitos, who lived from the third
quarter of the sixth century into the second quarter of the fifth
century B. C. While his connection with Myron and Polykleitos is
scarcely to be doubted,[867] his supposed connection with Pheidias has
made the chronology of the life of this sculptor one of the difficult
problems of the ancient history of art. A scholion on Aristophanes’
_Ranae_, 504, dates the statue known as the _Herakles Alexikakos_ in
the Attic deme Melite by Hagelaïdas after the pestilence in Athens of
431-430 B. C., and makes the Argive sculptor (Gelados = Hagelaïdas)
the teacher of Pheidias. As his statue of the Olympic victor Anochos
commemorated a victory won in Ol. 65 (= 520 B. C.), this late date is
manifestly impossible.[868] Furthermore, a better tradition says that
Hegias was the teacher of the Attic master.[869] Furtwaengler’s attempt
to show that these two divergent traditions were really in accord,
by the assumption that Hegias was the pupil of Hagelaïdas and that
his art came from the latter—thus explaining certain similarities in
the work of Hagelaïdas and Pheidias,—does not solve the problem.[870]
As the scholion is based on a good tradition,[871] the best solution
of the difficulty is that of Kalkmann[872] and others, that the
_Alexikakos_ was the work of a younger Hagelaïdas, the grandson of the
famous master, by the intermediate Argeiadas. For a lower limit to the
activity of Hagelaïdas there seems to be no good reason for distrusting
the evidence that he made a bronze _Zeus_ for the Messenians to be
set up at Naupaktos, whither they moved in 455 B. C.[873] This makes
quite possible a period of collaboration of four or five years at least
between Polykleitos and Hagelaïdas.
Pausanias mentions the monuments of three victors at Olympia by
Hagelaïdas: the statues of the pancratiast Timasitheos of Delphi, who
won two victories some time between Ols. (?) 65 and 67 (520 and 512 B.
C.);[874] of the runner Anochos of Tarentum, who won in the stade- and
double-race in Ols. 65 and (?) 66 (= 520 and 516 B. C.);[875] and the
chariot-group of Kleosthenes of Epidamnos, who won in Ol. 66 (= 516 B.
C.).[876]
None of the works of Hagelaïdas at Olympia or elsewhere is known.
Messenian coins of the fourth century B. C. show the motives of two of
his statues, that of his _Zeus Ithomatas_ just mentioned as being made
for the Messenians,[877] and the beardless _Zeus_ παῖς at Aigion.[878]
However, we infer the characteristics of his style from the bronze
statuette in Berlin which was found at Ligourió near Epidauros (Fig.
16).[879] This is undoubtedly an Argive work contemporary with the
later period of Hagelaïdas. Furtwaengler and Frost are right in looking
upon it as showing the prototype of the canon of Polykleitos. Though
too small to count as a characteristic work of the early Argive school,
it shows us that the style of that school was a short and stocky type,
similar to Aeginetan works, only somewhat fleshier and heavier. The
straight mouth and heavy chin, the treatment of the eyelids, and the
clumsy limbs are all archaic features to be expected in the period
preceding Polykleitos. The modeling is carefully executed, showing a
knowledge of anatomy. If such excellence is found in a statuette, we
can form some idea of the perfection of a statue by the master.
[Illustration: FIG. 16.—Bronze Statuette, from Ligourió. Museum of
Berlin.]
[Illustration: PLATE 9
Statue of an Athlete, by Stephanos. Villa Albani, Rome.]
The bronze _Apollo_ from Pompeii now in the Naples Museum,[880] with
marble replicas in Mantua and Paris,[881] shows us how Hagelaïdas
treated a god type, while the statue of an athlete by Stephanos will
give us some idea of how he treated his victor statues, as it seems
to have been modeled after an athlete statue of the early fifth
century B. C., perhaps after a work by some pupil of the master.
Stephanos belonged to the school of Pasiteles, a group of sculptors
flourishing at Rome at the end of the Republic and the beginning of
the Empire. They devoted themselves to the reproduction of early
fifth-century statues. They were not ordinary copyists, for their works
show individual mannerisms and a system of proportions foreign to the
originals. Thus their statues have the square shoulders of the Argive
school, but the slim bodies and slender legs of the period of Lysippos
and his scholars. Apart from such mannerisms, then, in the male figure
signed _Stephanos, pupil of Pasiteles_, in the Villa Albani in Rome
(Pl. 9),[882] which reappears in a very similar statue in groups
combined with a female figure of related style,[883] or with another
male figure,[884] we may see a copy of a bronze original of the Argive
school before Polykleitos. The standing motive and the body forms
are the same in both the Mantuan _Apollo_ and the Stephanos figure,
although the former is more developed and the head type is different in
both; this shows that the two, while displaying the same basic ideal,
were not works of the same master.[885] As the statue by Stephanos has
a fillet around the hair, it may well represent an ideal athlete, who
in the original held an aryballos or similar palæstra attribute in
the raised left hand. It is interesting to compare the copies of this
group with those of another representing mother and son, the work of
Menelaos, the pupil of Stephanos, which, though transferred from Greek
to Roman taste in respect of drapery and forms, is merely a variation
of the same theme without any heroic traits.[886]
The influence of Hagelaïdas can be easily traced in other schools of
art, especially in the Attic School and in the sculptures of the temple
of Zeus at Olympia, whether these latter be Peloponnesian in origin or
not. It will be convenient in this connection to discuss briefly the
style of these important sculptures, which we have already mentioned
several times. The statement of Pausanias,[887] that the sculptors of
the East and West Gables were Paionios of Mende in Thrace and Alkamenes
respectively—the latter being known as the pupil of Pheidias[888]—was
not doubted until the discovery of the Olympia sculptures.[889] Then
doubts arose both on chronological and stylistic grounds, and now only
a few archæologists would maintain that either artist had anything
to do with these groups. The style of the two gables (as well as that
of the metopes) is so similar that many have assigned them to one and
the same artist.[890] They have been referred to many schools from
Ionia to Sicily, even including a local Elean one. Thus Brunn assigned
them to a North Greek-Thracian school; Flasch[891] and (more recently)
Joubin[892] to the Attic; Kekulé[893] and Friedrichs-Wolters[894] to a
West Greek (Sicilian) one, because of their similarity to the metopes
of temple E at Selinos; Furtwaengler[895] to an Ionic one (Parian
masters). Most scholars, however, including K. Lange,[896] Treu,[897]
Studniczka,[898] Collignon,[899] and Overbeck,[900] have referred them
to Peloponnesian sculptors.[901]
To return to the art of Hagelaïdas: if we assume that the Ligourió
bronze comes from the school of that Argive master certain conclusions
must be drawn. The figure is archaic, but does not have the archaic
smile. In Athens at the end of the archaic period there was a reaction
against this smile, and doubtless the Athenian artists were strongly
influenced by Argive models. Thus an archaic bronze head of a youth,
found on the Akropolis and dating from about 480 B. C., shows a
serious mouth, a strong chin, heavy upper eyelids, and finely worked
hair, characteristics which we found in the Ligourió statuette. These
traits show that the statuette and the head were the forerunners of
the _Apollo_ of the West Gable at Olympia. So finished a bronze as
this one from the Akropolis, at the beginning of the fifth century B.
C., has inclined Richardson to look upon it as “not improbably a work
of Hagelaïdas,”[902] though here again Furtwaengler would ascribe it
to Hegias.[903] The Parian marble statue of an ephebe found on the
Akropolis (Fig. 17)[904]—one of the most beautiful recovered during
the excavations there—shows the same Argive influence. This statue
is chronologically the first masterpiece, thus far recovered, which
marks the break with archaism by having its head turned slightly to
one side.[905] It has the same pose as the _Athlete_ by Stephanos and
probably represents a palæstra victor. The head, with its heavy chin,
and the muscular body strikingly resemble the _Harmodios_ (Fig. 32),
which has led Furtwaengler and others to ascribe it to Kritios or his
school.[906] At the same time a similarity is seen between this head
and that of the _Apollo_ of the West Gable at Olympia, and so with
Bulle and others we ascribe it to the Argive school.
[Illustration: FIG. 17.—Statue of an Ephebe, from the Akropolis.
Akropolis Museum, Athens.]
One of the female statues (_Korai_) found on the Akropolis, and
approximately of the same date as the ephebe, viz, the fragmentary
one consisting of head and bust and known popularly as _la petite
boudeuse_, shows the same revolt against Ionism.[907] In many respects
this statue is very different from most of the other Akropolis _Korai_.
The eyes are not yet set back naturally, but the appearance of depth
is attained by thickening the eyelids, quite in contrast with the
modeling of the eyeball in most of the other statues. The corners of
the mouth turn down, which gives it the appearance of pouting. This
statue is also our first example in sculpture of the so-called Greek
profile—the nose continuing the line of the forehead. The same Argive
influence in Athenian art is also discernible in the Parian marble
head of an athlete with traces of yellow in the hair (Fig. 18),[908]
which may be dated a little later than the Akropolis ephebe—about
470 B. C. Because of its resemblance to the _Apollo_ of Olympia,
its Attic-Peloponnesian origin seems clear.[909] Its expression is
comparable with that of the _Kore_ just discussed—as it has the same
mouth, eyes, and nose, both monuments showing the reaction against the
archaic smile, which characterized the Ionian period of Attic art.
This same Ionic reaction also may be seen in the bronze statuette of a
diskobolos in the Metropolitan Museum (Fig. 46),[910] which resembles
in style that of the _Tyrannicides_, but shows also Argive traits.
These Argive traits, small head and slender limbs, are easily seen by
comparing this statuette with the Ligourió bronze.
[Illustration: FIG. 18.—Head of an Ephebe, from the Akropolis.
Akropolis Museum, Athens.]
We have already mentioned the monumental group of the hoplite victor
Damaretos and of the pentathlete Theopompos, which was made about 500
B. C. by the Argive sculptors Chrysothemis and Eutelidas.[911] These
artists were known to later antiquity only by the epigram inscribed on
the base of this monument at Olympia, and the probable dates of the two
victories of Theopompos, Ols. (?) 69 and 70 (= 504 and 500 B. C.), show
that they were contemporaries of Hagelaïdas, and not, as formerly was
believed, the forerunners of his school.[912]
Polykleitos, a Sikyonian by birth,[913] migrated early to Argos to
become the pupil of Hagelaïdas, and became the great master of the
Argive school in the next generation after him. We have four statues by
him at Olympia. His earliest work probably was the statue of the boxer
Kyniskos of Mantinea, who won in Ol. (?) 80 (= 460 B. C.); he made
the statues of the Elean pentathlete Pythokles and of the Epidamnian
boxer Aristion, both of whom won their victories in Ol. 82 (= 452 B.
C.); and lastly he made the statue of the boy boxer Thersilochos from
Kerkyra, who won in Ol. (?) 87 (= 432 B. C.)[914] The footprints on the
three recovered bases of the statues of the first three show that all
were represented at rest. Of Patrokles, the brother of Polykleitos,
Pausanias mentions no statues at Olympia, though Pliny says that he
made athlete statues.[915] Of Naukydes,[916] the nephew or brother
of Polykleitos, we have record of three athlete statues at Olympia:
those of the wrestlers Cheimon of Argos, who won in Ol. 83 (= 448
B. C.), and Baukis of Trœzen, who won some time between Ols. (?)
85 and 90 (= 440 and 420 B. C.); also one of the boxer Eukles of
Rhodes, who won some time between Ols. 90 and 93 (= 420 and 408 B.
C.).[917] A contemporary of Naukydes was the sculptor Phradmon, who,
according to Pliny, was a contemporary of Polykleitos;[918] he made
the statue of the boy wrestler Amertas of Elis, who won a victory some
time between Ols. 84 and 90 (= 444 and 420 B. C.).[919] In the next
century, Polykleitos Minor, the grandson or grandnephew of the great
Polykleitos, and the pupil of Naukydes,[920] had three statues at
Olympia: those of the boy boxer Antipatros of Miletos, whose victory is
given by Africanus as Ol. 98 (= 388 B. C.); of the two boy wrestlers
Agenor of Thebes, who won some time between Ols. 93 and 103 (= 408
and 368 B. C.), and Xenokles of Mainalos, who won some time between
Ols. 94 and 100 (= 404 and 380 B. C.).[921] The inscribed base of the
latter has been recovered and the footprints show that the statue was
represented at rest, the body resting equally on both feet, the left
slightly advanced. Andreas, a second-century B. C. Argive sculptor,
made a statue at Olympia of the boy wrestler Lysippos of Elis, who won
some time between Ols. 149 and 157 (= 184 and 152 B. C.).[922]
THE SCHOOL OF SIKYON.
[Illustration: FIG. 19.—Bronze Statuette of Apollo, found in the Sea off
Piombino. Louvre, Paris.]
The Sikyonian school of bronze founders was closely affiliated with the
one at Argos. Early in the archaic period the brothers Dipoinos and
Skyllis, sons or pupils of the mythical Daidalos of Crete, migrated to
Sikyon.[923] A generation later another Cretan sculptor, Aristokles,
founded there an artist family which lasted through seven or eight
generations.[924] His two grandsons Aristokles and Kanachos are known
to have collaborated with Hagelaïdas on a group of three Muses.[925]
Many have seen in the small bronze found in the sea off Piombino,
Tuscany, and now in the Louvre (Fig. 19),[926] a copy of the _Apollo
Philesios_, the best-known work of Kanachos. This gem of the bronze
art, in true archaic style, may very well represent the _Apollo_,
which, according to the description of Pliny[927] and the evidence of
Milesian copper coins of all periods,[928] had as attributes a
fawn in the outstretched right hand and a bow in the left. However,
Overbeck,[929] followed by von Mach, believes that it is not a copy
of Kanachos’ _Apollo_, but merely represents a boy assisting at a
sacrifice, and that the original held a cup in the left hand and a
saucer in the right. In any case the statuette is too inaccurate to
give us more than the pose of the _Apollo_ of Kanachos, even if it
were proved to be a copy. It may be merely a reproduction of the
mythological type of Apollo, which the artist himself followed, and
so we can not say definitely to what school it belongs. The Payne
Knight bronze in the British Museum,[930] which holds a tiny fawn in
the right hand, the bow originally in the left hand being lost, has
better pretensions, perhaps, to be a copy of the _Apollo_. Another
archaic half life-size bronze, formerly in the Palazzo Sciarra,[931]
is of a similar type, though its style is different. Another bronze
statuette from Naxos, now in Berlin,[932] shows the same position of
the hands, but has an aryballos or pomegranate in the right hand. We
have already classed it as an example of the conversion of an original
god-type into that of a victor. We might also mention the mutilated
torso found by Holleaux at the sanctuary of Apollo Ptoios in Bœotia
(Fig. 12, right), which has a similar pose to that of the statuette
from Piombino, and whose hair technique shows that it is an imitation
of a bronze work.[933] However, as we shall see later, it may be rather
representative of the Aeginetan school of sculptors. All these works
may tell us of the general character of the _Apollo_, but little of its
style.[934]
No athlete statue by Aristokles or his brother Kanachos is known
to have stood at Olympia. That the latter actually made victor
statues, however, is proved by Pliny’s statement (_l. c._) that he
made _celetizontas pueros_. Of the later Sikyonian school we have
twenty-seven statues of victors made by eleven different sculptors,
whose dates range from near the end of the fourth down into the third
century B. C., of whom we shall give a chronological list. Alypos, the
pupil of the Argive Naukydes, had four statues at Olympia: those of the
wrestler Symmachos of Elis, of the boy boxer Neolaïdas of Pheneus, of
the boy wrestler Archedamos of Elis, and of the boy and man wrestler
Euthymenes of Mainalos, all of whom must have won their victories some
time between Ols. 94 and 104 (= 404 and 364 B. C.).[935] Kanachos, the
Younger, made one statue, that of the boy boxer Bykelos of Sikyon,
who won some time between Ols. 92 and 105 (= 412 and 360 B. C.).[936]
Olympos made the statue of the pancratiast Xenophon of Aigion, who
won some time between Ols. 95 and 105 (= 400 and 360 B. C.).[937]
The sculptor Daidalos, the son and pupil of Patrokles, and probably
the nephew of Polykleitos, made four monuments for four victors: the
equestrian group of the Elean charioteer Timon and his son Aigyptos, a
victor in horse-racing, and statues of the Elean wrestler Aristodemos
and the stade-runner Eupolemos. Their victories fell between Ols. 96
and 103 (= 396 and 368 B. C.).[938] Damokritos made the statue of the
Elean boy boxer Hippos, who won between Ols. 96 and 107 (= 396 and
352 B. C.).[939] Kleon had five statues credited to him, all but one
being of boy victors: those of the boy runner Deinolochos of Elis,
the pentathlete Hysmon of Elis, the two boy boxers Kritodamos, and of
Alketos of Kleitor, and of the boy runner Lykinos of Heraia. Their
victories fell between Ols. 94 and 103 (= 404 and 368 B. C.).[940] The
great Lysippos had the same number of victor statues as Kleon, and also
two honor statues at Olympia: those of the equestrian victor Troilos
of Elis, of the Akarnanian pancratiast Philandridas, of the wrestler
Cheilon of Patrai, of the pancratiast Polydamas of Skotoussa, and of
the hoplite-runner Kallikrates. Their victories occurred between Ols.
102 and 115 (= 372 and 320 B. C.).[941] The son of Lysippos, Daïppos,
made two statues, one for the Elean boy boxer Kallon and the other for
the Elean Nikandros, who won the double foot-race. Their victories fell
within the activity of the sculptor, Ols. 115 and 125 (= 320 and 280 B.
C.).[942] Daitondas made the statue of the Elean boy boxer Theotimos,
who won his victory some time between Ols. 116 and 120 (= 316 and 300
B. C.).[943] Eutychides, the most famous pupil of Lysippos, famed
alike as a bronze founder, statuary, and painter, carved the statue
of the boy runner Timosthenes of Elis, who won some time between Ols.
115 and 125 (= 320 and 280 B. C.).[944] Pliny gives Ol. 121 (= 296 B.
C.) as the _floruit_ of this sculptor, which was probably the date of
the erection of his most famous work, the colossal bronze _Tyche_,
as tutelary deity of the city of Antioch on the Orontes, which was
founded by Seleukos I in Ol. 119.3 (= 302 B. C.).[945] This shows that
Eutychides was already by that date a famed sculptor, having begun his
career by 330-320 B. C. Kantharos, the pupil of Eutychides, made the
statues of the two boy wrestlers Kratinos of Aigira and Alexinikos of
Elis, who won their victories some time between Ols. 120 and 130 (= 300
and 260 B. C.).[946]
ÆGINETAN SCULPTORS.
We have but little left of the prominent early Aeginetan school of
bronze sculptors. Of Kallon, the earliest historical sculptor of the
school, the reputed pupil of Tektaios and Angelion (who in turn were
the pupils of Dipoinos and Skyllis), we have only literary evidence. He
was typical of archaic severity just prior to the era of transition,
and therefore should be compared with Hegias of Athens and Kanachos of
Sikyon. For Onatas, the most famous of the Aeginetan sculptors, whose
_floruit_ was in the first half of the fifth century B. C., we have
evidence of many monuments at Olympia. Besides the colossal _Herakles_
dedicated by the Thasians,[947] a _Hermes_ dedicated by the people
of Pheneus,[948] and a large group of nine statues of Greek heroes
standing on a curved base faced by a statue of Nestor on another, the
group being dedicated by the Achaians,[949] he made a chariot and
charioteer to commemorate the victory of Hiero of Syracuse at Olympia
in 468 B. C., for which monument Kalamis furnished two horses.[950]
Glaukias made a bronze chariot for Hiero’s brother Gelo of Gela, who
later became tyrant of Syracuse, and who won a chariot victory in
Ol. 73 (= 488 B. C.).[951] This sculptor also excelled in fashioning
statues of boxers and pancratiasts, making the monuments of the boxers
Philon of Kerkyra and Glaukos of Karystos, and that of the renowned
boxer and pancratiast Theagenes of Thasos.[952] The statue of Glaukos
was represented in the schema of one “sparring” (σκιαμαχῶν),[953] and
so was in movement and not at rest. We have athlete statues by three
other Aeginetan sculptors at Olympia. Thus Ptolichos, the pupil of the
Sikyonian Aristokles, set up statues of the Aeginetan boy wrestler
Theognetos, who won in Ol. 76 (= 476 B. C.), and of the boy boxer
Epikradios of Mantinea, who won between Ols. (?) 72 and 74 (= 492 and
484 B. C.);[954] Serambos made the statue of the boy boxer Agiadas of
Elis, who won between Ols. (?) 72 and 74;[955] Philotimos made the
horse for the horse-racing victory of Xenombrotos of Kos, who won in
Ol. (?) 83 (= 448 B. C.).[956] All of these sculptors appear to have
used bronze exclusively, and their art, though independent, showed a
bias toward Peloponnesian work. There are few examples left of this
art. The bronze head of a bearded warrior or hoplite victor found on
the Akropolis, if we are justified in classing it as Aeginetan and not
Attic, shows the excellence which we associate with this school.[957]
The delicate execution of its hair and beard, as well as the strength
and precision of this head, makes it not unworthy of being ascribed
to one of the best artists of the school, perhaps to Onatas himself.
The beardless bronze head discovered in 1756 in the villa of the Pisos
in Herculaneum, now in Naples, has also been assigned to Onatas, as
its features are similar to those of the one under discussion.[958]
The Tux bronze statuette of a hoplitodrome, to be discussed in Ch. IV
(Fig. 42), has also been assigned to an Aeginetan master.[959] The
marble statue known as the _Strangford Apollo_ in the British Museum,
already mentioned (Fig. 14),[960] may show the characteristics of the
early school in marble, though it is impossible to say whether it is
a copy of a bronze original or a minor work in stone under Aeginetan
influence. The smaller “Apollo” from Mount Ptoion, already discussed
(Fig. 13, right),[961] appears to show in exaggerated form the same
Aeginetan traits. However, we get out best notion of Aeginetan work
in marble from the gable statues in the Munich Museum, representing
Homeric warriors fighting, which adorned the temple of Aphaia in the
northeastern corner of the island. Their importance in this connection
calls for a brief account of them.
[Illustration: FIG. 20.—Figure, from the East Pediment of the Temple on
Aegina. Glyptothek, Munich.]
Since the discovery of these groups by an international party of
Englishmen and Germans in 1811, and their restoration soon after their
arrival in Munich by the sculptor Thorwaldsen, many new fragments
have been discovered by Furtwaengler during his excavations of
the temple site in 1901, and have been incorporated into the
existing figures in the Glyptothek. His reconstruction, though not
definitive, is more in accord with artistic probability than any that
preceded.[962] As we should expect from the athletic tradition of the
Aeginetan school of sculpture just outlined, these sculptures represent
finely trained nude athletes, whose modeling shows great observation of
nature, especially in the treatment of muscles and veins. In fact it
has been truly said that anatomical knowledge was never expressed again
in Greek art so simply and naturally. The figures, without any excess
of flesh, are slightly under life-size, short and stocky—shoulders
square, but the waists slender and the legs long in proportion to the
bodies—and withal are very compact and full of strength. The figures
of the two pediments differ slightly, the eastern being more developed
than the western. Brunn, long ago, arguing from the stele of Aristion,
which then was the best example extant of archaic Attic art, showed
how that art was characterized by grace and dignity of effect, while
Aeginetan art was characterized by a finer study of nature. This
generalization is no longer a matter of inference, but of knowledge.
[Illustration: FIG. 21.—Two Figures, from the West Pediment of the
Temple on Aegina. Glyptothek, Munich.]
These groups represent the highest period of Aeginetan art. They
have been dated anywhere from the end of the sixth century B. C.
down to a period after the battle of Salamis.[963] Probably a date
just after that battle is correct, as Aeginetans won prizes of valor
there.[964] Any attempt to assign them to this or that artist is merely
conjectural. The general similarity in subject to that of the Delphi
group by Onatas, which represented the death in battle of Opis, the
king of the barbarian Iapygians, at the hands of the Tarentines,[965]
and the group at Olympia already mentioned as representing a Trojan
subject, led earlier scholars to assign the slightly more advanced
statues of the East Pediment to Onatas and the more archaic ones of
the West Pediment to Kallon. But we know both these sculptors only as
bronze workers. The violent action of some of the figures reminds us
at once of Pausanias’ description of the statue of the boxer Glaukos
by the sculptor Glaukias, which we have already mentioned. But on
the whole, though they are violent, the slight proportions of these
athletic figures do not fit the appearance of boxers and pancratiasts,
which, as we have seen, formed the staple of Aeginetan sculptors, but
rather those of runners. We see a good wrestler in the _Snatcher_ of
the East Gable (Fig. 20),[966] and the corresponding figure in the
right half of the same gable.[967] The _Champion_ of the West gable
(Fig. 21, left),[968] of the finest Parian marble, represented as
lunging forward, pressing on the enemy armed with helm, spear, and
shield, would pass as a good example of a hoplitodrome, far freer and
more individual than the warrior from Dodona.
ATTIC SCULPTORS.
[Illustration: FIG. 22.—Archaic Marble Head of a Youth. Jakobsen
Collection, Ny-Carlsberg Museum, Copenhagen.]
Owing to the Persian sack of the Athenian Akropolis in 480 and 479
B. C., and the subsequent burial of works of art there and their
rediscovery by the excavations of 1885-1889, we know more of archaic
Attic sculpture (600-480 B. C.) than of any other early school.[969]
We have already mentioned certain Attic works which show the influence
of the severer Argive school—_la petite boudeuse_, the head of the
yellow-haired ephebe (Fig. 18), the Akropolis athlete statue (Fig. 17),
etc.—which was prominent at the beginning of the fifth century B. C.,
works which can be attributed to Hegias, Kritios, and their associates.
They illustrate the reaction against Ionic taste, an influence which
came from Asia Minor and the islands, especially after the fall of the
Lydian Empire of Crœsus, and which for a time submerged native Attic
art. This Ionic art was characterized by great technical ability, and
by rich draperies and decorative effect. The archaic smile was its
special feature. Ionism is best represented by some of the Akropolis
_Korai_.[970] In athletic art we see Ionism at its flood tide in
the Rampin head found in Athens in 1877, now in the Louvre, which
corresponds in style with some of the earlier female statues of the
Akropolis.[971] This head has a more elaborate frisure than any of the
female heads and, in fact, the elaborate treatment of the hair of the
crown and forehead is more suitable to a female than a male statue.
The beard is carefully plaited, while traces of red seem to show that
the mustache was painted on. Similar traces of color appear on the
beard and hair. The smiling mouth, high ears, and almond eyes recall
many archaic works, but especially the _Apollo of Tenea_ (Pl. 8A). The
garland of oak leaves above the frisure of the forehead may suggest
a victor,[972] or perhaps a priest or assistant on some religious
embassy.[973] The turning of the neck—as in the ephebe statue of the
Akropolis (Fig. 17)—shows a break at this early time with archaism.
Another work illustrating Ionism is the fragment of a grave-stele
found near the Dipylon gate in 1873 and dating from the second half
of the sixth century B. C.[974] It represents the head of an athlete
in profile, the youth holding a diskos in his left hand, so placed
that his head is projected upon it in relief as on a nimbus. The top
of the head is broken off, but we see the usual archaic features in
the face—the almond-shaped eye (in profile), big nose with knob-like
nostrils, thick lips with the archaic smile, retreating chin and
forehead, and high ear with a huge lobe. The neck and chin, however,
are full of grace and strength, as is also the slender thumb outlined
against the diskos. As the stele broadens downward,[975] the figure
appears to have been represented with the feet apart, and so may have
represented a palæstra diskobolos on parade,[976] and is, therefore,
our earliest representation of such an athlete. A similar dress-parade
pose is seen on the stele of Aristion in the National Museum at Athens,
the work of the sculptor Aristokles, which represents a warrior with
a spear in the left hand.[977] Another torso of an ephebe in the
Akropolis Museum represents Ionic work from Paros.[978] Another head,
the so-called Rayet head in the Jakobsen collection in Copenhagen, one
of the most remarkable specimens of Greek archaic art[979] (Fig. 22),
somewhat later in date than the Rampin head, represents quite a different
tendency in Attic art. While the Rampin head represents Ionic
influence, this head represents pure Attic work untrammeled by foreign
influence, a true development of the old Attic sculpture in _poros_,
the best examples of which are to be found in the decorative sculptures
of the Old Temple of Athena on the Akropolis, enlarged by the
Peisistratidai. Comparing it with the head of the _Athena_ of the gable
of that temple,[980] we see great similarity in the simple execution
and reserve in the treatment of details—characteristics of pure Attic
sculpture—especially in the deep lines on either side of the mouth in
the Jakobsen head. The hair is pictorially treated like a cap, traces
of red appearing on it as well as on the lips and eyes. The Copenhagen
and Rampin heads, together with the famous portrait head in the old
Sabouroff collection,[981] and the head of a woman in the Louvre,[982]
form our best examples of old Attic art outside of the museums of
Athens.[983] The swollen ears of the Jakobsen head show that it is from
the funerary statue of a victor, perhaps a boxer. Furtwaengler wrongly
classed it as a portrait head.[984] A much discussed Attic work is the
archaic relief of a charioteer in the Akropolis Museum (Fig. 63).[985]
This was formerly thought (_e. g._, by Schrader) to be a block from the
later Ionic frieze of the old Hekatompedon which many believe survived
the Persian sack, but it is more likely a part of a frieze belonging
to a small shrine or altar. It represents a draped person entering a
two-horse chariot with the left foot, the hands outstretched to hold
the reins, the head and body leaning forward. Because of the _krobylos_
treatment of the hair, fitted for both sexes, and the long flowing
robe, the sex has been needlessly doubted, some calling it an Apollo or
a mortal charioteer, others an Athena or a Nike, even though the line
of the breast, so far as it is visible, shows no fullness, and the long
chiton is common in representations of male charioteers.[986] However,
for the appreciation of the relief it is of no consequence whether the
figure is male or female. It may be merely a dedicatory offering of
a Panathenaic victor in chariot racing, very possibly assimilated to
the type of Apollo,[987] as the god often appears in vase-paintings of
the same period in similar costume mounting a chariot.[988] We shall
discuss its interpretation more fully later on.[989] While Ionism was
prone to represent richly draped figures which concealed the form of
the body, we see in this relief, with its fine modeling, a suggestion
of the form beneath the folds of the garment, and so, perhaps,
only another example of an Attic master rebelling against alien
influence.[990]
At Olympia we have no names of Athenian sculptors prior to the Persian
war period. Kalamis helped Onatas with the monument of King Hiero
already mentioned. Mikon made a statue of a pancratiast, Kallias of
Athens, who won in Ol. 77 (= 472 B. C.).[991] The great Myron, of whom
we shall speak at length in the next chapter, made five statues of
victors, which were erected between Ols. 77 and 84 (= 472 and 444 B.
C.).[992] Only four later Athenian artists are mentioned: Silanion of
the fourth century, who made statues for three victors, whose victories
ranged from Ols. 102 to 114 (= 372 to 324 B. C.);[993] Polykles the
Elder, who made the statue of the boy pancratiast Amyntas of Eresos,
who won in Ol. (?) 146 (= 196 B. C.);[994] Timarchides and Timokles,
the sons of Polykles, who in common made the statue of the boxer
Agesarchos of Tritaia in Achaia, who won in Ol. (?) 143 (= 208 B.
C.)[995]
GENERAL MOTIVES OF STATUES AT REST.
The victor represented as standing at rest was often characterized
by general motives, such as praying, anointing or scraping himself,
offering libations, and the like. We shall now consider such motives in
detail.
ADORATION AND PRAYER.
Prayer was a common motive represented in votive monuments. Pliny
mentions many such works by Greek sculptors.[996] The custom of
raising the arms in prayer is found all through Greek literature,
from Homer down.[997] Pausanias says that the people of Akragas made
an offering in the form of bronze statues of boys placed on the walls
of the Altis, προτείνοντάς τε τὰς δεξιὰς καὶ εἰκασμένους εὐχομένοις
τῷ θεῷ, these statues being the work of Kalamis.[998] In the Athenian
Asklepieion there were many τύποι καταμακτοὶ πρὸς πινακίῳ, among which
were representations of men and women in the praying attitude.[999]
The motive was used at Olympia in victor statues, representing the
victor as raising the hand in prayer to invoke victory.[1000] The
statue of the wrestler Milo, already discussed at length, shows that
this motive was employed at Olympia in the improved “Apollo” type in
the second half of the sixth century B. C.[1001] From the next century
we may cite the statue of the Spartan chariot victor Anaxandros, which
was represented as “praying to the god,”[1002] and the statues of the
Rhodian boxers Diagoras and Akousilaos, as we learn from a scholion on
Pindar,[1003] which is based on a fragment of Aristotle[1004] and on
one of Apollas.[1005] Of the statue of Diagoras it says: τὴν δεξιὰν
ἀνατείνων χεῖρα, τὴν δὲ ἀριστερὰν εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἐπικλίνων; of that of
Akousilaos: τῇ μὲν ἀριστερᾷ ἱμάντα ἔχων πυκτινόν, τὴν δὲ δεξιὰν
ὡς πρὸς προσευχὴν ἀνατείνων.[1006] The bronze statue from Athens, now
in the Antiquarium, Berlin,[1007] which represents a nude boy with the
right hand raised as if in prayer and the left lowered and holding a
leaping-weight—therefore a pentathlete—seems to correspond with this
description of the statue of Akousilaos. The same motive may have been
used in the statue of the chariot victress Kyniska, a princess of
Sparta, whose statue along with that of her charioteer and the chariot
was the work of the sculptor Apellas.[1008] This is the interpretation
of Furtwaengler,[1009] based on a passage in Pliny, which mentions
statues of _adornantes se feminas_[1010] by Apellas, which he reads
_adorantes feminas_. However, _adornantes_ may be right, for in another
passage, Pliny speaks of Praxiteles’ statue of a ψελιουμένη, _i. e._,
of a woman clasping a bracelet on her arm.[1011] Two notable bronze
statues will illustrate this motive of Olympic victor statues. The
statue found in 1502 at Zellfeld in Carinthia, now in Vienna,[1012] has
been interpreted both as a Hermes Logios and a votive statue in the
attitude of prayer,[1013] which latter interpretation the inscription
on the leg, giving a list of dedications,[1014] favors. However,
Furtwaengler believes it a free imitation of an Argive victor statue,
though not in the Polykleitan style. Because of its similarity to
the _Idolino_ (Pl. 14), he has ascribed its original to the sculptor
Patrokles. From technical considerations he believes it is not a Greek
original dedicated by Romans of a later period, but a Roman work (after
Patrokles) of the period of the inscription.[1015] The bronze statue of
the _Praying Boy_ in Berlin[1016] (Pl. 10) is one of our most beautiful
Greek bronzes and comes from the circle of Lysippos.[1017] We now know
that the uplifted arms of this statue, in which most scholars saw the
Greek attitude of prayer, are restorations which were probably made in
the time of Louis XIV, when the statue was in France. Of the original
motive we only can say that the action of the shoulders shows that
both arms were raised, but we do not know how far, or the position of
the hands. Monumental evidence shows that the hands in prayer should
have the palms turned away from the face instead of upwards, as in
the present statue, since the Greek position was the outgrowth of an
old apotropaic gesture, _i. e._, one directed against an evil spirit.
Mau’s idea[1018] that the figure represented a player catching a
ball is certainly inconsistent with the calm attitude of the statue.
Furtwaengler rejected it,[1019] and he has restored the arms and hands
on the basis of a Berlin gem[1020] and an _ex voto_ relief found by
the French excavators at Nemea in 1884.[1021] On this relief a youth
crowned with a woolen fillet is represented. On both relief and gem
the figures are in the same attitude, the arms raised over the head
_manibus supinis_, which confirms the restoration of the Berlin statue.
Many other monuments give the more usual attitude of prayer, not as
in the relief and gem discussed, but with only one hand extended as
high as the breast. Older writers thought that such monuments did not
represent the gesture of adoration, but one of _adlocutio_,[1022] an
opinion disproved by Pausanias’ statement about the bronze statues of
the Akragantines at Olympia, already mentioned. We may cite a relief
from Kleitor, now in Berlin,[1023] and a fine one of the fourth century
B. C. from Lamia (?),[1024] as well as a red-figured Etruscan stamnos
in Vienna representing, probably, Ajax praying before committing
suicide.[1025] We shall mention also two little statuettes in New York
which represent youths in the praying attitude.[1026] The first, dating
from the second half of the fifth century B. C., and showing
Polykleitan influence, represents a nude youth standing erect with the
forearms bent, showing that the two hands were extended in prayer. The
second, which dates from the first half of the fifth century B. C.
(after the date of the Myronian _Diskobolos_), represents a nude youth
standing with the right hand raised to the lips in an attitude usual in
saluting a divinity, while the left is by the side, with the palm to
the front.
[Illustration: PLATE 10
Bronze Statue of the _Praying Boy_. Museum of Berlin.]
ANOINTING.
Various familiar motives from the everyday life of the gymnasium
and palæstra were reproduced in the statues of athletes. One of the
commonest methods was to represent the victor anointing his body with
oil. The use of oil was indispensable in all athletic exercises,
in order to make the body and limbs more supple, and especially in
wrestling and the pankration, to make it difficult for one’s antagonist
to get a grip.[1027] Pliny mentions a painting by Theoros, representing
a man _se inunguentem_,[1028] which appears to have been a votive
portrait of an athlete. The motive was common in vase-paintings and
statuary. Several red-figured vases of the severe style, antedating
the statues to be considered, show from realistic representations of
palæstra scenes that it was customary for athletes to hold a round
aryballos high in the right hand and pour oil from it into the left,
which was placed across the body horizontally.[1029] The same motive
appears with variations in statues.[1030] Thus the statue of an ephebe
in Petworth House, Sussex, England,[1031] a statue, as Furtwaengler
says, to be praised more for its excellent preservation than for its
workmanship, represents an athlete, who holds a globular aryballos in
his right hand raised over the shoulder, while the left arm is held
across the abdomen. On the nearby tree-trunk are small cylindrical
objects which seem to be boxing pads. This statue, and especially its
head, have been regarded by Michaelis and Furtwaengler as unmistakably
Polykleitan in style.[1032] Several other copies of original statues
representing athletes pouring oil have been wrongly classed as replicas
of one original,[1033] though they merely have essential features
alike, due chiefly to the subject. First is the famous statue in the
Glyptothek known as the _Oelgiesser_ (_Oil-pourer_), a Roman copy of an
Attic bronze of about the middle of the fifth century B. C. (Pl.
11).[1034] Though the right arm and left hand are lost, it is clear
that the athlete held in his raised right hand an oil flask, as in
the Petworth statue.[1035] Notwithstanding that the head resembles
the Praxitelian _Hermes_,[1036] this does not show that the statue
is of fourth-century origin, for its original is older; it merely
shows that the art of Praxiteles was deeply rooted in that of his
fifth-century predecessors. Because of its Attic affiliations, Klein
tried to identify it with the Ἐγκρινόμενος of Alkamenes mentioned by
Pliny,[1037] by amending that title to Ἐγχριόμενος, the “Anointer.”
Brunn, however, rightly saw the analogy of the body forms to Myron’s
_Marsyas_,[1038] and Furtwaengler and Bulle have ascribed it to Lykios,
the son and pupil of that master, who worked about 440 B. C., the
approximate date of the original of the statue. A fragmentary head in
the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (Fig. 23),[1039] formerly in private
possession in England, is a copy of the same original as the Munich
statue. Its special interest is that it is not an exact copy of the
original, as the Munich statue is, but a freer one, showing a fuller
mouth, fleshier cheeks, and deeper-set eyes. While the Munich statue
is the dry work of a Roman copyist of Augustus’ time, this head is by
a far abler Greek copyist of the second century B. C. A torso in the
Albertinum in Dresden, without a head,[1040] is similar to the
Munich statue, but hardly a replica. It probably goes back to an
original by an Attic master of the end of the fifth or beginning of
the fourth century B. C. Other under life-size statues related to this
torso show the same motive.[1041] A black-marble statue found at Porto
d’Anzio in 1758, and now in the Glyptothek,[1042] has the Polykleitan
standing motive. The left arm, which is stretched out, holds an oil
flask in the hand, while the right arm is lowered. The band, which
the position of the fingers shows that the right hand probably held,
indicates it is the statue of a victor. A bronze statuette from South
Italy, now in the British Museum,[1043] represents a nude youth holding
an alabastron in his right hand, while the left has the palm open to
receive the oil. The hair fashion (κρωβύλος) seems to point to an
Attic sculptor of about 470 B. C.[1044] The same motive is found on
terra-cotta statuettes from Myrina,[1045] on reliefs,[1046] and on
gems.[1047]
[Illustration: FIG. 23.—Head of so-called _Oil-pourer_. Museum of Fine
Arts, Boston.]
[Illustration: PLATE 11
Statue of the so-called _Oil-pourer_. Glyptothek, Munich.]
OIL-SCRAPING.
Another ordinary palæstra motive was employed in representing the
athlete after the contest, scraping oil and dirt from his body and
arms with the scraping-blade or strigil (στλεγγίς, _strigilis_).[1048]
This motive is not uncommon on r.-f. vase-paintings of the fifth
century B. C.[1049] It was treated in sculpture by many masters. Pliny
mentions such statues of athletes _destringentes se_ (ἀποξυόμενοι),
by Polykleitos, Lysippos, and Daidalos of Sikyon.[1050] Perhaps
the _perixyomenoi_ by Antignotos and Daïppos, the latter the son
of Lysippos, had the same motive.[1051] Of the _Apoxyomenos_ of
Polykleitos we have no authenticated copies in sculpture, though
Furtwaengler believes that he has found reminiscences of it on gems
which represent a youth resting the weight of his body on the left
leg, the right being drawn back (_i. e._, in the attitude of the
_Doryphoros_), the right forearm extended, and the left holding a
strigil. The similarity of these gem-designs makes it certain that
they are all derived from a well-known work of art.[1052] Perhaps the
fine bronze statuette, dating from the middle of the fifth century B.
C., and now in the Loeb collection in Munich, represents the pose of
the _destringens se_ by Polykleitos.[1053] It represents a nude youth
resting the weight of the body on the soles of both feet, the left one
slightly advanced, and holding a strigil in the raised right hand.
The famous marble copy of an _Apoxyomenos_ in the Vatican[1054] (Pl.
29), which, because of its long slim legs and graceful ankles, might
well represent a runner, has long been held to represent the canon
of Lysippos, as it exhibits proportions widely different from those
employed by Polykleitos, and agreeing with Pliny’s account of Lysippos’
innovations.[1055] However, the doubts arising in recent years as to
whether this statue is a copy of Lysippos’ statue or a later work will
be considered at length in Chapter VI.[1056]
[Illustration: PLATE 12
Statue of an _Apoxyomenos_. Uffizi Gallery, Florence.]
The same motive is exemplified by many existing statues, statuettes,
reliefs, etc. The marble statue of an athlete in the Uffizi, Florence,
(Pl. 12),[1057] a copy of an original of the end of the fifth century
B. C., wrongly restored as holding in both hands a vase at which
the athlete is looking down, was interpreted by Bloch as an ephebe
pouring oil from a lekythos held in the right hand into an aryballos
held in the left. This action for an athlete has been characterized
by Furtwaengler as “unparallelled, unclassical and, above all,
absurd.” Through recent discoveries we now know that it represents an
apoxyomenos, and that it should be restored with the left forearm close
to the thigh, and with the right crossing the abdomen diagonally in
the direction of the left hand. This attitude so closely corresponds
with that of a figure on a gem as to make it probable that both gem and
statue are copies of the same original. The figure on the gem[1058]
holds a strigil in both hands and is generally explained as scraping
the dirt from the left thigh; the light hand holds the handle and the
left the blade. A hydria, palm-branch, and crown are pictured to the
right—showing that the figure represents an athlete, just as the statue
has the swollen ears of one. The attention of the athlete in both
monuments is concentrated on the operation involved—a concentration
reminding us of Myron’s _Diskobolos_. While, however, in the latter
work the concentration is momentary, it is less transient in the
Florence statue and also in the Munich _Oil-pourer_. This pose is too
conscious in the Florentine statue to be the work of Myron. Arndt names
no artist, but as the similarity between the head of the statue and
that of the _Oil-pourer_ is so marked, and as every one now regards the
latter as Attic—even if not by Alkamenes—he thinks that the two must
be by the same Attic sculptor, although the Uffizi statue is somewhat
later than the Munich one.[1059] The original of the Florence statue
was famous, if we may judge by the existing number of replicas with
variations.[1060]
Among statues showing the same motive and pose, we may note the
bronze statue of an athlete over life-size—pieced together from 234
fragments—found by the Austrians at Ephesos and now in Vienna.[1061]
The subject, pose, and heavy proportions recall the Argive school
of Polykleitos, and its original has been assigned by Hauser to the
Sikyonian Daidalos, the son and pupil of Patrokles, who was the pupil
of Polykleitos. As further reproductions of the same type of figure, we
may cite a bronze statuette in Paris,[1062] and a marble one found at
Frascati in 1896 and now in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.[1063]
A chalcedony scarab of archaic type in the British Museum represents
a nude athlete with a lekythos slung over the left arm and a strigil
in the left hand, which rests on the hip.[1064] A beautiful marble
grave-relief, much mutilated, in the museum at Delphi,[1065] which
dates from the middle of the fifth century B. C., represents a palæstra
victor, with his arms extended to the right, cleansing himself with a
strigil, which is held in the right hand, while a slave boy, holding
the remnant of an aryballos in his right hand, looks up at him from
the right. The careful anatomy of this relief may point to Pythagoras
of Samos, as its author, though we have no certain work of his, for it
fits the description of that artist by Pliny, who says that he was the
first to express sinews and veins.[1066]
LIBATION-POURING.
[Illustration: PLATE 13
Statue of an Athlete, after Polykleitos. Farnsworth Museum, Wellesley
College, U. S. A.]
[Illustration: FIG. 24.—Bronze Statuette of an Athlete. Louvre, Paris.]
An original Greek bronze statuette in Paris (Fig. 24)[1067] reproduces
the motive of the statue of the boy wrestler Xenokles by the sculptor
Polykleitos Minor at Olympia, as a comparison with the footprints on
the recovered base of the latter shows.[1068] As the forms correspond
with those of the _Doryphoros_ and _Diadoumenos_, and as its execution
is so marvelous, Furtwaengler has ascribed the statuette to the
circle of Polykleitos’ pupils. The position of the right hand, which
has the thumbs drawn in, corresponds with that of the _Idolino_ (Pl.
14), which we are to discuss, and can best be explained by assuming
that it similarly held a kylix; the left hand carried a staff-like
attribute. The head is bent and looks to the right. Furtwaengler
believed that, inasmuch as the act of pouring a libation does not occur
in art or literature as an athletic motive, the statuette represented a
hero or god. Many Roman marble copies show the same motive and preserve
to us a Polykleitan work which corresponds in all essentials with the
Louvre statuette.[1069] We mention two, the only ones of the type in
which the heads are on the trunks, one in the Galleria delle Statue
of the Vatican,[1070] the other in the Farnsworth Museum at Wellesley
College (Pl. 13).[1071] These copies represent a youth standing with
both feet flat upon the ground, the weight of the body resting upon the
right one, while the left is turned a little to the side. He is looking
downwards to the right. Doubtless we should restore these copies after
the Paris bronze, with a kylix in the right hand. The palm-branch
in a similar statue, to be mentioned further on, shows that in all
probability the origin statue was that of an athlete; and that he was
a famous athlete is shown by the number of copies of the torso and
head.[1072] A bronze head from Herculaneum (Fig. 25)[1073] so strongly
resembles in its forms the type under discussion—which Furtwaengler has
called the “Vatican athlete standing at rest”[1074]—and corresponds
with it so closely in its measurements, that it might be regarded as
a copy of the same original, if certain differences, not due to the
copyist, did not rather show that it comes from a closely allied work.
This head shows an intense melancholy, which has been explained by
Furtwaengler as due to the lack of skill on the part of the copyist,
who fashioned it slightly askew. Amelung very properly explains the
absence of the motive of libation-pouring in athletic art as merely
a lacuna in our sources.[1075] If the original of these copies and
variations represented an athlete, he was certainly pouring a libation
before victory; if a warrior, he was doing the same thing before going
on a campaign. In the latter case the left hand should be restored with
a spear.
[Illustration: FIG. 25.—Bronze Head of an Athlete, from Herculaneum.
Museum of Naples.]
We must also place here the life-size original Greek bronze in
Florence, discovered at Pesaro, near Ancona, in 1530, and known from
the early eighteenth century as the _Idolino_ (Pl. 14),[1076] for its
motive connects it with the series just discussed. This is, perhaps,
our finest bronze statue from antiquity, as it represents the highest
ideal of boy beauty, just as the _Doryphoros_ does of manly beauty.
The chief characteristics—the positions of the feet, head, and arms,
though essentially those of the statues discussed, offer certain
differences. Thus the left leg is placed more to one side and turned
further outwards than in the statue of Xenokles and kindred works;
the left hand hangs down at an angle to the leg differently from the
others. In other words, by comparing it with the Paris statuette,
we see a slightly different rhythm from that found in Polykleitan
works. The _Idolino_ has been looked upon as Myronic by Kekulé,[1077]
Studniczka,[1078] and hesitatingly Klein,[1079] while Mahler regarded
it as Pheidian.[1080] Furtwaengler, however, by a careful analysis, has
shown its Polykleitan characteristics—especially the shape of the head
and the features, and the treatment of the hair, which reminds us of
the Naples copy of the _Doryphoros_. Owing to differences, however, he
did not assign it to the master himself, but suggested that it was the
work of his pupil Patrokles.[1081] Bulle found the head Polykleitan,
but the body Attic, and assigned the figure to an unknown Attic
sculptor working in the Polykleitan circle. In this controversy on its
style, a statue found in 1916 in the excavations of the Baths at Kyrene
should be of use, for it is the most faithful of all the Roman copies
known of the bronze original and clearly shows a Polykleitan character
influenced by Attic art.[1082] By a comparison of this marble copy
with the Florentine bronze we see that the latter was a subsequent
rendition of the same original, and doubtless by some artist of lesser
fame from the Polykleitan school, who was influenced by Attic art.
But it is the interpretation of the _Idolino_ which chiefly interests
us here. While Longpérier called the similar Paris statuette a _Mercure
aptère_, and the publisher of the statue from Kyrene called that copy a
_Hermes_, yet Kekulé, Bulle, and most other archæologists have seen in
the _Idolino_ an athlete. The inner surface of its outstretched right
hand is left rough, and the fingers are in the same position as those
of the Paris bronze. Such a position can be explained satisfactorily by
restoring the hand with a kylix or a φιάλη, such as was commonly used
in libations. The left hand is smooth and evidently empty, though Bulle
restores it with a victor’s fillet, and so, following Kekulé, calls the
statue that of a boy victor, who is bringing an offering to the altar
in honor of his victory. The marble statue in the Galleria delle Statue
has the right forearm restored; in the Kyrene statue the right hand
is preserved and has a thick object held downwards at a greater angle
than in the _Idolino_. The photograph does not let us judge decisively,
but it seems to be too thick an object for the remnants of a kylix.
A marble statue in the Barberini Palace, Rome,[1083] which resembles
the _Idolino_ so closely as to be considered a copy of it, though with
variations of pose and technique, has the arms broken off, and so adds
nothing to the solution of the motive of the _Idolino_. The fact that
a palm-stem stands beside the right leg, however, adds weight to the
interpretation as victor. Furtwaengler interprets the _Idolino_ and
kindred works as divinities. Though boys serve at libations, he thinks
they never perform the ritual act of pouring the libation.[1084] That
a libation-pourer should appear in the guise of a boy victor (that of
Xenokles) he calls a genuine Argive trait. Svoronos, also, has recently
tried to show that the _Idolino_ is not a victor,[1085] but represents
the hero Herakles. He compares the figure with a fourth-century
Pentelic marble relief in Athens,[1086] which represents Herakles
standing at the door of Hades and beside him a father leading his son
up to the open air. The pose of the figure of Herakles resembles that
of the _Idolino_ in a remarkable way. In the relief Herakles holds
a kylix in the right hand[1087] and a club in the left, and a lion
skin is thrown over the left arm. Svoronos believes that the left
hand in the relief explains the turning in of the left hand of the
_Idolino_—for he believes that the latter also held a club. We must,
however, leave the final solution of the motive of the _Idolino_
and kindred works open, although inclining to the belief that they
represent a victor.
[Illustration: PLATE 14
Bronze Statue known as the _Idolino_. Museo Archeologico, Florence.]
[Illustration: FIG. 26.—Marble Statue of an Athlete(?). National Museum,
Athens.]
A statue in Athens, which was found in 1888 in the Roman ruins at
the Olympieion, may represent a boy victor pouring a libation (Fig.
26).[1088] It is a poor Roman copy, dry and lifeless, of a bronze
original of the middle of the fifth century B. C.[1089] In this
statue Mayer has seen the motive, and probably the copy, of the
_Splanchnoptes_ (Roaster of Entrails) by the sculptor Styphax (or
Styppax) of Cyprus, which, according to Pliny,[1090] represented
Perikles’ slave “roasting entrails and blowing hard on the fire, to
kindle it, till his cheeks swell.” He thinks that the position of the
broken arms and a comparison of the figure with similar ones on vases
make the identification possible. Von Salis concurs in his restoration
and interpretation and publishes a small statuette in Athens from
Dodona,[1091] which has a similar pose, and holds a three-pronged
fork in the left hand, which he believes should be restored in the
statue. Although statue and statuette have much in common (_e. g._, the
position of the breast and shoulders, the treatment of the hair, etc.),
which shows that both may be copies of one original, the conception
of the two is somewhat different. The statue from Athens represents
a boy standing busily engaged at the altar; the statuette represents
one standing at rest merely looking on, the fork not being held in
position for use.[1092] In any case the face of the Athens statue
can not correspond with Pliny’s description—_ignemque oris pleni
spiritu accendens_. Quite a different explanation of the statue is
possible—one which Mayer thought improbable. The right arm—broken above
the wrist—was raised to the height of the shoulder and may have held an
object in the hand; the left arm—broken off below the shoulder—seems
to have been held close to the body and appears to have corresponded
in movement with the other. The boy, therefore, may have held a cup in
the right hand and a branch or a victor fillet in the left. Thus it may
merely be another example of a boy victor pouring a libation.
Certain other statues have been mistaken either for libation-pourers
or oil-pourers, when they are really wine-pourers and have nothing
to do with the athletic motives under discussion. A good example is
the marble statue of a _Satyr_ in Dresden,[1093] which represents the
youthful demi-god lifting a can with his right hand, out of which he
is pouring wine into a drinking-horn held in the left. There are many
copies of this work,[1094] a fact which shows that the original bronze
was famous. An attempt has therefore been made to identify it with the
bronze _Satyr_ of Praxiteles mentioned by Pliny as the _Periboëtos_ or
“far-famed,”[1095] which seems to have been grouped with a _Dionysos_
and a figure of _Drunkenness_—a grouping which might fit the Dresden
_Satyr_, since a second figure should be imagined, for which the horn
is being filled. However, it differs stylistically so much from the
_Hermes_ of Olympia that the ascription has been given up, though its
graceful form shows Praxitelean influence and certainly emanates from
the fourth century B. C.
RESTING AFTER THE CONTEST.
[Illustration: PLATE 15
Marble Head of an Athlete, after Kresilas (?). Metropolitan Museum, New
York.]
A very favorite motive was to represent a victor, either standing or
seated, resting after the exertions of the contest (ἀναπαυόμενος).
An excellent example of this motive in a standing posture is the
fourth-century B. C. statue of Attic workmanship found at Porto d’Anzio
and now in the Vatican,[1096] which reproduces the type of the _Apollo
Lykeios_.[1097] Many of the statues, by various sculptors, which
represent the victor standing at rest may be intended to represent him
as resting after the contest. The well-known head of a youth adorned
with the victor’s chaplet, and preserved in four copies in European
museums, appears to come from a statue which represented a victor in
this manner. The best of these copies is in the collection of Lord
Leconfield at Petworth House, Sussex.[1098] We should add a fifth,
a Roman copy of the head, in the Metropolitan Museum, New York (Pl.
15).[1099] In these copies the ears are not swollen, and a certain
refinement and gentleness show that the original was not from the
statue of a boxer or pancratiast, but from that of another type of
athlete, perhaps a pentathlete. Since Pliny mentions the statue of a
_Doryphoros_ by Kresilas,[1100] and because of its supposed Kresilæan
style, Furtwaengler, albeit on slender grounds, has attempted to
identify the original of these heads with that work.[1101] The
expression is certainly one of complete repose. On the crown of the
head, and on the left side over the fillet, is a rectangular broken
surface,[1102] apparently the remnant of a support for the right arm,
which, as Conze thought, proves that the athlete stood with one arm
resting on the head, the hand hanging over the left side. Furtwaengler
admitted that such an attitude might be that of an apoxyomenos,[1103]
but pointed out that the expression of the face in all the copies seems
too tranquil for such an interpretation. Since the victor was in repose
and the left arm required a slight support, he believed that this
support might have been an akontion. He therefore reconstructed the
original statue as that of a resting pentathlete, and assigned it to
the great Cretan contemporary of Pheidias, who worked in Athens.[1104]
The number of replicas at least shows that the original was a famous
work.
Perhaps our best example of the motive of a seated victor resting after
the contest is the bronze statue of a boxer found in Rome in 1884
and now in the Museo delle Terme there (Pl. 16 and Fig. 27).[1105]
This is a masterpiece in the portrayal of brute strength in the
most naturalistic and revolting way. If we like to think of victors
as having noble forms, we are rudely startled on looking at this
brutal prize-fighter. If we compare it with works of the fifth and
fourth centuries B. C., we see in it, as in no other example of Greek
sculpture, the great change which professionalism had later wrought in
the Greek ideal of athletics. Here are massive proportions, bulging
muscles, arms and legs hard and muscle-bound. We can compare it only
with the bronze head of a boxer found at Olympia (Fig. 61 A and B) of
similar style and age.[1106] But there we have only the head, while
here we have a complete statue almost perfectly preserved, the only
restorations being a portion of the left thumb, a piece of the right
flank, and the base.
[Illustration: FIG. 27.—Head from Statue of the _Seated Boxer_. Museo
delle Terme, Rome.]
[Illustration: PLATE 16
Bronze Statue of the _Seated Boxer_. Museo delle Terme, Rome.]
It represents a professional boxer, who is seated exhausted at the
close of the bout, the severity of which is indicated by every part of
the body. He leans forward, his arms rest on his thighs, and his
head, sunk between his shoulders, is raised and turned to the right,
as he stupidly looks around at the applauding spectators. His nose is
broken and his ears are swollen and scars of the contest show on his
face and limbs. Beneath his retreating upper lip some of his teeth
appear to have been knocked out as the result of previous fights, while
indications of the recent struggle are to be seen in the blood dripping
from his ears and the deep lacerations in face and shoulder, which may
have once been filled with red paint to make his appearance even more
realistic. The right eye is swollen and the lower lid and the cheek
imperceptibly sink into each other. The mustache shows flecks of blood
and the swollen back of the right hand protrudes through the glove. His
nose is clotted with blood and he seems to be struggling to get his
breath.
Such realism and delight in depicting the hideous show that the work,
like the Olympia head, belongs to the Hellenistic age. The careful
workmanship, especially visible in the hair and beard and in the hair
on the chest[1107], proves that the statue is not a Roman copy, but
a Greek original of the beginning of the Hellenistic age, of the end
of the fourth or beginning of the third century B. C. Nor is it a
portrait, as Winter maintained,[1108] since it is an adaptation of a
late type of Herakles. It certainly is a victor statue from one of
the great Greek games, and is, perhaps, from Olympia itself. Since
the head is turned toward the right shoulder and the mouth is open,
as if speaking, Wunderer tried, on the basis of a passage in the
history of Polybios,[1109] to identify it with the statue of the famous
Theban boxer and pancratiast Kleitomachos at Olympia by an unknown
artist.[1110] The historian states that Kleitomachos, while fighting
with the Egyptian Aristonikos, was angered by the acclaim given the
foreigner and, stepping aside, chided the spectators for not cheering
one who was fighting for the honor of Greece. The speech caused a
revulsion in the popular feeling, which helped, even more than the
fists of Kleitomachos, to vanquish Aristonikos. However, the motive of
the statue does not fit the incident, as the boxer is not speaking,
but breathing hard, nor is the seated posture that of one haranguing a
crowd. Moreover, the date of the Theban’s victory is too late for the
statue.[1111]
ATTRIBUTES OF VICTOR STATUES.
At the beginning of the fifth century B. C. athletic training tended
to produce a uniform standard of physical development, which was
reflected in sculpture. At this date we do not find the divergence of
style which we saw in our review of the “Apollo” type of the sixth
century. Vase-paintings show the change better than sculpture. On
black-figured vases of the sixth century B. C., we see a good deal
of variety in groups of boxers and wrestlers, while on red-figured
vases of the early fifth century the number of types is far less.
In sculpture, however, differences in physical type did exist in
the various schools at the beginning of the fifth century. We have,
for example, the heavy, square-shouldered type in the _Apollo
Choiseul-Gouffier_ (Pl. 7A), which we have classed as a victor
statue, and the tall, rawboned type in the _Tyrannicides_ by Kritios
and Nesiotes (Fig. 32, _Harmodios_).[1112] We have, on the other
hand, a very different physical type in the short, stocky Aeginetan
pedimental figures (Figs. 20 and 21). Between such extremes there
are, of course, many gradations. We might instance the archaic
bronze statuette of a diskobolos in the Metropolitan Museum (Fig.
46).[1113] However, notwithstanding the diversity in type, it is
often difficult to distinguish runners from wrestlers, boxers from
pentathletes. Thus few early fifth-century statues show the type of
runner as well as the _Apollo of Tenea_ (Pl. 8A), or that of a boxer
as well as the “_Apollo_” from Delphi (Pl. 8B). The reason for this
is the ideal element, which entered into all these statues and which
was a reflection of the uniform development of athletics long before
specialization had set in. Out of this uniformity grew the canon of
Polykleitos, developed from that of Hagelaïdas.
The sculptor of the sixth century B. C. was incapable of
differentiating between god and mortal. This was especially the case,
as we have seen, with Apollo, as the “Apollo” type was a model of manly
vigor. In the early fifth century the sculptor had largely overcome
this difficulty, but still showed little diversity of type in treating
statues of different kinds of athletes. A method of differentiation
which was essential to athlete sculptors of the sixth century was found
convenient of retention by those of the fifth—_i. e._, characterizing
the statue of the victor by some attribute, in order, on the one hand,
to differentiate it from the nude god or hero, and on the other to
distinguish between different types of victors.
PRIMARY ATTRIBUTES OF VICTOR STATUES.
THE VICTOR FILLET.
In the first place, the sculptor would characterize the victor statue
as such. The easiest way to do this would be to represent it with
a fillet or chaplet (ταινία)[1114] bound round the head, as we saw
was the case in the statue of Milo. This fillet was merely a band
or riband of wool which was given the Olympic victor in addition
to the garland of olive leaves, or the palm-branch, as a symbol of
victory. Waldstein has argued that this fillet originally was not
an essential attribute of the victor, but that the crown and palm
were the prizes, and the fillet merely a decoration used on various
occasions, such as at symposia,[1115] which only later became a general
athletic attribute.[1116] Though the presence of the fillet on statues
should not, therefore, be proof that the given statue is that of a
victor,[1117] there is no defense for the contention of Passow[1118]
that the _tainia_ was in no sense a symbol of victory, but merely a
toilet article among the gifts presented by the public to a victor at
the ovation of the crowning. Pausanias says that the victor Lichas of
Sparta was scourged by order of the umpires at Olympia for having set
the _tainia_ on the head of his victorious charioteer.[1119] This is
sufficient evidence that it was not a mere toilet article, but rather
a part of the official prize of victory. Similarly the _tainia_ in the
hand of Nike upon the right hand of the statue of Zeus by Pheidias at
Olympia can not have been a toilet article.[1120]
We have many examples from athletic sculpture of the use of the fillet.
Thus it appears on the bronze head of a boxer in the Glyptothek (Pl.
3)[1121] and on the bronze head from Herculaneum in Naples (Fig.
4),[1122] both of which have been discussed in Chapter II, as fragments
of Greek original statues of Olympic victors. It also appears on the
marble head of a youthful victor—not necessarily Olympic—from the
Akropolis,[1123] which, because of the similarity in cheeks, mouth,
and eyes to heads on the metopes of the Parthenon, should be dated
somewhere between 450 and 440 B. C. It occurs on the Olympia marble
head (Frontispiece and Fig. 69),[1124] which we ascribe in Chapter VI
to Lysippos, and likewise on the statue of the pancratiast Agias in
Delphi (Pl. 28, Fig. 68). In most athlete heads the fillet is twisted
into a knot at the back of the head. In one case, on the Petworth head
of a pentathlete already discussed,[1125] which, because of the curve
of the neck, must come from a statue represented at rest, it is not
so tied, but is wound round the head with the two ends tucked in and
pushed through the fillet on either side over the temples.[1126] Though
so practical an arrangement as the latter must have been common enough
in real life, this seems to be the only example of its representation
in sculpture.
The fillet, instead of encircling the head, was sometimes held in
the hand, as in the case of the Spartan chariot victor Polykles at
Olympia.[1127] A curious life-size statue of the Roman period, found
in the Peiræus, represents a nude boy holding in his right hand over
the breast a bundle of books and in the left an alabastron. The body is
covered with fillets—fifteen in all—which appear to have been prizes
won in gymnic contests, probably at the gymnasium or palæstra.[1128]
FILLET-BINDERS.
Statues representing victors binding fillets in their hair
(_diadoumenoi_) are common to all periods of Greek art.[1129] We shall
discuss only two—those of Pheidias and of Polykleitos.
[Illustration: PLATE 17
Statue known as the _Farnese Diadoumenos_. British Museum, London.]
Pausanias mentions a statue by Pheidias, representing a _Boy Binding on
a Fillet_, as standing in the Altis at Olympia.[1130] Robert has argued
that this figure was the one of similar motive mentioned by Pausanias
as on the throne of Zeus there.[1131] However, the figure on the throne
was very probably in relief and not in the round.[1132] The cicerones
at Olympia seem to have been imposing on the periegete when they said
that a likeness to Pantarkes, the boy favorite of Pheidias, was to be
seen in the face of this figure on the throne. The mention of Pantarkes
has given rise to the usual identification of the παῖς ἀναδούμενος with
the victor statue of the Elean Pantarkes mentioned by Pausanias
as standing in the Altis.[1133] However, the assumption[1134] is
far-fetched and must be rejected, because Pausanias mentions the two
statues in two different parts of his _periegesis_ of the Altis.[1135]
Of the παῖς we know only the artist’s name. It was probably merely a
votive gift,[1136] and the name of the person so honored was unknown to
Pausanias. Of the statue of the victor Pantarkes we know only the name,
and neither the artist nor the motive of the statue. It seems clear,
therefore, that we have to do with three distinct monuments: the boy
with the fillet, the throne figure by Pheidias, and the victor by an
unknown sculptor.[1137]
The small marble statue in the British Museum known as the _Diadoumenos
Farnese_[1138] (Pl. 17), which is now almost universally regarded as an
Attic work,[1139] has been assumed by many archæologists to be a copy
of Pheidias’ statue.[1140] Since Pausanias tells us that a statue by
Pheidias stood in Olympia, representing an unknown boy binding a fillet
around his head, and since the style of the _Farnese_ statue shows
great similarity in head and body forms and general bearing to certain
figures on the Parthenon frieze,[1141] and its motive agrees with that
of the Olympia statue, it seems reasonable to see in this little work a
copy of the statue in the Altis by the great master. Furtwaengler and
Bulle have shown that the motive of this work was initiated by Pheidias
and not by Polykleitos, since the latter’s great statue was several
years younger than the work of Pheidias at Olympia. That Pheidias was
pleased with the motive is disclosed by the fact that he repeated it on
the throne of Zeus.
[Illustration: PLATE 18
Statue of the _Diadoumenos_, from Delos, after Polykleitos. National
Museum, Athens.]
[Illustration: FIG. 28.—Statue of the _Diadoumenos_, from Vaison, after
Polykleitos. British Museum, London.]
The _Diadoumenos_ of Polykleitos was little less famous than his
_Doryphoros_, if we may judge by the number of copies which have
survived and from literary notices of it.[1142] In all the copies of
this work we see the well-known Polykleitan characteristics—powerful
build, heavy proportions, and fidelity to nature; but none of the
ideal tendency prominent in the works of Pheidias and his school, nor
of the violent energy characteristic of Myron’s art. In all of them
the pose of the earlier _Doryphoros_ is retained, except that the arms
are differently employed and the build of the body is more slender.
Pliny, despite his statement—which is probably taken from some Greek
authority—that monotony was the characteristic of Polykleitos’ works
(_paene ad unum exemplum_),[1143] emphasizes this slenderness by
calling the _Doryphoros_ _viriliter puer_—Lessing’s _Juengling wie ein
Mann_—and the _Diadoumenos_ _molliter juvenis_—a youth of gentle form.
This judgment of Pliny was difficult to understand so long as we had
only the Vaison copy of the _Diadoumenos_ to study. The Delian copy
showed that supple grace was characteristic of the original, even if
modified to suit the taste of three centuries later. Although the body
forms and the attitudes of the _Doryphoros_ and the _Diadoumenos_ are
very similar, the head of the latter, usually assigned to Polykleitos,
is of a different type from that of the _Doryphoros_. While the head
of the _Doryphoros_ is square in profile, flat on top, and long from
front to back, that of the _Diadoumenos_ is rounder and softer and
can best be explained on the assumption that Polykleitos later in
life came under Attic influence. The copies of this work are many
and varied.[1144] For a long time the marble copy in the British
Museum found in 1862, at Vaison, France,[1145] was, despite its poor
workmanship, considered our best copy (Fig. 28). It was made perhaps
five hundred years after the original, at a time when sculpture was in
its decline, and consequently can give us merely a suggestion of the
character of Polykleitos’ statue. As it is a direct marble translation
of the bronze, the muscular treatment appears exaggerated. Another
marble copy was found in 1894 by the French excavators on the island of
Delos, and is now in Athens (Pl. 18).[1146] The Delian artist added
a mantle and a quiver to the nearby tree-trunk and thus converted an
original victor statue into one of a god.[1147] Though its hands are
lost, it is easy to see that the athlete is pulling the ends of the
fillet together so as to tighten the knot at the back of the head. As
this is a Hellenistic Greek copy, it comes far nearer to the original
than the imperial Roman one from Vaison. The lighter proportions and
softer modeling show the Attic influence on Polykleitos’ later career,
although the fleshy forms are out of harmony with his art and evidently
introduced by the copyist. One of the best preserved and most beautiful
copies is the one in the Prado at Madrid.[1148] Although a Roman copy,
like the one in the British Museum, it comes very near the original
because of the precision in its details. There are many good copies of
the head alone.[1149] Marble heads in Kassel and Dresden, evidently the
works of Attic sculptors, show the pure Polykleitan traits. The one
in Dresden[1150] (Fig. 29) surpasses all others in the beauty of its
finish, being a careful and exact copy. The proportions and structure
of the head are those of the _Doryphoros_, although the surface is
differently treated. The Kassel head[1151] is not so exact in its
details, but has more expression. Furtwaengler rightly calls it the
better of the two as a work of art, but inferior as a copy. A marble
head in the British Museum[1152] is a direct copy from the original
bronze, like the Vaison statue. The clear-cut eyelids and wiry hair
reproduce the original material, and its resemblance to the head of the
_Doryphoros_ is greater than that of any other copy.
[Illustration: FIG. 29.—Head of the _Diadoumenos_, after Polykleitos.
Albertinum, Dresden.]
A later variant of the statue is seen in a small terra-cotta statuette
from Smyrna in private possession in London.[1153] It shows the
Polykleitan type so completely assimilated to the style of Praxiteles
that its genuineness has been doubted. Perhaps, with its Attic
softness, it gives us a better idea of the beauty of the original
than many of the other copies. Finally, we must mention the original
bronze head of the fifth century B. C. in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford,
recently published by Percy Gardner.[1154] This head, put together
from nine fragments, and restored as that of a boy fillet-binder, and
rivaling in delicacy and beauty such original bronzes as the Beneventum
head (Fig. 3) and the _Idolino_ (Pl. 14), not only gives us the best
idea of the technical ability attained by bronze workers in the middle
of the fifth century B. C., but also helps us to understand the ancient
repute of Polykleitos’ athletes. Here the headband and “starfish”
arrangement of the hair have their close parallels in the Dresden,
Kassel, and British Museum heads already discussed, which essentially
reproduce the head of the Vaison statue (Fig. 28). As Gardner points
out, it closely agrees with the type of the _Farnese Diadoumenos_
(Pl. 17) only in one particular, the mode of tying the knot. While
the Vaison athlete is preparing to tie it, the Farnese one has just
finished the operation, the boy still holding the ends of the fillet
in his hands. But only the treatment of the hair, the eye, and the ear
offers a contrast. Despite these differences Gardner follows the older
view of Brunn in regarding the Vaison and Farnese types as two variants
of Polykleitan originals; but the pose, style, and proportions of the
latter seem to us to be too thoroughly Attic to warrant us in bringing
it into relation with the work of Polykleitos. Though the heads of the
two are not so dissimilar, the pose, as Gardner also points out, is
quite different. The Vaison figure is represented as walking, _i. e._,
in the very act of changing the weight of the body from one leg to the
other, while the Farnese athlete stands at rest with both feet flat
upon the ground. Gardner rightly regards this exquisite head not as the
original of the statue mentioned by Pliny, since the Vaison and Delian
copies show that the latter represented a fully developed man, somewhat
over life-size, and not a boy, but rather as a work of the Polykleitan
school, though he does not exclude the possibility that it may come
from one of the many boy athletes of the master.
Furtwaengler connects with the _Diadoumenos_ the statue of a youthful
boxer, slightly under life-size, which shows a similar motive. It is
known to us in two copies, one in Kassel,[1155] the other in Lansdowne
House, London.[1156] That it is a work of Polykleitos is shown by the
correspondence of its body forms with those of both the _Diadoumenos_
and the _Doryphoros_. A bronze statuette, dating from about 400 B. C.,
in the Akropolis Museum, also repeats the motive without being an exact
copy.[1157]
THE CROWN OF WILD OLIVE.
The crown of wild olive[1158] in the hair is another general but not
customary attribute of Olympic victor statues. Fewer sculptured heads
show it than show the _tainia_, and in most of these the leaves have
fallen off. Examples of its presence are afforded by the bronze head
from Beneventum (Fig. 3) in the Louvre,[1159] and on the realistic
bronze head of a boxer found at Olympia (Fig. 61 A and B).[1160] A good
illustration of a boy victor crowning himself is on a fourth-century
B. C. funerary relief, found in 1873 at the Dipylon gate, and now in
the Athens Museum.[1161] The victor is holding or placing a crown of
leaves on his head. In the Museo delle Terme, Rome, is a mediocre
headless copy of an original statue of the end of the fifth century B.
C., the work of an artist of the Polykleitan school, the restoration of
which as a victor engaged in wreathing his head is probable.[1162] A
protuberance on the right shoulder seems to have been left by the end
of the _lemniskos_ or ribbon with which the wreath was adorned.[1163]
The left hand carried an attribute, but probably not a palm-branch
as Helbig assumed, since such a branch, if of metal, would have left
traces on the shoulder. The same restoration has been proposed for
another statue.[1164] A crown on the head, together with the remains
of fingers near it, has been noticed on a bronze statue of Eros, of
Hellenistic workmanship, found off Tunis in the sea,[1165] which shows
Polykleitan influence.
[Illustration: PLATE 19
Statue known as the _Westmacott Athlete_. British Museum, London.]
The statue of a _Boy Crowning Himself_, which has survived in many
Roman copies and variant Greek originals, notably in the so-called
_Westmacott Athlete_ of the British Museum (Pl. 19),[1166] a
fragmentary statue of poorer workmanship in the Barracco collection
in Rome,[1167] and a Greek copy from Eleusis now in the National
Museum in Athens,[1168] and identified by many archæologists with the
statue of the boy boxer Kyniskos by Polykleitos at Olympia, should be
discussed here. While the _Westmacott Athlete_ appears to be a copy
from the original bronze, the Barracco statue, though showing the same
pose, is unlike it in the treatment of hair and muscles, and with its
Attic head, seems to be a carelessly executed variant, more or less
Myronian in style, of the Polykleitan original. While its original may
be assigned to the end of the fifth century B. C., the Eleusis variant,
with its head differently placed, is not a Roman copy, but a Greek
original statue showing the Polykleitan motive carried into the soft
Attic style of the fourth century B. C.[1169] A fine copy of the head
alone is in the possession of Sir Edgar Vincent, in his Constantinople
collection.[1170] This should be associated with another head
in Dresden, both being closely related to that of the _Westmacott
Athlete_.[1171] The best copy of the head is in the Hermitage, in which
the treatment of the hair approaches nearest to that of the bronze
original.[1172] A marble head from Apollonia in Epeiros, now in the
British Museum, which so closely resembles the head of the _Westmacott
Athlete_ that the missing sections of the neck and shoulders were
restored by a cast from the latter, is somewhat different in style.
For while the Westmacott head is a mechanical copy, this Greek head is
full of vigor, disclosing Attic characteristics of the early fourth
century B. C., and obviously is an Athenian imitation of the original,
like the statue from Eleusis.[1173] A more remote variant is the
beautiful marble head formerly in the possession of Dr. Philip Nelson
in Liverpool, but now in America, which is not an exact copy of any of
the known variants, but so closely resembles the Capitoline type of
_Wounded Amazon_, assigned first by Otto Jahn and later by Furtwaengler
to Kresilas, that it must be by the same hand.[1174] This head also
reminds us of that of the Kresilæan _Diomedes_ of the Munich Glyptothek
(Pl. 21),[1175] though the hair-treatment is Polykleitan.[1176] Both
show a modification of Polykleitan forms under Attic influence. The
numerous fine copies indicate that the original was a well-known work.
That it was Polykleitan is clear from a study of the heads, which show
a great resemblance to that of the _Doryphoros_, and of the body forms,
which resemble those of both the _Doryphoros_ and the _Diadoumenos_.
While some believe this original a work of Polykleitos himself,[1177]
others think that it was by one of his pupils or successors, who
imitated the master’s early style. If the original, however, was
not the statue of Kyniskos, there is little evidence that it was by
Polykleitos himself.
The palm-trunk in the Westmacott copy certainly argues that the
original was an athlete statue. The gesture of the right hand has
given rise to different interpretations. The Barracco copy furnishes
the best evidence, as on it the right arm is preserved to the wrist,
the hand only being lost. Helbig at first (in the Barracco Catalogue)
expressed the opinion that the right hand might have held an oil-flask,
from which oil was being poured into the left. However, the position
of the left hand, as shown by the _puntello_ on the left hip, must
have been the same as that on the Westmacott copy, _i. e._, hanging
close to the left side. Helbig later (in the _Fuehrer_) explained
the motive as that of a boy setting a crown on his head, as in the
bronze _Eros_ already mentioned. This interpretation, first suggested
by Winnefeld,[1178] has been the favorite one among archæologists.
But all sorts of other explanations of the motive of the original
have been offered, as that the athlete was scraping his forehead or
shoulders with the strigil,[1179] that the statue represented Narkissos
looking into the pool and shading his eyes with his right hand,[1180]
that it was an athlete standing at rest and holding an akontion in
his right hand—a theory harmonizing with the poise of the head, but
not with the turn of the wrist, which shows that the hand was held
downwards[1181]—and that it was, in fact, the _nudus talo incessens_
of Pliny.[1182] On the head of the Eleusis statue there is a mass of
marble left over the right ear just opposite the place where the hand
would be, if it were setting a wreath on the head. The fact that no
marks are visible where the crown was attached is explained by the
assumption that the wreath was of metal even in the marble copies. That
this motive, moreover, was known to both Attic and Peloponnesian art
in the second half of the fifth century B. C. is well attested. Thus
we see on the Parthenon frieze a youth crowning himself with one hand,
while holding the horse’s bridle with the other.[1183] The pose of this
figure—especially the legs—recalls the Myronian _Oil-pourer_ already
discussed (Pl. 11). On the other hand, one of the figures of the
Ildefonso group in Madrid, which is Polykleitan in style, represents
a boy wearing a wreath, a figure closely akin to the _Westmacott
Athlete_, the leg position being the same in both and the poise of the
head nearly so, although the arms are different, the left one being
raised and the right hanging down.[1184] It is probable that the raised
right hand of the original of the Westmacott and other replicas touched
the wreath and the lowered left held a fillet. The best explanation,
then, of the _Westmacott Athlete_ and kindred works is that the motive
of the original was allied to that of the _Diadoumenos_ of Polykleitos,
though the modeling is too soft for Polykleitos, showing that the
copyists changed the original of the Argive master to suit a later
and different taste. Whereas the _Diadoumenos_ is tying on a victor’s
fillet, the other is presumably placing a victor’s wreath on his head.
Certainly no better restoration can be made for the Barracco copy.
Furthermore, many other monuments, which show a similar attitude, and
which must be regarded as very free imitations of the original, seem to
show that the boy was represented as placing a wreath on his head.[1185]
Whether the original of the series was an actual victor statue at
Olympia or not is an interesting question. It has been repeatedly
suggested that it was the very statue of the boy boxer Kyniskos there,
mentioned by Pausanias, the base of which has been recovered.[1186]
The external evidence for the identity consists altogether in the
similarity in the position of the feet on this base and in the series
of copies, which argues a similar pose. The base shows that the left
leg bore the weight of the statue; it was slightly advanced and rested
on the sole, while the right leg was set back and rested on the ball
only. Thus the statue of Kyniskos was represented in the characteristic
Polykleitan schema of rest, except that the position of the legs is
reversed from that of the _Doryphoros_, _Diadoumenos_, _Amazon_, and
other works of the master. We might add that this same reversal appears
on two other bases found at Olympia, which held victor statues by the
elder Polykleitos[1187] and one by the younger.[1188] Moreover, the
leg position of the canon does not occur in the works of the master’s
pupils Naukydes and Daidalos, and only in one work of Kleon.[1189]
This shows that teacher and pupils also used another motive, _i. e._,
the old canon of Hagelaïdas, besides the one associated with
the _Doryphoros_. The similarity in the position of the feet on the
Olympia base and in the series of statues discussed has led some
scholars, _e. g._, Petersen and Collignon, to accept the proposed
identity. This similarity in foot position, the probability that
the statue on the basis was life-size, like those of the Westmacott
series, and the palm-tree support in the British Museum replica, all
pointing to a victor statue, make the identity well within the range of
possibility, but by no means certain. It is necessary only to rehearse
the objections to this view. In the first place the length of the foot
on the Olympia basis can not be accurately measured for purposes of
comparison. In the next place Polykleitos, as we have just seen, made
other statues of victors at Olympia with almost the identical foot
position of that of Kyniskos. Furthermore, it seems very unlikely that
so celebrated an original as that of these many replicas could have
been standing in the Altis so late as the time of Pausanias.[1190] It
is difficult, also, to understand why an imitative Attic sculptor
of the fourth century B. C., should make a copy of an Arkadian boy
victor statue for Eleusis. And lastly we must not forget that up
to the present time not a single Roman copy has been conclusively
identified with that of a victor statue at Olympia. If the date of the
victory of Kyniskos were definitely fixed, the question of identity
would be better substantiated. By a process of exclusion, to be sure,
Robert reached the date Ol. 80 (= 460 B. C.),[1191] but other dates
are possible. Under these circumstances there seems to be little more
than the possibility that we have recovered an actual victor statue at
Olympia in these copies.[1192]
THE PALM-BRANCH.
The palm-branch, either woven into a wreath or held in the hand, was a
victor attribute. Pausanias says that a crown of palm leaves was common
to many contests, and that the victor everywhere in Greece carried a
palm-branch in his right hand.[1193] He refers the custom to mythical
times, tracing it back to the contest held by Theseus on Delos in honor
of Apollo.[1194] Pliny mentions a painting by the Sikyonian Eupompos,
which represented a _victor certamine gymnico palmam tenens_.[1195]
While Milchhoefer[1196] believed that the motive of an athlete setting
a crown on his head with his right hand and holding a palm in his
left, which is repeated frequently and with variation in many works of
art, went back to this painting of Eupompos, Furtwaengler[1197] goes
further in assuming that the painter derived the motive from the statue
of Polykleitos represented by the _Westmacott Athlete_ and kindred
works just discussed. The pupils of the great sculptor appear to have
transferred his school from Argos to Sikyon, and were, therefore,
associated with Eupompos. This attribute of the palm, permanent in
bronze statues, has been broken off for the most part in marble ones.
We see it in an unfinished statue of a young athlete in the National
Museum, Athens, who holds the palm-branch in his hand. Here it has
survived, since the statue was only blocked out.[1198] It is prominent
in the funerary stele from the Dipylon representing a victor, which
has been mentioned in a preceding section;[1199] here the palm extends
from the left hand, which is held down close to the side, up to the
shoulder. We have already noted that the copyist added a palm-branch
to the stump placed beside the Vatican girl runner (Pl. 2). In the
_Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo_ (Pl. 7A) the left hand should doubtless
be restored with the palm-branch, because of the projecting notch of
marble on the side of the left leg near the knee.[1200] A similar notch
appears also on the _Apollo-on-the-Omphalos_ in Athens (Pl. 7B), which
shows that the left hand held a long attribute, which was doubtless
a palm-branch. This attribute occurs frequently on vases.[1201] We
see it on a marble statue found at Formiae and now in the Glyptothek
Ny-Carlsberg in Copenhagen, which shows the same motive as that of the
statue by Stephanos (Pl. 9), though in a freer style of execution.
Here the lowered right hand holds a palm-branch, which is shown in low
relief against the right arm.[1202]
SECONDARY ATTRIBUTES OF VICTOR STATUES.
In course of time the sculptor was not content to represent victor
statues merely as victors, but differentiated the various kinds of
victors by special attributes.
HOPLITODROMOI.
[Illustration: FIG. 30.—Marble heads of two Hoplitodromoi, from
Olympia. Museum of Olympia.]
Thus a hoplite victor would be represented with his usual weapons.
Pausanias, in mentioning the statue at Olympia of the hoplite runner
Damaretos of Heraia by the Argive sculptors Eutelidas and Chrysothemis,
says that it “has not only a shield, as the armed runners still have,
but also a helmet on his head and greaves on his legs.”[1203] He adds
that the helmet and greaves were gradually abolished at Olympia and
elsewhere. We have seen that the statue of Damaretos was set up at the
beginning of the fifth century B. C., when his son Theopompos, the
pentathlete, won his second victory, the monuments of the two being in
common.[1204] Toward the middle of the fifth century the hoplite victor
Mnaseas of Kyrene had a statue at Olympia, the work of Pythagoras of
Rhegion, which represented him as an armed man.[1205] A Pythian victor,
Telesikrates, of the fifth century B. C., had a statue at Delphi, which
represented him with a helmet.[1206] We have actual remnants of two
hoplite victor statues of the sixth century B. C., in the two bearded
and helmeted life-size heads of Parian marble found at Olympia (Fig.
30, a, b = A; c, d = B).[1207] The younger of these heads (A), to which
probably belong either an arm and the remnants of a shield attached
with a ram and a representation of Phrixos upon it in relief,[1208] or
a shield fragment with a siren’s wing upon it[1209] and the fragment
of a shield edge[1210] and right foot of fine workmanship,[1211] I
assigned long ago to the statue of the Thessalian hoplitodrome Phrikias
of Pelinna, who won two victories in Ols. 68 and 69 (= 508 and 504 B.
C.).[1212] R. Foerster had referred this head to the statue of the
hoplite runner Damaretos of Heraia, whose monument, in common with
that of his son, the pentathlete Theopompos, was the work of the early
Argive sculptors Chrysothemis and Eutelidas.[1213] But this fresh and
vigorous head is not Peloponnesian, but shows strongly marked Attic
traits in its round face, full cheeks, and soft lips, and in the rows
of regularly wound locks of hair. The arm and foot similarly disclose
Attic softness and grace. Because of its Attic character, Treu and
Overbeck,[1214] in opposition to Foerster, ascribed it to the statue
of the Elean hoplite victor Eperastos mentioned by Pausanias.[1215]
Though the date of his victory is unknown, it certainly fell some
time after Ol. 111 (= 336 B. C.)—a date far too late for so archaic a
sculpture. Furtwaengler[1216] referred this and the more archaic head
B to the group of Phormis at Olympia, mentioned by Pausanias.[1217]
However, Treu[1218] showed that there was no stylistic connection
between the two heads. The slightly more archaic head B, badly injured
from weathering, I have referred to the Achaian hoplitodrome Phanas
of Pellene, who won Ol. 67 (= 512 B. C.).[1219] In this carefully
executed head the hair and beard are arranged in small locks and the
archaic smile is prominent. While the younger head is Attic, this
one is unmistakably Peloponnesian; and while the former comes from a
statue represented at rest, the latter, because of the twist of the
neck, seems to have come from one represented in violent motion. For
this reason Wolters believed that it came from the statue of a warrior
represented as thrown to the ground and defending himself.
The Myronic statue in the Palazzo Valentini, Rome, known as
_Diomedes_,[1220] whose pose recalls the _Diskobolos_, may represent
a hoplitodrome, because of its marked resemblance in attitude to the
Tuebingen bronze to be discussed in the next chapter (Fig. 42), and
because of the helmet on its head.[1221]
PENTATHLETES.
Pentathletes were represented by attributes taken from three of the
five contests—jumping, and throwing the diskos and the javelin. All
these attributes appear in gymnasium scenes pictured on red-figured
vases. Thus a kylix of the severe style in Munich[1222] gives us a
general picture of the exercises of the gymnasium. On the walls hang
diskoi in slings, strigils, leaping-weights, oil-flasks, sponges, and
javelins. Archaic leaping-weights (ἁλτῆρες) appeared in the hands of
the statue of the Elean Hysmon at Olympia by the Sikyonian sculptor
Kleon.[1223] Similarly, a figure of _Contest_ (Ἀγών) in the group set
up there by Mikythos had weights.[1224] The offering of the people of
Mende at Olympia very nearly deceived Pausanias into thinking it the
statue of a pentathlete, because of its ancient _halteres_.[1225] This
shows that these weights formed a regular attribute of pentathlete
statues there. A relief from Sparta[1226] represents an athlete
leaning on his spear and holding a pair of leaping-weights in his
right hand. There is a bronze statue of such a victor in the Berlin
Antiquarium.[1227] _Halteres_ hang on a tree-trunk to the right of
the statue of an athlete in the Pitti palace in Florence.[1228] The
breast of a marble torso, less than life-size, of a boy statue found at
Olympia, shows that the hands were stretched forward, and very possibly
the objects which they held were leaping-weights.[1229]
We have no direct literary reference to a victor statue at Olympia
of a pentathlete with the attributes of the diskos or javelin. That
they existed there, however, seems probable enough. Such a work as the
_Diskobolos_ of Myron, which displays the youthful victor in its every
line, other statues, statuettes, reliefs, and vase-paintings, show us
how the artist represented the different steps in the casting of the
quoit. Similarly, the famous _Doryphoros_ of Polykleitos, copies of
which have been identified in many museums (Pl. 4 and Fig. 48), will
give us an idea how a javelin thrower might have been represented at
rest. The akontion or victor’s casting-spear, was, as we see from the
Spartan relief of a pentathlete just mentioned, about the height of a
man. The attitude of the diskobolos and doryphoros will be discussed at
length in the next chapter.
BOXERS.
The statue of a boxer would be sufficiently characterized by thongs,
which he might carry in his hand, as in the statue of the Rhodian
Akousilaos at Olympia,[1230] or wound round his forearm, as in the
statue of a boxer in the Palazzo Albani, Rome,[1231] or on a near-by
prop, as on the tree-stump beside the _Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo_ in the
British Museum (Pl. 7A).[1232]
WRESTLERS.
Long ago Scherer tried to show that the aryballos was a
wrestler-attribute, since oil was so important in wrestling.[1233] He
interpreted as _aryballoi_ the pomegranates mentioned by Pausanias
as held in the hands of the statues of the wrestlers Milo[1234] and
Theognetos[1235] at Olympia, assuming that the Periegete mistook
oil-flasks for pomegranates (ῥοιαί). But it hardly seems reasonable
that such a small utensil, which was used by athletes in general,
could ever have been regarded as a peculiar attribute of the wrestler.
A similar attribute may have been held in the outstretched hand of
the half life-size archaic bronze “Apollo” of the Sciarra Palace in
Rome,[1236] and it occurs on other statues.[1237]
CAPS FOR BOXERS, PANCRATIASTS, AND WRESTLERS.
Often the boxer and pancratiast (and even wrestler)[1238] are
represented as wearing close-fitting caps, made up of thongs of
leather or of solid leather. This, however, can scarcely be called
a determining attribute. Our best example of such a cap is afforded
by an athlete head dating from the first half of the fifth century B.
C., in the Capitoline Museum, Rome,[1239] formerly called a portrait
of Juba II, who was the king of Numidia and Mauretania from 25 B. C.
to 23 A. D. This ascription was based on the barbarous look of the
head and the fact that another head, discovered in the Gymnasion of
Ptolemy in Athens and thought to resemble it, was assumed to be that
of Juba, since Pausanias mentions one of that prince there.[1240] It
is rather the head of an athlete engaged in putting on a cap. This
cap consists of three transverse leather pieces crossing the head
from side to side, one over the forehead, one over the crown, and the
third over the occiput, all three converging above the ears. A fourth
strap fastens them together and is drawn over the crown from forehead
to occiput. In the complete statue doubtless the hands were raised to
the head, grasping the straps near the ears to fasten them. This is,
therefore, an anticipation of the later _Diadoumenos_ motive. We see
it in a statuette formerly in the Stroganoff collection in Rome, but
now in private possession in England,[1241] which represents an athlete
putting on a similar head-dress. Though the arms of the statuette
are gone, remains of the two hands are seen touching the left ear
and tying the straps, one of which runs around the cranium above the
swollen right ear. With this complicated head-dress we may compare
the close-fitting cap—evidently of leather—pictured on an archaistic
Greek votive relief-in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, in Rome, which
represents an athlete washing his hands in a basin, which stands on a
tripod.[1242] Here the cap is fastened by two bands, one around and
the other under the chin. An object in the upper left corner of the
relief, enclosed in a frame, appears to be a victor crown adorned with
bow-knots. Such caps, used in wrestling, would make it impossible for
an opponent to grasp the hair; in boxing and the pankration it would
protect the head from injury. We saw that such a cap was pictured on
a Munich kylix of the early fifth century B. C. It is probable that
such caps were customary at a period before athletes lost their long
hair and that it was continued afterwards for various reasons. The
little statuette from Autun now in the Louvre (Fig. 60), representing
a pancratiast, has a close-fitting cap. The ring at the top shows that
this statuette was hung up—perhaps being used as a weight in a Roman
scale, or perhaps for adornment. In later days boys while practising
in the palæstra, but never at the public games, wore ear-lappets
(ἀμφωτίδες or ἐπωτίδες) to protect their ears, not dissimilar to those
worn in our day for protection against the cold. We see them on a
marble head, formerly in the possession of Fabretti.[1243]
THE SWOLLEN EAR.
We have lastly to speak of the swollen ear, which was an attribute of
victor statues, both primary and secondary, since it characterized
victors as such, and also early differentiated victors in various
contests. Swollen ears may have played a role as a characteristic
attribute of pugilists in early times.[1244] We found them on the
Rayet head in the Jacobsen collection (Fig. 22), which belongs to the
last quarter of the sixth century B. C. and comes from the funerary
statue of an athlete, probably a boxer. In course of time, however,
they came to characterize pancratiasts, wrestlers,[1245] and athletes
in general. The assumption, then, that heads with swollen ears come
from statues of boxers,[1246] and that the boxer was known throughout
Greek history as the “man with the crushed ear” is erroneous.[1247]
The earliest literary reference to the bruised ear is in Plato.[1248]
The philosopher used the term slightingly of those who imitated
Spartan customs, especially Spartan boxing. The Lacedæmonians never
boxed scientifically, but fought with bare fists and without rules.
Literary evidence, furthermore, shows that bruised ears did not play
the part in boxing matches which other bruised features of the face
did—the eyes, nose, mouth, teeth, and chin. Vase-paintings sustain this
evidence, for we often see bloody noses and cuts on the cheeks and
chin, but no crushed ears.[1249] In short, the crushed ear was merely
a professional characteristic, a realistic detail, common to athletes
of various sorts, and, as we shall see, to warriors, gods, and heroes.
To quote Homolle: “_La bouffissure des oreilles ellemême n’est pas un
trait personnel, mais un caractère professionnel; elle ne désigne pas
Agias, mais en général le lutteur. Cette déformation peut atteindre
même un dieu, s’il a pratiqué les exercices gymnastiques et passé sa
vie dans les luttes_”.[1250] It is found constantly on athletic types
of heads in sculpture, whether these represent gods or mortals. A few
examples will make this clear. The following heads of athletes show
the swollen ears: the bronze portrait head of a boxer or pancratiast
from Olympia, dating from the end of the fourth century B. C. or the
beginning of the third (Fig. 61 A and B);[1251] the marble head from
the statue of the boxer Philandridas set up among the victor statues
at Olympia, the work of Lysippos (Frontispiece and Fig. 69);[1252]
the head of the statue of the pancratiast Agias at Delphi (Pl. 28 and
Fig. 68) ;[1253] that of the _Seated Boxer_ in the Museo delle Terme
in Rome (Pl. 16 and Fig. 27);[1254] that of the _Apoxyomenos_ of the
Uffizi in Florence (Pl. 12);[1255] the bronze head from an athlete
statue found at Tarsos and now in Constantinople, an Attic work of
the end of the fifth century B. C.;[1256] the beautiful bronze head
of a boxer in the Glyptothek (Pl. 3);[1257] the head of the so-called
_Apollo-on-the-Omphalos_ in Athens (Pl. 7B);[1258] the athlete head
from Perinthos (Fig. 33);[1259] the bronze copy of the head of the
_Doryphoros_, found in Herculaneum and now in Naples, by the Attic
artist Apollonios (Fig. 47);[1260] the Ince-Blundell head in England,
to be discussed; four heads in Copenhagen;[1261] the remarkably
beautiful bust of an athlete in the Metropolitan Museum, New York (Pl.
20), whose rounded skull, oval face, projecting lower forehead, and
dreamy, half-closed eyes place it in the fourth century B. C., a work
influenced by the art of Praxiteles.[1262]
[Illustration: PLATE 20
Head of an Athlete, School of Praxiteles. Metropolitan Museum, New
York.]
When we consider heads of gods and heroes we find the swollen ears on
a variety of types. We see them on the so-called _Borghese Warrior_ of
the Louvre (Fig. 43),[1263] formerly called a _Gladiator_, and on the
marble statue of Kresilæan style in Munich, which has been known since
Brunn’s interpretation as _Diomedes_ (carrying off the Palladion from
Troy) (Pl. 21).[1264] This latter statue is a careful, though inexact,
Hadrianic copy of a famous work and is shown to represent the hero, and
not an athlete, by the mantle thrown over the arm. Skill in the boxing
match, the roughest and most dangerous of sports, is as appropriate
to _Diomedes_ as to Herakles himself. The crushed ears appear on the
Dresden replica of this statue, a cast from the Mengs collection, the
original of which was once probably in England,[1265] but do not appear
on the poor copy in the Louvre.[1266] They also appear on the Myronian
bust in the Riccardi Palace, Florence, which is a copy of an original
that was, perhaps, the forerunner of the Kresilæan _Diomedes_.[1267]
Here again the garment thrown over the left shoulder shows that a
youthful hero, and not an athlete, is intended.
On heads of Herakles the swollen ears are very common. The first dated
representation of the hero with battered ears appears to be on coins
of Euagoras I, the king of Salamis in Cyprus during the years 410-374
B. C.[1268] We have several examples in sculpture from the fourth
century B. C. Thus swollen ears and the victor fillet appear on the
Skopaic head in the Capitoline Museum.[1269] Another example is the
terminal bust of the youthful hero found in 1777 at Genzano, and now
in the British Museum (Fig. 31).[1270] This head wreathed with poplar
leaves, is probably a Græco-Roman copy of an original of the fourth
century B. C., by an artist of the school of Lysippos. In the group
representing Herakles and his son Telephos, a Roman copy in the Museo
Chiaramonti of the Vatican, the hero is represented with fillet and
battered ears.[1271] A Parian marble head, encircled by a crown, in the
Glyptothek, going back to a Lysippan bronze original, seems to come
from the statue of the hero represented as a victor.[1272] Another
life-size head, of poor workmanship, in the Chiaramonti collection of
the Vatican, sometimes confused with the _Doryphoros_ head-type, seems
to come from a statue of Herakles, as shown by the broken ears and
rolled fillet, the latter a well-known attribute of the hero taken from
the symposium.[1273] A much finer replica is the bust from Herculaneum
now in Naples.[1274] Swollen ears appear also on heads of Ares. We
may instance the helmeted one in the Louvre,[1275] and especially the
replica in the Palazzo Torlonia in Rome.[1276] They are less prominent
on a Parian marble head of the god in the Glyptothek, which appears
to be a copy of an original of which the _Ares Ludovisi_ is a more
complete one.[1277]
[Illustration: FIG. 31.—Head of Herakles, from Genzano. British Museum
London.]
[Illustration: PLATE 21
Statue of _Diomedes with the Palladion_. Glyptothek, Munich.]
So far as we know, the statues of wrestlers, runners (except
hoplitodromes), and probably pancratiasts were not distinguished by
special attributes. In these cases the sculptor was obliged to express
the type of contest in the figure itself. His problem, therefore,
was to represent the victor in the characteristic pose of the contest
in which he had won his victory, that is, by representing the statue as
if in movement. This brings us to the second division of our treatment
of victor statues, those which represented the victor not at rest, but
in motion, a scheme which, in course of time, was extended not only
to victors in wrestling and running, but to those in all contests, by
representing them in the very act of contending. The treatment of this
class of monuments will occupy the chief portion of Chapter IV.
CHAPTER IV.
VICTOR STATUES REPRESENTED IN MOTION.
PLATES 22-25 AND FIGURES 32-62.
Just when the important step of representing the victor in motion
instead of at rest was taken in Greek athletic sculpture we can not
definitely say. The statement of Cornelius Nepos that the statues of
athletes were first represented in movement in the fourth century
B. C., after the time of the Athenian general Chabrias—whose image
he describes as representing Chabrias in his favorite posture with
his spear pointed at the enemy and his shield on his knee—has long
since been shown to be worthless.[1278] Nor is the assumption of many
archæologists[1279] that this advance in the plastic art was taken over
into athletic sculpture soon after the statues of the _Tyrannicides_
were set up at Athens, which represented them in the midst of their
impetuous onslaught on Hipparchos, to be relied upon. These statues,
however, occupy so important a place in the history of Greek sculpture
that we shall consider them briefly in this connection.
THE TYRANNICIDES.
The bronze statues of the popular heroes Harmodios and Aristogeiton, by
the sculptor Antenor, were, in all probability, set up in the Athenian
agora in 506-5 B. C.[1280] The group was carried off to Susa by Xerxes
in 480 B. C., and to replace it a new group, doubtless a free imitation
of the older one, and probably also of bronze, was set up in 477 B. C.,
the work of the sculptors Kritios and Nesiotes.[1281] Nearly a century
and a half later the stolen group was restored to Athens by Alexander
the Great[1282] and the two continued to stand side by side in Athens
down to the time of Pausanias. Neither of these groups has survived
to our time, but a late Roman marble copy of one, somewhat over
lifesize, found in the ruins of Hadrian’s villa and now in Naples,
gives us a good idea of the original, despite restorations (Fig. 32,
_Harmodios_).[1283]
[Illustration: FIG. 32.—Statue of _Harmodios_. Museum of Naples.]
The reconstruction of this group is aided by several minor works of
art, reliefs, vase-paintings, coins, lead marks, etc., the number of
which shows that it was a common subject for Athenian artists. Botho
Graef, by a careful study of the female statue found on the Akropolis
in 1886 and inscribed as the work of Antenor, has shown that the
stylistic contrast between it and the Naples group is too great for
the latter to be assigned to Antenor.[1284] It is now, therefore, the
prevailing view that the Naples group reproduces the later statues of
Kritios and his associate.[1285] We do not know, then, how the older
group looked, but we are certain that it was different from the later
one, for, in the years elapsing between the dates of the two, Attic
sculptors had become entirely free from the Ionic influence which we
discussed in the preceding chapter and which characterizes the female
statue of Antenor. Archaic stiffness, however, is still traceable in
the later group, for in the copy we see a work which is “concise,
sinewy, hard, and with strained lines,” in harmony with Lucian’s
characterization of the works of Hegias, Kritios, and Nesiotes.[1286]
The restorations of the Naples group, though right in the main, make us
doubtful as to the exact pose of the original figures.[1287] Harmodios
has new arms, new right leg, and left leg below the knee, while
Aristogeiton has a Lysippan head in place of the original bearded one,
to correspond better with that of his companion. His left arm, with the
drapery hanging down, has been put on at a wrong angle, as he should
be represented holding a scabbard in the left hand and a sword in the
right. On a vase fragment (oinochoe) in Boston[1288] both heroes are
making the onset, the younger one (Harmodios) in front of the other,
but in the original statues, they were probably making the onset
abreast, something that the vase-painter could not represent.[1289]
While the Akropolis ephebe, already discussed as showing Argive
influence (Fig. 17), still shows but little break with the law of
“frontality” formulated by J. Lange,[1290] whereby an “imaginary line
passing through the skull, nose, backbone, and navel, dividing the body
into two symmetrical halves, is invariably straight, never bending to
either side,” the _Tyrannicides_ have broken it completely. The ephebe
has his head slightly turned to one side, and, because of resemblances
in head and body to the figure of Harmodios, has been assigned to
Kritios or his school.[1291] Another statue at rest ascribed to the
same school is the athlete in the Somzée collection, which reminds us
of the Pelops of the East Gable at Olympia.[1292] We have record of
one more statue by Kritios himself, which was represented in motion
only less violent than that of the _Tyrannicides_. Pausanias saw on the
Akropolis of Athens a statue by him of the hoplite runner Epicharinos,
which represented the athlete in the attitude of one practicing starts,
perhaps in the very pose of the Tuebingen statuette (Fig. 42).[1293]
In the statues of the _Tyrannicides_, then, which might pass equally
well for typical athletes of the time, we have examples of statues in
motion at the end of the sixth century B. C.; for the same violent
action must have characterized the earlier group of Antenor as the
later one. We have seen that the Aeginetan sculptors not only made
pediment groups in action at a date not later than that of the group
by Kritios and Nesiotes, but single figures still earlier. Thus the
sculptor Glaukias represented the Karystian boy boxer Glaukos in the
act of sparring with an imaginary opponent.[1294] Though Glaukos won in
Ol. 65 (= 520 B. C.), his statue was set up later by his son, perhaps
as late as the end of the sixth century B. C., or the beginning of
the fifth, as the _floruit_ of the sculptor would show.[1295] This
is the oldest example attested by literary evidence of an athlete
statue in motion at Olympia. Whether Glaukias got his motive from
Antenor’s _Tyrannicides_, or whether his work was the older, we can not
determine, but it is safe to say that this _genre_ of statuary must
have existed at Olympia long before, as we know it did elsewhere. The
Rampin head, already discussed as a fragment of a victor statue, shows
by the turn of its neck that athlete statues represented in motion
existed at least as far back as the first half of the sixth century B.
C.[1296]
ANTIQUITY OF MOTION STATUES IN GREECE.
Apart from specifically athletic types, we know that statues in motion,
especially those representing winged figures, antedated the sixth
century B. C. in Greece, and were, perhaps, coeval with the very origin
of Greek art.[1297] We know that the oldest Egyptian art attempted
to render the human body in motion. We may instance the limestone
funerary statuette dating from the Old Kingdom, which represents a slave
woman grinding corn,[1298] and similar figures found in the graves
of Memphis. In fact, the making of such statues ceased in Egyptian
art after the end of the Old Kingdom. While Assyro-Babylonian art
represented figures in motion only on reliefs, Cretan art, as we have
seen in the first chapter, showed the utmost skill in representing
movement in figures in the round. It used to be assumed that in Greek
art motion statues developed out of the archaic “Apollo” type through
the gradual freeing of legs and arms. Any such assumption is easily
disproved by the fact that figures in motion exist, which date back
almost as far as figures at rest. It is equally fallacious to argue
that slight movement was easier for the early artist to represent
than violent movement, for just the contrary was the case, so that
in general the greater the movement represented, the greater is the
age of the given monument. Early vase-paintings show that the early
painter delighted in portraying free movement.[1299] It may be that
the vase-painter preceded the sculptor in portraying movement, for it
was easier to effect this in two dimensions than in three. But that
statues in motion were already known at the beginning of the sixth
century B. C., at least, is shown by the winged flying figure known
as the _Nike_ of Archermos,[1300] unearthed on the island of Delos by
the French in 1877, which is a masterpiece of early Chian sculpture,
perhaps coeval with the statue dedicated to Artemis by Nikandre of
Naxos, found a year later on Delos,[1301] even though the latter
appears more archaic. This earliest example of treating a flying figure
in Greek sculpture we find repeated almost unchanged for a long time
after, especially for _akroteria_ figures on temples and in the minor
arts. We might mention the bronze statuette of the end of the sixth
century B. C., found on the Akropolis, which comes from the edge of a
vessel and represents a winged _Nike_ springing through the air, the
legs in profile and the head and upper body turned to the front, just
as in the figure of Archermos.[1302] Such figures completely disprove
the contention of Sikes that the Greek idea of a winged _Nike_ did
not antedate the fifth century B. C.[1303] The early date of statues
represented in a lunging attitude, like the _Tyrannicides_, is also
shown by the story that Herakles destroyed his own statue by Daidalos
in the agora of Elis, because in the night he mistook it for an enemy
lunging at him. The scheme of combatants fighting with lances seems to
have been native to Rhodian art at the end of the seventh century B.
C., for we see it first on a painted terra-cotta plate in the British
Museum, which represents Hektor and Menelaos fighting for the body of
Euphorbos.[1304] This pose was taken over into other arts, as we see
it in the bronze statuette of a warrior found in Dodona in 1880, now
in the Antiquarium in Berlin, which dates from the end of the sixth
century B. C., or the beginning of the fifth.[1305] All these examples
are sufficient to show that representing the human figure in motion was
an ancient motive in Greek art.
PYTHAGORAS AND MYRON.
Besides Kritios, two other sculptors of the transitional
period—Pythagoras and Myron—gave a great impetus to the type of
statue in motion in the first half of the fifth century B. C. Before
proceeding further we shall briefly consider their artistic activity.
The attempt to ascribe something tangible to Pythagoras of Rhegion has
often been made.[1306] Practically all we really know about him is
that he was celebrated for his statues of athletes. Pausanias mentions
seven statues at Olympia of victors who won in many different events,
in running (including the hoplite-race), wrestling, boxing, and the
chariot-race; and Pliny, in giving a list of his works, praises the
statue of a pancratiast at Delphi.[1307] Thus Pausanias records the
statues of the Sicilian wrestler Leontiskos, who won two victories
in Ols. 81 and 82 (= 456 and 452 B. C.);[1308] of the boy boxer
Protolaos of Mantinea, who won in Ol. (?) 74 (= 484 B. C.);[1309] of
the boxer Euthymos of Lokroi, who won three times in Ols. 74, 76,
77 (= 484, 476, 472 B. C.);[1310] of Dromeus of Stymphalos, who won
the long foot-race (δόλιχος) twice in Ols. (?) 80 and 81 (= 460 and
456 B. C.);[1311] of Astylos of Kroton, who won the stade-race, the
double foot-race (δίαυλος) three times, and the hoplite-race twice in
Ols. 73, 74, 75, 76 (= 488-476 B. C.);[1312] of the hoplite victor
Mnaseas of Kyrene, victor in Ol. 81 (= 456 B. C.);[1313] and of the
latter’s son Kratisthenes, who won the chariot-race in Ol. (?) 83 (=
448 B. C.).[1314] Some of these statues at Olympia must have been
represented at rest, while others appear to have been represented in
motion. Thus the statue of Mnaseas—though it is possible that it was
represented in motion like that of Epicharinos by Kritios already
mentioned—was probably represented at rest, since Pausanias described
it simply as that of an ὁπλίτης ἀνήρ.[1315] When we inquire into the
style of Pythagoras we do not find much that is definite to guide us.
Besides the bare list of his works, we have little except the statement
of Diogenes Laertios that he was the first to aim at rhythm and
symmetry.[1316] Nevertheless many attempts have been made to identify
his athlete statues with existing copies. Waldstein’s interpretation of
the _Choiseul-Gouffier_ statue in the British Museum (Pl. 7A), and of
the so-called _Apollo-on-the-Omphalos_ in Athens (Pl. 7B), as copies of
an original athlete statue, is, as we have shown in the second chapter,
well-founded, since the muscular build and the coiffure of these
statues betoken the athlete. But his further attempt to show that the
original was by Pythagoras, and his identifying it with the statue of
the boxer Euthymos at Olympia, is not so reasonable.[1317]
[Illustration: FIG. 33.—Head of an Athlete, from Perinthos. Albertinum,
Dresden.]
The attempt to ascribe the head of a pancratiast from Perinthos in
Dresden (Fig. 33)[1318] to Pythagoras is not convincing, though
Furtwaengler has included it in his provisional Pythagorean
group,[1319] as he does the boxer in the Louvre known as _Pollux_
(Fig. 58),[1320] the athlete of the Boboli Gardens in Florence formerly
called _Harmodios_ by Benndorf,[1321] and the statue of an athlete of
later style in Lansdowne House, London.[1322] Other scholars have also
connected the Perinthos head with Pythagoras.[1323] Hermann brought it
into relation with the bust in the Riccardi Palace in Florence, which,
despite its swollen ears, we have already classed as representing
a hero and not an athlete, because of the garment thrown over the
shoulder.[1324] Furtwaengler tried to show that this bust was Myronian
in style, classing it and the head of an athlete in Ince Blundell Hall,
Lancashire, England,[1325] along with that of the earlier _Diskobolos_,
explaining the acknowledged differences in the three by Pliny’s
statement that Myron _primus multiplicasse veritatem videtur_.[1326]
Arndt lists the Perinthos, Riccardi, and Ince Blundell heads, together
with two others in the Jakobsen collection in Copenhagen,[1327]
the head of the so-called Pollux of the Louvre, a bearded head in
Petrograd,[1328] and the so-called head of _Peisistratos_ in the
Villa Albani, Rome,[1329] as works emanating from one school of
sculptors—the differences being explained by the many copyists. But
to attempt to differentiate within the group two different sculptors,
Myron or Pythagoras, he finds impossible, chiefly because we are
dealing in every case with copies and not with originals, and because
in no case are we certain that the head belongs to the torso on which
it is set.[1330] Still another critic, A. Schober, classes together
as more or less related works the Riccardi, Ince Blundell, Perinthos,
and Ny-Carlsberg heads, the Louvre boxer (_Pollux_), Chinnery
_Hermes_ in the British Museum,[1331] the Boboli athlete, the athlete
metamorphosed into a _Hermes_ in the Loggia Scoperta of the Vatican,
and the Lansdowne athlete, and finds them all Myronian. He believes the
Perinthos head to be the prototype of the Riccardi and Ince Blundell
heads.[1332]
In all this confusion of opinion as to the style of Pythagoras, and
in the absence of any fixed criterion of judgment furnished by an
original authenticated work, it seems hazardous to ascribe this or that
sculpture to this little-known artist. The difficulty of separating
Myron and Pythagoras is even greater than that which confronts us in
trying to distinguish works of Lysippos and Skopas in the next century.
We may some day recover a genuine Pythagorean athlete statue, though
this is extremely improbable now that we have no more to expect from
Olympia and Delphi, where most of his statues appear to have stood. But
despite the difficulty, many identifications of his Olympia statues
have been suggested, some of which we shall now mention.
As Pausanias says that the victor Mnaseas was surnamed _Libys_, the
Libyan, and that his statue was by Pythagoras, it may be that this is
the statue mentioned by Pliny in the words: _[Pythagoras] fecit ...
et Libyn, puerum tenentem tabellam eodem loco (= Olympiae) et mala
ferentem nudum._[1333] However, in that case we can not connect the
words _Libyn_ and _puerum_, since one represented a man and the other a
boy.[1334] Consequently, Pliny is speaking of three different statues,
and not two, by this artist. Reisch believes that the statues of the
boy and the nude man were represented at rest,[1335] the boy bearing a
tablet (_i. e._, an iconic πινάκιον) in his hand, like the Athenian
youth appearing on a vase-painting in Munich.[1336] Another scholar, L.
von Urlichs, formerly identified the boy carrying the tablet with the
statue of Protolaos at Olympia,[1337] explaining the tablet as a means
of characterizing the young learner. He changed his theory later,[1338]
when, in consequence of the discovery of the Corinthian tablets, he
called it a votive tablet. His son, H. L. von Urlichs, agreed with him
because of a passage in the collection of _Proverbs_ by Zenobios, the
sophist of Hadrian’s age,[1339] according to which the marble statue
of _Nemesis_ at Rhamnous by Pheidias’ favorite pupil, the Parian
sculptor Agorakritos,[1340] held an apple-branch in her left hand, from
which a small tablet containing the artist’s name was suspended, and
also because certain coins of Syracuse and Catania represent Nike as
carrying a tablet hung by a ribbon, on which the coin-striker’s name
was engraved.[1341] The same scholar further identified the nude man
carrying the apples with the statue of Dromeus at Olympia. Since Pliny
does not expressly say that the statue of the nude man was at Olympia,
even though the sense of the passage inclines us to think it was, L.
von Urlichs interprets the apples in the hand as an additional prize
at Delphi, and so makes the statue that of a Pythian victor.[1342] All
such identifications are based on too uncertain premises.
That Pythagoras did make statues in motion is proved by his statue of
a limping man at Syracuse mentioned by Pliny[1343] in very realistic
terms. We know of other statues by him representing athletes in motion
only by inference. Thus, in the passage just quoted, Pliny says that he
surpassed Myron with his Delphian pancratiast, which appears, inasmuch
as Pliny merely calls the statue a pancratiast without mentioning any
attribute, to have been represented in the characteristic lunging
pose.[1344] However, we can not say definitely, since the contemporary
statue of the pancratiast Kallias, by Mikon of Athens, was represented
in the attitude of rest, as we learn from the footprints on its
recovered base.[1345] Pliny also says that Pythagoras surpassed
with his Delphian pancratiast his own statue of Leontiskos,[1346] a
statement which similarly appears to mark the latter as a statue in
motion. Reisch assumes that the statue of Euthymos was in motion,
since Pausanias says it was an ἀνδριὰς θέας ἐς τὰ μάλιστα ἄξιος.[1347]
On the whole, then, we may assume that Pythagoras was a sculptor who
represented many of his victors in the attitude of motion.
Love of movement also characterized the artistic temperament of
Myron, even though we know that he represented gods, heroes, and
even athletes, at rest. Thus coins show that Athena in his _Marsyas_
group was represented as standing in a tranquil pose.[1348] Similarly
the Riccardi bust in Florence, already discussed, which may be
Myronian, comes from a statue of a hero shown in an attitude of rest.
Myron was the first Greek sculptor to make his statues and groups
self-sufficient,[1349] that is, he gave to them a concentration which
does not allow the spectator’s attention to wander. We readily see this
new principle in art when we compare the _Diskobolos_ and the group of
the _Tyrannicides_. In the latter our attention is not concentrated,
for a third figure, that of the tyrant on whom the onset is being made,
is required in imagination to complete the group. We have no originals
from Myron’s hand, but we are in far better case in regard to his work
than in regard to that of Pythagoras, since we have unmistakable copies
of two of his greatest works, the _Marsyas_ and the _Diskobolos_. In
them there is little trace of the archaic stiffness that is still
visible in the _Tyrannicides_. Both of these works are represented in
violent action, and in both there is complete concentration. While
the _Diskobolos_ represents a trained palæstra athlete executing a
graceful movement, the _Marsyas_ represents a wild Satyr of the woods,
wholly untrained and controlled by savage passions, in the moment of
fear.[1350] In the _Diskobolos_ the face is impassive, being little
affected by the violent movement of the body—a contrast only partly to
be explained as due to the copyist; in the _Marsyas_, on the contrary,
there is complete harmony between the facial expression and the violent
action of the body.
[Illustration: PLATE 22
Statue of the _Diskobolos_, from Castel Porziano, after Myron.
Museo delle Terme, Rome.]
[Illustration: FIG. 34.—Statue of the _Diskobolos_, after Myron.
Vatican Museum, Rome.]
Since we are chiefly dependent for our knowledge of Myron’s athletic
work on the marble copies of the _Diskobolos_, which represents a
new era in athletic art, and since this statue is perhaps the most
famous athletic statue of all times, it will be well to speak of it
here at some length. It is not, so far as we know, the statue of any
particular victor, but rather a study in athletic sculpture.[1351] Of
this work there are twelve full size replicas and several statuettes.
We shall discuss only those which give us the best idea of the lost
original. The most faithful copy is the superb marble statue in the
Palazzo Lancellotti, Rome, discovered on the Esquiline in 1781 (head
seen in Pl. 23).[1352] As the head has never been broken away from the
body, this copy preserves the original pose, whereas all other copies
have the head turned in the wrong direction.[1353] The head and face
preserve Attic proportions and the treatment of the hair and muscles
differs from that of the other copies, which disclose later elements.
The hair, in particular, shows signs of archaism, just as it must have
been treated in the original, as evinced by Pliny’s criticism.[1354]
The most carefully worked copy, however, is the Parian marble torso,
which was found in 1906 at Castel Porziano, the site of the ancient
Laurentum, and is now in the Museo delle Terme, Rome (Pl. 22).[1355]
This torso was already restored in antiquity. Since the villa in which
it was found was built in Augustus’ day and was restored in the second
century A. D., we have the approximate dates both of the origin and
restoration of the statue. A weak copy, discovered in Tivoli in 1791,
is in the Sala della Biga of the Vatican; the head, left arm, and
right leg below the knee have been restored, the head wrongly (Fig.
34).[1356] A Græco-Roman copy discovered also in 1791, in Hadrian’s
villa, is in the British Museum (Fig. 35).[1357] Here the head,
although antique, belongs to another copy, and has been set upon the
torso wrongly, in such a way that the throat has two Adam’s apples. It
looks straight to the ground and not upward as in the Lancellotti copy.
There is a better replica of the torso in the Capitoline Museum, which
formerly belonged to the French sculptor Étienne Mounot (1658-1733),
who wrongly restored it as a falling warrior. It agrees in accuracy
with the Lancellotti copy, though it is dry and lifeless, and is a
better guide to the original than either the Vatican or British Museum
replicas.[1358] A combination of these and other copies gives us an
excellent idea of the original bronze. In Pl. 23 we give a combination
of the Vatican torso and the Lancellotti head from a cast in
Munich.[1359] Perhaps a better combination is that given by Bulle[1360]
from a cast made up of the delle Terme body, the Lancellotti head, the
right arm and the diskos from the Casa Buonarroti in Florence, the feet
from the British Museum copy and the fingers of the left hand being
freely restored.
[Illustration: FIG. 35.—Statue of the _Diskobolos_, after Myron.
British Museum, London.]
[Illustration: PLATE 23
Statue of the _Diskobolos_, after Myron. A bronzed Cast from the Statue
in the Vatican and Head from the Statue in the Palazzo Lancellotti,
Rome.]
The pose of the Lancellotti copy agrees with Lucian’s description of
the original: “Surely, said I, you do not speak of the quoit-thrower
who stoops in the attitude of one who is making his cast, turning round
toward the hand that holds the quoit, and bending the other knee gently
beneath him, like one who will rise erect as he hurls the quoit?”[1361]
That the head of the original was turned back as in the Lancellotti
copy, and not downwards, as in the Vatican, British Museum and other
replicas, is shown by this description, which is corroborated by two
bronze statuettes in Munich and Arolsen[1362] and by a gem in the
British Museum.[1363] Myron chose the most difficult, but at the same
time the most characteristic, moment in swinging the diskos, the moment
which combines the idea of rest and motion. The quoit has been swung
back as far as it will go. The momentary pause before it is hurled
forward suggests rest and at the same time implies motion, both that
which has preceded and that which is to follow. It is this short pause
at the end of the backward swing which the sculptor has fixed in the
bronze. The right arm is stretched backwards as far as possible and
draws with it the body with the left arm and head; in another instant
the diskos will be hurled and the tension on the right leg relaxed.
The original statue rested upon the right foot; the tree trunk is
a necessary addition to the marble copies. As Greek art was mostly
characterized by repose, we are not surprised that such a daring effect
received the censure of the ancient critics. Quintilian says that if
any one blames the statue for its labored effect, he is wrong, since
the novelty and the difficulty of the work are its chief merits.[1364]
For a statue of the transitional stage of Greek sculpture it is
remarkably bold; only in imagination can we see the action by which
the body has got into this position and by which it will recover its
equilibrium. It illustrates a principle laid down by Lessing in the
_Laokoön_: “Of ever changing nature the artist can use only a single
moment and this from a single point of view. And as his work is meant
to be looked at not for an instant, but with long consideration, he
must choose the most fruitful moment, and the most fruitful point of
view, that, to wit, which leaves the power of imagination free.”[1365]
Myron was the sculptor of five statues for four victors at Olympia,
one of a pancratiast, another of a boxer, a third of a runner, and
two of a victor in the hoplite-race and the chariot-race.[1366] Pliny
also says that Myron made statues of pentathletes and pancratiasts
at Delphi.[1367] Thus he showed as much versatility as Pythagoras in
the representation of victors in different contests. None of these
statues has survived and the identification of existing Roman copies
with any of them is, of course, highly problematical. Thus, a little
further on we make the suggestion that the statue of the boxer in the
Louvre, commonly known as _Pollux_ (Fig. 58), may be, because of its
Myronian character, the statue of the unknown Arkadian boxer at Olympia
mentioned by Pausanias (in connection with the boy boxer Philippos)
as the work of Myron.[1368] Pliny, in the passage just cited, also
mentions statues of _pristae_ by Myron, a word which has given rise to
many interpretations: _e. g._, sea-monsters (_pristes_ or _pistres_),
men working with a cross-cut saw (_pristae_), players at see-saw
(_pristae_?),[1369] and boxers (_pyctae_).[1370] The manuscripts are
unanimous for _pristae_, and hence it is probable that a realistic
group by Myron is meant, since Myron is often classed as a realist in
opposition to Polykleitos, the idealist. Long ago Dalecampius, followed
in recent years by Furtwaengler,[1371] believed that these _pristae_
formed a votive offering, and H. L. von Urlichs has shown that a group
of sawyers as the dedication of some master-builder is quite in harmony
with fifth-century traditions.[1372] H. Stuart Jones[1373] connects
the words _Perseum et pristas_ of Pliny’s text, and follows the theory
of Mayer[1374] that the carpenters or sawyers were a part of a group,
which represented the inclosure of Danaë and Perseus in the chest.
While the athletic statues in motion by Pythagoras and Myron became
models for later sculptors, especially in the following century,[1375]
the rest statues of Polykleitos still remained in vogue in works by
members of his family and school down through the fourth century, as we
have seen in our treatment of the Argive-Sikyonian sculptors at Olympia.
MOTION STATUES REPRESENTING VICTORS IN VARIOUS CONTESTS.
We shall now review the types of victor statues, which reproduced in
their pose the various contests, _i. e._, statues in motion. We shall
find it convenient to follow in the main the order of contests as
they appear on the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus[1376]—the stade-race (στάδιον),
double race (δίαυλος), long race (δόλιχος), pentathlon (πένταθλον),
wrestling, (πάλη), boxing (πύξ), pankration (παγκράτιον), hoplite-race
(ὁπλίτης), chariot-race (τέθριππον), and horse-race (κέλης)—except that
we shall class the four running races (nos. 1, 2, 3, and 11) together
and include the three boys’ contests (παίδων στάδιον, πάλη, πύξ, nos.
8, 9, 10) under the corresponding men’s events. The classification of
competitors by ages (ἡλικίαι), which varied at different festivals,
will need a word of explanation. While athletes at Nemea, the Isthmus,
and Delphi were divided into three classes, παῖδες, ἀγένειοι, and
ἄνδρες,[1377] at Olympia they were divided into two, παῖδες and
ἄνδρες.[1378] At local competitions there was a more elaborate
classification. Thus at the Bœotian _Erotidia_, boys were divided
into younger and older;[1379] at the games held on the island of Chios
there were five divisions, boys, younger, middle, and older ephebes,
and men;[1380] and at the Athenian _Theseia_, the boys were divided
into first, second, and third classes, while an open contest also
existed for boys of any age.[1381] Girls at the _Heraia_ at Olympia
were similarly divided into three classes.[1382] Plato proposed three
classes of athletes in his _Laws_—παιδικοί, ἄνδρες, and a third class,
ἀγένειοι, between boys and men.[1383] The classification of athletes
at Athens into παῖδες and ἄνδρες, adopted by Boeckh, Dittenberger, and
Dumont,[1384] is now the one generally followed. According to it the
παῖδες were subdivided into three classes, those τῆς πρώτης ἡλικίας,
τῆς δευτέρας, and τῆς τρίτης; and so the ἀγένειοι were merely the
παῖδες τῆς τρίτης ἡλικίας. The boys, including the ἀγένειοι, ranged
from 12 to 18 years old; at 18 they became ἔφηβοι or ἄνδρες.[1385] We
have already seen that the age of boy victors at Olympia was over 17
and under 20.[1386]
As we have already remarked in an earlier chapter, we are mostly
indebted to Pausanias for our knowledge of the victor statues at
Olympia.[1387] He mentions in his _periegesis_ of the Altis 192
monuments, which were erected to 187 victors.[1388] Some of these
victors won in more than one contest, so that there are 258 different
victories recorded in all. In the following sections we shall see how
these were distributed among the various contests.
RUNNERS: STADIODROMOI, DIAULODROMOI, DOLICHODROMOI.
Running races formed at all times a part of the Greek games and of
the exercises of the youth in the gymnasia and palæstræ. A scholiast
on Pindar[1389] says that the running race had its origin in the
first celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries. It figures largely in
mythology, especially at Olympia, which also shows its antiquity.[1390]
In historic times many varieties of running developed, but four chief
ones were practised at the great games.[1391] First there was the
simple stade-race (στάδιον, δρόμος), which was merely the length of
the stadion or 600 Greek feet, corresponding with the running race of
Homer.[1392] Then there was the double race (δίαυλος), twice as long as
the preceding, to the end of the course and back again.[1393] The long
race (δόλιχος, ὁ μακρὸς δρόμος), which Philostratos derives from the
institution of messenger runners (_hemerodromoi_),[1394] is variously
given as seven, twelve, fourteen, twenty, and twenty-four stades in
length, _i. e._, from about four-fifths of a mile to nearly three
miles.[1395] Lastly there was the race in armor (ὁπλιτοδρόμος,[1396]
ὁπλίτης,[1397] ἀσπίς.[1398]) The long race was instituted not so much
as a contest of fleetness as of endurance. At Olympia only men were
admitted, though there was such a race for boys at Delphi.[1399] The
Cretans were famed in this style of running.[1400] The race in armor,
which was a double race or two stades at Olympia, we shall discuss
further on. Probably the boys’ stade-race at Olympia was shorter than
that of the men. Plato, who gives the historic division of running
races outlined above, has the boys run one-half of the men’s course
and the ephebes (ἀγένειοι) two-thirds.[1401] Just so Pausanias has
the girl runners at the Olympia _Heraia_ run one-sixth of the men’s
stadion.[1402]
At Olympia, as at the _Panathenaia_ in Athens and probably elsewhere,
the first event preceding all others was the stade-race. Pausanias says
that it was the oldest event at Olympia,[1403] and it existed there all
through antiquity from the first recorded Olympiad (= 776 B. C.), when
Koroibos of Elis won.[1404] But the notion generally held[1405] that
the stade-race for men was honored above all other events at Olympia,
because the winner became ἐπώνυμος for the Olympiad and because his
name occurs in the lists of Africanus for every Olympiad, is incorrect.
In two passages Thukydides cites Olympic pancratiasts for dates,[1406]
and in the earliest inscription which makes use of Olympiads for
chronology the later introduced pankration is the event used.[1407]
The literary supremacy of Athens, where, at the _Panathenaia_, the
stade-race was the most important event, doubtless helped later in
making the stade runner at Olympia eponymous. This custom, however, was
not generally employed before the third century B. C.
[Illustration: FIG. 36.—Athletic Scenes from a Bacchic Amphora in Rome.
A. Stadiodromoi and Leaper. B. Diskobolos and Akontistai.]
[Illustration: FIG. 37.—Athletic Scenes from a Sixth-century B. C.
Panathenaic Amphora. Stadiodromoi (left) and Dolichodromoi (right).]
Pausanias dates the introduction of the double foot-race at Olympia
in Ol. 14 (= 724 B. C.).[1408] He does not say when the long race
was instituted, but Eusebios says that it was in Ol. 15 (= 720 B.
C.).[1409] The boys’ stade-race was introduced there in Ol. 37 (= 632
B. C.).[1410] The hoplite-race was inaugurated at the end of the sixth
century B. C., in Ol. 65 (= 520 B. C.).[1411] Pausanias mentions 24
_stadiodromoi_ at Olympia, who won 32 victories, which makes this
event third in importance, next after boxing and wrestling. He mentions
7 victors in the double race with 11 victories, and 5 victors in the
long race with 8 victories. He also mentions 12 hoplite victors with 14
victories. Consequently, in all four running events there, he records
48 victors with 65 victories, which brings the running races only to
second place in importance at Olympia, ranking next after boxing.[1412]
The ordinary sprinter or _stadiodromos_, and the double sprinter,
_diaulodromos_ or _hoplitodromos_, naturally ran differently from the
endurance runner or _dolichodromos_. Panathenaic vases clearly show
this difference. Thus while the sprinter swung his arms violently,
spreading the fingers apart and touching the ground only with his
toes[1413] (Figs. 36A and 37, left), the endurance runner, who had to
conserve his strength to the last, ran with a long stride, holding
his arms bent at the elbow and close to the body, his fists doubled
and his body slightly bent forward, its weight resting on the ball
of the foot, the heel being raised only a little. Thus Philostratos
says that the _dolichodromoi_ ran with their hands extended and with
their fists balled, but that at the finish they also swung their arms
violently like wings.[1414] The race (showing balled fists) is seen
on a Panathenaic amphora dating from the archonship of Nikeratos
(333 B. C.), now in the British Museum, and on another of the sixth
century B. C., pictured in Fig. 37 (right).[1415] In the _diaulos_ the
movement was less violent. Thus on an Athens vase inscribed, “I am a
diaulos runner,”[1416] the movement is between that of a sprinter and
an endurance runner. It seems probable that this difference in the
style of running was similarly shown in sculpture.[1417] We shall next
consider certain sculptural monuments which represent runners.
The typical scheme for archaic and archaistic art was to represent the
runner with one knee nearly touching the ground, the upper log forming
a right angle with the lower, the other leg being perpendicular to the
upper. This scheme appears on many vases and reliefs and in statuettes
and statues.[1418] This old method of depicting runners was kept up
by vase-painters down to the time of the red-figured masters.[1419]
We see them on many reliefs, _e. g._, on the Ionic-Greek reliefs on
the three archaic bronze tripods of the middle of the sixth century
B. C. in the possession of Mr. James Loeb;[1420] on a small bronze
relief in the Metropolitan Museum in New York which represents a
winged Boreas;[1421] and on the marble funerary stele of the so-called
dying hoplite runner found in 1902 near the Theseion, and now in the
National Museum in Athens.[1422] Almost the same position as that of
the figure on this Athenian relief is seen in a small bronze in the
Metropolitan Museum, whose primitive features and solidly massed hair
date it in the early part of the sixth century B. C.[1423] Another
slightly larger bronze in the same museum represents Herakles running
in a kneeling posture.[1424] Because a spearman is incongruous behind
a bowman, Kalkmann[1425] and Furtwaengler[1426] have interpreted the
two kneeling figures near either end of the West gable of the temple on
Aegina as archaic runners (see Fig. 21, left). We may further compare
with these figures the positions, though not the motives, of two others
from the West gable at Olympia,[1427] as well as that of the kneeling
bowman _Herakles_ from the East gable of the temple on Aegina.[1428] In
this connection we shall also mention the life-size marble torso of
a kneeling youth found in Nero’s villa at Subiaco in 1884 and now in
the Museo delle Terme, Rome (Pl. 24).[1429] This statue, representing
a boy of delicate build apparently striding forward with the right leg
and bending the left so that the knee nearly touches the ground, has
been regarded by some scholars[1430] as a runner, whose pose copies
the archaic manner, being historically the last example known of its
use in sculpture. The right shoulder is turned backward and the head,
now missing, was turned back and upwards; the right arm is raised high
and twisted about with the palm of the hand facing backward, the left
arm extended with its hand in some way related to the right knee. The
impression made on the spectator is that of a boy bending aside as if
to ward off some danger. It is an excellent piece of work, evidently
the marble copy of an original bronze. This has been variously
assigned to the fifth, fourth, and even later centuries B. C.,[1431]
and interpreted in various ways[1432]—as a Niobid,[1433] as Ganymedes
swooped down upon by the eagle,[1434] as Hylas drawn into the water by
nymphs when he was filling his pitcher,[1435] as a ball-player,[1436]
as a boy throwing a lasso,[1437] as a gable figure,[1438] as a runner
at the games, etc. Many of these interpretations are purely fanciful;
the last is, perhaps, as good as any, though the strongly turned upper
body seems not quite fitted to it. If it represents a runner, the
sculptor has reproduced the well-known archaic pose.
THE STATUE OF THE RUNNER LADAS.
We shall next consider the famous statue of the runner Ladas by Myron,
which is unfortunately known to us only from literary evidence, but
which attained in antiquity an even greater fame than his nameless
_Diskobolos_, since it portrayed even more tension than that wonderful
work. Its fame was partly due to the picturesque story how the victory
cost the runner his life, for he died of strain while on his way home
to Sparta; it was also due in no less degree to the striking way in
which the victor was depicted.[1439]
Two fourth-century epigrams tell us of the statue. The first of these
runs:
Λάδας τὸ στάδιον εἴθ’ ἥλατο, εἴτε διέπτη,
οὐδὲ φράσαι δυνατόν· δαιμόνιον τὸ τάχος.
[ὁ ψόφος ἦν ὕσπληγγος ἐν οὔασι, καὶ στεφανοῦτο
Λάδας καὶ κάμνων δάκτυλον οὐ προέβη.][1440]
The second epigram, naming Myron as the sculptor, runs:
Οἷος ἔης φεύγων τὸν ὑπήνεμον, ἔμπνοε Λάδα,
Θῦμον, ἐπ’ ἀκροτάτῳ πνεύματι θεὶς ὄνυχα,
τοῖον ἐχάλκευσέν σε Μύρων, ἐπὶ παντὶ χαράξας
σώματι Πισαίου προσδοκίην στεφάνου.
