diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/63242-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63242-0.txt | 4161 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 4161 deletions
diff --git a/old/63242-0.txt b/old/63242-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 8601b15..0000000 --- a/old/63242-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,4161 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Hellenistic Sculpture, by Guy Dickins - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Hellenistic Sculpture - -Author: Guy Dickins - -Release Date: September 19, 2020 [EBook #63242] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE *** - - - - -Produced by Turgut Dincer, Charlie Howard, and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive) - - - - - - - - - -Transcriber’s Note - -Superscripts are shown as ^{es}; italics are enclosed in _underscores_. - - - - -HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE - - -[Illustration: 1] - -[Illustration: 2] - - - - - HELLENISTIC - SCULPTURE - - BY - GUY DICKINS, M.A. - - SOMETIME FELLOW AND LECTURER OF ST. JOHN’S COLLEGE, OXFORD - AND LECTURER IN CLASSICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD - - WITH A PREFACE - BY - PERCY GARDNER, LITT.D., F.B.A. - - LINCOLN AND MERTON PROFESSOR OF CLASSICAL - ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD - - - OXFORD - AT THE CLARENDON PRESS - 1920 - - - - -INTRODUCTORY NOTE - - -Guy Dickins wrote these chapters on Hellenistic Sculpture as a brief -sketch of the period to which he hoped to devote years of study. They -foreshadow some of the theories which he intended to work out, and for -that reason we believe that they will be useful to the student. There -are obvious omissions, but no attempt has been made to fill up gaps in -the manuscript, such as paragraphs on the Barberini Faun or the Attic -Gaul, which were left blank in 1914. - -The illustrations, which naturally must be limited in number, have -been selected by me mainly on the principle of reproducing the less -accessible pieces of sculpture while giving references to standard -works for the others. - -In preparing my husband’s manuscript for publication I have to -acknowledge with gratitude the help of many friends. To Professor Percy -Gardner I am particularly indebted for valuable advice and for his -kindness in writing a preface to the volume; to Miss C. A. Hutton for -her counsel throughout; and to Mr. Alan Wace for sending me photographs -from Athens. I have also to thank the Hellenic Society, the Committee -of the British School at Athens, and Dr. Caskey of the Boston Museum -for permission to reproduce certain photographs. - - MARY DICKINS. - - OXFORD, March, 1920. - - - - -PREFACE - - -Among the losses which Oxford has suffered from the war, none is -more to be regretted than that of the author of this volume. As an -undergraduate, twenty years ago, Guy Dickins gave up his intention -of entering the Indian Civil Service in order to devote himself to -the study of Classical Archaeology, an allegiance from which he never -swerved. In 1904 he went as Craven Fellow to the British School of -Athens, and for five years lived mostly in Greece, studying and -exploring. In 1909 he returned to Oxford as a Fellow of St. John’s -College, and Lecturer in Ancient History. In 1914 he was appointed -University Lecturer in Classical Archaeology; but before he could take -up the duties of the post the great call came, and he obeyed it at -once. A most efficient and able company commander, he served in the -King’s Royal Rifle Corps. In July 1916 he died of wounds received in -the battle of the Somme. - -Before the war Dickins had been occupied in tasks of research, and in -preparation for a teaching career. He had published several papers, -and a volume of the catalogue of the Acropolis Museum. He had visited -most of the museums of Europe, and brought back a large collection of -photographs, which his widow has presented to the Ashmolean Museum. -He was especially interested in Greek sculpture, and had intended -to collect materials for a history of art in the Hellenistic Age, -a subject which has been neglected, but which is of the greatest -importance. Several of his papers, such as those on the followers of -Praxiteles and on Damophon of Messene, show in what direction his mind -was working, though at the same time he was ready to take part in all -the projects and the excavations of the School of Athens. - -The present volume, alas, is the only fruit which the study of -antiquity is likely to reap from such continued and thorough -preparation. Every reader will regret that it was not written on a -far larger scale. But it was planned as part of a complete history of -ancient sculpture. No doubt, had he lived, Dickins would have rewritten -it in a more complete form. But as it stands it is far too valuable to -lose, full of suggestion, and pointing the way to important lines of -discovery. In my opinion it contains the best that has been written on -the subject; and one rises from the reading of it with a keen regret -that the author could not bring his harvest to completion. - -Dickins possessed in a high degree two qualities necessary for the best -work in archaeology. He was distinctly original, always preferring to -look at things in a light not borrowed from books or teachers but his -own. And he was at the same time of cool judgement and strong in common -sense. One of his fellow officers told me that whenever he was in doubt -as to the course to be followed in attack or defence he consulted -Dickins, and accepted his advice. He did not, like many young -archaeologists, delight in starting brilliant hypotheses; but was ever -content in coming nearer to the truth, and setting it forth in orderly -and sober fashion. Such qualities would have made him an invaluable -factor in the teaching of archaeology in England. I am told that the -undergraduates of his college always felt that he set before them a -high standard, and had no sympathy with anything which was pretentious -or meretricious. The same qualities appeared in two or three courses of -lectures on recent excavation, which he gave at the Ashmolean Museum. - -I add as an appendix a list of Dickins’s published works, with a -summary of their purpose and contents. They are not great in extent; -he was not a rapid worker; but every one of them is worthy of careful -reading, and does something to advance our knowledge of Greek art and -ancient life. - - PERCY GARDNER. - - - - -CONTENTS - - - PAGE - PREFACE vii - - I. THE SCHOOL OF PERGAMON 1 - - II. THE SCHOOL OF ALEXANDRIA 19 - - III. THE RHODIAN SCHOOL 35 - - IV. THE MAINLAND SCHOOLS DURING THE HELLENISTIC AGE 53 - - V. GRECO-ROMAN SCULPTURE 68 - - APPENDIX. A LIST OF THE PUBLISHED WORKS OF THE AUTHOR 89 - - INDEX 95 - - - - -ILLUSTRATIONS - - - 1. Hermaphrodite. Constantinople _Frontispiece_ - - 2. Marsyas. Constantinople _Frontispiece_ - - _Facing page_ - 3. Dancing Satyr of Pompeii. Naples 8 - - 4. Ludovisi Gaul. Rome, Museo Nazionale 8 - - 5. Head of a Dead Persian. Rome, Museo Nazionale 12 - - 6. Gaul’s Head. Cairo 12 - - 7. Group from the Great Frieze of the Altar at Pergamon: Giant - and Dog. Berlin 12 - - 8. Group from the Telephos Frieze at Pergamon: Telephos and - Herakles. Berlin 12 - - 9. Apollo of Tralles. Constantinople 16 - - 10. Ephebe of Tralles. Constantinople 16 - - 11. Venus Anadyomene from Cyrenaica. Rome, Museo Nazionale 20 - - 12. Sarapis of Bryaxis. British Museum 20 - - 13. Girl’s Head from Chios. Boston, Fine Arts Museum 20 - - 14. Bearded Head. Rome, Museo Capitolino 22 - - 15. Zeus of Otricoli. Rome, Vatican 22 - - 16. Isis. Louvre 22 - - 17. Priest of Isis. Rome, Museo Capitolino 24 - - 18. Capitol Venus. Rome, Museo Capitolino 24 - - 19. Ariadne. Rome, Museo Capitolino 26 - - 20. Inopos from Delos. Louvre 26 - - 21. Dwarf from the Mahdia Ship 30 - - 22. Old Woman. Dresden 30 - - 23. Grimani Relief. Vienna 30 - - 24. Nile. Rome, Vatican 30 - - 25. Aphrodite and Triton. Dresden 34 - - 26. Bronze Athlete from Ephesos. Vienna 34 - - 27. Praying Boy. Berlin 38 - - 28. Resting Hermes. Naples 38 - - 29. Hero Resting on his Lance. Rome, Museo Nazionale 42 - - 30. Jason. Louvre 42 - - 31. Draped Figure from Magnesia. Constantinople 44 - - 32. Eros and Psyche. Rome, Museo Capitolino 44 - - 33. Draped Figure by Philiskos from Thasos. Constantinople 44 - - 34. Victory of Samothrace. Louvre 46 - - 35. Chiaramonti Odysseus. Rome, Vatican 50 - - 36. Menelaos and Patroclos. Florence, Loggia dei Lanzi 50 - - 37. Youthful Centaur. Rome, Museo Capitolino 52 - - 38. Bearded Centaur. Rome, Museo Capitolino 52 - - 39. Hermes of Andros. Athens, National Museum 54 - - 40. Themis of Chairestratos. Athens, National Museum 54 - - 41. Hermes from Atalanta. Athens, National Museum 54 - - 42. Sleeping Hermaphrodite. Rome, Museo Nazionale 56 - - 43. Victory of Euboulides. Athens, National Museum 58 - - 44. Athena of Euboulides. Athens, National Museum 58 - - 45. Group by Damophon (restored) 60 - - 46. Anytos. Athens, National Museum 62 - - 47. Artemis. Athens, National Museum 62 - - 48. Veil of Despoina. Athens, National Museum 62 - - 49. Poseidon of Melos. Athens, National Museum 64 - - 50. Venus of Capua. Naples 64 - - 51. Appiades of Stephanos. Louvre 72 - - 52. Torso Belvedere. Rome, Vatican 72 - - 53. Athlete of Stephanos. Rome, Villa Albani 72 - -Figs. 3, 7, 8, 15, 27, 28, and 53 are taken from casts in the Ashmolean -Museum; figs. 4, 5, 11, 16, and 42 are from photographs by Alinari; -figs. 12 and 21 are from photographs by the Hellenic Society; figs. -20, 30, 34, and 51 are from photographs by Giraudon; figs. 23 and 26 -are from photographs by Frankenstein; fig. 29 is from a photograph by -Anderson; figs. 36 and 50 are from photographs by Brogi; fig. 45 is -reproduced by permission from the _Annual of the British School at -Athens_, vol. xiii, Pl. XII. - - - - -I - -THE SCHOOL OF PERGAMON - - -Most of the writers on Greek art agree in calling the Hellenistic -period an age of decadence. The period is a long one, lasting from the -death of Alexander to the Roman absorption of the Hellenistic kingdoms, -i.e. from about 320 to later than 100 B.C. The lowest limit is marked -by the Laocoon group, and the fact that some critics have seen in that -wonderful monument the climax of Greek art may make us pause in a hasty -generalization. The decadence of the Hellenistic age is due simply to -its exaggeration of certain tendencies already present in the fourth -century, tendencies which accompany the inevitable development of all -art gradually away from the ideal and gradually closer to realistic -imitation of nature. As long as the technical skill of the Hellenistic -artist shows no sign of abating, it is unfair and untrue to call -his work decadent. The term is only justly applicable when loss of -idealism or growth of frivolity in subject is accompanied by a decline -in execution, by a want of thoroughness, and by a desire to shirk -difficulties. - -It is true to say that Greek art on the mainland enters on a period of -decadence in the third century, for its execution and expression grow -steadily worse after 250 B.C., but it is interesting to note that it -reverts to a greater idealism. The last great artist of the mainland, -Damophon of Messene, might have been a member of the school of Pheidias -save for an inadequate mastery of the chisel. - -On the other hand, the schools of Pergamon, Alexandria, and Rhodes show -no falling off in technical skill as long as they remain independent -of Rome. Even their idealism does not wholly decline, for the Gallic -victories of Attalos and Eumenes brought about an idealist revival in -Pergamene art associated with the decoration of the great altar. Rhodes -remained ever wedded to the athletic ideal. Alexandria delighted most -in scenes of _genre_ and realistic imitations of nature. But all turned -out work of marvellous quality, and it is mainly a vagary of fashion -in criticism that now induces so many authorities to label as decadent -wonderful masterpieces of sculpture like the Victory of Samothrace, -the kneeling boy of Subiaco, or the Silenos with the young Dionysos. -Works so full of human nature and so rich in sympathy may well claim -to replace by their romantic appeal the classical feeling of the fifth -century. It is only when romance becomes sentimentality that it meets -with just condemnation. - -The outstanding feature of the history of Greek sculpture during the -Hellenistic period is the transference of its vital centres from the -mainland to the new kingdoms of the Diadochi on the east and south and -to the great new free state of Rhodes. The chief cause was an economic -one. Alexander’s campaigns brought about a revival of prosperity and -wealth in the Greek world, but among his friends and not among his -enemies. Athens was always his enemy and the enemy of his Macedonian -successors. Consequently during the whole period from the death of -Alexander to the Roman conquest Athens was either under Macedonian rule -or in danger of Macedonian attack. It was Macedonian policy to keep her -weak and isolated, and her trading supremacy began to be transferred -to the island of Delos. The great days of Attic art passed with the -death of Praxiteles and the coming of Alexander. In the Peloponnese the -pupils of Lysippos carried on into the third century the traditions of -the Sikyonian school, but we can see from such knowledge as we possess -of their activities that the wealth and fame of the new kingdoms were -already calling the artists to abandon the impoverished towns of the -mainland. The Peloponnese also opposed Alexander and his successors, -and Macedonian garrisons held the chief fortresses of the country. We -find Eutychides of Sikyon working for Antioch, and Chares working at -Lindos in Rhodes. After the date given for the pupils of Lysippos in -296 B.C., Pliny makes the following significant statement: ‘cessavit -deinde ars, ac rursus Olympiade CLVI (156 B.C.) revixit.’[1] For 150 -years the history of artistic development must be studied on the -eastern side of the Aegean. - -After the preliminary conflicts between the successors of Alexander -for the partition of the empire a number of new states arose, which -are known to us usually as the kingdoms of the Diadochi or Successors. -Of these the three most important were Macedonia, Syria, and Egypt, -under the rule of Antigonids, Seleucids, and Ptolemies respectively. -Of smaller importance, but quite independent and self-sustaining, were -Bithynia, Pergamon, and the island republic of Rhodes, the latter being -the only one which maintained its Hellenic democratic institutions. -The attitude of these states towards art differs remarkably. Macedonia -remained always a military monarchy in a condition of almost constant -frontier war, and was wholly uninterested in artistic developments. -Syria seems from the first to have fallen under Semitic and oriental -influences, which destroyed its appreciation of the purer forms of -Greek art. Bithynia, Pontos, and Cappadocia were barbarian rather -than Greek. As a result, we find that the old artistic traditions are -maintained prominently in three only of the new states: Pergamon, -the home of the very Hellenic race of the Attalids; Rhodes, whose -pure Hellenic descent was untouched; and Alexandria, which became -practically a Greek town in the midst of an older Egyptian civilization. - -The kingdom of Pergamon included the area of the old Ionian cities, -and inherited, therefore, an artistic tradition as old as its own -existence. It is no matter for surprise that its art-loving monarchs -should have founded a great library and a great school of sculpture in -open rivalry with the richer resources of Ptolemaic Alexandria. The -art of Pergamon is well known to us from the magnificent groups and -figures of the Gallic dedications of Attalos I after his victories -about 240 B.C., and from the marvellous frieze of the altar excavated -_in situ_ by the Germans, which belongs to the period of Eumenes -II and the early second century. But before we come to these later -developments of Pergamene art, it is important that we should discover -the earliest tendencies and predilections of the Pergamene court in -the first half of the third century. We are told[2] that the most -remarkable work of Kephisodotos, the son of Praxiteles, was his -‘symplegma’ at Pergamon--probably an erotic group--which was noteworthy -for its extraordinarily naturalistic rendering of the pressure of -the fingers into the flesh. Such erotic groups of nymphs and satyrs -or hermaphrodites exist in our museums, and are ultimately derived -from this type of statue. Actual discoveries at Pergamon support -this conception of early third-century Pergamene art. The well-known -Hermaphrodite in Constantinople (Fig. 1) and a beautiful girl’s head -in Berlin[3] show the extreme delicacy in the rendering of flesh and -the fondness for a sensual body treatment which we might expect from an -Ionian version of the schools of Scopas and Praxiteles. The existence -of such a school in Ionia in the late fourth century is highly -probable. The Pergamene school of the early third century would seem to -be the later natural development of the creators of the Ephesos columns -and the Niobids. Scopaic expression and Praxitelean flesh treatment -are the hall-marks of the school. Another work of importance for the -early Pergamene period is the Crouching Aphrodite type, so popular -in Roman times. Of this statue Pliny tells us: ‘Venerem lavantem se -Daedalus fecit.’[4] This Daedalus was a Bithynian artist of the early -third century, who must have fallen under the general influence of the -prevalent Pergamene school. His Aphrodite[5] shows exactly the artistic -tendencies of the early Pergamene school. The motive is unimportant and -frivolous--a _genre_ motive of a girl washing herself--but it is used -for the purpose of demonstrating the technical skill of the artist in -displaying the nude female form. The artist does not use all his skill -in the effort to produce a noble or even a romantic ideal. The subject -is immaterial, provided it affords a chance of showing his technical -skill. The crouching attitude is a new one in art, and one well adapted -for exhibiting the human body in all its variety. It appears again in -the Attalid dedications, and was evidently a favourite at Pergamon. -Another example is in the well-known Knife-Grinder of the Uffizi,[6] -part of a great group of Marsyas, Apollo, and the Scythian slave, -which we can certainly connect with this period of Pergamene art. The -Knife-Grinder himself is a copy and not an original. That is made clear -by his late plinth, in spite of his magnificent workmanship. But the -finer copies of the hanging Marsyas, which belongs to the group, are -in a Phrygian marble, betraying their Pergamene origin. These copies -of the Marsyas are divided into two types: a so-called ‘red’ type -(Fig. 2), made of the Phrygian marble, in which the expression of -agony is more marked, and a white type[7] in which the face is less -distorted. A theory has been put forward that the white type represents -an early third-century prototype, while the red type is a Pergamene -variation of rather later date.[8] We may, however, hesitate to see -sufficient difference in the two types to make so wide a distinction. -The white type may be merely a less masterly adaptation of the red. -An Apollo torso[9] in Berlin from Pergamon with the right hand -resting on the head agrees with a marble disc in Dresden[10] showing -a similar figure confronted by the hanging Marsyas. We may therefore -associate this figure as the third member of the group with Marsyas -and the Knife-Grinder.[11] The Apollo is a seated figure of distinctly -Praxitelean influence. The keen expression of the Knife-Grinder and -the agonized face of the Marsyas may equally well be attributed to -Scopaic teaching. We have a good example of this mixed tradition in -early Pergamene art. Technically we are at once compelled to notice the -immense advance in realism and anatomical study. The hanging Marsyas -shows a correct appreciation of the effects of such a posture on -swollen veins and strained abdomen. The corner of the mouth is drawn up -in agony; the forehead is corrugated with rows of wrinkles; the hair, -even on the chest, is matted with perspiration. One would say that so -remarkable a statue could only be studied from nature, and one recalls -the stories of Parrhasios, who is said to have used an actual model -for his Prometheus Bound.[12] We are long past the time when sculptors -worked from memory. Even Praxiteles was said to have made his Cnidian -goddess with Phryne as a model. In the Knife-Grinder we may perhaps -detect some of the earliest traces of that exaggeration of the muscles -which will so soon affect athletic art. - -One of the most important of the Pergamon finds was the little bronze -satyr,[13] which has enabled us to associate with Pergamon a whole -host of satyr types of more or less similar style. The Dancing Satyr -of Pompeii (Fig. 3) and Athens, the Satyr of the Uffizi clashing -cymbals,[14] with its replica in Dresden, and the Satyr turning round -to examine his tail[15] are all variants of the new artistic cult of -the satyr, a cult which seems to have had a Pergamene origin.[16] -The satyr gave to the Pergamene artist just that opportunity for the -display of wild and somewhat sensual enthusiasm which he wanted, -for new and original poses, and for combination with his nymphs and -bacchanals. In Phrygia especially orgiastic manifestations of religion -were the regular practice, and dancing was both wild and universal. The -new artistic conceptions show the clear influence of this spirit on the -more restrained art of the fourth-century schools. The Dancing Maenad -of Berlin,[17] the Aphrodite Kallipygos of Naples,[18] and the famous -Sleeping Hermaphrodite[19] are further examples of the marvellous flesh -treatment and the wild frenzy of movement which we learn to associate -with third-century Pergamene art. - -Apart from the general spirit of Pergamene work there are several -definite technical peculiarities which enable us to postulate a -Pergamene origin for many unclassed works of the Hellenistic age. -These can be gathered from the definitely Pergamene Gallic statues, -which we have yet to discuss, and from the satyr types already -mentioned. One is the hair tossed up off the forehead and falling in -lank matted locks of wild disordered type. The eyebrows are usually -straight and shaggy, with a heavy bulge of the frontal sinus over the -nose. The cheekbones are prominent, and the lips thick and parted. In -the body the most marked feature is the desire to get away from the -old-fashioned straight plane for the front of the torso. The lower part -of the chest usually projects strongly, while the waist is drawn in, so -that the profile of the torso is shaped like a very obtuse _z_. In the -female body there is a general affection for rather heavy forms with -a good envelope of flesh. The artist’s skill is here devoted mainly -to the delineation of surface. The heads of such female figures as -we can attribute to Pergamene art show very little expression. The -hair is done on the Praxitelean model, but the locks tend to become -more rope-like and twisted as time goes on. We cannot point to any -great peculiarities in the Pergamene treatment of women. Neither -Lysippos nor Scopas seems to have had much effect on the feminine -types of Greek sculpture. The whole Hellenistic age is in servitude to -Praxitelean ideals of women whether in Alexandria, Rhodes, or Pergamon. -The differences are only in the details of execution, the Pergamenes -tending always towards clear cutting of hair and features, while the -Alexandrines preferred an impressionist smoothing away of all sharp -edges. - -[Illustration: 3] - -[Illustration: 4] - -We come now to the two great dedications of Attalos for his victories -over the Gauls.