CHAPTER III.

VICTOR STATUES REPRESENTED AT REST. PLATES 8-21 AND FIGURES 9-31. We have seen[816] that it was a very old custom in Greece to dedicate statues of victors at the great national games to the god in whose honor the games were held. On many sites, especially at Olympia, tiny statuettes of clay or bronze of very primitive technique have been found in great numbers, which represent victors in many attitudes and ways—as horsemen, warriors, charioteers, etc. By the sixth century B. C. this ancient custom, as we learn from literary, epigraphical, and monumental sources, had developed, with the rapid progress attained by the sculptor’s art, into the regular practice of erecting life-size statues of athletes at the site of the games or in the native city of the victor. Especially at Olympia hundreds of such monuments were gradually collected, whose numbers and beauty must have exerted an overwhelming impression on the visitor to the Altis. We shall now begin the consideration of these monuments in detail. The victor statues at Olympia, as elsewhere, may be conveniently divided into two main groups—those which represent the victor as standing or seated at rest, before or after the contest, and those which represent him in movement, _i. e._, in some contest schema.[817] Examples of statues of athletes represented at rest are common in Greek athletic sculpture. We need only mention the so-called _Oil-pourer_ of Munich (Pl. 11), who is represented as pouring oil over his body to make his limbs more supple for the coming wrestling bout; the _Diadoumenos_ of Polykleitos (Pls. 17, 18, and Fig. 28), who is binding a victor fillet around his head after a successful encounter; the _Apoxyomenos_ of the school of Lysippos (Pl. 29), representing an athlete scraping off the oil and dirt from his body after his victory. In this class of statues, which forms by far the greater number and shows the richer motives, the poses are quiet and reserved, the figures are compact, and the expression earnest and even thoughtful. As examples of statues represented in movement we need only recall such well-known works as the _Diskobolos_ of Myron with its rhythmic lines and vivacious expression (Pls. 22, 23, and Figs. 34, 35); the bronze wrestlers of Naples, who are bending eagerly forward watching for a grip (Fig. 51); or the artistically intertwined pancratiast group of Florence (Pl. 25). Such monuments show us the varied poses, the choice of the critical moment, the truth to life, and the masterly rhythm attained by certain sculptors. THE APOLLO TYPE. In this chapter we shall confine ourselves almost entirely to the statues of victors represented at rest, discussing those represented in motion chiefly in the next. Most of the oldest statues at Olympia, dating from a time when there were few variations in the sculptural type, must have been represented at rest and in the schema of the so-called “Apollos.” Ever since the discovery of the _Apollo of Thera_ in 1836 (Fig. 9), this _genre_ of sculpture, the most characteristic of the early period, extending from the end of the seventh century B. C. to the time of the gable groups of Aegina, has been carefully studied. Though we now know that the type passed equally well for gods and mortals,[818] we still keep the name, because of its familiarity and for the sake of having a common designation. That this type actually represented Olympic victors we have indubitable proof. Pausanias mentions the stone victor statue of the pancratiast Arrhachion, dating from the first half of the sixth century B. C., which stood in the agora of his native town Phigalia. He describes it as archaic in pose, with the feet close together and the arms hanging down the sides to the hips—the typical “Apollo” schema.[819] Moreover, this very statue has survived to our time (Fig. 79).[820] A study, therefore, of this type of statue will give us an idea of how some of the early statues at Olympia looked. [Illustration: FIG. 9.—Statue of so-called _Apollo of Thera_. National Museum, Athens.] [Illustration: FIG. 10.—Statue of so-called _Apollo of Orchomenos_. National Museum, Athens.] [Illustration: FIG. 11.—Statue of so-called _Apollo_, from Mount Ptoion, Bœotia. National Museum, Athens.] The “Apollo” statues,[821] because of differences in facial expression, have been conveniently divided into two groups: those represented by the examples from Thera, Melos, Volomandra, Tenea, etc., sometimes named the “grinning” group, because the corners of the mouth are turned upwards into the so-called “archaic smile,” and those represented by the examples from Orchomenos, the precinct of Mount Ptoion, and elsewhere, named the “stolid” group, because in them the mouth forms a straight line.[822] There are, however, essential differences between the statues of each group. Thus, while some of both groups—_e. g._, the examples from Melos, Volomandra, and Orchomenos—have square shoulders, most of the others have sloping ones. The type gradually improved, as in each successive attempt the sculptor overcame difficulties, until finally revolutionary changes had taken place in the original form. This improvement is seen in the treatment of the hair, in the modeling of the face and body, and in the proportions of the statues. In a head of a statue from Mount Ptoion[823]—which is broken off at the neck—we seem to see the sculptor in wood making his first attempt in stone. In the archaic example from Thera[824] (Fig. 9) the arms hang straight down close to the sides, as in the statue of Arrhachion, being detached only slightly from the body at the elbows, showing that the artist was afraid that they might break off. In other examples, as in the one from Orchomenos[825] (Fig. 10) and one from Mount Ptoion[826] (Fig. 11), the space between the arms and the body has become larger, while in the example from Melos[827] (Fig. 12) only the hands are glued to the thighs. In the “Apollo” found at Tenea in 1846, and now in Munich[828] (Pl. 8A), the arms are free, but the hands are held fast to the body by the retention of small marble bridges between them and the thighs. The final step has been taken in two examples from Mount Ptoion (Fig. 13), in which the arms from the shoulders down are free from the bodies.[829] The bridges shown on the photograph in the figure to the left, which connect the forearms with the thighs, are of plaster, being added at the time the statue was set up in Athens.[830] The figure to the right is smaller and clearly discloses Aeginetan influence. The audacity of the sculptor in entirely freeing the arms in both examples was rewarded by the arms being broken off. Similarly, in the _Strangford Apollo_ of the British Museum (Fig. 14),[831] the arms, which hung loose from the shoulders, are broken away. The larger statue from Mount Ptoion just mentioned also has the arms slightly crooked at the elbows, the forearms being extended at an oblique angle to the body. This represents an intermediate stage between the earlier “Apollos,” in which the arms adhered vertically to the sides of the body (as _e. g._, in the ones from Orchomenos, Thera, Melos, and Tenea), and the later ones, in which the arms were bent, the forearms being extended at right angles to the body (see Figs. 15 and 19).[832] [Illustration: FIG. 12.—Statue of so-called _Apollo of Melos_. National Museum, Athens.] The example from Thera shows the archaic method of working in planes parallel to front and side and at right angles to one another, the corners of the square block being merely rounded off. The outlines of muscles are indicated by shallow grooves, which do not affect the flatness of the surface, and there is but little facial expression. We see the chest outlined in some examples from Aktion.[833] In the Melian example the rectangular form is modified by cutting away the sides obliquely in arms and body; here there is more expression in the face, and the treatment of the hair and the proportions of the body are more developed. In the example from Orchomenos we see a great improvement in form. Here, as in later Bœotian examples, the original rectangular form of the example from Thera has become round, so that a horizontal cross-section through the waist is almost circular; the muscles of the abdomen are indicated and the skin is naturalistically shown in the back and at the elbows. In later Bœotian examples from Mount Ptoion, which are directly developed from the Orchomenos type,[834] the form is lighter and the proportions more graceful. In one example (Fig. 13, left) even the veins are shown. In the example mentioned above as showing Aeginetan influence, and dated about 500 B. C.,[835] the muscles are clearly marked, just as in the _Strangford_ example and in the statues from the temple at Aegina, showing that foreign art had been introduced into Bœotia by that time. In the example from Volomandra in Attica,[836] we see affinity to the examples from Thera and Melos, but Attic softness in the carving of the shoulders and in the proportions. In the _Apollo of Tenea_ (Pl. 8A), “by far the most beautiful preserved statue of archaic sculpture,”[837] a statue most carefully worked, we see a Peloponnesian example of the beginning of the sixth or even of the end of the seventh century B. C. Here the sculptor has shown great care in executing details and in the proportions. The eyes are not flat, but convex, and are wide open as in most of the earlier examples. The downward flow of the lines of the statue is striking, which is caused by the sloping shoulders and the elongated triangular-shaped abdomen. The slimness of the figure, with the contour of bones and muscles, is remarkable at so early a date. The fashioning of the knees is detailed. When we contrast this tall, slim, agile statue with the massively square-built Argive type found at Delphi (Pl. 8B), we find it reasonable to suspect that the _Apollo of Tenea_ is an imported work, coming probably from the islands.[838] The two statues of (?) Kleobis and Biton, discovered at Delphi in 1893 and 1894, and inscribed with the name of the sculptor Polymedes of Argos, have added much to our knowledge of early Argive sculpture (Pl. 8B, = Statue A).[839] This Polymedes may have been one of the predecessors acknowledged by Eutelidas and Chrysothemis, among the first victor statuaries known to us by name, in the epigram preserved by Pausanias from the base of the monument of Damaretos and his son Theopompos at Olympia.[840] The epigram, in any case, implies that the reputation of the Argive school in athletic sculpture was already well established by the end of the sixth century B. C. These massively built statues, dating from the beginning of the sixth century B. C., outline the muscles to a certain extent, even showing the line of the false ribs by incised lines. They display, however, but little detail in modeling, except in the knees, where the artist has tried to indicate the bones and muscles. The features of the large heads are without expression; the large eyes are flat and not convex, as in the example from Tenea, though the Argive artist was, perhaps, later than the Corinthian one, and a long distance removed from the later artist of the Ligourió bronze (Fig. 16), to be discussed later. [Illustration: FIG. 13.—Statues of so-called _Apollos_ from Mount Ptoion. National Museum, Athens.] [Illustration: PLATE 8A A. Statue of so-called _Apollo of Tenea_. Glyptothek, Munich.] [Illustration: PLATE 8B B. So-called _Argive Apollo_ from Delphi. Museum of Delphi.] [Illustration: FIG. 14.—Statue known as the _Strangford Apollo_. British Museum, London.] In all these “Apollos,” which have been found all over the Greek world from Naukratis in Egypt to Ambrakia, and along the Asian coast and on the Aegean Isles, the archaic artists have attempted, by their modeling of the muscles, especially of the chest and abdomen, to express trained strength. The heavy Argive examples, which may be said to be the prototypes of the Ligourió bronze and of the _Doryphoros_ of Polykleitos (Pl. 4 and Fig. 48), are in strong contrast with the lighter type best represented by the example from Tenea. In the former, with their big heads and shoulders and their powerful arms and legs, we may see early boxers or pancratiasts; in the latter a long-limbed runner, with powerful chest, but slim and supple legs. In the _Apollo of Tenea_ there is no flabbiness nor softness, and yet no emaciation. We see very similar runners on Panathenaic vases. Between the two extremes we have a long series, those from Mount Ptoion and elsewhere. We do not doubt that the early statues of athletes at Olympia showed all the variations we have discussed in these “Apollos.” Of this type, then, were the statues at Olympia of the Spartan Eutelidas, the oldest mentioned by Pausanias,[841] those of Phrikias of Pelinna in Thessaly,[842] and of Phanas of Pellene in Achæa,[843] to whom, later on in this chapter, we shall ascribe the two archaic marble helmeted heads found at Olympia (Fig. 30), the wooden statues of Praxidamas and Rhexibios,[844] the statue of Kylon on the Akropolis of Athens,[845] and that of Hetoimokles at Sparta.[846] The statue of the famous wrestler Milo of Kroton by the sculptor Dameas, mentioned by Pausanias[847] and described by Philostratos,[848] must also have conformed with the “Apollo” type, though it showed a step in advance of the earlier ones by having its arms bent at the elbow, the forearms being extended horizontally outward. This statue needs a somewhat detailed account. The description of Philostratos seems to have been founded on the account in Pausanias[849] of Milo’s prowess, which, in turn, may have arisen from the appearance of the statue and the cicerone’s description. Philostratos says that it stood on a quoit with the feet close together and with the left hand grasping a pomegranate, the fingers of the right hand being extended straight out, and a fillet encircling the brows.[850] Philostratos has Apollonios explain the attributes of the statue on the ground that the people of Kroton represented their famous victor in the guise of a priest of Hera. This would explain the priestly fillet and the pomegranate sacred to the goddess, while the diskos, on which the statue rested, would be the shield on which Hera’s priest stood when praying. Scherer, however, rightly pointed out that the statue in the Altis was of Milo the victor and not the priest. He therefore explained the diskos[851] merely as a round basis on which the statue, of the archaic “Apollo” type with its feet close together, stood, and the _tainia_ as a victor band. He followed Philostratos in believing that the gesture of the right hand was one of adoration.[852] He looked upon the object in the left hand not as a pomegranate at all, but as an alabastron, a toilet article adapted to a victor. He, therefore, believed that the _Apollo_ of the elder Kanachos of Sikyon,[853] the so-called _Philesian Apollo_,[854] represented nude and holding a tiny fawn in the right hand and a bow in the left, would give a good idea of the pose of Milo’s statue.[855] Hitzig and Bluemner believe this explanation of Scherer probable, although they rightly disagree with him in his exchanging the pomegranate for an alabastron, since Pausanias expressly mentions a pomegranate in the hand of another victor statue at Olympia.[856] Pliny speaks of a male figure by Pythagoras, _mala ferentem nudum_,[857] and Lucian says apples were prizes at Delphi,[858] and we know that Milo was also a Pythian victor. The same commentators believe that Pausanias’ story of Milo bursting a cord drawn round his brow by swelling his veins arose from the victor band on the statue, and the story of the strength of his fingers from the position of the fingers on it. [Illustration: FIG. 15.—Bronze Statuette of a Palæstra Victor, from the Akropolis. Akropolis Museum, Athens.] We have seen in the “Apollo” statues a considerable variety of physical types. In the sixth century B. C. the artist was feeling his way and was hampered by local school tendencies. At first he knew only how to produce rigid statues in the conventional Egyptian attitude with the arms glued to the sides, the two halves of the body being symmetrical and the hips on the same level. He gradually improved on this model, making the position more elastic—as in the statue of Milo—rightly indicating bones and muscles and giving to the figure natural proportions. Bulle has shown on one plate[859] three statuettes which illustrate the improvements reached in bronze in various parts of Greece by the end of the sixth century B. C. To the left is represented a victorious palæstra gymnast—as is indicated by the remnants of akontia in the hands—in the Akropolis Museum (Fig. 15);[860] in the center is the Payne Knight statuette of the British Museum,[861] carrying a fawn in the right hand, which is a copy of the _Philesian Apollo_ which stood in the Didymaion near Miletos; to the right is Hermes with the petasos, short-girded tunic, and winged sandals, holding a ram in the left and probably a kerykeion in the right hand.