[Illustration: PLATE 24
Statue of a Kneeling Youth, from Subiaco. Museo delle Terme, Rome.]
To these verses are added the following, which Benndorf thinks belonged
to another epigram on the same statue:
πλήρης ἐλπίδος ἐστίν, ἄκροις δ’ ἐπὶ χείλεσιν ἆσθμα
ἐμφαίνει κοίλων ἔνδοθεν ἐκ λαγόνων.
πηδήσει τάχα χαλκὸς ἐπὶ στέφος, οὐδὲ καθέξει
ἁ βάσις· ὢ τέχνη πνεύματος ὠκυτέρα.[1441]
Professor Ernest Gardner translates the two parts of the second epigram
as follows:
“Like as thou wast in life, Ladas, breathing forth thy panting
soul,[1442] on tip-toe, with every sinew at full strain, such hath
Myron wrought thee in bronze, stamping on thy whole body thy eagerness
for the victor’s crown of Pisa.”
“He is filled with hope, and you may see the breath caught on his lips
from deep within his flanks; surely the bronze will leave its pedestal
and leap to the crown. Such art is swifter than the wind.”[1443]
Even if part of the epigram is rhetorical, we can not doubt that Ladas
was represented in the final spurt just before he arrived at the goal.
His eagerness was not confined to the face—though the panting breath
could have been indicated by half opened lips, but was visible in the
whole body.[1444] Whereas the girl runner of the Vatican (Pl. 2) is
represented at the beginning of the race, Myron’s statue represented
Ladas at the end of it. Probably the victor was represented with his
weight thrown on the advanced foot and with the arms close to the sides
and bent at the elbows—a treatment which would have been easy for the
sculptor of the _Diskobolos_. Mahler tried to identify the statue with
one of the Naples group of so-called runners (Fig. 51).[1445] However,
as we shall see, these probably represent wrestlers, and not runners,
and neither of them shows any such tension as we should expect from the
description of the statue of Ladas. Though Foerster believes that the
statue of Ladas stood in Olympia, in honor of his victory in the long
race there,[1446] we can not say definitely where it was.[1447]
[Illustration: FIG. 38.—Statue of a Runner. Palazzo dei Conservatori,
Rome.]
[Illustration: FIG. 39.—Statue of a Runner. Palazzo dei Conservatori,
Rome.]
Perhaps our best representation of runners is to be seen in the two
marble statues discovered near Velletri and now in the Palazzo dei
Conservatori, Rome (Figs. 38 and 39).[1448] The hair and the sharp
edges of the modeling of the flesh, as well as the tree-stumps near the
right legs, show that these statues are copies of bronze originals.
They were at first interpreted as runners, but later were regarded as
forming a group of wrestlers, who were standing opposite one another
and holding their hands out for an opening. However, there is nothing
in the pose or the expression of these statues to show the tension
of two opponents. Moreover, they certainly never formed a group,
for stylistic differences reveal that they are copies of statues by
different artists who lived at different times; one belongs to the
severe style of the last quarter of the fifth century,[1449] while
the other, with its softer forms, smaller head, and deeper-set eyes,
is a product of the fourth century B. C.[1450] The prominent edge
of the chest is doubtless meant to indicate the hard breathing of a
runner.[1451] Just in front of the tree-stump on the older statue is to
be seen a round hole in the plinth, which may have been made for the
end of a club held in the right hand, as such an object is found in
other works of art, notably in a statuette from Palermo, which is the
copy of a fifth-century B. C. original, and on a second-century B. C.
grave-stele from Crete.[1452] Its use, however, is not certainly known.
Furtwaengler, by an ingenious process of reasoning, argued that he
had recovered an actual statue of an Olympic runner in the so-called
_Alkibiades_, formerly in the Villa Mattei, but now in the Sala della
Biga of the Vatican.[1453] This torso he ascribed to the sculptor
Kresilas, because of its likeness to the _Perikles_ of that master,
which once stood on the Akropolis,[1454] and to a marble torso in
Naples representing a wounded man ready to fall, which he thinks
is a copy of the _Volneratus deficiens_ of Kresilas mentioned by
Pliny.[1455] The _Alkibiades_ is very similar to the Naples gladiator,
though later in date; the bearded head, drawn-in stomach, and muscular
chest, and the veins in the upper arm are common to both. The restorer
of the Vatican statue has placed a helmet under the right foot. But the
deep-breathing chest may indicate a runner, as we saw in the case of
the statues of the Conservatori just discussed. Furtwaengler has the
body bend further forward, so that the right foot may rest upon the
ground and the glance be fixed upon the goal, with the arms extended
at the elbows, a position proved for the right arm, at least, by the
_puntello_ above the hip. As the head shows portrait-like features and
only those athletes who had won three victories had portrait statues,
he has identified the original of the _Alkibiades_ with the statue
of the famous stade-runner Krison of Himera, who won his victories
at Olympia just after the middle of the fifth century B. C., the
approximate date of the Vatican copy.[1456] Such an identification
appears, however, to be too far-fetched to be convincing.
STATUES OF BOY RUNNERS.
[Illustration: FIG. 40.—Statue of the _Thorn-puller_ (_Spinario_).
Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome.]
Probably the statues of boy runners did not differ essentially from
those of men. That they were sometimes represented in motion is shown
by the footprints on the recovered base of the statue of Sosikrates
by an unknown artist. Here the right foot touched the ground only
with the front portion.[1457] The view has often been expressed that
the bronze statue in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome, known as
the _Spinario_ (_Thorn-puller_) portrays a runner (Fig. 40).[1458]
It represents a boy, from twelve to fifteen years old, seated upon a
rock bending over and engrossed in extracting a thorn from his left
foot, which rests upon the right knee. The severe hair treatment, low
forehead, full cheeks, and strong chin appear to show the ideal beauty
of a boy of the period of about 460 B. C. The motive seems to have been
inspired directly by nature—witness the supple bend of the back, the
delicate arms, the naïve, though not too realistic, concentration of
interest in the act portrayed. Few pieces of ancient sculpture have
given rise to more discussion and extraordinary difference of opinion
than this popular work. One school of archæologists[1459] believes
it a late adaptation of a Hellenistic original, a more accurate copy
being the one in the British Museum, and consequently views it as a
purely _genre_ statue impossible of conception before Alexander’s time.
According to this view the London copy was an archaistic work of the
time of Pasiteles. Another school, however, including Helbig, Wolters,
Kekulé, and many others, sees in the Roman statue an original work
of 460 to 450 B. C., chiefly because the face shows great similarity
to those of the statues of the Olympia gables (especially to that of
Apollo)[1460]. According to this view the statue can not have been
a _genre_ work, as such works of decorative character were of later
origin, but the motive must be sought in some definite incident—in
some myth or historical event. Thus it has been referred to the
colonization of the Ozolian Lokroi, whose ancestor Lokros is said to
have got a thorn in his foot and to have founded cities near where
this occurred in fulfilment of an oracle. Many others, on the other
hand, have seen in its motive that of a boy victor in running, who has
gained his victory despite a thorn, which he is now pulling out, and
who has dedicated his statue to commemorate both the victory and the
untoward circumstances under which it was won. It has been assigned to
various sculptors and schools—to Myron, Pythagoras, and Kalamis, and
to Peloponnesian, Bœotian, and even Sicilian art.[1461] The boy’s
absorption in his task certainly reminds us of the concentration so
characteristic of the _Diskobolos_ of Myron. In determining its age
and artistic affiliations several things must be considered. In the
first place, the Roman statue is a copy, as the rock on which the boy
sits is cast with the figure, which would have been impossible in the
fifth century B. C. The long hair on this copy, which is short on
the one in the British Museum, falls down the neck, but not over the
cheeks, as it should on a head which is thus bent downwards. Pasiteles
almost certainly would have tied it with a ribbon. This shows that the
original was the work of an artist who was used to making standing
statues, and was not aware of the change in the representation of
the hair brought about by drooping ones. Such considerations, in
conjunction with the archaic facial characteristics, almost certainly
refer the original work to the fifth century B. C., a date when _genre_
statues, produced for adornment, did not exist. Consequently a definite
incident must be represented by it, and it is quite possible that this
incident should be sought in athletic sculpture in the representation
of a boy runner.
The _Thorn-puller_ became a model for many imitations from the
beginning of Hellenistic times on. These imitations tended to greater
realism and consequently to the debasement of the original conception,
for they were made to represent peasants, shepherds, satyrs, and even
negroes. The _motif_ was also transferred to figures of girls, as,
_e. g._, in the fragment of a terra-cotta statuette found in 1912 at
Nida-Haddernheim.[1462] In the early Empire it was frequently copied
in marble, and again, during the Renaissance, the motive was used for
small bronzes.[1463] Of Hellenistic copies, showing how the motive
deteriorated, we shall mention only two: the marble one found on the
Esquiline, in 1874, and known as the Castellani copy, now in the
British Museum,[1464] the sculptor of which has made it into a truly
_genre_ fountain figure by transforming the noble features of the
beautiful Greek runner into the snub nose and thick lips of a street
Arab, and the still later bronze statuette found near Sparta and now
in the Paris collection of Baron Edmund de Rothschild,[1465] which
represents the boy extracting the thorn in anger.
Similarly the so-called _Sandal-binder_—with replicas in Paris (Fig.
8), London, Athens, Munich, and elsewhere, has been looked upon,
without decisive grounds, to be sure, as a runner who is tying on his
sandals after the race.[1466] We have already discussed this statue in
Chapter II, in connection with the subject of assimilation.
HOPLITODROMOI.
The race in armor had a practical value in the training of soldiers,
and so became a popular sport, since it appealed not only to the
trained athlete, but to the citizen in general. It belonged to “mixed
athletics,”[1467] _i. e._, to competitions which were conducted under
handicap conditions, such as our obstacle races, and consequently
it never attained the prestige of the strictly athletic events. It
came last among the gymnic contests at Olympia and elsewhere,[1468]
being followed by the equestrian events. It seems to have varied in
different places in the distance run, in the armor of the runner, and
in the rules which governed the race. At Olympia, as at Athens, it
appears to have been a _diaulos_ or a race of two stadia.[1469] The
most strenuous race of the sort was run at the _Eleutheria_ at Platæa,
where the contestants were completely enveloped in armor[1470] and were
subject to peculiar rules. At Olympia the competitors originally ran
with helmets, greaves, and round shields, as we infer from scenes on
archaic vases and from the statement of Pausanias that the statue of
the first victor in this event, Damaretos of Heraia, was represented
with these arms.[1471] In this passage Pausanias adds that the Eleans
and other Greeks later (ἀνὰ χρόνον) gave up the greaves, and we find
that they disappear on the vase-paintings.[1472] Hauser has shown that
the vase-paintings, which, however, mostly illustrate the Athenian
practice, display a varied custom in respect of the use of the greaves
before about 520 B. C., the general use of them until about 450 B.
C., and after that date their disuse.[1473] The helmet disappeared
after the greaves, but the shield was never given up.[1474] Thus the
bronze statue of Mnesiboulos of Elateia, a victor (σὺν τῇ ἀσπίδι) of
Pausanias’ day, which stood in “Runner Street” of his native city,
appears to have been represented with the shield.[1475] It was for this
reason that the event was later sometimes called merely ἀσπίς.[1476]
The shields that appear on the vases are always round and the helmets
are Attic.[1477] The gradual reduction in the amount of the armor may
have been a concession to the regular athletes, who probably looked
upon the contest as a spurious sort of athletics. As for the style of
the race, the hoplite runners seem to have run somewhat as the stade
and double-course runners, _i. e._, with their right hands up and their
arms violently swinging.[1478]
The picturesqueness of such a race appealed especially to
vase-painters, who have given us all the details of the event. The
preparations for the race are seen on a red-figured kylix from Vulci,
now in Paris, ascribed to Euphronios (Panaitios), on which one
runner is donning his armor, while others are practising preliminary
runs.[1479] The start is seen in the right-hand figure depicted on a
r.-f. kylix in Berlin (Fig. 41, a).[1480] On another r.-f. kylix we see
a pair of hoplites, one slowing up before reaching the central post,
the other turning it.[1481] The finish is seen on an obscene r.-f.
kylix from Vulci in the style of Brygos, in the British Museum, where
the bearded winner, with his helmet in his hand, looks back on his
rival, and the latter, apparently in disgust, drops his shield.[1482]
The most complete illustration of the race is to be seen on the r.-f.
Berlin kylix just mentioned (Fig. 41, a, b, c.) Here on one side is a
group of three runners; the right-hand one is bending over, ready to
start; the one at the left is about to turn the central post, and the
one in the centre, who is turned in an opposite direction, is on the
home stretch; on the other side of the vase are three runners in full
course, while another appears on the interior of the vase.[1483] Some
vases seem to show that the contest often had a semi-comic character,
the variations in running being used to amuse the spectators. Thus
the shield might be dropped and picked up again,[1484] or it might be
held in a peculiar manner.[1485] This comic element is brought out in
the _Aves_ of Aristophanes, in a scene in which Peisthetairos, while
observing the chorus of birds advancing with their crests (λόφωσις),
compares them with hoplite runners advancing to begin the race.[1486]
The regular painter outdid the vase-painter in representing the runner
in violent motion, if we may rely on Pliny’s description of two
paintings of hoplites by Parrhasios.[1487] In one of these the runner
was represented as perspiring as he ran, while in the other he was
represented as having laid aside his arms and panting so realistically
that the observer seemed to hear him.
[Illustration: FIG. 41.—Hoplitodromes. Scenes from a r.-f. Kylix.
Museum of Berlin.]
[Illustration: FIG. 42.—Bronze Statuette of a Hoplitodrome (?).
University Museum, Tuebingen.]
We have few representations of hoplitodromes in sculpture. In the
preceding chapter we discussed the two marble helmeted heads found at
Olympia (Fig. 30), one of which shows that the statue of which it was a
part was represented at rest, while the other, because of the twist in
the neck, seems to have come from a statue which represented the runner
in violent motion. Pausanias saw on the Athenian Akropolis the statue
of the hoplite runner Epicharinos, the work of the sculptor Kritios,
represented as practising starts (ὁπλιτοδρομεῖν ἀσκήσαντος).[1488] In
the well-known Tux bronze in the University Museum at Tuebingen, we
have a statuette in which the position of the statue of Epicharinos is
probably reproduced. This little bronze, which is only 0.16 meter tall
(Fig. 42),[1489] represents a bearded man, entirely nude, except for
the Attic helmet on his head, standing with feet close together, knees
slightly bent, and body inclined forward. The right arm is extended,
while the left, crooked at the elbow, rests upon the hip. While Schwabe
and Wolters, following the early theory of Hirt and of the sculptor
Dannecker, interpreted the bronze as the figure of a charioteer,
whose left hand was drawn back to hold the reins and whose right was
outstretched in a gesture intended to quiet the horses, Hauser, de
Ridder, Bulle, and many other archæologists have interpreted it better
as a hoplitodrome. The left arm, then, carried a round shield, such
as we have seen on Attic vases. The next moment the right leg will be
advanced, the shield, held back to get a better start, will be pushed
forward, and the runner will race to the goal in a series of leaps,
since the weight of the shield would prevent him from following the
more regular motion of the ordinary runner. It probably represents,
therefore, a hoplite runner, not in the actual course, as Hauser
thought, but practicing a preliminary start, as de Ridder argued. If
the figure represented a charioteer, the legs would have been set
farther apart, in order to give a firmer position, and it would not be
represented as standing on a base, nor would it be wearing a helmet.
The statuette stylistically belongs to the opening years of the fifth
century B. C., and may well be a free imitation of a life-size original
of such statues of hoplites as stood in the Altis at Olympia. Despite
the energy depicted in this figure, it is rash to connect it with the
Aeginetan sculptures, as Wolters and Collignon have done, since a
comparison between it and the _Champion_ of the East gable[1490] will
show great differences. Brunn ascribed the original to Pythagoras; de
Ridder, with reservations, to Kritios and Nesiotes; while Bulle is more
reasonable in referring it to an important though unnamed artist of the
early fifth century B. C.
Hartwig has published a bronze statuette from Capua,[1491] now in
the Imperial collection at Vienna, representing a nude youth with a
crested helmet on his head. There is no trace of a shield, but the
helmet and the similarity of the pose to that of the Tuebingen bronze
make it probable that this statuette also represents a hoplitodrome
starting. The so-called _Diomedes_ of Myronian style in the Palazzo
Valentini, Rome,[1492] whose stooping posture recalls the _Diskobolos_
and accordingly has been interpreted as one by Matz and von Duhn, more
probably also represents a hoplite-runner, as Furtwaengler maintained,
because of the similarity of its pose to that of the Tux bronze and
because of its helmeted head.[1493]
[Illustration: FIG. 43.—Statue of the so-called _Borghese Warrior_.
Louvre, Paris.]
Some other attempts to see hoplite runners in existing works of
sculpture have not been so successful. Thus Rayet’s attempt to
resuscitate the old interpretation of Quatremère de Quincy, who had
explained the statue of the so-called _Borghese Warrior_ by Agasias of
Ephesos (Fig. 43) as that of a hoplitodrome just before reaching the
goal, has been recently revived again by Six.[1494] This famous marble
statue of the Louvre, belonging to late Greek art, is an example of the
last development in the Argive-Sikyonian school, which for centuries
had been devoted to athletic sculpture.[1495] Since the statue has
no helmet, there seems to be no valid reason for not adhering to the
usual interpretation, according to which it represents a warrior—by
restoring the lost right arm and hand with a sword—who is defending
himself against a foe above him, conceived of as seated upon a horse.
The attitude and the upward gaze are certainly not those of a runner.
Though Collignon, following Visconti, believes the figure to be one
of a group, the man actually defending himself against a horseman and
covering himself with his shield as he looks up, it is doubtful whether
a second figure ever existed. The artist seems to have contented
himself with representing, not a fight, but only a fighting pose. We
are beginning to understand that the Greek sculptor left something to
the imagination of the beholder.
An attempt has also been made to see a dying hoplite runner in the
Parian marble archaic grave-relief in the National Museum in Athens,
which has already been mentioned as an example of the archaic scheme
of representing running.[1496] It represents a beardless youth running
in a half-kneeling posture, even though the head is bent and turned
in the opposite direction. The eyes appear to be closed—due, perhaps,
to the faulty sculptor—and the two hands are touching the breast.
While no shield is represented (it is contended that its presence
would nearly hide the figure), still, because of the helmet and the
position of the arm, which latter is obviously that of a long-distance
runner, Philios, followed by Perrot-Chipiez and Bulle, explained it
as the representation of a hoplite runner who is expiring at the end
of his course. They date it about 520 B. C.,[1497] the date of the
introduction of this race at Olympia. However, the absence of the
shield, to say nothing of the greaves, seems an insuperable objection
to such an hypothesis, as the shield was never omitted in this race,
but was invariably its symbol. Svoronos is therefore more probably
right in interpreting the relief as the monument of a military runner
(δρομοκῆρυξ), even if his dating (490-480 B. C.) is somewhat too
late,[1498] and if his identifying it with some particular messenger
(such as the Athenian runner Pheidippides, who ran to Sparta for aid
just prior to the battle of Marathon) is fanciful.
PENTATHLETES.
The peculiar features of the pentathlon (πένταθλον) were the three
events, jumping, diskos-throwing, and javelin-throwing. All five events
are summed up in Simonides’ epigram on the pentathlete Diophon, who
won at Delphi and on the Isthmus, the second line of which runs: ἅλμα,
ποδωκείην, δίσκον, ἄκοντα, πάλην.[1499]
The pentathlon did not exist in Homer’s time. Pindar expressly says
that it did not exist in heroic days, but that then a separate prize
was given for each feat.[1500] At the games on Scheria, King Alkinoos
boasts to Odysseus of the superiority of his countrymen in πύξ τε
παλαισμοσύνῃ τε καὶ ἅλμασιν ἠδὲ πόδεσσιν.[1501] The pentathlon for
men was introduced at Olympia at the same time as wrestling toward
the end of the eighth century, in Ol. 18 (= 708 B. C.),[1502] and the
pentathlon for boys eighty years later, in Ol. 38 (= 628 B. C.), only
to be stopped soon after.[1503] Pausanias mentions fifteen victors
at Olympia, who had statues erected in their honor, for seventeen
victories in the pentathlon, thus giving the pentathletes sixth rank
there in point of number.
The b.-f. Bacchic amphora in Rome already discussed represents four
events out of the five: running, leaping, diskos-throwing, and
akontion-throwing (Figs. 36 A and 36 B).[1504] On several Panathenaic
vases we find one or more events, and the three characteristic ones on
several, one of which we here reproduce (Fig. 44).[1505]
The various events are common on r.-f. vases,[1506] though these may
not represent the pentathlon contests, but merely gymnasium scenes,
showing that such contests were important. We have already said that
the pentathlon represented the whole physical training of Greek
youths; consequently the pentathlete was looked upon as the typical
athlete, being superior to all others in all-round development, even
if surpassed by them in certain special events. It was for this reason
that Polykleitos, in order to embody the principles of his athlete
canon, made a statue of a javelin-thrower (the _Doryphoros_) as the
best example of an all-round man.
[Illustration: FIG. 44.—Pentathletes. Scene from a Panathenaic Amphora
in the British Museum, London.]
None of the statues of pentathletes at Olympia has been recovered
with certainty in Roman copies. That some of them were represented
at rest is shown by the base of the statue of the victor Pythokles
of Elis, by the elder Polykleitos, which has been recovered.[1507]
This base supported two different statues in succession. The feet of
the earlier one by Polykleitos were riveted into circular holes, and
behind the right foot on the upper surface of the base was inscribed
the artist’s name, while the victor’s appeared on the vertical front.
This statue was later removed and was replaced by another, whose pose
was different, as we see from the footmarks, which show that the feet
were attached with lead in hollows. Probably the old inscription was
renewed in archaic letters when this second statue was set up, the
older letters being retained, perhaps, to conceal the theft. The
original statue was removed by the first century B. C., or perhaps
under Nero;[1508] the new one was also inscribed as the work of
Polykleitos. A base of the Hadrianic or Antonine age has been found in
Rome, inscribed with the names Polykleitos and Pythokles.[1509] Since
the footmarks do not agree with those of either one of the Olympia
statues, Petersen believes that the existing footmarks are due to an
older use of the base and that they have nothing to do with the statue
of Pythokles. Perhaps the statue on the Roman base was the original
one by Polykleitos removed from Olympia to Rome, though it is possible
that it was only a copy, the original being elsewhere in Rome. While
the later statue at Olympia had the feet squarely on the ground, the
original one stood on the right foot, the left being drawn back and
turned out, touching the ground only with the ball. Hence the left
knee must have turned outwards, a natural position, if the head of
the statue was turned slightly to the left. In other words, this is
the usual Polykleitan scheme. Furtwaengler has made a strong though
hardly convincing attempt to identify this original statue with a copy
surviving in two replicas at Rome and Munich, which, as he believes,
fit the conditions of the statue of Pythokles.[1510] These copies
represent a nude youth standing with the weight of the body on the
right leg, the left drawn back and outwards. The head is turned to
the left, the right arm is held close to the side (the hand, perhaps,
once holding a fillet), and the left forearm is outstretched from the
elbow and holds an aryballos in the hand. The two works are manifestly
Polykleitan in style—the body, head, and hair treatment resembling that
of the _Doryphoros_. He assumed that the feet corresponded in scale
with the footmarks on the Olympia base.
Helbig, in the first edition of his _Fuehrer_, recognized the kinship
between the Vatican statuette and the _Doryphoros_ of Polykleitos,
and was prone to accept Furtwaengler’s identification; but later
on, in the third edition, he ascribed the statuette only to the
Polykleitan circle and denied that its foot position corresponded
with that of the Pythokles base. Amelung also, while accepting its
Polykleitan character, has shown that the feet of the statuette are
closer together than those on the Olympia base and are placed at a
slightly different angle. As for the Munich statue, both Helbig and
Amelung have ruled it out of the evidence. The head, though similar
to that of the statuette, also discloses marked differences, and the
legs of the two works do not have the same pose. Loewy agrees with
Amelung that the statue of Pythokles conformed with the type of the
_Diadoumenos_—especially with the Vaison copy (see Fig. 28)—and with
that of the _Doryphoros_.[1511] We can not, therefore, safely assume
that the statue of Pythokles has been recovered in any existing
copy.[1512] A further variant of the works just discussed should be
mentioned here—the beautiful marble statue of a boy victor in Dresden,
known as the _Dresden Boy_ (Fig. 45).[1513] In this statue the leg
position is nearly like that indicated by the marks on the Pythokles
basis, though the left foot is not set so far back nor its tip so far
out. The head is turned to the left and slightly lowered, the right
arm hung to the side, and the left forearm was outstretched, the hand
doubtless holding some athletic article, at which the boy is looking
down, perhaps a diskos[1514] or a fillet. This beautiful athlete
statue has many stylistic points in common with the _Diadoumenos_, and
shows similar Attic influence, and its original may be referred with
Furtwaengler to the later period of the master himself. It gives us an
excellent idea how Polykleitos may have made his Olympia boy victors
appear. A more remote variant seems to be furnished by a fourth-century
B. C. bronze statuette of a youthful athlete in the Louvre.[1515] Here
the position of the feet, the turn of the head, and the direction of
the gaze are the same as in the _Dresden Boy_. However, as the right
arm is raised horizontally, Furtwaengler believed that the right hand
held a fillet which the youth is letting fall into the palm of the left.
[Illustration: FIG. 45.—Statue of a Boy Victor (the _Dresden Boy_).
Albertinum, Dresden.]
That statues of pentathletes at Olympia were also represented in
motion is shown by the footmarks on the recovered base of one of the
two statues mentioned by Pausanias as set up in honor of the Elean
Aischines, who won two victories some time between Ols. 126 and 132 (=
276 and 252 B. C.).[1516] These marks show that the statue represented
the victor in violent movement, since the left foot was turned outwards
and the right one was brought almost to the edge of the base.
We shall next consider in some detail how the pentathlete may have been
represented at Olympia in the three characteristic contests of jumping,
diskos-throwing, and javelin-throwing. We have already discussed the
runner, and in a future section we shall discuss the wrestler, both of
whom contended in these events not only in the pentathlon, but also in
the corresponding independent competitions.
JUMPERS.
Jumping was a well-known contest in heroic days. In Homer, however,
it did not take place at the games of Patroklos, but only at those
held by King Alkinoos.[1517] Quintus Smyrnæus has the Trojan heroes
contend in jumping,[1518] and the contest goes back to mythology.[1519]
Though Plato does not mention it, Aristotle does.[1520] Later it became
an essential part of the pentathlon, though never an independent
contest at the great games. It was probably considered to be the
most representative feature of the pentathlon, perhaps because of
the customary use of the _halteres_ in the physical exercises of the
gymnasium. Jumping-weights were, in fact, the special symbol of the
pentathlon, and, as we saw in the preceding chapter, were often the
definitive attributes indicated on statues of pentathletes.[1521] We
shall next discuss the appearance and use of such jumping-weights.
Their form is often a sure indication of the date of a statue.
Juethner has made a careful study of the different shapes of
_halteres_ and his conclusions have been followed, for the most part,
by Gardiner.[1522] The _halteres_ do not appear in Homer, but were
in existence at least by the beginning of the sixth century B. C.,
and a little later they probably appeared on pentathlete statues.
To this period belongs the lead weight from Eleusis now in Athens,
whose inscription records that it was dedicated by one Epainetos to
commemorate his victory in jumping.[1523] On vase-paintings of the
sixth and fifth centuries B. C., we see numerous types, but two main
ones. Early b.-f. vases show a semicircular piece of metal or stone
with a deep depression on one side for a finger grip, the two club-like
ends being equal (as in Figs. 36A and 44). In the early fifth century
B. C., a club-like type came in, which shows many modifications in
the size and shape of the ends.[1524] In the fifth century B. C., the
second main type appeared, of an elongated semispherical form, thickest
in the middle and with the ends pointed or rounded. These correspond
with the “archaic” ones, which Pausanias saw on the figure of _Agon_
in the dedicatory group of Mikythos at Olympia[1525] and describes as
forming half an elongated circle and so fastened as to let the fingers
pass through. We have two stone examples of this type: one found at
Corinth, now in the Polytechnic Institute in Athens,[1526] in which a
hole is cut behind the middle for the fingers and thumbs, and a more
primitive single one from Olympia.[1527] Philostratos divides the Greek
jumping-weights into “long” and “spherical,”[1528] which Juethner
identifies with the two types just discussed. Gardiner, however, finds
this impossible, since Pausanias speaks of one type as “archaic,”
and he consequently thinks that these were no longer in use in the
time of Philostratos. After the fifth century B. C. we have little
evidence about _halteres_ until Roman days, when a cylindrical type
appears on Roman copies of Greek statues of athletes, on mosaics and
wall-paintings.[1529] Thus it appears on the tree-trunk in two athlete
statues in Dresden[1530] and the Pitti Gallery in Florence,[1531]
and on the Lateran athlete mosaic from Tusculum of the imperial
period.[1532] In Roman days jumping-weights were used for the most part
in medical gymnastics, like our dumb-bells.[1533]
Philostratos says that the jump was the most difficult part of the
pentathlon.[1534] It never existed as an independent competition
despite its popularity in Greece. This popularity is attested by the
frequency with which it is depicted on vases from the sixth century
B. C. onward. Here the jumper is regularly shown with weights, and
we can assume that many pentathlete statues were so represented, the
sculptor ordinarily copying the kind of weight which was in use in his
own age. While Philostratos in his day thought that the use of weights
was merely to aid in exercise, Aristotle long before had rightly
understood that the jumper could make a longer jump with than without
them,[1535] a fact easily proved by the feats of modern jumpers. While
the modern record for the running broad jump is 25 feet 3 inches,[1536]
an English athlete jumped 29 feet 7 inches with the use of 5-pound
weights,[1537] and a German officer in full uniform jumped 23 feet
from a springboard.[1538] The recorded jumps of Phaÿllos at Delphi and
of Chionis at Olympia, the former 55 feet and the latter 52, can not,
however, be explained as ordinary broad jumps, even if we assume that
the Greek jumper was far superior to the modern one. Such jumps would
be impossible even with springboards or raised platforms, and we have
no evidence that the Greeks used such devices. We might explain them
on the theory of triple jumps[1539]—though the difficulty of such a
solution is very great—or simply as mistakes in the records. Thus the
record of Phaÿllos is found in a late epigram, in which this athlete is
also said to have thrown the diskos 105 feet.[1540] That of Chionis is,
to be sure, given by Africanus.[1541] But it is more than probable that
νβʹ (52) of his record should read κβʹ (22), since the Armenian Latin
text reads _duos et viginti cubitus_.[1542]
Vase-paintings tell us how the _halteres_ were used.[1543] The jumper
swung them forward and upward until they were level with or higher than
the head; then he brought them down, bending the body forward until
the hands were below the knees, the jump taking place on the return
swing. We find the preliminary swing represented most commonly on the
vases;[1544] we also see on them the top of the upward swing,[1545]
the bottom of the downward swing,[1546] the jumper in midair,[1547] and
the moment just before alighting.[1548] The act of landing is seen on
an Etruscan wall-painting from a tomb at Chiusi.[1549] Running jumps
are the ones most commonly depicted.[1550]
The representation of the jump, therefore, was specially adapted to the
vase-painter and not to the sculptor. If any movement in the jump could
have been represented to advantage in sculpture, it would have been the
early position in which the weights were swung forward and upwards.
This is the one represented on an incised bronze diskos from Sicily
now in the British Museum,[1551] where an athlete, with his right leg
drawn back for the spring, is holding the weights in his outstretched
hands. A small finely modelled bronze statuette dating from the middle
of the fifth century B. C., in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, may
represent a jumper either just taking off, or perhaps just finishing
the jump.[1552] The athlete is standing with his left foot advanced,
his knees bent back, and his body leaning forward, and is holding
both arms in front, the palms downwards. Such a concentrated attitude
reminds us strongly of Myron, under whose influence this statuette
must have been made. Some have interpreted it as the representation
of a diver, though the hands seem to be held too far apart and the
body wrongly poised for that position, as we see it in a statuette
of a diver from Perugia.[1553] More likely a jumper is intended, as
the attitude is very similar to that depicted on several vases.[1554]
However, as the jumper has no _halteres_, it can not represent a
pentathlete, but must be an ordinary gymnasium athlete.
DISKOBOLOI.
The diskos-throw (δισκοβολία) goes back to mythology and heroic
days.[1555] In Homer, at the games of Patroklos, Achilles casts a metal
mass called the σόλος.[1556] This was the primitive type of diskos.
Of such early contests and feats of strength we have a good record in
the red-sandstone mass, weighing 143.5 kilograms (= 315 pounds), which
has been found at Olympia, marked with a sixth-century inscription
to the effect that one Bybon threw it over his head.[1557] There is
nothing athletic, however, about the use of such a stone or of the
Homeric _solos_. The diskos was also known to Homer.[1558] It was of
stone, and in Pindar the heroes Nikeus, Kastor, and Iolaos still hurl
the stone diskos instead of the metal one of the poet’s day.[1559] The
stone diskos appears on sixth-century vases as a white object,[1560]
but metal ones were introduced at the end of the sixth century B.
C. A bronze one from Kephallenia (?) in the British Museum has a
sixth-century inscription in the Doric dialect and in the alphabet
of the Ionian Islands, which gives the dedication of Exoïdas to the
Dioskouroi.[1561] Several others have been found in different parts of
Greece, especially at Olympia.[1562] Pausanias says that boys used a
lighter diskos than men.[1563]
While only unimportant monuments outside of vase-paintings illustrate
the jump, those illustrating the diskos-throw are rich and varied,
including not only vases, but statues, statuettes, small bronzes,
reliefs, coins, and gems.[1564]
In his careful attempt at reconstructing the method of casting the
diskos, E. N. Gardiner has distinguished seven different positions,
which are illustrated by the monuments.[1565] He shows that while the
swing of the quoit was always the same, _i. e._, in a vertical and
not in a horizontal arc, and the throw was invariably made from a
position like that of Myron’s statue, the preliminary and certain other
movements varied. It will be well, before discussing representations
of the diskos-thrower in sculpture, very briefly to recapitulate his
summary of positions, using the evidence which he and others have
collected. First, the preliminary position or stance, with three
variations: either the position of the _Standing Diskobolos_ of the
Vatican (Pl. 6), which occurs in bronzes, but not on vases; or the
position in which the diskobolos raises the quoit with the left hand
level with the shoulder, which occurs on vase-paintings;[1566] or that
in which the diskos is held outwards in both hands level with the
waist.[1567] From any of these stance positions, either with or without
change of feet, we reach the second position, in which the diskos is
raised in both hands and extended either horizontally to the front
and level with the head,[1568] or held above the head.[1569] Thirdly
the diskos is swung downwards and rests upon the right forearm, with
either foot forward.[1570] This position leads up to that of Myron’s
statue, in which the diskos is swung as far back as possible (Pls. 22,
23, and Figs. 34, 35).[1571] The fifth position is the beginning of
the forward swing, when the body is straightened.[1572] As the diskos
swings downwards and the left foot advances, the sixth position is
reached.[1573] Lastly the right foot is advanced after the diskos is
cast.[1574]
[Illustration: FIG. 46.—Bronze Statuette of a _Diskobolos_. Metropolitan
Museum, New York.]
A victor statue of a diskobolos might conceivably have taken any one of
these seven positions. We have already considered the two statues, the
_Standing Diskobolos_ of Naukydes in the Vatican (Pl. 6) and that of
Myron (Pls. 22, 23, and Figs. 34, 35), the two most important works in
sculpture to illustrate positions of the throw. The statue of Naukydes
is not taking aim, as Juethner maintains, nor looking down the course.
The head is inclined a little to the right and downwards, and the eyes
are directed to the ground only a short distance away, thus measuring
the distance the left foot is to be advanced, when the diskos is
finally swung forward for the cast, which takes place off the left and
not off the right foot. The right forearm is rightly restored, as it
thus appears on bronzes which imitate this stance.[1575] A different
stance is shown in a fine bronze statuette in the Metropolitan Museum
(Fig. 46),[1576] dating from about 480 B. C. This little masterpiece
of the transition period of Attic art, still disclosing archaic traits,
represents a diskobolos standing firmly on both legs, the right being
slightly advanced, and holding with the left hand the diskos level with
the head. That he is preparing for intense action is seen by the way
in which the toes catch the ground. Though the right arm is broken off
from below the shoulder, we can infer from vase-paintings which show
diskoboloi in the same position[1577] that it was lowered and bent
at the elbow and the hand left open. From this position the diskos
will be raised high above the head with both hands, as in a bronze in
Athens,[1578] which illustrates Gardiner’s second position.
The movement is carried a little further—showing the moment of
transition to the downward swing or third position—in a fifth-century
B. C. bronze in the British Museum.[1579] Here a nude, beardless
athlete is represented standing with the right foot advanced and
holding the diskos in both hands before him above the head. The right
hand grasps the quoit underneath and the left at the top.[1580] The
third position is well illustrated by the tiny archaic bronze on the
cover of a lebes in the British Museum,[1581] which represents a nude
and beardless youth standing with the left foot advanced and with the
left hand raised, while the right holds the diskos. Almost the same
pose is also seen in a small bronze in the Antiquarium, Berlin.[1582]
Two archaic statuettes from the Akropolis, now in the National Museum
in Athens, and recently published, should be mentioned in this
connection.[1583] The more archaic of these represents a youth in an
attitude which has been misunderstood. De Ridder interpreted it as
a dancing man, while Staïs thought it represented a youth walking
along with his left hand raised as if to ward off a blow. White,
however, showed that it (like another less perfect example from the
Akropolis, no. 6594) represents a diskobolos standing with the right
foot advanced and holding the diskos in front of the body with the
right hand, resting it against the flat of the forearm, while the left
arm is raised above the head. Thus it is another example illustrating
the initial stage of Gardiner’s third position. The other statuette,
wrongly mounted, should, according to White, be made to lean further
forward; the knees are bent, the body swung forward from the hips, the
head thrown back and upward, the right arm stretched forth with the
flat of the forearm uppermost and the left similarly placed. Gardiner
and Staïs interpreted this figure as a charioteer, and de Ridder as
either a jumper, who has raised his _halteres_ preparatory to the
leap, or a diskobolos. White has shown that the position of the right
arm proves it to be a diskobolos, represented in a movement between
Gardiner’s third and fourth positions, just prior to that of Myron’s
statue. De Ridder believed both statues to be Aeginetan, but no. 6614,
when compared with Myron’s statue, is certainly Attic, and resemblances
in the treatment of the hair, eyes, and mouth show that both statuettes
are of the same school. It has often been said that Myron’s great
statue had no predecessor, as it certainly had no successor. Its
fame was enhanced by the assumption that Myron passed at one stride
from such statues as the _Tyrannicides_ to that complex work. Such
works, however, as these statuettes—especially no. 6614—show that the
preliminary problems had been solved on a humble scale before Myron
undertook his consummate work. Here, then, we have works by artists who
belonged to the very movement which produced Myron.
For the last three positions analyzed by Gardiner (nos. 5, 6, 7) our
only illustrations appear to be vase-paintings.
AKONTISTAI.
Javelin-throwing (ἀκοντίζειν, ἀκοντισμός) was very old and was
universal in Greece, its origin being traced back to mythology.[1584]
Stassoff tried to trace it to Oriental sources,[1585] but inasmuch as
no such contest is shown on the monuments of Egypt or Assyria, Juethner
is probably right in assuming that it was Greek in origin. In Homer
it was a separate contest at the games of Patroklos.[1586] Juethner
has distinguished two types of javelin-throwing in the historical
period: one in which the spear or akontion was pointed more or less
upwards,[1587] the other in which it was held horizontally.[1588] Only
the former type is represented in illustrations of purely athletic
competitions, the latter type referring to illustrations of the
practical use of javelin-throwing, _i. e._, in war or in the chase.
Vase-paintings of palæstra scenes almost invariably show javelins with
blunt points; the throwers’ heads are frequently turned back before the
throw, and there is no sign of any target. On vase-paintings, however,
which represent practical javelin-throwing from horseback, the javelins
are pointed. This proves that in athletic contests the throw was for
distance and not at a mark.[1589] The javelin used in Greek games had
several names, ἄκων, ἀκόντιον, etc.[1590] It was about the height of
a man, as we know from its appearance on a Spartan relief,[1591] and
from many vase-paintings representing palæstra scenes (Fig. 44). It was
thrown by means of a thong (ἀγκύλη, Lat. _amentum_), which was fastened
near the centre and consisted of a detachable leathern strip from 12
to 18 inches long. This was bound tight, with a loop left, into which
the thrower inserted his first and middle fingers.[1592] The method
of casting is seen on many vases.[1593] Gardiner has analyzed three
different positions from vase-paintings. Usually the throw was made
with a short run, though standing throws are also pictured.[1594] First
the thrower extends the right arm back to its full length and, with the
left hand opposite the right breast, holds the end of the spear and
pushes it back, holding it downwards or horizontally.[1595] Next he
starts to run, turning his body sidewise and extending his left arm to
the front. On a r.-f. Munich kylix[1596] we see the first and second
positions. The youth on the left is steadying the javelin with the left
hand, while the one on the right has just let it go. A further turn of
the body to the right takes place and the right knee is bent, while the
right shoulder is dropped and the hand is turned outwards.[1597] The
actual cast is very uncommon on vase-paintings, because of difficulty
in representing it.[1598]
Because of the assumed lack of sculptural monuments, Reisch[1599] and
others have wrongly doubted whether javelin-throwers were represented
in sculpture as victors. There certainly is no a priori reason why
athletic sculptors might not have made statues in any one of the three
poses which Gardiner has distinguished on vase-paintings, even if this
contest, like jumping, was better adapted to the painter than to the
sculptor. Furthermore, we shall attempt to show that such monuments
actually did exist.
[Illustration: FIG. 47.—Bust of the _Doryphoros_, after Polykleitos, by
Apollonios. Museum of Naples.]
[Illustration: FIG. 48.—Statue of the _Doryphoros_, after Polykleitos.
Vatican Museum, Rome.]
The best example of such a javelin-thrower seems to be the
_Doryphoros_, the most famous statue of Polykleitos, in which he
illustrated his canon of athletic forms. The _Doryphoros_ exists in
many copies, all of which agree fairly well in style and proportions.
K. Friedrichs, in his monograph _Der Doryphoros des Polyklets_, which
appeared in 1863,[1600] was the first to show that the statue found
in 1797 in the Palaistra at Pompeii, and now in the Naples Museum
(Pl. 4), was a copy of the original bronze, as it shows all the
peculiarities of the master’s style known to us from tradition.[1601]
Mahler enumerates 7 statues, 17 torsos, and 36 heads copied from the
original, and the fine, but expressionless, Augustan bronze bust from
the villa of the Pisos, Herculaneum, inscribed as the work of the
sculptor Apollonios, son of Archios, of Athens, which is now in Naples
(Fig. 47).[1602] The best-preserved copy of the statue, the one in
Naples, is surpassed in workmanship by the green basalt torso in the
Uffizi Gallery in Florence[1603] and by the marble one formerly in the
possession of Count Pourtalès in Berlin.[1604] A poorer copy is to be
found in the Braccio Nuovo of the Vatican (Fig. 48).[1605] In these
copies we see a thick-set youth standing with the weight of the body
on the right leg, the left one thrown back and touching the ground
only with the toes, seemingly ready to advance, though the shoulders
do not partake of the walking action. He is represented, therefore,
at the moment of transition from walking to a rest position—in other
words in a purely theoretical pose—at rest, indeed, but just ready
again to advance.[1606] His left hand held a short _akontion_ over the
shoulder and not the long spear (δόρυ), whence the name _Doryphoros_
or spear-bearer is derived.[1607] The head is turned to the same side
as the advanced foot, which perhaps is an example of the monotony
in the work of the master complained of by ancient critics; variety
would have been attained by turning it in the opposite direction.
In the carefully worked bronze original, which, however, must have
had an insignificant intellectual aspect, the apparently simple
problem—hitherto vainly attempted in Greek art—of representing a
man standing almost motionless, but full of life, was for the first
time solved. It is a long way from the motionless figures known as
“Apollos,” with their arms glued to the sides and their legs close
together, to this vigorous athlete. As we have already indicated,
Greek art developed the first step beyond the “Apollos” by further
advancing one leg of a statue and, it may be, extending one forearm
horizontally. The next step was to place one foot slightly sidewise and
thus relieve it of the weight of the body—the well-known scheme of the
“free” and “rest” leg. At first the relaxation was slight, the “free”
leg not being intended to move forward, nor the parts of the body to be
much shifted. Polykleitos’ innovation consisted in having the legs so
placed, one behind the other, that the figure, while apparently resting
on one,[1608] seemed to be advancing. On the ground of the familiar
passage in Pliny cited, it has been generally assumed that Polykleitos
introduced the walking motive into sculpture. However, this motive
was probably the invention of the earlier Argive school, borrowed by
Polykleitos for his canon, as seen in the statue of the so-called
_Munich King_ (_Zeus_?), of the Glyptothek, which Furtwaengler has
shown to be a work of about 460 B. C.[1609]
Does the _Doryphoros_ represent a pentathlete victor? Since Quintilian
says that it appears ready for war or for the exercises of the
palæstra,[1610] Helbig and others have classed it as a warrior, perhaps
one of the _Achilleae_ mentioned by Pliny[1611] as set up in the Greek
gymnasia. Furtwaengler stressed the incorrectness of calling an athlete
a _Doryphoros_[1612]—a name originally given to an attendant bearing a
lance (δόρυ), and so inapplicable to the statue of Polykleitos, which
represented not a server, but an athlete carrying an akontion (witness
the Berlin gem already mentioned)—but later[1613] concluded that an
athlete statue with the akontion might have been vaguely described in
late art jargon as a spear-bearer. Consequently he found probable the
interpretation of the various _doryphoroi_ mentioned by Pliny[1614] as
victor statues, and thought that the original of the _Doryphoros_ of
Polykleitos might very well have represented an Olympic pentathlete,
which was originally set up at Argos, where it was also adopted for a
figure on the heroic grave-relief already mentioned, which represented
the youth with a spear over his shoulder standing beside a horse. Bulle
also thinks that the statue represented a victor athlete set up in some
sacred spot.
For its interpretation as the statue of a pentathlete victor, an
added proof is furnished by the discovery of a late Roman copy of
it at Olympia.[1615] This may very well have been the dedication of
an athlete of late date—of the first century B. C. or of the first
A. D.—who preferred to be represented by a copy of the famous work of
Polykleitos rather than by a new statue. Treu’s contention that the
torso is too large for a victor statue,[1616] because Lucian says
that the Hellanodikai did not allow statues of victors to be over
life-size,[1617] falls to the ground, since we know that exceptions
to the rule existed at Olympia.[1618] He agrees with Collignon[1619]
in interpreting it as a decorative statue, which surely involves an
anachronism in the middle of the fifth century B. C.; and his argument
that its good preservation shows it to have been set up in an interior
room, perhaps of the Bouleuterion, in whose ruins it was found,
adducing this as additional evidence of its decorative character,
is no proof, since victor statues at Olympia seem sometimes to have
been housed.[1620] Thus the theory that the _Doryphoros_ represents a
pentathlete victor is well within the range of possibilities.
Two bronze statuettes in the Metropolitan Museum,[1621] New York,
belonging to the second half of the fifth century B. C., may be
representations on a small scale of pentathletes with the _akontion_.
The first shows a youth standing with the weight of the body on the
left foot, the right drawn slightly back. The left hand, held close to
the side, may have carried an akontion, the right arm being extended.
The other, more carelessly executed, represents a youth standing
similarly with his weight on the left foot, the right being drawn back.
Here again the left arm is hanging by the side, and probably held the
same attribute as the first statuette. The right arm is also bent at
the elbow. A patera may have been held in the outstretched hand of
each. The square build, short thighs, flat abdomen, long skull, and
oval face are all Polykleitan characteristics, and remind us of the
series of kindred works already discussed, which, as Furtwaengler
believed, went back to the original statue of the boy wrestler Xenokles
at Olympia, the work of the younger Polykleitos.[1622]
WRESTLERS.
Wrestling (πάλη) is perhaps the oldest, and in any case is the most
universal, of athletic sports. Wall-paintings at Beni-Hasan on the
Nile, dating from about 2000 B. C., show nearly all the grips and
throws now known.[1623] Plato says that this sport was instituted in
mythical times.[1624] In Greece its origin is lost in mythology.[1625]
The very name _palaistra_, “wrestling school,” indicates the early
importance of the contest. It was one of the most popular of Greek
sports from the time of Homer down.[1626] This popularity is shown by
the frequency with which it appears in mythology and art. Early b.-f.
vases picture Herakles wrestling with giants and monsters. Here we see
the same holds and throws as in the palæstra scenes on later r.-f.
vases. The whole history of coins down to imperial days shows such
scenes. No other exercise required so much strength and agility, and
consequently wrestling matches early became a part of the great games.
At Olympia wrestling was introduced in Ol. 18 (= 708 B. C.), the same
year in which the pentathlon was instituted.[1627] The boys’ match
appeared there less than a century later in Ol. 37 (= 632 B. C.).[1628]
Pausanias mentions statues erected to 36 victors (for 45 victories),
which makes this contest second only in importance to boxing there.
There were two sorts of wrestling in Greece, wrestling in the
proper sense (ὀρθὴ πάλη), where each tried to throw his antagonist
to the ground, making his shoulders touch three times, and ground
wrestling (κύλισις, ἁλίνδησις), where the fight was continued on
the ground by using every means, except biting and gouging, till one
was exhausted. The first kind was the only one used in the event
called πάλη at Olympia, as well as in the pentathlon; the other
was used only in the pankration. In this section we shall discuss
only the first.[1629] A recently discovered papyrus of the second
century A. D., containing brief instructions for wrestling lessons
intended to help the παιδοτρίβης, indicates that every movement in
the contest was systematically taught.[1630] The various positions
used—grips and throws—are shown by many monuments, vase-paintings,
gems, coins,[1631] statuettes, and statues. The vases[1632] especially
illustrate the various holds assumed by wrestlers during a bout—front
(σύστασις), side (παράθεσις), wrist, arm, neck (τραχηλίζειν), and body
holds. Still others illustrate the various throws—flying mare,[1633]
heave,[1634] buttocks and cross-buttocks (ἕδραν στρέφειν), and tripping
(ὑποσκελίζειν). We here reproduce two such paintings. The first,
the obverse of a r.-f. amphora from Vulci, signed by Andokides and
now in Berlin (Fig. 49),[1635] shows two positions. In the central
group the wrestler on the left side has grasped his opponent’s left
wrist with his right hand. The latter, however, has rendered the grip
useless by passing his own right hand behind his opponent’s back and
grasping his right arm just below the elbow. In this way he keeps
his opponent from turning round, which movement would not have been
possible if the latter had grasped him by the upper arm. In the group
of wrestlers to the right we see an illustration of a body hold.
Here a youthful athlete has lifted his bearded antagonist clear off
his feet preliminary to throwing him. However, the one lifted from
the ground has caught his foot around his opponent’s leg, which
is an illustration of tripping. On a r.-f. kylix in the University
of Pennsylvania Museum in Philadelphia (Fig. 50a),[1636] we see a
body hold preparatory to the heave; here to the right are two youths
wrestling, and to the left stands a bearded trainer with his rod. One
wrestler has already lost his balance and is supporting himself with
both hands on the ground, while the other with his left hand holds the
other’s right arm down, and with his right prepares to throw him over
his head.
[Illustration: FIG. 49.—Wrestling Scenes. From Obverse of an Amphora,
by Andokides. Museum of Berlin.]
[Illustration: FIG. 5O.—Wrestling and Boxing Scenes. From a r.-f.
Kylix. University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.]
[Illustration: FIG. 51.—Bronze Statues of Wrestlers. Museum of Naples.]
From vase-paintings, then, we can see what positions the sculptor might
have used in representing groups of wrestlers. For the positions of
individual figures of wrestlers, we are guided by several statues and
small bronzes. The preliminary position (σύστασις) seems to be best
represented by the bronze statues of wrestling boys discovered at
Herculaneum in 1754, and now in the Museum of Naples (Fig. 51).[1637]
These figures have been variously interpreted as runners,[1638]
diskoboloi,[1639] and wrestlers. Their attitude, bent forward with
outstretched hands, implies the utmost expectancy. If they were
runners, they would lean further forward; as they are standing, they
could not begin to run without loss of time in raising the heels of the
forward feet. If, on the other hand, they represented diskos-throwers
at the moment just subsequent to the throw, their right feet would be
advanced and not their left, in order to recover their balance, as
we have seen above in considering Gardiner’s seventh position. The
position of their arms, however, and the expression of their faces
make it almost certain that they are wrestlers eagerly watching for an
opening. The two statues certainly belong together, and may have been
set up as antagonists in the villa in whose ruins they were found. F.
Hauser was the first to show that the form of body and head in both was
the same.[1640] While most critics believe that they are Hellenistic
in origin, Bulle is certainly right in showing that the body ideal
expressed is Lysippan—_i. e._, long legs and slender trunk—even if
he goes too far in ascribing them to the master himself, basing his
conclusion chiefly on the similarity of their ears with those of the
_Apoxyomenos_ (Pl. 29). A good illustration of a hand or wrist grip
is afforded by a small wrestler group, which decorates the rim of a
bronze bowl from Borsdorf.[1641] This is a poorly wrought Etruscan work
of fifth-century B. C. Greek origin. The two wrestlers have already
gripped and their heads are close together, though the lunge in each
case is much exaggerated. Similar are the two groups on the rim of a
bronze bowl in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.[1642] A third-century
B. C. Etruscan cista in the Metropolitan Museum,[1643] has a handle on
the lid in the form of two nude wrestlers, whose bodies are inclined
toward one another, their heads in contact, and their arms locked
behind their heads. Groups of wrestlers in similar attitudes commonly
appear as cista handles.[1644] A portion of a bronze group of wrestlers
was dredged from the sea near Kythera and is now in Athens.[1645] The
heave is represented by a metope from the Theseion representing the
wrestling bout between Theseus and Kerkyon.[1646] A later moment is
seen in a bronze wrestling-group in Paris.[1647] The cross-buttocks is
illustrated by a small Hellenistic bronze group in the collection of
James Loeb in Munich, of which five other copies are known.[1648] Here
two athletes, one bearded and the other beardless, are just ending the
bout. The youth is in the power of the man, who stands behind him and
presses him down by holding his arms backward. All the other replicas
differ from the Loeb example in that the victor has both legs and
not one in front of the right leg of the vanquished wrestler. A good
illustration of tripping is seen in another related series of groups
known to us in five bronze copies. These represent a wrestler on the
ground supporting himself on his left arm, while over him stands the
victor, whose left foot is twisted around the other’s right. These
groups are, like the preceding, also Roman provincial copies of a
Hellenistic original.[1649] The two groups are very similar, the only
real difference being that the vanquished wrestler in the second series
still has his left arm free and holds himself up on his right knee.
Both series seem to have been influenced by the marble pancratiast
group in the Uffizi (Pl. 25).[1650] The head of an athlete in the Museo
delle Terme, Rome,[1651] shows by its strongly projecting neck that
it comes from the statue either of a runner ready to start or of a
wrestler about to grip his adversary. The face is fourth-century B. C.
Attic in character and the head may, therefore, come from Euphranor’s
circle. Pliny speaks of a panting wrestler (_luctator anhelans_) by the
statuary Naukeros, which must have exhibited the contestant in intense
movement.[1652] It might have represented him after victory, as in the
painting of Parrhasios discussed above, which pictured a hoplitodrome
after the race, breathing hard.[1653] Pliny also mentions a painting of
a wrestler by Antidotos without describing it.[1654] As we have already
remarked, doubtless some of the _apoxyomenoi_ and _perixyomenoi_
mentioned by Pliny were also wrestlers.
Whether wrestling-groups were set up at Olympia is doubtful.
Chariot-groups were indeed common, but there is no reason why the
victorious wrestler should have had himself coupled with his defeated
opponent. Pausanias, moreover, mentions no such groups. We are
therefore safe in inferring that in most, if not in all, cases the
wrestler would content himself with a single statue, and this might
represent him in any position in which he was not actually interlocked
with his adversary. That such statues represented him both in repose
and in motion is attested by recovered bases. The footprints on the
base of the statue of the Elean wrestler Paianios, a victor of the
early third century B. C.,[1655] shows us that he was represented
as standing in repose, the weight of the body resting on the right
leg, the left being drawn back and touching the ground with the toes
only. A hole in the base may have been for a spear on which the
victor’s hand rested, though the statue is not that of a pentathlete.
The perfectly preserved footprints on the base of the statue of the
boy wrestler Xenokles by Polykleitos the Younger show that he was
represented as standing with his weight on the right leg, the left
being slightly advanced and to one side, though resting flat on the
ground. The head was probably turned a little to the right. Thus the
wrestler was poised ready to grip his adversary.[1656] This statue must
have been a favorite among athlete monuments, since the same motive
appears in various Roman copies, which Furtwaengler assigns to the
immediate circle of the pupils of Polykleitos. The statue of the Argive
wrestler Cheimon by Naukydes may have represented him in motion, since
Pausanias, in mentioning two statues of the victor, one in Olympia and
the other in the temple of Concord at Rome, says that they were among
the most famous works of that sculptor. From this encomium Reisch has
assumed that the one at Olympia was represented in lively motion.[1657]
BOXERS.
Boxing, like wrestling, was one of the oldest sports in Greece, as it
has been everywhere else. The fist is the simplest and most natural
of all weapons.[1658] Boxing was popular already in Homer, matches
being described both in the Iliad and the Odyssey.[1659] Homer speaks
of it as πυγμαχίη ἀλεγεινή,[1660] and this “painful” character is
also mentioned by Xenophanes.[1661] However, boxing was far older
than epic poetry. We have already seen that it was the only form of
real athletics in Aegean Crete. One of the oldest representations of
a boxing match is seen on the fragments of a bronze shield discovered
there in the grotto of Zeus on Mount Ida. Here on a single concentric
ring are seen two warriors, armed like Assyrians with corslets,
shields, and helmets, fighting with doubled fists.[1662] The high
antiquity of boxing in Greece is also shown by myths.[1663] At Olympia
Apollo is said to have beaten Ares,[1664] and Polydeukes won a victory
there.[1665] Apollo appears as the god of boxing in the Iliad,[1666]
and the Delphians sacrificed to Apollo Πύκτης.[1667] Herakles,
Polydeukes, Tydeus, and Theseus were all famed boxers; the latter was
said to have invented the art.[1668] The historical boxing match was
introduced at Olympia in Ol. 23 (= 688 B. C.), and Onomastos of Smyrna,
the first victor, instituted the rules of the contest.[1669] The boys’
contest was instituted in Ol. 41 (= 616 B. C.).[1670] It was by far the
most popular contest there. Of the 192 monuments erected to 187 victors
mentioned by Pausanias, 56, or nearly one-third, were erected to men
and boy boxers for 63 victories.
Greek boxing[1671] is conveniently divided into two periods by the kind
of glove used in the matches. From Homer down to the end of the fifth
century B. C., soft gloves (ἱμάντες, ἱμάντες λεπτοί or μειλίχαι) were
used; from then to late Roman days the heavy gloves (σφαῖραι or ἱμάντες
ὀξεῖς) were the fashion. The weighted Roman cestus was not used in the
Greek contest. Before discussing representations of boxers in art, we
shall devote a few words to these two kinds of boxing-gloves, which
frequently give us the date of a given monument.[1672] The Cretans are
thought to have worn boxing-gloves, as they seem to be visible on the
so-called _Boxer Vase_ from Hagia Triada (Fig. 1). Here, on the top and
lower two rows, a leather gauntlet appears to cover the arm to beyond
the elbow, being padded over the fist and confined at the wrist by a
strap. Mosso derives the later Greek glove, which appears on athlete
statues, from this primitive thong.[1673] In any case the antiquity
of the glove in Greece is attested by its origin being ascribed to
the myth of Amykos, king of the Bebrykes.[1674] Gloves were already
known to Homer, who speaks of “well-cut thongs of ox-hide.”[1675]
They are not mentioned in any detail before the time of Pausanias and
Philostratos, so that we are mostly dependent for our knowledge of them
on the monuments. The simplest form consisted of long, thin ox-hide
thongs, which were wound round the hands, the soft gloves (ἱμάντες
μαλακώτεροι or μειλίχαι) of later writers.[1676] They were used, not to
deaden the blow, but to increase its force. Vase-paintings show that
the thongs were about 10 or 12 feet long before being wound.[1677] On
the exterior of a r.-f. kylix from Vulci by Douris, in the British
Museum, showing chiefly boxing scenes, we see two youths standing
before a _paidotribes_ preparing to put on the thongs (Fig. 54).[1678]
One of them is holding the unwound thong in his outstretched hands.
A similar figure appears on the r.-f. vase in Philadelphia already
discussed (Fig. 50b), which represents a palæstra scene.[1679] This
scene has been wrongly interpreted as an illustration of the game
of σκαπέρδη described by Pollux[1680] as a sort of tug-of-war, the
unwound thong being explained as the rope used in this game,[1681] and
the hurling-sticks stuck in the ground at either end as goals instead
of akontia. A wound thong is seen hanging on the wall to the left.
Philostratos describes how the boxing thongs were put on,[1682] and
vase-paintings illustrate the method.[1683] The best example of the
thongs on statuary is afforded by the bronze arm found in the sea off
Antikythera (Cerigotto) (Fig. 52), which Svoronos[1684] believes to
be a remnant of the statue of the Nemean victor Kreugas of Epidamnos,
which stood in the temple of Apollo Lykios in Argos.[1685] Pausanias
says that Kreugas was crowned notwithstanding that he was killed by his
adversary Damoxenos, and his description of the soft glove corresponds
so closely with the one on the recovered arm that it seems as if it
had been written in the presence of the statue: “In those days boxers
did not yet wear the sharp thong (ἱμὰς ὀξύς) on each wrist, but boxed
with the soft straps (μειλίχαις), which they fastened under the hollow
of the hand in order that the fingers might be left bare; these soft
straps were thin thongs (ἱμάντες λεπτοί) of raw cowhide, plaited
together in an ancient fashion.”[1686] The strap allowed the ends of
the fingers to project, and was held together by a cord wound around
the forearm, just as Philostratos says. These μειλίχαι were used at
the great games through the fifth century B. C., and were continued in
the palæstra in the fourth. Early in the latter century the σφαῖραι
mentioned by Plato[1687] and other writers appeared. We see them
on Panathenaic vases of that century and on Etruscan cistæ of the
following one.[1688] About the same time the regular ἱμάντες ὀξεῖς came
in,[1689] but the old μειλίχαι or something similar were still used in
the exercises of the palæstra.[1690]
[Illustration: FIG. 52.—Bronze Arm of Statue of a Boxer, found in the
Sea off Antikythera. National Museum, Athens.]
[Illustration: FIG. 53.—Forearm with Glove. From the Statue of the
_Seated Boxer_ (Pl. 16). Museo delle Terme, Rome.]
Our best illustration of these more formidable gloves on statuary
is the gauntlet clearly represented on the forearms of the _Seated
Boxer_ of the Museo delle Terme (Fig. 53). Here a close-fitting
glove covers each forearm, leaving the upper joints of the fingers
free and the palm open. It extends to above the wrist and ends in a
rim of fur. Over it are drawn three thick bands of leather, which
cover the first joints of the fingers and are fastened together on
the outside of the hands with metal clasps. A soft pad keeps these
bands from chafing the fingers. They are kept in place and the wrists
are strengthened by two narrow straps which are interlaced several
times around hand and wrist. Similar gloves appear on the Sorrento
boxer in Naples (Fig. 57),[1691] on the bronze forearm of a statue
from Herculaneum in Naples,[1692] on a left fist found in 1887 in
the arena at Verona,[1693] and on many other statues and fragments.
The last representation in art of this sort of glove appears on the
Roman relief in the Lateran, which dates from the time of Trajan, and
represents a fight between two pugilists.[1694] The metal cestus was a
Roman invention. None of the late Greek writers—neither Plutarch, nor
Pausanias, nor Philostratos—makes any mention of this loaded glove. The
“sharp thongs” were enough to cause all the injuries mentioned by the
writers of the _Greek Anthology_.[1695] The cestus, perhaps used in the
later gladiatorial shows in Greece, but never in the great games there,
gave the death blow to real boxing. Virgil describes it and the vicious
results of its use.[1696]
There are fewer representations of boxing matches on vases than of
almost any other Greek sport, despite its great popularity. Gardiner
has collected a number of vase-paintings dating from the sixth to
the fourth centuries B. C., which illustrate the different positions
assumed by boxers in action—attack, slipping, ducking, and leg and arm
movements. We reproduce two from r.-f. kylikes in the British Museum.
In one by Douris (Fig. 54)[1697] we have, besides the group already
mentioned of two athletes preparing to put on thongs, three pairs of
boxers engaged in a bout. In two groups one of the contestants is
seen from behind; in all three the boxers extend their left arms for
guarding and draw the right back for hitting—the fists being level
with the shoulders. In one group we see the beginning of the fight, in
the other two the middle, perhaps, and the end of it, respectively. In
the last scene one contestant has fallen to the ground on his knee,
and his conqueror has swung his right hand far back for a final blow,
only to be stopped by the other, who raises his finger in token of
defeat. On the other vase we see, besides a scene from the pankration,
two pairs of boxers sparring (Fig. 55).[1698] Here in one group the
contestants do not have their fists doubled, but keep their fingers
opened. On an Attic b.-f. Panathenaic panel-amphora in the University
Museum in Philadelphia (Fig. 56),[1699] we see bearded boxers sparring,
while a boxer with thongs in his right hand stands to the right, and
a trainer with his rod at the left. Statues of victorious boxers
at Olympia were represented either in motion, _i. e._, probably in
the position of sparring, or in repose, like that of the boy boxer
Kyniskos by the elder Polykleitos discussed in the preceding chapter.
The same foot position visible on the _Kyniskos_ base[1700] occurs
on two other Olympia bases, which, therefore, must have supported
Polykleitan statues represented in repose. One of these, in the form
of an _astragalos_, will be discussed further on in our treatment
of pancratiast statues; the other supported the statue of the boy
boxer Hellanikos of Lepreon, who won a victory in Ol. 89 (= 424 B.
C.).[1701] In this case the statue was also life-size, the left foot
was firmly placed, and the right was set back resting on the ball, the
stride being a little longer than in the case of the _Kyniskos_. Three
other Olympia bases supported statues of boxers represented in repose,
those of the boy Tellon from the Arkadian town Oresthasion,[1702]
of the Epidaurian Aristion by the elder Polykleitos,[1703] and of
the Rhodian Eukles by Naukydes of the Polykleitan circle.[1704]
Furtwaengler believed that a number of existing statues of the Hermes
type reproduced the statue of Aristion, because of a similar foot
position. Among them the Pentelic marble one in Lansdowne House,
London, is the best preserved, and most faithfully reproduces the
Polykleitan style.[1705]
[Illustration: FIG. 54.—Boxing Scenes. From a r.-f. Kylix by Douris.
British Museum, London.]
[Illustration: FIG. 55.—Boxing and Pankration Scenes. From a r.-f.
Kylix. British Museum, London.]
[Illustration: FIG. 56.—Boxing Scene. From a b.-f. Panathenaic
Panel-Amphora. University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.]
[Illustration: FIG. 57.—Statue of a Boxer, from Sorrento. By Koblanos
of Aphrodisias. Museum of Naples.]
We may infer how a Polykleitan statue of a boxer at rest looked, from
the Roman copy of one in Kassel.[1706] Here a youth just out of boyhood
is represented as standing with the weight of the body resting upon the
right leg and the head turned to the right. The forearms are covered
with gloves, the right fist being raised for attack and the left for
defense. Another marble statue, representing a boxer in repose, was
found in a fragmentary condition in Sorrento in 1888, and is now in the
National Museum at Naples (Fig. 57).[1707] It is inscribed as the work
of Koblanos of Aphrodisias in Karia, whom we know as a copyist of the
first century A. D., and who was active in reproducing Greek works for
the Roman market.[1708] The body forms are too badly injured for us
accurately to date the original from which this copy was made, but the
head gives us the clue, as its style appears to be a connecting link
between that of the seated statue of _Herakles_, in the Palazzo Altemps
in Rome[1709] and the Munich _Oil-pourer_ (Pl. 11),[1710] as it shows
affinity to both. Though Sogliano referred it to the school of Lysippos
and Juethner to the beginning of the fourth century B. C., it shows
indubitable Myronian characteristics and may have been the work of
Myron’s pupil Lykios, who is known to us as an athlete sculptor.[1711]
In this statue the youth is resting his weight on his right leg, the
left, with full sole on the ground, being turned to one side. The left
forearm is extended outwards and to the side, the head leaning toward
the right leg—in other words, the athlete is represented in an attitude
similar to that of the _Idolino_ (Pl. 14). As there is an olive crown
in the hair, it seems reasonable to conclude that the original statue
was that of an Olympic victor.
By the beginning of the fifth century B. C., if not earlier, boxers
were represented in violent motion, as we saw in the case of the statue
of the boy boxer Glaukos, by the Aeginetan sculptor Glaukias,[1712]
represented in the act of sparring (σκιαμαχῶν). Whether he was
represented as facing an imaginary antagonist or as merely punching
a bag we can not say, though the latter seems the more probable. The
motive is depicted in many art works, notably in the figure of a youth
punching a bag which hangs from a tree on the Ficoroni cista in the
Museo Kircheriano, Rome,[1713] and in that of another represented
on the so-called Peter cista in the Museo Gregoriano Etrusco of the
Vatican, whose engraved scenes show exercises of the palæstra.[1714]
The same motive is seen also in a statuette in the Museo Chiaramonti of
the Vatican, which is proved to be that of a boy boxer by the glove on
the right hand.[1715] Here the boy is represented with the right foot
far advanced and rising on the toes of both feet, the right shoulder
being drawn back, the right forearm raised, and the left extended
forwards. The marble torso of a copy of the same original on a large
scale is in Berlin.[1716] While Amelung believes that the original of
both statuette and torso was a bronze of the second half of the fourth
century B. C., Furtwaengler thought that the torso went back to the
severe style of the fifth century, and that this original once stood in
Olympia, where it might have served as the inspiration for a carelessly
worked bronze statuette of a boxer found there, which repeats the
motive of the torso and similarly belongs to the fifth century B. C.
(Fig. 2).[1717] The Olympia statuette also has the right foot advanced,
the upper part of the body leans backward, and the left arm with open
palm is outstretched for defense, while the right with balled fist
is held up ready to strike. It certainly is a votive offering of an
Olympic victor—doubtless one of the small reductions, which were not
uncommonly erected for economy’s sake.[1718] Whether the Aeginetan
Glaukias also made victor statues in repose is doubtful.
Waldstein, on insufficient grounds, has argued that the so-called
_Strangford Apollo_ in the British Museum (Fig. 14)[1719] is a copy
of the statue at Olympia of the famous Thasian boxer and pancratiast
Theagenes by Glaukias. Its close observation of nature finds its
analogy in the statues of the Aeginetan pediment groups (see Figs. 20,
21). The statue of the boy boxer Athenaios of Ephesos, by an unknown
sculptor, was represented as lunging at his adversary, as we see from
the footmarks on the recovered base. The left foot was advanced and
turned outwards, while the right one touched the ground only with the
toes.[1720] Similarly the statue of the boxer Damoxenidas by Nikodamos
of Arkadia was represented as about to strike. On its recovered base
the left foot stood solidly upon the ground, while the right foot
was drawn back and touched the ground only with the toes—if we judge
rightly from the size of the missing part of the stone.[1721] The
statue of the Ionian boxer Epitherses by Pythokritos of Rhodes seems to
have had but one foot flat upon the ground, and consequently must have
been represented in motion, though we are not sure of the position of
the other, since one stone of the base is missing.[1722]
[Illustration: FIG. 58.—Statue known as _Pollux_. Louvre, Paris.]
The bronze plate from the base of the statue of the boy boxer
Philippos, an Azanian of Pellene, was found at Olympia and has
been referred to the end of the fourth or beginning of the third
century B. C.[1723] However, since Pausanias says that Myron made
the statue,[1724] various attempts have been made to reconcile the
discrepancy in dates. Our own solution is that the statue seen by
Pausanias did not represent Philippos at all, but some earlier unnamed
Arkadian boxer, who was contemporary with Myron.[1725] Years later
the Azanian boy Philippos won a victory at Olympia and attached the
recovered epigram to the old base, in which he implored Zeus to let
the ancient glory of Arkadia be revived in him, and also a newer one
in which he said that he had restored the statue of Myron.[1726]
Pausanias saw the newer one, but omitted to mention the older, which
was probably illegible from weathering. He therefore thought that the
original Myronian statue used by Philippos represented the latter
victor.[1727] The words on the affixed plate beginning ὧδε στὰς ὁ
Πελασγὸς ἐπ’ Ἀλφειῷ ποκα πύκτας κ. τ. λ., may refer to the position of
the boxer rather than to a portrait of the victor.[1728] We have long
ago hazarded the suggestion[1729] that the so-called _Pollux_ of the
Louvre (Fig. 58),[1730] whose body forms recall the _Marsyas_ and whose
head recalls the _Diskobolos_, may go back to the statue of the unnamed
Arkadian by Myron.[1731] But the uncertainty which we have found in a
former section[1732] in assigning this and kindred works to Myron or to
Pythagoras leaves it only a suggestion.
PANCRATIASTS.
The pankration (παγκράτιον)[1733] was a combination of boxing and
wrestling, in which the contestants fought either standing, or prone on
the ground. While the wrestler merely tried to throw his opponent in
a series of bouts, the pancratiast continued the fight on the ground
until one or the other acknowledged defeat. The etymology of the word
shows that it was a contest in which every power of the contestants
was exerted to the utmost.[1734] Strangling, pummeling, kicking,
and, in fact, everything but biting and gouging were allowed. Both
Lucian[1735] and Philostratos[1736] speak of the prohibition against
biting and gouging, which statements Gardiner thinks are quotations
from the rules governing the contest at Olympia, as they are twice
quoted by Aristophanes.[1737] Philostratos, however, says that the
Spartans allowed both biting and gouging, but that the Eleans allowed
only strangling. A case of gouging the eye of an opponent with the
thumb is seen on the r.-f. kylix in the British Museum, already
mentioned (Fig. 55).[1738] Here the official is rushing up with his
rod to punish such a breach of the rules. Philostratos calls the men’s
pankration the “fairest” of contests at Olympia, probably in reference
to the impression made on the spectators by the various positions
of the contestants, who had to rely quite as much on skill as on
strength. Pindar wrote eight odes in praise of this contest.[1739]
However, even though it was carefully regulated at Olympia by rules,
it was a dangerous sport—τὸ δεινὸν ἄεθλον ὅ παγκράτιον καλέουσιν,
in the words of the protesting philosopher Xenophanes.[1740] But it
was never the brutal sport which some modern writers have pictured
it.[1741] Plato, to be sure, kept it out of his ideal State,[1742] not,
however, because of its brutality, but merely because its distinctive
feature, the struggle on the ground, was of no service in training a
soldier. The Greeks themselves considered the boxing match far more
dangerous. Inasmuch as gloves were not used in the pankration, this
seems reasonable.[1743] We have in the preceding section mentioned
the epithets applied to boxing. Pausanias, in speaking of the boxing
match between Theagenes and Euthymos, says that the former was too much
wearied by that contest to enter the pankration, and was in consequence
compelled to pay a talent to the god and another to Euthymos.[1744]
In speaking of another contest, between Kapros and Kleitomachos, he
records that the latter told the umpires that the pankration should be
brought on before he had received hurts from boxing.[1745] Artemidoros
states that no wounds resulted from the pankration.[1746] However,
death by strangulation was often the result of the bout. Thus the
pancratiast Arrhachion was crowned after he had been throttled by his
adversary, for just before expiring he was able to put one of the toes
of his opponent out of joint and the pain caused the latter to let go
his grip.[1747] Pausanias tells also how the boxer Kreugas was slain
by Damoxenos in the pankration at Nemea, but adds that the body of the
former was proclaimed victor.[1748]
The pankration was not known to Homer, though later writers ascribed
its invention either to Theseus or Herakles, the typical mythical
examples of skill as opposed to brute force.[1749] It was introduced
at Olympia in Ol. 33 (= 648 B. C.),[1750] long after the separate
events, wrestling and boxing, had appeared there. The boys’ contest
was instituted at Olympia in Ol. 145 (= 200 B. C.),[1751] though it
had appeared elsewhere much earlier.[1752] It must have been a popular
sport at Olympia, since Pausanias records statues erected to twenty
victors for thirty victories in this contest.
Vase-paintings[1753] show many grips and throws of the pankration—the
flying mare, leg hold,[1754] tilting backwards by holding the
antagonist’s foot, “chancery” (_i. e._ catching the adversary around
the neck with one arm and hitting his face with the other fist),
stomach throw (_i. e._, seizing the adversary by the arms or shoulders
and at the same time planting one’s foot in the other’s stomach, and
then throwing him over one’s head),[1755] jumping on the back of one’s
opponent,[1756] strangling, wrestling and boxing combined, and kicking
and boxing combined. Ground wrestling is very commonly depicted
on vases and especially on gems, since such groups were adapted to
oblong or oval spaces.[1757] We reproduce a pancratiast scene from
a Panathenaic amphora of Kittos, dating from the fourth century B.
C., in the British Museum (Fig. 59).[1758] This is a conventional
representation of wrestling and boxing combined. The pancratiast at the
right of the group has rushed in with his head down and has been caught
around the neck by his adversary’s arm, a hopeless position, from which
he can not escape. The latter is either about to complete the neck hold
(if it be an actual case of “chancery”), or perhaps to hit him with his
right hand. A third pancratiast is looking on from the extreme right,
while a _paidotribes_, switch in hand, appears at the left. The fight
on the ground is well depicted on the r.-f. kylix of the British Museum
already discussed as showing boxing scenes (Fig. 55).[1759]
[Illustration: FIG. 59.—Pankration Scene. From a Panathenaic Amphora by
Kittos. British Museum, London.]
We have but few representations of pancratiasts in sculpture.
The preliminary sparring—known as ἀκροχειρισμός[1760]—must have
characterized the statue of the Sikyonian pancratiast Sostratos at
Olympia by an unknown sculptor, since Pausanias says that this victor
was known as ὁ ἀκροχερσίτης, explaining the epithet as that of one
who gained his victories by seizing and bending his adversaries’
fingers, holding them fast till he yielded.[1761] Since a Delphian
inscribed base[1762] gives the same number of victories as Pausanias,
we infer that they were given also on the Olympia base, the source of
Pausanias’ information. Since nothing is said, however, of Sostratos’
mode of fighting in the Delphi inscription, Pausanias must have argued
it from the pose of the statue. The Sicilian wrestler Leontiskos of
a century earlier, whose statue was by Pythagoras, had, according to
Pausanias, used similar tactics, for “he vanquished his adversaries
by bending back their fingers.”[1763] These cases show that statues
of pancratiasts and wrestlers were frequently represented in vigorous
lunging attitudes as well as in groups. The epigram on the base of the
monument of the pancratiast Teisikrates at Delphi shows that the statue
was represented in a similar way.[1764] The same lunging attitude is
also shown on the Halimous grave-relief.[1765] Sometimes the contest
ended with the preliminary sparring, though usually it developed into
wrestling and boxing.
[Illustration: FIG. 60.—Bronze Statuette of a Pancratiast (?), from
Autun, France. Louvre, Paris.]
A good representation of a pancratiast trying to kick his antagonist
seems to be furnished by the small bronze statuette from Autun, South
France, now in the Louvre (Fig. 60).[1766] This statuette is of
mediocre workmanship, its hard muscles, imperfect proportions, and
realism showing that it comes from the Hellenistic period of Greek art.
It represents a bearded athlete, who holds his hands ready to strike
and his left foot raised apparently to kick his adversary’s leg. The
foot is just ready to return to its original position, so that the
motive of this poor little statuette discloses a transient period of
time between two movements, just as the _Diskobolos_ and _Marsyas_ of
Myron did. We have already noted[1767] that on the head is a cap with a
ring in the top, by which it could be suspended as a decorative piece,
or perhaps as part of a steelyard. Hauser believes that this motive
was known to the elder Polykleitos and that this is the interpretation
of that sculptor’s statue of a _nudus talo incessens_ mentioned
by Pliny, a statue which has formed the basis for much discussion
among archæologists.[1768] The Plinian passage, therefore, is to be
translated as “the nude man attacking with his heel (_talo_)”—in
other words, it describes a statue represented as kicking, which was
allowable in the pankration. The manuscripts of Pliny all read _talo_,
which Benndorf[1769] thought could be retained only by assuming
that the naturalist mistranslated his Greek source γυμνὸς ἀστραγάλῳ
ἐπικείμενος, translating the word ἐπικείμενος “standing upon,” as
_incessens_ “pursuing.” He therefore assumed that Polykleitos’ statue
stood upon an astragalos (_talus_) basis, which he believed was the
forerunner of the statue of _Opportunity_ (Καιρός) by Lysippos,[1770]
and he referred it to the knuckle-bone basis found at Olympia.[1771]
Woelfflin,[1772] however, has shown that _talo incessens_ can only
mean “_mit einem Knochel nach Jemand einwerfen_.” Following this,
Furtwaengler showed[1773] how impossible on grammatical and other
grounds it was to read _talo_ in Benndorf’s sense, since the passage
then would mean “advancing towards” or “pursuing,” by means of a
knuckle-bone, which is manifestly nonsense. The word could be only
instrumental in use, as Woefflin said, _i. e._, the weapon by means
of which the man was attacking. Furtwaengler, therefore, followed
Benndorf’s earlier alternative reading _telo_, assuming that Pliny
mistakenly wrote _talo_ because he was influenced by the presence of
the same word in the passage immediately following: _duosque pueros
item nudos talis ludentes qui vocantur astragalizontes_.[1774] But
Hauser’s interpretation of _talo_ meets all the conditions better,
since it keeps the manuscript readings, makes grammatical Latin, and
seems to be illustrated by the statuette in question.
Sometimes the statues of Olympic pancratiasts were represented at
rest with the weight of the body equally on both legs, as we see from
the recovered basis of the statue of the Athenian Kallias by the
Athenian sculptor Mikon.[1775] Furtwaengler has identified a statue
in the Somzée Collection as a copy of this work.[1776] The footprints
on the recovered base of the statue of the Rhodian Dorieus show that
it was represented at rest with one leg slightly advanced.[1777]
We have actual remnants of statues of Olympic pancratiasts in the
marble head found at Olympia, which we are to assign to the statue
of the Akarnanian Philandridas by Lysippos, mentioned by Pausanias
(Frontispiece and Fig. 69),[1778] and the beautiful statue of Agias
discovered by the French at Delphi in 1894, a work by the same sculptor
(Pl. 28 and Fig. 68).[1779]
The struggle on the ground implies groups and not single statues.
Our best representation of such a group is furnished by the famous
marble one in the Uffizi, Florence (Pl. 25).[1780] Though having no
pretensions to be a victor monument, this group is the most important
monument extant connected with the pankration, a fine anatomical study
from Hellenistic times, evincing the direct influence of Lysippos
in its proportions.[1781] It shows affinity of design to certain
sculptures from the frieze of the Great Altar at Pergamon.[1782] Pliny
speaks of a _symplegma_ by Kephisodotos, the son of Praxiteles, at
Pergamon, but that group was of an erotic character and can not have
had anything to do with the Florentine one.[1783] Unfortunately the
group in question has been much restored, though the restoration in
the main is right. The heads, though probably antique, do not seem to
belong to the statues, but both appear to be copies of the head of one
of the Niobids, with which group the pancratiasts were discovered in
1583. The right arm of the uppermost athlete seems to have been wrongly
restored; in any case this athlete is not strangling his opponent. One
youth has thrown the other down on to his knee, and his left leg is
intertwined with the left leg of the other, and he is drawing back his
arm to aim a blow. The wrestler underneath supports himself upon his
left arm, and the intention of his opponent is to destroy this support
by a blow of the fist, which would bring the contest to a sudden
conclusion, since the right arm of the under youth is fast and he must
defend himself with the left. As Gardiner points out, such a situation
is illustrated by Heliodoros’ description of the match between
Theagenes and an Aethiopian champion.[1784] The under man’s position,
however, may suddenly change and the issue yet be in his favor. Many
writers have explained the group as ordinary wrestlers,[1785] but
Gardiner has conclusively shown that it belongs to the pankration,
since in wrestling the contest is ended when one of the contestants has
been thrown, while here the struggle is continuing on the ground.[1786]
[Illustration: PLATE 25
Marble Group of Pancratiasts. Uffizi Gallery, Florence.]
Kapros of Elis was the first of seven Olympic victors to emulate
the fabled feat of Herakles by winning the pankration and wrestling
matches on the same day—that is, he was the first professional
strong man.[1787] The other six all came from the East. It has been
suggested[1788] that the colossal _Farnese Herakles_ found in Rome
in the ruins of the Baths of Caracalla in 1540 and now in Naples,
inscribed as the work of the Athenian Glykon, which represents the hero
leaning wearily on his club against a rock,[1789] may represent
the type of these professional strong men, who called themselves the
successors of Herakles. But such a suggestion is as unfounded as the
one already examined, which identifies the original of the _Seated
Boxer_ of the Museo delle Terme (Pl. 16 and Fig. 27) with Kleitomachos
of Thebes, the redoubtable opponent of Kapros, since the dates in both
cases are against such identifications. The Farnese statue and other
replicas of the same original[1790] obviously revert to a Lysippan
original, though they are considerably metamorphosed by the taste of a
later age. Such big swollen muscles at first sight appear to be alien
to the sculptor of the graceful _Agias_, but that the Naples copy by
Glykon—who, from the inscription on the base, must be referred to the
first century B. C.[1791]—really represents the work of Lysippos seems
well established by the fact that a smaller copy, though still over
life-size, of poorer workmanship, in the Pitti Gallery in Florence,
is inscribed as Λυσίππου ἔργον.[1792] This type of weary hero appears
in the _Telephos_ group on the small Pergamene frieze, but is even
earlier, since the latter seems to have been borrowed from a statue
which is reproduced on a coin of Alexander, which was struck at least
as early as 300 B. C.[1793] The type of Herakles wearied by his
superhuman labors was inaugurated still earlier by Lysippos, who was
fond of representing the hero in many poses, seated and standing,
resting and laboring. We might mention his colossal bronze statue
of Herakles, which was set up in Tarentum and then carried to Rome
and placed on the Capitol by Q. Fabius Maximus, when Tarentum was
captured in 209 B. C., and was later transferred to the Hippodrome
at Constantinople, where it remained until the sack of that city by
the Franks in 1204.[1794] It is hazardous, therefore, to reject the
evidence, and it will be best to see in the original a genuine Lysippan
work, as do Bulle, Overbeck, von Mach, Schnaase,[1795] and others, and
so to make Glykon responsible only for the exaggerations of his own
copy. Thus we have to face the fact of divergent styles in the great
bronze founder of the fourth century B. C., even if we admit with
Richardson that “for our peace of mind this statue might well have been
sunk in the sea.”[1796]
[Illustration: A B
FIG. 61.—Bronze Head of Boxer (?), from Olympia. National Museum,
Athens.]
Long ago, I referred the life-size bronze portrait-like head of a
boxer or pancratiast found at Olympia, now in the Athens Museum (Figs.
61A and B),[1797] to one of two statues of the pancratiast Kapros
mentioned by Pausanias.[1798] The remnant of a wild-olive crown in the
hair proves that it comes from the statue of an Olympic victor. Its
bruised appearance may, however, betoken the punishment administered by
the gloves of a boxer rather than by the bare fists of a pancratiast.
That Greek sculpture was not always ideal we have seen from the
description of the _Seated Boxer_ of the Museo delle Terme (Pl. 16 and
Fig. 27). This peculiarly life-like head is another example of the
same realism; it would be hard to name a more brutal and repellent
piece from the whole range of Greek sculpture. The profession of this
bruiser is evident in every feature, for the sculptor has betrayed it
by the swollen ears, flat nose, thick neck, swollen cheeks, projecting
under lip, frowning brows, and unkempt hair and beard. All these
traits—especially the treatment of the eyes—give to it the sullen
gloomy look so characteristic of boxers and pancratiasts.[1799] The man
appears to be awaiting the attack, his contracted brows showing alert
expectation, and his closed lips great determination. Furtwaengler,
Bulle, Flasch, and others have dated it in the fourth century B. C.,
and are fain to see in it the work of an artist of the immediate
circle of Lysippos or Lysistratos;[1800] but its exaggerated realism
seems rather to point to a later period, not earlier than the third
century B. C.[1801] The bronze foot of a victor statue also found at
Olympia (Fig. 62)[1802] has been assigned by Furtwaengler to one of the
statues of Kapros, an ascription which we also have followed.[1803]
The position of this foot shows—as an experiment with a living model
has disclosed—great movement, which makes it obvious that it comes
from a statue in lively motion, probably of a boxer or pancratiast. It
belongs to the statue of a strong man of coarse build; there is not the
slightest trace of unnecessary flesh on it, but the whole is vigorous
muscle, even the swollen veins being clearly visible in the photograph.
While Furtwaengler finds its stylistic parallels in the copies of the
Pergamene works of the third century B. C., _e. g._, the _Dying Gaul_
statues, the material and form of the base fitting that period, Wolters
emphasizes its stylistic analogy to the bronze head just discussed.
[Illustration: FIG. 62.—Bronze Foot of a Victor Statue, from Olympia.
Museum of Olympia.]
The monuments which represent equestrian victors will be left for
another chapter.
CHAPTER V.
MONUMENTS OF HIPPODROME AND MUSICAL VICTORS.
PLATES 26-27 AND FIGURES 63-67.
In the preceding chapters we have considered the monuments of victors
in various gymnic contests, in which the victor won by his own strength
and skill. In the present chapter we shall be concerned chiefly with
the monuments set up by victors at Olympia in chariot- and horse-races,
in which the victory did not depend upon the athletic prowess of
the victor, but upon the skill of his charioteer or jockey and the
endurance of his horses.[1804] Though such events were not in the
strict sense a part of Greek athletics, they formed a very important
feature of the festival at Olympia as elsewhere.[1805] Indeed the
four-horse chariot-race was the most spectacular and brilliant event
at Olympia. Chariot-races, and to a less extent horse-races, were the
sport only of the rich—kings, princes, and nobles.[1806] Thus victories
were won in these events at Olympia in the fifth century B. C. by Hiero
and Gelo, kings of Syracuse, and Arkesilas IV of Kyrene; in the fourth,
by Philip II of Macedonia, and in Roman days by Tiberius, Germanicus,
Nero, and many others. Alkibiades in Ol. 91 (= 416 B. C.), _i. e._, in
the midst of the great Peloponnesian war, entered seven chariots at
Olympia and won three prizes.[1807] Sometimes a city entered a chariot
or horse. Thus in Ol. 77 (= 472 _B. C._) the public chariot of Argos,
and in Ol. 75 (= 480 B. C.) the public horse of the same city, won at
Olympia.[1808] Such entries show not only the expense attending these
contests, but also their importance in the eyes of the Greeks.
Hippodromes, chariot-races, and horse-races were very common in Greece.
A votive inscription in the museum at Sparta, dating from near the
middle of the fifth century B. C., enumerates sixty victories by
Damonon and his son Enymakratidas in both chariot- and horse-races
at eight different meets in or near Lakonia, and Damonon was merely
a local victor, unknown at Olympia.[1809] Greeks of Sicily and
Magna Græcia were especially fond of such contests, as we see these
constantly represented on coins of different cities there from the
beginning of the fifth century B. C. on.[1810] However, only a few of
the sites of these many hippodromes are now known, and only one can be
positively identified, that mentioned by Pausanias on Mount Lykaios
in Arkadia.[1811] The others are known from literary sources.[1812]
The one at Olympia was destroyed in the course of centuries by the
floods of the Alpheios, and its exact location can not be determined,
though we know in general that it lay somewhere southeast of the Altis,
between the river and the Stadion, and surmise that it ran somewhat
parallel to the latter.[1813]
Its measurements, however, are known to us from a Greek metrological
parchment manuscript in the old Seraglio, Constantinople, which dates
from the eleventh century A. D.[1814] According to it the length of the
course, _i. e._, from the starting-point to turning-post and return,
was about 8 stades (1538 meters, 16 centimeters) or nearly 1 mile. One
of the two sides—which Pausanias says were of unequal length[1815]—was
3 stades and 1 plethron long. The breadth of the course at the
starting-point was 1 stade and 4 plethra. We are told, however, that
only a portion of the entire course, six stades, or about two-thirds of
a mile, was traversed in the various races.
The oldest literary account of a Greek chariot-race is found in Homer
in the description of the games of Patroklos—the longest and finest
episode there described.[1816] But the first trace of such a contest
goes back to mythology, to the story of Pelops and Oinomaos contending
for the hand of the latter’s daughter Hippodameia.[1817] This mythical
race began at the village of Pisa in Elis and ended at the altar of
Poseidon on the Isthmus of Corinth.[1818] The chariot-race was the
chief if not the only event at the oldest funeral games in Greece,
those mentioned by Pausanias as held in honor of Azan, the son of
Arkas, in Arkadia.[1819] It figured largely in mythology[1820] and
was represented in many works of art.[1821] At Olympia it was one of
the earliest, and perhaps the earliest, of the events. Pausanias says
that the four-horse chariot-race was introduced there in Ol. 25 (= 680
B. C.),[1822] but this may merely mean, as Gardiner points out, the
date of exchanging the older prehistoric two-horse chariot for the one
drawn by four horses. In any case the antiquity of the race at Olympia
is shown by the great number of early votive offerings in the form of
models of chariots and horses, which have been found there in a stratum
extending below the foundations of the Heraion.
PROGRAMME OF HIPPODROME EVENTS.
By the middle of the third century B. C. the fully developed programme
of equestrian events at Olympia and elsewhere consisted of six races,
three for full-grown horses (τέλειοι), and three for colts (πῶλοι);
for each of these two classes there were a four-horse chariot-race
(ἅρμα, τέθριππον), a two-horse chariot-race (συνωρίς), and a horse-race
(κέλης), thus:
ἅρματι τελείῳ, συνωρίδι τελείᾳ, κέλητι τελείῳ.
ἅρματι πωλικῷ, συνωρίδι πωλικῇ, κέλητι πωλικῷ.
These six events comprised the ἀγὼν ἱππικός at Olympia, Delphi, Nemea,
Corinth, Athens, and elsewhere, as opposed to the ἀγὼν γυμνικός.[1823]
The distinction between horses and colts was apparently a matter
which was decided by the Hellanodikai at Olympia. Thus, Pausanias
recounts how the Spartan victor Lykidas entered a pair of colts for
the chariot-race, and that one of them was rejected by the judges; he
thereupon entered both for the race with full-grown horses and won
it.[1824] Though such a story does not fit the date of Lykidas, who won
before the colt-race was introduced at Olympia, it shows the method
of selection.[1825] The race in which the chariot was drawn by four
full-grown horses (ἵππων τελείων δρόμος) was introduced, as we have
seen, in Ol. 25. The contestants drove twelve times round the course,
a distance of seventy-two stades or over eight miles.[1826] Pausanias
mentions the monuments of eighteen such victors at Olympia for nineteen
victories. The race in which the chariot was drawn by four colts (πώλων
ἅρμα) was introduced in Ol. 99 (= 384 B. C.),[1827] and extended eight
times round the course, or about 5.5 miles.[1828] Pausanias mentions
the monuments of only two such victors at Olympia.[1829] The race in
which the chariot was drawn by pairs of full-grown horses (συνωρίς)
was introduced in Ol. 93 (408 B. C.) and extended eight times round
the course.[1830] Pausanias mentions but one victor in this event at
Olympia[1831] and an Olympic victress who had a statue erected to her
in Sparta for such a victory.[1832] This was probably the original
chariot-race at Olympia revived in Ol. 93, since the two-horse chariot
was the historical descendant of the Homeric war-chariot.[1833]
Panathenaic vases show that this race existed at Athens in the sixth
century B. C., side by side with the four-horse chariot-race and
horseback-race. The earliest of these vases, the so-called Burgon
vase in the British Museum,[1834] was a prize there for this event.
The race in which the chariot was drawn by a pair of colts (συνωρὶς
πώλων) was introduced at Olympia in the third century B. C., in Ol.
129 (= 264 B. C.),[1835] and extended three times around the course.
Pausanias mentions no monument erected to a victor in this race. The
horse-race (ἵππος κέλης) was instituted in Ol. 33 (= 648 B. C.)[1836],
and the foal-race (πῶλος κέλης) nearly four centuries later, in Ol.
131 (256 B. C.).[1837] Neither of these races was known to Homer, for
κελετίζειν in the Iliad,[1838] as we saw in Chapter I, refers only to
the acrobatic feat of vaulting from the back of one horse to that of
another. Pausanias mentions monuments erected to eight victors (for
nine victories) in the regular horse-race at Olympia. We conclude from
a passage of his work[1839] that the riding-race consisted of one lap
only or six stades, about two-thirds of a mile. A mule chariot-race
(ἀπήνη) was introduced in Ol. 70 (= 500 B. C.), and a trotting-race
with mares (κάλπη) in Ol. 71 (= 496 B. C.), but both were abolished in
Ol. 84 (= 444 B. C.).[1840] Pausanias mentions one monument erected
to an anonymous victor in κάλπη, who won some time between Ols. 72
and 84 (= 492 and 444 B. C.).[1841] He mentions the first victor in
the mule-race, Thersias of Thessaly, but this does not occur in his
_periegesis_ of the Altis.[1842] Only three other victors in this event
are known to us, and they came from Sicilian towns.[1843]
Equestrian events were discontinued at Olympia in the first century
B. C., owing to the waning of interest in athletics in consequence of
the Roman conquest of Greece in 146 B. C. They were revived thereafter
under the Empire only spasmodically and were destined finally to be
replaced by the amusements of the Roman circus. Thus we learn from the
Armenian version of Africanus that the chariot-race ceased at Olympia
in Ol. 178 (= 68 B. C.). It must, however, have been reinstated toward
the end of the century, since Tiberius Claudius Nero—afterwards the
Emperor Tiberius—won in Ol. 194 (= 4 B. C.).[1844] It again went into
disuse, since Africanus says that it, πάλαι κωλυθείς, was reintroduced
in Ol. 199 (= 17 A. D.), when Germanicus, the adopted son of Tiberius,
won.[1845] Once more it was discontinued, and again renewed in Ol.
222 (= 109 A. D.), according to the same authority, who, however, does
not name any victor for that date. Just when this discontinuance took
place, we can not say, but it was certainly after Ol. 211 (= 65 A. D.),
when the emperor Nero is known to have won victories in various kinds
of chariot-races.[1846] Three Olympiads before, an Elean, Tiberios
Klaudios Aphrodeisios, had also won the horse-race.[1847]
REPRESENTATIONS OF THE CHARIOT-RACE.
[Illustration: PLATE 26
Racing Chariot and Horses. From an archaic b.-f. Hydria. Museum of
Berlin.]
Representations of the various chariot-races are commoner than
those of any other Olympic contest, appearing on vases, reliefs,
coins, and gems.[1848] There seem to have been two distinct types
of racing-chariot in Greece.[1849] The four-horse chariot was a
modification of the heroic two-horse war-chariot, which was a low car
on two wheels, surmounted by a box consisting of a high framework,
open only at the rear, and large enough to contain the chieftain and
the charioteer. The war-chariot was known to both Mycenæan Greece and
Crete. There is a relief of uncertain date in the Museum of Candia,
which represents a chariot and charioteer.[1850] It is far superior
to the type of chariots appearing in relief on the gravestones found
at Mycenæ,[1851] though the type on both is of the same general
pattern, having the same box and four-spoked wheels. On the Mycenæan
reliefs the box seems to rest directly upon the rim of the wheel, and
the portrayal of a single horse is very inartistic. On the Candia
relief, however, there are at least two horses discernible, and
both the horses and the warrior, who is about to mount the car, are
lifelike. The Greek racing-car was much lighter than the Homeric and
Mycenæan war-chariot, and the box had room only for the charioteer.
It was drawn usually by four horses. The Athenian type appears on
Panathenaic vases throughout the whole history of the manufacture
of these vases,[1852] and also on Macedonian and Sicilian coins. On
certain vases of later date the car is still lighter and has larger
wheels. One of the earliest racing-cars is seen on a vase in the
British Museum,[1853] dating from the eighth century B. C. It seems
to be a two-horse car, as we should expect at this early date, though
the artist has drawn but one horse. The charioteer is clothed in a
long chiton, a custom which was generally kept throughout the history
of the chariot-race. The regular two-horse type of chariot appears on
vases as a cart, the body of the old war-chariot being so diminished
that nothing is left but the driver’s seat with a square open framework
on the sides. The driver rests his feet on a footboard suspended from
the pole.[1854] Perhaps this represents a peculiarly Athenian type
of chariot, since the two-horse chariot on coins of Philip II, son
of Amyntas and father of Alexander the Great, a victor at Olympia in
both horse-racing and charioteering, resembles the ordinary four-horse
car, and the driver stands instead of sits.[1855] The mule-car was
like the two-horse chariot, as we see in representations of it on
coins of Rhegion and Messana.[1856] The best illustrations of racing
with four-horse cars are afforded by coins of Sicilian cities.[1857]
We see an excellent representation of such a race on a sixth-century
B. C. Panathenaic vase recently found at Sparta, on which a chariot
driven by a standing charioteer is represented as passing a pillar on
the right, and therefore perhaps near the end of the race.[1858] The
harnessing of two horses to a racing-car is seen on an archaic b.-f.
hydria in Berlin (Pl. 26).[1859] Here a third horse appears, led by
a nude youth, who is crowned, and who therefore probably represents
a victorious horse-racer. Several other b.-f. vase-paintings showing
four-horse chariots have been collected by Gerhard.[1860] However,
we are not dependent upon vase-paintings and coins to judge of the
magnificence of Greek chariots of the historical period, for we have
actual remains of them—war-chariots, to be sure, but not very unlike
the ones used at the corresponding dates in Olympia. Among these is
the fine bronze _biga_ found in the grave of an Italian prince at
Monteleone, Etruria, in 1902, and now one of the chief treasures of
the Metropolitan Museum in New York.[1861] This is a war-chariot of the
beginning of the sixth century B. C., the only complete ancient bronze
chariot now known. The restored frame of wood is sheathed with thin
bronze plates richly ornamented with reliefs in repoussé. Because of
its form and its relationship to chariots appearing on archaic Ionic
monuments of Asia Minor, for example, on the reliefs of sarcophagi
from Klazomenai, and because of the strong resemblance between its
decorative designs and those of archaic Italian monuments of Ionicizing
style, Furtwaengler has classed it as the product of Ionic Greek art.
Professor Chase, on the other hand, finds these decorations pure
Etruscan in character, comparing them with the reliefs on three bronze
tripods in the possession of Mr. James Loeb, which are dated some half
a century later.[1862] In any case this chariot is “_das glaenzendste,
vollstaendigste_” archaic metal work yet recovered. In the British
Museum there are considerable remnants of the chariot-group of King
Mausolos and his wife Artemisia, which once stood on the apex of the
Mausoleion at Halikarnassos, the work, according to Pliny,[1863] of
Pythis (or Pytheos), the architect and historian of the tomb.[1864]
Besides the figures of the royal pair, we have the head of one horse,
the hinder half of another, fragments of still others, and one wheel of
the chariot.[1865]
CHARIOT-GROUPS AT OLYMPIA.
Great artists were engaged to set up chariot-groups at Olympia and
elsewhere. Many of the _quadrigae_ and _bigae_ mentioned by Pliny
as the works of sculptors and painters must have been agonistic
offerings.[1866] Aeginetan sculptors were especially in favor at
Olympia. Thus Onatas, in conjunction with the Athenian Kalamis, made
a group for King Hiero,[1867] and Glaukias made another for Hiero’s
brother Gelo;[1868] Simon made an equestrian group for Phormis,[1869]
and Philotimos made a statue for the horse-racer Xenombrotos of
Kos.[1870] The oldest dedication by a chariot victor at Olympia was
the votive offering of Miltiades, the son of Kypselos, of Athens,
which consisted of an ivory horn of Amaltheia, inscribed with archaic
letters and set up in the treasury of the Sikyonians. Miltiades won his
victory in Ol. (?) 54 (= 564 B. C.).[1871] The next oldest dedication
at Olympia was that of a chariot, without any human figure, by the
Spartan Euagoras, who won three victories in Ols. (?) 58-60 (= 548-540
B. C.).[1872] This custom of dedicating merely the model of a chariot
continued sporadically into the third century B. C. Thus Polypeithes
of Sparta, who won a victory near the end of the sixth century B.
C.,[1873] dedicated a chariot, while a figure of his father, the
wrestler Kalliteles, stood beside it.[1874] A Pythian victor, Arkesilas
IV, son of Battos IV, king of Kyrene, who won a victory in the 31st
Pythiad (= 462 B. C.), dedicated a chariot at Delphi.[1875] At the
beginning of the fourth century B. C. the Spartan princess Kyniska
set up “bronze horses less than life-size” in the pronaos of the
temple of Zeus at Olympia. The recovered base shows that Pausanias was
right about the size of this votive offering.[1876] Theochrestos of
Kyrene, who won some time between Ols. (?) 100 and 122 (= 380 and 292
B. C.),[1877] and Glaukon of Athens, who won in the third century B.
C.,[1878] also set up votive chariots. The recovered base of Glaukon’s
chariot shows that it was small. Sometimes a chariot victor, for
economy’s sake, contented himself with dedicating merely a statue of
himself in honor of his victory—a custom which continued from the sixth
to the third centuries B. C. Perhaps one of the oldest examples of such
a dedication of which we have record is that of the Elean Archidamas,
who won a victory at an unknown date, but certainly some time after
Ol. 66 (= 515 B. C.).[1879] In the fifth century B. C., the Spartans
Anaxandros[1880] and Lykinos[1881] dedicated merely statues of
themselves. In the fourth century B. C. the Elean victors Timon,[1882]
whose monument was by Daidalos, Troilos, whose monument was by
Lysippos,[1883] and Telemachos, whose statue was by Philonides,[1884]
set up statues in honor of their victories. The footprints on the
inscribed base of the statue of Telemachos show that he was represented
standing at rest with both feet flat on the ground. This was probably
the position of the statues of the other two victors mentioned. The
statue of the Spartan victor Polykles, surnamed _Polychalkos_, stood
in a singular group. He was represented as being greeted on his return
home by his children, one of whom held a small grace-hoop in his
hand, while the other was trying to snatch the victor ribbon from his
father’s hand.[1885] We learn from Diogenes Laertios that the tyrant
Periandros of Corinth vowed to set up a golden statue of himself if he
won the chariot-race.[1886]
The first instance chronologically recorded by Pausanias of a chariot
victor dedicating his statue along with chariot and horses is that
of king Gelo of Syracuse, the group being the work of the Aeginetan
Glaukias.[1887] The first instance of a victor dedicating his statue in
a group with chariot, horses, and charioteer, is that of Kleosthenes
of Epidamnos, the group being the work of the Argive Hagelaïdas.[1888]
Even the names of the horses were inscribed on this monument.[1889] The
owner of the chariot, to be sure, took the prize, but he felt that the
victory was due to the horses and driver, and so he associated them
with himself in the monument. Sometimes the victor acted as his own
charioteer. Thus the Spartan Damonon, already mentioned as the hero of
many chariot victories in and near Sparta, tells in the inscription
appearing on his votive relief that he was his own charioteer.[1890] In
the first _Isthmian Ode_ Pindar congratulates Herodotos of Thebes, who
won the chariot-race (?) in 458 B. C., on not entrusting his chariot
to strangers, but driving it himself.[1891] Thrasyboulos seems to
have driven his father’s car at the victory commemorated by the sixth
_Pythian Ode_, sung in honor of the chariot victory of Xenokrates of
Akragas in 490 B. C. at Delphi. Karrhotos, the charioteer of Arkesilas
of Kyrene already mentioned, was the latter’s brother-in-law.[1892]
Similarly Aigyptos appears to have ridden his own horse at Olympia
instead of entrusting it to a jockey.[1893] Sophokles, in the
_Electra_, has the hero Orestes drive his own chariot at the _Pythia_.
Kyniska, the daughter of king Archidamas of Sparta, was the first
woman to enter the contests at the race-course and the first to win an
Olympic victory with her chariot.[1894] Apart from the small votive
offering, already mentioned as standing in the temple of Zeus, she had
also a victor-group at Olympia, by the sculptor Apellas, consisting
of chariot, horses, charioteer, and herself. The rounded form of the
recovered base,[1895] in connection with the description of Pausanias,
permits us to assume that the statue of the princess stood in front on
the projecting rounded portion of the pedestal. This is the contention
of Loewy, who opposes the theory of Furtwaengler[1896] that the statue
stood away from the rest of the group, since Pausanias makes no mention
of such an arrangement. In any case, the charioteer in the group can
not have been separated from the car.
In an unpublished paper by my former teacher, Dr. Alfred Emerson, which
was read by Professor D. M. Robinson before the Archæological Institute
of America at its Christmas meeting in Providence in 1910, and entitled
_The Case of Kyniska_,[1897] the argument was made that the chariot was
in miniature; that the statue of Kyniska was a portrait, because of the
wording of the recovered epigram; and, lastly that the smallest of the
so-called bronze dancers from the villa of the Pisos in Herculaneum,
now in Naples, is a late reproduction of the statue at Olympia by
Apellas. Emerson thinks that Pliny no doubt often visited the villa and
may well have had these statues in mind when he mentioned Apellas as
the author of several statues of women adorning themselves.[1898]
The monument erected by Hiero, son of Deinomenes and brother and
successor of king Gelo at Syracuse, who won two horse-races and a
four-horse chariot victory at Olympia in Ols. 76, 77, 78 (= 476-468
B. C.),[1899] consisted of a bronze chariot, on which the charioteer
was mounted, and on either side a race-horse with a jockey on each.
Onatas made the chariot (and possibly the statue of the driver), while
Kalamis sculptured the horses and jockeys. Such a division among
sculptors was not uncommon at Olympia. Thus the Aeginetan artist
Simon and the Argive Dionysios made a group in common for Phormis,
which we have already mentioned, consisting of two horses and two
charioteers.[1900] The Chian Pantias and the Aeginetan Philotimos made
a group in common for Xenombrotos of Kos, victor in horse-racing, and
for his son, the boy boxer Xenodikos, which consisted of statues of
the man and the boy on horseback.[1901] Pliny mentions a four-horse
chariot-group for which the elder Praxiteles made the charioteer and
Kalamis the chariot, adding that Praxiteles did this out of kindness,
not wishing it to be thought that Kalamis had failed in representing
the man after succeeding in representing the horses.[1902]
In some of the Olympic chariot-groups doubtless the charioteer was
represented at the moment of entering the chariot or already in it.
Sometimes a figure of Nike took the place of the charioteer, in order
that the victor’s exploit might be more exalted. Thus Pausanias, in
mentioning the bronze chariot of Kratisthenes of Kyrene by Pythagoras
of Rhegion,[1903] says that statues of Nike and Kratisthenes himself
are mounted upon the car. The Nike in some cases was replaced by the
figure of a young maiden, who stood beside the victor, as in the cases
of the Elean Timon[1904] and the Macedonian Lampos.[1905] Pliny notes a
similar example in reference to the chariot of Teisikrates, a Delphian
victor in the two-horse chariot-race.[1906] The maiden in all these
cases may have been merely a Nike personified or a mortal.[1907] Pliny
records that the painter Nikomachos, son and pupil of Aristeides,
painted a _Victoria quadrigam in sublime rapiens_.[1908] The figure
of Nike appears often on reliefs. Thus on a terra-cotta sarcophagus
from Klazomenai we see a two-horse chariot driven by a boy, while
alongside is a winged female figure—Iris or Nike—mounting it.[1909]
The moment of victory is shown on an Attic marble votive relief
representing a four-horse chariot, now in the British Museum. Here a
figure of Nike is represented as floating in the air and extending
a wreath (now wanting) towards the head of the charioteer, who is
draped with a tunic girdled at the waist, as he mounts the car. If
the charioteer in this relief is a female (which is doubtful), it may
he the personification of the city to which the winner belongs.[1910]
On a votive relief in Athens a horse is represented as being crowned
by Nike.[1911] On a relief in Madrid Nike is represented as driving
a chariot.[1912] A quadriga with a female figure, apparently Nike,
appears on a relief dedicated to Hermes and the Nymphs, which was found
in Phaleron.[1913] Doubtless some of the chariot-groups at Olympia
represented movement—the start, the course, or the end of the race—as
do these and similar reliefs.[1914] We should add that the figure of
Nike was not confined to equestrian monuments. On the Ficoroni cista
in Rome is represented the boxing match between Polydeukes and Amykos
among the Bebrykes. In the centre we see Amykos hanged to a tree by the
hands, while to the right stands Athena, and above her Nike is flying
with a crown and fillet of victory for Polydeukes.[1915]
REMAINS OF CHARIOT-GROUPS.
From this discussion of the literary evidence about the monuments
of chariot victors at Olympia and elsewhere, we shall turn to a
brief consideration of certain existing works of sculpture, reliefs
and statues, which will serve to illustrate the manner in which the
sculptor represented this class of victor monuments.
[Illustration: FIG. 63.—Charioteer Mounting a Chariot. Bas-relief from
the Akropolis. Akropolis Museum, Athens.]
The motive of representing a figure in the act of mounting a
chariot is old. Amphiaraos was thus represented on the chest of
Kypselos at Olympia[1916] and appears in a similar pose on the b.-f.
Corinthian vase from Cerveteri, now in Berlin, which we have already
mentioned.[1917] Among reliefs we shall first discuss the Parian (?)
marble one found in 1822 near the Propylaia at Athens and now in the
Akropolis Museum (Fig. 63).[1918] Here we see represented a robed
figure stepping into a chariot, holding the reins in the extended
hands. This Attic work, perhaps dating from the very beginning of the
fifth century B. C., has long been admired for its vigor and grace.
Whether the figure is male or female, human or divine, is still a
matter of debate. The head is too badly weathered to make the decision
final. The upper part of the figure of Hermes (?) on another fragment,
which appears to come from the same relief and which was found near the
south wall of the Akropolis in 1859,[1919] has made it seem reasonable
to call the charioteer a god, perhaps Apollo.[1920] The hair of
Hermes and of the charioteer is arranged in the old Attic _krobylos_
fashion. This also makes it natural to interpret the charioteer as
male, despite the slender and delicate arms and hands, which appear to
be female.[1921] But such effeminate male figures are not unknown to
Attic art, which was characterized by grace and softness.[1922] The
line of the breast, however, shows no such fulness as archaic masters
were wont to give to female forms, and hence this figure may very well
be that of a male. Schrader has tried to refer the slab to the frieze
of the Old Temple of Athena, which, he believes, survived the sack of
the Akropolis by Xerxes,[1923] thus assuming a chariot-frieze similar
to the later one appearing on the Mausoleion at Halikarnassos, which
antedated similar scenes on the Parthenon frieze by nearly a century.
As the Parthenon slabs represent mortal charioteers, who are doubtless
males, the relief may also represent a mortal. However, the Akropolis
relief may have had nothing to do with any temple frieze nor with the
adornment of a great altar of Athena, as Furtwaengler contended,[1924]
but may be from a votive monument set up by a chariot victor.[1925]
We see a good representation in relief of a chariot-group on one side
of the arched roof of the so-called Chimæra tomb discovered by Sir
Charles Fellows at Xanthos in Lykia. Here is represented a chariot
drawn by four horses, in which stands a charioteer, with sleeved tunic
and Phrygian cap, and an armed figure. Because of the figure of the
Chimæra in the lower right-hand corner, the charioteer, despite the
absence of Pegasos, has been called Bellerophon.[1926]
THE APOBATES CHARIOT-RACE.
On the north frieze of the Parthenon there were originally at least
9 four-horse chariot groups,[1927] while on the south frieze there
were 10 such groups.[1928] These various groups represent a ceremonial
chariot-race called the _apobates_, known at Athens and in Bœotia
and a favorite contest at the Panathenaic games.[1929] This race
preserved the tradition of Homeric warfare, when the chieftain was
driven to battle in his chariot, but dismounted to fight, remounting
only to pursue or avoid his enemy. During the race, while the
charioteer kept the horses at full speed, the _apobates_ dismounted,
ran alongside the chariot, and mounted again. In the last lap he
dismounted and ran beside the chariot to the goal.[1930] In the North
frieze we see the charioteer in the chariot, and the _apobates_, armed
with shield and helmet, either stepping down from the chariot or
standing beside it; while a third figure, a marshal, stands nearby.
Thus on slab XIV we see the _apobates_ about to step down; on slab XV
he is standing up in the chariot; on slab XVII (Fig. 64) he is leaning
back, supporting himself by means of his right hand, which grasps
the chariot rail, and is just ready to step down; on slab XXII he is
remounting the chariot. In the scenes on the South frieze, on the
other hand, the _apobates_ is not represented as dismounting, but is
standing either inside the chariot or by its side. The South frieze,
therefore, represents preparation or the beginning of the race, while
the North one represents the actual course. There is, therefore, as
Gardiner points out, no need to accept Michaelis’ theory that the two
friezes portray different motives, the North one representing the
_apobates_ at the games and the South one representing war-chariots.
The double character of the race is shown by inscriptions which make
both charioteer and _apobates_ equally victors. Many other reliefs
show the _apobates_ dismounting. Thus, on a fragmentary relief found
in 1886 at the Amphiareion at Oropos and now in Athens,[1931] we see
a nude and beardless youth standing in a chariot, which is moving
rapidly to the left. He has a helmet on his head and a shield in his
left hand and holds on to the rim of the chariot, as in the Parthenon
frieze slab just mentioned. To his right is a charioteer with his arms
outstretched to hold the reins. As this relief is obviously influenced
by the Parthenon frieze, it must stand midway between that frieze and
the Hellenistic relief to be described below. Another relief, found
at Oropos in 1835[1932] and dating from the first half of the fourth
century B. C., represents a four-horse chariot moving to the left and
containing two persons. One is the charioteer, who has long waving hair
and a short beard and is clothed in the usual long tunic; the other
is a nude _apobates_, who is armed with helmet and shield and holds
on to the rim of the chariot with his right hand, the upper part of
his body being inclined backwards, the knees bent, and the shield held
away from the body.[1933] We can not say whether these two reliefs from
the Amphiareion represent offerings of _apobatai_, who were victorious
at races held in Oropos or elsewhere in Bœotia, or represent the
victorious Panathenaic _apobatai_. They may well be _ex votos_ to
the hero Amphiaraos at the games held in Oropos. We see an excellent
illustration of an _apobates_ in the very act of dismounting on a
Hellenistic votive relief discovered in 1880 on the Akropolis, which
dates from the end of the fourth century B. C.[1934] A marble relief,
supposably from Herculaneum, but now in Portugal,[1935] represents a
figure dressed in a long chiton. Wolters suggests that it may represent
an _apobates_, but the absence of the usual armor makes it probable
that a charioteer is intended. In a future section we shall discuss the
_apobates_ in the horse-race at Olympia known as κάλπη.
[Illustration: FIG. 64.—Apobates and Chariot. Relief from the North
Frieze of the Parthenon, Athens.]
[Illustration: FIG. 65.—Charioteer. Relief from the small Frieze of the
Mausoleion, Halikarnassos. British Museum, London.]
STATUES OF CHARIOTEERS.
The best-preserved slab from the small Parian marble chariot-frieze
from the Mausoleion of Halikarnassos, now in the British Museum,
represents a male figure standing in a chariot (Fig. 65).[1936]
This long-haired charioteer, dressed in a tunic which extends to
the feet and is girded at the waist, is leaning forward in an eager
attitude. The folds of his garment curved to the wind show the speed
of his horses, and the mutilated face discloses a look of intense
excitement. The deep-set eyes and overhanging brows recall the Tegea
heads of Skopas (Fig. 73) and the combatants pictured on the so-called
_Alexander Sarcophagus_ discovered near Sidon in 1887 and now in
Constantinople.[1937] The pose is so characteristic and spirited that
it was copied by later artists on reliefs and gems.[1938] The same
pose, forward inclination of the body, half-opened mouth, and intense
look seem to be reproduced in a statue of the fourth century B. C. now
in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston (Pl. 27).[1939] Robinson, because
of the similarity of its head to certain heads of Apollo published by
Overbeck,[1940] interpreted this statue as Apollo starting to run. Von
Mach, however, has pointed out that its head bears a more striking
resemblance to that of a _Kore_ in Vienna.[1941] Klein interpreted it
as a jumper, assuming that the two supports on the legs were for the
wrists, indicating that the arms were held downwards, the hands, then,
holding _halteres_. But von Mach makes it clear that these supports
are not parallel, as Klein thought, but that they diverge outwards
and consequently may have made the connection with the sides of a
chariot rim. Furthermore, the likeness to the figure on the Mausoleion
frieze (Fig. 65) makes it probable that we are here concerned with
a charioteer. The objection to this theory on the ground of nudity
is baseless. Though the conventional garb of the charioteer in Greek
art from the eighth century B. C. onwards[1942] was certainly a long,
close-fitting chiton, there are several examples in existence of
nude charioteers.[1943] Similarly the objection that the artificial
head-dress does not belong to a charioteer is equally erroneous. Klein
has shown that it appears on several heads of boys, and, as von Mach
says, it is certainly no better suited to Apollo or a jumper than to
a boy driving colts in a chariot-race. The pose of the Boston statue
also reminds us somewhat of that of the small bronze statue of a boy
found in the Rhine near Xanten in 1858 and now in Berlin.[1944] This
is a Roman work seemingly inspired by a Greek prototype, and has been
interpreted variously as the statue of _Bonus Eventus, Novus Annus_,
and Dionysos. However, here again the forward inclination of the
body points to the interpretation of a charioteer,[1945] despite its
nudity. The nude statue found on the Esquiline in 1874 and now in the
Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome, which has already been mentioned,[1946]
has been shown to be that of a charioteer by a comparison with
figures on Attic vases which represent mortals and gods entering
chariots, and with a figure on the so-called _Satrap Sarcophagus_ in
Constantinople.[1947] The youth is represented as standing on his left
foot; he places his right on the chariot floor and extends his hands
to hold the reins. The statue seems to be a mediocre Roman copy of a
Greek original bronze of about the middle of the fifth century _B.
C._, as it shows certain traces of archaism. Furtwaengler has assigned
it to the sculptor Kalamis along with a closely connected group of
monuments.[1948]
[Illustration: PLATE 27
Statue of a Charioteer (?). Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.]
[Illustration: FIG. 66.—Bronze Statue of the Delphi _Charioteer_.
Museum of Delphi.]
Finally, in this connection, even though it has nothing to do with
monuments set up at Olympia, we shall discuss the life-size bronze
statue of the _Charioteer_ discovered by the French in 1896 in the
excavations of Delphi, and now the cynosure of the village museum
there. (Fig. 66.)[1949] This example of ripe archaic art is one of
the finest bronzes yet recovered in Greece. Its ancient fame is
disclosed by the fact that it was copied in many monuments down to
the end of antiquity.[1950] The figure is clothed in a short-sleeved
chiton, which reached nearly to the ground, and is girded above the
waist. With the figure were found also fragments of reins, which were
held in the extended right hand, portions of three horses, a chariot
pole, and the left arm and hand of a second figure, that of a boy or
woman, showing that the _Charioteer_ was part of a group. The group
rested on a base on which was cut a two-line metrical inscription, the
ends of which are preserved. The first line ends Πολύζαλός μ’ ἀνέθηκεν.
A part of the inscription is lost and another part, including the above
words, is written over the erased original, which is still partly
legible. The original inscription gives the name of the first dedicator
as ending in ιλας. From this ending Professor Washburn recovers the
name Ἀρκεσίλας. He refers the original dedication to Arkesilas IV of
Kyrene,[1951] and identifies it with the group known from Pausanias to
have been dedicated at Delphi by the people of Kyrene, representing
Battos and the figure of Libya crowning him in a chariot and the
charioteer personified as Kyrene outside, the whole being the work of
the Knossian sculptor Amphion.[1952] Svoronos[1953] follows Washburn’s
suggestion and identifies the _Charioteer_ with Battos, believing that
the fragment of the left arm found with the statue is from the statue
of Kyrene represented as a charioteer.[1954] Ingenious as the theory
is, there are chronological difficulties in the way of accepting it
unreservedly. Thus Amphion’s pupil Pison worked on the Spartan memorial
of Aigospotamoi at Delphi in 404 B. C.[1955] Furthermore, the ending
ιλας may equally well refer to Anaxilas, the tyrant of Rhegion, as
the original dedicator,[1956] in which case it seems reasonable to
assume that the group might have been the work of Pythagoras, the great
sculptor of Rhegion.[1957] A Greek scholar believes that the original
dedicator was Gelo, and that his name was erased and replaced by that
of his brother Polyzalos; he consequently dates the group shortly
after Gelo’s death in 478 B. C.[1958] He refers it to Glaukias of
Aegina, while Joubin[1959] classes the _Charioteer_ as an Attic work.
However, the whole subject of Greek sculpture in the years just after
the Persian war period is too complicated to name definitely the artist
of this simple and severe work. Its deficiencies are as apparent as
its virtues. Thus the parallel folds of the chiton show little of the
form beneath; the feet are too flatly placed on the ground, and the
contour of the head and face is not altogether graceful.[1960] Whatever
the original purpose of the group was, it may well have been used by
Polyzalos to honor the Pythian victory of his brother Hiero.[1961] From
it, then, we can get, perhaps, an idea of the magnificence of Hiero’s
monument by Onatas and Kalamis at Olympia.
DEDICATIONS OF VICTORS IN THE HORSE-RACE AT OLYMPIA AND ELSEWHERE.
The hippic victor at Olympia frequently dedicated merely the model of
his victorious horse without the jockey, just as the early chariot
victor dedicated a chariot without the charioteer. We have evidence
of several instances of this custom from the sixth century B. C. on.
Krokon of Eretria dedicated a small horse of bronze in the Altis.[1962]
The Corinthian Pheidolas dedicated a model of his horse alone, but
for a different reason.[1963] The jockey who rode for him fell off at
the start, but the mare, named _Aura_, continued the race and reached
the goal as victor. The owner was allowed by the judges to set up
a monument to her. The sons of Pheidolas were also victors in the
horse-race[1964] and set up a horse on a column with an epigram upon
it—ἵππος ἐπὶ στήλῃ πεποιημένος καὶ ἐπίγραμμά ἐστιν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ. Just how
this monument looked is doubtful. Pausanias may have seen the bronze
horse of the father Pheidolas, and nearby a column with a bas-relief
representing the horse of the sons;[1965] or the horse may have stood
on top of the column in the round, since the epigram was ἐπ’ αὐτῷ (on
the horse) and not ἐπ’ αὐτῇ (on the stele).[1966]
More frequently a jockey was seated upon the model of the horse, just
as we see frequently on vase-paintings. In the Olympic monument of
King Hiero already mentioned, race-horses with boys seated upon them
stood on either side of the chariot in honor of his two victories in
the horse-race and one in the chariot-race.[1967] Another Olympia
group represented the boy horse-racer Aigyptos on horseback, and his
father, the chariot victor Timon, standing beside him.[1968] This is
also a case in which the victor (Aigyptos) acted as his own jockey.
In the group representing Xenombrotos of Kos, the horse-racer, and
his son, the boy boxer Xenodikos, by the Aeginetan Philotimos and the
Chian Pantias respectively, the boy was seated on a horse and the
statue of the father stood nearby.[1969] The base of this group has
been recovered, large enough to have carried the two monuments.[1970]
Pliny says that the sculptors Kanachos and Hegias made groups of
horse-racers.[1971] We have seen that Pausanias mentions others by
Kalamis and Daidalos. The work of Kalamis, the immediate predecessor
of Pheidias, an artist noted for his grace and softness and as an
unrivaled sculptor of horses,[1972] must have been excellent.
MONUMENTS ILLUSTRATING THE HORSE-RACE.
When we turn to the monuments which illustrate the horse-race, we find
as varied a number—vase-paintings, reliefs, coins, statuary, etc.—as in
the case of chariot victors.
[Illustration: FIG. 67.—Horse-Racer. From a Sixth-Century B. C. b.-f.
Panathenaic Vase. British Museum, London.]
Vase-paintings show that the jockey was generally nude and rode without
stirrups or saddle. We see nude long-haired jockeys on horseback with
whips pictured on a sixth-century B. C. Panathenaic amphora in the
British Museum.[1973] One also appears on a silver tetradrachm in
the same museum, which commemorates the Olympic victory of Philip II
of Macedonia.[1974] Here the victorious mounted jockey has a palm in
his hand, the symbol of his victory. On the other hand, the jockey is
sometimes represented as wearing a close-fitting short-sleeved chiton.
We see such a one on an archaic b.-f. Panathenaic vase of the sixth
century B. C. in the British Museum (Fig. 67).[1975] In front of the
mounted youth on this vase stands a herald in official robes, from
whose mouth issue the words “the horse of Dyneiketos is victorious.”
Behind the jockey is an attendant bearing a wreath in his left hand and
holding a prize tripod over his head. The short chiton also appears on
a horse-racer on the Amphiaraos vase.[1976] We see racing boys on a
proto-Corinthian lekythos in the museum at Taranto, with tripods as
prizes.[1977] A fine example of five nude horse-racers also appears on
a vase pictured in the Daremberg-Saglio Dictionary.[1978] Here one has
fallen from his horse and is being dragged by the bridle.
A boy on a galloping horse is shown on a terra-cotta relief from
Thera.[1979] On a funerary marble relief from Sicily, now in the Museo
Gregoriano, Rome, a rider is represented urging his horse on with
a whip.[1980] An Athenian relief shows victorious ephebes leading
horses,[1981] while another from Athens shows a mounted boy.[1982]
Horsemen representing Athenian knights appear on many slabs of the
Parthenon frieze,[1983] either mounted or standing by their horses.
The inscribed base of Onatas found on the Akropolis seems to have borne
the statue of a horse-racer.[1984] The bronze statue of Isokrates at
Athens, which represented him as a παῖς κελητίζων, is mentioned by
the pseudo-Plutarch.[1985] A bronze statuette in Athens from Dodona
represents an ephebe on a galloping horse.[1986] A statue in the
Palazzo Orlandi in Florence represents a horse-rider.[1987] In the
Akropolis Museum there are two monuments which we should mention in
this connection. One is the lower part of the statue of a nude rider on
horseback, the mutilated horse being represented as pawing the ground
with its forefoot. Closely resembling it in scale and finish, though
more developed in style, is another fragmentary statue of a horse
without a rider, the latter probably to be understood as standing in
front of the horse, as in some of the riders pictured on the Parthenon
frieze. The two are good examples of pre-Persian Attic sculpture.[1988]
A later example is the small bronze statuette of an ephebe represented
as a horseman (the horse is lacking) discovered recently at the French
excavations at Volubilis in Morocco. This almost perfectly preserved
work has been referred to the first half of the fifth century B.
C.[1989] The position of the hands holding the reins reminds us
strongly of the Delphi _Charioteer_ (Fig. 66). The diadem in the hair
shows that a victor is represented. A small bronze statuette in the
Loeb collection in Munich represents a boy riding a prancing horse,
which is standing on its hind legs. This vigorous, but poorly finished,
work is decorative in character and probably once belonged to the crown
of a candelabrum. It appears to be either an Etruscan or early Roman
work based on a Hellenistic original.[1990]
THE APOBATES HORSE-RACE.
In a previous section we discussed the _apobates_ chariot-race run at
the Panathenaic games in Athens, in which the _apobates_ leaped down
and ran to the goal abreast of the chariot. We shall now briefly speak
of a similar race at Olympia (the κάλπη) in which the rider leaped
from his mare in the last lap and ran with her to the goal.[1991]
There is no certain illustration in sculpture or on vase-paintings of
this race, but Gardiner believes that something like it appears on
coins of Tarentum, on which a nude youth, armed with a small round
shield, is represented in the act of jumping from his horse.[1992]
The military character of this race, like that of the _apobates_
chariot-race discussed, is shown by the shield held in the left hand of
the dismounting horseman. Helbig has shown that the Greek knight of the
sixth century B. C. was merely a mounted infantryman, the successor of
the Homeric warrior who used his chariot merely for pursuit or flight,
while actually fighting from the ground.[1993] Just so the knight rode
to battle on his horse, but dismounted when near the enemy, leaving
the horse in charge of his squire, as the Homeric chieftain left his
chariot in charge of his charioteer. This old custom of the heroic age
survived not only in the Panathenaic chariot-race, but also, for a few
years in the fifth century B. C., in the Olympic mare-race known as
the κάλπη. It seems to have been instituted there for military reasons
in order to revive the old form of fighting that had gone out of use
just at the close of the sixth century B. C., but it endured for only a
half century, from Ols. 71 to 84 (= 496 to 444 B. C.). The corresponding
chariot-race at Athens and elsewhere continued at least to the end of
the fourth century B. C.
DEDICATIONS OF MUSICAL VICTORS AT OLYMPIA AND ELSEWHERE.
In closing this chapter we shall say a few words about monuments
erected to trumpeters, heralds, and musical victors at Olympia, though
such contests had nothing to do with athletics.
Contests for trumpeters and heralds were held in many parts of
Greece.[1994] They were introduced at Olympia in Ol. 96 (= 396 B.
C.), when Timaios of Elis won as trumpeter and Krates of Elis as
herald.[1995] Pausanias mentions an altar, near the entrance to the
stadion, upon which trumpeters and heralds stood when competing.[1996]
Such contests seem to have been mere displays of lung power. Herodoros,
for example, who won as trumpeter at Olympia ten times in the last
quarter of the fourth and beginning of the third century B. C.[1997],
could blow two trumpets at once so loud that no one could stand near
him.[1998] To perform such a feat he was said to be a very large
man.[1999] Diogenes, son of Dionysios of Ephesos, won five victories
in trumpeting at Olympia. He was twice _periodonikes_ and also won
many other victories at the Isthmus, Nemea, and elsewhere—eighty in
all.[2000] We have an excellent bronze statuette of a trumpeter,
which was found in the Hieron of Athena Chalkioikos at Sparta, dating
from the middle of the fifth century B. C., about a century and a
half before the event was introduced at Olympia.[2001] This “little
masterpiece of Spartan art,” whose style resembles that of the Olympia
pediment sculptures, represents a nude man standing, the left arm
hanging by his side, while the right is bent upwards to the mouth,
where it held a tubular object pointing upwards. Since the lips are
tightly compressed, Dickins has interpreted the object as a trumpet. A
much damaged bronze statuette in the British Museum represents a man
playing on a long trumpet-shaped instrument.[2002] Trumpeters also
appear now and then on r.-f. Attic vases of the middle of the fifth
century B. C.
Music victors played a greater role at Delphi than elsewhere, since
music from the first was the chief interest there. Monuments to such
victors, though few in number, by little-known artists were set up
there, but they seem to have enjoyed the same meagre honor at Delphi
as the statues of athletic victors.[2003] We have record of a statue
of the Epizephyrian Locrian _kitharoidos_ Eunomos, set up in his
native town in honor of his Pythian victory over Ariston of Rhegion.
Timaios says that this monument showed a cicada seated on the singer’s
lyre.[2004] Whether such monuments at Delphi or elsewhere were regarded
as victor or votive in character, we can not say.[2005] Pausanias
mentions several statues of poets and musicians, mostly mythical, on
Mount Helikon, which were set up partly in consequence of victories
won there or elsewhere.[2006] Of these the statue of the Thracian
or Odrysian Thamyris was represented as a blind man holding a broken
lyre;[2007] that of Arion of Methymna as riding a dolphin;[2008] that
of Hesiod, seated, as holding a lute on his knees; and that of the
Thracian Orpheus with Telete at his side and round about beasts in
stone and bronze listening to his song. Of the statue of the Argive
Sakadas, Pausanias says that the sculptor, not understanding Pindar’s
poem on the victor, made the flutist no bigger than the flute.[2009]
The epigram on the statue of the Sikyonian flutist Bacchiadas,
mentioned by Athenæus as standing on Mount Helikon,[2010] was votive
in character. The inscribed base of the statue of the _kitharoidos_
Alkibios has been found on the Athenian Akropolis.[2011] Musical
contests are pictured on many imitation Panathenaic vases, and many
Greek reliefs seem to have been set up in honor of such victors. Among
the latter we might instance the one in the Louvre representing Apollo,
Artemis, and Leto,[2012] and another found in Sparta in 1885, which
represents Artemis pouring a libation before Apollo.[2013]
At Olympia flute-playing accompanied certain of the events of the
pentathlon. Pausanias says that the reason why the flute played a
Pythian air while the athletes jumped was that this air was sacred
to Apollo, who had beaten Hermes in running and Ares in boxing at
Olympia.[2014] Thus on the chest of Kypselos a flutist was represented
as standing between Admetos and Mopsos at their boxing match.[2015]
But the explanation given by Philostratos seems more sensible, that
leaping was a difficult contest, and that the flute stimulated the
jumpers.[2016] At Argos, at the games in honor of Zeus Σθένιος,
wrestlers contended to the tune of the flute.[2017] Many vase-paintings
illustrate flute-playing at the pentathlon.[2018] At Olympia only a
few monuments were set up in honor of musical victors, and these seem
to have been statues erected _honoris causa_, instead of primarily for
victories. An example is that of the Sikyonian flutist Pythokritos, who
won a victory as αὐλητής in the sixth century B. C.[2019] Pausanias
says that his monument was that of a small man with a flute wrought
in relief on an inscribed slab. The explanation of such a description
probably is that the size of the flute made the victor appear small,
just as in the case of the monument of Sakadas just mentioned.[2020]
We know that artists, poets, prose writers, musicians, and actors all
had an audience at Olympia, and that statues were often erected there
in honor of such men, though these are not to be treated as victor
monuments and do not properly fall within the scope of the present
work.[2021]
CHAPTER VI.
TWO MARBLE HEADS FROM VICTOR STATUES.[2022]
PLATES 28-30 AND FIGURES 68-77.
THE GROUP OF DAOCHOS AT DELPHI, AND LYSIPPOS.