[20] These were made at some time later than 241 B.C., -and consist of two series of statues. One is life-size or larger, -and is represented by some of the best-known examples of Hellenistic -sculpture, such as the Dying Gaul[21] and the Ludovisi group of a -Gaul slaying his wife and himself (Fig. 4). The other consisted of a -number of small figures about three feet high, and was dedicated by -Attalos in Athens, where they stood on the parapet of the south wall -of the Acropolis. Four battle-groups were included--a gigantomachy, an -Amazonomachy, a battle of Greeks and Persians, and a battle of Greeks -and Gauls. Several copies from this smaller group are in existence, -the best known being in Naples.[22] The originals of both groups were -probably in bronze, and we have the names of some of the artists of -the larger group, Phyromachos, Antigonos, and Epigonos or Isigonos. -Stratonicos and Niceratos of Athens may also have taken part.[23] - -These works all deserve careful study, as they differ in many ways from -the rather sensual and ecstatic art which we know to have preceded -them, and the very _baroque_ and exaggerated art which followed them -in the next century on the great altar. Eumenes and Attalos had to -fight for their lives against the Gauls, and a temporary return to an -austerer and less luxurious art would be a not unnatural result of the -great war. We certainly find in the treatment of the Amazons or of -the wife of the Ludovisi Gaul no such insistence on sexual detail as -marks the earlier studies of the feminine form, and the expression of -the male figures is distinguished by more ideal emotions of courage -or resignation than the frenzy of the satyrs and the passions of the -later gods and giants. The Attalid dedications show some _bravura_ of -pose; the Ludovisi Gaul is a little histrionic in his attitude; but as -a whole they are sober and restrained sculpture, when compared with -the satyrs on the one hand and the altar frieze on the other. In that -sense they represent the high-water mark of Pergamene art, inspired -with an equal skill, but with a nobler ideal than the earlier work, -and not subject to the somewhat grotesque exaggerations of its later -activities. Greek art has few nobler figures to show than the Dying -Gaul of the Capitol, itself an admirable and closely contemporary -copy, perhaps made in Ephesos, of the bronze original at Pergamon. The -sober restraint of the torso modelling is remarkable, and contrasts -most forcibly with the altar frieze. The pathos of the expression and -attitude is not forced or exaggerated in any way, and if the curious -hair gives a touch of strangeness to the head, we must account for -it as a naturalistic detail of the Gallic fashion of greasing and -oiling the hair. The Ludovisi Gaul is a superb work, rather more -exaggerated, both in expression and in detail, than the Capitol figure. -The right arm is perhaps wrongly restored, as it hides the face from -the front, but it is more likely that the group should be looked at -from a position farther to the left, where the face, the fine stride, -and the technical _tour de force_ of the cloak can all be appreciated -more fully. The woman’s face is not well finished, and her whole -pose is more effective from the other point of view. The Pergamene -peculiarities in the treatment of chest and waist are clearly visible -in this figure. - -The little figures in Naples, the Louvre, Venice, and elsewhere are -partly recumbent dead figures of Persians, giants, and Amazons, and -partly crouching figures defending themselves. None of the victorious -Greeks seems to have survived, except possibly the torso of a horseman -in the Terme Museum. They are dry, rather hard figures, much inferior -in skill to the larger group and much closer to the bronze originals -which they represent. The head of a dead Persian in the Terme Museum -(Fig. 5) is probably a more worthy copy (on a larger scale) of one of -the figures of this series. Its type of features and its moustache -resemble the Ludovisi Gaul. Another fine Gallic head is in the Gizeh -Museum at Cairo (Fig. 6). This has been often called an original, an -Alexandrian variant of the Gallic dedications. There is, however, no -need to separate it from the others. If it shows more emotion, that -only brings it rather closer to what we know of earlier Pergamene art. -The provenance of the Gizeh head is disputed, and it may be only a -recent importation into Egypt.[24] - -We now come to the frieze of the great altar at Pergamon (Fig. 7), the -contribution of Eumenes II to the series of monuments commemorating -the defeats of the barbarians. Here again we have several inscriptions -of artists,[25] which are especially interesting as showing that four -foreign artists of Attic, Ephesian, and Rhodian origin all contributed -to the great monument. It is, however, quite uniform and unique in -character, and shows a _baroque_ exaggeration of expression and of -muscular detail, which in the end becomes monotonous and overpowering. -The slight tendency towards a histrionic attitude, which we noticed in -the Ludovisi Gaul, has now become much more pronounced. Most of the -figures are in stage attitudes of fright, ferocity, attack, or defence. -Their bodies are covered either with drapery in wild disorder, or, -if naked, with massive rolls and lumps of muscle, which are almost -comical in their exaggeration. Their hair is in unrestrained twisted -snaky locks; their faces are distorted in fierce expressions of anger -or alarm; they are in every conceivable attitude of attack or defence. -When we add to this the colossal size of the monument and its figures, -we can well understand how its remains became known to early Christian -writers as the throne of Satan.[26] - -[Illustration: 5] - -[Illustration: 6] - -[Illustration: 7] - -[Illustration: 8] - -The subject of the frieze is the battle of the gods and the giants, and -the members of the Olympic Pantheon are represented in attitudes of -triumph over the serpent-footed denizens of Tartarus. This is probably -the first appearance in sculpture of the serpent feet of the giant. -Every earlier artist had realized how such a ridiculous detail -would detract from the strength and probability of his figures, but -the Pergamene artists are so glad of the chance of displaying extra -technical skill that they pass over the artistic difficulty without -hesitation. The great frieze of the altar is like the work of a -megalomaniac. The restraint and good taste which have accompanied all -Hellenic art hitherto are quite forgotten, and we are reminded rather -of some Assyrian scene of carnage and destruction. This is the more -curious, because the smaller frieze of the altar, the Telephos frieze, -which is contemporary with the larger one, shows altogether a different -character. It has therefore been plausibly argued, with the support of -some of the artists’ signatures, that the main style of the work is -Rhodian rather than Pergamene.[27] The view would only involve us in -further difficulties when we come to consider Rhodian art. There is -Rhodian influence in the frieze, but the technical details of hair, -faces, and bodies as a whole correspond closely to Pergamene art. -Moreover, on _a priori_ grounds, Pergamene art is much more likely to -be affected by exotic oriental influences than the purer Rhodian. It -is easier to assume a special development of Pergamene art in this -exaggerated direction for a monument which was itself a special and -exceptional memorial. The whole character of the work is a reversion -to an earlier idealistic phase of art, though carried out on very -different artistic lines. This is no romantic or frivolous treatment of -mythological detail. It is a great conception of the victory of right -over might, of Hellas over the barbarian, and as such the great altar -of Pergamon stands quite apart from most of the work of the Hellenistic -age, and serves rather as a connecting link between the Parthenon -on the one hand and the Imperial trophies of Augustus, like the Ara -Pacis, on the other. It demonstrates the lack of judgement and balance -in Hellenistic art, but it is a good proof that the Hellenistic school -was not wholly absorbed in questions of _bravura_ and technique, but -could rise, even if in rather clumsy fashion, to the level of a great -occasion. - -The smaller frieze of Pergamon, giving incidents in the myth of -Telephos, is of a very different type (Fig. 8). Firstly, the subject -is not a unity in time and place, but a continuous narration of -mythological episodes. It thus resembles the setting in a continuous -frieze of a number of metope-subjects. Telephos appears in different -situations in a scene which apparently is uniform. This is a decidedly -new departure in artistic theory, and it had the profoundest effect on -all subsequent art. We need not, of course, see in the Telephos frieze -the first appearance of this custom, but it happens to be the earliest -surviving monument in which the principle is easily remarked. Moreover, -the information as to change of scene is conveyed by means of changes -in the background, so that we see in it another new departure: the use -of a significant pictorial background instead of the blank wall against -which earlier reliefs had been set. Here again the Hellenistic artist -revives rather than originates. The pictorial background occurs as -early as the ‘Erechtheum’ _poros_ pediment of the Acropolis, but during -the fifth and fourth centuries the idea was dropped only to reappear at -a later date. - -We have already seen that relief sculpture at all stages of its history -is closely affected by the kindred art of painting. During the fourth -century painting underwent changes in the direction of naturalism as -marked as, if not more marked than, the corresponding changes in -sculpture. The late fourth century and the third century form the great -period of Greek painting, in which the names of Parrhasios, Protogenes, -and Apelles stand supreme. A true and correct feeling for perspective -and a naturalistic scheme of colouring were the main discoveries of -the period, discoveries which we are only able to appreciate in very -roundabout methods through Pompeian wall-paintings and mummy-cases -from the Fayum. All Hellenistic sculpture is profoundly influenced -by painting, as we shall see; but naturally the art of relief is -nearest akin and shows most clearly the effects of graphic ideas. The -Hellenistic reliefs are almost all adaptations of pictures, and the -Telephos frieze earns its main interest and reputation because it is -one of the first monuments to show this influence very clearly. We find -a true use of perspective in part of this frieze, and a deliberate -intention to create the impression of depth. - -One of the first results of these innovations was to free relief from -its subordination to architecture. It begins now to take its place as -a self-sufficing artistic object like a picture. Greek pictures were -mainly of the fresco type, and therefore immovably fixed to walls, -though easel pictures now begin to be more frequent. There was nothing -dissimilar in the position of a relief decorating a wall-panel without -architectural significance. This idea found its earliest manifestation -in Ionia with friezes of the Assos type on an architrave block, and -therefore at variance with architectural principles. Friezes as wall -decorations appear commonly in the Ionian buildings of the fifth -and fourth centuries, like the Nereid and Trysa monuments and the -Mausoleum. We find in the Hellenistic age the use of panels as wall -decorations quite frequent all over Asia Minor. Thus at Cyzicus we -have some curious mythological reliefs called Stylopinakia, which -appear to have been panels fixed between the columns of a peristyle. We -have the Apotheosis of Homer by Archelaos of Priene, a clear instance -of the decorative panel with a pictorial background; we have smaller -pieces like the Menander relief in the Lateran; the visit of Dionysos -to a dramatic poet; and all the series of so-called Hellenistic reliefs -ascribed by Schreiber[28] to an Alexandrian origin, by Wickhoff[29] to -the Augustan age and Italian art. The reliefs, like other sculpture -of the Hellenistic age, cannot be judged as a whole.[30] Some are -Augustan, like the reliefs in the Palazzo Spada, and some are -undoubtedly Alexandrian, like the Grimani reliefs in Vienna. Others, -again, show a strong Lysippic influence, which at once connects them -with Rhodes. The Telephos frieze, however, is Pergamene, and the -Cyzicus reliefs must have fallen mainly in the Pergamene sphere of art. -We are, therefore, entitled to demand a separation of the reliefs into -just as many classes as the sculpture. A fine piece of very high relief -from Pergamon is the group of Prometheus on the Caucasus freed by -Herakles.[31] Besides the influence of pictures on relief there is also -the influence of earlier sculpture. One of the figures in the Telephos -relief reproduces the Weary Herakles of Lysippos.[32] It would not be -difficult to point out other examples of the adaptation of older types. -The Marsyas group is itself a case in point. The indifference of the -Hellenistic artist to his subject made him the readier to adapt earlier -types, provided he had a free hand for his details of execution and -expression. - -[Illustration: 9] - -[Illustration: 10] - -The figures of Pergamene art as a whole are short and stocky with -squarish deep heads. They correspond to the Scopaic, pre-Lysippic, and -Peloponnesian type, but the Lysippic improvements in pose and swing of -the body are thoroughly appreciated and adopted. From Praxiteles are -derived the female type and the interest in the satyr as a vehicle of -sculptural expression. The athletic art of Lysippos and the school of -Sikyon is practically unrepresented at Pergamon or in those regions of -Ionia and Bithynia which are connected with it and at which we must now -glance. - -From Priene we have remains of a gigantomachy and some other -sculpture.[33] The influence of Praxiteles is marked, and the work as -a whole is clearly under Pergamene guidance. From Magnesia we have -remains of a great Amazonomachy belonging to the frieze of the temple -of Artemis Leucophryene and dating from the end of the third century. -The work is dull and careless but strongly under the influence of -Pergamon. We shall in fact find no more architectural reliefs of even -tolerable quality. The new landscape or pictorial reliefs occupied the -attention of the sculptors, and temple decoration was left entirely to -workmen. - -One of the great Hellenistic art centres is Tralles, whose treasures -are mainly to be seen in the Constantinople museum. The colossal Apollo -or Dionysos (Fig. 9) is closely connected in pose and treatment with -the Apollo of the Marsyas group, and shows even more clearly than the -torso in the Uffizi the influence of Praxiteles. The cloaked ephebe -of Tralles (Fig. 10) is a good example of the eclecticism of the age. -The leaning attitude with the crossed legs reminds us of the satyrs -of Praxiteles and his school, but the head is quite different and is -strongly reminiscent of Myron. Boethos of Chalcedon belongs by birth to -the northern or Pergamene sphere of influence, but he worked in Rhodes -and will be more suitably considered in connexion with Rhodian art. -Pergamene influence was also strong in the islands and on the mainland. -We shall see that the school of Melos and both Attic and Peloponnesian -art during the late third and second centuries were obviously affected -by it. - - - - -II - -THE SCHOOL OF ALEXANDRIA - - -It may well be questioned whether we are really in a position to -separate the Hellenistic schools as definitely and surely as we can -separate the Attic and Peloponnesian schools of the fifth and fourth -centuries or the earlier local schools of the sixth. In the Hellenistic -age we find a far greater uniformity and cosmopolitanism in art than -ever before. The conquests of Alexander had been in the long run -Panhellenic, and outside the mainland at any rate the title Greek -came at last to mean more than merely a man’s city or state. It has -therefore been argued by some critics that we must not expect to find -the same local distinctions in Hellenistic art. In a cosmopolitan world -with easy communications local and separate developments were no longer -possible. This position is plausible, and so far as the question of -ideals or even types is concerned there is little to choose between the -Hellenistic schools. The so-called Hellenistic reliefs are probably -of very diverse origin; the Hellenistic love for _genre_ scenes and -for the grotesque appears to be universally indulged; the erotic -groups of Pergamon were certainly equally popular in Alexandria; the -influence of painting and the adaptation of earlier sculptural types -are found in all parts of the Aegean world. But there does seem to be -a distinction in technical execution between the three great schools -of the period, which is sufficient to justify their consideration in -three separate chapters. While Pergamon is predominantly subject to -the Scopaic-Praxitelean mixed tradition with an especial fondness -for extremely clear-cut work and soft finish, Rhodes appears to be -equally faithful to the Lysippic athletic tradition, and Alexandria to -a strongly impressionist development of Praxitelean ideas joined to -a fondness for unsparing realism in the grotesque, a combination not -infrequent in the decadence of art. For Alexandrian art, more than any -of the others, deserves the title of decadent through its abandonment -of every vestige of idealism in motive. - -We know the connexion of Alexandria with Athens was close in the late -fourth century, especially during the rule of Demetrios of Phaleron in -its closing decades. It was at this time that Bryaxis made the Sarapis -(Fig. 12), which has perhaps survived for us in the innumerable copies -of a wild-haired, heavily bearded head with shadowed mysterious eyes. -During the next century Macedonia was the chief foe of Athens and of -the Ptolemies, and all the earlier Egyptian rulers were on close terms -of friendship with the city. Thus a predominant influence of Athens and -of the greatest of the fourth-century Athenian sculptors, Praxiteles, -is only what we should anticipate in Alexandrian art. It has, however, -been argued that we have no evidence for a native art of Alexandria at -all.[34] While importing much late Attic sculpture, she borrowed also -from Pergamon works like the Gaul’s head at Cairo,[35] and from Antioch -a group like the Dresden Aphrodite with the Triton.[36] She was in fact -a collecting rather than an originating centre. - -[Illustration: 11] - -[Illustration: 12] - -[Illustration: 13] - -This view is improbable on many grounds. The Egyptians were a people -with a keen artistic sense, and the sudden introduction of a new race -like the Greeks with their passion for cultural expression could -hardly fail to give an impetus to artistic output. Moreover, a great -revival in architecture is noticeable all over Egypt. The Ptolemaic -age is one of the great building periods of the Nile valley. Further, -our authorities are unanimous on the importance and brilliance of -the Alexandrian school of painting, and we know that in gem-cutting -Pyrgoteles started a development never surpassed in antiquity or -modern times. In literature, in criticism, and in science the museum -of Alexandria held the chief place, and it is impossible to suppose -that Egypt remained a mere collector of sculpture without any original -development of her own. We must, therefore, examine the artistic -products of Hellenistic Egypt to see if they exhibit any technical -peculiarities marking them off from other Hellenistic centres and -compelling us to credit them with a local origin. - -Any study of the sculpture of Alexandrian origin reveals one -characteristic almost invariably present in serious work, as opposed -to the grotesque, and absent from the certified products of other -centres. This is that quality of slurring over all sharp detail in the -features and producing a highly polished, almost liquidly transparent -surface for which we have borrowed the Italian term _morbidezza_.