[862] The attributes of the three, then, attest respectively a victor, Apollo, and Hermes. In all three the arms are freed from the body, and the muscles of the breast, chest, and abdomen are indicated, though carelessly in the case of the victor. The proportions of the three vary greatly; the Attic victor has a large head, broad shoulders, powerful chest, long body, and short legs; the _Apollo_ has long legs, shorter though slimmer body, and small head;[863] the _Hermes_ has a clearly outlined figure and shows the careful modeling so characteristic of the schools of Argos and Sikyon in the fifth century B. C. Bulle shows that the further development of the “Apollo” type was halted by the Argive school, which, while continuing the restful pose of these figures, counteracted their rigidity by inclining the head to the side and throwing the weight unevenly on the legs by lowering one hip and further advancing one foot. The central line was no longer vertical, but curved, and it was now possible to give greater detail to chest and abdomen. Polykleitos finally perfected this curve and threw back the left foot, resting the weight of the body on the right—from which time on we have the regular scheme of “free” and “rest” legs. Despite all these later improvements, Olympic victors continued to set up statues in the rest attitude of the “Apollo” type down perhaps into the third century B. C. Such dedications were the result both of school tendencies and economy, especially in the case of equestrian victors, who frequently were content to use such “actionless” statues in place of groups. We have only to mention the monuments of Timon of Elis, whose statue was the work of the Sikyonian Daidalos,[864] and of Telemachos of Elis, whose statue was made by the otherwise unknown sculptor Philonides.[865] Before systematically considering victor statues at Olympia and elsewhere with general motives, _i. e._, represented at rest, we shall now rapidly sketch the development of athletic sculpture in four great centres, Argos, Sikyon, Aegina, and Athens, even though some of the works mentioned were represented in motion. Sculptors of other schools known at Olympia will be treated incidentally in both this and the following chapters. THE AFFILIATED SCHOOLS OF ARGOS AND SIKYON. While in general it is unprofitable to discuss sculptors who have not surely left any example of their art behind, there are two early schools of Peloponnesian sculpture, those of Argos and Sikyon, which, though we may assign work to them only by conjecture, can not be summarily passed over, owing to their great importance in the history of Greek athletic art. The bronze used in their works was too valuable to escape the barbarians, and, furthermore, the monotony, which must have characterized early Peloponnesian sculpture, militated against these works being reproduced to any great degree by later copyists. THE SCHOOL OF ARGOS. The Argive school was devoted mainly to athletic statuary. The greatest name in old Argive art is that of Ageladas or Hagelaïdas,[866] the reputed teacher of Myron and Polykleitos, who lived from the third quarter of the sixth century into the second quarter of the fifth century B. C. While his connection with Myron and Polykleitos is scarcely to be doubted,[867] his supposed connection with Pheidias has made the chronology of the life of this sculptor one of the difficult problems of the ancient history of art. A scholion on Aristophanes’ _Ranae_, 504, dates the statue known as the _Herakles Alexikakos_ in the Attic deme Melite by Hagelaïdas after the pestilence in Athens of 431-430 B. C., and makes the Argive sculptor (Gelados = Hagelaïdas) the teacher of Pheidias. As his statue of the Olympic victor Anochos commemorated a victory won in Ol. 65 (= 520 B. C.), this late date is manifestly impossible.[868] Furthermore, a better tradition says that Hegias was the teacher of the Attic master.[869] Furtwaengler’s attempt to show that these two divergent traditions were really in accord, by the assumption that Hegias was the pupil of Hagelaïdas and that his art came from the latter—thus explaining certain similarities in the work of Hagelaïdas and Pheidias,—does not solve the problem.[870] As the scholion is based on a good tradition,[871] the best solution of the difficulty is that of Kalkmann[872] and others, that the _Alexikakos_ was the work of a younger Hagelaïdas, the grandson of the famous master, by the intermediate Argeiadas. For a lower limit to the activity of Hagelaïdas there seems to be no good reason for distrusting the evidence that he made a bronze _Zeus_ for the Messenians to be set up at Naupaktos, whither they moved in 455 B. C.[873] This makes quite possible a period of collaboration of four or five years at least between Polykleitos and Hagelaïdas. Pausanias mentions the monuments of three victors at Olympia by Hagelaïdas: the statues of the pancratiast Timasitheos of Delphi, who won two victories some time between Ols. (?) 65 and 67 (520 and 512 B. C.);[874] of the runner Anochos of Tarentum, who won in the stade- and double-race in Ols. 65 and (?) 66 (= 520 and 516 B. C.);[875] and the chariot-group of Kleosthenes of Epidamnos, who won in Ol. 66 (= 516 B. C.).[876] None of the works of Hagelaïdas at Olympia or elsewhere is known. Messenian coins of the fourth century B. C. show the motives of two of his statues, that of his _Zeus Ithomatas_ just mentioned as being made for the Messenians,[877] and the beardless _Zeus_ παῖς at Aigion.[878] However, we infer the characteristics of his style from the bronze statuette in Berlin which was found at Ligourió near Epidauros (Fig. 16).[879] This is undoubtedly an Argive work contemporary with the later period of Hagelaïdas. Furtwaengler and Frost are right in looking upon it as showing the prototype of the canon of Polykleitos. Though too small to count as a characteristic work of the early Argive school, it shows us that the style of that school was a short and stocky type, similar to Aeginetan works, only somewhat fleshier and heavier. The straight mouth and heavy chin, the treatment of the eyelids, and the clumsy limbs are all archaic features to be expected in the period preceding Polykleitos. The modeling is carefully executed, showing a knowledge of anatomy. If such excellence is found in a statuette, we can form some idea of the perfection of a statue by the master. [Illustration: FIG. 16.—Bronze Statuette, from Ligourió. Museum of Berlin.] [Illustration: PLATE 9 Statue of an Athlete, by Stephanos. Villa Albani, Rome.] The bronze _Apollo_ from Pompeii now in the Naples Museum,[880] with marble replicas in Mantua and Paris,[881] shows us how Hagelaïdas treated a god type, while the statue of an athlete by Stephanos will give us some idea of how he treated his victor statues, as it seems to have been modeled after an athlete statue of the early fifth century B. C., perhaps after a work by some pupil of the master. Stephanos belonged to the school of Pasiteles, a group of sculptors flourishing at Rome at the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Empire. They devoted themselves to the reproduction of early fifth-century statues. They were not ordinary copyists, for their works show individual mannerisms and a system of proportions foreign to the originals. Thus their statues have the square shoulders of the Argive school, but the slim bodies and slender legs of the period of Lysippos and his scholars. Apart from such mannerisms, then, in the male figure signed _Stephanos, pupil of Pasiteles_, in the Villa Albani in Rome (Pl. 9),[882] which reappears in a very similar statue in groups combined with a female figure of related style,[883] or with another male figure,[884] we may see a copy of a bronze original of the Argive school before Polykleitos. The standing motive and the body forms are the same in both the Mantuan _Apollo_ and the Stephanos figure, although the former is more developed and the head type is different in both; this shows that the two, while displaying the same basic ideal, were not works of the same master.[885] As the statue by Stephanos has a fillet around the hair, it may well represent an ideal athlete, who in the original held an aryballos or similar palæstra attribute in the raised left hand. It is interesting to compare the copies of this group with those of another representing mother and son, the work of Menelaos, the pupil of Stephanos, which, though transferred from Greek to Roman taste in respect of drapery and forms, is merely a variation of the same theme without any heroic traits.[886] The influence of Hagelaïdas can be easily traced in other schools of art, especially in the Attic School and in the sculptures of the temple of Zeus at Olympia, whether these latter be Peloponnesian in origin or not. It will be convenient in this connection to discuss briefly the style of these important sculptures, which we have already mentioned several times. The statement of Pausanias,[887] that the sculptors of the East and West Gables were Paionios of Mende in Thrace and Alkamenes respectively—the latter being known as the pupil of Pheidias[888]—was not doubted until the discovery of the Olympia sculptures.[889] Then doubts arose both on chronological and stylistic grounds, and now only a few archæologists would maintain that either artist had anything to do with these groups. The style of the two gables (as well as that of the metopes) is so similar that many have assigned them to one and the same artist.[890] They have been referred to many schools from Ionia to Sicily, even including a local Elean one. Thus Brunn assigned them to a North Greek-Thracian school; Flasch[891] and (more recently) Joubin[892] to the Attic; Kekulé[893] and Friedrichs-Wolters[894] to a West Greek (Sicilian) one, because of their similarity to the metopes of temple E at Selinos; Furtwaengler[895] to an Ionic one (Parian masters). Most scholars, however, including K. Lange,[896] Treu,[897] Studniczka,[898] Collignon,[899] and Overbeck,[900] have referred them to Peloponnesian sculptors.[901] To return to the art of Hagelaïdas: if we assume that the Ligourió bronze comes from the school of that Argive master certain conclusions must be drawn. The figure is archaic, but does not have the archaic smile. In Athens at the end of the archaic period there was a reaction against this smile, and doubtless the Athenian artists were strongly influenced by Argive models. Thus an archaic bronze head of a youth, found on the Akropolis and dating from about 480 B. C., shows a serious mouth, a strong chin, heavy upper eyelids, and finely worked hair, characteristics which we found in the Ligourió statuette. These traits show that the statuette and the head were the forerunners of the _Apollo_ of the West Gable at Olympia. So finished a bronze as this one from the Akropolis, at the beginning of the fifth century B. C., has inclined Richardson to look upon it as “not improbably a work of Hagelaïdas,”[902] though here again Furtwaengler would ascribe it to Hegias.[903] The Parian marble statue of an ephebe found on the Akropolis (Fig. 17)[904]—one of the most beautiful recovered during the excavations there—shows the same Argive influence. This statue is chronologically the first masterpiece, thus far recovered, which marks the break with archaism by having its head turned slightly to one side.[905] It has the same pose as the _Athlete_ by Stephanos and probably represents a palæstra victor. The head, with its heavy chin, and the muscular body strikingly resemble the _Harmodios_ (Fig. 32), which has led Furtwaengler and others to ascribe it to Kritios or his school.[906] At the same time a similarity is seen between this head and that of the _Apollo_ of the West Gable at Olympia, and so with Bulle and others we ascribe it to the Argive school. [Illustration: FIG. 17.—Statue of an Ephebe, from the Akropolis. Akropolis Museum, Athens.] One of the female statues (_Korai_) found on the Akropolis, and approximately of the same date as the ephebe, viz, the fragmentary one consisting of head and bust and known popularly as _la petite boudeuse_, shows the same revolt against Ionism.[907] In many respects this statue is very different from most of the other Akropolis _Korai_. The eyes are not yet set back naturally, but the appearance of depth is attained by thickening the eyelids, quite in contrast with the modeling of the eyeball in most of the other statues. The corners of the mouth turn down, which gives it the appearance of pouting. This statue is also our first example in sculpture of the so-called Greek profile—the nose continuing the line of the forehead. The same Argive influence in Athenian art is also discernible in the Parian marble head of an athlete with traces of yellow in the hair (Fig. 18),[908] which may be dated a little later than the Akropolis ephebe—about 470 B. C. Because of its resemblance to the _Apollo_ of Olympia, its Attic-Peloponnesian origin seems clear.[909] Its expression is comparable with that of the _Kore_ just discussed—as it has the same mouth, eyes, and nose, both monuments showing the reaction against the archaic smile, which characterized the Ionian period of Attic art. This same Ionic reaction also may be seen in the bronze statuette of a diskobolos in the Metropolitan Museum (Fig. 46),[910] which resembles in style that of the _Tyrannicides_, but shows also Argive traits. These Argive traits, small head and slender limbs, are easily seen by comparing this statuette with the Ligourió bronze. [Illustration: FIG. 18.—Head of an Ephebe, from the Akropolis. Akropolis Museum, Athens.] We have already mentioned the monumental group of the hoplite victor Damaretos and of the pentathlete Theopompos, which was made about 500 B. C. by the Argive sculptors Chrysothemis and Eutelidas.[911] These artists were known to later antiquity only by the epigram inscribed on the base of this monument at Olympia, and the probable dates of the two victories of Theopompos, Ols. (?) 69 and 70 (= 504 and 500 B. C.), show that they were contemporaries of Hagelaïdas, and not, as formerly was believed, the forerunners of his school.[912] Polykleitos, a Sikyonian by birth,[913] migrated early to Argos to become the pupil of Hagelaïdas, and became the great master of the Argive school in the next generation after him. We have four statues by him at Olympia. His earliest work probably was the statue of the boxer Kyniskos of Mantinea, who won in Ol. (?) 80 (= 460 B. C.); he made the statues of the Elean pentathlete Pythokles and of the Epidamnian boxer Aristion, both of whom won their victories in Ol. 82 (= 452 B. C.); and lastly he made the statue of the boy boxer Thersilochos from Kerkyra, who won in Ol. (?) 87 (= 432 B. C.)[914] The footprints on the three recovered bases of the statues of the first three show that all were represented at rest. Of Patrokles, the brother of Polykleitos, Pausanias mentions no statues at Olympia, though Pliny says that he made athlete statues.[915] Of Naukydes,[916] the nephew or brother of Polykleitos, we have record of three athlete statues at Olympia: those of the wrestlers Cheimon of Argos, who won in Ol. 83 (= 448 B. C.), and Baukis of Trœzen, who won some time between Ols. (?) 85 and 90 (= 440 and 420 B. C.); also one of the boxer Eukles of Rhodes, who won some time between Ols. 90 and 93 (= 420 and 408 B. C.).[917] A contemporary of Naukydes was the sculptor Phradmon, who, according to Pliny, was a contemporary of Polykleitos;[918] he made the statue of the boy wrestler Amertas of Elis, who won a victory some time between Ols. 84 and 90 (= 444 and 420 B. C.).[919] In the next century, Polykleitos Minor, the grandson or grandnephew of the great Polykleitos, and the pupil of Naukydes,[920] had three statues at Olympia: those of the boy boxer Antipatros of Miletos, whose victory is given by Africanus as Ol. 98 (= 388 B. C.); of the two boy wrestlers Agenor of Thebes, who won some time between Ols. 93 and 103 (= 408 and 368 B. C.), and Xenokles of Mainalos, who won some time between Ols. 94 and 100 (= 404 and 380 B. C.).[921] The inscribed base of the latter has been recovered and the footprints show that the statue was represented at rest, the body resting equally on both feet, the left slightly advanced. Andreas, a second-century B. C. Argive sculptor, made a statue at Olympia of the boy wrestler Lysippos of Elis, who won some time between Ols. 149 and 157 (= 184 and 152 B. C.).[922] THE SCHOOL OF SIKYON. [Illustration: FIG. 19.