If in these later years our knowledge of Skopas has been greatly
augmented by the discovery of the Tegea heads (Fig. 73), that of
Lysippos has been almost revolutionized. With the discovery in
1894 at Delphi of the group of statues dedicated by the Thessalian
Daochos[2023] in honor of various members of his house, whose dates
covered nearly two centuries,[2024] an entirely new impetus was
given to the study of the last of the great Greek sculptors. Homolle
immediately recognized the fourth-century origin of the group, and at
first pronounced the statue of Agias Lysippan;[2025] later he saw in
the types, poses, and proportions of the group the mixed influences
of Praxiteles, Skopas, and Lysippos, but referred the _Agias_ to the
school of Skopas,[2026] while still later he again pronounced it
Lysippan.[2027] But its true character was not destined to be long
in doubt. When Erich Preuner[2028] found almost the same metrical
inscription, which was on the base of the best preserved statue of
the group, that of Agias (Pl. 28 and Fig. 68),[2029] in the traveling
journal of Stackelberg,[2030] copied from a base in Pharsalos, the
Thessalian home of Daochos, with the additional information that
Lysippos of Sikyon made the statue, our views of the work of that
artist had to undergo a thorough revision. For this discovery brought
the _Agias_—if not the others of the group—into direct relation to
Lysippos by documentary evidence, while the easily recognized Lysippan
characteristics of the statue—the slender body and limbs, the small
head, the proportions and pose—confirmed this connection on stylistic
grounds. It became clear that Daochos had set up a series of statues
in honor of his ancestors both at Pharsalos and Delphi. Whether the
Thessalian group was of bronze, as is generally held, owing to the
widespread belief that Lysippos worked only in metal, and the Delphian
group was composed of contemporary marble copies of those originals,
will be discussed further on. If the marble group was a copy, we may
infer that it reproduced the original statues, not mechanically and
laboriously as was often the case in Roman days, but accurately; for
having employed a noted artist in the one case, the dedicator would
have desired an accurate reproduction of the work in the other.
[Illustration: PLATE 28
Statue of the Pancratiast Agias, from Delphi. Museum of Delphi.]
[Illustration: FIG. 68.—Head from the Statue of Agias (Pl. 28). Museum
of Delphi.]
THE APOXYOMENOS OF THE VATICAN, AND LYSIPPOS.
[Illustration: PLATE 29
Statue of the _Apoxyomenos_, after Lysippos or his School. Vatican
Museum, Rome.]
But another statue, the _Apoxyomenos_, of the Vatican (Pl. 29),[2031]
ever since its discovery by Canina in 1849, had held the honored
place of being regarded as the centre of the stylistic treatment
of Lysippos. Seldom has the discovery of a Roman copy of a Greek
original proved so important for the study of ancient sculpture as
this athlete statue, which was found in an appropriate place, in the
ruins of a building, which almost certainly was a Roman bath. Despite
unimportant restorations, the statue is well preserved. The fingers of
the right hand holding the die were wrongly restored by the sculptor
Tenerani at the suggestion of Canina who wrongly interpreted the
passage in Pliny (XXXIV, 55), which refers to two works by Polykleitos,
_destringentem se et nudum talo incessentem_, as meaning one and the
same monument.[2032] This slightly over life-size statue represents
a nude athlete, who is standing with legs far apart, employed in
scraping the sand and oil from his extended right arm with a strigil
held in the left hand. This, as we saw in Chapter III, was a common
palæstra motive.[2033] Despite certain portrait-like features, this
statue may not represent an individual victor, but, like Myron’s great
work, an athletic model. The words of Pliny,[2034] which mention one
of the best-known works of Lysippos in antiquity—it heads the list
in his account of the sculptor—as an athlete _destringentem se_,
and his statement in another passage[2035] that Lysippos introduced
a new canon into art _capita minora faciendo quam antiqui, corpora
graciliora siccioraque, per quae proceritas signorum major videretur_,
_i. e._, a canon of bodily proportions essentially different from
that of Polykleitos, seemed to have their best illustration in the
slender and graceful body and limbs, and noticeably small head of
this statue. It was, therefore, though admittedly a Roman work, long
regarded as a direct copy of the Lysippan original, and as faithfully
representing his style in every detail.[2036] Such a view, of course,
was founded entirely on circumstantial evidence, and could not survive
any positive evidence to the contrary which might come to light in the
future. G. F. Hill, in speaking of the insufficient evidence on which
the _Apoxyomenos_ had been accepted as the key to Lysippan style,
rightly remarks: “It is more scientific, until we acquire documentary
evidence of excellent character, to classify our extant examples
of ancient art as representing tendencies rather than men.”[2037]
The Lysippan character of the Vatican statue had not been seriously
attacked until the discovery of the _Agias_. Its original was certainly
a work worthy of Lysippos. Its rhythm, proportions, and fine modeling
have received praise of connoisseurs ever since its discovery. Its
difficult pose had been remarkably well executed. While appearing at
rest, the statue suggests vigorous action both by its supple limbs
and the suppressed excitement indicated by the partly opened lips,
an excitement befitting a victorious athlete. Perhaps it was the
difficulty of such a pose that best explains why the _Apoxyomenos_
has left no other copy.[2038] The very excellence of the Vatican
statue prejudiced us in favor of regarding it as an illustration of
Lysippos’ ideal of bodily proportions. But we really knew very little
of the original _Apoxyomenos_, only what we gathered from Pliny, that
Lysippos made such a statue and that it was carried to Rome by M.
Agrippa and was set up in front of his Thermæ, whence it was removed
by the enamored Tiberius to his bed-chamber, only to be restored when
the populace remonstrated. As for the proportions of the supposed copy
in question, they only prove that this statue goes back to an original
which was not earlier than Lysippos, but not that it was by the master
himself.[2039] The discovery of the _Agias_ showed us at last on
what slender foundations our theory had been built. Despite certain
well-marked similarities in the pose, proportions, and relatively
small head—characteristics which were not even exclusively Lysippan,
since they are just as prominent in certain other works, _e. g._, in
the warriors of the Mausoleion frieze—between the _Agias_ and the
_Apoxyomenos_, nevertheless just as striking differences appear, which
make it difficult to keep both statues as examples of the artistic
tendency of one and the same artist, even if we should assign them to
different periods of his career.
THE AGIAS AND THE APOXYOMENOS COMPARED, AND THE STYLE OF LYSIPPOS.
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.:
8. Astylos, or Astyalos, of Kroton.[2463] Besides mentioning his statue
by Pythagoras of Rhegion at Olympia, Pausanias in the same passage (VI,
13.1) mentions another in the temple of Lakinian Hera near Kroton,
which his fellow-townsmen pulled down in anger, because he had called
himself a Syracusan in order to please the Sicilian tyrant Hiero.[2464]
Collignon believes that the statue at Kroton was also a copy of the
work of Pythagoras at Olympia.[2465]
9. Euthymos, son of Astykles, of Lokroi Epizephyrioi in South
Italy.[2466] In addition to his statue at Olympia by Pythagoras,
mentioned by Pausanias (VI, 6.4-6),[2467] we know of another statue by
Pythagoras set up in Lokroi in honor of this victor.[2468] According to
Kallimachos, both statues were struck by lightning at the same time.
Other writers tell wondrous tales of this boxer.[2469]
10. Theagenes, son of Timosthenes, of Thasos, one of the most famous
Olympic victors.[2470] Besides his statue at Olympia by Glaukias of
Aegina (VI, 11.2 and 9), Pausanias says that he knows of many other
places in Greece and elsewhere where images of this victor were set up
(VI, 11.9), and records one at Thasos to which the Thasians sacrificed
as to a god (VI, 11.6). The story which he tells about this Thasian
statue being scourged and falling on the enemy of Theagenes is also
recounted at greater length by Dio Chrysostom[2471] and is mentioned
by Eusebios.[2472] Lucian says that the statue cured fevers, just as
did that of Polydamas at Olympia.[2473] Studniczka has argued that the
statues at Thasos and elsewhere were set up to honor the hero and not
the victor.[2474]
11. Ladas, of Sparta.[2475] Two fourth-century epigrams celebrate the
fleetness of Ladas, and the second names Myron as the statuary of a
bronze statue of him.[2476] Pausanias mentions a statue of the same
victor in the temple of Apollo Lykios in Argos (II, 19.7). Whether the
latter statue was identical with the one named in the epigram can not
be finally determined.[2477] Pausanias refers to a stadion of Ladas,
situated between Mantinea and Orchomenos in Arkadia, in which Ladas
practiced running (VIII, 12.5), and also to his grave between Belemina
and Sparta (III, 21.1).
12. Kallias, son of Didymias of Athens.[2478] Apart from his statue at
Olympia made by the Athenian painter and sculptor Mikon, mentioned by
Pausanias (VI, 6.1),[2479] there was a dedication to him at Athens, as
we learn from the preserved inscription, which enumerates his thirteen
victories at Olympia and elsewhere.[2480]
13. Diagoras, son of Damagetos, of Rhodes, the most famous of Greek
boxers.[2481] In addition to his statue at Olympia by Kallikles, son of
Theokosmos of Megara, mentioned by Pausanias (VI, 7.1-2) as standing
among the group of statues of his sons and grandsons, we learn from
the scholiast on Pindar, _Ol._ VII, Argum., who quotes Gorgon as his
authority,[2482] that this ode, which celebrated the Olympic victory of
Diagoras, was attached in golden letters to the walls of the temple of
Athena at Lindos.
14. Agias, of Pharsalos.[2483] We have already, in Ch. VI, discussed
the group of marble statues set up at Delphi by Daochos of Pharsalos
in honor of his ancestors who had won in various athletic contests,
which was discovered by the French excavators there in 1894. We there
mentioned that Preuner found the same metrical inscription which
appeared on the base of the statue of Agias, the best preserved of
the group (Pl. 28 and Fig. 68), in the journal of Stackelberg,[2484]
who had copied it in the early part of the nineteenth century from
a base in Pharsalos which has since disappeared. This Thessalian
inscription contained the additional words that Lysippos of Sikyon was
the sculptor. In both inscriptions the victories of Agias at Olympia
and elsewhere are noted. Thus we know of two statues of Agias, one at
Delphi, the other at Pharsalos, both presumably by Lysippos. Preuner
also thinks that a third statue may have stood in Olympia.
15. Cheimon, of Argos.[2485] In mentioning the statue of Cheimon at
Olympia by the sculptor Naukydes of Argos, Pausanias, in the same
passage (VI, 9.3), records another which once stood in Argos, but was
later removed to the temple of Peace in Rome.[2486]
16. Leon, son of Antikleidas (or Antalkidas), of Sparta.[2487] A
fragment of Polemon[2488] mentions a statue of this victor. It may have
stood in Olympia, as Foerster without good grounds assumes, or it may
have stood elsewhere.
17. Eubotas (Eubatas or Eubatos), of Kyrene.[2489] Besides his statue
at Olympia recorded by Pausanias (VI, 8.3), we learn of another set up
at Kyrene by the victor’s wife for his devotion.[2490]
18. Promachos, son of Dryon, of Pellene in Achaia.[2491] Pausanias not
only mentions a bronze statue of this victor at Olympia (VI, 8.5-6),
but also records one of stone dedicated likewise by his townsmen in the
Old Gymnasion of Pellene (VII, 27.5).
Of the fifth or fourth centuries B. C.:
19. An unknown victor, of Argos or (?) Tegea.[2492] Aristotle mentions
an inscription from a statue of an Olympic victor in two passages of
his _Rhetoric_.[2493] This epigram was repeated by Aristophanes of
Byzantion,[2494] who wrongly ascribed it to Simonides.[2495] Where this
statue stood can not be determined.
Of the fourth century B. C.:
20. Kyniska, daughter of Archidamos I, of Sparta.[2496] Pausanias,
before mentioning the monumental group at Olympia by Apellas of Megara,
which consisted of the statues of Kyniska and her charioteer standing
beside a huge bronze chariot and horses (VI. 1.6), and the small bronze
chariot by the same sculptor, set up in her honor in the vestibule of
the temple of Zeus (V, 12.5), records that there was a shrine in Sparta
at Plane-tree Grove, near the youths’ exercise ground, erected to the
heroine Kyniska (III, 15.1). This latter dedication, therefore, was not
properly a victor monument, though Pausanias in the same book says that
Kyniska was the first Greek woman to train horses and to win a prize at
Olympia (III, 8.1).
21. Euryleonis, a victress of Sparta.[2497] Pausanias says that she
had a statue in her native city near the so-called Σκήνωμα, “Tent”
(III, 17.6). Curtius has suggested that this may be the small building
mentioned by Thukydides as the place where King Pausanias took refuge
when pursued by the ephors.[2498]
22. Archias, son of Eukles, of Hybla.[2499] An epigram in the _Greek
Anthology_[2500] speaks of a statue of this victor at Delphi.
23. [Phil]okrates, son of Antiphon, of Athens (deme of Krioa).[2501]
An inscribed base of the statue of this victor has been found in
Athens.[2502]
24. An unknown victor. An inscribed base, found near the Portico of
Attalos in Athens, records the victories of an unknown athlete at
several games, including one in the παγκράτιον ἀνδρῶν at Olympia.[2503]
25. Phorystas, son of Thriax (or Triax), of (?) Tanagra.[2504]
The inscribed base of the statue of this victor, giving Kaphisias
of Bœotia as the sculptor, has been discovered in the ruins of
Tanagra.[2505] His brother Pammachos won παγκράτιον παίδων at Nemea,
and had a statue at Thebes, the work of Teisikrates, the inscribed base
of which has been recovered.[2506]
Of the fourth or third centuries B. C.:
26. Aristophon, son of Lysinos, of Athens.[2507] Besides his statue
at Olympia, set up at the cost of the people of Athens, mentioned by
Pausanias (VI, 13.11; _cf._ VI, 14.1), we have the inscription from the
base of another which was set up on the Athenian Akropolis.[2508]
27. Attalos, father of King Attalos I,[2509] of Pergamon.[2510] The
inscribed base of his great victor monument, erected by Epigonos, has
been dis- covered at Pergamon.[2511]
Of the second century B. C.: none.
Of the first century B. C.: none.
Of the first century A. D.:
28. Xenodamos, of Antikyra in Phokis.[2512] Pausanias mentions a bronze
statue of this victor in the Old Gymnasion at Antikyra (X, 36.9). G.
Hirschfeld[2513] had objected to the statement of Pausanias, in the
passage cited, “that this was the only Olympiad omitted in the Elean
register,” because of its inconsistency with other passages which
state that in the 8th Olympiad,[2514] in the 34th,[2515] and in the
104th,[2516] the games were celebrated by intruders, and not by the
Eleans, and hence these Olympiads were regarded as invalid and were not
entered in the Elean registers. However, as Frazer points out,[2517]
the case with Ol. 211 was different. It was doubtless celebrated by
the Eleans themselves and its validity was not questioned, but either
it was never entered in the register, or, if entered, was later struck
out. Africanus (_cf._ Philostratos)[2518] says that the celebration
of this Olympiad, which should have fallen 65 A. D., was deferred two
years to favor Nero, who in 67 A. D. received prizes in six events,
including the ten-horse chariot-race.[2519] The Eleans, later being
ashamed of thus favoring the tyrant, probably removed Ol. 211 from the
register after his death. It may be that for the same reason statues
of victors of that Olympiad were not set up in the Altis, which would
explain why that of Xenodamos was set up in his native city, where
Pausanias saw it. Not finding his name in the Elean register, Pausanias
would reason that this victory fell in the disgraced Ol. 211.[2520]
28a. Titos Phlabios Artemidoros, son of Artemidoros, of Adana in
Kilikia.[2521] The inscribed marble tablet from the base of the statue
which this victor erected in Naples in honor of his father Artemidoros,
son of Athenodoros, is preserved. It contains a list of his own many
victories in παγκράτιον and πάλη in games held in Greece, Italy, Asia
Minor, and Egypt. Though the statue was erected to his father, the long
inscription shows that it was intended quite as much to celebrate his
own athletic prowess.[2522]
29. Titos Phlabios Metrobios, son of Demetrios, of Iasos, Karia.[2523]
The inscribed base of his statue has been found in Iasos.[2524]
30. Sarapion, of Alexandria, Egypt.[2525] Pausanias mentions two
statues of this victor, which stood on either side of the entrance
to the Gymnasion in Elis known as the Maltho. He adds that they were
erected by the Eleans in gratitude for the bestowal of corn in a time
of famine (VI, 23.6). He is not to be confounded with other victors of
the same name.[2526]
Of the second century A. D.:
31. Markos Aurelios Demetrios, of Alexandria, Egypt.[2527] His son,
M. Aurelios Asklepiades, dedicated a statue to him in Rome, the
inscription from the base of which has been recovered.[2528]
32. Unknown victor, from Magnesia ad Sipylum, in Lydia.[2529] His
statue in Magnesia is known from the recovered inscribed base.[2530]
33. Kranaos or Granianos, of Sikyon.[2531] Pausanias mentions a bronze
statue of this victor as standing in the precincts of the temple of
Asklepios, on the hill of Titane, near Sikyon (II, 11.8).
34. Titos Ailios Aurelios Apollonios, of Tarsos.[2532] A statue of
this victor stood in Athens, as we learn from its preserved inscribed
base.[2533]
35. Mnasiboulos, of Elateia in Phokis.[2534] His fellow citizens
erected a bronze statue in honor of his repelling the robber horde of
the Kostobokoi, who overran Greece in the days of Pausanias (X, 34.5).
The statue stood in “Runner” street.
Of the third century A. D.:
36. Aurelios Toalios, of (?) Oinoanda, Lykia.[2535] The inscribed base
of the statue of this victor has been found in Oinoanda.[2536]
37. Aurelios Metrodoros, of Kyzikos.[2537] The inscribed base of his
statue was found in Kyzikos, and is now in Constantinople.[2538]
38. Valerios Eklektos, of Sinope.[2539] Besides his monument at
Olympia, which was erected immediately after 261 A. D.,[2540] we know,
from an inscription, of another statue dedicated to him in Athens some
time between 253 and 257 A. D.[2541]
Of the fourth century A. D.:
39. Klaudios Rhouphos, also called Apollonios the Pisan, son of
Klaudios Apollonios, of Smyrna.[2542] We learn from an inscription
found in the Baths of Titus in Rome that his statue stood in the
council-chamber of the Guild of Athletes of Hercules at Rome.[2543]
40. Philoumenos, of Philadelphia, in Lydia.[2544] The closing verse
of an inscription belonging to the base of his statue is preserved in
Panodoros.[2545] Where the statue stood can not be determined.
Of unknown dates:
41. Ainetos, of (?) Amyklai.[2546] Pausanias mentions the portrait
statue of this victor at Amyklai (III, 18. 7). He says that he expired
even while the crown was being placed on his head.
42. Nikokles, of Akriai in Lakonia.[2547] Pausanias mentions a monument
(μνῆμα) erected in his honor at Akriai, between the Gymnasion and the
sea-wall (III, 22.5).
43. Aigistratos, son of Polykreon, of Lindos in Rhodes.[2548] A statue
of this victor was set up at Lindos, as we learn from the preserved
inscription on its base found there.[2549] He is called in the
inscription the first Lindian victor at Olympia.
44. An unknown victor, of (?) Delphi.[2550] The inscribed base of his
statue, with remains of the dedication, was found many years ago at
Delphi by Cockerell.[2551]
We have records of other monuments erected to victors, but it is not
clear whether the victories recorded were won at Olympia or elsewhere.
We list the following three doubtful cases, which have already been
noted in earlier chapters:
1. Epicharinos. Pausanias mentions the statue Ἐπιχαρίνου ὁπλιτοδρομεῖν
ἀσκήσαντος, by the sculptor Kritios, as standing upon the Athenian
Akropolis (I, 23.9). The inscribed base of this monument was found in
1839, between the Propylaia and the Parthenon.[2552] The inscription
states that the statue was the joint work of Kritios (thus correcting
the spelling Κριτίας of Pausanias) and Nesiotes. It was, therefore,
a work of the first half of the fifth century B. C., the date of
the sculptors of the _Tyrannicides_ (Fig. 32). Ross added the word
ὁπλιτοδρόμος after the name in the inscription. Michaelis,[2553]
however, has inserted the name of the victor’s father. Wilamowitz[2554]
went further and assumed that Polemon, from whom Pausanias derived the
account, had already falsely restored the inscription and that the
statue did not represent Epicharinos, but another victor. This theory
has been rightly controverted by many scholars.[2555] It is clear that
Pausanias got his information from the monument, and not from the
inscription.
2. Hermolykos, son of Euthoinos or Euthynos. Pausanias mentions the
statue of the pancratiast Hermolykos as standing on the Akropolis
at Athens (I, 23.10). This was probably Hermolykos the pancratiast,
who is recorded by Herodotos as having distinguished himself at the
battle of Mykale in 479 B. C., and as having been afterwards killed in
battle at Kyrnos in Euboia and buried at Geraistos.[2556] Some scholars
have advocated the theory that the portrait statue here mentioned by
Pausanias was none other than the statue which stood on the Akropolis
on the base which was discovered in 1839, dedicated by Hermolykos,
the son of Diitrephes, the work of the sculptor Kresilas,[2557]
and that the Periegete mistook the latter for the one mentioned by
Herodotos.[2558] However, Frazer finds this explanation “arbitrary and
highly improbable,” and believes that the base in question supported
the statue of Diitrephes, pierced with arrows, also mentioned by
Pausanias (I, 23.3).[2559] Kirchhoff distinguished not only the statue
of Hermolykos mentioned by Pausanias and the dedication of Hermolykos
revealed by the recovered base, but both of these from the statue of
the wounded man mentioned by Pliny (_H. N._, XXXIV, 74). While J. Six
assumed that Hermolykos, son of Diitrephes, dedicated the Kresilæan
statue in honor of his grandfather Hermolykos, son of Euthoinos, and
that Pausanias wrongly gathered from the inscribed base that the statue
represented Diitrephes,[2560] Furtwaengler believed that Diitrephes was
the older warrior of the name, mentioned by Thukydides,[2561] and that
Pausanias, who knew nothing of him, wrongly connected his statue with
the younger one of that name.[2562]
3. Isokrates, son of Theodoros, of Athens. The pseudo-Plutarch mentions
a bronze statue of Isokrates, in the form of a παῖς κελητίζων, on the
Athenian Akropolis.[2563] As the orator was born in 436 B. C., his
youthful victory among the horse-racers must have occurred about 420 B.
C.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS.
We have found, then, from the literary sources examined, that there
are at least 44 Olympic victors, to whom a total of 47 monuments were
erected outside Olympia.[2564] These monuments were of various kinds—1
inscribed tablet, 1 Pindaric ode engrossed on a temple wall, 3 temples
or shrines, 37 statues (one of them apparently iconic), bronze horses
(? quadriga), and 4 dedications which are not further described. Thus
the bulk of these monuments, as of those at Olympia, consisted of
statues. Of the 29 monuments erected to 27 victors in the pre-Christian
centuries, 3 were dedicated in the seventh,[2565] 4 in the sixth,
13 (to 11 victors) in the fifth, 1 in the fifth or fourth, 6 in the
fourth,[2566] 1 in the fourth or third, and 1 in the third. There is
no record of such a dedication in the second and first centuries B.
C. Of the 14 monuments erected to 13 victors known to belong to the
post-Christian centuries, 4 (to 3 victors) belong to the first, 5 to
the second, 3 to the third and 2 to the fourth; 4 others were set up
to 4 victors whose dates can not be determined. Of other monuments
mentioned (though not included in our figures) 3 may or may not have
been erected to Olympic victors. We find that the greatest number of
dedications was made in the fifth century B. C., just as we found was
the case in regard to those at Olympia.[2567] Of these victors, 10 also
had monuments at Olympia. The total number of Olympic victor monuments,
therefore, at Olympia and elsewhere of which we have record, amounts to
302.[2568]
STATISTICS OF OLYMPIC VICTOR STATUARIES.
In conclusion, we shall briefly summarize the number and dates of the
sculptors of Olympic victor monuments who are known to us from all
sources.[2569] Pausanias names 52 such sculptors, who made 102 of the
192 monuments listed by him. Of the 42 “honor” statues erected in the
Altis to 35 men, Pausanias mentions only two sculptors, Lysippos, who
also appears among the victor statuaries, and Mikon of Syracuse, who
does not.[2570] Pliny names 24, or nearly one-half of the athlete
sculptors mentioned by Pausanias.[2571] No new name of an artist
appears either on the inscribed bases found at Olympia and referred
to the monuments recorded by Pausanias, or on the 63 bases discovered
there, which can not be so referred. Of the 52 sculptors known to us
from Pausanias and inscriptions, the dates can be assigned definitely
or approximately thus: of the seventh century B. C., none; of the
sixth century B. C., second half, 2; end, 2; of the end of the sixth
and beginning of the fifth centuries B. C., 1; of the fifth century B.
C., first half, 9; middle, 4; second half, 3; end, 2; of the fourth
century B. C., first half, 11; middle, 1; second half, 2; end, 3; of
the end of the fourth and beginning of the third centuries B. C., 3;
of the third century B. C., first half, 1; second half, 1; end, 2; of
the end of the third and beginning of the second centuries B. C., 1;
of the second century B. C., first half, 2. No sculptor is named who
lived certainly later than the second century B. C. In addition to
these results, 1 sculptor can be assigned only roughly to the period
subsequent to Alexander the Great, and the epoch of still another
can not be determined. Of the 37 statues listed above as erected to
Olympic victors outside Olympia—_i. e.>/i>, the major portion of the
whole number of 47 monuments of various sorts set up in honor of 44
victors—the names of only four artists are known. Three of these—Myron,
Pythagoras of Rhegion, and Lysippos—also worked at Olympia. The name,
therefore, of only one new sculptor, Kaphisias of Bœotia, who lived
in the fourth century B. C., can be added from this source, which makes
the grand total of victor statuaries known to us 53.
[Illustration: PLAN A
THE ALTIS AT OLYMPIA
IN THE GREEK PERIOD
(THIRD CENTURY B. C.)
Adapted from Doerpfeld
]
[Illustration: PLAN B
THE ALTIS AT OLYMPIA
IN THE ROMAN PERIOD
(SECOND CENTURY A. D.)
Adapted from Doerpfeld
]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Cf._ Gardiner, pp. 8-9.
[2] See _infra_, p. 228 and n. 2.
[3] _B. S. A._, XI, 1904-5, fig. 7 and pp. 12-14. The horse also
appears on clay documents from Knossos with royal chariots and also
on tombstones and fragmentary frescoes of Mycenæ; for the latter, see
_Arch. Eph._, 1887, Pl. XI. On the Libyan origin of the first horses
introduced into Greece, see W. Ridgeway, _The Origin and Influence of
the Thoroughbred Horse_, 1905, p. 480.
[4] See the bull depicted on a seal from Praisos, to be mentioned
below: Angelo Mosso, _The Palaces of Crete_, 1907, p. 218, fig. 98. The
Italian Mission found at Hagia Triada the bones of a gigantic bull, and
Mosso (_cf._ p. 216, n. 1) found the remains of one at Phaistos.
[5] _B. S. A._, VII, 1900-1, pp. 94 f. and VIII, 1901-2, p. 74; Mosso,
_op. cit._, pp. 216-218; H. R. Hall, _Anc. History of the Near East_,
1913, Pl. IV., 2; Mrs. R. C. Bosanquet, _Days in Attica_, 1914, Pl.
II; Richter, _Hbk. of the Classical Collection of the Metropolitan
Museum of Art_, 1917, p. 23, fig. 13. As Dr. Evans’ _Atlas_ has not
yet appeared, the plate in the text is taken from a watercolor by
Gilliéron, in the museum of Liverpool.
[6] It has often been pictured and described: _e. g._, Schliemann,
_Tiryns_, 1885, Pl. XIII; Schuchhardt, _Schliemann’s Excavations_,
1891, pp. 119 f. and fig. 111; Tsountas-Manatt, _The Mycenæan Age_,
1897, p. 51, fig. 12; Perrot-Chipiez, VI, p. 887, fig. 439; Mosso, _op.
cit._, p. 220, fig. 100; H. B. Walters, _The Art of the Greeks_, 1906,
Pl. LIX; Springer-Michaelis, p. 113, fig. 242; _Tiryns, Die Ergebn. d.
Ausgrab. d deutsch. Instituts in Athen_, II, 1912, Pl. XVIII.
[7] On analogy with the Knossos fresco this figure, because of its
white skin, should be that of a woman and not of a man, as the usual
color of the latter is red. However, the charioteers painted white on
frescoes discovered at Tiryns in 1910, which represent a boar hunt
(see Rodenwaldt, _A. M._, XXXVI, 1911, pp. 198 f. and fig. 2, p. 201,
restored; see also _Tiryns_, II, Pl. XII, in color) are regarded by
Hall as youths and not women. He remarks that in Egypt young princes,
who led the “sheltered life,” were often represented on monuments as
pale, though red was the more usual color: see Hall, _op. cit._, p. 58
and n. 1; _id._, _Aegean Archæology_, 1914, p. 190 and fig. 74 on p.
192. Rodenwaldt interprets them as female: _l. c._
[8] XV, 679 f. F. Marx, _Jb._, IV, 1889, pp. 119 f., on the analogy
to certain coin types, saw in this fresco a representation of river
divinities.
[9] Mosso, _op. cit._, p. 298, fig. 98.
[10] See Mosso, p. 311, fig. 153.
[11] Here the paved space measures only about 30 by 40 feet and the
two tiers of seats would seat only 400 to 500 spectators: _B. S. A._,
IX, 1902-03, p. 105, fig. 69; see Mosso, p. 315, fig. 154, and Baikie,
_The Sea Kings of Crete_, 1913, Pls. XXI (before restoration), XXII
(restored).
[12] See Burrows, _The Discoveries in Crete_, 1907, p. 5. The one at
Knossos maybe the “choros” wrought by Daidalos for Ariadne: _Iliad_,
XVIII, 590-2.
[13] _B. S. A._, VIII, 1901-2, pp. 72-4, fig. 39 (arm); Pls. II, III;
Baikie, _op. cit._, Pl. XIX; H. R. Hall, _Aegean Archæology_, Pl. XXX,
2; Mosso, _op. cit._, p. 222, fig. 102; _cf._ Burrows, _op. cit._, p.
21; Bulle, p. 49, fig. 7; Springer-Michaelis, p. 103, fig. 228.
[14] Remains of copper wire with gold foil twisted around it still
adhere to the head of one statuette.
[15] See Mosso, _op. cit._, p. 221, fig. 101; _B. S. A._, VII, 1900-01,
p. 88.
[16] Hall, _Aegean Archæology_, pp. 55-6. Though discovered in 1889
in a bee-hive tomb near Sparta, these famous cups are obviously
importations from Crete, the work of an artist of the late Minoan I
period. Similarly, the lion-hunt on the dagger-blade from Mycenæ is
akin to Cretan art, if not its product. These cups have been often
pictured: _e. g._, _Arch. Eph._, 1889, Pl. IX; Schuchhardt, Pl. III
(App., pp. 350 f.); _B. C. H._, IV, 1891, Pls. XI-XII (in color),
XIII-XIV; Tsountas-Manatt, _op. cit._, pp. 227-8, figs. 113-114;
Perrot-Chipiez, VI, Pl. XV (in color) and pp. 786-7, figs. 369-370;
H. B. Walters, _op. cit._, Pl. V; Mosso, _op. cit._, pp. 223 f.,
figs. 103, a, b, and 104, a, b, c; Hall, _op. cit._, Pl. XV. 1,
and _cf. id._, _Ancient History of the Near East_, pp. 54-5, n. 1;
Springer-Michaelis, pp. 104-5, figs. 230 a, b; J. H. Breasted, _Ancient
Times_, 1916, fig. 140, opp. p. 234.
[17] This interpretation of the scene has been compared with the design
of a lion and goat on the short sword-blade from the chieftain’s
grave at Knossos: see Burrows, _op. cit._, p. 88 and _cf._ pp. 136-7.
Here there are two successive scenes; first the agrimi (wild goat) is
startled and springs away; then the lion is represented triumphant at
the end of the chase with one paw on the beast’s hind quarter and the
other raised to strike: see Evans, _Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos_,
1906, p. 57, fig. 59; _cf._ also bronze inlaid dagger-blade from
Mycenæ, showing hunting scenes on each face; Perrot-Chipiez, VI, Pl.
XVII, 1 (panther hunting wild ducks, in color), XVIII, 3-4, (lion-hunt
by men and lions chasing gazelles, in color); _cf._ Tsountas-Manatt,
_op. cit._, pp. 200-2; Springer-Michaelis, Pl. V, 2a, b, 3;
Schuchhardt, _op. cit._, p. 229, fig. 227; _cf._ Burrows, _op. cit._,
p. 136.
[18] _Op. cit._, pp. 224-5.
[19] See Boeckh, p. 319, on _Pyth._, II, 78. The same word occurs also
in an inscription on a late relief from Smyrna, which shows horsemen
pursuing bulls, leaping on their backs and seizing their horns; _C. I.
G._, II, 3212; also in an inscription from Sinope: _ibid._, III, 4157
(line 5); an inscription from Aphrodisias calls such men ταυροκαθάπται;
_ibid._, II, Add., 2759b. The evidence shows that Gardiner, p. 9, n.
2, is wrong in connecting the _taurokathapsia_ with the hunting-field
instead of with the circus. He cites the Smyrna relief above mentioned
(in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, no. 219), which, however, should
be interpreted as an acrobatic scene. See J. Baunack, _Rhein. Mus._,
XXXVIII, 1883, pp. 293 f., who discusses bull-fighting in Thessaly and
Rome and quotes five inscriptions of Hellenic times to show that beast
fights were common in Asia Minor.
[20] _Cf._ Mosso, _op. cit._, pp. 214-215.
[21] Iliad, XVIII, 605-6 (= Od., IV, 18-19).
[22] Iliad, XVI, 742-50.
[23] Hdt., VI, 129.
[24] No. 243; see Salzmann, _Le Nécropole de Cameiros_, Pl. LVII;
Gardiner, p. 245, fig. 39.
[25] _E. g._, on one found at Knossos in 1903: _B. S. A._, IX, 1902-3,
p. 57, and fig. 35 on p. 56. Here the attitude of the boxer is almost
identical with that on the pyxis to be described below. A fuller design
of the same sort may be seen on a seal from Hagia Triada mentioned in
_B. S. A._, IX, p. 57, n. 2.
[26] Hall, _Aegean Archæology_, p. 33 (c. 1600 B. C.); for description,
_ibid._, pp. 61-2.
[27] _Op. cit._, p. 211. In this respect it should be compared with
the relief on the archaic (sixth-century B. C.) Attic tripod vase from
Tanagra, now in Berlin, which shows scenes of boxing, wrestling, and
running: _A. Z._, III, 1881, pp. 30 f. and Pls. III, IV.
[28] P., V, 8. 1, says Klymenos came from Crete fifty years after
Deukalion’s flood and held games at Olympia; _cf._ VI, 21.6. Aristotle
assigns the whole political and educational system of Sparta to a
Cretan origin: _Politics_, II, 10f., 1271b., f.
[29] See R. Paribeni, _Rendiconti della R. Accad. dei Lincei_, XII,
1903, fasic. 70, p. 17; F. Halbherr, _ibid._, XIV, 1905, pp. 365 f.,
fig. 1; Burrows, _op. cit._, Pl. 1; Mosso, _op. cit._, p. 212. fig.
93; Hall, _Aegean Archæology_, Pl. XVI (from cast in Museum of Candia,
whence our plate); _cf. id._, _Anc. Hist. Near East_, Pl. IV., 5. A
copy is in the Metropolitan Museum, New York: see _Hbk. of Classical
Collection_, p. 16, fig. 8.
[30] Detail of zone, Mosso, p. 213, fig. 94. The acrobat wears just
such striped boots and bracelets as the man and women on the fresco
from Knossos. The man binding the legs of the bull on the Vapheio
cup wears similar apparel. Similar scenes of gymnasts vaulting over
a bull’s back are seen on the seal of a bracelet found at Knossos in
1902: _B. S. A._, VIII, 1901-2, p. 18, fig. 43; Mosso, p. 214, fig.
95a; also on the intaglio of a ring in Athens: Mosso, p. 215, fig. 95b.
Scenes of gymnasts with bulls at rest are common on seal impressions:
_e. g._, on one from Mycenæ in Athens, Mosso, p. 217, fig. 97; on the
one in Candia already mentioned, _ibid._, fig. 98; _cf._ Bosanquet,
Excavations at Praisos, _B. S. A._, VIII, p. 252, who believes the bull
has been surprised by a hunter.
[31] Iliad, XXII, 308 f.
[32] XXIII, 673.
[33] _B. S. A._, VII, 1900-1, fig. 31, pp. 95 and 96; copied by
Gardiner, p. 10, fig. 1.
[34] We should bear in mind that the civilization pictured in the
Homeric poems antedates 1000 B. C.
[35] _The Iliad_,^2 1900, II, p. 468.
[36] Od., VIII, 158 f. (translated by Butcher and Lang).
[37] Gardiner, p. 15, points out that there is no mention of
a chariot-race in the Odyssey, merely because Ithaca was not a land
“that pastureth horses,” nor had it “wide courses or meadowland.” The
plains of Thessaly and Argos, the homes of Achilles and Agamemnon
respectively, were, however, famed for their horses, and the plain
of Troy was large enough for the chariot-race. The only other
chariot-races mentioned in the Iliad are held in Elis: XI, 696 f.;
XXIII, 630 f.
[38] _E. g._, on certain sarcophagi: see Murray, _Sarcophagi
in the British Museum_, Pls. II, III (one from Klazomenai).
[39] The true _hoplomachia_ described by Homer and later
practised by the Mantineans and Kyreneans (_cf._ Athenæus, IV, 41, p.
154) should not be confounded, as Gardiner, p. 21, n. 3, remarks, with
the later competition of the same name held at the Athenian _Theseia_
and taught in the gymnasia, which was a purely military exercise like
fencing: Plato, _Laches_, 182B and _passim_; _Gorgias_, 456D; _de
Leg._, 833E; _cf._ Dar.-Sagl., _s. v._ _Hoplomachia_.
[40] _E. g._, Leaf, in his _Companion to the Iliad_, 1892, p.
380; _id._, _The Iliad_, II, p. 417, note on line 621.
[41] Iliad, XXIII, 634 f.; _ibid._, 621-3, where Achilles
gives Nestor a prize because he will never again be able to contend in
boxing, wrestling, hurling the javelin, or running. In Od., VIII, 103
and 128, leaping is substituted for chariot-racing.
[42] _E. g._, Iliad, XXII, 163-4: “The great prize ... of a
man that is dead”; XXIII, 630 f., where Nestor recalls victories in the
games held by the Epeians at Bouprasion in Elis at the funeral of the
local hero Amarynkeus. Bouprasion is also mentioned in Iliad, XI, 756,
in Nestor’s story of the war between the Pylians and Epeians and of
the war waged by his father Neleus on Augeas, for stealing four horses
which had been sent to Elis to contend for a tripod.
[43] Examples of panegyric games in honor of gods are found
also in the Homeric Hymn to the Delian Apollo, I, 146 f.; in Pindar,
_Ol._, IX. 6 (Zeus); P., VIII, 2.1 (Zeus) and schol.; and Hdt., I, 144
(Apollo) and schol.; etc.
[44] P., VIII, 4.5. For other examples of funeral games, see
references in Krause, p. 9, n. 3. He also shows that musical contests
were funerary in character.
[45] The scholiast on Pindar, _Nem._, Argum., Boeckh, p. 424
B, and _Isthm._, Argum., p. 514, calls the Nemean and Isthmian games
funerary; Clem. Alex., _Protrept._, Ch. II, 34, 29 P. (quoted by
Eusebios, _Praep. evang._, II, 6, 72 b. c.) says that all four great
games were funerary in origin.
[46] P., I., 44.8; Clem. Alex., _Strom._, I, Ch. 21, 137, 401
P.
[47] P., II, 15.2-3; Apollod., III, 6, 4; Hyginus, _Fab._,
74; schol. on Pindar’s _Nem._, Argum. Here the umpires wore mourning
garments because of the origin of the games; see Gardiner, p. 225.
[48] Aristotle, _Peplos_, frag. = _F. H. G._, II, p. 189, no.
282; Clem. Alex., _Protr._, Ch. I, 2, 2 P. and Ch. II, 34, 29 P.; Hyg.,
_Fab._, 140. For a different story of the founding (to appease Apollo
for not protecting the temple when Delphi was invaded by Danaos), see
Augustine, _de Civ. Dei_, XVIII, 12; _cf._ schol. on Pind., _Pyth._,
Argum.; Ovid, _Met._, I, 445f. The _Pythia_ were reorganized by the
Amphictyons as a funeral contest in honor of the soldiers who fell in
the first Sacred War.
[49] _Cf._ P., V, 13.1-2; Clem. Alex., _l. c._
[50] V, 7.6-9.
[51] See Strabo, VIII, 3.30 (C.354-5); Pindar, _Ol._, II, 3
f.; VI, 67 f.; X, 25 f.; Diod., IV, 14 and V, 64. According to Pindar,
_ll. cc._ and the scholiast on _Ol._, II, 2, 5, and 7, Boeckh, pp.
58-9, Herakles, the son of Zeus, instituted the games in honor of
Zeus; but Statius, _Theb._, VI, 5 f., Solinus, I, 28 (ed. Mommsen),
Hyg., _Fab._, 273. Clem. Alex., _Strom._, I, Ch. 21, 137, say it was
in honor of Pelops. On the traditional connection of Herakles with
Olympia, see E. Curtius, _Abh. d. k. preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin,
philos.-histor. Kl._, 1894, pp. 1098 f.; Busolt, _Griech. Gesch_^2,
1893, I, pp. 240 f. On legends of the early history of Olympia, see
Krause, _Olympia, oder Darstellung der grossen olympischen Spielen_,
1838, pp. 26 f.
[52] _Cf._ Frazer, II, pp. 549-50; Krause, p. 9, n. 3; from
these two many of the following examples are taken. _Cf._ also Rouse,
pp. 4 and 10; Koerte, Die Entstehung der Olympionikenliste, _Hermes_,
XXXIX, 1904, pp. 224 f.; Krause, _Die Pythien, Nemeen und Isthmien_,
1841, pp. 9 f. (Pythian), 112 f. (Nemean), 170 f. (Isthmian); Gardiner,
pp. 27 f.; see also Ridgeway, _Origin of Tragedy_, 1910, pp. 36, 38,
and _cf._ _J. H. S._, XXXI, 1911, p. XLVII. Since the simple theory
of the origin of the Olympic Festival in the funeral games in honor
of Pelops does not explain all the legends of the games nor all the
peculiar customs of the festival, and because of the inadequate
character of the literary evidence (the earliest mention of it being a
Delphic oracle quoted by Phlegon, _F. H. G._, p. 604; _cf._ Clem. Alex.,
_Protrept_, II, 34, p. 29), it has been attacked by F. M. Cornford
(in Miss Harrison’s _Themis_, pp. 212 f.) and others. These scholars
have tried to find the origin of the Olympic games rather in a ritual
contest of succession to the throne, the honors extended to a victor
being held to prove his kingly or divine character. The theory was
first proposed by A. B. Cook, The European Sky God, _Folk Lore_, 1904,
and has recently been elaborated by Frazer in his _Golden Bough_,^3
III, pp. 89 f., who has attempted to harmonize it with his earlier
funeral theory. The inadequacy of the newer theory has been shown by E.
N. Gardiner, The Alleged Kingship of the Olympic Victor, _B. S. A._,
XXII, 1916-18, pp. 85 f. For a review of his paper, see also _J. H.
S._, XXXVIII, 1918, pp. XLVII.
[53] V, 13.2.
[54] According to the same scholiast, on 1. 149; Boeckh, p.
43.
[55] _Cf._ _C. I. G._, II, 1969, ἀγὼν ... ἐπιτάφιος θεματικός.
[56] Hdt., VI, 38.
[57] P., III, 14.1.
[58] Thukyd., V, 11.
[59] Plut., _Timoleon_, 39; Diod. Sic., XVI, 90.1.
[60] Aulus Gellius, X, 18.5.
[61] Arrian, _Anabasis_, VII, 14. Games were held every four
years in honor of Antinoos, the favorite of Hadrian, at Mantinea: P.,
VIII, 9.8.
[62] Strabo, XIV, 1.31 (C. 644.)
[63] P., IX, 2, 5-6; he says that they were celebrated every
fourth year and that the chief prizes were for running.
[64] Philostr., _Vit. Soph._, II, p. 624; Heliod., _Aethiop._,
I, 17; Aristotle, _Constit. of Athens_, 58; _cf._ P., I, 29.4. Games
were also held in the Academy in honor of Eurygyes: Hesych., _s. v._
ἐπ’ Εὐρυγύῃ ἀγών.
[65] Dennis, _Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria_,^3 1883, I, p.
374 (Corneto); II, pp. 323 and 330 (Chiusi).
[66] On the Etruscan origin of the _ludi funebres_, see
Val. Max., II, 4.4; Tertullian, _de Spect._, 12; Servius _ad_ Virg.,
_Aen._, X, 520. For the Etruscan origin of the _munera gladiatorum_,
see Tertull., _op. cit._, 5; Athenæus, IV, 39 (quoting Nikolaos of
Damascus); _cf._ Strabo, V, 4.13 (C. 250). They were first introduced
into Rome in 264 B. C. in honor of D. Junius Brutus; Livy, XVI (Epit.);
and are frequently mentioned: _e. g._, by Livy, XXIII, 30, 15; XXXI,
50, 4; XXXIX, 46, 2; XLI, 28, 11; Polyb., XXXII, 14, 5; Serv., _ad
Aen._, III, 67 and V, 78; Suetonius, _Julius_, 26; etc. See Dar.-Sagl.,
II, 2, pp. 1384 f., 1563 f.
[67] Page 28; he quotes P. W. Joyce, _Social History of
Ireland_, II, pp. 435 f.
[68] V, 17.5-19.10. The description of the throne (P., III,
18.9 f; _cf._ Apollodoros, I, 9.28) is merely summary, as Pausanias
only mentions the games represented on it without describing them in
detail.
[69] The best reconstruction of the scenes on the chest is by
H. Stuart Jones: _J. H. S._, XIV, 1894, pp. 30-80 and Pl. I (repeated
by Frazer, III, Pl. X, opp. p. 606). See also Robert, _Hermes_, XXIII,
1888, pp. 436 f.; Pernice, _Jb._, III, 1888, pp. 365 f.; Studniczka,
_Jb._, IX, 1894, pp. 52 f., n. 16; Collignon, I, pp. 93-100; Furtw.,
_Mw._, pp. 723-32.
The best attempt to reconstruct the scenes on the throne is by Furtwaengler
_Mw._, fig. 135, opposite p. 706; text, pp. 689-719; _cf._ the best of
the older attempts by Brunn, _Rhein. Mus._, N. F., V, 1847, p. 325;
_id._, _Kunst bei Homer_, pp. 22 f.; _id._, _Griech. Kunstgesch._,
1893, I, pp. 178 f. _Cf._ also Klein, _Arch.-epigr. Mitt. aus
Oesterr.-Ungarn_, IX, 1885, pp. 145 f.; against Klein, see Pernice, as
above, p. 369. _Cf._ Collignon, I, pp. 230-2; Murray, I, pp. 89 f.] [
[70] If we followed Pausanias’ account that this was the very
chest made to save the infant Kypselos, father of Periandros and future
tyrant of Corinth, and that it was dedicated at Olympia by the Kypselid
family (for the story, see Hdt., V, 92), the chest would belong to the
eighth century B. C., and must have been dedicated before 586-5 B.
C., when the Kypselid dynasty ended at Corinth; see Busolt, _Griech.
Gesch._,^2 I, pp. 638 and 657. However, the chest at Olympia had
nothing to do with the legendary one, but was merely a richly decorated
offering to the gods, the work of a Corinthian artist of the end of the
seventh or beginning of the sixth century B. C., and one who knew the
epic poems well.
[71] _Vasen_, 1655; Perrot-Chipiez, IX, p. 637, fig. 348
(departure of Amphiaraos); p. 639, fig. 349 (chariot-race); Gardiner,
p. 29, fig. 3; Frazer, III, p. 609, fig. 77; Baum. I, fig. 69; and see
Robert _Annali_, XLVI, 1874, pp. 82 f.; _Mon. d. I._, X, 1874-1878,
Pls. IV, V. The discovery of this vase at Cerveteri (Caere) in 1872
proved the Corinthian workmanship of the chest.
[72] Micali, _Monumenti per servire all’historia degli antichi
popoli Italiani_^2, 1833, Pl. XCV; described by Jahn, _Archaeol.
Aufsaetze_, pp. 154 f. (quoted by Frazer, III, p. 610). For scenes
representing the departure of Amphiaraos and a four-horse chariot-race,
see also an Attic-Corinthian vase in Florence: Perrot-Chipiez, X, pp.
109 and 111, figs. 78, 79 (= Thiersch, _Tyrrhenische Amphoren_, Pl.
IV); the latter also gives us the oldest representation of a Greek
stadion.
[73] _A. Z._ XLIII, 1885, Pl. VIII; Gardiner, p. 30, fig. 4
(one side).
[74] Cited by Gardiner, pp. 30-31; Inghirami, _Mon. Etr._,
1821-1826, III, 19, 20; Schreiber, _Bilder-atlas_, Pl. XIII, 6; M. W.,
I, Pl. LX, fig. 302b.
[75] Reproduced by Gardiner, p. 21, fig. 2.
[76] _Cf._ on this topic, Gardiner, pp. 31-2; _cf._ _B. S.
A._, XXII, 1916-18, p. 86, where, in speaking of the disputed origin
of the custom of funeral games, he says: “It is at least conceivable
that it originated from different causes in different places and among
different peoples.”
[77] See a list of twenty-five local _Olympia_ in Smith’s
_Dictionary of Antiquities_,^3 1891, II, pp. 273 f., _s. v._ _Olympia_,
taken from Krause, _Olympia_, pp. 202 f. Dar.-Sagl., IV, i, pp. 194 f.,
list 34 local _Olympia_. Most of these lesser _Olympia_ are known to us
only from inscriptions and coins. Peisistratos appears to have founded
annual _Olympia_ at Athens, when he began to build the Olympieion;
Pindar seems to allude to them in _Nem._ II, 23 (_cf._ schol. _ad
loc._); they were reorganized magnificently by Hadrian in A. D. 131;
Spartianus, _Vit. Hadriani_, 13. _Cf._ Gardiner, p. 229.
[78] Lysias, _Paneg._, notes this fact, when he says that
Herakles restored peace and unity by instituting the games. Pausanias
speaks similarly of the restoration of the games by Iphitos and
Lykourgos: V, 4.5 f.
[79] P., V, 1.3; 3.6; Strabo, VIII, 3.33 (C.357).
[80] The decree governing the festival was inscribed on a
diskos, which dates probably from the seventh century B. C., and was
preserved in the Heraion down to the time of Pausanias. On it the names
of Iphitos and Lykourgos were legible down to Aristotle’s day: P., V,
20.1; Plut., _Lycurgus_, I. 1. Phlegon, _F. H. G._, III, p. 602, and a
scholion on Plato, _de Rep._, 465 D, mention Kleosthenes; _cf._ Louis
Dyer, _Harvard Classical Studies_, 1908, pp. 40 f.; Gardiner, p. 43, n.
1.
[81] For a discussion of the sources and history of this
register, originally compiled near the end of the fifth century B. C.
by Hippias of Elis (Plut., _Numa_, I, 4; _cf._ Mahaffy, _J. H. S._, II,
1881, pp. 164f.), and revised by various later writers from Aristotle
and Philochoros to Phlegon of Tralles and Julius Africanus, see
Juethner, _Ph._, pp. 60-70. From it a complete list of stade-runners
was copied by the church-historian Eusebios from Africanus, who had
brought it down to 217 A. D.
[82] V, 8.6.
[83] Mentioned by P., V, 4.6 and elsewhere; for the mythical
account see P., V, 7.6-8.5 (from Herakles to Oxylos); V, 8.5, and V,
9.4 (revived under the presidency of Iphitos and the descendants of
Oxylos). Phlegon, _F. H. G._, III, p. 603, says that the games were
discontinued for 28 Olympiads from the time of Herakles and Pelops
to that of Koroibos. Velleius Paterculus, I, 8 (ed. Halm), dates the
revival under Iphitos, 793 B. C. Strabo, quoting Ephoros, says that
the Achæans controlled Olympia to the time of Oxylos; for his mythical
account of the games, see VIII, 3.33 (C. 357). On presidents of the
games being elected from the Eleans, see P., V, 9.4-6.
[84] Especially by Xenophon, _Hell._, III, 2.31; VII, 4.28.
Pausanias omits all evidence of the part played by Kleosthenes in the
truce. See Gardiner, pp. 44 f.
[85] See Doerpfeld, _A. M._, XXXIII, 1908, pp. 185 f.
[86] Recently E. N. Gardiner has argued that the worship of
Zeus came directly from Dodona to Olympia before it had reached Crete
and that Cretan elements in the cult first appear at Olympia in the
VIII century B. C. He believes that the worship of Hera reached Olympia
from Argos later than that of Zeus, toward the end of the VIII century
B. C., when he supposes the Heraion was built as a joint temple to both
deities; _B. S. A._, XXII, 1916-18, pp. 85-86.
[87] On his cult see P., V, 13.2, and scholion on Pindar,
_Ol._ I, 146 and 149, Boeckh, p. 43. After being reduced to the rank
of hero, Pelops still kept his own precinct in the Altis throughout
antiquity.
[88] On the history of Olympia, see Gardiner, pp. 38 f.
[89] For the legends connected with the origin of the three,
see Krause, _Die Pythien, Nemeen und Isthmien_, and the various
articles in Dar.-Sagl.
[90] Schol. on Pindar, _Pyth._, Argum., Boeckh, p. 298.
[91] On the Sacred or Krisaian War (590 B. C.), see Bury,
_History of Greece_, 1913, pp. 158-9. The first Pythiad was reckoned
from 586 (not from 582 as Bury and others state): see Frazer, V, p.
244; Boeckh, _Explic. ad Pind._, _Ol._, XII, pp. 206 f.
[92] See Strabo, IX, 3.10, (C. 421); P., X, 7.4-5; schol. on
Pind., _Pyth._, Argum., Boeckh, p. 298. Ovid’s idea (_Met._, I, 445)
that boxing, running, and chariot-racing existed from the first, is
wrong. On the Pythian games, see Gardiner, pp. 208 f.
[93] On the Nemean games, see Gardiner, pp. 223-6. As no
proper excavations have been made on the site, our knowledge of the
games is confined almost entirely to literary evidence.
[94] P., II, 15.3, and VI, 16.4, mentions a winter
celebration. The scholiast on Pindar’s _Nem._, Argum., Boeckh, pp.
424-5, says that it was a τριετής held on the 12th of the month
Panemos, and so it was a summer and not a winter celebration. On
theories of two celebrations, see Frazer, II, pp. 92-3.
[95] They were not held in midsummer as some have maintained:
see Thukyd., VIII, 9-10; Unger, _Philologus_, XXXVII, 1877, 1-42;
Nissen, _Rhein. Mus._, XLII, 1887, pp. 46 f. On the Isthmian games, see
Gardiner, pp. 214 f.
[96] For the nine-day celebration of the _Great Panathenaia_,
see A. Mommsen, _Feste der Stadt Athen_, 1898, p. 153; _cf._ Gardiner,
pp. 229 f.
[97] See Mommsen, _op. cit._, pp. 278 f., and _Heortologie_,
1864, pp. 269 f. In recent years victor lists of the _Theseia_ have
been found: _C. I. G._, II, 444-450, esp. 447; for two other fragments,
see _A. M._, XXX, 1905, pp. 213 f, and _Beilag_, a and b (c = _C. I.
G._, above). For other lists of victors of local games, see _A. M._,
XXVIII, 1903, pp. 338 f. (Oropos, Samos, Larisa). For vase-paintings
of the athletic exploits of Theseus, see Harrison, _Mythology and
Monuments of Ancient Athens_, 1890, pp. XCVIII f.
[98] See _Ol._, IX, 89; XIII, 110; _Pyth._, VIII, 79.
[99] Iliad, XXIII, 262-70; _cf._ XXII, 163-4, where the prizes
were slave women and tripods.
[100] _Ibid._, 700-5.
[101] _Ibid._, 653-6.
[102] _Ibid._, 740-51.
[103] _Op._, 653-9; _cf. Scut._, 312-13.
[104] Iliad, XI, 700; XXIII, 264; Hesiod, _Scut._, 312. It
is thus represented on a Dipylon vase: _Mon. d. I._, IX, 1869-73, Pl.
XXXIX, 2; on the Corinthian vase representing the funeral games of
Pelias and Amphiaraos: _ibid._, X, Pl. V B; on the François vase, and
on many others.
[105] Iliad, XXII, 164; _cf._ Gerhard, IV, Pl. CCXLVII.
[106] Gerhard, IV, Pl. CCLVI.
[107] On an amphora by Nikosthenes: Klein, _Griech. Vasen mit
Meistersignaturen_,^2 1887, Pl. XXXI.
[108] Iliad, XXIII, 702, as above.
[109] Hdt., I, 144.
[110] Ion, _ap._ P., VII, 4.10.
[111] Aristeid., I, p. 841 (ed. Dindorf).
[112] Polemon _ap._ schol. on Pindar, _Ol._, VII, 153, Boeckh,
pp. 180-1.
[113] On the above-mentioned Corinthian vase: _Mon. d. I._, X,
Pls. IV, V; on the chest of Kypselos: P., V, 17.11.
[114] In the Iliad, as above.
[115] P., III, 18.7-8.
[116] _A. Z._, XL, 1882, p. 333; _B. C. H._, VI, 1882, p. 118.
[117] _B. C. H._, IX, 1885, p. 478.
[118] P., IX, 10.4; Hdt., I, 92.
[119] See Carapanos, _Dodone et ses Ruines_, 1878, pp. 40, 41,
and 229, and Pl. XXIII, 2.2 _bis_, 3, 4.
[120] P., X, 7.6.
[121] P., IV, 32.1.
[122] On the tripod, see Reisch, pp. 6-7 and 58-9; Rouse, pp.
150-1 and 355; most of the above examples have been taken from these
writers.
[123] _Nem._, X, 45 f.; _cf._ schol. on _Ol._, VII, 153,
Boeckh, pp. 180-1.
[124] _C. I. A._, II, 2, 965. On the value of bronze, _cf._
Reisch, p. 6.
[125] Schol. on Pindar, _Ol._, VII, 152, Boeckh, p. 180.
[126] _Ibid._, _Ol._, VII, 156, Boeckh, p. 181.
[127] Pindar, _Ol._, IX, 89-90.
[128] _Ibid._, _Nem._, IX, 51; X, 43 f.
[129] _Ibid._, _Nem._, X, 44; schol. on _Ol._, XIII, 155 and
VII, 156, Boeckh, pp. 288 and 156, and _Explic. ad Olymp._, IX, 102, p.
194.
[130] _C. I. A._, III, 1, 116.
[131] Schol. on Pindar, _Nem._, X, 64, Boeckh, p. 504; _cf._
_C. I. A._, II, 2, 965.
[132] _A. G._, XIII, 8.
[133] _I. G. A._, 525; _B. M. Bronzes_, 257.
[134] For many of these examples, see Reisch, pp. 57 f. (and
notes), and Rouse, pp. 150-1.
[135] At the _Panathenaia_ a golden crown was given the
victorious harpist, a hydria to the torch-racer, and an ox to the
victor in the pyrrhic chorus: _C. I. A._, II, 2, 965. Weapons were
given at Delos: _C. I. G._, II, 2360; a golden crown was given at
the Pythian games in Delphi to the city which furnished the finest
sacrificial ox: Xenophon, _Hell._, IV, 4.9; here also golden crowns and
arms were presented for soldiers’ contests: Xenophon, _ibid._, III, 4.8
and IV, 2.7.
[136] VIII, 48.2.
[137] Foerster, 7.
[138] Frag., (= _F. H. G._, III, p. 604).
[139] V, 7.7; _cf._ Pindar, _Ol._, III, 24 f.
[140] _Ol._, III, 13 f.
[141] Pseudo-Aristot., _de mirab. Auscult._, 51; schol. on
Aristoph., _Plutus_, 586; Suidas, _s. v._ κοτίνου στεφάνῳ.
[142] P., V, 15.3; _cf._ Theophrastos, _Hist. Plant._, IV, 13,
2; Pliny, _H. N._, XVI, 240.
[143] Schol. on Pindar, _Ol._, III, 60, Boeckh, p. 102.
[144] Pseudo-Aristot., _l. c._; schol. on Pindar, _Ol._, III,
60, and VIII, 12, Boeckh, pp. 102 and 189.
[145] Weniger, _Der heilige Oelbaum in Olympia_, 1895.
[146] P., X, 7.5; _Marmor Parium_, 53 f. On the reason why the
laurel was the prize for a Pythian victory, see P., X, 7.8; _cf._ VIII,
48.2 (as above); schol. on Pindar, _Pyth._, Argum., Boeckh, p. 298. On
the Delphian laurel, see also Pliny, _H. N._, XV, 127; _Dio Cass._,
LXIII, 9. Virgil crowns his victors with laurel: _Aen._, V, 246 and
539.
[147] Aelian, _Var. Hist._, III, 1; schol. on Pindar, _Pyth._,
Argum., Boeckh, p. 298.
[148] See Gardiner, p. 208, fig. 27, a coin in the British
Museum: _B. M. Coins, Delphi_, 38.
[149] _Anacharsis_, 9; see also _C. I. A._, III, 116; Kaibel,
_Epigrammata graeca_, 1878, no. 931.
[150] _Nem._, IV, 88; _Ol._, XIII, 32 f.; _Isthm._, II, 16,
VIII, 64.
[151] Schol. on Pindar, _Nem._, Argum., Boeckh, p. 426.
[152] _E. g._, P., VIII, 48.2; _cf._ Plut., _Qaest. conviv._,
V, 3.3; _Timoleon_, 26.
[153] Krause, _Die Pythien, Nemeen und Isthmien_, pp. 197 f.;
schol. on _Isthm._, Argum., Boeckh, p. 514.
[154] See _B. M. Coins, Corinth_, 509-12; 564; 602-3 (603 =
Gardiner, p. 214, fig. 28); 624; _cf._ _I. G._, II, 1320, and Gardiner,
p. 222, n. 2.
[155] P., II, 1.7. Curtius, _Peloponnesos_, II, p. 543,
believes that the pine was not a fir, but the _Pinus maritima_;
Philippson, in the _Zeitschr. d. Gesellsch. fuer Erdkunde zu Berlin_,
XXV, 1890, pp. 74 f., believes that it was the _Pinus halepensis_ Mill.
[156] See Droysen, _Hermes_, XIV, 1879, p. 3; Head, _Historia
Nummorum_, pp. 146 f.; Imhoof-Blumer and O. Keller, _Tier- und
Pflanzenbilder auf Muenzen und Gemmen_, Pl. VI, 8; VII, 2; IX, 9-12;
XXV, 19.
[157] VIII, 48.2.
[158] See Tarbell, _Class. Phil._, III, pp. 264 f.; he traces
its origin to Delos and its popularity to the restoration of the Delian
festival by the Athenians in 426 B. C.
[159] Mentioned by Phanias, _ap._ Athen., VI, 21 (232 c.)
[160] _Op._, 654 f.; _cf._ P., IX, 31.3. The spurious epigram
in _A. G._, VII, 53, may have been engraved on this tripod set up in
the temple on Mt. Helikon.
[161] P., X, 7.6.
[162] _C. I. A._, IV, 373^{79}; another is mentioned _ibid._,
I, 493.
[163] Hdt., V, 60.
[164] Hdt., I, 144.
[165] _Bronz. v. Ol._, pp. 72 f.
[166] See Rouse, pp. 153 f.
[167] V, 12.8.
[168] VI, 19.4.
[169] _Cf._ Rouse, p. 160 and Reisch, p. 62 and n. 1.
[170] See Rouse, _l. c._; for the inscription, _I. G. A._,
370.
[171] II, 29.9.
[172] _I. G. A._, XIII, 449; see discussion of both stones in
_J. H. S._, XXVII, 1907, pp. 2 f.
[173] In Ol. 255 (= 241 A. D.); Foerster, 739; _Inschr. v.
Ol._, 240-1.
[174] See _Bronz. v. 0l._, p. 179.
[175] _E. g._, the inscribed lead weight of the seventh or
sixth centuries B. C., found at Eleusis and dedicated by Epainetos: _C.
I. A._, IV, 2, 422^4; _cf. Arch. Eph._, 1883, pp. 189-91.
[176] _Bronz. v. Ol._, Textbd., p. 180; Tafelbd., Pl. LXV,
1101 a.; _cf._ another from the Cyrenaica in the British Museum: _B. M.
Bronzes_, no. 326.
[177] _C. I. G._, I, 243; _C. I. A._, III, 1, 124; _Rhein.
Mus._, XXXIV, 1879, p. 206; on prize torches, see _A. G._, VI, 100, and
_cf._ Kaibel, _Epigr. gr._, 1878, 943.
[178] Kallim., XLIX; _A. G._, VI, 311; _cf._ Reisch, pp. 62
and 145-6, figs. 13, 14; Rouse, pp. 162-3.
[179] See Reisch, p. 62, and n. 4. The flutist Straton
dedicated his flute at Thespiai in the third century B. C.: _C. I. G.
G. S._, I, 1818; a harpist his harp at Athens: _C. I. A._, III, 112.
[180] P., VI, 10.6-7.
[181] P., VI, 9.4.
[182] P., VI, 12.1
[183] P., VI, 10.8.
[184] P., VI, 16.9.
[185] P., V, 12.5; the monument consisted of bronze horses
only.
[186] P., VI, 16.6.
[187] _E. g._, chariots and drivers, _Bronz. v. Ol._,
Tafelbd., Pl. XV, 248, 248a, 249, 250; Textbd., pp. 39-40; chariots
without drivers, _ibid._, Tafelbd., Pl. XV, 252, 252a, 253; Textbd., p.
40; charioteers without chariots, _ibid._, Pl. XVI, 251; Textbd., p.
40; horses belonging to two-wheeled chariots, _ibid._, Pl. XVI, 254,
254a; Textbd., pp. 40-1.
[188] _Bronz. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. XXV, 498 f.; Textbd., p.
68.
[189] _Bronz. v. Ol._, _l. c._; he is followed by Reisch,
p. 61; Rouse, p. 166, however, thinks that they would have been an
“artistic blunder.”
[190] _E. g._, _Bronz. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. XXV, 503 f.;
Textbd., p. 69.
[191] _Ibid._, Pl. XXV, 510; some are older than the date of
the introduction of the mule-car race, Ol. 70 (= 500 B. C.), and some
may have been used as bases for animal figures: _e. g._, Pl. XXV, 509;
Textbd., p. 69.
[192] Rouse, p. 165, suggests, though without evidence, that
they may have been offered before the contest with a propitiatory
sacrifice.
[193] Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 71.
[194] _Ibid._, XXXIV, 78: _fecit et quadrigas bigasque_, etc.
[195] _Ibid._, XXXIV, 63 and 64: _fecit et quadrigas multorum
generum_.
[196] P., VI, 12.1.
[197] Either in Ol. 69 (= 504 B. C.) or 70 (= 500 B. C.) or
before 67 (= 512 B. C.): Hyde, 126; Foerster, 778 (undated).
[198] P., VI, 14.4.
[199] The father won κέλητι in Ol. 66 or 67 (= 516 or 512 B.
C.): Hyde, 120; Foerster, 129 and 149a; P., VI, 13.9; the sons won
in the same event in Ol. 68 (= 508 B. C.): Hyde, 121, and pp. 50-51;
Foerster, 152; P., VI, 13.10.
[200] VI, 2.1-2; he won in the heavy-armed race and in
charioteering in Ols. (?) 83, 84, (= 448, 444 B. C.): Hyde, 12;
Foerster, 211a; Foerster believes that the two statues represented
Lykinos and his charioteer, and that they stood in the chariot, which
is not mentioned by Pausanias.
[201] So Foerster, _l. c._; see also Robert, O. S., p.
176; Rutgers, p. 144; and Klein, _Archaeol.-epigr. Mitt. aus
Oesterr.-Ungarn_, VII, 1883, p. 70. For an improbable view, see Brunn,
I, p. 479.
[202] P., VI, 12.1.
[203] Pliny, _H. N._, XXIV, 75.
[204] _Ibid._, XXXIV, 78.
[205] _Ibid._, XXXIV, 19.
[206] _Bronz. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. XV, 255-7; XVI, 258;
Textbd., p. 41; terra-cotta horses, _ibid._, XVII, 267-75; Textbd., pp.
43-4.
[207] See Rouse, p. 167.
[208] Pindar, _Pyth._, V, 34 f.
[209] _C. I. A._, IV, 2, p. 89, 373^{99}; _cf._ _Arch. Eph._,
1887, p. 146 (inscribed base reproduced).
[210] Mentioned by the pseudo-Plutarch, _Vit. X Orat._, IV
(Isokrates), 42, p. 839 c
[211] Pindar’s _Pyth._ XII celebrates the victory of Midas of
Akragas in flute-playing; he won in Pyth. 24 and 25 (= 490 and 486 B.
C.)
[212] _H. N._, XXXV, 58; both at Corinth and Delphi.
[213] Strabo, VIII, 6. 20 (C. 378); Aristeid., _Isthm._,
45; Livy, XXXIII, 32. Dio Chrysostom has graphically described the
crowds of spectators who still frequented the _Isthmia_ in the first
century A. D.: _Orat._, VII (Διογένης ἢ περὶ ἀρετῆς); VIII (Διογένης ἢ
Ἰσθμικός); _cf._ Gardiner, p. 173.
[214] Plutarch, _Solon_, 23; Diog. Laert., 1, 55: etc.
[215] For a list of victors, see Krause, _Die Pythien, Nemeen
und Isthmien_, pp. 209 f.
[216] See Julian, _Epist._, XXXV.
[217] See Monceaux on the excavation of the temple of
Poseidon, _Gaz. arch._, IX, 1884, pp. 358 f.
[218] Lucian, _Nero_, 2, says Olympia was the “most athletic”
of all; Bacchylides, XII, emphasizes the athletic character of Nemea.
[219] The boys’ pentathlon was introduced in the fifty-third
Nemead (= 467 B. C.) and the pankration for boys earlier: _cf._ Pindar,
_Nem._, V (in honor of the boy pancratiast Pytheas of Aegina; _cf._
Bacchylides, XIII); VII (in honor of the boy pentathlete Sogenes of
Aegina, who won in Nem. 54); IV and VI (in honor of two Aeginetan boy
wrestlers). The horse-race for boys is mentioned by P., VI, 16.4. Races
in armor were also important: Ph., 7.
[220] See Gardiner, pp. 223 f.; list of victors in Krause,
_op. cit._, pp. 147 f.
[221] X, 9.2 (Frazer’s transl.).
[222] See Foucart and Wescher, _Inscriptions recueillies à
Delphes_, 1863, no. 469; Haussoulier, _B. C. H._, VI, 1882, pp. 217
f.; Couve, _ibid._, XVIII, 1894, pp. 70-100. One is in honor of the
Corinthian singer Aristonos, who composed a hymn to Apollo, found at
Delphi: _ibid._, XVII, 1893, pp. 563 f. A Samian flutist, Satyros,
gained a prize without contest and recited a choral ode called
_Dionysos_ in the stadion, and played an air from Euripides’ _Bacchae_
on the lyre; _ibid._, XVII, pp. 84 f. Native towns erected statues
to musical victors: _C. I. G._, I., nos. 1719-20. One inscription
records the rules to be observed by runners, who could not drink new
wine, etc.: _J. H. S._, XVI, 1896, p. 343 and _Berliner Philolog.
Wochenschr._, XVI, 1896, p. 831 (June 27); _cf._ Frazer, V, p. 260. The
base of a statue of a boy wrestler has been found: _A. Z._, XXXI, 1874,
p. 57.
[223] X, 9.2-3; on Phaÿllos, see Foerster, 794 (undated).
[224] _H. N._, XXXIV, 59.
[225] _Ibid._, §57.
[226] On _Pyth._, IX, Argum., Boeckh, p. 401 B.
[227] XXIV, 7.10.
[228] To be discussed _infra_, in Ch. V.
[229] II, 1.7.
[230] _I. G. B._, nos. 120, 133, 148.
[231] _C. I. G._, II, 2888.
[232] P., VIII, 38.5; _cf._ Reisch, p. 39, n. 1.
[233] P., I, 23.9; _C. I. A._, I, 376; _I. G. B._, 39.
[234] P., I, 23.10.
[235] P., I, 24.3; _cf._ Reisch, p. 39.
[236] Pseudo-Plutarch, _Vit. X Orat._, already mentioned.
[237] P., I, 18.3 and IX, 32.8; _cf._ Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV,
79.
[238] _Contra Leocr._, p. 51 (ed. Reiske, p. 176.)
[239] _Cf._ Furtwaengler, _A. M._, V, 1880, pp. 27 f.
[240] _C. I. A._, I, 419; he won in Ol. 77 (= 472 B. C.): _Oxy.
Pap._; Hyde, 50; Foerster, 208.
[241] _C. I. A._, II, 3, 1303.
[242] Aelian, _Var. Hist._, IX, 32. Reisch, p. 39, ascribes
these to the monument of the older Kimon, who won in chariot-racing
three times at Olympia: Hdt., VI, 103; Plut., _Cato Major_, 5;
Foerster, 124 and 132.
[243] _C. I. A._, II, 3, 1300.
[244] _Ibid._, 1301; _cf._ _C. I. G._, I, 233.
[245] _Ibid._, 1305, 1312.
[246] _Ibid._, 1302.
[247] _Ibid._, 1304.
[248] _Ibid._, 1323.
[249] _Ibid._, 1313.
[250] _Ibid._, 1314.
[251] _Ibid._, 1318-20.
[252] The Ἑλλανοδίκαι, mentioned by P., V, 9. 4 f. and
elsewhere; sometimes he calls them merely οἱ Ἠλεῖοι: _e. g._, VI, 13.9.
[253] _E. g._, P., VI, 13.9, says that the Eleans allowed
Pheidolas to dedicate a statue of his mare; in VI, 3.6, he says that
they allowed the wrestler Kratinos to set up a statue of his trainer.
[254] XXXIV, 16. See _infra_, pp. 54 and 354.
[255] VI, 1.1.
[256] _Inschr. v. Ol._, p. 236.
[257] _Bronz. v. Ol._, Textbd., pp. 19 f. (nude youths
with lost attributes so that they can not be named with certainty);
Tafelbd., Pl. VIII, 47 (the oldest); VII, 48 = F. W., 352 (Apollo,
following Overbeck, _Gr. Kunstmytk._, III, _Apollon_, p. 35, fig. 6);
VIII, 49 = F. W., 353; VIII, 51-4 and 57 (the latter is a boxer of the
fifth century B. C. = Fig. 2 in text); VI, 50; VI, 59 (right arm of a
fifth-century B. C. diskobolos); VI, 63 (right lower leg). Purgold,
_Annali_, LVII, 1885, pp. 167 f., makes these diskoboloi decorative in
character.
[258] De Ridder, no. 747.
[259] _Ibid._, no. 746.
[260] _Ibid._, no. 636.
[261] Carapanos, _Dodone et ses Ruines_, 1878, Pl. XI, 1 and 1
_bis_ (probably not Atalanta, as Carapanos suggests on p. 31, no. 4).
[262] _B. C. H._, XXI, 1897, Pls. X and XI.
[263] _A. M._, XV, 1890, p. 365.
[264] _Jb._, I, 1886, pp. 163 f., and Pl. IX; II, 1887, pp. 95
f.
[265] Carapanos, _op. cit._, Pl. XIII, 1.
[266] _E. g._, see E. von Sacken, _Die antiken Bronzen des k.
k. Muenz- und Antiken-Cabinetes in Wien_, 1871, Pl. 37, fig. 4, and Pl.
45, fig. 1; _cf._ _J. H. S._, I, Pl. V, fig. 1, text, pp. 176-7. See
lists, from which many of the above examples are taken, in Reisch, p.
39, and Rouse, pp. 172 f.
[267] The seven fragments collected by Treu, which are
two-fifths to two-thirds life-size: _Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. LVI,
2, (= Fig. 78, _infra_) and Textbd., p. 216, no. 241; Tafelbd., Pl.
LVI, 3, 4 and Textbd., p. 216, n. 4 and fig. 242.
[268] V, 27.2-3.
[269] Reisch, pp. 39 f., gives examples of these for chariot
victories at the _Panathenaia_ and the games at Oropos, which latter
were imitated from the _Panathenaia_.
[270] V, 16.3: καὶ δὴ ἀναθεῖναί σφισιν ἔστι γραψαμέναις
εἰκόνας. Rouse, p. 167, n. 9, shows that these words do not mean
“statues of themselves with their names engraved on them,” as Frazer
translates, but painted reliefs.
[271] Benndorf, _Griech. und Sicil. Vasenbilder_, I, Pl. IX,
pp. 13 f.
[272] I, 22.7. Reisch, p. 40, believes this represented a
Panathenaic victor.
[273] _H. N._, XXXV, 99. _Cf._ E. Kroker, _Gleichnamige
griechische Kuenstler_, 1883, p. 35.
[274] _Ibid._, §75.
[275] _Ibid._, §63.
[276] _Ibid._, §141.
[277] _Ibid._, §106.
[278] _Ibid._, §71.
[279] _Ibid._, §130.
[280] _Ibid._, §144.
[281] P., VI, 14.13. He won the pentathlon twice some time
between Ols. 126 and 132 (= 276 and 252 B. C.): Hyde, 139; Foerster,
451 and 456; the inscription on one has been recovered: _Inschr. v.
Ol._, 176.
[282] P., VI, 3.11. His victories in running races occurred
in Ols. (?) 95, (?) 97 and 99; (= 400, 392 and 384 B. C.): Afr.; Hyde,
33; Foerster, 307, 315, 316. The inscription from the base of one is
preserved in _A. G._, XIII, 15.
[283] P., VI, 2.1-2; Hyde, 12; Foerster, 211a.
[284] P., VI, 15.10; he won the pankration and wrestling match
in Ol. 142 (= 212 B. C.): Hyde, 150; Foerster, 474, 475.
[285] P., VI, 1.4; he won in the two- and four-horse
chariot-races in Ols. 102, 103 (= 372 and 368 B. C.): Hyde, 6;
Foerster, 338, 345; for the inscription on its base, see _Inschr. v.
Ol._, 166. P. Gardner, in _J. H. S._, XXV, 1905, p. 245, infers that he
had only one victory, in 372 B. C.
[286] P., VI, 2.2; he won in Ols. (?) 86, 87 (= 436, 432 B.
C.): Hyde, 13; Foerster, 250, 256.
[287] P., VI, 14.12; _Inschr. v . Ol._, 170; _ibid._, no. 154
belongs to the victory mentioned by Pausanias. He won κέλητι in Ol. (?)
83 (= 448 B. C.): Hyde, 133; Foerster, 327.
[288] _E. g._, Deinomenes set up a chariot-group to his
father Hiero: P., VI, 12.1; Glaukos had a statue dedicated by his son:
VI, 10.3; Menedemos set up a statue to his father of the same name:
_Inschr. v. Ol._, 214; the sons of Hiero II, the son of Hierokles, of
Syracuse, set up in honor of their father two statues by the Syracusan
statuary Mikon, one on horseback, the other on foot: P., VI, 12.2 f.;
Hyde 105a and pp. 44-5; another of the same Hiero was set up at Olympia
by his sons: VI, 15.6; Hyde, 147a; these latter, however, are “honor”
and not victor statues.
[289] _E. g._, Hermokrates dedicated a statue to his son
Kleitomachos of Thebes: P., VI, 15.3 f.; he won in pankration and
boxing in Ols. 141 and 142 (= 216, 212 B. C.): Hyde, 146; Foerster,
472, 476. The epigram by Alkaios (= Minor) of Messenia is preserved
in _A. G._, IX, 588. For inscriptions after the time of Augustus, see
_Inschr. v. Ol._, 215 (Menedemos to his son of the same name); 216
(Aristodemos to his son Lykomedes of Elis); Foerster, 550; _Inschr. v.
Ol._, 218 (Timolas to his son Archiadas of Elis); Foerster, 535; etc.
[290] _E. g._, Klaudia Kleodike to her son M. Antonios
Kallipos Peisanos of Elis: _Inschr. v. Ol._, 223; Foerster, 568.
[291] _E. g._, Diodoros to his brother Nikanor of Ephesos:
_Inschr. v. Ol._, 227; he won the pankration in Ol. 217 (= 89 A. D.):
Foerster, 666.
[292] _E. g._, Loukios Betilenos (= Vetulenus) set one up
to T. Klaudios Aphrodeisios of Elis (?): _Inschr. v. Ol._, 226. He
won κέλητι in Ol. 208 (= 53 A. D.): Foerster, 634; two Eleans set up
statues, one, M. Antonios Peisanos, to Germanicus Caesar, adopted son
of the Emperor Tiberius (Foerster, 612), the other, Gnaios Markios, to
Tiberius or Germanicus: _Inschr. v. Ol._, 221 and 222.
[293] _E. g._, Mikon the trainer to an unknown Samian boxer:
P., VI, 2.9; Hyde, 19 and pp. 29-30; Foerster, 804.
[294] P., VI, 3.8; _cf._ VII, 17.6 and 13 f.; Afr.; Hyde, 29;
Foerster, 6.
[295] P., VI, 6.2; he won some time between Ols. (?) 93 and
103 (= 408 and 368 B. C.): Hyde, 53; Foerster, 355.
[296] P., VI, 17.2; he won some time between Ols. (?) 114 and
132 (= 324 and 252 B. C.): Hyde, 172; Foerster, 354.
[297] P., VI, 17.2; two of the victories in the stade-race
fell in Ols. 129 and 130 (= 264 and 260 B. C.): Afr.; Hyde, 173;
Foerster, 440-2; 444-5.
[298] P., VI, 17.4. He won the boys’ wrestling match some
time between Ols. (?) 115 and 118 (= 320 and 308 B. C.): Hyde, 178;
Foerster, 377.
[299] For the one at Olympia, see P., VI, 8.5; for the one at
Pellene, _id._, VII, 27.5; he won in Ol. 94 (= 396 B. C.): Hyde, 81;
Foerster, 286. Similarly, Hiero II, King of Syracuse, had two statues
_honoris causa_ at Olympia set up by his fellow citizens: P., VI, 15.
6; Hyde, 147a.
[300] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 169; _cf._ P., VI, 13.11; he won the
pankration some time between Ols. (?) 115 and 130 (= 320 and 260 B.
C.): Hyde, 123; Foerster, 758 (undated).
[301] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 186; _cf._ P., VI, 15.6; he won twice
in boxing between Ols. (?) 144 and 147 (= 204 and 192 B. C.): Hyde,
147; Foerster, 510 and 512.
[302] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 224; he won the boys’ wrestling match
in Roman days; Foerster, 823.
[303] P., VI, 2.2-3; Thukydides, V, 49-50; he won in Ol. 90 (=
420 B. C.): Hyde, 14; Foerster, 270.
[304] Vol. II, p. 222.
[305] So Scherer, p. 5. His evidence is from inscriptions of
imperial days (_e. g._, _Inschr. v. Ol._, 218, 223, 227), when the
dedicatory formula differed somewhat from that of earlier times.
[306] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 147-8; _cf._ P., VI, 10.9; _Oxy.
Pap._; Hyde, 102; Foerster, 237.
[307] VI, 3.6. He won sometime between Ols. (?) 120 and 130 (=
300 and 260 B. C.): Hyde, 27; Foerster, 433.
[308] VI, 8.3. He won the stade-race and the chariot-race in
Ols. 93 and 104 (= 408 and 364 B. C.) respectively: Afr.; Hyde, 75;
Foerster, 277, 350.
[309] P., VI, 14.6; he won in wrestling matches six times in
Ol. (?) 61, and in Ols. 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 (= 536-516 B. C.): Hyde,
128; Foerster, 116, 122, 126, 131, 136, 141.
[310] P., VI, 13.2; Afr.; Hyde, 111 and p. 48; Foerster, 39,
41-6.
[311] P., VI, 4.6; Hyde, 41 and _cf._ p. 36; Foerster, 384,
392.
[312] P., VI, 5.1.; VII, 27.6; Afr.; Hyde, 47; Foerster, 279.
[313] P., VI, 10.1; Hyde, 93 and p. 42; Foerster, 137.
[314] The age of boy victors at Olympia seems to have been
17-20: see _Inschr. v. Ol._, 56, ll. 11] f. (referring to the order of
the _Augustalia_, or Σεβαστὰ ἰσολύμπια, celebrated in Naples, which
were modeled after those of Olympia, _cf._ _C. I. G._, III, 5805).
Archippos of Mytilene won the crown for boxing at Olympia, Delphi,
Nemea, and on the Isthmus among the men at not over twenty years of
age: P., VI, 15.1; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 173; he won sometime between
Ols. (?) 115 and 125 (= 320 and 280 B. C.): Hyde, 140; Foerster, 757
(undated). Since Pausanias mentions this as a remarkable record, we
should suspect his statement that the boy runner Damiskos of Messene
was but twelve when he won the stade-race: VI, 2.10; he won Ol. 103 (=
368 B. C.): Afr.; Hyde, 20; Foerster, 343. Another victor, of unknown
date, Nikasylos of Rhodes, was disqualified when eighteen years old
from entering the boys’ wrestling match because of his age, and so
entered that of the men: P., VI, 14.1-2; Hyde, 125; Foerster, 787. He
died at twenty. Such inconsistencies in Pausanias’ account show that
the Hellanodikai exercised some discretion in their judgment, taking
into consideration not merely age, but size and strength.
[315] On maintenance at the Prytaneion, see Plato, _de Rep._,
V, 465 D; _Apology_, 36 D; Plut., _Aristeides_, 27; Athenæus, VI, 32
(p. 237, quoting Timokles), and X, 6 (p. 414, quoting Xenophanes);
R. Schoell, Die Speisung im Prytaneion zu Athen, _Hermes_, VI, 1872,
pp. 14 f. (and Athenian inscription, pp. 30 f.) He concludes that
this honor was given to Athenian victors only in the chariot-race
at Olympia, and in gymnic contests at the other great games. Solon
ordained that these meals be frugal, consisting of a barley loaf on
common days and a wheaten one on festival days: see Athenæus, IV, 14
(p. 137 e).
[316] _C. I. A._, II, 2, 965.
[317] Dio Cassius, LII, 30, 5-6.
[318] Suet., _Octav._, 45; _cf._ Gardiner, pp. 174-5.
[319] P., VI, 13.1; Afr.; Hyde, 110; Foerster, 176-7, 181-2,
187-8.
[320] P., VI, 18.6; Hyde, 186; Foerster, 317, 323.
[321] P., VI, 3.11; Afr.; Hyde, 33; Foerster, 307, 315, 316.
[322] P., VI, 2.6-7; Hyde, 16; Foerster, 309.
[323] P., VI, 2.2-3; Thukyd., V, 49-50; Krause, _Olympia_, p.
144.
[324] P., V, 21.3-4. Eupolos won in Ol. 98 (= 388 B. C.):
Foerster, 313. See Plans A and B.
[325] P., V, 21.5; Kallipos won Ol. 112 (= 332 B. C.):
Foerster, 385.
[326] P., V, 21.8 f.; on Straton, see Foerster, 570-1.
[327] P., V, 21.16-17; see Foerster, 598 (for the Elean boy
wrestler Polyktor, son of Damonikos); P., V, 21.15; Foerster 684 (for
the boxer Didas and his antagonist Sarapammon, both Egyptians). On
cases of bribery at Olympia, see Gardiner, pp. 134-5 and 174; Krause,
_Olympia_, pp. 144 f.
[328] P., V, 21.18.
[329] P., V, 21.12-14.
[330] Dittenberger, _Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum_,^2 II,
689; Cavvadias (Kabbadias), _Fouilles d’Épidaure_, I, 1891, p. 77, no.
238.
[331] Ph., 45. He says that victories were bought and sold
in his day and that the practice was encouraged by trainers. _Cf._
Gardiner, p. 219.
[332] Lucian, _Nero_, 9. _Cf._ Gardiner, pp. 218-219
[333] See Gardiner, p. 77.
[334] Diod., XIII, 82; Foerster, 271 and 276. Suetonius says
that Nero, on arriving in Naples after his tour of Greece, made his
entrance in a chariot drawn by white horses through a breach in the
city wall “according to the practice of victors at the Greek games,”
and that he entered Rome in the triumphal chariot of Augustus dressed
in a purple tunic and a gold-embroidered cloak through a breach in
the wall of the Circus Maximus: _Nero_, 25. Though Plutarch says that
victors could tear down part of the city walls (_Quaest. conviv._, II,
5.2), such extravagances seem to have been introduced late and not to
have belonged to the great days of Greek athletics.
[335] _Cf._ Waldstein, _J. H. S._, I, 1880, pp. 198-9.
[336] Hdt., V, 47; _cf._ Eustath. on Hom., Iliad, III, p. 383,
43; Foerster, 138.
[337] P., VI, 6.4 f.; Afr.; Hyde, 56; Foerster, 185, 195, 207.
[338] P., VI, 6.7-11; Strabo, VI, 1.5 (C. 255); Ael., _Var.
Hist._, VIII, 18.
[339] So Kallimachos _apud_ Plin., _H. N._, VII, 152 (= _S.
Q._, 494); he also states that two of his statues, one at Lokroi, the
other at Olympia, were struck by lightning on the same day.
[340] P., VI, 11.8-9; _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde, 104; Foerster, 191,
196.
[341] P., VI, 11.2.
[342] P., VI, 9.8; _cf._ Suidas, _s. v._ Κλεομήδης; Foerster,
162; _cf._ Hyde, 90a (though there was no statue at Olympia).
[343] VI, 9.6-8.
[344] Thus P., VI, 11.9, says that statues of Theagenes were
erected within and beyond Greece and could heal sickness. Lucian
says that in his day the statues of both Theagenes on Thasos and of
Polydamas of Skotoussa at Olympia cured fevers: _Deorum Concilium_, 12.
Polydamas won the pankration in Ol. 93 (= 408 B. C.): Afr.; his statue
by Lysippos was set up later: P., VI, 5.1; Hyde, 47; Foerster, 279.
Gardiner has recently called attention to the fact that the evidence
for the canonization of the five victors mentioned is mostly late, and
he therefore doubts if it had anything to do with their victories at
Olympia: _B. S. A._, XXII, 1916-18, pp. 96, 97.
[345] Ll. 1161 f.
[346] _De Rep._, V, 465 D. E.
[347] _De Rep._, 620 B.; _cf._ Gardiner, pp. 129-130.
[348] Xen., _Hell._, I, 5.19; P., VI, 7.4 f.; Hyde, 61;
Foerster, 258, 260, 262.
[349] Damagetos won in boxing (?) in Ol. 56 (= 556 B. C):
Hermipp., _fr._ 14 (= _F. H. G._ III, p. 39); _A. G._, VII, 88; Pl.,
_H. N._, VII, 119; Foerster, 108.
[350] _Hbk._, pp. 215-216.
[351] _Ap._ Athenæum, X, 6 (pp. 413-14); Gardiner, p. 79, has
given a translation of his protest.
[352] _Ap._ Athen., X, 5 (p. 413).
[353] _De Rep._, 404 A.; 410 D. (_cf._ 535 D.).
[354] Προτρεπτικὸς λόγος ἐπὶ τὰς τέχνας. For translation, see
Gardiner, p. 188.
[355] See Secchi, _Mosaico Antoniniano_, and Baum., I, p. 223,
fig. 174.
[356] VI, 1.1: ποιήσασθαι καὶ ἵππων ἀγωνιστῶν μνήμην καὶ
ἀνδρῶν ἀθλητῶν.
[357] See Dittenberger, _Inschr. v. Ol._, p. 239.
[358] Pp. 272-3.
[359] P., VI, 10.8; Hyde, 99 b and p. 44; Foerster, 77-9.
[360] _Inschr. v. 0l._, 236; Foerster, 686. It was the custom
also at Delphi to dedicate chariots; thus we have already mentioned
that Arkesilas IV of Kyrene dedicated his chariot there after a
Pythian victory in Ol. 78.3 (= 462 B. C.): Pindar, _Pyth._, V, 34
f. An inscription tells us of a bronze wheel being dedicated to the
Dioskouroi: _I. G. A._, p. 173, 43a.
[361] _E. g._, _Inschr. v. Ol._, 142 (Pantares); 160
(Kyniska).
[362] _E. g._, _ibid._, 143 (Gelo); 178 (Glaukon); 190 (son of
Aristotle); 191 (Agilochos); 194 (son of Nikodromos); 197 (Antigenes);
217 (Lykomedes); 222 (Gnaios Markios); 233 (Kasia Mnasithea).
[363] Thus _ibid._, 142, 143, 236.
[364] _Ibid._, 178, 190 (supplied), 191 (supplied), 194, 197,
217, 227, 233 (supplied).
[365] _Ibid._, 160.
[366] _Ibid._, 177.
[367] V, 21.1.
[368] V, 25.1.
[369] _A. M._, V, 1880, p. 29.
[370] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 144; here in the renewed inscription
occurs also the word ἀνέθηκεν; Hyde, 56; Foerster, 185, 195, 207.
[371] _L. c._, p. 31, n. 1; here he gives a list of the
metrical exceptions of the fifth century B. C.; from inscriptions,
that of Aineas, _A. Z._, XXXV, 1877, p. 38, no. 86; Foerster, 244 (an
inscription not appearing in _Inschr. v. Ol._), and Tellon, _A. Z._,
_ibid._, p. 190, no. 91, and XXXVIII, 1880, p. 70 (= _Inschr. v. Ol._,
147-8); from Pausanias, that of Kleosthenes (wrongly Kleisthenes), VI,
10.6, and Damarchos, VI, 8.2. The list should he corrected as follows.
From inscriptions: Tellon, boy boxer of Ol. 77 (= 472 B. C.): _Oxy.
Pap._; P., VI, 10.9; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 147-8; Hyde, 102; Foerster, 237;
Kyniskos, boy boxer of Ol. (?) 80 (= 460 B. C.): P., VI, 4.11; _Inschr.
v. Ol._, 149; Hyde, 45; Foerster, 255; Charmides, boy boxer of Ol.
(?) 79 (= 464 B. C.): P., VI, 7.1; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 156 (renewed);
Hyde, 58; Foerster, 763 (undated); ...krates, boy runner, Ol. (?) 93
(= 408 B. C.): _Inschr. v. Ol._, 157; Foerster, 280. From Pausanias:
Damarchos, boxer, who won before Ol. 75 (= 480 B. C.) or after Ol. 83
(= 448 B. C.): VI, 8.2; Hyde, 74 and p. 38; Foerster, 452.
[372] _E. g._, the Cretan Philonides, courier of Alexander the
Great, dedicated his portrait statue to the god: _Inschr. v. Ol._, 276;
P., VI, 16.5; Hyde, 154 a.
[373] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 144.
[374] So Dittenberger, and Furtwaengler (_l. c._, p. 30,
n. 2), following Roehl, _I. G. A._, on no. 388; Roehl believed that
originally the word Lokroi or the name of the victor’s father appeared
as the dedicator, and later, because the victor wished to remove the
expense from his city or because his father died, Euthymos himself
restored it; see discussion of Dittenberger, _Inschr. v. Ol._, pp.
249-520. The original inscription has ἔστησε.
[375] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 264; Roehl, _I. G. A._, 589.
[376] So Dittenberger, _Inschr. v. Ol._, p. 241, and no. 213;
_I. G. B._, 72; Foerster, following the earlier dating of Dittenberger
(_A. Z._, XXXV, 1877, p. 42, nos. 49-50), dates the two victories
later, in Ols. (?) 200, 203 (= 21 and 33 A. D.); nos. 614 and 619.
[377] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 225, 228, 229-30, 231, 232.
[378] _Op. cit._, pp. 240-1.
[379] Furtwaengler, _l. c._, p. 30; Reisch, p. 37; Rouse, p.
167; Frazer, III, p. 624. Against the view that victor statues were
first called votive in Roman days, see Purgold, _A. Z._, XXXIX, 1881,
p. 89, on no. 390 (= inscription of Glaukon = _Inschr. v. Ol._, 178;
however, he was a victor in chariot-racing).
[380] _E. g._, by Scherer, p. 5; Kuhnert, _Jahrb. fuer cl.
Phil._, Supplbd., XIV, 1885, p. 257, n. 7; Flasch, in Baum., II, p.
1096; _cf._ Dittenberger-Purgold, _Inschr. v. Ol._, p. 240; Frazer, III,
pp. 623-4.
[381] _E. g._, Ziemann, _de Anathematis Graecis_, 1885, p. 54.
[382] _Hermes_, XIII, 1878, p. 437, n. 2.
[383] Pp. 35 f.; followed by M. K. Welsh, _B. S. A._, XI,
1904-5, pp. 33-4.
[384] _E. g._, Pythokles, who won the pentathlon in Ol. 82 (=
452 B. C.), does not mention his contest on the base (_Inschr. v. Ol._,
162-3), nor does Pausanias give it (VI, 7.10); we learn it only from
the _Oxy. Pap._: see Robert _O. S._, p. 185; Hyde, 70; Foerster, 295.
[385] On p. 36, n. 1, he points out that at Athens the usual
dedication formula was omitted; _e. g._, in the inscription of the
Isthmian victor Diophanes, _C. I. A._, II, 3, 1301, and in that of
a Panathenaic victor, _ibid._, 1302. The presence of the word in an
Athenian inscription referring to the Olympic victor Kallias rests on
an uncertain restoration; _ibid._, I, 419; he won Ol. 77 (= 472 B. C.):
P., VI, 6.1; Hyde, 50; Foerster, 208.
[386] Pp. 167 f.
[387] Both Reisch, p. 36, and Dittenberger, _op. cit._, p.
240, agree also in opposing Furtwaengler’s _Versnoth_ explanation.
[388] Thus Pausanias mentions the “chariot, horses, charioteer and
Kyniska herself”: VI, 1.6. Again he speaks of the “chariot and statue
of Gelo”: VI, 9.4-5; in referring to the chariot of Kleosthenes by
Hagelaïdas he says: “Along with the statue of the chariot and horses,
he [Kleosthenes] dedicated statues of himself and the charioteer,” and
even adds the names of the horses: VI, 10.6. In VI, 18.1, he mentions
the group of Kratisthenes as “the chariot, Nike mounting it, and
Kratisthenes”; in VI, 16.6 he speaks of “a small chariot and figure
of the father of Polypeithes, the wrestler Kalliteles”; etc. _Cf._
Dittenberger, _op. cit._, pp. 239-40.
[389] He won in Ol. 255 (= 241 A. D.): Foerster, 739: _Inschr. v. Ol._, 241.
[390] No dedication, however, is inscribed on it: _I. G. A._, 160;
_Bronz. v. Ol._, on no. 1101, p. 180.
[391] Chionis, a famous runner from Sparta, had a tablet, which listed
his victories, set up beside his statue at Olympia: P., VI, 13.2; he
won in Ols. 28-31 (= 668-656 B. C.): Hyde, 111; Foerster, 39, 41-46.
His statue was erected long after his death, in Ol. 77 or 78, and
so probably the stele also: Hyde, p. 48. Deinosthenes, who won the
stade-race in Ol. 116 (= 316 B. C.), had a slab set up beside his
statue at Olympia, on which was inscribed the distance between it and a
similar one in Sparta: P., VI, 16.8; Afr.; Hyde, 163; Foerster, 403.
[392] He won the chariot-race in Ol. 33 (= 648 B. C.): Foerster, 51.
[393] P., VI, 19.2; on the mistake of Pausanias, see Flasch, in Baum.,
II, p. 1104 B.
[394] _Or._, XXXI, 596 R (= 328 M).
[395] _H. N._, XXXIV, 17.
[396] _H. N._, XXXIV, 23-4. The subject of portrait honorary statues
at Athens has been treated by L. B. Stenessen, _de Historia variisque
Generibus statuarum iconicarum apud Athenienses_, Christiania, 1877;
for all Greece by M. K. Welsh, Honorary Statues in Ancient Greece, _B.
S. A._, XI, 1904-5, pp. 32-49.
[397] See list in Hyde, _Index_ on p. V.
[398] King Hiero of Syracuse had five: Hyde, 147 a (= three) and 105a
(= two); Antigonos Monophthalmos had three: Hyde, 103 d, 147 f, 151 b.
[399] Archidamas III, son of Agesilaos: P., VI, 4.9; Hyde, 42 a; VI,
15.7; Hyde, 147 c; Areus, son of Akrotatos, P., VI, 12.5; Hyde, 105 b;
VI, 15.9; Hyde, 148 a: _Inschr. v. Ol._, 308.
[400] Demetrios Poliorketes, P., VI, 15.7; Hyde, 147 e; _Inschr. v.
Ol._, 304; VI, 16.3; Hyde, 152 b.
[401] Pyrrhos: P., VI, 14.9; Hyde, 128 a.
[402] Hiero II: P., VI, 12.2 f. (two statues set up by his sons:
Hyde, 105 a); VI, 15.6 (three statues, one set up by sons, two by
fellow-citizens: Hyde, 147 a).
[403] Philip II, son of Amyntas; Alexander the Great; Seleukos Nikator,
son of Antiochos; Antigonos, son of Philip, surnamed Monophthalmos;
these four princes had statues together: P., VI, 11.1; Hyde, 103 a, b,
c, d. Antigonos had also other statues in different parts of the Altis:
P., VI, 15.7; Hyde, 147 f; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 305; VI, 16.2; Hyde, 151
b. Antigonos Doson and Philip III had statues together: P., VI, 16.3;
Hyde, 152 a. The Syrian king Seleukos Nikator had another statue at
Olympia: P., VI, 16.2; Hyde, 151 c. Three of the Egyptian dynasty had
statues: Ptolemy Lagi, P., VI, 15.10; Hyde, 149 a; Philadelphus, P.,
VI, 17.3; Hyde, 173 a; and another whose name is uncertain, P., VI,
16.9; Hyde, 166 a.
[404] P., VI, 4.8; Hyde, 41 b.
[405] P., VI, 17.7; Hyde, 184 a; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 293.
[406] P., VI, 15.7; Hyde, 147 d.
[407] P., VI, 14.9-10; Hyde, 128 b.
[408] P., VI, 14.11 Hyde, 128 c in Ol. (?) 127 (= 272 B. C.)
[409] P., VI, 14.12; Hyde, 134 a; erected between Ols. (?) 103 and 115
(= 368 and 320 B. C.).
[410] P., VI, 16.5; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 276, 277; Hyde, 154 a.
[411] P., VI, 14.9-10.
[412] P., VI, 15.7; Hyde, 147 b.
[413] P., VI, 15.2; Hyde, 143 a.
[414] VI, 12.5. The date of his victory is unknown, but fell probably
in Ol. 134 or 135 (= 244 or 240 B. C.): Hyde, 105 c and pp. 44-5;
Foerster, 463.
[415] He won some time between Ols. (?) 99 and 102 (= 384 and 372 B.
C.): P., VI, 3.2-3; Hyde, 23 and pp. 30-1; Foerster, 335.
[416] On the ancient custom of carrying off votive offerings and images
from vanquished foes, see P., VIII, 46.2-4. He shows that Augustus
only followed a long-established precedent. Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV,
36, in speaking of the great number of statues plundered from Greece
by Mummius and the Luculli, quotes G. Licinius Mucianus (three times
consul), who died before 77 B. C., to the effect that 73,000 statues
were still to be seen at Rhodes in his time, and that supposably as
many more were yet to be found in Athens, Olympia, and Delphi.
[417] At the beginning of his description of Elis (V, 1.2), Pausanias
says that 217 years had passed since the restoration of Corinth. As
that event fell in 44 B. C., he was writing his fifth book in 174 A.
D., _i. e._, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. With this date other
chronological references in his work agree. That the fifth book was
written before the sixth is deduced from a comparison of V, 14.6
with VI, 22.8 f. Though the sixth book, therefore, can not have been
composed earlier than 174 A. D., it may, of course, have been written
much later. On the dates of the various books, see Frazer, I, pp. xv
f. On the great importance of Pausanias for the whole history of Greek
art, see C. Robert, _Pausanias als Schriftsteller_, 1909, p. 1.
[418] _Historia naturalis_, Bks. XXXIV-XXXVI (ed. Jex-Blake).
[419] This process has never been carried further nor with greater
insight than in Furtwaengler’s great work, _Meisterwerke der griech.
Plastik_, 1893.
[420] In his _Handbuch der Archaeologie der Kunst_, 3d ed., 1848, by F.
G. Welcker, p. 740.
[421] Chapter VII, _infra_, pp. 321 f.
[422] _Cf._ Furtwaengler-Urlichs, _Denkmaeler griech. und roem.
Skulptur_ (Handausgabe^3), 1911, p. 101.
[423] _Pro. Imag._, 11, pp. 490 f.: Ἀκούω ... μήδ’ Ὀλυμπίασιν ἐξεῖναι
τοῖς νικῶσι μείζους τῶν σωμάτων ἀνεστάναι τοὺς ἀνδριάντας, κ. τ. λ.;
Scherer, pp. 10 f.; _Bildw. v. Ol._, Textbd., p. 250.
[424] VI, 5.1. On the statue, see E. Preuner, _Ein delphisches
Weihgeschenck_, p. 26; for the recovered sculptured base, see _Bildw.
v. Ol._, Textbd., pp. 209 f.; Tafelbd., Pl. LV. 1-3. Polydamas won the
pankration in Ol. 93 (= 408 B. C.), but his statue was set up long
after, in the time of Lysippos: Afr.; Hyde, 47; Foerster, 279.
[425] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 146; _cf._ Scherer, pp. 10-11. He won in Ol. 77
(= 472 B. C.): P., VI, 6.1; _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde, 50; Foerster, 208.
[426] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 159 (renewed); _I. G. B._, 86. Eukles won in
Ols. (?) 90-93, (= 420-408 B. C.): P., VI, 6.2; Hyde, 52; Foerster, 297.
[427] The lost work of Aristotle is mentioned by Diogenes Laertios, V,
26. For the scholiast, see Boeckh, p. 158; and _F. H. G._, II, p. 183
(= Aristotle, fragm. 264), IV., p. 307 (= Apollas, fragm. 7).
[428] Pollux, _Onomastikon_, II, 158, says that the cubit (πῆχυς)
contains 24 δάκτυλοι or 6 παλασταί; it was therefore 18.25 inches and
the finger 0.7 inch long. The Solonian cubit of 444 mm. gives 17.53
inches, the finger .73 inch, which makes Diagoros’ statue 6 feet 1.75
inches tall.Though the cubit was later lengthened to about 2 feet,
the old size was retained for measuring wood and stone: _cf._ Boeckh,
_Metrologische Untersuchungen_, 1838, p. 212.
[429] Scherer, p. 11, gave its height as 6 feet and 5 inches.
[430] Diagoras won in Ol. 79 (= 464 B. C.): P., VI, 7.1; Hyde, 59;
Foerster, 220; _cf._ _Inschr. v. Ol._, 151 (renewed); Damagetos in Ols.
82-3 (= 452-448 B. C.): _Oxy. Pap._; P., VI, 7.1; Hyde, 62; Foerster,
253; _cf._ _Inschr. v. Ol._, 152.
[431] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 165 (renewed); he won Ol. 82 (= 452 B. C.):
_Oxy. Pap._; P., VI, 13.6; Hyde, 115; Foerster, 376.
[432] _E. g._, _Inschr. v. Ol._, nos. 147-8, Tellon, who won the boys’
boxing match in Ol. 77 (= 472 B. C.): _Oxy. Pap._; P., VI, 10.9; Hyde,
102; Foerster, 237; _ibid._, 155 (renewed), Hellanikos, boy boxer, who
won in Ol. 89 (= 424 B. C.): P., VI, 7.8; Hyde, 65; Foerster, 263;
_ibid._, 158, boxer Damoxenidas, who won some time between Ols. 95
and 100 (= 400 and 380 B. C.): P., VI, 6.3; Hyde, 54; Foerster, 319;
_ibid._, 164, Xenokles, boy wrestler, who won some time between Ols.
(?) 94 and 100 (= 404 and 380 B. C.): P., VI, 9.2; Hyde, 85; Foerster,
308; _ibid._, 177, Telemachos, chariot victor some time between Ols.
(?) 115 and 130 (= 320 and 260 B. C.): P., VI, 13.11; Hyde, 122;
Foerster, 513.
[433] _E. g._, _Inschr. v. Ol._, 182, Thrasonides, who won κέλητι
πωλικῷ in the third century B. C.
[434] Furtw., _Mp._, p. 246, fig. 99; _Mw._, p. 447, fig. 69. See p.
155.
[435] See Chapter VI., _infra_, p. 295.
[436] _H. N._, XXXIV, 65.
[437] _Supra_, p. 28 and n. 1; _Bildw. v. Ol._, Textbd., pp. 216
f.; Tafelbd., Pl. LVI, 2-4; _cf._ Furtwaengler, _50stes Berl.
Winckelmannsprogr._, 1890, pp. 147 f.; _cf._ _infra_, Ch. VII, pp.
324-5, _c. d. e._
[438] _Bildw. v. Ol._, Textbd., pp. 29 f; Tafelbd., Pl. VI, 1-4, 9-10;
_cf._ _infra_, pp. 162-3.
[439] See _Inschr. v. Ol._, pp. 234-5; _Bronz. v. Ol._, Textbd., pp.
10-12; _cf._ _infra_, p. 322 and notes 1-7.
[440] _Bronz. v. Ol._, Textbd., pp. 10-11; Tafelbd., Pl. II, 2, 2_a_;
F. W., no. 323; etc.
[441] _Bronz. v. Ol._, Textbd., p. 12; Tafelbd., Pl. IV, 5, 5a; F. W.,
325.
[442] Furtw.-Urlichs, _Denkmaeler_, p. 104. On nudity and athletics,
see the article by Furtwaengler, Die Bedeutung der Gymnastik in der
griech. Kunst, in _Saemann’s Monatschr. fuer paedagog. Reform._, 1905;
W. Mueller, _Nacktheit und Entbloessung in der alt-orient. und aelteren
griech. Kunst_, Diss. inaug., Leipsic, 1906.
[443] The boxer Euryalos “first put a cincture (ζῶμα) about him,” in
his bout with Epeios: Iliad, XXIII, 683. See also XXIII, 710; Od.,
XVIII, 67 and 76.
[444] _E. g._, wrestlers on a black-figured amphora in the Vatican:
_J. H. S._, XXV, 1905, p. 288, fig. 24; boxers, runners, and a jumper
on a b.-f. stamnos in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris (no. 252):
Gardiner, p. 418, fig. 142, from de Ridder, _Cat. des vases peints_, I,
p. 160.
[445] _H. N._, XXXIV, 18.
[446] Ph., 17. This mantle was called τρίβων—the “worn,” hence was thin
and coarse; Hermann-Bluemner, _Griech. Privatalt._, p. 175; etc.
[447] P., I, 44.1; Eustath., on Iliad, XXIII, 683, p. 1324, 12 f.
Dionys. Hal., _Antiq. Rom._, VII, 72, says that it was the Spartan
Akanthos, who won in a running race, _i. e._, δόλιχος, in Ol. 16; so
also Afr.; see P., V, 8.6; Foerster, 17. Orsippos won the stade-race
in Ol. 15: Afr.; Eustath., _l. c._; Dionys., _l. c._ Foerster, 16. But
Didymos, schol. on Iliad, XXIII, 683, says that Orsippos won in Ol.
32 (= 652 B. C.); similarly _Etym. magn._, p. 242, _s. v._ γυμνάσια;
however, Boeckh, _Kleine Schriften_, IV, p. 173, has shown that Ol.
15 is right. Isidoros, in a confused passage, _Orig._, XVIII, 17.2,
says that athletes were early girded and dropped the loin-cloth in
consequence of a runner getting weary, whence a decree of the time of
the archon Hippomenes at Athens (Ol. 14.2) allowed athletes to contend
nude; the same story is told in the _Schol. Venet._ on the Iliad,
XXIII, 683; see Foerster, 16.
[448] _A. G._, App. 272; Cougny, _Anth. Pal._, 1890, III (_App. nov._),
p. 4, no. 24; P., I, 44.1, says that his tomb was near that of Koroibos.
[449] _C. I. G._, I, 1050 (with Boeckh’s commentary on the loin-cloth);
_C. I. G. G. S._, 52; Kaibel, _Epigr. Gr., ex lapid. conl._, 1878, no.
843; Frazer, II, p. 538. The schol. on Thukyd., I, 6, quotes four lines
of it. The name was spelled Orrippos in the Megarian dialect.
[450] Ph., 17. The story is told also by P., V, 6.7-8. Peisirhodos won
in Ol. (?) 88 (= 428 B. C.): P., VI, 7.2; Hyde, 63; Foerster, 314.
This brings the change near the end of the fifth century B. C. For the
spelling of the name of the victor, see Foerster, _l. c._
[451] I. 6. Here the historian is speaking of athletes in general;
Dionysios, VII, 72 and P., I, 44.1, speak only of runners.
Scherer, p. 20, n. 1 (following Krause, I, pp. 405 and 501, n. 18)
thought that the words of Thukydides (τὸ δὲ πάλαι) referred to the
time antedating Ol. 15, and not later, and concluded that in wrestling
(introduced in Ol. 18 = 708 B. C.) and boxing (introduced in Ol. 23 =
688 B. C.) the contestants were always nude. Boeckh, however, rightly
concluded that the historian meant that in Ol. 15 only the runners laid
off the loin-cloth, while other athletes did so just before his day:
_C. I. G._, I, p. 554.
[452] _De Rep._, 452 D. He says that the custom of nudity was
introduced first by the Cretans and then by the Spartans.
[453] Thus von Mach says (p. 240): “They were dedicatory statues
representing events that had taken place in honor of the gods,” and
adds that on such occasions persons were draped, except where such
drapery would cause inconvenience, _i. e._, in gymnastic contests.
[454] See Gardiner, p. 465, fig. 172.
[455] _E. g._, the statue in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome:
Helbig, _Fuehrer_, II, no. 973 (fig. 29, p. 557, restored); _Guide_,
597 (fig. 28); Joubin, p. 134, fig. 40; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 536.6;
_B. Com. Rom._, XVI, 1888, Pls. XV, XVI, 1, 2, (two views) and XVIII
(restored), pp. 335-365 (G. Ghirardini).
[456] Pollux, III, 155, wrongly states that runners wore soft leathern
boots (ἐνδρομίδες); these never appear on vases, as Krause, I, p. 362
and n. 5, and Gardiner, p. 273, point out, and were the usual footwear
of messengers. _Cf._ Mueller, _Arch. d. Kunst_, §363, 6.
[457] At Ephesos in Thukydides’ day: III, 104; earlier on Delos:
Thukyd., _ibid._, and Homeric Hymn to the Delian Apollo, 146 f. Maidens
and youths wrestled in the gymnasia on Chios: Athenæus, XIII, 20 (p.
566 e.); _cf._ Boeckh, _C. I. G._, II, text to no. 2214.
[458] On athletic contests for women in Sparta, see Plutarch,
_Lykourgos_, 14; Xen., _de Rep. lac._, I, 4. Aristoph., _Lysistr._, 80
f., says that the beauty and color of the Lakonian woman Lampito came
from gymnastic exercises.
[459] P., V, 6.7. He says that those who broke the Elean rule were
thrown from Mount Typaion (a rock south of the river). Their exclusion
was doubtless due to a religious taboo and not to modesty; Gardiner, p.
47. P., VI, 20.9, says that the restriction did not include maidens.
As there is no other reference about unmarried girls at Olympia, it is
probable that girls were not admitted; _cf._ Krause, _Olympia_, p. 54
and n. 9.
[460] _E. g._, Kyniska, P., VI, 1.6, and other Spartan victresses, III,
8.1; Euryleonis, who won in a two-horse chariot-race in Ol. (?) 103
(= 368 B. C.): P., III, 17.6; Foerster, 344; Belistiche, mistress of
Ptolemy Philadelphus, was the first to win συνωρίδι πώλων in Ol. 129 (=
264 B. C.): P., V, 8.11; Foerster, 443; Theodota, daughter of the Elean
Antiphanes, won ἅρματι πωλικῷ in the first century B. C.: _Inschr. v.
Ol._, 203; Foerster, 547.
[461] P., VI, 20.9. The inscribed marble base of a statue of one of
these priestesses has been found at Olympia: see _Inschr. v. Ol._, 485.
[462] See P., V, 6.7-8.
[463] However, we do not know if they were held in the same year as
that of the Olympic festival, or at what time of the year. See L.
Weniger, _Klio, Beitraege zur alten Geschichte_, V, 1905, pp. 22 f.
[464] P., V, 162-4. These πίνακες were probably iconic (portrait)
paintings. Holes have been found on columns of the Heraion to which
they may have been attached. On the girls’ race, see B. B., text to no.
521 (Arndt).
[465] It is a marble copy of an original bronze which is generally
dated about 470 B. C., because of archaic reminiscences in the head.
It represents a girl of about 14 years. See Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I,
no. 364; _Guide_, 378, and references; F. W., 213; Bulle, pp. 304 f.
Overbeck, II, p. 475, refers it to the school of Pasiteles. It is
pictured in B. B., no. 521; Bulle, 142; Baum., III, p. 2111, fig. 2362;
Springer-Michaelis, p. 224, fig. 412; von Mach, 73; Amelung, _Museums
of Rome_, I, fig. 74; Reinach, _Rép._, I, 527.6; Clarac, Pl. 864, 2199.
A similar statue is the torso in Berlin: _Beschr. der Skulpt._, no.
229; and _cf._ Kekulé, _Annali_, XXXVI, 1865, p. 66 (who points out the
resemblance of the head of the Vatican statue to that of the figure by
Stephanos, Pl. 12); Clarac, Pl. 864, 2200. The height of the Vatican
statue is given by Bulle as 1.56 meters. _Cf._ also a statuette of a
similar girl runner from Dodona: Rayet, I, Pl. 17, 3.
[466] However, B. Schroeder believes that it is merely a victorious
danseuse, and gives several examples of dancers from vase-paintings and
the lesser arts: _R. M._, XXIV, 1909, pp. 109 ff. (figs. 1-3). In all
of these lively motion is expressed and the free foot is raised high
from the ground. When the curious little plat under the statue’s right
foot (perhaps intended to represent the starting-stone at the stadion)
is removed, the position of the statue does not fit the dance; see
Bulle, p. 304, for discussion of this starting-stone.
[467] VIII, 48.2; _cf._ Plut., _Quaest. conviv._, VIII, 4, I, (p. 982).
[468] Bulle compares it with the Tuebingen hoplite-runner (Fig. 42)
ready to start, though the quieter pose of the Vatican statue befits a
girl rather than the impetuous energy of the man.
[469] On the Διονυσίαδες, see P., III, 13.7; Hesychios, _s. v._; _cf._
Theokr., XVIII, 22; Plut., _Lycurgus_, 14; Pauly-Wissowa, _s. v._
_agones_, I, p. 847; Reisch, p. 46, n. 4. Pauly-Wissowa, _s. v._ χιτών
(III, 2, p. 2314) shows that the use of the chiton closed on one side
was a Dorian, and especially a Spartan, custom.
[470] On the running race at Kyrene, _cf._ Boeckh, _Explic. ad Pind._,
_Pyth._, IX, p. 328. Plato, in his _de Leg._, VIII, 833, D, E, ordained
for girls the three running races (στάδιον, δίαυλος, and δόλιχος); the
youngest girls should run nude, the others (from 13 to 18) suitably
dressed.
[471] Suet., _Domitian_, 4; Dio Cassius, LXVII, 8.
[472] Arndt believes it is Myronian in character: B. B., text to 521.
[473] See Waldstein, _J. H. S._, I, 1880, pp. 170 f. On the style of
wearing the hair in Greece, see the following works: K. O. Mueller,
_Handbuch d. Archaeol. d. Kunst_^3, pp. 474 f; Bluemner, _Leben u.
Sitten der Griechen_, I, pp. 76 f.; _Home Life of the Ancient Greeks_
(transl. of preceding, by A. Zimmern), 1893, pp. 64 f; Dar.-Sagl., _s.
v._ _coma_ (Pottier), I, 2, pp. 1355 f.; Pauly-Wissowa, VII, 2, pp.
2109 ff. (Bremer); Baum., I, pp. 615 f; Guhl-Koner-Engelmann, _Das
Leben d. Gr. u. Roem._^6, 1893, pp. 297 f; Amelung, _Gewandung d. Gr.
u. Roem._, 1903; Helbig, _Atti della R. Accad. dei Lincei_, Ser. III,
vol. V., pp. 1 f. (for the Homeric age).
[474] _Cf._ the recurring epithet of Homer, κάρη κομόωντες Ἀχαῖοι;
Helbig, _Das homerische Epos_^2, p. 236, n. 3; for examples of long
hair in the epic, _ibid._, pp. 236 f. That the Homeric hair fell free
over the shoulders and not in any conventional order has been proved
against Helbig by H. Hofmann, _Jb. f. cl. Philol._, Supplbd., XXVI,
1900, pp. 182 f.
[475] Eurip., _Bacchae_, 455; Aristotle, _de Physiogn._, 3, p. 38;
pseudo-Phokylides, 212.
[476] Aristoph., _Equit._, 580 and _cf._ 1121; _Nubes_, 14; _Lysistrata_,
561; etc.
[477] Od., IV, 198; Euripides, _Alkestis_, 818-19; Aristoph., _Plut._,
572; Plato, _Phaedo_, 89 C; Athenæus, XV, 16 (p. 675 a); Hdt., I, 82;
etc.
[478] Aristoph., _Aves_, 911.
[479] Ph., _Imag._, II, 32; Lucian, _Dial. meretr._, V, 3 (p. 290); etc.
[480] Xen., _de Rep. lac._, Ch. XI, 3; _cf._ Plut., _Apothegm. reg. et
imperat._, p. 754; and see Aristotle, _Rhet._, I, 9, p. 1397 a, 28;
Plut., _Lysandros_, I; _Lykourgos_, 22; etc.
[481] Hdt., VII, 208.
[482] Aristoph., _Aves_, 1281-2: Lysias, XVI, 18; Lucian, _Auctio
vitarum_, 2 (Pythagoreans).
[483] Pollux, VI, 3.22; VIII, 9.107; Athenæus, XI, 88 (p. 494 f.):
Hesychios, _s. v._ κουρεῶτις and οἰνιστήρια; Photius, _Lex._, p. 321.
[484] Aischyl., _Choeph._, 6; P., I, 37.3; at Delphi, Dio Chrys.,
_Or._, XXXV, p. 67 R.
[485] Eurip., _Bacchae_, 455.
[486] Κρωβύλος and κόρυμβος are etymologically the same word: see
Prellwitz, _Etymolog. Woerterbuch d. griech. Sprache_. It used to be
assumed that κόρυμβος referred to the similar coiffure of young girls.
On the κρωβύλος, see the following: K. O. Mueller, _op. cit._^3, p.
476, 5; _id._, _Die Dorier_, II, 266; Conze, _Nuove memorie dell’
instituto archeol._, pp. 408 f.; Helbig, _Comment. philolog. in honorem
Mommseni_, 1877, pp. 616 f., and _Rhein. Mus._, XXXIV, 1879, pp. 484
f.; Schreiber, Der altattische Krobylos, _A. M._, VIII, 1883, pp.
246-273, and Pls. XI., XII.; _id._, IX, 1884, pp. 232-254 and Pls. IX,
X; and after him, Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, p. 644, Collignon, I, p. 363,
and de Villefosse, _Mon. Piot_, I, 1894, p. 62; Klein, _Gesch. d. gr.
Kunst_, I, p. 255; Studniczka, Krobylos und Tettiges, _Jb._, XI, 1896,
pp. 248-291. Pauly-Wissowa, _l. c._, pp. 2120 f.; Dar.-Sagl., I, 2,
pp. 1357-59 and 1571; etc. That the term κρωβύλος represented a way of
wearing the hair and not a part of the hair has been proved by Hauser:
_Jh. oest. arch. Inst._, 1906, Beiblatt, pp. 87 f. On other methods of
dressing the hair, see Pauly-Wissowa, _l. c._, pp. 2112 f.
[487] _Ap._ Athen., XII, 30 (p. 525).
[488] _Ibid._, 5 (p. 512 c).
[489] I, 6; _cf._ Aristophanes, _Nubes_, 984 and schol.; _Equit._, 1331.
[490] See fragm. of Nikolaos of Damascus, (perhaps from the _Lydiaka_
of Xanthos), _F. H. G._, III, p. 395, fragm. 62.
[491] See Krause, p. 541, n. 6.
[492] See _Ant. Denkm._, I, 1886, Pl. VIII, 3 b; etc.
[493] See hero reliefs in _A. M._, II, 1877, Pls. XX-XXV. On early
Corinthian vases, men are represented regularly with long hair.
[494] _E. g._, on the bust of Apollo in the Glyptothek, Munich: von
Mach, 449 (left); on the bearded man (Dionysos?) in the British Museum:
_id._, 450 (right); and on the Apollo of Naples: _id._, 448: On the
latter head the narrow band of the former two examples has become very
broad.
[495] _Cf._ Waldstein, _op. cit._, p. 177.
[496] _Mw._, pp. 67 (on statues of Zeus, hair reaching the shoulders,
a style later becoming typical of that god); p. 407 (the Argive school
gave short hair to heads of Zeus); _Mp._, pp. 42 and 118; _cf._ _Mw._,
p. 273.
[497] _Mw._, p. 249. Furtwaengler gives an example of a short-haired
Apollo of the school of Euphranor, _ibid._, p. 590.
[498] _Mp._, p. 16. _E. g._, the Florentine gem: Furtwaengler, _Antike
Gemmen_, 1900, Pl. XXXIX, no. 29.
[499] Pp. 444 f.
[500] A good example of this is seen on the _Apollo of Tenea_ (Pl. 8 A).
[501] Bulle, Pl. 225. He dates it in the middle of the sixth century B.
C.
[502] _H. N._, XXXIV, 16 (Jex-Blake’s transl.) The Latin of the last
portion of this passage runs: _Olympiae, ubi omnium qui vicissent
statuas dicari mos erat, eorum vero qui ter ibi superavissent ex
membris ipsorum similitudine expressa, quas iconicas vocant._
[503] Hirt, _Ueber das Bildniss der Alten_, 1814-15, p. 7; Visconti,
_Iconographie grecque_ (1st ed. Paris 1808, Milan, 1824-26), Discours
prelim., p. VIII, n. 4. They argued from Lucian’s _pro Imag._, 11, a
passage already discussed _supra_, p. 45 and n. 3.
[504] Scherer, pp. 9 f., and especially p. 13; Lessing, _Laokoön_, II,
13, made Pliny’s words a text for a famous passage.
[505] For the latest discussion of Pliny’s passage, see _Inschr. v.
Ol._, pp. 236 and 295-6 (the latter in reference to the inscribed base
of the statue of Xenombrotos to be discussed a few lines _infra_).
[506] Klein, quoted by Jex-Blake, p. 14, footnote to line 7, believes
Pliny’s statement apocryphal, an idea escaping all scholars except,
perhaps, Bluemner in his commentary on the _Laokoön_ (p. 503).
Evidently Pliny, or his source, is explaining the discrepancy between
ideal and portrait statues as the result of an improbable rule, since
the ancients applied little historical criticism to art, and hence did
not distinguish between works representing types and those representing
individuals. Dio Chrysostom, in his treatise Περὶ κάλλους (_Orat._,
XXI, 1, p. 501 R), tries to explain the difference between early and
late statues on the ground of physical degeneration in the latter.
[507] _Inschr. v. Ol_, 170. He won in Ol. (?) 83 (= 448 B. C.): P.,
VI, 14.12; Hyde, 133; Foerster, 327. This date follows the reasoning
of Robert, _O. S._, pp. 180 f. Pausanias, _l. c._, mentions another
monument of the victor, the inscribed base of which has been found:
_Inschr. v. Ol._, 154, though Dittenberger wrongly refers it to
Damasippos: Foerster, 812; Hyde, pp. 53-4. The same authority refers
no. 170 to the middle of the fourth century B. C., or a couple
of decades later, because of the lettering and orthography. The
monument of no. 170 must, therefore, have been set up long after the
victory—about a century later.
[508] Dittenberger, _Inschr. v. Ol._, p. 296, compares two other
inscriptions with no. 170, viz, no. 174 (in which the words ὧδε στάς
occur) and _C. I. G. G. S._, I, 2470, l. 3 (where the words τοίας ἐκ
προβολᾶς occur). However, as he says, these two refer to the poses
of the statues of gymnic victors and not to portraits. Pausanias
frequently uses the word εἰκών for ἀνδριάς (_e. g._, III, 18.7) of a
victor, but this seems to be no indication of a portrait statue.
[509] _Cf._ Dittenberger, _op. cit._, p. 296. Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, p.
530, think the case of Xenombrotos may simply be exceptional.
[510] VI, 3.11-12; he was three times victor in running races in Ols.
(?) 95, (?) 97, and 99 (= 400, 392, 384 B. C.); the latter date is
attested by Afr.: Hyde, 33; Foerster, 307, 315, 316. For the epigram on
the base of one of these statues, see _A. G._, XIII, 15.
[511] VI, 4.1; he was three times victor in the pankration in Ols. 104,
(?) 105, (?) 106 (= 364-356 B. C.): Hyde, 37; Foerster, 349, 353, 359.
[512] VI, 17.2; he was thrice victor in running races in Ols. 129, 130
(= 264, 260 B. C.): Afr.; Hyde, 173; Foerster, 440-2, 444-5.
[513] VI, 15.9; he was four times victor in the pankration, once in
hoplite running, and once in the δίαυλος, at unknown dates: Hyde, 149;
Foerster, 767-72. We can not say that his victories fell at a date when
iconic statues were in vogue.
[514] VI, 6.6; he won in Ols. 74, 76, 77 (= 484, 476-2 B. C.): _Oxy.
Pap._; Hyde, 56; Foerster, 185, 195, 207; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 144.
[515] _E. g._, VI, 13.3-4 and 8: Hermogenes, five times victor in
running races in Ols. 215, 216, 217 (= 81-89 A. D.): Afr.; Hyde, 111a;
Foerster, 654-6, 659-660, 662-4; Polites, three times victor in running
races in Ol. 212 (= 69 A. D.): Afr.; Hyde, 111b; Foerster, 648-50;
Leonidas, four times victor in running races in Ols. 154, 155, 156,
157 (= 164-152 B. C.): Afr.; Hyde, 111c; Foerster, 495-7, 498-500,
502-4, 507-9; Tisandros, four times victor in boxing in Ols. (?) 60-3
(= 540-528 B. C.), at a date too early for portraiture: Hyde, 119a;
Foerster, 115, 119, 123, 124. There are other examples from the early
fifth and the sixth centuries B. C.
[516] _Princ. Gr. Art_, Ch. XI (Portrait Sculpture), pp. 165 f.
[517] Gardner, p. 165, cites Bernouilli, _Griech. Ikonogr._, 1901, as
listing 26 known portraits of Euripides and 32 of Demosthenes, and
calls attention to the fact that 870 plates in the Bruckmann series,
_Griech. und Roem. Portraets_ (ed. Brunn und Arndt), from 1891 on,
are of Roman portraits. On the subject of Græco-Roman portraits, see
also Bernouilli, _Roem. Ikonogr._, 1882-94; Hekler, _Greek and Roman
Portraits_, 1912; and the works of E. Q. Visconti, now antiquated:
_Iconogr. gr._ (Paris, 1808) and _Iconogr. romana_ (Milan, 1818).
[518] XXXIV, 74. Pausanias mentions a portrait of Perikles without
naming the artist, I, 25.1; _cf._ I. 28.2. The inscribed base was found
in Athens in 1888: Ἀρχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον, 1889, pp. 36 f. (Lolling).
A terminal portrait of Perikles, extant in several copies, has been
identified as a copy of this work, _e. g._, one in the British Museum:
_B. M. Sculpt._, I, no. 549; Furtw., _Mp._, Pl. VII, opp. p. 118
(profile, fig, 46, p. 119); Hekler, _op. cit._, Pl. 4 a.; F. W., 481.
Another replica is in the Vatican: Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, 276, and
Nachtraege, II, p. 471; Visconti, _Iconogr. gr._, I, Pl. XV; B. B.,
156; Hekler, _op. cit._, Pl. 4 b. However, Hitz.-Bluemn., I, p. 307,
_ad loc._ Paus., think that the word ἀνδριάς used by Pausanias can not
apply to a terminal bust; Furtw., _Mp._, p. 117, n. 4, says that the
word does not necessarily mean a whole statue. _Cf._ Bernouilli, _Jb._,
XI, 1896, pp. 107 f.; Furtw., _Mp._, pp. 117 f.
[519] See _I. G. B._, 62, 63.
[520] _Philopseudes_, 18 f.
[521] Αὐτοανθρώπῳ ὅμοιον, §18.
[522] A good example of a Roman copy (from the age of Hadrian) of an
original iconic athlete statue in bronze from the end of the fourth
century B. C., is a bearded head in the Museo Chiaramonti; its swollen
ears and the deep furrow in the hair for the metal crown show that it
is from the statue of a victor. See Amelung, _Vat._, I, p. 483, no. 257
and Tafelbd., I, Pl. 50; Arndt-Bruckmann, _Gr. und Roem. Portr._, Pls.
223-4.
[523] XXXV, 153. Jex-Blake, p. 176, justly remarks that this invention
had nothing to do with the custom of taking death-masks.
[524] Xen., _Symp._, IV, 17: θαλλοφόρους γὰρ τῇ Ἀθηνᾷ τοὺς καλοὺς
γέροντας ἐκλέγονται κ. τ. λ.; _cf._ Aristoph., _Vesp._, 544, and
Athen., XIII, 20 (p. 565) and scholion.
[525] XIII, 90 (p. 609 e, f); here he quotes a history of Arkadia by
Nikias.
[526] Athen., XIII, 20 (pp. 565 f and 566 a); _cf._, Theophr., _apud_
Athen., XIII, 90 (pp. 609 f, 610 a).
[527] Athen., XIII, 90 (p. 610a): here Athenæus is also quoting
Theophrastos. In XIII, 20 (p. 565), he quotes Herakleides Lembos as
saying that in Sparta the handsomest man and woman were especially
honored.
[528] Hdt., V, 47; Eustath. _ad_ Iliad, III, p. 383, 43; Foerster, 138.
[529] P., IX, 22.1.
[530] P., VII, 24.4; _cf._, VIII, 47.3, for a similar custom at Tegea.
[531] See O. Mueller, _Die Dorier_^1, 1824, II, p. 238 (quoted by
Krause, I, p. 37, n. 19). For references to contests of beauty in
Greece, see _ibid._, pp. 33-38.
[532] On this subject, see the recent essay by W. H. Goodyear,
Lessing’s Essay on the Laocoön and its Influence on the Criticism of
Art and Literature, _Brooklyn Museum Quarterly_, Oct. 1917, pp. 228-9.
[533] Thus we have Polykleitos of Argos and Patrokles, perhaps his
brother; Naukydes of Argos and Daidalos of Sikyon, sons of Patrokles;
the younger Polykleitos—who called himself an Argive—the brother of
Naukydes; Alypos of Sikyon, the pupil of Naukydes; etc. Statues by all
these sculptors except Patrokles are known to have stood in Olympia.
[534] _Hbk._^2, p. 254.
[535] His criticism of painting occurs in _Poet._, 1448a, 5,
1450a, 26, and _Polit._, V, 1340a, 35. In _Eth_., VI, 1141a, 10,
he says that Pheidias and Polykleitos were masters in marble and
bronze respectively. For a discussion of Aristotle’s æsthetics of
painting and sculpture, see M. Carroll, in _Publ. of Geo. Washington
University_, Philol. and Lit. Series, I, 1 (Nov., 1905), pp. 1-10;
and for both Aristotle and Plato on art, see Kalkman, _50stes Berl.
Winckelmannsprogr._, 1890 (Proport. des Gesichts), pp. 3 f. and notes.
[536] I, 5, 1361b; Oppian, _Kyneget._, I, 89-90, speaks of the
similarly well-developed bodies of hunters.
[537] _Mem._, III, 10.6-8. For his visit to the painter Parrhasios, see
_ibid._, 10.1-5.
[538] Following the suggestion of Klein, II, p. 143, and W. L.
Westermann, _Class. Rev._, XIX, 1905, pp. 323-5. The latter gives
several examples of similarly shortened forms of names and believes the
passage in Xenophon emphasizes the fact that Polykleitos was employed
at Athens. Plato frequently mentions Polykleitos by his full name: _e.
g._, _Protag._, 328 C (sons of Polykleitos), 311 C (Polykleitos and
Pheidias). P. Gardner justly observes that the statues of Polykleitos
“however beautiful, are scarcely life-like:” _Prince. Gk. Art._, p. 15,
n. 1; _Grammar_, p. 17.
[539] II, 17: τὰ σκέλη μὲν παχύνονται, τοὺς ὤμους δὲ λεπτύνονται, κ.
τ. λ.
[540] See schol. on Plato, _Amatores_, p. 135 E; _cf._ Epiktetos,
_Encheir._, Ch. 29.
[541] P., VI, 10.5; _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde, 97; Foerster, 240; _cf._ Krause,
_Olympia_, pp. 302 f.
[542] His date is uncertain: P., VI, 15.9; Hyde, 149; Foerster, 767-772.
[543] P., VI, 3.2; he won at Olympia some time between Ols. (?) 99 and
102 (= 384 and 372 B. C.): Hyde, 23; Foerster, 335.
[544] P., I, 29.5: Hdt., VI, 92; IX, 75; _cf._ Krause, I, pp. 495-6.
[545] _E. g._, Phaÿllos of Kroton was famed for his fleetness, his
jumping, and his throwing the diskos. See Aristoph., _Acharn._, 212;
_Vespes_, 1206; _A. G._, App. 297; _cf._ Hdt., VIII, 47; P., X, 9.2. He
won at Delphi only.
[546] _E. g._, Myron at Delphi: Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 57; Alkamenes,
_ibid._, XXXIV, 72; etc.
[547] 656 E, 657 A.
[548] Pliny, _H. N._, XXXVI, 39. These works were probably critical as
well as descriptive.
[549] _E. g._, of Pasiteles, XXXVI, 39; of Arkesilaos, XXXVI, 41; of
Koponios, _ibid._
[550] 18(70). In this passage he also gives similar judgments on
several painters. On Cicero on art, see Grant Showerman, _Proceed.
Amer. Philol. Ass’n_, XXXIV, 1903, pp. xxxv f. He shows that Cicero’s
references to art proceed from his instinct as a stylist and not from
any enthusiasm for art itself.
[551] _Imag._, 6, p. 464. His eclectic statue is made up of works by
Praxiteles, Alkamenes, Pheidias, and Kalamis.
[552] _Rhetorum praeceptor_, 9-10. He spells the two first names
Ἡγησίας, Κράτης.
[553] XXXVI, 37. For careful judgments of Pliny’s work, see Jex-Blake,
pp. xci f.: Kalkmann, _Die Quellen der Kunstgeschichte des Plinius_,
1898; Robert, _Archaeologische Maerchen_, 1886, pp. 28 f.; F.