[37] -Instances of this highly impressionist treatment are to be found in -the British Museum head of Alexander from Alexandria, and also in the -Sieglin head from the same place; in the Triton head of the Dresden -Alexandrian group of Triton and Aphrodite; in the many Anadyomene -copies which are mostly connected with Alexandria, such for instance -as the beautiful statue recently found in Cyrenaica (Fig. 11); in -girls’ heads from Alexandria in Copenhagen and Dresden. In most of -these works and in many others the soft transparent quality of the face -is matched by a quite rough impressionist blocking-out of the hair. -Thus we find both the characteristics of Praxitelean impressionism, -the rough hair and the soft liquid gaze, exaggerated and intensified -in Alexandrian sculpture. While the female hair of Pergamene art is -invariably clear-cut and rope-like, Alexandrian hair is normally -of the rough crinkly Praxitelean type, sometimes merely formal, at -others more complicated and complete. This impressionist character of -Alexandrian sculpture is borne out by what we know of its painting, and -is doubtless due to some extent to the great influence of painting on -sculpture as well as to the influence of Praxiteles. - -Another technical point about Alexandrian sculpture is connected with -the local conditions of the country. Egypt is not a country of marble, -and therefore the artists had to be economical in the use of it. This -is probably the reason why so many Alexandrian heads have the faces -complete in marble but the hair added separately in stucco, where the -colouring would render the difference in material hardly noticeable. -Thus many statues of Alexandrian origin have large pieces of the -upper part of their heads smoothed away and left for the addition of -stucco. This phenomenon is not confined to Alexandrian art, though it -is much commoner at Alexandria than elsewhere, and where we find it in -combination with the other qualities of impressionism and _morbidezza_ -already noticed we may feel fairly confident in claiming an Alexandrian -origin for the work in question. - -[Illustration: 14] - -[Illustration: 15] - -[Illustration: 16] - -This theory is admirably illustrated in the beautiful little head of -a girl from Chios recently acquired by the Boston Museum (Fig. 13). -The head shows us an extreme degree of _morbidezza_ in the softening -of all the sharper facial lines such as eyelids and lips. The face -is seen almost through a slight haze, and it thus gets some of the -impression conveyed by distance. Where the head is worked it is quite -rough and formal in purely impressionist style, but most of the hair -was to be added in stucco, as the sharp cuts on the upper part of the -head demonstrate. The head has been attributed too enthusiastically to -Praxiteles himself. It is good work, but it is not by the author of the -Hermes. The too mechanical smile and the too formal cheeks show a less -masterly touch. But it is a perfect embodiment of Alexandrian art about -300 B.C. and must be unhesitatingly attributed to its real origin. We -see a general copy of the Praxitelean long face with eyes about the -centre of the head, Praxitelean proportions, and Praxitelean head-type. - -Another head of Alexandrian origin is the fine bearded head of the -Capitol Museum (Fig. 14), which is really almost a mask with the whole -of the top and sides of the head left for stucco additions. The rough -blocking of the beard shows the artist’s impressionist leanings. The -long face is purely Attic, though perhaps closer to Bryaxis or some -later artist than to Praxiteles. The head is more or less akin to the -Sarapis head and to the other much finer bearded head which stands -in close relation to the Sarapis, the well-known Zeus of Otricoli -(Fig. 15). In the Otricoli head we have a similar prominence of the -cheek-bones, a similar narrowing of the forehead above the frontal -sinus--Attic features but not Praxitelean. The Otricoli Zeus is also -a marble work cut for stucco additions, some of which are still -visible, and we should probably recognize in it another work of early -Alexandrian origin. It is perhaps not too daring to see the prototype -of these Attic-shaped non-Praxitelean Alexandrian bearded heads in the -Sarapis of Bryaxis.[38] Bryaxis or some other late Attic artist seems -to have affected the bearded male type of Alexandria much as Praxiteles -influenced the feminine ideal. Nottingham Castle contains a bearded -head from Nemi,[39] which belongs to the same class of work. Here again -we have the hair added in stucco and a general resemblance to the -Otricoli type. - -[Illustration: 17] - -[Illustration: 18] - -One of the new Greco-Alexandrian types was naturally the goddess Isis. -A head in the Louvre (Fig. 16) gives us a version of this figure, -which still, even in a poor Roman copy, shows us something of the -languid elegance of the original. There is no traceable influence of -Scopas in Alexandrian art. The Praxitelean and Attic tradition was -transferred pure, and therefore the liveliness of movement and action -in Pergamene art is quite absent from the art of Alexandria. Statues -are mainly small, partly perhaps for economy, and partly from the lack -of all desire for comparison with the gigantic masterpieces of ancient -Egypt, and they are limited to simple standing or seated poses. An -interesting statue of obvious Alexandrian origin is the priest of Isis -in the Capitol (Fig. 17), which has been wrongly restored with a female -head. This head is itself Alexandrian, as its hair demonstrates, but -it has no connexion with the body, which is male, though draped in a -light clinging tunic.[40] The tunic is interesting as giving us -a good example of Alexandrian drapery. We may notice the very small -closely set folds, and the extreme realistic care with which the loose -parts of the drapery are distinguished from those tightly stretched. -There is an element of artificiality no doubt in the way in which the -folds radiate from the great jar carried against the chest and in -their close symmetry of design, but as a whole the effect of texture -is marvellously well secured. We have here a good example of the -naturalism which now plays a large part in Alexandrian art. - -Another statue which we must claim for Alexandrian art is the -Capitoline Venus (Fig. 18), an extremely interesting statue not -only as a first-rate original but from its relation to the Cnidian -goddess of Praxiteles. The face and the hair show the usual qualities -of Alexandrian impressionism; the fringed mantle thrown over the -water-pot is the mantle of the Egyptian Isis, and the foreshortening -of the foot of the amphora is just the pictorial touch we expect in -Alexandrian art. But the most interesting light which this statue -throws on Alexandrian art is its directness and want of subtlety in -motive. The goddess of Cnidos is naked, but she is only half-conscious -of her nakedness. Her eyes are fixed on eternity, and the actual bath -is a mere accessory like the child of the Hermes. But the Capitoline -goddess is not thinking of eternity at all. She is stepping into her -bath, and is suddenly aware of a spectator’s gaze. She is the classical -counterpart of Susannah in Renaissance art. All the vague beauty of the -Attic statue is lost by the touch of Alexandrian realism, which amounts -almost to vulgarity. As to the treatment of the body it is again real -and not ideal. The back in particular shows a close study of the model -without any of the selective idealism of classical art. Like the -beautiful torso in Syracuse[41] it is a marvellous study from nature, -not marked by any vestige of idealism. - -Another head in the Capitol, the so-called Ariadne (Fig. 19), perhaps -really a Dionysos, also suggests an Alexandrian origin with its long -face, eyes close together, and crinkly hair.[42] It is a very favourite -Roman head often copied, and must belong to some famous original. It -wears a band, which presses into the hair, and its sleepy languid gaze -is remarkable. This is produced by making the upper eyelid nearly -straight and the lower one well curved. The face is long and heavy. -Both eye-shape and head recall the Boston girl from Chios and other -Alexandrian statues. The surface of the face is highly polished, the -hair left crinkly and rough--an Alexandrian procedure. If we can accept -this head, we must class with it two heads of identical facial type, -the Eubouleus of Eleusis[43] sometimes attributed to Praxiteles, and -the so-called Inopos from Delos in the Louvre (Fig. 20). Alexandrian -dedications might plausibly be expected at Delos and Eleusis. Both -Inopos and Eubouleus are highly impressionist. We have said enough to -show that what we may call the serious art of Alexandria had certain -characteristics of technique and execution, which render not impossible -an attempt to classify and arrange an Alexandrian school of sculpture. -We must now turn to another side of Alexandrian art which, if of less -artistic interest, is nevertheless of paramount importance in our study -of Hellenistic art. - -[Illustration: 19] - -[Illustration: 20] - -The people of Alexandria were noted in the ancient world as scoffers -and cynics. Their temper was fiery, their jests were brutal, and -reverence of any kind was unknown to them. A cosmopolitan medley of -Greek, Macedonian, native Egyptian, Jew, and every nation of the East, -they were united only in their utter diversity of point of view and -their scepticism of all ideal obligation. To such a people caricature -and a love of the grotesque were almost second nature. By the side of -the greater art of Alexandria it is easy to discern a lesser art of -comic, grotesque, and obscene statuettes of every description. Greek -realism in portraiture went back to the Pellichos of Demetrios with his -great paunch and scanty hair in the early fourth century.[44] With the -end of the century the satyr was a recognized medium for every variety -of the _baroque_ and the _macabre_ in expression. But in Alexandria -above all the grotesque exaggeration of natural defects found its true -popularity. The negro, the hunchback, the drunkard, the _crétin_ of -every kind, became popular artistic models. As if the delineation of -youth and beauty was exhausted, the Hellenistic sculptors of Alexandria -rushed into the portrayal of disease, of old age, and of mutilation -in every form. They suffered as much as any modern decadent from -‘la nostalgie de la boue’. Here again we must beware of attributing -to Alexandria all the grotesque figures of Hellenistic art and all -its pieces of most painful naturalism. Pergamon, if not Rhodes, and -doubtless Antioch must have played their part in the commonest form -of artistic decadence; but we have so much of this work certified as -Alexandrian, that we are justified in regarding Egypt as its chief -and most popular home. Works of this type fall into two classes: the -purely grotesque and the extremely naturalistic. The former class is -more or less confined to statuettes, of which a number are collected in -Perdrizet’s _Bronzes grecs d’Egypte de la Collection Fouquet_, and the -account of the Mahdia ship in _Monuments Piot_ for 1909 and 1910. These -include gnomes, pygmies, dwarfs (Fig. 21), and little obscene figures -of all kinds. Needless to say, Praxitelean qualities of _morbidezza_ -and impressionism have no place in art of this kind. We may presume -that the demand was primarily foreign and not Greek, though all the -skill of Greek sculpture is employed in the faultless execution of many -of them. Their Alexandrian origin is better attested than that of the -second class of extremely naturalistic works. - -The latter are more important and more interesting. They include some -of the most skilful works of sculpture ever achieved. The splendid -negro’s head of Berlin[45] and the fisherman of the Louvre are of -undoubted Alexandrian origin, but such works as the fisherman and the -peasant woman of the Conservatori[46] or the old women of the Capitol -and of Dresden are not so clear in their origin. When we get a statue -of this type, combined with some clearly Alexandrian quality, such as -the so-called Diogenes of the Villa Albani[47]--a naked beggar carried -out with fine realism but also with considerable _morbidezza_ and -impressionism--we may claim an Alexandrian origin; but impressionism is -rare among such statues, as the artists seem to love to dwell on every -detail. We may, however, regard them as a single class irrespective of -their individual origin. The Louvre fisherman[48] deserves careful -study for its absolutely unsparing truth to nature. The slackness of -skin caused by long wading in water, the swelling of the veins through -hard work, the feebleness and hollowness of chest due to old age or -disease, the coarse peasant’s head, in which each wrinkle is faithfully -delineated, deserve our wonder if not our admiration. The little -companion pair in the Conservatori, though inferior in workmanship as -Roman copies, are also full of interest for their vitality and truth. -Finest of all perhaps is the splendid old woman’s head in Dresden (Fig. -22), with its marvellous mimicry of the ravages of age. Such art is -decadent, because it is pessimistic, cynical, and unhappy, and because -it refuses to select and idealize as it might do even in studies of -decay; but of its brilliant execution there can be no doubt. Only -the Chinese have made grotesques which can rank with the products of -Alexandria. - -This is a convenient place for dealing with the great series of -Hellenistic reliefs, though it is no longer possible to maintain -that these have a uniform and common origin either in Alexandria or -in Imperial Rome.[49] We have seen their beginning in the Telephos -frieze, the first to show us a pictorial background and an episodic -mythological treatment. The appearance of the relief panel as a -self-sufficient whole without architectural background is an invention -of the Hellenistic age as early as the third century B.C., but it -continues as an artistic force right through Roman into mediaeval and -modern art. Certainly not even the Hellenistic reliefs have a common -origin, but it is not impossible that Alexandria was the home of one -class of them, the pre-eminently pastoral scenes like the Grimani -reliefs in Vienna (Fig. 23). Alexandria was the greatest city of the -Hellenistic world and the farthest from any conception of the pastoral -life of the country. It is, therefore, possible that the rise of the -pastoral tendency in art was connected with the Alexandrian craving -for novelty and variety in a sphere of which it knew nothing. It is -certain that the pastoral poems of Theocritos delighted the citizens of -Alexandria, and the Hellenistic pastoral relief is strictly analogous -to the poems of Theocritos. It shows a countryside of the Watteau type -with satyrs and nymphs to correspond to the shepherds and shepherdesses -of the court of Louis XIV. It is an artificial country without a touch -of the reality of nature. Thus the pastoral reliefs and the poems of -Theocritos represent the one element of idealism in the materialistic -culture of Alexandria. - -[Illustration: 21] - -[Illustration: 23] - -[Illustration: 22] - -[Illustration: 24] - -The Hellenistic reliefs may be divided into three classes: the -pastoral reliefs such as the scenes showing sheep and a lioness and -cubs, called the Grimani reliefs, in Vienna; mythological reliefs -like the Bellerophon and Pegasus of the Palazzo Spada,[50] or Perseus -and Andromeda of the Capitol[51] in Rome; and more complicated little -scenes or groups like the Menander relief of the Lateran,[52] the -Apotheosis of Homer,[53] the slaying of the Niobids,[54] or the visit -of Dionysos to a dramatic poet.[55] They are all closely related to -painting--how closely a reference to Pompeian wall-paintings or mosaics -like the famous Praenestine pavement will show--but there are some -differences between the groups which are worthy of mention. The -pastoral scenes are straightforward and naturalistic. The little group -of a countryman driving a cow past a ruined temple in Munich is a good -example of straightforward naturalism. The mythological reliefs are -usually distinctly affected in style. The gesture with which Perseus -receives Andromeda is like that of an exquisite handing a lady from -her carriage. Bellerophon waters his horse with a nonchalant air.[56] -Daedalos and Icaros[57] present a curious mixture of affectation and -realism. But it may now be regarded as certain that the Spada reliefs -are Augustan in date at the earliest, and the affectation may well be -imported. This is, indeed, partially demonstrated by a comparison of -the two copies of the Daedalos-Icaros group in the Villa Albani, of -which one is Roman, the other probably late Hellenistic. At the same -time it is remarkable that the figures of the mythological reliefs all -show the long slender proportions of Lysippos. This at once suggests a -Rhodian connexion. Mythological groups are favourites in Rhodes, and it -is the one place where the Lysippic tradition certainly lasted. It is -not a wholly hazardous suggestion to propose a Rhodian origin for the -mythological, and an Alexandrian origin for the pastoral, reliefs. One -might be tempted, therefore, to ascribe the most intimate and domestic -scenes to Pergamon, but there is insufficient evidence for proof at -present, though the reliefs deserve careful study with these possible -divisions in mind. - -In general we can only point out their fine naturalism and perfect -execution. Their artists seem to have mastered all the problems of -perspective and to deal with the third dimension as easily as with the -other two. It is natural to notice some advance in freedom of style. -The earlier reliefs, like the Telephos frieze, or the Dolon relief,[58] -are in less pronounced relief and with less carefully conceived -perspective. Later reliefs like the so-called Menander relief show -some of the figures in part detached from the background, while the -perspective of a group is most subtly graded. We may compare the finest -of them with the bronze doors of the Florentine Baptistery and their -marvellous panels. - -We are still left with one important monument of Alexandrian art which -perhaps can be treated most fitly in connexion with the pastoral -reliefs--the great statue of the Nile in the Braccio Nuovo of the -Vatican (Fig. 24). The god lies out at length supported on his elbow, -and little boys, representing the cubits of his annual rise, play -about over him. The work is a Roman copy, and tells us little of -technique, but the _putti_ are interesting as a typical Hellenistic -development. This is the period in which Eros, who has been growing -steadily younger from the youth of Praxiteles to the boy of Lysippos, -turns finally into the chubby Roman Cupid or Amorino of Renaissance -art. As such he helps Aphrodite in her toilet or performs all manner of -tasks in the fine frieze of Erotes at Ephesos. It is the logical ending -of the transformation of mythology into _genre_. Alexandrian art is -essentially mundane and frivolous, sceptical and humorous. Her artists -would have appreciated the earlier Pergamene developments, but they -would have laughed at the clumsy idealism of the great altar frieze. -Nor would they have felt much sympathy with the athletic art of Rhodes. - -We may perhaps consider here the little we know of the art of Antioch, -since it has certain points in common with that of Alexandria. The -chief monument used in all discussion of Antiochene art is the statue -of Antioch[59] on the Orontes, made by Eutychides, a pupil of Lysippos. -A small copy of this in the Vatican shows us a fine seated figure -crowned with the turreted crown, who rests her foot on a little male -figure with outstretched arms representing the stream of the Orontes. -Unfortunately the copy is too small to give us much information about -the artist, though he seems to have used the same idea for another -statue of the Eurotas. We have, however, a figure of Aphrodite from -Egypt (Fig. 25), which shows a supporting Triton in an attitude -indubitably connected with the figure of the Orontes. This is an -Egyptian work, but it argues some artistic connexion between Alexandria -and the Seleucid capital. Another link is given us by the statement[60] -that the Apollo at Daphne near Antioch was made by Bryaxis, the author -of the Alexandrian Sarapis. - -Antioch, though like Alexandria in many respects--in her -turbulent population, her cosmopolitanism, her irreverence for -all authority--seems never to have developed the cultured love of -literature and the arts which we find at Pergamon and on the Nile. She -remained in all probability a collector and not an originator of art. -The glimpses which we can get of her statues indicate a catholic taste. -The Apollo seated on the Omphalos, which decorates the Seleucid coins, -resembles the Lysippic type, and a Herakles type, also found on Syrian -coins and reproduced in the bronze colossus of the Conservatori, has -some connexion with the later Sikyonian school. By the side of these we -must place the Apollo of Bryaxis. - -Ephesos, a strong place more or less at the meeting-point of three -empires, has left us considerable remains of Hellenistic art. Her -bronze athlete at Vienna (Fig. 26) belongs to a later development of -the Scopaic school; her frieze of Erotes[61] is more in the Alexandrian -manner. Some beautiful bronzes, in particular a Herakles attacking a -centaur,[62] are in the mixed Lysippo-Scopaic manner. There are also -traces of Praxitelean influence in her art. - -These cosmopolitan collecting centres cannot tell us much of the -methods of Hellenistic art. Our best resource is to examine more -closely the works of certified origin. Ephesos is, however, important -for its school of copyists. The marble copies of the Attalid -dedications were perhaps made here, and Agasias, the author of the -Borghese Fighter,[63] was an Ephesian by birth, although a Rhodian by -education. - -[Illustration: 25] - -[Illustration: 26] - - - - -III - -THE RHODIAN SCHOOL - - -The school of Rhodes stands on a different footing from that of -Pergamon or Alexandria. The latter were new foundations, or at least -new societies, in which the Greek element was associated with much -that was alien and exotic. The orgiastic wildness of Phrygia went far -to influence the art of Pergamon, whether in its earlier sensuality -or its later pageantry of exaggerated triumph. In Alexandria and in -Antioch non-Greek races imported into Hellenic art the cynicism and -the world-weariness of older and exhausted civilizations. But Rhodes -was pure Greek and a living, growing, prosperous community without -recollections of humiliation and defeat. Rhodes as a city had been born -of the union of Lindos, Kameiros, and Ialysos at the end of the fifth -century. The fourth century brought slow growth, but the successful -defence against Demetrios Poliorcetes in its last decade opened a new -chapter in Rhodian history. Henceforward Rhodes was mistress of an -empire. She acquired possessions on the mainland; her fleet rode and -controlled her neighbouring seas; her trade stretched out tentacles in -all directions; and among the semi-barbarous Hellenistic kingdoms she -alone carried proudly the torch of undefiled Hellenic tradition. Chares -of Lindos, a pupil of Lysippos, headed the long roll of her sculptors; -her painter, Protogenes, had but one rival in the Sikyonian Apelles. -Thus from the first she boasted great artists, closely connected too -with the school of Sikyon. Her Dorian sympathies naturally isolated -her from the Attic school and from the mixed Praxitelean-Scopaic -school of the Ionian mainland. Her Peloponnesian and Sikyonian -connexions identified her at once with athletic art and with the school -of Lysippos. Thus while Alexandria and Pergamon patronized marble -sculpture, Rhodes now becomes the home of bronze casting. Her vast -Colossus was matched by at least one hundred more statues of remarkable -size, and the roll of her artists as recorded in inscriptions is -noteworthy for its length. The great siege gave that impulse of -idealism which is necessary for the growth of any artistic development, -and the traditional friendship with the rising power of Rome helped -her to preserve her prosperity and independence later than any of her -neighbours. The last great work of Rhodian art, the Laocoon, is almost -as late as the Empire, and the whole period of two hundred and fifty -years between it and the Colossus is marked by an immense output of -sculpture. - -We have already suggested that the Hellenistic art of Rhodes began -under the dominant influence of the athletic school of Lysippos. We -must first examine the character and achievements of this school. -Daippos, Boedas, and Euthykrates are said to have been sons and pupils -of the great Sikyonian. Of these Euthykrates was the best known, -and Pliny tells us that he followed his father’s carefulness rather -than his elegance, and that his style was more severe than genial -(‘constantiam potius imitatus patris quam elegantiam austero maluit -genere quam iucundo placere’).