—Bronze Statuette of Apollo, found in the Sea off Piombino. Louvre, Paris.] The Sikyonian school of bronze founders was closely affiliated with the one at Argos. Early in the archaic period the brothers Dipoinos and Skyllis, sons or pupils of the mythical Daidalos of Crete, migrated to Sikyon.[923] A generation later another Cretan sculptor, Aristokles, founded there an artist family which lasted through seven or eight generations.[924] His two grandsons Aristokles and Kanachos are known to have collaborated with Hagelaïdas on a group of three Muses.[925] Many have seen in the small bronze found in the sea off Piombino, Tuscany, and now in the Louvre (Fig. 19),[926] a copy of the _Apollo Philesios_, the best-known work of Kanachos. This gem of the bronze art, in true archaic style, may very well represent the _Apollo_, which, according to the description of Pliny[927] and the evidence of Milesian copper coins of all periods,[928] had as attributes a fawn in the outstretched right hand and a bow in the left. However, Overbeck,[929] followed by von Mach, believes that it is not a copy of Kanachos’ _Apollo_, but merely represents a boy assisting at a sacrifice, and that the original held a cup in the left hand and a saucer in the right. In any case the statuette is too inaccurate to give us more than the pose of the _Apollo_ of Kanachos, even if it were proved to be a copy. It may be merely a reproduction of the mythological type of Apollo, which the artist himself followed, and so we can not say definitely to what school it belongs. The Payne Knight bronze in the British Museum,[930] which holds a tiny fawn in the right hand, the bow originally in the left hand being lost, has better pretensions, perhaps, to be a copy of the _Apollo_. Another archaic half life-size bronze, formerly in the Palazzo Sciarra,[931] is of a similar type, though its style is different. Another bronze statuette from Naxos, now in Berlin,[932] shows the same position of the hands, but has an aryballos or pomegranate in the right hand. We have already classed it as an example of the conversion of an original god-type into that of a victor. We might also mention the mutilated torso found by Holleaux at the sanctuary of Apollo Ptoios in Bœotia (Fig. 12, right), which has a similar pose to that of the statuette from Piombino, and whose hair technique shows that it is an imitation of a bronze work.[933] However, as we shall see later, it may be rather representative of the Aeginetan school of sculptors. All these works may tell us of the general character of the _Apollo_, but little of its style.[934] No athlete statue by Aristokles or his brother Kanachos is known to have stood at Olympia. That the latter actually made victor statues, however, is proved by Pliny’s statement (_l. c._) that he made _celetizontas pueros_. Of the later Sikyonian school we have twenty-seven statues of victors made by eleven different sculptors, whose dates range from near the end of the fourth down into the third century B. C., of whom we shall give a chronological list. Alypos, the pupil of the Argive Naukydes, had four statues at Olympia: those of the wrestler Symmachos of Elis, of the boy boxer Neolaïdas of Pheneus, of the boy wrestler Archedamos of Elis, and of the boy and man wrestler Euthymenes of Mainalos, all of whom must have won their victories some time between Ols. 94 and 104 (= 404 and 364 B. C.).[935] Kanachos, the Younger, made one statue, that of the boy boxer Bykelos of Sikyon, who won some time between Ols. 92 and 105 (= 412 and 360 B. C.).[936] Olympos made the statue of the pancratiast Xenophon of Aigion, who won some time between Ols. 95 and 105 (= 400 and 360 B. C.).[937] The sculptor Daidalos, the son and pupil of Patrokles, and probably the nephew of Polykleitos, made four monuments for four victors: the equestrian group of the Elean charioteer Timon and his son Aigyptos, a victor in horse-racing, and statues of the Elean wrestler Aristodemos and the stade-runner Eupolemos. Their victories fell between Ols. 96 and 103 (= 396 and 368 B. C.).[938] Damokritos made the statue of the Elean boy boxer Hippos, who won between Ols. 96 and 107 (= 396 and 352 B. C.).[939] Kleon had five statues credited to him, all but one being of boy victors: those of the boy runner Deinolochos of Elis, the pentathlete Hysmon of Elis, the two boy boxers Kritodamos, and of Alketos of Kleitor, and of the boy runner Lykinos of Heraia. Their victories fell between Ols. 94 and 103 (= 404 and 368 B. C.).[940] The great Lysippos had the same number of victor statues as Kleon, and also two honor statues at Olympia: those of the equestrian victor Troilos of Elis, of the Akarnanian pancratiast Philandridas, of the wrestler Cheilon of Patrai, of the pancratiast Polydamas of Skotoussa, and of the hoplite-runner Kallikrates. Their victories occurred between Ols. 102 and 115 (= 372 and 320 B. C.).[941] The son of Lysippos, Daïppos, made two statues, one for the Elean boy boxer Kallon and the other for the Elean Nikandros, who won the double foot-race. Their victories fell within the activity of the sculptor, Ols. 115 and 125 (= 320 and 280 B. C.).[942] Daitondas made the statue of the Elean boy boxer Theotimos, who won his victory some time between Ols. 116 and 120 (= 316 and 300 B. C.).[943] Eutychides, the most famous pupil of Lysippos, famed alike as a bronze founder, statuary, and painter, carved the statue of the boy runner Timosthenes of Elis, who won some time between Ols. 115 and 125 (= 320 and 280 B. C.).[944] Pliny gives Ol. 121 (= 296 B. C.) as the _floruit_ of this sculptor, which was probably the date of the erection of his most famous work, the colossal bronze _Tyche_, as tutelary deity of the city of Antioch on the Orontes, which was founded by Seleukos I in Ol. 119.3 (= 302 B. C.).[945] This shows that Eutychides was already by that date a famed sculptor, having begun his career by 330-320 B. C. Kantharos, the pupil of Eutychides, made the statues of the two boy wrestlers Kratinos of Aigira and Alexinikos of Elis, who won their victories some time between Ols. 120 and 130 (= 300 and 260 B. C.).[946] ÆGINETAN SCULPTORS. We have but little left of the prominent early Aeginetan school of bronze sculptors. Of Kallon, the earliest historical sculptor of the school, the reputed pupil of Tektaios and Angelion (who in turn were the pupils of Dipoinos and Skyllis), we have only literary evidence. He was typical of archaic severity just prior to the era of transition, and therefore should be compared with Hegias of Athens and Kanachos of Sikyon. For Onatas, the most famous of the Aeginetan sculptors, whose _floruit_ was in the first half of the fifth century B. C., we have evidence of many monuments at Olympia. Besides the colossal _Herakles_ dedicated by the Thasians,[947] a _Hermes_ dedicated by the people of Pheneus,[948] and a large group of nine statues of Greek heroes standing on a curved base faced by a statue of Nestor on another, the group being dedicated by the Achaians,[949] he made a chariot and charioteer to commemorate the victory of Hiero of Syracuse at Olympia in 468 B. C., for which monument Kalamis furnished two horses.[950] Glaukias made a bronze chariot for Hiero’s brother Gelo of Gela, who later became tyrant of Syracuse, and who won a chariot victory in Ol. 73 (= 488 B. C.).[951] This sculptor also excelled in fashioning statues of boxers and pancratiasts, making the monuments of the boxers Philon of Kerkyra and Glaukos of Karystos, and that of the renowned boxer and pancratiast Theagenes of Thasos.[952] The statue of Glaukos was represented in the schema of one “sparring” (σκιαμαχῶν),[953] and so was in movement and not at rest. We have athlete statues by three other Aeginetan sculptors at Olympia. Thus Ptolichos, the pupil of the Sikyonian Aristokles, set up statues of the Aeginetan boy wrestler Theognetos, who won in Ol. 76 (= 476 B. C.), and of the boy boxer Epikradios of Mantinea, who won between Ols. (?) 72 and 74 (= 492 and 484 B. C.);[954] Serambos made the statue of the boy boxer Agiadas of Elis, who won between Ols. (?) 72 and 74;[955] Philotimos made the horse for the horse-racing victory of Xenombrotos of Kos, who won in Ol. (?) 83 (= 448 B. C.).[956] All of these sculptors appear to have used bronze exclusively, and their art, though independent, showed a bias toward Peloponnesian work. There are few examples left of this art. The bronze head of a bearded warrior or hoplite victor found on the Akropolis, if we are justified in classing it as Aeginetan and not Attic, shows the excellence which we associate with this school.[957] The delicate execution of its hair and beard, as well as the strength and precision of this head, makes it not unworthy of being ascribed to one of the best artists of the school, perhaps to Onatas himself. The beardless bronze head discovered in 1756 in the villa of the Pisos in Herculaneum, now in Naples, has also been assigned to Onatas, as its features are similar to those of the one under discussion.[958] The Tux bronze statuette of a hoplitodrome, to be discussed in Ch. IV (Fig. 42), has also been assigned to an Aeginetan master.[959] The marble statue known as the _Strangford Apollo_ in the British Museum, already mentioned (Fig. 14),[960] may show the characteristics of the early school in marble, though it is impossible to say whether it is a copy of a bronze original or a minor work in stone under Aeginetan influence. The smaller “Apollo” from Mount Ptoion, already discussed (Fig. 13, right),[961] appears to show in exaggerated form the same Aeginetan traits. However, we get out best notion of Aeginetan work in marble from the gable statues in the Munich Museum, representing Homeric warriors fighting, which adorned the temple of Aphaia in the northeastern corner of the island. Their importance in this connection calls for a brief account of them. [Illustration: FIG. 20.—Figure, from the East Pediment of the Temple on Aegina. Glyptothek, Munich.] Since the discovery of these groups by an international party of Englishmen and Germans in 1811, and their restoration soon after their arrival in Munich by the sculptor Thorwaldsen, many new fragments have been discovered by Furtwaengler during his excavations of the temple site in 1901, and have been incorporated into the existing figures in the Glyptothek. His reconstruction, though not definitive, is more in accord with artistic probability than any that preceded.[962] As we should expect from the athletic tradition of the Aeginetan school of sculpture just outlined, these sculptures represent finely trained nude athletes, whose modeling shows great observation of nature, especially in the treatment of muscles and veins. In fact it has been truly said that anatomical knowledge was never expressed again in Greek art so simply and naturally. The figures, without any excess of flesh, are slightly under life-size, short and stocky—shoulders square, but the waists slender and the legs long in proportion to the bodies—and withal are very compact and full of strength. The figures of the two pediments differ slightly, the eastern being more developed than the western. Brunn, long ago, arguing from the stele of Aristion, which then was the best example extant of archaic Attic art, showed how that art was characterized by grace and dignity of effect, while Aeginetan art was characterized by a finer study of nature. This generalization is no longer a matter of inference, but of knowledge. [Illustration: FIG. 21.—Two Figures, from the West Pediment of the Temple on Aegina. Glyptothek, Munich.] These groups represent the highest period of Aeginetan art. They have been dated anywhere from the end of the sixth century B. C. down to a period after the battle of Salamis.[963] Probably a date just after that battle is correct, as Aeginetans won prizes of valor there.[964] Any attempt to assign them to this or that artist is merely conjectural. The general similarity in subject to that of the Delphi group by Onatas, which represented the death in battle of Opis, the king of the barbarian Iapygians, at the hands of the Tarentines,[965] and the group at Olympia already mentioned as representing a Trojan subject, led earlier scholars to assign the slightly more advanced statues of the East Pediment to Onatas and the more archaic ones of the West Pediment to Kallon. But we know both these sculptors only as bronze workers. The violent action of some of the figures reminds us at once of Pausanias’ description of the statue of the boxer Glaukos by the sculptor Glaukias, which we have already mentioned. But on the whole, though they are violent, the slight proportions of these athletic figures do not fit the appearance of boxers and pancratiasts, which, as we have seen, formed the staple of Aeginetan sculptors, but rather those of runners. We see a good wrestler in the _Snatcher_ of the East Gable (Fig. 20),[966] and the corresponding figure in the right half of the same gable.[967] The _Champion_ of the West gable (Fig. 21, left),[968] of the finest Parian marble, represented as lunging forward, pressing on the enemy armed with helm, spear, and shield, would pass as a good example of a hoplitodrome, far freer and more individual than the warrior from Dodona. ATTIC SCULPTORS. [Illustration: FIG. 22.—Archaic Marble Head of a Youth. Jakobsen Collection, Ny-Carlsberg Museum, Copenhagen.] Owing to the Persian sack of the Athenian Akropolis in 480 and 479 B. C., and the subsequent burial of works of art there and their rediscovery by the excavations of 1885-1889, we know more of archaic Attic sculpture (600-480 B. C.) than of any other early school.[969] We have already mentioned certain Attic works which show the influence of the severer Argive school—_la petite boudeuse_, the head of the yellow-haired ephebe (Fig. 18), the Akropolis athlete statue (Fig. 17), etc.—which was prominent at the beginning of the fifth century B. C., works which can be attributed to Hegias, Kritios, and their associates. They illustrate the reaction against Ionic taste, an influence which came from Asia Minor and the islands, especially after the fall of the Lydian Empire of Crœsus, and which for a time submerged native Attic art. This Ionic art was characterized by great technical ability, and by rich draperies and decorative effect. The archaic smile was its special feature. Ionism is best represented by some of the Akropolis _Korai_.[970] In athletic art we see Ionism at its flood tide in the Rampin head found in Athens in 1877, now in the Louvre, which corresponds in style with some of the earlier female statues of the Akropolis.[971] This head has a more elaborate frisure than any of the female heads and, in fact, the elaborate treatment of the hair of the crown and forehead is more suitable to a female than a male statue. The beard is carefully plaited, while traces of red seem to show that the mustache was painted on. Similar traces of color appear on the beard and hair. The smiling mouth, high ears, and almond eyes recall many archaic works, but especially the _Apollo of Tenea_ (Pl. 8A). The garland of oak leaves above the frisure of the forehead may suggest a victor,[972] or perhaps a priest or assistant on some religious embassy.[973] The turning of the neck—as in the ephebe statue of the Akropolis (Fig. 17)—shows a break at this early time with archaism. Another work illustrating Ionism is the fragment of a grave-stele found near the Dipylon gate in 1873 and dating from the second half of the sixth century B. C.[974] It represents the head of an athlete in profile, the youth holding a diskos in his left hand, so placed that his head is projected upon it in relief as on a nimbus. The top of the head is broken off, but we see the usual archaic features in the face—the almond-shaped eye (in profile), big nose with knob-like nostrils, thick lips with the archaic smile, retreating chin and forehead, and high ear with a huge lobe. The neck and chin, however, are full of grace and strength, as is also the slender thumb outlined against the diskos. As the stele broadens downward,[975] the figure appears to have been represented with the feet apart, and so may have represented a palæstra diskobolos on parade,[976] and is, therefore, our earliest representation of such an athlete. A similar dress-parade pose is seen on the stele of Aristion in the National Museum at Athens, the work of the sculptor Aristokles, which represents a warrior with a spear in the left hand.[977] Another torso of an ephebe in the Akropolis Museum represents Ionic work from Paros.