Muenzer, _Hermes_, XXX, 1895, pp. 499 f. (and _Beitraege zur Kritik
der Naturgesch. des Plinius_, 1897); Botsford and Sihler, _Hellenic
Civilization_, 1915, pp. 551-8 (= Translation by Jex-Blake of Pliny,
XXXIV, 53-84 [sculptors], revised by E. G. Sihler); pp. 558-567 (=
Pliny, XXXV, 15, and 53-97 [painters], revised by E. G. S.). For short
estimate of Pliny’s work, see Mackail, _Latin Literatures_, 1895, p.
197.
[554] See his characterization of the great Greek painters and
sculptors in _Inst. Orat._, XII, Ch. 9.
[555] Also in the work of H. Stuart Jones, _Select Passages from
Anc. Writers Illustrative of the Hist. of Gk. Sculpt._, 1895; _cf._,
A history of classical writers on art from Xenokrates to Pliny, in
Jex-Blake, pp. xvi-xci; _cf._ Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, _Antigonos von
Karystos_ (Kiessling and Wilamowitz, _Philolog. Untersuchungen_, IV,
1881), pp. 7 f.; P. Gardner, _Principles of Greek Art_, Ch. II, pp. 13
f. (Ancient Critics on Art); etc.
[556] _A. Pl._, 2; Bergk, _P. l. G._, III^4, no. 149, p. 498.
Theognetos won in Ol. 76 (= 476 B. C.): P., VI, 9.1; _Oxy. Pap._, Hyde,
83; Foerster, 193 and 193 N.
[557] _H. N._, XXXIV, 88. Kallias won in Ol. 77 (= 472 B. C.): P., VI,
6.1; _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde, 50; Foerster, 208; _Inschr. v. Ol._, no. 146.
[558] _Ibid._, XXXIV, 71.
[559] Kalamis made the horses and jockeys, Onatas the chariot: P., VI,
12.1; Hiero won twice in the horse-race and once in the chariot-race in
Ols. 76-78 (= 476-468 B. C.): _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde, 105; Foerster, 199,
209, 215.
[560] VI, 6.6. He won in Ols. 74, 76-7 (= 484, 476-472 B. C.): _Oxy.
Pap._; Hyde, 56; Foerster, 185, 195, 207.
[561] VI, 4.4. He won in Ols. 81 and 82 (= 456-452 B. C.): _Oxy. Pap._;
Hyde, 38; Foerster, 202, 203.
[562] VI, 9.3. He won in Ol. 83 (= 448 B. C.): _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde, 88:
Foerster, 285.
[563] V, 27.3.
[564] Bulle, p. 104, remarks that up to the present no single Roman
copy can be _proved_ to be that of an Olympic victor statue. This fact
must be constantly borne in mind.
[565] No. 6439; Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, pp. 299-300 and fig.;
_Ausgr. v. Ol._, V, Pls. XXI, XXII, and p. 14; _Funde v. Ol._, Pl.
XXIII, and p. 16; _Bronz. v. Ol._, Textbd., pp. 10-11; Tafelbd., Pl.
II, 2 and 2a; Boetticher, _Olympia_, Pl. XI, 1; Baum., p. 1104 00,
figs. 1296, a and b; F. W., no. 323; Bulle, 235 and fig. 154, on p.
501; von Mach, 482; B. B., 247.
[566] Furtw.-Wolters, _Beschr. d. Glyptothek_,^2 1910, no. 457, pp.
398 f.; Furtw., _Mp._, p. 291; _Mw._, p. 507; F. W., no. 216; B. B.,
8; Bulle, 207 (front and side); Kekulé, _A. Z._, XLI, 1883, Pl. XIV,
3, p. 246; H. Schrader, _Jh. oest. arch. Inst._, 1911, p. 74; Hauser,
_R. M._, X, 1895, pp. 103 f. Kekulé, because of its similarity to the
_Apollo_ of the West Gable, derived it from the art of the Olympia
pediment sculptures; Flasch, _Verh. d. 29sten Philologenversamml._,
Innsbruck, 1874, p. 162, and Brunn, _Beschr. d. Glypt._^5, no. 302, and
_Sitzb. Muen. Akad._, 1892, p. 658, classed it as Polykleitan; Bulle
calls it Attic-Argive without Polykleitan influence, while Furtwaengler
finds it Polykleitan-Attic. The latter gives several replicas, two of
green and black basalt respectively, in the Museo delle Terme, and a
marble head in the Museo Chiaramonti, no. 475. Bulle gives the height
of the Munich head as 0.23 meter.
[567] Αἰδώς; _cf._ _decor_, applied to the work of Polykleitos by
Quintilian: _Inst. Orat._, XII, 9. 7-8; _cf._ also Vitruvius, _de
Arch._, I, 2.
[568] Furtw.-Urlichs, _Denkm. d. gr. und roem. Skulpt._, Hdausgabe,^3
1911, p. 102, n. 1. He adds that it is _das Ideal von Reinheit,
Unschuld, liebenswuerdig edler Groesse, eines der herrlichsten
griechischen Originale, die uns erhalten sind_. It is photographed
_ibid._, figs. 30, 31. In the _Beschr. d. Glypt._, p. 399, he says it
is _das edelste und vollendetste Werk, das die Glyptothek besitzt—ihr
kostbarster Schatz_, etc.
[569] Formerly in the Coll. Tyszkiewicz: B. B., 324, (two views);
Bulle, 206 (two views); von Mach, 481 (two views); _Mon. Piot_, I,
1894, pp. 77 f. (E. Michon) and Pls. X, XI; S. Reinach, _Têtes_, Pl. 72
and p. 58; Kalkmann, Prop. d. Gesichts, p. 27 (vignette); Collignon,
II, Frontispiece and p. 169; Gardner, _Sculpt._, Pl. XL; Furtw., _Mp._,
pp. 290-1 and Pl. XIV; _Mw._, p. 507. The best illustration of the head
is given by de Ridder, _Les Bronzes antiques du Louvre_, I, 1913, Pl. I
(and text p. 8, on no. 4). It is 0.33 meter in height (Bulle).
[570] Preface to Furtw., _Mp._, p. xiii.
[571] So Furtw., _l. c._; Bulle, however, sees in it only Attic work
and finds it slightly coarser and harder than the Munich head described.
[572] Invent. 5633; _Bronzi d’Ercol._, I, 73, 74; D. Comparetti e G. de
Petra, _La Villa Ercolanese dei Pisoni_, 1883, XI, 1; B. B., 323 (two
views); Rayet, II, Pl. 67; Furtw., _Mp._, p. 291; _Mw._, p. 508; the
latter believes that it, like the preceding two heads, is Polykleitan
and Attic.
[573] _Bedeutung der Gymnastik in d. gr. Kunst_, 1905; _cf._ also
Gardner, _Sculpt._, p. 23, and _Hbk._, p. 215.
[574] Furtw.-Urlichs, _Denkmaeler_, already cited, p. 63, n. 3.
(Translated under the title _Greek and Roman Sculpture_ by H. Taylor,
1914; p. 119.)
[575] See F. W. G. Foat, Anthropometry of Greek Statues, _J. H. S._,
XXXV, 1915, pp. 225 f. (p. 226).
[576] Plato, _Phileb._, 64 E, regarded μετριότης and συμμετρία as
qualities of beauty and virtue; _cf._ Aristotle, _Metaphys._, X, 3.7,
and _Nicom. Eth._, V, 5.14, 1133b. Vitruvius, _de Arch._, I, 2, makes
symmetry in architecture a quality of _eurythmia: Item symmetria est ex
ipsius operis membris conveniens consensus ex partibusque separatis ad
universae figurae speciem ratae partis responsus_.
[577] I, 2: _Haec [eurythmia] efficitur, cum membra operis convenientia
sunt, altitudinis ad latitudinem, latitudinis ad longitudinem, et ad
summam omnia respondent suae symmetriae_; _cf._ III, 1; Lucian, _pro
Imag._, 14 (ῥυθμίζειν τὸ ἄγαλμα); Clem. Alex., _Paedagog._, 3.11 and 64
(εὐρυθμὸς καὶ καλὸς ἀνδριάς); Xen., _Mem._, III, 10.9 (ῥυθμός, of
corselets); Plut., _de Educ. puer._, 11 (τῶν σωμάτων εὐρυθμία); Diod.,
I, 97. 6 (ῥυθμὸς ἀνδριάντων, _i. e._, rhythmic order or grace in
statuary): _id._, II, 56.4.
[578] Vitruv., III, 1: _, quae graece ἀναλογία dicitur.
Proportio est ratae partis membrorum in omni opere totiusque
commodulatio, ex qua ratio efficitur symmetriarum._
[579] _H. N._, XXXIV, 65.
[580] _Op. cit., _e. g._ _Op. cit._, XXXV, 67 and 128.
[581] Ueber die Kunsturteile bei Plinius, _Ber. ueber d. Verhandl. d.
k. saechs. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Leipzig_, II, 1850, p. 131; _cf._ H. L.
Urlichs, _Ueber griech. Kunstschriftsteller_ (Diss. inaug., Wuerzburg,
1887).
[582] _Principles of Greek Art_, 1914, p. 20 (= _Grammar of Greek Art_,
1905, p. 22).
[583] Quoted by Gardner, _op. cit._, p. 22 (= _Grammar_, p. 23), from
two papers by H. Brunn, Ueber tektonischen Styl in der griech. Plastik
und Malerei, in _Sitzb. Muen. Akad._, 1883, pp. 299 f., 1884, pp. 507
f. Overbeck, I, pp. 266-277, explains rhythm in art as the _Ordnung
der Bewegung_, in accordance with the definition of Plato: τῇ δὴ τῆς
κινήσεως τάξει ῥυθμὸς ὄνομα εἴη: _de Leg._, 665 A.
[584] _H. N._, XXXIV, 58 (S. Q., 533): _Numerosior in arte quam
Polyclitus et in symmetria diligentior_. The interpretation of this
disputed passage depends, of course, on the meaning of _numerosior_,
and whether we accept the curious statement of the manuscript that
Myron surpassed Poykleitos in symmetry, or, by omitting the _et_
(with Sillig), make it mean just the contrary and in harmony with the
usual ancient view that symmetry was the salient characteristic of
Polykleitan art. The passage, then, would contrast the symmetry of
Polykleitos with the variety of Myron. This accords with Pliny’s use of
_numerosus_ elsewhere (_e. g._, XXXV, 130 and 138), which always refers
to number. See Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 275 (note).
[585] _Op. cit._, XXXIV, 65, he says: _Nova intactaque ratione
quadratas veterum staturas permutando_.
[586] _Op. cit._, XXXV, 67.
[587] VIII. I. 47.
[588] The Egyptians divided the front view of the body into 19 parts
(or 21 parts and a quarter, including the height of the head-dress):
Diod., 1, 98. See Lepsius, _Monum. funéraires de l’Égypte_ (figure,
reproduced in Dar.-Sagl, I, 2, p. 892, fig. 1125); _cf._ his _Descript.
de l’Égypte_, IV, LXII; Wilkinson, _History of Egypt_, p. 113, Pl. IV;
these references are given by Foat, _op. cit._, p. 225, n. 1.
[589] Vitruv., I, 2. However, in thus following the statement of the
Roman architect, it must be said that the attempt to recover and
establish such a canon in Greek architecture is still unproved. The
subject is complicated and has led to very different views. Thus,
while many scholars have defended the theory of the canon (_e. g._,
Pennethorne, _Geom. and Optics of Anc. Arch._, 1878; Penrose, in
Whibley, _Comp. to Gk. Stud._^1, 1905, pp. 220-1; Ferguson, _Hist.
Arch._, ed. 1887, I, p. 251; P. Gardner, _Princ. Gk. Art._, p. 21;
Statham, _Short Crit. Hist. Arch._, 1912, p. 130), others are opposed,
and believe that design in Greek architecture was a matter of feeling,
and that the orders were first reduced to formulæ in Roman days
(_e. g._, A. K. Porter, _Med. Arch._, 1909, I, 9; Goodyear, _Greek
Refinements, Studies in Temperamental Arch._, 1912, esp. p. 83, quoting
Joseph Hoffer from _Wiener Bauzeitung_, 1838). See on the subject a
recent article by my pupil, Dr. A. W. Barker, in _A. J. A._, XXII,
1918, pp. 1 f., in which the above and other references are given.
[590] Gardner, _Sculpt._, pp. 22-3, says: “Paradoxical as it may seem
at first sight, the very freedom of Greek sculpture is to a great
extent due to its close adherence to tradition.” He shows how the free
play of imagination depends on external conditions and tradition.
[591] _E. g._, Vitruv., I, 2; especially these words: _Ut in hominis
corpore e cubito, pede, palmo, digito, ceterisque particulis (partibus)
symmetria est eurythmiae qualitas_; also III, 1: _Pes vero altitudinis
corporis sextae_ <_partis_>; _cubitum quartae; pectus item quartae_,
etc. Also Philostr., _Imag._, Proem.; the third-century A. D. (?)
treatise called _de Physiognomia_; St. Augustine, _de Civ. Dei_, XV,
26. 1; the poet Martianus Capella, of the middle of the fifth century
A. D., who says, VII, 739: _septem corporis partes hominem perficiunt_;
etc.
[592] Die Proportionen des Gesichts in der griechischen Kunst (=
_53stes Berliner Wincklemanns programm_, 1893).
[593] _Gestalt des Menschen_, in _Verh. d. Berl. Anthrop. Gesell._,
1895. This work is based on the older investigations of C. Schmidt,
_Proportionsschluessel_, 1849, and of C. Carus, _Die Proportionslehre
der menschlichen Gestalt_, 1874. See also P. Richer, _Canon des
proportions du corps humain_, 1893; E. Duhousset, Proportions
artistiques et anthropométrie scientifique, _Gaz. B-A._, III, Pér. 3, 1
90, pp. 59 f.; E. Guillaume, art. Canon, _Dict. de l’Acad. des B-A._;
E. Gebhard, in Dar.-Sagl., I, 2, pp. 891-892; _cf._ Collignon, I, pp.
490 f.
[594] F. W. G. Foat, _op. cit._, offers a scheme or typical design,
based on wide data, which will serve as a universal basis for securing
facts about any statue under examination.
[595] On the influence of such canons of proportion on contemporary
artists, see Balcarres, _Evolution of Italian Sculpture_, p. 128.
[596] _Cf._ Vitruvius, quoted above. The scholion on Pindar, _Ol._,
VII, Argum., Boeckh, p. 158, speaks of πηχῶν τεσσάρων δακτύλων πέντε as
the height of the statue of Diagoras at Olympia, etc.
[597] Vitruvius, _de Arch._, VII, Praef., 14, lists writers who
_praecepta symmetriarum conscripserunt_. See V. Mortet, _Rev. Arch._,
Sér. IV, XIII, 1909, pp. 46 f, and figs. 1 and 2. In this discussion
of ancient canons he shows that the chief ratio was that of the head
to the height of the body; the proportion of 8 heads to the body was
that adopted by da Vinci and J. Cousin: 7 to 8 is found in the figures
of the Parthenon frieze; a little under 7 in the _Diadoumenos_ of
Polykleitos.
[598] See Furtw., _Mp._, pp. 49-52. As examples, he gives the statue of
Apollo from the Tiber now in the Museo delle Terme: _Mp._, pp. 50-51,
figs. 8 and 9; _cf._ _R. M._, 1891, pp. 302, 377 and Pls. X-XII; the
Mantuan _Apollo_: _cf._ _50stes Berliner Winckelmannsprogr._, p. 139,
n. 61 (for replicas); etc.
[599] For Polykleitos’ canon, see Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 55; _S. Q._,
953 f.; Furtw., _Mp._, p. 249.
[600] So Pliny, _op. cit._, XXXV, 128; _cf._ J. Six, _Jb._, XXIV, 1909,
pp. 7 f.
[601] _H. N._, XXXIV, 61; see Jex-Blake, p. XLVIII.
[602] _H. N._, XXXIV, 65.
[603] However, other fourth-century artists, notably Praxiteles, used
impressionism in the treatment of the hair: see Bulle, pp. 444 f.
[604] In XXXIV, 80, he mentions Menaichmos, who wrote on the toreutic
art probably in the fourth century B. C.; in XXXIV, 83 (_cf._ XXXV,
68), he mentions Xenokrates, of the school of Lysippos, who wrote books
on art; he is probably identical with an artist of the same name known
to us from inscriptions from Oropos and Elateia: _I. G. B._, 135, a, b
(Oropos), c (Elateia); _Arch. Eph._, 1892, 52 (Oropos); the identity
is doubted by Jex-Blake, p. xx, n. 2. In XXXIV, 84 (_cf._ XXXV, 68)
he speaks of Antigonos, who wrote on painting and who was employed
by Attalos I of Pergamon to work on the trophies of his victory
over the Gauls. For Antigonos as a writer on the criticism of art,
see Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, _Antigonos von Karystos_ (Kiessling and
Wilamowitz, _Philolog. Untersuchungen_, IV, 1881), Ch. I, pp. 7 f.
[605] _H. N._, XXXIV, 55. According to the exact words of Pliny, the
_Canon_ and the _Doryphoros_ were distinct works. It is probable,
however, that Pliny’s words conceal the same statue under two names,
his commentary on each coming from a different source: see Furtw.,
_Mp._, p. 229 and n. 4; _Mw._, p. 422 and n. 2; _cf._ Muenzer,
_Hermes_, XXX, 1895, p. 530, n. 1.
[606] Cicero, _Brut._, 86, 296. On the fame of the _Doryphoros_, see
_id._, _Orator_, 2.
[607] _Instit. Orat._, V, 12.21. In Philon’s treatise περὶ βελοποιϊκῶν,
IV, 2, we read: τὸ γὰρ εὖ παρὰ μικρὸν διὰ πολλῶν ἀριθμῶν ἔφη γίνεσθαι,
sc. Πολύκλειτος, (“Beauty,” he said, “was produced from a small
unit through a long chain of numbers”), a description which rightly
characterizes the _Doryphoros_. The system given by Vitruv., III, 1,
hardly agrees with Polykleitan statues and so has been connected by
Kalkmann, though on insufficient grounds, with the canon of Euphranor:
see _50stes Berlin Winckelmannsprogr._, 1890 (Proport. des Gesichts),
pp. 43 f.; _cf._ H. Stuart Jones, _op. cit._, p. 129.
[608] _Guida Museo Napoli_, no. 146; Collignon, I, Pl. XII, opp. p.
488; Bulle, 47 and analysis on pp. 97-102.
[609] Kalkmann, _op. cit._, p. 53, gives the height as 1.98-1.99 m.;
Bulle, p. 97 to no. 47, as 1.99 m.
[610] In Rayet, I, Text to Pl. 29; reproduced in _Études d’art antique
et moderne_, 1888, pp. 399 f.; _cf._ also Collignon, I, pp. 492 f. and
P. Gardner, _Principles of Greek Art_, pp. 21 f.
[611] _De plac. Hipp. et Plat._, 5.
[612] B. B., 321; Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, 956; _Guide_, 617; F. W., 215;
to be discussed _infra_, pp. 201-2.
[613] _Orat._, XXXI, 89 f. (614 R).
[614] In the present discussion we shall confine ourselves to the
assimilation of mortal types to those of athletic gods and heroes,
omitting the larger question of assimilation to divine types in
general. A good example of the latter is afforded by P. VIII, 9.7-8.
Here, in noting that the Mantineans worshipped Antinoos as a god by the
erection of a temple and the celebration of mysteries and games, he
says that images and paintings of the hero were in the Gymnasion there,
the latter Διονύσῳ μάλιστα εἰκασμέναι.
[615] Kabbadias, no. 218; _Rev. Arch._, III (1er Sér.), 1846, Pl. 53,
fig. 2; Ph. Le Bas, _Voyage archéologique_ (ed. Reinach), Pl. CXVIII,
p. 107; B. B., 18; von Mach, 191; F. W., 1220; Reinach., _Rép._, II, i,
149, 10.
[616] _Marbres et Bronzes_, p. 49.
[617] Kabbadias, no. 219.
[618] Formerly known as the _Antinous_: M. W., II, Pl. 28, 307; Clarac,
IV, Pl. 665, 1514; Reinach, _Rép._, I, 367,2 (with restored arms); von
Mach, no. 192; Amelung, _Vat._, II, no. 53 (pp. 132 f.) and Pl. 12; F.
W., no. 1218; Baum., I, pp. 675 f. and fig. 737.
[619] _B. M. Sculpt._, III, no. 1599 and Pl. IV; Clarac, IV, Pl. 664,
1539; Reinach, _Rép._, II, i, 149, 1; Springer-Michaelis, p. 317, fig.
567. A corresponding replica from Melos is described by F. W., 1219;
for a replica of the head (on a torso which does not belong to it) in
the Braccio Nuovo of the Vatican, see Amelung, _Vat._, I, no. 132 (p.
155) and Pl. 21; for others, see Koerte, _A. M._, III, 1878, pp. 98 f.
The height is given in _B. M. Sculpt._ as 6 ft. 7-1/2 in. (without the
plinth).
[620] Amelung, _Vat._, II, p. 656 and Pl. 61; Furtw., _Mw._, p. 361,
fig. 48. It is a marble copy of an original bronze of Myronian origin.
Its height is 1.98 meters (Amelung).
[621] Duetschke, IV, no. 416; M. W., II, Pl. 30, 329.
[622] _Ibid._, no. 416; Koerte, _A. M._, III, 1878, p. 350, no. 72.
[623] Duetschke, IV, no. 876; Clarac, 958, 2473; Conze, in _A. A._,
1867, pp. 105-6. Here Conze gives a list of which three reliefs and one
statue represent dead men as Hermes.
[624] Duetschke, IV, no. 46; Conze, _l. c._, p. 106 (mentioned in
preceding note).
[625] _E. g._, the well-known bust of the emperor Commodus with the
attributes of Hercules in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome: Helbig,
_Fuehrer_, I, 930; Baum., I, p. 398, fig. 432; Arndt-Bruckmann,
_Griech. u. roem. Portraets_, 230; Hekler, _Greek and Roman Portraits_,
1912, Pl. 270 a; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 583, 7.
[626] _Not. Scav._, 1885, p. 42; _Ant. Denkm._, I, I, 1886, Pl. V;
Bulle, 75 and fig. 27, p. 141; B. B., 246; Helbig, _Fuehrer_, II.,
1347, and references; Arndt-Bruckmann, _Griech. u. roem. Portraets_,
Pls. 358-360; Hekler, _Greek and Roman Portraits_, Pls. 82-4;
Collignon, II, p. 493, fig. 257; Murray, _Hbk._ Gr. _Archæol._, 1892,
pp. 305 f., fig. 100; Lanciani, _Ruins and Excavations of Anc. Rome_,
1897, Pl. on p. 303; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 548, 7; _cf._ Furtw.,
_Mp._, p. 364, n. 2, and _Mw._, p. 597, n. 3. The height of the statue
is 2.08 meters, or 2.37 meters to the hand (Bulle).
[627] _E. g._, Philip V, Perseus, Alexander Balas (who usurped the
Seleucid throne in 149 B. C.), Demetrios I (Soter), of Syria (who
reigned 162-150 B. C.), and Antiochos II, (Theos, who reigned 261-246
B. C.), have been suggested.
[628] See Imhoof-Blumer, _Portraetkoepfe auf ant. Muenzen hellenischer
und hellenisierter Voelker_, 1885, Pls. I, 6; III, 24; V, 21; VI, 29
and 31.
[629] A small replica of this famous statue may probably be seen in
the bronze statuette in the Nelidoff collection: Wulff, _Alexander mit
der Lanze_, 1898, Pls. I, II; Helbig, _Fuehrer_, II, p. 134, fig. 35.
On supposed replicas, see Bernouilli, _Das Bildniss Alex. d. Gr._, p.
107; and Th. Schreiber, Studien ueber das Bildniss Alex. d. Gr., _Abh.
d. philolog.-histor. Cl. d. k. saechs. Gesellsch. d. Wissensch._, XXI,
1903, no. III, pp. 100 f.
[630] Kabbadias, 235; Collignon, in _B. C. H._, XIII, 1889, p. 498 and
Pl. III; Bulle, 74.
[631] _Cf._ the _Farnese Herakles_, Bulle, 72; etc.
[632] Collignon, I, p. 253, fig. 122; see below, p. 119 and note 5.
[633] _E. g._, in the _Payne Knight_ bronze of the British Museum (_B.
M. Bronz._, no. 209 and Pl. 1) and the _Sciarra_ bronze (Collignon, I,
p. 321, fig. 161; _R. M._, II, 1887, Pls. IV, IVa, V), which will be
discussed in Ch. III, pp. 108, 119.
[634] He won Ol. (?) 80 (= 460 B. C.): P., VI, 4.11; Hyde, 45;
Foerster, 255; _Inschr. v. Ol._ 149. _Cf._ Furtw., _Mp._, pp. 249 f.;
_Mw._, pp. 452 f.
[635] _Mp._, p. 255; an almost exact copy of the Eleusis statue is in
the Museo Torlonia, no. 37.
[636] Froehner, _Les medaillons de l’Empire romain_, 1878, p. 123;
Furtw., _Mp._, _l. c._
[637] _Mp._, pp. 229 f., especially pp. 233 f.; _Mw._, pp. 422 f.,
especially pp. 426 f.
[638] On an Argive funerary relief: see _A. M._, III, 1878, pp. 287 f.
and Pl. XIII: this free adaptation of the _Doryphoros_ dates from the
middle of the fourth century B. C.; it will be treated later on in our
discussion of the _Doryphoros_.
[639] _Cf._ Ph., 16, (the palæstra of Hermes, the first known); Babr.,
48,5 (παλαιστρίτης θεός). A trainer of professional athletes was called
a γυμνάστης (a term sometimes applied to athletic gods): Xen., _Mem._,
II, 1.20; Plato, _de Leg._, 720 E; etc.
[640] _E. g._, _Suppl._, 189, 333; _Agam._, 513.
[641] As in Iliad, XV, 428; XVI, 500; XXIV, 1. Eustathius in a scholion
on the latter passage wrongly says that Aischylos called the ἀγοραῖοι
θεοί “ἀγώνιοι θεοί.”
[642] As in Hesychios, who says ἀγώνιοι θεοὶ = οἱ τῶν ἀγώνων προεστῶτες.
[643] 509, ὕπατος χώρας, “lord of Nemea.”
[644] _Ibid._, ὁ Πύθιος ἄναξ.
[645] 515.
[646] _E. g._ Plato, _de Leg._, 783 A; Pindar, _Isthm._, I, 60, _Ol._,
VI, 79, and _Pyth._, II, 10 (of Hermes); Soph., _Trach._, 26 (of Zeus,
the decider of contests); _C. I. G._, II, 1421 (of Hermes); _cf._ also
Simonides, quoted by Athenæus, XI, 90 (p. 490); Aischyl., _fragm._ 384
(of Hermes); Aristoph., _Plut._, 1161 (of Hermes); _C. I. G._, I, 251;
etc.
[647] See Preller-Robert, _Griech. Mythol._^4, 1894, p. 415, n. 3.
[648] _Cf._ Krause, pp. 169 f.; Preller-Robert, _op. cit._, pp. 415 f.;
Urlichs, _Skopas_, p. 42; Nissen, _Pompej. Stud._, p. 168; Roscher,
_Lex._, I, 2, p. 2369; S. Eitrem, in Pauly-Wissowa, VIII, pp. 786-7.
[649] Pindar, _Nem._, X, 52-3; _Oxy. Pap._, VII, 1015, 8.
[650] _E. g._, at Messene, P., IV, 32.1 (along with that of Theseus).
[651] _B. M. Sculpt._, III, 2156; _C. I. G._, I, 250, and Neubauer,
_Hermes_, XI, 1876, p. 146, no. 12; for the dedication of a torch to
Hermes, see _A. G._, VI, 100.
[652] _C. I. A._, II, 3, 1225-6; IV, 2, 1225b; 1226, b, c, d.
[653] _Inschr. Gr. Insul._, III (Thera), 390; _cf._ Cougny, _Epigr.
Anth. Pal._, III, 1890 (_Appendix nova_), p. 26, no. 168.
[654] Schol. on Pindar, _Ol._, VI, 134, Boeckh, p. 148. He is
represented as a wrestler in a bronze group from Antioch, with wings in
his hair: R. Foerster, _Jb._, XIII, 1898, pp. 177 f., and Pl. XI (to be
discussed _infra._, p. 233 and note 2).
[655] Servius on Virgil’s _Aen._, VIII, 138.
[656] I, 2.5.
[657] V, 14.9 (Ἑρμοῦ ... Ἐναγωνίου).
[658] VIII, 14.10. An inscription (_Inschr. v. Ol._, 184) records that
a certain Akestorides of Alexandria Troas (whose name is left out of
the text of Pausanias, VI, 13.7) won a victory at Pheneus, and this was
probably at these games; on this victor, see Hyde, 119, and pp. 49-50.
[659] V, 7.10.
[660] Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, no. 324; _Guide_, 331; B. B., 131; Bulle,
54; von Mach, 126 b; Baum., I, p. 458, fig. 503; Reinach, _Rép._, I,
526,8; Collignon, II. p. 124, fig. 60; Overbeck, I, pp. 380 f. and
fig. 102; F. W., no. 465; _A. Z._, XXIV, 1866, Pl. CCIX, 1-2, pp. 169
f. (Kekulé) and Pl. 209, 1, 2; _Annali_, LI, 1879, pp. 207 f. (Brunn);
_Jb._, XIII, 1898, pp. 57 f. and fig. 1 (Habich); _J. H. S._, XXVIII,
1907, p. 25, fig. 13; _A. J. A._, VII, 1903, pp. 445 f. (von Mach);
Springer-Michaelis, p. 268, fig. 482; replicas in the Louvre (photo
Giraudon, no. 1209), London (_B. M. Sculpt._ III, no. 1753), Duncombe
Park, England (Michaelis, p. 295, no. 2), and elsewhere; for series,
see J. Six, _Gaz. arch._, 1888, pp. 291 and Pl. 29, fig. 10 A.
[661] _Mw._, p. 122; also Smith, _B. M. Sculpt._, III, no. 1753.
[662] First by Visconti, _Mus. Pio Clem._, III, p. 130; lately by G.
Habich, _l. c._, and others.
[663] _H. N._, XXXIV, 72; _S. Q._, 826. It was the only bronze work
which the sculptor is known to have made, all his other works being in
marble.
[664] Kekulé (_l. c._), Furtwaengler (_l. c._), and others make the
identification.
[665] Long ago Turnebus (_Advers._, 1580, p. 486) explained the word
in the sense of ἔγκρισις ἀθλητῶν, as used by Lucian, _pro Imag._, 11;
_cf._, Cicero’s _probatio_, in his _de Off._, I, 144. Most modern
commentators, however, refer the word to the statue, translating it
“classical” or “chosen”: thus Urlichs, _Chrest. Pl._, 1857, p. 325; O.
Jahn, Ueber die Kunsturteile des Plinius (_Ber. saechs. Ges. d. Wiss._,
1850), p. 125; H. L. von Urlichs, _Blaetter f. d. bayr. Gymnasialsch._,
1894, pp. 609 f., translates it “klassisch” or “mustergueltig,” _i.
e._, serving as a pattern or standard. But the term was too well known
as an athletic one for it ever to have been applied to a statue. The
present participle, instead of the usual aorist (ἐγκριθείς), shows
that Alkamenes’ statue represented an athlete in the act of undergoing
selection. The old emendation into ἐγχριόμενος has been recently
defended by Klein, _Praxiteles_, p. 50, who identifies Pliny’s statue
with the Glyptothek _Oil-pourer_ (Pl. 11); it is discredited by the
occurrence of the epithet _Encrinomenos_ as a Roman proper name, _C. I.
L._, V, 1, 4429, which shows how familiar it was. See Jex-Blake, on the
passage of Pliny.
[666] _Cf._ Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 345; Helbig, _l. c._
[667] It seems to be a Hadrianic copy of an original which stood on the
Athenian Akropolis.
[668] Now in the Antiquarium, Rome: Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, no. 1030;
noted in _B. Com. Rom._, XXXVIII, 1910, p. 249, and fully discussed,
_ibid._, XXXIX, 1911, pp. 97 f. (L. Mariani), and Pls. VI, VII (three
views), and VIII (head, two views).
[669] _H. N._, XXXIV, 80: _Naucydes Mercurio et discobolo et immolante
arietem censetur_, etc.
[670] _Ueber den Diskoswurf bei den Griechen_, 1892, p. 55. However,
von Mach discusses a r.-f. deinos in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,
which resembles the pose of the statue: _A. J. A._, VII, 1903, p. 447,
fig. 1.
[671] As in a vase by Douris: _A. Z._, 1883, Pl. II; Furtw., _Berliner
Vasen_, no. 2283 A; also on a Hellenistic gem in Berlin: Furtw.,
_Gemmen Katalog_, no. 6911. Philostr., _Imag._, I, 24, says that the
left foot was advanced.
[672] Coin of Amastris: Schlosser, _Numism. Zeitschr._ (Vienna), XXIII,
1891, p. 19, Pl. 2, no. 35; a better reproduction by Imhoof-Blumer,
in Sallet’s _Zeitschr. f. Numism._, XX, 1897, p. 269, Pl. 10, n. 2 (=
Habich, p. 58, fig. 2); another in _B. M. Coins_ (Pontus), Pl. XX, 7,
pp. 87 and 21. On this and the Thracian coin, see also Habich, Hermes
Diskobolos auf Muenzen, in _Journ. internat. d’arch, num._, II, 1898,
pp. 137 f. Habich gives a gem showing the god with a kerykeion in the
left hand, and a diskos in the right and with the right foot advanced:
p. 61, fig. 3.
[673] _E. g._, Michaelis, _Jb._, XIII, 1898, pp. 175-6. He looks upon
the statue simply as that of a diskobolos.
[674] In the National Museum, Athens, no. 13399: Staïs, _Marb. et
Bronz._, pp. 353-354 and fig.; _Arch. Eph._, 1902, Pl. 17; Svoronos,
Textbd., I, pp. 42-3; Tafelbd., I, Pl. VIII, no. 1; _J. H. S._, XXI,
1901, p. 351 (Bosanquet). This statuette is 0.25 meter in height and
the base 0.09 meter (Svoronos).
[675] Svoronos, p. 43, reproduces the coins of Amastris and
Philippopolis.
[676] Stuart Jones, _Cat. Mus. Capitol._, p. 288, no. 21 and Pl. 71;
Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, no. 858; _Guide_, 509; B. B., 387; Furtw.,
_Mp._, p. 303 and n. 7; _Mw._, p. 525 and n. 1; Clarac, II, 859, 2170;
Reinach, _Rép._, I, 525, 1; Lange, _Motiv des aufgestuetzten Fusses_,
1879, pp. 13 f. Helbig speaks of a replica in Paris, but confounds it
with the type of the so-called _Sandal-binder_ of the Louvre (Fig. 8).
The Capitoline statue is 1.845 meters in height (Stuart Jones).
[677] The motive of the “aufgestuetztes Bein” is more likely Lysippan
than Skopaic, as Furtwaengler wrongly assumed.
[678] Svoronos, Textbd., I, pp. 18 f. (with bibliography of all the
objects down to 1903, on p. 15, n. 1.); Tafelbd., I, Pls. I and II
(front and back); Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, pp. 302-304 and fig.;
Bulle, 61; von Mach, 290; _J. H. S._, XXIII, 1903, Pls. VIII (head),
IX (body, three views); H. B. Walters, _Art of the Greeks_, Pl. XVI;
Gardner, _Sculpt._, Pl. LXXVIII; for bibliographical notice and
discussion, see _A. J. A._, V, 1901, p. 465, and VII, 1903, pp. 464-5;
Springer-Michaelis, p. 297, fig. 531; the best account of the statue in
English is by Dr. A. S. Cooley, in _Record of the Past_, II, 1903, pp.
207-13 (with two illustrations). It is 1.94 meters in height, _i. e._,
slightly over life-size (Svoronos).
[679] _J. H. S._, XXI, 1901, pp. 205 f; he also briefly described all
the bronzes found in _A. A._, 1901, pp. 17-19, (4 figs.), in _Rev. des
Ét. gr._, XIV, 1901, pp. 122-6 (5 figs.), and in _C. R. Acad. Inscr._,
1901, pp. 58-63 (3 figs.) and 158-9 (3 Pls.). All the bronzes were
published after cleansing in _Arch. Eph._, 1902, pp. 145 f., with Pls.
7-17 and figs. 1-18 in the text; see also Staïs, _Les trouvailles dans
la mer de Cythère_, 1905; the last publication of all the pieces is by
Svoronos, Textbd., I, pp. 1-86; Tafelbd., I, Pls. I-XX.
[680] In his popular discussion of the bronzes in _Monthly Review_,
June, 1901, pp. 110-127 (with 5 Pls., and 5 figs.). Similar praise is
that of W. Klein, II, p. 403; he calls it _die wundervollste aller uns
erhaltenen Bronzestatuen des Altertums_.
[681] _London Illustrated News_, June 6, 1903 (with double-page plate).
[682] _Gaz. d. B.-A._, XXV, Pér. III, 1901, pp. 295-301 (with 3
figures).
[683] In a monograph entitled Ὁ Ἔφηβος τῶν Ἀντικυθήρων (pp. 1-42, and
6 figs.), Athens, 1903.
[684] It was restored by the French sculptor André, who covered it
with putty to conceal the jointures and the rivets which were used in
welding the fragments together. He also colored it to resemble bronze.
The method used in the restoration is certainly open to objection, but
not to the extent asserted by certain scholars, _e. g._, by von Mach,
who asserts that no Greek statue has received such unworthy treatment,
and that the restoration makes it possible to refer the statue to
almost any age or admixture of influences: _Greek Sculpture, Its
Spirit and Principles_, p. 326. Much of the beauty of the statue, to
be sure, is gone, but the style is not obscured. It has been restored
too full, which gives it a sensuous appearance. For the statue, before
restoration, see Svoronos, Textbd., p. 18, fig. 2; Staïs, _Marbres et
Bronzes_, fig. on p. 304.
[685] _J. H. S._, XXIII, 1903, pp. 152 f.; _cf._ _Sculpt._, pp. 244 f.;
_Hbk._, pp. 532 f. In Chap. VI of the present work we shall follow the
view which ascribes the _Herakles_ to Lysippos: _infra_, pp. 298, 311.
The Praxitelean and Lysippan influences in the bronze under discussion
are noted by Richardson, p. 276.
[686] _Ibid._, pp. 217 f.
[687] For the former, see Amelung, _Fuehrer_, 249; von Mach, 327;
Reinach, I, 452, 2. On the hem of the cloak is an Etruscan dedicatory
inscription to one Metilius by his wife, containing the name of Tenine
Tuthines as the bronze-caster: see Corssen, _Sprache d. Etrusker_, I,
pp. 712 f. (quoted by von Mach). For the latter, see Helbig, _Fuehrer_,
I, no. 5; _Guide_, 5; _Mon. d. I._, VI and VII, 1857-63, Pl. 84, 1;
_Annali_, XXXV, 1863, pp. 432 f. (Koehler); Rayet, II, Pl. 71; B. B.,
225; Bernouilli, _Roem. Ikonogr._, II, i, pp. 24 f., fig. 2; etc.
[688] Text on pp. 115 f.; Klein, _op. cit._, pp. 403 f., believes that
the enigma of its interpretation remains unsolved. He looks upon it as,
perhaps, a pre-Lysippan work, a sort of _Vorstufe_ to the _Apoxyomenos_.
[689] _Cf._ Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 534.
[690] On this gesture, see von Mach, _op. cit._, pp. 325-6.
[691] Textbd., I, figs. 13-14, pp. 26-7. For the gem, see _ibid._, fig.
3, p. 22; Reinach, _Pierres gravées_, Pl. 56, 34.
[692] _H. N._, XXXIV, 77. So Miss Bieber, _Jb._, XXV, 1910, pp. 159 f.,
following the suggestion of Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, ed. I, 1907,
pp. 254 f. (view reiterated in ed. 2, 1910, p. 304), and Loeschke.
Pliny says that the statue of Euphranor displayed every phase of Paris’
character, in the triple aspect of judge of the goddesses, lover of
Helen, and slayer of Achilles. On this statue, of which we know so
little, _cf._ the very different results reached by Furtwaengler
(_Mp._, pp. 357 f.; _Mw._, pp. 591-2) and Robert (_Hallisches
Winckelmannsprogr._, XIX, 1895, pp. 20 f.). Edw. Vicars, in the _Pall
Mall Magazine_, XIX, 1903, pp. 551 f., followed by Dr. Cooley, believes
that the bronze should be restored as Paris holding the apple of
discord in the right hand.
[693] _Suppl. de la Gaz. d. B.-A._, 1901, pp. 68 f., and 76 f.
[694] VI, 100 f.; VIII, 372 f.; in the latter connection it is an
adjunct to the dance.
[695] Athenæus, I, 44 (p. 24 b), quotes the Pergamene Karystios
(= _F. H. G._, IV, p. 359, fragm. 14) as saying that the women of
Kerkyra played ball in his time. For Rome, _cf._ Hor., _Sat._, II,
2.11; Suetonius, _Octav._, 83; Pliny, _Ep._, III, 1.8; Seneca, _de
Brev. vit._, 13; etc. On ball-playing, see Grasberger, _Erziehung und
Unterricht_, I, 1864, pp. 84 f.; L. Becq de Fouquières, _Les Jeux des
Anciens_,^2 1873, Ch. IX, pp. 176-199.
[696] Athen., I, 25 (p. 14 d, e).
[697] Athen., I, 25-26 (pp. 14 f, 15 a).
[698] In his περὶ τοῦ διὰ σμικρᾶς σφαίρας γυμνασίου. _Cf._ Sidon.
Apoll., V, 17; Martial, IV, 19; etc.
[699] Athen., I, 34 (p. 19 a).
[700] Athen., I, 26 (p. 15); _cf._, Eustath., on Od., VI, 115, p. 1553;
only the Milesians were opposed to it: _id._, on Od., VIII, 372, p.
1601.
[701] Theophr., _Char._, V, 9; Pliny, _Ep._, II, 17.12 and V, 6.27;
Suetonius, _Vit. Vespas._, 20; etc.
[702] _B. S. A._, X, 1903-4, pp. 63 f; _cf._, XII, 1905-6, p. 387.
[703] The σφαιρεῖς are mentioned in _C. I. G._, I, 4, 1386, 1432;
P., III, 14.6, mentions a statue of Herakles there, to which these
youths sacrificed. Mueller, _Die Dorier_, 4, 5, §2, classed these
competitions as a sort of football.
[704] _Rev. des Ét. gr._, XIV, 1901, pp. 445-8.
[705] Helbig, _Fuehrer_, II, no. 1299; B. B., 413; Bulle, 44;
Arndt-Amelung, _Einzelaufnahmen_, III, text to no. 1127; F. W., text
to 1630; Rayet, II, text to Pl. 70, fig. on p. 5; Kekulé, _Die griech.
Skulpt._,^2 fig. on p. 349 (the _Germanicus_ on p. 348; _cf._ Bulle,
p. 94, fig. 17); Loewy, _Griech. Plastik_, Pl. 94, fig. 176 a, p.
80. The statue is 1.83 meters high (Bulle). Head alone in Overbeck,
II, p. 446, and _cf._ 456, n. 4; Arndt-Amelung, nos. 270-271. A fine
herma-replica of the head is at Broadlands, England: Michaelis, p. 219,
no. 9; Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p. 58, fig. 13 (three views). A poorer copy
is in the Uffizi, Florence: Duetschke, III, no. 13; Arndt-Amelung,
_Einzelaufnahmen_, 83-84.
[706] Graef, _Aus der Anomia_, 1890, p. 69. Bulle finds the head
similar to that of the _Lemnian Athena_ and the body to that of
the _Farnese Anadoumenos_ of the British Museum (= Bulle, no. 49).
Furtwaengler thinks that its relation to the _Lemnia_ is not close
enough to warrant us in assigning it to Pheidias: _Mp._, p. 57; _Mw._,
pp. 86 and 742. On the basis of a Phokaian coin (Berlin example, _Mp._,
Pl. VI, 19; copy in British Museum, _B. M. Coins_, Ionia, IV, 23),
which represents a similar Hermes, he ascribes the statue to an Ionian
artist and conjectures Telephanes mentioned by Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV,
68.
[707] Helbig finds the head Myronian, but the body unconnected with any
of the well-known artistic tendencies of his day.
[708] As shown in the _Germanicus_ copy; the right arm is wrongly
restored in the Ludovisi statue. In the _Germanicus_ the arm is bowed
more at the elbow, the hand reaching the level of the temples.
[709] Froehner, pp. 213 f., no. 184 (and bibliography); F. W., 1630;
Rayet, II, Pls. 69 (statue), 70 (head); etc.
[710] _A. J. A._, XV, 1911, Pl. VI and pp. 215-16 (Caskey); _Jb._,
XXIV, 1909, Pls. I and II (from Munich cast), pp. 1 f. (Sieveking).
For the _Hermes_ of the Boboli gardens, see _ibid._, figs. 1 and 3,
pp. 2 and 4; Arndt-Amelung., _Einzelauf._, 103-105; Duetschke, II, no.
84; Furtw., _Mp._, p. 230, _Mw._, p. 424. Another replica is in the
Hermitage: Kieseritzky, _Kat._, no. 179; Sieveking, figs. 4-5, p. 5;
_Mp._, p. 290, _Mw._, 506; another in the Torlonia Museum in Rome, no.
[475] Sieveking, fig. 6, p. 5.
[711] _Gaz. d. B.-A._, 1911, p. 251.
[712] Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p. 230 and _cf._ p. 290; _Mw._, p. 424 and
_cf._ p. 506.
[713] See the _Annual Report of the Museum of Fine Arts_, 1898, p. 20.
Mahler, _Polyklet u. seine Schule_, p. 27, no. 34, wrongly thought that
it was a replica of the _Doryphoros_.
[714] Froehner, no. 183, pp. 210 f. (bibliography on pp. 212-13; later
bibliogr. in Klein, _Praxitel. Stud._, 1899, p. 4, n. 2); B. B., no.
67; von Mach, 238 b; Clarac, Pl. 309, no. 2046. Replica in Munich (with
a head of Apollo not belonging to the torso): Furtw.-Wolters, _Beschr.
d. Glypt._^2, 1910, 287 (with list of replicas); von Mach, 238a;
Clarac, V, 814, 2048; Reinach, _Rép._, I, 487, 7; Klein, pp. 4 f.; one
in London, in Lansdowne House: Michaelis, pp. 464f., no. 85 and Pl.
opp. p. 464; Clarac, V, 814, 2048 A; Reinach, _Rép._, I, 487, 6; one
in the Vatican: Reinach, _Rép._, I, 487, 5; head and torso in Athens:
_ibid._, II, i, 153, 10; _A. M._, XI, 1886, Pl. IX (middle), pp. 362 f.
(Studniczka); head in Copenhagen, formerly in the Borghese Coll., Rome:
P. Arndt, _Glypt. Ny-Carlsberg_, 1912, Pls. 128, 129, and text pp. 177
f., (fig. 95 = bronze restoration for the municipal Museum in Stettin,
combining the Lansdowne body and the Fagan head in the British Museum;
for the Fagan head see _B. M. Sculpt._, III, 1785).
[715] See von Mach, 170; R. Kekulé, _Die Reliefs an der Balustrade der
Athena Nike_, with Pls. 1-6.
[716] From the _Ekphrasis_ of Christodoros, _A. G._, II, _vv._ 297-302.
It was first shown to be a statue of Hermes by Lambeck, _de Mercurii
statua_, Thorn, 1860.
[717] Pick, _Die antiken Muenzen Nordgriechenlands_, I, Pl. XVI, 25;
_cf._ Froehner, p. 211.
[718] Duetschke, IV, no. 151; _J. H. S._, XXVI, 1906, Pl. XVI, pp. 239
f. (Wace).
[719] _E. g._, _B. M. Bronzes_, nos. 1200, 1202, 1207; for a herm in
the Braccio Nuovo of the Vatican, after a fourth-century B. C. type,
see Amelung, _Vat._, I, p. 84, no. 65 and Pl. X.
[720] _B. M. Sculpt._, III, no. 1600 and Pi. III; _Jb._, I, 1886, p.
54, and Pl. 5, and fig. 1 (Wolters); Kalkmann, Proport. d. Gesichts,
pp. 41 and 98; Furtw., _Mp._, Pl. XVIII. opp. p. 346; for a full
discussion of this head, see the note by translator in _Mp._, pp.
346-7. The head is 11-1/2 inches high (_B. M. Sculpt._).
[721] Nissen, _Pompej. Stud._, p. 166.
[722] _H. N._, XXXIV, 18.
[723] _E. g._, one in Paris, in the Cab. des Médailles, no. 3350;
Clarac, 666 D, 1512 F.
[724] _E. g._, E. von Sacken, _Die ant. Bronzen des k. k. Muenz-und
Antiken-Cabinetes in Wien_, 1871, Pl. 10, 4; a bronze _Mercury_ in
Paris, in the Cab. des Méd., Coll. Oppermann (0.20 m. tall): Furtw.,
_Mp._, p. 233, fig. 94, and _Mw._, p. 428, fig. 64; bronze statuette
of Mercury in the British Museum with chlamys over the left shoulder:
_Mp._, p. 232, fig. 93; _Mw._, p. 427, fig. 63.
[725] _Mp._, p. 231, n. 3.
[726] _B. M. Bronzes_, no. 1217.
[727] _Mp._, pp. 288 f.; _Mw._, pp. 502 f.
[728] _Inschr. v. Ol._, no. 165 (renewed); base pictured, _Mp._, p.
288, fig. 123; _Mw._, p. 503; fig. 90. Furtwaengler had ascribed the
statue of Aristion to the younger Polykleitos; this was disproved by
the date of Aristion’s victory, Ol. 82 (= 452 B. C.), given by the
_Oxy. Pap._
[729] Michaelis, p. 446, no. 35; Clarac, V, 946, 2436 A; Furtw., _Mp._,
p. 289, fig. 124; _Mw._, p. 504, fig. 91.
[730] XXIII, 660; _cf._ Od., XIX, 86: “By Apollo’s grace he hath so
goodly a son”—meaning that Apollo gave increase of physical strength to
men, just as Artemis did to women. _Cf._ Hesiod, _Theog._, 346-7.
[731] V, 7.10.
[732] _Quaest. conviv._, VIII, 4 (= p. 724 C, D.); here he also
mentions a Gymnasion of Apollo at Athens.
[733] Told by many writers: _e. g._, Apollod., II, 6.2.
[734] P., X, 13.7, describes a group at Delphi representing Apollo and
Hermes grasping the tripod before the fight; in VIII, 37.1 he mentions
the same subject on a marble relief at Lykosoura, and in III, 21.8
says that Gythion was founded by the two after the contest, and that
their images stood in the agora there. The subject was represented in
the gable of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi: Frazer, V, p. 274 (in
connection with P., X, 11.2). Stephani enumerated 89 existing works of
art which represent this subject, of which 58 appear on black-figured,
18 on red-figured vases, 8 on marble reliefs, 3 on terra-cottas, and 2
on gems: _Comptes rendus de la comm. impér. archéol._, St. Petersburg,
1868, pp. 31 f.; Overbeck has added to the list: _Griech. Mythol._,
III, Apollon, 1889, pp. 391-415.
[735] The _Choiseul-Gouffier_ statue: _B. M. Sculpt._, I, no. 209;
_Marbles and Bronzes_, Pl. III; _Specimens_, II, Pl. V; _Museum
Marbles_, XI, Pl. 32; F. W., no. 221; _J. H. S._, I, 1881, Pl. IV, and
pp. 178 f., and _cf._, II, 1882, pp. 332 f. (Waldstein); von Mach,
Pl. 67; Collignon, I, p. 403, fig. 208; Clarac, III, 482, 931 H, and
p. 213: Reinach, _Rép._, II, 1, 85, 10; Conze, _Beitr. zur Gesch. d.
gr. Pl._^2, 1869, Pl. VI; Springer-Michaelis, p. 234, fig. 429. The
height of the statue is 5 feet, 10.5 inches (_B. M. Sculpt._). The
_Apollo-on-the-Omphalos_: Kabbadias, 45; Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_,
pp. 23-24 and fig.; _J. H. S._, I, Pl. V, fig. 3; Collignon, I, p. 405,
fig. 209; B. B., 42; von Mach, 66; F. W., 219; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 1,
85, 7; Conze, _op. cit._, Pls. III-V, and text, pp. 13 f.; Murray, I,
Pl. VIII, opp. p. 234 (both statues); torso in Munich, Arndt-Amelung,
_Einzelauf._, nos. 849-50; for list of other copies, see _A. M._, IX,
1884, pp. 239-40.
[736] _Cf._ _B. M. Sculpt._, I, no. 209 (A. H. Smith).
[737] See Waldstein, p. 180; F. W., no. 219; _A. M._, IX, 1884, p. 248.
[738] Reinach, _Rép._, II, 1, 85, 9; M. D., I, p. 47, no. 179; _cf._ F.
W., 219. Overbeck, _Griech. Kunstmythol._, III. _Apollon_, p. 162, fig.
9.
[739] _A. M._, I, 1876, Pl. X, and pp. 178 f. (Kekulé); Bulle, 105
(Left) and p. 208, fig. 47.
[740] Published in _J. H. S._, XXVI, 1906, pp. 278-80 (Dickins); here,
on p. 279, we have the fragment photographed with the lower parts
of the _Choiseul-Gouffier_ and _Omphalos_ copies on either side;
Dickins says that with the possible exception of the Athens statue
this fragment shows the best workmanship of all the copies. Helbig,
_Fuehrer_, no. 1268.
[741] _B. M. Sculpt._, I, no. 211; it shows the _krobylos_ best.
[742] _B. M. Sculpt._, I, no. 210.
[743] Braun, _Vorschule d. Kunstmythol._, Pl. V, (quoted by A. H.
Smith).
[744] _Mon. d. I._, X, 1874-78, Pl. 54; discussed in _Annali_, L, 1878,
pp. 61 f. (Brizio).
[745] _Cf._ Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, no. 859; Beulé, _Monnaies d’Athênes_,
p. 271, quoted in _Jb._, II, 1887, p. 235, n. 54.
[746] _Jb._, II, pp. 234 f.; on p. 234, the Athens statue and the
figure from the Bologna krater are shown side by side.
[747] _Fuehrer_, under no. 859 (the Capitoline replica), and especially
under no. 1268.
[748] _Beitraege zur Gesch. d. gr. Pl._^2, p. 19.
[749] Roscher, _Lex._, I, p. 456.
[750] _A. M._, IX, 1884, p. 244.
[751] Mentioned by P., I, 3.4; this view has been upheld by Conze,
_l.c._; Murray, I, p. 235; _cf._ Furtw., _l. c._, and on the artist,
see his article in _Sitzb. Muen. Akad._, 1907, pp. 160 f.
[752] _S. Q._, nos. 508-526.
[753] Furtw., _l. c._; the coin in the British Museum is pictured in
_J. H. S._, XXIV, 1904, p. 205, fig. 2. Conze’s theory of identifying
the type with the _Alexikakos_ has been questioned among others also by
Overbeck: I, n. 226, to pp. 280 (on p. 301).
[754] Dionys. Halic., _de Isocrate Judicium_, III, p. 542 (ed. Reiske);
_S. Q._, 531.
[755] _Op. cit._, especially p. 182.
[756] P., VI, 6.6. He won in the early fifth century, in Ols. 74, 76,
77 (= 484, 476, 472 B. C.): _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde, 56; Foerster, 185, 195,
207.
[757] F. W., nos. 219 and 221. Clarac, Text, Vol. III, p. 213, leaves
it in doubt whether it be Apollo or an athlete; however, he calls the
Capitoline copy an athlete.
[758] Published by Miss K. A. McDowall, _J. H. S._, XXIV, 1904, pp.
203-7 and fig. 1.
[759] The untrustworthy character of the Torlonia copy has been shown
by Overbeck, _Kunstmythologie_, III, _Apollon_, pp. 109 and 162.
The Roman copy in the Capitoline is also inferior, and the legs are
wrongly restored—for at that period in art there was little difference
between the free and the rest leg; see Helbig, _Fuehrer_, no. 859;
Stuart Jones, _Cat. Mus. Capit._, p. 287, no. 20 and Pl. 69; Conze,
_Beitraege zur Gesch. d. gr. Pl._^2, Pl. VII; Clarac, 862, 2189; head
in Arndt-Amelung, _Einzelaufnahmen_, Serie II, 452-4, p. 35.
[760] Waldstein ascribed the original to Pythagoras, partly because
this artist was famed for the detail of veins, sinews, and hair: see
Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 59.
[761] _Bildw. v. Ol._, Textbd., pp. 223 f.; Tafelbd., Pl. LVII, 3-5.
The original height was 2.60 meters.
[762] _Strena Helbigiana_, 1900, p. 293; discussed also by Miss
McDowall (_l. c._ and fig. 3, p. 206); a poor replica is in Munich:
Furtw., _Mw._, p. 115, and fig. 21.
[763] _B. M. Coins, Troas_, etc., Pl. XXXII, 1; McDowall, _l. c._, fig.
4, p. 207.
[764] Bulle, 50, who gives the height 1.86 meters; von Mach, 115;
Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 547, 9; other references _infra_, on p. 152, n.
5.
[765] _Jh. oest. arch. Inst._, VIII, 1905, pp. 42 f.; IX, 1906, pp. 279
f.; _cf._, Furtw.-Urlichs, _Denkm._, pp. 105-6, n. 1 (Engl. ed., p.
120).
[766] _Jh. oest. arch. Inst._, XII, 1909, pp. 100 f. He thinks that the
original may have been identical with the statue of Ἀπόλλων ἀναδούμενος
standing before the temple of Ares at Athens, P., I, 8.4, and that the
παῖς ἀναδούμενος of Pheidias at Olympia, P. VI, 4.5, also may have
been an Apollo. He also interprets the figure of a charioteer entering
a chariot on an Attic relief (Fig. 63), to be discussed later, as an
Apollo: _Jb._, VII, 1892, pp. 54 f. For the relief, see B. B., 21; von
Mach, 56; F. W., no. 97; _infra_, pp. 269 f.
[767] _Cf._, Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 18 (_Achilleae_). On these
“Achillean” statues (a generic name for statues of athletes leaning
on their spears, from Achilles, the typical hero of ephebes), see
Furtwaengler, _Jahrbuecher f. cl. Philol._, Supplbd., IX, 1877, p. 47,
n. 11.
[768] _Jh. oest. arch. Inst._, VIII, 1905, pp. 269 f. Miss McDowall,
in the article already cited, p. 204, has also argued that there is no
necessary connection between the quiver slung over the tree-support and
Apollo.
[769] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 162-3; Loewy, _op. cit._, X, 1907, pp. 326
f. Studniczka, _ibid._, IX, 1906, pp. 311 f., discusses the base and
believes that the pose of the statue of Pythokles was the same as that
of the _Borghese Ares_ of the Louvre (von Mach, 125; F. W., 1298;
Reinach, _Rép._ I, 133, 1-3; etc.), the weight on the left foot, _i.
e._, essentially different from the Polykleitan pose.
[770] _R. M._, XXVII, 1912, p. 37.
[771] Duetschke, IV, no. 52 (= wrongly female); _J. H. S._, XXVI, 1906,
Pl. XV (three views), and pp. 235 f. (Wace).
[772] _Mp._, p. 247; _Mw._, pp. 448-449; he assigns it to the third
quarter of the fifth century B. C.
[773] Amelung, _Rev. arch._, II, 1904, p. 344.1; Wace, _l. c._, p. 237.
[774] Both Schreiber, _A. M._, VIII, 1883, pp. 246 f., and Studniczka,
_Jb._, XI, 1896, pp. 255 f., have shown that the hair arranged in the
double plait, whether the κρωβύλος or not, is Attic, and that similarly
the mass of locks over the ears is common in Attic works.
[775] P., V, 7.9. In V, 7.7, the Idæan Herakles is said to have first
crowned his brother as victor there; _cf._ V, 8.3-4. We have already
(p. 10) spoken of the difference of opinion as to whether it was the
Cretan (Idæan) Herakles, or the more famous son of Zeus and Alkmena,
who founded the games. On the traditional connection of the hero with
Olympia, see E. Curtius, _Sitzb. d. k. preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu
Berlin_, 1894, pp. 1098 f.; Busolt, _Gr. Gesch._,^2 I, pp. 240 f.;
Krause, _Olympia_, pp. 26 f.
[776] With the river-god Acheloos, III, 18.16 (the contest pictured
in relief on the throne of Apollo at Amyklai; _cf._ the same scene
represented by the cedar-wood figures inlaid with gold on the treasury
of the Megarians at Olympia, VI, 19, 12); with Antaios, IX, 11.6
(pictured in the sculptures of the gable of the Herakleion at Thebes);
with Eryx, III, 16.4 and IV, 36.4.
[777] P., V, 8.4.
[778] P., V, 21.9; he won in Ol. 178 (= 68 B. C.): Foerster, 570-1.
[779] V, 21.10.
[780] These victors were Kapros of Elis, who won in Ol. 124 (= 212 B.
C.): Hyde, 150; Foerster, 474, 475; he had two statues, the remains of
which may have been recovered: see _Bronzen v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pls. II,
III; Aristomenes of Rhodes, who won in Ol. 156 (= 156 B. C.): Foerster,
505-6; Protophanes of Magnesia ad Maiandrum (ad Lethaeum in P., _l.
c._), who won in Ol. 172 (= 92 B. C.): Foerster, 538-9; Marion of
Alexandria, who won in Ol. 182 (= 52 B. C.): Foerster, 579-80; Aristeas
of Stratonikeia, who won in Ol. 198 (= 13 A. D.): Foerster, 609-10;
Nikostratos of Aigeai in Kilikia, who won in Ol. 204 (= 37 A. D.):
Foerster, 621-2.
[781] Two men entered later, but were disqualified: Sokrates, who won
in wrestling (?) in Ol. 232 (= 149 A. D.): Foerster, 704; and Aurelios
Ailix, or Helix, of Phœnicia, who won the pankration in Ol. 250 (=
221 A. D.): Foerster, 734. See Dio Cassius, LXXIX, 10; Philostr.,
_Heroicus_, III, 13 (p. 147, ed. Kayser); _cf._ Ph., 46 and note by
Juethner, _ad loc._ Ailix won in both events on the same day at the
Capitoline games in Rome, which no one had done before: Foerster, _l.
c._ Frazer, III, p. 625.
[782] Such victors were numbered in two ways; some authorities in the
way mentioned above, _e. g._, Dio Cassius, _l. c._; others numbered
them δεύτερος, τρίτος, κ. τ. λ., _e. g._, Africanus; _cf._ Rutgers, pp.
73 f. and n. 1, and p. 97 and n. 2.
[783] See F. Kindscher, Die herakleischen Doppelsieger zu Olympia,
_Jahn’s Archiv f. Phil. u. Paedag._, II, 1845, pp. 392-411.
[784] P., IV, 32.1 (statues of the three in the Gymnasion at Messene).
He mentions, IX, 11.7, a Gymnasion and Stadion of the hero near the
Herakleion in Thebes.
[785] _B. C. H._, XXIII, 1899, pp. 455-6.
[786] On the difficulty of distinguishing statues of victors from those
of Herakles, see also Arndt, _La Glypt. Ny-Carlsberg_, Text, p. 138, to
Pl. 94.
[787] P., VI, 2.1.
[788] Ch. VI, pp. 293 f., especially pp. 298-299.
[789] _La Glypt. Ny-Carlsberg_, Pl. 117 (three views). It was formerly
in the Tyszkiewicz collection.
[790] See Arndt, _l. c._ Furtwaengler believed the head Praxitelean:
see Roscher, _Lex._, I, 2, p. 2166 ll. 61 f. S. Reinach saw in it a
_mélange_ of Skopaic and Praxitelean elements: _Gaz. d. B.-A._, 3,
Pér., XVI, 1896, II, p. 332 and fig. on p. 328; _Têtes_, Pl. 176, p.
139; he is followed by Arndt.
[791] _Antichita di Ercolano, Bronzi_, I, Pls. 49 and 50; D. Comparetti
e G. de Petra, _La Villa Ercolanese dei Pisoni_, 1883, Pl. VII, 3, p.
261, 4; Rayet, II, Pl. 66; B. B., no. 364; F. W., 1302. Similarly, the
bronze head of a youth in Naples, with a rolled fillet, may be from the
statue of a victor or of the hero: Invent., 5594; B. B., 365.
[792] For the Naples replica, see Comparetti e de Petra, _Villa
Ercolan._, Pl. XXI, 3; Furtw., _Mp._ p. 234, fig. 95; _Mw._, p. 430,
fig. 65; poorer copy in the Museo Chiaramonti of the Vatican (no.
139): Helbig, _Guide_, 69; B. B., 338; another in Broadlands, England:
Michaelis, p. 220, no. 10; _Mp._, p. 235, fig. 96; _Mw._, p. 431, fig.
66. Graef had already conjectured the type to be that of a Polykleitan
_Herakles: R. M._, IV, 1889, p. 215. He is followed by Furtwaengler,
_Mp._, p. 23.
[793] Amelung., _Vat._, I, p. 738, no. 636 and Pl. 79; Helbig,
_Fuehrer_, I, no. 108; _Guide_, 113; B. B., no. 609; Furtw., _Mp._,
p. 341, fig. 146 (head, on p. 342, fig. 147); _Mw._, p. 575, fig. 109
(head, on p. 577, fig. 110). The group is 2.12 meters high (Amelung.).
[794] Helbig, _Guide_, no. 242.
[795] Helbig, _ibid._, no. 470; _R. M._, IV, 1889, p. 197, no. 12
(Skopaic).
[796] It was found in Genzano: _B. M. Sculpt._, III, no. 1731 and Pl.
V, fig. 2; height, 1 foot, 4-7/8 inches; for references, see _infra_,
p. 169, n. 8.
[797] _B. M. Sculpt._, III, no. 1732; _Specimens_, I, Pl. 57; _Museum
Marbles_, III, Pl. 12. A similar head, half portrait and half ideal,
appears on coins of Macedonia. Such filleted heads as nos. 1733 and
1740 of _B. M. Sculpt._ are probably from statues of Herakles. The
statuette of a seated Herakles, _ibid._, no. 1726, with the lion-skin
and wearing a laurel wreath tied on with a fillet (= Reinach, _Rép._,
II, 1, p. 227, no. 3; _J. H. S._, III, 1882, Pl. XXV.) and inscribed
as the work of Diogenes (_I. G. B._, 361), recalls the description of
the pose of the _Hermes Epitrapezios_ made by Lysippos for Alexander:
Statius, _Silv._, IV, 6; _cf._ Martial, IX, 44.
[798] _B. M. Bronz._, nos. 1254, 1276, 1292, etc.
[799] _B. M. Bronz._, Pl. II (upper right-hand); text, no. 212.
[800] Friedrichs, _Kleinere Kunst_, 1850; mentioned by Furtw., _Mw._,
p. 525, n. 2.
[801] III, nos. 9 and 19; no. 19 has swollen ears.
[802] See Furtw., _Mp._, pp. 234 and 236; _Mw._, pp. 429 and 433. He
gives as an example the Polykleitan ephebe head-type discussed _supra_,
p. 95.
[803] P., V, 8.4.
[804] P., V, 15.5.
[805] P., III, 14.7 (ἀφετήριοι).
[806] P., II, 34.10.
[807] Iliad, III, 237 (= Od., XI, 300); Homeric Hymn to the Dioskouroi,
XXXIII, 3; Pindar, _Isthm._, I, 16 f.; _Pyth._, V. 9; etc. Kastor was
famed also for throwing the quoit: Pindar, _Isthm._, I, 25.
[808] Iliad and Od., _ll. cc._; Simonides, frag. 8 (_P. l. G._, III, p.
390); Apoll. Rhod., _Argon._, II, 1 f.
[809] Apoll. Rhod., _op. cit._, I, 146; Theokr., XXII, 2-3 and 34;
Pindar, _Pyth._, XI, 61-2; _Nem._, X, 49-50; _Isthm._, V, 32-3; etc.;
various Roman poets: see Bethe, in Pauly-Wissowa, V, I, pp. 1092-4.
[810] _R. M._, XV, 1900, 1 f. (with illustrations).
[811] _I. G. A._, 37.
[812] _B. M. Bronz._, no. 3207; _C. I. G. G. S._, III, 1, 649; _Rev.
arch._, Sér. 3, XVIII, 1891, Pl. 18, and pp. 45 f. (Froehner);
_Wochenschr. f. kl. Phil._, VIII, 1891, p. 859; Gardiner, p. 317, fig.
73. Froehner reads the name “Exotra,” that of a woman victor.
[813] _I. G. A._, 43 a (p. 173).
[814] Duetschke, IV, no. 534. Another relief fragment in the Uffizi
shows the upper part of the two with horses, each wearing the chlamys
and pilleus and carrying spears: Duetschke, III, 446.
[815] _B. M. Sculpt._, I, no. 780; _Museum Marbles_, II, Pl. 11;
_cf._ a similar relief, no. 781. The relief _ibid._, III, no. 2206,
supposedly representing Kastor, has been pronounced a modern forgery by
Treu: see F. W., 1006.
[816] Ch. I, pp. 27 f. and 37 f.
[817] This is the usual division of victor monuments: Scherer, pp. 21
f.; Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, p. 530; Furtw.-Urlichs, _Denkmaeler griech.
und roem. Skulptur_, Handausgabe^3, 1911, pp. 104 f. (translation by
H. Taylor, 1914, pp. 120 f.) Reisch, p. 40, divides _Siegerbilder
in Motiven von allgemeiner Geltung und Bilder in Motiven, die der
speciellen Veranlassung der Weihung entlehnt sind_—a division
practically amounting to that of rest and motion statues, as we shall
see.
[818] Discussed _infra_ in Ch. VII, pp. 334 f.
[819] VIII, 40.1.
[820] See _infra_, Ch. VII, pp. 327-8.
[821] We know of one case, at least, where an “Apollo” (draped) was
transferred to a relief—on a column drum of the old Artemision in
Ephesos, now in the British Museum: _J. H. S._, X, 1889, Pl. III, pp. 4
f., and figs. 4a, 5 (Murray); Overbeck, I, p. 106, fig. 9; Richardson,
p. 53, fig. 16. According to Herodotos, I, 92, most of these columns
were the gifts of Crœsus, who reigned 560-546 B. C. On the whole series
of “Apollos,” see W. Deonna, _Les Apollons archaïques_, 1909; _cf._
F. W., text to no. 14, pp. 9 f; _B. M. Sculpt._, I, pp. 82-3, with
references; etc.
[822] See Richardson, pp. 39 f.
[823] Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, pp. 11-12 and fig.; _B. C. H._, X,
1886, Pl. V (two views) and pp. 98 f. (Holleaux); Collignon, I, p. 117,
fig. 58; Deonna, _op. cit._, p. 161, no. 35; Richardson, p. 44, fig.
12. It is in the National Museum at Athens, where most of the “Apollos”
are to be found. The sanctuary of Apollo Ptoios on Mount Ptoion,
Bœotia, is mentioned by P., IX, 23.6, Hdt., VIII, 135, and other
writers.
[824] In Athens: Kabbadias, no. 8; Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, p. 10;
Deonna, p. 227, no. 129; _A. M._, III, 1878, Pl. VIII; Collignon, I, p.
132, fig. 66; Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 131, fig. 16; Richardson, p. 39, fig.
5; B. B., no. 77C; von Mach, 12; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 1, 76, 10; F. W.,
14; Springer-Michaelis, p. 172, fig. 336; Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, p. 319,
fig. 133.
[825] Kabbadias, no. 9; Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, pp. 9-10 (1.27
m. high); _Annali_, XXXIII, 1861, pp. 79 f. and Pl. E; Deonna, _op.
cit._, p. 148, no. 26; _B. C. H._, V, 1881, Pl. IV, and pp. 319 f.;
Collignon, I, p. 114, fig. 56; Overbeck, I, fig. 14; Gardner, _Hbk._,
p. 166, fig. 29; Richardson, p. 40, fig. 8; B. B., 77A; von Mach, 11 b;
Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, p. 509, fig. 260; F. W., 43; Reinach, _Rép._, II,
1, 76, 11.
[826] Kabbadias, no. 10; Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, p. 8 (1.30 meters
high); Deonna, p. 153, no. 28; _B. C. H._, X, 1886, Pl. IV, and p.
66 (Holleaux); Collignon, I, p. 196, fig. 92; von Mach, 15a (left);
Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 168, fig. 30; B. B., 12 (left); Reinach, _Rép._,
II, 1, 76, 7. In another found at Mount Ptoion in 1903, the left arm is
almost entirely broken away: _B. C. H._, XXXI, 1907, Pl. XX.
[827] Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, p. 10, no. 1558; Deonna, p. 217,
no. 114, _B. C. H._, XVI, 1892, Pl. XVI (two views) and pp. 560 f.
(Holleaux); von Mach, no. 13; Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, p. 321, fig. 134;
Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 132, fig. 17; Richardson, p. 39, fig. 6; Reinach,
_Rép._, II, 1, 76, 1.
[828] Furtw.-Wolters, _Beschreib. d. Glypt._,^2 pp. 49 f., no.
47; Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 158, fig. 26; Gardiner, p. 87, fig. 7;
Richardson, p. 40, fig. 7; B. B., no. I; Bulle, 37 (right); von Mach,
14; Furtw.-Urlichs, _Denkm._, Pl. I, pp. 3 f; _Mon. d. I._, IV,
1847, Pl. XLIV; Baum., I, fig. 340; Collignon, I, p. 202, fig. 96;
Springer-Michaelis, p. 174, fig. 338; Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, p. 401,
figs. 187, 188; F. W., 49; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 1, 76, 2. It is 1.53
meters high (Bulle).
[829] Left: torso found in 1885: _B. C. H._, XI, 1887, Pl. VIII, and
pp. 185 f. (Holleaux); Collignon, I, p. 198, fig. 49; Richardson, p.
41, fig. 9 (without the head); head found in 1903: _B. C. H._, XXXI,
1907, Pls. XVII-XVIII; entire figure, _ibid._, Pl. XIX; text, pp. 187
f. (Mendel); Kabbadias, 12; Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, p. 9 and fig.;
Deonna, p. 156, no. 30. Right: Staïs, pp. 12-13, no. 20; Deonna, no.
35; Collignon, I, p. 315 and fig. 157 (two views); _B. C. H._, XI,
1887, Pls. XIII and XIV, and pp. 275 f., and X, 1886, fig. VI (without
head) and pp. 269 f.; von Mach, 15b (right); Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 169,
fig. 31; Richardson, p. 42, fig. 10 (two views); Reinach, _Rép._, II,
1, 77, 4 (without head); _cf._ II, 1, 18, 4 and 5.
[830] See Holleaux, _B. C. H._, XI, p. 186, n. 1. Richardson, p. 41,
wrongly thought that they were of marble, explaining the preservation
of the arms by their presence; the arms, however, were formerly broken
off and have since been readjusted to the statue.
[831] _B. M. Sculpt._, I, no. 206; _Mon. d. I._, IX, 1869-73, Pl. XLI;
_Annali_, XLIV, 1872, pp. 181 f.; B. B., 51; von Mach, 16; Overbeck, I,
p. 237, fig. 61; F. W., 89; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 1, 81, 6. It is 3 feet
4 inches in height.
[832] See Holleaux, _B. C. H._, X, 1886, p. 271; XI, p. 186; and _cf._
Vischer, _Kleine Schriften_, II. pp. 302 f.
[833] B. B., no. 76.
[834] See Holleaux, in _B. C. H._, XI, 1887, p. 178.
[835] From the inscription on its thigh.
[836] In the Athens Museum; it dates from the middle of the sixth
century B. C.: Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, p. 11, no. 1906 and fig.
(1.78 m. high); Deonna, p. 133, no. 5; Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, figs.
189-190; Kabbadias, _Arch. Eph._, 1902, pp. 43 f. and Pls. 3 and 4;
Bulle, no. 37 (left), who gives its height as 1.79 meters.
[837] See Furtw.-Urlichs, _Denkm._, text to Pl. I, p. 4.
[838] Furtw.-Urlichs, _Denkm._, p. 4, ascribe it to the Cretan
sculptors Skyllis and Dipoinos, who worked in Argos, Sikyon, and
Corinth, or to their school.
[839] Statue A: _Fouilles de Delphes_, IV, Pl. I; _B. C. H._,
XXIV, 1900, Pls. XIX-XXI (front, side, and rear) and pp. 445 f.
(Homolle); Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 155, fig. 25; Gardiner, p. 89, fig. 8;
Springer-Michaelis, p. 174, fig. 337; Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, Pls. IX, X.
Statue B (fragmentary): _Fouilles de Delphes_, IV, p. 7, fig. 7; _B.
C. H._, XXIV, 1900, Pl. XVIII. See also the following: _Gaz. B.-A._,
III Pér., XII, 1894, pp. 444-6; XIII, pp. 32 f.; _C. R. Acad. Inscr._,
1894, p. 585; especially Homolle, _l. c._, pp. 445 f. (he exchanges B
for A); _cf._ _A. J. A._, 1895, p. 115; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 77, 6
and 7.
[840] VI, 10.5; the epigram reads:
Εὐτελίδας καὶ Χρυσόθεμις τάδε ἔργα τέλεσσαν
Ἀργεῖοι, τέχναν εἰδότες ἐκ προτέρων.
Damaretos of Heraia won two victories in the heavy-armed race in Ols.
65, 66 (= 520, 516 B. C.); Theopompos two in the pentathlon in Ols. (?)
69, 70 (= 504, 500 B. C.). Their monument was one in common: Hyde, nos.
94, 95 and pp. 42 f.; Foerster, 135, 140 and 168, 169.
[841] P., VI, 15.8; he won in the boys’ wrestling match and in the
pentathlon in Ol. 38 (= 628 B. C.): Afr.; Hyde, 148; Foerster, 61, 62.
[842] Hoplite victor in Ol. 68 (= 508 B. C.): Foerster, 151.
[843] Victor in three running races on the same day (τριαστής) in Ol.
67 (= 512 B. C.): Afr.; Foerster, 144-6.
[844] They won in boxing in Ol. 59 (= 544 B. C.) and the pankration in
Ol. 61 (= 536 B. C.) respectively: P., VI, 18.7; Hyde, 187, 188, and p.
56; Foerster, 113 and 120. Pausanias, _l. c._, wrongly says that they
were the oldest statues at Olympia.
[845] He won the double foot-race in Ol. 35 (= 640 B. C.): Afr.; P., I,
28.1; Foerster, 55.
[846] He won five victories in wrestling at the beginning of the sixth
century B. C.: P., III, 13.9; Foerster, 86-90. The statue of Oibotas
of Dyme, who won the stade-race in Ol. 6 (= 756 B. C.), was set up in
Ol. 80 (= 460 B. C.): Afr.; P., VI, 3.8; Hyde, 29; Foerster, 6; that of
Chionis of Sparta, who won seven running races in Ols. 28-31 (= 668-656
B. C.), was made by Myron, and consequently was erected in the fifth
century B. C.: P., VI, 13.2; Afr.; Hyde, 111, and p. 48; Foerster,
39, 41-6: these two, therefore, did not necessarily conform with the
“Apollo” type.
[847] VI, 14.5 f; he won in Ol. (?) 61, and in Ols. 62, 63, 64, 65, 66
(= 536-516 B. C.): Hyde, 128; Foerster, 116, 122, 126, 131, 136, and
141; Afr. gives the second victory as Ol. 62; see Foerster, 122.
[848] _Vit. Apoll. Tyan._, IV, 28.
[849] VI, 14.6-7.
[850] Frazer, IV, p. 44, believes that this description may be
imaginary, concocted from stories of Milo’s feats of strength; but
Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, p. 601, cite Guttman, _de olympionicis apud
Philostratum_, p. 7, Matz, _de Philostr. in describ. imag. Fide_, p.
33, and Gurlitt, _Ueber Pausanias_, 1890, p. 413, as believing that it
was based on the appearance of the statue. Scherer, pp. 23 f., thought
that Philostratos followed Pausanias in interpreting the attributes of
the statue, and that the latter got his idea of the strength of the
victor from the statue or from a cicerone. Pliny, _H. N._, VII, 19,
says of Milo: _Malum tenenti nemo digitum corrigebat_. Aelian mentions
Milo’s feat with the pomegranate in _Var. Hist._, II, 24 and _de Nat.
anim._, VI, 55.
[851] _Cf._ Philostr., _l. c._, ll. 27, 28: καὶ τὸ μήπω διεστὼς τῇ
ἀρχαίᾳ ἀγαλματοποιίᾳ προσκείσθω.
[852] _Op. cit._, p. 31.
[853] _Cf._ P., VIII, 46.3.
[854] Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 75.
[855] For the type, see the Payne Knight bronze statuette in the
British Museum: _B. M. Bronz._, no. 209 and Pl. I; Frazer, IV, p. 430,
fig. 45; the same type appears on Milesian coins. _Cf._ Brunn, I, 77.
Frazer is against Scherer’s contention.
[856] II, 2, pp. 601-2. See P., VI, 9.1 (statue of Theognetos).
[857] _H. N._, XXXIV, 59.
[858] _Anachar._, 9; _cf._ _A. G._, IX, 357.
[859] No. 38; _cf._ for the left-hand figure, p. 83, fig. 11 (side
view).
[860] _B. C. H._, XVIII, 1894, pp. 44 f., Pls. V, VI (de Ridder);
Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, p. 547, fig. 332; A. de Ridder, no. 740, pp.
268-9, and Pls. III, IV. It is similar in pose to bronzes in the same
museum, nos. 736 (= de Ridder, Pl. II, 1), 737 (= Pl. II, 3), and 738
(= Pl. II, 2). It is 0.27 meter high (Bulle).
[861] It will be considered later on in this chapter: p. 119 and n. 3.
It is 0.185 meter high (Bulle).
[862] This statuette, showing Peloponnesian tendencies, is in the
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; it is 0.25 meter high (Bulle).
[863] In the same way the pediment statues from Aegina differ from
Attic works by straighter lines and more compact forms.
[864] He won a chariot victory some time between Ols. (?) 98 and 101
(= 388 and 376 B. C.): P., VI, 2.8; Hyde, 17 (= 105 d; P., VI, 1.26);
Foerster, 310.
[865] He won in chariot-racing some time between Ols. (?) 115 and 130
(= 320 and 260 B. C.): P., VI, 13.11; Hyde, 122; Foerster, 513. The
date is from the lettering on the recovered base: _Inschr. v. Ol._,
177; _cf._ Hyde, p. 51. On such statues, _cf._ Reisch, p. 41.
[866] The spelling Ηαγελαιδας occurs on two blocks, d, e, from the
Praxiteles bathron at Olympia: _Inschr. v. Ol._, 631 = _I. G. B._,
30; for the whole Praxiteles bathron see _Inschr. v. Ol._, 266.
Dittenberger and Purgold keep the reading Hagelaïdas. Possibly the
spelling Ἁγελαίδα stands for ὁ Ἀγελαίδα; the MSS. of Pliny read
Hagelades; see _I. G. B._, p. xviii, Add. to no. 30; Gardner, _Hbk._,
p. 217, n. 1. On the sculptor, see Lechat, p. 380 and n. 4, and pp. 454
f.; Collignon, I, pp. 316 f.; Joubin, pp. 14 f., 83 f., 92 f., etc.;
Brunn, pp. 63 f.; Gardner, _Hbk._, pp. 216 f.; and especially Pfuhl, in
Pauly-Wissowa, VII, pp. 2189 f.
[867] For Myron, see Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 57. Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p.
196, _Mw._, 379-80, thinks that the connection is not literally true,
even if considerations of chronology are not against it, and derives
the story of Hagelaïdas teaching Myron from the similarity between
the work of the two. For Polykleitos, see Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 55.
The tradition that Hagelaïdas was the master of Polykleitos has been
unreasonably assailed by many scholars: _e. g._, by Robert, _Arch.
Maerchen_, 1886, p. 97; Mahler, _Polyklet u. s. Sch._, 3912, pp. 6 f.;
Klein, I, p. 340; _cf._ II, p. 143; _cf._ Springer-Michaelis, I, p.
210. Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p. 196, _Mw._, p. 380, believes it impossible
because of chronological difficulties, and assumes a sculptor of an
intermediate generation as the teacher of Polykleitos; he, followed
by Mahler, _l. c._, and Klein, I, 340, names Argeiadas (mentioned in
_I. G. B._, no. 30) as this intermediate artist. However, he admits
that the statement is true in a general sense, since Polykleitos
developed his canon from that of Hagelaïdas: _cf._ _50stes Berl.
Winckelmannsprogr._, p. 149; Pfuhl, however, p. 2192, has shown that
the relationship is perfectly possible.
[868] To be mentioned _infra_, p. III and note 2.
[869] Dio Chrysost., _de Hom. et Socr._, 1; here Mueller amends the
MSS. reading ΗΠΟΥ to ΗΓΙΟΥ; E. A. Gardner, _Class. Rev._, 1894, p. 70,
wrongly reads Ἡγελάδου.
[870] _Mp._, pp. 53 and 196; _Mw._, pp. 80-81, and 380.
[871] Wilamowitz has shown that it comes from Apollonios, son of
Chairis, who lived _circa_ 100 B. C., and that it goes back probably
to the _Chronica_ of Apollodoros of Athens, who lived in the middle of
the second century B. C.: _Aus Kydathen_ (Kiessling and Wilamowitz,
_Philolog. Untersuchungen_, I, 1880), pp. 154 f. Kalkmann, in his
_Quellen der Kunstgesch. d. Plinius_, p. 41, believes that the date
which is given by Pliny (XXXIV, 49) for the _floruit_ of Hagelaïdas,
Ol. 87 (= 423-429 B. C.), comes from the same Apollodoros.
[872] _Op. cit._, pp. 41 and 65 f.; Pfuhl, p. 2194. Brunn, _l. c._,
Overbeck, I, p. 140, and Robert, _l. c._, had assumed an earlier plague
at the beginning of the fifth century B. C.; but the real occasion for
the dedication of the _Herakles_ remains obscure.
[873] P., IV, 33.2.
[874] P., VI, 8.6; Hyde, 82; Foerster, 142, 148.
[875] P., VI, 14.11; Hyde, 132; Foerster, 133, 134.
[876] P., VI, 10.6 f.; Hyde, 99; Foerster, 143. There is no reason for
following Brunn in his contention that these statues were set up some
time after the victories, as these dates fit the chronology of the
artist outlined above.
[877] A fifth-century type of statue occurs on these coins,
representing the god standing with the left foot forward, the knee
slightly bent, a thunderbolt held in the extended right hand and an
eagle in the extended left: _B. M. Coins_, Pelop., Pl. XXII, nos. 1 and
6; Hitz.-Bluemn., I, 2, Muenztafel, III, 20 and 12; Springer-Michaelis,
I, p. 211, fig. 393; Collignon, I, p. 318, figs. 158-159. Frickenhaus,
quoted by Pfuhl, p. 2194, believes that the pose is seen also in the
small bronze pictured in _B. S. A._, III, 1896-7, Pl. X, 1.
[878] P., VII, 24.4. See _B. M. Coins, Pelop._, Pl. IV, nos. 12 and 17,
and _cf._ 14; Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 1, Muenztafel, IV, 16-17; Svoronos,
_Journ. int. d’arch. num._, II, 1898, 302, Pl. 14, 11.
[879] Furtwaengler, _50stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr._, 1890 (Eine
argivische Bronze), pp. 152-153 and Pl. I (3 views); from which plate
Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 221, fig. 49; Waldstein, _J. H. S._, XXIV, 1904, p.
131, fig. 1; Gardiner, p. 93, fig. 11; von Mach, 17 b; Reinach, _Rép._,
II, 1, 85, 1; _cf._ Frost, _J. H. S._, XXIII, 1903, pp. 223 f., and
fig. 1, who compares its style and pose with a later bronze statuette
found off Cerigotto (_Arch. Eph._, 1902, Pl. 14). Ligourió is on the
site of the ancient Lessa: Curtius, _Peloponnesos_, II, 1852, p. 418.
The bronze without the base is 135 millimeters high (Furtwaengler).
[880] B. B., 302; Bulle, 43; Springer-Michaelis, p. 234, fig. 428;
Furtw., _Mp._, p. 52, fig. 10 (upper part); _Mw._, p. 79, fig. 3;
Overbeck, II, p. 473, fig. 228 b. It is 1.60 meters high (Bulle).
[881] Listed by Furtwaengler, _50stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr._, p.
139, n. 61. For the relation of these copies to each other, _id._,
_Berl. Philol. Wochenschr._, XIV, 1894, pp. 81 f.; he ascribes them to
Hegias.
[882] B. B., no. 301; Bulle, 41; von Mach, 321; Helbig, _Fuehrer_,
II, 1846; _Guide_, 744; Baum., II, p. 1191, fig. 1391; Collignon, II,
p. 661, fig. 346; Overbeck, II, p. 473, fig. 228, a; Reinach, _Rép._,
II, 2, 588, 9; F. W., 225; _A. Z._, XXXVI, 1878, Pl. XV, and pp. 123
f.; _Annali_, XXXVIII, 1865, Pl. D and pp. 58 f.; Kekulé, _Gruppe des
Kuenstlers Menelaos in Villa Ludovisi_, 1870, Pl. II, 2, pp. 20 f.;
Joubin, p. 87, fig. 15; Springer-Michaelis, p. 211, fig. 398. The best
copy of the head of the statue by Stephanos is in the Lateran Museum,
Rome: see Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p. 217, fig. 92; _Mw._, p. 405, fig.
62. The statue is 1.44 meters high (Bulle). For the inscription on the
tree-trunk, see _I. G. B._, no. 374.
[883] The best example is in Naples, the group being known, and
probably correctly, since Winckelmann’s day, as _Orestes_ and
_Elektra_: B. B., no. 306; Kekulé, _Gruppe d. Menelaos_, Pl. II, 1;
Bulle, 141 (height 1.44 meters); Collignon, II, pp. 662, fig. 347;
Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 557, fig. 151; Clarac, V, 836, 2093; Reinach,
_Rép._, I, 506.4. A sketch of the Naples _Orestes_ and the Ligourió
bronze, showing their great resemblance, is given by Furtwaengler,
_50stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr._, p. 137. A replica of the female
figure is cited by Michaelis as in Marbury Hall, England: p. 503, no.
6; _cf._ Conze, _Beitraege zur Gesch. d. gr._ Pl.^2, p. 25, n. 3.
[884] _E. g._, the so-called group of _Orestes_ and _Pylades_ in the
Louvre: von Mach, 323; Collignon, II, p. 663, fig. 348; Reinach,
_Rép._, I, 161, 2 (= _Mercury_ and _Vulcan_).
[885] Kalkmann, _53stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr._, 1893, pp. 77
f., thought that the Stephanos figure went back to an original by
Pythagoras, the rival of Myron, which Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p. 49,
rightly characterizes as “wide of the mark”; Pfuhl, p. 2197, Bulle,
and others regard its ascription to the school of Hagelaïdas as
probable, even if not capable of proof. Furtwaengler, _50stes Berl.
Winckelmannsprogr._, p. 152, believes it was _vermutlich ein Werk des
Meisters_ (_i. e._, _Hagelaïdas_) _selbst_: on pp. 146-7 he pronounces
the life-size marble torso of a statue of a nude man found in a wall
over the ruins of the Palaistra at Olympia (Treu, _A. Z._, XXXVIII,
1880, p. 45)—because of its resemblance in pose to that of the Ligourió
statuette—a Roman school copy of an original bronze victor statue going
back to Hagelaïdas.
[886] _E. g._, the marble group formerly in the Boncompagni-Ludovisi
collection, now in the Museo delle Terme, Rome: Helbig, _Fuehrer_, II,
1314; _Guide_, 887; B. B., no. 309; von Mach, 322; Baum., II, p. 1193,
fig. 1393; Springer-Michaelis, p. 454, fig. 834; Kekulé, _Die Gruppe d.
Menelaos_, Pl. I; Schreiber, _Bildw. d. Villa Ludovisi_, p. 89, no. 69;
Collignon, II, p. 665, fig. 349; F. W., 1560; Reinach, _Rép._, I, 506,
6.
[887] V, 10.8.
[888] Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 72, and XXXVI, 16.
[889] See Brunn, pp. 236-7 and 244-5.
[890] Loeschke (_Dorpaterprogr._, 1887, p. 7, on the basis of an early
suggestion of Furtwaengler in _A. M._, III, 1878, p. 194) and J.
Six (_J. H. S._, X, 1889, pp. 109 f.), assumed two sculptors of the
name of Alkamenes, ascribing the gable statues and that of _Hera_ at
Phaleron (mentioned by P., I, 1.5) to the elder one. Furtwaengler later
retracted the theory of two artists and assumed but one (_Mp._, p. 90,
n. 3; _Mw._, p. 122 and n. 6). Koepp has shown that the _Hera_ is of no
use in dating, since the story of Pausanias that the temple of Hera was
destroyed by the Persians is an invention (_Jb._, V, 1890, p. 277). The
idea of an elder Alkamenes based on the inscription on a herm recently
found in Pergamon (_A. A._, 1904, fig. on p. 76) has also been refuted
by Winter (_A. M._, XXIX, 1904, pp. 208-211, and Pls. XVIII-XXI), who
has shown that the inscription and statue do not go so far back.
[891] See Baum., pp. 1104 KK.
[892] P. 243.
[893] _A. Z._, XLI, 1883, pp. 141 f.
[894] No. 135.
[895] _Arch. Stud. H. Brunn dargebr._, pp. 67 f.
[896] _A. M._, VII, 1882, pp. 206 f. He also found the style of the two
pediments unlike.
[897] _A. Z._, XXXIX, 1881, p. 78, n. (= Argive-Sikyonian); _cf._
_Bildw. v. Ol._, Textbd., pp. 44-95; Tafelbd., Pls. IX-XVII (East
Gable), XXII-XXXI (West Gable).
[898] _A. M._, XII, 1887, pp. 374-5 (= Argive-Sikyonian); _cf._ _R.
M._, II, 1887, pp. 53 f., where he excepts the four corner figures of
the West Gable as Attic, because they are of Pentelic marble, and not
Parian, like the others.
[899] I, pp. 460-1.
[900] I, p. 330 (= Elean).
[901] For a discussion of the whole question of the artists, see
Hitz.-Bluemn., II, i, pp. 329 f.; Frazer, III, pp. 512 f. For a
restoration of the two groups, see Treu, _Jb._, III, 1888, Pls. 5,
6 (West), and _ibid._, IV, 1889, Pls. 8, 9 (East); whence Gardner,
_Hbk._, p. 246, figs, 57 and 56 respectively; see also _Bildw. v. Ol._,
Tafelbd., Pls. XVIII-XXI; Textbd., pp. 114-137; Overbeck, I, Pl. opp.
p. 309; etc.
[902] Richardson, p. 101, fig. 49 (side), and p. 154 for the statement;
Lechat, _Au Musée_, Pl. XVI; Bulle, pp. 462-3, figs. 135, 136; B.
B., no. 461 (middle row, bottom); _A. M._, XII, 1887, pp. 372 f.
(Studniczka); de Ridder, no. 467; Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, p. 679, fig.
347; it is 0.10 meter high (Graef., _A. M._, XV, 1890, p. 16, n. 1).
For the figure of Apollo, see Bulle, no. 42; _Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd.,
Pl. XXII, and Textbd., p. 69; von Mach, 86 (statue), 446 (head). The
original height was 3.10 meters (Bulle).
[903] _Mp._, p. 53; _Mw._, p. 80; _50stes Bert. Winckelmannsprogr._,
pp. 140-1 and 148.
[904] The torso was found in 1865, the head in 1888: torso, _A. M._,
V, 1880, p. 20 and Pl. I, with wrong head (Furtwaengler); head, _Arch.
Eph._, 1888, p. 81 and Pl. III; figure in outline, Collignon, I, pp.
374-5, figs. 191-2; Dickins, no. 698, pp. 264 f.; B. B., 461 b; Bulle,
40 and figs. 15, 14 on pp. 87-8 (from a cast); von Mach, 57; Overbeck,
I, p. 205, fig. 48; Lechat, p. 452, fig. 38; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2,
588, 1; Springer-Michaelis, p. 217, fig. 403; Furtwaengler, _A. A._,
1889, p. 147, _Mw._, pp. 76, n. 2, and 81; Wolters, _A. M._, XIII,
1888, p. 226. Bulle dates it toward 480 B. C.
[905] The same turn appears in the sixth-century Rampin head:
Collignon, I, p. 360, fig. 182. It will be discussed later on, pp.
126-127.
[906] Furtwaengler, _50stes Bert. Winckelmannsprogr._, pp. 132 and 150;
_Mp._, p. 19; Dickins, p. 265.
[907] It is a dedication by Euthydikos: Collignon, I, Pl. VI (right),
opp. p. 356; von Mach, no. 26 (right); Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 212, fig.
47; Bulle, 240; Lechat, _Au Musée_, p. 367, fig. 37; Perrot-Chipiez,
VIII, p. 595, fig. 299; Richardson, p. 78, fig. 33; Springer-Michaelis,
p. 207, fig. 390. Bulle gives it as half life-size.
[908] Dickins, pp. 248 f., no. 689; Bulle, no. 198; B. B., 460; von
Mach, 440 and 443 (left); Collignon, I, p. 362, fig. 184, and bibliog.,
note 3, p. 363; Overbeck, I, p. 206, fig. 49; Gardner, _Hbk._, p.
213, fig. 48; Lechat, p. 362 and _Au Musée_, p. 374, fig. 39; Furtw.,
_50stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr._, p. 151; Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, Pl.
XIV; _Arch. Eph._, III, 1888, Pl. II. It is slightly under life-size.
[909] Here again Furtwaengler ascribes it to Hegias, whose art he
derives from Hagelaïdas.
[910] Richter, _Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Bronzes in the Metropolitan
Museum_, p. 49, fig. 78; it will be discussed _infra_ in Ch. IV, pp.
220-1.
[911] See _supra_, p. 105 and n. 3.
[912] On Chrysothemis, see Robert in Pauly-Wissowa, III, 2, p.
2521; Brunn, pp. 61-2; Overbeck, I, p. 140; Collignon, I, pp. 225
(= forerunners of Hagelaïdas and Polykleitos), and _cf._ p. 320. On
Eutelidas, see Pauly-Wissowa, VI, 1, p. 1493.
[913] Pliny, H. N., XXXIV, 55; others, _e. g._, P., VI, 6.2, call him
an Argive. He belonged to a family of sculptors, some of whom worked in
Sikyon and others in Argos.
[914] Kyniskos: P., VI, 4.11; Hyde, 45; Foerster, 255; _Inschr. v.
Ol._, 149; Pythokles: P., VI, 7.10; _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde, 70; Foerster,
295; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 162-3; Aristion: P., VI, 13.6; _Oxy. Pap._;
Hyde, 115; Foerster, 376; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 165 (renewed); _I. G. B._,
92; Thersilochos: P., VI, 13.6; Hyde, 114; Foerster, 369.
[915] _H. N._, XXXIV, 91. In the same book, § 72, Pliny mentions
another pupil of Polykleitos, Aristeides, as the fashioner of
chariot-groups. Pausanias merely mentions him in connection with
improvements in the hippodrome at Olympia made by Kleoitas: VI, 20.14;
see Pauly-Wissowa, II, pp. 896-7.
[916] Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p. 226, makes Naukydes, Daidalos, and
the younger Polykleitos sons of Patrokles, the brother of the great
Polykleitos. Naukydes and Daidalos describe themselves as sons of
Patrokles in two inscriptions: _I. G. B._, 86 and 88. Pausanias,
however, calls Naukydes a brother of Polykleitos and son of Mothon: II,
22.7.
[917] Cheimon: P., VI, 9.3; _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde, 88; Foerster, 285;
Baukis: P., VI, 8.4; Hyde, 77; Foerster, 318; Eukles: P., VI, 6.2;
Hyde, 52; Foerster, 297; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 159 (renewed). Naukydes’
activity extended from Ol. 83 to Ol. 95 (= 448-400 B. C.): Hyde, p. 39.
[918] _H. N._, XXXIV, 49.
[919] P., VI, 8.1; Hyde, 72; Foerster, 268.
[920] P., VI, 6.2, expressly distinguishes between the elder and
younger Polykleitos; in speaking of the statue of the boy wrestler
Agenor, he says that Polykleitos, the pupil of Naukydes, “not the one
who made the statue of Hera,” fashioned it. Robert, _O. S._, pp. 186
f., gives his activity as Ols. 98 to 103 (= 388-368 B. C.).
[921] Antipatros: P., VI, 2.6; Hyde, 16; Foerster, 309; Agenor: P.,
VI, 6.2; Hyde, 53; Foerster, 355; Xenokles: P., VI, 9.2; Hyde, 85;
Foerster, 308; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 164; _I. G. B._, 90; Furtwaengler
wrongly ascribed the statue of Xenokles to the elder Polykleitos and
that of Aristion to the younger: _Mp._, pp. 224-5. Loewy had already
assumed the eider for Aristion, _Strena Helbigiana_, p. 180, n. 4, and
this was confirmed by the early dating of his victory in the _Oxy. Pap._
[922] P., VI, 16.7; Hyde, 162; Foerster, 515. On this sculptor, see
Pauly-Wissowa, I, p. 2137; _I. G. B._, 475; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 318; etc.
[923] Before 600 B. C.; Robert, in Pauly-Wissowa, V, pp. 1159 f.; _cf._
Collignon, I, pp. 131 and 222 f.; Overbeck, I, pp. 84 f.
[924] P., VI, 9.1, f.
[925] Antipatros of Sidon, in _A. Pl._ (XVI), no. 220; on Aristokles,
see Pauly-Wissowa, II, p. 937; Robert, _Arch. Maerch._, pp. 95 ff.
[926] Longpérier, _Notice des bronzes antiques du Louvre_, I, 1868,
no. 69; de Ridder, _Les bronzes antiques du Louvre_, I, 1913, Pl.
2, 2, and p. 7; B. B., no. 78; Collignon, I, Pl. V, opp. p. 312;
von Mach, 18 (two views); Overbeck, I, p. 235, fig. 60 (two views);
Springer-Michaelis, p. 211, fig. 397; Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, Pl. XI;
Reinach, _Rép._, II, 1, 84, 9. For bibliography, see Deonna, _Les
Apollons archaïques_, p. 274. It is only 3 feet 4 inches tall. The
_Apollo Philesios_, stolen from Miletos at the destruction of the city
by Darius in 493 B. C. (Hdt., VI, 19; but P., VIII, 46.3, and later
writers wrongly say by Xerxes; see E. Meyer, _Gesch. d. Altertums_,^2
1912, III, p. 309), was restored from Ekbatana in Media in 306 B. C. by
Seleukos Nikator (P., _l. c._, and _cf._ I, 16.3). It is also mentioned
by P., II, 10.5. The genuineness of the Piombino statuette has been
assailed, but Overbeck has proved it genuinely archaic: _Griech.
Kunstmyth._, III, _Apollon_, 1889, pp. 22 f.; _cf._ _Gesch. d. gr.
Pl._, I, pp. 234 f.
[927] _H. N._, XXXIV, 75; _cf._ Jex-Blake _ad loc._, p. 60. Pausanias
mentions a cedar replica of the _Apollo_ at Thebes: II, 10.5 and IX,
10.2. See p. 336, n. 1.
[928] P. Gardner, _The Types of Greek Coins_, 1883, Pl. XV, nos.
15-16; Collignon, I, p. 312, figs. 153-155; _cf._ B. Head, _Historia
Nummorum_^2, 1911, p. 586; Overbeck, _Apollon_, pp. 23 f., and
Muenztafel I, nos. 22 f. Also on gems: see M. W., I, Pl. XV, no. 61;
_B. M. Gems_, no. 720; etc.
[929] _L. c._
[930] _B. M. Bronzes_, no. 209 and Pl. I (middle); _Specimens_, Pl.
12; _Annali_, VI, 1834, Pl. D, fig. 4; Overbeck, I, p. 144, fig.
24, and _Apollon_, p. 24, fig. 5; Murray, I, p. 193, fig. 49; Rayet
et Thomas, _Milet et le golfe Latmique_, Pl. 28, 2; Collignon, I,
p. 313, fig. 156; Dar.-Sagl., I, p. 318, fig. 375; von Mach, 17 a;
Springer-Michaelis, p. 183, fig. 350; Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, p. 475,
fig. 242; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 1, 80, 9; Fowler and Wheeler, _Hbk. of
Greek Archæology_, 1909, p. 331, fig. 251; Furtwaengler, in Roscher,
_Lex._, I, 1, p. 451; Frazer, IV, p. 430, fig. 45, Bulle, 28 (middle).
A modern copy is in the Antiquarium, Munich: F. W., 51. It is 0.185
meter high (Bulle).
[931] _R. M._, II, 1887, pp. 90 f. (Studniczka) and Pls. IV, IV a, V;
Collignon, I, p. 321, fig. 161; Overbeck, I, p. 239, fig. 62; Michaelis
in _A. Z._, XXI, 1863, pp. 122 f. (Anzeiger). It is 1.11 meters in
height.
[932] Collignon, I, p. 253, fig. 122; Overbeck, _Griech. Kunstmythol._,
III, _Apollon_, p. 36, fig. 8; Fraenkel, in _A. Z._, XXXVII, 1879, pp.
84-91, and Pl. 7.
[933] The small bronze also found there, 0.155 meter high, belongs
to the same series: _B. C. H._, X, 1886, pp. 190 f., and Pl. IX. It
greatly resembles the statuette from Naxos. For a list of replicas of
the statue of Kanachos, see Rayet, _Études d’archéologie et d’art_, p.
164; etc.
[934] On the style of Kanachos and the _Apollo_, see also Kekulé,
_Sitzb. d. preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin_, 1904, I, pp. 786-801; O.
Mueller, _Kleine Schriften_, II, p. 537; F. W., to no. 51; Brunn, pp.
74 f.; Collignon, I, pp. 310 f.; etc.
[935] P., VI, 1.3 and 8.5; Hyde, 1, 2, 3, and 78; Foerster, 296, 300,
299, 290 and 305; on Alypos, see Pauly-Wissowa, I, p. 1711; Brunn, p.
280; _B. C. H._, XXI, 1897, pp. 287 f.; and _cf._ P., X, 9.10.
[936] P., VI, 13.7; Hyde, 116; Foerster, 291; on the sculptor, see
Brunn, p. 277.
[937] P., VI, 3.13; Hyde, 34; Foerster, 575; on the sculptor, see
Brunn, pp. 292 and 419; _cf._ Hyde, p. 34.
[938] Timon and Aigyptos, who won some time between Ols. (?) 98 and
[101] P., VI, 2.8; Hyde, 17, 18; Foerster, 310, 301; Aristodemos, Ol.
[98] P., VI, 3.4; Hyde, 25; Foerster, 312; Eupolemos, Ol. 96: Afr.; P.,
VI, 3.7; Hyde, 28; Foerster, 294. On Daidalos, see Pauly-Wissowa, IV,
pp. 2006 f.; Robert, _O. S._, pp. 191 f.; Brunn, pp. 14 f.
[939] P., VI, 3.5; Hyde, 26; Foerster, 325. On Damokritos, see
Pauly-Wissowa, IV, p. 2070; Brunn, p. 105.
[940] Deinolochos: P., VI, 1.4; Hyde, 5; Foerster, 330; Hysmon: P.,
VI, 3.9; Hyde, 31; Foerster, 347; Kritodamos: P., VI, 8.5; Hyde, 80;
Foerster, 337; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 167; _I. G. B._, no. 96; Alketos: P.,
VI, 9.2; Hyde, 86; Foerster, 320; Lykinos: P., VI, 10.9; Hyde, 100;
Foerster, 336. On Kleon, see Brunn, pp. 285; _I. G. B._, to no. 95.
[941] Troilos: P., VI, 1.4; Hyde, 6; Foerster, 338 and 345; _Inschr.
v. Ol._, 166; the dates of his two victories, Ols. 102, 103, are
known; Philandridas: P., VI, 2.1; Hyde, 10; Foerster, 393; his victory
fell either in Ol. 102 or Ol. 103; Cheilon: P., VI, 4.6-7; Hyde, 41;
Foerster, 384 and 392; P., because of the dating of Lysippos, inferred
that this victor fell either at Chæroneia (338 B. C.) or Lamia (322
B. C.), both of which dates fall within the working years of the
sculptor; see P. Gardner, _J. H. S._, XXV, 1905, p. 246; Polydamas:
P., VI, 5.1; Hyde, 47; Foerster, 279; Africanus gives us the date of
his victory as Ol. 93, though the statue was set up after the victor’s
death; Kallikrates, of Magnesia on the Mæander: P., VI, 17.3; Hyde,
175; Foerster, 390 and 397 (for two victories). Lysippos made two honor
statues for Pythes of Abdera: P., VI, 14.12; Hyde, 134 a.
[942] Kallon: P., VI, 12.6; Hyde, 106; Foerster, 410; Nikandros: P.,
VI, 16.5; Hyde, 157; Foerster, 408 and 413 (two victories). On the
sculptor, see Pauly-Wissowa, IV, p. 2013; Brunn, p. 407.
[943] P., VI, 17.5; Hyde, 181; Foerster, 401. On Daitondas, see Robert
in Pauly-Wissowa, IV, p. 2015 (who dates the sculptor at the beginning
of the third century B. C., because of an inscribed base found at
Delphi: _I. G. B._, 97; _C. I. G. G. S._, I, 2472); _cf._ Schmidt, _A.
M._, V, 1880, pp. 197-8, no. 58; _cf._ Brunn, p. 418.
[944] P., VI, 2.6 f.; Hyde, 15; Foerster, 424.
[945] _H. N._, XXXIV, 51; _cf._ XXXIV, 78 (for his image of the Eurotas
river); XXXV, 141 (as painter). The _Tyche_ is mentioned by P., VI,
2.7. Many copies of this work in marble, bronze, and silver have been
identified, especially a marble statuette in the Vatican: B. B., no.
154; Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, 362; F. W., 1396; von Mach, 256; etc. For a
list of copies, see R. Foerster, _Jb._, XII, 1897, pp. 145 f.; _cf._
Amelung, _Fuehrer d. Florenz_, nos. 261-2; and P. Gardner, _J. H. S._,
IX, 1888, pp. 75 f. and Pl. V (silver statuette). On the sculptor, see
Robert in Pauly-Wissowa, VI, pp. 1532-3; Brunn, I, pp. 411 f.; II, p.
157 (painter); Overbeck, II, pp. 172 f.; Collignon II, pp. 485 f.;
Murray^2, II, pp. 354 f. Robert, _l. c._, gives three other sculptors
of the same name; _cf._ _I. G. B._, nos. 143 and 244-9; Homolle, _B. C.
H._, XVIII, 1894, pp. 336 f.
[946] Kratinos: P., VI, 3.6; Hyde, 27; Foerster, 433; Alexinikos: P.,
VI, 17.7; Hyde, 184; Foerster, 438. On the sculptor, see Pliny, XXXIV,
85; Brunn, p. 415.
[947] P., V, 25.12-13.
[948] P., V, 27.8 (= joint work of Onatas and Kalliteles).
[949] P., V, 25.8 f. The base has been found _in situ_ east of the
temple of Zeus: _Ergebn. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., II, Pl. XVII, 12; Textbd.,
pp. 145 f. See Plans A and B.
[950] P., VI, 12.1. Hiero won three victories in Ols. 76, 77, 78 (=
476-468 B. C.): _Oxy. Pap._, Hyde, 105; Foerster, 199, 209, 215. The
monument was dedicated in 467 B. C. after the death of the king. For
the sculptor, see Brunn, p. 88.
[951] P., VI, 9.4-5; Hyde, 90; Foerster, 180; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 143.
[952] Philon: P., VI, 9.9; Hyde, 91; Foerster, 167 and 179; he won in
Ols. (?) 72 and 73 (= 492 and 488 B. C.); Glaukos (boy boxer): P., VI,
10.1-3; Hyde, 93; Foerster, 137; he won in Ol. 65 (= 520 B. C.), but
his statue was set up by his son at the beginning of the fifth century
B. C.: Hyde, p. 42; Theagenes: P., VI, 11.2 f.; he won in Ols. 75 and
76 (= 480 and 476 B. C.): _Oxy. Pap._, Hyde, 104; Foerster, 191, 196.
[953] For the meaning of the word σκιαμαχεῖν, see _infra_, Ch. IV, p.
243 and n. 4.
[954] Theognetos: P., VI, 9.1; _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde, 83; Foerster, 193,
193 N; Epikradios: P., VI, 10.9; Hyde, 101; Foerster, 228.
[955] P., VI, 10.9; Hyde, 103 and p. 44; Foerster, 519. On the
sculptor, see Brunn, p. 96.
[956] P., VI, 14.2; Hyde, 133; Foerster, 327. For the sculptor, see
Brunn, p. 96.
[957] Lechat, _Au Musée_, Pl. XV; _Arch. Eph._, 1887, Pl. III and pp.
43 f.; Bulle, 226 (two views); von Mach, 442, 443 (right); S. Reinach,
_Têtes_, nos. 5 and 6; Overbeck, I, p. 198, fig. 44 (two views);
Collignon, I, p. 304, fig. 151; Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, pp. 526-7, figs.
271-2; E. A. Gardner, _J. H. S._, VIII, 1887, p. 191. While Overbeck
and Lechat regard it as Attic, most scholars call it Aeginetan. The
helmet is separately made and fastened on. Bulle dates it in the first
decade of the fifth century B. C. It is 0.27 meter high (Bulle).
[958] Comparetti e de Petra, _La Villa Ercolanese dei Pisoni_, 1883,
Pl. VII, 1, p. 260; Collignon, I, p. 303, fig. 150; _Mon. d. I._, IX,
1869-73, Pl. XVIII; Kekulé, _Annali_, XLII, 1870, pp. 263 f.; von
Mach, 441; F. W., 229; for its style, see Rayet, I, text to Pl. 26.
Studniczka, _R. M._, II, 1887, p. 105, n. 47, believes that the closely
allied colossal marble head in the Museo Torlonia (no. 501) in Rome is
a copy of the colossal _Apollo_ of Onatas at Pergamon, mentioned by P.,
VIII, 42.7. The head of the _Zeus_ found at Olympia (_Bronz. v. Ol._,
Pl. I, 1, 1 a) has been regarded as Aeginetan.
[959] Collignon, I, p. 306; fig. 152 on p. 305.
[960] _B. M. Sculpt._, I, no. 206; etc. Brunn, _Sitzb. Muen. Akad._,
1872, pp. 529 f., referred it to the school of Kallon; _cf._ also
Collignon, I, p. 302.
[961] Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 169, fig. 31; von Mach, no. 15 (right); etc.
[962] _Aegina, das Heiligtum der Aphaia_, 1906; see Tafelbd., II,
Pls. 104 (West Gable), 105 (East Gable), (the pediment groups in
colors); whence Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 226, Pls. 50-51; _cf._ also
Springer-Michaelis, pp. 214-15, figs. 400 (West Gable), 401 (East
Gable); fig. 399 gives an older arrangement of the West Gable statues,
as set up in plaster in the Strasbourg Museum. Since Furtwaengler’s
death new attempts at reconstruction have been made, notably by P.
Wolters, _Aeginetische Beitraege_, and D. Mackenzie, in _B. S. A._, XV,
1908-09, pp. 274 f. and PI. XIX (East Gable). For various figures, see
von Mach, nos. 78-83. See Furtwaengler-Wolters, _Beschr. d. Glypt._^2,
pp. 95 f. and figs. 74 f.
[963] While Overbeck dates them about 500 B. C., Furtwaengler, Bulle,
Gardner, and others date them about 480 B. C.
[964] Hdt., VIII, 93.
[965] P., X, 13. 10.
[966] Furtw., _op. cit._, Tafelbd., Pl. 95, no. 82, and Textbd., pp.
248-9, and fig. 178 on p. 23; B. B., no 26; Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 229,
fig. 52; it is from the north half of the gable.
[967] Furtw., fig. 204, p. 248.
[968] Furtw.-Wolters, _Beschr. d. Glyptothek_,^2 no. 78; Furtw., _op.
cit._, Tafelbd., Pl. 96, no. 32, and Textbd., pp. 223-4; the figure
on our plate to the right = Furtw.-Wolters, _Beschr._, no. 77 and
Furtw., _op. cit._, Pl. 96, no. 29, Textbd., p. 221. No. 78 should
stand, however, in front of 77 as arranged by Furtwaengler, _op. cit._,
Tafelbd., Pl. 104, and both should be placed in the south half of the
West Pediment and not in the north. For the two figures in Fig. 21,
see also von Mach, 78 (middle and right). For another figure (armed
with helmet, shield, and spear) from the East Gable, see Bulle, 86 =
Furtw.-Wolters, no. 86 (formerly no. 56).
[969] Recently these sculptures, and especially the limestone (λίθος
πώρινος) fragments, have been dated from 490 B. C., rather than from
[480] see Svoronos, I, p. 92. The Akropolis was destroyed by Xerxes in
480 B. C., but it is problematical if with the completeness recorded
by Hdt., VIII, 53; see Doerpfeld in _A. M._, XXVII, 1902, pp. 379 f.;
Dickins, pp. 5 f. The next year Mardonios destroyed the city by fire:
Hdt., IX, 13.
[970] See von Mach, 25 f.; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, pp. 635 f.;
for details, Lechat, _Au Musée_, and Schrader, _Die archaischen
Marmorskulpturen im Akropolis-Museum zu Athen_, 1909. See also Dickins,
_op. cit._; Perrot-Chipiez, pp. 574 f. and p. 577, fig. 289 (= _Au
Musée_, fig. 26), and p. 578, fig. 290 (= _Au Musée_, fig. 8); etc.
[971] _Mon. gr._, VII, 1878 (publ. in vol. I, 1882), Pl. I and pp. 1-14
(A. Dumont); _Mon. Piot_, VII, Pl. XIV, and pp. 146-7 (Lechat); Rayet,
I, Pl. 18; Collignon, I, p. 360, fig. 182; Reinach, _Têtes_, 3, 4;
Bulle, 225; Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, p. 641, fig. 328.
[972] So Richardson, p. 83, and others.
[973] So Bulle; he dates it in the first half of the sixth century B.
C., doubtless a little too early.
[974] It is now in the National Museum at Athens: Kabbadias, no. 38;
Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, p. 17; _Arch. Eph._, 1874, p. 484 and Pl.
71, Γ, a (Koumanoudis); Sybel, _Kat. d. Skulpt. zu Athen_, 1881, no.
2904; von Mach, 351; Overbeck, I, p. 202, fig. 46; Collignon, I, p.
385, fig. 200; F. W., 99; Conze, _Die attischen Grabreliefs_, I, 1890,
Pl. IV, pp. 5-6; Kirchhoff and Curtius, _Philolog. u. histor. Abh. d.
k. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin_, 1873, pp. 156 f. (and two illustrations,
one of a second fragment); Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, p. 664, fig. 342.
[975] The breadth of 14 inches at top would become 30 inches at bottom.
A second fragment, apparently belonging to the first, contains a part
of the leg: _Arch. Eph._, 1874, Pl. 71, Γ, b.
[976] The same motive occurs on vases: _e. g._, Gerhard, I, Pl. XXII,
and IV, Pl. CCLXXII.
[977] This very low relief is the most perfect of the older Attic
grave-stelæ, and dates from the second half of the sixth century B. C.:
Kabbadias, no. 29; Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, p. 15 and fig. (2.40
m. high); Sybel, _op. cit._, no. 3361; Overbeck, I, p. 200, fig. 45;
Conze, _Die attischen Grabreliefs_, I, Pl. II, 1, p. 4; B. B., no. 41
A; Baum., I, p. 341, fig. 358; Kekulé, _Die ant. Bildw. im Theseion_,
no. 363; Springer-Michaelis, p. 195, fig. 371; F. W., no. 101. Overbeck
dates it at the beginning of the fifth century B. C.; Richardson, p. 91
and fig. 43, about 525 B. C. For a duplicate stele from Ikaria, see _A.
J. A._, V, 1889, Pl. I and pp. 9 f. (Buck); Conze, _op. cit._, I, Pl.
II, 2.
[978] Dickins, no. 692 and fig.; mentioned by Furtwaengler, _A. M._, V,
1880, pp. 25 and 32; discussed by R. Delbrueck, _ibid._, XXV, 1900, pp.
373 f., Pls. XV, XVI (bottom).
[979] _La Glypt. Ny-Carlsberg_, 1896, Pls. 1, 2 (and text by Arndt);
Reinach, _Têtes_, Pls. 1, 2; Rayet, _Mon. gr._, VI, 1877 (publ. in
vol. I, 1882), Pl. I; _id._, _Ét. d’archéol. et d’art_, pp. 1-8 and
Pl. I; Collignon, I, pp. 361, fig. 183; B. B., no. 116; Bulle, 197;
Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, p. 643, fig. 329.
[980] Collignon, I, p. 376, fig. 193; Bulle, fig. 128 on p. 440.
[981] Brunn-Arndt, _Gr. und roem. Portraets_, Pls. XXIII-XXIV.
[982] _Gaz. arch._, 1887, Pl. XI.
[983] _Cf._ Arndt, _La Glyptothèque Ny-Carlsberg_, text to nos. 1 and 2.
[984] _Sammlung Sabouroff_, 1883, I, Einleitung, p. 5.
[985] Found in two fragments in 1822 and 1859-60: Dickins, no. 1342,
pp. 275 ff., and fig.; B. B., 21; von Mach, 56; Overbeck, I, p. 203 and
fig. 47; H. Schrader, _A. M._, XXX, 1905, pp. 305 f., and Pl. XI. Other
references are given _infra_, p. 269, n. 9.
[986] See Hauser, _Jb._, VII, 1892, pp. 54 f., who discusses the
question of the sex of the figure at length.
[987] So Hauser, _l. c._; followed by Robinson, _Cat. Museum of Fine
Arts in Boston_, no. 33.
[988] _E. g._, Gerhard, I, Pls. XX and XXI.
[989] See _infra_, Ch. V, pp. 269 f.
[990] While Schrader (_op. cit._, p. 313) dates it in the last quarter
of the sixth century B. C., Dickins finds it earlier than the remnants
of the sculptures of the Hekatompedon and, because of the delicate
carving of the drapery and hair, despite its Attic features, calls it
“typically Ionian in its elaboration of detail.” However, I follow
Overbeck’s date at the beginning of the fifth century B. C. (_op. cit._
p. 204), and believe that it represents a time near the close of Ionic
influence on Attic art.
[991] P., VI, 6.1; _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde, 50; Foerster, 208; _Inschr. v.
Ol._, 146.
[992] Of the Spartan hoplite and chariot victor Lykinos, who won two
victories in Ols. (?) 83 and 84 (= 448 and 444 B. C.): P., VI, 2.1;
Hyde, 12; Foerster, 211 N; of the pancratiast Timanthes of Kleonai,
who won in Ol. 81 (= 456 B. C.): P., VI, 8.4; _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde, 76;
Foerster, 232; of the unknown Arkadian boxer, mentioned by P., VI, 8.5,
who won in Ol. 80 or Ol. 84 (= 460 or 444 B. C.): Hyde, 79, and pp.
39-41; _cf._ Foerster, 222 a, Hyde, 79 a; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 174; of the
Spartan runner Chionis, who won in Ols. 28, 29, 30, 31 (= 668-656 B.
C.), but his statue was erected in Ol. 77 or 78 (= 472 or 468 B. C.):
P., VI, 13.2; Afr.; Hyde, 111 and p. 48; Foerster, 39, 41-6. On two
statues of Lykinos, see _infra_, p. 187, n. 6.
[993] Of the Elean boxer Satyros, who won two victories in Ols. (?)
102, 103 (= 372, 368 B. C.): P., VI, 4.5; Hyde, 39; Foerster, 342, 348;
of the boy boxers Telestas and Damaretos of Messene, who won some time
between Ols. 102 and 114 (= 372 and 324 B. C.): P., VI, 14.4; Hyde,
127; Foerster, 378; and P., VI, 14.11; Hyde, 130; Foerster, 373. On the
sculptor, see Hyde, p. 35.
[994] P., VI, 4.5; Hyde, 40; Foerster, 494.
[995] P., VI, 12.8 f.; Hyde, 109; Foerster, 529; _cf._ Robert,
_Hermes_, XIX, 1884, pp. 306 f. On the artist family of Polykles, his
sons Timokles and Timarchides, Polykles Minor and Timarchides Minor,
see Robert, _l. c._, pp. 300 f.; Hyde, pp. 45-47 and table on p. 46.
[996] _E. g._, _H. N._, XXXIV, 73 (Boëdas); XXXIV, 78 (Euphranor);
XXXIV, 90 (Sthennis). In XXXIV, 91, he gives a list of artists who made
statues of _sacrificantes_.
[997] In the Iliad, I, 450; VIII, 347; XV, 371; Aischylos, _Prom._,
1005 (ὑπτιάσμασι χερῶν); etc. On the attitude of prayer in Greek art,
see L. Gurlitt, _A. M._, VI, 1881, pp. 158 f. (who tries to show that
the gestures of prayer and adoration were distinct); Sittl, _Die
Gebaerden der Gr. und Roem._, pp. 305 f.; _cf._ Conze, _Jb._, I, 1886,
pp. 1-13 (on the _Praying Boy_ of Berlin, Pl. 10.) See also Dar.-Sagl.,
I, pp. 80 f., _s. v._ _adoratio_.
[998] V, 25. 5.
[999] See article by P. Girard and J. Martha in _B. C. H._, II, 1878,
pp. 421 f. (lists of inventories of objects consecrated there).
[1000] Scherer, p. 33, shows that the gesture in such statues was meant
to invoke victory rather than to pay thanks for one that had been
gained.
[1001] Scherer agrees with Philostratos, _Vit. Apoll. Tyan._, IV, 28,
that the gesture of the right hand of the statue was one of prayer, and
argues from it that many similar statues existed there: p. 31. Rouse
wrongly assumes that all such statues were votive: p. 170.
[1002] P., VI, 1.7; he won in Ol. (?) 79 (= 464 B. C.): Hyde, 8;
Foerster, 233.
[1003] Ol. VII, Argum., Boeckh, p. 158.
[1004] Fragm. no. 264 (= _F. H. G._, II, p. 183).
[1005] Fragm. no. 7 (= _F. H. G._, IV, p. 307).
[1006] Diagoras won in Ol. 79 (= 464 B. C.): P., VI, 7.1 f.; Hyde, 59;
Foerster, 220; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 151 (renewed). For the sculptor of the
statue, Kallikles, see Robert, _O. S._, pp. 194 f. On Diagoras, see van
Gelder, _Gesch. d. alt. Rhodier_, p. 435. Akousilaos won in Ol. 83 (=
448 B. C.): P., _l. c._; _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde, 60; Foerster, 252.
[1007] _Beschr. d. Skulpt._, Inv. 6306; _A. M._, VI, 1881, p. 158.
Rouse, p. 171, following Scherer, pp. 31 f., doubts if this statue
represents the attitude of any of the Olympic victor statues.
[1008] She won two victories in Ols. (?) 96, 97 (= 396, 392 B. C.): P.,
VI, 1.6 f.; Hyde, 7; Foerster, 326, 333; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 160 (here
the name appears in the uncontracted form Ἀπελλέας).
[1009] _A. Z._, XXXVII, 1879, pp. 151-2 (on no. 301 = _Inschr. v. Ol._,
160); he is followed by Foerster, _l. c._
[1010] _H. N._, XXXIV, 86.
[1011] XXXIV, 70. For the motive, see the small bronze in Kassel,
representing Aphrodite: _Jb._, IX, 1894, Pl. IX (two views), and pp.
248-50 (W. Klein), though its connection with Praxiteles must not be
pressed; also bronze statuette in British Museum: Bulle, 1, pp. 332 f.,
and fig. 81.
[1012] Described by R. von Schneider, Die Erzstatue vom Helenenberge,
in _Jahrb. d. Samml. d. oesterr. Kaiserhauses_, XV, 1893;
illustrated by E. von Sacken, _Die ant. Bronz. d. k. k. Muenz.- und
Antiken-Cabinetes in Wien_, 1871, I, Pls. XXI-XXII, pp. 52 f., and
_cf._ _A. M._, VI, 1881 p. 155 (Gurlitt).
[1013] _Cf._ F. W., 1562.
[1014] _C. I. L._, III, 2, 4815.
[1015] _Mp._, p. 290; _Mw._, pp. 506-7.
[1016] _Beschr. d. ant. Skulpt._, no. 2 (for history and bibliography);
B. B., 283; von Mach, 273; Bulle, 64; Reinach, _Rép._, I, 459, 4; _cf._
Conze, _Jb._, I, 1886, pp. 1 f.; _ibid._, pp. 217 (Furtwaengler);
_ibid._, pp. 219 f. (Puchstein); Springer-Michaelis, p. 341, fig. 614.
A similar attitude of prayer appears on the figure of Phineus on a
r.-f. Attic amphora in the British Museum: _A. Z._, XXXVIII, 1880, pp.
143 f. and Pl. XII, 1 (Flasch). The statue is 1.28 meters high (Bulle).
[1017] Loewy, _R. M._, XVI, 1901, pp. 391 f. and Pls. XVI-XVII, by a
comparison with the Vatican _Apoxyomenos_ (Pl. 29), and the Naples
resting _Hermes_ (von Mach, 237; Reinach, _Rép._, I, 367, 1), has shown
its Lysippan character; _cf._ also Mau, _l. c._ in next note, Bulle,
and others, who refer it to the same school; Bulle assigns it possibly
to Boëdas, the pupil of Lysippos, who made a praying figure: Pliny, _H.
N._, XXXIV, 73; similarly Amelung, in Thieme-Becker, _Lex. d. bild.
Kuenstler_, IV, p. 187, Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 452, and others.
[1018] _R. M._, XVII, 1902, pp. 101 f.
[1019] _Muenchner Allg. Ztg._, 1902, Nov. 29, Beilage, no. 297; _cf._,
for his restoration of the arms, _ibid._, 1903, Beilage, no. 277, p.
445 (quoted by von Mach and Bulle, respectively).
[1020] _Jb._, I, 1886, fig. on p. 217; reproduced in _A. A._, 1904,
p. 75 (Conze); also on coins, _Jb._, III, 1888, pp. 286 f. and Pl. IX
(Imhoof-Blumer).
[1021] _Rev. arch._, Sér. IV, II, 1903, pp. 205-10, 411-12 (Lechat),
and Pl. XV; reproduced in _A. A._, _l. c._ Babelon, _C. R. Acad.
Inscr._, 1904, p. 203, thought that the stele represented a seer in
liturgic attitude as on certain coins of Sikyon; he argued, therefore,
that the Berlin statue did not represent an athlete.
[1022] _E. g._, Levezow, _de juvenis adorantis Signo_, Berlin, 1808, p.
12; and Welcker, _Das akad. Mus. zu Bonn_, p. 42 (quoted by Gurlitt,
_op. cit._ in the next note, p. 157); _cf._ Scherer, pp. 32-3.
[1023] _A. M._, VI, 1881, pp. 154 f. (Gurlitt), and Pl. V (from cast in
Berlin): it is 2.18 meters high and 1.11 meters broad.
[1024] In the National Museum, Athens; discussed by Kekulé, _Die
antiken Bildwerke im Theseion zu Athen_, 1869, no. 151; illustrated in
_Exped. scientifique de Morée_, III, 1838, Pl. XLI (= from Aegina).
[1025] See O. Jahn in _Annali_, XX, 1848, pp. 213 f. and Pl. K a (=
Orestes); _A. Z._, XXX, 1872, p. 60, Pl. 46 (Heydemann); Gurlitt, _op.
cit._, p. 156; _cf._ Sophokles, _Aias_, 815 f., to explain the scene.
[1026] See Richter, _Gk., Etrusc., and Rom. Bronz. in the Metropolitan
Museum_, 1918, no. 89 (7 inches high) and fig. on p. 59; _Cat. Class.
Coll._, p. 115, fig. 73; published by Furtwaengler, _Sitzb. Muen.
Akad._, 1905, II, p. 264, fig. 1 and Pl. IV (who considered it Etruscan
and not Greek); Reinach, _Rép._, III, 24, 3. Richter, _op. cit._, no.
79 (11-3/4 inches high), and figs. on p. 53 (two views); _Cat. Class.
Coll._, p. 91, fig. 54; _Burlington Fine Arts Club, Cat. Anc. Gk. Art_,
1904, p. 46, no. 36, and Pl. LIII; Reinach, _Rép._, IV, 370, 6.
[1027] On the custom of athletes smearing themselves with oil and
dust in the palæstra before entering the wrestling match, see Lucian,
_Anacharsis, sive de exercitationibus_, 28.
[1028] _H. N._, XXXV, 144.
[1029] Several cited by L. Bloch, _R. M._, VII, 1892, pp. 88 f.; and
especially one in _A. Z._, XXXVII, 1879, Pl. IV (red-figured krater
by Euthymides from Capua, now in Berlin); Hartwig, _Die griech.
Meisterschalen_, 1893, p. 570. _Cf._ Furtw., _Mp._, p. 259, _Mw._, p.
466.
[1030] _Cf._ Brunn, _Annali_, LI, 1879, pp. 201 f.
[1031] Michaelis, pp. 601-2, no. 9; Bulle, p. 109, fig. 19; Furtw.,
_Mp._, p. 257, fig. 107, _Mw._, p. 465, fig. 77. It is 1.68 meters high
(Michaelis).
[1032] It has the same foot position as that on the base of the statue
of the boxer Kyniskos, by Polykleitos: _Inschr. v. Ol._, 149.
[1033] _E. g._, by F. W., 462-4.
[1034] Furtw.-Wolters, _Beschr. d. Glypt._,^2 no. 302; B. B., 132 (=
front view, from cast), 134 (left = back view), 135 (= head, from cast,
two views); Bulle, 55; _Mon. d. I._, XI, 1879-83, Pl. VII; Brunn,
_Annali_, LI, 1879, pp. 201 f. and Pl. ST, 1, 2; F. W., 462; Reinach,
_Rép._, I, 522, 2; Clarac, V, 857, 2174; for replicas, Furtw., _Mw._,
p. 466, n. 4 and _Mp._, p. 259, n. 4; Duetschke, IV, pp. 53 f. on no.
82; etc. It is 1.93 meters high with the plinth, 1.80 meters without
(Furtw.-Wolters).
[1035] The right arm is wrongly restored in the Munich statue; its
proper restoration is given in a cast in Brunswick: Bulle, p. 112, fig.
20. Bulle, however, says that the Munich statue may be that of a boxer
and not of an oil-pourer (wrestler).
[1036] Pointed out by Kekulé, _Ueber den Kopf des Praxitelischen
Hermes_, 1881, p. 8.
[1037] _H. N._, XXXIV, 72; Klein, _Praxiteles_, 1898, p. 50; _id._,
_Arch.-epigr. Mitt. aus Oest._, XIV, 1891, pp. 6-9. We have discussed
it _supra_, p. 77.
[1038] For the _Marsyas_ in the Lateran Museum in Rome, see Bulle, no.
95, and text, pp. 183 f., and Helbig, _Fuehrer_, II, no. 1179. See
Brunn, _op. cit._, p. 204.
[1039] B. B., 557, text by Sieveking; described also by Furtwaengler,
_Beschr. d. Glypt._,^2 p. 313.
[1040] F. W., no. 463; _Annali_, LI, 1879, Pl. ST, 3; B. B., 133 (=
front view), 134 (right = back view); Furtw., _Mp._, pp. 259-60, _Mw._,
pp. 467-8; for list of replicas of this torso, see _Mp._, p. 259, n. 9,
_Mw._, p. 467, n. 4. Brunn, _op. cit._, p. 217, thought it a copy of
the Munich statue.
[1041] One in Turin, F. W., 464; Duetschke, IV, no. 82; two statuettes
in the Vatican (Braccio Nuovo), discussed by Bloch in _R. M._, VII,
1892, pp. 93 f.; Helbig, _Guide_, nos. 42 and 44.
[1042] Furtw.-Wolters, _Beschr. d. Glypt._,^2 no. 458; Clarac, Pl. 858,
2175; Furtw., _Mp._, pp. 263 f.; _Mw._, pp. 473 f. It is 1.54 meters
high. A replica is in the Vatican: see Furtwaengler, _l. c._; we shall
treat it later in reference to the statue of the pentathlete Pythokles;
Hyde, 70; Foerster, 295; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 162-3; see _infra_, p. 144
and n. 4.
[1043] _B. M. Bronzes_, no. 514, on p. 71, and Pl. XVI; _Specimens_,
I, Pl. 15; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 91, 7; _Mon. gr._, II, no. 23, Pl. XV
and p. 1 (ascribing it to the Argive school). It forms the basis for a
mirror.
[1044] Furtwaengler, _Sitzb. Muen. Akad._, 1897, II, pp. 129 f. and Pl.
6 (influence of Kalamïs).
[1045] _B. C. H._, X, 1886, pp. 393 f. (S. Reinach) and Pl. XII,
3 (this should be numbered XIV, 4; see text); Pottier et Reinach,
_Nécrop. de Myrina_, Pl. XLI, 3, pp. 450 f. It is 0.205 meter high.
[1046] _E. g._, F. W., 1798; relief found in 1830 in Hermione, now in
Athens; it is of the second or third century B. C.
[1047] _E. g._, on the stone of Gnaios: _Jb._, III, 1888, pp. 315
f., no. 3; Pl. X, no. 12; Furtwaengler, _Die antiken Gemmen_, 1900, Pl.
L, no. 9, and Vol. II, p. 241; also on the gem pictured by Toelken,
_Erklaer. Verzeichn. d. ant. vertieft geschnittenen Steine d. preuss.
Gemmensammlung_, 1835, Klasse VI, 107 (= _Die ant. Gemmen_, Pl. XLIV,
no. 24, and Vol. II, pp. 213); Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p. 260, n. 6,
and _Mw._, p. 468, n. 4, who mentions it, believes that these gems
correspond more nearly with the Dresden than with the Petworth athlete
type.
[1048] The strigil was a curved blade hollowed out inside with both
edges sharp; the general form remained largely the same from the sixth
century B. C., down into Roman days, though the curve and the handle
changed. The commonest were of bronze or iron: see Dar.-Sagl., IV,
2, pp. 1532 f., _s. v._ _strigilis_ (S. Dorigny); K. Friederichs,
_Kleinere Kunst und Industrie im Altertum_, 1871, pp. 88 f. Examples
in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, are given by Richter, in _Gk.,
Etr. and Rom. Bronzes_, nos. 855 f.; others (strigils and handles)
are in the British Museum: _B. M. Bronzes_, nos. 320-326, 665, and
2420-2454, and figs. 74-75, p. 319; on the operation, see Kuppers, _Der
Apoxyomenos des Lysippos_, 1874.