[64] His works were mainly athletic or -equestrian, with a few female subjects, and his pupil Tisicrates was -a faithful copyist of the style of Lysippos, so much so, in fact, that -his works could hardly be distinguished from the master’s. Daippos made -a _perixyomenos_ or athlete scraping himself,[65] and Boedas made an -_adorans_ or praying figure.[66] - -Pliny’s description is important, because it assures us of the -faithfulness with which the pupils of Lysippos kept to their master’s -style. This is the basis for the argument of those who see in the -Apoxyomenos of the Vatican a work of the pupil Daippos rather than the -master; but the argument is two-edged, if Lysippos’ own style is to be -found in the Agias, since the two statues have little in common. The -mention of the _adorans_ enables us to connect two well-known bronzes -with this school--the Praying Boy of Berlin (Fig. 27) and the Resting -Hermes of Naples (Fig. 28). The Praying Boy is a subject unparalleled -elsewhere, and belongs to the early Hellenistic age. He can hardly be -other than a copy of the statue of Boedas. The slender proportions -and small head follow the Lysippic canon, and the easy swing of the -body proves its chronological position. This figure and the others, -which we shall subsequently notice, show a new growth of naturalism -by less insistence on the outlines of the torso muscles. The average -body in repose does not show the massive muscles of Pheidian or even -of Lysippic art, and the post-Lysippic sculptors of the third century -tend to soften and naturalize the torso to a considerable extent. -The Pergamene Dying Gaul is a good example of this fine restraint, -which was utterly abandoned by the later Pergamene school and even -by the late Rhodians, but which in all third-century art of Rhodes -is noteworthy. The Resting Hermes is a fine copy of a post-Lysippic -original, which stood in close connexion with the Praying Boy. The -torso, slender, restrained, and full of vitality, shows the same -treatment, and must belong to the Lysippic school. - -[Illustration: 27] - -[Illustration: 28] - -Eutychides of Sikyon, another pupil of Lysippos, is known to us only -from his Antioch.[67] This figure, even in its poor copy, is of great -importance, since it is almost the only certified draped female -figure of the Lysippic school. Our whole theory of Lysippic and early -Rhodian drapery must, therefore, rest upon it. A comparison with the -Herculaneum figure[68] in Dresden will show at once a considerable -resemblance in treatment, so much so, in fact, that it has caused the -attribution of the Dresden figure to the Lysippic school. This cannot -be allowed because of the greater resemblance to Attic grave-reliefs -and the Mantinean basis, which demonstrates the origin of the type in -the school of Praxiteles.[69] But it is sufficient to show that the -new scheme of the school of Praxiteles was adopted in the main by the -pupils of Lysippos; their faithfulness to their teacher will incline -us to the belief that Lysippos used it also. This type of drapery -shows a tendency to an artificially effective or artistic arrangement -rather than to complete simplicity of naturalism like the drapery of -Praxiteles himself, but it is important to notice that it does not -become purely artificial or stereotyped till much later, and that all -the early examples preserve a considerable share of freer naturalism. -The characteristic of the drapery is an opposition of folds in many -differing directions, so as to counteract the uniformity of the -older Pheidian type. The folds themselves are quite natural; it is only -in their arrangement that we find the element of art. - -The Antioch permits us to assume the tall figure swathed in a long thin -cloak as the female type of the Lysippic school, and therefore of the -early Rhodian school, while the Praying Boy and the Resting Hermes give -us the male type. The close connexion postulated rests on the fact that -Chares of Lindos, the author of Rhodes’ most famous statue, the great -Colossus, was himself a member of the Sikyonian school and a pupil of -the master. But the Colossus itself is unknown to us in any certain -copy, and therefore we cannot speak with full knowledge of his art. -Some statuettes in bronze in marked Lysippic style may well reproduce -the statue, but we cannot feel the necessary certainty in their -identification. - -There is a group of athletic statues of the third century which carry -out the Lysippic tradition to its logical conclusion, and which -consequently we are practically bound to attribute to Rhodian artists. -But until we have a definite copy of Chares’ work we must argue -backwards to the first Rhodian school, of which we have no direct -information, from the later Rhodian school, of which we know a great -deal. The Laocoon[70] and the Farnese Bull[71] are certified works -of Rhodian art of the first century B.C., and they show us a type -of male figure which is quite distinct from the types of Pergamene -and Alexandrian art. We are, therefore, entitled to argue back to -the Rhodian school of the third century, and to attribute to it such -athletic sculpture as is clearly of the earlier date while offering -distinct technical and stylistic resemblances to the later groups. -The male figures of this later period differ from the Pergamene works, -with which they are most easily compared, in certain well-defined -points. The heads are smaller and rounder and the hair is rougher and -less carefully arranged. The eyebrows have a tendency to form sharp -angles with the nose instead of the broad straight curves of the -Pergamene brows. This makes the bridge of the nose thinner and usually -substitutes vertical forehead wrinkles for the swelling frontal sinus -of Pergamene work. Except in cases of great strain the torso muscles -are treated with more restraint, but the veins receive more careful -attention, especially on the abdomen. In the back a more broken-up -system of muscles replaces the great upright rolls on either side of -the backbone, which mark Pergamene work. Finally, the proportions are -slighter and more Lysippic. - -These considerations apply most powerfully to two great statues of -the Louvre, whose third-century date is almost certain: the Borghese -Warrior[72] and the Jason (Fig. 30). The former statue is by Agasias -of Ephesos, an artist whom we can date with some degree of certainty -in the middle of the third century. The Jason comes so close to the -Lysippic type of Poseidon on the one hand and to the Fighter of Agasias -on the other, that the Lysippic-Rhodian origin of the two is fairly -well established. The analogies of the Borghese Warrior with the -Apoxyomenos have been often pointed out, but his resemblances to the -Laocoon and the Farnese groups require an equal recognition. Both the -Louvre statues show the influence of a later generation on the Lysippic -type. While reproducing the general proportions, each develops -Lysippic innovations to a further degree. Lysippos made a distinct -advance in anatomical skill, but both these statues show a more exact -scientific knowledge. While their torso muscles are less prominent, -they reveal new details in abdomen, groin, and the inner side of the -thighs, unknown to the earlier sculptor. They also develop much further -the Lysippic substitution of an all-round figure for a merely frontal -one. Each of them can be regarded effectively from any point of view, -and neither has any real front. They, therefore, represent a distinct -technical advance. But at the same time they show a decline in artistic -feeling, for there is perhaps too much science about them. They belong -to a school immensely interested in detail, and tending, therefore, -to lose its grasp on the general treatment. The anatomical structure -of the male form cannot be rendered more perfectly than in the statue -of Agasias, so well known to all art students, but the statue affects -us with a feeling of strain and discomfort from its want of unity and -repose. All the athletic statues of the Rhodian school seem to be -restless and unsatisfied. There is none of the calm repose about them -that marked earlier Greek art. The desire to display newly acquired -scientific knowledge invariably demands a strained and therefore -disquieting motive. As we shall see when we come to examine the Laocoon -later, the influence of the stage appears to be affecting sculpture. -Poses are histrionic, and expression begins to depend upon grimaces and -action rather than upon more subtle indications of feeling. - -With the Borghese Fighter and the Jason we may class, perhaps, a work -like the Actaeon torso in the Louvre,[73] and also that much discussed -and very beautiful work, the Subiaco Youth.[74] This shows the same -restraint in torso modelling which distinguished the Praying Boy and -the Resting Hermes, but in the strain of its attitude it resembles -rather the Fighter of Agasias, especially in the twist of the body -above the waist, which Lysippos had originated and which his pupils -tend to exaggerate. One of the disquieting features of the Borghese -Fighter is that he implies the presence of another figure which is not -there. He is a fighter without an opponent. The Subiaco Boy is in the -same plight. His attitude can hardly be other than that of a suppliant -touching chin and knee of his enemy in Greek fashion. His artistic -defect is that he again is a suppliant without an enemy, part of a -group without his counterpart. In their anxiety to study the human -figure in all positions the Rhodian artists were apt to overlook the -question of artistic unity. - -[Illustration: 29] - -[Illustration: 30] - -Two fine bronzes in the Terme Museum may be attributed with some -certainty to Rhodian artists, in view of the Rhodian monopoly of -Hellenistic bronze casting. Both are Greek originals--the seated -boxer[75] and the hero resting on a lance (Fig. 29). The latter is -commonly called a portrait of some Hellenistic prince, but the absence -of the royal tiara or any personal indications is significant rather of -a heroic type. The face is strongly individual, but so is that of the -Boxer, the Fighter of Agasias, and even the Jason. We have no reason to -see a portrait in any of them, but personality is beginning to affect -even ideal statues in the Hellenistic age. The hero with the lance -is a fine, if rather histrionic, figure more or less following the -Lysippic type of Alexander with the lance[76] and showing a somewhat -massive and emphatic rendering of a Lysippic type. He belongs to the -later Rhodian school, into which exaggeration has crept, rather than to -the more restrained art of the third century. The Boxer, on the other -hand, brutal and coarse as his expression is, has no trace of muscular -exaggeration, and is an earlier work. His broken nose, swollen ears, -scarred face, and blood-bespattered hair show the unsparing realism of -the artist. He is another instance of the all-round statue of the late -Lysippic school, a masterpiece of technique, if a somewhat disagreeable -work of art. - -We can connect the names and the works of few of the earlier Rhodian -artists, but Boethos of Chalcedon is now established as a worker in -Rhodes,[77] where he received the honour of προξενία. Pliny mentions -his Boy Strangling a Goose,[78] and the many copies of this statue in -existence give us a good idea of its popularity. Boethos was apparently -a silversmith and also a sculptor of boys. He was famous as a maker -of elaborate couches, and we are possibly the possessors of such a -couch in the fine bronze litter of the Conservatori Museum,[79] on -which are little boys’ heads strikingly similar to the Boy with the -Goose. This group is often quoted as an example of the new feeling for -_genre_ or homely domestic detail in sculpture. It is, in fact, of -great importance for its new recognition of the comic in art, and for -the appearance of the fat chubby boy like the Erotes of Ephesos or the -little statuettes of Alexandria. The small boy or girl now becomes a -favourite subject of the sculptor, and we may compare closely with the -Boy of Boethos the Eros and Psyche of the Capitol (Fig. 32), who are -really a little boy and girl engaged in a children’s game. - -We must now turn to another very important side of Rhodian art--the -delineation of female drapery. The followers of Lysippos favoured an -austere style, and the nude female figure has no place in Rhodian art. -But while the other sculptors of the Hellenistic world were modifying -and to some extent vulgarizing the beautiful conceptions of Scopas -and Praxiteles, the Rhodians were attacking the draped female figure -as they inherited it from Praxiteles and Lysippos, and producing -modifications just as interesting and important as those connected with -the athletic statue. - -[Illustration: 31] - -[Illustration: 32] - -[Illustration: 33] - -We know that Philiskos of Rhodes was the author of a group of Muses -which was much admired in Rome. It has been suggested that the new type -of female drapery which appears on an altar from Halicarnassos and on -the relief of the Apotheosis of Homer by Archelaos of Priene, certainly -a member of the Rhodian school, was his work.[80] This new type of -drapery is to be seen also in a number of statues of Muses, of which -we have a collection from Miletos in the museum of Constantinople.[81] -It may be described most simply as an aggravation and exaggeration of -the style of drapery introduced by the school of Praxiteles. The desire -to get a series of folds at sharply contrasting angles leads to a very -artificial arrangement of the dress, which produces an inharmonious -effect. But there is a new development which deserves our attention. -Transparent drapery had been elaborated by Alkamenes and the pupils -of Pheidias, but always with the intention of displaying the body -beneath it. The new drapery of the Muses is transparent with the desire -to display other drapery beneath it. The earlier Greeks had used a -thick mantle over a transparent chiton, but the Rhodian author of the -new drapery used a transparent mantle over a clinging chiton. He thus -doubles the subtlety of his technique, and provides himself with a -series of new and intricate problems, just as the athletic sculptor -does with his anatomical discoveries. - -This transparent mantle immediately obtained an immense vogue, and it -comes down into Roman art as a strong rival of the late Praxitelean -drapery, which, however, still prevails by the side of the other. The -greater number of Roman female draped statues use one or the other type -of garments. The Milesian Muses are not in themselves great works of -art. The real technical possibilities of the new drapery are better -displayed by a wonderful figure from Magnesia in Constantinople (Fig. -31), in which the new fashion is rendered with consummate skill. It -is of considerable importance that we should date this change in -drapery as accurately as possible. The date hitherto proposed for its -supposed author Philiskos has been put about 220 B.C. The Apotheosis -of Homer is taken to be about 210 judging from a portrait of Ptolemy -IV appearing in it, and the Halicarnassos base is put about the same -time. But the portrait is by no means certainly that of Ptolemy IV. -It is more like Ptolemy II, and might belong to any period. Philiskos -himself has nothing to do with it. A female figure by him with a -signed base has been discovered in Thasos (Fig. 33). The drapery of -this female figure follows the type of the Mantinean basis,[82] and -the earlier Muses group of the Vatican. The inscription is not earlier -than the first century B.C. Philiskos, then, was a late artist who -used the Praxitelean drapery. As for the transparent drapery, it is -highly improbable that it was invented before the frieze of the great -altar at Pergamon. We know that Rhodian artists worked on this altar, -and Rhodian style is visible in some of the figures, but transparent -drapery of the Rhodian type appears nowhere on the frieze. There seems -to be no reason to date any figure wearing this drapery earlier than -190 B.C., and we should therefore attribute it to the second century. -We have seen in the Antioch of Eutychides the Praxitelean type taken -over by the earlier Rhodian artists in the third century. Have we any -link by which we can connect the transparent mantle with the earlier -form? - -[Illustration: 34] - -The answer to this question is provided by one of the greatest statues -of antiquity, the Victory of Samothrace (Fig. 34). The date and school -of this masterpiece are still warmly disputed, and the current view -tends to connect it with the victory of Demetrios Poliorcetes in 306, -by which he won the command of the sea. Coins of Demetrios show a -trumpet-blowing Victory on the prow of a ship in an attitude closely -resembling the Louvre statue. But the statue has no connexion with -the coin, for a detailed study of the neck and fragments of the right -shoulder reveals the impossibility of the trumpet-blowing attitude. -The right hand and arm are raised high and backwards probably with a -victor’s wreath. Moreover, the coin has a low girdle and no cloak, the -statue the high third-century girdle and a great flapping mantle. The -type is not so rare as might be expected. We have it in small bronzes, -and we have it also _in situ_ on a votive statue in Rhodes. The -Victory of Samothrace is a later version of the statue possibly erected -by Demetrios. Its Rhodian origin depends partly on the extraordinary -_finesse_ and delicate naturalism of its drapery, a study never popular -in Pergamon, and partly on the strong probability, not yet decisively -proved, that the marble of its base is Rhodian. The latter point may -provide definite proof, but the former is the one on which we must at -present rely. The Rhodian origin or at least the Lysippic connexions -of the statue are further supported by the twist above the waist so -universal among the followers of that artist and the strong vital -momentary pose, which is wrongly rendered in the present attitude of -the statue. It is not a standing figure, but a Victory who is just -alighting after flight, and it should therefore be tilted farther -forward. The only statue now existing which presents a real parallel to -the intricate folds of the Victory’s drapery is the Magnesian statue -already mentioned,[83] which belongs to the new Rhodian drapery school. -But the mantle of the Victory is older in type. Thus the Victory’s -drapery stands midway between the Antioch figure and the new Rhodian -fashion. It shows just that scientific naturalism which we have noticed -in the anatomy of the athletic figures, and just that tendency to miss -the perfect whole by an over-anxious care for detail. The date for such -work is 250 and not 300 B.C. The Chiaramonti Niobid[84] is a work of -similar tendency though of a different school, and must fall about the -same date. - -We now possess some evidence for the continuous study and development -of female drapery at Rhodes parallel to the study and development of -the male form. The Rhodian school is in fact the most industrious and -the most scientific of all the Hellenistic art centres. In mastery of -detail they are unapproachable, but they have ceased to care much for -motive or idealism in their subjects. To such art both impressionism -and romantic feeling are foreign. Rhodian art is very versatile and -very straightforward, but its constant aspiration after the unusual -renders it in the end monotonous. - -The earlier and later periods of Rhodian art are separated by the -quarrel with Rome and consequent loss of the land-empire in 167 B.C. -This ended the real independence of Rhodes, and with it disappeared -the inventive genius of her artists. She continued for another century -to be the great and almost the sole centre of art production, for both -Pergamon and Alexandria now lost all artistic importance, but she -ceased to develop and originate. The works of her second period are -brilliant in the extreme, but they are no longer vital and progressive. - -It is significant that the best-known works of this period are great -groups rather than single statues. We may notice the Laocoon group, the -Farnese Bull, the ‘Pasquino’ of Ajax and Patroclos, the Scylla group, -and the group of Odysseus with the Cyclops. Of these the earliest is -perhaps the Farnese Bull,[85] which we possess in an Antonine copy at -Naples from the Baths of Caracalla. It represents the punishment of -Dirce by Zethos and Amphion for her cruelty to their mother Antiope. -The two heroes hold the bull, to whose horns they are about to tie -the unfortunate Dirce. It was made by Apollonios and Tauriskos of -Tralles, and brought from Rhodes to Rome by Asinius Pollio. The date -can be fixed by a comparison of inscriptions to about the year 130 -B.C. Tauriskos’ son has signed a base at Magnesia about 100 B.C. Both -Tauriskos and Apollonios were adopted by Menecrates, son of Menecrates, -one of the artists of the Pergamon frieze. But in examining the group -we must beware of the Roman additions and restorations, which include -nearly all the landscape details together with the figure of Antiope -and the mountain god. The head of Zethos is a portrait of Caracalla. -The group has been adapted to act as a centre-piece for the great hall -of the Baths of Caracalla, and consequently has been made square. -Even in its original form, however, it must have been a good example -of all-round sculpture. The figures are Lysippic, and the lower part -of Dirce, which is the only antique part of her, shows more archaic -drapery than usual. This is only what we might expect from an art -which has passed its prime. Novelty of treatment is no longer a first -essential. Tauriskos also made figures called Hermerotes. These must -have been herm figures with an Eros head similar to a statue in -the courtyard of the Conservatori Museum, and comparable with the -Hermathena, which belonged to Cicero. Herms of all kinds became very -popular in Greco-Roman art, and we see here in Rhodes perhaps the first -development of the old archaistic Dionysos herms into more modern -studies. - -Another dramatic group similar to that of the Farnese Bull and the -Laocoon was the lost group by Aristonides of Rhodes, showing Athamas in -remorse for the murder of his son, Learchos. Pliny tells a foolish tale -that the sculptor mixed iron with the copper in order to portray the -blush of shame, a story told also about the Jocasta of Silanion. - -A little figure of Odysseus (Fig. 35) in the Chiaramonti gallery of -the Vatican holding out a bowl of wine to the Cyclops must be part -of another mythological group of this period. The movement and action -of the hero are typically Rhodian, and his face corresponds to the -Rhodian type. The rest of the group is lost. The group of Scylla and -the sailors of Odysseus is represented only by a much mutilated and -fragmentary copy in Oxford, which gives us little information. - -We have more copies of the well-known Pasquino group of Menelaos -or Ajax and Patroclos. There are fragments in the Vatican, and a -well-preserved replica in the Loggia dei Lanzi in Florence (Fig. 36). -Here again the extraordinary interest in anatomical forms is shown not -only in the strain and twist of the living hero--the invariable twist -of all these Rhodian figures--but in the admirable contrast between the -vivid living body and the relaxed corpse. This contrasting of physical -and mental conditions is a part of the dramatic feeling in later -Rhodian art, which has quite abandoned its earlier simplicity and has -followed on the lines of _baroque_ extravagance laid down by the second -Pergamene school. - -[Illustration: 35] - -[Illustration: 36] - -Of all the groups the best known and the most instructive is the -latest of all, the Laocoon.