[978] Another head, the so-called Rayet head in the Jakobsen collection in Copenhagen, one of the most remarkable specimens of Greek archaic art[979] (Fig. 22), somewhat later in date than the Rampin head, represents quite a different tendency in Attic art. While the Rampin head represents Ionic influence, this head represents pure Attic work untrammeled by foreign influence, a true development of the old Attic sculpture in _poros_, the best examples of which are to be found in the decorative sculptures of the Old Temple of Athena on the Akropolis, enlarged by the Peisistratidai. Comparing it with the head of the _Athena_ of the gable of that temple,[980] we see great similarity in the simple execution and reserve in the treatment of details—characteristics of pure Attic sculpture—especially in the deep lines on either side of the mouth in the Jakobsen head. The hair is pictorially treated like a cap, traces of red appearing on it as well as on the lips and eyes. The Copenhagen and Rampin heads, together with the famous portrait head in the old Sabouroff collection,[981] and the head of a woman in the Louvre,[982] form our best examples of old Attic art outside of the museums of Athens.[983] The swollen ears of the Jakobsen head show that it is from the funerary statue of a victor, perhaps a boxer. Furtwaengler wrongly classed it as a portrait head.[984] A much discussed Attic work is the archaic relief of a charioteer in the Akropolis Museum (Fig. 63).[985] This was formerly thought (_e. g._, by Schrader) to be a block from the later Ionic frieze of the old Hekatompedon which many believe survived the Persian sack, but it is more likely a part of a frieze belonging to a small shrine or altar. It represents a draped person entering a two-horse chariot with the left foot, the hands outstretched to hold the reins, the head and body leaning forward. Because of the _krobylos_ treatment of the hair, fitted for both sexes, and the long flowing robe, the sex has been needlessly doubted, some calling it an Apollo or a mortal charioteer, others an Athena or a Nike, even though the line of the breast, so far as it is visible, shows no fullness, and the long chiton is common in representations of male charioteers.[986] However, for the appreciation of the relief it is of no consequence whether the figure is male or female. It may be merely a dedicatory offering of a Panathenaic victor in chariot racing, very possibly assimilated to the type of Apollo,[987] as the god often appears in vase-paintings of the same period in similar costume mounting a chariot.[988] We shall discuss its interpretation more fully later on.[989] While Ionism was prone to represent richly draped figures which concealed the form of the body, we see in this relief, with its fine modeling, a suggestion of the form beneath the folds of the garment, and so, perhaps, only another example of an Attic master rebelling against alien influence.[990] At Olympia we have no names of Athenian sculptors prior to the Persian war period. Kalamis helped Onatas with the monument of King Hiero already mentioned. Mikon made a statue of a pancratiast, Kallias of Athens, who won in Ol. 77 (= 472 B. C.).[991] The great Myron, of whom we shall speak at length in the next chapter, made five statues of victors, which were erected between Ols. 77 and 84 (= 472 and 444 B. C.).[992] Only four later Athenian artists are mentioned: Silanion of the fourth century, who made statues for three victors, whose victories ranged from Ols. 102 to 114 (= 372 to 324 B. C.);[993] Polykles the Elder, who made the statue of the boy pancratiast Amyntas of Eresos, who won in Ol. (?) 146 (= 196 B. C.);[994] Timarchides and Timokles, the sons of Polykles, who in common made the statue of the boxer Agesarchos of Tritaia in Achaia, who won in Ol. (?) 143 (= 208 B. C.)[995] GENERAL MOTIVES OF STATUES AT REST. The victor represented as standing at rest was often characterized by general motives, such as praying, anointing or scraping himself, offering libations, and the like. We shall now consider such motives in detail. ADORATION AND PRAYER. Prayer was a common motive represented in votive monuments. Pliny mentions many such works by Greek sculptors.[996] The custom of raising the arms in prayer is found all through Greek literature, from Homer down.[997] Pausanias says that the people of Akragas made an offering in the form of bronze statues of boys placed on the walls of the Altis, προτείνοντάς τε τὰς δεξιὰς καὶ εἰκασμένους εὐχομένοις τῷ θεῷ, these statues being the work of Kalamis.[998] In the Athenian Asklepieion there were many τύποι καταμακτοὶ πρὸς πινακίῳ, among which were representations of men and women in the praying attitude.[999] The motive was used at Olympia in victor statues, representing the victor as raising the hand in prayer to invoke victory.[1000] The statue of the wrestler Milo, already discussed at length, shows that this motive was employed at Olympia in the improved “Apollo” type in the second half of the sixth century B. C.[1001] From the next century we may cite the statue of the Spartan chariot victor Anaxandros, which was represented as “praying to the god,”[1002] and the statues of the Rhodian boxers Diagoras and Akousilaos, as we learn from a scholion on Pindar,[1003] which is based on a fragment of Aristotle[1004] and on one of Apollas.[1005] Of the statue of Diagoras it says: τὴν δεξιὰν ἀνατείνων χεῖρα, τὴν δὲ ἀριστερὰν εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἐπικλίνων; of that of Akousilaos: τῇ μὲν ἀριστερᾷ ἱμάντα ἔχων πυκτινόν, τὴν δὲ δεξιὰν ὡς πρὸς προσευχὴν ἀνατείνων.[1006] The bronze statue from Athens, now in the Antiquarium, Berlin,[1007] which represents a nude boy with the right hand raised as if in prayer and the left lowered and holding a leaping-weight—therefore a pentathlete—seems to correspond with this description of the statue of Akousilaos. The same motive may have been used in the statue of the chariot victress Kyniska, a princess of Sparta, whose statue along with that of her charioteer and the chariot was the work of the sculptor Apellas.[1008] This is the interpretation of Furtwaengler,[1009] based on a passage in Pliny, which mentions statues of _adornantes se feminas_[1010] by Apellas, which he reads _adorantes feminas_. However, _adornantes_ may be right, for in another passage, Pliny speaks of Praxiteles’ statue of a ψελιουμένη, _i. e._, of a woman clasping a bracelet on her arm.[1011] Two notable bronze statues will illustrate this motive of Olympic victor statues. The statue found in 1502 at Zellfeld in Carinthia, now in Vienna,[1012] has been interpreted both as a Hermes Logios and a votive statue in the attitude of prayer,[1013] which latter interpretation the inscription on the leg, giving a list of dedications,[1014] favors. However, Furtwaengler believes it a free imitation of an Argive victor statue, though not in the Polykleitan style. Because of its similarity to the _Idolino_ (Pl. 14), he has ascribed its original to the sculptor Patrokles. From technical considerations he believes it is not a Greek original dedicated by Romans of a later period, but a Roman work (after Patrokles) of the period of the inscription.[1015] The bronze statue of the _Praying Boy_ in Berlin[1016] (Pl. 10) is one of our most beautiful Greek bronzes and comes from the circle of Lysippos.[1017] We now know that the uplifted arms of this statue, in which most scholars saw the Greek attitude of prayer, are restorations which were probably made in the time of Louis XIV, when the statue was in France. Of the original motive we only can say that the action of the shoulders shows that both arms were raised, but we do not know how far, or the position of the hands. Monumental evidence shows that the hands in prayer should have the palms turned away from the face instead of upwards, as in the present statue, since the Greek position was the outgrowth of an old apotropaic gesture, _i. e._, one directed against an evil spirit. Mau’s idea[1018] that the figure represented a player catching a ball is certainly inconsistent with the calm attitude of the statue. Furtwaengler rejected it,[1019] and he has restored the arms and hands on the basis of a Berlin gem[1020] and an _ex voto_ relief found by the French excavators at Nemea in 1884.[1021] On this relief a youth crowned with a woolen fillet is represented. On both relief and gem the figures are in the same attitude, the arms raised over the head _manibus supinis_, which confirms the restoration of the Berlin statue. Many other monuments give the more usual attitude of prayer, not as in the relief and gem discussed, but with only one hand extended as high as the breast. Older writers thought that such monuments did not represent the gesture of adoration, but one of _adlocutio_,[1022] an opinion disproved by Pausanias’ statement about the bronze statues of the Akragantines at Olympia, already mentioned. We may cite a relief from Kleitor, now in Berlin,[1023] and a fine one of the fourth century B. C. from Lamia (?),[1024] as well as a red-figured Etruscan stamnos in Vienna representing, probably, Ajax praying before committing suicide.[1025] We shall mention also two little statuettes in New York which represent youths in the praying attitude.[1026] The first, dating from the second half of the fifth century B. C., and showing Polykleitan influence, represents a nude youth standing erect with the forearms bent, showing that the two hands were extended in prayer. The second, which dates from the first half of the fifth century B. C. (after the date of the Myronian _Diskobolos_), represents a nude youth standing with the right hand raised to the lips in an attitude usual in saluting a divinity, while the left is by the side, with the palm to the front. [Illustration: PLATE 10 Bronze Statue of the _Praying Boy_. Museum of Berlin.] ANOINTING. Various familiar motives from the everyday life of the gymnasium and palæstra were reproduced in the statues of athletes. One of the commonest methods was to represent the victor anointing his body with oil. The use of oil was indispensable in all athletic exercises, in order to make the body and limbs more supple, and especially in wrestling and the pankration, to make it difficult for one’s antagonist to get a grip.[1027] Pliny mentions a painting by Theoros, representing a man _se inunguentem_,[1028] which appears to have been a votive portrait of an athlete. The motive was common in vase-paintings and statuary. Several red-figured vases of the severe style, antedating the statues to be considered, show from realistic representations of palæstra scenes that it was customary for athletes to hold a round aryballos high in the right hand and pour oil from it into the left, which was placed across the body horizontally.[1029] The same motive appears with variations in statues.[1030] Thus the statue of an ephebe in Petworth House, Sussex, England,[1031] a statue, as Furtwaengler says, to be praised more for its excellent preservation than for its workmanship, represents an athlete, who holds a globular aryballos in his right hand raised over the shoulder, while the left arm is held across the abdomen. On the nearby tree-trunk are small cylindrical objects which seem to be boxing pads. This statue, and especially its head, have been regarded by Michaelis and Furtwaengler as unmistakably Polykleitan in style.[1032] Several other copies of original statues representing athletes pouring oil have been wrongly classed as replicas of one original,[1033] though they merely have essential features alike, due chiefly to the subject. First is the famous statue in the Glyptothek known as the _Oelgiesser_ (_Oil-pourer_), a Roman copy of an Attic bronze of about the middle of the fifth century B. C. (Pl. 11).[1034] Though the right arm and left hand are lost, it is clear that the athlete held in his raised right hand an oil flask, as in the Petworth statue.[1035] Notwithstanding that the head resembles the Praxitelian _Hermes_,[1036] this does not show that the statue is of fourth-century origin, for its original is older; it merely shows that the art of Praxiteles was deeply rooted in that of his fifth-century predecessors. Because of its Attic affiliations, Klein tried to identify it with the Ἐγκρινόμενος of Alkamenes mentioned by Pliny,[1037] by amending that title to Ἐγχριόμενος, the “Anointer.” Brunn, however, rightly saw the analogy of the body forms to Myron’s _Marsyas_,[1038] and Furtwaengler and Bulle have ascribed it to Lykios, the son and pupil of that master, who worked about 440 B. C., the approximate date of the original of the statue. A fragmentary head in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (Fig. 23),[1039] formerly in private possession in England, is a copy of the same original as the Munich statue. Its special interest is that it is not an exact copy of the original, as the Munich statue is, but a freer one, showing a fuller mouth, fleshier cheeks, and deeper-set eyes. While the Munich statue is the dry work of a Roman copyist of Augustus’ time, this head is by a far abler Greek copyist of the second century B. C. A torso in the Albertinum in Dresden, without a head,[1040] is similar to the Munich statue, but hardly a replica. It probably goes back to an original by an Attic master of the end of the fifth or beginning of the fourth century B. C. Other under life-size statues related to this torso show the same motive.[1041] A black-marble statue found at Porto d’Anzio in 1758, and now in the Glyptothek,[1042] has the Polykleitan standing motive. The left arm, which is stretched out, holds an oil flask in the hand, while the right arm is lowered. The band, which the position of the fingers shows that the right hand probably held, indicates it is the statue of a victor. A bronze statuette from South Italy, now in the British Museum,[1043] represents a nude youth holding an alabastron in his right hand, while the left has the palm open to receive the oil. The hair fashion (κρωβύλος) seems to point to an Attic sculptor of about 470 B. C.[1044] The same motive is found on terra-cotta statuettes from Myrina,[1045] on reliefs,[1046] and on gems.[1047] [Illustration: FIG. 23.—Head of so-called _Oil-pourer_. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.] [Illustration: PLATE 11 Statue of the so-called _Oil-pourer_. Glyptothek, Munich.] OIL-SCRAPING. Another ordinary palæstra motive was employed in representing the athlete after the contest, scraping oil and dirt from his body and arms with the scraping-blade or strigil (στλεγγίς, _strigilis_).[1048] This motive is not uncommon on r.-f. vase-paintings of the fifth century B. C.[1049] It was treated in sculpture by many masters. Pliny mentions such statues of athletes _destringentes se_ (ἀποξυόμενοι), by Polykleitos, Lysippos, and Daidalos of Sikyon.[1050] Perhaps the _perixyomenoi_ by Antignotos and Daïppos, the latter the son of Lysippos, had the same motive.[1051] Of the _Apoxyomenos_ of Polykleitos we have no authenticated copies in sculpture, though Furtwaengler believes that he has found reminiscences of it on gems which represent a youth resting the weight of his body on the left leg, the right being drawn back (_i. e._, in the attitude of the _Doryphoros_), the right forearm extended, and the left holding a strigil. The similarity of these gem-designs makes it certain that they are all derived from a well-known work of art.[1052] Perhaps the fine bronze statuette, dating from the middle of the fifth century B. C., and now in the Loeb collection in Munich, represents the pose of the _destringens se_ by Polykleitos.[1053] It represents a nude youth resting the weight of the body on the soles of both feet, the left one slightly advanced, and holding a strigil in the raised right hand. The famous marble copy of an _Apoxyomenos_ in the Vatican[1054] (Pl. 29), which, because of its long slim legs and graceful ankles, might well represent a runner, has long been held to represent the canon of Lysippos, as it exhibits proportions widely different from those employed by Polykleitos, and agreeing with Pliny’s account of Lysippos’ innovations.[1055] However, the doubts arising in recent years as to whether this statue is a copy of Lysippos’ statue or a later work will be considered at length in Chapter VI.