[1049] _E. g._, on an amphora in Vienna: Schneider, _Arch.-epigr. Mitt.
aus Oest._, V, 1881, p. 139, Pl. IV; Hoppin, _Hbk. Attic r.-f. Vases_,
I. p. 334, no. 25 and Pl. (right-hand fig.); on a kylix formerly in
possession of Lucien Bonaparte, now in the British Museum, E 83:
Gerhard, IV, Pl. CCLXXVII, 2 (left-hand figure), and p. 50; Murray,
_Designs from Greek Vases_, no. 58; others on which the athlete is
cleansing the strigil and not the body are given by Hartwig in _Jh.
oest. arch. Inst._, IV, 1901, p. 154 and figs. 178 (Peleus on krater
from Bologna), 179 (athlete on B. M. vase mentioned above, E. 83, third
figure from left, middle row), 180 (cup in Rome, Museo Gregoriano), 181
(jug, _ibid._); Hartwig, pp. 153-4, mentions an athlete on a cup in the
Museo Papa Giulio, Rome. For the motive of an apoxyomenos on a vase in
the Louvre, see Hartwig, _Die greich. Meisterchalen_, pp. 24 f. and
fig. 2a.
[1050] _H. N._, XXXIV, 55, 62 and 76, respectively.
[1051] Pliny, XXXIV, 86 and 87, respectively.
[1052] A list is given by Furtw., _Mp._, p. 262, n. 2; _Mw._, p. 471,
n. 1; a gem from the Hermitage is shown in _Mp._, p. 262, fig. 109;
_Mw._, p. 471, fig. 79; = _Die antiken Gemmen_, Pl. XLIV, no. 19; _cf._
also _ibid._, no. 18; Hartwig, in the article cited in note 1 above,
adds two more gems showing an athlete in a similar position, in the
Boston Museum of Fine Arts: p. 155, figs. 183, 184. Here the youth,
as Hartwig against the interpretation of Furtwaengler makes clear, is
cleansing the strigil and not his body.
[1053] So J. Sieveking, _Die Bronzen der Samml. Loeb_, 1913, Pl. 11,
pp. 27 f.; _cf._ _Burlington Fine Arts Club, Cat. Anc. Gk. Art_, 1904,
Pl. 50, B. 47, and von Duhn, _Sitzb. d. Heidelberger Akad. d. W._, Abt.
6, p. 9. It is 0.09 meter high.
[1054] Von Mach, 235; F. W., 1264; Reinach, _Rép._, I, 515, 6 and 7;
_cf._ II, 2, 546, 2; etc.
[1055] _H. N._, XXXIV. 65.
[1056] _Infra_, pp. 288 f.
[1057] Amelung, _Fuehrer_, no. 25; Duetschke, III, 72 (1.93 meters
high); B. B., 523-4 (text by Arndt); Bulle, p. 116, fig. 21; _cf._
Helbig, _Guide_, I, pp. 26 f., on nos. 42 and 44 (statuettes);
Benndorf, _Jh. oest. arch. Inst._, 1898, Beiblatt, pp. 66 f.; Klein,
_Praxiteles_, pp. 51 f.; Furtw., _Mp._, pp. 261-2; _Mw._, pp. 469-71;
Bloch, _R. M._, VII, 1892, pp. 81 F., and fig. on p. 83 and Pl. III
(head, two views). The right underarm and hand and the left underarm
and part of the hand, the vase, and the basis, are all modern
restorations.
[1058] _Die antiken Gemmen_, Pl. XLIV, no. 17, and text, II, p. 212;
_Mp._, p. 261, fig. 108; _Mw._, p. 470, fig. 78; Hartwig, in _Berl.
Phil. Wochenschr._, XVII, Jan. 2, 1897, p. 31, corrects the mistake of
Furtwaengler and Amelung that the athlete on the gem is cleansing the
thigh and not the strigil itself.
[1059] Arndt dates it about 400 B. C.; Furtwaengler ascribes it and
the Dresden torso of the _Oil-pourer_, already discussed, to an Attic
master of the end of the fifth or beginning of the fourth century B. C.
[1060] Listed by Furtw., _Mp._, p. 262, n. 1; _Mw._, p. 470, n. 5.
Especially the reduced mediocre copy in the Braccio Nuovo of the
Vatican: Helbig, _Guide_, no. 45; Clarac, 861, 2183; _R. M._, VII,
1892, pp. 92 f., and fig.
[1061] Bulle, no. 60 (who dates it in the middle of the fourth
century B. C., and considers it a copy of an original statue);
Hauser, _Jh. oest. arch. Inst._, V, 1902, pp. 214 f. and fig. 68;
Springer-Michaelis, p. 297, fig. 530; _cf._ _A. J. A._, VII, 1902, pp.
352-3, figs. 1 and 2. It is 1.925 meters high (Bulle).
[1062] Babelon et Blanchet, _Cat. des bronzes antiques de la Biblioth.
Nat._, 1895, no. 934, p. 411; it is 0.075 meter high.
[1063] Discussed by P. Hartwig, _Jh. oest. arch. Inst._, IV, 1901, pp.
151-9, figs. 176 and 177 (four views of statuette), and Pls. V-VI (two
views of the head). Without its base it is 0.679 meter high.
[1064] It is in the Hamilton Coll.; see _B. M. Cat. Engraved Gems_,
1888, no. 335; _cf. ibid._, no. 432, a cut scarab from the Blacas
Coll., representing a nude athlete seated on a rock, holding a lekythos
and strigil suspended from the right hand.
[1065] Bulle, no. 265; B. B., 601 (text by L. Curtius); H. Pomtow,
_Beitr. z. Topogr. v. Delphi_, Pl. XII; Homolle, _Société des
Antiquaires de France_, Centennaire 1804-1904, Pl. XII. The figures are
life-size (Bulle).
[1066] _H. N._, XXXIV, 59: _Hic primus nervos et venas expressit_.
[1067] In the Louvre: Longpérier, _Notice des bronzes antiques du
Louvre_, I, 1868 (reprinted 1879), no. 214; de Ridder, _Les bronzes
antiques du Louvre_, I, 1913, Pl. 19, no. 183, and pp. 34 f.; Furtw.,
_Mp._, Pl. XIII, and p. 280, fig. 119; text, pp. 279 f.; _Mw._, Pl.
XXVIII, 3 (middle), and text, pp. 492 f.; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 588,
3. It is 0.21 meter high. For the same style and conception, _cf._ a
statuette from Cyprus in the Cesnola Collection, Metropolitan Museum,
New York: Richter, _Gk., Etruscan, and Roman Bronzes_, p. 57, fig. 87
(two views). Here the left leg is the rest leg.
[1068] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 164; base reproduced in _Mp._, p. 279, fig.
118; _Mw._, p. 491, fig. 85.
[1069] See list, Furtw., _Mp._, pp. 281 f.; _Mw._, p. 493; a completer
one by Lippold, _Jb._, XXIII, 1908, pp. 203-8.
[1070] Amelung, _Vat._, II, pp. 414 f., no. 251, and Pl. 46; Furtw.,
_Mp._, p. 281, fig. 120; _Mw._, p. 494, fig. 86; Clarac, 856, 2168. As
the head and torso are of different marbles, we really have parts of
two copies of the same original. In reconstructing the statue, another
copy in the Galleria delle Statue is better: Amelung, _Vat._, II, pp.
583 f., no. 392 and Pl. 56; it has a head of Septimius Severus upon
it; the position of its feet is almost exactly that of the statue of
Xenokles mentioned.
[1071] Publ. by Miss A. Walton, _A. J. A._, XXII, 1918, pp. 44 f., Pls.
I, II, and figs. 1-5 in the text; Matz-Duhn, _Ant. Bildw. in Rom_, no.
1000; von Duhn doubts whether the head belongs to the trunk. The statue
was acquired by Wellesley College in 1905 from a Roman dealer.
[1072] Copies of the head-type are listed by Furtw., _Mp._, p. 282;
_Mw._, pp. 494-5.
[1073] Invent., 5610; _Bronzi d’Ercolano_, I, Pls. 53-54, p. 187;
Comparetti e de Petra, _Villa Ercolanese dei Pisoni_, 7, 4; Furtw.,
_Mp._, p. 284, figs. 121 a, b; _Mw._, pp. 496-7, figs. 87-8; B. B., 339
(left).
[1074] _Mp._, p. 283; _Mw._, p. 495.
[1075] Amelung, _Vat._, II, p. 416.
[1076] In the Museo Archeologico: Amelung, _Fuehrer_, no. 268 (and
bibliography); B. B., 274-77; Bulle, 52-53 and 204-5 (head); von Mach,
123 (front and back views); Collignon, I, pp. 479 f. and figs. 247
(statue), 248 (head); Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 588, 2; Furtw., _Mp._, p.
285, fig. 122 (head); _Mw._, p. 499, fig. 89; Robinson, _Cat. Boston
Museum of Fine Arts_, Suppl., no. 113; Springer-Michaelis, p. 272, fig.
488. It is 1.48 meters high (Bulle).
[1077] Ueber die Bronzestatue des sog. Idolino (_49stes Berl.
Winckelmannsprogr._, 1889), p. 10. He classed it stylistically with the
_Oil-pourer_ of Munich and the _Standing Diskobolos_ of the Vatican,
which Brunn had called Myronic. He later, however, renounced his
Myronic theory and merely called it Attic, because of its resemblance
to figures on the Parthenon frieze: _Beilage zu den amtlichen Berichten
aus den k. Kunstsamml._, XVIII, no. 5, Juli, 1897, p. 73 (quoted by
Richardson, p. 161, n. 8).
[1078] _Festschr. f. Benndorf_, p. 175: here he assigns it not to Myron
himself, but to his son.
[1079] II, p. 30; he also admits its Polykleitan features.
[1080] _Polyklet u. s. Sch._, pp. 70 f., 1902; he assigns it to an
artist of the master’s circle.
[1081] _Mp._, 286; _Mw._, p. 500.
[1082] _Cronaca_, pp. 29-30, fig. 2 (= _Supplemento di Bolletino
d’Arte_, Roma, XII, Fasic. V-VIII) 1918 (Lucia Mariani). _Cf._ review
in _A. J. A._, XXIII, 1919, p. 319 and fig. 2; and also Mariani, _Rend.
della Reale Accad. dei Lincei_, XXVI, 1918, pp. 125-138, and fig. in
text.
[1083] Matz-Duhn, _Ant. Bildw._, no. 1111; Furtw., _Mp._, p. 287;
_Mw._, p. 502.
[1084] See material collected by Stephani, _Comptes rendus de la
commiss. impér. archéol._, St. Petersburg, 1873; _cf._ Fritze, _de
Libatione veterum Graecorum_, Berl. Diss., 1893.
[1085] II, pp. 416 f.
[1086] No. 2723; Svoronos, Tafelbd., II, Pl. CXXI (CI is a poor copy of
it); Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, pp. 240-242 (0.45 meter high; 0.57
meter broad). Staïs also regards it as an _ex voto_ to Herakles.
[1087] It is broken away, but its outline is clear.
[1088] Kabbadias, 248; Staïs, _op. cit._, p. 86; Arndt-Bruckmann,
_Einzelaufnahmen_, 627 and 628 (head alone); noticed in _A. A._, 1889,
p. 147, and _A. M._, XIII, 1888, p. 231 (Wolters); _ibid._, XXXI,
1906, pp. 352 f. (von Salis); _Jb._, VIII, 1893, pp. 224 f., fig. 3
(restored), and Pl. IV (Mayer). It may be one of the statues seen by
Pausanias in the temenos: I, 18.6. It is 1.50 meters high without the
plinth (Mayer).
[1089] Furtwaengler, _Mw._, p. 378, n. 3 (_cf._ _Mp._, p. 196, n. 1),
p. 685, n. 2 and p. 737; he ascribes it to Kalamis or his school.
[1090] _H. N._, XXXIV, 81; statue also mentioned, _ibid._, XXII, 44.
[1091] In the National Museum, no. 12; Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, pp.
362, 363 and fig. (0.09 meter high); three photographs, _A. M._, XXXI,
Pl. XXII; a poor photograph in Carapanos, _Dodone et ses ruines_, 1878,
Pl. XIV, 3, and p. 186.
[1092] In the statuette it is bent, but its original horizontal
position is indicated by the position of the hand.
[1093] Two copies: Hettner, _Die Bildw. d. koenigl. Antikensamml._,^4
1881, nos. 70, 88; F. W., 1217; Furtw., _Mp._, pp., 310-11, figs.
131-2; _Mw._, pp. 534-5, figs. 97-8; Springer-Michaelis, p. 314, fig.
562; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 1, 139, 5-6; M. W., II, 39, 459; Clarac, IV,
712, 1695.
[1094] Listed, _Mp._, p. 310, n. 2; _Mw._, p. 533, n. 3; one, formerly
in the Museo Boncompagni-Ludovisi, now in the Museo delle Terme, in
Rome: Reinach, _Rép._, II, 1, 139, 7; B. B., 376; Helbig, _Fuehrer_,
II, 1308; Collignon, II, p. 265, fig. 131; von Mach, 197. The original
must have been of bronze.
[1095] _H. N._, XXXIV, 69. For discussion, see F. W., note on p. 421
(to no. 1217).
[1096] In the Museo Chiaramonti, no. 297; Amelung, _Vat._, I, p. 509
and II, Pl. 53; Clarac, 479, 916.
[1097] _Cf._ _Beschr. d. Skulpt. zu Berlin_, no. 44; a poor torso of
the type is in the Museo Chiaramonti of the Vatican: Amelung, _Vat._,
no. 295 and Pl. 52; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 1, 173, 2.
[1098] Michaelis, p. 609, no. 24; _Specimens_, I, Pl. 30; _Mp._, p.
163, fig. 65 (front), p. 162, fig. 64 (profile), from an old cast from
the Mengs Collection in Dresden; _Mw._, Pl. XVI; other replicas, _Mp._,
p. 161, n. 3.
[1099] _Cat. Class. Coll._, pp. 214-17, and fig. 130 on p. 215.
[1100] _H. N._, XXXIV, 76: _Ctesilaus doryphoron et Amazonem volneratam
(fecit)_. Bergk long ago proposed to alter this name to Kresilas
(_Zeitschr. fuer Alterthumswissensch._, 1845, p. 962), and was
followed by Brunn (I, p. 261)—an emendation accepted by most recent
investigators. The argument derived from the _Amazon_ of Kresilas,
mentioned by Pliny, XXXIV, 53, and apparently repeated in the present
passage, is strong. Jex-Blake, however, finds the name Ktesilaos a good
Greek formation, though uncommon: see his note on p. 62.
[1101] _Mp._, pp. 161 f.; _Mw._, pp. 332 f.
[1102] It is plainly visible in the example from Petworth House, and in
the poor one lately in the possession of the Roman dealer Abbati: B.
B., 84 (from cast); _Bull. del. Inst._, 1867, p. 33 (Helbig); _Mon. d.
I._, IX, 1869-73, Pl. XXXVI; _Annali_, XLIII, 1871, pp. 279 f. (Conze);
it is also visible in the New York copy.
[1103] As on an Attic fifth-century B. C. grave-relief from the
Peiræus: Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, p. 157 (who gives the height as
0.45 meter and the breadth as 0.32 meter); von Sybel, _Kat. d. Skulpt.
zu Athen_, 1881, no. 171; _Annali_, XXXIV, 1862, p. 212; Conze, _Die
Attischen Grabreliefs_, no. 929 and Pl. CLXXX; F. W., 1017; for similar
reliefs, see _Annali_, 1862, Pl. M.
[1104] Michaelis wrongly dated the original in the fourth century B.
C.; Brunn first recognized its fifth-century character: _Annali_,
XLVII, 1875, p. 31 (_apud_ Leop. Julius).
[1105] _Ant. Denkm._, I, 1, 1886, Pl. IV; B. B., no. 248; Bulle, 167;
Collignon, II, p. 492, fig. 256; Helbig, _Fuehrer_, II, 1350; _Guide_,
1051; Hekler, _Greek and Roman Portraits_, 1912, pp. 85-86; Gardner,
_Hbk._, p. 536, fig. 146; Amelung, _Museums and Ruins of Rome_, I, fig.
156; _Not. Scav._, 1885, p. 223; _Gaz. B.-A._, XXXIII, Pér. 2, I, 1886,
fig. on p. 427; Springer-Michaelis, p. 401, fig. 743; Reinach, _Rép._,
II, 2, 550, 10; Reinach classes it as an athlete or Herakles. It is
1.28 meters high (Bulle).
[1106] Discussed _infra_, Ch. IV, pp. 254-5.
[1107] For this reason Helbig wrongly assigned it to about 400 B. C.
[1108] _Ueber die griech. Portraetkunst_, 1894, pp. 12 f. (and fig.).
[1109] XXVII, 9.
[1110] _Philologus_, LVII (N. F., XI), pp. 1 f. and 649 f. Kleitomachos
won in Ols. 141, 142 (= 216, 212 B. C.): P., VI, 15.3; Hyde, 146;
Foerster, 472, 476. _Cf._ Suidas, _s. v._ Κλειτόμαχος. His statue was
set up by his father, and his victory sung by Alkaios of Messenia: _A.
G._, IX, 588.
[1111] _Cf._ Petersen, _R. M._, XIII, 1898, pp. 93-5; this theory of
Wunderer is also rejected by Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, p. 609.
[1112] Erected about 477 B. C.; Bulle, 84 (_Aristogeiton_) and 85
(_Harmodios_); etc.
[1113] Discussed _infra_, Ch. IV, pp. 220-1 and n. 5 on p. 220.
[1114] See Stephanos, _Lex._, _s. vv._ ταινία, ταινίδιον, ταινόω. This
victor fillet is mentioned by Lucian in reference to the _Diadoumenos_
of Polykleitos: _Philops._, 18.
[1115] Xen., _Symp._, V, 9; Plato, _Symp._, 212 E; it appears often
on statues of Dionysos: _e. g._, on one in Furtwaengler’s _Samml.
Sabouroff_, Pl. XXIII; Dionysos is called Χρυσομίτρης in Soph., _Oed.
Tyr._, 209. The fillet was used as a breast-band for women’s dresses:
Pollux, VII, 65; etc.
[1116] _J. H. S._, I, 1880, p. 177. In older days the athletic fillet
was called μίτρα (Lat. _mitella_): Pindar, _Ol._, IX, 84; _Isthm._,
V, 62 (of wool); Boeckh, _Explic. ad Pind._, p. 193. In the Iliad
μίτρα was the kilt or apron worn around the waist under the cuirass
(a ζωστήρ being worn outside): IV, 137; IV, 187; V, 857; etc. It was
used also later as a wrestler’s girdle: _A. G._, XV, 44; and for
women’s headbands: Alkm., I; _cf._ Eurip., _Bacchae_, 833. Athletes on
vase-paintings representing palæstra scenes often wear the fillet: _e.
g._, the wrestlers and other athletes on the Philadelphia r.-f. kylix
pictured in Fig. 50, have red bands in their hair. Later the μίτρα
was specially used of women; if of men, it was a sign of effeminacy:
Aristoph., _Thesmophoriazusae_, 163. The home of the μίτρα appears to
have been Asia, as it was commonly worn by Asiatics: see Hdt., I, 195;
VII, 62 (headdress); Virgil, _Aen._, IV, 216. We learn from Alkman
that it came from Lydia to Greece: fragm. 23, verses 67 f. On it, see
Bekker, _Charikles_, II, pp. 393 f., and Pauly-Wissowa, VII, 2, p. 2033
(Bremer).
[1117] See F. W., on 322. It appears on the “Apollo” type of early
sculpture, _e. g._, on the “Apollo” of Orchomenos (Fig. 7).
[1118] _Stud. z. Parthenon_, 1902, pp. 1 f.
[1119] VI, 2.2; Lichas won the chariot victory in Ol. 90 (= 420 B. C.):
Hyde, 14; Foerster, 270.
[1120] P., V, 11.1.
[1121] Bulle, no. 207; Furtw.-Wolters, _Besch._,^2 457; B. B., 8; here
it was inlaid with silver.
[1122] This may, however, be merely the remains of a wreath of gold:
see Rayet, II, text to no. 67 (J. Martha).
[1123] Bulle, no. 202; Lechat, p. 482, fig. 44. It is 0.23 meter high
(Bulle).
[1124] _Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. LIV; F. W., 322; Wolters thinks
this is scarcely a victor fillet.
[1125] This head, in the possession of Lord Leconfield, is a replica
of the same original as the one in the Metropolitan Museum (Pl. 15);
Michaelis, p. 609, no. 24. See discussion _supra_, pp. 144-5.
[1126] Noted by Furtw., _Mp._, p. 161.
[1127] P., VI, 1.7; he won in Ol. (?) 89 (= 424 B. C.): Hyde, 9;
Foerster, 796.
[1128] _A. M._, XIX, 1894, pp. 137-9 (J. Ziehen); fig. in text. It is
now in the Museum of the Peiræus Gymnasion.
[1129] On such representations in art, see Stephani, _Comptes rendus
de la commission impériale archéologique_, St. Petersburg, 1874, pp.
214-16.
[1130] Παῖς ἀναδούμενος: VI, 4.5; _S. Q._, 757.
[1131] _Hermes_, XXIII, 1888, pp. 444 f.; P., V, 11.3. Robert is
followed by Kalkmann, _Pausanias der Perieget_, 1886, pp. 90 f.
[1132] _Cf._ Frazer, IV, p. 11. Figures of athletes appear beneath the
throne on vases: Overbeck, _Griech. Kunstmythol._, Pl. I, 9 and 16;
Gerhard, I, Pl. VII. Flasch has tried to show that the throne figure
did not represent Pantarkes: Baum., II, p. 1099, 2; _cf._ Gurlitt,
_Ueber Pausanias_, 1890, p. 380.
[1133] VI, 10.6. Pantarkes won the boys’ wrestling match in Ol. 86 (=
436 B. C.): Hyde, 98; Foerster, 254.
[1134] Amongst others it has been assumed by Loeschke, Der Tod des
Pheidias (in _Histor. Untersuch. zum Schaefer-Jubilaeum_, Bonn, 1882),
p. 36; Schoell, _Sitzb. Muen. Akad._, 1888, I, p. 37 (Der Prozess des
Pheidias). Foerster, p. 19, n. 1, is against the identification. The
παῖς ἀναδούμενος is omitted in my victor lists (_de olympionicarum
Statuis_).
[1135] The παῖς ἀναδούμενος is mentioned between victors nos. 38 and 39,
_i. e._, in the Zone of the _Eretrian Bull_, while Pantarkes (98) is
mentioned among the statues in the Zone of the _Chariots_: see _infra_,
Ch. VIII, pp. 343 and 345, and Plans A and B.
[1136] _Cf._ Gurlitt, _Ueber Pausanias_, pp. 378 f.
[1137] _Cf._ Doerpfeld, _Baudenkmaeler v. Ol._, p. 21 and n. 1; Furtw.,
_Mp._, pp. 39-40; Frazer, _l. c._
[1138] _B. M. Sculpt._, I, no. 501; _Marbles and Bronzes_, Pl. VI; B.
B., 271; Bulle, 49; von Mach, 117; Springer-Michaelis, p. 259, fig.
461; F. W., 509; _Annali_, L, 1878, Pl. A and pp. 20 f. (two views)
(Michaelis); Clarac, V, 858 C, 2189 A; M. W., I, Pl. 31, fig. 136;
Reinach, _Rép._, I, 524, 2. The palm-trunk shows that the Roman artist
intended to represent a victor in his copy. It is 4 ft. 10.25 in. high
(Smith); 1.48 meters (Bulle).
[1139] Brunn, following older writers such as Winckelmann, had
pronounced it Polykleitan: _Annali_, LI, 1879, pp. 218 f.; _cf._
Murray, I, pp. 313 f. and Pl. IX. Kekulé called it Myronian: _49stes
Berl. Winckelmannsprogr._, 1889, p. 12; Gardner, _Sculpt._, p. 128,
finds it unrelated to Polykleitos and defends its Attic origin.
Everything about it—except the mode of tying the fillet—differs from
the copies of Polykleitos’ statue, and especially the pose. Against
Brunn’s view, see Michaelis, _Annali_, LV, 1883, pp. 154 f.
[1140] So Bulle, Arndt (text to B. B., 271), Furtwaengler (_Mp._,
pp. 244-5; _Mw._, pp. 444-5), Zimmerman (in Knackfuss-Zimmermann,
_Kunstgesch. des Altertums und des Mittelalters_, I, p. 152), and many
others.
[1141] _Cf._ especially the resemblance of the statue to the youth on
the West frieze: Michaelis, _Der Parthenon_, Pl. V, no. 9.
[1142] Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 55, praises it equally with the
_Doryphoros_, and says that 100 talents were paid for it; in another
passage he says that a like sum was paid by King Attalos for a picture
of Dionysos by the Theban painter Aristeides: _ibid._, VII, 126; _cf._
XXXV, 24 and 100. A painting by Timomachos of Byzantium brought 80
talents: _ibid._, XXXV, 136.
[1143] _H. N._, XXXIV, 56; here he quotes Varro, who was drawing
probably from Xenokrates of Sikyon: see Jex-Blake, pp. xvi f.
[1144] Listed by Furtwaengler, _Mp._, pp. 239 f.; the torsos, by
Petersen, _B. com. Rom._, 1890, pp. 185 f.
[1145] _B. M. Sculpt._, I, no. 500; _Marbles and Bronzes_, Pl. IV; B.
B., 272; von Mach, 114; F. W., 508; _Mon. d. I._, X, 1874-78, Pl. XLIX
(3 views); Rayet, I, Pl. 30; Collignon I, p. 479, fig. 253; Murray, I,
Pl. X; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 547, 5. Michaelis, by a comparison with
the _Doryphoros_, first showed that it was a copy of the _Diadoumenos_:
_Annali_, L, 1878, pp. 10 f. It is 6 ft. 1 in. tall (Smith).
[1146] Kabbadias, no. 1826; Bulle, 50; Gardner, _Sculpt._, Pl. 35; von
Mach, 115; _Mon. Piot_, III, 1896, pp. 137 f. (Couve), and Pls. XIV
and XV; Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, pp. 84-85 and fig.; _B. C. H._,
XIX, 1895, pp. 460 f. (account of the Delian excavations by L. Couve)
and Pl. VIII (the statue in its surroundings at the excavations);
Springer-Michaelis, p. 277, fig. 498; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 547, 9.
It is 1.86 meters high without the base (Couve).
[1147] Discussed _supra_, on pp. 92-3.
[1148] _Mon. Piot_, IV, Pls. VIII-IX; von Mach, no. 116 a; Furtw.,
_Mp._, p. 241, fig. 98; _Mw._, p. 439, fig. 68 (who called it the most
beautiful of all the copies); Reinach, _Rép._, I, 475, 6. The right arm
is wrongly restored.
[1149] Listed by Furtwaengler, _Mp._, pp. 240-2; _cf._ Gardner,
_Sculpt._, pp. 125 f.
[1150] Hettner, _Die Bildw. d. Antikensamml. zu Dresden_, pp. 80 and
86; _Annali_, XLIII, 1871, Pl. V, pp. 281 f. (Conze); Furtw., _Mp._,
Pls. X and XI; _Mw._, Pl. XXV; Gardner, _Sculpt._, Pl. 36 (two views);
F. W., 511.
[1151] B. B., no. 340; Conze, _Beitraege zur Geschichte d. griech.
Pl._^2, 1869, pp. 3 f., Pl. 2 (two views); F. W., 510.
[1152] _B. M. Sculpt._, III, no. 2729 (Addenda); _Mon. Piot_, III, p.
145 (Couve); _ibid._, IV, p. 73 (Paris); Gardner, _Sculpt._, Pl. 37.
[1153] _J. H. S._, VI, 1885, pp. 243 f. (Murray), and Pl. LXI.
[1154] _J. H. S._, XXXIX, 1919, pp. 69 f., and Pl. 1 (two views), and
p. 232 (with illustration of the palmette head-band).
[1155] _Mp._, p. 246, fig. 99 (with original head); _Mw._, p. 447, fig.
69.
[1156] Michaelis, p. 438, no. 3; Clarac, V, 851, 2180 A (headless); it
is 1.49 meters high (Michaelis). He believes that it originally was an
oil-pourer.
[1157] _Mp._, p. 246; _Mw._, p. 448. It is 12 centimeters high
(Furtwaengler).
[1158] κοτίνου στέφανος, P., VIII, 48.2; _cf._ _A. G._, IX, 357;
Aristoph., _Plut._, 586; Theophr., _Hist. Plant._, IV, 13.2. The custom
of using the olive crown is probably very ancient, despite Phlegon’s
statement that it was introduced in Ol. 7 (= 752 B. C.): frag. 1 (= _F.
H. G._, III, p. 604). Pindar says that it was introduced from the land
of the Hyperboreans by Herakles: _Ol._, III, 14 f; Bacchylides calls it
Aetolian: VII, 50 (γλαυκὸν Αἰτωλίδος ἄνδημ’ ἐλαίας). It probably goes
back to some form of popular magic.
[1159] B. B., no. 324; here small leaves are still remaining over the
forehead.
[1160] _Bronz. v. Ol._, II, 2 and 2 a. Here the leaves have
disappeared. See pp. 254-5.
[1161] _B. C. H._, V, 1881, Pl. III, text, pp. 65 f. (Pottier). Here is
listed a number of funerary reliefs representing athletes, which list
could easily be enlarged.
[1162] Helbig, _Fuehrer_, II, 1241; _Guide_, 977. On the motive, see
_Archaeol. Studien H. Brunn dargebr._, 1893, pp. 62 f.
[1163] The λημνίσκος (Lat. _lemniscus_) was merely the woolen fillet
by which chaplets were fastened on; Hesychios says it is a Syracusan
word; in any case it is used only by Roman writers and Greek writers of
the Roman age; _A. G._, XII, 123; Plut., _Sulla_, 27; Polyb., XVIII,
46 (where στέφανοι and λημνίσκοι are differentiated, though they are
usually interchangeable); _C. I. G._, III, 5361; _C. I. A._, III, 74.
Pliny says that it was of Etruscan origin, _H. N._, XXI, 4, and that
it was at first made of wool or linden-bark and later of gold; _cf._
XVI, 25. It was used at Rome at feasts, as a sign of special honor to
guests: Plaut., _Pseudolus_, (line 1265); Livy, XXXIII, 33.2; Suet.,
_Nero_, 25. For the Roman use of the _lemniscus_ for athletic victors
and poets, _cf._ Cicero, _Or. pro Sext. Roscio Amerino_, 35, 100;
Ausonius, _Epist._, XX, 6; etc. On the _lemniscus_, see Dar.-Sagl.,
III, 2, pp. 1099-1100.
[1164] _R. M._, VI, 1891, p. 304, no. 3.
[1165] _Mon. Piot_, XVII, 1909, Pls. II, III and pp. 29 f. (Merlin and
Poinssot).
[1166] _B. M. Sculpt._, III, no. 1754; B. B., 46; _Marbles and
Bronzes_, Pl. XXII; Collignon, I, fig. 255, on p. 500; Furtw.,
_Mp._, p. 252, fig. 105; _Mw._, p. 457, fig. 75 (back view);
Springer-Michaelis, p. 275, fig. 495; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 546, 9.
It is 4 ft. 11 in. high (Smith), _i. e._, 1.48 meters.
[1167] Helbig, _Cat. Coll. Barracco_, no. 99, Pls. 38 and 38 a; _id._,
_Fuehrer_, I, 1083; sketches of the Westmacott and Barracco copies in
Kekulé, _49stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr._, 1889, Pl. IV.
[1168] No. 254; _Arch. Eph._, 1890, pp. 207 f. (Philios) and Pls. X and
XI. Bulle, 51, gives the Westmacott and Barracco examples side by side;
in _J. H. S._, XXXI, 1911, Pl. II, we have the Westmacott, Barracco,
and Eleusis copies together. Furtwaengler, _Mp._, pp. 250 f., _Mw._,
pp. 453 f., Helbig, _Cat. Coll. Barracco_, p. 36, and Petersen, _R.
M._, VIII, 1893, pp. 101 f., have added many more torsos and heads as
copies or variants of the original.
[1169] See Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, 1083. Its soft expression and forms
led Furtwaengler to derive it from the Praxitelean circle, from the
period when Praxiteles was influenced by Polykleitos, and to believe
that it represented a divinity, perhaps Triptolemos: _Mp._, p. 255 and
n. 2.
[1170] _Burlington Fine Arts Club, Catalogue Anc. Gk. Art_, 1904, no.
45, Pl. XXXIII; Furtw., _Mp._, p. 251, fig. 103; _Mw._, p. 454, fig.
73. It was formerly in the van Branteghem collection.
[1171] For the Dresden head, see _A. A._, 1900, p. 107, figs. 1 a and 1
b.
[1172] Furtw., _Mp._, p. 252, fig. 104; _Mw._, p. 455, fig. 74.
[1173] First published by F. H. Marshall, _J. H. S._, XXIX, 1909, pp.
151-2 and figs. 1 a, b; more fully by E. A. Gardner, _ibid._, XXXI,
1911, pp. 21 f. and Pl. I and fig. 1.
[1174] Nelson head: _J. H. S._, XVIII, 1898, pp. 141 f., and Pl. XI;
B. B., 544; Gardner, _Sculpt._, Pl. XXXIX; Capitoline _Amazon_: _Mp._,
p. 132, fig. 53 (restored); _Mw._, p. 292, fig. 39. A head of the
Capitoline type has been wrongly placed on the Pheidian Mattei torso in
the Vatican: _Mp._, p. 133, fig. 54 (head); _Mw._, Pl. XI; B. B., 350;
von Mach, 121; Reinach, _Rép._, I, 483, 1.
[1175] B. B., 128 (original and cast).
[1176] As, _e. g._, in the bronze head of a victor in Naples, already
discussed (Fig. 25); B. B., 339.
[1177] _E. g._, Furtwaengler and Collignon; the latter, I, pp. 499-500.
[1178] _Hypnos_, pp. 30 f.; accepted by Wolters (_apud_ Lepsius,
_Griech. Marmorstudien_, p. 83, no. 164), Treu (_A. A._, 1889, p. 57),
Collignon, Petersen, _l. c._, Kekulé (_Idolino_, p. 13), Furtwaengler
(_Mp._, pp. 252-3, _Mw._, pp. 458-9 and 747), and others; see Philios,
_op. cit._
[1179] _E. g._, by Philios (_op. cit._), Amelung (_Bert. Phil.
Wochenschr._, XXII, 1902, p. 273). This scraping motive is seen in the
bronze statuette in the Bibliothèque Nationale, no. 934.
[1180] This is inconsistent with the position of the hand in the
Barracco copy, which is too far from the head. This was an older view
of Helbig, _Rendiconti della Reale Accad. dei Lincei_, 1892, pp. 790
f.; refuted by Furtwaengler, Petersen, Helbig himself later (in the
_Fuehrer_), and others.
[1181] Quoted by E. A. Gardner, _J. H. S._, XXXI, pp. 25-6, as the
theory of E. N. Gardiner.
[1182] _H. N._, XXXIV, 55; for this theory, see Mahler, _Polyklet u. s.
Sch._, p. 50.
[1183] Michaelis, _Der Parthenon_, 1870, Block 131 (from the North
frieze).
[1184] F. W., 1665; Furtw., _Mp._, p. 256, fig. 106; _Mw._, p. 463,
fig. 76; M. W., Pl. 70, 879; etc.
[1185] For list, see Furtw., _Mp._, p. 254, n. 2. For a restoration of
the original statue, see _ibid._, p. 250, fig. 102; _Mw._, p. 453, fig.
72.
[1186] VI, 4.11; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 149; _I. G. B._, 50.
[1187] Those of the Elean pentathlete Pythokles: _Inschr. v. Ol._,
162-3; _I. G. B._, 91; and the Epidaurian boxer Aristion: _Inschr. v.
Ol._, 165 (renewed); _I. G. B._, 92. The feet of the Aristion were both
flat upon the ground.
[1188] That of the boy wrestler Xenokles of Mainalos: _Inschr. v. Ol._,
164; _I. G. B._, 90.
[1189] In one of the Olympia _Zanes_: _I. G. B._, 95.
[1190] On the Kyniskos basis there are no traces, as on that of
Pythokles, to show that the original had been removed from the Altis
and replaced by a copy long before Pausanias visited Olympia.
[1191] _O. S._, p. 186, on the basis of the _Oxy. Pap._; followed
by Hyde, 45. Foerster’s date, Ol. (?) 86 (= 436 B. C.), follows the
earlier dating of Polykleitos by Robert, _Arch. Maerchen_, 1886, p.
107, _i. e._, before the discovery of the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus; see
Foerster, 255. Robert later dated the birth of the sculptor about Ol.
75.4 (= 477 B. C.). Thus, even if the _Kyniskos_ were his earliest
statue, it must have been erected some time after the victory.
Furtwaengler dates the original of the _Westmacott Athlete_ about 440
B. C.: _Mp._, p. 252.
[1192] Bulle, Furtwaengler, E. A. Gardner, and others find the
assumption of identity not completely convincing. Thus Furtwaengler
looks upon the identification as “no far-fetched theory,” but says:
“Unfortunately, however, absolute certainty can scarcely be attained”
(_Mp._, pp. 249-50).
[1193] VIII, 48.2; _cf._ Vitruv., _de Arch._, IX, 1 (p. 212).
[1194] Homer mentions the palm: _e. g._, Od., VI, 163; the various
kinds of palm are given by Theophr., _Hist. Plant._, II, 6.6 and 8.4.
Its fronds (σπάθαι, _cf._ Hdt., VII, 69) were formed into victory
crowns: Plut., _Quaest. conviv._, VIII, 4, p. 723.
[1195] _H. N._, XXXV, 75.
[1196] _Arch. Stud. H. Brunn dargehracht_, 1893, pp. 62 f.
[1197] _Mp._, p. 256 and n. 1; _Mw._, p. 462 and n. 2.
[1198] _Cf._ Waldstein, _J. H. S._, I, 1880, p. 187, n. 1.
[1199] _B. C. H._, V, 1881, PI. III. See _supra_, p. 155.
[1200] So Waldstein, _l. c._, p. 186.
[1201] _E. g._, on a Panathenaic vase: _Mon. d. I._, X, 1874-78, Pl.
48, e, g.
[1202] Mentioned by Helbig, _Guide_, 977; discussed by Arndt in _La
Glyptothèque Ny-Carlsberg_, text to Pls. XXI-IV. Arndt believes that
the right arm with the palm in the hand is modern, like the head and
left arm; they are of a different marble from the torso. The torso
is a replica of a statue in the Villa Albani, Rome: _op. cit._, fig.
13; _cf._ Furtwaengler, _Mw._, p. 738 (= god type). On representing
athletes in the act of placing wreaths on their heads with the right
hand and holding palm-branches in the left, see Milchhoefer, and
others, in the work already cited, _Arch. Stud. H. Brunn dargebracht_,
pp. 62 f.
[1203] VI, 10.4. The scholiast on Pindar, _Pyth._, IX, 1, Boeckh, p.
401, says that the hoplites ran with bronze shields.
[1204] See _supra_, pp. 105, n. 3, and 116.
[1205] P., VI, 13.7. He won in Ol. 81 (= 456 B. C.): _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde,
117; Foerster, 184.
[1206] Schol. on Pindar, _Pyth._, IX, Inscript. a. Boeckh, p. 401.
[1207] Head A: _Bildw. v. Ol._, Textbd., pp. 29 f.; Tafelbd., Pl. VI,
1-4; _Ausgrab. v. Ol._, V, 1881, pp. 12 f., Pls. XVIII (front), XIX
(side); F. W., 316; Overbeck, I, pp. 198-9 and _cf._ p. 178. Head B:
_Bildw._, pp. 31 f., and Pl. VI, 9-10; _Ausgrab._, p. 13; Overbeck, p.
178; F. W., 315.
[1208] _Bildw._, Pl. VI, 5-6; fig. 30, on p. 30 in Textbd.; _Ausgrab._,
V, Pl. XIX, 4 and p. 12; F. W., 317.
[1209] _Bildw._, Textbd., fig. 31, on p. 30.
[1210] _Bildw. v. Ol._, Textbd., fig. 32, on p. 31.
[1211] _Ibid._, pp. 31 f., and Pl. VI, 7-8; _Ausgrab. v. Ol._, V, Pl.
XIX, 5 and p. 12; F. W., 319. Both the foot and arm are of Parian
marble, like the head.
[1212] Hyde, pp. 42-4; _cf_. Foerster, 151, 155; he also won the
stade-race at Delphi: Pindar, _Pyth._, X, 12-16. Robert accepts my
ascription: Pauly-Wissowa, VI, p. 1493. Liddell and Scott, _Lexicon_,
_s. v._ Φρικίας (= “Bristle”), believe this to be the name not of the
victor but of his horse, so called because of his long outstanding
mane; _cf_. Herrmann, _Opuscula_, VII, 166 n. This is also the
interpretation of Sandys, _Odes of Pindar_, Loeb Library, 1915, p. 291,
n. 1.
[1213] P., VI, 10.4-5; R. Foerster, _Das Portraet in d. gr. Plastik_,
1882, p. 22, n. 5.
[1214] Treu, A. Z., XXXVIII, 1880, pp. 48 f.; _Bildw. v. Ol._, p. 34
and n. 2. He explained the shield device of the ram and Phrixos by the
fact that Eperastos traced his descent from that hero. _Cf._ Overbeck,
I, p. 198.
[1215] VI, 17.5; Hyde, 183 and p. 62; Foerster, 765 (undated).
[1216] _Preus. Jb._, LI, p. 382; _cf._ _Sammlung Sabouroff_, Einleitung
zu den Skulpturen, p. 5, n. 4; followed by Flasch, Baum., II, p. 1104 U
f.
[1217] V, 27.7.
[1218] Textbd., pp. 31-2.
[1219] Hyde, _l. c._ For the date, see Afr; Foerster, 144-6; he was the
first Olympic τριαστής, _i. e._, he gained victories in three events on
the same day (stade-, double stade- and hoplite-races).
[1220] Matz-Duhn, _Ant. Bildw._, no. 1097; here it is called a
diskobolos; Clarac, 830, 2085; Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p. 204; _Mw._, p.
392.
[1221] Hauser, _Jb._, II, 1887, p. 101, n. 24, points out its
resemblance to the Tuebingen bronze, but because of the tree-trunk does
not regard it as a representation of a hoplitodrome. Furtwaengler, _l.
c._, regards the helmet as belonging to the head, while others believe
it alien thereto.
[1222] No. 795; _A. Z._, XXXVI, 1878, Pl. XI and pp. 58-71; Gardiner,
p. 105, fig. 17; _cf._ another in Copenhagen: Gerhard, IV, Pl. CCLXXXI.
[1223] P., VI, 3.10; he won the pentathlon some time between Ols. 94
and 103 (= 404 and 368 B. C.): Hyde, 31; Foerster, 347.
[1224] P., V, 26.3.
[1225] V, 27.12.
[1226] _A. Z._, XLI, 1883, Pl. XIII, 2 and pp. 227-8 (Milchhoefer).
[1227] _Inventar_, no. 6306; mentioned by L. Gurlitt in _A. M._, VI,
1881, p. 158.
[1228] Duetschke, II, no. 22; a very similar statue, no. 25, has no
_halteres_; both are poor Roman copies.
[1229] _Bildw. v. Ol._, p. 217; Tafelbd., Pl. LVI, 3.
[1230] So schol. on Pindar, _Ol._, VII, Argum., Boeckh, p. 158. He
won in Ol. 83 (= 448 B. C.): _Oxy. Pap._; P., VI, 7.1 f.; Hyde, 60;
Foerster, 252.
[1231] Matz-Duhn, _Ant. Bildw. in Rom_, no. 1096; _J. H. S._, II,
1881, p. 342, fig. 3. Thongs appear on both forearms of the Polykleitan
statue, copies of which are in Kassel (Furtw., _Mp._, p. 246, fig.
99; _Mw._, p. 447, fig. 69), and on a headless one in Lansdowne House
(Michaelis, p. 438, no. 3; Clarac, 851, 2180 A); similarly on the
Lysippan boxer by Koblanos found at Sorrento, and now in Naples (Fig.
57; Kalkmann, Die Proport, des Gesichts in d. gr. Kunst = _53stes Berl.
Winckelmannsprogr._, 1893, Pl. III); on the bronze statue of a boxer
from Herculaneum in Naples; and on the delle Terme _Seated Boxer_ (Pl.
16); etc.
[1232] So interpreted, and rightly, by Waldstein (_J. H. S._, I, 1880,
p. 186), and others; Juethner, pp. 68-9, thinks that the object here
represented is a victor fillet, being too short for thongs.
[1233] P. 26 and n. 2; against him, Reisch, p. 43; Hitz-Bluemn., II,
2, p. 577; etc. Oil-flasks of various kinds—_lekythoi_, _aryballoi_,
_alabastra_, _olpai_—are mentioned repeatedly by Greek writers;
_e. g._, λήκυθος, by Homer, Od., VI, 79; Aristoph., _Plutus_, 810;
ἀρύβαλλος, Aristoph., _Equites_, 1094; Pollux, VII, 166 and X, 63;
ἀλάβαστρον, Theokr., XV. 114; ὄλπη (of leather), Theokr., II, 156; etc.
[1234] VI, 14.6.
[1235] VI, 9.1. Theognetos won in the boys’ wrestling match in Ol. 76
(= 746 B. C.): _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde, 83; Foerster, 193 and 193 N.
[1236] We have already in the present chapter mentioned this “Apollo”
in connection with the statuette from Piombino (Fig. 19); Studniczka,
_R. M._, II, 1887, pp. 99-100, believed that it represented a victor.
See _supra_, p. 119.
[1237] _E. g._, on the bronze statuette from Naxos, now in Berlin: see
_supra_, p. 119 and n. 5.
[1238] Boy wrestlers especially wore caps in the palæstræ, but not at
the games; we see them on the wrestler group in the palæstra scene on
the r.-f. kylix in Munich (no. 795) already mentioned.
[1239] Stuart Jones, _Cat._, pp. 65-6, no. 8; Helbig, _Fuehrer_,
I, 769; _Guide_, 418; B. B., 527 (and fig. 6 in text, by Arndt);
Furtw., _Mp._, p. 204, _Mw._, p. 392. Helbig finds it Myronian, while
Furtwaengler considers it Attic, but non-Myronic; for a copy in
Stockholm, see B. B., figs. 7, 8, 9, in the text to no. 527.
[1240] I, 17.2. Furtw., _Mp._, p. 204, n. 6, shows that the Athens head
bears no resemblance to the Capitoline. Furthermore, heads on coins of
Juba differ from both and show no trace of the complicated head-dress.
A marble head from Shershel (= Cæsarea) seems to be an authentic
portrait of Juba II: see _Annali_, XXIX, 1857, Pl. E, no. 2, and p.
194; and Waille, _de Caesareae Monumentis_, 1891, title page (vignette)
and p. 92 (quoted by Helbig, _Guide_, _l. c._).
[1241] See B. B., text to no. 527, figs. 1, 2, 3.
[1242] Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, 972; _Guide_, 595; _B. Com. Rom._, XII,
1884, Pl. XXIII, pp. 245-253. The meaning is explained by a similar
archaistic Parian marble relief in Wilton House, Wiltshire, England,
where the youth stands before a statue of Zeus, washing his hands
preparatory to making a thank-offering to the god who gave him victory:
see Michaelis, p. 680, no. 48 and wood-cut on p. 681; Arndt, _La Glypt.
Ny-Carlsberg_, text, fig. 33; F. W., 239; its inscription is not
genuine. The same archaistic traits are seen on a votive relief to Zeus
Xenios in the Museo delle Terme: Helbig, _Fuehrer_, II, 1405; Arndt,
_op. cit._, fig. 34; this is to be dated in the first century B. C., or
A. D., because of its inscription: _I. G. Sic. et Ital._, no. 990.
[1243] See Fabretti, _de Columna Trajani_, p. 267; Gardiner, p. 433,
fig. 149; Schreiber, _Bilderatlas_, Pl. XXIV, no. 8. _Cf._ Krause, I,
pp. 517 f.
[1244] _Cf._ Reisch, pp. 42-3.
[1245] _Cf._ Philostr., _Heroicus_, XII b (p. 315); τὰ δὲ ὦτα κατεαγὼς
ἦν οὐχ ὑπὸ πάλης.
[1246] Thus Furtwaengler calls the Ince-Blundell head that of a boxer
statue: _Mp._, p. 173, and fig. 71 on p. 172; _Mw._, p. 348, and fig.
44 on p. 347.
[1247] _Cf._ discussion by Gardiner, pp. 425-6.
[1248] _Gorgias_, 515 E; _Protag._, 342 B. In the latter passage he
says: καὶ οἱ μὲν ὦτά τε κατάγνυνται μιμούμενοι αὐτούς, καὶ ἱμάντας
περιειλίττονται καὶ φιλογυμναστοῦσι καὶ βραχείας ἀναβολὰς φοροῦσιν,
κ. τ. λ. The boxer’s swollen ears are mentioned by Theokritos, XXII,
45. The word ὠτοκάταξις seems to have meant a boxer whose ears were
battered by the gloves: Aristoph., _Fragm._, 72; Pollux, II, 83
(whence Dindorf corrects the form ὠτοκαταξίας in Poll., IV, 144). For
references, see Krause, I, pp. 516-17; and _cf._ _J. H. S._, XXVI, p.
13.
[1249] _E. g._, on a fragment of a red-figured kylix in Berlin: _J.
H. S._, XXVI, p. 8, fig. 2; Hartwig, _Die griech. Meisterschalen_,
Textbd., p. 90, fig. 12; Gardiner, p. 438, fig. 153. Here one of the
contestants in the pankration is bleeding at the nose.
[1250] _B. C. H._, XXIII, 1899, pp. 455; _cf._, p. 457, where he speaks
of _le detail réaliste de l’oreille tuméfiée par les coups_. For the
statue of Agias mentioned, see _infra_, Ch. VI, pp. 286 f., and Pl.
28 and fig. 68. _Cf._ on this subject also Neugebauer, Studien ueber
Skopas (in _Beitraege zur Kunstgesch._, XXXIX, 1913, p. 35, n. 172).
[1251] _Bronz. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., IV, Pl. II, 2, 2 a; F. W., 323; etc.
[1252] See _infra_, Ch. VI., pp. 293 f.
[1253] _Fouilles de Delphes_, IV, Pls. LXIII-LXIV.
[1254] _Ant. Denkm._, I, 1, 1886, Pl. IV.
[1255] Duetschke, III, no. 72.
[1256] _Gaz. arch._, VIII, Pl. I, and p. 85 (Rayet); F. W., 461.
[1257] B. B., no. 8.
[1258] Bulle, no. 105 (right); and fig. 46 on p. 205.
[1259] _A. M._, XVI, 1891, Pls. IV, V (two views).
[1260] F. W., 505; Collignon, I, p. 495, fig. 252. As the swollen ears
do not occur on other copies, they are here doubtless a modification by
a late artist.
[1261] _La Glypt. Ny-Carlsberg_, Pl. XXXVI (= copy of fifth century B.
C.); XCIV (Herakles or athlete, from the Tyszkiewicz coll., Skopasian
in character; = Reinach, _Têtes_, Pls. CL, CLI); XCV (similar to
preceding, though later in style: _Têtes_, Pls. CLVI, CLVII); CXX (copy
of head of athlete of the fourth century B. C.).
[1262] _Cat. Class. Coll._, pp. 228 f.; fig. 141 on p. 231. Miss
Richter points out its affinity to the _Hermes_ and assigns it to the
immediate influence of Praxiteles. This fragment of a statue appears
to have been trimmed into its present shape in modern times. Miss
Richter’s statement (p. 230) that swollen ears are a characteristic
which applies in representations of heroes to Herakles alone is
contradicted by what we shall say below about heads of Diomedes.
[1263] Rayet, II, Pls. 64, 65 (head); B. B., 75; von Mach, 286; F. W.,
1425; M. W., I, Pl. 48, 216; Reinach, _Rép._, I, 154, 1-4. Rayet calls
the statue that of a hoplitodromos.
[1264] Brunn, _Sitzb. Muen. Akad._, 1892, pp. 651 f.; Furtw.-Wolters,
_Beschr. d. Glypt._^2, no. 304; B. B., 128 (left = original; right
= cast); Furtw., _Mp._, p. 147, fig. 60 (from a cast with modern
restorations omitted), and p. 150, fig. 61 (head, two views); text, pp.
146 ff.; _Mw._, Pls. XII, XIII; text, pp. 311 f.; Clarac, 871, 2219
and 633, 1438 A.; Gardner, _Sculpt._, Pl. XVII (cast). Its Kresilæan
origin has been shown by Brunn (_l. c._, pp. 660 and 673), Flasch
(_Vortraege an der 41sten Philologenversamml._, 1891, p. 9, quoted
by Furtwaengler), Loeschke and Studniczka (quoted by Furtwaengler)
and Furtwaengler. It also shows Myronic traces. It stands 1.86 meters
(without the base).
[1265] Furtw., _Mp._, p. 151, fig. 62; _Mw._, Pl. XIV and p. 313. This
and a head in private possession in England, B. B., 543 (three views),
are the best and truest copies of the lost original.
[1266] Froehner, _Notice_, 128; Bouillon, _Musée des antiques_
(statues), Pls. II and III; Clarac, 314, 1438.
[1267] Duetschke, II, no. 163; Amelung, _Fuehrer_, 210; B. B., 361;
F. W., 458. It will be discussed further on in Ch. IV, pp. 180 f. The
Berlin replica is given in _Mp._, p. 167, fig. 67; _cf._ text, p. 165,
n. 2.
[1268] Roscher, _Lex._, I, 2, p. 2163, fig.; Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p.
155, n. 2.
[1269] _R. M._, IV, 1889, P. 197, no. 12 (B. Graef).
[1270] _B. M. Sculpt._, III, 1731, and Pl. V, fig. 2; _Marbles and
Bronzes_, Pl. XXI; _Museum Marbles_, II, Pl. XLVI; _Specimens_, I, Pl.
LX; Collignon, II, p. 240, fig. 120; Wolters, _Jb._, I, 1886, Pl. V,
fig. 2 and p. 54. Two other copies of the same original are the one
in the Capitoline Museum, Rome, and one found in 1876 on the Quirinal
and now in the Palazzo dei Conservatori there. B. Graef, _R. M._, IV,
1889, p. 189 f, and Pls. VIII (Capitoline bust) and IX (Quirinal bust),
attributes the type to Skopas; he is followed by Collignon, II, p. 240,
n. 1; _cf._ S. Reinach, _Gaz. d. B-A._, 3d Per., III, 1890, pp. 338 and
340. Wolters tried to show that it was Praxitelian. But the similarity
between these heads and that of the _Lansdowne Herakles_ (Pl. 30 and
fig. 71), which we ascribe to Lysippos in Ch. VI, pp. 298, 311, is
easily apparent.
[1271] Amelung, _Vat._, I, p. 738, no. 636 and II, Pl. 79; Helbig,
_Fuehrer_, I, no. 108; _Guide_, 113; B. B., 609; Furtw., _Mp._, p. 341,
fig. 146; p. 342, fig. 147 (head, two views); _Mw._, p. 575, fig. 109
and p. 577, fig. 110.
[1272] Furtw.-Wolters, _Beschr., d. Glypt._,^2 no. 245 (the so-called
Lenbach head); Arndt-Bruckmann, _Griech. und roem. Portraets_, Pls.
335-6. See Furtw.-Wolters, for replicas in the Louvre, etc.
[1273] B. B., 338; Helbig, _Guide_, 69 (= boxer).
[1274] Comparetti e de Petra, _La Villa Ercolanese dei Pisoni_, 1883,
Pl. XXI, 3; Furtw., _Mp._, pp. 234 f. and fig. 95; _Mw._, pp. 428 f.
and fig. 65. Both Furtwaengler (_l. c._) and B. Graef (_R. M._, IV,
1889, pp. 215 and 202) have shown the Polykleitan origin of the type.
The former believes that it may have been copied from a statue of
Herakles by the master, which is mentioned by Pliny (_H. N._, XXXIV,
56) as at Rome. For other replicas of the type, see Furtw., _Mp._, p.
234, n. 1; _Mw._, p. 429, n. 1.
[1275] _A. A._, 1889, pp. 57-8 (Treu, who referred it to Polykleitos);
Furtw., _Mp._, p. 92 and fig. 40; _Mw._, p. 124 and Pl. VI (he called
it Pheidian).
[1276] _Museo Torlonia_, Pl. 26, no. 104.
[1277] Furtw.-Wolters, _Beschr. d. Glypt._,^2 no. 272; Arndt-Amelung,
nos. 832 and 833 (text by Flasch).
[1278] _Chabrias_, 3: _Ex quo factum est ut postea athletae ceterique
artifices his statibus in statuis ponendis uterentur, in quibus
victoriam essent adepti_; _cf._ Diod., XV, 33, 4 (who speaks of
“statues”). This statue was erected in Athens after his campaign to
aid Thebes against Agesilaos in 378 B. C.: Xen., _Hell._, V, 4.38 f.
(though here Chabrias is not mentioned by name); Diod., XV, 32-33;
Demosth., _Contra Lept._, 75-76 (p. 479); _cf._ Aristotle, _Rhet._,
III, 10.7. Chabrias seems to have been the first to order his troops to
assume a kneeling posture when receiving the charge of the enemy. These
tactics when used against Agesilaos were so favorably regarded by the
Athenians that his statues were represented in the attitude of kneeling.
[1279] _E. g._, Reisch, p. 43.
[1280] See Joubin, p. 46. It probably took place under the restored
democracy of Kleisthenes. The assassination of Hipparchos took place in
514 B. C. Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 17, says that the group was set up in
the year in which the kings were expelled from Rome (= 509 B. C.).
[1281] P., I, 8.5; _cf._ _Marmor Parium_, l. 70 (= _C. I. G._, II,
2374; _F. H. G._, I, pp. 533 f., etc.), and Lucian, _Philopseudes_, 18.
[1282] Arrian, _Anab._, III, 16.18 (he says it was of bronze); Pliny,
_H. N._, XXXIV, 70; restored by Seleukos: Val. Max., II, 10, Extr. 1;
by Antiochos: P., I, 8.5.
[1283] B. B., nos. 326 (_Aristogeiton_), 327 (_Harmodios_), and 328
(head of _Harmodios_, two views); Bulle, 84, 85; von Mach, 58 (both
statues) and 59 (_Aristogeiton_); Collignon, I, pp. 367 f. and figs.
189 (group) and 190 (head of _Harmodios_); relief from Athens showing
the group, _ibid._, p. 369, fig. 88; Overbeck, I, p. 155, fig. 27;
Baum., I. p. 340, fig. 357; Lechat, pp. 444-5, figs. 36, 37 (restored
by Michaelis); _R. M._, XXI, 1906, Pl. XI; F. W., 121-4; Reinach,
_Rép._, I, 530, 3 (_Harmodios_), and 5 (_Aristogeiton_); _cf._ II,
2, 541, 5 (group); Clarac V, 869, 2202 and 870, 2203 A; head of
_Harmodios_, _Annali_, XLVI, 1874, Pl. G. The height is about 2 meters
(Bulle).
[1284] _A. M._, XV, 1890, pp. 1 f.; followed by Overbeck, I, pp. 152
f.; Frazer, II, p. 98. The difference is not only noticeable in the
head structure and treatment of the hair, but in the whole character of
the work. While Antenor’s work is stiff and lifeless, the Naples group
is full of vigor. For the statue of Antenor (in the Akropolis Museum),
see _Ant. Denkm._, I, 5, 1890, Pl. 53, and pp. 42 f. (Wolters);
Overbeck, I, Pl. 25, opp. p. 152; _Les Musées d’Athènes_, I, Pl. VI;
_Jb._, II, 1887, pp. 135 f. (Studniczka), and Pl. X, 1 (head); von
Mach, 28; Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, Pl. II.
[1285] However, some archæologists still favor Antenor for this group:
_e. g._, Wachsmuth, _Die Stadt Athen_, I, pp. 170 f.; II, 393-8;
Collignon; Lechat, _op. cit._, and _cf._ _B. C. H._, XVI, 1892, pp.
485-9.
[1286] _Rhet. praecept._, 9: ἀπεσφιγμένα καὶ νευρώδη καὶ σκληρά, καὶ
ἀκριβῶς ἀποτεταμένα ταῖς γραμμαῖς. See Brunn, pp. 101-5; _cf._ Pliny,
_H. N._, XXXIV, 49.
[1287] The best restoration is that of Meier in bronzed plaster in
the Ducal Museum in Brunswick: Bulle, p. 172, figs. 38, a, b, c; here
Aristogeiton has received a bearded head. For another restoration, in
the Museum of Strasbourg, see Springer-Michaelis, p. 216, fig. 402, a,
b.
[1288] _Bulletin of Museum of Fine Arts_, III, 27; _R. M._, XIX, 1904,
p. 163, Pl. VI (Hauser).
[1289] A vase by Douris shows a warrior similar to _Aristogeiton_, but
his onset is fiercer: Hartwig, _Die griech. Meisterschalen_, 1893, Pl.
XXI, and Textbd., pp. 206 f. For other representations in art of the
_Tyrannicides_, see Frazer, II, pp. 94 f.
[1290] _Darstellung des Menschen in der aelt. griech. Kunst_, 1899, p.
xi; _cf._ Richardson, p. 120, n. 2.
[1291] _Cf._ Dickins, p. 265 (quoting the view of Furtwaengler).
[1292] Furtwaengler, _Sammlung Somzée_, 1897, Pl. III. He ascribes it
to Mikon and identifies it with the statue of the pancratiast Kallias
at Olympia whose base has been found: _Bildw. v. Ol._ 146; Hyde,
50; see _infra_, in the section on _Pancratiasts_, p. 251. For the
_Pelops_, see _Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. IX, 2, and XI, 1 (head).
[1293] I, 23.9. The inscribed base has been found: _C. I. A._, I, 376;
_I. G. B._, 39.
[1294] P., VI, 10.1-3; Hyde, 93; Foerster, 137.
[1295] Ols. 72 to 76 (= 492 to 476 B. C.); Hyde, p. 42.
[1296] _Cf._ Bulle, p. 493, on no. 225.
[1297] On the origin and early development of motion figures in Greek
art, see Bulle, pp. 157 f., and the works cited on p. 674 (notes to p.
158); especially, J. Langbehn, _Fluegelgestalten der aeltesten griech.
Kunst_, Diss. inaug., 1881; F. Studniczka, _Die Siegesgoettin, Gesch.
einer antiken Idealgestalt_, 1898; E. Curtius, _Die knieenden Figuren
d. alt. griech. Kunst_ (_29stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr._, 1869);
Eadweard Muybridge, _Human Figure in Motion_, 1907; _cf._ also J.
Lange, _op. cit._
[1298] In the Museo Archeologico, Florence: Bulle, no. 10.
[1299] _Cf._ the realistic scenes of wrestling, boxing, and running,
in relief on the archaic Attic tripod vase from Tanagra now in Berlin,
dating from the second half of the sixth century B. C.: _A. Z._, XXXIX,
1881, pp. 30 f. (Loeschke) and Pls. 3 and 4. _Cf._ also scenes from
the pentathlon on a Panathenaic amphora of the sixth century B. C. in
Leyden: _ibid._, Pl. 9; etc.
[1300] _B. C. H._, III, 1879, pp. 393 f. and Pls. VI-VII (Homolle), and
V, 1881, pp. 272 f. (Homolle, on the artist and his father Mikkiades);
von Mach, no. 32 (restored in the text opp. p. 26, fig. 1); Richardson,
p. 51, fig. 15; Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, pp. 300-1, figs. 122-3 and
Treu’s restoration, p. 303, fig. 125; restored in Springer-Michaelis,
p. 187, fig. 358; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 1, 389, 5. Though first called
an _Artemis_ by Homolle (because of its resemblance to the so-called
Oriental winged _Artemis_ on a bronze relief from Olympia, von Mach,
text, opp. p. 36, fig. 5), it has generally been called a _Nike_ since
its first ascription by Furtwaengler (_A. Z._, XL, 1882, pp. 324 f.),
and brought into connection with a base in two parts found near the
statue on Delos in 1880 and 1881, inscribed with the names of Archermos
and his father Mikkiades. If the connection with the base were certain,
the statue should be referred to the beginning of the sixth century
B. C.; B. Sauer (_A. M._, XVI, 1891, pp. 182 f.), and others, have
disputed the connection.
[1301] Now in the National Museum, Athens: Kabbadias, no. 1; von Mach,
20; Springer-Michaelis, p. 174, fig. 340; Richardson, p. 43, fig. 11;
Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 645, 1. Its inscription should date it about
600 B. C. It is over 6 feet in height (including the base: von Mach).
[1302] Bulle, pp. 157-8, fig. 33; de Ridder, no. 808. It is 0.123 meter
high (Bulle). _Cf._ similar bronzes _ibid._, nos. 799-814, and also
a flying harpy on a sixth-century B. C. Ionic vase in the University
Museum in Wuerzburg: Bulle, pp. 159-160, fig. 34; Furtw.-Reichhold,
_Griech. Vasenmalerei_, I, pp. 209 f. and Pl. 41; _cf._ also the very
similar pose on the small bronze statuette in the British Museum of a
winged _Nike_ represented in violent motion: von Mach, 33; the marble
torso of another in Athens: _id._, text, opp. p. 26, fig. 2; and the
bronze winged _Gorgon_ from Olympia (0.12 meter high): _Bronz. v. Ol._,
Pl. VIII, no. 78, text, p. 25 (and for the type, _cf._ Roscher, _Lex._,
art. Gorgonen in der Kunst, I, 2, p. 1710, ll. 67 f.).
[1303] _Nike of Archermos_, 1891.
[1304] Salzmann, _Nécropole de Camiros_, Pl. LIII; Bulle, pp. 161-2,
fig. 35; _cf._ Brunn, _Griech. Kunstgeschichte_, I, p. 142. Its
diameter is 0.385 meter (Bulle).
[1305] See R. Kekulé and H. Winnefeld, _Bronzen aus Dodona in den
koenigl. Museen zu Berlin_, Pl. II and pp. 13 f.; _A. Z._, XL, 1882,
Pl. I and pp. 23-27 (Engelmann); Rayet, I, Pl. 17 (S. Reinach); Bulle,
83 (right). As the figure is only 0.143 meter tall, it seems to have
decorated the rim of a bronze bowl. It may be later than the Tuebingen
bronze (Fig. 42) and is certainly of a different school. The presence
of a breastplate proves that it is meant for a warrior and not for a
hoplitodrome.
[1306] For a full discussion of this sculptor, see Lechat, _Pythagoras
de Rhegion_, 1905; _cf._ _S. Q._, §§ 489-507.
[1307] _H. N._, XXXIV, 59.
[1308] VI, 4.3; _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde, 38; Foerster, 202, 203.
[1309] VI, 6.1; Hyde, 48; Foerster, 200.
[1310] VI, 6.4 f.; _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde, 56; Foerster, 185, 195, 207.
[1311] VI, 7.10; Hyde, 69; Foerster, 183, 189.
[1312] VI, 13.1; _Oxy. Pap._; Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 59; Hyde, 110;
Foerster, 176-7; 181-2; 187-8; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 145.
[1313] VI, 13.7; _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde, 117; Foerster, 184.
[1314] VI, 18.1; Hyde, 185; Foerster, 193a.
[1315] Reisch, p. 43, n. 4, wrongly assumed this to be one of the
oldest statues of Pythagoras, since the same sculptor made the statue
of the son Kratisthenes; but the son’s victory was probably only two
Olympiads later than that of the father, as we have seen.
[1316] VIII, 47; _S. Q._, 507. Diogenes repeats the tradition that
there were two sculptors of the name, one from Rhegion, the other from
Samos; also Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 59-60.
[1317] _J. H. S._, II, 1881, pp. 332 f.; _cf._ his _Essays on the Art
of Pheidias_, 1885, p. 323. The recovered base of Euthymos’ statue
has no footmarks: _Inschr. v. Ol._, 144. Waldstein is followed in his
ascription of the statues to Euthymos by Urlichs, _Arch. Analekt._,
1885, p. 9.
[1318] B. B., no. 542 (two views); Furtw. _Mp._, p. 171, fig. 70; _A.
M._, XVI, 1891, pp. 313 f. and Pls. IV, and V (two views), (P. Hermann).
[1319] _Mp._, pp. 171-2; _Mw._, pp. 345-6.
[1320] _Mon. d. I_., X, 1874-78, Pl. II (head); _Annali_, XLVI, 1874,
Pl. L. Arndt, _La Glypt. Ny-Carlsberg_, p. 62, doubts if the head
belongs to the torso.
[1321] Duetschke, II, no. 77 (= one of two statues); _Mon. d. I._,
VIII, 1864-68, Pl. XLVI, 6-8, and _Annali_, XXXIX, 1867, pp. 304 f.
(Benndorf); Arndt-Amelung, nos. 96-98; _cf._ _A. Z._, XXVII, 1869, pp.
106 f. and Pl. 24, 2 (Benndorf, _Tyrannicides_ on a Panathenaic amphora
in the British Museum, etc.), and XXXII, 1875, pp. 163 f. (Duetschke,
group of two statues); Reinach, _Rép._ II, 2, 541, 6. Both Duetschke
(_A. Z._, _l. c._) and Furtwaengler (_Berl. Philol. Wochenschr._, VIII,
1888, p. 1448) have shown that it represents an athlete.
[1322] Michaelis, p. 446, no. 36; Clarac, V, 856, 2180. Furtwaengler
believes the statue later in style than the Louvre boxer.
[1323] _E. g._, P. Hermann, _op. cit._, pp. 332-3; Arndt, text to B.
B., no. 542.
[1324] B. B., no. 361; Amelung, _Fuehrer_, 210; Duetschke, II, 163;
Furtw., _Mp._, pp. 165 f. and fig. 66 (two views); _Mw._, pp. 339 f.
and Pl. XVII (from a cast); F. W., 458. For three replicas of the
Riccardi type, see Arndt, text to B. B., 542. Furtwaengler believed
this head a prototype of the _Diomedes_ of Kresilas known to us from
copies in Munich (Pl. XXI); _Mw._, pp. 311 f. and Pls. XII, XIII;
_Mp._, pp. 146 f. and figs. 60 (body), and 61 (head, two views); B. B.,
128; Brunn, _Sitzb. Muen. Akad._, 1892, pp. 651 f.; in Paris: Froehner,
_Notice_, no. 128; Clarac, 314, 1438; and elsewhere. See _supra_ p. 169.
[1325] Michaelis, p. 367, no. 152; _Mp._, p. 172, fig. 71; _Mw._, p.
347, fig. 44; A. Z., XXXI, 1874, Pl. III; F. W., 459. Kekulé was the
first to class it as Myronian: _Ueber d. Kopf des Praxitel. Hermes_, p.
12, 1 (quoted by F. W., _l. c._). Graef curiously found it Pheidian:
_Aus d. Anomia_, p. 69, 63.
[1326] _H. N._, XXXIV, 58; _cf._ _Mp._, p. 173.
[1327] _La Glypt._ _Ny-Carlsberg_, Pl. XXXVI and p. 60; the other,
unpublished, is mentioned _ibid._ He also adds the cast of a lost
original statue of a boxer in the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in
Copenhagen, whose head belongs stylistically to the same series:
_ibid._, pp. 60-61, and figs. 30 (head), 31-32 (body). If the head and
body belong together it is the only statuary type of the group.
[1328] Kieseritzky, _Kat. d. Ermitage_, 1901, p. 27, no. 68; Furtw.,
_Mp._, p. 177, fig. 74; _Mw._, p. 353 fig. 46 (two views).
[1329] _Mp._, p. 176, fig. 73; _Mw._, Pl. XX (two views).
[1330] Text to B. B., no. 542; _La Glypt. Ny-Carlsberg_, text to Pl.
XXXVI, p. 60.
[1331] _B. M. Sculpt._, 1603, Pl. V, fig. 1; B. B., 224; F. W., 460.
[1332] _A. M._, XXXVI, 1911, pp. 193 f., and Pl. VII (Athleten Kopf in
Athen).
[1333] _H. N._, XXXIV, 59.
[1334] Brunn, pp. 133-4, connected _Libyn_ and _puerum_, and believed
that only one statue was meant by Pliny’s sentence, identical with
Pausanias’ statue of Mnaseas. Stuart Jones, _Select Passages from Anc.
Writers Illustrative of the History of Gk. Sculpt._, 1895, p. 57, makes
two alterations in Pliny’s text, inserting _et_ between _Libyn_ and
_puerum_, and replacing _tabellam_ of the MSS. with _flagellum_. The
boy holding the whip, then, is Mnaseas’ son Kratisthenes, the chariot
victor mentioned by P., VI, 18.1. Stuart Jones follows Furtwaengler
(_Jahrbuecher fuer Class. Philol._, 1876, p. 509) in having Pliny
translate παῖδα of his Greek authority by _puerum_ instead of _filium_.
[1335] P. 44.
[1336] Cat. no. 51; Benndorf, _Griech. und Sicilische Vasenbilder_, I,
pp. 13 f. and Pl. IX.
[1337] In his _Chrestomathia Pliniana_, 1857, p. 320.
[1338] _Rheinisches Museum_, XLIV, 1889, pp. 264 f.
[1339] Antigonos of Karystos, _apud_ Zen., V, 82 (passage given by
Jex-Blake, p. xxxix and n. 2).
[1340] Ancient writers differed as to the authorship of the statue.
Thus P. (I, 33.3), Mela (_de Situ orbis_, II, 3.6), Tzetzes (S. Q.,
838-9), and Zenobios (_l. c._), say that it was Pheidias, while Pliny
(_H. N._, XXXVI, 17) and Strabo (IX, I. 17, C. 396) say Agorakritos. A
fragment of the colossal head of the statue came to the British Museum
in 1820: _B. M. Sculpt._, I, p. 460; also fragments of the figure on
the base, described by P., I, 33.7, were found in 1890 and are now in
the National Museum in Athens: Kabbadias, 203-14; Frazer, II, p. 457,
fig. 40.
[1341] See his Ueber einige Werke des Kuenstlers Pythagoras, in
_Verhandl. d. 40sten Versamml. deutscher Philologen u. Schulmaenner in
Goerlitz_, Leipsic, 1890 (pp. 329-336), p. 334.
[1342] _Archaeolog. Analekten_, 1885, p. 9. Lucian, _Anachar._, 9, says
that apples formed a part of the Delphic prize; Dromeus is also known
to us as a Pythian victor. In _Chrest. Plin._, p. 320, L. von Urlichs
had identified the _nudus_ as Meilanion or Hippomenes with the apples
with which he had beaten Atalanta; see _S. Q._, § 499, note a.
[1343] _H. N._, XXXIV, 59: _Syracusis autem claudicantem, cuius ulceris
dolorem sentire etiam spectantes videntur_. Gronovius, following
Lessing, _Laokoön_, Ch. 2, identified it with a wounded Philoktetes:
see Bluemner, _Comm. zu Lessing’s Laokoön_, pp. 508 f.; the words
_cuius ... videntur_ seem to have been derived from _A. Pl._, IV, 112,
1.4 (which refers to a bronze statue of Philoktetes): _cf._ Brunn, p.
134 and Jex-Blake, _ad loc._
[1344] _Cf._ Benndorf, _Anz. d. Wiener Akad._, 1887, p. 92; von Sybel,
_Weltgesch. d. Kunst_, p. 139.
[1345] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 146; Kallias won Ol. 77 (= 472 B. C.): _Oxy.
Pap._; P., VI, 6.1; Hyde, 50; Foerster, 208.
[1346] In the Plinian passage Leontiskos figures rather as an artist,
probably through Pliny’s misunderstanding of some Greek sentence in his
authority; see L. von Urlichs, _Rheinisches Museum_, XLIV, 1889, p. 261.
[1347] P. 44.
[1348] L. von Sybel, _Athena und Marsyas, Bronzemuenze des Berliner
Museums_, 1879.
[1349] This characteristic is expressed by the word αὐτάρκεια; _cf._
Plato, _Phil._, 67 A; Aristotle, _Eth. Nicom._, 1, 7.5-6 (= 1097 b);
etc.
[1350] Marble copy of the _Marsyas_ was found in 1823 on the Esquiline
and is now in the Lateran Museum, Rome: Helbig, _Fuehrer_, II, 1179;
Rayet, I, Pl. 33; B. B., 208; Bulle, 95; von Mach, 65a; Baum., II, p.
1002, fig. 1210; Collignon, I, pp. 467 f. and fig. 234; F. W., 454;
Reinach, _Rép._, II, 1, 15, 6. It is 1.95 meters high (Bulle). It is
wrongly restored and only the head can be considered approximately
faithful to the original. _Cf._ another copy of the head of Parian
marble in the Museo Barracco, Rome: Helbig, I, 1104; Reinach, _Têtes_,
pp. 53 f. and Pls. LXVI-LXVII; F. W., 455. A fourth-century B. C.
bronze statuette from Patras, now in the British Museum, appears also
to give the motive of the original group in Athens mentioned by Pliny,
_H. N._, XXXIV, 57, and P., I, 24. 1: _B. M. Bronzes_, 269; _Gaz.
Arch._, 1879, Pls. XXXIV-V and pp. 241 f.; _A. Z._, XXXVII, 1879, Pl.
VIII (two views), pp. 91 f.; Rayet, I, Pl. 34; von Mach, 656; Reinach,
_Rép._, II, 1, 51, nos. 5 and 7. It is 0.75 meter high. For other
representations, see G. Hirschfeld, Athena und Marsyas, _32stes Berl.
Winckelmannsprogr._, 1872, Pls. I and II. For a copy of the head of
Athena in Dresden, see B. B., 591 (three views).
[1351] Walter Pater, in his _Greek Studies_ (in the essay on The Age of
Athletic Prizemen), ed. 1895, pp. 309 f., calls the _Diskobolos_ a work
of _genre_. However, the _Diskobolos_ can hardly be called a decorative
statue, _i. e._, “a work merely imitative of the detail of actual
life.” On p. 313 he rightly classes the _Doryphoros_ as an “academic”
work.
[1352] It was formerly in the Palazzo Massimi alla Colonna, and hence
is often called the Massimi _Diskobolos_: B. B., no. 567, _cf._ 256
(head from cast); von Mach, 63; Collignon, I, Pl. XI, opp. p. 472; H.
B. Walters, _The Art of the Greeks_, 1906, Pl. XXX; Gardner, _Sculpt._,
Pl. XIII (head from cast); Overbeck, I, fig. 74, opp. p. 274; Reinach,
_Rép._, I, 527, 1; for description, see M. D., 1098.
[1353] Furtwaengler, _Mp._, pp. 168 f., _Mw._, pp. 341 f., lists three
other copies of the head: one in Basel (_cf._ Kalkmann, Proport. des.
Gesichts., _53stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr._, 1893, pp. 73-74); one at
Catajo (_Mp._, fig. 68; _Mw._, fig. 43; Arndt-Amelung, nos. 54-55); and
one in Berlin (_Mp._, fig. 69).
[1354] H. N., XXXIV, 58: _(Myron) videtur ... capillum quoque et pubem
non emendatius fecisse quam rudis antiquitas instituisset._
[1355] B. B., nos. 631, 632 (restored from bronzed cast; text by
Rizzo); Bulle, 98; Helbig, _Fuehrer_, II, 1363; _Boll. d’Arte_, I,
1907, pp. 1 f. and Pls. I-III; _cf._ _Zeitschr. fuer bild. Kunst_,
1907, pp. 185 f. It is pieced together from fourteen fragments; the
fragment of the right lower leg was found in 1910. Height to right
shoulder, 1.53 meters (Bulle).
[1356] Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, 326; _Guide_, 333; von Mach, 62;
Collignon, I, p. 473, n. 1; F. W., 451; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 545, 5.
[1357] _B. M. Sculpt._, I, no. 250; von Mach. 61; _Specimens_, I, Pl.
XXIX; _Museum Marbles_, XI, Pl. XLIV; _Marbles and Bronzes of the
British Museum_, Pl. XLVII; F. W., 452; Reinach, _Rép._, I, 525, 5;
Clarac, V, 860, 2194 B. It is 5 feet 5 inches tall (Smith).
[1358] H. Stuart Jones, _Museo Capitolino Cat._, 1912, no. 50, p. 123,
and Pl. 21; Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, 788; _Guide_, 446; Clarac, V, 858 A,
2212. It is 1.48 meters high from lower edge of base to the right hand
(Jones).
[1359] B. B., no. 566; von Mach, 64; Gardner, _Sculpt._, PI. XI;
Gardiner, p. 96, fig. 13 (from a copy of the Munich cast in the
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford).
[1360] Pl. no. 97; _cf._ Gardner, _Sculpt._, Pl. XII, and
Furtw.-Urlichs, _Denkmaeler_, Pl. XXXIII.
[1361] _Philopseudes_, 18; _S. Q._, §544; translation of H. Stuart
Jones, _Select Passages from Ancient Writers Illustrative of the
History of Greek Sculpture_, p. 69.
[1362] For the late Roman one in the Munich Antiquarium, see B. B.,
text to Pl. 567, fig. 1; F. W., 453; for the one in Arolsen, see F. W.,
1786.
[1363] _B. M. Gems_, no. 742, Pl. G; also given in _B. M. Sculpt._, I,
p. 91, fig. 5.
[1364] _Inst. orat._, II, 13.10: _Quid tam distortum et elaboratum
quam est ille discobolos Myronis? si quis tamen, ut parum rectum,
improbet opus, nonne ab intellectu artis abfuerit, in qua vel praecipue
laudabilis est ipsa illa novitas ac difficultas?_
[1365] Translation by G. F. Hill, in his _One Hundred Masterpieces of
Sculpture from the Sixth Century B. C. to the Time of Michelangelo_,
1909, p. 10.
[1366] Enumerated above in Ch. III (Attic Sculptors), p. 129, n. 7. The
Spartan Lykinos had two statues: P., VI, 2.1. As he won in both the
hoplite-race and chariot-race, Foerster, 211 a, assumed that the two
statues represented victor and charioteer, and that they stood upon
the quadriga, which Pausanias does not mention. I follow Robert, _O.
S._, p. 172, however, in assuming that the two statues represented the
victor in the two events.
[1367] _H. N._, XXXIV, 57.
[1368] VI, 8.5; Hyde, 79 (Arkadian) and 79a (Philippos), and commentary
on pp. 39 f.
[1369] The interpretation of Murray, _Class. Rev._, I, 1887, pp. 3-4.
[1370] The emendation of Loeschke, _Dorpaterprogr._, 1880, p. 9;
accepted by Reisch, p. 44, n. 3, Richardson, p. 151, and others.
[1371] _Der Dornauszieher und der Knabe mit der Gans_, 1876, p. 89, n.
30.
[1372] Quoted by Jex-Blake, Add. to p. 46, 1.
[1373] _Select Passages from Anc. Writers Illustrative of the History
of Gk. Sculpt._, p. 66.
[1374] Mayer, in _A. M._, XVI, 1891, pp. 246 f., showed that on
vase-paintings of Myron’s time and on coins of Elaia, Aeolis, a woman
is often represented as standing in the chest, while two men, Perseus
and the carpenter, stand beside it.
[1375] _E. g._, the statue of the boy boxer Athenaios of Ephesos was
represented in motion, _i. e._, in the act of sparring, as we see from
the footprints on the recovered base: _Inschr. v. Ol._, 168; he won
some time between Ols. (?) 93 and 103 (= 384 and 368 B. C.): P., VI,
4.1; Hyde, 36; Foerster, 419.
[1376] See Grenfell and Hunt, _Oxyrhynchus Papyrus_, II, 1899, pp. 222
f.; Robert, _O. S._, Beilage, opp. p. 192; Diels, _Hermes_, XXXVI,
1901, pp. 72 f.; Koerte, _ibid._, XXXIX, 1904, pp. 224 f.; Weniger,
_Klio_ (_Beitraege zur alten Gesch._), IV, pp. 125 f.; V, pp. 1 f. and
184 f.
[1377] Late inscriptions mention “Pythian” and “Isthmian boys”: see F.
M. Mie, _Quaestiones agonisticae ad Olympia pertinentes_, Diss. inaug.,
1888, p. 48; Dittenberger, _Sylloge_,^2 II, nos. 677-8; the ἀγένειοι
and ἄνδρες at Nemea are mentioned by Pindar, _Ol._, VIII, 54. The boys
in these contests were probably aged 12-16, the ἀγένειοι, 16-20 (_cf._
Roberts-Gardner, _Greek Epigraphy_, II, p. 166), and the men over 20
years old.
[1378] For Olympia, see P., VI, 2.10; 6.1; 14.1-2; etc.
[1379] _C. I. G._, I, 1590.
[1380] Dittenberger, _op. cit._, II, no. 524: ἐφήβων νεωτέρων, μέσων,
πρεσβυτέρων.
[1381] _I. G._, II, 444. For the _Panathenaia_, see Suidas, _s. v._
Παναθήναια; Mommsen, _Heortologie_, 1864, p. 141; etc.
[1382] P., V, 16.2.
[1383] _De Leg._, VIII, 833 C, D.
[1384] _C. I. G._, inscriptions relating to ephebes, _e. g._, I, 232;
1590; Dittenberger, _de Ephebis atticis_, 1863, p. 24; Dumont, _Essai
sur l’Ephébie attique_, 1876, pp. 215-16. This classification is
followed by E. Pottier, _B. C. H._, V, 1881, p. 69.
[1385] Bussemaker, in Dar.-Sagl., I, Pt. 1, _s. v._ _athleta_, p. 517
(also quoted by Pottier), proposed the division into παῖδες, 12-16
years old, ἀγένειοι, 16-20, and ἄνδρες, from 20 on. Pollux, VIII, 105,
and Harpokration, _s. v._ ἐπιδιετές, give the ephebe age as 18-20;
Xen., _Cyr._, 1, 2.8, puts the age at 16 or 17 for the Persians.
[1386] See _Inschr. v. Ol._, 56. On the whole subject, see Krause, pp.
262 f., especially p. 263, n. 3; Gardiner, pp. 271-2.
[1387] VI, 1.3 to VI, 18.7. We also know of 61 other victors with 63
monuments from inscribed base fragments recovered at Olympia; these
will be treated _infra_ in Ch. VIII, pp. 353 f.
[1388] See Ch. VIII, _infra_, p. 339 and notes 3-4.
[1389] On _Ol._, IX, 150, Boeckh, p. 228; _cf._ _Etym. magn._, _s. v._
στάδιον, p. 743, 25.
[1390] Thus Apollo beat Hermes in running at Olympia, P., V, 7.10;
the Idæan Herakles instituted a race among his brothers, P., V,
7.7; and Endymion set his sons to run, and so instituted the boys’
running race there, P., V, 1.4. The running race appears in the Boread
legend, Ph.,3; pseudo-Dio Chrysost., XXXVII, p. 296 (Dindorf); it was
represented on the Kypselos chest: P., V, 17.10, and appears on many
archaic vases. On the age of the event, see Grasberger, _Erziehung und
Unterricht_, I, 1864, p. 310 and III, 1881, p. 199. The Cretans and the
Lacedæmonians sacrificed to Apollo δρομαῖος: Plut., _Quaest. conviv._,
VIII, 4.4.
[1391] See Ph., 3, for the four running races; _cf._, Plato, _de Leg._,
833 A, B.
[1392] Iliad, XXIII, 740 f.; Od., VIII, 120 f. (in l. 121 it is
called δρόμος). In some historic games, the stade-race remained the
only event; _e. g._, at the _Hermaia_ on Salamis: _C. I. G._, I, 108.
For the stade-race, see P., I, 44.1; III, 14.3; IV, 4.5, etc. On its
origin, see Ph., 5.
[1393] Schol. on Aristoph., _Aves_, 292 (ed. J. W. White, 1914); P., V,
8.6. On its origin, see Ph., 6 and _cf._ Krause, pp. 345 f.
[1394] Ch. 4.
[1395] Suidas, _s. v._ δόλιχος; schol. on Aristophanes, _Aves_, 292 (=
seven stadia); Boeckh, _C. I. G._, I, no. 1515, p. 703 (= ordinarily
seven stadia); schol. on Soph., _Electra_, 691. See Krause, I, p. 348,
n. 13; Grasberger, _op. cit._, I, pp. 312 f.
[1396] Poll., III, 151; schol. on Aristoph., _Acharn._, 214; etc.
[1397] P., _passim_; _Oxy. Pap._; etc.
[1398] Ph., 7. For two theories of its origin, see _ibid._
[1399] P., X, 7.5; Krause, _Die Pythien, Nemeen, und Isthmien_, pp. 136
f.
[1400] _Cf._ Plato, _de Leg._, I, p. 625 E. Thus the Cretans Ergoteles
and Sotades won the distance race twice each; Ergoteles in Ols. 77
and 79 (= 472 and 464 B. C.): P., VI, 4.11; _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde, 46;
Foerster, 206, 213; Sotades in Ols. 99, 100 (= 384, 380 B. C.): P., VI,
18.6; Hyde, 186; Foerster, 317, 323. The Cretan Philonides, courier
of Alexander the Great, had an honor statue at Olympia: P., VI, 16.5;
Hyde, 154a. At the games at Trapezous over sixty Cretans entered: Xen.,
_Anab._, IV, 8, 27; _cf._ Krause, pp. 352 f.
[1401] _De Leg._, VIII, 833 C.
[1402] V, 16.3.
[1403] V, 8.6; _cf._ IV, 4.5; VIII, 26.4. His statement about the
antiquity of the event is corroborated by Plutarch, _Quaest. conviv._,
V, 2.12, Ph. (= only event until Ol. 14), and Eusebios, _Chronika_, I,
p. 193 (ed. Schoene). Gardiner, p. 52, believes that if the Olympic
games developed from a single event, it was probably not from the
stade-race, but from either the fight in armor or the chariot-race.
[1404] P., V, 8.6, etc.; Foerster, 1.
[1405] Discussed by Gardiner, pp. 52 and 272-3.
[1406] III, 8 (= Dorieus of Rhodes, who won his second victory in Ol.
88 (= 428 B. C.): P., VI, 7.1; Hyde, 61; Foerster, 260); V, 49 (=
Androsthenes of Mainalos, who won his first victory in Ol. 90, = 420 B.
C.: P., VI, 6.1; Hyde, 51; Foerster, 267).
[1407] Dittenberger, _Sylloge_^2, I, no. 256 (= Agesidamos of Messenia,
who won in Ol. 140, = 220 B. C.).
[1408] V, 8.6; confirmed by Ph., 12, and Eusebios, _Chron._, I, p. 193
(ed. Schoene).
[1409] _L. c._; corroborated by Ph., 12.
[1410] P., V, 8.9; Eusebios agrees with Pausanias, but Philostratos
says Ol. 46 (= 596 B. C.), _l. c._
[1411] P., V, 8.10; _cf._ III, 14.3. It was introduced at Delphi in 498
B. C.: see Gardiner, p. 70.
[1412] On running races, see Krause, I, pp. 337 f.; Gardiner, Ch. XIII,
pp. 270 f.; Dar.-Sagl., I, Pt. 2, pp. 1643 f.; Grasberger, _Erziehung
und Unterricht_, I, pp. 312 f.; etc.
[1413] Fig. 37 left = _Mon. d. I._, I, 1829-33, Pl. XXII, 6b; _cf.
ibid._, 4b, and X, 1874-78, Pl. XLVIII, f, and Panathenaic amphora
in Dar.-Sagl., I, Pt. 2, p. 1643, fig. 2229. Fig. 36A = Gerhard, IV,
Pl. CCLIX, 1. Also _cf._ a sixth-century B. C. amphora in Munich,
no. 498: _Mon. d. I._, X, Pl. XLVIII, m; Gardiner, p. 281, fig.
52; Perrot-Chipiez, X, p. 129, fig. 92 (right); a fourth-century
Panathenaic amphora: Gardiner, p. 283, fig. 53, from Stephani, _Comptes
rendus de la comm. impér. archéol._, St. Petersburg, 1876, Atlas, Pl. I.
[1414] Ph., 32: οἷον πτερούμενοι ὑπο τῶν χειρῶν.
[1415] The first = _B. M. Vases_, B 609; Gardiner, p. 280, fig. 51;
_Mon. d. I._, X, 1874-78, Pl. XLVIII, e, 4; G. F. Hill, _Illustrations
of School Classics_, 1903, fig. 390; the second (Fig. 37, right) =
_Mon. d. I._, I, 1829-33, Pl. XXII, 7b; Gardiner, p. 279, fig. 50;
Dar.-Sagl., p. 1644, fig. 2230. _Cf._ another in _Mon. d. I._, X, Pl.
XLVIII, f, 6.
[1416] National Museum, no. 761.
[1417] _Cf._ Reisch, p. 46.
[1418] On this mode of representing runners, see Schmidt in _Muenchener
archaeol. Studien zum Andenken A. Furtwaengler dargebracht_, 1909, pp.
249 f. (especially p. 257).
[1419] See Kalkmann, _Jb._, X, 1895, pp. 56 f, and fig. 4, p. 56 (=
Gerhard, IV, 256; Murray, _Designs from Greek Vases_, V, 18) two
runners; the interior of the same vase also represents such a runner:
p. 61, fig. 7. _Cf._ also p. 58, fig. 5 (= Murray, X, 37; _Mon. d. I._,
IV, 1844-48, Pl. XXXIII), representing Hermes on a r.-f. vase of the
severe style; also p. 59, fig. 6; etc. Also _cf._ Juethner, p. 41, fig.
36a (a later r.-f. kylix in Munich, no. 803 A), showing a pentathlete
running with an _akontion_. The following b.-f. vases, which show
representations of such archaic runners, are taken from Perrot-Chipiez,
X, 1914: the proto-Attic amphora of Nettos, p. 71, fig. 63 (= _Ant.
Denkm._, I, Text, p. 46); cup from Aegina, p. 77, fig. 68 (= _A. Z._,
XL, 1882, Pl. IX); Corinthian amphora, p. 103, fig. 74 (= Pottier,
_Vases antiques_, Pl. LIX, E 855); the Gorgon on the François Vase,
p. 165, fig. 108 (from Furtw.-Reichhold, _Griech. Vasenmalerei_, Pls.
I-III); on neck of an amphora by Pamphaios in the Louvre, p. 388, fig.
233 (= Pottier, _op. cit._, Pl. LXXXVIII).
[1420] Discussed (wrongly, I think, as Etruscan) by G. H. Chase: _A. J.
A._, XII, 1908, pp. 287 f., Pls. VIII-XVIII (especially XII-XVIII); Pl.
XV = Richardson, p. 69, fig. 27.
[1421] Richter, _Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Bronzes_, no. 46, fig. on
p. 30; _Museum Bull._, 1911 (April), pp. 92 f., and fig. 5 (Richter);
it is 4-5/8 inches tall.
[1422] No. 1959. It will be discussed in our treatment of hoplitodromes
_infra_, p. 209 and n. 2.
[1423] Richter, no. 16, fig. on p. 10; _Mus. Bull._, 1909 (May), p. 78
(Robinson); it is 2-7/8 inches tall.
[1424] Richter, no. 62, fig. on p. 43; Mus. Bull., 1913 (Dec.), pp. 268
f. and fig. 7 (Richter); it is 3-1/16 inches tall.
[1425] _Op. cit._, pp. 65 and 74.
[1426] _Aegina, das Heiligtum der Aphaia_, Pl. XCVI, nos. 32 and 3; in
the Glyptothek these are nos. 78 and 82; see von Mach, Pl. 78 (middle).
[1427] The Lapith G and the boy P: Treu, _Jb._, III, 1888, pp. 117 f.,
Pl. V (= Q and F in the new arrangement on Pl. VI); Kalkmann, _op.
cit._, p. 75.
[1428] Bulle, 180; it is 0.79 meter high.
[1429] _Ant. Denkm._, I, Pt. 5, 1890, Pl. LVI (text, pp. 45-46, by
Winter); B. B., no. 249; Bulle, 92 (two views) and 93; von Mach, 226;
Helbig, _Fuehrer_, II, no. 1353; _Guide_, 1063; Collignon, II, p. 361,
fig. 184; Gardiner, _Sculpt._, Pl. LXXIII; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 419,
7. It is 1 meter high (Bulle).
[1430] _E. g._, Kalkmann, _Jb._, X, 1895, pp. 46 f., Pl. I and fig. I
in text; he defends this view, _ibid._, XI, 1896, pp. 197 f.
[1431] To the fifth by Kalkmann, Bulle, Furtwaengler (_Sitzb. Muen.
Akad._, 1907, Pt. II, pp. 219-220, = Hadrianic copy), and others;
to the fourth by Winter, Collignon, and von Mach; Collignon, II,
pp. 359 f., connects it stylistically with the so-called _Ilioneus_
of the Glyptothek, represented in a similar pose (= Furtw.-Wolters,
_Beschr._,^2 270; B. B., 432; F. W., 1263), and with the _Hypnos_ in
the Prado, Madrid (= Huebner, _Die ant. Bildw. in Madrid_, no. 39;
Furtw., _Mw._, pp. 648 f.; Collignon, II, p. 357, fig. 181; F. W.,
1287; for small replicas in bronze, see Winnefeld, _Hypnos_, p. 8, n.
2), and assigns all three to the fourth century B. C. and to Skopaic
art. Amelung assigns the Subiaco youth to Hellenistic times: _Mus. and
Ruins of Rome_, I, fig. 60.
[1432] For a list of ten such interpretations, see de Ridder, _Rev.
arch._, XXXI, Sér. 3, 1897, p. 265, n. 5; and B. Sauer, Der Knabe von
Subiaco, _Festgabe H. Bluemner ueberreicht_, 1914, pp. 143 f., and note
1 on p. 143.
[1433] _E. g._, by Bulle; Brizio, _Ausonia_, I, 1906, p. 21; _cf._
Winter, _l. c._; etc. If a Niobid, he was probably wounded in the neck
(_cf._ the one in Milan) and formed part of a group.
[1434] By Lucas, _Neue Jahrbuecher f. kl. Altertum_, V, 1902, pp. 427
f; _cf._ _Jh. oest. arch. Inst._, IX, 1906, pp. 273 f.
[1435] Formerly by G. Koerte, _Jb._, XI, 1896, pp. 11 f.; _cf._ the
Pompeian wall-painting, _ibid._, p. 15, fig. 2; he has since given up
this view: see Sauer, _l. c._
[1436] De Ridder, _op. cit._, the hands seem to have been placed wrong
for this interpretation, though Helbig and Amelung find it possible.
[1437] Petersen, _Jb._, XI, 1896, pp. 202 f.; such a motive was unknown
to antiquity and is based on the wrong assumption that a marble hand
holding a rope-like object, which was found in the same excavations,
belongs to the statue: see Helbig, _l. c._
[1438] Sauer, in the publication mentioned, believes the riddle best
solved by assuming that the figure formerly was part of a gable group;
see the reconstruction (by Luebke), p. 145, fig. 4. He dates it in the
second half of the fifth century B. C., contemporary with the _Idolino_.
[1439] The fleetness of Ladas was often extolled, especially by late
Greek and Roman writers: P, III, 21.1; Plut., _Praecip. ger. reip._,
10; Catullus, LV, 25; Juvenal, XIII, 97; Martial, II, LXXXVI, 8, and
XC, 5; Seneca, _Ep._, LXXXV, 4; Solinus, 7; etc.
[1440] _A. Pl._, IV, no. 53; here line 3 was added by Jacobs, and line
4 by Benndorf, from two parodies of the epigram in _A. G._, XI, 86
and 119; in the first parody ἄλλος stands for Λάδας and Περικλῆς for
κάμνων. See Benndorf, _de anthologiae Graecae Epigrammatis quae ad
artes spectant_, Diss. inaug., 1862, pp. 13 f., and Kalkmann, _Jb._,
X, 1895, pp. 76-77 and notes. Studniczka (see next note) reads line 4:
Λάδας, οἱ δ’ ἄλλοι δάκτυλον οὐ προέβαν.
[1441] _A. Pl._, IV, 54. Benndorf corrects the Mss. reading of the
last half of l. 2 as νεῦρα ταθεὶς ὄνυχι; others read the whole line:
θυνὸν [= δρόμον] ἐπ’ ἀκροτάτῳ σκάμματι θεὶς ὄνυχα. On the two epigrams,
see Studniczka, Myron’s Ladas, _Ber. saechs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss.,
Philolog.-histor. Cl._, 52, 1900, pp. 329 f. (especially pp. 333 f.).
[1442] Reading φυσῶν ... θυμόν for φεύγων ... Θῦμον, “flying from
wind-footed Thymos,” of Jacobs. On possible readings, see Studniczka,
_l. c._, pp. 337 f.
[1443] _Sculpt._, p. 69.
[1444] See Kalkmann, _op. cit._, pp. 77-8; Reisch, p. 44; _cf._ Gercke,
_Jb._, VIII, 1893, p. 115, on the meaning of the words πνεῦμα and ἆσθμα.
[1445] _Polyklet u. s. Sch._, p. 17; von Mach, no. 289; B. B., 354.
[1446] No. 249, 249 a; he fixes his victory in Ol. (?) 85 (= 440 B.
C.), because of the late dating of Myron by Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 49
(_floruit_ Ol. 90 = 420 B. C.: _cf._ Brunn, I, 142 f.); Furtwaengler
dated his activity within the first half of the fifth century B. C.:
_Mp._, p. 182; Robert provisionally dates the victory of Ladas in
Ol. (?) 76 (= 476 B. C.), though he finds that Ols. 80 and 81 (= 460
and 456 B. C.) are possible: see _O. S._, p. 184; here he dates the
sculptor (?) 476-444 B. C.
[1447] _Cf. infra_, Ch. VIII, p. 365, n. 1.
[1448] Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, nos. 913, 914; _Guide_, 573, 574; _B. Com.
Rom._, IV, 1876, Pls. IX-X, pp. 68 f.; B. B., 353 (right and left);
Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 540, 4, and for the torso, see II, 2, 541, 3 (=
_B. Com. Rom._, Pl. XI).
[1449] Helbig, 914.
[1450] Helbig, 913.
[1451] So Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p. 128, n. 1, _Mw._, p. 285, n. 3, and
Helbig (3d ed.); on the other hand, Reisch (p. 46), B. B., and formerly
Helbig (in the first edition of his _Guide_), have regarded them as
wrestlers.
[1452] The statuette and relief are pictured in _Mon. ant._, XI, 1901,
Pl. XXVI, 2, and pp. 402 f. The statuette also in Arndt-Amelung,
_Einzelaufnahmen_, no. 552, and Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 540, 6.
[1453] _Mp._, pp. 126 f., and fig. 51; _Mw._, pp. 284 f., fig. 38; here
the restored parts have been removed and his own restoration is given
in an outline drawing. See also B. B., no. 129; Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I,
322; Clarac, 837, 2099.
[1454] Mentioned by P., I, 28.2 and I, 25.1; the inscribed base has
been found (see Lolling, Ἀρχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον, 1889, p. 35, n. 2).
The _Perikles_ is exemplified by two inscribed copies: a terminal bust
in London: _B. M. Sculpt._, I, no. 549 and fig. 23 on p. 289; _Ancient
Marbles in the British Museum_, 1815, Pl. XXXII; _A. Z._, XXVI, 1868,
Pl. II, fig. 1 and pp. 1 f. (Conze); Furtw., _Mp._, pp. 117 f., Pl.
VII and fig. 46 (profile); _Mw._, Pl. IX and pp. 270 f.; F. W., 481;
a terminal bust in the Vatican: Visconti, _Iconogr. gr._, 1824-26,
I, Pl. XV and p. 178; B. B., no. 156; Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, 276;
Arndt-Bruckmann, _Griech. u. roem. Portraets_, 413, 414: Bernouilli,
_Griech. Ikonogr._, I, Pl. XI, p. 108; etc.
[1455] _H. N._, XXXIV, 74; in this passage Pliny also mentions an
_Olympius Pericles_. The Naples statue has been wrongly restored as a
gladiator; it is pictured, minus the restorations, in _Mp._, p. 125,
fig. 50; _Mw._, p. 282, fig. 37; _cf._ Clarac, 870, 2210 and 872, 2210.
Furtwaengler connects this statue with the bronze one of a certain
Diitrephes pierced with arrows, which Pausanias saw on the Akropolis,
I, 23.3; a basis found there, inscribed with the name Kresilas,
supported a votive offering of Hermolykos, the son of Diitrephes, to
Athena: _I. G. B._, 46; _C. I. A._, I, 402 (Kirchhoff, who opposes the
connection); _cf._ p. 373. The base shows that a figure stood upon it
in the pose of another figure, which appears on a white-faced Attic
lekythos in the Cab. des Médailles in Paris (_Mp._, p. 124, fig. 48),
which Furtwaengler believes a free rendering of the Kresilæan statue.
[1456] In Ols. 83, 84, 85 (= 448-440 B. C.): Afr.; Foerster, 239, 245,
248. Krison is mentioned by Plato, _Protag._, 335 E, and _de Leg._,
VIII, 840 A; Aristophanes of Byzantion (_apud_ Zonaras, I, p. 451, and
_apud_ Hesych., _s. v._ Γρίσων); Plut., _de adul. et amici Discr._, 16;
and _de Tranqu. anim._, 12; etc.
[1457] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 157. He won Ol. (?) 80 (= 460 B. C.): P. VI,
8.1; Hyde, 71; Foerster, 280.
[1458] B. B., no. 321; Bulle, 164, and fig. 93 on pp. 361-2 (cast
on round base in Erlangen); von Mach 72; Collignon, I, p. 417, fig.
215; Rayet, I, Pl. 35; Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, 956; _Guide_, 617;
Zielinski, _Rhein. Mus._, XXXIX, 1884, pp. 116 f. (who refers the
original possibly to Strongylion); F. W., 215. For replicas, see _Gaz.
Arch._, 1881, p. 130; Rayet, text to Pl. 35; and Furtwaengler, _Der
Dornauszieher und der Knabe mit der Gans_, 1876, pp. 7 f; Reinach,
_Rép._, 1, 344, 6. It was called a runner first by Visconti, _Opere
varie_, 1827-31, IV, Pl. XXIII, pp. 163 f., who has been followed by
Collignon, Zielinski, Rayet, Reisch (p. 46), Richardson (p. 144), and
others. It is 0.80 meter high (Bulle).
[1459] _E. g._, Overbeck, II, pp. 182-185, and notes 10-24 on p. 186.
On p. 183, fig. 186, he gives illustrations of the three principal
copies—the marble one in the British Museum (a), the bronze statuette
in Baron Rothschild’s collection in Paris (b), and the Capitoline
bronze in Rome (c). He brings it into relation with the sculptor
Boëthos, who is known to have made seated _genre_ figures of boys, _e.
g._, one in the Heraion at Olympia, P., V., 17. 4 (= S. Q., 1596).
[1460] Von Mach, no. 86; _cf._ Kekulé, _A. Z._, XLI, 1883, p. 244, and
F. W., 215.
[1461] See _B. M. Sculpt._, III, pp. 109-110.
[1462] See K. Woelke, Dornauszieher-Maedchen, _Jb._, XXIX, 1914, pp.
17-25, figs. 1, 2, etc.
[1463] _E. g._, bronze statuettes, formerly in the Dreyfus collection
in Paris, dating from the second half of the fifteenth century: Bulle,
p. 364, fig. 94; _Mon. Piot_, XVI, 1909, Pl. XII, 3 (nos. 2, 3 =
Italian bronzes of the same subject in the Louvre and in the collection
of Charles Haviland; see text, by G. Migeon, pp. 95 f.).
[1464] _B. M. Sculpt._, III, no. 1755 and Pl. VIII; _Mon. d. I._, X,
1874-78, Pl. XXX; _Annali_, XLVIII, 1876, Pl. N (and pp. 124 f); _A.
Z._, XXXV, 1877, p. 127, and XXXVII, 1879, p. 19, Pls. II, III; Rayet,
Pl. 36; von Mach, 284; Bulle, p. 365, fig. 95; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 1,
144, 2. It is 0.63 meter high (Bulle).
[1465] _Gaz. arch._, 1881, Pls. IX-XI; Collignon, I, p. 420, fig. 216;
Rayet, text to no. 36; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 1, 143, 7. It is 9.5 inches
tall.
[1466] See Lange, _Das Motif des aufgestuetzten Fusses_, 1879, pp. 9
f.; Reisch, p. 46, n. 5; B. B., no. 67 (Paris copy); von Mach, 238a
(Munich copy), 238b (Louvre copy). See _supra_, pp. 86-87.
[1467] See E. N. Gardiner, _J. H. S._, XXIII, 1903, p. 281; on the
race, see Gardiner, pp. 285-91, and _J. H. S._, _l. c._, pp. 280 f.;
Krause, I, pp. 353-359; Dar.-Sagl., I, Pt. 2, p. 1644; etc.
[1468] At Olympia, P., III, 14.3; Plut., _Quaest. conviv._, II, 5;
Artemidoros, _Oneirokritika_, I, 63; Heliod., _Aethiop._, IV., _init._;
_Oxy. Pap._; at Delphi, Krause, _Die Pythien, Nemeen, und Isthmien_,
1841, p. 26, no. 4; at the _Panathenaia_, Mommsen, _Feste d. Stadt
Athen_, 1898, p. 70. On its origin, see Ph., 7.
[1469] P., II, 11.8; X, 34.5. In the first passage Pausanias speaks
of a victor who won the _diaulos_ twice—once γυμνός, the second time
σὺν τῇ ἀσπίδι. De Ridder, _B. C. H._, XXI, 1897, pp. 211 f., discusses
Hauser’s futile argument (_Jb._, II, 1887, pp. 95 f.) that the
hoplite-runner covered the stadion four times, the first and fourth
with helmet and shield, the second and third without the shield, and
conclusively shows that the race was a _diaulos_. For Athens, see
Aristoph., _Aves_, 291 f., and scholion. The race was four stades long
at Nemea: _cf._ Ph., 7, and Juethner’s note (p. 196).
[1470] Ph., 8; _cf._ also 24.
[1471] VI, 10.4. In V, 12.8 he says that 25 shields for this race were
officially kept in the nave of the temple of Zeus.
[1472] We see shield, helmet, and greaves on the vase pictured in
Dar.-Sagl., I, 2, p. 1644, fig. 2231; Baum., III, p. 2110, fig. 2360;
on the b.-f. vases in Gerhard, IV, Pls. CCLVII, CCLVIII, and CCLXIII;
on the b.-f. vases pictured in Schreiber, _Bilderatlas_, Pl. XXII,
figs. 3 (sixth century B. C., = Gerhard, IV, Pl. CCLVIII) and 5 (=
amphora in the British Museum: _B. M. Vases_, II, B 608); we see no
greaves on the r.-f. kylix in Berlin (Fig. 41); _cf._ Krause, pp. 354 f.
[1473] _Jb._, II, 1887, pp. 95 f.; X, 1895, pp. 199 f.
[1474] P., VI, 10.4.
[1475] P., X, 34.5. Mnesiboulos won stade- and hoplite-races at Olympia
in Ol. 235 (= 161 A. D.): Afr.; Foerster, 712-713; _cf._ Hitz.-Bluemn.,
II, 2, p. 582. He was also περιοδονίκης in both events.
[1476] _E. g._, by Ph., 7.
[1477] A bronze helmet found at Olympia, recently in the possession of
the Bishop of Lincoln, is pictured in _J. H. S._, II, 1881, Pl. XI, 1.
[1478] _E. g._, on the vase in Dar.-Sagl., I, 2, p. 1644, fig. 2231; on
the Panathenaic vase in the British Museum, already mentioned, dating
from the second half of the fourth century B. C.: _B. M. Vases_, II,
B. 608; = Gardiner, p. 290, fig. 58; = _Mon. d. I._, X, 1874-78, Pl.
XLVIII, e, 3; = Baum, III, p. 2110, fig. 2361; here the runners are
running with the feet flat on the ground.
[1479] In the Cabinet des Médailles of the Bibliothèque Nationale, no.
523; Hartwig, _Die griech. Meisterschalen_, 1893, pp. 132-142, Pls. XV,
2 and XVI; Gardiner, p. 286, fig. 54, and _J. H. S._, XXIII, p. 278,
fig. 7; Hoppin, _Hbk. Attic r.-f. Vases_, I, p. 427, no. 58.
[1480] No. 2307; Gerhard, IV, Pl. CCLXI; _J. H. S._, XXIII, p. 277,
fig. 6; Gardiner, p. 288, fig. 56; Dar.-Sagl., II, 2, p. 1644, fig.
2232; _Jb._, II, 1887, p. 105; _cf._ similar runners on a r.-f. kylix
in the British Museum, E 22: Murray, _Designs from Greek Vases_, no.
18; Hoppin, _Hbk._, I, p. 372, no. 21.
[1481] _J. H. S._, XXIII, 1903, p. 278, fig. 8; Gardiner, p. 287, fig.
55. It was formerly in Berlin.
[1482] E 818; _J. H. S._, _l. c._, p. 285, fig. 12; Gardiner, p. 289,
fig. 57; noted by Hartwig, _Die griech. Meisterschalen_, p. 373, no. 8;
Hoppin, _Hbk._, I, p. 134, no. 69.
[1483] For a reconstruction of the various phases of the armed-race
from vase-paintings, see _J. H. S._, _l. c._, p. 279, fig. 9.
[1484] See Gardiner, p. 291 and _J. H. S._, _l. c._, pp. 284 f. Perhaps
this is the explanation of a kylix in Berlin (no. 4039), reproduced by
Furtwaengler in _Samml. Sabouroff_, I, Pl. LIII.
[1485] _E. g._, on a r.-f. kylix in Munich (no. 1240); _J. H. S._,
_l. c._, p. 284, fig. 11; Gardiner, p. 292, fig. 59. This painting
represents a palæstra scene, as is shown by the sponges on the wall.
[1486] 291.
[1487] _H. N._, XXXV, 71.
[1488] I, 23.9. In 1838 the inscribed base of this statue was found,
the inscription being: Ἐπι[χ]αρῖνος [ἀνέ]θηκεν ὁ ... Κριτίος καὶ
Νησ[ι]ώτης ἐπο[ιησ]άτην: _C. I. A._, I, 376; Loewy, _I. G. B._, 39.
This shows that Pausanias got his information about the pose from the
statue itself and not from the inscription. It also gives us the right
spelling of the artist’s name.
[1489] First published, long after it had passed from the possession
of Herr Tux to the University Collection, by Gruneisen in Schorn’s
_Kunstblatt_, 1835, pp. 21 f., and separately the same year. See also
Hauser in _Jb._, II, 1887, pp. 95-107; L. Schwabe, _Jb._, I, 1886, pp.
163 f., Pl. IX (= three views); de Ridder, _B. C. H._, XXI, 1897, pp.
211 f. (reviewed in _A. J. A._, II, 1898, pp. 268 f.); Collignon, I, p.
305, fig. 152; Bulle, no. 89 (two views); Springer-Michaelis, p. 217,
fig. 403a; Brunn, _Griech. Kunstgesch._, 1893, II, p. 249 f.; F. W.,
90; Rouse, p. 174, n. 1; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 543, 5.
[1490] Bulle, no. 86.
[1491] _Jh. oest. arch. Inst._, V, 1902, pp. 165-70 and Pl. IV (three
views). It was probably made in Campania. It is 0.07 meter high.
[1492] M. D., 1097; Clarac, 830, 2085.
[1493] Furtw., _Mp._, p. 204, and n. 4; _Mw._, p. 392, and n. 4. He
believes that the helmet is not alien to the statue as some think, but
points out that the head, which is much restored and is akin to the
_Perseus_, is wrongly attached to the body. Hauser, _Jb._, II, 1887, p.
101, n. 24, because of the tree-trunk, does not believe that the statue
represents a hoplite-runner; but Furtwaengler shows that the tree-trunk
offers no objection to restoring a shield to the statue.
[1494] Rayet, II, Pls. 64, 65 (head); B. B., no. 75; Bulle, 88; von
Mach, 286; Reinach, _Rép._, I, 154 1-4; M. W., I, Pl. 48, 216; F.
W., 1425; H. B. Walters, _The Art of the Greeks_, Pl. XLIX; Gardner,
_Hbk._, p. 513, fig. 136; J. Six, _De Beteekenis van het Leelijke in
de Grieksche Kunst_, p. 29; his theory has been contested by Kalkman,
_Jb._, X, 1895, p. 64 and n. 50. The statue is 1.55 meters high (Bulle).
[1495] Bulle, and also Klein (III, pp. 265 f.), believe that Agasias
was no mere copyist, while Amelung (Becker-Thieme, _Lex. d. bild.
Kuenstler_, I, 113) classes him as one. The inscription on the base of
the statue dates it about 100 B. C.
[1496] No. 1959; _Arch. Eph._, 1904, pp. 43-56 (Philios) and Pl. I;
Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, pp. 648-51 and fig. 333; Staïs, _Marbres et
Bronzes_, Pl. on p. 20; Svoronos, I, pp. 89-96, and Tafelbd., I, Pl.
XXVI (upper left corner); Bulle, 263; E. Schmidt, _Muenchner archaeol.
Stud. zum Andenken A. Furtwaengler_, p. 254 and fig. 351; Lechat, p.
206, fig. 25. Its dimensions are 1.01 meters high and 0.72 meter broad.
See p. 194.
[1497] Bulle dates it loosely after the middle of the sixth century B.
C.
[1498] He shows that a similar type appears on Athenian dekadrachmai,
which were struck soon after the date of the battle of Marathon, in any
case before 480 B. C.; _cf._ Babelon, _Journ. Int. d’arch. Num._, 1905.
[1499] _A. Pl._, I, 3, v. 2, and _P. l. G._, III, no. 153, p. 500.
_Cf._ also the epigram quoted by Eustathius, in the scholion on the
Iliad, XXIII, 621, p. 1320, and one by Lucilius, _A. G._, XI, no. 84.
The five events are repeatedly mentioned by Greek writers: Ph., 3,
11, etc.; Artemidoros, _Oneir._, I, 55; many scholiasts, _e. g._, on
Pindar, _Isthm._, 1, 35, Boeckh, p. 519, and Soph., _Electra_, 691.
On the event, see P. Gardner, _J. H. S._, I, pp. 210 f.; Gardiner,
Ch. XVII, pp. 359 f.; _id._, _J. H. S._, XXIII, 1903, pp. 54 f. (The
Method of Deciding the Pentathlon); E. Myers, _J. H. S._, II, 1881,
pp. 217 f.; F. Fedde, _Der Fuenfkampf d. Hellenen_, 1888, and _Ueber
den Fuenfkampf d. Hellenen_, 1889; Heinrich, _Ueber das Pentathlon d.
Griechen_, 1892; Pinder, _Ueber den Fuenfkampf d. Hellenen_, 1867;
Krause, I, pp. 476-497, and 921 f.; Bluemner, in Baum., I, pp. 512 f;
Legrand, in Dar.-Sagl., IV, 1, pp. 804 f., _s. v._ _Quinquertium_. On
the order of events and method of deciding the victory, see Gardiner,
pp. 362 f.
[1500] _Isthm._, I, 26-27.
[1501] Od., VIII, 103. In line 129 he mentions the diskos. Boxing was
never a part of the later pentathlon.
[1502] P., V, 8.7; Philostratos, 12; in Ch. 3 he says that it was
introduced by Jason.
[1503] P., V, 9.1.
[1504] Gerhard, IV, Pl. CCLIX. See _supra_, p. 192.
[1505] It represents jumping, javelin-throwing, and diskos-throwing; it
is a Panathenaic vase of the sixth century B. C. in the British Museum:
B 134; _J. H. S._, XXVII, 1907, Pl. XVIII; Gardiner, p. 360, fig.
107; _cf._ these three events pictured on another amphora of similar
date in Leyden: _A. Z._, XXXIX, 1881, Pl. IX; Gardiner, p. 361, fig.
108. A gymnasium scene (_i. e._, figures of a jumper, diskobolos, and
apparently an akontistes) appears on a r.-f. vase-painting by Douris:
see Pottier, _Douris et les Peintres de Vases grecs_, 1904 (engl. ed.
1909), fig. 6; Perrot-Chipiez, X, p. 549, fig. 315.
[1506] In addition to those cited we may add the vase in the British
Museum, B 142 (= diskos-throwing and javelin-throwing); one in Munich,
no. 656 (= javelin-throwing and jumping); two others in the British
Museum, B 136 and 602 (= diskos-throwing); another there, B 605 (=
javelin-throwing); etc.
[1507] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 162, 163; _I. G. B._, 91; upper surface
outlined in Furtw., _Mp._, p. 263, fig. 110; _Mw._, p. 472, fig. 80.
For the discussion of Pythokles, see _Mp._, pp. 262 f.
[1508] Furtwaengler believed in the first century B. C.; Dittenberger
and Purgold, in the first century A. D.: _cf._ _Inschr. v. Ol._, p. 284.
[1509] Gatti, _B. Com. Rom._, XIX, 1891, pp. 280 f., Pl. X, 1; _cf._
Petersen, _R. M._, VI, 1891, pp. 304 f.
[1510] Statuette in the Braccio Nuovo of the Vatican: Helbig,
_Fuehrer_, I, 32; _Guide_, 43; Amelung, _Vat._, I, no. 101 on p. 116,
and Pls. XVI, XVII; Furtw., _Mp._, p. 264, fig. 111; _Mw._, p. 474,
fig. 81; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 549, 2; Clarac, 861, 2184; a black
marble statue found at Porto d’ Anzio in 1758, now in the Glyptothek:
Furtwaengler-Wolters, _Beschr. d. Glypt._,^2 no. 458; Clarac, 858,
2175; it is 1.54 meters high.
[1511] _Wiener Studien_, XXIV, 1902, pp. 398 f.; he is, therefore,
against the Pythokles ascription; see also Studniczka in _Jh. oest.
arch. Inst._, 1906, p. 131.
[1512] _Cf._ also Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, pp. 570 f.
[1513] Hettner, _Die Bildw. d. kgl. Antikensamml. zu Dresden_, no. 90
(= a doryphoros); Furtw., _Mp._, Pl. XII (whence our plate) and fig.
112 (head from cast, two views), on p. 267; discussion, pp. 265 f;
_Mw._, Pls. XXVI, XXVII (the head from a cast and the restored left
forearm omitted) and text, pp. 475 f.; Clarac, 948, 2437. Furtwaengler
mentions three other copies of the statue and three of the head.
[1514] On a fourth-century B. C. Panathenaic prize vase we see an
athlete in a similar pose holding a diskos in his left hand: _Mon. d.
I._, X, 1874-78, Pl. XLVIII, g, 10 (quoted by Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p.
266, n. 6).
[1515] Formerly in the Coll. Pourtalès, and then in the Coll. Gréau: W.
Froehner, _Cat. des bronzes antiques de la Collection Gréau_, 1885, Pl.
XXXII, p. 204, no. 964; de Ridder, _Les Bronzes antiques du Louvre_, I,
1913, Pl. 19, no. 184, and p. 34; Mahler, _Polyklet und seine Schule_,
pp. 57 f. and fig. 13; Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p. 278, _Mw._, p. 490;
Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 546, 3. It is 0.218 meter high. Froehner had
interpreted the statuette as that of an oil-pourer, though the position
of the hands is against it.
[1516] P., VI, 14.13; Hyde, 139 and pp. 54-55; Foerster, 451, 456;
_Inschr. v. Ol._, 176.
[1517] Od., VIII, 103 and 128. On jumping, see Krause, I, pp. 383 f.;
Gardiner, Ch. XIV, pp. 295 f.; etc.
[1518] IV, 465 f.
[1519] _Cf._ Stesichoros, _apud_ Athenaeum, IV, 72 (pp. 172 f.).
[1520] _De Incessu animalium_, Ch. 3 (p. 705 a).
[1521] As, _e. g._, on the statues at Olympia of the Elean pentathlete
Anauchidas (P., V, 27.12) and Hysmon (P., VI, 3.10). See _supra_, p.
164.
[1522] Juethner, _Antike Turngeraete_, pp. 3-13; Gardiner, Ch. XIV, pp.
295 f. and _J. H. S._, XXIV, 1904, pp. 179 f., (especially pp. 181 f.).
The following section is taken chiefly from these two sources. _Cf._
also _Bronz. v. Ol._, pp. 180-1; Pinder, _A. A._, 1864, pp. 230 f.
[1523] National Museum, no. 9075; _Arch. Eph._, 1883, fig. on p. 190;
Juethner, fig. 1; Gardiner, p. 298, fig. 60. The inscription = _C. I.
A._, IV, 422^4. This weight is 4.5 inches long with concave sides and
weighs 4 lbs. 2 oz.
[1524] _E. g._, one of lead, in the British Museum: _J. H. S._, XXIV,
1904, p. 182; Gardiner, p. 299, fig. 61 c. It weighs 2 lbs. 5 oz.
[1525] V, 26.3; the group dates from the second half of the fifth
century B. C.: see _Inschr. v. Ol._, nos. 267-9.
[1526] _Arch. Eph._, 1883, fig. on p. 104; Juethner, fig. 8; Gardiner,
p. 300, fig. 62; Schreiber, _Bilderatlas_, Pl. XXII, fig. 10. It is 10
inches long. (The illustrations show one weight seen from three sides.)
[1527] _Bronz. v. Ol._, p. 180, fig. 1101; Juethner, fig. 9; Gardiner,
p. 299, fig. 61a (from cast in the British Museum). It is probably of
diorite and is 11.5 inches long, and weighs over 10 pounds.
[1528] Ch. 55; _cf._ Lucian, _Anach._, 27 (καὶ μολυβδίνας χειροπληθεῖς
ἐν ταῖν χεροῖν ἔχοντες, _i. e._, cylindrical); _Etym. magn._, p. 71, 20.
[1529] Such is the limestone _halter_ from Kameiros, Rhodes, in the
British Museum; _B. M. Guide to Gk. and Rom. Life_, 1908, fig. 41;
Gardiner, p. 299, fig. 61 b. It is 7.5 inches long.
[1530] Juethner, fig. 11.
[1531] Duetschke, II, 22.
[1532] _Mon. d. I._, VI, VII, 1857-63, Pl. LXXXII; _Annali_, XXXV,
1863, pp. 397 f.; Gardiner, p. 177, fig. 22.
[1533] See Caelius Aurelianus, _de Morb. acut. et chron._, V, 2.38
(= of the early ? fifth century A. D.). The imperial physicians
recommended them: see Galen and Antyllos, _apud_ Oribasium, _Coll.
Medicin._, ed. Bussemaker et Daremberg, 1851, VI, 14 and 34,
respectively; see Krause, I, pp. 395 f., and Juethner, p. 16.
[1534] Ch. 55.
[1535] _De Incessu anim._, Ch. 3 (p. 705a).
[1536] Made by E. O. Gourdin, in Cambridge, U. S. A., July 23, 1921.
[1537] See _J. H. S._, II, 1881, p. 218, n. 1; the jump took place at
Chester in 1854; here is also recorded a standing jump of 13 ft. 7 in.
with 23-lb. weights, at Manchester in 1875.
[1538] Mentioned by Pinder, _Ueber d. Fuenfkampf d. Hellenen_ (quoted
by Juethner, p. 16).
[1539] So Fedde, p. 22. A record of 49 ft. 3 in. (hop, skip, and jump)
was made at Harwich in 1861: _J. H. S._, II, p. 281, n. 1.
[1540] _A. Pl._, 297; _cf._ schol. on Aristophanes, _Acharn._, 213, and
other evidence gathered by Gardiner, in _J. H. S._, XXIV, 1904, pp. 70
f.
[1541] Rutgers, p. 11.
[1542] On the controversy about these jumps, see Gardiner, Fedde, _ll.
cc._, and _A. A._, 1900, pp. 104-6 (Kueppers, Diels, and Stengel). On
Greek jumping, see also Krause, I, pp. 383 f.; Pinder, pp. 108 f.;
Fedde, pp. 14 f.; Grasberger, _Erziehung und Unterricht_, I, pp. 303
f.; Girard, _L’éducation athénienne_, 1889, pp. 200 f.; etc.
[1543] See Gardiner’s summary in _J. H. S._, XXIV, 1904, p. 189.
[1544] _E. g._, on a r.-f. pelike in the British Museum: _B. M. Vases_,
E 427; _J. H. S._, XXIV, 1904, p. 185, fig. 6; etc.
[1545] _E. g._, on a r.-f. krater in Copenhagen (?): _Annali_, XVIII,
1846, Pl. M; Gardiner, p. 303, fig. 64; _J. H. S._, _l. c._, p. 185,
fig. 7 (left-hand figure).
[1546] _E. g._, on a r.-f. kylix in Bologna: _J. H. S._, _l. c._, p.
186, fig. 8; Gardiner, p. 304, fig. 65; Juethner, fig. 16; on interior
of an early r.-f. vase, signed by Chelis, in the Louvre, G 15: Pottier,
_Vases antiques_, Pl. 89; Perrot-Chipiez, X, p. 366, fig. 211.
[1547] _E. g._, on a r.-f. kylix from Orvieto, formerly in the
Bourguignon Coll. in Naples, but now in Boston: _A. Z._, XLII, 1884, p.
243 (Meier), Pl. XVI, 2b; Reinach, _Rép. vases peints_, I, p. 454, 1,
5, 6; _J. H. S._, _l. c._, p. 183, fig. 3; Gardiner, p. 305, fig. 66
(interior showing diskobolos, _ibid._, p. 326, fig. 80 = _J. H. S._,
XXVII, 1907, p. 20, fig. 9); Juethner, p. 15, fig. 14; Girard, _L’éduc.
athén._, pp. 201, 207, figs. 22 and 27; Hoppin, _Hbk. Attic r.-f.
Vases_, p. 423, no. 44; Dar.-Sagl., III, 1, p. 5, fig. 3691, IV, 2, p.
1055, fig. 6083.
[1548] _E. g._, on a b.-f. imitation Corinthian amphora in the British
Museum: _B. M. Vases_, B 48; middle figure is given in _J. H. S._,
_l. c._, p. 183, fig. 4; Gardiner, p. 306, fig. 67; Juethner, fig. 15
(three figures).
[1549] Inghirami, _Mus. Chius._, Pl. CXXV (quoted by Gardiner).
[1550] _E. g._, on a Panathenaic amphora in Leyden: _J. H. S._,
XXVII, 1907 p. 260; on a later r.-f. kylix of Euphronios: Klein,
_Euphronios_^2, 1887, p. 306; _J. H. S._, XXIV, 1904, p. 188, fig. 9;
Gardiner, p. 307, fig. 68.
[1551] _B. M. Bronzes_, 248, p. 26, fig. 10 (right); _Gaz. arch._,
1875, Pl. XXXV, p. 131; Schreiber, _Bilderatlas_, Pl. XXII, no. 15;
Murray, _Hbk. Gk. Archæology_, 1892, p. 123, fig. 53. The diskos is
8.25 inches in diameter and is to be dated about 500 B. C. On the
other side is represented a jumper, with measuring cord in his hands,
measuring his leap. A similar figure appears on a metrological relief
at Oxford: _J. H. S._, IV, 1883, Pl. XXXV, p. 335.
[1552] Richter, _Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Bronzes_, no. 81, fig. on
p. 54 (three views); _Burlington Fine Arts Club, Cat. Anc. Gk. Art_,
1904, p. 46, no. 37; Reinach, _Rép._, IV, 345, 9.
[1553] Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 543, 7 (quoted by Miss Richter).
[1554] _E. g._, the jumper with _halteres_ on the British Museum pelike
already mentioned, E 427; see p. 216, n. 10; a still closer resemblance
is found in a jumper without _halteres_ on a r.-f. pelike discussed in
_J. H. S._, XXIII, 1903, p. 272; Gardiner, p. 309, fig. 69.
[1555] Krause, I, pp. 439 f. _E. g._, Apollo unintentionally slays
Hyakinthos while contending with him in diskos-throwing: Euripides,
_Helena_, 1469 f.; etc.
[1556] Iliad, XXIII, 826 f. Later imitators of Homer use the word also:
_e. g._, Apoll. Rhod., III, 1366.
[1557] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 717; _I. G. A._, 370; Juethner, pp. 22-23. A
larger block of volcanic rock weighing 480 kilograms has been found at
Santorin with an inscription dating from about 500 B. C. stating that
one Eumastas lifted it from the ground: _I. G._, XIII, no. 449. See _J.
H. S._, XXVII, 1907, p. 2. Such a scene is depicted on the interior of
a r.-f. kylix in the Louvre, G 96; _J. H. S._, _l. c._, fig. 1.
[1558] Od., IV, 626 and VIII, 186 f. The diskos-throw was well known
as a measure: _e. g._, Il., XXIII, 431. Scholiasts tried to show the
difference between the _solos_ and the diskos: see Juethner, pp. 19 f.
[1559] _Ol._, X, 72; _Isthm._, I, 25.
[1560] _E. g._, on a b.-f. amphora in the British Museum: _B. M.
Vases_, B 271; _J. H. S._, XXVII, Pl. I; Gardiner, p. 314, fig. 71;
_cf._ the Panathenaic amphora, B 134 (= Fig. 44); _J. H. S._, XXVII,
Pl. XVIII.
[1561] _B. M. Bronzes_, no. 3207; Gardiner, p. 317, fig. 73; _Rev.
arch._, XVIII, 1891, Pl. XVIII, p. 45. It is 6.5 inches in diameter.
The inscription is written retrograde.
[1562] See list of fifteen in _J. H. S._, XXVII, p. 6; Gardiner, p.
316; eight of these are from Olympia.
[1563] I, 35.5.
[1564] Furtwaengler shows that there are numerous representations of
Myron’s _Diskobolos_ on gems: _Die antiken Gemmen_, _e. g._, Pls. XLIV,
nos. 26, 27, and LXVI, 8; _cf._ also a gem in the British Museum: _B.
M. Gems_, 742 and Pl. 11.
[1565] _J. H. S._, XXVII, 1907, pp. 1 f., Pls. I-III, summary on p. 36;
_Greek Athl. Sports_, Ch. XV, pp. 313 f. _Cf._ also E. Pernice, _Jb._,
XXIII, 1908, Zum Diskoswurf, pp. 94 f., who corrects and augments the
evidence furnished by Gardiner’s article in the _J. H. S._ On the
diskos and mode of casting, see also Juethner, pp. 18-36; Krause, I,
pp. 442 f.; Grasberger, _Erziehung und Unterricht_, I, pp. 321 f.;
_Gaz. arch._, 1888, pp. 291 f. (J. Six); Dar.-Sagl., II, 1, pp. 277
f.; Fedde, _Der Fuenfkampf der Hellenen_, pp. 37 f.; Girard, _L’éduc.
athén._, pp. 201 f.; Kietz, _Der Diskoswurf bei den Griechen_, 1892,
pp. 15 f.
[1566] _E. g._, on a lekythos from Eretria: _J. H. S._, XXVII, p. 23,
fig. 12.
[1567] _E. g._, on a b.-f. Attic lekythos in the British Museum: _B. M.
Vases_, B 576; _J. H. S._, _l. c._, Pl. II; Gardiner, p. 328, fig. 82;
on a r.-f. kylix: _J. H. S._, p. 26, fig. 15; Gerhard, IV, Pl. CCXCIV,
no. 6.
[1568] _E. g._, on the reverse of a r.-f. kylix in the British Museum
signed by Pheidippos: _B. M. Vases_, III, Pl. I, E 6; _J. H. S._, _l.
c._, p. 13, fig. 3; Gardiner, p. 323, fig. 76; Perrot-Chipiez, X, p.
368, fig. 214; on a b.-f. kelebe in the British Museum: _B. M. Vases_,
E 361; Gardiner, p. 324, fig. 77; on an Attic b.-f. panel-amphora in
the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia: _Museum Journal_,
VI, No. 4 (Dec., 1915), fig. 90, p. 170; _A. J. A._, XX, 1916, p. 440,
fig. 4; (the obverse of this vase, representing a boxing scene, is
given in our Fig. 56); on a b.-f. amphora pictured by Gerhard, IV, Pl.
CCLX., and Pernice, _l. c._, fig. on p. 98. The left foot is generally
forward in this position: _e. g._, on a r.-f. kylix in Munich, no. 795;
_J. H. S._, _l. c._, p. 26, fig. 14; the right is forward on two b.-f.
vases: Gerhard, Pls. CCLIX, 2 (= our Pl. 36 B), and CCLX. On a r.-f.
amphora in Naples (Pernice, fig. on p. 96), a youth is represented
holding the diskos with the right hand on the shoulder, against which
his face is silhouetted as in the famous archaic relief from the
Dipylon gate discussed _supra_, Ch. III, p. 127.
[1569] _E. g._, on the amphora pictured by Pernice, p. 99.
[1570] The left is forward on a r.-f. krater of Amasis from
Corneto: _J. H. S._, XXVII, p. 16, fig. 5; Hartwig, _Die griech.
Meisterschalen_, p. 416, fig. 56a; Gardiner, p. 324, fig. 78; the right
is forward on a r.-f. pelike in the British Museum: _B. M. Vases_, E
395; _J. H. S._, _l. c._, Pl. III; Gardiner, p. 325, fig. 79. The left
is drawn back in a fifth-century B. C. bronze: _J. H. S._, _l. c._, p.
18, fig. 7; _Burlington Fine Arts Club, Cat. Anc. Gk. Art_, 1904, Pl.
L. Another example is found on a r.-f. kylix in Paris: _J. H. S._, _l.
c._, p. 27, fig. 17; Hartwig, _Die griech. Meisterschalen_, Pl. LXIII,
2; Gardiner, p. 331, fig. 85.
[1571] For variations, see early fifth-century B. C. coins of Kos in
the British Museum: _J. H. S._, _l. c._, p. 30, fig. 19; Gardiner, p.
332, fig. 86.
[1572] _E. g._, on a Panathenaic amphora in Naples: _J. H. S._, XXVII,
1907, p. 32, fig. 20; Juethner, fig. 31; Gardiner, p. 333, fig. 87; on
a b.-f. hydria in the British Museum: _B. M. Vases_, E 164; _J. H. S._,
_l. c._, p. 32, fig. 21; Gardiner, p. 334, fig. 88.
[1573] _E. g._, on a r.-f. kylix in Boulogne: _J. H. S._, _l. c._,
p. 34, fig. 23; Gardiner, p. 335, fig. 89; Hoppin, _Hbk. Attic r.-f.
Vases_, I, p. 370, no. 11; _cf._ Beazley, _Attic r.-f. Vases in Amer.
Mus._, 1918, no. 19 (= ascribed to Euergides).
[1574] _E. g._, on the kylix just mentioned (the figure to the right).
[1575] _E. g._, the archaic Pourtalès bronze: Panofka, _Cabinet
Pourtalès_, Pl. XIII, 3; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 545, 3; _cf._ also
another in the Antiquarium in Berlin: _Inventar_, no. 8570; _A. A._,
1904, p. 36, n. 7 and fig. on p. 35. The latter is 0.10 meter high.
[1576] _Mus. Bull._, III, Feb., 1908, pp. 31-36; Richter, _Greek,
Roman, and Etruscan Bronzes_, no. 78, p. 49 (three views); _Cat. Class.
Coll._, pp. 89-90, figs. 52 and 53 (side views); Gardiner, p. 329, fig.
83. It is 9.25 inches tall.
[1577] _E. g._, on a r.-f. krater in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, no.
561; on another in Munich: _cf._ J. D. Beazley, _J. H. S._, XXXI, 1911,
Pl. VIII, 2; both quoted by Miss Richter, _l. c._
[1578] In the National Museum, no. 7412; Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_,
p. 321 and fig. on p. 270. It was found in the sanctuary of the
Kabeiroi in Bœotia and is 0.19 meter high. _Cf._ a similar position
on a r.-f. amphora in Munich painted by Euthymides: no. 374;
published by Hoppin, _Euthymides and his Fellows_, 1917, Pl. II;
Furtwaengler-Reichhold, _Griech. Vasenmalerei_, Pl. LXXXI.