[86] In this marvellous group we see the -full development of the effect of strained agony on the human form, -and we see the mature form contrasted both with an active youth’s body -and with the semi-inanimate body of the younger boy. When we have -removed the restorations and lowered the right arm of Laocoon nearer -to his head, we get a perfect group-design unified by the terrible -serpent-coils and by the central theme of agony. The torso muscles -of Laocoon are fully developed and even exaggerated, though not to -the same extent as those of the Pergamene frieze, but the boys’ forms -are simpler, and all reflect the basic principles of Rhodian art -already enumerated. Pain is shown by the downward sloping eyebrows with -sharp interior angles, by the half-closed eyes, wrinkled forehead, and -parted lips. The hair is wild, and all the veins of the body stand out -sharply. The twist above the waist occurs in all three bodies. It is -interesting to notice that even in the Laocoon, the latest work of the -most scientific school of Greek sculpture, anatomical accuracy is still -lacking. The lower curve of the ribs above the abdomen follows a line -impossible in nature, and the left thumb of the elder son is provided -with three joints instead of the normal two. Neither the Laocoon nor -any one of the other Rhodian groups is perfectly satisfactory to modern -taste. There is too much strain, too much agony, too little relief or -repose. Every inch of the group is illustrative of pain and passion. -Our sense of sympathy is deadened by excessive emphasis and repetition. -But in technical skill the group has never been surpassed. - -A close parallel to the head of the Laocoon is found in the bearded -centaur of the pair made by Aristeas and Papias of Aphrodisias (Fig. -38). Copies of this statue existing in the Capitol and in the Louvre -show the despair of the elderly victim of love in the guise of a -centaur tormented by a little Eros on his back. The companion figure -(Fig. 37) is young and delights in the persuasions of his rider. -This group of rather obvious allegory belongs to the Antonine age, -but the resemblance to the Laocoon proves a first-century original, -which is interesting because it is one of the earliest examples of a -corresponding pair of statues clearly designed for house decoration. -The growth of ‘cabinet pieces’, as opposed to temple or national -dedications, now develops into the whole mass of furniture sculpture -in the shape of candelabra, table-legs, consoles, decorative herms, -&c., which mark the imperial age. - -The school of Rhodes ends in extraordinary brilliance. There is nothing -decadent in its technique, nothing paltry in its conceptions. We have -seen the very pure and slightly finicky naturalism of the early third -century give way to a rather more _baroque_ extravagance in detail, -but in neither its earlier nor its later stage did the purest of the -Hellenistic schools affect the exaggerations of Alexandria or Pergamon. -In Rhodes, at any rate, the steady development of Greek sculpture -reached its perfect and logical conclusion. We have seen it start -with a great idealism and no technique at all. In the fifth century -technique and idealism are almost equally balanced. In the Laocoon the -last word of technical perfection is spoken, but there is no idealism -at all, only a man and two boys writhing in the grasp of serpents. It -is not photographic naturalism, but it is histrionic, artificial, and -dead. We cannot believe in the Laocoon as we believe in the Hermes of -Praxiteles. - -[Illustration: 37] - -[Illustration: 38] - - - - -IV - -THE MAINLAND SCHOOLS DURING THE HELLENISTIC AGE - - -While the full tide of artistic development was running in the new -societies of Pergamon, Rhodes, and Alexandria, the Greek mainland -became a backwater. The rise of the kingdoms meant the decline of -the old autonomous city states. Athens in particular fell into the -background on account of her uncompromising hostility to the power of -Macedonia. In spite of some brief periods of revival, her destiny was -for the future rarely in her own hands, and her political subordination -seems to have reacted with great rapidity upon her artistic output. She -remained for another century after the death of Alexander the home of -philosophy, but her art began to revive only after the Roman conquest, -in a new form, which will require later consideration. Here at least -the Hellenistic age is a period of rapid decadence and decline. - -The Peloponnese is in much the same position. The pupils of Lysippos -found their best clients abroad, and left no successors of importance -at home. The political loss of power was here intensified by a growing -poverty. The new wealth which began to pour into Europe as the result -of the conquest of Asia went either to Macedonia or to those states -which had sent mercenaries to Alexander’s army. The future prosperity -of Greece was in the hands of Arcadia, Achaia, and Aetolia rather than -Argos, Sparta, and Sikyon. The new states had few artistic traditions, -and the old states had no means of gratifying theirs. The inevitable -result was a great decline in artistic output as well as in artistic -skill. Almost the only sphere left for sculpture was the erection of -formal honorary statues to distinguished or wealthy individuals, a type -of work which does not beget great art. - -[Illustration: 39] - -[Illustration: 40] - -[Illustration: 41] - -The first half of the third century was a period of very good work in -portraiture, which is, however, a subject by itself. The Demosthenes -of Polyeuctes is dated about 280 B.C., and the statues of Aeschines, -Aristotle, and others show the existence of an admirable school of -portrait sculptors at this time in Athens. But ideal sculpture shows -a sad falling-off. The Themis of Chairestratos (Fig. 40) belongs -approximately to this period, and it is marked by a great formality, -not only in pose but in the treatment of hair and drapery. The -classical period of sculpture in Athens was followed by what we must -call an academic period. The foreign schools were developing on lines -of naturalism, but at home sculptors tended merely to formalize -the work of the fourth-century masters, and to produce statues of -mechanical correctness without any vitality at all. We have seen the -beginning of this tendency in the drapery system of the followers of -Praxiteles. It now affects the whole of Attic sculpture. Old types -are adopted again and again, until they become purely mechanical. -Drapery styles are similarly used up, and the increasing formality of -every department stifles entirely the possibilities of originality. -The Hermes of Andros (Fig. 39) is a good example of this kind of -crystallization of types. The statue was found in connexion with a -tomb, and it is clearly a memorial statue. Its companion was a female -figure reproducing exactly the pose and drapery of the draped -female figure from Herculaneum at Dresden. The date would seem to be -late third century. The Hermes itself is a replica of a type known in -the Antinous of the Belvedere and other statues, and is a product of -the Praxitelean school, like the Dresden figure. But the influence -of Praxiteles is not alone in it. We have a clear use of Lysippic -proportions and some Lysippic influence in the head. This eclecticism -is an invariable mark of archaistic art. The sculptor, who has no new -message of his own to deliver, looks back to antiquity for his types, -but does not imitate one statue directly. The only form of originality -which he is able to use is originality of combination and selection. -Consequently he absorbs details from several artists and produces -work which we label Lysippo-Scopaic, or Lysippo-Praxitelean, &c. We -have seen how the late fourth-century artists in Asia Minor combined -characteristics of Scopas and Praxiteles. The late fourth-century -and third-century Attic artists made use of all their predecessors, -and produced statues in which we can detect the _disiecta membra_ of -half a dozen styles. At the same time we may recognize the general -predominance of Praxitelean tradition over that of the other artists -and a universal predilection for marble instead of bronze. - -One of the most interesting Hellenistic works of the Attic school is -the bronze figure from Anticythera,[87] which is still the subject of -much dispute. It is a typical piece of eclecticism. The pose and twist -of the shoulder and upper part of the torso are Lysippic, while the -head is a mixture of Praxiteles and Scopas. The result, as might be -expected, is somewhat inharmonious. In shape and profile the head is -mainly Praxitelean, and therefore on its discovery it was acclaimed -as a Praxitelean original. But looking from the front we at once see -the resemblance to the Scopaic Meleager type,[88] with its broad head, -slight chin, and fringe of short upright locks like little flames. The -head, and indeed the whole statue, is not unlike the bronze athlete of -Ephesos,[89] which has the same hair and facial type, together with a -similar rather heavy Lysippic body. This heaviness of the torso in both -statues shows that the Lysippic ideal is not followed directly, but -rather the Attic version of it as used in the Agias of Delphi.[90] - -Another Attico-Lysippic figure is preserved for us in a number of -replicas, of which the two best known are the Hermes from Atalanta in -Athens (Fig. 41) and the Hermes Richelieu in the Louvre. Here again -Lysippic proportions are combined with a rather heavier Attic torso in -a whole which lacks something of harmony and repose. The work has been -referred back to a Lysippic original, but it seems more likely that -it is an Attic adaptation of the eclectic school now springing into -existence. The Attic grave reliefs give us good information about Attic -art down to the end of the fourth century, but Demetrios of Phaleron -prohibited them for sumptuary reasons in 309 B.C., and in future we -have no such good guide to Attic art. Eclecticism is, however, pretty -clear in the later examples which we do possess. The votive reliefs -from the Asklepieion throw some light on the third century, but they -are not on a sufficiently large scale to be very instructive. - -[Illustration: 42] - -In Greece at all times professions tended to run in one family, and -we have already seen examples of families of sculptors, such as -that of Praxiteles, in which the craft was handed down from father -to son for generations. The Hellenistic age is full of evidence for -this phenomenon in Athens and elsewhere. Rhodes in particular gives -us detailed families of sculptors, since we are better provided -with inscriptions in Rhodes than in other centres. In Hellenistic -Athens two such families are worthy of notice. Polykles, whom we -may call Polykles I, had two sons, Timokles and Timarchides I; the -latter had two sons, Polykles II and Dionysios; and Polykles II had -a son, Timarchides II. These are known to us from literature or from -inscriptions, and they cover more or less the second century B.C. It -is a question to which member of the house we are to ascribe the very -famous bronze Hermaphrodite mentioned by Pliny,[91] or whether it -should be referred to an earlier artist of the same name in the fourth -century.[92] A further question is involved in the identification of -the Hermaphrodite, since it is commonly assumed that the Sleeping -Hermaphrodite (Fig. 42), far the most famous type now extant in -numerous copies, must have had a marble and not a bronze original. The -statue of Polykles is identified with the Berlin Hermaphrodite[93] -by those who would give him a fourth-century date; with a bronze in -Epinal[94] by those who associate him with Hellenistic art. The Berlin -Hermaphrodite is of Praxitelean type; the Epinal bronze resembles -rather what we have called the Pergamene type of the Turning Satyr and -the Aphrodite Kallipygos. The question is a difficult one, but we may -safely exclude Polykles II. Timarchides I, his father, and Dionysios, -his brother, worked on statues of a marked academic tendency. The C. -Ofellius of Delos was the work of his brother, a statue of purely -mechanical taste. This Polykles is not likely to have originated a -great and famous statue. Polykles I worked as early as 200, a much -better period for original work. He is a more likely candidate for the -authorship of the type, if we suppose it to have resembled either the -Epinal bronze or the Sleeping Hermaphrodite. On _a priori_ grounds -of its great popularity one would distinctly prefer to connect the -latter with the statue mentioned by Pliny. It is true that it looks -like a marble statue and not a bronze one, but a marble replica which -served as the prototype for marble copies is by no means an impossible -suggestion. But this Sleeping Hermaphrodite is a work of distinctly -Pergamene tendency, intended to bring out the artist’s skill in the -rendering of soft sensual forms. It would seem to belong to an earlier -date than 200 or even 250. The Epinal bronze implies a similar date, -and therefore we are left with a double difficulty. The best Polykles -for our purpose seems to be fifty years too late for either of the -types we require. We are, therefore, driven to suppose an intermediate -Polykles about 270 B.C. In any case we must infer a reaction of -Pergamene influence on the academic art of third-century Athens, but it -was a solitary example which seems to have left no heritage to later -artists. - -[Illustration: 43] - -[Illustration: 44] - -The sculptor family best known to us from inscriptions is that of -Eucheir and Euboulides. We know of at least two representatives of each -name, Eucheir I about 220, Euboulides I about 190, Eucheir II about -160, and Euboulides II thirty years later. The first Euboulides made a -statue of Chrysophis, the second Eucheir athletes and warriors, and -a marble Hermes at Pheneos. The second Euboulides is more important, -for he was the author of a great monument outside the Dipylon Gate, -considerable fragments of which have been recovered. - -These fragments are our main evidence for the art of Athens in the -second half of the second century B.C., and they show us that the -academic art of the second half of the third century has followed out -its natural development. The figures of Victory (Fig. 43) and Athena -(Fig. 44), which have partially survived, are grandiose without being -noble or effective. There is a distinct attempt to absorb some of the -exaggerated idealism of the second Pergamene school; there is also an -effort to recover some of the simplicity and grandeur of Pheidias; -but the result is a staid and rather mechanical classicism, which is -made only a little more obvious by the larger size of the figures. The -Athena head, with its straightforward gaze, archaistic hair, large, -wide-open eyes, and round, heavy chin is distinctly Pheidian; the -Victory in rapid movement with head turned to the side is more affected -by Pergamene art. Her drapery shows a curious combination of naturalism -and formalism in the folds at the girdle; each individual set of folds -is well studied from nature; but the repetition of a similar set right -round the body is purely mechanical. The group is a good example of the -limitations of the Attic artist at the end of his development. The next -century sees a totally different activity. - -In the Peloponnese we have a great gap after the pupils of Lysippos, -a gap devoid of any evidence either literary or monumental. During -the whole of the third century it would be difficult to point to any -Peloponnesian art on a scale deserving of attention. But the second -century opens with a name of some importance, Damophon of Messene. -We are in the rare and fortunate position of possessing undoubted -originals from his hand in the great group of Lycosura. These are -practically our sole monumental evidence for the Hellenistic art -of the Peloponnese.[95] The date of Damophon is now established by -inscriptions for the first half of the second century B.C., and a -number of his works are more or less attested by coin-types. He had a -considerable vogue in the last generation before the Roman conquest, -and his leading position is evidenced by the commission he received to -restore the Olympian Zeus. It may have been his hand which touched up -and restored the corner figures of the west pediment of the temple. - -The great group of Lycosura represented Demeter and Kore enthroned -between standing figures of Artemis and a Titan Anytos. It survives -in three heads and numerous fragments of limbs and drapery, and its -conjectural restoration has been recently undertaken (Fig. 45). The -discovery of a coin representing the group on its reverse goes far to -justify the proposed design.[96] - -[Illustration: 45] - -The group is interesting from many points of view, but mainly from -the flood of light which it throws on the methods of Peloponnesian -sculpture at the very close of its development. It thus forms a -complementary picture to the remains of the monument of Euboulides -in Athens. Damophon, like Euboulides, underwent the influence of -Pergamon. The colossal scale of his group and the wild hair of his -giant Anytos (Fig. 46) demonstrate the influence of the altar -frieze. Damophon also went back to Pheidias for inspiration. He must -have absorbed many lessons from his work at Olympia. The seated group -of his goddesses is reminiscent of the two figures next to ‘Theseus’ -in the west pediment of the Parthenon. The simple wide-eyed grave -expression of his Demeter head goes back to the fifth-century ideal, -while his Artemis (Fig. 47) wears the melon-coiffure associated with -the school of Praxiteles. The attitudes of Artemis and Anytos are -Lysippic. Here we have every evidence of academic eclecticism. The -same feature is borne out by three coins which reproduce the statues -of Damophon. His Asklepios at Aigion gives us a fourth-century type. -He copied the Laphria of Patras for Messene. His Herakles in the guise -of an Idaean Dactyl at Megalopolis seems to have been a variant of the -now fashionable herm figures and to copy a Hermerakles type known by -numerous extant examples. - -Damophon’s style then was academic and eclectic, borrowing from all -sources of inspiration and in general using up over again well-known -groups and poses. His execution is even more interesting for its -extraordinary inequality. His heads are on the whole very good. The -Demeter is a dull piece of work, but both the Anytos and the Artemis -show some fancy and some power of original expression. The girl is -demure and cheerful, the giant benevolent and rather sly. But when we -come to examine the execution of the fragments of the bodies and limbs -which survive at Lycosura, we find a very hasty and poor technical -ability. The arms and legs are nearly shapeless. They are colossal, -but practically formal in design, and details of muscles and sinews -are almost entirely omitted. The drapery makes some effort to follow -Pheidian designs, but it is poorly carved and without effect. Only in -one direction does the artist show any skill, and that is in the great -embroidered veil (Fig. 48) worn by Despoina. This is an extraordinary -_tour de force_, not for its sculptural effect, which is purely -formal, but for the reproduction of a complicated embroidered design -in very low relief. A border of tassels with bands of design about it -and large embroidered figures of Victory above the bands is rendered -with consummate art. We have a frieze of sea-monsters, nymphs, and -Erotes according to a common Hellenistic design, a curious local dance -of beast figures in human dress, a dance paralleled by some small -terra-cotta figures found in the same shrine, and the larger figures of -Victory above carrying candelabra. - -It is interesting to see the total want of proportion in the artist’s -mind, who could devote so much time and originality to a comparatively -unimportant piece of decoration, while treating the main lines of -his drapery with carelessness and monotony. It is probable that we -have here a procedure to be noticed in the Demeter of Cnidos--a head -done with great care and placed on a torso of inferior execution. -While Damophon worked the heads of all the figures and the drapery -of Despoina, he must have left the rest of his group to a band of -journeymen assistants. We know from inscriptions that Damophon had two -sons, Xenophilos and another whose name is lost. It is, therefore, -possible that Xenophilos and Straton, the Argive sculptors, were his -sons. Their subjects were similar, and their Asklepios, as shown on a -coin, is identical with Damophon’s. - -[Illustration: 46] - -[Illustration: 47] - -[Illustration: 48] - -Thus Greek sculpture on the mainland came to a somewhat inglorious -and academic conclusion with the Roman conquest in 146 B.C. We may -examine one more centre of artistic work before leaving it, since it -forms a link between Greece and Ionia, between the declining schools of -the mainland and the vigorous art of Pergamon and Rhodes. - -Melos has left us several Hellenistic statues of interest. The -Aphrodite of the Louvre and the Poseidon in Athens are their most -important representatives. The Poseidon (Fig. 49) is a typical work -of histrionic _bravura_ under the influence of the second Pergamene -school. He stands in a defiant and dramatic attitude as if summoning -his adversaries to combat, and his burly hair and beard recall the -giants of the altar. But an eclectic taste is visible here also. His -pose is Lysippic, and his restrained torso owes more to Rhodes than -Pergamon. Melos is a meeting-point of trade-routes, in which many -artistic currents must have come together. - -The Aphrodite of Melos[97] has attained a somewhat undeserved position -as one of the world’s masterpieces of sculpture. Splendid piece of work -as it is, it has most of the faults of its period. Much controversy has -raged even over the actual facts of the discovery of this statue, but -there appears to be no reason to doubt that the inscribed base, which -was found with it and brought perhaps later to Paris, is part of it, -and contains the true record of its author ...sandros from Antioch on -the Maeander.