[1056] [Illustration: PLATE 12 Statue of an _Apoxyomenos_. Uffizi Gallery, Florence.] The same motive is exemplified by many existing statues, statuettes, reliefs, etc. The marble statue of an athlete in the Uffizi, Florence, (Pl. 12),[1057] a copy of an original of the end of the fifth century B. C., wrongly restored as holding in both hands a vase at which the athlete is looking down, was interpreted by Bloch as an ephebe pouring oil from a lekythos held in the right hand into an aryballos held in the left. This action for an athlete has been characterized by Furtwaengler as “unparallelled, unclassical and, above all, absurd.” Through recent discoveries we now know that it represents an apoxyomenos, and that it should be restored with the left forearm close to the thigh, and with the right crossing the abdomen diagonally in the direction of the left hand. This attitude so closely corresponds with that of a figure on a gem as to make it probable that both gem and statue are copies of the same original. The figure on the gem[1058] holds a strigil in both hands and is generally explained as scraping the dirt from the left thigh; the light hand holds the handle and the left the blade. A hydria, palm-branch, and crown are pictured to the right—showing that the figure represents an athlete, just as the statue has the swollen ears of one. The attention of the athlete in both monuments is concentrated on the operation involved—a concentration reminding us of Myron’s _Diskobolos_. While, however, in the latter work the concentration is momentary, it is less transient in the Florence statue and also in the Munich _Oil-pourer_. This pose is too conscious in the Florentine statue to be the work of Myron. Arndt names no artist, but as the similarity between the head of the statue and that of the _Oil-pourer_ is so marked, and as every one now regards the latter as Attic—even if not by Alkamenes—he thinks that the two must be by the same Attic sculptor, although the Uffizi statue is somewhat later than the Munich one.[1059] The original of the Florence statue was famous, if we may judge by the existing number of replicas with variations.[1060] Among statues showing the same motive and pose, we may note the bronze statue of an athlete over life-size—pieced together from 234 fragments—found by the Austrians at Ephesos and now in Vienna.[1061] The subject, pose, and heavy proportions recall the Argive school of Polykleitos, and its original has been assigned by Hauser to the Sikyonian Daidalos, the son and pupil of Patrokles, who was the pupil of Polykleitos. As further reproductions of the same type of figure, we may cite a bronze statuette in Paris,[1062] and a marble one found at Frascati in 1896 and now in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.[1063] A chalcedony scarab of archaic type in the British Museum represents a nude athlete with a lekythos slung over the left arm and a strigil in the left hand, which rests on the hip.[1064] A beautiful marble grave-relief, much mutilated, in the museum at Delphi,[1065] which dates from the middle of the fifth century B. C., represents a palæstra victor, with his arms extended to the right, cleansing himself with a strigil, which is held in the right hand, while a slave boy, holding the remnant of an aryballos in his right hand, looks up at him from the right. The careful anatomy of this relief may point to Pythagoras of Samos, as its author, though we have no certain work of his, for it fits the description of that artist by Pliny, who says that he was the first to express sinews and veins.[1066] LIBATION-POURING. [Illustration: PLATE 13 Statue of an Athlete, after Polykleitos. Farnsworth Museum, Wellesley College, U. S. A.] [Illustration: FIG. 24.—Bronze Statuette of an Athlete. Louvre, Paris.] An original Greek bronze statuette in Paris (Fig. 24)[1067] reproduces the motive of the statue of the boy wrestler Xenokles by the sculptor Polykleitos Minor at Olympia, as a comparison with the footprints on the recovered base of the latter shows.[1068] As the forms correspond with those of the _Doryphoros_ and _Diadoumenos_, and as its execution is so marvelous, Furtwaengler has ascribed the statuette to the circle of Polykleitos’ pupils. The position of the right hand, which has the thumbs drawn in, corresponds with that of the _Idolino_ (Pl. 14), which we are to discuss, and can best be explained by assuming that it similarly held a kylix; the left hand carried a staff-like attribute. The head is bent and looks to the right. Furtwaengler believed that, inasmuch as the act of pouring a libation does not occur in art or literature as an athletic motive, the statuette represented a hero or god. Many Roman marble copies show the same motive and preserve to us a Polykleitan work which corresponds in all essentials with the Louvre statuette.[1069] We mention two, the only ones of the type in which the heads are on the trunks, one in the Galleria delle Statue of the Vatican,[1070] the other in the Farnsworth Museum at Wellesley College (Pl. 13).[1071] These copies represent a youth standing with both feet flat upon the ground, the weight of the body resting upon the right one, while the left is turned a little to the side. He is looking downwards to the right. Doubtless we should restore these copies after the Paris bronze, with a kylix in the right hand. The palm-branch in a similar statue, to be mentioned further on, shows that in all probability the origin statue was that of an athlete; and that he was a famous athlete is shown by the number of copies of the torso and head.[1072] A bronze head from Herculaneum (Fig. 25)[1073] so strongly resembles in its forms the type under discussion—which Furtwaengler has called the “Vatican athlete standing at rest”[1074]—and corresponds with it so closely in its measurements, that it might be regarded as a copy of the same original, if certain differences, not due to the copyist, did not rather show that it comes from a closely allied work. This head shows an intense melancholy, which has been explained by Furtwaengler as due to the lack of skill on the part of the copyist, who fashioned it slightly askew. Amelung very properly explains the absence of the motive of libation-pouring in athletic art as merely a lacuna in our sources.[1075] If the original of these copies and variations represented an athlete, he was certainly pouring a libation before victory; if a warrior, he was doing the same thing before going on a campaign. In the latter case the left hand should be restored with a spear. [Illustration: FIG. 25.—Bronze Head of an Athlete, from Herculaneum. Museum of Naples.] We must also place here the life-size original Greek bronze in Florence, discovered at Pesaro, near Ancona, in 1530, and known from the early eighteenth century as the _Idolino_ (Pl. 14),[1076] for its motive connects it with the series just discussed. This is, perhaps, our finest bronze statue from antiquity, as it represents the highest ideal of boy beauty, just as the _Doryphoros_ does of manly beauty. The chief characteristics—the positions of the feet, head, and arms, though essentially those of the statues discussed, offer certain differences. Thus the left leg is placed more to one side and turned further outwards than in the statue of Xenokles and kindred works; the left hand hangs down at an angle to the leg differently from the others. In other words, by comparing it with the Paris statuette, we see a slightly different rhythm from that found in Polykleitan works. The _Idolino_ has been looked upon as Myronic by Kekulé,[1077] Studniczka,[1078] and hesitatingly Klein,[1079] while Mahler regarded it as Pheidian.[1080] Furtwaengler, however, by a careful analysis, has shown its Polykleitan characteristics—especially the shape of the head and the features, and the treatment of the hair, which reminds us of the Naples copy of the _Doryphoros_. Owing to differences, however, he did not assign it to the master himself, but suggested that it was the work of his pupil Patrokles.[1081] Bulle found the head Polykleitan, but the body Attic, and assigned the figure to an unknown Attic sculptor working in the Polykleitan circle. In this controversy on its style, a statue found in 1916 in the excavations of the Baths at Kyrene should be of use, for it is the most faithful of all the Roman copies known of the bronze original and clearly shows a Polykleitan character influenced by Attic art.[1082] By a comparison of this marble copy with the Florentine bronze we see that the latter was a subsequent rendition of the same original, and doubtless by some artist of lesser fame from the Polykleitan school, who was influenced by Attic art. But it is the interpretation of the _Idolino_ which chiefly interests us here. While Longpérier called the similar Paris statuette a _Mercure aptère_, and the publisher of the statue from Kyrene called that copy a _Hermes_, yet Kekulé, Bulle, and most other archæologists have seen in the _Idolino_ an athlete. The inner surface of its outstretched right hand is left rough, and the fingers are in the same position as those of the Paris bronze. Such a position can be explained satisfactorily by restoring the hand with a kylix or a φιάλη, such as was commonly used in libations. The left hand is smooth and evidently empty, though Bulle restores it with a victor’s fillet, and so, following Kekulé, calls the statue that of a boy victor, who is bringing an offering to the altar in honor of his victory. The marble statue in the Galleria delle Statue has the right forearm restored; in the Kyrene statue the right hand is preserved and has a thick object held downwards at a greater angle than in the _Idolino_. The photograph does not let us judge decisively, but it seems to be too thick an object for the remnants of a kylix. A marble statue in the Barberini Palace, Rome,[1083] which resembles the _Idolino_ so closely as to be considered a copy of it, though with variations of pose and technique, has the arms broken off, and so adds nothing to the solution of the motive of the _Idolino_. The fact that a palm-stem stands beside the right leg, however, adds weight to the interpretation as victor. Furtwaengler interprets the _Idolino_ and kindred works as divinities. Though boys serve at libations, he thinks they never perform the ritual act of pouring the libation.[1084] That a libation-pourer should appear in the guise of a boy victor (that of Xenokles) he calls a genuine Argive trait. Svoronos, also, has recently tried to show that the _Idolino_ is not a victor,[1085] but represents the hero Herakles. He compares the figure with a fourth-century Pentelic marble relief in Athens,[1086] which represents Herakles standing at the door of Hades and beside him a father leading his son up to the open air. The pose of the figure of Herakles resembles that of the _Idolino_ in a remarkable way. In the relief Herakles holds a kylix in the right hand[1087] and a club in the left, and a lion skin is thrown over the left arm. Svoronos believes that the left hand in the relief explains the turning in of the left hand of the _Idolino_—for he believes that the latter also held a club. We must, however, leave the final solution of the motive of the _Idolino_ and kindred works open, although inclining to the belief that they represent a victor. [Illustration: PLATE 14 Bronze Statue known as the _Idolino_. Museo Archeologico, Florence.] [Illustration: FIG. 26.—Marble Statue of an Athlete(?). National Museum, Athens.] A statue in Athens, which was found in 1888 in the Roman ruins at the Olympieion, may represent a boy victor pouring a libation (Fig. 26).[1088] It is a poor Roman copy, dry and lifeless, of a bronze original of the middle of the fifth century B. C.[1089] In this statue Mayer has seen the motive, and probably the copy, of the _Splanchnoptes_ (Roaster of Entrails) by the sculptor Styphax (or Styppax) of Cyprus, which, according to Pliny,[1090] represented Perikles’ slave “roasting entrails and blowing hard on the fire, to kindle it, till his cheeks swell.” He thinks that the position of the broken arms and a comparison of the figure with similar ones on vases make the identification possible. Von Salis concurs in his restoration and interpretation and publishes a small statuette in Athens from Dodona,[1091] which has a similar pose, and holds a three-pronged fork in the left hand, which he believes should be restored in the statue. Although statue and statuette have much in common (_e. g._, the position of the breast and shoulders, the treatment of the hair, etc.), which shows that both may be copies of one original, the conception of the two is somewhat different. The statue from Athens represents a boy standing busily engaged at the altar; the statuette represents one standing at rest merely looking on, the fork not being held in position for use.[1092] In any case the face of the Athens statue can not correspond with Pliny’s description—_ignemque oris pleni spiritu accendens_. Quite a different explanation of the statue is possible—one which Mayer thought improbable. The right arm—broken above the wrist—was raised to the height of the shoulder and may have held an object in the hand; the left arm—broken off below the shoulder—seems to have been held close to the body and appears to have corresponded in movement with the other. The boy, therefore, may have held a cup in the right hand and a branch or a victor fillet in the left. Thus it may merely be another example of a boy victor pouring a libation. Certain other statues have been mistaken either for libation-pourers or oil-pourers, when they are really wine-pourers and have nothing to do with the athletic motives under discussion. A good example is the marble statue of a _Satyr_ in Dresden,[1093] which represents the youthful demi-god lifting a can with his right hand, out of which he is pouring wine into a drinking-horn held in the left. There are many copies of this work,[1094] a fact which shows that the original bronze was famous. An attempt has therefore been made to identify it with the bronze _Satyr_ of Praxiteles mentioned by Pliny as the _Periboëtos_ or “far-famed,”[1095] which seems to have been grouped with a _Dionysos_ and a figure of _Drunkenness_—a grouping which might fit the Dresden _Satyr_, since a second figure should be imagined, for which the horn is being filled. However, it differs stylistically so much from the _Hermes_ of Olympia that the ascription has been given up, though its graceful form shows Praxitelean influence and certainly emanates from the fourth century B. C. RESTING AFTER THE CONTEST. [Illustration: PLATE 15 Marble Head of an Athlete, after Kresilas (?). Metropolitan Museum, New York.] A very favorite motive was to represent a victor, either standing or seated, resting after the exertions of the contest (ἀναπαυόμενος). An excellent example of this motive in a standing posture is the fourth-century B. C. statue of Attic workmanship found at Porto d’Anzio and now in the Vatican,[1096] which reproduces the type of the _Apollo Lykeios_.[1097] Many of the statues, by various sculptors, which represent the victor standing at rest may be intended to represent him as resting after the contest. The well-known head of a youth adorned with the victor’s chaplet, and preserved in four copies in European museums, appears to come from a statue which represented a victor in this manner. The best of these copies is in the collection of Lord Leconfield at Petworth House, Sussex.[1098] We should add a fifth, a Roman copy of the head, in the Metropolitan Museum, New York (Pl. 15).[1099] In these copies the ears are not swollen, and a certain refinement and gentleness show that the original was not from the statue of a boxer or pancratiast, but from that of another type of athlete, perhaps a pentathlete. Since Pliny mentions the statue of a _Doryphoros_ by Kresilas,[1100] and because of its supposed Kresilæan style, Furtwaengler, albeit on slender grounds, has attempted to identify the original of these heads with that work.[1101] The expression is certainly one of complete repose. On the crown of the head, and on the left side over the fillet, is a rectangular broken surface,[1102] apparently the remnant of a support for the right arm, which, as Conze thought, proves that the athlete stood with one arm resting on the head, the hand hanging over the left side. Furtwaengler admitted that such an attitude might be that of an apoxyomenos,[1103] but pointed out that the expression of the face in all the copies seems too tranquil for such an interpretation. Since the victor was in repose and the left arm required a slight support, he believed that this support might have been an akontion. He therefore reconstructed the original statue as that of a resting pentathlete, and assigned it to the great Cretan contemporary of Pheidias, who worked in Athens.[1104] The number of replicas at least shows that the original was a famous work. Perhaps our best example of the motive of a seated victor resting after the contest is the bronze statue of a boxer found in Rome in 1884 and now in the Museo delle Terme there (Pl. 16 and Fig. 27).[1105] This is a masterpiece in the portrayal of brute strength in the most naturalistic and revolting way. If we like to think of victors as having noble forms, we are rudely startled on looking at this brutal prize-fighter. If we compare it with works of the fifth and fourth centuries B. C., we see in it, as in no other example of Greek sculpture, the great change which professionalism had later wrought in the Greek ideal of athletics. Here are massive proportions, bulging muscles, arms and legs hard and muscle-bound. We can compare it only with the bronze head of a boxer found at Olympia (Fig. 61 A and B) of similar style and age.