[1579] _B. M. Bronzes_, no. 675; _J. H. S._, XXVII, p. 22, fig. 11;
Murray^2, 1, p. 274, fig. 59; Gardiner, p. 330, fig. 84; Reinach,
_Rép._, II, 2, 544, 10. It is 6.5 inches tall.
[1580] _Cf._ also two very rude bronzes in the British Museum
representing diskoboloi: _B. M. Bronzes_, nos. 502 (diskos held up in
right hand), 504 (diskos in right hand), the first 3.37 inches tall,
the other 4.87 inches; the latter has a fillet in the hair and so
represents a victor.
[1581] _B. M. Bronzes_, no. 559; _J. H. S._, _l. c._, p. 17, fig. 6. As
the whole lebes is only 18.5 inches tall, this lid figure is very small.
[1582] _A. A._, 1904, p. 36, fig. 8. _Inventar_, no. 8569. It is 0.115
meter high.
[1583] Published by H. G. E. White in _J. H. S._, XXXVI, 1916, pp. 16
f., Pls. I, II and 3 figs, in text. Pl. I is the more archaic: Museum
no. 6615; _Arch. Eph._, 1883, p. 86; Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, p.
267; de Ridder, pp. 281-2, no. 757, and fig. 265. Pl. II is the less
archaic: Museum no. 6614; _Arch. Eph._, 1883, p. 46; _J. H. S._, X,
1889, pp. 268-9 (E. A. Gardiner); Staïs, _op. cit._, p. 267; de Ridder,
pp. 275-7, no. 750, and fig. 257.
[1584] Pliny, _H. N._, VII, 201, traces its origin to Aetolus, son of
Mars. Phrastor won a victory in such a contest at Olympia: Pindar,
_Ol._, X, 71. See Krause, pp. 465 f.; Juethner, pp. 36 f.; Gardiner,
Ch. XVI, pp. 338 f.; _id._, _J. H. S._, XXVII, 1907, pp. 258 f.;
Dar-Sagl., I, 1, pp. 226 f.; Pauly-Wissowa, I, pp. 1183 f. (Reisch);
Girard, _L’éduc. athén._, pp. 203 f.; Grasberger, _Erziehung und
Unterricht_, I, pp. 327 f., and III, pp. 168 f.; etc. In the following
account we are chiefly indebted to Juethner and Gardiner.
[1585] See Stassoff _apud_ Stephani, _Comptes rendus de la comm. impér.
archaéol._, St. Petersburg, 1872, p. 302. _Cf._ Juethner, _Ph._, p. 64.
[1586] Iliad, XXIII, 884 f.; _cf._ 637.
[1587] The athletic style appears on many vases, especially on r.-f.
ones; see _infra_, pp. 223-4 and notes.
[1588] The javelin is held horizontally by the warrior on the interior
of a b.-f. kylix in the British Museum: _B. M. Vases_, B 380; _J. H.
S._, XXVII, p. 252, fig. 2; Gardiner, p. 342, fig. 93. It was commonly
held slopingly over the shoulder level with the head in representations
of the athletic style; _e. g._, the second athlete from the left in the
sixth-century B. C. b.-f. Panathenaic amphora in the British Museum
(Fig. 44): _B. M. Vases_, B 134; _cf._ also a similar figure on the
sixth-century B. C. amphora in Leyden: _A. Z._, XXXIX, 1881, Pl. IX;
Gardiner, p. 361, fig. 108.
[1589] At Athens as early as the fifth century B. C. there were
practical javelin contests from horseback with a target, and such
contests kept up in Thessaly to the time of Hadrian: Gardiner, pp.
356-8. Throwing the javelin at a target from horseback is seen on a
Panathenaic amphora in the British Museum: Gardiner, p. 357, fig. 106;
_J. H. S._, XXVII, Pl. XX. Pindar mentions javelin-throwing three
times, and in each case the throw was for distance: _Nem._, VII, 70-1;
_Isthm._, II, 35; _Pyth._, I, 44. Lucian, in a passage referring to
the pentathlon at Olympia, says that athletes competed for distance:
_Anacharsis_, 27. On this question, see Juethner, pp. 54 f.
[1590] Hesychios calls it ἀποτομάς, _s. v._; see also Pollux, X, 64.
[1591] _A. Z._, XLI, 1883, Pl. XIII, 2, and _cf._ p. 228 (Milchhoefer).
[1592] See Juethner, figs. 34, 35, 36 on pp. 40-41 (representing
akontistai holding the javelin in one hand and the _amentum_ in the
other). Fastening the thong is commonly depicted on vases: _e. g._, a
youth seated on the ground attaching the _amentum_ is pictured on a
r.-f. hydria in the British Museum: _B. M. Vases_, E 164; _J. H. S._,
XXVII, p. 32, fig. 25; Gardiner, p. 334, fig. 88; _B. C. H._, XXIII,
1899, p. 164, fig. 3; on a r.-f. kylix in Wuerzburg (no. 432), a youth
is seen winding the _amentum_ around the akontion, drawing one end
of the thong tight by means of his left foot: Juethner, p. 42, fig.
37; Gardiner, p. 340, fig. 91; Dar.-Sagl., III, 1, p. 599, fig. 4116;
Hoppin, _Hbk. Attic r.-f. Vases_, I, p. 93, no. 7. On a r.-f. amphora
from Vulci attributed to Euthymides, and now in the British Museum, we
see an akontistes holding the spear pointed to the ground and drawing
the _amentum_ tight preparatory to the throw: _B. M. Vases_, E 256; _J.
H. S._, XXVII, Pl. XIX; Gardiner, p. 348, fig. 99; Hoppin, _Euthymides
and his Fellows_, p. 49, Pls. IX, XI; _id._, _Hbk._, I, pp. 442-3, no.
19. For the various methods of attaching the _amentum_, see collection
of drawings from vases in Gardiner, p. 341, fig. 92 = _J. H. S._,
XXVII, p. 250, fig. 1.
[1593] See _J. H. S._, XXVII, pp. 262 f.; Gardiner, pp. 350 f.
[1594] _E. g._, on a r.-f. kylix in Rome: _J. H. S._, XXVII, p. 266,
fig. 14; Gardiner, p. 354, fig. 104; Juethner, p. 48, fig. 43.
[1595] Downwards in the r.-f. amphora in the British Museum, mentioned
above, E 256.
[1596] No. 2667 (Jahn, no. 562 A); _J. H. S._, XXVII, 1907, p. 262,
fig. 9; Gardiner, p. 349, fig. 100; Juethner, p. 47, fig. 41; Hoppin,
_Hbk. Attic r.-f. Vases_, p. 198, no. 8.
[1597] _E. g._, on a r.-f. kylix in the Torlonia collection: _J. H.
S._, XXVII, p. 264, fig. 11; Gardiner, p. 351, fig. 102; Juethner, p.
58, fig. 49.
[1598] _E. g._, badly done on the Munich kylix mentioned, no. 2667;
also on a r.-f. kylix of Panaitios from Vulci in Munich, no. 2637
(Jahn, no. 795): _A. Z._, XXXVI, 1878, p. 66, Pl. XI (= Reinach, _Rép.
vases peints_, I, p. 422, 2); _J. H. S._, XXVII, p. 264, fig. 12;
Gardiner, p. 105, fig. 17; Schreiber, _Bilderatlas_, Pl. XXI, 3; Baum.,
I, p. 613, fig. 672; Hoppin, _Hbk._, p. 426, no. 54; Dar.-Sagl., II, 2,
p. 1452, fig. 3478; IV, 2, p. 1056, fig. 6086; on a r.-f. amphora in
Munich (Jahn, no. 408): _J. H. S._, XXVII, p. 265, fig. 13; Gardiner,
p. 353, fig. 103; Furtwaengler-Reichhold, _Griech. Vasenmalerei_, Pl.
XLV.
[1599] P. 48.
[1600] See _23stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr._
[1601] B. B., no. 273; Bulle, 47, and pp. 97-102 and fig. 18; von Mach,
113; Collignon, I, pp. 488 f. and Pl. XII; Rayet, I, Pl. 29; Gardner,
_Sculpt._, Pl. XXXIV; Springer-Michaelis, p. 276, fig. 496; F. W., 503.
[1602] _Polyklet u. s. Schule_, 1902. For the Apollonios bust, see B.
B., no. 336; F. W., 505. An almost identical bust—except for a wide
fillet around the locks and shoulders—was found in the _tablinum_ of
the same villa (_Invent._, no. 6164). Many of these heads doubtless
come from busts or statues which decorated gymnasia and palæstræ.
[1603] Duetschke, III, no. 535 (0.81 meter high).
[1604] F. W., 507; _cf._ Rayet, I, text to Pl. 29.
[1605] No. 293; Amelung, _Museums and Ruins of Rome_, I, pp. 7 f.;
_id._, _Vat._, I, no. 126 on p. 151 and Pl. 19; Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I,
45; _Guide_, I, 58; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 545, 10. It is 2.11 meters
high (Amelung). _Cf._ Loewy, _Lysipp und Seine Stellung in der gr.
Plastik_, pp. 5-7 and 23-4; Hauser, _Jh. oest. arch. Inst._, XII, 1909,
pp. 104-14. For other replicas, see Furtw., _Mp._, pp. 228 f.; _Mw._,
pp. 421 f.
[1606] Mahler, _op. cit._, p. 29.
[1607] As we see from the careful copy on a Berlin gem: Helbig,
_Fuehrer_, I, p. 31, fig. 3; _Guide_, I, p. 35, fig. 4; and on a
funerary relief in Argos: _A. M._, III, 1878, pp. 287 f. and Pl. XIII
(Furtwaengler); B. B., 279A; Collignon, I, p. 491, fig. 250; F. W.,
504; _cf._ _Annali_, LI, 1879, p. 219 (Brunn); Mitchell, _Hist. Anc.
Sculpt._, 1883, p. 386 and fig. 176.
[1608] The _uno crure insistere_ of Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 56. Here
Pliny quotes Varro to the effect that Polykleitos’ statues were almost
exactly after the same type (_paene ad unum exemplum_).
[1609] See _Mp._, pp. 212 f. and figs. 90 and 91 (head, two views);
_Mw._, pp. 403 f., and Pls. XXIV, XXV. For the statue, see also
Furtw.-Wolters, _Beschr. d. Glypt._^2, no. 295 (= god or athlete);
Kekulé, _Jb._, III, 1888, p. 37 and Pl. 1 (= Polykleitan and Zeus); B.
B., 122.
[1610] _De instit. Orat._, V, 12.21.
[1611] _H. N._, XXXIV, 18.
[1612] _A. M._, III, 1878, p. 292, n. 2.
[1613] _Mp._, pp. 163 and 228; _Mw._, p. 420.
[1614] _E. g._, that of Ktesilaos (= Kresilas; see below) in _H. N._,
XXXIV, 76; of Polykleitos, _ibid._, 55, and of Aristodemos, _ibid._, 86.
[1615] This torso is of Pentelic marble, like many of the later victor
statues at Olympia, and is fleshier than the Naples and Vatican copies:
_Bildw. v. Ol._, Textbd., p. 250 and fig. 284 (back view); Tafelbd.,
Pl. LXII, I; Furtw., _Mp._, p. 228, _Mw._, p. 420. It is in the Museum
at Olympia.
[1616] The Naples copy is 1.99 meters high; see Kalkmann, Die Proport.
des Gesichts in d. gr. Kunst, _53stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr._, 1893,
p. 53; the Olympia torso is 1.10 meters high for the preserved part
(Treu).
[1617] _Pro Imag._, 11.
[1618] _E. g._, the statue of Polydamas, P., VI, 5.1; the base of the
statue of Kallias, _Inschr. v. Ol._, no. 146; of Eukles, _ibid._, no.
159; etc.
[1619] Collignon, I, p. 490; he believed that the original statue by
Polykleitos stood in a Gymnasion at Argos.
[1620] _Cf. infra_, Ch. VIII, p. 342 and n. 2.
[1621] Richter, _Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Bronzes_, nos. 87 (pp. 56
f., and fig., showing front and back, on p. 57; _cf._ _Cat. Class.
Coll._, p. 114, fig. 72; it is from Cyprus), and 88 (fig. on p. 58;
_Mus. Bull._, Dec., 1913, p. 270, Richter). No. 87 is 6.25 inches tall;
88 is 5.56 inches.
[1622] _Mp._, pp. 279 f. Furtwaengler wrongly ascribed the statue of
Xenokles to the elder Polykleitos.
[1623] See the fine drawings of these and other groups from tomb no.
17 (of Khety) in Champollion, _Monuments de l’Égypte et de la Nubie_,
1845, IV, Pls. CCCLXXII-CCCLXXVIII; Pl. CCCLXXIII, 3 = Perrot-Chipiez,
I, p. 793, fig. 521; CCCLXXIV, 4 = _ibid._, p. 792, fig. 520.
Another scene from the tomb of Nevothph is pictured in Champollion,
Pl. CCCLXIV, I. See also _Arch. Survey of Egypt, Beni Hasan_, Pt.
II, 1894, Pl. XV; _cf._ a poor reproduction of several scenes in
Springer-Michaelis, p. 27, fig. 68.
[1624] _De Leg._, VII, 796 A, B, C.
[1625] Philostr., _Imag._, II, 32 (p. 857), ascribes its origin to
Hermes’ daughter Palaistra; Apollodoros, II, 4.9, says that the same
god’s son Autolykos was the teacher of Herakles. Pausanias, I, 39.3,
says that the systematic instruction in the art began with Theseus.
Eustathius, schol. on _Il._, XXIII, p. 1327, says that Kerkyon
discovered it. In a scholion on Pindar, _Nem._, V, 49, Boeckh, p. 465,
Pherekydes and Polemon are quoted as saying that Theseus’ charioteer
Phorbas invented the art, and Istros is quoted as saying that Athena
taught Theseus. At Olympia Herakles was a victor in wrestling: P., V,
8.4.
[1626] Ajax (Telamon) and Odysseus contended in a wrestling bout
which ended in a draw: Il., XXIII, 710-734; in line 701, and in Od.,
VIII, 126, it is called παλαισμοσύνη ἀλεγεινή; it appears among the
Phaiakians in Od., VIII, 103, 246. It was pictured along with boxing on
the shield of Herakles by Hesiod: _Scut._, 302 (= ἑλκηδόν).
[1627] P., V, 8.7; Ph., 12.
[1628] P., V, 8.9.
[1629] On rules and representations of wrestling in literature and
art, see especially E. N. Gardiner, _J. H. S._, XXV, 1905, pp. 14-31;
pp. 263-293, and Pls. XI and XII; _id._, _Greek Athl. Sports_, Ch.
XVIII, pp. 372-401; _cf._ Krause, I, pp. 400 f; Grasberger, _Erziehung
u. Unterricht_, I, pp. 345 f. An excellent account of a wrestling
match is found in the oldest Greek prose romance, the _Aethiopica_ of
Heliodoros, X, 31 f.; _cf._ also the fine account of a bout between
Diomedes and Aias in Quintus Smyrnæus: IV, 215 f.; etc.
[1630] Grenfell and Hunt, _Oxy. Pap._, III, 466; discussed by Juethner,
with part of the text and translation, in his edition of the _de Arte
gymn._ of Philostratos, p. 26. On the method of selecting antagonists
at Olympia, the number engaged, byes, etc., see Gardiner, pp. 374-5.
[1631] For coins in the British Museum, see Gardiner, p. 373, fig.
109, a, b, c (from Aspendos, of the fifth and fourth centuries B. C.),
d (from Herakleia in Lucania, of the fourth), e, f (from Syracuse, of
about 400 B. C.), g (from Alexandria of the time of Antoninus Pius);
see also _id._, _J. H. S._, XXV, p. 271, fig. 9.
[1632] See especially, Gardiner, _ll. cc._
[1633] Described by Lucian, _Anach._, 24.
[1634] Described by Quintus Smyrnæus, IV, 215 f. and Nonnos, XXXVII,
553 f.; discussed in _J. H. S._, XXV, pp. 25 f.
[1635] No. 2159; _A. J. A._, XI, 1896, p. 11, fig. 9; _J. H. S._, XXV,
p. 270, fig. 8; Gardiner, p. 386, fig. 116; Furtwaengler-Reichhold,
_Die griech. Vasenmalerei_, III, pp. 73 f., and Pl. CXXXIII; Gerhard,
_Trinkschalen und Gefaesse des k. Museums zu Berlin und anderer
Sammlungen_, 1848-50, Pls. XIX, XX; Overbeck, _Griech. Kunstmythol._,
III, _Apollon_, p. 400, n. 1 and Pl. XXIV, 2; W. Klein, _Die griech.
Vasen mit Meistersignaturen_^2, 1886, no. 4; Hoppin, _Hbk. Attic r.-f.
Vases_, I, p. 32, Pl. on p. 33.
[1636] No. 2444; _Trans. Univ. Penn. Mus._, II, 1906-1907, Pl. XXXV,
a, and pp. 140 f. (W. N. Bates); J. D. Beazley, _Attic r.-f. Vases
in Amer. Museums_, 1918, p. 111 (Lysis, Laches, and Lykos group);
Gardiner, p. 392, fig. 122.
[1637] _Invent._, 5626-5627; B. B., 354; Comparetti e de Petra, _La
Villa Ercolanese dei Pisoni_, 1883, Pl. XV, 2 and 3; Bulle, 91;
Gardiner, p. 378, fig. 110 (= one statue); von Mach, 289; Reinach,
_Rép._, II, 2, 541 (= one statue); etc. They appear to be boys of about
sixteen, and consequently may represent contestants in the πάλη παίδων.
The statues are 1.18 meters high (Bulle). The advanced foot in no. 5626
is wrongly restored.
[1638] Kalkmann, _Jb._, X, 1895, p. 64, n. 49 (dolichodromoi).
[1639] _Cf._ Gardiner, p. 382.
[1640] _Jb._, IV, 1889, pp. 116, n. 8; _cf._ Benndorf, _Jh. oest. arch.
Inst._, IV, 1901, pp. 172-3 and n. 12. Mahler wrongly thought that the
heads were different: _Polyklet u. s. Schule_, p. 18; he assigned one
to the fifth century B. C., the other to the influence of Praxiteles.
Benndorf believed the two figures to be copies of one statue, later
used to make a group.
[1641] Bulle, no, 90; in the Landesmuseum of Darmstadt: see Adamy,
_Archaeol. Samml. des grossherz. Hess. Museums_, 1897, p. 21, no. 19.
The figures are only 0.075 meter high.
[1642] Bulle, p. 179, fig. 40; Reinach, _Rép._, IV, 318, 2; for other
similar ones, _cf. ibid._, II, 2, 539, 2 (cover of a cista from
Praeneste), 5 (in the Louvre), 6 (in Vienna = E. von Sacken, _Die ant.
Bronz. d. k. k. Muenz-und Ant.-Cabinetes in Wien_, 1871, Pl. XLV, 7),
and III, 155, 3 (in Forman Collection, London).
[1643] Richter, _Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Bronzes_, no. 124 and fig.
on p. 79; it is 4.5 inches high.
[1644] _E. g._, Walters, _B. M. Bronzes_, no. 639; _Mon. d. I._, X,
1877, Pl. XLV, 1 a.; Babelon et Blanchet, _Cat. des bronzes antiques de
la Bibl. Nationale_, 1895, no. 935.
[1645] Παναθήναια, II, Plates.
[1646] Gardiner, p. 395, fig. 126; _J. H. S._, XXV, p. 286, fig. 23;
Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 328, fig. 81.
[1647] Gardiner, p. 396, fig. 127; Clarac, 802, 2014.
[1648] J. Sieveking, _Die Bronzen der Samml. Loeb_, 1913, pp. 52-4 and
Pl. XXI; it is 0.165 meter high. Others there listed include one in
the British Museum: _J. H. S._, XXV, 1905, Pl. XI, b (front and back),
and text on p. 288; Gardiner p. 398, fig. 129; another from Vienne
in Bonn; two in Paris, in the de Clercq and Warrocqué collections
respectively; and a fifth, whose location is unknown. All are of rough
Roman workmanship, either of the second or first centuries B. C.
[1649] See Petersen in _R. M._, XV, 1900, pp. 158 f.; Klein, III, pp.
309 f.; Sieveking, _op. cit._, p. 53, n. 1. The copies are in Florence
(_Galleria di Firenze_, III, Pl. 123, 2; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 538,
5); in St. Petersburg (_Comptes rendus de la comm. impér. archéol._,
St. Petersburg, 1867, Pl. I, pp. 5 f., text by Stephani; _J. H. S._,
XXV, 1905, p. 290, fig. 25; Gardiner, p. 399, fig. 130; Reinach,
_Rép._, II, 2, 538, 1 and 3); in Constantinople, from Antioch (_Jb._,
XIII, 1898, Pl. XI and pp. 177 f., Foerster; _Rev. arch._, XXXV, 1899,
Pl. XVIII, pp. 207 f., Joubin; _J. H. S._, 1905, p. 291, fig. 26;
Gardiner, p. 400, fig. 131); in the Louvre, from Egypt (no. 361; _Jb._,
XVI, 1901, fig. on p. 51; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 1, 234, 2); and in the
British Museum (_B. M. Bronzes_, 853 and Pl. XXVII, middle one below).
In the St. Petersburg copy the arms of the victor are changed around.
[1650] Duetschke, III, 547; Bulle, 184; von Mach, 288; F. W., 1426;
Reinach, _Rép._, I, 523, 1.
[1651] Helbig, _Fuehrer_, II, 1382 (= Attic); _Jb._, XXV, 1910, Pl.
VII, and pp. 171 f. (Bieber = Euphranor); _cf._ _R. M._, VI, 1891, p.
304, n. 2 (Petersen = Skopaic); Furtw., _Mw._, p. 515, n. 4 (= Skopaic).
[1652] _H. N._, XXXIV, 80.
[1653] _H. N._, XXXV, 71; so Reisch, p. 45, n. 5. See _supra_, p. 206.
[1654] _H. N._, XXXV, 130. It was probably votive in character.
[1655] Ol. 141 (= 216 B. C.): P., VI, 16.9; Hyde, 167; Foerster, 471;
_Inschr. v. Ol._, 179.
[1656] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 164; drawing of the base also in Furtw.,
_Mp._, p. 279, fig. 118; _Mw._, p. 491, fig. 85. The inscription dates
from the end of the fifth or beginning of the fourth century B. C.,
which shows that the statue was the work of the younger Polykleitos.
Xenokles won sometime between Ols. (?) 94 and 100 (= 404 and 380 B.
C.): P., VI,9.2; Hyde, 85 and p. 41; Foerster, 308.
[1657] Pp. 45-6; he won in Ol. 83 (= 448 B. C.): _Oxy. Pap._; P., VI,
9.3; Hyde, 88; Foerster, 285.
[1658] _Cf._ Lucretius, V, 1282: _arma antiqua manus ungues dentesque
fuerunt_; Hor., _Sat._, I, 3.101; etc.
[1659] Between Epeios and Euryalos, Il., XXIII, 653 f.; Odysseus and
Iros, Od., XVIII, 1 f.; _cf._ the match between Entellus and Dares in
Virgil, _Aen._, V, 362 f.; Polydeukes and Amykos in Theokr., XXII,
80 f.; and in Apollon. Rhod., _Argon._, II, 67 f. For the Homeric
and Virgilian matches, see _Fencing, Boxing, and Wrestling_, 1889
(Badminton Library), pp. 125 f.
[1660] Il., XXIII, 653; he uses the same epithet of wrestling, _ibid._,
701, and Od., VIII, 126. Eustath. _ad_ Il., XXIII, p. 1322, speaks of
the πύκτης τλησίπονος.
[1661] πυκτοσύνη ἀλγινόεσσα: frag. 19, l. 4 (= _Philos. Fragm._, ed.
Didot, I, p. 104 = Athen., X, 6, p. 414a). Apollon. Rhod. calls it
ἀπηνέα πυγμαχίην, II, 76-7. The parts injured were especially the nose,
ears, cheeks, chin, and teeth; _cf._ Krause, p. 516 and n. 18.
[1662] See Orsi, _Museo Ital. di antich. class._, II, Pl. V, p. 808;
_cf._ Juethner, pp. 65-6, and Frothingham, _A. J. A._, IV, 1888, P. 444.
[1663] See Krause, pp. 497 f. Ph., 9, says that it was an invention of
the Spartans and was first used among the Bebrykes.
[1664] P., V, 7.10; _cf._ Plut., _Quaest. conviv._, VIII, 4.4 (which
speaks of victories of Apollo in boxing).
[1665] P., V, 8.4.
[1666] XXIII, 660.
[1667] Plut., _l. c._
[1668] The schol. on Pindar, _Nem._, V, 89, Boeckh, p. 465, says that
Theseus instituted the art of boxing.
[1669] P., V, 8. 7; Afr., _s. v._ Onomastos; Ph., 12; _Homeric Hymn to
Apollo_, 149; _cf._ Foerster, 28. The date is also given by Ph., _l. c._
[1670] P., V. 8. 9; Ph., 13.
[1671] See K. T. Frost, _J. H. S._, XXVI, 1906, pp. 213f; Gardiner, Ch.
XIX, pp. 402 f.; Krause, pp. 497 f.
[1672] See Krause, I, pp. 502 f.; Juethner, pp. 65 f.; Gardiner, pp.
403 f.
[1673] Mosso, _The Palaces of Crete_, 1907, p. 339, and fig. 160 on p.
341. Orsi, _l. c._, believes the object over the fists in the bronze
shield fragment from Mount Ida to be part of a glove, though Juethner
rejects this view, interpreting it merely as an ornament.
[1674] Schol. on Plato, _de Leg._, VIII, 796 A; Clem. Alexandr.,
Strom., I, 16.76.
[1675] ἱμάντας ἐϋτμήτους βοὸς ἀγραύλοιο: Il., XXIII, 684. In the
Odyssey Iros and Odysseus fight with bare fists.
[1676] _E. g._, P., VI, 23.4 and VIII, 40. 3; Apoll. Rhod., _Argon._,
II, 52-53; _cf._ Plato, _de Leg._, VIII, 830 B.
[1677] _E. g._, on a r.-f. kylix in the British Museum: _B. M. Vases_,
E 63, and Pl. III; Juethner, p. 68, fig. 54; Gardiner, p. 403, fig.
132; it represents boxers with bundles of thongs in their hands
standing before an official.
[1678] _B. M. Vases_, E 39; _J. H. S._, XXVI, Pl. XII; Gardiner, p.
404, fig. 133; Juethner, p. 66, fig. 53; Hoppin, _Hbk. Attic r.-f.
Vases_, p. 237, Pl. On the interior of another a youth is seen, thongs
in hand, standing before an altar: Murray, _Designs from Gk. Vases in
the British Museum_, Pl. VI, 24.
[1679] Museum no. 2444; _Trans. Univ. Penn. Mus._, II, 1906-1907, Pl.
XXXV, b. and p. 142 (text by W. N. Bates).
[1680] IX, 116. A similar game is mentioned by Plato, _Theaet._, XXVII
(= 181 A). On both games, see Krause, pp. 323 f.
[1681] Juethner, pp. 69 f., rightly explains such objects as boxing
thongs.
[1682] Ch. 10; _cf._ P., VIII, 40.3.
[1683] _E. g._, on the kylix just mentioned, E 39; on a r.-f. amphora
in Munich (Jahn, no. 411B): Hartwig, _Die griech. Meisterschalen_, p.
410. fig. 55; on the interior of a r.-f. kylix in Munich, no. 1156:
Juethner, p. 70, fig. 56; and on the interior of the r.-f. kylix in
the British Museum to be discussed, E 78 (= Fig. 55): Murray, _Designs
from Gr. Vases in the B. M._, Pl. XIV, 55; Juethner, p. 72, fig. 58;
Gardiner, p. 406, fig. 134; on a r.-f. amphora in the Hofmuseum in
Vienna by Epiktetos we see (figure at the left) a boxer who is just
finishing tying the thongs on his left hand and wrist: Dar-Sagl., IV,
1, p. 755, fig. 5854; Schneider, _Arch.-epigr. Mitt. aus Oesterr._, V,
1881, pp. 139 f., and Pl. IV; Hoppin, _Hbk. Attic r.-f. Vases_, p. 334,
no. 25, and Pl. on p. 335.
[1684] Tafelbd., Pl. V, no. 4; Textbd., p. 35.
[1685] P., VIII, 40.5; _cf._ II, 20. 1.
[1686] VIII, 40.3. _Cf._ the statues of Damoxenos and Kreugas by Canova
in the Gabinetto di Canova of the Vatican, to see in how exaggerated a
way a modern sculptor has interpreted the boxing bout of these famous
athletes: Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, nos. 136, 137; _Guide_, 139, 140;
Pistolesi, _Il Vaticano Descritto_, IV, 91.
[1687] _De Leg._, VIII, 830 B; Plut., _de Profectibus in virtute_, IX
(80 B); Pollux, III, 150; Bekker, _Anecd. gr._, 1814-1821, I, P. 62, l.
25.
[1688] _E. g._, on an amphora in the British Museum: _B. M. Vases_,
B 607; _Mon. d. I._, X, 1874-78, Pl. XLVIII, e 2; Gardiner, p. 407,
fig. 135; Juethner, p. 83, fig. 67; on the Ficoroni Cista in the Museo
Kircheriano, Rome: Helbig, _Fuehrer_, II, 1752; _Guide_, 437; Juethner,
p. 82, fig. 66, a, c. On this cista, see F. Behn, Die ficoronische
Cista, _Arch. Studie_, 1907; O. Jahn, _Die ficoronische Cista_, 1852;
etc.
[1689] Late writers generally use the terms σφαῖραι and ἱμάντες ὀξεῖς
interchangeably.
[1690] _E. g._, ἐπίσφαιρα in Plut., _Praecept. ger. resp._, 32 (= 825
e).
[1691] Juethner, p. 78, fig. 63; Gardiner, p. 409, fig. 137. For this
and the delle Terme glove, see Huelsen, _R. M._, IV, 1889, pp. 175 f.
[1692] Juethner, p. 79, fig. 54.; _Antichi di Ercolano_, Bronzi, II,
pp. 411 f.
[1693] In the Museo Civico there; mentioned by Juethner, p. 78.
[1694] Helbig, _Fuehrer_, II, 1145; _Guide_, 625; Baum., I, p. 524,
fig. 566; Juethner, p. 85, fig. 68.
[1695] The word μύρμηκες, _A. G._, XI, 78, may be merely a comic
name for the gloves—certain protuberances (“metal studs” or “nails”
= Liddell and Scott, _s. v._ looking like warts (μυρμηκίαι); _cf._
Pollux, III, 150.
[1696] _Aen._, V, 404-5; 468-71.
[1697] _B. M. Vases_, E 39; _J. H. S._, XXVI, 1906, Pl. XII.
[1698] _B. M. Vases_, E 78; _J. H. S._, XXVI, Pl. XIII; Gardiner, p.
436, fig. 151.
[1699] _Mus. Journ._, VI, no. 4 (Dec., 1915), p. 169, fig. 89; text by
Dr. S. B. Luce, who believes this class of vases to be a prototype of
the “Nolan” vases; another “Nolan” amphora is given, _ibid._, fig. 90
(also published in _A. J. A._, XX, 1916, p. 440, fig. 4), which shows a
diskobolos, who is holding a diskos in a way similar to that on a r.-f.
kelebe in the British Museum (_B. M. Vases_, B 361; Gardiner, p. 324,
fig. 77). On the division of Attic b.-f. amphoræ into “panel-amphoræ”
and “red-bodied amphoræ,” see H. B. Walters, _Hist. Anc. Pottery,
Greek, Etruscan, and Roman_, 1905, I, pp. 160-62.
[1700] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 149.
[1701] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 155 (renewed); the date of the victory is
given by P., VI, 7.8; Hyde, 65; Foerster, 263.
[1702] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 147, 148. The statue stood equally on both
feet, the left being slightly advanced. He won in Ol. 77 (= 472 B.
C.): _Oxy. Pap._; P., VI, 10.9; Hyde, 102; Foerster, 237.
[1703] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 165 (renewed); base drawn in outline in
Furtw., _Mp._, p. 288, fig. 123; _Mw._, p. 503, fig. 90. He won in Ol.
82 (= 452 B. C.): _Oxy. Pap._; P., VI, 13.6; Hyde, 115; Foerster, 376.
Here the body weight rested upon the left foot, the right being flat
on the ground and turned to one side, _i. e._, in the old scheme of
Hagelaïdas and his school.
[1704] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 159 (renewed); _I. G. B._, 86. This statue
was in the same attitude as that of Aristion and was slightly over
life-size. He won some time between Ols. (?) 90 and 93 (= 420 and 408
B. C.): P., VI, 6.2; Hyde, 52; Foerster, 297.
[1705] Michaelis, p. 446, no. 35; Clarac V, 946, 2436 A (wrongly =
Antinous). See Furtw., _Mp._, pp. 288 f. (and fig. 124); _Mw._, pp. 503
f. (and fig. 91). Height 1.75 meters (Michaelis).
[1706] Furtw., _Mp._, p. 246, fig. 99; _Mw._, p. 447, fig. 69; a
headless copy in Lansdowne House: Michaelis, p. 438, 3; Clarac, V, 851,
2180 A. Here the present head is of different marble from the torso and
does not belong to it; the body forms recall those of the _Doryphoros_.
It is 1.49 meters high.
[1707] _Not. Scav._, 1888, pp. 289 f. (Barracco); _Atti dell’ Accad.
di Napoli_, 1889, pp. 35 f. (Sogliano); _R. M._, IV, 1889, pp. 179 f.
(Huelsen); Kalkmann, Die Proport. d. Gesichts in d. gr. Kunst, _53stes
Berl. Winckelmannsprogr._, 1893, Pl. III (profile and front views), and
fig. on p. 68 (head); B. B., no. 614 (statue), 615 (head, two views);
Juethner, p. 84; etc.
[1708] Furtwaengler (_Statuenkopien im Altertum_) and Sogliano (_l.
c._) date the statue in the period of Augustus.
[1709] B. B., no. 613; Kalkmann, Die Prop. des Gesichts, Pls. I
(statue) and II (head, two views).
[1710] B. B., nos. 132, 134-5; F. W., 462.
[1711] Pl., _H. N._, XXXIV, 50 and 79. For this view, see text to B.
B., no. 614. Furtwaengler had suggested Lykios as the sculptor of the
_Oil-pourer_: _Mp._, p. 259.
[1712] Though winning in Ol. 65 (= 520 B. C.), his statue was set
up later by his son: P., VI, 10.1-3; Hyde, 93 and p. 42; Foerster,
137. The word σκιαμαχεῖν (lit. “to fight in the shade,” and hence to
practice in the gymnasium) is used synonymously with χειρονομεῖν in the
sense “to spar:” Plato, _de Leg._, VIII, 830 C; P., VI, 10.3; Pollux,
III, 150; etc. _Cf._ Paul’s phrase in _I Corinthians_, 9, 26. A derived
meaning is “to fight with a shadow”: _e. g._, Plato, _Apol._, 18 D;
etc. Dio Chrysostom, _Or._, XXXII (367 M), speaks of χειρονομοῦντες as
gymnasium practisers. See Krause, pp. 510 f.
[1713] The κώρυκος was such a bag used by athletes: _cf._ the
proverb, πρὸς κώρυκον γυμνάζεσθαι, “to labor in vain”: Diog., 7, 54.
The Ficoroni cista has been mentioned _supra_, p. 237, n. 4. The
description and use of the bag are given by Ph., 57.
[1714] Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, 704; _Guide_, II, 207.
[1715] Amelung, _Vat._, I, 372 B, pp. 554-5 and Pl. LVIII; Clarac, 883,
2256. It is 0.535 meter high.
[1716] _Beschr._, no. 469; Overbeck, _Griech. Kunstmyth._, III,
_Apollon_, pp. 218 f. and fig. 14 (restored), interpreted the torso as
that of an Apollo; but the Phrygian coin there pictured (Muenztafel,
IV, 31), of the time of Lucius Verus, may merely show that the motive
later was transferred to the god.
[1717] _Bronzen v. Ol._, Textbd., pp. 21-2; Tafelbd., Pl. VIII, no. 57.
It is only 0.112 meter high.
[1718] _E. g._, _Bronzen v. Ol._, Pl. VIII, nos. 51-54 (statuettes);
Pl. VI, nos. 59 and 63 (arm and right lower leg respectively); _cf._
Reisch, p. 39.
[1719] _J. H. S._, I, 1880, p. 199. See B. B., no. 51; F. W., 89; etc.
Theagenes won in Ols. 75, 76 (= 480, 476 B. C.): _Oxy. Pap._; P., VI,
11.2 f.; Hyde, 104; Foerster, 191, 196.
[1720] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 168. He won some time between Ols. (?) 99 and
103 (= 384 and 368 B. C.): P., VI, 4.1; Hyde, 36; Foerster, 419.
[1721] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 158; _I. G. B._, 98; he won some time between
Ols. (?) 95 and 100 (= 400 and 380 B. C.): P., VI, 6.3; Hyde, 54;
Foerster, 319.
[1722] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 186; _I. G. B._, 176. He won two victories
in boxing some time between Ols. (?) 144 and 147 (= 204 and 192, B.
C.): P., VI, 15.6; Hyde, 147; Foerster, 510, 512 (who dates the artist
toward the middle of the second century B. C.; but I have followed the
earlier dating of Hiller von Gaertringen, _Woch. f. kl. Philol._, X,
1893, p. 856, which date has been accepted by Dittenberger).
[1723] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 174.
[1724] VI., 8.5.
[1725] See Hyde, _de olymp. Stat._, pp. 39-41. There Ol. 80 or 84 (=
460 or 444 B. C.) has been suggested for the original victory.
[1726] Philippos won some time between Ols. (?) 119 and 125 (= 304 and
280 B. C.): Hyde, 79 a.
[1727] Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, p. 575, in discussing my solution of the
difficulty, call it “_sinnreich, aber doch ungemein kompliziert_,” and
the assumption that a victor would use an older statue of a fellow
countryman to celebrate his own victory “_sehr bedenklich_.”
[1728] _Cf._ Dittenberger, _Inschr. v. Ol._, p. 296.
[1729] _Op. cit._, p. 41. See also _supra_, p. 188.
[1730] _Mon. d. I._, X, 1874-78, Pl. II (head, two views); _Annali_,
XLVI, 1874, Pl. L and pp. 51 f. (Brizio); Photo. Giraudon, no. 1207.
[1731] Furtwaengler sees in this statue a work by Pythagoras: _Mp._, p.
171 f.; _Mw._, pp. 345 f.; Brizio, _l. c._, ascribes it to Hagelaïdas.
[1732] _Supra_, pp. 180-1.
[1733] On the pankration, see Gardiner, Ch. XX, pp. 435 f.; _id._, _J.
H. S._, XXVI, 1906, pp. 4 f. and Pls. III-V; Krause, I, pp. 534 f.; etc.
[1734] For the etymology, see Plato, _Euthydem._, 271 C, D; definition,
Pollux III, 150; Plut., _Quaest. conviv._, II, 4 (containing also
fanciful etymologies of πάλη); _cf._ Philostr., _Imag._, II, 6
(containing a full account of the contest in the description of the
death of Arrhachion); _cf._ schol. on Plato, _de Rep._, I, 338 C, D.
[1735] _Vita Demonactis_, 49 (against biting).
[1736] _L. c._ (against biting and gouging).
[1737] _Aves_, 442-3; _Pax_, 898-9.
[1738] E 78; another example is seen on a r.-f. kylix in Baltimore:
Gardiner, p. 437, fig. 152; _J. H. S._, XXVI, p. 9, fig. 3; Hartwig,
_Die griech. Meisterschalen_, Pl. LXIV; Perrot-Chipiez, X, p. 629, fig.
350.
[1739] _Nem._, II, III, V; _Isthm._, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII.
[1740] Frag. 19, l. 5 (_ap._ Athenæum, X, 6 = 414 a).
[1741] _E. g._, Mahaffy, in his _Old Greek Life_, 1886, p. 56; see
Gardiner, pp. 435-7, in refutation of such an exaggerated view.
[1742] _De Leg._, VIII, 832 E; 834 A.
[1743] Older writers, _e. g._, Faber, _Agonisticon_ (published in
1592), I, 9, p. 1828, thought that the glove was used, an opinion long
ago refuted by Krause, I, p. 539, n. 2. Waldstein, _J. H. S._, I,
1880, p. 185, wrongly says that the pancratiast sometimes wore gloves.
Pausanias does not mention them, nor do we see them on any of the
vase-paintings.
[1744] VI, 6.5.
[1745] VI, 15.5. _Cf._ also V, 17.10, where, in describing the
boxing match between Admetos and Mopsos represented on the chest
of Kypselos, he says οἱ δὲ ἀποτετολμηκότες πυκτεύειν—a hint of the
dangerous character of boxing.
[1746] _Oneir._, 1, 62. This, at best, seems to be an exaggeration.
[1747] Philostr., _l. c._
[1748] VIII, 40.3-5.
[1749] To Theseus: schol. on Pindar, _Nem._, V, 89, Boeckh, p. 465;
_cf._ schol. on _Nem._, III, 27, Boeckh, p. 442; to Herakles: P., V,
8.4.
[1750] P., V, 8.8; Ph., 12; and Afr.
[1751] P., V, 8.11; Ph., 13.
[1752] _E. g._, at Nemea; Pindar composed _Nem._, V, in honor of the
boy Pytheas of Aegina, who won in (?) 485 B. C.; it was introduced at
Delphi in the 61st Pythiad: P., X, 7.8; at the Isthmus in mythical
times: P., V, 2.4.
[1753] Collected by Gardiner, _op. cit._
[1754] Described by Lucian, _Anachar._, I.
[1755] This throw is depicted on the walls of the tombs of Beni-Hasan
on the Nile and is practised to-day by the Japanese; it is described by
Dio Cassius, LXXI, 7.
[1756] Κλιμακισμός: described by Soph., _Trachiniae_, 520 f., and the
schol.; see also Ovid, _Met._, IX, 51. _Cf._ _J. H. S._, XXVI, 1906,
pp. 15-16.
[1757] _E. g._, on four Græco-Roman gems in the British Museum pictured
in _J. H. S._, XXVI, p. 10, fig. 4; Gardiner, p. 447, fig. 162.
[1758] _B. M. Vases_, B 604; _J. H. S._, XXVI, Pl. III; Gardiner, p.
442, fig. 157.
[1759] E 78.
[1760] Mentioned by Plato, _Alcibiades_, I, 107 E; Ph., 50; Pollux,
III, 150; Suidas, _s. v._ ἀκροχειρίζεσθαι and _s. v._ Σώστρατος;
Lucian, _Lexiphanes_, 5; _de Saltatione_, 10; Reisch, _ap._
Pauly-Wissowa, I, p. 1197; Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, p. 548; Grasberger,
_Erziehung und Unterricht_, I, pp. 349-50; Krause, I, pp. 421 f., 510
f.; _J. H. S._, XXVI, pp. 13-15, where Gardiner discusses the word in
ancient writers and concludes that it had nothing to do with wrestling,
but only with boxing (both the separate event and part of the
pankration), and meant “to spar lightly with an opponent for practice.”
[1761] He won three victories in Ols. (?) 104, (?) 105, and 106 (=
364-356 B. C.): P., VI, 4.1; Hyde, 37; Foerster, 349, 353, 359.
This explanation of Pausanias has been accepted by Krause and most
modern authorities, but is found untenable by Gardiner, who bases his
interpretation, not on Pausanias, but on the accurate definition of
Suidas.
[1762] _B. C. H._, VI, 1882, pp. 446 f.
[1763] He won in Ols. 81 and 82 (= 456 and 452 B. C.): _Oxy. Pap._; P.,
VI, 4.3; Hyde, 38; Foerster, 202, 203; _cf._ Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV,
59. He was probably merely represented in the preliminary tactics of
getting a grip.
[1764] See Reisch, p. 46; _I. G. B._, 120.
[1765] _Anz. d. Wiener Akad._, 1887, pp. 86 f. (Benndorf); Reisch, _l.
c._
[1766] A. de Ridder, _Les bronzes antiques du Louvre_, I, 1913, Pl.
63, no. 1067, and p. 131 (= pancratiast); _Rev. arch._, 1869, II, p.
292; Bulle, no. 96 (right); Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 543, 4. It is 0.275
meter high.
[1767] See _supra_, p. 167.
[1768] _H. N._, XXXIV, 55. Hauser, _Jh. oest. arch. Inst._, XII, 1909,
pp. 116 f. His reasoning is accepted by Bulle.
[1769] _Ges. Stud. zur Kunstgesch._, Festschr. fuer A. Springer, 1885,
pp. 260.
[1770] See _S. Q._, 1463-67.
[1771] _Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. LV, 4-5; Textbd., pp. 212 f.,
and fig. 239; F. W., no. 336; _cf._ Immerwahr, _Kulte und Mythen
Arkadiens_, I, 1891, p. 288.
[1772] _Archiv fuer lateinische Lexikographie u. Grammatik_, IX, 1894,
1, pp. 109 f.
[1773] _Mp._, p. 249, n. 2; _Mw._, pp. 451-2; he adduced two passages
from Ovid’s _Met._, XIV, 402 (_saevisque parant incessere telis_), and
XIII, 566-7 (_telorum lapidumque incessere iactu coepit_).
[1774] This explanation has been followed by Treu, _Bildw. v. Ol._, _l.
c._; Sittl, _Parerga zur alten Kunstgesch._, p. 24; Klein, II, pp. 362
f.; Jex-Blake, p. 235; and others.
[1775] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 146; _I. G. B._, 41. He won in Ol. 77 (= 472
B. C.): _Oxy. Pap._; P., VI, 6.1; Hyde, 50; Foerster, 208.
[1776] _Collection Somzée_, 1897, Pls. 3-5; see Hyde, to no. 50, on p.
8. Its quiet and reserved pose recalls that of the _Pelops_ of the East
gable of the temple of Zeus at Olympia (_Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl.
IX, 2; Textbd., pp. 46 f.). Because of its archaic grace, though it
shows no trace of archaic stiffness, it might even be referred to the
school of Kritios and Nesiotes.
[1777] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 153; _I. G. B._, 29. He won the pankration in
Ols. 87, 88, 89 (= 432-424 B. C.); P., VI, 7.1; Hyde, 61; Foerster,
258, 260, 262.
[1778] VI, 2.1; to be discussed _infra_, Ch. VI, pp. 293 f.
[1779] _B. C. H._, XXI, 1897, pp. 592 f. Agias was not only a victor at
Delphi three times, at Nemea five times, and at the Isthmus five times,
but was also an Olympic victor in the pankration, Ol. (?) 80 (= 460 B.
C.): see inscription, _B. C. H._, _l. c._, p. 593, and for the date of
the Olympic victory, K. K. Smith, in _Class. Philol._, V, 1910, pp. 169
f.; _cf._ _A. J. A._, XIII, 1909, pp. 447 f.
[1780] Duetschke, III, no. 547; Amelung, _Fuehrer_, 66; B. B., 431;
Bulle, 184; von Mach, 288; F. W., 1426; Reinach, _Rép._, I, 523, I;
Clarac, V, 858 A, 2176; M. W., I, XXXVI, 149; _J. H. S._, XXVI, 1906,
p. 19; Gardiner, p. 449, fig. 163. The group is 0.98 meter high and
0.71 meter broad (Duetschke).
[1781] Bulle dates it at the beginning of the third century B. C.; both
he and Amelung believe it to be the work of a follower of Lysippos;
see also B. Graef, _Jb._, IX, 1894, pp. 119 f., who believes that
the original heads of the group are preserved, the one still on the
under pancratiast, the other on the statue of a Niobid in the Uffizi
(Duetschke, III, no. 253), the head now on the upper pancratiast being
a modern copy of it. See Amelung’s reply in _A. A._, 1894, pp. 192 f.
[1782] _E. g._, von Mach, Pls. 265 f.
[1783] _H. N._, XXXVI, 24; see note _ad loc._ by Jex-Blake.
[1784] _Aeth._, X, 31, 32; quoted in full by Krause, II, pp. 912 f.
[1785] Duetschke, Wolters, von Mach, and Lucas (the latter in _Jb._,
XIX, 1904, pp. 127 f. and figs.) thought that the wrestling groups on
the Roman mosaic of the Imperial period found in Tusculum in 1862 were
influenced by the Florence group: _Mon. d. I._, VI, VII, 1857-63, Pl.
LXXXII; _Annali_, XXXV, 1863, pp. 397 f.; Schreiber, _Bilderatlas_, Pl.
XXIII, 10; Gardiner, p. 177, fig. 22.
[1786] _J. H. S._, XXV, 1905, p. 30.
[1787] He won in Ol. 142 (= 212 B. C.): P., VI, 15.10; _cf._ V., 21.10;
Hyde, 150; Foerster, 474, 475.
[1788] _E. g._, by Gardiner, p. 146.
[1789] Bulle, no. 72; B. B., 285; von Mach, 236; Collignon, II, p. 427,
fig. 222; Overbeck, II, p. 448, fig. 221; F. W., 1265; M. W., 1, Pl.
XXXVIII, 152; Reinach, _Rép._, I, 465, 1, 2, 3; Clarac, V, 789, 1978;
Gardiner, p. 147, fig. 21; etc. It is 3.17 meters high (Bulle).
[1790] An excellent one is in the Uffizi: Amelung, _Fuehrer_, 40;
Reinach, _Rép._, I, 474, 1; a colossal replica was found in the sea off
Antikythera: _Arch. Eph._, 1902, Suppl., Pl. B, 7; one in the Pitti
Gallery will be mentioned immediately.
[1791] _I. G. B._, 345.
[1792] Duetschke, II, no. 36; Amelung, _Fuehrer_, p. 134; B. B.,
284; M. W., XXXVIII, 151; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 1, 210, 5. For the
inscription, see _I. G. B._, 506; it has been needlessly attacked
as a forgery—an ancient one by Winckelmann, _Mon. Inediti_, pp.
LXXVI f., and a modern one by Maffei, _Ars critica_, III, 1, p. 76
(both quoted by Duetschke), and more recently by Stephani, _Der
ausruhende Herakles_, pp. 164 f. The inscription is at least as old
as the sixteenth century, as it is mentioned by Flaminius Vacca (see
Duetschke).
[1793] _Numism. Chron._, Sér. 3, III, 1883, Pl. I, 5, p. 9.
[1794] Mentioned by Strabo, VI, 3.1 (= C. 278), and described by the
late writer Niketas, _Chron. de signis Constant._, 5 (who wrongly calls
Lysippos Lysimachos).
[1795] _Gesch. d. bild. Kuenste_, II^2, PP. 245 f.
[1796] P. 234.
[1797] _Bronz. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. II, 2a and 2; Textbd., pp. 10-11;
F. W., 323.
[1798] _De olymp. Stat._, p. 56.
[1799] On the “_finsterer Blick_” of this class of victor monuments,
see Furtw., _Mp._, p. 173; _Mw._, p. 348; and _Bronz. v. Ol._, Text,
pp. 10-11.
[1800] Thus Furtwaengler assigns it to the statue of the Akarnanian
pancratiast (Philandridas) mentioned by Pausanias, VI, 2.1; see _Bronz.
v. Ol._, p. 11. I have assigned an earlier marble head to Philandridas,
_infra_, pp. 293 f.
[1801] So Overbeck, II, p. 168; Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, p. 534; F. W.,
_l. c._; etc.
[1802] _Bronz. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. III, 3, 3a; Textbd., pp. 11-12;
F. W., no. 324.
[1803] _De olymp. Stat._, p. 56.
[1804] _Cf._ P., VI, 20, 13: ἐπίδειξις ἐπιστήμης τε ἡνιόχων καὶ ἵππων
ὠκύτητος; Pindar, _Ol._, III, 36 f.: θαητὸν ἀγῶνα ... ἀνδρῶν τ’ ἀρετᾶς
πέρι καὶ ῥιμφαρμάτου διφρηλασίας.
[1805] On the hippodrome and its events at Olympia and elsewhere,
see A. Martin, in Dar.-Sagl., III, 1, 1900, pp. 193 f. (art.
_Hippodromos_); on the chariot, Saglio, _ibid._, I, 2, pp. 1633 f.
(art. _Currus_); K. Schneider, in Pauly-Wissowa, VIII, pp. 1735 f.;
Julius, in Baum., I, pp. 692 f.; Pollack, _Hippodromica_, Diss. inaug.,
1890; Gardiner, Ch. XXI, pp. 451 f.; Krause, I, pp. 557 f.; etc.
[1806] See Isokrates, XVI (_de Bigis_), 33 (p. 353 c); Xenophon, _de Re
equestr._, II, 1; Aristotle, _Politics_, VI, 3.2 (= 1289 b 35), VIII,
7.1 (= 1321 a 11); Plut., _de Adul. et Amic._, Chs. 7 and 16 (latter
quoting Karneades). On the expense of horse-breeding (ἱπποτροφία), see
also Xen., _Ages._, I, 23; _id._, _Oecon._, II, 6; Plut., _Ages._, XX,
1; Pindar, _Isthm._, II, 38; IV, 29; etc.
[1807] The first, second, and fourth, according to Thukyd., VI, 16; the
first, second and third, according to Eurip., _fragm._ 3 (= _P. l. G._,
II, p. 266), and Isokr., _de Bigis_, 34 (p. 353 d). See Foerster, 275.
[1808] See _Oxy. Pap._, II, p. 222.
[1809] Besides 24 victories of both in various running races. The older
part of the inscription (with a chariot-group in relief) was discovered
by Leake: see _Travels in the Morea_, 1830, II, p. 521, and Pl. 71 (at
the end of III); better reproduction by Dressler and Milchhoefer, _A.
M._, II, 1877, pp. 318 f.; _I. G. A._, 79; Tod, _Sparta Museum Cat._,
no. 440. The newer portion is discussed in _B. S. A._, XIII, 1906-07,
pp. 174 f.
[1810] See Hill, _Coins of Sicily_, pp. 43 f.
[1811] VIII, 38.5; see _Exped. scientif. en Morée_, 1831-1838, II, p.
37, and Pls. XXXIII, XXXIV. It was 240 by 105 meters in extent, though
the actual course was probably only a stade long.
[1812] See list in Pauly-Wissowa, VIII, pp. 1743-4.
[1813] Described by P., V, 15.5 f., and VI, 20.10 f. For its position,
see Doerpfeld, _Ergebn. v. Ol._, I, p. 78; Curtius u. Adler, _Olympia
und Umgegend_, 1882, p. 30; Boetticher, _Olympia: Das Fest u. seine
Staette_^2, 1886, p. 119; G. Herrmann, _de Hippodromo olympiaco_, 1839
(= _Opusc._, VII, pp. 388). Five attempts at reconstruction are given
by Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, pp. 643 f., and Pl. VI: those of Visconti
(1796); A. Hirt (_Gesch. d. Baukunst bei d. Alten_, 1827, III, pp.
148 f., and Pl. XX, 8; reproduced in Baum., I, p. 693, fig. 750;
Smith, _Dict. Antiq._^3, 1890, I, p. 963; Frazer, IV, p. 83, fig. 6);
Lehndorff (_Hippodromos_, 1876); Pollack (_op cit._, p. 52); Wernicke
(_Jb._, IX, 1894, p. 199). To these should be added those of A. Martin
(_op. cit._, p. 198, fig. 3844); Weniger (_Klio_, IX, 1909, p. 303, the
_aphesis_ transcribed by Gardiner, p. 453, fig. 164). See also Guhl u.
Koner, _Das Leben d. Gr. u. Roem._^6, 1893, pp. 233 f. and Fig. 271 (=
restoration of Pollack), and _cf._ Krause, I, p. 150, n. 9.
[1814] See Blass, in _Hermes_, XXIII, 1888, p. 222 (n. 1); R. Schoene,
_A. A._, 1897, pp. 77-8; _id._, _Jb._, XII, 1897, pp. 150 f. (Neue
Angaben ueber den Hippodrom zu Olympia); Gaspar, in article on
_Olympia_ in Dar.-Sagl., IV, 1, p. 177 and n. 5; Frazer, V, p. 617; etc.
[1815] VI, 20.8.
[1816] Il., XXIII, 262-650. The four-horse chariot-race fills more
than one and one-half times as many verses as the seven other contests
combined (vv. 651-897). Homer’s description was often imitated by later
poets, especially by Sophokles, _Electra_, 698-763 (race at Delphi);
Nonnos, _Dionys._, XXXVII, 103-484; Quintus Smyrnæus, IV, 500-595;
Statius, _Theb._, VI, 274-527; etc. Hesiod describes a race as wrought
on Herakles’ shield: _Scut._, 305 f.
[1817] P., V, 10.6-7; VI, 21.6-7; VIII, 14.10-11; etc.; Pindar, _Ol._,
I, 67 f.
[1818] Diod., IV, 73.3.
[1819] VIII, 4.5.
[1820] _E. g._, Nestor won at the games of Amarynkeus, Iliad, XXIII,
630 f. On such myths, see Krause, I, pp. 558 f.
[1821] _E. g._, the race between Pelops and Oinomaos was represented
on the chest of Kypselos, P., V, 17.7, and in the sculptures on the
East gable of the temple of Zeus at Olympia, P., V, 10.6-7. It appears
also on many early vases: _e. g._, on the François vase in Florence and
the Amphiaraos vase in Berlin. For the latter, see _Mon. d. I._, X,
1874-78, Pls. IV-V; _Annali_, XLVI, 1874, pp. 82 f. (Robert); Gardiner,
p. 29, fig. 3.
[1822] V, 8.7.
[1823] See Plato, _de Rep._, III, 19 (= 412 B); Isokr., _de Bigis_,
33 (p. 353 c); Dio Cassius, LII, 30; Hdt., I, 167; Andok., 4, 26
(_Contra Alcib._); Soph., _Electra_, 698; etc.
[1824] VI, 2.2; he won in the hoplite-race and chariot-race in Ols. (?)
83, 84 (= 448, 444 B. C.): Hyde, 12; Foerster, 211 A.
[1825] Foerster thinks that the story arose from the small size of one
of the horses in the monument of Lykidas.
[1826] These and the following figures are given in the Constantinople
MS. The length of the four-horse chariot-race there given agrees with
passages in Pindar (_Ol._, II, 50; III, 33; VI, 75; _cf._ _Pyth._, V,
33, for Delphi) and the scholiasts (on _Ol._, III, 59, Boeckh, p. 102,
and _Pyth._, V, 39, Boeckh, p. 380). See also Pollack, _Hippodromica_,
pp. 103 f., and Gardiner, p. 457.
[1827] P., V, 8.10.
[1828] Length stated by the MS. and by a scholiast on Pindar, _Pyth._,
V, 39, Boeckh, p. 380.
[1829] Those of Troilos of Elis, who won in Ol. 103 (= 368 B. C.):
P., VI, 1.4; Hyde, 6; Foerster, 345; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 166; and of
Akestorides of Alexandria in the Troad, who won between Ols. 142 and
144 (= 212 and 204 B. C.): P., VI, 13.7; Hyde, 119 and pp. 49-50;
Foerster, 501; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 184.
[1830] For the date, see P., V, 8.10; Xen., _Hell._, I, 2.1; for the
event, Krause, I, pp. 567 f.
[1831] Troilos, already mentioned, who won in Ol. 102 (= 372 B. C.) and
had a statue by Lysippos: P., VI, 1.4; Hyde, 6; Foerster, 338.
[1832] Euryleonis: P., III, 17.6; Foerster, 344.
[1833] The συνωρίς was introduced at Delphi in 398 B. C., while the
ἅρμα τέλειον was introduced there in 582 B. C.: see Dar.-Sagl., III, 1,
p. 202, for these and other dates of equestrian events at the Pythian
games.
[1834] _B. M. Vases_, B 130.
[1835] The date is given in the Armenian version of Afr.; _cf._ also
P., V, 8.11.
[1836] P., V, 8.8.
[1837] P., V, 8.11.
[1838] XV, 679-84; Hesiod, _Scut._, 285 f. On myths relating to it,
see Krause, I, p. 582, n. 1. We read of _equi desultorii_ at the games
inaugurated by Cæsar in Rome: Sueton., _Julius_, 39. See _supra_, p. 3.
[1839] VI, 13.9.
[1840] P., V, 9.1. Polemon, frag. 21 (= _F. H. G._, III, p. 122),
_apud_ schol. on Pindar, _Ol._, V, Argum. (Boeckh, p. 117), says
that the κάλπη ceased in Ol. 84 (= 444 B. C.), if we accept Boeckh’s
correction πδʹ for οδʹ. A scholiast on Pindar, _Ol._, V, lines 6 and 19
(Boeckh, pp. 119 and 122) says Ol. 85 (= 440 B. C.); another on _Ol._,
VI, Argum. (Boeckh, p. 129), says Ol. 85 or Ol. 86. But Ol. 85 may be
reconciled with Pausanias’ and Polemon’s date by assuming that the
proclamation of abolition fell in Ol. 84, but that the event was first
omitted in Ol. 85; see Bentley, _Diss. upon the Epistles of Phalaris_,
p. 200 (ed. W. Wagner).
[1841] VI, 9.2; Hyde, 84.
[1842] V, 9.1; he won Ol. 70 (= 500 B. C.); Foerster, 157.
[1843] Anaxilas of Rhegion, whose victory fell sometime between Ols.
(?) 70 and 76 (= 500 and 476 B. C.), and was celebrated by Simonides,
frag. 7 (= _P. l. G._, III, p. 390); Agesias of Syracuse, whose victory
fell Ol. (?) 77 (= 472 B. C.), and was celebrated by Pindar, _Ol._,
VI; and Psaumis of Kamarina, whose victory, falling Ol. (?) 81 (= 456
B. C.), was sung by the pseudo-Pindar, _Ol._, V (= _P. l. G._, I, pp.
109 f.); he also won in the chariot-race in Ol. (?) 82 (= 452 B. C.), a
victory sung by Pindar in _Ol._, IV. See Foerster, nos. 173, 210, 234,
and 238.
[1844] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 220, 221; Foerster, 601.
[1845] The corrupt text of Africanus is here corrected by Gelzer, _S.
Jul. Afr. und die byzant. Chronographie_, 1880, I, pp. 168 f. Gardiner,
p. 165, n. 3, wrongly gives the victory of Germanicus as Ol. 194, thus
confusing it with that of Tiberius.
[1846] Foerster, 642-647.
[1847] Ol. 208 (= 53 A. D.); Foerster, 634.
[1848] Most of the gems representing such contests, however, refer to
the Roman circus.
[1849] For illustrations of the two, see Dar.-Sagl., I, 2, pp. 1636
f., figs. 2203 f., and _cf._ Gardiner, pp. 458 f.; an excellent
illustration of a four-horse chariot and driver is seen on an
Attic-Corinthian goblet (dinos) in the Louvre: Perrot-Chipiez, X, Pl.
II, opp. p. 116; also several at rest and racing on the _François
Vase_: Perrot-Chipiez, X, p. 141, fig. 93, p. 154, fig. 101 (=
Furtw.-Reichhold, _Griech. Vasenmalerei_, 1904-1912, Pls. III, 10, and
XI-XII.).
[1850] Von Mach, no. 5.
[1851] See, _e. g._, P. Gardner, _Sculptured Tombs of Hellas_, 1896,
figs. 18-20.
[1852] C. Smith, _B. S. A._, III, 1896-7, pp. 183 f., dates these
prize amphoræ from the middle of the sixth to the close of the fourth
centuries B. C., as the last of the series is dated 313 B. C. In this
article he publishes a mosaic found on Delos (Pl. XVI, a) and dating
from the early second century B. C., which reproduces a Panathenaic
amphora with an illustration of a chariot-race—the latest date at which
either a prize-amphora (or picture of one) can be proved to have been
used. He believes (p. 187) that it is the representation of an amphora
won long before by the ancestor of the owner of the mosaic, carefully
preserved in his family.
[1853] _B. M. Guide to Greek and Roman Life_, 1908, p. 200.
[1854] _E. g._, on a Panathenaic amphora in the British Museum, dating
from the sixth century B. C.: _B. M. Vases_, B 132; Gardiner, p. 458,
fig. 166; _cf._ also a silver tetradrachm from Rhegion in the British
Museum, from the early fifth century B. C.: Gardiner, p. 460, fig. 168.
[1855] Philip won κέλητι in Ol. 106 (= 356 B. C.): Plut., _Alex._,
3 and 4; _cf._ Justin, XII, 16, 6; ἅρματι twice at unknown dates:
Foerster, 360, 364, 370. As we have no record of a victory by him
υνωρίδι], the two-horse chariot appearing on his coins (_e. g._, a
gold stater in the British Museum, Gardiner, p. 459, fig. 167, right)
may refer to unrecorded victories, or else may be interpreted (with
Gardiner) as a pun on his name.
[1856] _E. g._, on a silver tetradrachm of Rhegion in the British
Museum: Gardiner, p. 460, fig. 168. This and other coins commemorate
the victory in this event of the Rhegion prince Anaxilas, already
mentioned: Aristotle, frag. 228a, _ap._ Pollux, V, 73 (= _F. H. G._,
II, p. 173); Foerster, 173.
[1857] _E. g._, a decadrachm of Akragas (dating from the end of the
fifth century B. C.) and another of Syracuse (from the beginning of the
fourth century B. C.) in the British Museum; reproduced by Gardiner, p.
465, fig. 172.
[1858] _B. S. A._, XIII, 1906-7, Pl. V; Gardner, p. 456, fig. 165.
[1859] Gerhard, IV, Pls. CCXLIX and CCL; Dar.-Sagl., _l. c._, fig.
2219. It was formerly in Lucien Bonaparte’s collection.
[1860] _A. V._, Pls. CCLI-CCLIV.
[1861] B. B., 586-7 and figs. 1-14 (text by Furtwaengler); Richter,
_Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Bronzes in the Metropolitan Museum_, 1915,
pp. 17 f., no. 40, and figs.; P. Ducati, _Jh. oest. arch. Inst._,
XII, 1909, pp. 74 f.; J. Offord, _R. Arch._, Sér. IV, III, 1904, pp.
305-7 and Pls. VII-IX, etc. Closely allied in style to its decorative
designs are fragments of another chariot found at Perugia and now
distributed among the Perugia, Munich, and British Museums: Petersen,
_A. M._, X, 1894, pp. 253 f.; B. B., 588-589. _Cf._ also fragments of
similar technique from Capua: Froehner, _Cat. de la Collection Dutuit_,
1897-1901, II, p. 199, no. 250, and Pls. 190-195.
[1862] _A. J. A._, XII, 1908, pp. 312 f., with plates and figures.
[1863] _H. N._, XXXVI, 31.
[1864] Vitruv., _de Arch._, VII (Praef.), §§ 12-13.
[1865] See _B. M. Sculpt._, II, nos. 1000-1005 and Pl. XVI; for
discussion of the group, _J. H. S._, XXX, 1910, pp. 133-162 (J. B. K.
Preedy).
[1866] _E. g._, XXXIV, 71 (_Calamis et alias quadrigas bigasque fecit
se impari, equis sine aemulo expressis_); XXXV, 99 (_Aristides ...
pinxit et currentes quadrigas_); XXXIV, 78 (Euphranor); 64 (_Lysippus
... fecit et quadrigas multorum generum_); 66 (Euthykrates); 80
(Pyromachos); 88 (Menogenes); 86 (Aristodemos).
[1867] P., VI, 12.1; to be mentioned _infra_, p. 279.
[1868] P., VI, 9.4-5.
[1869] P., V, 27.2.
[1870] P., VI, 14.12.
[1871] P., VI, 10.8 and 19.6, and _cf._ 10.8; Hdt., VI, 36; Hyde, 99a
and p. 44; Foerster, 105. Pausanias here confuses this elder Miltiades
with the son of Kimon, as does also the pseudo-Andok., IV, 33.
[1872] P., VI, 10.8; _cf._ Hdt., VI, 103; Hyde, 99b and p. 44;
Foerster, 77-79.
[1873] Some time between Ols. (?) 68 and 70 (= 508 and 500 B. C.): P.,
VI, 16.6; Hyde, 160 and pp. 58-9; Foerster, 797 (undated).
[1874] Kalliteles won some time between Ols. (?) 66 and 68 (= 516 and
508 B. C.): _Inschr. v. Ol._, 632; Hyde, 161; Foerster, 774 (undated).
[1875] Pindar, _Pyth._, V, 34 f.; date given by schol. on _Pyth._,
IV, Argum., Boeckh, p. 342. Pindar’s _Pyth._, IV and V celebrate this
victory. The same scholiast also records a chariot-victory of Arkesilas
at Olympia in Ol. 80 (= 460 B. C.); Foerster, 229.
[1876] P., V, 12.5; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 634; _I. G. B._, 100. Kyniska won
two chariot-victories in Ols. (?) 96, 97 (= 396, 392 B. C.), and for
them also had an equestrian group set up in the Altis, the work of the
Megarian artist Apellas, which we shall discuss later: P., VI, 1.6 f.;
Hyde, 7; Foerster, 326, 333; see _infra_, p. 267.
[1877] P., VI, 12.7; Hyde, 108; Foerster, 801 (undated).
[1878] He won some time between Ols. (?) 128 and 137 (= 268 and 232 B.
C.): P., VI, 1.9; Hyde, 169; Foerster, 446; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 178.
[1879] P., VI, 17.5; _cf._ 10.6-8. In the latter passage (§8)
Pausanias says that Kleosthenes, who won in Ol. 66, was the first to
dedicate his statue together with a chariot and horses and the statue
of a charioteer. Foerster, 38, following Westermann, believes that
Archidamas is the name which has fallen out of Phlegon, fragm. 4 (= _F.
H. G._, III, p. 605), that of a victor from Dyspontion in Elis, and
therefore wrongly gives the date of the victory as Ol. 27 (= 672 B.
C.); for a refutation of this view and an indeterminate date, see Hyde,
182 and p. 62.
[1880] He won Ol. (?) 79 (= 464 B. C.): P., VI, 1.7; Hyde, 8; Foerster,
233.
[1881] He won in two events, the hoplite-race and charioteering,
in Ols. (?) 83, 84 (= 448, 444 B. C.): P., VI, 2.1-2; Hyde, 12;
Foerster, 211A. Perhaps one of his two statues by Myron represented
his charioteer (so Foerster), though more probably the two statues
represented the victor for his two victories.
[1882] He won some time between Ols. (?) 98 and 101 (= 388 and 376 B.
C.): P., VI, 2.8; Hyde, 17; Foerster, 310; his statue stood beside that
of his son Aigyptos on horseback; the latter won κέλητι about the date
of his father’s victory: P., VI, 2.8; Hyde 18; Foerster, 301. The two
monuments were by the Sikyonian Daidalos.
[1883] He won συνωρίδι καὶ τεθρίππῳ in Ols. 102, 103 (= 372, 368 B.
C.): P., VI, 1.4; Hyde, 6; Foerster, 338, 345.
[1884] He won some time between Ols. (?) 115 and 130 (= 320 and 260 B.
C.): P., VI, 13.11; Hyde, 122; Foerster, 513: _Inschr. v. Ol._, 177.
[1885] Polykles won in Ol. (?) 89 (= 424 B. C.): P., VI, 1.7; Hyde,
9; Foerster, 796 (undated). For this athletic _genre_ group, see
Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, p. 534. On children’s hoops (τρόχοι) see L. Becq
de Fouquières, _Les Jeux des Anciens_^2, 1873, Ch. VIII, pp. 159 f.
[1886] 1, 96 (quoting Ephoros, fragm. 106 = _F. H. G._, 1, pp. 262-3).
Periandros won a chariot victory at Olympia at the end of the seventh
or beginning of the sixth century B. C.: Foerster, 80, who assumes that
it was a statue of Zeus, and not of Periandros.
[1887] Gelo won in Ol. 73 (= 488 B. C.): P., VI, 9.4; Hyde, 90;
Foerster, 180; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 143. This inscription on the recovered
base and another from the base of the monument of Pantarkes, who won
apparently in the chariot-race at the end of the sixth century B. C.
(_Inschr. v. Ol._, 142; Foerster, 149), are the two oldest inscriptions
known of chariot victors at Olympia.
[1888] He won Ol. 66 (= 516 B. C.): P., VI, 10.6-7; Hyde, 99; Foerster,
143.
[1889] P., VI, 10.7.
[1890] We have mentioned the inscribed relief _supra_, pp. 257 and 258,
and n. 1 on p. 258.
[1891] Line 15.
[1892] Pindar, _Pyth._, V, 26. For the above examples, see also
Gardiner, p. 463.
[1893] P., VI, 2.8; he was represented on horseback.
[1894] P., III, 8.1; _cf._ VI, 1.6.
[1895] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 160; Loewy, _I. G. B._, 99; see _A. G._, XIII,
16.
[1896] _A. Z._, XXXVII, 1879, p. 151.
[1897] Noted in _A. J. A._, XV, 1911, p. 60.
[1898] _H. N._, XXXIV, 86: _et adornantes se feminas_. For the five
larger bronze figures, see Inv., 5604-5, 5619-21; for the smaller sixth
figure, usually known as the _Praying Child_, see Inv., 5603. All six
are pictured in E. R. Barker’s _Buried Herculaneum_, 1908, Figs. 18-19.
[1899] P., VI, 12.1; _cf._ VIII, 42.9-10; _Oxy. Pap._; Hyde, 105;
Foerster, 199, 209, and 215. Pindar celebrates the victory of 476 B. C.
in his first _Olympian ode_.
[1900] P., V, 27.2. See _supra_, pp. 28, 62, and 163.
[1901] P., VI, 14.12.
[1902] _H. N._, XXXIV, 71. On the basis of this and other references,
Reisch built up a theory that there was also a fourth-century B. C.
Kalamis, the contemporary of the younger Praxiteles: _Jh. oest. arch.
Inst._, IX, 1906, pp. 199 f. He was followed by Amelung (_R. M._, XXI,
1906, pp. 285 and 287) and Studniczka (_Abh. d. k. saechs. Gesellsch.
d. Wiss., philolog.-histor. Klasse_, XXV, no. IV, 1907, pp. 5 f.).
Furtwaengler has shown the weakness of such an argument and has rightly
referred the monument mentioned by Pliny to the great Kalamis and his
younger contemporary, the elder Praxiteles: _Sitzb. Muen. Akad._, 1907,
pp. 160 f.
[1903] P., VI, 18.1. Kratisthenes won Ol. (?) 83 (= 448 B. C.): Hyde,
185; Foerster, 193 A.
[1904] P., VI, 12.6; Hyde, 105d. The same Timon is mentioned again:
P., VI, 2.8; Hyde, 17. This monument may have been set up for a
second victory or even for the victory mentioned by Pausanias, VI,
2.8; however, I have classed it as an honor dedication, assuming two
monuments: Hyde, p. 45.
[1905] Lampos won some time after Ol. (?) 105 (= 360 B. C.): P., VI,
4.10; Hyde, 44; Foerster, 420. Philippi, the native city of Lampos, was
founded in Ol. 105 by Philip, father of Alexander, on the site of an
older town, Krenides.
[1906] _H. N._, XXXIV, 89; it was by the statuary Piston.
[1907] Reisch, p. 49, believes that she represented a _Nike apteros_;
Rouse, p. 164, also believes that such figures were Victories.
[1908] _H. N._, XXXV, 108.
[1909] _Ant. Denkm._, I, 4, 1889, Pl. XLIV.
[1910] _B. M. Sculpt._, I, 814; _Museum Marbles_, IX, Pl. XXXVIII,
fig. 2. A. H. Smith (_op. cit._, no. 814; _cf._ _Guide to Græco-Roman
Sculpt._, I, no. 176) also mentions another similar votive tablet in
the British Museum. It is mounted on a pilaster and represents the
visit of Dionysos to Ikarios. Such tablets seem to have been commonly
dedicated by agonistic victors.
[1911] Schoene, _Griech. Reliefs_, 1872, Pl. XVIII, fig. 80; F. W.,
1142; von Sybel, _Kat. d. Skulpt. zu Athen_, 1881, no. 7014. Here only
the arms and wings of Nike are left.
[1912] E. Huebner, _Die antiken Bildw. in Madrid_, 1862, 241, 559;
_Annali_, XXXIV, 1862, Pl. G., and p. 103; Reisch, p. 51.
[1913] _Arch. Eph._, 1893, pp. 128 f. (Kabbadias) and Pl. IX; Rouse, p.
177.
[1914] _Cf._ Reisch, pp. 49-50; Rouse, p. 176.
[1915] Helbig, _Fuehrer_, II, 1752; _Guide_, I, 437.
[1916] P., V, 17.8.
[1917] Frazer, III, p. 609, fig. 77; etc. See _supra_, p. 13 and n. 1.
[1918] We have already discussed the style and date of this relief
in Ch. III, pp. 128-9. For the relief, see Dickins, no. 1342 and
illustration on p. 275; von Sybel, _Kat. d. Skulpt. zu Athen_, no.
5039; Baum., I, p. 342, fig. 359; Studniczka, _Jb._, XI, 1896, p. 265,
fig. 7; Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, p. 664, fig. 342; B. B., 21; von Mach,
56; Collignon, I, pp. 378 f. and fig. 194; Overbeck, I, p. 203 and fig.
47; Le Bas, _Voyage archeol._ (Reinach’s ed.), pp. 50-51 and Pl. I; F.
W., 97; cast in British Museum, _B. M. Sculpt._, I, no. 155. A small
piece of the adjacent slab to the right (found on the eastern slope
of the Akropolis in 1859-1860), fitting the main block exactly, shows
two horses’ tails and one hind leg and proves that the chariot was
represented at rest.
[1919] This fragment contains a head whose pointed beard and petasos
have been thought to indicate the god: Dickins, no. 1343; Collignon, I,
p. 378, fig. 195; von Mach, fig. 11, opp. p. 58; Conze, _Nuove Memorie
dell’ Instituto_, II, pp. 408 f. and Pl. XIII A; F. W., 96.
[1920] So O. Hauser, _Jb._, VII, 1892, pp. 54 f.; he is followed by
Robinson, _Cat. of Museum of Fine Arts, Boston_, no. 33. J. Braun,
_Gesch. d. Kunst_, 1858, II, pp. 188 and 549 (quoted by F. W.), Conze,
_op. cit._, Michaelis, _Der Parthenon_, 1870, p. 123, Helbig, _Das
homerische Epos_^2, 1887, p. 179 and n. 11, Springer-Michaelis, pp.
207-8 (and fig. 389), Dickins, and many others, also interpret the
figure as male.
[1921] This coiffure, however, appears on several female heads:
_e. g._, on the Harpy monument, F. W., 127 f. Knapp (_Nike in d.
Vasenmalerei_, p. 10), Brunn (_Sitzb. Muen. Akad._, 1870, II, pp. 213
f.), W. Mueller (_Quaestiones vestiariae_, 1890, p. 44), Collignon,
Overbeck, Friedrichs-Wolters, Reisch (p. 49), and many others call the
figure of the charioteer female.
[1922] _E. g._, the headless draped statue, resembling the _Korai_, in
the Akropolis Museum: B. B., 551.
[1923] _A. M._, XXX, 1905, pp. 305 f. (especially 321) and Pls. XI, XII
(the rebuilding of the temple referred to the time of Peisistratos). He
also (p. 320) favors the well-known view of Doerpfeld (_A. M._, XII,
1887, pp. 25-61, 190-211; XV, 1890, pp. 420-439) that the Hekatompedon
or Old Temple of Athena, rebuilt by the Athenians shortly after the
Persian wars, existed not only down to 406 B. C., when Xenophon says
that it was burnt (_Hell._, I, 6), but down at least to the time of
Pausanias. This view is held by J. Harrison, _Mythology and Monuments
of Ancient Athens_, 1890, pp. 505 f., Dickins, _l. c._, and many
archæologists. It has been rejected by many others, _e. g._, Petersen
(_A. M._, XII, pp. 62-72), Wernicke (_ibid._, pp. 184-189), and _in
extenso_ Frazer (_J. H. S._, XIII, 1892-1893, pp. 153-187; reprinted
in his edition of Pausanias, II, pp. 553-82). Murray, I, p. 143 and
fig. 35, referred the relief to one of the metopes of the Old Temple of
Athena.
[1924] _Sitzb. Muen. Akad._, 1906, II, pp. 147 f.; _cf._ also _ibid._,
1905, pp. 433 f.
[1925] Springer-Michaelis (_l. c._) think that it may represent a
chariot victor; similarly Purgold (_Arch. Eph._, 1885, p. 251).
Boetticher (_Die Akropolis_, 1888, pp. 85-6) believes that it
represents a Panathenaic victor.
[1926] In the British Museum: _B. M. Sculpt._, II, 951 and Pl. XIII;
Sir Charles Fellows, _An Account of Discoveries in Lycia_, 1841, p.
166. The Chimæra may be introduced as a heraldic device of the owner
of the tomb (Smith). Bellerophon appears on Pegasos on a relief from a
rock tomb of Pinara: _B. M. Sculpt._, I, 760. We should also compare
with these the reliefs found by Fellows at Xanthos and now in the
British Museum. They show a two-horse chariot with a seated charioteer
(F. W., 131; Murray, I, Pl. IV), a two-horse chariot with a charioteer
and a seated man (F. W., 133; Murray, Pl. III), and a young rider (F.
W., 134). See Fellows, pp. 172, 176; Murray, I, pp. 124 f.
[1927] Michaelis, _Der Parthenon_, 1870, slabs XI-XXIII; _B. M.
Sculpt._, I, no. 325. The charioteers on slabs XII and XIV have long,
close-fitting tunics.
[1928] Michaelis, _op. cit._, slabs XXIV-XXXIV; _B. M. Sculpt._, no.
327.
[1929] Theophrastos, _ap._ Harpokr., _s. v._ ἀποβάτης), says that
it was peculiar to Athens and Bœotia, but there is evidence of its
existence elsewhere, _e. g._, at Aphrodisias in Karia (_C. I. G._, II,
no. 2758, G. col. IV, line 3, p. 507, and C. col. IV, l. 3), Naples
(_ibid._, no. 5807, l. 4), Rome (_C. I. L._, VI, 2, 10047, b, line 8
= _pedibus ad quadrigam_), etc. On the race at the _Panathenaia_, see
Michaelis, _op. cit._, pp. 324 f.; Mommsen, _Heortologie_, 1864, pp.
153 f., and _Die Feste d. Stadt Athen im Altertum_, 1898, pp. 89 f.;
and for the race in general, Pauly-Wissowa, I, pp. 2814 f.
[1930] For a description of the race, see Bekker, _Anecd. gr._, I,
pp. 425-6 and _Dionys. Halikarn._, VII, 73, 2-3; the former account
says that the _apobates_ mounted the chariot in full course by setting
his foot on the wheel and dismounted again; the latter only that he
dismounted in the last lap; the two are apparently describing different
moments of the same race.
[1931] National Museum, no. 1391; Svoronos, II, pp. 340-1, Tafelbd.,
Pl. LVI (right); noted in _A. M._, XII, 1887, p. 146, no. 1; Staïs,
_Marbres et Bronzes_, p. 237 and fig.; _Arch. Eph._, 1910, pp. 251 f.;
Reisch, p. 51. Staïs gives the measurements as 0.60 meter high and 0.36
meter broad.
[1932] _A. M._, III, 1878, pp. 410-14, no. 193 (Koerte); _Mon. d.
I._, IV, 1844-48, Pl. 5; _Annali_, Pl. XVI, 1844, pp. 166 f. (F. J.
Welcker), and Pl. E.
[1933] A third relief from Oropos, showing the same subject, is in
Berlin (no. 725): see Furtwaengler, _Samml. Sabouroff_, I, Pl. XXVI
(and text, on the subject of the race).
[1934] _B. C. H._, VII, 1883, Pl. XVII and pp. 458 f. (Collignon);
Gardiner, p. 238, fig. 34; F. W., 1836.
[1935] Its antiquity has been questioned by Kekulé, who is quoted by F.
W.; see on no. 1838.
[1936] _B. M. Sculpt._, II, 1037, Pl. XVIII; von Mach, 231; _Ant.
Denkm._, II, 2, 1893-4, Pl. XVIII, 0; Collignon, II, p. 327, fig. 165;
Newton, _Travels and Discoveries in the Levant_, 1865, II, p. 133, Pl.
XVI; Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 430, fig. 111. It is 2 feet 1.5 inches high.
[1937] For the sarcophagus, see the work of Hamdy Bey and Th. Reinach,
_Une nécropole royale à Sidon_, 1892; Text, pp. 272 f., and Pls.
XXIII-XXVIII, XXX-XXXI, XXXIV-XXXVII; also Studniczka, _Jb._, IX, 1894,
pp. 211 f. (who assigned it to Lysippos’ pupil, Eutychides); Judeich,
_ibid._, X, 1895, pp. 165 f. and figs. 1-6; _J. H. S._, XIX, 1899,
pp. 273 f.; Gardner, _Hbk._, pp. 466 f. and fig. 124 (= Hamdy-Bey et
Reinach, Pl. XXIX); von Mach, 379-83; Richardson, p. 242, fig. 116;
Springer-Michaelis, p. 348, fig. 627; etc.
[1938] We see it, _e. g._, on the cuirass of the statue of _Augustus_
in the Vatican: von Mach, no. 418.
[1939] Von Mach, no. 232; Robinson, _Report of the Trustees of the
Museum of Fine Arts_, 1897, pp. 18-19; Klein, _Praxitelische Studien_
(= Suppl. to his _Praxiteles_), 1899, p. 1; in n. 1 Klein says that the
statue was found in the Tiber.
[1940] _Griech. Kunstmythol._, III, _Apollon_, pp. 149 f.
[1941] Noted by Klein, _op. cit._, figs. 5 and 7.
[1942] _E. g._, on the vase in the British Museum, discussed in _Guide
to Greek and Roman Life_, 1908, p. 200. Here the driver stands clothed
in the regular chiton like that on the _Charioteer_ from Delphi. (Fig.
66.) We see similarly clothed charioteers on various r.-f. vases: _e.
g._, on those pictured by Gerhard, IV, Pls. CCLI-CCLIII; on those
enumerated by Hauser, _Jb._, VII, 1892, p. 60 (including some r.-f.
ones, _e. g._, the fifth-century B. C. one from Corneto by Euxithoos
and Oltos = Baum., III, Pl. XCIII, 2 and p. 2141). Hauser also adds the
draped charioteer in the _Helios_ group from the Great Pergamene Altar
relief (pictured in Baum., II, Pl. XXXIX, and pp. 1255-6). The general
statement of W. Mueller (_Quaestiones vestiariae_, Goettingen, 1880, p.
44), _nam aurigae semper fere longa tunica sola vestiti sunt_, is, of
course, correct.
[1943] _E. g._, the statue in the Palazzo dei Conservatori to be
mentioned _infra_, p. 276; also other examples in Reinach, _Rép._,
II, 2, 536, 6 (in Rome: _B. Com. Rom._, I, 1888, Pl. XV) and 7 (in
Athens: _Jb._, I, 1886, p. 173; Staïs, _op. cit._, p. 221). We see nude
charioteers entering two four-horse chariots on a r.-f. lebes, formerly
in the collection of Lucien Bonaparte, now in Munich: Gerhard, IV, Pl.
CCLIV (below).
[1944] Von Mach, no. 274; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 488, 7: _A. Z._,
XVIII, 1860, pp. 1 f. (Friedrichs) and Pls. CXXXIII, CXXXIV; _Bonner
Jb._, XXVI, Pl. IV. It is 4 ft. 7 in. tall and represents a boy of
about 14.
[1945] Friedrichs, though at first, because of the crown on the hair,
interpreting it as a _Bonus Eventus_ (_A. Z._, XVIII, 1860, pp. 1 f.),
later (_Beschr. d. Skulpt._, no. 4, pp. 5-6) called it a charioteer.
[1946] _B. Com. Rom._, XVI, 1888, Pls. XV, XVI, 1, 2 (pp. 335 f.);
Joubin, pp. 134 f., and fig. 40; Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, 973 (restored on
p. 557, fig. 29); _Guide_, 597 (restored on p. 442, fig. 28); Furtw.,
_Mp._, pp. 81-82; _Mw._, pp. 115-116; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 536, 6.
Mentioned _supra_, p. 275, n. 7.
[1947] Hamdy Bey and Th. Reinach, _Une nécropole royale à Sidon_, Pl.
XXII, 2.
[1948] Including the _Hestia Giustiniani_ in the Museo Torlonia, Rome:
B. B., 491; von Mach, 75; the so-called _Aspasia_ head, with copies
in Paris (Photo Giraudon, no. 1219) and Berlin (_A. Z._, XXXV, 1877,
Pl. VIII, two views), and the _Apollo-on-the-Omphalos_ in Athens (Pl.
7B); he assigns the later related _Athena_ in the Villa Albani to
Praxias, the pupil of Kalamis and contemporary of Pheidias: F. W.,
524; _Mp._, p. 78, figs. 29 and 30 (head); _Mw._, pp. 112-113, figs.
19 and 20 (head). However, as Richardson points out, pp. 137 and 207,
the _Hestia_ bears a strong resemblance to the East gable figures at
Olympia, especially to those of _Sterope_ and _Hippodameia_, and to
several female statues in Copenhagen: Arndt, _La Glypt. Ny-Carlsberg_,
Pls. VII (= Joubin, p. 161, fig. 53), XXXVIII, and fig. 3 on p. 13.
[1949] _C. R. Acad. Inscr._, 1896, pp. 178, 186, 362, 388, and Pls. I,
II; _A. A._, 1896, pp. 173 f. (with fig.); Homolle, in _Mon. Piot_, IV,
1897, Pls. XV, XVI, pp. 169 f.; _id._, _B. C. H._, XXI, 1897, pp. 579,
581-3; _Fouilles de Delphes_, IV, 1904, Pls. XLIX, L (4 views); Bulle,
199 and fig. 134 on p. 460; von Mach, 60; H. B. Walters, _Art of the
Anc. Greeks_, 1906, Pl. XXVIII; Gardner, _Sculpt._, pp. 49 f. and Pls.
VIII, IX; G. F. Hill, _One Hundred Masterpieces of Sculpture_, 1909,
pp. 7-8 and Pl. V; Springer-Michaelis, p. 225, fig. 482; Robinson,
_Cat. Mus. Fine Arts in Boston_, Suppl., pp. 1 f., no. 85; cast in
British Museum, _B. M. Sculpt._, III, 2688; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2,
536, 1. It is 5 feet 10.75 inches high (A. H. Smith) or 1.80 meters
(Bulle).
[1950] See Svoronos, p. 131, n. 3.
[1951] O. M. Washburn, _Berl. Philol. Wochenschr._, XXV, 1905, cols.
1358 f.; _A. J. A._, X, 1906, pp. 151-3; XII, 1908, pp. 198-208.
[1952] P., X, 15.6.
[1953] _L. c._, and _Berl. Philol. Wochenschr._, 1905, col. 1549.
[1954] Lechat, _Rev. Arch._, XI, 1908, pp. 126 f., Furtw., _Sitzb.
Muen. Akad._, 1907, II, pp. 157 f., Studniczka, _Jb._, XXII, 1907, pp.
133 f., and others, support Washburn’s view.
[1955] P., X, 9.7-8; _cf._ VI, 3.5, where Amphion is called the pupil
of Ptolichos, the pupil of Kritios.
[1956] So von Duhn, _A. M._, XXXI, 1906, pp. 421 f.; a conclusion also
reached independently by E. A. Gardner, _Sculpt._, p. 51.
[1957] So von Duhn, Gardner, and Mahler; the latter in _Jh. oest. arch.
Inst._, III, 1900, pp. 142 f. Furtwaengler, _l. c._, found von Duhn’s
view that the _Charioteer_ is an original work of Pythagoras untenable.
He also combated his interpretation of πολύζαλος as a proper name,
preferring the suggestion of Washburn that it might be an adjective.
However, in a former article (_Sitzb. Muen. Akad._, 1897, pp. 129
f.) he had emphasized the similarity between the statue and a bronze
statuette in London (_B. M. Bronzes_, 515 and Pl. XVI; _Sitzb._, _l.
c._, Pl. V, two views) which he believed was almost certainly a product
of Magna Græcia. He found the style of the _Charioteer_ Ionic-Attic
without Peloponnesian affiliations, and referred it to Amphion or
to some unknown artist of the circle of Kritios and Nesiotes. For a
similar view, see Homolle, _Mon. Piot_, IV, 1897, p. 207. Pottier
(_ap._ Homolle, _l. c._) assigned it to Kalamis. _Cf._ also Lechat,
_Pythagoras de Rhegion_, 1905, p. 100.
[1958] A. D. Keramopoullos, _A. M._, XXXIV, 1909, pp. 33 f. Homolle,
_op. cit._, pp. 176 f., and O. Schroeder, _A. A._, 1902, pp. 12 f., had
also referred it to Gelo’s dedication.
[1959] P. 152.
[1960] See G. F. Hill, _l. c._
[1961] Besides the Olympic victories already recorded, Hiero also
won the chariot-race at Delphi in Pythiad 29 (= 470 B. C.), and the
horse-race there twice in Pythiads 26 and 27 (= 482 and 478 B. C.); he
also won a chariot-race probably at the Theban _Iolaia_ in (?) 475 B.
C.; Pindar celebrates the four victories in _Pyth._, I-III; Bergk, _P.
l. G._,^5 I, pp. 175 f.
[1962] P., VI, 14.4; he won either before Ol. 67 (= 512 B. C.) or in
Ols. 69 or 70 (= 504 or 500 B. C.): Hyde, 126 and p. 52; Foerster, 778
(undated).
[1963] He won κέλητι in Ols. 66 or 67 (= 516 or 512 B. C.): P., VI,
13.9; Hyde, 120; Foerster, 129, 149a (two victories).
[1964] They won in Ol. 68 (= 508 B. C.): P., VI, 13.10; Hyde, 121;
Foerster, 152.
[1965] So Hyde, pp. 50-1.
[1966] So Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, p. 598.
[1967] P., VI, 12.1.
[1968] P., VI, 2.8.
[1969] Xenombrotos won in Ol. (?) 83 (= 448 B. C.): Hyde, 133
(following Robert, _O. S._, pp. 180-181); Foerster, 327; Xenodikos in
Ol. (?) 84 (= 444 B. C.): Hyde, 134; Foerster, 332.
[1970] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 154; _I. G. A._, 552a; Robert, _O. S._,
pp. 179-81. However, Kirchhoff referred this base to the statue
of a runner: _A. Z._, XXXIX, 1881, p. 84; and Dittenberger to the
victor D[amasi]ppos, who won in some running race at an unknown
date: Foerster, 812. Robert read the mutilated inscription ἐλάσιππος
(“horse-driving”) instead of the proper name Δαμάσιππος.
[1971] _H. N._, XXXIV, 75 and 78 (_celetizontes pueri_).
[1972] Pliny, XXXIV, 71.
[1973] _B. M. Vases_, B 133; Gardiner, p. 461, fig. 169; see also a
Panathenaic amphora pictured in Perrot-Chipiez, X, p. 129, fig. 92
(left).
[1974] Gardiner, p. 459, fig. 167 (left). He won κέλητι in Ol. 106 (=
356 B. C.): Plut., _Alex._, 3; Foerster, 360. _Cf._ a similar jockey on
horseback on a coin of Tarentum: Head, _Guide to the Principal Gold and
Silver Coins ... in the British Museum_, Pl. XXIV, 7.
[1975] _B. M. Vases_, B 144; Gerhard, IV, Pl. CCXLVII (lower half);
Gardiner, p. 243, fig. 37.
[1976] See _supra_, p. 13 and n. 1.
[1977] Mentioned in _J. H. S._, XIV, 1894, p. 66 (H. Stuart Jones).
[1978] III, i, p. 200, fig. 3846 (from Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd. à
l’Étude des vases_, Pl. XLIII); others are there mentioned, _e. g._,
_Mon. d. I._, I, 1829-33, Pl. XXII, 3b and II, 1834-38, Pl. XXXII
(bottom).
[1979] _B. C. H._, V, 1881, pp. 436 f., with figure (Collignon). This
and the following three reliefs are mentioned by Rouse, p. 176.
[1980] F. W., 1206, formerly interpreted as Alexander and Boukephalos.
[1981] Von Sybel, _Kat. d. Skulpt. zu Athen_, 1881, no. 307.
[1982] Von Duhn, in _A. Z._, XXXV, 1877, pp. 167, no. 89 (_cf._ no. 88).
[1983] On the North frieze, Michaelis, _Der Parthenon_, 1870, Tafelbd.,
slabs XXIV-XLII; _B. M. Sculpt._, I, 325, pp. 175 f.; West frieze,
Michaelis, slabs II, IV, VI-VII, IX-XI; _B. M. Sculpt._, 326, pp.
179-80; South frieze, Michaelis, slabs I, III, X-XVI, XXII-XXIII; _B.
M. Sculpt._, 327, pp. 181-85.
[1984] _C. I. A._, IV, 2, 373, line 99; _cf._ Studniczka, _Arch. Eph._,
1887, p. 146.
[1985] _Vit. X Orat._, 42 (p. 839b); he says that it stood in the
ball-court of the maidens known as _arrephoroi_. Pausanias, I, 18.8,
also mentions a statuette of Isokrates on a column near the Olympieion.
[1986] Carapanos, _Dodone et ses ruines_, 1877, p. 183 and Pl. XIII, 1;
Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 527, 1.
[1987] Arndt-Amelung, _Einzelaufnahmen_, no. 242.
[1988] Dickins, nos. 700, found in 1887 (height 1.12 meters, length of
fragment 0.76 meter) and 697 (height 1.13 meters); Winter, Archaische
Reiterbilder von der Akropolis, _Jb._, VIII, 1893, pp. 135-156, figs.
13a and b, 14a and b; Collignon, I, pp. 358-9, figs. 180 and 181;
Schrader, _Arch. Marmor-Skulpt. im Akropolis-Museum zu Athen_, 1909, p.
81, figs. 72-3 (assuming a Chian sculptor for no. 700); B. B., 459; no.
700 = Perrot-Chipiez, VIII, p. 639, fig. 327; 697 = _ibid._, p. 637,
fig. 326. Winter, in the article cited, gives fourteen cuts of such
archaic horse monuments.
[1989] See preliminary account by Th. Reinach in _C. R. Acad. Inscr._,
1919, (Jan.-Feb.), pp. 56-59 and fig. on p. 58. It is 49 centimeters
high.
[1990] J. Sieveking, _Die Bronz. d. Samml. Loeb_, 1913, p. 70, Pl. 29;
it is 0.12 meter high. An exact copy is in the Cabinet des Médailles in
Paris; Babelon et Blanchet, _Cat. des bronzes ant. de la Bibliothèque
Nationale_, 1893, no. 893. For further examples of horsemen in bronze
and marble, see Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, pp. 527-533.
[1991] The race is described by P., V, 9.2; _cf._ Plutarch, _Quaest.
conviv._, V, 2 (675 C.) For possible examples in sculpture, see
Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, pp. 532-3.
[1992] _E. g._, on a silver stater of the early third century B. C.
from Tarentum in the British Museum: Gardiner, p. 462, fig. 170 (right).
[1993] _Les_ ἱππεῖς _athéniens_, 1902 (_Extrait des Mémoires de l’Acad.
des Inscr. et Belles-Lettres_, Vol. XXXVII). _Cf._ Gardiner, pp. 71-2.
[1994] _Heralds_ (κήρυκες), trumpeters (σαλπισταί), flutists
(αὐληταί), cithara-players (κιθαρισταί), and those who sang with them
(κιθαρῳδοί), are mentioned as victors in many inscriptions: _e. g._,
at Oropos, _C. I. G. G. S._, I, nos. 419-20; at Tanagra, _ibid._, 540;
at Plataiai, _ibid._, 1667; at Thespiai, _ibid._, 1760 and 1773; on
Mt. Helikon, _ibid._, 1776; at Akraiphia, _ibid._, 2727; at Koroneia,
_ibid._, 2871; etc. _Cf._ Frazer, III, p. 628. Also on Samos: see
inscription discussed in _J. H. S._, VII, 1886, p. 150.
[1995] Afr.; Foerster, nos. 302 (Timaios) and 303 (Krates); they are
not mentioned by Pausanias in his account of the introduction of
various contests at Olympia, V, 8.6 f. Lucian mentions the contests of
heralds at Olympia: _de morte Peregrini_, 32.
[1996] V, 22.1.
[1997] Nestor (_F. H. G._, II, p. 485^*, quoted by Athenæus, X, 7, p.
415a) says that he was _periodonikes_ ten times, while Pollux (IV, 89)
says seven times. For the dates of the victories, which fell some time
between Ols. (?) 113 and 122 (= 328 and 292 B. C.), see Foerster, nos.
395, 399, 402, 404, 406, 411, 415, 422, 425, and 428.
[1998] Athen., X, 7 (p. 414e).
[1999] Amarantos of Alexandria, _apud_ Athen., _l. c._, says that he
was 3.5 ells in height; Pollux, _l. c._, four ells. Athenæus relates
examples of his voracity.
[2000] For the inscribed basis of his statue at Olympia, see _Inschr.
v. Ol._, 232; _cf._ Foerster, 815-19 (undated). The inscription appears
to belong to the first century A. D.
[2001] _B. S. A._, XIII, 1906-7, pp. 146-7 (Dickins) and fig. 3; _cf._
_A. J. A._, XIII, 1909, p. 83 and fig. 6. It is 0.131 meter high.
[2002] _B. M. Bronzes_, 223 (quoted by Dickins, _l. c._).
[2003] See P., X, 9.2.
[2004] Fragm. 65 (= _F. H. G._, I, 207, quoted by Strabo, VI, 1.9, C.
260). For the story about his victory, see Timaios, Strabo, _l. c._,
Clemens Alexandr., _Protrept._, I, p. 2, and poetically in _A. G._, VI,
54 (Paulus Silentiarius), and IX, 584.
[2005] _Cf._ Reisch, p. 52.
[2006] IX, 30. 2 f.
[2007] In another passage, X, 7. 2, Pausanias says that Thamyris won a
prize for singing at the Pythian games; he also mentions a painting of
him by Polygnotos: X, 30. 8. On Thamyris, _cf._ also P., IV, 33. 3 and
7.
[2008] For the story of the poet Arion and the dolphin, see P. III, 25.
7.
[2009] In X, 7. 4, Pausanias says that Sakadas won in flute-playing at
Delphi three times, the first in the third year of Ol. 48 (= 585 B.
C.). In another passage, II, 22.8, he says that Sakadas was the first
to play the “Pythian tune” on the flute. For a description of this
tune, see Pollux, IV, 84, and Strabo, IX, 3.10 (C. 421).
[2010] XIV, 24 (p. 629a).
[2011] _C. I. A._, I, 357.
[2012] Froehner, _Notice_, no. 16; Clarac, 122, 342; M. W., I, Pl. 13,
46; etc.
[2013] _A. M._, XII, 1887, pp. 378 f. (Wolters) and Pl. XII.
[2014] V, 7.10; _cf._ Plutarch, _de Musica_, 26. Athenæus, IV, 39 (p.
154a), quotes from the first book of the catalogue of Olympic victors
by Eratosthenes to the effect that the Etruscans used to box to the
music of the flute.
[2015] P., V, 17. 10.
[2016] Ph., 55.
[2017] Plut., _l. c._
[2018] See Pinder, _Ueber den Fuenfkampf d. Hellenen_, 1867, pp. 97 f.
[2019] He won sometime between Ols. (?) 58 and 62 (= 548 and 532 B.
C.): P., VI, 14.9-10; Hyde, 128b and p. 52. He also won six victories
at Delphi and fluted at the pentathlon: _cf._ P., _l. c._ and Ph., 55.
[2020] So Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, p. 604. An example, on the other hand,
of a very small man erecting a large statue is that of the poet Lucius
Accius, whose statue was set up in the temple of the Camenae in Rome:
Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 19; _cf._ Bernouilli, _Roem. Ikonogr._, I, p. 289.
[2021] _E. g._, to Aristotle of Stagira: P., VI, 4.8; Hyde, 41b; to
Gorgias of Leontini: P., VI, 17.7; Hyde, 184a; _Inschr. v. Ol._, 293;
etc.
[2022] The first part of the present chapter appeared under the
caption, Lysippus as a Worker in Marble, in _A. J. A._, 2d Series, XI,
1907, pp. 396-416, and figs. 1-6; the second part, entitled, The Head
of a Youthful Heracles from Sparta, appeared _ibid._, XVIII, 1914,
pp. 462-478, and fig. 1. Both parts have been rewritten. The author
is indebted to the former editor-in-chief, Dr. James M. Paton, for
permission to use the original papers in writing the present chapter.
[2023] First noted by Homolle, _Gaz. B.-A._, XII, 1894, III Sér., pp.
452 f.; _id._, _B. C. H._, XXI, 1897, pp. 592 f.; _id._, _ibid._,
XXIII, 1899, pp. 421 f.; _id._, _Rev. Arch._, 1900, p. 383; P. Gardner,
_J. H. S._, XXV, 1905, pp. 234 f. (The Apoxyomenos of Lysippos). For
a good summary and a new identification of the figures of the group
(without discussing the style), see Miss E. M. Gardner and K. K. Smith,
_A. J. A._, XIII, 1909, pp. 447 f. (Pl. XIV and 21 text-cuts).
[2024] The group was composed of nine statues: three of athletes, those
of the brothers Agias, a pancratiast, Telemachos, a wrestler, and
Agelaos, a boy runner; four statesmen, and the son of the dedicator,
and one unknown: _B. C. H._, XXI, pp. 592 f.; _Sitzb. Muen. Akad._,
1913, III, no. 4, pp. 45-46.
[2025] _Gaz. B.-A._, XII, 1894, p. 452: “_un des meilleures exemples de
la manière de Lysippe_.”
[2026] _B. C. H._, XXI, 1897, p. 598.
[2027] _B. C. H._, XXIII, 1899, pp. 470-1: “_L’auteur de la statue
d’Agias ... ne peut être cherché que dans l’école de Lysippe ou dans
sa dépendance immédiate...._” On p. 472 he says that in the _Agias_ we
have a statue “_qui approche aussi près que possible d’un original de
Lysippe_.”
[2028] _Ein delphisches Weihgeschenck_, 1900; for the inscription
referring to the statue of Agias, see _B. C. H._, XXI, 1897, pp.
592-593. Preuner’s ingenious theory was based on a combination of the
inscriptions on the bases of the group.
[2029] _Fouilles de Delphes_, IV, 1904, Pls. LXIII (full length), LXIV
(head); statue of Sisyphos I, Pl. LXV; Sisyphos II, LXVIII (= _B. C.
H._, XXIII, Pl. IX); Agelaos (= _B. C. H._, XXIII, Pl. IX). For the
_Agias_, see also _B. C. H._, XXIII, 1899, Pls. X (head, two views)
and XI (statue); von Mach, 234; Springer-Michaelis, p. 336, fig. 596;
Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 549, 11 (before the discovery of the lower
legs). The name is to be spelled either Agias or Hagias; the former has
now become usual.
[2030] Baron Otto Magnus von Stackelberg (1760-1836) visited Pharsalos
in September 1811.
[2031] In the Braccio Nuovo: Amelung, _Vat._, I, p. 86, no. 67 and Pl.
XI; Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, no. 23; _Guide_, I, no. 31; B. B., 281 (head
= 487); Bulle, 62 (head = 213); and reconstruction in a bronzed cast on
a high pedestal in the Museum of the University of Erlangen, _ibid._,
pp. 117-18, fig. 22, a, b, c (_cf._ _Muenchner Jb. f. bild. Kunst._,
1906, p. 36); von Mach, 235; Baum., II, p. 843, fig. 925; _Mon. d. I._,
V, 1849-53, Pl. XIII; Rayet, II, Pl. 47 (text by Collignon); Overbeck,
II, p. 157, fig. 182; Collignon, II, p. 415, fig. 218; Furtw.-Urlichs,
_Denkm._, Pl. XXXIV and pp. 107-10; Springer-Michaelis, p. 337, fig.
603; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 546, 2; Clarac, V, 848B, 2168A; F. W.,
1264; etc.
[2032] _Cf._ F. W., p. 449, paragraph 2 of the notes. E. Braun
(_Annali_, L, 1850, pp. 223 f.) first identified the statue with
Lysippos’ _Apoxyomenos_; _cf._ also Brunn (_Bulletino d. Inst._, 1851,
p. 91).
[2033] _Cf._ Becker, _Gallus_,^3 III, p. 108; and especially J.
Kueppers, Der Apoxyomenos des Lysippos, in _Progr. des Bonner Gymnas._,
1869.
[2034] _H. N._, XXXIV, 62.
[2035] _Ibid._, XXXIV, 65.
[2036] Especially its surface modeling was supposed to confirm Pliny’s
criticism of the master: _op. cit._, XXXIV, 65.
[2037] _One Hundred Masterpieces of Sculpture_, 1909, p. 39.
[2038] Unless we except the Athenian torso to be mentioned _infra_, p.
290, n. 4.
[2039] _Cf._ Tarbell, _Congress of Arts and Sciences_, St. Louis, 1904,
III, p. 614.
[2040] _De Alex. Magn. fort. aut virt._, _Orat._ II, 2 (p. 335, b, c);
_S. Q._, no. 1479.
[2041] _J. H. S._, XXIII, p. 130, n. 28; it is also quoted by Gardner,
_Sculpt._, pp. 220-1.
[2042] See Ada Maviglia, _L’attività artistica di Lisippo ricostruita
su nuova base_, 1914. For the Uffizi statue, see _supra_, pp. 136-137.
[2043] In his discussion of the Athenian torso, which he believed was
another copy of the original of the Vatican statue: _A. M._, II, 1877,
pp. 57-8, Pl. IV; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 819, 1. This torso had the
left leg free, while the Vatican one had the right one free; it is also
dry and hard in its technique.
[2044] That of Emil Braun, in _Annali_, L, 1850, p. 249.
[2045] _E. g._, Loewy, _R. M._, XVI, 1901, p. 392. Furtwaengler,
_Sitzb. Muen. Akad._, 1904, II, p. 379, n. 1, says that the _Agias_
“_dem Lysipp gaenzlich ferne steht_,” and assigns it to an Athenian
artist.
[2046] Especially the Gardner brothers: P. Gardner, _J. H. S._,
XXIII, 1903, pp. 130-131 (where he identifies the _Apoxyomenos_ with
the _Perixyomenos_ of Daïppos, the son or pupil of Lysippos, a work
mentioned by Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 87); _ibid._, XXV, 1905, pp. 234
f., especially p. 236 (on pp. 255 f. he dates the _Apoxyomenos_ just
after 300 B. C., though ultimately deriving it from the school of
Lysippos); _id._, _Class. Rev._, 1913, p. 56; E. A. Gardner, _Sculpt._,
p. 222; _Hbk._, p. 443. T. L. Shear, _A. J. A._, XX, 1916, p. 292,
makes the _Agias_ the centre of his treatment of Lysippos. Still others
who think that the two statues can not be by the same sculptor are
cited by Wolters, _Sitzb. Muen. Akad._, 1913, III, no. 4, p. 44, n. 3.
See also F. Paulson, _Delphi_, 1920, pp. 288-289.
[2047] _E. g._, Collignon, _Lysippe_, p. 31; Amelung, _R. M._, XX,
1905, pp. 144 f.; _id._, _Vat._, I, p. 87 (where he says that the
_Agias_ offers the closest analogies in style to the _Apoxyomenos_);
Michaelis, _Die archaeol. Entdeckungen des 19ten Jahrh._, 1906, p. 276;
_A Century of Archæological Discoveries_ (transl. of preceding, by
Bettina Kahnweiler, 1908), p. 323; _id._, Springer-Michaelis, p. 335;
for others, _cf._ Wolters, _l. c._, n. 2.
[2048] Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 61 (= S. Q. no. 1444), quotes Douris
as saying that Lysippos was the pupil of no artist. He tells how
the painter Eupompos advised the sculptor as a boy _naturam ipsam
imitandam, esse non artificem_. Such a judgment, of course, can not be
literally true, as every artist is to a large extent a child of his age
and circumstances. _Cf._ Jex-Blake, pp. xlviii f., for the anecdotal
character of Pliny’s statement. That the statement comes, perhaps, from
Eupompos is the view of Kalkmann, _Quellen der Kunstgeschichte des
Plinius_, 1898, p. 165.
[2049] _B. C. H._, XXI, 1897, p. 598; _id._, XXIII, 1899, p. 471; _cf._
T. L. Shear, _A. J. A._, _l. c._ On the relation of Skopas to Lysippos,
see P. Gardner, _J. H. S._, XXIII, 1903, pp. 126 f., and E. A. Gardner,
_Sculpt._, p. 198. The influence of Skopas is especially observable
in Lysippos’ treatment of forehead and eyes and in the consequent
intensity of expression.
[2050] _Jb._, XXV, 1910, pp. 172-3.
[2051] See Wolters, _l. c._, pp. 45 f. Most scholars have followed the
contention of Preuner that the statue at Pharsalos was the older: _e.
g._, Kern, _I. G._, IX, 2, 249.
[2052] _Cf._ Hill, _op. cit._, p. 39.
[2053] _Mp._, p. 364 and n. 2; _Mw._, p. 597 and n. 3; for the Berlin
athlete, see _Beschr. d. ant. Skulpt._, no. 471; for a copy of the
Berlin head in the Museo delle Terme, Rome, see Helbig, _Fuehrer_,
II, 1380 _bis_; _Jb._, XXVI, 1911, p. 278, n. 1; and _cf._ _R.
M._, XX, 1905, pp. 147 f., figs. 5-7; for the Dresden statues, see
Hettner, _Bildw. d. kgl. Antiken-samml._, nos. 245-6; one of these
has a beardless head, which is analogous to a more beautiful head in
Copenhagen: _La Glypt. Ny-Carlsberg_, no. 1072. Of this head, which
is earlier than that of the _Apoxyomenos_, Furtwaengler says that it
is “one of the finest and most purely Lysippan works in existence.”
In _Mp._, p. 338, he mentions a bronze statuette of Hermes from
Athens now in Berlin (Invent. 6305) “in the swinging posture of the
_Apoxyomenos_,” and says that it is of the purest Lysippan style.
[2054] _J. H. S._, XXVI, 1906, pp. 239-40 and Pl. XVI; Duetschke, IV,
151.
[2055] _La Glypt. Ny-Carlsberg_, no. 240; Mahler ascribes this work to
Lysippos: _Polykl. u. s. Sch._, 1902, p. 153, n. 1.
[2056] _B. M. Sculpt._, 1747, p. 102; _Mp._, p. 298 and fig. 126;
_Mw._, pp. 515 and 517 and fig. 93; _cf._ Mrs. Strong, in _Strena
Helbigiana_, 1900, p. 297. It is 6 ft. 8 in. high without the plinth
(Smith).
[2057] A better copy is the torso in the Louvre, _Photo Giraudon_, no.
1289; a head is in the Lateran, no. 891.
[2058] _De olymp. Stat._, Halle, 1902, and enlarged, 1903, pp. 27 f.
[2059] _Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. LIV, 3-4, and Textbd., p. 209,
fig. 237; _Ausgr. v. Ol._, V, 1881, Pl. XX.
[2060] VI, 2.1.
[2061] The head is still exhibited at Olympia in the same room as the
_Hermes_.
[2062] _A. Z._, XXXVIII, 1880, p. 114; _cf._, _Ausgr. v. Ol._, V, pp.
13-14.
[2063] _Olympia_^2, 1886, pp. 343 f. and Pl. XVI (right).
[2064] _Restauration d’Olympie_, 1889, p. 137.
[2065] In Roscher, _Lex._, I, 2, _s. v._ Herakles, p. 2166.
[2066] _E. g._, Graef, _R. M._, IV, 1889, pp. 189-226, especially p.
217; von Sybel, in _Luetzow’s Zeitschr. fuer bild. Kunst_, N. F., II,
pp. 253 f.
[2067] _Bildw. v. Ol._, pp. 209 and n. 1.
[2068] _B. C. H._, XXIII, 1899, pp. 456-7.
[2069] _Polyklet u. seine Schule_, p. 149.
[2070] Preuner (_op. cit._, p. 12) dates the dedication
339-331 B. C.; Homolle (B. C. H., XVIII, 1899, p. 440) more closely,
338-334 B. C. Preuner dates Agias’ victory about 450 B. C.
[2071] Treu, _Bildw. v. Ol._, p. 208, gives these measurements: height
with neck, 0.270 meter; height of head alone, 0.215 meter; breadth of
face, 0.127 meter; height of face, 0.155 meter.
[2072] _H. N._, XXXIV, 65.
[2073] The hair, however, of the _Apoxyomenos_ is an exception, for,
even if worked out with some care, it is devoid of expression.
[2074] The use of the drill is seen in the Praxitelian _Hermes_, but is
not seen in the Tegea heads, nor is it common in the first half of the
fourth century B. C.: _cf._ Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p. 309.
[2075] So Treu, _Bildw. v. Ol._, p. 208 (though formerly in _A. Z._,
XXXVIII, 1880, p. 114, he called it a pancratiast with Herakles
features); Reisch, p. 43, n. 1; Flasch, in Baum., p. 1104 00;
Furtwaengler, in Roscher’s _Lex._, _s. v._ Herakles, I, 2, p. 2166; etc.
[2076] See pp. 75 and 94.
[2077] _E. g._, Treu, _Bildw. v. Ol._, pp. 208 f.
[2078] _Supra_, pp. 167 f.
[2079] Michaelis, pp. 451 f., no. 61; _Specimens_, I, Pl. XL;
Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p. 297, fig. 125, _Mw._, p. 516, fig. 92; Graef,
_R. M._, IV, 1889, pp. 189 f., and Pls. VIII-IX; Springer-Michaelis, p.
336, fig. 600; Clarac, V, 788, 1973; etc. It was found in 1790 in the
ruins of Hadrian’s villa at Tivoli.
[2080] VI, 1.4.
[2081] VI, 2.1.
[2082] VI, 5.1.
[2083] VI, 4.6.
[2084] VI, 17.3.
[2085] East of the temple of Zeus; see _infra_, Ch. VIII, p. 342, n. 4.
[2086] See list in Hyde, pp. 3 f. Here nos. 91 and 136 refer to the
same victor.
[2087] VI, 1.3.
[2088] _Bildw. v. Ol._, p. 209. See Plans A and B.
[2089] P., VI, 1.4.
[2090] P., VI, 1.6.
[2091] P., VI, 3.2.
[2092] See _Inschr. v. Ol._, nos. 166 (Troilos), 160 (Kyniska), 172
(Sophios). See Plans A and B.
[2093] This fact, together with its place of finding not far from the
Great Gymnasion, led Treu to believe that the statue once adorned the
interior of the exercise-place of the athletes: _Bildw. v. Ol._, p. 209.
[2094] The Praxitelian _Hermes_ similarly shows an unfinished treatment
of the back hair; in fact the entire back of the statue is carelessly
done (_Bildw. v. Ol._, p. 203, fig. 233), though chisel-rasps show
a subsequent attempt to better it. This condition led Treu at first
(_Ausgrab. v. Ol._, V, p. 10; followed by Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p.
308, n. 7; _Mw._, p. 531, n. 3) to believe that the statue was made
at Olympia with regard to its position in the Heraion. Later (_Bildw.
v. Ol._, pp. 204-5) Treu believed that this merely indicated that the
statue was intended to stand against a wall; and since the present
base is not the original one (see Bulle, _apud_ Purgold, _Ergebnisse
v. Ol._, II, pp. 157 f.), that the statue was not originally meant for
the temple, but was moved thither, perhaps in Nero’s day; _cf._ also
Wernicke, _Jb._, IX, 1894, pp. 108 f. For the _Hermes_, mentioned by
P., V, 17.3, and found in the cella of the Heraion on May 8, 1877, see
_Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pls. XLIX-LIII; Textbd., pp. 194 f. and
figs. 225-234.
[2095] However, Lysippos made the statue of Polydamas of Skotoussa,
who won the pankration in Ol. 93 (= 408 B. C.), many years after the
victory: see P., VI, 5.1; Hyde, 47; Foerster, 279; H. L. von Urlichs,
_Ueber Griech. Kunstschriftsteller_, Diss. inaug., 1887, p. 26.
[2096] P. 27.
[2097] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 166; _cf._ P., VI, 1. 4 (both victories
wrongly in Ol. 102); Hyde, 6; Foerster, 338 and 345.
[2098] Date given by P., VI, 4.2. See Hyde, 37; Foerster, 349, 353, 359.
[2099] For the earlier dating of Lysippos, see Winter, _Jb._, VII,
1892, p. 169 (who begins the artist’s activity with the seventies),
Treu, _Bildw. v. Ol._, p. 211, and Milchhoefer, _Arch. Stud. fuer H.
Brunn_, p. 66, n. 2; see also Hyde, pp. 26-7, (who gives the sculptor’s
artistic activity as Ols. 103-115 = 368-320 B. C.); E. A. Gardner,
_Sculpt._, pp. 216-217, who dates his activity 366-316 B. C.; P.
Gardner, _infra_, next note.
[2100] _J. H. S._, XXV, 1905, pp. 243-249; on p. 245 he says: “There is
some evidence for work by Lysippos at a later date than B. C. 320. And
if he were born, as seems probable, about B. C. 390, he may well have
accepted commissions, to be executed mainly by his pupils, for several
years after 320.”
[2101] P., VI, 4, 6-7; Hyde, 41; Foerster, 384 and 392, who, on the
basis of _I. G. B._, p. 75, to no. 93b, dates the victories Ols. (?)
112 and 113 (= 332 and 328 B. C.).
[2102] _L. c._, p. 246.
[2103] P., VI, 17, 3; Hyde, 175; Foerster, 390 and 397 (= Ols. ? 113
and 114, = 328 and 324 B. C. on the basis of _I. G. B._, p. 75).
[2104] _E. g._, Furtwaengler, who gives 350-300 B. C. as the period of
his artistic activity: _Mw._, p. 523, n. 3.
[2105] _B. C. H._, XXI, 1897, p. 598 (and copied in XXIII, 1899, p.
422). The _Agias_ is but slightly later than the _Hermes_, if we
accept Furtwaengler’s dating for the latter, about 343 B. C.: _Mp._,
pp. 307-308; _Mw._, pp. 529-531. Brunn had regarded the _Hermes_ as
a youthful work of Praxiteles: _Deutsche Rundschau_, VIII, 1882, pp.
188 f. Purgold, _Aufsaetze E. Curtius gewidmet_, pp. 233 f., and S.
Reinach, _Gaz. Arch._, 1887, p. 282, n. 9, had assigned it to the year
363 B. C.
[2106] _H. N._, XXXIV, 37.
[2107] _Ibid._, 61 f.
[2108] The two are contrasted in XXXV, 156: _[Varro] laudat et
Pasitelen qui plasticen matrem caela turae et statuariae scalpturaeque
(= sculpturae) dixit_, etc. _Cf. infra_, Ch. VII, p. 324, n. 4. They
are also contrasted in XXXVI, 15. _Sculptura_ is the modern title of
Bk. XXXVI.
[2109] II, p. 150. See also Bulle, p. 137. Amongst recent writers who
oppose this view are Koepp, _Ueber d. Bildnisse Alex. d. Gr._, p. 29,
and Preuner, _op. cit._, pp. 46-7.
[2110] Thus the Sikyonian Kanachos worked in marble, bronze, gold and
ivory, and cedar-wood: Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 50 and 75; XXXVI, 41; P.,
II, 10.5; IX, 10.2; etc.
[2111] F. Spiro, _Woch. f. kl. Philologie_, XXI, 1904, col. 792 (in his
review of my _de olymp. Stat. a Paus. commem._).
[2112] See _Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl. LV, 1-3; Textbd., pp. 209 f.
[2113] This is substantially Preuner’s view: _op. cit._, pp. 39-40 and
46-47; the later view of P. Wolters that the Delphi group was older
than the statue at Pharsalos has already been mentioned _supra_, p.
292; see _Sitzb. Muen. Akad._, 1913, III, no. 4, pp. 44-45.
[2114] In _A. J. A._, XI, 1907, pp. 414-16, I argued that the statue of
Agias was an original and not a copy; in the present work this view is
somewhat modified.
[2115] So Homolle, _B. C. H._, XXIII, 1899, pp. 445 and 459; S.
Reinach, _C. R. Acad. Inscr._, 1900, pp. 8 f.; H. Lechat, _Rev. des
Études anciennes_, II, 1900, pp. 195 f.; Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 441;
P. Gardner, _J. H. S._, XXIII, p. 127; _cf._ Preuner, _op. cit._,
p. 38; etc. Homolle, _l. c._, p. 471, says that if the _Agias_ is a
copy, “_c’est celui d’une copie authentique immédiate, contemporaine
du modèle_.” The view that the Delphi group was not original is well
expressed by P. Wolters, _l. c._, p. 50, who says that “_niemand die
delphischen Statuen fuer Originale des Lysippos erklaeren wird_.”
[2116] _Hbk._, p. 441, n. 2; only two small marble props, reaching to
the calves, support the ankles.
[2117] This treatment gives the impression of texture and profusion;
see Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p. 309.
[2118] Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 69-71 (list of bronze works).
[2119] Mechanically exact copies were unknown in the fourth century
B. C. Furtwaengler has shown that such copies began to be made in the
second century B. C., or possibly at the end of the third, and became
common only in the first: _Ueber Statuencopien im Altertum_, 1896.
[2120] It is mentioned by Pausanias, IX, 35.3, and the Surname
“_Oulios_” by Strabo, XIV, 1.6 (C. 635); it is described by Plutarch,
_de Musica_, 14 (= 1136 A), and Macrobius, _Sat._, I, 1713.
[2121] Schol. on Pindar, _Ol._, XIV, 16, Boeckh, p. 293.
[2122] Bekker, _Anecd. gr._, p. 299, 8-9; _cf._ Athen., X, 24 (p. 424
f.). It appears on Athenian coins also: see Frazer, V, p. 174, figs.
8-9.
[2123] P., VIII, 46.3; Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 75. _Cf._ Brunn, I, pp.
74 f.
[2124] P., IX, 10.2.
[2125] _Op. cit._ The transference to the minor arts—reliefs, coins,
gems and vase-paintings—was, of course, especially common at all times.
See also F. Hauser, _Die neu-attischen Reliefs_, 1889, and Flasch, _A.
Z._, XXXVI, 1878, p. 119.
[2126] P., VI, 8.5 and VII, 27.5. He won the pankration in Ol. 94 (=
404 B. C.): Hyde, 81; Foerster, 286.
[2127] _B. C. H._, XXI, 1897, pp. 616-20 (Homolle).
[2128] See Amelung, _R. M._, IX, 1894, pp. 162 f. and Pl. VII. _Cf._,
Treu, _Bildw. v. Ol._, pp. 190-191, and fig. 222 B, on pp. 188-189.
[2129] _J. H. S._, XXIX, 1909, pp. 151-2, fig. 1 a and b (F. H.
Marshall).
[2130] XIII, 1909, pp. 151-7, with Pl. IV and figs. 1-3 (A head of
Heracles in the style of Scopas.)
[2131] _Ibid._, pp. 156 and 157.
[2132] _Museum of Fine Arts Bulletin_, VIII, no. 46 (Aug., 1910), p. 26.
[2133] II, 10.1.
[2134] F. Imhoof-Blumer and P. Gardner, p. 30 (reprinted from articles
which appeared in the _J. H. S._, VI-VIII, 1885-1887).
[2135] Discussed by Graef, _R. M._, IV, 1889, pp. 189-226. For the
coin, see _ibid._, pp. 212-14.
[2136] For the two heads of heroes, see Kabbadias, pp. 154 f., nos.
179, 180; Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, p. 33; B. B., no. 44; Collignon,
II, pp. 239, figs. 118 and 119; _Ant. Denkm._, I, 3, 1888, Pl. XXXV,
2-3, 4-5 (from casts); Milchhoefer, _A. M._, IV, 1879, pp. 133-4, nos.
24-25; G. Treu, _A. Z._, XXXVIII, 1880, pp. 98 f.; Luetzow, _Zeitschr.
f. bild. Kunst_, XVII, 1882, pp. 322 f.; Baum., III, pp. 1667 f. and
figs. 1733 and 1734; von Sybel, _Weltgesch. d. Kunst_, pp. 255 f.;
Springer-Michaelis, p. 306, figs. 544, a, b; Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 412,
fig. 105; von Mach, 469.
[2137] VIII, 45.6-7; see Mendel, _B. C. H._, XXV, 1901, pp. 257 f.,
and Pls. IV, V (= head of Atalanta?), VI (= torso of Atalanta?), VII,
VIII (= heads of Herakles); Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 416, fig. 106, has
reconstructed the _Atalanta_ from Pls. IV and VI just mentioned.
[2138] _L. c._, p. 259. The head has been restored by a German
sculptor, and the chin appears to have been made too retreating: see
_Encyl. Brit._, 11th ed., vol. XII, _s. v._ “Greek Art,” Pl. III, fig.
63.
[2139] From his Atalanta of Tegea, in _J. H. S._, XXVI, 1906, pp.
172-3, quoted in part by Dr. Bates, _l. c._, pp. 155-6.
[2140] It was chiefly the preponderance of the lower part of the face
over the upper, in consequence of the large chin and strongly marked
cheek-bones, that led Treu to predicate Peloponnesian rather than Attic
influence in the Tegea heads: _A. M._, VI, 1881, p. 408. He found
them Polykleitan in character, as did also Graef, _l. c._, p. 210,
Furtwaengler, _Mp._, p. 523, and Collignon, II, p. 238. L. R. Farnell,
however, long ago combated the theory of Peloponnesian influence, and
found analogies in fifth-century Attic works of the time of Pheidias,
as well as in works from the beginning of the fourth century B. C.: see
_J. H. S._, VII, 1886, pp. 114 f.
[2141] _Descriptiones stat._, B (in _Philostrati opera_, ed. Kayser,
p. 891). He also says (_ibid._) that Skopas ὥσπερ ἔκ τινος ἐπιπνοίας
κινηθεὶς εἰς τὴν τοῦ ἀγάλματος δημιουργίαν τὴν θεοφορίαν ἐφῆκε.
The words with which Diodoros (Fragm. 1, Bk. XXVI) characterized
Praxiteles, as ὁ καταμίξας ἄκρως τοῖς λιθίνοις ἔργοις τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς
πάθη, apply much better to Skopas, for Praxiteles’ “emotions of the
soul” are mood and temperament rather than emotion and passion.
[2142] _B. C. H._, XXV, 1901, Pls. IV-V.
[2143] The same overhanging masses of flesh, which we see in the male
heads, are, however, visible in several other female heads attributed
to Skopas: _e. g._, in the colossal one called _Artemisia_ from the
Eastern pediment of the Mausoleion: Gardner, _Sculpt._, Pl. LIX; in the
head of an _Aphrodite_ found in the sea off Laurion: _J. H. S._, XV,
1895, pp. 194f. and fig. (Aphrodite?); in the head of a goddess found
south of the Akropolis (and in the copy of it in Berlin): Gardner,
_Hbk._, p. 457, fig. 119; and in the Dresden statuette of a _Mænad_:
Treu, _Mélanges Perrot_, Pl. V; Gardner, _Sculpt._, Pl. LII; etc.;
they are also plainly visible in the _Demeter of Knidos_: Gardner,
_Sculpt._, Pl. LIII; etc. These heads are discussed by Gardner,
_Sculpt._, pp. 190f., and are ascribed by him to Skopas.
[2144] _J. H. S._, XXVI, 1906, p. 174. Gardner (_ibid._) does not
explain this contrast in expression between the _Atalanta_ and the
surrounding heroes on the analogy of the contrast in the calmness of
_Apollo_ among the struggling _Lapiths_ from the Olympia pediment,
since the action in the torso of _Atalanta_ shows that she was no mere
spectator. He finds the explanation rather in the sex and youth of the
heroine; for this reason he thinks that the sculptor did not represent
her as sharing equally with the others the passion of the combat. He
finds a truer analogy in the contrast between calm and passion in the
_Lapiths_ and _Centaurs_ of the Parthenon metopes, where the human and
bestial are thus distinguished; just so the heroine-goddess is here
distinguished from her human companions. He also supposes that Skopas
was not ready thus early in his career (just after 395 B. C., when the
temple of Athena Alea was destroyed by fire) to apply his new extreme
of expression to female heads. However, it must not be overlooked that
these male heads—because of their marked individuality—presuppose
a more mature genius, and so can just as well be assigned to the
period of the Arkadian revival of 370 B. C. It has recently been
seriously disputed whether the _Atalanta_ should be assigned at all
to the Eastern pediment, where the French excavators placed it; thus
Cultrera has looked upon it as an akroterion figure, while Thiersch
and Neugebauer have identified it with a single figure representing
_Nike_. See Cultrera, _Atti dell’ Accad. dei Lincei_, 1910, pp. 22f.;
H. Thiersch, Zum Problem des Tegeatempels, _Jb._, XXVIII, 1913, p.
270; Neugebauer, _Studien ueber Skopas_, Leipsic, 1913; the latter has
argued that the head and torso do not belong together, while Dugas has
maintained the older view, that the turn and position of the neck fit
the torso: _Rev. de l’art anc. et mod._, 1911, pp. 9f.
[2145] The effect in the Tegea heads is heightened by the abrupt
transition from the brow to the socket—the outer end of the upper lid
being almost hidden.
[2146] Kabbadias, I, p. 416, no. 869; Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_,
pp. 168 f. and fig.; Conze, _Griech. Grabreliefs_, IX, 1897, no. 1055
and Pl. CCXI; B. B., 469; Bulle, 267; von Mach, 369; P. Gardner,
_Sculptured Tombs of Hellas_, 1896, Pl. XIV and p. 152; Gardner,
_Sculpt._, Pl. LXV and p. 208; Graef, _R. M._, IV, 1889, pp. 199 f.;
von Sybel, _Weltgesch. d. Kunst_, fig. 204; _id._, _Zeitschr. f. bild.
Kunst_, N. F., II, p. 293; _cf._ Wolters, _A. M._, XVIII, 1893, p. 6.
It is 1.68 meters in height and 1.07 in breadth (Staïs). The likeness
of the head of the athlete in this relief to that of the _Agias_ is
striking.
[2147] It was formerly in the Sala di Meleagro, but was later removed
to the Sala degli animali; Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, 128, and Nachtrag;
_Guide_, I, p. 78, no. 133; Amelung, _Vat._, II, p. 33, no. 10, and
Pls. II and XII; B. B., 386; von Mach, 216; _id._, _Greek Sculpture,
Its Spirit and Principles_, 1903, pp. 279 f.; Bulle, p. 484, fig. 145;
_Ant. Denkm._, I, 4, 1889, Pl. XL, 1a, 1b (head); Graef, _R. M._, IV,
pp. 218 f.; Reinach, _Rép._, 1, 479, 2; Clarac, 805, 2021. It is 2.10
meters high (Amelung).
[2148] _De olymp. Stat._, p. 28.
[2149] _Mp._, 296 f.; _cf._ Homolle, _B. C. H._, XXIII, 1899, p.
450, n. 2. Furtwaengler thought that the head was Attic and believed
that it was the direct successor of the Munich _Oil-pourer_ (Pl.
11), the _Standing Diskobolos_ of the Vatican (Pl. 6), the Florence
_Apoxyomenos_ (Pl. 12), and analogous to the Ilissos relief (Fig. 74),
two bronze heads from Herculaneum (a = F. W., 1302, and Comparetti e de
Petra, _La Villa Ercol._, Pl. VII, 3; b = _ibid._, Pl. X, 2), and other
works; Graef, _op. cit._, p. 199, and Gardner, _Sculpt._, pp. 198-9,
regard it as Skopasian; Kalkmann, Die Proport. d. Gesichts in d. gr.
Kunst, _53stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr._, p. 60, n. 3, believes that it
shows Polykleitan influence.
[2150] _Ancient Marbles in Great Britain_, p. 451.
[2151] P. Gardner, _J. H. S._, XXIII, 1903, p. 128 (_cf._ XXV, 1895, p.
240), has called it “definitely a Lysippic work”; similarly Cultrera,
Una Statua di Ercole, _Mem. della R. Accad. dei Lincei_, p. 188;
recently, T. L. Shear, _A. J. A._, XX, 1916, pp. 297-298.
[2152] _Op. cit._, pp. 219 f.
[2153] Von Mach, 214; Reinach, _Rép._, I, 484, 1; another in
Copenhagen: Furtw.-Urlichs, _Denkm._, Pl. XXXII (opp. p. 98); a head is
also in the Ny-Carlsberg collection there: _La Glypt. Ny-Carlsberg_,
no. 362 and Pl. 100.
[2154] _Ant. Denkm._, I, 4, 1889, Pl. XL, 2a, 2b, p. 29 (Petersen);
Collignon, II, p. 250, fig. 127; Bulle, 212 and fig. 144, on p. 481;
Furtw., _Mp._, Pl. XV. For the _Apollo_ torso, see M. D., I, no. 215.
[2155] Mentioned in _Not. Scav._, 1895, p. 196, and figs. 1-2, and in
_R. M._, X, p. 92 (Petersen); briefly described by R. Norton, _Harvard
Graduates’ Magazine_, VIII, 1900 (June), pp. 485 f.; von Mach, 215;
Reinach, _Rép._, II, 2, 555, 6. _Cf._ _A. J. A._, IV, 1900, p. 275
and V, 1901, pp. 29 f. (latter = abstract of paper by von Mach). The
Cambridge copy was found about 300 feet from the spot where the Berlin
copy was discovered.
[2156] _H. N._, XXXIV, 66; in the text, _et Alexandrum Thespiis
venatorem_, it is best to understand _venatorem_ as an appositive,
therefore indicating a statue of Alexander as hunter. As the boar (in
the bronze original no support was necessary) is a Roman accessory
like the chlamys, it is best to call the work under discussion not
_Meleager_, but merely hunter and dog (so Furtw.-Urlichs, _Denkm._, _l.
c._). It was probably dedicated by a successful hunter to Artemis, or
else it was a grave-monument, as such figures are common on sarcophagi:
see Robert, _Ant. Sarcoph. Reliefs_, IV, Pls. XLVII, 154, and XLIX,
155, pp. 188 f.; and also on Attic grave-reliefs: _e. g._, on the
Ilissos relief mentioned above (Fig. 74).
[2157] Furtw., _Mp._, pp. 304-5; Furtw.-Urlichs, Amelung, Helbig, von
Mach, Arndt, E. Sellers-Strong (see introduction to Furtw., _Mp._, p.
XIII), etc.
[2158] _J. H. S._, XXIII, 1903, pp. 128-129.
[2159] _Sculpt._, p. 219.
[2160] _Cf._ P. Gardner, _Types of Greek Coins_, 1883, Pl. XII, 16.