[98] This base has been lost, but drawings and statements -exist to show that it fitted the actual base. The missing fragment had -a rectangular hole on the upper surface, in which some additional -attribute was fitted. The restoration of this missing piece of the -base with its hole disposes of the theories occasionally ventilated -that the statue was one of a pair. The hole is not the socket for -fastening a statue, nor will it hold one of the small herms which -were found with the Aphrodite. Its true significance has been pointed -out by Furtwängler by analogy with several other statues and designs, -including one from Melos and one actual copy of the Aphrodite herself. -It served for the fastening of a slender column or stele on which the -goddess rested her left elbow. A beautiful little fourth-century bronze -in Dresden shows a similar motive. The restoration of the figure is -now easy. With her right hand the goddess held or was about to hold -her drapery to prevent it from slipping; her left elbow rested on the -pillar, and her left hand, palm upwards, held an apple. This hand -holding the apple was actually found with the statue, and undoubtedly -belongs to it, as well as a piece of the upper left arm. The other hand -found at the same time is alien and on a larger scale. The position of -the hand, palm upwards, is certified by the unworked back, which would -be invisible. The apple of course is a frequent symbol of Aphrodite, -and particularly appropriate in the island to which it gave its name. - -[Illustration: 49] - -[Illustration: 50] - -The Aphrodite was found in a niche or exedra, which was dedicated by -one Bacchios with a second-century inscription. The base inscription -of ...sandros, whose name we may guess to have been Agesandros, is -also second century, and therefore we cannot hesitate to accept a date -about 180–160 B.C. for the Aphrodite, especially as its style and -technique are indubitably of that period. The pose may be described as -reminiscent of Lysippos with its opposing lines of shoulders and -hips and twist of the body above the waist. The head-type is Scopaic, -but only Scopaic at second-hand, since the influence of Pergamon -is much clearer. If we compare the head with the head of the girl -in Berlin from Pergamon,[99] or with the Pergamon Hermaphrodite in -Constantinople,[100] we see an identical treatment of hair, identical -head-shape, and the same type of features in almost every detail. -The drapery is interesting for yet another source of inspiration. -Its division into flattish panels separated by groups of deeply-cut -waving folds is in the manner of Pheidias and the late fifth century, -while the naturalistic little detail on the right hip, where the lower -folds are caught up and radiate from a single point, is thoroughly -Hellenistic. - -The style of the statue as well as its technique is clear proof of its -date. The attitude of the goddess has no discernible motive. There -is no reason why she should be half naked, or why she should twist -her body round so violently from the hips. There is no explanation -why her drapery should stay up at all in so insecure a position, or -why her left foot should be raised higher than her right. But if we -compare for a moment the Melian Aphrodite with the Capuan Venus in -Naples (Fig. 50), a statue in a nearly identical position, all these -points are explained. The Capuan Venus is half naked, because she is -admiring her beauty in the mirror of the shield of Ares. She is twisted -so as to look at herself in the shield and yet display her body to -the spectator--in itself a Hellenistic device. Her drapery is held -up, because the shield-edge holds it against her left hip; her foot -is raised, because it rests on Ares’ helmet and thereby gives better -support to the shield. The attitude of the Melian goddess is clumsy and -stiff, because it has no motive; that of the Capuan is graceful and -effective, because its motive is clear. - -Now it is noteworthy that the many examples of this type in our -possession are all copies of the Capuan and not of the Melian figure. -This is clear from the direction of the drapery folds, which differs -in the Melian from all the other figures. The history of the type is -thereby made clear. It was an early Hellenistic or late fourth-century -statue of the Armed Aphrodite, possibly the cult statue, which -appears in identical pose on coins of Corinth. Itself a typical -_genre_ adaptation of a very early myth, it at once gained favour and -was much copied, especially in Roman times. The Melian goddess was -a second-century Hellenistic copy, but not a mere copy, rather an -adaptation of the earlier prototype to a figure more suitable for Melos -itself. Unfortunately the artist was unable to make the pose suit his -new scheme properly. We get another adaptation in the Augustan age in -the shape of the Victory of Brescia inscribing a roll of the dead on -the shield,[101] and finally, in the second century and later, we get a -crowd of copies much closer to the original, of which the Capuan Venus -is the best. - -The history of the Melian Aphrodite throws much light on the -Hellenistic art of the mainland and its neighbouring islands. We -see its artists bankrupt of new ideas, and able only to adapt -older conceptions to new requirements with a series of eclectic -modifications. The Aphrodite is a close parallel to the monuments -of Damophon and Euboulides, although its artist is admittedly a -better sculptor. All three show a poverty of new ideas, but a strong -reaction against the excesses of the later Pergamene school. They are, -therefore, forced to look backward and make up new conceptions out of a -medley of older details. It is of the utmost importance that we should -remember this state of mind when we come to deal with Greco-Roman art. - - - - -V - -GRECO-ROMAN SCULPTURE - - -We have now completed our survey of Greek sculpture on the mainland, -and in connexion with the eastern kingdoms which Greece absorbed as -conqueror. We have yet one other aspect to consider: Greek sculpture -in connexion with the Roman world of the west, by which Greece was -conquered. ‘Conquered Greece led her conqueror captive,’ and while -Greek civilization as a whole strongly modified the Italic civilization -by which it was overthrown, Greek art in particular established its -mastery over the inartistic nation which supplanted it. We have many -accounts of how Roman connoisseurs filled their galleries with Greek -statues. Mummius, Aemilius Paulus, Verres, Cicero, Sulla, Asinius -Pollio, were all robbers or purchasers of Greek sculpture, and by the -time of Pompey and Caesar the great market for Greek sculpture was -in Rome. The demand exceeded the supply of antique marbles, enormous -as the supply must have been, for the systematic plundering of the -great shrines belongs to a later date. And as the Roman noble could -not be accommodated with originals, he had to content himself with -copies. Doubtless few of the collectors could tell the difference. -Rhodes continued to turn out original sculpture until the time of -Augustus, but Pergamon and Alexandria had long sunk into decay. It -was, therefore, the opportunity for a new school of artists to arise -in Athens, an opportunity which was promptly taken. Athens and Delos, -Ephesos, and later Aphrodisias, became great centres of the new -industry, which was primarily commercial. There was no longer any talk -of idealism or of votive offerings to deities. The necessity was to -turn out quantities of work suitable to the Roman taste. - -Greco-Roman sculpture falls into three clear divisions. There are -copies pure and simple like the Delian Diadumenos, a straightforward -replica of the masterpiece of Polykleitos; there are adaptations of -earlier work like those turned out by the school of Pasiteles and -Arcesilaos; and there are, finally, new works, mostly in relief, -which have been termed Neo-Attic, and which represent a new artistic -development based on an elegant and artificial archaism. Athens is the -centre of all this art, and she thus recovers in the first century B.C. -the position which she had lost for so long. - -The direct copies of this age need not be considered here. Direct -copying from the antique as distinguished from adaptation is a new -feature very eloquent of the poverty of original ideas both in the -buyer and seller of statues. But it is important to realize that -the Roman market made sculpture for the first time a really paying -business, and therefore saved it from the possibility of extinction. -Had it not been for the new Attic school of sculptors, who sprang up -in the two preceding generations, it is hard to see how Augustus could -have secured the workmen for his great Roman buildings, which formed -the basis of a fresh artistic development in Roman imperial sculpture. -The copies of this period are the best and most faithful which we -possess. They have still some vitality of their own, and are not the -dead and soulless caricatures produced by a later age. - -But in addition to their copying work the latest generation of Attic -artists busied themselves with free adaptations from the antique on -lines laid down by contemporary art. These productions are to be -distinguished both from purely archaistic works, which copy the style -as well as the poses of ancient sculpture, and from works like the -Aphrodite of Melos, which make a wide selection from ancient styles -and poses. Statues such as the Farnese Herakles of Glycon,[102] the -Apollo Belvedere,[103] or the Artemis of Versailles,[104] are not -eclectic at all; they are older types taken over and translated into -modern style. They show less originality than the Melian goddess, -because there is no real change of pose or of meaning. An old statue -is simply worked out with a new technique. Thus the Farnese Herakles -gives a Hellenistic rendering of a statue by Lysippos, while the -Apollo Belvedere is perhaps a new version of a work by Leochares. The -former attempts to render the massive strength of the hero by immense -exaggeration of muscular development in a style worse than anything -perpetrated at Pergamon. The latter attempts to outdo the elegance of -its original by an ultra-refinement of surface in every direction, -and by an affected stage-pose and gesture. In both cases we see the -effect of commercialism on art, for the artist no longer works on -his own high standard of achievement. He is bound by the tastes of -the patrons for whom he caters, and the uneducated Roman buyer liked -to see strength shown by mighty muscles and refinement by daintiness -of gesture. Both the Herakles of Glycon and the Apollo Belvedere are -fine pieces of sculpture, but as works of art they are little short of -abominable. We have no evidence about the original of the Artemis of -Versailles, a statue of somewhat similar type to the Apollo. We may -notice how the little fold of drapery above the left knee is turned -up without any justification simply for the purpose of displaying the -outline of the leg. The Medici Venus in Florence[105] is an adaptation -of the later version of the Praxitelean nude Aphrodite, the Capitoline -rather than the Cnidian type. It is also an Attic work of this period, -finely executed, but adding a yet further degradation to the Capitoline -version by the additional elegance of its gestures. - -The Torso Belvedere (Fig. 52) is another Attic work of great technical -ability. Its prototype is unknown, and considerable controversy exists -about its meaning and correct restoration. It is a seated figure with -head and upper torso turned sharply towards its left, a position which -suggests a Lysippic original. The massive musculature of the torso -recalls Glycon’s Herakles, but the influence here is more Rhodian than -Pergamene. One of the most popular suggestions[106] for its restoration -makes it a Polyphemos shading his eyes with one hand, as he looks out -for Galatea, and holding a club in the other. A similar type is known -from wall paintings. No agreement on this point has, however, been -reached. - -Works of this quality of technique, even if uninspired by high artistic -feeling, show how greatly the Attic school has improved since the -days of Euboulides. In sculpture the skill of the workman depends -largely on the popularity of, and demand for, his work. The new vogue -of sculpture soon produced a high standard of technical efficiency. -But if Greco-Roman art remained wholly and unalterably Greek, Greece -itself was not allowed the monopoly of its production. During the -early years of the first century two Greek artists transferred their -business to Rome itself, and initiated thereby a new school of -Hellenistic sculpture. These were Pasiteles and Arcesilaos, names of -high importance for Greek art. - -[Illustration: 51] - -[Illustration: 52] - -[Illustration: 53] - -Pasiteles was an artist of great versatility and scientific -attainments. He wrote a work on Greek art in five books, which served -as a primary authority for Pliny.[107] He was a goldsmith and a metal -worker, and his range of sculptural subjects was very wide. He is known -to have paid special attention to the sculpture of animals, and it -is recorded that he studied a lion from life at the Roman docks. He -seems also to have been the originator of a device, which did much to -injure the later development of marble sculpture.[108] Bronze workers -had always had to prepare clay models usually finished in wax after -the invention of the _cire perdue_ process; metal workers of all kinds -had need of the same preparation; but in marble sculpture the use of -models had hitherto been confined to pedimental designs or similar -productions prepared by great artists and worked out by masons. The -effect on architectural sculpture had usually been unfortunate. It is -expressly told us of Pasiteles that he always made use of clay models -for all his work, that is, including his marble sculpture. It was, -no doubt, inevitable in a commercial age, where copies were in great -request, and where several replicas were made of the one original, that -the use of clay models designed by the master and copied in marble by -pupils and workmen should become general. The ultimate results of such -a procedure were destructive to the whole art; for workshops came -to possess a stock of models and to turn out machine-made copies on -demand. The finished statue became merely the work of masons untouched -by the original master, who devoted himself entirely to the preparation -of models and designs. The sculptor’s workshop instead of being a -studio degenerated into a factory. No doubt Pasiteles himself was an -artist who did much original work, but in the hands of his pupils and -followers statue-making was a mere trade. Unfortunately the works of -his school, which survive for us, are almost wholly these mechanical -and commercial by-products. The works of real fancy and charm have -almost wholly disappeared. Many of the Hellenistic reliefs, especially -those of the Palazzo Spada type, are to be attributed to the Greek -sculptors in Rome. These show an elegance and a dainty affectation -quite in keeping with the spirit of the age. The group of Appiades -(Fig. 51) by Stephanos,[109] a pupil of Pasiteles, has been recognized -in the group of three nude girls holding up a water-pot, now in the -Louvre.[110] The Three Graces are also a conception of this age. Neat -competent work of a decorative type seems to sum up the original -achievements of this school, which fall more or less in line with the -Neo-Attic reliefs shortly to be considered. - -But most of our remains of the school of Pasiteles belong to a -different class of statue, best illustrated by the athlete of -Stephanos, Pasiteles’ pupil, in the Villa Albani (Fig. 53). All periods -of art which are bankrupt in new ideas tend to be archaistic; the -Greco-Roman school looked backwards for all its inspiration; but while -Neo-Attics found their models in Ionian art of the sixth century, -the pupils of Pasiteles studied their larger sculpture mainly in -the light of the early fifth-century Argive school. The athlete of -Stephanos shows the proportions, the stiff pose, and the surface -treatment of the pre-Polykleitan types of Ageladas. He is comparable -with the Ligourio bronze[111] or the Acropolis ephebe[112] of Kritios -for all his Lysippic slenderness and later expression. The type was -immensely popular and may have originated with Pasiteles himself. We -have it in single examples and combined in groups, as in the Orestes -and Electra of Naples,[113] where the companion figure is female, or in -the Ildefonso group[114] where it is combined with another male statue. -All these figures are copied from early fifth-century art, though the -signs of eclectic archaism are sufficiently clear. If we examine the -so-called Electra of Naples, we see an archaic early fifth-century -head together with a pose approaching the Praxitelean, transparent -drapery of the style of Alkamenes, and a low girdle and uncovered -shoulder reminiscent of Pergamon. The group of Menelaos,[115] a pupil -of Stephanos, in the Terme Museum, is a less archaic-looking and a -more satisfactory work. Fifth century in detail, in style it reminds -us rather of the fourth-century grave reliefs. To the same period, or -perhaps a later one, belongs the idea of grouping well-known statues -originally separate. Thus we have in the Capitol a group of the Melian -Venus with the Ares Borghese.[116] This actual group, however, belongs -to a much later time. - -Arcesilaos was another well-known sculptor of the age, a friend of -Pompey and Caesar. The Venus Genetrix of the Louvre[117] was made for -the House of the Julii. It bears its fifth-century origin clearly -stamped on its style. Arcesilaos also was a great provider of clay -models, which he sold outright to workshops for manufacturing purposes, -so that a finished statue might have never been seen by the artist -responsible for its design. A series of herms in the Terme Museum[118] -show a strong archaistic tendency towards fifth-century models, but -bear also in details of pose and drapery the clear stamp of the -Greco-Roman age. Statues of this type were intended for the decoration -of Roman palaces. They are no longer self-sufficing works of art, but -are subject to the general demands of artistic decoration. - -This brings us to the third division of Greco-Roman sculpture, in -reality its most original contribution to the history of Greek art: -the Neo-Attic reliefs,[119] all of which are primarily decorative in -their purpose. The works with which we have hitherto dealt--the Apollo -Belvedere, the Torso Belvedere, or the Venus Genetrix--have all been -eclectic in style, and consequently have lacked the sense of harmony -or uniformity, which is one of the conditions of great sculpture. The -same criticism applies to all the sculpture of the mainland in the -Hellenistic age. On the other hand the schools of Pergamon, Rhodes, -and Alexandria attained a uniformity of style, and consequently were -enabled to produce masterpieces of art. Their works can be attributed -to a school, because they contain common elements of style and -technique based on a common theory of art. This community of purpose -has been wholly lacking in the works of Euboulides, Damophon, and the -Melian artists, and only partially felt in the works of Pasiteles -and Arcesilaos. All these artists were individualists selecting and -combining at their own will and pleasure. The Neo-Attic artists are -quite different. Their names are immaterial, because their works all -bear the impress of precisely the same style. There is no chance -of mistaking a Neo-Attic work; its origin is clear in every line. -These reliefs represent the last true school of Greek sculpture, the -last monuments in which a common line of development can be studied -unaffected by individual idiosyncrasies. They are strongly archaistic, -but in spite of this they are essentially modern. They neither copy the -antique exactly, nor adapt it to existing modes as the followers of -Pasiteles did. They rather invent a new mode and a new style in art, -but they make use of archaic technical details for its expression. -Their art is essentially artificial and symbolic, so that they -represent a reaction against the academic classicism of the period; -but it is also meticulous in detail, so that it can merit no reproach -of a loose impressionism. The Neo-Attic artists of the first century -B.C. are really the pre-Raphaelites of Greek art, and Rossetti and -Burne-Jones are the nearest parallel to them in later art history. - -Their reliefs are all decorative in purpose, for the adornment of -altars, candelabra, fountains, well-heads, or wall-panels; and -therefore they are not unnaturally attracted by the most decorative of -all the archaic schools, the late Ionian or Attic-Ionian art of the -end of the sixth century. They make use also of later models, of the -Victories of the Balustrade, of Scopaic Maenads, of Praxitelean satyrs, -but all the models which they adopt are treated in a uniform style, -a new style of exaggerated daintiness of pose and gesture accompanied -by an archaistic formality of drapery and modelling. In this detail -they contrast strongly with the realism of the pre-Raphaelites. Their -daintiness and formality are derived from Ionian models, but reproduced -in a wholly different setting. - -The vase of Sosibios in the Louvre[120] reproduces some of their -favourite types, which occur over and over again in the decorative art -of the early empire. The flute-playing satyr, the dancing maenad, the -armed dancer, and all the other types are reproduced in every variety -of combination, but in identical form. The Neo-Attic sculptors were -content with the elaboration of a few types which they combined at -pleasure. They never attempted more intricate groups than their variant -of the two Victories with a bull from the Acropolis Balustrade. Usually -they merely group single figures in long rows without any connexion in -thought. Nothing could bring out more clearly their essential poverty -of ideas and the purely commercial character of their art. The designs -are like so many stencil patterns which can be applied to any form of -monument. - -When we examine the figures more closely, we can see the elements -which make up their characteristic style. The figures invariably -march on tiptoe. Their fingers are extended and the little finger -is usually bent back in an affected manner. This detail is derived -from the archaic pose of the hand holding out a flower, so common in -late Ionian art. The tiptoe pose is also found on ancient reliefs. -The drapery is based mainly on that of the late fifth-century Attic -school, but with various additions and refinements. The fluttering -ends of cloaks and mantles recall fourth-century reliefs, while the -curving swallow-tail ends of flying drapery are imitated directly from -the sixth century. The drapery on the figure itself usually hangs in -straight archaic lines as in the Artemis of Pompeii,[121] where the -zigzag shape of ancient folds is reproduced with great formality; or -it follows an almost equally artificial system of wavy folds, based -on the school of the Balustrade, as in the fine relief of a dancing -Maenad in the Conservatori Museum.