[1106] But there we have only the head, while here we have a complete statue almost perfectly preserved, the only restorations being a portion of the left thumb, a piece of the right flank, and the base. [Illustration: FIG. 27.—Head from Statue of the _Seated Boxer_. Museo delle Terme, Rome.] [Illustration: PLATE 16 Bronze Statue of the _Seated Boxer_. Museo delle Terme, Rome.] It represents a professional boxer, who is seated exhausted at the close of the bout, the severity of which is indicated by every part of the body. He leans forward, his arms rest on his thighs, and his head, sunk between his shoulders, is raised and turned to the right, as he stupidly looks around at the applauding spectators. His nose is broken and his ears are swollen and scars of the contest show on his face and limbs. Beneath his retreating upper lip some of his teeth appear to have been knocked out as the result of previous fights, while indications of the recent struggle are to be seen in the blood dripping from his ears and the deep lacerations in face and shoulder, which may have once been filled with red paint to make his appearance even more realistic. The right eye is swollen and the lower lid and the cheek imperceptibly sink into each other. The mustache shows flecks of blood and the swollen back of the right hand protrudes through the glove. His nose is clotted with blood and he seems to be struggling to get his breath. Such realism and delight in depicting the hideous show that the work, like the Olympia head, belongs to the Hellenistic age. The careful workmanship, especially visible in the hair and beard and in the hair on the chest[1107], proves that the statue is not a Roman copy, but a Greek original of the beginning of the Hellenistic age, of the end of the fourth or beginning of the third century B. C. Nor is it a portrait, as Winter maintained,[1108] since it is an adaptation of a late type of Herakles. It certainly is a victor statue from one of the great Greek games, and is, perhaps, from Olympia itself. Since the head is turned toward the right shoulder and the mouth is open, as if speaking, Wunderer tried, on the basis of a passage in the history of Polybios,[1109] to identify it with the statue of the famous Theban boxer and pancratiast Kleitomachos at Olympia by an unknown artist.[1110] The historian states that Kleitomachos, while fighting with the Egyptian Aristonikos, was angered by the acclaim given the foreigner and, stepping aside, chided the spectators for not cheering one who was fighting for the honor of Greece. The speech caused a revulsion in the popular feeling, which helped, even more than the fists of Kleitomachos, to vanquish Aristonikos. However, the motive of the statue does not fit the incident, as the boxer is not speaking, but breathing hard, nor is the seated posture that of one haranguing a crowd. Moreover, the date of the Theban’s victory is too late for the statue.[1111] ATTRIBUTES OF VICTOR STATUES. At the beginning of the fifth century B. C. athletic training tended to produce a uniform standard of physical development, which was reflected in sculpture. At this date we do not find the divergence of style which we saw in our review of the “Apollo” type of the sixth century. Vase-paintings show the change better than sculpture. On black-figured vases of the sixth century B. C., we see a good deal of variety in groups of boxers and wrestlers, while on red-figured vases of the early fifth century the number of types is far less. In sculpture, however, differences in physical type did exist in the various schools at the beginning of the fifth century. We have, for example, the heavy, square-shouldered type in the _Apollo Choiseul-Gouffier_ (Pl. 7A), which we have classed as a victor statue, and the tall, rawboned type in the _Tyrannicides_ by Kritios and Nesiotes (Fig. 32, _Harmodios_).[1112] We have, on the other hand, a very different physical type in the short, stocky Aeginetan pedimental figures (Figs. 20 and 21). Between such extremes there are, of course, many gradations. We might instance the archaic bronze statuette of a diskobolos in the Metropolitan Museum (Fig. 46).[1113] However, notwithstanding the diversity in type, it is often difficult to distinguish runners from wrestlers, boxers from pentathletes. Thus few early fifth-century statues show the type of runner as well as the _Apollo of Tenea_ (Pl. 8A), or that of a boxer as well as the “_Apollo_” from Delphi (Pl. 8B). The reason for this is the ideal element, which entered into all these statues and which was a reflection of the uniform development of athletics long before specialization had set in. Out of this uniformity grew the canon of Polykleitos, developed from that of Hagelaïdas. The sculptor of the sixth century B. C. was incapable of differentiating between god and mortal. This was especially the case, as we have seen, with Apollo, as the “Apollo” type was a model of manly vigor. In the early fifth century the sculptor had largely overcome this difficulty, but still showed little diversity of type in treating statues of different kinds of athletes. A method of differentiation which was essential to athlete sculptors of the sixth century was found convenient of retention by those of the fifth—_i. e._, characterizing the statue of the victor by some attribute, in order, on the one hand, to differentiate it from the nude god or hero, and on the other to distinguish between different types of victors. PRIMARY ATTRIBUTES OF VICTOR STATUES. THE VICTOR FILLET. In the first place, the sculptor would characterize the victor statue as such. The easiest way to do this would be to represent it with a fillet or chaplet (ταινία)[1114] bound round the head, as we saw was the case in the statue of Milo. This fillet was merely a band or riband of wool which was given the Olympic victor in addition to the garland of olive leaves, or the palm-branch, as a symbol of victory. Waldstein has argued that this fillet originally was not an essential attribute of the victor, but that the crown and palm were the prizes, and the fillet merely a decoration used on various occasions, such as at symposia,[1115] which only later became a general athletic attribute.[1116] Though the presence of the fillet on statues should not, therefore, be proof that the given statue is that of a victor,[1117] there is no defense for the contention of Passow[1118] that the _tainia_ was in no sense a symbol of victory, but merely a toilet article among the gifts presented by the public to a victor at the ovation of the crowning. Pausanias says that the victor Lichas of Sparta was scourged by order of the umpires at Olympia for having set the _tainia_ on the head of his victorious charioteer.[1119] This is sufficient evidence that it was not a mere toilet article, but rather a part of the official prize of victory. Similarly the _tainia_ in the hand of Nike upon the right hand of the statue of Zeus by Pheidias at Olympia can not have been a toilet article.[1120] We have many examples from athletic sculpture of the use of the fillet. Thus it appears on the bronze head of a boxer in the Glyptothek (Pl. 3)[1121] and on the bronze head from Herculaneum in Naples (Fig. 4),[1122] both of which have been discussed in Chapter II, as fragments of Greek original statues of Olympic victors. It also appears on the marble head of a youthful victor—not necessarily Olympic—from the Akropolis,[1123] which, because of the similarity in cheeks, mouth, and eyes to heads on the metopes of the Parthenon, should be dated somewhere between 450 and 440 B. C. It occurs on the Olympia marble head (Frontispiece and Fig. 69),[1124] which we ascribe in Chapter VI to Lysippos, and likewise on the statue of the pancratiast Agias in Delphi (Pl. 28, Fig. 68). In most athlete heads the fillet is twisted into a knot at the back of the head. In one case, on the Petworth head of a pentathlete already discussed,[1125] which, because of the curve of the neck, must come from a statue represented at rest, it is not so tied, but is wound round the head with the two ends tucked in and pushed through the fillet on either side over the temples.[1126] Though so practical an arrangement as the latter must have been common enough in real life, this seems to be the only example of its representation in sculpture. The fillet, instead of encircling the head, was sometimes held in the hand, as in the case of the Spartan chariot victor Polykles at Olympia.[1127] A curious life-size statue of the Roman period, found in the Peiræus, represents a nude boy holding in his right hand over the breast a bundle of books and in the left an alabastron. The body is covered with fillets—fifteen in all—which appear to have been prizes won in gymnic contests, probably at the gymnasium or palæstra.[1128] FILLET-BINDERS. Statues representing victors binding fillets in their hair (_diadoumenoi_) are common to all periods of Greek art.[1129] We shall discuss only two—those of Pheidias and of Polykleitos. [Illustration: PLATE 17 Statue known as the _Farnese Diadoumenos_. British Museum, London.] Pausanias mentions a statue by Pheidias, representing a _Boy Binding on a Fillet_, as standing in the Altis at Olympia.[1130] Robert has argued that this figure was the one of similar motive mentioned by Pausanias as on the throne of Zeus there.[1131] However, the figure on the throne was very probably in relief and not in the round.[1132] The cicerones at Olympia seem to have been imposing on the periegete when they said that a likeness to Pantarkes, the boy favorite of Pheidias, was to be seen in the face of this figure on the throne. The mention of Pantarkes has given rise to the usual identification of the παῖς ἀναδούμενος with the victor statue of the Elean Pantarkes mentioned by Pausanias as standing in the Altis.[1133] However, the assumption[1134] is far-fetched and must be rejected, because Pausanias mentions the two statues in two different parts of his _periegesis_ of the Altis.[1135] Of the παῖς we know only the artist’s name. It was probably merely a votive gift,[1136] and the name of the person so honored was unknown to Pausanias. Of the statue of the victor Pantarkes we know only the name, and neither the artist nor the motive of the statue. It seems clear, therefore, that we have to do with three distinct monuments: the boy with the fillet, the throne figure by Pheidias, and the victor by an unknown sculptor.[1137] The small marble statue in the British Museum known as the _Diadoumenos Farnese_[1138] (Pl. 17), which is now almost universally regarded as an Attic work,[1139] has been assumed by many archæologists to be a copy of Pheidias’ statue.[1140] Since Pausanias tells us that a statue by Pheidias stood in Olympia, representing an unknown boy binding a fillet around his head, and since the style of the _Farnese_ statue shows great similarity in head and body forms and general bearing to certain figures on the Parthenon frieze,[1141] and its motive agrees with that of the Olympia statue, it seems reasonable to see in this little work a copy of the statue in the Altis by the great master. Furtwaengler and Bulle have shown that the motive of this work was initiated by Pheidias and not by Polykleitos, since the latter’s great statue was several years younger than the work of Pheidias at Olympia. That Pheidias was pleased with the motive is disclosed by the fact that he repeated it on the throne of Zeus. [Illustration: PLATE 18 Statue of the _Diadoumenos_, from Delos, after Polykleitos. National Museum, Athens.] [Illustration: FIG. 28.—Statue of the _Diadoumenos_, from Vaison, after Polykleitos. British Museum, London.] The _Diadoumenos_ of Polykleitos was little less famous than his _Doryphoros_, if we may judge by the number of copies which have survived and from literary notices of it.[1142] In all the copies of this work we see the well-known Polykleitan characteristics—powerful build, heavy proportions, and fidelity to nature; but none of the ideal tendency prominent in the works of Pheidias and his school, nor of the violent energy characteristic of Myron’s art. In all of them the pose of the earlier _Doryphoros_ is retained, except that the arms are differently employed and the build of the body is more slender. Pliny, despite his statement—which is probably taken from some Greek authority—that monotony was the characteristic of Polykleitos’ works (_paene ad unum exemplum_),[1143] emphasizes this slenderness by calling the _Doryphoros_ _viriliter puer_—Lessing’s _Juengling wie ein Mann_—and the _Diadoumenos_ _molliter juvenis_—a youth of gentle form. This judgment of Pliny was difficult to understand so long as we had only the Vaison copy of the _Diadoumenos_ to study. The Delian copy showed that supple grace was characteristic of the original, even if modified to suit the taste of three centuries later. Although the body forms and the attitudes of the _Doryphoros_ and the _Diadoumenos_ are very similar, the head of the latter, usually assigned to Polykleitos, is of a different type from that of the _Doryphoros_. While the head of the _Doryphoros_ is square in profile, flat on top, and long from front to back, that of the _Diadoumenos_ is rounder and softer and can best be explained on the assumption that Polykleitos later in life came under Attic influence. The copies of this work are many and varied.[1144] For a long time the marble copy in the British Museum found in 1862, at Vaison, France,[1145] was, despite its poor workmanship, considered our best copy (Fig. 28). It was made perhaps five hundred years after the original, at a time when sculpture was in its decline, and consequently can give us merely a suggestion of the character of Polykleitos’ statue. As it is a direct marble translation of the bronze, the muscular treatment appears exaggerated. Another marble copy was found in 1894 by the French excavators on the island of Delos, and is now in Athens (Pl. 18).[1146] The Delian artist added a mantle and a quiver to the nearby tree-trunk and thus converted an original victor statue into one of a god.[1147] Though its hands are lost, it is easy to see that the athlete is pulling the ends of the fillet together so as to tighten the knot at the back of the head. As this is a Hellenistic Greek copy, it comes far nearer to the original than the imperial Roman one from Vaison. The lighter proportions and softer modeling show the Attic influence on Polykleitos’ later career, although the fleshy forms are out of harmony with his art and evidently introduced by the copyist. One of the best preserved and most beautiful copies is the one in the Prado at Madrid.[1148] Although a Roman copy, like the one in the British Museum, it comes very near the original because of the precision in its details. There are many good copies of the head alone.[1149] Marble heads in Kassel and Dresden, evidently the works of Attic sculptors, show the pure Polykleitan traits. The one in Dresden[1150] (Fig. 29) surpasses all others in the beauty of its finish, being a careful and exact copy. The proportions and structure of the head are those of the _Doryphoros_, although the surface is differently treated. The Kassel head[1151] is not so exact in its details, but has more expression. Furtwaengler rightly calls it the better of the two as a work of art, but inferior as a copy. A marble head in the British Museum[1152] is a direct copy from the original bronze, like the Vaison statue. The clear-cut eyelids and wiry hair reproduce the original material, and its resemblance to the head of the _Doryphoros_ is greater than that of any other copy. [Illustration: FIG. 29.—Head of the _Diadoumenos_, after Polykleitos. Albertinum, Dresden.] A later variant of the statue is seen in a small terra-cotta statuette from Smyrna in private possession in London.[1153] It shows the Polykleitan type so completely assimilated to the style of Praxiteles that its genuineness has been doubted. Perhaps, with its Attic softness, it gives us a better idea of the beauty of the original than many of the other copies. Finally, we must mention the original bronze head of the fifth century B. C. in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, recently published by Percy Gardner.[1154] This head, put together from nine fragments, and restored as that of a boy fillet-binder, and rivaling in delicacy and beauty such original bronzes as the Beneventum head (Fig. 3) and the _Idolino_ (Pl. 14), not only gives us the best idea of the technical ability attained by bronze workers in the middle of the fifth century B. C., but also helps us to understand the ancient repute of Polykleitos’ athletes. Here the headband and “starfish” arrangement of the hair have their close parallels in the Dresden, Kassel, and British Museum heads already discussed, which essentially reproduce the head of the Vaison statue (Fig. 28). As Gardner points out, it closely agrees with the type of the _Farnese Diadoumenos_ (Pl. 17) only in one particular, the mode of tying the knot. While the Vaison athlete is preparing to tie it, the Farnese one has just finished the operation, the boy still holding the ends of the fillet in his hands. But only the treatment of the hair, the eye, and the ear offers a contrast. Despite these differences Gardner follows the older view of Brunn in regarding the Vaison and Farnese types as two variants of Polykleitan originals; but the pose, style, and proportions of the latter seem to us to be too thoroughly Attic to warrant us in bringing it into relation with the work of Polykleitos. Though the heads of the two are not so dissimilar, the pose, as Gardner also points out, is quite different. The Vaison figure is represented as walking, _i. e._, in the very act of changing the weight of the body from one leg to the other, while the Farnese athlete stands at rest with both feet flat upon the ground. Gardner rightly regards this exquisite head not as the original of the statue mentioned by Pliny, since the Vaison and Delian copies show that the latter represented a fully developed man, somewhat over life-size, and not a boy, but rather as a work of the Polykleitan school, though he does not exclude the possibility that it may come from one of the many boy athletes of the master. Furtwaengler connects with the _Diadoumenos_ the statue of a youthful boxer, slightly under life-size, which shows a similar motive. It is known to us in two copies, one in Kassel,[1155] the other in Lansdowne House, London.[1156] That it is a work of Polykleitos is shown by the correspondence of its body forms with those of both the _Diadoumenos_ and the _Doryphoros_. A bronze statuette, dating from about 400 B. C., in the Akropolis Museum, also repeats the motive without being an exact copy.[1157] THE CROWN OF WILD OLIVE. The crown of wild olive[1158] in the hair is another general but not customary attribute of Olympic victor statues. Fewer sculptured heads show it than show the _tainia_, and in most of these the leaves have fallen off. Examples of its presence are afforded by the bronze head from Beneventum (Fig. 3) in the Louvre,[1159] and on the realistic bronze head of a boxer found at Olympia (Fig. 61 A and B).[1160] A good illustration of a boy victor crowning himself is on a fourth-century B. C. funerary relief, found in 1873 at the Dipylon gate, and now in the Athens Museum.[1161] The victor is holding or placing a crown of leaves on his head. In the Museo delle Terme, Rome, is a mediocre headless copy of an original statue of the end of the fifth century B. C., the work of an artist of the Polykleitan school, the restoration of which as a victor engaged in wreathing his head is probable.[1162] A protuberance on the right shoulder seems to have been left by the end of the _lemniskos_ or ribbon with which the wreath was adorned.[1163] The left hand carried an attribute, but probably not a palm-branch as Helbig assumed, since such a branch, if of metal, would have left traces on the shoulder. The same restoration has been proposed for another statue.[1164] A crown on the head, together with the remains of fingers near it, has been noticed on a bronze statue of Eros, of Hellenistic workmanship, found off Tunis in the sea,[1165] which shows Polykleitan influence. [Illustration: PLATE 19 Statue known as the _Westmacott Athlete_. British Museum, London.] The statue of a _Boy Crowning Himself_, which has survived in many Roman copies and variant Greek originals, notably in the so-called _Westmacott Athlete_ of the British Museum (Pl. 19),[1166] a fragmentary statue of poorer workmanship in the Barracco collection in Rome,[1167] and a Greek copy from Eleusis now in the National Museum in Athens,[1168] and identified by many archæologists with the statue of the boy boxer Kyniskos by Polykleitos at Olympia, should be discussed here. While the _Westmacott Athlete_ appears to be a copy from the original bronze, the Barracco statue, though showing the same pose, is unlike it in the treatment of hair and muscles, and with its Attic head, seems to be a carelessly executed variant, more or less Myronian in style, of the Polykleitan original. While its original may be assigned to the end of the fifth century B. C., the Eleusis variant, with its head differently placed, is not a Roman copy, but a Greek original statue showing the Polykleitan motive carried into the soft Attic style of the fourth century B. C.[1169] A fine copy of the head alone is in the possession of Sir Edgar Vincent, in his Constantinople collection.[1170] This should be associated with another head in Dresden, both being closely related to that of the _Westmacott Athlete_.[1171] The best copy of the head is in the Hermitage, in which the treatment of the hair approaches nearest to that of the bronze original.[1172] A marble head from Apollonia in Epeiros, now in the British Museum, which so closely resembles the head of the _Westmacott Athlete_ that the missing sections of the neck and shoulders were restored by a cast from the latter, is somewhat different in style. For while the Westmacott head is a mechanical copy, this Greek head is full of vigor, disclosing Attic characteristics of the early fourth century B. C., and obviously is an Athenian imitation of the original, like the statue from Eleusis.[1173] A more remote variant is the beautiful marble head formerly in the possession of Dr. Philip Nelson in Liverpool, but now in America, which is not an exact copy of any of the known variants, but so closely resembles the Capitoline type of _Wounded Amazon_, assigned first by Otto Jahn and later by Furtwaengler to Kresilas, that it must be by the same hand.[1174] This head also reminds us of that of the Kresilæan _Diomedes_ of the Munich Glyptothek (Pl. 21),[1175] though the hair-treatment is Polykleitan.[1176] Both show a modification of Polykleitan forms under Attic influence. The numerous fine copies indicate that the original was a well-known work. That it was Polykleitan is clear from a study of the heads, which show a great resemblance to that of the _Doryphoros_, and of the body forms, which resemble those of both the _Doryphoros_ and the _Diadoumenos_. While some believe this original a work of Polykleitos himself,[1177] others think that it was by one of his pupils or successors, who imitated the master’s early style. If the original, however, was not the statue of Kyniskos, there is little evidence that it was by Polykleitos himself. The palm-trunk in the Westmacott copy certainly argues that the original was an athlete statue. The gesture of the right hand has given rise to different interpretations. The Barracco copy furnishes the best evidence, as on it the right arm is preserved to the wrist, the hand only being lost. Helbig at first (in the Barracco Catalogue) expressed the opinion that the right hand might have held an oil-flask, from which oil was being poured into the left. However, the position of the left hand, as shown by the _puntello_ on the left hip, must have been the same as that on the Westmacott copy, _i. e._, hanging close to the left side. Helbig later (in the _Fuehrer_) explained the motive as that of a boy setting a crown on his head, as in the bronze _Eros_ already mentioned. This interpretation, first suggested by Winnefeld,[1178] has been the favorite one among archæologists. But all sorts of other explanations of the motive of the original have been offered, as that the athlete was scraping his forehead or shoulders with the strigil,[1179] that the statue represented Narkissos looking into the pool and shading his eyes with his right hand,[1180] that it was an athlete standing at rest and holding an akontion in his right hand—a theory harmonizing with the poise of the head, but not with the turn of the wrist, which shows that the hand was held downwards[1181]—and that it was, in fact, the _nudus talo incessens_ of Pliny.[1182] On the head of the Eleusis statue there is a mass of marble left over the right ear just opposite the place where the hand would be, if it were setting a wreath on the head. The fact that no marks are visible where the crown was attached is explained by the assumption that the wreath was of metal even in the marble copies. That this motive, moreover, was known to both Attic and Peloponnesian art in the second half of the fifth century B. C. is well attested. Thus we see on the Parthenon frieze a youth crowning himself with one hand, while holding the horse’s bridle with the other.[1183] The pose of this figure—especially the legs—recalls the Myronian _Oil-pourer_ already discussed (Pl. 11). On the other hand, one of the figures of the Ildefonso group in Madrid, which is Polykleitan in style, represents a boy wearing a wreath, a figure closely akin to the _Westmacott Athlete_, the leg position being the same in both and the poise of the head nearly so, although the arms are different, the left one being raised and the right hanging down.[1184] It is probable that the raised right hand of the original of the Westmacott and other replicas touched the wreath and the lowered left held a fillet. The best explanation, then, of the _Westmacott Athlete_ and kindred works is that the motive of the original was allied to that of the _Diadoumenos_ of Polykleitos, though the modeling is too soft for Polykleitos, showing that the copyists changed the original of the Argive master to suit a later and different taste. Whereas the _Diadoumenos_ is tying on a victor’s fillet, the other is presumably placing a victor’s wreath on his head. Certainly no better restoration can be made for the Barracco copy. Furthermore, many other monuments, which show a similar attitude, and which must be regarded as very free imitations of the original, seem to show that the boy was represented as placing a wreath on his head.[1185] Whether the original of the series was an actual victor statue at Olympia or not is an interesting question. It has been repeatedly suggested that it was the very statue of the boy boxer Kyniskos there, mentioned by Pausanias, the base of which has been recovered.[1186] The external evidence for the identity consists altogether in the similarity in the position of the feet on this base and in the series of copies, which argues a similar pose. The base shows that the left leg bore the weight of the statue; it was slightly advanced and rested on the sole, while the right leg was set back and rested on the ball only. Thus the statue of Kyniskos was represented in the characteristic Polykleitan schema of rest, except that the position of the legs is reversed from that of the _Doryphoros_, _Diadoumenos_, _Amazon_, and other works of the master. We might add that this same reversal appears on two other bases found at Olympia, which held victor statues by the elder Polykleitos[1187] and one by the younger.[1188] Moreover, the leg position of the canon does not occur in the works of the master’s pupils Naukydes and Daidalos, and only in one work of Kleon.[1189] This shows that teacher and pupils also used another motive, _i. e._, the old canon of Hagelaïdas, besides the one associated with the _Doryphoros_. The similarity in the position of the feet on the Olympia base and in the series of statues discussed has led some scholars, _e. g._, Petersen and Collignon, to accept the proposed identity. This similarity in foot position, the probability that the statue on the basis was life-size, like those of the Westmacott series, and the palm-tree support in the British Museum replica, all pointing to a victor statue, make the identity well within the range of possibility, but by no means certain. It is necessary only to rehearse the objections to this view. In the first place the length of the foot on the Olympia basis can not be accurately measured for purposes of comparison. In the next place Polykleitos, as we have just seen, made other statues of victors at Olympia with almost the identical foot position of that of Kyniskos. Furthermore, it seems very unlikely that so celebrated an original as that of these many replicas could have been standing in the Altis so late as the time of Pausanias.[1190] It is difficult, also, to understand why an imitative Attic sculptor of the fourth century B. C., should make a copy of an Arkadian boy victor statue for Eleusis. And lastly we must not forget that up to the present time not a single Roman copy has been conclusively identified with that of a victor statue at Olympia. If the date of the victory of Kyniskos were definitely fixed, the question of identity would be better substantiated. By a process of exclusion, to be sure, Robert reached the date Ol. 80 (= 460 B. C.),[1191] but other dates are possible. Under these circumstances there seems to be little more than the possibility that we have recovered an actual victor statue at Olympia in these copies.[1192] THE PALM-BRANCH. The palm-branch, either woven into a wreath or held in the hand, was a victor attribute. Pausanias says that a crown of palm leaves was common to many contests, and that the victor everywhere in Greece carried a palm-branch in his right hand.[1193] He refers the custom to mythical times, tracing it back to the contest held by Theseus on Delos in honor of Apollo.[1194] Pliny mentions a painting by the Sikyonian Eupompos, which represented a _victor certamine gymnico palmam tenens_.[1195] While Milchhoefer[1196] believed that the motive of an athlete setting a crown on his head with his right hand and holding a palm in his left, which is repeated frequently and with variation in many works of art, went back to this painting of Eupompos, Furtwaengler[1197] goes further in assuming that the painter derived the motive from the statue of Polykleitos represented by the _Westmacott Athlete_ and kindred works just discussed. The pupils of the great sculptor appear to have transferred his school from Argos to Sikyon, and were, therefore, associated with Eupompos. This attribute of the palm, permanent in bronze statues, has been broken off for the most part in marble ones. We see it in an unfinished statue of a young athlete in the National Museum, Athens, who holds the palm-branch in his hand. Here it has survived, since the statue was only blocked out.[1198] It is prominent in the funerary stele from the Dipylon representing a victor, which has been mentioned in a preceding section;[1199] here the palm extends from the left hand, which is held down close to the side, up to the shoulder. We have already noted that the copyist added a palm-branch to the stump placed beside the Vatican girl runner (Pl. 2). In the _Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo_ (Pl. 7A) the left hand should doubtless be restored with the palm-branch, because of the projecting notch of marble on the side of the left leg near the knee.[1200] A similar notch appears also on the _Apollo-on-the-Omphalos_ in Athens (Pl. 7B), which shows that the left hand held a long attribute, which was doubtless a palm-branch. This attribute occurs frequently on vases.[1201] We see it on a marble statue found at Formiae and now in the Glyptothek Ny-Carlsberg in Copenhagen, which shows the same motive as that of the statue by Stephanos (Pl. 9), though in a freer style of execution. Here the lowered right hand holds a palm-branch, which is shown in low relief against the right arm.[1202] SECONDARY ATTRIBUTES OF VICTOR STATUES. In course of time the sculptor was not content to represent victor statues merely as victors, but differentiated the various kinds of victors by special attributes. HOPLITODROMOI. [Illustration: FIG. 30.—Marble heads of two Hoplitodromoi, from Olympia. Museum of Olympia.] Thus a hoplite victor would be represented with his usual weapons. Pausanias, in mentioning the statue at Olympia of the hoplite runner Damaretos of Heraia by the Argive sculptors Eutelidas and Chrysothemis, says that it “has not only a shield, as the armed runners still have, but also a helmet on his head and greaves on his legs.”[1203] He adds that the helmet and greaves were gradually abolished at Olympia and elsewhere. We have seen that the statue of Damaretos was set up at the beginning of the fifth century B. C., when his son Theopompos, the pentathlete, won his second victory, the monuments of the two being in common.[1204] Toward the middle of the fifth century the hoplite victor Mnaseas of Kyrene had a statue at Olympia, the work of Pythagoras of Rhegion, which represented him as an armed man.[1205] A Pythian victor, Telesikrates, of the fifth century B. C., had a statue at Delphi, which represented him with a helmet.[1206] We have actual remnants of two hoplite victor statues of the sixth century B. C., in the two bearded and helmeted life-size heads of Parian marble found at Olympia (Fig. 30, a, b = A; c, d = B).[1207] The younger of these heads (A), to which probably belong either an arm and the remnants of a shield attached with a ram and a representation of Phrixos upon it in relief,[1208] or a shield fragment with a siren’s wing upon it[1209] and the fragment of a shield edge[1210] and right foot of fine workmanship,[1211] I assigned long ago to the statue of the Thessalian hoplitodrome Phrikias of Pelinna, who won two victories in Ols. 68 and 69 (= 508 and 504 B. C.).[1212] R. Foerster had referred this head to the statue of the hoplite runner Damaretos of Heraia, whose monument, in common with that of his son, the pentathlete Theopompos, was the work of the early Argive sculptors Chrysothemis and Eutelidas.[1213] But this fresh and vigorous head is not Peloponnesian, but shows strongly marked Attic traits in its round face, full cheeks, and soft lips, and in the rows of regularly wound locks of hair. The arm and foot similarly disclose Attic softness and grace. Because of its Attic character, Treu and Overbeck,[1214] in opposition to Foerster, ascribed it to the statue of the Elean hoplite victor Eperastos mentioned by Pausanias.[1215] Though the date of his victory is unknown, it certainly fell some time after Ol. 111 (= 336 B. C.)—a date far too late for so archaic a sculpture. Furtwaengler[1216] referred this and the more archaic head B to the group of Phormis at Olympia, mentioned by Pausanias.[1217] However, Treu[1218] showed that there was no stylistic connection between the two heads. The slightly more archaic head B, badly injured from weathering, I have referred to the Achaian hoplitodrome Phanas of Pellene, who won Ol. 67 (= 512 B. C.).[1219] In this carefully executed head the hair and beard are arranged in small locks and the archaic smile is prominent. While the younger head is Attic, this one is unmistakably Peloponnesian; and while the former comes from a statue represented at rest, the latter, because of the twist of the neck, seems to have come from one represented in violent motion. For this reason Wolters believed that it came from the statue of a warrior represented as thrown to the ground and defending himself. The Myronic statue in the Palazzo Valentini, Rome, known as _Diomedes_,[1220] whose pose recalls the _Diskobolos_, may represent a hoplitodrome, because of its marked resemblance in attitude to the Tuebingen bronze to be discussed in the next chapter (Fig. 42), and because of the helmet on its head.[1221] PENTATHLETES. Pentathletes were represented by attributes taken from three of the five contests—jumping, and throwing the diskos and the javelin. All these attributes appear in gymnasium scenes pictured on red-figured vases. Thus a kylix of the severe style in Munich[1222] gives us a general picture of the exercises of the gymnasium. On the walls hang diskoi in slings, strigils, leaping-weights, oil-flasks, sponges, and javelins. Archaic leaping-weights (ἁλτῆρες) appeared in the hands of the statue of the Elean Hysmon at Olympia by the Sikyonian sculptor Kleon.[1223] Similarly, a figure of _Contest_ (Ἀγών) in the group set up there by Mikythos had weights.[1224] The offering of the people of Mende at Olympia very nearly deceived Pausanias into thinking it the statue of a pentathlete, because of its ancient _halteres_.[1225] This shows that these weights formed a regular attribute of pentathlete statues there. A relief from Sparta[1226] represents an athlete leaning on his spear and holding a pair of leaping-weights in his right hand. There is a bronze statue of such a victor in the Berlin Antiquarium.[1227] _Halteres_ hang on a tree-trunk to the right of the statue of an athlete in the Pitti palace in Florence.[1228] The breast of a marble torso, less than life-size, of a boy statue found at Olympia, shows that the hands were stretched forward, and very possibly the objects which they held were leaping-weights.[1229] We have no direct literary reference to a victor statue at Olympia of a pentathlete with the attributes of the diskos or javelin. That they existed there, however, seems probable enough. Such a work as the _Diskobolos_ of Myron, which displays the youthful victor in its every line, other statues, statuettes, reliefs, and vase-paintings, show us how the artist represented the different steps in the casting of the quoit. Similarly, the famous _Doryphoros_ of Polykleitos, copies of which have been identified in many museums (Pl. 4 and Fig. 48), will give us an idea how a javelin thrower might have been represented at rest. The akontion or victor’s casting-spear, was, as we see from the Spartan relief of a pentathlete just mentioned, about the height of a man. The attitude of the diskobolos and doryphoros will be discussed at length in the next chapter. BOXERS. The statue of a boxer would be sufficiently characterized by thongs, which he might carry in his hand, as in the statue of the Rhodian Akousilaos at Olympia,[1230] or wound round his forearm, as in the statue of a boxer in the Palazzo Albani, Rome,[1231] or on a near-by prop, as on the tree-stump beside the _Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo_ in the British Museum (Pl. 7A).[1232] WRESTLERS. Long ago Scherer tried to show that the aryballos was a wrestler-attribute, since oil was so important in wrestling.[1233] He interpreted as _aryballoi_ the pomegranates mentioned by Pausanias as held in the hands of the statues of the wrestlers Milo[1234] and Theognetos[1235] at Olympia, assuming that the Periegete mistook oil-flasks for pomegranates (ῥοιαί). But it hardly seems reasonable that such a small utensil, which was used by athletes in general, could ever have been regarded as a peculiar attribute of the wrestler. A similar attribute may have been held in the outstretched hand of the half life-size archaic bronze “Apollo” of the Sciarra Palace in Rome,[1236] and it occurs on other statues.[1237] CAPS FOR BOXERS, PANCRATIASTS, AND WRESTLERS. Often the boxer and pancratiast (and even wrestler)[1238] are represented as wearing close-fitting caps, made up of thongs of leather or of solid leather. This, however, can scarcely be called a determining attribute. Our best example of such a cap is afforded by an athlete head dating from the first half of the fifth century B. C., in the Capitoline Museum, Rome,[1239] formerly called a portrait of Juba II, who was the king of Numidia and Mauretania from 25 B. C. to 23 A. D. This ascription was based on the barbarous look of the head and the fact that another head, discovered in the Gymnasion of Ptolemy in Athens and thought to resemble it, was assumed to be that of Juba, since Pausanias mentions one of that prince there.[1240] It is rather the head of an athlete engaged in putting on a cap. This cap consists of three transverse leather pieces crossing the head from side to side, one over the forehead, one over the crown, and the third over the occiput, all three converging above the ears. A fourth strap fastens them together and is drawn over the crown from forehead to occiput. In the complete statue doubtless the hands were raised to the head, grasping the straps near the ears to fasten them. This is, therefore, an anticipation of the later _Diadoumenos_ motive. We see it in a statuette formerly in the Stroganoff collection in Rome, but now in private possession in England,[1241] which represents an athlete putting on a similar head-dress. Though the arms of the statuette are gone, remains of the two hands are seen touching the left ear and tying the straps, one of which runs around the cranium above the swollen right ear. With this complicated head-dress we may compare the close-fitting cap—evidently of leather—pictured on an archaistic Greek votive relief-in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, in Rome, which represents an athlete washing his hands in a basin, which stands on a tripod.[1242] Here the cap is fastened by two bands, one around and the other under the chin. An object in the upper left corner of the relief, enclosed in a frame, appears to be a victor crown adorned with bow-knots. Such caps, used in wrestling, would make it impossible for an opponent to grasp the hair; in boxing and the pankration it would protect the head from injury. We saw that such a cap was pictured on a Munich kylix of the early fifth century B. C. It is probable that such caps were customary at a period before athletes lost their long hair and that it was continued afterwards for various reasons. The little statuette from Autun now in the Louvre (Fig. 60), representing a pancratiast, has a close-fitting cap. The ring at the top shows that this statuette was hung up—perhaps being used as a weight in a Roman scale, or perhaps for adornment. In later days boys while practising in the palæstra, but never at the public games, wore ear-lappets (ἀμφωτίδες or ἐπωτίδες) to protect their ears, not dissimilar to those worn in our day for protection against the cold. We see them on a marble head, formerly in the possession of Fabretti.[1243] THE SWOLLEN EAR. We have lastly to speak of the swollen ear, which was an attribute of victor statues, both primary and secondary, since it characterized victors as such, and also early differentiated victors in various contests. Swollen ears may have played a role as a characteristic attribute of pugilists in early times.[1244] We found them on the Rayet head in the Jacobsen collection (Fig. 22), which belongs to the last quarter of the sixth century B. C. and comes from the funerary statue of an athlete, probably a boxer. In course of time, however, they came to characterize pancratiasts, wrestlers,[1245] and athletes in general. The assumption, then, that heads with swollen ears come from statues of boxers,[1246] and that the boxer was known throughout Greek history as the “man with the crushed ear” is erroneous.[1247] The earliest literary reference to the bruised ear is in Plato.[1248] The philosopher used the term slightingly of those who imitated Spartan customs, especially Spartan boxing. The Lacedæmonians never boxed scientifically, but fought with bare fists and without rules. Literary evidence, furthermore, shows that bruised ears did not play the part in boxing matches which other bruised features of the face did—the eyes, nose, mouth, teeth, and chin. Vase-paintings sustain this evidence, for we often see bloody noses and cuts on the cheeks and chin, but no crushed ears.[1249] In short, the crushed ear was merely a professional characteristic, a realistic detail, common to athletes of various sorts, and, as we shall see, to warriors, gods, and heroes. To quote Homolle: “_La bouffissure des oreilles ellemême n’est pas un trait personnel, mais un caractère professionnel; elle ne désigne pas Agias, mais en général le lutteur. Cette déformation peut atteindre même un dieu, s’il a pratiqué les exercices gymnastiques et passé sa vie dans les luttes_”.[1250] It is found constantly on athletic types of heads in sculpture, whether these represent gods or mortals. A few examples will make this clear. The following heads of athletes show the swollen ears: the bronze portrait head of a boxer or pancratiast from Olympia, dating from the end of the fourth century B. C. or the beginning of the third (Fig. 61 A and B);[1251] the marble head from the statue of the boxer Philandridas set up among the victor statues at Olympia, the work of Lysippos (Frontispiece and Fig. 69);[1252] the head of the statue of the pancratiast Agias at Delphi (Pl. 28 and Fig. 68) ;[1253] that of the _Seated Boxer_ in the Museo delle Terme in Rome (Pl. 16 and Fig. 27);[1254] that of the _Apoxyomenos_ of the Uffizi in Florence (Pl. 12);[1255] the bronze head from an athlete statue found at Tarsos and now in Constantinople, an Attic work of the end of the fifth century B. C.;[1256] the beautiful bronze head of a boxer in the Glyptothek (Pl. 3);[1257] the head of the so-called _Apollo-on-the-Omphalos_ in Athens (Pl. 7B);[1258] the athlete head from Perinthos (Fig. 33);[1259] the bronze copy of the head of the _Doryphoros_, found in Herculaneum and now in Naples, by the Attic artist Apollonios (Fig. 47);[1260] the Ince-Blundell head in England, to be discussed; four heads in Copenhagen;[1261] the remarkably beautiful bust of an athlete in the Metropolitan Museum, New York (Pl. 20), whose rounded skull, oval face, projecting lower forehead, and dreamy, half-closed eyes place it in the fourth century B. C., a work influenced by the art of Praxiteles.[1262] [Illustration: PLATE 20 Head of an Athlete, School of Praxiteles. Metropolitan Museum, New York.] When we consider heads of gods and heroes we find the swollen ears on a variety of types. We see them on the so-called _Borghese Warrior_ of the Louvre (Fig. 43),[1263] formerly called a _Gladiator_, and on the marble statue of Kresilæan style in Munich, which has been known since Brunn’s interpretation as _Diomedes_ (carrying off the Palladion from Troy) (Pl. 21).[1264] This latter statue is a careful, though inexact, Hadrianic copy of a famous work and is shown to represent the hero, and not an athlete, by the mantle thrown over the arm. Skill in the boxing match, the roughest and most dangerous of sports, is as appropriate to _Diomedes_ as to Herakles himself. The crushed ears appear on the Dresden replica of this statue, a cast from the Mengs collection, the original of which was once probably in England,[1265] but do not appear on the poor copy in the Louvre.[1266] They also appear on the Myronian bust in the Riccardi Palace, Florence, which is a copy of an original that was, perhaps, the forerunner of the Kresilæan _Diomedes_.[1267] Here again the garment thrown over the left shoulder shows that a youthful hero, and not an athlete, is intended. On heads of Herakles the swollen ears are very common. The first dated representation of the hero with battered ears appears to be on coins of Euagoras I, the king of Salamis in Cyprus during the years 410-374 B. C.[1268] We have several examples in sculpture from the fourth century B. C. Thus swollen ears and the victor fillet appear on the Skopaic head in the Capitoline Museum.[1269] Another example is the terminal bust of the youthful hero found in 1777 at Genzano, and now in the British Museum (Fig. 31).[1270] This head wreathed with poplar leaves, is probably a Græco-Roman copy of an original of the fourth century B. C., by an artist of the school of Lysippos. In the group representing Herakles and his son Telephos, a Roman copy in the Museo Chiaramonti of the Vatican, the hero is represented with fillet and battered ears.[1271] A Parian marble head, encircled by a crown, in the Glyptothek, going back to a Lysippan bronze original, seems to come from the statue of the hero represented as a victor.[1272] Another life-size head, of poor workmanship, in the Chiaramonti collection of the Vatican, sometimes confused with the _Doryphoros_ head-type, seems to come from a statue of Herakles, as shown by the broken ears and rolled fillet, the latter a well-known attribute of the hero taken from the symposium.[1273] A much finer replica is the bust from Herculaneum now in Naples.[1274] Swollen ears appear also on heads of Ares. We may instance the helmeted one in the Louvre,[1275] and especially the replica in the Palazzo Torlonia in Rome.[1276] They are less prominent on a Parian marble head of the god in the Glyptothek, which appears to be a copy of an original of which the _Ares Ludovisi_ is a more complete one.[1277] [Illustration: FIG. 31.—Head of Herakles, from Genzano. British Museum London.] [Illustration: PLATE 21 Statue of _Diomedes with the Palladion_. Glyptothek, Munich.] So far as we know, the statues of wrestlers, runners (except hoplitodromes), and probably pancratiasts were not distinguished by special attributes. In these cases the sculptor was obliged to express the type of contest in the figure itself. His problem, therefore, was to represent the victor in the characteristic pose of the contest in which he had won his victory, that is, by representing the statue as if in movement. This brings us to the second division of our treatment of victor statues, those which represented the victor not at rest, but in motion, a scheme which, in course of time, was extended not only to victors in wrestling and running, but to those in all contests, by representing them in the very act of contending. The treatment of this class of monuments will occupy the chief portion of Chapter IV.