[2161] Pl. LXIX in _Six Greek Sculptors_. E. A. Gardner (p. 226) is
doubtless right in believing that this form of brow was a personal
peculiarity of Alexander, as it recurs so often in his portraits. It
is seen in the head of Alexander on the sarcophagus from Sidon (either
by a pupil of Lysippos or by some sculptor under his influence), the
reliefs from which portray the same subject as the bronze group by
Lysippos in Delphi mentioned by Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 64, dedicated
by Krateros on the occasion narrated by Plutarch, _Vita Alex. Magni_,
40, who states that the group was executed conjointly with Leochares:
see Hamdy Bey et Th. Reinach, _Une nécropole royale à Sidon_, 1892,
Pl. XXXIII, no. 6 (reproduced by Gardner, _Sculpt._, Pl. LXXI). So
far as I know, it occurs in Lysippan work to a prominent degree
only in likenesses of Alexander. We know that Lysippos created the
Alexander-type of head, as he alone could reproduce his manly and
leonine air (_cf._ Plut., _de Alex. M. fortuna aut virtute_, _oratio_
II, 2, = p. 335). It is, to a less extent, present in the Azara
head in the Louvre, which, owing to its likeness to the head of the
_Apoxyomenos_, used to be taken as the nearest copy of the original by
Lysippos.
[2162] It should be observed that the axis of the right eye in the head
from Sparta droops slightly, which causes the eyeball to turn in. This
seems to me to be merely the result of imperfect skill in modeling. It
has a tendency to give to the face a look of greater intensity.
[2163] See _supra_, pp. 295-6.
[2164] _B. C. H._ XXIII, 1899, p. 455. Furtwaengler, _Bronz. v. Ol._,
pp. 10 f., has shown that it was a favorite device to represent boxers
and pancratiasts with a sombre look (“_der finstere Blick_”).
[2165] 1102: κοὐδεὶς τροπαῖ’ ἔστησε τῶν ἐμῶν χερῶν.
[2166] In the passage already cited from _de Alex. Magn. fort. aut
virtute_, Orat. II, 2, (= p. 385c); ... καὶ τῶν ὀμμάτων τὴν διάχυσιν
καὶ ὑγρότητα, κ. τ. λ.; _cf._ also his _Vita Alex. Magni_, IV (= p.
666), ... τὴν ὑγρότητα τῶν ὀμμάτων.
[2167] The hair of the head from Sparta, like that of the _Agias_ and
the _Philandridas_, has not the expression displayed in some Lysippan
heads (notably in portraits of Alexander), nor the detail which we
should expect from Pliny’s statement that Lysippos excelled in his
treatment of hair (_H. N._, XXXIV, 65; see next note). But the _Agias_
and the _Philandridas_ represent pancratiasts, and here we should not
expect such expression. In the _Agias_, the hair, even if lacking in
detail, is treated carefully and with variety.
[2168] _H. N._, XXXIV, 65: _propriae huius videntur esse argutiae
operum custoditae in minimis quoque rebus_. Here the word _argutiae_
means “subtlety,” rather than “animation,” as given in Harper’s Latin
Dictionary.
[2169] I need hardly add that such an idealizing tendency should be
carefully distinguished from the deification of mortals which came into
prominence after the time of Alexander, but existed in Greece from the
early fifth century B. C., at least. The case of heroizing the Thasian
Theagenes, who won at Olympia in boxing and the pankration in Ols. 75
and 76 (= 480 and 475 B. C.), has been discussed with similar ones in
Ch. I, p. 35. But the fact that a victor wanted his statue to be more
or less assimilated to the ideal type of the hero, whom he regarded as
his athletic prototype and ideal, does not mean that he had any idea of
looking upon himself as a god.
[2170] This would explain the simple, even sketchy, treatment of the
closely cropped hair, just as in the _Agias_ and the _Philandridas_.
The similarly parted lips of the Sparta head are certainly more
appropriate to an athlete represented as weary with his toil than
to a youthful Herakles. The slightly fierce expression of the face,
augmented by the already noted imperfection in the modeling of the
right eyeball, recalls the γοργόν look characteristic of boxers and
pancratiasts; _cf. supra_, p. 317, n. 2. On the threatening eyes
of contestants in general, see Xenophon, _Mem._, III, 10, 6-8, and
_supra_, p. 59.
The head appears to me to be that of a boy of about sixteen years;
its style is too early for a victor in the boys’ pankration, as this
event was not introduced at Olympia until the 145th Olympiad (= 200 B.
C.): see Paus., V, 8.11 and Ph., 13. The wrestling match for boys was
introduced in 01. 37 (= 632 B. C.): see Paus., V, 8.9, and Afr. Boys
were first allowed to box in Ol. 41 (= 616 B. C.): see Paus., _ibid._
(though Philostratos, 13, gives two traditions, Ols. 41 and 60).
[2171] We have record of only one statue of a victor set up in Sparta,
that of the wrestler Hetoimokles, who won at the beginning of the sixth
century B. C.: see Paus., III, 13.9, and _cf. infra_, Ch. VIII, p. 362,
no. 4.
[2172] In the present chapter I have partly rewritten two articles
which have appeared in the _A. J. A._; the first, entitled, Were
Olympic Victor Statues Exclusively of Bronze?, in vol. XIX, 2d Ser.,
1915, pp. 57-62; the second, The Oldest Dated Victor Statue, in vol.
XVIII, 2d Ser., 1914, pp. 156-164 and Fig. I. I am indebted to Dr. J.
M. Paton, former editor-in-chief, for permission to use them in the
present work.
[2173] On p. 16 he says: _id unum dubitari non potest quin
Olympionicarum statuae posteriorum temporum omnes ad unam aeneae
fuerint_; on p. 17 he again says: _fieri non potest quin existimemus
illas statuas omnes ex aere factas fuisse_.
[2174] _Inschr. v. Ol._, p. 235.
[2175] II, 2, p. 530 (note on P., VI, 1.1).
[2176] F. W., under no. 213, p. 101.
[2177] _Denkm._^3, p. 101; Engl. ed., p. 117.
[2178] VI, 1.1-18.7.
[2179] Pauly-Wissowa, VII, pp. 2189 f.; and _cf._ Brunn, I, p. 72. See
_supra_, Ch. III, School of Argos, pp. 109-110.
[2180] Brunn, I, p. 34; etc.
[2181] The inscription gives a fragmentary enumeration of various
victories: _Inschr. v. Ol._, 234, p. 346; see _infra_, Ch. VIII, p. 360
and n. 3.
[2182] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 235, pp. 346-347; see _infra_, Ch. VIII, p.
360 and n. 4.
[2183] Ch. IV, pp. 254-5; _Bronz. v. Ol._, pp. 10-11; Tafelbd., Pl. II,
2, 2a; F. W., 322; etc.
[2184] _Bronz. v. Ol._, pp. 11-12; Tafelbd., Pl. III, 3, 3a; F. W.,
324. See _supra_, p. 255.
[2185] _Bronz. v. Ol._, p. 12; Tafelbd., Pl. IV, 5, 5a. Furtwaengler
assigned it to a statue “_freien Stiles_.” _Cf._ F. W., 325.
[2186] _Bronz. v. Ol._, p. 22; Tafelbd., Pl. VI, no. 63. Even the veins
are here indicated.
[2187] _Bronz. v. Ol._, pp. 12-13; Tafelbd., Pl. IV, nos. 6, 7, 8, 10,
11, etc., and see text on p. 16. In this connection we have omitted
bronze fragments in modern museums known to have once stood in the
Altis, _e. g._, the head from Beneventum (Fig. 3) in the Louvre: B. B.,
324; von Mach, 481. These have been already discussed in Ch. II, pp. 62
f.
[2188] E. Curtius, _Peloponnesos_, 1851-2, I, p. 85; II, pp. 16 and 96,
n. 14; F. Dahn, Die Germanen in Griechenland, in _A. Z._, XL, 1882, pp.
128 f. Of course, long before the barbarians entered Greece many of the
best of these statues had been removed to Italy by Roman generals and
emperors, especially Nero, and others were destroyed in various ways.
[2189] He won in Ol. 59 (= 544 B. C.): P., VI, 18.7; Hyde, 187;
Foerster, 113.
[2190] He won in Ol. 61 (= 536 B. C.): P., _l. c._; Hyde, 188;
Foerster, 120.
[2191] That of Rhexibios was of fig-wood and that of Praxidamas
of cypress, and consequently less decayed than the other. We know
that cypress-wood was largely used for the early ξόανα because of
its hardness and durability: _e. g._, the gilded statue in Ephesos,
mentioned by Xenophon, _Anab._, V, 3.12. Theophrastos speaks of the
durability of this wood: _de Plant. hist._, V, 4.2 (χρονιώτατα δοκεῖ τὰ
κυπαρίττινα εἶναι). _Cf._ Hehn, _Kulturpflanzen und Haustiere_^6, 1894,
pp. 276 f.; H. Bluemner, _Technologie und Terminologie d. Gewerbe und
Kuenste bei Griechen und Roemern_, 1879, II, pp. 257 f.; Hitz.-Bluemn.,
II, 2, p. 625.
[2192] VII, 27.5. Scherer also, p. 18, n. 4, adduces a passage from
the work of the second-century A. D. rhetorician Aristeides, κατὰ
τῶν ἐξορχ., II, p. 544 (ed. Dindorf), which he thinks points to the
exclusive use of metal for victor statues: τοὺς ἐπὶ στεφανιτῶν ἀγώνων
σκεψώμεθα, οἷον τὸν Δωριέα ... καὶ πάντας, ὧν εἰκόνες χαλκαί; he also
refers to a passage in Dio Chrysost., _Orat._, XXVIII, A, p. 531 R (289
M).
[2193] F. W., no. 213, p. 101; Scherer, p. 18, n. 3; Vischer,
_Aesthetik_, III, §607, p. 377; and _cf._ S. Reinach, _R. Ét. Gr._, XX,
p. 413.
[2194] See Koehler, _Gesam. Schriften_ (ed. Stephani), VI, p. 345.
[2195] VI, 1.2.
[2196] See Hyde, _op. cit._, Catalogue, pp. 3-24. There 188 victors are
listed, Philon of Corcyra appearing twice, nos. 91 and 136.
[2197] _H. N._, XXXIV, 16.
[2198] P., VI, 1.1, says that not all victors set up statues. This has
been discussed in Ch. I, p. 27.
[2199] Pliny differentiates carefully between _ars sculptura_ (_i.
e._, sculpture in stone) and _ars statuaria_ (_i. e._, in bronze):
thus Bk. XXXIV of the _H. N._ is concerned with the latter, Bk. XXXVI
with the former. In XXXVI, 15, he says that _sculptura_ is the older,
and that both bronze statuary and painting began with Pheidias in Ol.
83 (= 448-445 B. C.), a statement which is inconsistent with XXXIV,
83, where he speaks of Theodoros (of the middle or second half of the
sixth century B. C.) as casting a likeness of himself in bronze. But
it is well known that Pliny in his long work quotes from a variety of
sources, without any attempt to reconcile them.
[2200] Gurlitt, _Ueber Pausanias_, p. 414, says, less correctly,
one-sixth. Forty inscribed bases may be referred to victor statues
mentioned by Pausanias, while 63 others have been referred to victor
statues not mentioned by him: see _infra_, Ch. VIII, pp. 340 f., 353 f.
[2201] Taken from Treu’s account in _Bildw. v. Ol._, pp. 29-34 and
216-218.
[2202] Chapter III, _supra_, pp. 162-3; _a_ = _Bildw. v. Ol._,
Tafelbd., Pl. VI, 1-4 (with fragments, _ibid._, 5-6, 7-8, and figs.
30-32 in the text); _b_ = _ibid._, Pl. VI, 9-10.
[2203] Textbd., p. 216, fig. 241; Tafelbd., Pl. LVI, 2. Furtwaengler,
despite the size and material of this torso, ascribed it to the statue
of a boy victor: _50stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr._, 1890, pp. 147-148;
similarly Treu, _l. c._; both refer it to the fifth century B. C. and
to a Peloponnesian sculptor.
[2204] Tafelbd., Pl. LVI, 3; F. W., 330.
[2205] Tafelbd., Pl. LVI. 4.
[2206] P. 216, n. 4 and fig. 242; _a_ = buttocks; _b_ = right upper
leg; _c_ = bent upper leg with knee; _d_ = upper arm bent at elbow.
[2207] V, 17.3; here he enumerates images of ivory and gold, the marble
_Hermes_ of Praxiteles, an _Aphrodite_ in bronze. Similarly, in II,
17.6, he mentions dedications, of different materials, in the Heraion
of Argos; in I, 26.3, he mentions a bronze statue of Olympiodoros at
Delphi dedicated by the Phokians, but says nothing of the material of
two statues at Athens, where most of the offerings were marble; in I,
28.1, he speaks of a bronze statue of Kylon on the Akropolis; etc.
[2208] P., VIII, 40.1; to be discussed in the second part of the
present chapter, pp. 326 f.
[2209] _R. Ét. Anc._, X, 1908, pp. 161 f.
[2210] _Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pls. XLVI-XLVIII; Textbd., pp. 182
f. and Figs. 210 f.; and _Ergebnisse_, II (_Baudenkmaeler_), Pl. XCIII
(basis) and pp. 153-5; _cf._ P., V, 26.1.
[2211] P., V, 17.3 (already mentioned on p. 325, n. 3).
[2212] See Treu, _Bildw. v. Ol._, p. 216. To-day marble is far commoner
than bronze for artistic work; the reverse was true in antiquity.
Many varieties of bronze—a combination of copper and tin in varying
proportions—were named from places where it was manufactured: _e. g._,
Corinthian, Delian (the favorite with Myron), Aeginetan (the favorite
with Polykleitos), etc.
[2213] _Cf._ Furtwaengler, _Bronz. v. Ol._, pp. 21-2; _50stes Berl.
Winckelmannsprogr._, p. 147; Reisch, p. 39. Good examples are the
Tuebingen bronze hoplitodrome discussed in Ch. IV, pp. 206 f. (Fig. 42)
and the παῖς κέλης from Dodona (Carapanos, _Dodone et ses Ruines_, Pl.
XIII. 1). For diskoboloi, see E. von Sacken, _Die ant. Bronzen des k.
k. Muenz- und Antiken-Cabinetes in Wien_, 1871, Pls, XXXV, 1, XXXVII, 4.
[2214] VIII, 40.1: Φιγαλεῦσι δὲ ἀνδριάς ἐστιν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀγορᾶς Ἀρ<ρα>χίωνος
τοῦ παγκρατιαστοῦ, τά τε ἄλλα ἀρχαῖος καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα ἐπὶ τῷ σχήματι· οὐ
διεστᾶσι μὲν πολὺ οἱ πόδες, καθεῖνται δὲ παρὰ πλευρὰν αἱ χεῖρες ἄχρι
τῶν γλουτῶν. πεποίηται μὲν δὴ ἡ εἰκὼν λίθου, λέγουσι δὲ καὶ ἐπίγραμμα
ἐπ’ αὐτὴν γραφῆναι. καὶ τοῦτο μὲν ἠφάνιστο ὑπὸ τοῦ χρόνου, κ. τ. λ.
On the various spellings of the name, Arrhachion, Arrhachon,
Arrhichion, etc., see critical note in Rutgers, p. 19, and Foerster,
no. 103.
[2215] Both Africanus (see Rutgers, _l. c._), and Pausanias (_l. c._)
date the third victory. Pausanias and Philostratos, 21, place the other
two victories in the Ols. just preceding. _Cf._ Rutgers, p. 20, n.
1, and Foerster, nos. 98, 101, 103. The story how Arrhachion expired
at the moment of victory, throttled by his adversary, whose toe he
succeeded in putting out of joint, is told by Africanus, Pausanias
(VIII, 40.2), and Philostratos (_Imag._, II, 6 = p. 411); Pausanias
also mentions that the body was crowned.
[2216] Frazer, IV, pp. 391-2; III, pp. 40-1. The statue has otherwise
not been published. In all probability it is the same one listed by
Waldemar Deonna, in his _Les Apollons archaïques_, Geneva, 1909, p.
187, no. 79. This was seen at Phigalia in 1891 by M. Chamonard and
notices of it are to be found in the following works: _B. C. H._, XV,
1891, pp. 440 and 448; _Chroniques d’Orient_, II, p. 36; _R. Ét. gr._,
1892, p. 127; Mueller, _Nacktheit und Entbloessung in d. altoriental.
und aelteren griech. Kunst_, Diss. inaug., 1906, p. 100; Rouse, p. 307.
Pausanias’ description of Arrhachion’s statue is discussed by the
following: Scherer, pp. 16 and 23; Iwan v. Mueller, _Handbuch_, VI,
p. 530: Dumont, _Mélanges d’ Arch._, p. 53; Lange, _Darstellung
des Menschen in der aelteren griech. Kunst_, 1899; Brunn, _Griech.
Kunstgesch._, II, p. 73; Overbeck, _Griech. Kunstmythol._, III,
_Apollon_, p. 12, no. 9; Klein, p. 146; Reisch, p. 40; Collignon, I, p.
117, n. 1, and _B. C. H._, V, 1881, p. 321; _cf._ Deonna, _op. cit._,
p. 13, n. 4.
[2217] See Lange, _op. cit._, pp. XI f., who states the formula, which
we have already given _supra_, Ch. IV, p. 175, _cf._ Loewy, _Die
Naturwiedergabe in der aelteren griech. Kunst_, 1900, pp. 25, 27;
_id._, _Lysipp und seine Stellung in der griech. Kunst_, pp. 17-18. On
the pose, _cf._ S. Reinach, _Manuel de Philologie classique_ (ed. 2),
1907, II, p. 91 n. 2.
[2218] Deonna, _op. cit._, p. 85, says that the size of the αἰδοῖα is
an indication of archaism, as the earlier artists exaggerated them in
order to show the sex better. Figs. 7 (example from the Kerameikos) and
72 (example from Delphi), on pp. 132 and 179 respectively of his work,
resemble our statue in this feature.
[2219] I, pp. 21 f.; _cf._ _Rhein. Mus._, N. F., X, 1856, pp. 153 f.
[2220] See bibliography in Collignon, I, pp. 117-18; _cf._ G.
Kieseritzky, _Jb._, VII, 1892, pp. 182 f.
[2221] _A. Z._, XL, 1882, pp. 55 f.
[2222] _Mw._, p. 712.
[2223] I, pp. 117-19; more fully in _Gaz. Arch._, 1886, pp. 235 f.;
_cf._ also his later treatment in _Mon. Piot_, XX, 1913, pp. 5 f.; he
assumes less influence in the corresponding archaic draped female type.
_Cf._ also, for a similar view, F. W., p. 11 (to no. 14); von Sybel,
_Weltgesch. d. Kunst_, p. 114; Kieseritzky, _l. c._; Loewy, _Jh. oest.
arch. Inst._, XII, 1909, pp. 243 f.; _cf._ _id._, _ibid._, XIV, 1911,
pp. 1 f,; _id._, _Griech. Plastik_, 1911, p. 5. While Loewy believes
Egyptian influence reached Greece via Crete, Poulson believes that it
came via Phœnicia: see the latter’s _Der Orient u. d. fruehgriech.
Kunst_, 1912, and _cf._ his article in _Berl. Philol. Wochenschr._,
XXXIV, 1914, cols. 61 f.; Richardson, p. 39; E. Kroker, _Jb._, I, 1886,
pp. 114 f.; etc.
[2224] _Gaz. B.-A._, XXI, 1899, pp. 177 f.; 313 f.; for a similar view,
see also Overbeck, I, pp. 37 f.
[2225] _Les Apollons archaïques_, pp. 21 f.; _id._, _L’Archéologie, sa
valeur, ses methodes_, II, pp. 193 f.; _id._, L’influence égyptienne
sur l’attitude du type statuaire debout dans l’archaïsme grec, in
_Festgabe H. Bluemner ueberreicht_, 1914, pp. 102-142.
[2226] _Greek Sculpture, Its Spirit and Principles_, 1903, p. 84. On
p. 324, however, he admits Oriental influence on the Greek minor arts,
especially that of Assyria on early vases.
[2227] So Pottier, _B. C. H._, XVIII, 1894, pp. 408 f.; _cf._ Gardner,
_Hbk._, pp. 47 f.; _Sculpt._, pp. 17 f.; etc.
[2228] Schliemann, _Orchomenos_, Pl. I (restored); Perrot-Chipiez,
VIII, p. 543, fig. 220 (fragment), (restored on p. 544, fig. 221, from
Schliemann); Springer-Michaelis, p. 115, fig. 246; etc.
[2229] _E. g._, I, 42.5; II, 19.3; VII, 5.5; _cf._ IV, 32.1.
[2230] I, 98.
[2231] Bulle dates the Old Kingdom from the 30th to the 25th centuries
B. C. But early Egyptian dates are too unsettled to be discussed here.
For a tabular view of the chronology of the Egyptian dynasties as given
by different scholars—Sethe, Meyer, Petrie, Breasted, Maspero, etc.,
see _Encycl. Brit._, eleventh ed., vol. IX, p. 79 (in the article on
Egypt, Chronology and History, by R. S. Poole and F. Ll. Griffith).
Breasted, _A History of Egypt_^2, 1916, chart on p. 21, dates dynasties
I-VI, 3400-2475 B. C.; XI-XVII, 2160-1580 B. C.; XVIII-(part of) XX,
1580-1150 B. C.
[2232] Both are given by Bulle, Pl. 5; _cf._ _id._, Pl. 37 (“Apollos”
of Tenea and Volomandra); Ra-nefer, in Maspero, _Art in Egypt_, 1912,
p. 82, fig. 148; Perrot-Chipiez, I, 1882, p. 655, fig. 436; Tepemankh,
in Maspero, p. 84, fig. 155, and in Perrot-Chipiez, p. 678, fig. 461.
The statue of Ra-nefer is 1.73 meters tall, that of Tepemankh 1.66
meters.
[2233] Ka-aper in Bulle, Pls. 6 and 7 (two views of the head); von
Bissing, _Denkm. aegypt. Skulpt._, I, 1914, Pl. XI; Perrot-Chipiez,
I, p. 11, fig. 7; Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 83, figs. 151, 152; _id._,
_Manual of Egyptian Archæology_, 1895, p. 218, fig. 188, and p. 221,
fig. 191. The “wife,” in Bulle, Pl. 9 (two views); Maspero, p. 83, fig.
154; _id._, _Manual_, p. 222, fig. 192.
[2234] Breasted, _A History of Egypt_^2, _l. c._, dates dynasties
XI-XII, 2160-1788 B. C.; the Hyksos, dynasties XIII-XVII, 1788-1580 B.
C.
[2235] Bulle. Pls. 11 (two views) and 12 (head); von Bissing, _op.
cit._, I, Pl. XL, A (left); Maspero, _Art in Egypt_, p. 110, figs.
203-204.
[2236] We should add to the New Empire the Deltaic dynasties, from the
twenty-first on. Breasted, _l. c._, assigns to the New Empire dynasties
XVIII-XIX and part of XX, 1580-1150 B. C.
[2237] Bulle, Pl. 17 (left); Maspero, _Hist. anc. des peuples de
l’Orient classique_, II, p. 531; _id._, _Art in Egypt_, p. 201, fig.
390 (= the Lady Naï); _Mon. Piot_, II, 1895, Pls. II-IV.
[2238] Bulle, Pl. 17 (right); von Bissing, II, Pl. LXIV; Maspero,
_Hist._, III, pp. 503-504 and Pl. II; _id._, _Art in Egypt_, p. 238,
fig. 455; Perrot-Chipiez, I, p. 714, fig. 481 (profile). Though the
face is lifeless, the bust and lower trunk are delicately modeled.
[2239] We see the Egyptian treatment of the hair especially marked
in the upper part of a stone “Apollo” discovered at Eleutherna in
Crete, which is now in the Candia Museum: _Rendiconti della R. Accad.
dei Lincei_, 1891, p. 599 (Loewy); _Rev. Arch._, 1893, Pls. III-IV
(Joubin); Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 147, fig. 21; Perrot-Chipiez, p. 431,
fig. 208; etc.
[2240] _E. g._, in the statue of Ra-nefer.
[2241] _E. g._, in the statue of the _Sheik-el-Beled_.
[2242] High-placed ears are common to many archaic Greek works other
than the “Apollos.” They persist even in some of the figures on the
Parthenon frieze.
[2243] On these common characteristics, see Richardson, p. 39; _cf._ H.
N. Fowler, _History of Sculpture_, 1916, pp. 59-60; etc.
[2244] Pottier, _op. cit._, p. 414, assumes a religious reason for
the left foot being advanced in both types. For another, natural
explanation, see Homolle, _de antiquiss. Dianae Simul._, p. 95, quoted
by Collignon, I, p. 118, n. 3.
[2245] The Greeks first copied the type in statuettes: _e. g._,
alabaster figurines from Naukratis: W. Flinders Petrie, _Naukratis_^2,
1888, I, Pls. 1, 3, 4; G. Kieseritzky, _Jb._, VII, 1892, Pl. VI (with
head, three views); _ibid._ p. 189 (figure in Boston). Pottier, _op.
cit._, p. 409, cites two alabaster examples from Egypt (probably
from Naukratis) which are nude, and on Pl. XVII, he reproduces four
terra-cotta draped figurines in the Louvre, of Phœnician manufacture,
similar to Egyptian works. The nudity of the “Apollos” marks the
distinction between Greek and barbarian art.
[2246] Brunn, in his _Kunst bei Homer_, 1868, quoted by Gardner,
_Hbk._, p. 47, showed by a very true analogy the way in which the Greek
artist became an imitator. The Greeks borrowed their alphabet from
Phœnicia, but wrote Greek and not Phœnician with it; just so the Greek
artist borrowed the alphabet of art from Egypt, but with it wrote his
own language of art.
[2247] _Gesch. des Materialismus_,^3 I, p. 127 (quoted by F. W., on p.
12).
[2248] This is the view of K. Kouroniotis, who carefully examined them.
I quote his words incorporated in Dr. Svoronos’ letter to me of Dec.
29, 1911: τὰ γράμματα ἐπὶ τοῦ κορμοῦ, νομίζω ὅτι δὲ ἔχουσι καμμίαν
σημασίαν, ἴσως δὲ μάλιστα εἶνε τὰ χαράγματα νέου τινός.
The inscriptions on the great majority of victor monuments found at
Olympia were engraved upon the horizontal upper face of the base in
front of the feet—at least down to the fourth century B. C.: see
_Inschr. v. Ol._, p. 235. Dittenberger and Purgold have referred two
inscribed convex bronze fragments found in the Altis to the flanks of
victor statues set up in imperial times: _ibid._, nos. 234-5.
[2249] Only one other victor from Phigalia is known, Narykidas, who
won πάλῃ some time in the first half of the fourth century B. C., as
the mutilated epigram and artist’s name found upon fragments of the
pedestal of his statue at Olympia attest, a date out of the question
for our statue: see _Inschr. v. Ol._, no. 161: _cf._ P., VI, 6, 1;
Foerster, no. 324.
[2250] P., VI, 15.8; Hyde, 148; Foerster, 61, 62.
[2251] P., I, 28.1; _cf._ for the date, Foerster, no. 55. See _infra_,
p. 362.
[2252] P., III, 13.9; Foerster, nos. 86-90. See _infra_, p. 362.
[2253] P., VI, 3.8; Hyde, 29; Foerster, 6.
[2254] P., VI, 13.2; it was accordingly set up about Ols. 77-8 (=
472-468 B. C.): see Hyde, no. 111, and _cf._ p. 48; Foerster, 39,
41-46. See _infra_, p. 362.
[2255] The god was so described in the Homeric Hymn to the Delian
Apollo, v. 134, and that to the Pythian Apollo, v. 272. On the
grounds of long hair and nudity G. Koerte identified the example from
Orchomenos: see his article, Die Antiken Skulpturen aus Boeotien, _A.
M._, III, 1878, pp. 305 f.
[2256] So Vitet, _Gaz. B.-A._, XII, 1862, p. 29.
[2257] See list in Deonna, _Les Apollons archaïques_, p. 13, n. 1.
[2258] _E. g._, on an amphora from Vienne: see _Annali_, XXI, 1849, Pl.
D., and pp. 159 f.; on another from Nola, now in the British Museum:
_B. M. Vases_, III, p. 230, E 336; _cf._ also _ibid._, E 313; on a
wall-painting from Pompeii: _A. Z._, XL, 1882, p. 58; on a marble
bas-relief in the Palazzo Corsini in Florence: Duetschke, II, p. 114,
no. 283. These examples represent the god only.
[2259] I, 98. _Cf._ Brunn, _Griech. Kunstgesch._, II, p. 76, and
_Griech. Kuenstler_, I, pp. 36-37, no. 11; Mueller, _Nacktheit und
Entbloessung in d. altorient. und aelteren griech. Kunst_, Diss.
inaug., 1906, pp. 112 and 122; Roscher, _Lex._, I, _s. v._ Apollon, p.
450; Overbeck, I, pp. 38 and 78.
[2260] P., VIII, 53. 7-8.
[2261] P., II, 32. 5; _cf._ IX, 35. 3; described by Plut., _de Musica_,
14 (p. 1136); _cf._ _Annali_, XXXVI, 1864, p. 254; etc. Discussed
_infra_, p. 335 and n. 7.
[2262] See list in _B. M. Sculpt._, I, pp. 81 f. (from which we have
taken some of the following examples).
[2263] Petrie, _Naukratis_, I, Pl. 1, fig. 4.
[2264] _A. Z._, XL, 1882, p. 323.
[2265] Deonna, _op. cit._, nos. 1, 2; _cf._ _Gaz. Arch._, 1886, p. 235.
[2266] See Deonna, nos. 28 f.; _B. C. H._, X, 1886, pp. 66 f.; B. B.,
12; etc.
[2267] _B. M. Sculpt._, no. 210.
[2268] _B. M. Sculpt._, nos. 202 (torso = Petrie, _Naukratis_, I, Pl.
I, fig. 9) and 204 (torso = _Naukratis_, I, Pl. I, fig. 3).
[2269] _Ibid._, no. 203 (= _Naukratis_, II, Pl. XIV, fig. 13).
[2270] See _A. M._, IV, 1879, p. 304.
[2271] _See_ Rapporto d’un viaggio nella Grecia nel 1860, in _Annali_,
XXXIII, 1861, p. 80.
[2272] _J. H. S._, I, 1880, pp. 168 f., already quoted. For the
monument of Dermys and Kitylos, see _Gaz. Arch._, 1878, Pl. 29; _A.
M._, III, 1878, Pl. XIV; F. W., 44.
[2273] On the subject of hair on “Apollo” statues, see Overbeck,
_Griech. Kunstmythol._, III, _Apollon_, p. 14 (_cf._ note f); and _cf._
Milchhoefer, _A. Z._, XXXIX, 1881, p. 54, who discards this feature as
a criterion.
[2274] For examples, see Deonna, _Les Apollons archaïques_, p. 12, n. 4
and n. 5.
[2275] _Cf._ the colossal bearded statue of Dionysos found in the
quarries on Naxos (Komiaki), described by Deonna, p. 221. In a
preceding note (p. 334, n. 4) we have already listed examples of the
type of Apollo appearing on vases, etc.; see _B. M. Sculpt._, I, p. 82.
[2276] The date of these sculptors is fixed by that of their pupil,
the Aeginetan Kallon, who lived at the beginning of the fifth century
B. C.; _cf._ Akropolis inscription, _I. G. B._, no. 27. This statue
is mentioned by P., IX, 35. 3, as holding the _Graces_ in one hand.
Plutarch, who cites Antikles and Istros as his authorities, gives a
better description of it in _de Musica_, 14; he says that it held the
bow in the right hand and the _Graces_ playing on musical instruments
in the left. A scholion on Pindar, _Ol._, XIV, 16, Boeckh, p. 293,
mentions such an image of Apollo in Delphi, manifestly a copy of the
Delian one. Both the scholiast and Macrobius, _Saturnalia_, 1, 17.
13, place the bow in the left hand and the _Graces_ in the right, an
arrangement confirmed by Athenian coins which are copied from the
replica of the statue in Athens (Bekker, _Anecdota gr._, I, p. 299, ll.
8-9). Frazer, V, p. 174, figs. 8-9, reproduces two of these coins.
[2277] This image, known as the _Philesian Apollo_, already discussed
on pp. 118f., is described by Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 75. It was made
between 494 and 479 B. C.: see Frazer, IV, pp. 429-30. It is copied on
Milesian coins, which represent the god nude, holding a stag in the
right hand and a bow in the left: see Overbeck, _Griech. Mythol._,
III, _Apollon_, Muenztafel I, 22 f. P., IX, 10.2, mentions a cedar
replica of the statue in Thebes. In the British Museum is a bronze, the
so-called Payne Knight statuette, a copy of the one on the coins; it is
reproduced by Frazer, _l. c._, p. 430, fig. 45 (= _B. M. Bronzes_, no.
209); Frazer mentions as other copies a statuette in Berlin, described
in _A. Z._, XXXVII, 1879, pp. 84-91, and one from the Ptoian sanctuary,
described in _B. C. H._, X, 1886, pp. 190-6, and Pl. IX. On Milesian
reliefs, see one published by Kekulé von Stradonitz, Ueber d. Apoll.
des Kanachos, _Sitzb. Berl. Akad. d. Wiss._, 1904, I, fig. on p. 787,
and p. 797, and another by Th. Wiegand, Siebenter vorlaeufiger Bericht
ueber Ausgrabungen in Milet und Didyma (_Abh. Berl. Akad. d. Wiss.,
Philosoph.-histor. Cl._, 1911), p. 21.
[2278] Mentioned by P., X, 24. 5, and Philochoros, in _F. H. G._, I,
fragm. 22 on p. 387. Imperial Delphic coins from the time of Hadrian on
represent the god nude with outstretched arms; such coin-types may be
copies of this statue; _cf._ Frazer, V, p. 352.
[2279] See _B. C. H._, XII, 1888, p. 468.
[2280] In the Ottoman Museum, Invent. no. 374; Reinach, _Rép._, II, 1,
78, 2. It is described by Mendel, in _B. C. H._, XXVI, 1902, pp. 467
f.; _cf._ Deonna, _Les Apollons archaïques_, p. 226, no. 127.
[2281] See Deonna, pp. 191 f., no. 81 and figs. 84-90; _cf._ Annali,
XXXVI, 1864, p. 253 (Michaelis).
[2282] _Ibid._, pp. 185 f., no. 77 and fig. 82.
[2283] _E. g._, the two colossal statues from Cape Sounion discovered
by Staïs in 1906 in front of the ruins of the temple of Poseidon, and
now in Athens, possibly meant for the Dioskouroi: see Deonna, pp.
135-8, nos. 7-8 and figs. 14-17; for one, see _A. M._, XXXI, 1906, pp.
363-4; Deonna, no. 7, pp. 135 and 347; Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_,
no. 2720, pp. 6-7 and fig.; Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 197, fig. 40; it is
3.05 meters high (Staïs); two from Delphi, called either Kleobis and
Biton, or the Dioskouroi by Homolle, _B. C. H._, XXIV, 1900, pp. 445 =
B) and 446 (= A), and 450 f.; Homolle here has the letters changed; his
B = _Fouilles de Delphes_, IV, 1 (= our A, = Pl. 8B); see Deonna, pp.
176-8, nos. 65-6, figs. 66-9; see list of statues from sanctuaries of
Apollo and other gods, _ibid._, pp. 18-19.
[2284] See Milchhoefer, _A. Z._, XXXIX, 1881, pp. 54-55.
[2285] See Loeschke, _A. M._, IV, 1879, p. 304; _cf._ Furtwaengler, _A.
Z._, XL, 1882, p. 57; Hiller von Gaertringen, _Thera_, III, 1904, p.
285; Ross, _Reisen auf d. griech. Inseln des Aegaeischen Meeres_, I,
1840, p. 8.
[2286] See Deonna, _Les Apollons archaïques_, pp. 238-9, no. 141; _B.
M. Sculpt._, 207 (= torso).
[2287] Deonna, p. 247, no. 155. This is one of the most recent of the
series and belongs to the end of the sixth or beginning of the fifth
century B. C.: Orsi, _Monumenti antichi_, I, pp. 789 f.
[2288] Bulle, 37 (left).
[2289] _Vit. Apoll. Tyan._, IV, 28; see _supra_, pp. 106-7. Scherer,
_op. cit._, pp. 23 ff., thought that this statue conformed with the
type of the _Apollo_ of Kanachos already mentioned. Reisch, p. 40,
rightly believes that it had “_noch geschlossene Beine, aber geloeste
Arme_,” _i. e._, like the _Apollo_ of Tektaios and Angelion already
discussed.
[2290] Arndt, _La Glyptothèque Ny-Carlsberg_, pp. 1-2 and Pls. I-II;
Deonna, pp. 143-4, no. 21. It has been ascribed to different artists
of the last quarter of the sixth century B. C.: Lechat, _Au Musée de
l’Acropole_, pp. 359-60; Klein, I, p. 246 f.; we have already discussed
it on pp. 127-8. E. A. Gardner, _J. H. S._, VIII, 1887, p. 190, refers
some of the statues found at the Ptoian sanctuary to athletes, but
Holleaux believes that these statues represent Apollo: _B. C. H._, X,
1886, p. 68; _cf._ also Staïs, _Marbres et Bronzes_, p. 8. W. Vischer,
_Kleine Schriften_, II, 1878, p. 307, admits that some of the “Apollos”
can be athletes, as Conze and Michaelis had done: _Annali_, XXXIII,
861, p. 80.
[2291] See Deonna, p. 253.
[2292] Thus Scherer, p. 22, n. 3, and Reisch, p. 40, leave the question
unsettled; Gardner, _Hbk._, p. 98, n. 1, thinks that the material for
a decision as to a given statue, whether of this god or that, or of a
worshiper or athlete, hardly exists; Collignon, _Mythol. figurée de la
Grèce_, p. 84, recognizes that these statues stood for both gods and
athletes; Hitz.-Bluemn., III, 1, p. 262, think that the type passes
equally well for gods and sepulchral statues; Overbeck, I, pp. 114-115,
and F. W., p. 11, believe that it represents a general scheme for
athletes, sepulchral statues, and Apollos.
[2293] The first part of this chapter appeared, under the title The
Positions of Victor Statues at Olympia, in _A. J. A._, XVI, 2d Ser.,
1912, pp. 203-229, with Plan; the second part, entitled, Greek Literary
Notices of Olympic Victor Monuments outside Olympia, appeared in
_Trans. Amer. Philol. Assn._, XLII, 1912, pp. 53-67. I am indebted
to Dr. J. M. Paton, former editor-in-chief of the _A. J. A._, for
permission to use the former, and to Prof. Clarence Bill, the present
secretary of the American Philological Association, for permission to
use the latter. Only slight changes have been made in the original
articles for the present work. The summary of the last section,
Statistics of Olympic Victor Statuaries, is revised from my note
published in _Proceedings of the American Philological Association_,
XLIV, 1913, pp. xxx-xxxi. I am also indebted to Professor Bill for
permission to use it in the present work.
[2294] ἵππων ἀγωνιστῶν ... καὶ ἀνδρῶν ἀθλητῶν τε καὶ ἰδιωτῶν ὁμοίως (VI, 1.1).
[2295] VI, Chs. 1-16. 169 in my _de olympionicarum Statuis_: Philon of
Kerkyra, who had two statues, is there named twice, under nos. 91 and
136.
[2296] VI, Chs. 17-18.
[2297] See _Ergebn. v. Ol._, Karten u. Plaene, 1899, III, IV
(Doerpfeld); _cf._ also H. Luckenbach, _Olympia und Delphi_, 1904, p.
11, fig. 5 (= _A. J. A._, XVI, 1912, p. 204, fig. 1).
[2298] _A. Z._, XL, 1882, pp. 119 f. (and Sketch-plan).
[2299] Pp. 45 f.
[2300] In Baum., II, pp. 1094 f.
[2301] _Olympia, Ergebnisse_, Textbd., I (_Topographie und
Geschichte_), pp. 87 f.; _cf._ _A. M._, XIII, 1888, pp. 335 f.
[2302] _De olymp. Stat._, Ch. III, pp. 63 f. The outline therein forms
the basis of the present treatment. The numbers of the victors from the
catalogue of that work, showing the order of presentation by Pausanias,
are here retained in parentheses: _e. g._, Telemachos (122). A letter
after the number indicates either that an adjacent “honor” statue,
_e. g._, Philonides (154a), stood next to a victor statue, _e. g._,
Menalkeas (154), or that no statue is mentioned.
[2303] _E. g._, Kalkmann, _Pausanias der Perieget_, 1886, p. 88.
[2304] _E. g._, nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 were Eleans; 7-9 and 11-14 were
Spartans; 17-18 and 23-26 were Eleans; 45 and 48-49, 51, 54, 57 were
Arkadians; 6-9 and 11-14 were victors in chariot-races; 30, 34, 37, 40
were pancratiasts; 25-28 had statues by Sikyonian artists; 39-40 had
statues by Athenian artists; 59-63 formed a family group; etc.
[2305] _Ueber Pausanias_, 1890, p. 393.
[2306] The lack of continuity in describing the altars led R. Heberdey,
_Eranos Vindobonensis_, 1893, pp. 39 f., (Die Olympische Altarperiegese
des Pausanias), to conclude wrongly that Pausanias took over bodily
from an earlier work his enumeration of the altars, only here and
there interposing a remark of his own, as _e. g._, V, 15. 2, where he
parenthetically describes the Leonidaion.
[2307] _E. g._, the statue of the Akarnanian boxer (10) stood among
those of Spartan victors (7-14); Eukles (52), a grandson of Diagoras,
had his statue away from his family group (59-63); the two statues of
Timon (17 and 105 d) stood in different parts of the Altis.
[2308] VI, 1.3.
[2309] So Furtwaengler, _A. Z._, XXXVII, 1879, p. 146; Treu, _ibid._,
p. 207; Flasch, Hirschfeld, and Scherer, in the works already cited.
[2310] So Doerpfeld, _l. c._, p. 88; Michaelis, _A. Z._, XXXIV, 1876,
p. 164; Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, p. 531; etc.
[2311] Hyde, p. 64. I here append three such passages: in V, 24.3, in
speaking of the statue of the _Zeus_ of the Lacedæmonians, he says
that it τοῦ ναοῦ δέ ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ μεγάλου Ζεὺς πρὸς ἀνατολὰς
ἡλίου, _i. e._, at the southeast corner of the temple near where
the pedestal was found (_cf._ _Inschr. v. Ol._, 252, and _Olympia,
Ergebn._, Textbd., I, p. 86); in V, 26.2, in speaking of the offerings
of Mikythos, he says that they stood παρὰ δὲ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου τὴν
ἐν ἀριστερᾷ πλεύραν, _i. e._, on the northern side of the temple of
Zeus, where most authorities find their foundations (_cf._ _Inschr. v.
Ol._, 267-269, and Flasch, _op. cit._, p. 1093); in VIII, 38.2, he says
that Mount Lykaion is ἐν ἀριστερᾷ δὲ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τῆς Δεσποίνης, _i. e._,
to the north of that temple. _Cf._ also V, 21.2. Professor Bluemner,
reviewing my monograph _de olymp. Stat._, in the _Berl. Philol.
Wochenschr._, XXIV, 1904, col. 1382, objects to my interpretation of ἐν
δεξιᾷ, and admits not one but three possibilities: (_a_) of the temple
_pro persona_, _i. e._, its south side; (_b_) of a spectator facing
the chief, _i. e._, east front, the northern half of the space before
it; (_c_) of a spectator with his back to this front, _i. e._, the
southern half of this space. But if Pausanias had meant either of the
two latter, he would have said πρὸ τοῦ ναοῦ, as in VIII, 37.2, κατὰ τὸν
ναόν, _cf._ V, 15.3, or ἀντικρὺ τοῦ ναοῦ, _cf._ V, 27.1.
[2312] For locations of bases, see _Insch. v. Ol._, nos. 166 (Troilos),
160 (Kyniska), 172 (Sophios). Because of the finds in the Prytaneion
both Hirschfeld and Scherer started this ἔφοδος west of the Heraion.
[2313] From the unfinished condition of the back of the Lysippan marble
head from the statue of Philandridas (10), as well as its excellent
surface preservation (Frontispiece and Fig. 69), we have already argued
that some of these early statues may have stood along the southern
steps of the temple against the columns of the peristyle: _supra_, p.
300.
[2314] See _Inschr. v. Ol._, no. 248; _cf._ P., V, 27.9.
[2315] See _Inschr. v. Ol._, nos. 161 (Narykdas); 146 (Kallias); 159
(Eukles); 144 (Euthymos); 156 (Charmides); 155 (Hellanikos). Other
bases of statues which must have stood in this vicinity have also been
found, far from their original positions: _i. e._, those of Athenaios
(36), 56 meters west of the Leonidaion; of Polydamas (47), fragments
26 meters southeast of the Echo Hall; of Diagoras (59), five fragments
near the Metroon; of Damagetos (62), in the Leonidaion; of Dorieus
(61), near the _Victory_ of Paionios; of Kyniskos (45), inside the
Byzantine church; of Damoxenidas (54), near the Heraion. See _Inschr.
v. Ol._, nos. 168 (Athenaios), 151 (Diagoras), 152 (Damagetos), 153
(Dorieus), 149 (Kyniskos), 158 (Damoxenidas); for the sculptured base
of Polydamas (47), see _Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., PI. LV, 1-3; Textbd.,
pp. 209 f.
[2316] Argum., Boeckh, pp. 157-8. Pausanias names them in the order:
Diagoras, Akousilaos, Dorieus, Damagetos, Peisirhodos. The scholiast
names them in the order: Diagoras, Damagetos, Dorieus, Akousilaos,
Eukles, Peisirhodos.
[2317] See for Aristotle, _F. H. G._, II, p. 183, fragm. 264. Apollas
Ponticus is little known: _cf._ _F. H. G._, IV, p. 307, fragm. 7; he
probably copied from Aristotle’s work.
[2318] This is Dittenberger’s explanation, _Inschr. v. Ol._, nos. 151
and 159; and also that of Robert, _O. S._, p. 195, Scherer, p. 49, and
Gurlitt, _op. cit._, p. 411; Purgold, however, _Inschr. v. Ol._, p.
262, has tried to reconcile the two accounts on the theory of no change.
[2319] However, Kalkmann, _Pausanias der Perieget_, p. 90, thinks that
the two groups of Diagoras and Alkainetos stood apart.
[2320] The base of the statue of Pythokles was found between the
Heraion and the Pelopion: see _Inschr. v. Ol._, 162-163.
[2321] Gurlitt, _Ueber Pausanias_, p. 412, assumed the possibility of
the existence of two different statues of Lysandros, one 35 a, and the
other somewhere after Charmides (58) in the family group of Diagoras;
Kalkmann, _op. cit._, p. 105 and note 4, explains the discrepancy
between the scholiast and Pausanias on the theory that the latter
borrowed from older lists; Purgold, _Aufsaetze E. Curtius gewidmet_,
pp. 238 f., assumed but one statue of Lysandros.
[2322] Scherer, p. 51 (_cf._ Plan opposite p. 56), and Flasch, _l. c._,
p. 1095, note 1, proposed a route south from the Heraion to the west of
the so-called Great Altar site, while Hirschfeld, _l. c._, p. 119, made
it run to the east of it. Doerpfeld, _op. cit._, p. 88, starting east
of the Heraion, made the route run first to the west along the south
side of the temple, and thence around the western side of the Pelopion,
and so across to the _Eretrian Bull_; Michaelis, _l. c._, p. 164, with
the same starting-point, had it bear first to the east parallel with
the Treasury Terrace, and thence south. See Plans A and B.
[2323] See _Inschr. v. Ol._, no. 259, and _Ol., Ergebn._, Textbd., II,
pp. 153-155, etc.; _cf._ P., V, 26.1.
[2324] See _Inschr. v. Ol._, nos. 157 (So[si]krates; for the
restoration of the name, see Hyde, p. 37); 167 (Kritodamos); 164
(Xenokles). The plate from the pedestal of the statue of the unknown
Arkadian victor (79) was found far away from this point, in the
Palaistra. We have shown (_supra_, pp. 244-5,) that the statue of
Philippos (79a), mentioned by Pausanias as the work of Myron (_cf._ VI,
8.5), was probably only that of this older unknown Arkadian, later used
for Philippos, who won some time between Ols. (?) 119 and 125 (= 304
and 280 B. C.); see _Inschr. v. Ol._, no. 174; _cf._ Hyde, _op. cit._,
pp. 39-41.
[2325] On the name, see Hyde, p. 42.
[2326] See _Ol., Ergebn._, Textbd., I, p. 86, and _cf._ II, p. 78. A
slit in the lower step of the base of the _Zeus_ may have contained the
tablet mentioned by P., V, 23.4. Three of the four inscribed blocks
of Gelo’s chariot base were found in the Palaistra: _Inschr. v. Ol._,
under no. 143.
For Doerpfeld’s identification of the Council-house (Bouleuterion) with
the tripartite building south of the temple of Zeus just outside the
South Altis wall, see _Ausgrab. zu Ol._, IV, 1878-1879, pp. 40-46, and
_Olympia, Ergebn._, Textbd., II, pp. 76-79. Others, on the basis of a
passage in Xenophon’s _Hell._, VII, 4.31, wrongly place it near the
Prytaneion in the northwestern part of the Altis. _Cf._ Frazer, III,
pp. 636 f., and Doerpfeld, _l. c._, pp. 78 f. See Plans A and B.
[2327] See _Inschr. v. Ol._, no. 177. It stands on the south edge of
the South Terrace wall between its gateway and the later East Byzantine
wall of the Altis.
[2328] Hyde, pp. 49 f., where I assume that the passage VI, 13.8 is a
digression, and that the name of a victor has dropped out at the end
of 13.7. There I have inserted, from a recovered inscription, the name
of Akestorides of Alexandria Troas, placing his statue next to that of
Agemachos (118) of similar date, the only other Asiatic in this part
of the Altis. Foerster, 501, dates Akestorides wrongly in the second
century B. C. (on the basis of Furtwaengler, _A. M._, V, 1880, p. 30,
n. 2, end), although the inscription from the base is referred by
Dittenberger to the end of the third; Agemachos won in Ol. 147 (= 192
B. C.); I have therefore dated Akestorides tentatively between Ol. (?)
142 and Ol. (?) 144 (= 212 and 204 B. C.).
[2329] See _Inschr. v. Ol._, 147, 148 (Tellon, inscription renewed in
the first century B. C.); 165 (Aristion); 184 (Akestorides).
Roehl (_I. G. A._, no. 355 and Add., p. 182) referred an inscription
on two marble fragments found in 1879 (_cf._ _A. Z._, XXXVII, 1879, p.
161, no. 312), one found near the Heraion, the other east of the temple
of Zeus, to the victor Agiadas (103); Dittenberger (_cf._ _Inschr.
v. Ol._, no. 150) and others have rightly rejected this ascription.
Similarly the inscribed base of the statue of Areus (105 b), son of
Akrotatos, King of Sparta, found in the Heraion (see _Inschr. v.
Ol._, no. 308), belongs rather to the second statue of Areus (148 a)
dedicated by Ptolemy Philadelphus; _cf._ Hyde, pp. 44-45. I have also
referred the second inscription of the artist Pythagoras (_Inschr. v.
Ol._, no. 145) found in the Leonidaion, to the statue of Astylos (110),
because of its similarity to that on the base of the statue of Euthymos
(56) likewise by Pythagoras: _ibid._, pp. 47-48.
[2330] See _Inschr. v. Ol._, nos. 169 (Aristophon), 154 (Xenombrotos
and Xenodikos), following Robert’s ascription, _O. S._, 1900, pp.
179 f.; a second epigram referring to Xenombrotos alone (_Inschr. v.
Olymp._, no. 170) must belong to a second monument not mentioned by
Pausanias; _cf._ Hyde, p. 53.
[2331] _E. g._, Furtwaengler, _A. Z._, XXXVII, 1879, p. 140 (quoted by
Dittenberger); Frazer, IV, p. 43.
[2332] See _Inschr. v. Ol._, nos. 176 (Aischines; see Foerster, no.
451), 173 (Archippos), 186 (Epitherses), 304 (Antigonos); [a fragment
of the base of the statue of Demetrios (147 e) was also found, the
exact location not being recorded, no. 305]; 276 (Philonides; a second
mutilated copy of this inscription was found nearby built into a late
wall north of the Byzantine church; see no. 277); Pausanias (VI, 15.10)
mentions two statues of Kapros. For the bronze foot (Fig. 62) of one of
them, see _supra_, p. 255 and n. 3.
[2333] VI, 18.7. He gives this honor to Praxidamas and Rhexibios
(187-188), who won in Ols. 59 and 61 (= 544 and 536 B. C.)
respectively. We have already pointed out that the statue of Oibotas
(29), who won in Ol. 6 (= 756 B. C.), was set up in Ol. 80 (= 460 B.
C.) by the Achæans (VI, 3.8).
[2334] See _Inschr. v. Ol._, nos. 294 (Leonidas; _cf._ _A. M._, XIII,
1888, p. 322, note 1, Treu); 183 (Seleadas; this is my own ascription;
see Hyde, p. 58; Dittenberger wrongly restored the name as Σέλευκος);
632 (Polypeithes and Kalliteles); 171 (Deinosthenes); 178 (Glaukon;
his monument was a little bronze chariot, not a statue, thus imitating
earlier sixth-century victor dedications, like that of Kyniska (7);
no. 296 is another inscription from a statue of Glaukon dedicated by
Ptolemy Euergetes).
The pedestal of the statue of Paianios (167) was found behind the south
side of the Echo Colonnade and therefore far removed (_Inschr. v. Ol._,
no. 179); Pausanias again mentions Paianios in VI, 15.10. Another
pedestal (no. 632), found south of the west end of the Byzantine
church, has been referred by Purgold to the statue of Lysippos (162):
_cf._ _A. Z._, XXXIX, 1881, pp. 85 f., no. 387. Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2,
p. 615, and others have rejected the ascription.
[2335] Διέστηκε δὲ ἀγυιὰν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐσόδου τῆς πομπικῆς, τοὺς γὰρ δὴ ὑπὸ
Ἀθηναίων καλουμένους στενωποὺς ἀγυιὰς ὀνομάζουσιν οἱ Ἠλεῖοι.
[2336] See _A. M._, XIII, 1888, pp. 327-336 and Pl. VII (Die Altis
Mauer in Olympia). On the west of the Altis are the ruins of two
parallel walls, the inner Greek, the outer Roman; the original South
wall of the Altis ran along the line of the South Terrace wall, the
later Roman wall (dating from Nero’s time) to the south of it. Thus
in Pausanias’ day, the ἔσοδος πομπική was opposite the Leonidaion.
In two other passages, however, it appears to be at the southeast
corner of the Altis (V, 15.7; VI, 20.7). R. Heberdey (in _Eranos
Vindobonensis_, 1893, pp. 34-47) explains this discrepancy by saying
that Pausanias, in mentioning the southwestern entrance, is writing
from his own observation after the Roman extension, and in the other
passages is copying from other writers who wrote before that extension.
Doerpfeld’s explanation, however, is better: in the Roman extension a
gate was built at the southwest corner of the new West wall superseding
the older southeast entrance. Processions still passed along the same
way, but were now _inside_ the Altis, the great gateway of Nero at the
southeast corner being given up after his death. _Cf._ Frazer, III, pp.
570-572; Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, pp. 375-6.
[2337] P., VI, 17.1.
[2338] _A. M._, XIII, 1888, pp. 317-326 (Die Bauinschrift des
Leonidaions zu Olympia); and _cf._ _Inschr. v. Ol._, no. 651, and
_Olympia, Ergebn._, Textbd., II, _Die Baudenkmaeler_, pp. 83-93, and
Tafelbd., Pls. LXII-LXVI (R. Borrmann).
[2339] _E. g._, K. Lange, _Haus und Halle_, 1885, pp. 331 f;
Hirschfeld, _A. Z._, XL, 1882, p. 121; Flasch, in Baum., II, pp.
1095 and 1104 K. Others placed it elsewhere: _e. g._, Curtius-Adler,
_Olympia und Umgegend_, 1882, pp. 23 f.; Scherer, _op. cit._, pp. 55 f.
(and Plan), identified it with the “_South-east Building_,” where he
had this second ἔφοδος begin.
[2340] V, 13.9. For full account of the altar, see V, 13.8-11.
[2341] Thus Curtius, Altaere v. Ol., _Abhandl. d. k. Preuss. Akad.
d. Wiss. zu Berlin_, 1882, p. 4 (= _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, 1894,
II, pp. 42 f.); Adler, _A. A_., 1894, p. 85; _ibid._, 1895, pp. 108
f. (_cf._ his reconstruction in _Olympia, Ergebn._, Tafelbd., II,
Pl. CXXXII and Textbd., II, pp. 210 f.); Curtius-Adler, _Olympia u.
Umgegend_, p. 35; Flasch, _op. cit._, p. 1067 (_cf._ _Funde v. Ol._,
pp. 238-239); Boetticher, _Olympia_^2, 1886, pp. 190 f. (and Plan);
Furtwaengler, _Bronzen v. Olympia_, p. 4; Hirschfeld, _op. cit._, p.
119 (= Plan); Scherer, _op. cit._, p. 56 (with Plan); Trendelenburg,
_Der grosse Altar des Zeus in Olympia_, 1902, pp. 17 f.; Doerpfeld,
_Olympia, Ergebn._, Textbd., II (_Baudenkmaeler_) p. 162, (_cf._ I,
p. 82, where he admits the possibility that it may have stood further
northwest, nearer the Heraion); Frazer, III, p. 556; etc.
[2342] See _A. M._, XXXIII, 1908, pp. 185-192 (Olympia in
praehistorischer Zeit); _cf._ _Year’s Work in Classical Studies_, III,
1908, p. 12.
[2343] For Puchstein’s location and form of the altar of Zeus, see _A.
A._, 1893, p. 22; _ibid._, 1895, p. 107; _Jb._, XI, 1896, pp. 53 f.
(with “oblong” reconstruction by Koldewey, pp. 76-77); for Wernicke’s
view, see _Jb._, IX, 1894, pp. 93 f. This view was already refuted
by Adler, _A. A._, 1895, p. 108, and Doerpfeld, _Ergebn. v. Ol._,
Textbd., II, pp. 162 f. Doerpfeld later referred these remains also to
prehistoric houses (_cf._ preceding note)
[2344] V, 13.8. The exact site of the Pelopion is given in V, 13.1 (see
Plans A and B). Wernicke, (_l. c._, pp. 94 f.) placed the older altar
of Zeus (who was at first worshiped in common with Hera) between the
Heraion and Pelopion (as Puchstein also did). He believed that later,
however, after the building of the temple of Zeus and the Pelopion,
the altar was moved east of both and stood somewhere northwest of the
elliptical depression, where Pausanias saw it. He explained the lack
of remains on the theory that the Christians would completely destroy
this, the chief pagan altar. But it is difficult to see why the few
Christian settlers in this out of the way place should have shown any
such anger. Doerpfeld (_Ergebn. v. Ol._, Textbd., II, _Baudenkmaeler_,
p. 163) suggested that it may have stood south of the _Exedra_ of
Herodes Attikos, where its site must certainly be sought.
[2345] Hitz.-Bluemn., II, i, p. 359, rightly say that the words of
Pausanias point to a place in the Altis where there are neither
foundations nor ashes. Since it is incredible that the Christians
should have destroyed it so completely, they assume that Pausanias
made a mistake in his directions. Their conclusion that the elliptical
depression best fits the conditions is untenable now.
[2346] _Op. cit._, p. 164.
[2347] See _A. M._, XIII, 1888, pp. 335-336, and _Ergebn._, Textbd., I,
p. 88. In the latter he says: “_Zu unserer Verwunderung sehen wir, dass
der zweite Teil die ununterbrochene Fortsetzung des ersten Teiles ist,
also in Wirklichkeit nur eine Ephodos, nur ein einziger Rundgang._”
[2348] This pillar stood between the Great Altar and the temple of
Zeus: P., V, 20. 6.
[2349] Ἀνδριάντας δὲ ἀναμεμιγμένους οὐκ ἐπιφα<νέ>σιν ἄγαν ἀναθήμασιν,
κ. τ. λ., (VI, 17.7); again in VI, 18.2 he says that he discovered the
statue of Anaximenes “by searching” (ἀνευρών).
[2350] Similarly, on arriving at the statue of Telemachos, he
moved first to the east and then returned (passing the chariot of
Kleosthenes) before proceeding west, without mentioning it: see
_supra_, p. 345.
[2351] On analogy with V, 15.1. See Hyde, p. 68.
[2352] The Terrace wall can still be traced before the western front
of the temple and also to the north-east of it; _cf._ Treu, _A. Z._,
XXXVI, 1878, p. 36: “_So umgab denn vermutlich einst den ganzen Tempel
eine statuenbekroente Terrasse._” Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, p. 619, suppose
such a road to the west and north of the temple, but would interpret it
as being ἐν ἀριστερᾷ.
[2353] _Cf._ Hyde, p. 70. Hitz.-Bluemn. (see preceding note) rejected
this textual change of mine as unnecessary, and followed Hirschfeld and
Doerpfeld in having Pausanias return along the south side of the temple
of Zeus. I proposed this change by analogy with the text of V, 24.1, V,
21.2, and other passages.
[2354] The bronze tablet of Demokrates (170), found south of the
southwest corner of the temple of Zeus, did not belong to his victor
statue, but to a base which stood probably inside the temple: _Inschr.
v. Ol._ no. 39. Also the archaic marble helmeted head and arm with
the remains of a shield attached (see _Bildw. v. Ol._, Tafelbd., Pl.
VI, 1-4, and 5-6), the head being found west of the temple and the
arm before the gate of the Pelopion, wrongly ascribed by Treu (_A.
Z._, XXXVIII, 1880, pp. 48 f., and _Bildw. v. Ol._, III, pp. 33-34)
and Overbeck (I, pp. 198 f., and p. 178) to Eperastos (183), I have
referred to an older hoplite, Phrikias of Pelinna (Foerster, nos. 151,
155): see Hyde, p. 43, and _supra_, Ch. III, pp. 162-3 and Fig. 30a, b.
[2355] See _Inschr. v. Ol._, no. 293.
[2356] See _Inschr. v. Ol._, nos. 267-269. The supposed foundation was
found thirty feet north of the temple; _cf._ Frazer, III, pp. 646 f.;
etc.
[2357] V, 20.6 f. A large foundation, between the pedestal of Dropion,
King of the Paionians, _Inschr. v. Ol._, no. 303, (see Plans A and B),
and the pedestal of the _Eretrian Bull_, may have formed part of the
house of Oinomaos (_cf._ Curtius-Adler, _op. cit._, p. 40; Flasch, _l.
c._, p. 1074). Wernicke, (_Jb._, IX, 1894, p. 95), however, refers it
to the oval depression called the Great Altar site. Doerpfeld (_Ergebn.
v. Ol._, Textbd., I, p. 82) is opposed to this view and places it
further north, near the Metroon.
[2358] This is Kalkmann’s theory (_op. cit._, p. 89), who calls this
section (VI, 18.7) the “_letzter Trumpf_,” an addition having no
connection with the second ἔφοδος. He compares it with V, 24.9, where
Pausanias, after ending the _periegesis_ of the altars, adds one more,
that of “Zeus Horkios,” which stood in the Council House, though he had
already passed this point twice without mentioning the fact. Kalkmann
also compares it with V, 27.12 (the transition to the account of the
victor statues). Gurlitt (_op. cit._, p. 392) explains this last
section, _i. e._, V, 27.12, as due to a later revision of Pausanias’
work.
[2359] VI, 19.1.
[2360] See the Catalogue in my _de olymp. Stat._, (pp. 3 f.) for dates;
and _cf. ibid._, Ch. IV, pp. 72 f., for results. The summaries are
made only on the basis of the 153 monuments which can be exactly or
approximately dated.
[2361] Eutelidas (148), Praxidamas (18), Rhexibios (188), Polypeithes
and Kalliteles (160-161).
[2362] On the date of the temple of Zeus (?468-456 B. C.), _cf._
Doerpfeld, _Ol., Ergebn._, Textbd., II, pp. 19. f.
[2363] Enation (176) is simply called an Arkadian by P., VI, 17.3.
[2364] VI, 1.2, and _cf._ his words in VI, 17.1.
[2365] The last dated victor statue at Olympia, known from
inscriptions, is that of Valerios Eklektos of Sinope, four times victor
as herald, winning in Ols. 256, 258, 259, 260 (= 245, 253-261 A.
D.): Foerster, 741-744. Philoumenos of Philadelphia in Lydia, victor
in wrestling (?) in Ol. (?) 288 (= 373 A. D.), Foerster, 750, had a
statue, as we learn from the conclusion of an epigram preserved by
Panodoros in Cramer’s _Anecd. gr. Parisiensia_, 1839-41, II, p. 155, 17
f.; _cf._ _Inscr. Graecae metricae_, ed. Preger, 1891, no. 133. It may
have been in Olympia.
[2366] On his use of older lists of victors and especially of the Elean
register, see P. Hirt, _de Fontibus Pausaniae in Eliacis_ (Greifswald,
1878), pp. 12 f.; Mie, _Quaestiones agonisticae_ (Rostock, 1888),
pp. 17 f.; Kalkmann, _Pausanias der Perieget_, pp. 72 f. and 103 f.;
Gurlitt, _Ueber Pausanias_, p. 426, note 43; Robert, _Hermes_, XXIII,
1888, pp. 444 f.; Hirschfeld, _A. Z._, XL, 1882, pp. 105 and 111; J.
Juethner, _Philostratos ueber Gymnastik_, pp. 60-74 (Elean register),
and 109 f.; Gardiner, p. 50. Pausanias frequently mentions such
sources himself, especially the Elean register: _e. g._, III, 21.1; V,
2.19; VI, 2.3. Hirschfeld (_l. c._, pp. 105 and 113) and others have
unreasonably doubted whether Pausanias ever visited Olympia at all.
[2367] Hyde, 146; Foerster, 472, 476; P., VI, 15.3 f.
[2368] Hyde, 150; Foerster, 474, 475; P., VI, 15.10 (two statues).
[2369] Hyde, 119 and pp. 49-50; Foerster, 501; P., VI, 13.7, and
_Inschr. v. Ol._, 184.
[2370] Hyde, 42; Foerster, 800; P., VI, 4.9.
[2371] Hyde, 40; Foerster, 494; P., VI, 4.5.
[2372] Hyde, 152; Foerster, 391; P., VI, 16.2.
[2373] Hyde, 162; Foerster, 515; P., VI, 6.7.
[2374] Hyde, 125a; Foerster, 651; P., VI, 14.2.
[2375] Hyde, 111b; Foerster, 648-650; P., VI, 13.3.
[2376] Hyde, 111a; Foerster, 654-6, 659, 660, 662-664; P., VI, 13.3.
[2377] _H. N._, XXXIV, 16. See _supra_, pp. 27 and 54.
[2378] _Cf._ _Inschr. v. Ol._, p. 235. P., VI, 1.1, distinctly states
that not all victors had statues, adding that some of the most
distinguished had none.
[2379] Thus the epigram on the base of a monument of Xenombrotos (133;
_cf._ P., VI, 14.12) states that it was a portrait of the victor:
_Inschr. v. Ol._, 170. We have, however, aside from this inscription,
no record that he was a victor more than once. See _supra_, pp. 54-5.
On the basis of three or more victories, several victors should have
had portrait statues: _e. g._, Foerster, 60, 86, 144, 351, 358, 495,
603, 741, 815.
[2380] Discussed _supra_, Ch. II, p. 58.
[2381] For dates, places of finding, and contests, references are
constantly made by number to Dittenberger, _Inschr. v. Ol._; the number
of each victor is given also from Foerster’s lists, which, though
incomplete, are the best that have yet appeared. Where the exact dates
are known they are cited from Foerster; otherwise, the probable dating
of the inscription as given by Dittenberger is followed. See Plans A
and B.
[2382] See _Inschr. v. Ol._, 142 (Pantares, son of Menekrates of Gela);
Foerster, 149, = Ol. (?) 67 (= 572 B. C.); Gelo won in Ol. 73 (= 488 B.
C.): Foerster, 180.
[2383] Phrikias won twice, in Ols. 68 and 69 (= 508 and 504 B. C.):
Foerster, 151 and 155. Phanas was three times victor on the same day
(τριαστής), in the στάδιον, δίαυλος and as ὁπλίτης, in Ol. 67 (= 512 B.
C.): Foerster, 144-146. For the ascriptions, see _supra_, pp. 162-3.
[2384] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 150. Roehl (_I. G. A._, 355 and Add., p. 182)
wrongly ascribed it to Agiadas (103), boy boxer of Elis, whose statue
was by the Aeginetan Serambos (P., VI, 10.9). His victory should fall
between Ols. 72 and 74 inclusive (= 492 and 484 B. C.): Hyde, p. 44.
Foerster, 519, following Roehl and Gurlitt (_op. cit._, pp. 369 and
419), who placed Serambos in the second century B. C., referred the
victory of Agiadas to Ol. (?) 161 (= 136 B. C.). Robert, _O. S._, p.
181, identifies the inscription with Epitimiadas mentioned in the _Oxy.
Pap._ as victor in παγκράτιον in Ol. 78 (= 468 B. C.). Dittenberger and
Loewy (latter in _I. G. B._, 416) refer the inscription to the first
half or middle of the fifth century B. C.
[2385] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 170; _cf._ Hyde, p. 53.
[2386] _Inschr. v. Ol._, no. 175; Foerster, 375. Foerster’s proposed
dating of this victor, Ol. 110 (= 340 B. C.), is wrong.
[2387] _Ibid._, no. 180.
[2388] _Ibid._, no. 181.
[2389] _Ibid._, no. 182.
[2390] _Ibid._, no. 185.
[2391] _Ibid._, no. 187.
[2392] _Ibid._, no. 188.
[2393] _Ibid._, no. 189.
[2394] This Greek building dates from the first half of the fifth
century B. C. _Cf._ F. Adler, _Ol., Ergebn._, Textbd., II (_Die
Baudenkmaeler_), pp. 93-105 (especially 98 f.), and Flasch, in Baum.,
pp. 1070-1 and 1104 M f., both of whom identify it with the workshop of
Pheidias (P., V, 15.1); Curtius, Die Altaere v. Ol., _Abhandl. d. k.
Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin_, 1882, p. 20 (= _Gesamm. Abhandl._,
1894, II, pp. 57 f.), refers it to the Theekoleon, generally identified
with the easternmost of the two buildings further north. See Plans A
and B.
[2395] _Inschr. v. Ol._, no. 190.
[2396] _Ibid._, no. 192.
[2397] _Ibid._, no. 193.
[2398] _Inschr. v. Ol._, no. 194; Foerster, 484.
[2399] _Ibid._, no. 195.
[2400] _Ibid._, no. 196.
[2401] _Ibid._, no. 197; Foerster, 808 (undated).
[2402] _Ibid._, no. 191; Foerster, 807 (undated).
[2403] _Ibid._, nos. 198-204; see Foerster, 542-547; one of the group,
Telemachos, son of Leon, had another statue at Olympia: _Inschr. v.
Ol._, 406.
[2404] _Inschr. v. Ol._, no. 205; Foerster, 822 (undated).
[2405] _Ibid._, no. 206; Foerster, 828 (undated).
[2406] _Ibid._, no. 207.
[2407] _Ibid._, no. 208.
[2408] _Ibid._, no. 209; Foerster, 482.
[2409] _Ibid._, no. 210.
[2410] _Ibid._, no. 211.
[2411] _Ibid._, no. 212.
[2412] _Ibid._, no. 213; Foerster, 614, 619.
[2413] _Ibid._, nos. 214, 215.
[2414] _Ibid._, nos. 216, 217; Foerster, 550.
[2415] _Ibid._, no. 218; Foerster, 535 (= Ol. ? 171 = 96 B. C.).
[2416] _Ibid._, no. 219; Foerster, 593; he won in Ol. 190 (= 20 B. C.).
[2417] _Ibid._, no. 220; Foerster, 601, who dates the victory in Ol.
(?) 194 (= 4 B. C.).
[2418] _Inschr. v. Ol._, no. 221; Foerster, 612. He won τεθρίππῳ in Ol.
199 (= 17 A. D.); his statue was set up by M. Antonios Peisanos.
[2419] _Ibid._, no. 222; Foerster, 585, 587. He won two victories
(perhaps after 17 A. D.) in an unknown contest; Foerster dates them
Ols. (?) 184 and 185 (= 44 and 40 B. C.).
[2420] _Ibid._, no. 223; Foerster, 568; his statue was erected by his
mother, Klaudia Kleodike.
[2421] _Ibid._, no. 224; Foerster, 823 (undated); his statue was set up
by his native state.
[2422] _Ibid._, no. 225; Foerster,632. The base contained two epigrams
by T. Klaudios Thessalos, of Kos: E. Cougny, _Epigramm. Anth. Pal._,
III, 1890 (_Appendix nova_), p. 26, no. 169.
[2423] _Ibid._, 226; Foerster, 634. His statue was erected by L.
Betilenos Phloros, of Elis.
[2424] _Ibid._, no. 227; Foerster, 666; he won Ol. 217 (= 89 A. D.).
His brother Diodoros set up the statue. The victor was an ἔφεδρος; see
A. E. J. Holwerda, _A. Z._, XXXVIII, 1880, pp. 171 f.
[2425] _Ibid._, 228; Foerster, 671.
[2426] _Ibid._, nos. 229, 230 (newer inscription); _I. G. B._, 125;
Foerster, 624-625. He was a περιοδονίκης and won in Ols. (?) 205 and
207 (= 41 and 49 A. D.).
[2427] _Inschr. v. Ol._, no. 231; Foerster, 595 and 597. Foerster dates
his two Olympic victories in Ols. (?) 191 and 192 (= 16 and 12 B. C.).
Hermas was περιοδονίκης twice, and also gained victories besides at the
Nemean and other games.
[2428] _Ibid._, no. 232; Foerster, 815-819 (undated). He was twice
περιοδονίκης and won besides at the Isthmus, Nemea, and at other
games—eighty victories in all.
[2429] _Ibid._, no. 234 and p. 346; he won in either πάλη or παγκράτιον.
[2430] _Ibid._, no. 235 and pp. 346-347. These bronze fragments have
been noted in our list of surviving fragments of victor statues, Ch.
VII, p. 322.
[2431] _Ibid._, no. 233 (name restored from no. 440, line 4). On her
father, see Foerster, under no. 634.
[2432] _Ibid._, 236; Foerster, 686. Both Gurlitt, _op. cit._, p. 421,
and Foerster think that this monument is mentioned by P., V, 20.8 (that
of a Roman senator). Dittenberger is against this view, and the place
of finding also is against it. On the victor’s full name and that of
his father, see Foerster, _l. c._
[2433] _Ibid._, no. 237; Foerster, 692. He won at Olympia in Ol. 229 (=
137 A. D.), and the inscription names many other victories elsewhere.
[2434] _Ibid._, no. 238; Foerster, 679 and 681, who dates the victories
in Ols. (?) 224 and 225 (= 117 and 121 A. D.), while Dittenberger dates
them in the next century. He was twice περιοδονίκης: see Foerster, _l.
c._
[2435] _Ibid._, no. 239; Foerster, 746 (date = end of second or third
centuries B. C.). For the epigram, see also Cougny, Epigramm. Anth.
Pal., III (_Appendix nova_), p. 46, n. 284.
[2436] _Ibid._, nos. 242-243; Foerster, 741-744. He was a τρισπερίοδος,
_i. e._, three times περιοδονίκης. For his other victories outside
Olympia, see Foerster, _l. c._
[2437] _Ibid._, nos. 240-241; Foerster, 739. Asklepiades won the
πένταθλον in Ol. 255 (= 241 A. D.).
[2438] Philinos, son of Hegepolis of Kos (173), won 24 victories, 5
at Olympia, 4 at Delphi, 4 at Nemea, 11 at the Isthmus, mostly in the
στάδιον, he was, therefore, four times περιοδονίκης. He won in Ols. 129
and 130 (= 264 and 260 B. C.): _cf._ P., VI, 17.2 and Foerster, 441 and
442; Leonidas of Rhodes (111c) was τριαστής in the four different Ols.
154-157 (= 164-152 B. C.), winning 12 races: _cf._ P., VI, 13.4, and
Foerster, 495-497, 498-500, 502-504, 507-509.
[2439] Omitting the votive bronze diskos of the victor P. Asklepiades
of Corinth mentioned above.
[2440] Foerster, pp. 26-30, records the names of 634 Olympic victors
who are known to us from all available sources.
[2441] Sepulchral monuments are either entirely excluded or mentioned
only incidentally. The tombs of nine Olympic victors are known from
various sources.
[2442] The dating of victories in the present section will necessitate
certain repetitions of dates already given elsewhere in this work.
While heretofore dates have been referred usually to the compilations
of Foerster and Hyde, the original authorities for them will be cited
in this section.
[2443] Chionis, (= Charmis in Afr.), according to P., III, 14.3, won
seven victories at Olympia: four in the στάδιον, in Ols. 28 to 31 (=
668 to 656 B. C.); 1-4 = Afr.; 1 = P., IV, 23.4; 2 = IV, 23.10; 3 =
VIII, 39.3; three in the δίαυλος, probably in Ols. (?) 29-31: see
Rutgers, p. 11, n. 4, and pp. 10-11; Hyde, 111 and p. 48; Foerster, 39,
41-46.
[2444] Kylon won the δίαυλος in Ol. 35 (= 640 B. C.): Afr.; _cf._
Rutgers p. 13; Foerster, 55.
[2445] Hdt., V, 71; Thukyd., I, 126; Plut., _Solon_, 12.
[2446] _A. M._, V, 1880, p. 27 and n. 1. Kuhnert, _Jahrb. f. classische
Philol._, Supplbd., XIV, 1885, pp. 278 f., and n. 2, agrees with
Furtwaengler, and thinks that it was set up long after the death of
Kylon, and that it is possible that the name of the conspirator became
mixed with that of an Athenian victor of the same name, but of later
date.
[2447] _A. Z._, XXIV, 1866, pp. 183 f.; he is followed by Frazer, II,
p. 348.
[2448] Thukyd., I, 134.
[2449] Loeschke, _A. M._, IV, 1879, p. 295, n. 1.
[2450] See also Hitz.-Bluemn., I, 1, pp. 299-300.
[2451] His six victories in πάλη are mentioned by P., III, 13.9; he won
πάλη παίδων in Ol. 37 (= 632 B. C.): P., V, 8.9; Afr.; πάλη ἀνδρῶν in
Ols. 39-43 (= 624-608 B. C.): Afr.; Foerster, 60, 64, 66, 68, 71, 73.
He is mentioned by Ph., I.
[2452] See Wide, _Lakonische Kulte_, 1893, pp. 38 f.; Hitz.-Bluemn., I,
2, pp. 792-3.
[2453] Pausanias, III, 13.9, mentions his five victories in πάλη. He
must have won after his father’s victories, and so at the beginning of
the sixth century B. C. Rutgers, pp. 109 f., conjectures that the first
victory was πάλη παίδων; Foerster, 86-90.
[2454] Arrhachion (on various spellings of the name, _cf._ Rutgers, p.
19) won thrice in the παγκράτιον in Ols. 52-54 (= 572-564 B. C.). The
third victory is recorded by Afr. and P., VIII, 40.1; the first two by
P., _l. c._ _Cf._ also Ph., 21. Foerster, 98, 101, 103. See _supra_,
pp. 326 f.
[2455] He had the nickname _Koalemos_: Plut., _Cimon_, 4. He won two
victories τεθρίππῳ in Ols. 62 and 64 (= 532 and 524 B. C.); his horses,
under the name of Peisistratos, won in the same event in Ol. 63 (= 528
B. C.): Hdt., VI, 103; they were buried in front of the city beyond
the so-called “Hollow Way,” opposite the tomb of Kimon; Hdt., _l. c._;
Plutarch, _Cato Major_, 5. _Cf._ Aelian, _de Animal._, XII, 40, where
he says that the mares of Miltiades—meaning Kimon—were buried in the
Kerameikos. See Foerster, 124, 128 and 132.
[2456] _Var. Hist._, IX, 32.
[2457] Hdt., VI, 103.
[2458] IV, 33.
[2459] On _Nubes_, 64.
[2460] Foerster, 85.
[2461] He won in an unknown contest. He accompanied Dorieus, the
younger brother of Kleomenes I of Sparta, on his futile expedition to
Sicily, and died there: Hdt., V, 47. Kleomenes began to reign in 519
B. C., and the Sicilian expedition occurred about 510 B. C.; Foerster,
138, therefore dates the victory of Philippos about Ol. 65 (= 520 B.
C.).
[2462] Hdt., V, 47; Eustath., on Iliad, Bk. III (p. 383, 43).
[2463] Astylos (on variations of the name, see Rutgers, pp. 32 f.) won
victories in στάδιον and δίαυλος in three successive Ols.: P., VI,
13.1: στάδιον in Ols. 73-75 (= 488-480 B. C.): 1 = Afr., and Dionys.
Hal., VIII, 1; 2 = Afr., and Dionys., VIII, 77; 3 = Afr., Dionys., IX,
1, and Diod. Sic., XI, 1. So the victories in δίαυλος, 1, 2, 3, must
have been in the same Ols. The _Oxy. Pap._ also names Astylos a victor
twice as ὁπλίτης, in Ols. 75 and 76 (= 480 and 476 B. C.). So Grenfell
and Hunt thought that P. had mixed the victories in δίαυλος and as
ὁπλίτης; Robert, _O. S._, pp. 163 f., however, supports P., and thinks
that Astylos won eight victories, the victories in δίαυλος and στάδιον
all preceding Ol. 76, as other names appear here in the _Oxy. Pap._
Astylos, therefore, won three victories in Ol. 75, one in Ol. 76, and
the other four in Ols. 73-74. _Cf._ Rutgers, pp. 32, 34-35; Foerster,
176-177, 181-182, 187-188; Hyde, 110.
[2464] Rutgers, p. 34, n. 1 (_cf._ Robert, _O. S._, p. 164)
has shown that the tyrant named Hiero by Pausanias should be Gelo;
_cf._ Hertzberg, _Gesch. v. Hellas u. Rom_, I, 1879, p. 181; Foerster,
181-2.
[2465] I, pp. 409-410; Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 59, calls the statue of
Astylos that of a _stadiodromos_.
[2466] Euthymos won πύξ three times in Ols. 74, 76, and 77 (= 484, 476,
and 472 B. C.): 1 = P., VI, 6.5; 2 and 3 = P., VI, 6.6 and _Oxy. Pap._
_Cf._ Rutgers, pp. 34, 38, 41; Foerster, 185, 195, 207; Robert, _O.
S._, pp. 167, 184 f.; Hyde, 56.
[2467] Inscribed base found: see _Inschr. v. Ol._, 144; _I. G. B._, 23;
_I. G. A._, 1882, 388.
[2468] See Kallimachos, _apud_ Plin., _H. N._, VII, 152.
[2469] Strabo, VI, 1.5 (= C. 255); Aelian, _Var. Hist._, VIII, 18;
Suidas, _s. v._ Εὔθυμος; P., VI, 6. 7-11. _Cf._ also E. Curtius on the
Olympia base, _A. Z._, XXXVI, 1878, p. 83, no. 127. On the legend of
the statue, see Eusebios, _Praep. evang._, V, 34.7.
[2470] Theagenes won πύξ in Ol. 75 (= 480 B. C.): P., VI, 6.5;
_Oxy.Pap._; and παγκράτιον in Ol. 76 (= 476 B. C.): P., VI, 11.4; _Oxy.
Pap._; he was twice περιοδονίκης and won many victories elsewhere,
carrying off 1400 crowns, according to P., VI, 11.5, and 1200,
according to Plut., _Praec. reipub. ger._, 15, p. 811 D. _Cf._ Rutgers,
pp. 36, 38; Foerster, 191, 196; Hyde, 104. Dio Chrys., _Orat._, XXXI,
p. 339 M, wrongly mentions three Olympic victories.
[2471] _Op. cit._, p. 340 M.
[2472] _Praep. evang._, V, 34.7.
[2473] _Deor. Conc._, 12; _cf._ P., VI, 11.9.
[2474] _Sitzb. Muen. Akad._, 1900, p. 332, n. 2.
[2475] Ladas won δόλιχος in Ol. (?) 76 (= 476 B. C.): Robert, _O.
S._, p. 165, because of an older dating for Myron, 480-444 B. C.,
necessitated by the _Oxy. Pap._ (see also _ibid._, p. 184). Foerster,
249, has given Ol. (?) 85 (= 440 B. C.) as the date of the victory, on
the basis of the earlier dating of Myron, 460-420 B. C.; _cf._, _e. g._,
Brunn, 1, p. 142; Bergk, _P. l. G._, III, p. 473, no 125 and note, and
Rutgers p. 107.
[2476] _A. Pl._, nos. 53, 54; see _supra_, Ch. IV, pp. 196-197.
[2477] Foerster assumed that the statue by Myron stood in
Olympia. Against this view, see Furtwaengler (_Mw._, p. 379, n. 5),
Kalkmann (_Jb._, X, 1895, p. 56, and XI, 1896, p. 197), Studniczka
(article cited in note on Theagenes preceding), Brunn (_Sitzb. Muen.
Akad._, 1880, pp. 474 f.). Benndorf (_de anthol. Gr. Epigram._, 1862,
15, n. 1) thought it more probable that the statue stood formerly at
Olympia, but in the time of Pausanias was in Rome. Thus it is best
to assume two statues, the one in Argos not by Myron. Brunn (p. 475)
showed that Ladas was a Spartan because of P., III, 21. I and VIII,
12.5; Benndorf (_op. cit._, p. 13) thought that he was an Argive.
Kuhnert (_Jahrbuecher f. cl. Philol._, Supplbd., XIV, p. 269 n. 13)
argued that the Argive statue was set up by the Argive state, an
improbable assumption if Ladas were a Spartan. A different Ladas is the
stade runner from Aigion, mentioned by P., III, 21.1, and X, 23.14.
[2478] Kallias won παγκράτιον in Ol. 77 (= 472 B. C.): P. V, 9.3.
He was περιοδονίκης: _C. I. A._, I, 419. _Cf._ Foerster, 208; Hyde,
50. Three other Athenian victors at Olympia named Kallias are known:
Kallias, son of Pheinippos, won κέλητι in Ol. 54 (= 564 B. C.):
Foerster, 104; Rutgers, p. 21; Kallias, son of Hipponikos, grandson of
preceding, won τεθρίππῳ thrice in Ol. (?) 74, and Ols. 83, 84 (= 484,
448, 444 B. C.): Foerster, 186 a, 242, 247; Rutgers, p. 142; Kallias,
mentioned by Polyb., XXVIII, 16, won παγκράτιον in the second century
B. C.: _cf._ Foerster, under no. 208.
[2479] Inscribed base found: _Inschr. v. Ol._, 146; _I. G. B._, 41.
[2480] _C. I. A._, I, 419. The painter Mikon, mentioned by Pliny, _H.
N._, XXXV, 59, is also named by him as a sculptor of athlete statues:
_op. cit._, XXXIV, 88; he is also known from an inscription found on
the Akropolis at Athens: _C. I. A._, I, 418; _I. G. B._, 42.
[2481] Diagoras won πύξ in Ol. 79 (= 464 B. C.): schol. on Pindar,
_Ol._, VII, Argum., Boeckh, p. 157, and _Oxy. Pap._ He was
περιοδονίκης, and his other victories are mentioned by Pindar and the
scholiast on the ode cited. On Diagoras, see H. van Gelder, _Geschichte
der alten Rhodier_, 1900, p. 435; on Kallikles, see Robert, _O. S._,
pp. 194 f. _Cf._ Rutgers, p. 43; Foerster, 220; Hyde, 59.
[2482] Boeckh, p. 157 and _cf._ p. 159; _F. H. G._, IV, p. 410 (=
Gorgon, fragm. 3).
[2483] Agias was περιοδονίκης. The date of his victory in the
παγκράτιον at Olympia can not be determined exactly. Although the
dedication of Daochos occurred in the latter half of the fourth century
B. C., the time of Lysippos (Preuner = between 339 and 331 B. C.: see
_Ein delphisches Weihgeschenk_, 1900, p. 12; Homolle dates it more
closely between 338 and 334 B. C.; _B. C. H._, XXIII, 1899, 440), the
victory of Agias fell over a century earlier. Homolle proposed 428
B. C. as the _floruit_ of Agias, but gave no date for his victory at
Olympia; Preuner (p. 17) sets the victory before the middle of the
fifth century B. C.; K. K. Smith (_Class. Phil._, 1910, pp. 169-174)
has proposed Ol. 80 (= 460 B. C.), the only lacuna for παγκράτιον in
the _Oxy. Pap._; however, Robert (_O. S._, p. 183) has placed Timodemos
of Acharnai in that place. Foerster, 214, dates Timodemos Ol. (?) 78 (=
468 B. C.).
[2484] _Pharsalos_, p. 28. See _supra_, pp. 286-287.
[2485] Cheimon won πάλη in Ol. 83 (= 448 B. C.): _Oxy. Pap._; _cf._
Robert, _O. S._, pp. 171 and 191; Hyde, no. 88. Foerster, 285, had
proposed Ol. (?) 94 (= 404 B. C.), on the basis of the older dating of
Naukydes = 423-390 B. C. (see Robert, _Arch. Maerchen_, 1886, p. 107).
Kalkmann, _Pausanias der Perieget_, 1886, p. 192, n. 1, thought that
the statue at Olympia and the one at Rome were identical; Gurlitt,
_Ueber Pausanias_, 1890, pp. 374 and 423, n. 38 a, has shown that the
assumption is unfounded.
[2486] The temple of Peace was built by Vespasian (between A. D. 70 and
75) east of the _Forum Augusti_. Pliny (_H. N._, XXXIV, 84, and XXXV,
102) mentions works of art in it; Josephus (_de Bell. Judaico_, VII,
5.7) also describes it.
[2487] Leon, according to Eustathius, on Iliad, II, 851 (= p. 361,
10), won τεθρίππῳ in Ol. 85 (= 440 B. C.). This date is followed by
Schubart, Pausanias und seine Anklaeger, _Jb. f. cl. Philol._, XXX,
1884, p. 99, and Preger, _Inscript. Gr. metricae ex scriptoribus
praeter anthologiam collectae_, (Lipsiae, 1891), on no. 128. He won
in Ol. 89 (= 424 B. C.), according to Polemon (fragm. 22), the date
followed by Foerster, 264 and 264 N. Foerster places Arkesilaos of
Sparta (= 250) as victor τεθρίππῳ in Ol. (?) 85; Hyde (13) places
Arkesilaos either in Ol. 86 or Ol. 87, leaving Ol. 85 free for Leon.
Polemon (fragm. 22) calls Leon the “father of Antikleidas”; Preger,
_op. cit._, p. 49, proposes the “son of Antikleidas,” thus having Leon
win with his father’s chariot. Bergk, _P. l. G._, III, p. 40, note,
changed the name to Antalkidas.
[2488] Fragm., 22 (= schol. on Euripides, _Hippolytus_, 230); see _F.
H. G._, III, p. 122; _cf._ _P. l. G._, _l. c._
[2489] Eubotas (on the name, _cf._ Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, pp. 573-574)
won στάδιον in Ol. 93 (= 408 B. C.): Afr.; Xen., _Hell._, I, 2.10;
Diodoros, XIII, 68.1; and τεθρίππῳ in Ol. 104 (= 304 B. C.): P., VI,
8.3 and _cf._ VI, 4.2; Foerster, 277, 350; Hyde, 75. Pausanias (VI,
8.3) says that his Olympia statue was made before his victory. Ol. 104
was a non-Olympiad; see on no. 28 _infra_ (Xenodamos), p. 369 and notes.
[2490] Aelian, _Var. Hist._, X, 2.
[2491] Promachos won παγκράτιον in Ol. 94 (= 404 B. C.): see Rutgers,
p. 56, n. 4, who gives this date on the basis of P., VII, 27.6, and
Ph., 22. _Cf._ Foerster, 286; Hyde, 81.
[2492] He won in an unknown contest, either in the fifth or the
fourth century B. C.: Preger, _op. cit._, no. 144, on the basis of
the epigram. _Cf._ Foerster, 293a; Foerster, in another place, under
no. 159, wrongly refers this same epigram (which he there ascribes to
Simonides) to another unknown victor of Argos who won in some gymnic
contest, some time between Ols. 65 and 76 (= 527 and 476 B. C.), the
dates of Simonides’ sojourn in Greece (_cf._ K. Sittl, _Gesch. d.
griech. Litt._, 1884-1887, III, pp. 59 f.). It can, however, refer to
but one victor.
[2493] I, 7, p. 1365a and I, 9, p. 1367b.
[2494] _Ap._ Eustath., on Od., XIV, 350 (= p. 1761, 25).
[2495] See G. Kaibel, Quaestiones Simonideae, _Rhein. Mus._, XXVIII,
1873, pp. 452-3. _Cf._ _P. l. G._, III, p. 503; fragm. 163 (Simonides).
[2496] Kyniska won τεθρίππῳ twice in Ols. (?) 96 and 97 (= 396 and 392
B. C.): see Hyde, 7, on the basis of Robert, _O. S._, p. 195; Foerster,
326 and 333, proposed Ols. (?) 100 and 101 (= 380 and 376 B. C.) on the
basis of the inscription found at Olympia (_Inschr. v. Ol._, 160; _I.
G. B._, no. 99 and p. XXI). _Cf._ Rutgers, pp. 143-144.
[2497] She won συνωρίδι some time near the middle of the fourth century
B. C.; Foerster, 344, dates the victory Ol. (?) 103 (= 368 B. C.).
[2498] Curtius, _Peloponnesos_, II, 1852, p. 313, n. 29; for King
Pausanias, see Thukyd., I, 134.
[2499] Archias won as κῆρυξ in three successive Olympiads: Pollux, IV,
92; the epigram says (ὃς τρὶς ἐκάρυξεν). Foerster, 351, 356, 361; he
proposes (see under no. 351) Ols. (?) 104-106 (= 364-356 B. C.).
[2500] _A. Pl._, 372; also in Pollux, IV, 92.
[2501] [Phil]okrates won συνωρίδι about the middle of the fourth
century B. C. (see Koehler on the inscription cited in the following
note). Foerster, 365, proposes Ol. (?) 107 (= 352 B. C.)
[2502] _C. I. A._, II, 3, 1303; see L. Ross, _Die Demen von Attika_,
1846, pp. 80 and 111.
[2503] _C. I. A._, II, 3, 1319; Le Bas, _Voyage archéologique_, I,
_Attique_, no. 595. The inscription appears to belong to the fourth
century B. C.
[2504] Phorystas won as κῆρυξ some time toward the end of the fourth
century B. C., _i. e._, in the time of the artist Kaphisias: see Loewy,
on the inscription cited in the following note. Foerster, 405, proposes
Ol. (?) 117 (= 312 B. C.).
[2505] _C. I. G._, I, 1582; Kaibel, _Epigr. Gr. ex lapid. conlecta_,
1878, no. 938; Loewy, _I. G. B._, 119; Collitz and Bechtel, _Samml. d.
gr. Dialekt-Inschr._, 1883-90, no. 945.
[2506] _I. G. B._, 120. See Foerster, under no. 405.
[2507] Aristophon won παγκράτιον some time between Ols. (?) 115 and 130
(= 320 and 260 B. C.), as we infer from the date of the inscription
from the base of his statue at Olympia: see _Inschr. v. Ol._, no. 169.
_Cf._ Hyde, 123 and p. 51. Foerster, 758 (following Rutgers, p. 122)
had left the victory undated.
[2508] _C. I. A._, II, 3, 1475. See Ross, _Die Demen von Attika_, no.
70; Le Bas, _Attique_, no. 115.
[2509] Strabo, XII, 4.2 (= C. 624).
[2510] Attalos won ἅρματι πώλων some time during the reign of his older
brother Philetairos, founder of the Attalid dynasty, _i. e._, between
Ols. 124 and 129 (= 284 and 264 B. C.): see Foerster, 436. An epigram
of the philosopher Arkesilaos of Pitane (mentioned by Foerster),
celebrating the chariot-race of this Attalos, is preserved by Diog.
Laert., IV, 6.30; _cf._ Fraenkel on the inscription, no. 10 (see next
note).
[2511] _Inschr v. Pergamon_ (ed. Fraenkel), 1890, I, nos. 10-12; _cf._
_I. G. B._, no. 157.
[2512] He won παγκράτιον ἀνδρῶν in Ol. 211 (= 67 A. D.): P., X, 36.9.
[2513] _A. Z._, XL, 1882, p. 110.
[2514] P., VI, 22.2.
[2515] _Ibid._
[2516] P., VI, 22.3; 4.2; _cf._ 8.3 (where Eubotas won τεθρίππῳ, no. 17
_supra_).
[2517] V, pp. 454-455; _cf._ Hitz.-Bluemn., III, 2, p. 829.
[2518] _Vit. Apoll. Tyan._, V, 7.
[2519] Suetonius, _Nero_, 24; Dio Cassius, LXIII, 14. Foerster, 642-647.
[2520] _Cf._ also Schubart, Pausanias u. seine Anklaeger, _Jb. f. cl.
Philologie_, XXIX, 1883, pp. 472 f.; Brunn, _ibid._, XXX, 1884, p. 24;
and Foerster, 641 and under no. 638.
[2521] T. Phlabios Artemidoros won παγκράτιον twice. He was also
περιοδονίκης. The _Magna Capitolia_, in which he was also victor, were
instituted by Domitian in 86 A. D.; Foerster, 657, 661, proposes Ols.
(?) 215 and 216 (= 81 and 85 A. D.) for the two victories.
[2522] _C. I. G._, III, 5806; Kaibel, _Inscript. Gr. Sicil. et Ital._,
1890, no. 746.
[2523] T. Phlabios Metrobios won δόλιχος, first of his countrymen, in
Ol. 217 (= 89 A. D.): _cf._ Boeckh on the inscription (see next note)
and Rutgers, p. 91, n. 2; Foerster, 665. He was also περιοδονίκης and
won δόλιχος at the _Capitolia_ in Rome, as “first of all men.”
[2524] _C. I. G._, II, 2682.
[2525] Sarapion won πὺξ παίδων in Ol. 217 (= 89 A. D.): P., VI, 23.6.
_Cf._ Foerster, 667; Rutgers, p. 91, n. 3, who doubts whether Sarapion
was an Olympic victor, though Pausanias says that he was.
[2526] _I. e._, Sarapion, from Alexandria, who won στάδιον in Ol. 204
(= 37 A. D.): Afr.; Foerster, 620; Rutgers, p. 86; another Sarapion,
from Alexandria, who, Pausanias (V. 21.18) says, came to Olympia in
Ol. 201 (= 25 A. D.) to enter the παγκράτιον, but ran away the day
before the contest and was fined for cowardice; Sarapion of Magnesia
ad Sipylum, victor in an unknown contest and at an unknown date, known
from an inscription from Tralles: _C. I. G._, II, 2933; Foerster, 824;
Rutgers, p. 156.
[2527] M. Aurelios Demetrios won παγκράτιον some time before his son’s
victory in the same contest in Ol. 240 (= 181 A. D.), as we learn from
the inscription mentioned in the next note; _cf._ Rutgers, p. 96;
Foerster, 719. Foerster, 682, therefore proposes Ol. (?) 225 (= 121 A.
D.) for the father’s victory; _cf._ Rutgers, p. 122. Both father and
son were περιοδονῖκαι. The father was called ὁ παράδοξος.
[2528] _C. I. G._, III, 5912, 5913, and 5914; Kaibel, _Inscript. Gr.
Sicil. et Ital._, 1102-1104.
[2529] This victor won πάλη ἀνδρῶν, first of his countrymen, in Ol. 229
(= 137 A. D.); date from the inscription (see next note); Foerster, 691.
[2530] _B. C. H._, XI, 1887, pp. 80 f. (P. Foucart).
[2531] Kranaos won στάδιον in Ol. 231 (= 145 A. D.): Afr.; and
πένταθλον twice, δίαυλος once, and as ὁπλίτης once, according to
Pausanias (II, 11.8), but in unknown Olympiads: Foerster, 697, 702-703,
707-708. He dates the four last victories in Ols. (?) 232 and 233 (=
149 and 153 A. D.).
Most writers have identified the Granianos of Pausanias with Kranaos
of Africanus, as both are from Sikyon; _cf._ Rutgers, p. 94 and n. 1.
Kalkmann, _Pausanias der Perieget_, p. 74, note 6, however, is doubtful
of the identification.
[2532] T. Ailios Aurelios Apollonios won as κῆρυξ during the reign of
Antoninus Pius (= 138-161 A. D.): _cf._ Dittenberger on the inscription
(see next note). Foerster, 700, proposes Ol. (?) 231 (= 145 A. D.). He
was περιοδονίκης.
[2533] _C. I. A._, III, 120 (Dittenberger).
[2534] Mnasiboulos won στάδιον in Ol. 235 (= 161 A. D.): Afr., and P.,
X, 34.5; and as ὁπλίτης in Ol. 235: P., _ibid._ He was περιοδονίκης
in both events: Foerster, nos. 712-713. His son of the same name had
a statue in the temple of Athena Kranaia at Elateia, whose marble
inscribed plate has been recovered: see _B. C. H._, XI, 1887, p. 342,
no. 13 (P. Paris).
[2535] Aurelios Toalios won (?) παγκράτιον twice in the time of
Alexander Severus (= 222-235 A. D.): see Holleaux and Paris on the
inscription (see next note). Foerster, 735-736, proposes Ols. (?) 251
and 252 (= 225 and 229 A. D.).
[2536] _B. C. H._, X, 1886, pp. 233 f., no. 13.
[2537] Aurelios Metrodorus won παγκράτιον about the time of Alexander
Severus (see Boeckh, on the inscription mentioned in the next note).
Foerster, 737, proposes Ol. (?) 253 (= 233 A. D.).
[2538] _C. I. G._, III, 3676.
[2539] Valerios Eklektos won as κῆρυξ four times in Ols. 256, 258, 259,
and 260 (= 245, 253, 257, and 261 A. D.): see inscription mentioned
in the next note; Foerster, 741-744. He was περιοδονίκης thrice (=
τρισπερίοδος), and won 80 crowns in various games.
[2540] _Inschr. v. Ol._, 242-243; _A. Z._, XXXVIII, 1880, pp. 164 f.,
no. 369.
[2541] _C. I. A._, III, 129 (Dittenberger).
[2542] Klaudios Rhouphos won (?) πάλη or (?) πύξ or (?) παγκράτιον
near the beginning of the fourth century A. D. (see Kaibel and the
inscription mentioned in the next note); Foerster, 748-749, and
Rutgers, p. 154. He was twice περιοδονίκης.
[2543] _C. I. G._, III, 5910; Kaibel, _Inscript. Gr. Sicil. et Ital._,
no. 1107, p. 299.
[2544] Philoumenos won (?) πάλη, according to Rutgers, p. 98, n. 3,
either in Ol. 288 (= 373 A. D.) or _certe non multo prius_ (on the
basis of the passage in Panodoros cited in the following note). He
is also mentioned in a Roman inscription given by Rutgers, _ibid._
Foerster, 750.
[2545] _Ap._ Cramer, _Anecd. gr. Parisiensia_, 1839-41, II, p. 155, 17
(quoted by Foerster); Preger, _Inscr. Gr. metricae_, no. 133.
[2546] Ainetos was victor in πένταθλον. _Cf._ Rutgers, p. 112;
Foerster, 754, who wrongly gives the contest as πύξ.
[2547] Nikokles, according to Pausanias, _l. c._, won five prizes
in running δρόμος in two Olympiads. Foerster, under nos. 788-792,
explains these words by arranging victories in δίαυλος, δόλιχος, and as
ὁπλίτης in one Olympiad, and two of these contests in the next; none
of them could have been in στάδιον, since his name does not appear in
Africanus. _Cf._ Rutgers, pp. 105-106, 107, and 126. Le Bas long ago
(_R. arch._, II, 1845, p. 220) connected a restored inscription with
this victor.
[2548] Aigistratos won πάλη παίδων: Foerster, 806.
[2549] _C. I. G._, II, 2527.
[2550] He won in an unknown contest and was three times περιοδονίκης,
gaining 35 crowns at various games. _Cf._ Foerster, 825-827.
[2551] _C. I. G._, I, 1715.
[2552] Ross, _Arch. Aufsaetze_, 1855-1861, I, pp. 163 f; _C. I. A._,
I, 376; _I. G. B._, 39; E. S. Roberts, _An Introduction to Greek
Epigraphy_, I, 1887, 68a.
[2553] _Rhein. Mus._, XVI, 1861, p. 224.
[2554] _Hermes_, XII, 1877, p. 345 and n. 29.
[2555] _E. g._, by R. Schoell, _Hermes_, XIII, 1878, p. 437; _cf._
Gurlitt, _Ueber Pausanias_, pp. 158 f., Loewy on the inscription, and
Hitz.-Bluemn., I, 1, p. 261.
[2556] IX, 105.
[2557] _C. I. A._, I, 402; _I. G. B._, 46; Ross, _Arch. Aufsaetze_,
I, pp 168 f. This is possibly to be connected with the statue of the
_Volneratus deficiens_ mentioned by Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 74. See
_supra_, p. 199. However, the lettering is not later than 444 B. C.,
while Diitrephes is known to have been living as late as 411: Thukyd.,
VIII, 64.
[2558] Th. Bergk, _Zeitschr. f. d. Altertumswissensch._, III, 1845,
pp. 961 f.; Wilamowitz, _Hermes_, XII, 1877, p. 346; Furtwaengler, _A.
M._, V, 1880, p. 28 and n. 2; _cf._, however, Gurlitt, _op. cit._,
pp. 159 f.; Robert, Die Marathonschlacht in der Poikile und Weiteres
ueber Polygnot, _18stes Hallisches Winckelmannsprogr._, 1895, p. 22;
Hitz.-Bluemn., I, I, pp. 255 f. and 262 f.
[2559] II, p. 289; _cf. ibid._, pp. 275 f.
[2560] _Jb._, VII, 1892, pp. 185 f. _Cf._ the remarks of Gercke,
_ibid._, VIII, 1893, pp. 113 f.
[2561] III, 75; IV, 119 and 129.
[2562] _Mw._, pp. 278 f.
[2563] _Vit. X Orat._, IV (Isokrates), 42, (p. 839 c.) It was in the
ball-court of the Arrephoroi. The same author, IV, 41, (839b), also
mentions a bronze statue (with inscription) of Isokrates set up by the
orator’s adopted son Aphareus. See _supra_, pp. 24 and 281. I assume
that these two passages refer to one and the same monument.
[2564] Three victors, Ladas (no. 11), Agias (no. 14), and Sarapion (no.
30), had two statues each. Theagenes (no. 10) had several, according to
Pausanias, who, however, mentions only one definitely. We have omitted
from our total the statue set up by T. Phlabios Artemidoros (28a) to
his father.
[2565] We have here included the tablet of Chionis at Sparta (no. 1),
a victor of the seventh century B. C., whose monument, however, was
erected in the fifth century B. C.
[2566] Including the two Lysippan statues of Agias, a victor of the
fifth century, B. C.
[2567] Of the 192 monuments referred to 187 victors mentioned by
Pausanias in his victor _periegesis_ at Olympia, only 153, belonging
to 148 victors, can be exactly or approximately dated. Of these, 33
monuments (referred to 32 victors) belong to the epoch prior to the
approximate date of the founding of the temple of Zeus, _i. e._, prior
to Ol. 77 (= 472 B. C.); 51 monuments (referred to 50 victors) from
this date on, to the approximate date of the battle of Aigospotamoi
(B. C. 404), _i. e._, down to Ol. 93 (= 408 B. C.); 36 monuments
(referred to 34 victors) from then on, to about the time of the birth
of Alexander the Great, _i. e._, to Ol. 106 (= 356 B. C.); and 33
monuments (referred to 32 victors) from that date, to the close of the
description of the athlete _periegesis_, i_. e._, from Ols. 107 to 149
(= 352 to 184 B. C.). See Hyde, _op. cit._, Ch. IV, pp. 72 sq., and
_supra_, pp. 352-3. (In my victor lists, _op. cit._, pp. 3-24, I have
enumerated 188 victors; however, Philon of Kerkyra is listed twice,
nos. 91 and 136, for two different statues.) Of these 153 monuments,
nearly one-half (_i. e._, 74) belong properly to the fifth century
(Ols. 70 to 94 = 500 to 404 B. C.).
[2568] Pausanias mentions 192 (referred to 187 victors, as above);
we have found in the present chapter that 63 others (referred to 61
victors) are known from inscribed base fragments found at Olympia; and
that 47 (referred to 44 victors) are known from literary sources as
having stood elsewhere. If we deduct 10 victors who had monuments both
at Olympia and elsewhere, we have a grand total of 282 victors, in
whose honor these 302 monuments of various kinds were erected.
[2569] See Hyde, pp. v-vi, for an alphabetic list of sculptors
mentioned by Pausanias, or known from the recovered bases of statues at
Olympia. See _supra_, p. 339, n. 1, end.
[2570] Lysippos made two statues _honoris causa_ for Pythes, son of
Andromachos, of Abdera: P., VI, 14.12; Hyde, 134a. Mikon made two
statues for King Hiero of Syracuse, one represented on foot and the
other on horseback, which I have classed as “honor” statues: P., VI,
12.2; Hyde, 105a. All the “honor” statues at Olympia named by Pausanias
are listed in the work cited, on p. v.
[2571] _H. N._, Bk. XXXIV, _passim_. One other sculptor, Kratinos,
named by Pausanias, is noted by Pliny as a painter only: _ibid._, XXXV,
140 and 147.
INDEX.
Aberdeen head, 87.
Academy, festival in honor of Athenian soldiers at the, 11.
Achæans, games among, 20;
in Homer, 1, 7;
origin of sports among, 1.
Achaia, erects victor statue at Olympia, 30;
Pausanias’ account of, 323.
_Achilleae_, definition of, 92, note 6;
statues, 87, 226.
Achilles, casts _solos_ at games of Patroklos, 218;
fights with Telephos, on Tegea pediment, 306, 307;
shield of, 5;
yields prize to Agamemnon, 8.
Acrobats, among Athenians, 5;
in Crete, 2, 3;
in Homer, 5;
in modern Italy, 5;
in Thessaly, 5;
at Tiryns, 2, 3;
on Vapheio cups, 5.
Actors, statues of victorious, at Olympia, 285.
_Adlocutio_, gesture of, 132.
Admetos, boxing match with Mopsos, on chest of Kypselos, 285.
Adonis(?), statue of, 74.
_Adorantes se feminae_, statues by Apellas, 131.
Adoration and prayer, as athletic motives, 130f.
Aegean civilization, 1f.;
unathletic character of, 7.
Aegina, games on, 20;
date of gable statues from temple of Aphaia, 125;
gable statues from temple of Aphaia, 123f.;
influence of sculptors on “Apollo” statues, 102;
kneeling Herakles, from East gable, 195;
movement in gable statues, 176;
observation of nature in, 244;
runners, from West gable, 195;
sculptors from, 122f.;
sculptors in favor at Olympia, 264;
temple of Aphaia on, 123f.
Aeginetans, at battle of Salamis, 125.
Aelian, on bronze horses of Kimon, 363.
Aesthetic judgments of classical writers, 58.
Africanus, list of stade victors in, 191;
on omission of 211th Olympiad, 369.
Agamemnon, prize of, 8;
the _Agamemnon_ of Aischylos, 75.
Agasias, sculptor, 208.
Agathinos, statue at Olympia, 345.
Age, classification of Greek athletes by, 189;
in Plato’s _Republic_, 189.
Ageladas; see Hagelaïdas, 190.
Agenor, statue at Olympia, 30, 118.
Agesarchos, statue at Olympia, 129.
Agiadas, statue at Olympia, 123.
Agias, statue at Delphi, 46, 365, 366;
statue at Pharsalos, 366;
careless finish of Delphian statue, 304;
compared with _Apoxyomenos_ of Vatican, 289;
compared with _Farnese Herakles_, 253;
epigram on base of statue, 328;
as example of assimilation, 94;
fillet on, 150;
as statue “double,” 304;
as statue of a pancratiast, 292;
supplants _Apoxyomenos_ as norm of Lysippos, 290, 291f.;
swollen ear of, 168;
why considered copy, 303f., 316.
Agids, tomb in Sparta, 362.
Agilochos, statue at Olympia, 357.
_Agon_ (_Contest_), figure in group of Mikythos, 164, 215.
Agorakritos, sculptor, 182.
Agrippa, M., removes the _Apoxyomenos_ to Rome, 289.
Aiakos, games in honor of, 20.
Aigion, boy from, chosen as priest for his beauty, 57.
Aigistratos, Olympic victor statue at Lindos, 372.
Aigospotamoi, battle of, 352;
memorial at Delphi, 278.
Aigyptos, equestrian monument at Olympia, 120, 267, 279.
Ainetos, statue at Amyklai, 371.
Aischines, statue at Olympia, 29, 214, 346.
Aischylos, on ἀγώνιοι θεοί, 75;
_Agamemnon_ of, 75.
Aischylos, victor relief, in honor of the Dioskouroi, 96, 97.
Ajax, acrobatic feat of, 3;
combat with Diomedes, 8;
on r.-f. Etruscan stamnos, 132.
Akarnania, 318.
Akastos, games of, depicted on chest of Kypselos and on throne
of Apollo at Amyklai, 12.
Akestorides, statue at Olympia, 345, 354.
Akontistai; see Javelin-throwers.
Akousilaos, statue at Olympia, 130, 165.
Akragas, bronze statue dedicated at Olympia by people of, 130;
decadrachm of, 48.
Akropolis at Athens, Aeginetan bronze head from, 123;
Argive bronze head from, 114, 115;
athlete statue from, 115, 127;
chariot-race relief from, 128;
ephebe head, yellow-haired, from, 116;
excavations of, 126;
Hermes relief from, 270;
Korai from, 115, 126;
_la petite boudeuse_ from, 115;
pre-Persian sculptures from, 126f.;
Old Temple of Athena on, 128, 271.
_Akroteria_, winged figures as, 177.
Aktion, “Apollos” from, 103, 334.
Alabastron, on statue of Milo at Olympia, 107.
Alexander the Great, bust of, from Alexandria, 316;
coin of, showing Herakles, 253;
funeral games in honor of, 11;
head of, in Copenhagen, from sarcophagus, 95;
institutes funeral games for Hephaistion, 11;
portraits of, 56;
portraits of, by Lysippos, 290, 311, 316;
pensiveness in portraits of, 318;
statue of, by Lysippos, 73.
_Alexander Sarcophagus_, so-called, in Constantinople, 275.
Alexinikos, statue at Olympia, 122.
Alkainetos, statue at Olympia, 343, 352.
Alkamenes, and _Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo_ type, 89;
_Enkrinomenos_ of, 134;
and Olympia gable statues, 113;
and _Standing Diskobolos_, 76.
Alkandridas, P. Ailios, statue at Olympia, 360.
Alketos, statue at Olympia, 120, 344.
Alki, temple of Apollo at, 336.
Alkibiades, victor at Olympia, 257;
so-called _Alkibiades_ of the Vatican, 199.
Alkibios, base of statue of, from Akropolis, 284.
Alkinoos, King of Scheria, 210.
Alkmena, 10.
Alpheios, river at Olympia, 49, 258.
Altars, at Olympia: of Aphrodite, 351;
near Stadion, 283;
of Nymphs, 351;
of Seasons, 351;
scattered positions of, 341;
of Zeus; see Great Altar of Zeus.
Altis at Olympia, East Byzantine wall of, 345, 357;
erection of statues in, 27, 99;
excavation of, 24;
honor statues in, 339;
location of earliest statues in, 299;
North Byzantine wall of, 359;
_periegesis_ of Pausanias in, 151, 298;
positions of victor statues in, 339f.;
processional entrance of, 347;
processional way of, 348;
Roman enlargement of, 348;
routes (ἔφοδοι) of Pausanias in, 339f.;
South Terrace wall of, 346;
South wall of, 339, 341, 345, 347, 352, 357;
Southwest gate of, 360;
statues “within,” 347;
topography of, 339;
West Byzantine wall of, 358;
West wall of, 347, 355f.
Alypos, sculptor, 120.
Amaltheia, ivory horn of, at Olympia, 264, 265.
Amastris, coin of, showing figure of Hermes, 78.
Amazon, of Polykleitos, 159;
torso of Atalanta from Tegea pediment, draped as, 306.
Ambrakia, 105.
Amelung, W., on supposed absence of libation-pouring in athletic art,
140;
on head in Turin, 93;
on statuette in Vatican, 212, 244.
Amenartas; see Amenerdis.
Amenerdis, Egyptian queen, statue of, 331.
Amenemhat III, co-regent of Horfuabra, 330.
Amentum; see Thong.
Amertas, statue of, at Olympia, 117.
Amphiaraos vase, in Berlin, 13, 269, 280;
Amphiaraos, on chest of Kypselos, 269;
reliefs in honor of, 273.
Amphiareion, at Oropos, 272, 273.
Amphidamas, games of, 19.
Amphiktyonic League, 17.
Amphion, sculptor, 277.
Amphipolis, games at, 11.
Amyklai, temple of Apollo at, 19.
Amykos, boxing match of, with Polydeukes, 269;
invention of boxing-gloves ascribed to, 236.
Amyntas, statue at Olympia, 129, 354.
Analogy, in Greek art, 66.
Anatomy, knowledge of, in Greek sculpture, 56;
in Aeginetan gable statues, 124;
in Ligourió bronze, 111;
studied in Alexandria, 289.
Anauchidas, statue at Olympia, 341.
Anaxandros, statue at Olympia, 130, 266.
Anaxilas, as dedicator of Delphi _Charioteer_, 278.
Ancestors, worship of, in Greece, 14.
Ancient writings of the Eleans, 15.
Andokides, vase-painter, 229, 230.
Andreas, sculptor, 118.
Angelion, sculptor, 122, 304, 334.
See also Tektaios.
Aniconic statues, 58.
Anochos, statue at Olympia, 110, 111.
Anointing, as athletic motive, 133f.
Antaios, bout with Herakles, on proto-Attic amphora, 13.
Antenor, sculptor, 174, 175.
Anthologies, Greek, 43, 239, 368.
Anthropometry in Greek sculpture, 68.
Antidotos, painter, 29, 233.
Antigenes, statue at Olympia, 357.
Antignotos, sculptor, 136.
Antigonos, statue at Olympia, 346.
Antikythera, bronze statue of youth from sea near, 80f.;
statuette from sea near, 78, 79.
Antioch, date of founding of, 121.
Antipatros, statue at Olympia, 118;
father of, bribed by Syracuse, 33.
Antoninus Pius, coins of, showing pine, 21.
Apellas, sculptor, 131, 267, 367.
Aphaia, temple of, on Aegina, 123f.
Aphrodeisios, Tiberios Klaudios, statue at Olympia, 359;
victor in horse-race, 262.
Aphrodite, altar at Olympia, 351;
statue in Heraion at Olympia, 326;
temple at Naukratis, 334.
_Apobates_, chariot-race, 272f.;
armor worn in, 272, 273;
known at Athens and in Bœotia, 273;
preserves tradition of Homeric warfare, 272;
on reliefs, 272;
_apobates_, horse-race, at Olympia, 282f.
Apollas, lost work of, on Olympic victors, 45, 130, 343.
Apollo, as athlete, 88;
beaten in running, 76;
beats Ares in boxing, 88, 235, 285;
beats Hermes in running, 88, 285;
as charioteer, 129, 270;
combat with Herakles, 88, 89;
cult statue of, represented on vases, 335;
as god of boxing at Delphi, 235;
as god of boxing in Homer, 235;
as god of contests, 75;
as god of youth, 88;
hymn to, 25;
on coins of Athens, 90;
on relief in Capitoline, 89;
on relief with Artemis and Leto, in Louvre, 284;
tripods in worship of, 19.
Statues: _Apollo Alexikakos_, by Kalamis, 90;
from temple of Apollo at Alki, 336;
from Delos, 334, 335;
colossal, from Delos, 336;
from Mausoleion, 311;
colossal, from Olympia, 91;
_Philesian Apollo_, by elder Kanachos, 107, 118, 336;
from Porto d’Anzio, 144;
Praxitelian, in Medici Gardens, Rome, 313;
from West gable, Olympia, 114-116.
Statuettes: bronze from Naxos, in Berlin, 74, 119;
Payne Knight bronze, British Museum, 108, 119;
bronze, from Piombino, Louvre, 118;
Sciarra bronze, Rome, 119.
Temples: of Apollo Lykios, 364;
at Bassai, 327;
at Naukratis, 334.
“Apollo,” type of, in sculpture, 100f.;
Aeginetan influence on, 102;
_Choiseul-Gouffier_, 89f., 91, 148;
funerary in character, 336, 337;
“grinning” and “stolid” groups, 100;
name “Apollo,” 337;
name rightly applied to statues found in sanctuaries of Apollo, 334-336;
nudity of, 48;
represents early victor statues, 334f.;
_on-the-Omphalos_, 89f., 168.
Statues of: from Aktion, 103, 334;
from Cyprus, 337;
from Delphi, 148;
colossal, from Megara, 336;
from Melos, 100f.;
from Mount Ptoion, 100-103, 120, 123, 334;
from Naukratis, 334;
from Naxos, 328, 334;
from Orchomenos, 100, 101, 103, 328, 334;
from Pompeii, 111;
from Tenea, 100f., 127, 148, 327, 328, 336;
from Thera, 100f., 327, 337;
from Volomandra, 100, 104, 337.
Apollonia, head from, 157.
Apollonios, sculptor, 168, 224;
quoted by Philostratos, 107.
Apollonios, T. Ailios Aurelios, Olympic victor, statue at Athens, 370.
Apollonios, victor at Olympia, fined by the umpires, 34.
_Apoxyomenos_, the, after Lysippos, 74;
statue in Vatican, 136, 288f.;
pose of, 81, 99;
regarded formerly as center of stylistic treatment of Lysippos, 288;
so regarded by some scholars now, 291;
present doubts of, 290;
display of anatomical knowledge in, 289;
compared with the _Agias_, 289f.;
as work of Lysippos’ school, 292;
of third century B. C., 292;
_Apoxyomenos_ of Polykleitos, 136;
statue in Uffizi as, 136, 137, 168.
Apples, prizes at Delphi, 21, 107, 182.
Aratos, statesman, honor statue at Olympia, 42.
Aratos, victor, painting of, 29.
Archaism, break with, in the statue of the ephebe from the Akropolis,
115.
Archedamos, statue at Olympia, 120.
Archemoros, 10.
Archery, in Homer, 8.
Archiadas, statue at Olympia, 358.
Archias, victor statue at Delphi, 368.
Archidamas, chariot victor, statue at Olympia, 265.
Archidamas III, King of Sparta, statues at Olympia, 42.
Archippos, statue at Olympia, 346.
Ares, beaten by Apollo in boxing, 235, 285;
_Doryphoros_ of Polykleitos converted into Ares, 74;
head of, in Munich, 170;
helmeted head of, in Louvre, 170;
Ludovisi statue of, 170;
swollen ears on heads of, 170.
Argeiadas, sculptor, 110.
Argive “Apollos” from Delphi, 104, 106;
Argive and Sikyonian canons, 68.
Argos, canon of early sculptors of, 68;
characteristics of sculptors of, 116;
Nemean games held at, 17;
prizes at, 20;
public chariot of, victorious at Olympia, 31, 257;
public horse of, victorious at Olympia, 31, 257;
school of sculptors from, 58, 109f., 105;
schools of Argos and Sikyon, 109f.;
square shoulders of canon of sculptors from, 112.
Arion, victor statue on Helikon, 284.
Aristarchos, statue at Olympia, 358.
Aristeides, the Elder, painter, 29.
Aristeus, statue, at Olympia, 344.
Aristion, statue at Olympia, 46, 88, 117, 159 and note 3, 240, 345.
Aristion, stele of, 124, 127.
See Aristokles.
Aristodamos, statue at Olympia, 356.
Aristodemos, statue at Olympia, 120.
Aristogeiton, statue of, 173f.
See also Harmodios and _Tyrannicides_.
Aristokles, Cretan sculptor of Sikyon, 118, 120.
Aristokles, sculptor of Aristion stele, 127.
Ariston, of Rhegion, kitharoidos, 284.
Ariston, P. Kornelios, statue at Olympia, 359.
Aristonikos of Egypt, beaten at Olympia, 147.
Aristonikos of Karystos, ball-player, 84.
Aristophanes, 36, 246;
scholia on, 110, 363.
Aristophanes, of Byzantion, 367.
Aristophon, statue at Olympia, 31, 345, 368;
at Athens, 368.
Aristotimos, 42.
Aristotle, honor statue at Olympia, 42;
lost work of, on Olympic victors, 45, 130, 343;
on inscribed base of statue of unknown Olympic victor, 367;
on jumping, 214;
on jumping-weights, 216;
in praise of “mimetic” arts, 58.
Arkadia, funeral games in, 9, 20;
Pausanias’ description of, 326;
statue of unnamed boxer from, at Olympia, 245.
Arkas, father of Azan, 9.
Arkesilaos, of Sparta, statue at Olympia, 29.
Arkesilas IV, of Kyrene, chariot victor at Olympia 257;
chariot model at Delphi, 24, 265, 267;
as dedicator of the Delphi _Charioteer_, 277.
Arm, right, of boy victor, from Olympia, 46;
bronze right arm from statue of Olympic victor, 322.
Armed contest, in early Greek art, 8-9.
Armor, race in; see Hoplite-race.
Arndt, P., on so-called _Jason_, of Louvre, 87;
on the Perinthos and allied heads, 180.
Arolsen, statuette of diskobolos in, 187.
Arrhachion, crowned after death, 247;
statue at Phigalia, 100, 325, 326f., 328, 335, 337, 363;
inscription on, 333;
one of oldest victor statues, 327, 333;
three victories of 327;
throttled by adversary, 247.
_Ars statuaria_, defined by Pliny, 302.
Artemas, P. Ailios, statue at Olympia, 360.
Artemidoros, Olympic victor, 354.
Artemidoros, T. Phlabios, statue in Naples, 369.
Artemis, on Sparta relief, 284.
Artemisia, chariot-group of, 264.
Artists, statues of, at Olympia, 285.
Arvanitopoullos, A. S., on bronze statue of youth found in sea off
Antikythera, 81, 84.
Aryballos, 74, 119, 137, 138, 212;
on vase-paintings, 133;
wrongly as wrestler attribute, 165.
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, head of _Diadoumenos_ in, 154.
Asiatics, wear loin-cloth, 48.
Asios, fragment of, 52.
Asklepiades, M. Aurelios, dedicates statue in Rome to father, 370.
Asklepiades, P., dedicates bronze diskos at Olympia, 22, 360.
Asklepieion, the, at Athens, statues in, 130.
Asklepios, temple at Sikyon, 370.
Assimilation of statues of men to god and hero types, 71f.;
of Olympic victor statues, 71f.;
to types of Apollo, 88f.;
of the Dioskouroi, 96f.;
of Herakles, 93f., 319;
of Hermes, 75f.
Assurbanipal, reliefs from palace of, at Nineveh, 330.
Assyro-Babylonian art, reliefs of, represented in motion, 177;
influence on early Greek art, 329.
Astragalos, base in form of, at Olympia, 240.
Astylos, bribed by Hiero of Syracuse, 33;
statue at Kroton, 33, 363;
at Olympia, 179, 363.
Asymmetry, example of, 70.
Atalanta, soul of, chooses body of athlete, in Plato’s myth of Er, 36;
statue of, from Tegea, 306, 310, 316.
Athena, Alea, temple at Tegea, 306;
Chalkioikos, hieron of, in Sparta, 283;
helmeted heads of, 53;
_Lemnia_, 53;
Old Temple of, on Akropolis, 128, 271;
on relief from Tarentum, 96.
Athenæus, 57, 284.
_Athenaia_; see _Panathenaia_.
Athenaios, statue at Olympia, 244, 343, 353.
Athens, athletes at, divided into two classes according to age, 189;
coins of, showing Apollo, 90;
statues of victors in, 26-27;
Gymnasion of Ptolemy at, 166.
Athletes: bare-foot and bare-headed, 48;
head of, in Capitoline called Juba II, 166;
head of, in Metropolitan Museum, showing swollen ears, 168;
statue of, in Copenhagen resembling the _Agias_, 293;
statue found at Ephesos, 137, 138;
two statues in lunging attitude, in Dresden, 292;
statue from Palazzo Farnese, now in London, 293;
statue of late style in Lansdowne House, London, 180;
statues of, adorn palæstræ and gymnasia, 297;
statues of, assimilated to types of Apollo, 88f.;
of the Dioskouroi, 96-97;
of Herakles, 93f.;
of Hermes, 75f.;
bronze statuette in Louvre, 213, 214; etc.
Athletics, origin and early history of Greek, 1f.;
in Crete, 1f.;
at Delphi, 25;
in Homer, 7f.;
athletics and Greek religion, 14;
influence on sculpture, 64;
athletic funeral scene on a Cypriote silver vase from Etruria, 13;
Argive-Sikyonian school of athletic sculptors, 1, 109f.
Attalos, base of victor statue of Attalos, father of Attalos I, at
Pergamon, 368;
Portico of, in Athens, 368.
Attic sculptors, 126f.;
characteristics of, 128;
examples of pre-Persian sculptures, 281;
influence on Polykleitos, 152, 153;
old Attic canon of proportions, 68.
Attributes of victor statues, 147f.;
primary, 148f.;
secondary 161f.
Augustus, coins of, showing celery, 21;
enlarges privileges of athletes in Rome, 33;
statue from Primaporta, 82.
Aura, victorious mare of Pheidolas, 279.
Aurelius, M. Antoninus, 43.
Authors; see Poets, Prose-writers.
Autolykos, statue in Athens, 27.
Autun, statuette of pancratiast from, in Louvre, 167, 250.
_Aves_, the, of Aristophanes, quoted, 206.
Azan, games of, in Arkadia, 9, 259.
Bacchiadas, flutist, statue on Helikon, 284.
Bacchylides, 10, 36.
Ball-playing (σφαιρίζειν), in antiquity, 83, 84;
game known as φανίνδα, 84;
Spartan origin of, 84.
Barbarians, invade Greece in Middle Ages, 322;
destroy victor statues at Olympia, 43.
Barberini Palace, Rome, statue in, 142;
estate of the Barberini, 50.
Barracco Collection, Rome, athlete statue in, 156.
Bases; see Victor statue bases.
Bassai, temple of Apollo Epikourios at, 327.
Bates, W. N., on interpretation of head of boy statue from Sparta, 305.
Bathykles, sculptor, 12.
Battos of Kyrene, group of, dedicated at Delphi, 277.
Baukis, statue at Olympia, 117.
Beauty, contest of, among women, in Arkadia, 57;
in Elis, 57;
on Lesbos, 57;
at Panathenaic games, Athens, 57;
on Tenedos, 57;
games in honor of, 57;
Greek worship of, 57;
youth chosen for, at Tanagra, 57.
Bellerophon, on Chimæra tomb, Xanthos, 271.
_Belvedere Hermes_, statue in Vatican, 72.
Beneventum, head from, in Louvre, 63.
Beni-Hasan, Egypt, wall-paintings at, 1, 228.
Benndorf, on Boboli athlete in Florence, 180;
on epigram relative to Ladas, 197;
on Pliny’s _nudus talo incessens_ of Polykleitos, 250.
Bieber, Fräulein, on various artistic tendencies in the Daochos group,
291.
_Bigae_ and _quadrigae_, mentioned by Pliny, 264.
Biting, prohibited in pankration, 246.
Biton (?), statue of, from Delphi, 105.
Bloch, on the Uffizi _Apoxyomenos_, 137.
Boboli athlete in Florence, 180;
_Hermes_, 85.
Boeckh, on division of athletes according to age at Athens, 189.
Boëdromion, month of, 18.
Bœotian games in Thebes, statues erected for, 26.
Boetticher, on Praxitelian origin of head from Olympia, 294.
Bologna, r.-f. krater in, 90.
_Bonus Eventus_ (?), statue found in Rhine, 276.
Boreas, winged, on relief in Metropolitan Museum, 194.
_Borghese Warrior_ (_Gladiator_), statue by Agasias, 169, 208, 209,
290.
Borsdorf, bronze bowl from, 231.
Bosanquet, R. C., on bronze statuette found in sea off Antikythera, 79.
_Boudeuse, la petite_, statue from Akropolis, 115.
Bouleuterion; see Council-house.
Bouprasion, Nestor contends at, 9.
Bow, attribute of _Philesian Apollo_, 119.
_Boxer Vase_, from Hagia Triada, 6, 7, 235.
Boxers, bases of statues of, at Olympia, 240, 241;
bearded, on University of Pennsylvania Panathenaic amphora, 239;
between groups of warriors and dancers on an eighth century B. C.
vase, 13;
boxer known as “man with crushed ear,” 167;
on _Boxer Vase_, 6, 7;
bronze head of boxer or pancratiast, from Olympia, 146, 254, 255,
322;
on bronze shield from Mount Ida, 235;
caps of, 165f.;
head in Munich, with swollen ears, 63, 168;
positions of, on vases, 239;
_pyctae_ (?), by Myron, 188;
on pyxis, from Knossos, 7;
on r.-f. kylix in the British Museum, 239;
on r.-f. kylix of Douris, 239;
_Seated Boxer_, of Museo delle Terme, 145f.;
statues of, represented in motion, 243;
statue of, with _Diadoumenos_ motive, 155;
statue in Kassel, 242;
statue in Lansdowne House, London, 155;
statue in Palazzo Albani, Rome, 165;
statue from Sorrento, 242;
statuette of, from Olympia, 28, 244;
swollen ear of, 240, 241.
Boxing, 234f.;
antiquity of, 235;
in Crete, 3, 5, 6, 7, 235;
in Homer, 8, 234;
invented by Theseus, 235;
more dangerous than pankration, 246;
most popular sport at Olympia, 235;
one of oldest sports, 234;
when introduced at Olympia, 235;
boys’ contest, when introduced at Olympia, 235;
painful character of, 234f.;
two periods of, 235;
at Sparta, 167;
on vases, 239.
Boxing-gloves, 235f.;
on _Boxer Vase_, 7, 235;
in Crete, 235;
in Homer, 235;
described by Pausanias and Philostratos, 236;
forms of, 236;
heavy (σφαῖραι or ἱμάντες ὀξεῖς), 235f.;
soft (ἱμάντες λεπτοί or μειλίχαι) 235f.;
method of putting on, 236;
not used in pankration, 246;
soft, on bronze arm found in sea off Antikythera, 236;
on fist from Verona, 238;
on forearms of _Seated Boxer_ of the Museo delle Terme, 237, 238;
on statue from Herculaneum, 238;
on statue from Sorrento, 238.
_Boy Binding on a Fillet_ (ἀναδούμενος), by Pheidias, 150.
_Boy Crowning Himself_, copies of statue of, identified with statue
of Kyniskos at Olympia, 156;
on funerary relief, 155.
Boy victors, statues of, at Olympia, 31;
fragments of, 324, 325;
less than life-size, 46;
boy victor (?) from Sparta, head from statue of, 305f.;
as case of assimilation, 319f.;
as an eclectic work, 37, 38;
chiefly Lysippan, 311, 318;
compared with head of Philandridas, 316;
surface modeling of, 318.
Branchidai, 304, 336.
Brasidas, games in honor of, 11.
Bribery, of Olympic victors, 33;
at Epidauros, the Isthmus, etc., 34.
Brimias, statue at Olympia, 346.
Bronze, used for victor statues, 321f.;
more expensive than marble, 323, 326;
bronze and stone monuments together, 323.
Brunn, on Aeginetan art, 124;
on archaic Attic art, 124;
on Daidalian ξόανα, 328;
on the _Oil-pourer_ in Munich, 134;
on Olympia pediment groups, 114;
on _Standing Diskobolos_, 76;
on symmetry and rhythm, 66;
on Tux bronze, 207;
on the Vaison and Farnese types of the _Diadoumenos_, 154.
_Brutus_, the, of Cicero, 60.
Brygos, r.-f. kylix in style of, 204.
Bull, in Crete, 1f.;
zone of the, at Olympia, 355.
Bulle, on boxer head from Olympia, 255;
on bronze statue of youth found in sea off Antikythera, 82;
on the Polykleitan _Diadoumenos_, 151;
on _Doryphoros_, 227;
on dying hoplite relief, 209;
on Egyptian influence on early Greek sculpture, 330;
on ephebe statue from Akropolis, 115;
on _Farnese Herakles_, 253;
on hair technique of Greek sculptors, 53;
on the _Idolino_, 141, 142;
on the _Oil-pourer_, 134;
on Tux bronze, 207;
on statues of two wrestlers, from Herculaneum, 231.
Bull-grappling, in Crete, 2f.;
in Tiryns, 2, 3;
on Vapheio cups, 355;
in Thessaly, 5;
in Viterbo, 5.
Bull-ring, ivory model of, from Knossos, 3.
Burgon vase, 260.
Bybon, inscribed _solos_ of, from Olympia, 22, 218.
Bykelos, statue at Olympia, 120.
Byzantine church, the, at Olympia, 347, 356f.
Byzantine walls, at Olympia, 345, 357, 358, 359.
Caere (Cerveteri), Amphiaraos vase from, 13 and note 1;
hydrias from, 52.
Candia, Museum at, 2, 3.
Canina, discovers the _Apoxyomenos_ of the Vatican, 288.
Canon, of Polykleitos, 69.
Canons of proportions, 65f.
Cap, of boxers and pancratiasts, 165f.;
on athlete head called Juba II, 166;
on relief in Rome, 166;
on Munich kylix, 166-167;
on statuette from Autun, 167.
Capua, bronze statuette from, 207.
Caracalla, baths of, 252.
Caricature, Theban law against, 57.
Casa Buonarroti, Florence, arm of _Diskobolos_ from, 186.
Caskey, L. D., on Sparta head of boy athlete, 305, 306, 310, 319.
Castel Porziano, copy of _Diskobolos_ from, 184.
Castellani copy of _Spinario_, 202.
Catania, coins of, showing _Nike_, 182.
Cauldron, as early prize, from Cumae, 20.
Celery, fresh, used for wreaths at Nemea, 20, 21;
wild, used for wreaths at the Isthmus, 21.
_Celetizontes pueri_, of Kanachos, 120.
Cerveteri; see Caere.
Cestus, described by Virgil, 239;
metal, invented by Romans, 238, 239;
not mentioned by late Greek writers, 239;
not used in Greek contests, 235.
Chabrias, general, statue of, 173.
Chæroneia, battle of, 301.
Chalkis, 19.
_Champion_, the, of East gable of temple on Aegina, 207;
of West gable, 126.
Chamyne; see Demeter.
Chancery, hold in pankration, 247, 248.
Chaplet, as victor attribute, 148.
Chariots, Athenian type on vases, 262;
on Cretan relief, 262;
war-chariot in Crete and at Mycenæ, 262;
on Mycenæan tombstones, 262;
dedication of, 22;
descendant of Homeric war-chariot, 260;
four-horse, 262;
four-horse, on vases, 263;
four-horse, on marble relief, 268, 269;
miniature models of, at Olympia, 23;
war-chariot from Monteleone, in Metropolitan Museum, 263;
two-horse, on vases, 263;
two types of Greek racing-chariot, 262;
on eighth century B. C. vase, 263;
zone of, at Olympia, 345, 346, 352.
Charioteers, statues of, 274f.;
close-fitting chiton of, 275;
long chiton of, 48, 263, 273, 274;
nude, 48, 275, 276;
statue of, in Boston, 275;
statue of, at Delphi, 48, 81, 90, 276f.;
inscription on, 277;
part of a group, 277;
copies of, 277;
deficiencies of, 278;
Gelo as dedicator of, 278;
as Aeginetan, 278;
as Attic work, 278;
assigned to Pythagoras, 278;
statue of, from Esquiline, 276;
statue of (?) found in Rhine near Xanten, 276;
relief of, mounting chariot, from Akropolis, 128, 269.
Chariot-groups, at Olympia, 264f.;
remains of, 269.
Chariot-race, antiquity at Olympia, 259;
common in Greece, 257f.;
most brilliant event at Olympia and elsewhere, 257;
one of earliest events at Olympia, 259;
with two colts (συνωρὶς πώλων), at Olympia, 260;
harnessing of two horses, on b.-f. hydria, 263;
groups, remains at Olympia, 269;
with four colts (πώλων ἅρμα), at Olympia, when introduced, 260;
with four horses (τέθριππον or ἵππων τελείων δρόμος), when introduced
at Olympia, 259, 260;
four-horse (τέθριππον), on Panathenaic vase from Sparta, 263;
length of race with four colts at Olympia, 260;
length of race with four full-grown horses at Olympia, 260;
with mules (ἀπήνη), when introduced at Olympia, 261;
at oldest funeral games, in Arkadia, 259;
oldest monument of, at Olympia, 264, 265;
origin of in mythical times, 259;
originally with two horses, 260;
when stopped at Olympia, 261;
sport of wealthy, 257;
representations, common on vases, 262f.;
trotting-race with mares (κάλπη), 261, 282.
See _Apobates_, chariot-race.
Chariot victors, dedicate chariot-groups at Olympia, 264f.;
dedicate models of chariots at Olympia, 265;
dedicate statues at Olympia, 265;
act as own charioteers, 266-267.
Charmides, statue at Olympia, 342.
Charops, statue at Olympia, 358.
Chase, G. H., on bronze tripods in Loeb collection, 194, note 7;
on Monteleone chariot, 264.
Cheilon, ephor of Sparta, died of joy at Olympia, 36.
Cheilon, date of second victory of, 301;
fights at Lamia, 301;
statue at Olympia, 32, 121, 298.
Cheimon, statue at Argos, 366;
at Olympia, 117, 234, 344, 366.
Cheirisophos, sculptor, 334.
Chewsurs, of the Caucasus, funeral games among, 11.
Chimæra tomb, so-called, at Xanthos, 271.
Chinnery _Hermes_, head, 181.
Chionis, statue at Olympia, 32, 333, 352, 362;
tablet of, at Sparta, 362;
record jump of, at Olympia, 216.
Chios, early sculpture of, 177; games on, 189.
Chisel, used in hair of the _Agias_ and _Philandridas_, 297.
Chiton, conventional dress of charioteers, 275.
Chiusi, wall-painting from, 217.
Chlamys, on statues of Meleager, 313.
_Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo_, statue known as, 89f.;
replica of head in British Museum, 91;
replica of head, from Kyrene 334;
thongs on tree-trunk nearby, 165.
Chorus, of boys and girls, in honor of victors, 34.
Christodoros, description of statue of Hermes by, 87.
Chrysippos, quoted by Galen, 70.
Chrysothemis, sculptor, 105, 116.
Cicero, as art critic, 60.
Cincinnatus, 87.
Circassians, funeral games among, 11.
Circus, Roman, hair-fashion of athletes at, 52;
finally supersedes equestrian contests of Olympia, 261.
Cloak, prize at Pellene, 20.
Club, on Cretan grave-relief, 199;
on statuette from Palermo, 199.
Cockerell, on dedication from Delphi, 372.
Coins: of Antoninus Pius, showing pine, 21;
of Alexander the Great, showing Herakles, 253;
of Athens, showing Apollo, 90;
of Augustus, showing celery, 21;
of Catania, showing Nike, 182;
of Commodus as Hercules, 74;
of Delphi, showing Apollo, 92, 336;
of Euagoras I, King of Salamis in Cyprus, showing swollen ears, 169;
of Geta, 306;
of Lucius Verus, 21;
of Markianopolis, 87;
of Messana, showing mule-car, 263;
of Messene, 111;
of Miletos, 74, 118, 119, 336;
of Nero, 21;
of Philip II, King of Macedon, showing victorious jockey with
palm-branch, 280;
of Philippopolis, 78;
of Rhegion, showing mule-car, 263;
of Selinos, showing celery wreath, 21;
of Sicily, showing racing chariots, 262, 263;
of Syracuse, showing Nike with tablet, 182;
of Tarentum, showing _apobates_ horse-race, 282;
showing poses of Olympic victor statues, 44;
showing scenes of wrestling, 228.
Collignon, M., on statue of Astylos, at Kroton, 364;
on so-called _Borghese Warrior_, 209;
on the _Doryphoros_ of Polykleitos, 227;
on Egyptian influence on early Greek sculpture, 329;
on identification of the statue of Kyniskos, 159;
on the Olympia gable sculptures, 114;
on Tux bronze, 207.
Color, on early Attic sculpture, 126.
Commodus, statue in Mantua, 72;
coins of, showing him as Hercules, 74.
Concentration (αὐτάρκεια), in Greek statues, 82;
in Myron’s statues, 183;
in the _Diskobolos_, 137, 201.
Concord, temple of, Rome, 234.
Constantinople, sack of, by Franks, 253.
_Contest_ (_Agon_), figure of, in Mikythos group at Olympia, 164, 215.
Conversion of athlete statues into those of gods, 74.
Conze, A., on “Apollo” type as representing victors, 335;
on _Choiseul-Gouffier_ statue type, 90;
on statue of Commodus at Mantua, 72.
Copenhagen, heads in Ny-Carlsberg collection at, with swollen ears,
168.
Corfu, bronze from, 96.
Corinth, clay tablets from, 52, 182;
festival at Isthmus of, 1;
meeting-place of East and West, 17;
near Isthmian games, 25;
end of tyranny at, 17.
Corn-grinding slave woman, Egyptian statuette of, 177.
Council-house (Bouleuterion), at Olympia, 227, 344, 346, 349, 350, 355,
357, 358.
Cow, sacrificed to Hera at the _Heraia_, Olympia, 49.
Cowardice, case of, at Olympia, 34.
Crete, acrobats of, 2;
center of Aegean civilization, 1;
costumes of men and women acrobats, 2, 4;
Cretan youths dedicate offerings to Eros, 57;
Cretan youths sacrifice to Apollo, the runner, 88;
famed in the long race, 191;
motion figures from, 3;
origin of sports in, 1;
physical development in, 6;
sports in, 1f.
Crœsus, fall of empire of, 126.
Cross-buttocks, throw in wrestling, 229;
shown in small bronze group in the Loeb Collection, 232, 233.
Crown of wild olive, as temporary reward for victor, 37, 155f.
Cuirass (?), prize at Argos, 20.
Cumae, inscribed cauldron from, as prize, 20.
Cures, effected by victor statues, 35.
Curtius, E., on the Σκήνωμα in Sparta, 367.
Cypriote silver vase in repoussé from Etruria, in Florence, 13.
Daidalian ξόανα, 328.
Daidalos, of Crete, mythical sculptor, 118.
Daidalos, of Sikyon, sculptor, 109, 120, 138, 266, 279;
Daidalos and canon of Polykleitos, 69;
statues of _destringentes se_ by, 136;
leg position of statues of, 159.
Daïkles, victor, 20.
Daïppos, sculptor, statues at Olympia, 121;
_perixyomenoi_ by, 136.
Daitondas, sculptor, 121.
Dalecampius, on Myron’s _pristae_, 188.
Damagetos, statue at Olympia, 36, 46, 355.
Damaithidas, statue at Olympia, 358.
Damaretos, statue at Olympia, 105, 116, 117, 161, 203.
Dameas, sculptor, 116.
Damokritos, sculptor, 120.
Damonon, hippodrome victories of, in and near Lakonia, 257;
acts as own charioteer, 266.
Damoxenidas, statue at Olympia, 44.
Damoxenos, slays Kreugas in pankration at Nemea, 237, 247.
Danaë and Perseus, in a chest, 188.
Dancers, bronze, from Herculaneum, identified with statue of Kyniska,
267;
ceremonial of, at Knossos, 3;
on shield of Achilles, 5.
Daochos, dedicates statuary group at Pharsalos and Delphi, 286f.
Dead, cult of, as origin of Greek games, 9f.
Dedication, of athletic prizes, 21f.;
formulæ at Olympia, 37.
Deida, M., statue at Olympia, 359.
Deinolochos, statue at Olympia, 120.
Deinosthenes, statue at Olympia, 347.
_Delian Apollo_, of Angelion and Tektaios, 304;
“doubles” of, in Athens and Delphi, 304.
Delos, Apollo from, 334;
colossal Apollo from, 336;
copy of _Diadoumenos_ from, 92f., 152, 153;
Ionian festival on, 15;
contests of Theseus in honor of Apollo on, 160;
tripods in temple of Apollo on, 9.
Delphi, “Apollos” from, 104;
athletes divided into three classes according to age, 189;
coins of, showing Apollo, 92, 336;
coins of, showing laurel wreath, 21;
contests at, 25;
athletic, 25;
dramatic, 25;
equestrian, 25;
flute solo, 25;
lyre-playing, 25;
music, as chief contest at, 25;
painting, 25;
poetry, 25;
singing, 25;
decrees of, to athletes, 26;
Delphians sacrifice to Apollo the boxer, 88;
festival at, 9;
inscribed bases of victor monuments from, 26;
mentioned by Homer, 9;
oracle at, 18, 30, 34;
religious interest of Pausanias in, 24;
statue of pancratiast at, 26;
statuette of victor from, 28;
temple of Apollo at, 336;
tripods in temple of Apollo at, 19;
victor monuments at, 26;
victor grave-relief from, 138.
Demeter, the _Eleusinia_ in honor of, 18;
Chamyne, priestess of, admitted to Olympia, 16;
of Knidos, statue of, 311.
Demetrios, M. Aurelios, Olympic victor statue in Rome, 370.
Demetrios of Phaleron, honor statues in Athens, 41.
Demetrios, sculptor, 56.
Demokrates, statue at Olympia, 358.
Deonna, W., against Egyptian influence on early Greek sculpture, 329.
Dermys and Kitylos, grave-figures of, from Tanagra, 335.
_Destringentes se_, statues mentioned by Pliny, 136.
Diadoumenoi, or fillet-binders, 150f.
_Diadoumenos_, of Pheidias, 150f.;
older than that of Polykleitos, 151;
motive of, 151;
Farnese copy, 151;
of Polykleitos, 152f.;
as example of rest statue, 99;
as example of “ethical grace,” 63;
leg position of, 159;
copy of, from Delos, 92f., 152, 153;
other copies of, 152f.;
head-style of, 152;
British Museum head of, 153, 154;
Dresden head of, 153;
Kassel head of, 153;
statuette from Smyrna, 154;
on throne of Zeus at Olympia, 150;
pose of Vaison and Farnese copies, 155.
Diagoras, most famous Greek boxer, 365;
statue at Olympia, 130, 365;
size of, 45;
family group of, 342, 343, 352.
Diaulodromos, or double sprinter, 193;
on Athens inscribed vase, 194.
Dickins, G., on _Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo_ statue type, 90;
on statuette of trumpeter from Sparta, 283.
Didymaion, near Miletos, 108;
statues at, 26.
Diitrephes, statue on Akropolis, 199 and note 5, 373.
Dikon, three statues at Olympia, 29, 55;
bribed by Syracuse, 33.
Dio Chrysostom, on art, 61;
on confusing athlete and hero statues, 71;
on difference between victor and honor statues, 41;
on Theagenes’ statue at Thasos, 364.
Diodoros, on Egyptian influence on early Greek sculpture, 330;
on proportion in Egyptian statuary, 67, note 4;
on family of the artist Rhoikos of Samos, 330;
on _Pythian Apollo_ by Telekles and Theodoros, 334.
Diogenes, five times victor in trumpeting, at Olympia, 283;
base of statue at Olympia, 360.
Diogenes Laertios, on gold statue vowed by Periandros, 266;
on Pythagoras, 67, 179.
Diomedes, as boxer, 169;
Delphic tripod ascribed to, 21;
single combat of, with Ajax, 8;
statue known as, in Munich, 157, 169;
statue known as, in Palazzo Valentini, Rome, 163, 207.
_Dionysia_, games at the, in Kyrene, 50;
at Sparta, 50;
statue of victor at, in Athens, 27.
Dionysios, sculptor, 268.
Dionysios, tyrant of Syracuse, 33.
Dionysos, bearded type of, 335;
short hair of, on Parthenon frieze, 53;
statue of, in group, 144;
statue of (?), found in Rhine near Xanten, 276;
tripods in honor of, at Athens and Rhodes, 19.
Diophanes, statue at the Isthmus, 27.
Diophon, pentathlete, epigram on, 210.
Dioskouroi, athlete statues assimilated to, 96, 97;
diskos dedicated to, by Exoïdas, 218;
on grave-relief in Verona, 97;
relief of, from Tarentum, 96;
on votive relief in London, 97.
Dipoinos, sculptor, 118, 122, 334.
See also Skyllis.
Dipylon geometric vase from Akropolis, in Copenhagen, showing funeral
games, 13.
Diskoboloi, statuettes of, 28, 218f.;
bronze statuette in London, 221;
bronze statuette in Metropolitan Museum, 116, 148, 220, 221;
on cover of lebes in London, 221.
_Diskobolos_, the, of Myron, 184f.;
cast of, from various copies, 186;
concentration of (αὐτάρκεια) 137, 183, 201;
copies of 184f.;
copy of, in Capitoline, 185;
from Castel Porziano, 184;
in Lancellotti Palace, Rome, 184;
Græco-Roman copy from Tivoli, in London, 184, 185;
in Vatican, from Tivoli, 184;
on a gem, 187;
as example of a diskos-thrower, 164;
as example of rhythm, 66;
Lucian’s description of, 186, 187;
moment chosen by Myron in, 187;
pose of, 219, 220;
predecessors of, 222;
Quintilian on, 187;
relief of, from Dipylon, 127;
represents trained athlete, 183, 184;
right arm of, from Casa Buonarroti, Florence, 186;
short hair of, 52;
small bronze in Berlin, 221;
statuettes in Munich and Arolsen, 187;
compared with _Tyrannicides_, 183.
See also _Standing Diskobolos_.
Diskoi, bronze, from the Altis, 22, 218;
dedication of bronze, 22;
kept in Sikyonian treasury at Olympia, for use of pentathletes, 22;
on r.-f. vase in Munich, 164;
diskos, as attribute of pentathlete statues, 164;
bronze, from Sicily, 217;
inscribed, of Asklepiades, 40;
inscribed, of Exoïdas, from Kephallenia (?), 97, 218;
known to Homer, 218;
lighter for boys than for men, 218.
Diskos-throwing (δισκοβολία), goes back to mythology, 218;
shown by statues, statuettes, reliefs, vase-paintings, etc., 164,
218;
seven positions of, given by Gardiner, 218f.;
record throw of Phaÿllos in, discussed, 216.
Dittenberger, W., on division of athletes at Athens, according to age,
189;
on Pliny, 27;
on votive character of inscriptions on victor statue-bases,
at Olympia, 39;
Dittenberger and Purgold, on exclusive use of bronze for Olympic
victor statues, 321.
Diver (?), statuette of, from Perugia, 217.
Dodona, bronze statuette from, 143;
bronze statuette of ephebe on horse-back from, 28, 281;
bronze statuette of warrior from, 126, 178;
mentioned by Homer, 16;
tripods in temple of Zeus at, 19.
Doerpfeld, W., on base of the Platæan _Zeus_ at Olympia, 344;
on bases of victors found in South wall of Altis, 347;
on beginning of Pausanias’ first route in the Altis, 341;
on excavations at site so-called of Great Altar of Zeus at Olympia,
349;
on positions of victor statues in the Altis, 340;
on second route of Pausanias in the Altis, 351;
on statues, ἐν τῇ Ἄλτει, 350.
Dolichodromos, endurance runner, 193.
Domitian, stadion at Rome, 50.
Dorians, the, 1.
Dorieus, prisoner at Athens, 36;
victor statue at Olympia, 355.
Dorykleidas, victor dedication to Herakles and Hermes by, 75, 76.
Doryphoroi, mentioned by Pliny, 226.
_Doryphoros_, of Kresilas, 145;
of Polykleitos, 77, 224f.;
as an _Achilles_, 92;
converted into god-type, 74;
converted into Hermes, 87, 88;
compared with _Diadoumenos_, 152;
copy at Olympia, 227;
green basalt torso in Florence, 225;
marble torso formerly in Pourtalès Collection, 225;
from Pompeii, its measurements, 70;
copy in Vatican, 225;
etymology and use of word, 225, 226;
head from Herculaneum, by Apollonios, 168;
as highest ideal of manly beauty, 141;
as example of javelin-thrower, 164;
leg position of, 159;
as master of Lysippos, 70, 301;
as norm of proportions, 58, 68, 69, 70;
original as pentathlete victor statue, 227;
pose of, 225;
style of head of, 152;
as victor statue, 226, 227.
Double foot-race (δίαυλος), 190;
date of introduction at Olympia, 191.
“Doubles” of statues, 304, 305.
Douris, on Lysippos, 69.
Douris, vase-painter, r.-f. kylix by, 239.
Dramatic contests, at Delphi, 25.
_Dresden Boy_, the, statue in Dresden, 213.
Dromeus, statue at Olympia, 179, 343;
identified with _mala ferens nudus_, of Pliny, 182.
_Drunkenness_, statue of, 144.
Duerer, Albrecht, on proportions, 68.
Duetschke, on the Mantuan _Commodus_, 72.
Dumont, on division of athletes at Athens by age, 189.
Dying hoplite runner, relief of, in Athens, 194, 209.
Dying Gaul statues, 255.
Dyneiketos, victor, represented on r.-f. Panathenaic vase, 280.
Ear, swollen, as attribute of victor statues, 167f.;
as professional characteristic of athlete and god statues, 168;
on various heads, 168;
on heads of gods and heroes, 169f.
Ear-lappets (ἀμφωτίδες, ἐπωτίδες), on marble head, 167;
worn by boys in the palæstra, 167.
Echembrotos, musician, dedicates a tripod to Herakles 22.
Echo Colonnade, at Olympia, 343, 345, 352, 358, 360.
Egesta, Sicily, 35;
honors Philippos, victor, with a heroön, 57.
Egypt, division of, into Old and Middle Kingdoms, and New Empire,
330-331.
Egyptian art, proportions in, 67 and note 4;
adopted by Greeks, 330;
becomes fixed, 331;
influence of, on early Greek art, 328f., 332;
Egyptian statues, characteristics of, 332;
compared with Greek, 332.
Eklektos, Valerios, statue at Athens, 371;
at Olympia, 359, 360, 371.
Elean register, 31;
school of sculpture, 114;
umpires, 94.
Eleans, led by Oxylos from Aitolia, 15.
_Electra_, of Sophokles, quoted, 267.
_Eleusinia_, the, 18;
prizes at, 20;
statue of victor in Athens, 27.
Eleusis, copy of statue of Kyniskos (?) from, 74, 156.
_Eleutheria_, games at Platæa, 11, 203.
Emerson, A., on statue of Kyniska, 267.
Energy, as characteristic of Myron’s statues, 152.
_Enkrinomenos_, statue by Alkamenes, 77, 134.
Enymakratidas, hippodrome victories of, in Lakonia, 257.
Epainetos, inscribed jumping-weight of, from Eleusis, 215.
Epeios, boxing-match with Euryalos, 7, 88.
Epeirote singer, pummelled by order of Nero, 34.
Eperastos, victor at Olympia, 163.
Ephebe, head of, with yellow hair, from Akropolis, 116;
statue from Akropolis, 115, 175;
statue from Hadrian’s villa, assimilated to Hermes, 80;
victorious ephebes leading horses, on Athenian relief, 281;
ephebes (ἀγένειοι), 189.
_Ephodoi_ (ἔφοδοι), or routes of Pausanias, in the Altis, 339, 341f.,
348f.
Epicharinos, statue on Akropolis, 27, 176, 179, 206, 372.
Epidauros, inscription from, 34.
Epigonos, erects monument to Attalos, 368.
Epigrams, on Olympic victor statue bases, 43.
Epikradios, statue at Olympia, 122, 352.
_Epitaphia_, festival at Athens, 18.
Epitherses, statue at Olympia, 31, 244, 346.
Eponymus victor, at Olympia, 191.
Equestrian contests, at Delphi, 25;
at Olympia, replaced by amusements of Roman circus, 261;
revived at Olympia under Empire, 261.
See also Chariot-race, Horse-race.
Er, myth of, in Plato’s _Republic_, 36.
Erasistratos, physician at Alexandria, 290.
_Eretrian Bull_, the, at Olympia, 342, 352, 357, 358, 359;
zone of, at Olympia, 343.
Eriphyle, on archaic vase, 13.
Eros, offerings to, 57;
bronze statue from Tunis, 156, 158.
_Erotidia_, division of athletes at the Bœotian, according to age, 189.
Etruria, funeral games of, borrowed by Romans, 11;
athletic scenes from tombs of, 11.
_Etruscan Orator_, statue in Florence, 82.
Euagoras I, King of Salamis, in Cyprus, coins of, showing swollen ears,
169.
Euagoras of Sparta, chariot-group of, at Olympia, 23, 37, 265.
Eubotas, statue at Kyrene, 366;
at Olympia, 31, 352, 366.
Eudelos, of Rhodes, adversary of Straton, at Olympia, 34.
Eukles, statue at Olympia, 45, 117, 241, 342, 343.
Eumastas, inscribed stone of, from Thera, 218, note 3.
Eunomos, kitharoidos, statue in honor of Pythian victory, 284.
Euphorbos, on painted terra-cotta plate, 178.
Euphranor, sculptor, 23, 36, 69;
books of, on symmetry, 69;
canon of, 69;
head of athlete statue from circle of, 233.
Euphronios, r.-f. kylix by, 204.
Eupolemos, statue at Olympia, 120, 342.
Eupolos, bribes three adversaries at Olympia and all four are fined,
33.
Eupompos, painter, 29, 69, 160.
Euripides, protests against professionalism in athletics, 36.
Euryalos, 8, 88.
Eurybates, pentathlete, 59.
Euryleonis, victress, statue at Sparta, 367.
Eurytos, 8.
Eusebios, on statue of Theagenes, 364.
Eutelidas, sculptor, 105, 116.
Eutelidas, victor statue at Olympia, 106, 333, 337, 346.
Euthykrates, sculptor, 314.
Euthymenes, statue at Olympia, 120, 344, 352.
Euthymos, boxing match with Theagenes, 247;
son of river god Kaikinos, 35;
statue at Lokroi Epizephyrioi, 364;
statue at Olympia, 55, 62, 90, 179, 183, 342, 352;
inscribed base from, 38;
statue at Olympia identified by Waldstein with _Choiseul-Gouffier
Apollo_ type, 179.
Eutychides, sculptor and painter, 121, 324.
Evans, A., on ivory statuettes from Knossos, 3;
on stucco reliefs from Knossos, 4.
Exainetos, victor, drawn into native city by fellow-citizens, 35.
_Exhortation to the Arts_, work by Galen cited, 37.
Exoïdas, bronze diskos of, 97, 218.
Eye, almond-shaped, in archaic art, 127;
in the _Agias_, 315;
in Skopaic heads, 308, 311f.;
treatment of, by Lysippos, 311f.
Fabius Maximus, carries off colossal Herakles from Tarentum to Rome,
253.
Fagan head, the, in British Museum, 87.
_Farnese Diadoumenos_, statue in British Museum, 151f., 154;
compared with _Diadoumenos_ from Vaison, 154.
_Farnese Herakles_, statue in Naples, 252, 253;
of Lysippan origin, 253;
as realistic work, 289.
_Farnese Hermes_, statue in British Museum, 72.
Farnsworth Museum, Wellesley, Mass., statue of athlete in, 139.
Fawn, as attribute of _Philesian Apollo_, 119.
Fellows, C., discovers Chimæra tomb at Xanthos, 271.
Fevers, cured by victor statues, 364.
Ficoroni cista, in Rome, 243, 269.
Fierce expression (γοργόν), of Philandridas head from Olympia, 294,
297;
threatening look of athletes mentioned by Sokrates, 59.
File, use of, on Philandridas head, 295.
Fillet, victor, 168f.;
on victor statues, 149f.;
on statue from Piræus, 150;
in hand of victor, 150;
on heads, 96;
as symposium attribute, 149;
rolled, on heads of Herakles, 170.
See _Tainia_.
Fillet-binders, or diadoumenoi, 150f.
Fine, paid by Theagenes, 247.
Finger, as common measure in proportions, 68.
Flasch, A. F., on bronze head of a boxer from Olympia, 255;
on the Olympia gable sculptures, 114;
on positions of victor statues in Altis, 340.
Flaxman, John, sculptor, on proportions, 68.
Flute-playing, at Delphi, 25;
accompanies pentathlon, at Olympia, 284;
on vases, 285.
Flutists, statues of victorious, 284;
honor statue of, 42;
on chest of Kypselos, 285.
Flying mare, throw in pankration, 247;
throw in wrestling, 229.
Foal-race, at Olympia, 260.
Foerster, H., on location of statue of Ladas, 197;
on statue of Leon, 366.
Foerster, R., on head of hoplitodrome, from Olympia, 163.
Foot, as common measure in proportions, 68;
bronze, from victor statue at Olympia, 255, 322;
left, forward in Egyptian and early Greek statues, 332.
Footmarks, on bases of victor statues, at Olympia, 43.
Foot-race, the, at games of Patroklos, 8;
at the _Heraia_, at Olympia, 49.
See Stade-race.
Forearm, fragment of, with horn, in relief, 4.
Fragments, bronze, of victor statues, from Olympia, 322;
marble, from Olympia, 324;
bronze, of boy victor statues from Olympia, 322;
marble, of boy victor statues from Olympia, 324, 325.
Frascati, statuette from, in Boston, 138.
Frazer, J. G., on Arrhachion’s statue, 327;
on funeral games, 11;
on omission of Olympiad 211 from Elean register, 369;
on statue of Diitrephes, Athens, 373.
“Free” leg, motive in sculpture, 109, 226.
Friedrichs, K., on identifying _Doryphoros_ from Pompeii, 224.
Friedrichs-Wolters, on Olympia gable sculptures, 114.
Fritsch, G., on body proportions in Greek sculpture, 67.
Froehner, W., on the _Jason_ of the Louvre, 87.
“Frontality,” law of, formulated, 175, 328.
Frost, K. T., on bronze statue of youth found in sea off Antikythera,
82;
on differences between the _Agias_ and _Apoxyomenos_, 290;
on Ligourió bronze, 111.
Funeral games, on archaic vases, 13;
attested by early Greek art, 12;
on Dipylon vase, in Copenhagen, 13;
in honor of Azan, 9; in honor of eminent men, 11;
in honor of Patroklos, 8, 9;
origin of, 14;
periodic, 13, 14;
on sarcophagus from Klazomenai, 13;
funeral customs survive in later ritual, 11.
Funerary reliefs, Attic, 66.
Furtwaengler, A., on Akropolis chariot relief, 271;
on the _Alkibiades_ of Vatican, 199, 200;
on the _Apoxyomenos_ of Uffizi, 137;
on the _Apoxyomenos_ of Vatican, 136;
on Aristion’s statue, 88, 241;
on athlete head in Copenhagen, 95;
on athlete statue in British Museum, 293;
on bronze head of a boxer in Glyptothek, 63;
on bronze head of a boxer from Olympia, 255;
on bronze foot from Olympia, 255;
on bronze head from Akropolis, 115;
on bronze statuette in Louvre, 139;
on _Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo_ type, 90;
on statue of Diitrephes, on Akropolis, 373;
on so-called _Diomedes_, of Palazzo Valentini, Rome, 207;
on doryphoroi of Pliny, 226;
on term doryphoros, 226;
on Dresden athlete statues, 292;
on _Dresden Boy_, 213;
on Egyptian influence on “Apollo” type, 329;
on ephebe statue from Akropolis, 115;
on erecting statues of victors at Olympia, 38;
on Esquiline charioteer, 276;
on Eupompos’ painting of Olympic victor, 160;
on excavations at Aegina, 124;
on Hagelaïdas, 110;
on _Idolino_, 141, 142;
on influence of athletics on Greek art, 64;
on Kassel boxer, 155;
on Kassel head of Polykleitos’ _Diadoumenos_, 153;
on kneeling figures from West gable at Olympia, 195;
on Kresilæan athlete head, 145;
on statue of Kylon, on Akropolis, 362;
on statue of Kyniska, at Olympia, 131;
on Kyniska’s victor group at Olympia, 267;
on Kyniskos’ statue, 74;
on _Lansdowne Herakles_, 313;
on libation-pouring, 139;
on Ligourió bronze, 111;
on marble head in Turin, 93;
on Monteleone chariot in Metropolitan Museum, 264;
on motive of Pheidias’ _Diadoumenos_, 151;
on Munich _Oil-pourer_, 134;
on _Munich King_, (?), 226;
on Myron’s _pristae_, 188;
on _nudus talo incessens_ of Polykleitos, 250, 251;
on Olympia gable sculptures, 114;
on Petworth ephebe, 133;
on Pheidias’ hair treatment in goddess heads, 53;
on Philandridas head, 294;
on Pythagoras, 179, 180;
on Pythokles’ statue, 212;
on Rayet head, 128;
on Riccardi bust in Florence, 180;
on right arm of boy victor, from Olympia, 46;
on rolled fillet, 96;
on short and long hair of god heads, 52;
on Somzée athlete, 251;
on sparring motive in Berlin torso, 244;
on _Standing Diskobolos_, 76;
on statue from Carinthia, 131;
on statue “doubles,” 304;
on statue of youth in Berlin, 292;
on tin-foil wheels, from Olympia, 23;
on two heads of hoplitodromes from Olympia, 163;
on use of marble in Olympic victor statues, 324;
on “Vatican athlete at rest,” 140;
Furtwaengler and Urlichs, on use of bronze for Olympic victor
statues, 321.
Galen, on ball-playing, 84;
on the _Doryphoros_, 70;
protests against professionalism in athletics, 36, 37.
Games, early Greek, 1f.;
origin of, in cult of dead, 9f.;
origin of four national, 9;
early history of, 14f.;
local, 17f.
Ganymedes, identified with statue of youth from Subiaco, 195.
Gardiner, E. N., on _apobates_ horse-race, 282;
on colossal _Farnese Herakles_, 252;
on diskos-throwing, 218f.;
on earliest event at Olympia, 37;
on Irish fairs, 12;
on origin of four-horse chariot-race at Olympia, 259;
on positions in javelin-throwing, 223;
on rules of pankration, 246;
on shapes of jumping-weights, 214;
on Uffizi pancratiast group, 252.
Gardner, E. A., on the _Agias_, 303;
on artist school at Olympia, 58;
on bronze statue of youth found in sea off Antikythera, 81;
on contrast between the _Atalanta_ and other Tegea heads, 310,
note 3;
on epigram from statue of Ladas, 197;
on eye treatment in the _Agias_, 315;
on eye treatment in the _Atalanta_ from Tegea, 310;
on honors paid to victors, 36;
on helmeted head from Tegea, 308.
Gardner, P., on date of Lysippos 300, 301;
on Greek portraiture, 55;
on head of _Diadoumenos_ of Polykleitos, in Oxford, 154, 155;
on the _Meleager_ and _Lansdowne Herakles_ as Lysippan, 315;
quotes K. T. Frost on the _Agias_ and the _Apoxyomenos_, 290;
on symmetry, 66.
Gelados; see Hagelaïdas.
Gelo, chariot-group at Olympia, 23, 122, 257, 264, 266, 344, 355;
as dedicator of Delphi _Charioteer_, 278.
Gem, showing _Apoxyomenos_ of Polykleitos, 136;
showing _Diskobolos_, 187;
showing Perseus and Gorgon’s head, 83;
showing poses of Olympic victor statues, 214.
Genzano, bust of Herakles from, 169, 170.
Geraistos, Euboea, 373.
Gerhard, E., on vases showing four-horse chariots, 263.
_Germanicus_, statue so-called, 85.
Germanicus Caesar, victor in chariot race at Olympia, 257, 261, 357,
358, 359.
Germans, excavations of Olympia by, 43.
Gestures, “transitory” and “stationary,” 83.
Geta, coin of, 306.
Girl runner, statue in Vatican, 49, 50;
statuette from Dodona, 28.
Gladiatorial shows, borrowed from Etruria by Romans, 11.
Glaukias, sculptor, 32, 122, 125, 176, 243, 244, 264, 266, 278.
Glaukon, chariot-group at Olympia, 23, 265, 347.
Glaukos, statue at Olympia, 32, 122, 125, 176, 243.
Glykon, sculptor, 252, 253.
Gods, statues of, dedicated to other gods and goddesses, 335;
worship of, supersedes that of heroes, 14.
Goldsmiths, in Crete, 4.
Gorgias, honor statue at Olympia, 42, 351.
Gorgon, on Pindar’s VIIth Olympic ode, 365.
Gorgos, statue at Olympia, 55, 59.
Gouging, prohibited in pankration, 246;
shown on r.-f. kylix, 246.
Graef, B., on Antenor’s female statue from Akropolis, 174;
on copies of original of _Lansdowne Herakles_, 313;
Skopaic group of, 315.
Grain, as prize at the _Eleusinia_, 20.
Grained-hair technique, 53.
Granianos; see Kranaos.
Grave-relief, fragment from Dipylon, 127.
Great Altar; see Zeus, Great Altar of.
Greaves, early attribute of hoplitodromoi, 161;
later discarded, 203.
Greece, dependent on outside peoples in early art, 329;
debt to Orient, 330;
Roman conquest of, 261.
Greek anthologies, see Anthologies, Greek.
Greek and Egyptian statues compared, 332.
“Grinning” group, of so-called “Apollo” statues, 100.
Guillaume, E., on measurements of _Doryphoros_, 70.
Gurlitt, W., on Pausanias’ routes in Altis, 340.
Gymnasia, absent in Homer, 7;
statues of athletes in, 297;
statues of athletic gods in, 75, 94.
Gymnasiarch, Hermes as, 78.
Gymnasion, Great, at Olympia, 297, 299, 356.
Gymnasium, scene from, on r.-f. kylix, 164.
Gythion, statue of Herakles, at, 319.
Habich, G., on _Standing Diskobolos_, 78.
Hadrian, revives Nemean games at Argos, 17;
villa of, at Tivoli, 80, 174.
Hagelaïdas. sculptor, 36;
canon of, 68, 148, 159;
chariot-group of Kleosthenes, at Olympia, by, 266;
date of, 61, 321;
teacher of Myron and Polykleitos, 61, 110;
teacher of Pheidias, 110;
called Gelados by scholiast on Aristophanes’ _Ranae_, 110.
Hair-fashion, athletic, 50f.;
Bulle on hair, 53;
ephebes dedicate hair to a god, 51;
grained style, 53;
on Hellenistic heads, 296.
Long, at Athens, after Persian Wars, 51;
long, on athletes, before Persian Wars, 335;
braided, by boxers and pancratiasts, 51;
discarded in wrestling, 51;
in Homer, 50, 51;
on monuments, 52;
on old Attic vases, 52;
as sign of effeminacy, 51;
at Sparta, 51;
at Thermopylæ, 51;
worn by knights, 51;
long and short, on god statues, 52;
pearl-string style of, 53;
pictorial treatment of, 53.
Short hair, on “Apollo” statues, 335;
short, on athletes, after Persian Wars, 51, 335;
on children, at Sparta, 51;
on early vases, 52;
on monuments, 52;
not characteristic of athletes, 50, 51;
as sign of mourning, at Athens, 51;
of slaves, 51;
sketchy treatment, on _Hermes_ of Praxiteles, 303;
snail-volute style of, 53.
See _Krobylos_.
Halikarnassos, funeral games at, 11;
chariot-group from Mausoleion at, 244.
Halimous, grave-relief from Attic deme of, 249.
_Halteres_; see Jumping-weights.
Hamilton, Gavin, 76.
Harmodios, statue of, 148, 173f.
See also Aristogeiton and _Tyrannicides_.
Hartwig, P., on bronze statuette from Capua, 207.
Hauser, F., on Autun statuette of pancratiast, 249-251;
on armor worn in hoplite-race, 203;
on bronze athlete statue from Ephesos, 138;
on bronze wrestlers from Herculaneum, 231;
on Delian _Diadoumenos_, 92;
on Tux bronze, 207.
Head-dress, artificial, on charioteers, 275, 276.
“Healer,” epithet of the _Delian Apollo_, 304.
Heave, in wrestling, 229;
bronze wrestler-group in Paris, showing, 232;
on metope of Theseion, 232;
on r.-f. kylix, 230.
Hegestratos, statue at Athens, 27.
Hegias, sculptor, 110, 126, 175, 279;
compared with Kallon, 122;
criticism of, by Lucian, 60.
Hekatompedon, the, on Akropolis, 128.
Hektor, 7.
Helbig, W., on Barracco athlete statue, 157, 159;
on _Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo_, 90;
on _Doryphoros_ of Polykleitos, 226;
on funerary relief, from Dipylon, 156;
on Greek knights, 282;
on head of _Standing Diskobolos_, 77, 78;
on _Spinario_, 201;
on Vatican statuette, 212.
Helikon, Mount, statues of poets and musicians on, 284;
tripod on, dedicated by Hesiod, 21, 22.
Heliodoros, description of wrestling-match by, 252.
Hellanikos, statue at Olympia, 240, 342, 343.
Hellanodikai, the, at Olympia, 27 and n. 20, 29, 45, 227, 259.
Hellenistic Prince, statue of a, 73;
assimilated to type of Alexander, 73.
Helmets, on _Boxer Vase_ from Crete, 7;
as early attributes of hoplite runners, 161;
of hoplite runners, 48.
_Hemerodromoi_, institution of, 190.
Hephaistion, funeral games in honor of, 11.
Hera, temple of Lakinian, near Kroton, 363;
worship of, at Olympia, earlier than that of Zeus, 16.
See _Heraion_.
_Heraia_, the, games at Argos, 20;
games at Olympia, 49;
girls at, divided into three classes, 189;
reliefs vowed by girl runners at, 29;
running race for girls at, 191.
Heraion, the, at Olympia, 16, 259, 299, 341, 342, 343, 349, 352, 353,
358;
monuments inside of, 325.
_Herakleia_, the, at Marathon, 18, 20;
at Thebes and elsewhere, 19, 27.
Herakleides Ponticus, on the _krobylos_ hair-fashion, 52.
Herakleion, the, at Sparta, 319.
Herakles, as boxer, 169, 235;
of Crete, 10;
destroys statue of self at Elis, 178;
as father of athlete Theagenes, 35;
first to win pankration and wrestling on same day, 252;
as founder of Olympic games, 10, 93;
Herakles and Hermes, as protectors of contests, 75;
as inventor of pankration, 247;
at Marathon, 18;
in Odyssey, 8;
plants olive at Olympia, 20;
son of Zeus and Alkmena, 10;
in Sophokles’ _Trachiniae_, 318;
tripods in honor of, 19, 22;
as wrestler, 13, 93, 228.
Herakles, heads of: beardless, in British Museum, 96;
of boy athlete from Sparta so interpreted, 305;
boyish, in British Museum, 319;
bust from Genzano, 95;
bust from Herculaneum, 170;
colossal filleted, in Vatican, 95;
from Tegea pediment, 306-311;
marble, in Munich, 170;
Philandridas head so interpreted, 297;
showing swollen ears, 169;
with rolled fillets, 96.
Statues of: _Alexikakos_, by Hagelaïdas, 110;
colossal, by Lysippos, 253;
colossal, by Onatas, 122;
in group with Telephos, in Vatican, 70, 95;
in gymnasia and palæstræ, 94, 297;
kneeling, from East gable from Aegina, 195;
as knee-runner, bronze in Metropolitan Museum, 195;
Kyniskos, converted into type of, 74;
in Lakonia, 319;
in Palazzo Altemps, Rome, 243;
by Skopas, 306;
victor statues assimilated to, 354f.
Heralds, contests of, when introduced at Olympia, 283;
statues of, at Olympia, 283.
Herculaneum, bronze head from, in Naples, 63, 140.
Hercules, guild of athletes of, in Rome, 371.
_Hermaia_, the, games at Pheneus, 76.
Hermann, G., on Perinthos head, 180.
Hermas, base of statue of, at Olympia, 359.
Hermes, altar of, ἐναγώνιος, at Olympia, 76;
beaten by Apollo in running at Olympia, 285;
founder of wrestling, 76;
god of youth and sports, 75;
gymnasion of, at Athens, 76;
one of athletic gods, 75;
“presider over contests,” 36;
head, in Boston, 85;
bearded herma, by Alkamenes, 77;
bearded type, 335;
compared with Philandridas head, 293, 294;
hair-treatment of, 303;
on relief fragment from Athens, 270.
Statues: from Andros, 71f.;
in gymnasia and palæstræ, 94;
in Lansdowne House, 88, 241;
Logios or Agoraios, 80, 82, 84, 131;
Ludovisi, 84;
by Onatas, at Olympia, 122;
by Praxiteles, at Olympia, 72, 144;
victor statues assimilated to type of, 181, 354;
statuette of, in Boston, 108;
bronze, in British Museum, 88.
_Hermes-Diskobolos_, statue by Naukydes, 78.
Hermes Kriophoros, festival at Tanagra, 57.
Hermesianax, statue at Olympia, 30.
Hermione, stadion at, 96.
Hermitage, copy of head of boy athlete in, 157.
Hermogenes, victor at Olympia, 354.
Hermokrates, statue at Athens, 27.
Hermolykos, statue on Akropolis, 27, 372, 373.
Herodoros, trumpeter at Olympia, 283.
Herodotos, historian, on Hermolykos, pancratiast, 373;
style of, imitated by Pausanias, 61.
Herodotos, of Klazomenai, statue at Olympia, 30.
Herodotos, of Thebes, as his own charioteer, 266, 267.
Heroes, nine Greek, on curved base at Olympia, 122.
Heroizing, custom of, in sculpture, 71.
Herophilos, physician at Alexandria, 290.
Hertz, Miss, copy of head of _Nike_ by Paionios in collection of, Rome,
304.
Hesiod, wins tripod at Chalkis, 19;
dedicates tripod to muses on Helikon, 21, 22;
victor statue of, on Helikon, 284.
Hetoimokles, statue at Sparta, 106, 333, 337, 362.
Hiero, chariot-group at Olympia, 23, 122, 257, 264, 267, 278, 279;
Pythian victory of, 278;
tyrant of Syracuse, 362.
Hierothesion, the, at Messene, 19.
Hill, G. F., on _Apoxyomenos_ and Lysippos, 288, 289.
Hipparchos, tyrant of Athens, 173.
Hippodameia, 14, 259.
Hippodrome races, at Olympia, non-athletic, 257;
programme of, 259f.;
horses and colts distinguished in, 259.
See Chariot-race and Horse-race.
Hippodromes, common in Greece, 257f.;
at Constantinople, 253;
at Olympia, 258.
Hippokleides, 5.
Hippos, statue at Olympia, 120.
Hipposthenes, victor, temple dedicated to, at Sparta, 362.
Hirschfeld, G., on locations of victor statues in Altis, 340;
on omission of Olympiad 211 from Elean register, 369.
Hirt, A., on Pliny’s “iconic” (iconicus = εἰκονικός) statues, 54;
on Tux bronze, 207.
_Historia Naturalis_, of Pliny, 60, 321, and _passim_.
Hitzig-Bluemner, on exclusive use of bronze in Olympic victor statues,
321;
on statue of Milo, at Olympia, 107.
Holleaux, M., on “Apollo” torso from Mount Ptoion, 119, 120.
Home-coming of Olympic victors, 34, 35.
Homer, athletics in, 7f.;
does not mention Olympia, 16;
κελετίζειν in, 3, 261;
makes men and gods shriek, 57;
on painful character of boxing, 234;
warrior in, 8.
Homolle, Th., on appellation “Apollo,” 336;
on artistic influences in the _Agias_, 291, 301;
assigns the _Agias_ to Lysippos, 292, 311;
on expression of face of the _Agias_, 317;
on group of Daochos at Delphi, 286;
on resemblance between Philandridas head and that of the _Agias_,
294;
on small heads outside school of Lysippos, 294;
on differentiating statues of Herakles and victors, 94;
on swollen ears of athlete statues, 168.
Honor statues, at Olympia, 41, 42, 339f.
Honors, extraordinary, paid to victors, 32f., 71.
Hoplite-race (ὁπλίτης), 190f.;
belongs to mixed athletics, 203;
called ἀσπίς, 190, 204;
date of introduction at Olympia, 191;
as diaulos at Olympia and Athens, 203;
finish of, on a r.-f. kylix, 204;
in full armor at the _Eleutheria_, at Platæa, 203;
last in gymnic contests at Olympia and elsewhere, 203;
most complete representation of, on a r.-f. kylix in Berlin, 204;
preparations for, on a r.-f. kylix by Euphronios, 204;
racers in, turning central post, on r.-f. kylix in Berlin, 204;
round shields and Attic helmets used in, 204;
semi-comic character of, on vases, 205;
start of, on a r.-f. kylix in Berlin, 204;
weapons used in, 203.
Hoplitodromoi, attributes of, 161 f.;
so-called dying hoplite runner on grave-relief from Athens, 149, 209;
statues of, in motion, 203f.;
two heads from statues of, 46, 162f., 324;
paintings of, by Parrhasios, 206;
Tux bronze of, 206f.
Horarios, inscribed votive relief of, 75.
Horfuabra, statue from Dahshur, Egypt, 330.
Horse, crowned by Nike, on votive relief from Athens, 269;
imported into Crete from Libya, 1;
models of miniature horses at Olympia, 23.
Horse-race (ἵππος κέλης): common in Greece, 257f.;
horses and colts distinguished in, 259;
length of course at Olympia, 261;
monuments, illustrating, 280f.;
sport of the rich, 257;
when introduced at Olympia, 260;
race known as the _apobates_, at Olympia, 282f.
Horse-racers: bronze statuette of, from Dodona, 281;
bronze statuette of, in Loeb collection, 282;
bronze statuette of, from Volubilis, Morocco, 281;
dedications of, at Olympia, 23, 278f.;
on funerary relief, from Sicily, 281;
on galloping horse, on terra-cotta relief from Thera, 281;
mounted, on Athens relief, 281;
nude, on vases, 281;
small figures of, from Olympia, 24;
statue of, in Florence, 281;
two fragments of statues of, from Akropolis, 281;
victorious racer leading-horse, on Athenian relief, 281.
Human sacrifice, as origin of funerary games, 14.
Hunter, honor statue at Olympia, 42.
Hyblæans, the _Zeus_ of the, at Olympia, 344.
Hydriæ, from Caere (Cerveteri), 52;
bronze, as prize at the _Panathenaia_, 20.
Hylas, identified with statue of youth from Subiaco, 196.
Hyperboreans, home of wild olive among, 20.
Hysmon, statue at Olympia, 120, 164.
Iapygians, King of the, 125.
Iconic and aniconic statues, 54f.
Ida, Mount, grotto of Zeus in, 235.
Idealism, in Greek art, 56, 71;
idealism and realism, 57.
Identification of athlete statues in Roman copies, 44.
_Idolino_, the, statue in Florence, 131, 139, 141f.;
as highest ideal of boyish beauty, 141;
interpretation of, 142f.
Ikkos, slain by Kleomedes, 35;
as teacher of gymnastics, 59.
Ildefonso group, in Madrid, 158.
Iliad, games of Patroklos in, 9.
Ilissos, river in Attica, 20;
relief from, 312.
Impressionism, in hair technique, by Greek artists, 53;
by Lysippos, 69.
Ince Blundell head of athlete, 167, note 4, 168, 180, 181.
Indians, the, of North America, funeral games among, 12.
Information, sources of, in reconstruction of Olympic victor statues,
43.
Inscriptions, earliest, using pankration for dates, 191;
on pillars, in honor of victors, 34;
on victor statue bases at Olympia, 43.
Iolaos, hurls stone diskos, 218.
Ionia, passes Egyptian influence to Greek sculptors, 332;
school of sculpture from, 114;
women of, witness games, 49.
Ionians, short hair with, 52.
Ionism, in Greek art, 115f., 126, 129, 175;
reaction against, 116, 126.
Iphitos, restores Olympic games, 15.
_Ismenian Apollo_, the, statue in Thebes, 304.
Ismenion, the, at Thebes, tripods in, 19.
Isokrates, statue on Akropolis, 24, 27, 281, 373.
Isthmian festival, athletes divided into three classes according to age
at, 189;
beast contests at, 25;
excavations on site of, 25;
famed in Roman days, 25;
funerary origin of, 9;
history and administration of, 17;
inferior to Olympia, 25;
later in honor of a god, 9;
in honor of Melikertes, 10;
most frequented, 25;
statue of victor at, in Athens, 27;
statues of victors at, on Isthmus, 26.
Italian Archæological Mission, 3.
Italy, funeral games, in ancient, 11.
Jahn, O., on symmetry, 66;
on the _Wounded Amazon_ of Capitoline, 157.
_Jason_, statue so-called, of Louvre, 86.
Javelin (ἀκόντιον), 164, 165;
as athletic attribute, 108, 164;
Greek names for, 223;
size of, 223;
on vase-paintings, 164, 223.
Javelin-throwers (ἀκοντισταί), 222f.;
two bronze statuettes of, 227, 228;
on Spartan relief, 223.
Javelin-throwing, 222f.;
athletic type of, 223;
for distance, 223;
from horseback, on vase-paintings, 223;
at games of Patroklos, 222;
origin of, mythical, 222;
positions in, 223f.;
positions, given by E. N. Gardiner, 223;
practical, in war and the chase, 223;
in sculpture, 224;
two types of, 222, 223.
Jockey, nude, on vase-paintings, 280;
in short-sleeved chiton, on b.-f. Panathenaic vase, 280.
Jones, H. Stuart, on Pliny’s _Perseus et pristae of Myron_, 188.
Joubin, A., on Delphi _Charioteer_, 278;
on Olympia gable sculptures, 114.
Juba II, King of Numidia, 166.
Juethner, J., on Greek origin of javelin-throwing, 222;
on shapes of jumping-weights, 214f.;
on _Standing Diskobolos_, 220;
on statue of boxer from Sorrento, 243.
Jumping, 214f.;
adapted to painter and not to sculptor, 217;
ancient records in, 216;
modern records in, with and without weights, 216;
modern record in, front spring-board, 216;
most difficult feature of pentathlon, 216;
most representative feature of pentathlon, 214;
in Odyssey, 9, 214;
as part of pentathlon, 214;
popularity of, 216;
spring-board not used in Greece in, 216;
various moments in, depicted on vases, 216, 217;
with weights, 216, 217.
Jumping-weights (ἁλτῆρες), 214f.;
as attribute of pentathletes, 164;
on bronze statue in Berlin, 164;
dedications of, 22;
forms of, 214f.;
club-like form, 215;
semispherical, 215;
forms of, divided by Philostratos, 215;
shown on vases, 215;
on mosaic in Lateran, 215;
not in Homer, 214;
on r.-f. kylix in Munich, 164;
on relief from Sparta, 164;
on Roman copies of Greek athlete statues, 215;
on statue of Hysmon, at Olympia, 164;
on statues in Dresden and Florence, 215;
stone, from Corinth and Olympia, 215;
on tree-trunk beside statue, 164;
use of, according to Aristotle and Philostratos, 216;
use of, in medical gymnastics, 21;
use of, according to vase-paintings, 216.
Justin, on chariot-groups at Delphi, 26.
Ka-aper, wood statue of, in Cairo, 330;
statue of “wife” of, so-called, in Cairo, 330.
Kabbadias, P., on bronze statue of youth found in sea off Antikythera,
81.
Kabeirion, statuette from, 28.
Kalamis, sculptor, 36, 324;
Kalamis and _Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo_ type, 89;
characterized, 90, 279;
chariot-groups by, 23;
criticism of, by Cicero, 60;
horse-groups by, 24, 279;
horses by, characterized by Pliny, 62;
jockeys on horseback by, 23;
Kalamis and nude charioteer from Esquiline, 276;
Kalamis and Onatas, 219, 264, 267, 268;
Kalamis and Praxiteles, 268;
as predecessor of Pheidias, 279;
statues at Olympia by, set up by the Akragantines, 130;
Kalamis as unrivalled sculptor of horses, 279.
Kalkmann, A., on _Herakles Alexikakos_ of Hagelaïdas, 110;
on kneeling figures from West gable of temple on Aegina, 195;
on proportions of face in Greek sculpture, 67.
Kallias, statue at Athens, 27, 182, 183, 365;
statue at Olympia, 45, 129, 251, 352, 365.
Kallikles, sculptor, 365.
Kallikrates, dates of victories of, at Olympia, 301;
statue at Olympia, 121, 298.
Kallimachos, on statues of Euthymos being struck by lightning, 364.
Kallippos, bribes opponents and is fined, 34.
Kallistratos, characterizes Skopas, 309.
Kalliteles, statue at Olympia, 265, 347.
Kallon, sculptor, 122, 125.
Kallon, victor, statue at Olympia, 121.
Kalydonian boar hunt, represented in Tegea pediment group, 307.
Kanachos, the Elder, sculptor, 24, 118, 120, 279, 324, 336;
_celetizontes pueri_, by, 120;
compared with Kallon, 122;
criticism of, by Cicero, 60.
Kanachos, the Younger, sculptor, 120.
Kantharos, sculptor, 122.
Kaphisias, sculptor, 368, 375.
Kapros, boxing-match with Kleitomachos, 247;
bronze foot from statue of, 255, 346;
first to win pankration and wrestling at Olympia on same day, 252;
Kapros and bronze boxer head from Olympia, 254;
two statues at Olympia, 29, 342, 354.
Karrhotos, charioteer, 267.
Kasia Mnasithea, statue base at Olympia, 360.
Kassel, statue of Apollo in, 360;
statue of boxer in, 46, 155;
head of _Diadoumenos_ of Polykleitos in, 153, 154.
Kastor, victor in foot-race at Olympia, 96;
as horse-racer, 96;
hurls stone diskos, 218.
Kebriones, 5.
Kekulé, on the _Idolino_, 141, 142;
on Olympia gable sculptures, 114;
on the _Spinario_, 201;
on the _Standing Diskobolos_, 76.
Kephisodotos, sculptor, 252.
Kerameikos, Athens, 11.
Keramopoullos, A. D., on the Delphi _Charioteer_, 278.
Kerykeion, symbol of Hermes, 71, 72, 78, 82, 88, etc.
Kettle, prize at early games, 20.
Kicking, allowed in pankration, 246, 247.
Kietz, on the _Standing Diskobolos_, 78.
Kimon, son of Miltiades, 18.
Kimon, son of Stesagoras, bronze mares of, at Athens, 27, 363.
Kirchhoff, A., on statue of Hermolykos on Akropolis, 373.
Kirghiz, the, of India, funeral games among, 12.
Kittos, boxing and wrestling scenes on Panathenaic amphora of, 248.
Kitylos and Dermys, grave-figures of, from Tanagra, 335.
Kladeos, the, river at Olympia, 299, 342, 357, 358.
Klazomenai, paintings from, 52;
reliefs from, 264, 268.
Klein, W., on the Boston _Charioteer_ (?), 275;
on the _Idolino_, 141;
on the _Jason_ of Louvre, 86;
on the _Oil-pourer_ of Munich, 134.
Kleito; see Polykleitos.
Kleitomachos, statue at Olympia, 353;
identified wrongly with the _Seated Boxer_ of Museo delle Terme,
Rome, 253;
story of, from Polybios, 147, 247.
Kleitor, son of Azan, 9.
Kleitor, relief from, 132.
Kleobis (?), statue of, from Delphi, 105.
Kleoitas, sculptor, 27.
Kleomedes, heroized at death, 35.
Kleomenes, sculptor, 85.
Kleon, sculptor, 69, 120, 121, 164;
leg position of statues by, 159.
Kleonai, 17.
Kleosthenes, King of Pisa, 15.
Kleosthenes, of Epidamnos, chariot-group of, at Olympia, 23, 266, 344,
345.
Knee-runners, on bronze tripod reliefs, 194;
on small bronze relief in Metropolitan Museum, 194;
on marble relief of dying hoplite runner, 194;
on small bronzes, 195;
on vases, 194;
statue of kneeling youth from Subiaco, 195.
Knights, Helbig on Greek, 282;
Homeric method of, fighting from chariot, 272, 282;
on Parthenon frieze, 281.
Knossos, bull-grappling at, 1, 2;
ivory statuettes from, 3;
paved inclosure at, 3;
reliefs from, 3, 4;
seal from, showing huge horse, 1;
theatral area at, 3;
toreadors on wall-paintings from, 1, 3.
Koblanos, sculptor, 242.
Kodias (Κῳδίας), jumping-weight of, 40.
Koehler, U., on the _Apoxyomenos_ of Vatican, 290.
Koerte, on name “Apollo” for early statues, 335.
_Korai_, statues of, on Akropolis, 53, 115.
Koroibos, victor in first recorded Olympiad, 15, 191.
Kostobokoi, barbarian invaders of Greece, 370, 371.
Kouroniotis, K., letter of, quoted 327.
Kranaos, or Granianos, statue near Sikyon, 370.
Krates, victor as herald at Olympia, 283.
Kratinos, statue at Olympia, 122;
set up by trainer of, 31.
Kratisthenes, chariot-group of, at Olympia, 179, 268.
Kresilas, sculptor, 36, 93;
the _Alkibiades_ of Vatican ascribed to, by Furtwaengler, 199;
_Doryphoros_ by, 145;
portrait of Perikles by, 56;
statue of the _Wounded Amazon_ by, 157.
Kresilæan athlete head, five copies of, 144, 145.
Kreugas, crowned after death, 247;
killed in boxing match, 236, 247;
statue at Argos, 236, 237.
Krison, statue ascribed to, by Furtwaengler, 200.
Kritios, sculptor, 115, 126, 173, 174;
criticism of, by Lucian, 60;
Kritios and Tux bronze 207.
Kritodamos, statue at Olympia, 120, 344, 352.
_Krobylos_, old Attic hair-fashion, 51, 52, 89, 128, 135, 270.
Krokon, dedicates small bronze horse at Olympia, 23, 279.
Kronos, altar of, at Olympia, 16;
wrestling match of, with Zeus, 14.
Krotonians, famed as pentathletes, 60.
Ktesibios, philosopher, on ball-playing, 84.
Kylon, conspiracy of, in Athens, 362;
statue on Akropolis, 106, 333, 337, 362.
Kylon, of Elis, honor statue at Olympia, 42.
Kyniska, bronze horses of, at Olympia, 265, 267;
chariot-group of, at Olympia, 23, 131, 267, 299, 342, 367;
first woman to enter and win chariot-race at Olympia, 267, 367;
shrine in honor of, at Sparta, 367.
Kyniskos, statue at Olympia, 74, 117, 239;
copies of (?), 156f., 159;
foot position on base of statue of, 239;
date of victory, 160.
Kynosarges, Attic amphora from Gymnasion of, 13.
Kypselos, chest of, at Olympia, 12, 13.
Kypselos, King of Arkadia, 57.
Kyrene, the _Dionysia_ at, 50;
head from, 89;
personified as charioteer in Delphi group, 277, 278;
statue found in baths of, 141.
Kyrnos, battle of, 373.
Ladas, of Sparta, fleetness of, 364;
grave of, 365;
stadion in honor of, 365;
statue in Argos, 364;
statue of, by Myron, 196f., 364;
compared with that of girl runner of Vatican, 197;
epigrams on statue of, 196, 197;
pose of, 197;
story of death of, 196.
Lakonia, statues of Herakles in, 319.
Laloux and Monceaux, on Philandridas head, 294.
Lamia, date of battle of, 301;
relief from, 132.
Lampos, chariot-group at Olympia, 268.
_Lancellotti_ (or _Massimi_) _Diskobolos_, 184 and note 2.
Lange, F. A., on Egyptian influence on early Greek culture, 332.
Lange, J., on law of “frontality,” 175, 328;
on Olympia gable sculptures, 114.
_Lansdowne Herakles_, statue, 81, 82;
ascribed to Myron, 181;
head of, compared with that of Philandridas, 298;
regarded as Lysippan, 298, 311;
regarded as Skopaic, 313.
_Laokoön_, the, group, Pliny’s praise of, 61;
as realistic work, 289;
of Lessing, 54, 187.
Las, statue of Herakles near, 319.
Lasso, boy throwing, wrongly identified with statue of kneeling youth
from Subiaco, 196.
Lateran, athlete mosaic in, 215;
boxers on relief in, 238.
Laurel, as prize at Delphi, 20, 21.
Laurentum, now Castel Porziano, 184.
Leaf, W., on chariot-race in the Iliad, 8.
Leaping-weights; see Jumping-weights.
Lechat, on bronze statue found in sea off Antikythera, 84;
on evolution of Greek sculpture, 329;
on the housing of stone statues, 325.
Leg, right lower, fragment of victor statue, 322;
leg holds in pankration, 247;
“free” and “rest” legs, as motives in sculpture, 109, 226.
Lekythion, athletic attribute, 84.
Lekythos, 137, 138.
_Lemnian Athena_, the, statue in Dresden, 53.
_Lemniskos_, 155, 156.
Leon, statue of, 366.
Leonidaion, the, (_Suedwestbau_), at Olympia, 339, 340, 346, 347, 348,
350, 353, 355, 356.
Leonidas, at Thermopylae, 51;
funeral games in honor of, 11.
Leonidas, of Naxos, statue at Olympia, 346, 347.
Leontiskos, painter, 29.
Leontiskos, of Sicily, statue at Olympia, 62, 179, 183, 249.
Lessing, characterization of _Diadoumenos_ and _Doryphoros_ by, 152;
on most fruitful moment to be chosen by artist, 178.
See _Laokoön_.
Libation-pourer, statue of, 143, 144.
Libation-pouring, 138f.
Libya, figure in Delphi group, 277;
oracle of, 31.
Lichas, statue at Olympia, 31, 342;
scourged by umpires, 33, 149.
Life, athlete, happy, 36.
Lifelike statues, 59.
Life-size statues at Olympia, 46.
Ligourió, bronze statuette from, 105, 111, 114.
_Limping Man_, the, statue at Syracuse, 182.
Lindos, temple of Athena at, 345.
Loeb collection, Munich, bronze group of wrestlers in, 232, 233;
bronze statuette in, 136;
bronze statuette of boy-rider in, 282;
three bronze tripods in, 194, 264.
Loeschke, G. L., on appellation “Apollo” for early statues, 335;
on statue of Kylon on Akropolis, 362 and note 7.
Loewy, E., on Delian _Diadoumenos_, 92;
on group of Kyniska, at Olympia, 267;
on style of statue of Pythokles, at Olympia, 213.
Loin-cloth, of athletes, 47;
absence of, on Cretan frescoes, 47;
worn by Asiatics, 48;
in Homer, 47;
on early vases, 47, 48;
dropped first by Orsippos of Megara, 47;
Plato on, 48;
used by boxers and wrestlers, 48.
Lokroi, Ozolian, colonization of the, 201.
Lokros, ancestor of the Ozolian Lokroi, 201.
Longpérier, H. A., on bronze statuette in Paris, 142.
Long race (δόλιχος), at Olympia, 190;
boys admitted to, at Delphi, 190;
men admitted to, at Olympia, 190.
Lucian, on apples as prizes at Delphi, 21, 107;
on art criticism, 60;
criticism of Hegias, Kritios, and Nesiotes, by, 175;
description of _Diskobolos_ by, 186, 187;
ideal statue of, 60;
on life-size victor statues, 45, 227;
on prohibition against biting and gouging in pankration, 246;
on statue of Pelichos, 56;
on statue of Theagenes on Thasos, 364.
Lucius Verus, coins of, 21.
_Luctator anhelans_, painting of, by Naukeros, 233.
_Lykaia_, the, statues at the games of, 26.
Lykaios, Mount, in Arkadia, hippodrome on, 258.
Lykidas, of Sparta, enters colts as full-grown horses at Olympia, 259.
Lykinos, of Elis, statue at Olympia, 343.
Lykinos, of Heraia, statue at Olympia, 121.
Lykinos, of Sparta, two statues at Olympia, 24, 29, 265, 266.
Lykios, sculptor, 134, 243.
Lykomedes, bases of two statues at Olympia, 358.
Lykourgos, of Sparta, 15, 51.
Lykourgos, rhetorician, 27.
Lyre-playing, at Delphi, 25.
Lyres, in Parthenon, 23.
Lysandros, statue at Olympia, 343.
Lysippos, of Elis, victor statue of, by Andreas, 118, 354.
Lysippos, sculptor, 36, 375;
as art reformer, 301;
borrows from other sculptors, 291;
canon of, 68, 69, 136, 288;
characteristics of, 311;
chariot-groups by, 23;
circle of, 131, 255;
as court sculptor of Alexander, 296, 318;
criticism of, by Pliny, 61;
date of, 300f.;
dates of Lysippos, Skopas, and Praxiteles, 301;
divergent style of, 253;
follows _Doryphoros_ and nature, 301;
improvements in hair technique by, 53, 296;
influence of, on realism, 56;
influenced by Skopas, 291, 301;
inscription on base of statue in Pharsalos by, 287;
_Lansdowne Herakles_ ascribed to, 313;
Lysippos and Skopas compared, 311f.;
Lysippos and type of weary Herakles, 253;
makes 1500 statues, 302;
Philandridas head at Olympia, by, 298;
portraiture after time of, 54;
poses of statues of, 44;
regarded exclusively as bronze founder, 302;
statue of Agias by, 286, 366;
statues of _destringentes se_, by, 136;
statues of, at Olympia, 121, 266;
surpasses earlier artists in symmetry, 66;
as worker in marble, 302f.
Lysistratos, sculptor, first to make plaster moulds from face, 56, 255,
304.
Macedon, coins of, showing racing chariots, 262;
kings of, 73;
princes of, as horse-racers, 357.
Mach, E. von, against oriental influence on Greek sculpture, 329;
on bronze statue of youth found in sea off Antikythera, 84;
on the _Charioteer_ (?) in Boston, 275, 276;
on original of _Farnese Herakles_, 253.
Madrid, copy of _Diadoumenos_ in, 153;
Ildefonso group in, 153.
Mæcenas, and victor privileges in Rome, 33.
Magna Græcia, cities of, honor victors, 35;
fond of hippodrome contests, 258.
Magnesia ad Sipylum, victor statue base from, 370.
Mahler, A., on copies of _Doryphoros_, 224;
on identifying statue of Ladas, 197;
on the _Idolino_, 141;
on resemblance between head of the _Agias_ and Philandridas, 294.
Maiden, figure of, in chariot-groups, 268.
Maltho, gymnasium in Elis, 370.
Manetho, Egyptian dynasties of, 330.
Mantua, statue of Apollo in, 111.
Marathon, battle of, 18, 209;
_Herakleia_, the, at, 18.
Marble, less expensive than bronze, 28;
some victor statues made of, at Olympia, 324.
Markianopolis, coin of, 87.
Markios, Gnaios, base of statue at Olympia, 359.
_Marsyas_, the, statue by Myron, 134, 183, 184.
Masks, dedication of, 22.
_Massimi Diskobolos_; see _Lancellotti Diskobolos_.
Materials of Olympic victor statues, 321f.
Matz and von Duhn, on so-called _Diomedes_, in Palazzo Valentini,
Rome, 207.
Mau, A., on the _Praying Boy_ of Berlin, 132.
Mausoleion, Halikarnassos, chariot frieze from, 271, 289;
chariot-group from, 264;
small chariot frieze from, 274, 275.
Mausolos, games in honor of, 11.
Maviglia, Ada, on _Diadoumenos_ of Delos, 93;
rejects the _Apoxyomenos_ and the _Agias_ as evidence of style
of Lysippos, 290.
Mayer, M., on athlete (?) statue from Olympieion, 143;
on Myron’s _pristae_, 188.
Medes, the, 11.
Mediterranean culture, 1;
gymnastic exercises in, 6;
origin of Greek athletics in, 7.
Megakles, victor at Olympia, 363.
Megara, colossal torso of “Apollo” from, 336.
Megara Hyblaia, Sicily, necropolis in, 337;
statue of Zeus of, at Olympia, 344.
Meleager, head of, on Praxitelian trunk in Medici Gardens, Rome, 313;
statue of, in Fogg Museum, Boston, 314;
statue of, in Vatican, 312;
statue of Kyniskos converted into, 74.
Melikertes, 10.
Melite, deme of, 110.
Melos, “Apollo” from, 100, 101, 103, 104.
Memorials, miscellaneous, of victors, 40, 41.
Memphis, motion statuettes from, 177;
art of, 330.
Mende, offering of people of, at Olympia, 164, 341.
Mendel, M., excavations of, at Tegea, 306;
on head of Herakles, from Tegea, 306, 307.
Menedemos, bases of two statues at Olympia, 358.
Menelaos, sculptor, 113.
Mengs, Raphael, painter, cast from collection of, showing swollen ears,
169;
on proportions, 68.
Messana, coins of, showing mule-car, 263.
Messene, coins of, 111;
hierothesion at, 19.
Messenians, of Naupaktos, 110.
Metageitnion, month of, 18.
Metellus Macedonicus, base of statue at Olympia, 348.
Metrobios, T. Phlabios (Flavius), base of statue at Iasos, 369.
Metrodoros, Aurelios, base of statue at Kyzikos, 371.
Michaelis, A., on _apobates_ chariot-race on Parthenon frieze, 272;
on base of statue of Epicharinos, on Akropolis, 372;
on use of ἐν δεξιᾷ and ἐν ἀριστερᾷ by Pausanias, 349;
on _Lansdowne Herakles_, 298, 313;
on Petworth ephebe statue, 133;
on the _Standing Diskobolos_, 76;
Michaelis, A., and Conze, A., on “Apollo” type as victor statues,
335.
Middle Kingdom, Egypt, dates of, 330 and note 6;
sculptures of, 330.
Mikon, of Athens, sculptor, 61, 62, 129.
Mikon, of Syracuse, sculptor, 375.
Mikythos, or Smikythos, group dedicated at Olympia by, 215, 351.
Milchhoefer, A., on painting by Eupompos, 160.
Miletos, coins of, 74, 118, 119, 336.
Military runner (δρομοκῆρυξ), 209.
Milo, statue at Olympia, 31, 106f., 130, 165, 337.
Miltiades, games in honor of, on Thracian Chersonesos, 11.
Miltiades, son of Kypselos, votive offering at Olympia, 264, 265.
Minoans, the, of Crete, 1;
influenced by Orient, 1;
love of sports among, 6.
See Crete.
Mnaseas, statue at Olympia, 161, 179, 181.
Mnesiboulos, statue in Elateia, 204, 371.
Monceaux; see Laloux and Monceaux.
Mopsos, boxing match with Admetos, 285.
Mosaic, athlete, in Lateran, Rome, 215.
Mosso, A., on _Boxer Vase_, 6;
on origin of Greek boxing-glove, 235;
on Vapheio cups, 4.
Motion statues, antiquity of, in Greece, 176f.;
in Assyro-Babylonian art, 177;
in Cretan art, 177;
in Egyptian art, 176, 177;
in Greece, not developed out of “Apollo” statue type, 177;
on early vases, 177;
victor statues in, 173f.;
victor statues in various contests, 188f.
Motives, general, of statues in motion, 188f.;
at rest, 130f.
Mounot, Étienne, sculptor, 185.
Mueller, K. O., on common features of victor statues, 44.
Mule-car, on Rhegian and Messanian coins, 263.
Mule-race (ἀπήνη); see Chariot-race with mules.
_Munich King_, statue so-called, 226.
Muscles, in Cretan art, 3, 4.
Muses, group of, by Hagelaïdas, Arostokles and Kanachos, 118.
Musical contests, dedications for, at Olympia and elsewhere, 283f.;
at Delphi, 25;
honor dedications for, at Olympia, 285;
monuments for, victor or votive in character, 284;
at Olympia, non-athletic, 283, 285, represented on imitation
Panathenaic vases, 284;
on reliefs, 284;
victors in, at Delphi, 284;
victor statues for musicians, on Helikon, 284.
Mussius, L., gravestone of, 72.
Mycenæ, 1, 7;
lack of athletic scenes at, 8;
no Egyptian influence on art of, 332.
Mykale, battle of, 373.
Myrina, terra-cotta statuettes from, 135.
Myron, sculptor, 183f., 324, 353, 375;
αὐτάρκεια of, 183;
criticism of, by Cicero, 60;
by Pliny, 180, 184;
dated by Pliny, 61;
love of movement of, 183;
Myron and _Hermes Ludovisi_, 85;
Myron and Pythagoras, difficulty of separating works of, 181, 245;
Myron and _Standing Diskobolos_, 76;
Olympic victor statues by, 129, 187f., 245, 333;
poses of victor statues by, 44;
pupil of Hagelaïdas, 110;
as realist, 188;
statue of Ladas by, 196f.;
surpasses Polykleitos in rhythm and symmetry, 66;
versatility of, 188;
victor statues at Delphi by, 26, 188.
Myron, tyrant of Sikyon, dedicates bronze chapel at Olympia, 41.
Mytilene, statue from, 92.
Narkissos, 158.
Narykidas, base of statue at Olympia, 342.
Natalis, L. Minikios (Minicius), equestrian monument at Olympia, 37.
_Natural History_, of Pliny; see _Historia Naturalis_.
Naturalism, in Greek Art, 44.
Naukratis, Egypt, 105, 329, 334.
Naukydes, sculptor, 76, 117, 120;
leg position of statues by, 159;
Naukydes and _Standing Diskobolos_, 76f.;
Naukydes and canon of Polykleitos, 69;
statue of Cheimon by, characterized by Pausanias, 62.
Naupaktos, 110.
Nausikaa, 83.
Naxos, “Apollo” from, 328, 334;
bronze statuette from, 74, 119;
statue of Nikandre from, 177.
Nelson, Philip, head in collection of, 157.
Nemea, athletes at, divided into three classes, by ages, 189;
athletic contests at, 25;
athletic interest of, secondary to that of Olympia, 25;
boy contests at, 25;
festival at, 1;
founded by Adrastos, 17;
held every two years, 17;
in honor of Opheltes or Archermoros, 10;
later in honor of a god, 9;
origin of, 9;
records of victors at, 21;
relief from, 132;
retired valley of, 25;
revived by Hadrian, 17;
statues of victors at, 26;
statues of victors at, in Athens, 27;
summarily treated by Pausanias, 24;
transferred to Argos, 17;
under Argive influence, 17;
the _Nemea_ of Thebes, 27.
Nemead, first dated, 17.
_Nemesis_, statue by Agorakritos at Rhamnous, 182.
Neolaïdas, statue at Olympia, 120.
Nepos, on first date of representing athlete statues in motion, 173.
Nero, coins of, 21;
uses force to win at the _Isthmia_, 34;
villa of, at Subiaco, 195;
wins chariot-races at Olympia, 257, 262, 369.
Nesiotes, sculptor, criticism of, by Lucian, 60.
Nestor, 8;
contests at Bouprasion, 9;
statue at Olympia, by Onatas, 122.
Net, on Vapheio cup, 5.
New Empire, Egypt, dates of, 331 and note 2;
sculptures of, 331.
Nida-Haddernheim, terra-cotta statuette from, 202.
Nikandre, statue of, 177.
Nikandros, statue at Olympia, 121.
Nikanor, fragment of base of statue at Olympia, 359.
Nikarchos, base of statue at Olympia, 356.
_Nike_, the, of Archermos, 177;
bronze figurine from Akropolis, 177;
as charioteer, 268;
on Ficoroni cista, 269;
on hand of statue of Olympian Zeus, at Olympia, 149;
on Nike balustrade from Akropolis, 86;
on relief in Madrid, 269;
on relief from Phaleron, 269;
on sarcophagus from Klazomenai, 268.
See also Paionios, the _Nike_ of.
Nikeratos, date of archonship of, 194.
Nikeus, casts stone diskos, 218.
Nikodamos, sculptor, 244.
Nikokles, victor monument at Akriai, 372.
Nikomachos, painter, 268;
_Victoria quadrigam in sublime rapiens_ by, 268.
Nineveh, reliefs from, 330.
Niobid, identified with statue of youth from Subiaco, 195.
_Nordostgraben_, the, at Olympia, 358.
_Nordwestgraben_, the, at Olympia, 356.
North Greek-Thracian school of sculpture, 114.
Noses, bloody, on vase-paintings, 167.
_Novus Annus_ (?), nude statue found in Rhine identified as, 276.
Nudity, characteristic of archaic statues, 335;
as essential difference between Greek and foreigner, 48;
not observed by charioteers, 48;
of victor statues, 47f.
_Nudus talo incessens_, statue by Polykleitos, 158, 249, 250;
statuette from Autun showing the Polykleitan motive, 249, 250.
Numismatic commentary on Pausanias, 306.
Ny-Carlsberg Museum, Copenhagen, archaic head of youth in, 128;
two heads in, 180, 181; etc.
Nymphs, altar at Olympia, 351.
Odysseus, 8.
Oibotas, statue at Olympia, 30, 32, 333, 343, 351.
Oil, used in wrestling, 165.
Oil-flask, on r.-f. kylix in Munich, 164.
_Oil-pourer_, bronze statuette of, from South Italy, 135;
statue so-called, in Munich, 99, 133f., 137;
as Attic work, 137;
head in Boston, copy of original of, 134;
pose of, 158;
torso in Dresden as variant of, 134, 135.
Oil-pouring, on gems, reliefs and terra-cotta statuettes, 135.
Oil-scraping, as athletic motive, 135f.
Oinoanda, base of victor statue from, 371.
Oinomaos, chariot-race with Pelops, 14, 259;
column at Olympia, 323, 350, 351.
Olaidas, honor statue at Olympia, 42.
Old Kingdom, Egypt, dates of, 330 and note 3;
sculptures of, 330.
Olive, crown of, as prize at Olympia, 155f.;
of “Fair Crown,” at Olympia, 20, 351;
wild, 20.
Olympia, account of monuments at, by Pausanias, 24;
age of boy victors at, 189;
antiquity of, from excavations and religious history, 16;
athletes at, divided into two classes, by ages, 189;
boxer head from, 62;
celebrated every four years, 15;
controlled by Eleans alone after Persian wars, 15;
early controlled by Pisa, 15;
early overshadowed by Delphi and Delos, 14, 15;
founded before Dorian invasion, 14;
funeral origin of, 9;
German excavations at, 43;
history of, 14;
held in honor of a god, 9;
held in honor of Pelops, 10;
importance of, from seventh century B. C., 15;
later controlled by Pisa and Elis, 15;
prehistoric buildings at, 16, 349;
sacrifices at, to Pelops and Zeus, 11;
as sanctuary prior to advent of Achæans, 14;
style of head of athlete (Philandridas) from, 293f.;
style of gable statues from, 113, 114;
traditional history of, by Pausanias and Strabo, 15;
two figures from West gable of temple of Zeus from, 195;
victor statues in Altis at, 26; etc.
Olympia register, 15.
Olympiad, first dated, 15;
traditional first, 8;
the 8th, 34th, 104th, 211th, omitted from Elean register, 369.
Olympieion, statue from ruins of, 143.
Olympos, sculptor, 120.
_Omphalos_, from Athens, 89.
Onatas, sculptor, 122;
group of Opis at Delphi by, 125;
inscribed base from Akropolis, 24, 281;
Onatas and East gable statues from temple on Aegina, 125;
Onatas and Kalamis, 129, 264;
works of, at Olympia, 122, 267.
Onomastos, games of, at Cumae, 20.
Onomastos, of Smyrna, institutes boxing rules at Olympia, 235.
Opheltes, 10.
Opis, group of, at Delphi, by Onatas, 125.
_Opportunity_ (Καιρός), altar at Olympia, 76;
statue by Lysippos, 250.
Orchomenos, “Apollo” from, 100, 101, 103, 328, 334;
ceiling of treasury of, 329.
Orestes, as his own charioteer, 267.
Oriental influence on early Greek art, 328f.
Originals of victor statues at Olympia, 62f., 322.
Orpheus and Telete, victor group on Helikon, 284.
Orsippos, first athlete to drop the loin-cloth, 47.
_Osthalle_, the, at Olympia, 358.
Overbeck, J., on _Farnese Herakles_, 253;
on head of hoplitodromos from Olympia, 163;
on heads of Apollo, 275;
on Lysippos as exclusively a bronze founder, 302;
on Olympia sculptures, 114;
on Piombino statuette, 119;
_Schriftquellen_ of, 61;
on _Standing Diskobolos_, 76.
Oxylos, King of Dorian Eleans, 15.
_Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, the, 31;
order of contestants at Olympia in, 189.
Paianios, statue at Olympia, 234.
Paidotribes, or trainer of athletes, 229, 236, 248.
Paint, used on sculptures, 326.
Painting, competition in, at Delphi, 25.
Paintings, as victor monuments, 28.
Paionios, sculptor, 113;
the _Nike_ of, at Olympia, 326, 343, 344, 352, 360;
replica of, at Delphi, 304;
replica of head of, in Rome, 304.
Palæstra, absent in Homer, 7;
palæstra gymnast, statuette of, 108;
origin of name, 228;
statues of athletes in, 297;
statues of athletic gods in, 75, 94.
Palaistra, the, at Olympia, 347, 355, 356, 359, 360, etc.;
at Pompeii, 224.
Palatine, the, at Rome, 50;
fragment of leg of statue from, 89.
Palladion, carried off by Diomedes, 169.
Palm, the, as common measure in proportions, 68.
Palm-branch, on so-called _Apollo-on-the-Omphalos_ and _Apollo
Choiseul-Gouffier_, 161;
in hand of victorious jockey on coin of Philip II, 280;
on statue from Formiae, 161;
on statue of girl runner in Vatican, 161;
on stele from Dipylon, 161;
on unfinished statue of athlete in Athens, 160;
on vases, 161;
as victor attribute, 50, 160f.
Palm-wreath, common to many games, 21, 160.
Pammachos, statue at Thebes, 368.
Pamphilos, grave-relief of, in Vienna, 97.
Pan, _Doryphoros_ converted into, 74.
_Panathenaia_, the; see Panathenaic games.
Panathenaic amphoræ, runners on, 106, 194;
four-horse chariot on, from Sparta, 263;
Dyneiketos, victor, on, 280; etc.
Panathenaic games, Great, Athens, acrobatic feats at, 20;
contest of beauty at, 57;
dedication of victor in chariot-race at, 129;
held every fourth year, 18;
hydria as prize at, 20;
jars of oil as prizes at, 20;
money as prizes at, 33;
origin of, 17;
paintings dedicated by victors at, 29;
remodeled by Solon, 17;
statue of boy victor at, in Athens, 27.[s/b ;]
Little, annual Athenian festival, 18.
Pancratiasts, 246f.;
bronze statuette of, from Autun, 249;
cap of, 165f.;
ear of, as no criterion of athlete statues, 95;
group of, in Florence, 99, 233, 251f.;
head of, from Olympia, 254, 255;
in sculpture, 170, 248.
Pan-hellenic fame of victors at four national games, 33.
_Panionia_, the, festival at Mykale, 19.
Pankration (παγκράτιον), Artemidoros on, 247;
biting and gouging allowed at Sparta in, 246;
boys’ contest introduced at Olympia, 247;
boys’ contests outside Olympia, 247;
as combination of boxing and wrestling, 246;
contrasted with wrestling, 246;
as dangerous sport, 246;
eight Pindaric odes in honor of, 246;
etymology of word, 246;
“fairest” of contests, 246;
fight on ground, 248;
grips and throws shown on vases, 247;
introduced at Olympia, 247;
invented by Theseus or Herakles, 247;
not in Homer, 247;
not so brutal as popularly believed, 246;
often ended with preliminary sparring, 249;
often resulted in death, 247;
pankration and wrestling on same day, 93, 94;
popularity of, at Olympia, 247;
rules of, 246.
Panodoros, 371.
Pantares, statue at Olympia, 354.
Pantarkes, favorite of Pheidias, 150.
Pantarkes, victor statue at Olympia, 150, 151.
Pantheion, the, at Olympia, 21.
Pantias, sculptor, 268, 279.
Papyrus, containing wrestling instructions, 229.
Paris, statue by Euphranor, 83.
Parnon, Mount, statue of Herakles on, 319.
Paros, torso of ephebe from Akropolis, work of sculptor from, 127.
Parrhasios, painter, 29, 67, 206.
Parsley, not used as prize wreath at Nemea, 21.
Parthenon, frieze of the, 18, 53, 86, 151;
Athenian knights on, 281;
chariot scenes on, 271;
representing _apobates_ race, 272;
youth crowning self on, 158;
metopes of, 149.
Pasiteles, sculptor, 60, 112;
Pasiteles and _Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo_ statue type, 89;
Pasiteles and _Spinario_, 201, 202.
Patrokles, sculptor, 117, 120, 131, 138, 141.
Patroklos, contests at funeral games of, 8;
funeral games of, in Iliad, 7f., 11, 51;
tripods in honor of, 19.
Pausanias, King of Sparta, flees from ephors, 367;
funeral games in honor of, at Sparta, 11.
Pausanias, the _Periegete_, on art, 61;
description of Greece by, 43;
description of victor statues in Altis by, 339;
on girl runners at the _Heraia_ at Olympia, 49, 50;
on honor and victor statues, 39;
mentions only part of victor statues in Altis, 324;
on origin of Olympic games, 15;
_periegesis_ of Altis by, 190;
on reason for Pythian air being played at pankration, 284, 285;
routes (ἔφοδοι) of, in Altis, 339, 341f., 348f.;
on similarity between Greek and Egyptian sculptures, 330;
on statue of Euthymos, at Olympia, 183;
use of words ἐν ἀριστερᾷ and ἐν δεξιᾷ by, 299;
on victor statues of poets and musicians on Helikon, 284;
on votive character of victor statues at Athens and Olympia, 38; etc.
Payne Knight bronze statuette, so-called, in British Museum, 108, 119.
Peace, temple of, in Rome, 366.
Pearl-string hair technique, 53.
Peisanos, M. Antonios Kallippos, statue at Olympia, 359.
Peisirhodos, victor at Olympia, 47, 49.
Peisistratidai, 128.
Peisistratos, tyrant, 363;
head of, so-called, 181.
Peisthetairos, in _Aves_ of Aristophanes, 206.
Pelias, funeral games of, 11;
on chest of Kypselos, 12;
tripods in honor of, 19.
Pelichos, statue of, 56.
Pelopion, the, at Olympia, 348, 349, 350, 357.
Peloponnesian sculptors, 109f., 114.
Pelops, chariot-race with Oinomaos, 14, 259;
contestants at Olympia sacrifice to, 11;
Olympian games in honor of, 10;
Peloponnesian boys lashed at altar of, 11;
statue of, in East gable, temple of Zeus at Olympia, 176;
worship of, at Olympia, preceded that of Zeus, 16.
Pensive expression, in portraits of Alexander, 296.
_Pentaëteris_, or four-year festival, 17.
Pentathletes, attributes of, 164, 165;
statues in motion, 210f.;
statues at rest, 164;
on vases, 164.
Pentathlon, the, accompanied by flute, 284;
all-round development from, 59, 211;
boys’, introduced at Olympia, 210;
events in, on r.-f. vases, 210;
five events of, 9, 210;
diskos throwing, 218f.;
javelin throwing, 222f.;
jumping, 214f.;
jumping most difficult part of, 216;
jumping-weights used in, 214;
men’s introduced at Olympia, 210;
not in Homer, 9, 210;
Pythian air played at, 285.
Pergamon, dying Gaul statues from, 255;
frieze of Great Altar at, 252;
small frieze from, 253.
Periandros, tyrant, gold statue vowed by, 266;
refounds Isthmian games, 17.
_Periboëtos_, statue of satyr known as the, 144.
Perikles, 52, 362;
portrait of, by Kresilas, 56, 199;
statue of slave of, 143.
Perinthos, head from, 179, 180, 181;
prototype of Riccardi and Ince Blundell heads, 181.
Peripatetics, criticism of Greek sculpture by the, 58.
_Perixyomenoi_, statues of, 136.
Perrot and Chipiez, on so-called dying hoplite relief, 209.
Perseus and head of Medusa, on engraved gem, 83;
Perseus and Danaë, in a chest, 188.
Persian Wars, 51;
sack of Akropolis during, 126.
Perugia, statuette of diver (?) from, 217.
Pesaro, the _Idolino_ found at, 141.
Petasos, as attribute of Hermes, 108, 207, note 1, etc.
Peter cista, the, in Vatican, 243.
Petersen, E., on Kyniskos’ statue, 159;
on Pythokles’ statue base, 212.
Petrograd, head of athlete in, 180; etc.
Petworth House, Sussex, Kresilæan head of athlete in, 145;
statue of ephebe in, 133.
Phaistos, theatral area at, 3.
Phanas, head ascribed to, 163;
statue at Olympia, 106, 355.
Pharsalos, home of Daochos, 286;
statue base of the _Agias_ at, 303.
Phaÿllos, record diskos-throw of, 216;
record jump of, 216;
statue at Delphi, 26.
Pheidias, 36, 110;
goddess types of, 53;
ideal tendency of, 152;
relation of, to _Diadoumenos Farnese_, 151;
relation of, to _Hermes Ludovisi_, 85;
statue of boy crowning himself at Olympia by, 150f.
Pheidippides, runner, 209.
Pheidolas, sons of, monument at Olympia, 23, 279.
Pheidon, king of Argos, 15.
Pheneus, games at, 76.
Pherenike, mother of Peisirhodos, 47, 49.
Phigalia, victor statue of Arrhachion in market-place of, 326.
Philandridas, date of victory of, 300;
head from statue of, at Olympia, by Lysippos, identified, 293f.;
head called youthful Herakles by some, 297;
compared with head of boy athlete from Sparta, 316f.;
crushed ear of, 168;
location of, in Altis, 300;
under life-size, 46.
_Philesian Apollo_, of elder Kanachos, 74, 107, 108, 118-120, 336 and
note 1;
“double” of, in Thebes, 304.
Philinos, statue at Olympia, 30, 55.
Philios, D., on dying hoplite relief, so-called, 209.
Philip II, king of Macedon, coin of, showing victorious jockey with
palm-branch, 280;
coins of, showing Athenian type of chariot, 263;
equestrian victor at Olympia, 257, 263.
Philippeion, the, at Olympia, 353, 355, 356, 357, 358.
Philippopolis, coin of, 78.
Philippos, of Kroton, Olympic victor, heroön of, at Egesta, 35, 57,
363.
Philippos, of Pellene, inscribed bronze plate from victor statue base
at Olympia, 244f.
Philistos, monument base at Olympia, 357.
Phillen, or Philys, statue at Olympia, 344.
Philon, statue at Olympia, 122.
Philonides, courier of Alexander, honor statue at Olympia, 42, 346, 356,
359.
Philonides, sculptor, 109, 266.
Philonikos, base of statue at Olympia, 358.
Philokrates, base of statue at Olympia, 368.
Philoktetes, in Sophokles’ drama, the _Philoctetes_, 59.
Philostratos, of Rhodes, adversary of Straton at Olympia, 34.
Philostratos, on athletes wearing coarse mantle, 47;
on Eleans allowing strangling in pankration, 246;
on jumping-weights, 215, 216;
on method of putting on boxing thongs, 236;
on omitted 211th Olympiad, 369;
on pankration as “fairest of contests,” 246;
on prohibition against biting and gouging in pankration, 246;
on reason for nudity of Olympic athletes, 47;
on Spartans allowing biting and gouging in pankration, 246;
on statue of Milo, 106, 337;
on style of long race, 194;
on reason for Pythian air being played at pentathlon, 285.
Philotimos, sculptor, 123, 264, 268, 279.
Philoumenos, inscription from base of statue of, 371.
Philys; see Phillen.
Phlegon, on olive crown, 20.
Phœnicians, the, transmit Assyrian and Egyptian designs to Greece, 330.
Phokis, confederacy of, sets up statue at Olympia, 30.
Phormis, offering at Olympia, 28, 62, 163, 264.
Phorystas, base of statue from Tanagra, 368.
Phradmon, sculptor, 117.
Phrikias, head ascribed to, 162, 163, 353;
statue at Olympia, 106.
Phrixos, on shield relief, 162.
Physical differences, in athletes, 59.
Piankhi, King of Aethiopia and invader of Egypt, 331.
Pictorial hair technique, 53.
Pinakotheke, the, at Athens, 29.
Pinax, of victresses at the _Heraia_, at Olympia, 49;
votive on Attic vase, 29;
πινάκιον, iconic, 182.
Pindar, on boxing and wrestling, 8;
on connection of Pelops with Olympia, 10;
on early value of bronze, 19;
on non-existence of the pentathlon in heroic days, 210;
ode on flutist Sakadas, 284;
scholia on, 26, 130, 190;
seventh Olympic ode of, 343;
sings praises of victors, 36;
sixth Pythian ode of, 267;
writes eight odes in praise of pankration, 246.
Pine, the, at the Isthmus, 21;
wreath of, at the Isthmus, 20;
at Nemea, 21.
Piombino, bronze statuette from, 118.
Pison, sculptor, 278.
Plane-tree Grove, Sparta, 319, 367.
Plastic hair technique, 53.
Platæa, the _Eleutheria_ at, 11.
Platæan _Zeus_, the, statue at Olympia, 344.
Plato, on boys’ stade-race, 191;
divides athletes into three classes, 189;
on Egyptian art, 60;
on happy life of victors, 36;
on length of stade-race for boys, 191;
on length of stade-race for ephebes, 191;
on loin-cloth, 48;
mentions σφαῖραι, 237;
on mythical origin of wrestling, 228;
omits pankration in his ideal state, 246;
protests against competition in athletics, 36;
on swollen ear of athletes, 167.
Plectra, in Parthenon, 23.
Pliny, on Alkamenes’ _Enkrinomenos_, 77;
on the _Apoxyomenos_ of Lysippos, 289;
on art, 60, 61;
on custom of setting up statues of victors at Olympia, 27, 324, 354;
on Euphranor’s canon, 69;
on Eutychides, sculptor, 121;
on Greek origin of equestrian monuments, 24;
_Historia Naturalis_ of, 43, 321;
on iconic statues, 54, 55;
on Kanachos’ statue of the _Philesian Apollo_, 118;
on Kanachos’ _celetizontes pueri_, 120;
on Kresilas’ portrait of Perikles, 56;
on Lysippos’ proportions, 46;
on Lysistratos making portraits from plaster moulds, 56;
on monotony in the art of Polykleitos, 152, 226;
on Myron, 184;
on nudity of athletes, 47;
on the _nudus talo incessens_ of Polykleitos, 249, 250;
on representing victors by paintings, 29;
on the sculptor Apellas, 267;
on the _Splanchnoptes_ of Styphax, 143;
on statue of pancratiast at Delphi by Pythagoras, 26;
on statue represented in prayer, 130;
on statue of victors by Myron at Delphi, 26;
on symmetry, 66; etc.
Plutarch, on Apollo as boxer, 88;
on art, 61;
on portraits of Alexander by Lysippos, 290, 328.
_Plutus_, the, of Aristophanes, quoted, 36.
Poetic competitions at Delphi, 25.
Poets, statues on Helikon, 284;
statues at Olympia, 285.
Polemon, on statue of Leon, 366;
on statue of Epicharinos, 372.
Polites, victor at Olympia, 354.
Pollux, describes game of σκαπέρδη, 236.
Pollux; see Polydeukes.
_Pollux_, the statue in Louvre, so-called, 180, 181, 188, 245.
Polybios, on Kleitomachos, boxer of Thebes, 147.
_Polychalchos_, surname of Spartan victor Polykles, 266.
Polydamas, relief from base of statue of, 303;
statue of, at Olympia, by Lysippos, 32, 45, 121, 298, 299;
statue of, cures fevers, 364.
Polydeukes, boxing-match with Amykos on Ficoroni cista, 269;
as famed boxer, 235;
wins boxing match at Olympia, 96, 235.
Polykleitos, the Elder, sculptor, 117, 118;
_Apoxyomenos_ of, 136;
called Kleito by Sokrates, in Xenophon’s _Memorabilia_, 59;
canon of, 68, 111, 136, 148, 288;
characteristics of, 152;
date of, by Pliny, 61;
_destringentesse_ of, 136, 288;
_Diadoumenos_ of, 152, 154;
_Doryphoros_ of, 211, 224f.;
as idealist, 188;
influence of, on Lysippos, 291;
influenced by Attic art, 152;
innovation of, in statue poses, 226;
monotony of, 152, 226;
poses of victor statues of, 44;
pupil of Hagelaïdas, 110;
pupils of, 139;
victor statues of, 36.
Polykleitos, the Younger, sculptor, statues of victors at Olympia by,
30, 117, 118.
Polykles, the Elder, sculptor, 129, 324.
Polykles, victor group at Olympia, 150, 266.
Polymedes, sculptor, 105.
Polypeithes, chariot-group at Olympia, 23, 265, 347.
Polyxenos, statue at Olympia, 359.
Polyzalos, brother of Gelo, 278.
Pomegranate, attribute of victor statues, 107, 165.
Pompeii, _Doryphoros_ of Polykleitos found at, 70;
Palaistra at, 87.
Poros sculptures, 53, 128.
Porto d’Anzio, statue from, 135, 144.
Portraiture, Greek, 54, 55f.;
privilege of erecting portrait statues at Olympia, 57, 354;
privilege rarely given, 57;
realistic, 56, 57.
Poseidon, altar at Isthmus, 259;
god of contests, 75;
pine sacred to, 21;
sanctuary at Isthmus, 21;
statue from Melos, 73, 74;
surnamed ἵππιος, at Sparta, 362.
Poses, of victor statues, found on various sculptured and painted
works, 44;
general, of victor statues at rest, 130f.;
general, of victor statues in motion, 188f.
Poulsen, F., on the _Agias_, 291, note 2.
Prado, copy of _Diadoumenos_ of Polykleitos in the, Madrid, 153.
Praisos, seal from, 3.
Praxidamas, wood statue at Olympia, 106, 322, 326, 333, 337, 351.
Praxiteles, sculptor, 36, 80;
the _Agias_ of Lysippos influenced by, 291;
art of, rooted in fifth century B. C., 134;
as bronze worker, 303;
delicate male types of, 297;
hair technique of, 53;
head-type of, 77, 309;
Praxiteles and boy athlete head from Sparta, 305, 311;
Praxiteles and Kalamis, chariot-group by, 268;
Praxiteles and Philandridas head from Olympia, 293;
Praxiteles and Skopas differentiated, 311;
statue of a ψελιουμένη by, 131.
Prayer, as motive in votive monuments, 130;
position of hands in Greek, 132;
statue of youth represented in, from Carinthia, 131;
statue of youth represented in, Berlin, 131;
statuette of youth represented in, Metropolitan Museum, 132, 133.
_Praying Boy_, the, statue so-called, in Berlin, 131, 132.
Preuner, E., on inscription from statue base in Pharsalos, 286, 317,
318, 363.
_Pristae_, by Myron, 188.
Prizes, on chest of Kypselos, 13;
at contests of beauty, 57;
early athlete, 18f.;
at games of Azan, 9;
at games of Patroklos, 19.
Processional entrance, the, of the Altis, 347.
Processional way, the, of the Altis, 348, 349, 350.
Professionalism in athletics, at Olympia, 361;
protests against, 36, 37.
Profile, first example of Greek, 116.
Prokles, statue at Olympia, 345, 346.
Promachos, statues at Olympia and Pellene, 31, 304, 323, 325, 326, 367.
_Proportio_, in Greek art, 66.
Proportions, canons of, 65f.;
in Egyptian art, 67;
Fritsch on, of body, 67;
Kalkmann on, of face, 67.
Prose writers, statues at Olympia, 285.
Protogenes, athlete painted by, 29.
Protolaos, statue at Olympia, 179, 352.
Prytaneion, the, in Athens, victors eat at public expense at, 32;
the, in Olympia, 299, 342, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360.
Psammetichos, tyrant of Corinth, 17.
Pseudo-Andokides, 363.
Pseudo-Plutarch, on statue of Isokrates at Athens, 24 and note 11, 27
and note 4, 281, 373.
Ptoion, Mount, statues of “Apollo” from, 100, 101, 102, 103, 334;
tripods in temple of Apollo on, 19.
Ptolemy, Gymnasion at Athens, 166.
Ptolichos, sculptor, 61, 122.
Puchstein, O., on location of Great Altar of Zeus at Olympia, 349.
Pummeling, allowed in pankration, 246.
Pyanepsion, month of, 18.
Pyrilampes, statue at Olympia, 343, 346, 353.
Pythagoras, sculptor, 138, 178f., 364, 375;
dated by Pliny, 61;
first to aim at rhythm and symmetry, 67, 179;
first to express sinews and veins, 138;
Pythagoras and _Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo_ statue type, 89;
Pythagoras and Delphi _Charioteer_, 278;
Pythagoras and Myron, 181, 245;
Pythagoras and Tux bronze, 207;
statue of Delphic pancratiast by, 26, 178, 182;
statue of _mala ferens nudus_ by, 107;
style of, 179;
victor statues at Olympia, by, 36, 62, 161, 178f., 268.
Pytheos, see Pythis.
Pythes, honor statue at Olympia, 42.
_Pythia_, the, festival at Delphi, 16, 17;
as athletic meet, inferior to Nemea and Isthmia, 24, 25;
as festival, second to Olympia, 24;
in honor of the Python, 10;
statue of victor at, in Athens, 27.
See Delphi.
Pythian air, played at pentathlon, 88, 285.
_Pythian Apollo_, the, statue of, 330, 334.
Pythis, or Pytheos, architect, 264.
Python, the, at Delphi, 10, 25.
Pythokles, replicas of statues of, 212f.;
statue of, at Olympia, 93, 117, 159 and note 3, 211, 212, 343.
Pythokritos, flutist, honor statue at Olympia, 42, 285, 352.
Pythokritos, sculptor, 244.
Pyxis, from Knossos, 7.
_Quadrigae_, mentioned by Pliny, 264.
See Chariot-race.
Quatremère de Quincy, on _Borghese Warrior_, 208.
“Quiet grandeur” (_stille Grosse_) of Greek Art, 57.
Quintilian, on art, 61;
on the _Doryphoros_ of Polykleitos, 70, 226;
on the _Diskobolos_ of Myron, 187.
Quintus Smyrnæus, on jumping among the Trojans, 214.
Quiver, on Torlonia copy of the _Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo_ statue type,
89.
Quoit; see Diskos.
_Ram-offerer_, statue by Naukydes, 78.
Rampin head, of Louvre, 126, 128, 176;
hair technique of, 53.
Ra-nefer, limestone statue in Cairo, 330.
Rayet, on _Borghese Warrior_, 208.
Rayet-Jacobsen head, so-called, in Copenhagen, 127, 128, 167, 337.
Realism in Greek art, 56, 57, 146f.;
in Greek portraiture, 56, 57.
Reconstruction of Olympic victor statues, 43f.
Reinach, S., on bronze statue of youth from Antikythera, 83;
on stone statues being placed under cover, 325.
Reinach, Th., on bronze statue of youth found in sea off Antikythera,
81.
Reisch, E., on javelin-throwers in sculpture, 224;
on Pliny’s _puer tenens tabellam_ and _malaferens nudus_, 181;
on statue of Euthymos at Olympia, 183;
on votive character of Olympic victor statues, 39.
Reliefs, of akontistai, from Sparta, 223;
Amphiaraos, 273;
_apobates_ chariot race, 272;
Apollo, Artemis, and Leto, in Louvre, 284;
Aristion, 124, 127;
Boreas, in Metropolitan Museum, 194;
boxers, in Lateran, 238;
boy crowning self, 155;
boxer, on bronze shield, from Mount Ida, Crete, 235;
cap, in Rome, 166;
charioteer, from Akropolis, 128;
charioteer mounting chariot, 269;
chariots, from Crete, 262;
Dermys and Kitylos, from Tanagra, 335;
Dioskouroi, set up by Aischylos, 96, 97;
Dioskouroi, in London, 97;
from Dipylon, 156;
diskobolos, from Dipylon, 127;
dying hoplite, from Athens, 194, 209;
four-horse chariot, 268, 269;
funerary, from Tanagra, 72;
funerary, from Athens, 66;
from Halimous, 249;
Hermes, fragment from Athens, 270;
hoplite runners, from Tarentum, 96;
horse crowned by Nike, from Athens, 269;
horseman, from Athens, 281;
horse-racer, from Sicily, 281;
horse-racer from Thera, 281;
horse-racer leading horse, from Athens, 281;
jumping-weights, from Sparta, 164;
from Klazomenai, 264, 268;
from Kleitor, 132;
from Knossos, 3, 4;
from Lamia, 132;
from Loeb collection, Munich, 194;
from Nemea, 132;
palæstra victor, from Delphi, 138;
in honor of Pamphilos and Alexandros, in Verona, 97;
showing poses of victor statues, 44;
as victor monuments, 28;
war-chariots, from Mycenæ, 262.
Religion and Greek athletics, 14.
Remnants of victor statues at Olympia, 43.
Renaissance, the, 4;
bronze copies of _Spinario_ from period of, 202.
“Repose” of Greek art, 57.
“Rest” leg, motive in sculpture, 109.
Resting after contest, athletic motive, 144.
Rewards, money, of victors at Athens, 32.
Rhamnous, the _Nemesis_ of Agorakritos at, 182.
Rhegion, Anaxilas, tyrant of, 278;
coins of, showing mule-car, 263.
_Rhetoric_, the, of Aristotle, 58;
inscribed base of Olympic victor mentioned in, 367.
Rhexibios, wood statue at Olympia, 106, 332, 326, 337, 351;
wrongly called oldest at Olympia by Pausanias, 333.
Rhodes, scene of fighting combatants, in art of, 178;
tripods in honor of Dionysos at, 19;
_Zan_ at Olympia, set up by, 34.
Rhoikos, bronze founder, date of, 321;
family of, 330.
See also Telekles and Theodoros.
Rhouphos, Klaudios (Rufus, Claudius), statue in Rome, 371.
Rhythm, definition of, 66;
in Greek Art, 66.
Riccardi head, 169, 180, 181, 183.
Richardson, R. B., on bronze head from Akropolis, 114;
on _Farnese Herakles_, 253, 254.
Richter, G., on statuette of diskobolos in Metropolitan Museum, 220 and
note 5.
Ridder, A. de, on Tux bronze, 207;
on two statuettes of diskoboloi from Akropolis, 221, 222.
Robert, C., on _Diadoumenos_ of Pheidias, 150f.;
on date of victor Kyniskos, 160.
Robinson, D. M., 267.
Robinson, E., on _Charioteer_ (?), in Boston, 275;
on head of Hermes, in Boston, 85; etc.
Roehl, H., on inscription referred to statue of Milo, 38.
Roman copies of victor statues, on, 44;
no copy proved to be of victor statue, 160;
on Roman patrons of art, 44.
Ross, L., on inscribed base from statue of Epicharinos, 372.
Rothschild, E. de, bronze copy of _Spinario_, in Paris collection of,
202.
Rouse, W. D., on votive character of victor statues at Olympia, 39, 40.
Routes, of Pausanias in the Altis; see _Ephodoi_.
Runners, difference in style of various, shown by vase-paintings, 193,
194;
on Panathenaic amphoræ, 106, 194;
represented as running with bent knee, 194;
statues of boy, 200f.;
statues of, from Velletri, in Rome, 198, 199;
statues of, without special attributes, 170.
Running race (δρόμος), various kinds of, 190f.;
in mythology, 190;
number of victors in, named by Pausanias, 193;
origin of, at Eleusis, 190;
part of all Greek games and exercises, 190.
See Double foot-race, Hoplite-race, Long race, Stade-race.
Sabouroff collection, head from, 128.
Sacred war, the, 17.
Sakadas, flutist, statue of, 284.
Salamis, Aeginetans at battle of, 125;
date of battle of, 125.
Salis, A. von, on statue from Olympieion, 143.
Salutation, attitude of, to a divinity, in statuette in Metropolitan
Museum, 133.
_Sandal-binder_, statue of, so-called, with copies, 86, 87, 202, 203.
Sandal-binding, motive of, originates with Lysippos, 86.
Sandals, worn by charioteers, 48.
Santa Marinella, statue from, in Fogg Art Museum, Cambridge, Mass., 314.
Sarapion, flees adversary and is fined, 34;
two statues in Elis, 370.
_Satrap Sarcophagus_, so-called, in Constantinople, 276.
_Satyr_, of Praxiteles, called _Periboëtos_, 144;
statue of, in Dresden, 144.
Sawyers (?) (_pristae_), group by Myron, 188.
Scarab, chalcedony, in British Museum, 138.
Schaefer, A., on statue of Kylon on Akropolis, 362.
Scherer, Chr., on exclusive use of bronze in Olympic victor statues,
321;
on “iconic” statues of Pliny, 54;
on Milo’s statue at Olympia, 107;
on positions of victor statues at Olympia, 340.
Scheria, games on, 210.
Schnaase, on _Farnese Herakles_, 253.
Schober, A., on Perinthos and allied heads, 181.
Schoell, R., on votive character of victor monuments, 39.
Scholiasts, statements of, on victor statues at Olympia, 43.
Schrader, H., on Attic relief from the Akropolis, 271.
Schreiber, T., on _Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo_ statue type, 90.
Schwabe, L., on Tux bronze, 207.
Sciarra bronze, statuette so-called, in Rome, 119.
Scraper; see Strigil.
Sculptors, of Olympic victor statues, 36;
statistics of, 375.
_Sculptura_, definition of, from Pliny, 302.
Sculpture, Greek, after Persian Wars, 278;
ancient criticism of, 58f.;
evolution of, on traditional lines, 67;
knowledge of, necessary in reconstructing Olympic victor statues, 44.
Sea-monsters (?) (_pristes_), group by Myron, 188.
Seasons, altar at Olympia, 351.
_Seated Boxer_, statue of the, in Museo delle Terme, Rome, 145f., 168;
realism of, 57, 254.
See-saw (?) (_pristae_?), group by Myron, 188.
Seleados, base of statue at Olympia, 346.
Seleukos I, date of founding Antioch by, 121.
Selinos, coins of, showing celery wreath, 21;
temple E at, 114.
Sellers, Eugénie; see Strong, Mrs. Eugénie.
Selling out, examples at Olympia, 33.
Seraglio, Old, manuscript from the, 258.
Serambos, sculptor, 123.
Shadow-fighting; see Sparring.
_Sheik-el-Beled_, the; see Ka-aper, statue of.
Shield, as attribute of hoplitodromoi, 161;
as prize at Argive _Heraia_, 21;
25 bronze ones kept in temple of Zeus for Olympic hoplite runners,
22.
Siamese, funeral games among, 12.
Sicily, cities of, honor victors, 35;
coins of, showing racing chariots, 262, 263;
Greeks of, fond of hippodrome contests, 258;
princes of, as victors at Olympia, 357;
school of sculpture of, 114.
Sidon, _Alexander Sarcophagus_ from, in Constantinople, 275;
_Satrap Sarcophagus_ from, in Constantinople, 276.
Sikyon, athletic school of sculptors from, 58, 118f.
Sikyonians, treasury of, at Olympia, 41, 265.
Silanion, sculptor, 129.
Silver bowl, as prize at games of Patroklos, 19;
silver cups, as prizes at Sikyonian Pythian games, 20.
Simon, sculptor, 264, 268.
Simonides, of Keos, 36, 47, 210.
Singing, competition in, at Delphi, 25.
Single-combat, between Ajax and Diomedes, in Iliad, 8.
Six, J., on _Borghese Warrior_, 208;
on statue of Hermolykos on Akropolis, 373.
Size of victor statues, 45f.
_Skenoma_ (Σκήνωμα), the, at Sparta, 367.
Skopas, sculptor, 36;
characteristics of, 311;
head in style of, in Capitoline Museum, Rome, 169;
head-type of, 77;
influence on the _Agias_, 291;
intense expression of, 307;
Kallistratos on, 309;
knowledge of, recently augmented, 286;
as master of expression of passion, 309;
Philandridas head wrongly ascribed to, 293;
Skopas and boy athlete head from Sparta, 305;
Skopas and Lysippos compared, 311f., 315;
style of, from Tegea heads, 306.
Skripou, convent of, 334.
Skyllis, sculptor, 122, 334.
See also Dipoinos.
Skyros, 18.
Slings for diskoi, on r.-f. vase, 164.
Smikythos; see Mikythos.
Smile, in archaic sculpture, 100, 126.
Smith, A. H., on _Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo_ statue type, 89, 90;
on athlete statue from Palazzo Farnese, Rome, in British Museum, 293.
Snail-volute, hair technique, 53.
_Snatcher_, the, from East gable, temple of Aegina, 125.
Sodamas, statue at Olympia, 354.
Sogliano, A., on boxer statue from Sorrento, 243.
Sokrates, philosopher, condemns “mimetic” arts, 58;
on physical development of runners and boxers, 59;
visit of, to sculptor Kleito, 59.
Sokrates, victor; see Sosikrates.
Solon, assigns money prizes to Olympic and Isthmian victors, 25, 32.
_Solos_, throwing of, in Iliad, 8;
as type of diskos, 218.
Somzée Collection, athlete from the, 176, 251.
Songs, in honor of victors, 34.
Sophios, statue at Olympia, 299, 342.
Sophokles, _Trachiniae_ of, 318.
Sorrento, statue of boxer from, by Koblanos, 242.
Sosikrates (or Sokrates), victor statue of, at Olympia, 200, 344.
Sostratos, dates of Olympic victories of, 300;
inscribed base from statue, at Delphi, 249;
statue at Olympia, 55;
surnamed ἀκροχερσίτης, 248, 249.
Sotades, Olympic victor, bribed and exiled, 33.
Southeast Building, the, at Olympia, 344.
Sparring, preliminary, called ἀκροχερισμός in boxing and pankration,
248 and note 4;
depicted on Ficoroni cista in Rome, 243;
depicted on Peter cista in Rome, 243;
as motive of boxer statues, 243;
as motive of statuette of boxer in Vatican, 243;
as motive of marble torso in Berlin, 243;
preliminary in pankration, 248;
called σκιαμαχεῖν (to shadow-fight), in boxing, 122, 243 and note 4.
Sparta, Akropolis, of, 305;
_Dionysia_ at, 50;
Δρόμος at, 309;
funeral games at, in honor of Leonidas and Pausanias, 11;
head of statue of boy from, 305f.;
Σκήνωμα at, 367.
Spartans, allow biting and gouging in pankration, 246;
ball-playing among, 84;
as boxers, 167;
boxing of, in Plato, 167;
excluded from Olympia on certain Olympiads, 31;
girls contest with boys, 49;
physical exercise among, 1;
sacrifice to Apollo the Runner, 88;
youths dedicate offerings to Eros in contest of beauty, 57.
Spear, casting of, at games of Patroklos, 8.
Sphairians (σφαιρεῖς), title of Spartan youths, 84, 319.
_Spinario_, the, statue in Rome, 201f.;
as example of asymmetry, 70;
imitations of original of, 202.
_Splanchnoptes_, statue of, by Styphax, 143.
Sponges, shown on r.-f. kylix, 164.
Spring-board, not used in Greek jumping, 216.
Stackelberg, O. von, traveling journal of, 286, 366.
Stade-race (δρόμος, στάδιον), 190f.;
first event at Olympia and at the _Panathenaia_, 191;
for boys, introduced at Olympia, 191;
the oldest (?) event at Olympia, 191;
victor in, eponymus at Olympia, 37;
wrongly regarded as chief event at Olympia, 191.
Stadia, absent in Homer, 7.
Stadion, the, at Olympia, 258, 359, 360.
Staïs, V., on _Hermes of Andros_, 71;
on two statuettes of diskoboloi from Akropolis, 221, 222.
Stamnos, r.-f., from Etruria, in Vienna, 132.
Standard of physical development uniform in fifth century B. C., 147f.
_Standing Diskobolos_, the statue in Vatican, 76f.;
pose of, 219, 220;
replica of, 77.
_Standing Hermes_, the, statue in Vatican, 72.
“_Stand-motif_,” Polykleitan, 82.
“Starters of the race,” epithets of Kastor and Polydeukes at Sparta, 96.
Stassoff, on supposed Oriental origin of javelin-throwing, 222.
Statuettes, of ivory acrobats, from Knossos, 3;
akontistai, two bronze, 227, 228;
Apollo, from Naxos, in Berlin, 74, 119;
Apollo (Payne Knight), in British Museum, 108, 119;
Apollo, from Piombino, in Louvre, 118;
Apollo, from Palazzo Sciarra, Rome, 119;
apoxyomenos, in Loeb collection, Munich, 136;
athlete, archaic, from Delphi, 28;
athlete, from Ligourió, 105, 111, 114;
athlete, in Louvre, 213, 214;
boxer, from Akropolis, 28;
boxer, from Corfu, in British Museum, 96;
boxer, from Olympia, 28, 244;
boxer, in Vatican Museum, 243;
diadoumenos, terra cotta from Smyrna, in London, 154;
diadoumenos, from Akropolis, 155;
diskoboloi, 28, 218f.;
diskoboloi, two bronze, from Akropolis, 222;
diskoboloi, group in Loeb collection, Munich 232, 233;
diskobolos, in Berlin, 221;
diskobolos, in British Museum, 221;
diskobolos, from cover of lebes, in British Museum, 221;
diskobolos, from the Kabeirion, 28;
diskobolos, in Metropolitan Museum, 220, 221;
girl runner, from Dodona, 28;
girl extracting thorn, terra cotta from Nida-Haddernheim, 202;
Herakles or victor, in Berlin, 96;
Herakles, or victors, in British Museum, 96;
_Hermes Diskobolos_, from sea off Antikythera, 78, 79;
hoplitodrome, from Capua, in Vienna, 207;
hoplitodrome, Tux bronze, in Tuebingen, 28;
horse-racer, from Dodona, 28, 281;
horse-racer, in Loeb collection, Munich, 282;
horse-racer, from Volubilis, 281;
horse-racers, from Olympia, 24;
oil-pourer, from S. Italy, in British Museum, 135;
oil-pourers, terra cottas from Myrina, 135;
pancratiast, from Autun, in Louvre, 249f.;
praying boys, two bronze, in Metropolitan Museum, 132, 133;
sacrificer, from Dodona, 143;
trumpeter, from Sparta, 283;
warrior, from Dodona, 126;
wrestlers, group from Akropolis, 28;
wrestlers, group in Loeb Collection, Munich, 232;
statuettes in motion, from Egyptian art, 177;
in Paris and Rome, showing motive of statue of Xenokles, 138, 139.
Stelæ, in honor of victors, 40.
Stephanos, sculptor, statue by, 111f.
“Stolid” group of so-called “Apollo” statues, 100.
Stomach throw, in pankration, 247.
Stomios, famous pentathlete, 59;
statue of, at Olympia, 42.
Stone, used in Olympic victor statues, 323f.
Strabo, on origin of Olympic games, 15.
_Strangford Apollo_, the, statue in British Museum, 102, 103, 123, 244.
Strangling, allowed in pankration, 246, 247.
Straton, Olympic victor, 34, 93.
Strigil, or scraper (στλεγγίς), used by athletes as a common palæstra
attribute, 135, 138, 288.
Stroganoff, statuette formerly in Collection, 166.
Strong, Mrs. Eugénie (_née_ Sellers), on Apollo head, in British
Museum, 92;
on Beneventum head, in Louvre, 63.
Studniczka, F., on the gable statues from Olympia, 114;
on the _Idolino_, 141;
on statues of Theagenes, 364.
Styphax (or Styppax), sculptor, 143.
Subiaco, statue of kneeling youth from, 195;
date and interpretation of, 195, 196.
Succession, contests of, as explanation of funerary games, 14.
_Suedwestbau_; see Leonidaion.
Svoronos, J. N., on bronze arm found in sea off Antikythera, 236;
on bronze statue of youth found in sea off Antikythera, 83;
on bronze statuette found in sea off Antikythera, 79;
on Delphi _Charioteer_, 277;
on dying hoplite relief, from Athens, 209;
on the _Idolino_, 142.
Swollen ear, as attribute of victor statues, 167f.;
not a determining distinction between heads of athletes and Herakles,
297, 319, 320;
on various heads of athletes, gods, and heroes, 168f.
Symmachos, statue at Olympia, 120, 342.
Symmetry, in Greek art, 65, 66;
Pliny and Vitruvius on, 66.
_Symplegma_, group representing a, by Kephisodotos, 252.
_Symposium_, of Xenophon, 59.
Syracuse, coins of, representing Nike with tablet, 182;
funeral games at, in honor of Timoleon, 11;
Hiero and Gelo, kings of, 257.
_Tainia_, or fillet, as victor attribute, 148f.
Tanagra, ephebe chosen at, for his beauty, 57;
grave-stele from, 72.
Tarentum (Taras), captured by Q. Fabius Maximus, 253;
coins of, showing _apobates_ horse-racers, 282.
Tarsos, athlete head from, 168.
Tegea, excavations at temple of Athena at, 306;
heads from gable of temple at, 306;
heads from, compared with small frieze from Mausoleion, 275;
heads from, compared with boy athlete head from Sparta, 305;
torso of the _Amazon_ from, 306.
Teisikrates, chariot victor, at Delphi, 268.
Teisikrates, pancratiast, inscribed base of statue of, from Delphi, 249.
Teisikrates, Theban sculptor, 368.
Tektaios, sculptor, 122, 304, 334, 335.
See also Angelion.
Telekles, sculptor, 330, 334.
See also Rhoikos and Theodoros.
Telemachos, base of statue at Olympia, 346, 348, 355;
statue at Olympia, 109, 266, 339, 345;
zone of, at Olympia, 345, 346.
Telephos, battle with Achilles, in Tegea pediment, 306;
in group, on small frieze from Pergamon, 253;
in group, in Vatican, 95.
Telesikrates, hoplite victor, statue at Delphi, 26, 162.
Tellon, base of statue at Olympia, 240, 345;
statue at Olympia, 31, 352.
Temessa, Black Spirit of, 35.
Tempe, vale of, as home of laurel, 21.
Temple, spoken of as _pro persona_, 299.
Tenea, “Apollo” of, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 127, 327, 336;
“Apollo” of, as runner, 148;
necropolis of, 337.
Tenerani, sculptor, 288.
Tepemankh, wood statue in Cairo, 330.
Terrace wall, South, at Olympia, 346, 348, 357, 358.
Tetradrachm, silver, in honor of Olympic victory of Philip II, 280.
Thaliarchos, base of statue of, 358;
oldest prose inscription making an Olympic victor statue votive, 39.
Thamyris, victor statue on Helikon, 284.
_Thargelia_, the, statue of boy victor at, 27.
Thasos, statue of Theagenes on, 364;
temple of Apollo at Alki on, 336.
Theagenes, Olympic victor, boxing match with Euthymos, 247;
heroized after death, 35;
statue at Olympia, 122, 244, 364;
story of statue on Thasos, 364;
too wearied by boxing to enter pankration, 247;
wrestling match with Aethiopian, 252.
Theekoleon, the, at Olympia, 353, 355, 357.
Theochrestos, chariot dedicated at Olympia, 265.
Theodoros, bronze founder, 321, 330, 334.
See also Rhoikos and Telekles.
Theodosius, Roman emperor, abolishes Olympic games, 15.
Theognetos, statue at Olympia, 61, 165, 352.
Theopompos, statue at Olympia, 161.
Theopropos, base of statue at Olympia, 360.
Theoros, painter, 29, 133.
Theotimos, statue at Olympia, 121.
Thera, “Apollo” of, 100, 101, 103, 104, 327, 337.
Thermæ, the, of M. Agrippa, Rome, 289.
Thermopylæ, battle of, 51.
Thersias, first victor in mule-race at Olympia, 261.
Thersilochos, statue at Olympia, 117.
Thersonides, base of statue from Olympia, 356.
_Theseia_, the, 18;
boys at, divided into three classes, 189.
Theseus, 18;
contest of, on Delos, in honor of Apollo, 160;
as inventor of boxing, 235;
as inventor of pankration, 247;
statues of, in gymnasia and palæstræ, 94;
Theseus and Kerkyon, on metope of Theseion, 232.
Thessalonika, funeral games at, 11.
Thessaly, bull-grappling sport in, 5.
Thong (ἀγκύλη, _amentum_), of javelin, 223.
_Thorn-puller_; see _Spinario_.
Thorwaldsen, sculptor, restores Aegina gable statues, 123.
Thracian Chersonesos, games on, 11.
Thrasyboulos, drives father’s car at Delphi, 267.
Thrasymachos (or Thrasymedes), base of statue at Olympia, 358.
Threatening look of victor statues, 59.
Thukydides, on Diitrephes, 373;
on _krobylos_ hair-fashion, 52;
on loin-cloth of athletes, 48;
on refuge of King Pausanias, 367;
uses pancratiasts for dating, 191.
Tiberius, Roman emperor, base of statue at Olympia, 357, 358;
chariot victor at Olympia, 261;
enamored of the _Apoxyomenos_ of Lysippos, 289.
Tilting, hold in pankration, 247.
Timainetos, painter, 29.
Timaios, first victor in trumpeting at Olympia, 283.
Timaios, historian, 284.
Timarchides, sculptor, 129, 324.
Timasitheos, statue at Olympia, 111, 355.
Timokles, sculptor, 129.
Timoleon, funeral games in honor of, at Syracuse, 11.
Timon, chariot victor, statue in equestrian group, 120, 266, 268, 279.
Timon, pentathlete, statue at Olympia, 109, 354.
Timoptolis, honor statue at Olympia, 42.
Timosthenes, statue at Olympia, 121, 342.
Tiryns, fresco from, 2, 3;
lack of athletic scenes at, 8.
Titus, baths at Rome, 371.
Toalios, Aurelios, base of victor statue at Oinoanda, 371.
Torches, dedications of, 22.
Toreadors, paintings of, male and female, at Knossos, 1, 3.
Torlonia, Palazzo, Rome, copy of _Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo_ statue type
in, 89;
head of _Ares_ in, 170.
_Trachiniae_, of Sophokles, 318.
Trainers at Olympia, nude, 49.
Treasuries, the, at Olympia, 351.
Treu, G., on colossal Apollo from Olympia, 92;
on copy of _Doryphoros_ of Polykleitos, at Olympia, 227;
on gable statues from temple of Zeus, Olympia, 114;
on head of hoplite runner from Olympia, 163;
identifies Leonidaion, at Olympia, 348;
on Philandridas head, 293, 294;
on use of marble in Olympic victor statues, 324, 326.
_Triopia_, the, at Mykale, 19.
Triphylia, 15.
Tripods, as early prizes, 19;
found at Olympia and elsewhere, 22;
in honor of various gods and heroes, 19;
reliefs on bronze, in Loeb collection, Munich, 194.
Tripping, in wrestling, 229;
shown by five bronze groups, 233.
Triptolemos (?), statue of Kyniskos converted into, 74.
Troilos, dates of victories at Olympia, 300, 301;
statue at Olympia, 29, 121, 266, 298;
tablet from base of statue of, 299, 342.
Trotting-race with mares (κάλπη), introduced at Olympia, 261;
why introduced, 282.
Trumpeters, on Attic vases, 284;
bronze statuette of, from Sparta, 283;
contests of, introduced at Olympia, 283;
statues at Olympia, 283.
Tuebingen bronze; see Tux bronze.
Tui, wood statue of, in Louvre, 331.
Tumblers, among Athenians, 5;
among Trojans, 5;
on shield of Achilles, 5.
Turin, head of athlete in, 87;
marble head of Apollo in, 93;
Roman grave-stone from, 72.
Tux bronze, statuette of hoplitodromos (?), in University Museum,
Tuebingen, 28, 123, 164, 206, 207.
_Tyche_, statue by Eutychides, at Antioch, 121.
Types, various, of Olympic victor statues, 44, 99f., 173f.; etc.
_Tyrannicides_, the, group by Kritios and Nesiotes, 60, 148, 173f.;
break with law of “frontality,” 175;
as first examples of honor statues, 41;
group of, returned from Susa by Alexander, 173;
reconstruction of, from reliefs, vase-paintings, etc., 174;
represented on oinochoe in Boston, 175;
sculptors of, 173f., 372;
_Tyrannicides_ and _Diskobolos_ compared, 183.
Umpires, at Olympia, 149.
See also Hellanodikai.
Uncritical judgments of ancient writers on art, 58.
Uniformity, standard of, in physical development in fifth century
B. C., 147f.
Urlichs, H. L. von, on _pristae_ of Myron, 188;
on _puer tenens tabellam_ of Pythagoras, 182.
Urlichs, L. von, on _mala ferens nudus_, mentioned by Pliny, 182;
on _puer tenens tabellam_ of Pythagoras, 182.
Vaison _Diadoumenos_ of Polykleitos, 152.
Valerian, Roman emperor, 11.
Vapheio, cups from, 4.
Varro, opinions of, on art, 60.
Vase-paintings, showing poses of Olympic victor statues, 44.
“Vatican athlete standing at rest,” so-called, 140.
Veins, shown in Cretan art, 3, 4.
_Venator_, statue of, by Euthykrates, 314.
Ventnor head in British Museum, 89.
Verona, grave-relief in, 72.
Victor fillets, 52.
Victor statues, assimilated to types of gods and heroes, 71f.;
bases of, from Altis, 43, 353f.;
carried off to Italy, 43;
dedication of, an old Greek custom, 99;
dedication at Olympia and elsewhere, 24f.;
distinguished from statues of gods and heroes, 71;
general characteristics of, 43f.;
groups of, in Altis, 300, 340;
hair-fashion of, 50f.;
life-size, examples of, 46;
materials of, 321f.;
in motion, 173f.;
nudity of, 47f.;
_periegesis_ of, in the Altis, by Pausanias, 321;
positions of, in Altis, 339f., 352;
remnants of, 43, 62f.;
at rest, 99f.;
set up at Olympia, long after victory, 32;
set up at Olympia, soon after victory, 31;
set up at Olympia by relatives of victor, by native city of victor,
by fellow-citizens of victor, 30;
set up by trainers, 30;
set up outside Olympia, 361f.;
size of, 45f.;
statuaries of, 375;
two classes of, 99;
zones of, at Olympia, 340.
Victor statuettes, set up at Olympia, 27, 28;
on Akropolis, 28.
_Victoria quadrigam in sublime rapiens_, painting by Nikomachos, 268.
Victors, special privileges of, at Rome, 33;
_Victor certamine gymnico palmam tenens_, painting of, by Eupompos,
160;
victor, represented as crowned, on chest of Kypselos, 13;
victor in wrestling and pankration on same day, called παράδοξος or
παραδοξονίκης, 94;
victors at four national games, called περιοδονῖκαι, 361.
_Victory_, of Paionios; see Paionios, _Nike_ of;
zone of, at Olympia, 344, 355.
Vincent, Edgar, head of athlete in Collection of, 156.
Vinci, Leonardo da, on body proportions, 68.
Visconti, on so-called _Borghese Warrior_, 209;
on Pliny’s “iconic” statues, 54.
Viterbo, bull-grappling in province of, 5.
Vitruvius, on analogy, rhythm, and symmetry, in Greek art, 66.
_Volneratus deficiens_, the, statue by Kresilas, 199.
Volomandra, “Apollo” from, 100, 104, 337.
Volubilis, Morocco, French excavations at, 281.
Votive offerings (ἀναθήματα), mentioned by Pausanias, 339;
victor monuments as, 37.
Wace, A. J. B., on Parian marble male head in Turin, of athlete or
Apollo, 93;
on Roman male head in Turin, resembling the _Apoxyomenos_ of Lysippan
school, 292.
Waldstein (Walston), C., on appellation “Apollo” for early athlete
statues, 335;
on bronze
statue of youth found in sea off Antikythera, 81;
on _Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo_ statue type, 90, 179;
on the _Strangford Apollo_, 244;
on victor fillet, 149.
Walking motive in sculpture, not Polykleitan in origin, 226.
Walston, C.; see Waldstein, C.
Warrior, or hoplitodromos, bronze head from Akropolis, 123.
Washburn, O. M., on Delphi _Charioteer_, 277, 278.
Wernicke, K., on Great Altar of Zeus at Olympia, 349.
_Westgraben_, the, at Olympia, 358.
_Westmacott Athlete_, the, 156f., 158, 305.
Wheels, four-spoked, one dedicated at Argos, 97;
tin-foil, dedicated at Olympia, 23.
White, H. G. E., on two statuettes of diskoboloi from Akropolis, 221,
222.
Wilamowitz, U. von (Wilamowitz-Moellendorf), on inscribed base of
statue of Epicharinos on Akropolis, 372.
Winckelmann, J., on character of Greek Art, 57;
on _Jason_ of Louvre, 87.
Wine-pourers, statues of, 144.
Winged figures, represented in motion before sixth century B. C., 176f.
Winnefeld, H., on _Westmacott Athlete_ statue type, 158.
Winter, F., on _Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo_ statue type, 90;
on the _Seated Boxer_ of Museo delle Terme, 147.
Woelfflin, E., on _nudus talo incessens_ of Polykleitos, 250, 251.
Wolters, P., on bronze foot from Olympia, 255;
on _Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo_ statue type, 90, 91;
on head of hoplitodrome, from Olympia, 163;
on inscribed base of the _Agias_, 292;
on _Spinario_, 201;
on Tux bronze, 207;
on use of bronze in Olympic victor statues, 321.
Woman, statue of Muse type, from Andros, 71;
head in Louvre, 128.
Women, admitted to chariot-race at Olympia, 49;
excluded from Olympia, 49;
victress statues of, draped, 48;
admitted to the _Heraia_, Olympia, 49.
Worship of victors after death, 35.
_Wounded Amazon_, statue in Capitoline Museum, 151.
_Wounded Man_, the, statue of; see _Volneratus deficiens_.
Wreath of leaves, as prize at various games.
Wrestlers, attributes of statues of, 165;
bronze group of, in Paris, 232;
bronze statue in Naples, 99;
five copies of bronze group of, showing tripping, 233;
group of, on bronze bowl from Borsdorf, showing hand grip, 231, 232;
groups of, on cista handles, 232;
groups of, on Etruscan cista in Metropolitan Museum, 231;
group of, at Olympia (?), 233f.;
paintings of wrestlers by Naukeros, and by Antidotos, 233;
part of group of, found
in sea off Antikythera, 232;
small bronze group of, in Loeb Collection, showing cross-buttocks,
232;
statues of, at Olympia, 234;
statues of, without special attributes, 170;
two bronze statues of, from Herculaneum showing front hold, 230, 231;
two groups of, on rim of bronze bowl, in Boston, 232.
Wrestling (πάλη), 228f.;
bout between Theseus and Kerkyon, on metope of Theseion, 232;
cap used in, 166;
depicted on proto-Attic amphora, 13;
for boys, introduced at Olympia, 228;
at games of Patroklos, 8;
ground wrestling, on gems and vases, 248;
holds in, on vases (arm, body, front, neck, side, wrist), 229;
introduced at Olympia, 228;
oldest(?) of athletic sports, 228;
one of most popular sports, 228;
positions in, on various monuments, 229;
on r.-f. kylix, in Philadelphia, 230;
scenes in, on r.-f. vase, by Andokides, 230;
throws in, on vases (buttocks, cross-buttocks, flying mare, heave,
tripping), 229;
two kinds of, upright (ὀρθὴ πάλη), ground (κύλισις), 228, 229;
victors in wrestling and pankration on same day, 93, 94;
on wall-paintings at Beni-Hasan, Egypt, 1, 228;
wrestling and boxing on Panathenaic amphora of Kittos, 248;
wrestling and boxing in pankration, 247;
wrestling and pankration contrasted, 246.
Wunderer, C., on the _Seated Boxer_ of Museo delle Terme, 147.
Xanten, bronze statue of boy found in Rhine near, 276.
Xanthos, Chimæra tomb at, 271.
Xenodamos, statue at Antikythera, 369.
Xenodikos, statue at Olympia, 279, 345.
Xenokles, base of statue at Olympia, 234, 344;
copies of statue of, 228, 234;
motive of statue of, 138, 139;
statue at Olympia, by Polykleitos the Younger, 118.
Xenokrates, of Akragas, chariot victor at Delphi, 267.
Xenokrates, sculptor, 61.
Xenombrotos, base of statue at Olympia, 345;
base of second statue at Olympia, 355;
portrait statue of, at Olympia, 54;
statue at Olympia, by Philotimos, 122, 264, 279;
two monuments of, at Olympia, 29.
Xenophanes, philosopher, on dangerous character of pankration, 246;
on painful character of boxing, 235;
protest of, against reverencing victors, 36.
Xenophon, historian, on athletics, 58, 59;
_Symposium_ of, 59.
Xenophon, of Aigion, statue at Olympia, 120, 343.
Xerxes, carries off the _Tyrannicides_ to Susa, 173;
sacks Akropolis, 271.
Xoana (ξόανα), Daidalian, 328.
Youth, bronze head of, from Akropolis, 114;
bronze head of, from Herculaneum, 95;
bronze statue of, found in sea off Antikythera, 80f., 82f.;
Polykleitan statue of, crowning himself, 155;
youth with tablet, on Munich vase, 182.
_Zanes_, statues of Zeus, so-called, near entrance to Stadion,
at Olympia, 33, 34.
Zenobios, 182.
Zeus, contestants at Olympia sacrifice to, 11;
diadoumenos on throne of, at Olympia, 150, 151;
father of Herakles, 10;
games in honor of, at Argos, 285;
Great Altar of, at Olympia, 339, 349, 350, 351, 355;
Nemean games in honor of, 17;
as one of the gods presiding over contests, 75;
sculptures from pediments of temple of, at Olympia, 53, 113, 114;
site of Great Altar of, at Olympia, 348f.;
statues of Hyblæan, at Olympia, 344;
of Megarian, at Olympia, 344;
of Olympian, by Pheidias, 52;
of Platæan, at Olympia, 344;
of Zeus Ithomatas, 110, 111;
of Zeus παῖς, at Aigion, 111;
with short hair, 52;
temple of, at Olympia, 342, 344, 346, 347, 350, 351, 352, 353, 355,
356, 358, 359, 360;
throne of, at Olympia, described by Pausanias, 61;
worship of, at Olympia, later than that of Hera, 16;
wrestling match of, with Kronos, 14.
Zeuxis, painter, 29.
Zones, of victor statues at Olympia, 340;
of the _Chariots_, 345, 346;
of the (_Eretrian_) _Bull_, 343, 346;
of _Telemachos_, 345, 346;
of the _Victory_, 344, 346.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Olympic Victor Monuments and Greek Athletic Art" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.