[122] The elegant lounging poses with -bent head, which remind us somewhat of Burne-Jones figures, are based -no doubt on Praxiteles. The delineation of the surface muscles of the -nude body also follows a uniform rule derived rather from the middle -fifth-century Attic art than from that of Ionia. The muscles of the -male figures tend to be over-emphasized, so far as that is conformable -with the elegant slenderness of their figures. But a description of -the figure-types of Neo-Attic art is incomplete without some notice of -the intricate decorative designs of plants and animals which always -frame and enshrine the reliefs on altar or candelabrum. Archaic -Greek decoration was always formal and conventional in character. -The exquisite mouldings of the Erechtheum or of the later Corinthian -capital are not naturalistic but highly stylized. Naturalistic -floral or animal decoration begins with the Hellenistic age, and is -especially prominent in the Neo-Attic monuments. The trailing vine, -grape-clusters, wreaths of flowers, new heraldic sphinxes, lions’ -heads, &c., are carefully worked out from nature and combined with the -remnants of the old decoration of palmettes, volutes, and tongue and -dart mouldings. The vase of Sosibios shows a combination of the two -principles, which is truly symbolic of the Greco-Roman combined school, -for naturalistic decorative designs are just as representative of Roman -art as formal ones are of Hellenic. From the combined system of the -Neo-Attic reliefs we pass directly to the purely naturalistic floral -designs of Augustan architectural sculpture. - -Our survey of Greek sculpture must conclude with the great buildings -of Augustus. In them we see for the first time the combination of -Italian with Greek principles. The Greco-Roman art which we have -noticed hitherto has been archaistic and eclectic, but it has been -purely Greek. Roman tastes have been studied and gratified, but style -and technique have remained wholly Greek and uncontaminated. Even -in the new buildings this procedure still continued. Pliny tells us -that Augustus, who had the fashionable taste for the archaic in Greek -art, actually imported the _Korai_ of Bupalos and Athenis for use as -acroteria on his monuments. The Conservatori Museum contains an almost -exact copy of one of these _Korai_,[123] which must belong to the age -of Augustus, as well as a very inferior adaptation of the same type. -The _Kore_ figure was translated into the so-called Spes type for -mirror handles and other elements of decoration. - -But Augustus was not the man to submit to a complete extinction of -Italian artistic principles. His system was closely identified with -a revival of ancient Italy in all directions, and he was not likely -to abandon Italic art. It therefore came to pass that in the greatest -sculptured monument of his period--the Ara Pacis[124] erected on the -Campus Martius, which is now being gradually and laboriously pieced -together again--we have a combination of Greek and Italian principles -of first-rate importance for the subsequent development of Roman art. -One side of the altar contained a relief of Tellus or the Earth, which -is hardly distinguishable from the pastoral Hellenistic reliefs, but -the procession which fills the greater part of the other sides is -treated in a very different manner. The general scheme is Greek, and -must have been influenced by the Parthenon frieze, but the treatment in -detail is Italian. Thus we have the Roman toga with its voluminous soft -folds, and the Roman principle of direct realistic portraiture in all -the heads. But more important than the portraiture is the appearance of -a new development of perspective in relief which is destined to have a -great career in the future of art, and which has been regarded by some -authorities as purely Italian. - -Greek reliefs had always been represented as if against a tangible -background, at first practically in two planes only, and then in -Hellenistic times in truer perspective, but invariably against a -background of some kind. Roman art, on the other hand, in its more -developed reliefs like those on the Arch of Titus,[125] eliminates -the idea of background and regards the wall on which the reliefs are -placed as nonexistent. The reliefs are intended to give the illusion -of free sculpture, as if they were standing in the round against a -background of the sky. A much greater depth must, therefore, enter -into the principle of perspective. Just as in the bronze reliefs of -the Florentine Baptistery Ghiberti used the principle of no background -and attempted to show a whole countryside behind his figures as if -the relief were a picture, so the artist of the reliefs of the Arch -of Titus uses a strongly diminishing perspective and a pronounced -foreshortening of his figures to produce this same effect of free -sculpture. - -In Greek sculpture of the Hellenistic age it is true to say that the -depth of the background has been greatly increased. This is visible -even as early as the Telephos frieze. But it would be hard to point to -a Greek relief in which the effect was wholly pictorial and the idea -of the background was entirely abolished. This principle, however, -does appear in the reliefs of the Ara Pacis, and therefore they mark -a new era in art. The perspective and the foreshortening are stronger -and more illusional. In the background we get flat heads just incised -in the marble to give the effect of the depth of the crowd. The scene -is in fact not a procession in Indian file but a true crowd many ranks -deep. The principle is not altogether adequately carried out in the Ara -Pacis, but soon it is more completely mastered. The stucco decorations -of the Villa Farnesina,[126] though in the lowest possible relief, -express a depth greater than any Hellenistic landscape relief. They are -purely pictorial in character. - -The subordination of sculpture to pictorial ideas is Italian not -Greek. Italy through Etruria, her real artistic pioneer, was always -a patron of painting rather than sculpture, and therefore under the -Empire sculpture becomes either wholly decorative or merely devoted -to portraiture. During the reign of Augustus Greek influence still -persists, and under Hadrian we have a Greek revival, but from Tiberius -to the Renaissance sculpture descends from a primary to a secondary -art. - -Another great development of Augustan sculpture is the free use -of naturalistic floral designs. Etruscan and Roman art was always -realistic, and never tolerated conventions when they could be -eliminated. Roman architecture and art both abandoned at once the -Greek use of formal conventional mouldings. The Ara Pacis and other -monuments of the Augustan age first give us the beautiful rendering of -purely realistic wreaths of flowers and fruit, which are the hall-marks -of Roman altars and friezes. The Imperial art of Rome as it begins -under Augustus is profoundly indebted to Greek art for almost all its -types and its technical procedure. Doubtless the greater number of his -artists and architects were Greeks. But they were working in the midst -of a new culture and a new environment, and thus they unconsciously -absorbed new traditions and new ideas, just as their predecessors had -done in Pergamon and Alexandria. In Greece itself no further advance -was possible. Artistic production was purely commercial, and all the -sources of inspiration were closed. In Rome, where alone could be found -a career for a creative artist, he had gradually to submit to the -_genius loci_. The artificers of the empire must have long remained -Greeks, and all Roman art bears the stamp of Hellenic origin, but -at the same time Greek art is changed along the lines of pictorial -illusion and pure realism in portraiture. It loses all touch with Greek -idealism and serves to express Roman narrative history. Its gods, its -myths, and its outlook are changed. It becomes Roman, just as Gothic -art became national in each country which it invaded. - -We are left then with only one further question to discuss. What are -the permanent elements of Hellenism in Roman art, and, after Roman -art, in the art of the Renaissance and of modern times? What is the -true character of Greek sculpture, and what has it bequeathed to all -civilizations which have followed it? - -The question is a large one which cannot be easily solved in a few -phrases. Greek sculpture is not to be hastily identified with what we -call classicism in art and contrasted with romanticism and realism. -Greek art is classic, if we mean by that term academic, only for a -brief period of its decadence. During the fourth century and the -Hellenistic age it displays all the phenomena of romantic and realistic -art. In fact Greek art as a whole comprises every form of artistic -expression, and exhibits wellnigh the whole of the possibilities -that lie between the caveman and the aesthete. We do not, however, -confuse the work of Donatello or of Rodin or of modern impressionists -with Greek sculpture, and this clarity of distinction demands some -examination. How can we distinguish Greek work from that of every other -civilization? - -The answer is not to be found in style or in technique. It lies in -the more hidden depths of psychology. If we take the history of Greek -sculpture as a whole, the attitude of the artist to his work and of the -public to art in general and of art itself to life is different from -that prevalent in any other society. Neither under the Roman Empire -nor during the Renaissance nor in the modern world is art regarded -as an essential form of self-expression as natural as conversation -or amusement or religion. It is fair to assume that the average -modern man regards statues with indifference slightly flavoured with -amusement. Nobody would notice the difference if he were living in a -town full of statues or in one without any. They satisfy no need in -modern existence, and they are mere excrescences on our civilization. -Even pictures, which we understand better, are mainly regarded from -the point of view of decorative furniture. Art is an embellishment of -modern life, not an essential part of it. It is considered a means of -pleasure or a means of amusement, not as part of the serious business -of life. Even in the Renaissance, where art played a much more -important rôle in the life of the community than it now does, it was -still a by-product of man’s activity. Popes and rulers found leisure to -patronize Cellini or Michael Angelo, but their main business in life -was rather to poison each other or to increase their landed property. -The Romans looked on art much as we do, and with the same tolerant air -of showing our superiority by a correct taste. - -The attitude of the Greeks was wholly different. To them art was bound -up with religion, for their religion found its natural expression -in art rather than in any emotional ceremonies such as Christianity -introduced. The religion of the city in particular, a stronger -feeling than our modern patriotism, could only be expressed by art. -The disappearance of the city-state was, therefore, a great blow to -the idealism of Greek art, but even after this time a man’s private -feelings could better be expressed in terms of art than in terms of -religion. The Cnidian goddess of Praxiteles was more than a statue; it -was an idea. The Victory of Samothrace was Triumph itself, not a mere -masterpiece. To a Greek the statues he loved represented what religion -means to most Christians; not that his feelings were equally intense or -equally pure, but they expressed the same side of his nature. - -In a psychological state like this both the artist and the public -are bound to regard art with very different eyes. The Greeks could -have tolerated experimental frivolity or chicanery in art as little -as we should tolerate the travesty of a religious service. Therefore -they admitted dogma in art, as we admit dogma in religion. We lightly -overthrow all established artistic principles to introduce a new -temporary fad. To the Greek such an idea was equivalent to sacrilege. -This accounts very largely for the slow development of Greek art and -its great reluctance to admit new principles. It could never become -purely experimental or adventurous. Until the end of the fifth century -this driving-force of the religious connexion is paramount in all Greek -art. In the fourth century and the Hellenistic age the connexion of art -and religion is shaken, but if religion passes away, the passionate -devotion to art takes its place, and art itself becomes almost a -religion. The stories of the great painters and of the intense love of -whole communities for their works of art can be parallelled perhaps -in some of the states of the Renaissance, but they have assuredly no -parallel in Roman or in modern times. Our whole attitude towards art as -an ‘extra’ and an unessential prevents us from appreciating its vital -importance to the Greek. A community, whose ideas of art are Hellenic, -knows no abrupt distinctions between the useful and the beautiful, -because all the objects of its daily life are beautiful of necessity; -it knows nothing of good taste, because there is no bad taste to -contrast, and we may even find, as in the case of Greece herself, that -its words for ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are simply ‘beautiful’ and ‘ugly’ -(καλός and αἰσχρός). - -The whole fabric of Greek art goes to pieces when it is brought into -contact with a purely utilitarian nation like Rome. It succeeded in -humanizing and educating the upper classes, but it had little effect -on the mob. Art, therefore, in Rome became a means of decorating -palaces and not a national treasure. The contact with Christianity was -even more destructive, for if the Romans had been merely indifferent, -the Christians were actively hostile. The new religion was Semitic in -origin, and cared nothing for beauty or ugliness. If anything, it found -in ugliness a means of atonement for sin. The Greek love of beauty was -the worst enemy Christianity encountered, and the Fathers direct long -pamphlets and arguments against the pagan deities and their statues. -Nor were they content with arguments, when they could wield a hammer or -throw a stone. Early Christianity, like Mohammedanism or the Spartan -system, depended on a strict subordination of the individual, and -consequently attacked most bitterly the artistic spirit which must be -free if it is to live at all. Of all the nations who have existed since -the fall of Greece the Chinese and Japanese have come nearest to the -Greek spirit in art owing to the lack of a religion of self-denial. The -earlier period of the Renaissance was also Hellenic, but when artists -were captured by the Church and turned to painting saints and madonnas, -their Greek freedom left them. Parrhasios might have claimed kinship -with Botticelli’s Birth of Venus or his Pallas; he would have seen no -beauty in his Madonnas. - -Another consequence of the vital importance of art in Greek life was -that artistic expression was almost wholly confined to the human form. -Just as we exclude animals and plants from our religion, the Greek -excluded them from his art as long as its religious connexion was -intact. Between the sixth century and the Hellenistic age no Greek -artist paid any attention to any animal save the horse, whose human -associations exempted him, and even the horse had to be content with a -more or less conventional treatment. Greek art, like Greek religion, is -essentially anthropomorphic. - -When we ask what is the debt of modern art to Greek art, there is no -reply. We cannot point to this idea or that, and say this is Hellenic -and that is non-Hellenic. We can say this is Pheidian, that Scopaic, -or this is Pergamene and that Rhodian, but to say art is Greek is -simply to say it is good. For Greek art comprises every genuine effort -of the artist; every statue which is made with sincere love of beauty -and unmixed desire for its attainment is Greek in spirit; every -statue, however cunning and ingenious, which is merely frivolous or -hypocritical or untrue, is a crime against Hellenism and a sin against -the light. The Greek bequest to later artists is nothing tangible; it -is the soul and spirit of the artist. True art cannot be attained by -rule; it demands a condition of receptivity of inspiration, in other -words, of faith, in the artist; only thus can the elements of technique -be so combined as to make something far greater than their mere sum -total. Great art must reflect something intangible that strikes a chord -of sympathy in the spectator, and the chord, as _Abt Vogler_ expresses -it, is something far greater than the sum of its notes: - - But here is the finger of God, a flash of the will that can, - Existent beyond all laws, that made them and, lo, they are! - And I know not if, save in this, such gift be allowed to man, - That out of three sounds he frame, not a fourth sound, but a star. - - - - -APPENDIX - -PUBLISHED WORKS OF THE AUTHOR - - -The published papers of Guy Dickins may best be ranged under three -heads: (1) historic work, (2) results of travel and excavation, (3) -studies in Greek sculpture. - - -I. Under the first head come ‘Some points with regard to the Homeric -House’ (_J.H.S._, 1903). - -This is Dickins’s earliest paper. The subject has attracted several of -our younger archaeologists. Dickins takes up in particular the internal -arrangement of the Megaron, and the nature and position of the ὀρσοθύρη -and the ῥῶγες. He proceeds very carefully, trying to combine the -testimony of the Palace of Tiryns with that of Cnossus and Phylakopi. - -‘The true cause of the Peloponnesian War’ (_Class. Quarterly_, 1911). - -‘The growth of Spartan Policy’ (_J.H.S._, 1912, 1913). - -These are detailed attempts to explain the policy of Sparta in regard -to the neighbouring states and Athens down to the time of Archidamus -and Agis. In consequence of the paucity of existing historic records, -the sketch is necessarily of a somewhat speculative character, the -more so as a chief object of inquiry is unavoidably the motives which -dominated the statesmen and the parties at Sparta. There is good ground -for the contention that down to 550 B.C. Sparta underwent a political -development, and even an artistic growth, parallel to that in other -Greek cities; but that after that time the city developed on lines -of its own, as a purely military state. This is, as we shall see, -the most interesting result established by the recent excavations on -the site. Looking for a personality to associate with the change, -Dickins finds one in Chilon, a name not prominent in history, but -suggestively mentioned by Herodotus and Diogenes Laertius. He seems to -have succeeded in raising the Ephors to equal power with the Kings, -and thenceforward, according to Dickins, the clue to Spartan policy is -to be found in the clashings of the two powers. Until 468 the struggle -was acute; and it was not until the end of the fifth century that the -supremacy of the Ephors was established. The question of dominance over -the helots, which has by some writers been regarded as the mainspring -of Spartan policy, was less important in the fifth century than it -became in the fourth. - -In the paper in the _Classical Quarterly_ it is maintained, in -opposition to some recent historians of Greece, that Thucydides is -right in saying that it was jealousy of the rising power of Athens -which brought on the Peloponnesian War. - -Dickins is well versed in both ancient and modern historians, and he -writes with clearness and force; but the motives of statesmen and the -underlying causes of events are so intricate that the discussion of -them seldom leads to a really objective addition to our knowledge of -ancient history. - - -II. Under the second head, accounts of exploration and excavation, -come Dickins’s Reports of his work in the exploration of Laconia and -Sparta. In the years 1904–8 the British School of Athens was engaged -in the interesting task, assigned to it by the Greek Government, of -making a careful survey of Laconia, and trying by excavation what could -be recovered of the monuments and history of ancient Sparta. Mr. R. M. -Dawkins, the Director of the School, was in charge of the excavations, -and various parts of the work were assigned to students of the school, -A. J. B. Wace, J. P. Droop, A. M. Woodward, Dickins, and others. In -the _Annual_ of the school, vols. xi to xiv, there are several papers -written by Dickins, one on excavation at Thalamae in Laconia, others -on the excavation of the shrine of Athena Chalkioikos at Sparta, and -the works of art found on the site. It is this temple and that of -Artemis Orthia which have yielded the most important results of the -undertaking. But as the work was one executed in common by a group of -students who worked into one another’s hands, it is not desirable or -possible to separate the threads in Dickins’s hands from the others. - - -III. Men of strong originality usually produce more satisfactory -work on subjects as to which they have gradually acquired first-hand -knowledge than on subjects which they have merely taken up as a task. -This was notably the case with Dickins. His best papers by far are -those dealing with Sparta and Lycosura, places where he worked on -definite lines, and where he reached important results. - -His paper on the art of Sparta[127] is extremely valuable; and as it is -hidden in a place little visited by classical scholars, it is desirable -to speak of it in some detail. There will before long appear a work -on the results of the excavations of the British School of Athens at -Sparta, a work which will contain some contributions by Dickins: and -of course it is possible that the excavators will modify the views -set forth ten years ago. But meantime the paper in question is the -best summary existing of the results of the excavation in relation to -Spartan art. - -The current notion that from the first settlement of the Dorians in -Sparta they formed a state organized for war only has to be greatly -modified. The warlike Sparta familiar to us from Plutarch and other -writers came into existence only in the course of the sixth century. -The earlier history of Sparta had been parallel to that of other -Greek cities; and we are able now to mark out successive periods of -development in the local artistic remains. In these remains Dickins -discerns four periods. First, there is the age of geometric art, the -ninth and early eighth centuries, when art products show the dominance -of the early Dorian civilization which the Spartans brought with them -from the north. Next comes a period in which we find oriental art -invading, owing to trade with Egypt and Ionia. In the third period -we find a fusion of native Greek art with the oriental style of -importation. The fourth period, the sixth and fifth centuries, should -show us at Sparta, as in other Greek cities, a bloom of local art; but -it never had a fair chance of development, as the rise of the military -spirit and asceticism in manners blighted it in the midst of its -spring. Thenceforward Sparta is cut off from the stream which leads to -such wonderful results in the architecture and sculpture of Argos and -Athens. It is a lesson for all times. Many of the early Spartan works -of art are represented in the article. Their character is striking: -Dickins compares them with the works found by Dr. Hogarth in the -earliest strata of Ephesus; and the Ionian influence in them confirms -the tales told by the historians of the frequent relations between -Sparta and Asia Minor. - -The sculptural group of Damophon of Messene at Lycosura in Arcadia has -long been an object of interest to archaeologists. We knew that it -consisted of four colossal figures, Demeter, Despoina, Artemis, and -the Titan Anytus. But there was no agreement as to the date of the -group: Damophon had been assigned by various writers to periods as far -apart as the fourth century before, and the second century after, our -era. When the site at Lycosura was excavated in 1889–90 by the Greek -archaeologists Leonardos and Kavvadias, fragments of the statues were -found, and the style proved somewhat disappointing. The closer study of -these fragments was resumed in 1906 by Dr. Kourouniotis, who partially -restored two of the figures. But it was reserved for Dickins, in a -series of closely reasoned and masterly papers,[128] to complete the -restoration of the group, and to fix definitely the date and style of -Damophon. - -The first paper deals with the date of Damophon, which is fixed on -the definite evidence of inscriptions to the first half of the second -century B.C., and deals so thoroughly with his historic connexion -that little is left for any future archaeologist to say in regard -to it. The architectural evidence at Lycosura confirms the date -assigned. In the second paper Dickins carries out a most detailed and -convincing restoration of the group, adding a discussion of the style -of Damophon. In the third paper he is able to confirm the accuracy of -his restoration by comparing with it a copy of the group on a bronze -coin of Julia Domna struck at Megalopolis. When the restoration was -published nothing was known of this coin; it may therefore be regarded -as independent evidence of the most satisfying character; and its -agreement in all but a few details with Dickins’s restoration shows -that his work survives that most severe of all tests, the discovery of -fresh evidence. Few conjectural restorations of archaeologists stand on -so firm a basis. - -Damophon had interested Dickins even before he became his special -subject of study, for as early as 1905 he had published two bearded -heads, one in the Vatican, one in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek, which -resemble the head of Anytus.[129] - -In 1906 he published a new replica of the Choiseul Gouffier type.[130] -His keen eye had discerned in the Terme Museum at Rome a detached leg -of the same form and style as the left leg of the Choiseul Gouffier -figure of the British Museum. To the support to which this leg is -attached there is also attached a quiver, and this led Dickins to -conclude that the Choiseul Gouffier figure is not, as many have -thought, an athlete, but an Apollo, as Mr. Murray always maintained. - -In 1911 he published an account[131] of a colossal marble sandal in -the Palazzo dei Conservatori at Rome, adorned with reliefs on the side -of the sole. Struck with the likeness of the style of these reliefs to -that of the figures on the garment at Lycosura, he boldly suggests that -it is an original work of Damophon. - -In 1914 he discussed the question[132] whether the noteworthy female -head at Holkham Hall can be given, as Sir Charles Walston has -suggested, to the east pediment of the Parthenon; and answered the -question with a decided negative. Another paper in the same year -suggests the identification of several sculptured heads in various -museums as portraits of kings of the Hellenistic Age, Egyptian, Syrian, -and Pergamene. The paper also discusses the portraits of Thucydides -and Aristotle. There is no more treacherous ground in archaeology than -the assignment of portraits which are uninscribed; but the keenness of -sight and the cautious method of Dickins had made him eminently fit for -such inquiries. - -In 1912 appeared a work on which Dickins had expended great labour, the -first volume of the _Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum at Athens_,[133] -comprising the sculpture down to the time of the Persian wars. The -archaic Korae and male figures which stood in lines on the Acropolis -and the pediments of the temples and shrines which adorned it when -the Persians broke in in 480 constitute one of the most wonderful -revelations of early Greek art. They have been frequently photographed; -but their scientific study had not advanced with their popularity, -and a number of difficult questions, as to date, artistic school, and -manner of drapery awaited the cataloguer. With great care and excellent -method Dickins approached these questions; and laid down a platform of -knowledge on which all future discussions must be based. The work is in -several ways a model. - -A posthumous paper on ‘The Followers of Praxiteles’, published in the -_Annual of the British School_,[134] had been given as a lecture at -Oxford. It covers some of the ground occupied by the present volume. -This with some manuscript to be printed in the forthcoming account -of excavations at Sparta and in the forthcoming second volume of -the _Catalogue of the Municipal Collections of Sculpture at Rome_, -completes the list of published works. My claim is that they should -rather be weighed than measured. - - P. GARDNER. - - - - -FOOTNOTES - - -[1] _N. H._ xxxiv. 52. - -[2] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxvi. 24. - -[3] Collignon, _Pergame_, figure on p. 204; Brunn-Bruckmann, -_Denkmäler_, Pl. 159. - -[4] _N. H._ xxxvi. 35. - -[5] Collignon, _Sculpture grecque_, ii, Fig. 302. - -[6] Collignon, _Sculpture grecque_, ii, Fig. 282. - -[7] Amelung, _Antiken in Florenz_, Pl. 14. - -[8] _Ibid._, p. 62. - -[9] _Ibid._, Pl. 17. - -[10] _Annali dell’ Instituto_, 1851, Pl. E. - -[11] Collignon, _Sculpture grecque_, ii. 546. - -[12] Seneca, _Controv._ x. 5. - -[13] Collignon, _Pergame_, figure on p. 206. - -[14] Amelung, _Antiken in Florenz_, p. 43. - -[15] Klein, _Praxiteles_, Fig. 35. - -[16] Furtwängler, _Der Satyr aus Pergamon, 40^{es} Programm zum -Winckelmannsfeste, 1880_. - -[17] Collignon, _Sculpture grecque_, ii, Fig. 318. - -[18] Bulle, _Der schöne Mensch_, Pl. 162. - -[19] Fig. 42. - -[20] Klein, _Geschichte_, iii. 57 ff.; Bienkowski, _Darstellungen der -Gallier_. - -[21] E. Gardner, _Handbook of Greek Sculpture_, Fig. 129. - -[22] _Ibid._, Fig. 130. - -[23] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiv. 84. - -[24] _Catalogue du Musée du Caire_, no. 27475. - -[25] Fraenkel, _Inschriften von Pergamon_, pp. 70–84. - -[26] _Revelation_ ii. 13. - -[27] Klein, _Geschichte_, iii. 122 ff. - -[28] _Die hell. Reliefbilder._ - -[29] _Roman Art._ - -[30] _Vid. inf._, p. 29. - -[31] Collignon, _Pergame_, figure on p. 222. - -[32] Fig. 8. - -[33] Wiegand und Schrader, _Priene_, p. 366. - -[34] Cf. Wace, _Annual of the British School at Athens_, ix. 225, for -summary of views; _Röm. Mittheil._ xix, Pfuhl, _Zur alexand. Kunst_, -pp. 1 ff. - -[35] Fig. 6. - -[36] Fig. 25. - -[37] Amelung, _Bull. Arch. Comm._ xxv. 110. - -[38] _Ausonia_, iii. 117 (Amelung). - -[39] Wallis, _Catalogue of Nemi Antiquities_, no. 832. - -[40] Dieterich, _Kleine Schriften_, 1911, p. 440; Stuart Jones, -_Catalogue of the Museo Capitolino_, p. 345. - -[41] Bulle, _Der schöne Mensch_, Pl. 187. - -[42] Stuart Jones, _Catalogue of the Museo Capitolino_, p. 344. - -[43] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 144. - -[44] Lucian, _Philops._ 18. - -[45] Schrader, _Marmorkopf eines Negers_, plates, _Winckelmannsfeste, -1900_. - -[46] Brunn-Bruckmann, _Denkmäler_, Pl. 393. - -[47] Hekler, _Greek and Roman Portraits_, p. 113. - -[48] Reinach, _Répertoire_, i. 165. - -[49] Schreiber, _Hell. Reliefbilder_; Wickhoff, _Roman Art_. - -[50] Schreiber, _op. cit._, Pl. III. - -[51] _Ibid._, Pl. XII. - -[52] _Ibid._, Pl. 84. - -[53] Collignon, _Sculpture grecque_, ii, Fig. 354. - -[54] Stark, _Niobe_, p. 165. - -[55] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 126. - -[56] Schreiber, _op. cit._, Pl. III. - -[57] _Ibid._, Pl. XI. - -[58] Brunn-Bruckmann, _Denkmäler_, Pl. 627 b. - -[59] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 128; see below, p. 38. - -[60] Cedren, _Hist. Comp._ 306 B. - -[61] _Ausstellung von Fundstücken aus Ephesos_, figures on pp. 14 and -15. - -[62] _Ibid._, figure on p. 5. - -[63] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 136. - -[64] _N. H._ xxxiv. 66. - -[65] _N. H._ xxxiv. 87. - -[66] _Ibid._ xxxiv. 73. - -[67] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 128. - -[68] _Annual of the British School at Athens_, vol. xxi, Pl. I. - -[69] _Ibid._, Dickins, _Followers of Praxiteles_, p. 1. - -[70] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 134. - -[71] _Ibid._, Fig. 135. - -[72] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 136. - -[73] Reinach, _Répertoire_, ii. 555. - -[74] Brunn-Bruckmann, _Denkmäler_, Pl. 249. - -[75] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 146. - -[76] Schreiber, _Das Bildniss Alexanders_, pp. 100 ff. - -[77] _Archäol. Anzeiger_, 1904, p. 212. - -[78] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 127. - -[79] Helbig, _Führer_, no. 550. - -[80] Watzinger, _Relief des Archelaos, 60^{tes} Prog. zum -Winckelmannsfeste_. - -[81] Mendel, _Catalogue des Musées Ottomans_, pp. 320–8. - -[82] _Annual of British School at Athens_, vol. xxi, Pl. 1. - -[83] Fig. 31. - -[84] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 122. - -[85] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 135. - -[86] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 134. - -[87] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 145. - -[88] Furtwängler, _Masterpieces_, Pl. XV. - -[89] Fig. 26. - -[90] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 115. - -[91] _N. H._ xxxiv. 80. - -[92] Klein, _Geschichte_, iii. 165. - -[93] _Antike Sculpturen zu Berlin_, no. 193. - -[94] Arndt-Brunn-Bruckmann, _Texte_, no. 578, Figs. 4 and 5. - -[95] Cf. my papers on Damophon in the _Annual of the British School at -Athens_, vols. xii, xiii, xvii. - -[96] _Annual of the British School at Athens_, xvii. 81. - -[97] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 142. - -[98] Furtwängler, _Masterpieces_, pp. 367 ff. - -[99] _Vide_ p. 5, note 1. - -[100] Fig. 1. - -[101] Brunn-Bruckmann, _Denkmäler_, Pl. 299. - -[102] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 148. - -[103] _Ibid._, Fig. 140. - -[104] _Ibid._, Fig. 141. - -[105] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 147. - -[106] Sauer, _Torso von Belvedere_. - -[107] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxvi. 30. - -[108] Furtwängler, _Ueber Statuenkopieen im Altertum_, p. 545, Munich, -1896 (_Abhandl. der K. Akademie_). - -[109] Pliny, _N.H._ xxxvi. 33. - -[110] Klein, _Geschichte der griech. Kunst_, iii. 340. - -[111] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 49. - -[112] Dickins, _Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum_, no. 698. - -[113] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 151. - -[114] Brunn-Bruckmann, _Denkmäler_, Pl. 308. - -[115] Kekulé, _Die Gruppe des Künstlers Menelaos_; Brunn-Bruckmann, -_Denkmäler_, Pl. 309. - -[116] Stuart Jones, _Catalogue of the Museo Capitolino_, p. 297. - -[117] E. Gardner, _op. cit._, Fig. 150. - -[118] Helbig, _Führer_, nos. 1290–6. - -[119] Hauser, _Die Neu-Attischen Reliefs_. - -[120] Brunn-Bruckmann, _Denkmäler_, Pl. 60. - -[121] Collignon, _Sculpture grecque_, ii, Fig. 345; _Röm. Mittheil._, -1888, Pl. 10. - -[122] Collignon, _Sculpture grecque_, ii, Fig. 340. - -[123] Helbig, _Führer_, nos. 975 and 970. - -[124] Studniczka, _Ara Pacis_; Petersen, _Ara Pacis Augustae_. - -[125] E. Strong, _Roman Sculpture_, Pl. XXXIV. - -[126] _Monumenti, Supplemento_, Pl. XXXIII-XXXVI. - -[127] _Burlington Magazine_, November 1908. - -[128] _Annual of the British School_, vols. xii, xiii, xvii. - -[129] _Annual of the British School_, xi. - -[130] _J.H.S._ xxvi. - -[131] _J.H.S._ xxxi. - -[132] _J.H.S._ xxxiv. - -[133] Published by the Cambridge University Press. - -[134] No. xxi, 1914–16. - - - - -INDEX - - - Actaeon torso, 41. - - _Adorans_ of Boedas, 37. - - Agasias, 34, 40. - - Ageladas, 74. - - Agias of Delphi, 56. - - Ajax (Menelaos) and Patroclos, 48, 50. - - Alexander, British Museum head of, 21; - Sieglin head of, 21; - with lance, 42. - - Alexandria, school of, 19 sqq.; - characteristics of, 21 sqq.; - connexion with Antioch, 33; - grotesques of, 27; - pastoral reliefs of, 30; - realism of, 25, 27 sqq. - - Andros, Hermes of, 54 sq. - - Anticythera, bronze figure from, 55 sq. - - Antioch, art of, 32 sq.; - coins of, 33; - Eutychides working at, 3; - statue of, 33, 46, 47. - - Anytos, 60 sqq. - - Apelles, 15, 30. - - Aphrodite, armed, 66; - with Ares, 74; - Capitoline, 25; - Capuan, 65 sq.; - Cnidian, 25; - from Cyrenaica, 22; - of Daedalus, 5; - Kallipygos, 8, 57; - of Melos, 63 sqq.; - with Triton at Dresden, 20, 21, 33. - - Apollo, Belvedere, 70; - at Daphne, 33; - torso in Berlin, 6; - of Tralles, 17. - - Apollonios of Tralles, 48 sq. - - Apotheosis of Homer, 16, 30, 44. - - Appiades of Stephanos, 73. - - Ara Pacis, 14, 79, 80, 82. - - Arcesilaos, 69, 75. - - Archelaos of Priene, 16, 44. - - Ares Borghese, 74. - - Ariadne, Capitol, 26. - - Aristeas of Aphrodisias, 51. - - Aristonides of Rhodes, 49. - - Artemis, of Damophon, 60 sqq.; - Leucophryene, temple of, 17; - of Pompeii, 78; - of Versailles, 70 sq. - - Asklepios of Damophon, 61 sq. - - Athena of Euboulides, 59. - - Athens, art of, 54 sqq., 75 sqq. - - Athlete from Ephesos, 34, 56. - - Attalid dedications, 4, 6, 9 sqq., 34. - - Augustus, monuments of, 79, 80. - - - Bearded head, in Capitol, 23; - from Nemi, 24. - - Bellerophon and Pegasus, 30. - - Belvedere, Apollo, 70; - torso, 71. - - Boedas, 36 sq. - - Boethos of Chalcedon, 18, 43. - - Borghese warrior, 40 sqq. - - Boston, Chian girl’s head in, 23, 26. - - Boxer, statue of, 42 sq. - - Boy with goose, 43. - - Brescia, Victory of, 66. - - Bronze casting, 36. - - Bryaxis, 20, 23 sq., 33. - - - ‘Cabinet’ pieces, popularity of, 51. - - Capitoline, Ariadne, 26; - bearded head, 23; - old woman, 28; - priest of Isis, 24; - Venus, 25. - - Capuan Venus, 65 sq. - - Centaurs, pair of, in Capitol, 51. - - Chairestratos, Themis of, 54. - - Chares of Lindos, 3, 35, 39. - - Chios, girl’s head from, 23, 26. - - Colossus, of the Conservatori, 33; - of Rhodes, 36, 39. - - Copies, Greco-Roman, 69. - - Crouching attitude, introduction of, 5 sq. - - Cyrenaica, Aphrodite from, 22. - - - Daedalos and Icaros, relief of, 31. - - Daedalus of Bithynia, Aphrodite of, 5. - - Daippos, 36 sq. - - Damophon of Messene, 1, 60 sqq. - - Dancing, influence of, on sculpture, 8. - - Decadence in art, 1; - of Alexandrian school, 20, 29. - - Demetrios Poliorcetes, 35, 46. - - Demetrios, portrait by, 27. - - Designs, naturalistic, 82; - Neo-Attic, 78. - - Despoina, veil of, 62. - - Diadochi, kingdoms of, 2, 3. - - Diadumenos of Polykleitos, 69. - - Diogenes of Villa Albani, 28. - - Dionysios, 57 sq. - - Drapery, academic, 54; - Alexandrian, 25; - of Alkamenes, 74; - of Aphrodite of Melos, 65; - of Neo-Attic school, 79; - Rhodian, 38, 44 sqq. - - - Eclecticism, 55, 56, 61, 63, 66, 75. - - Ephesos, art of, 34. - - Epinal Hermaphrodite, 57 sq. - - Eros, transformation of, into Cupid, 32; - with Psyche, 44. - - Erotes, frieze of, 34, 43. - - Eubouleus head, 26. - - Euboulides, 58 sq. - - Eucheir, 58 sq. - - Euthykrates, 36. - - Eutychides of Sikyon, 3, 33, 38, 46 sq. - - - Farnese Bull, 39, 48 sq. - - Farnesina, Villa, decorations of, 81. - - Fisherman, of Louvre, 28; - of Conservatori, 28. - - - Gaul, Dying, 9 sq., 37; - head of, at Cairo, 11, 20; - Ludovisi, 10 sq. - - Genetrix, Venus, 75. - - _Genre_ statues, 32, 43. - - Glycon, Herakles of, 70. - - Grimani reliefs, 30. - - Grotesques, Alexandrian, 27 sqq. - - Grouping, of statues, 74; - on Neo-Attic reliefs, 77. - - - Halicarnassos, altar from, 44 sq. - - Hellenism, meaning of, 83 sqq. - - Herakles, on Antioch coins, 33; - of Damophon, 61; - Farnese, 70; - on Telephos frieze, 16. - - Herculaneum figure in Dresden, 38, 55. - - Hermaphrodite, in Berlin, 57; - bronze, mentioned by Pliny, 57; - in Constantinople, 5, 65; - Epinal, 57; - sleeping, 8, 57 sq. - - Hermerotes, 49. - - Hermes, of Andros, 54 sq.; - from Atalanta, 56; - at Pheneos, 59; - Resting, 37 sq.; - Richelieu, 56. - - Herms, 49, 52, 75. - - Hero resting on lance, 42 sq. - - - Idealism, in Hellenistic art, 2; - lack of in Alexandrian school, 20. - - Ildefonso group, 74. - - Inopos in Louvre, 26. - - Isis, head of, in Louvre, 24; - priest of, in Capitol, 24. - - - Jason in Louvre, 40 sqq. - - - Kephisodotos, _symplegma_ of, 4. - - Knife-grinder of the Uffizi, 6 sq. - - _Korai_ in Greco-Roman art, 79. - - Kritios, ephebe of, 74. - - - Laocoon, 1, 39, 41, 48, 50, 51. - - Leochares, 70. - - Ligourio bronze, 74. - - Litter, bronze, in Conservatori, 43. - - Lycosura, group at, 60 sqq. - - Lysippos, pupils of, 3, 36 sqq.; - all-round figures of, 41; - female type of, 39; - influence of: on Antiochene art, 33; - on Farnese Bull, 49; - on Hermes of Andros, 55; - on Rhodian school, 36 sqq.; - on Victory of Samothrace, 47. - - - Macedonia, attitude of, towards art, 3; - as enemy of Athens, 2. - - Maenad, dancing, in Berlin, 8; - in Conservatori, 78; - Scopaic, in Neo-Attic art, 76. - - Magnesia, Amazonomachy from, 17; - draped figure from, 45, 47. - - Mahdia ship, statuettes from, 28. - - Mainland schools of Greece, 53 sqq. - - Mantinean basis, 38, 45. - - Marsyas, ‘red’ and ‘white’, 6; - Pergamene group of, with Apollo and Scythian slave, 6 sq. - - Medici Venus, 71. - - Meleager type, Scopaic, 56. - - Melos, art of, 63 sqq. - - Menander relief, 16, 30, 32. - - Menelaos (Ajax) and Patroclos, 48, 50. - - Menelaos, pupil of Stephanos, group by, 74. - - Models, use of living, 7; - clay, 72. - - _Morbidezza_ in Alexandrian work, 21. - - Muscles, exaggeration of, 7; - of Farnese Herakles, 70; - of Laocoon, 50; - in Neo-Attic works, 78; - Rhodian naturalism in rendering of, 37. - - Muses, of Philiskos, 44 sq.; - of the Vatican, 46. - - - Naturalism, in Alexandrian art, 25, 27 sqq.; - in floral designs, 82; - in Rhodian art, 37 sq., 47. - - Negro’s head in Berlin, 28. - - Nemi, bearded head from, 24. - - Neo-Attic sculpture, 69, 75 sqq. - - Nile, statue of, 32. - - Niobid, Chiaramonti, 47. - - Niobids, slaying of, 30. - - Nottingham Castle, head in, 24. - - - Odysseus, Chiaramonti, 48 sq. - - Ofellius, C., of Delos, 58. - - Old woman, of Capitol, 28; - of Conservatori, 28; - of Dresden, 29. - - Orestes and Electra, 74. - - Orontes, figure of, 33. - - Otricoli, Zeus of, 23. - - - Painting, influence of, on sculpture, 15, 22, 30, 81. - - Papias of Aphrodisias, 51. - - Parrhasios, 7, 15. - - Pasiteles, 69, 72 sqq. - - Pastoral reliefs, 30 sqq. - - Pellichos, portrait of, 27. - - Peloponnese, art of, 59 sqq. - - Pergamon, early school of, 4 sqq.; - later school of, 12 sqq.; - altar friezes from, 12 sqq.; - characteristics of art of, 5, 8, 17; - erotic groups of, 4; - girl’s head from, 5, 65; - Hellenistic reliefs ascribed to, 31; - mixed tradition in art of, 7, 17; - satyr types of, 7; - influence of: on other schools, 18; - on Damophon, 60; - on Euboulides, 59; - on Melian Aphrodite, 65; - on Melian Poseidon, 63. - - Persian, head of dead, in Terme Museum, 11. - - Philiskos, 44 sq. - - Pliny, on Aristonides, 49; - on Attalid dedications, 10; - on Boethos, 43; - on Daedalus, 5; - on Euthykrates, 36; - on the Hermaphrodite, 57; - on Pasiteles, 72; - on Stephanos, 73. - - Polyeuctes, the Demosthenes of, 54. - - Polykles, 57. - - Portraiture, realism in, 27; - at Athens, 54. - - Poseidon of Melos, 63. - - Praxiteles, Cnidian Aphrodite of, 25; - drapery of, 38, 46; - Eubouleus ascribed to, 26; - impressionism of, 22; - influence of, in Hellenistic art, 9, 17, 23, 34, 55. - - Praying Boy of Berlin, 37. - - Priene, sculpture from, 17; - Archelaos of, 16, 44. - - Priest of Isis in Capitol, 24. - - Protogenes, 15, 35. - - Pyrgoteles, 21. - - - Realism in Alexandrian art, 27 sqq. - - Reliefs, from Asklepieion, 56; - Attic grave, 56; - classification of Hellenistic, 16, 29 sqq.; - early distinguished from late, 32; - Greco-Roman, 80, 81; - influence of painting on, 15, 30, 81; - Neo-Attic, 75 sqq.; - perspective in, 80 sq.; - pictorial background in, 14, 81. - - Rhodes, school of, athletic sculpture of, 20, 39 sqq.; - characteristics of, 35 sqq.; - connexion with Victory of Samothrace, 47; - drapery of, 38, 44 sqq.; - exaggeration of, 43, 50; - influence of, on Pergamon frieze, 13; - mythological reliefs of, 31; - perfection of technique of, 52. - - - Samothrace, Victory of, 46 sqq. - - Sarapis of Bryaxis, 20, 23 sq. - - Satyr types, Pergamene, 7, 17, 27. - - Scopaic school, 5, 7, 17, 34, 55, 56, 65. - - Scylla group, 48, 50. - - Silanion, Jocasta of, 49. - - Sosibios, vase of, 77. - - Spada, Palazzo, reliefs in, 30, 31, 73. - - Stephanos, Appiades of, 73; - athlete of, 73 sq. - - Straton, 62. - - Stucco, hair added in, 22 sq. - - Stylopinakia, 16. - - Subiaco youth, 42. - - Syracuse, torso at, 26. - - - Tauriskos of Tralles, 48 sq. - - Telephos frieze, 14 sq. - - Thasos, figure from, 45. - - Themis of Chairestratos, 54. - - Timarchides, 57. - - Tisicrates, 37. - - Titus, arch of, 80 sq. - - Tralles, Apollo of, 17; - Apollonios and Tauriskos of, 48; - as art centre, 17 sq.; - ephebe of, 17. - - - Venus, Capuan, 65 sq.; - from Cyrenaica, 22; - Genetrix, 75; - Medici, 71. - - Victory, of the Balustrade, 76 sq.; - of Brescia, 66; - of Euboulides, 59; - of Samothrace, 46 sqq. - - Visit of Dionysos, relief of, 16, 30. - - - Xenophilos, 62. - - - Zeus of Otricoli, 23. - - - PRINTED IN ENGLAND - AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS - - - - -Transcriber’s Notes - - -Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a -predominant preference was found in the original book; otherwise they -were not changed. - -Simple typographical errors were corrected; unbalanced quotation -marks were remedied when the change was obvious, and otherwise left -unbalanced. - -Illustrations in this eBook have been positioned between paragraphs -and outside quotations. In versions of this eBook that support -hyperlinks, the page references in the List of Illustrations lead to -the corresponding illustrations. - -The index was not checked for proper alphabetization or correct page -references. - -Page 41: “statue of Agasias” may be a misprint for “statue by Agasias”. - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Hellenistic Sculpture, by Guy Dickins - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE *** - -***** This file should be named 63242-0.txt or 63242-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/3/2/4/63242/ - -Produced by Turgut Dincer, Charlie Howard, and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |