I:-IN BOARDMAN

Sig
Sir John Boardman
was born in 1927, and educated at
Chigwell School and Magdalene College, Cambridge. H e
spent several years in Greece, three of them as Assistant
Director ofthe British School ofArchaeology at Athem, and
he has excavated in Smyrna, Crete, Ch10s and Libya. For four
years he was an Assistant Keeper in the Ashmolean Museum,
Oxford, and he subsequently became Read<r m Classical
Archaeology and Fellow of Merton College, Oxford. He is
now Lmcoln Professor Emeritus ofClasSical Archaeology and
Art m Oxford, and a Fellow ofthe llnush Academy. Professor
Boardman has written widely on the art and archaeology of
Ancient Greece. His o ther books in the World of Art series
include Greek Art; Atl~e11ia11 Black F(~11re vases; Athe11ia11 Red
Fig11re liJSts: 111t Archaic Period and ... '11~e Classical Period;
Greek Sculpwre: 111e Archaic Period and ...
111t Classical Period.
8
WORLD OF ART
This famous sene<>
provtdes the \vtdest available
range of illustrated books on art m all Its aspects.
If you would ltke to n:cetve a complete hst
of t1tles in print please wrue to:
THAMES AND IIUDSON
JO 131oomsbury Street, London, WC16 JQP
In the United States please write to:
THAMES A.NO HUDSON INC.
500 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10110
Printed m Slovenl3

lt::t
Filozoficka fakulta UKOFIUK
3805 01050000257
Any copy of thos book ISsued by the publisher as a paperback is
sold subject to the conditiOn that 11 shall not by way of trade o r
otherwise be lent, reso ld, hired out o r otherwise circulated without
the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover o ther
than that m w hi ch lt lS pubhshed an d without a sim1lar condinon
mcluding these words bemg 1mposed on a subsequent purchaser.
0 1995 Thame> and H udson Ltd, London
All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced or tranmutt ed m any form or by any means, electronic
or mechamcal, mcludmg photocopy, recording o r any other
information storage and retrieval system, without prio r permission
in w riting fi-om the pubhsher.
Briti sh Li brary Catalogum g - m -Publicat1on Data
A catalogue record for thos book is avatlable from the British
Library
ISBN o-soo -20285-o
Printed and bound m Sloven ~a by Mladmska KllJiga
C ONTENTS
pref ·e
Part 1. Late Classica l Sculpture
4
6
INTRODUCTION
.
.
I d .,., hnt.qu e· Places Patrons and Plan nmg; Fmances
Styean .ec
•
•
ARCHITECTURAL SCULPTURE
NAM ES AND ATTRIBUTIONS
Atl •n an; Other
GODS AND GODDESSES, MEN AND WOMEN
O riginals _ bronzes, marbles; Copies
PORTRAITURE
FUM.RARY SCULPTURE
Athens and Attica; Non-Attic gravestones; Monuments;
Sar< ophagi
7 OTHER RELIEFS
Von· e; Record; Bases
Part 11· The Western Greeks
INTRODUCTION
9 ARCH ITECTURAL SCULPTURE
1o OTHER SCULPTURE
.
Lo.. al stone; Marble; Acro li ths; Bronze and Clay; Etruna and
E:rl Rome
7
11
23
70
103
114
IJI
143
r62

Part Ill: Greek Sculpture to East and South
rr ANATOLIA
1 2 THE LEVANT AND NORTH AFRICA
Part IV: Ancient and Antique
13 COLLE CTING ANI) COLLE C TIONS
Antiqurty; Taste and the Antique; Status and the Antique·
Atrrtudes and th e Annque
'
Abbreviations
Notes and Bibliograph ies
Index of lllumations
Index o(Ancient Arti sts' Names
Acknowledgements
General Index
M APS
Greece a11d 171e Aegea11 World (pp. 2o-2r)
So111l1 Italy a11d Sicily {p. 145)
222
237
238
Preface
This volume is a se quel to the two on the ArchaiC and Class1cal periods o f Greek
sculpture wh1c h have already appeared m this ser ies {1978, 1985). Its narrative
ends more or less where R . R. . R. . Smith's Hellenis tic Swlpture (1991), which is
des1gned along similar lines, beg1ns, w1th som e ove rlapping. But it also includes
conSideration oft he Greeks' scu lptural record in thei r western colonies, in South
ltalv and Sicily, and work executed for the ir eastern neighbours in Anatolia and
els;where in the near east, and in these Parts (If and IIf} th e narrative begins in
the Archaic period. So the first Part represents a period o f transition - indeed in
some classes o f sculpture it may seem like marking tim e. T h ese are yea rs in which
the Clamcal revolution of the fifth century was se ttlin g down with modest
e~l'eriment, bu t also with so m e significant novel ty that presaged th e Helleni stic
styles to come. In it we see the beginnmg of the b reakd own of C lassical stan-
dards, but also the inception ofnew modes o f e"l'rcssion - the female nu de, true
portraiture, passionate features and poses. These also depart fro m C lassical prac-
nce<-, though they are rooted in them, and they introduce much that was to be
oHhtmg significa nce m th e class1ca l sculptu ra l tradition of the west.
In thrs period ofless t han a centu ry t he 1mpcnal ambin ons ofa newly defeated
Athens gave place to a vanety of Internal alliances m Greece. These local pre-
occupanons were more and more overshadowed by th e now more benign inter-
ference of Persia, and by a sh ift of power and wealth to north Greece and
Maccdorua, whence Ph1lip If and h is son Alexander the Great were to laun ch
their successful confrontati on with the Persian Emp1re. We are moving from a
period m wh1ch artists and cra ftsm en were servrng the monumental aspirations
of relatively small though sometimes wealthy states, to one in whi ch the wealth
of mdividuals and dynasties \vaS becoming a more effecnve source o f patronage,
and in wh1ch •ervice for the n o n-Creek could prove espec ially attractive. But
overall, the art o f fourth-cenn1ry Greece had as much in common with its High
Classical past as with its Helle nistic future.
The study ofGreek sculpture is a ve ry old o n e and methods h ave chan ged but
little. It depen ds, as it must, on close inspection and experien ce. The role ofcon-
no"seurship and attributi on to names o f scu lp tOrs and schools remains impor-
tant . but m the face ofwidespread disagreement over acceptable results it seems
tlllle tor a more closely archa colog1ca l app roac h; for example, a more rigorous
7

assessment oftechnique which can prove offundamental importance in explain-
mg intentions and changes of style as well as date. And JUSt as the traditional
methods ofstudying Greek vases have been - not overturned- but, for the dis-
cerning, e nhanced by new approaches and new focuses of mterest over the last
generation, so too it may be time to reconsider approaches to sculpture. T h is is
beginning, mainly in terms ofstudy of its fu nction as social display or for poli t-
ICal and rehg10us propagan da. There is not much room to write about such
m atters here, in a h andbook devoted to th e primary evidence, but they will find
their plac~. More impor tantly, I would invite the reader tO refl ect on why Greek
scu!pture IS Important, and not merely in terms ofwhat it inspired in later cen-
tuncs. lt has often been remarked that the Greeks seem ed to live in a world of
images. So.did other cultures, but there the ordinary citizen \vas exposed to such
Images, painted or sculptured, mainly in the exceptional circumstances ofcourt
or r~hgious life. The 'small-town' mentality ofthe Greeks and a roughly demo-
cra n e \vay oflife, at least m Athens (our major source), m eant that exposure was
far m ore general, at all levels o f society, even the servile. Here and there I refl ect
o~ what the Greeks migh t have made ofthe monuments, ofthe sculptural show-
pieces 111 m ar ket- places, sanctu aries and cemet eries. It is a way ofcoming closer
to u nderstandm g the expectatio n s of the public an d intentions of the artists, and
possibly an easier and no less profitable one than that offered by the more rari-
fied atmosphere oftheir literature. We do not see what they saw exactly, but we
can learn to Imagme what they saw in considerable detail and with considerable
accuracy. The physical e nvironment created by any society tells much about that
society's character. A closer look at Greek politics and social behaviour might
lead us to suspect that we have been admiring them for the wrong reasons; but
we have a good chance ofsh aring their appreciation and even u nderstanding of
the1~ physical environment, dominated as it was by th e work of gener ations of
architects and artists . Th1s work was more obviously ap paren t and less distant
from t he trappings ofordinary li fe than such monuments are today. This should
be o n e of the rewards of th e subject. But it starts necessarily in study of tech-
mquc, pose, dress , composition, subject matter, function, sources, dating, and
calls for the exercise of traditional skills as well as an imaginative empathy ,vith
the visual experience of the past.
The scheme of this volume deviates little from the gene ral pattern of its pre-
decessors. The mam chapters present and describe the record by principal types,
and bymdiv1dual sculptors where possible, concentrating on the surviving phys-
Ical evidence. Broader considerations of th e development of style, technique,
patronage, funcnon, and the social role ofsculpture and sculptor s, are assembled
111 the first chapter, an d h ere there is necessa r ily an elemen t ofrefl ection 011 what
had gone before. In Parts ll an d llJ the progress is mainly geographical, attem pt-
m g to uncover regional preferences in the colonial world, and th e effect ofn on-
Creek interests on artists commissioned outside it. The final chapter refl ects on
how we have come by, and used, our coll ections of classical sculpture; the
8
·sponses to the ancient and to what we term the antique. The maps
clifferent reunary indication of th e main sources of Archaic and C lassical sc ulp-
g1ve a ,un
om1dered in these handbooks.
cure cb fore , 1 have tried to supply student and general reader with enough pie-
Mc
·
fh·d.
d
,.
111 an idea ofboth style and subjects. Some o t e p1eces 1scusse are
rures to g
·
·
b
·
Iddb
f d . · later than the declared 1ntennon ofthe volume ut are me u e ecause
oa.lt<
.
ft .d
I fleet 011 earlier work and are nor to be found m HS yet are o en c1te .
ney re
.
.
Where expedient 1 have used ph otos of casts smcc they arc somenmes m~re
tr: t , 111 demonstratin g form, and the surface condmon of an ongmal1s VIr-
m~~
.
.
.
.
.
all
.
1,·vc r as it was m annqmty. 1 have not shirked photos w1th black back-
tuY
f:·blC
·
·
rout' ),, though these are gen erally un ashiona e. . ontours were Important m
gl ·c
atuary much of which \vas displayed agamst a wall or m rebef on a
c asst
•
.
.
dark-v• ,ted ground. I! 1s noticeable that where statues were mtended for display
n s bright sky th e outlm es ca n be vaguer, even ragged. The matenal of
agaiec es hown is always m arbl e unless otherwise stated; all dates are BC and
P
1
.
d
d.
d
measu.vnents in metres. Marion Cox has created o r cop1c m any rawmgs, an
1am, • often before, much in her debt. I am grateful to many generous sources
for illustration and have drawn o n th e Oxford Cast Gallery Archives. A n d I am
deeply inde bted to Olga Palagia for advice and correction, but claim credit or
blame or all idiosyncrasies and errors myself.
9

PA RT I. LATE CLASSICAL SCULPTURE
Chapter One
INTRODUCTION
Style and Technique
The Clao;sic al revoluuon in the am of the fifth century led sculptors to attempt
to reconcile their theones ofproportion, which expressed the ideal norm for the
hunvn body, with total realism. T h ey wrote books abou t proportions (symme-
tria commensurability of parrs) and we attempt to recapture them , with sca nt
succe", through observation an d measurement of copies of their works, made
centuries later. Their attempt to reconcile m athem atical uniformity o f p ropor -
tio n with life was more successful than th e product of earlier and non-Creek
m easurers and plotters of the human figure had ever been . The rea lis m is appar-
ent to us o nly in their command of anatomical detail an d pose, and they seem
to have been as near successfu l as was required to produce a completely lifelike
figu re. fo r all that some anatomical detail may have been made more regular than
nature eve r intended or achieved. Wh1le the succeeding Hellenistic period is in
some respectS more lively in irs am, it is to no appreciable degree more lifelike,
since m artisrs exploited the1r skill s at counterfeiting life for purposes which led
to the rea tion ofvery srnlung though not so strictly correct images. This applied
even t'J figures m repose.
Mo jern observers and art histonam are ready to adnm all this; they acknowl-
edge the attempt and the success; and they sometimes even wonder why the
Greeks bothered. But they look ma1nly at the sculptures in terms of mass and
for m, not of surface. We tend to resist adnumng that Classical realism also
embraced the way the figures were fimshcd because none has survived in its pris-
tme se1te, and our appreciation of the true Class1cal has been maimed by the
R ena1ssa nce 's insi stence on the piam wh1tc forms in which classical sc ulpture
bee me known . There is every reason to thmk that a virtual trompe l'oeil effect
was 1med at for lifesizc figures, the heroic being only centimetres larger
(compare the relative thou gh redu ced proportions o f men vis-a -vis h eroes on the
Parthenon Fneze; GSCP 108 , understated, fig. 96 .16). It was this absolute
"'""' is, a counterfeit ofnature, that upset th e fourth-century phi losoph er Pla to,
who Jbscrved how artistS made optical corrcctiom for different viewpoin tS, and
saw that such work co uld both deceive and ye t fail to represent the true, ideal
form ofobjecrs and men . Such an effect was surel y achieved w ith m arble figures
and •• is unbkcly that bronzes were marke(Uy different. For these we have only
11

the evidence of surviving inlays for some patterning on dress, but we sho uld
adnut th e probabili ty of extensive painting too. The pale brassy flesh was lifelike
m 1ts ongmal condmon and could be kept bright, while gilding offlesh, which
was also practised, need not have been un-lifelike with colour-enhancement of
the metal. lt was alleged that the fourth-century sculptor Silanion used a silve red
bronze to express the wasting flesh on the face of a dying Jocasta, and there is
reference m a nctent authors to the use of different alloys for colour effect. The
Greeks were not wedded to the idea of expressing the character of their mater-
ial in their art and architecture, and could even go to som e pains to obscure it,
even 1f th~s meant some .d•sgmse ofthe va lue ofthe materials used. On th e ch ry-
selephantme figures whtch served as cult statues th e tinted ivory \vaS lifelike and
the gold raJment s•mpl y sumptuous. Only their colossal size was quite unreal,
m tended to evoke a different aesthetic and psyc hological response. We may judge
from the colossal figures. of other cu ltures (Egypt, India, the Statue of Liberty)
how madequately coloss • reproduce the essence oflifesize works execu ted in the
same style, and es pecia ll y where that style is realistic.
Chryselephaotir:e cu lt sta tues were still being made in the fourth century, and
Phthp ofM acedon s famtly group at Olymp•a was ofgold and ivory, but th e prac-
ti ce for colossal fi~1res almost dies o ut although gilding of bronze was probably
very common, g tvmg the flesh parts a dusky glow, not unlike the bas ic bronze
(brassy, we might call it) and making the dress cloth-of-gold. For the bronze and
marble works ':"e hear of well-known collaborating painters (e.g., Nikias with
Praxltel es), whtle Euphranor was both a sc ulptor and a major painter. More than
once we percetve m sculptural g roups and reliefS compositions that seem to have
been derived from painting. Trompe /'oei/ realism was an achievement ofpainters
also from the end of the fifth century; sc ulptors could outdo them with images
at life stze and m three dimensions, and we should ass ume that this \ V3S
commonly thetr intention.
Anatomical accuracy had been achieved in the fifth cenrury, though the sc ulp-
tortended to make bodtes more absolutely symmetrical than they ever are in life.
Th1s.was a legacy of~rchaic patter~, no doubt, as well as a conscious attempt to
tdealtze. The modelhng. techruque m clay that lay behind all major Greek sc ulp-
tural work from th•s nme on, whatever the eventual medium - ca rving in
marbl e, casnng m bronze, assemblage in ivory and metal sheet - abetted this
preCISe expressiO n of the human form (on basic techniques, GSCP 10ff.). 'The
':ork IS hardest', sa id Polyclitus, 'when the clay is on th e nail.' The main excep-
n o ns to utte r reah sm a re m fearures, where those of women remain very mask-
like, and where eventuallyth ~re. may be either a slightly impressionistic so ftening
of forms.' or an cx press •o msnc exaggeration of them, both presaging the
HeU emstJ c. Adept casnng was an essential element in the processes oftranslation
from clay model to finished sta tue, and it was inevitable that there would be
expenments m casnng from life. It was probably commoner than we c redit, sin ce
we h ave o nl y the record of Lysippus' brother Lysistratos, the first (according to
12
b •) to m ould a likeness in plaster from a f.1 ce and to correct (or repair) a cast
p n~ use o f life-moulds. lt is likely enough that dress too could have been sup-
b~:d:n the clay or plaster model by appli~at~on ofplaster- or day- soaked cloth.
~he technique is well d~cumented ·~ R.odm s workshop. He suffered from accu-
s th at h is /'Age d'a~ram was bastcally cast fro m life (surmoulage). We have no
o;ao onn to believe that such a practice would have been discredited in antiquity;
reaso
.
.
uitt: the reverse. (In modern sculptors 1t can be counted a v1rtue!) When we
q der the story of how Praxiteles made a naked and a clothed vers1o n of hts
cons1
.
.
.
A hroditc (for Cnidus and Cos respecuvely) we can see how read1ly t hat nught
h:Ve been achieved from a single prototype, though t he limbs would have
reqUired remodelling for a different pose. lt is only recently that schola rs are
begnu1111 g to admit the possibility ofsuch techniques, yet they are almost manda-
tory such resu lts are to be achieved, especially where complete accuracy m
anatomy and posture we re imended. Sculptors find it inescapable for works of
classtcal realism.
1t 15 unlikely that such di rect work from life was long prac tised, at least to judge
fro m ·csults. This is also, inevi tabl y, the period in w hi ch t he artist's model begins
to be an important clement in art hi story, also shortlived. Ph rync is sa id to have
modelled fo r both her lover Praxiteles and the paimer Apelles. T he forme r 's
Ap hmdite was sa id to have become th e object of indecent assa ult, it was so life-
lik e. rhe best idea we can get of it is 111 John Gibson 's Ti11ted Venus in Liverpool's
Walker Art Gallery, but there she is an etherialised Victorian [Z4J].
T l e role of some of t he sc ulptural media has been remarked already. Wood
seems not to have been important for major works after t he Archaic period,
thou 11 it was surel y much used for cheaper and ornamental work , as was clay.
For major sculpture, once a clay model had been made by the master sculptor
its tramlation into bronze requi red extreme sk ill and relatively expensive mate-
ri al but not too much time and labour; if it was eo be translated into marble the
matenal was nor expensive but it \vaS very dtfficult and could be very expensive
to deliver to the studio fro m th e quarry, and needed many mason-hours ofwork.
O ne ma n-year for a lifesize figure, 1t IS alleged , but labour, even of masons, was
cheap. In the fifth century marble had been much used for archi tectural sculp-
ture 1nd reliefS, though not •gnored for individual srames or groups. The differ -
enc( was probably large ly a matter of cost and practicality. Praxiteles is the first
maJor na m e to whom several marble works arc ascribed where we may believe
that ~e motivation was a deliberate aesthetic exploitation of the material ; that
is, ••.we assume that for hi s female nudes, another of his innovations, he left the
flesh parts unpainted or at best so tinted as to make the m ost ofthe flesh-like
qu;,litJe s of the stone. The encaustic technique of painting, applying the colou r
in hot wax to a polished surface, does m u ch to preserve the translucent quality
of" .trble, and in [1 J we see a marble statue being so treated by a sculptor on a
four ~-cenrury South Italian vase. The technique was assoc iated in antiquity
wit Praxiteles' name. In earlier days we assume that marble flesh parts usually
IJ

1 Apultan Y1SC. Statue of Hcracle)
bemg paimed A boy he<1ts the
tooh (~pa.tulae) m br.~z1er to left
while the arnst apph~ the \VJX
p:um; wa.tched by L.eu~. N tkc
and a real Heraclc,. About 37o-36o.
(New York so.rq)
carried a rather fl at wash of white for wom en, brown fo r m en, enhanced o nly
by such poh~h as the surf.1ce may have been g iven by th e masons.
T h ere are more monuments and figures to which absolute or close dates can
b e given from insc r iptions or texts than th ere were in the fifth century.
Nevertheless, progress of style in th e fourth century is not as easy to ch art as it
is in the preceding two cenruries, where stylistic datin g ro quarter ccmuries or
closer IS plausible. I am referring to styhstic dating by overal l in spection, at first
s1gh t, not dependent on more archaeological analysis of detail or techmque,
w hich may be more respons1ve. For instan ce, the date ofa fifth-century Amazon
type (GSCPfig.190a) was proved by archaeological analysis ofher rem-belt after
suggesn ons that tt was far later; and study of Hermes' sandals [z5[ seems to
confirm the place of t!m famous figure later than the fourth century, whatever
the date of the ortgm al type. Problems over the Delphi Acanthus Column [1 5[
arc reveali ng; tts date depends on inscriptions, bur these have been va r iously
mterpreted and scholars have found 1t possible ro accept a date e1ther before 373
or well after 335 Without any decisive arguments based o n style intervening.
Several wo~ks once confidemly assigned to the fourth century are n ow placed
rwo cencu n es later. A gen era tt on ago scholars were p rone ro try to date their
material as early as possible; current revision seem s ve ry ready to find merit in
dattng much later , and ca n not always be wrong. M ost ofthe 'about' dates given
m my capttons should not be taken too se riously, especially for the originals of
cop1es, but 111 some cases we can be certai n to the year.
Perhaps we sh ould accept that th ere was change rath er than progress, and it is
usually p~ss1ble to find that the change is associated with a major sculptor or
sc hool. Certainly, m ost modern and anc ient accounts of fo u rth -century sculp-
ture centre o n what is be!t eved about the styles ofa few major names: deep-set
.
er the response- Scopas, languor- Praxitcl es; yet th ere are many well-
eyesdtn~ )·mous monuments which might be better guides. When Pliny said
date anon
.
rapped' 1n the early third century he probably meant that there were
that art '
·
hh'
fGkI
Fh'
name-pegs on w h1ch to attac IS account o ree scu pture. o r 1m
110
moret•d in the mid-second century, which is w hen R omans began to take a
Jt re-star ...
I · erest m the Classical styles of the fifth / fourth century.
bve V
111
h
fh ds
'th h·
s;..·b •ic change is most apparent m t e tream1ent o ea , w1. pat enc
.
· , ;,m o r traits of real portraiture. Then there IS the mrroducnon of the
~xp~ nude. already remarked, where before the nudity was a function of its
cnb
1
et 'nathetic appeal, imnunent rape, cult fcrtt!ity, etc.) . Frontality of pose for
su ~e ..-
.
dh
.
..
W.
standmg figures is less donu nant an t ere are m ore rw1stmg .compositions. e
cxplam this by thinking that new concepts of space were bemg reali zed m the
d~s1gn of such figu res, but are no little led by the 'vay they are displayed in
mmeums today and what we arc able to do w ith our ca meras. Certainly the artist
was begmning to approach the modelling of his figu res in a different spirit but
we can'not easily judge how well o r deliberately th is was conveyed in display. In
anttqmry th e Riacc b ro n zes (CSCP fi gs .38 -9) may well h ave been set shoulder
to shoulder, no little obscured by thei r missing shi elds, not given the freedom of
a whole gallery or the artist's studio, an d it could well be that even Lysippus'
Apo>.yomenos [J5) also stood against a \vall. Praxiteles' Aphroditc [z6) was dis-
played at Cnidus to provide a view fro m behind, bu t the consideration th ere may
have been as much erotic as aesthetic, and not necessari ly the dominant reason
on gmally (after all, the Parthenos could be viewed fro m behind too). Relaxed
standing figu res of the fifth century are composed m a fairl y simple contrappos1o;
m the fo urth century there is more experiment with figures whose weight is
largely transferred to a support [z7,J9,70]. sometimes of a naturalistic character,
like a tree trunk. But even th1s composttton is p resaged in the fifth century
(CSCP figs.1 95, 216). Several of the fourth-century sculptors are said to have
wnttcn treatises about proportions, as d1d Polyc!ttus in h is Canon (CSCP 205),
yet the variants we can detect are not very striking, beyond a gradual chan ge
towards the shmmer, small er-headed, deliberately established by Lysippus as an
Improvement on Polyclitus. R ealisti c representation of the human body, w hich
was srill the basic aim, does not allow of much variety, but the artists saw the
Importance ofdefinmg their intentions an d methods and seem ed to have spent
no little time on theory.
T he fi fth centu ry had exper imented with m ost treatme n ts o f dress, from
VIrtual geometry but of differe nt purpose in the Late Archai c and Early Classical,
to hvely massing of cloth an d even appare nt transparency. The fourth century
nngs the ch an ges, with occasional in terest in matters su ch as showing cloth fo lds
not Iron ed-out (press folds) and some c rinkly an d crumpled textures. The ladi es
~;ove steadily, even predictably, it see?15.' fro m the d eep-bosom ed C la ssical to the
gh-glrt Emp1re - h n e of th e I lellemsttc, and there are changes m hatr styling,
tntroducm!o the 'melon' c oiffure. There was not a great deal n ew u nder the Later
15

Classical sculptural sun until th e true Hellenisti c of the late century, and the
gradual replacement of C lass1c1sm w ith somethmg more demanding ofsculptor
and viewer, though not necessarily more satisfYing or functionally effective.
Many of the sc ulptural monuments ofthe Archaic peri od, and virtually all of
the fifth cen tury, were still visible to th e ar tists of the fourth. The Archaic, with
their strictly unrealistic appearance but wonderful patterning of body and dress,
acquired an aura ofsanctity, which was natural enough give n both the apparent
vene rability of their appearance and their placing m sanctuaries. There is a
measure of deliberate arc haizi n g throughout the Classical period, sometimes
prompted by the need to represent a culr statue in some mythological si tuation
[5.5, 10.5]. Where a traditional monument, such as a herm, had to be carved, the
features are usually updated though the general form remains Archaic (GSAP
fi g. 169; GSCP figs. 142,189), and there is the same degree ofarchaizing fo r mask-
like features, notably for Dionysos [69]. It is not clear to what extent the archaiz-
ing of the H ellenistic period which we recognize in highly mannered relief
figures with swallow-tail ends to their dress a nd fan ciful flaring an d zigzag pat-
terns, had 1ts origins in fourth-century sc ulpture, but the style is to be found m
other media. The examples I show arc both from sa nctuaries: a base from the
Acropolis [zj, w ith no absolute convictio n that it is has to be so early although
many hold it so; and a fragment from one from Brauron [J].
B eyo nd what has already been mentioned th ere was little novelty in statuary
and rel ieftypes. Personifications become increasingly popular, normally women
impersonating abstract concepts which arc 1mpossible to identifY \vithout
in scription or attribute. Later, Tyche (Good Fortune) ca n co me to represent
cincs (HS 76) w here before the city goddess performed this function, as Athena
for Athens. The tradition of the athlete figure is mai ntain ed by foll owers of
Polycl itus, then by Lysippus. These figures contribute to the creation o f new
types fo r som e gods who are presented you nge r, even adolescent [27]. Major
groups of statuary arc heard of from th e mid-fifth century on (GSCP 207). At
the end ofthe century a massive group ofgods and generals had been set up at
D elphi by Lys.1nder to celebrate Sparta's defeat o f Athens and was the work of
at least nine sculptors. There are more in the fourth cenrury - massed cavalry,
lion hunts , inspired it may be by the n ew pictorial compositions bur very diffi-
cult for us to envisage; and there were the family/ dynastic groups (HS fig.44).
The effect of these three-dimensional tableaux, se t in speciall y designed build-
ings o r broad alcoves, must h ave been highly theatrical, more readily compara-
ble 'vith what we see in Mme Tussaud's o r th e panoramas c rea ted in
ethnographic and natural history museums than with what we are used to
regarding as sc ulptural composition. The mode was favoured in Rome, as in the
Emperor Tiberius' grotto at Sperlonga. The nea rest later art has approached IS
perhaps in some Nativity groups and war memorials.
Sculptural types and subjects had not hitherto had a g reat effect on the arts in
other media, with a few exceptions, and th ere was a degree of iconographiC
16
.: M;arblc rdirfb >t' "nh n c h;uzmg
tigum of gods from the Ac ropo hs. Zeu\,
tlcphotl\tO!I. Achena , (Ji ermes). 4th cem. ?
v~.cropolis 610 H . 1 17)
3 Det.ul ot nurble rehefba"te wnh
;arch•izin~ figures ofgods (bearded
DIOnV'-0'1. Bermes, Em: ne. two other
p<"'>~Jficanons p< rlups C h[ms) and
fEunom}u: and an Apollo named), from
Brauron. F .arly ..t .th cent . (Uraumn IT 77)

autonomy in the various crafts des pite the overall homogeneity of style, and
regardless of scale or mcd1um. This begins to break down, a nd we can find
Important figures and groups re produced in small bronzes, even jewellery, and
later in painting also and on marble reliefS. Even a cursory rev1ew of the figure
types on coins and engraved gems reveals that increasingly through th e later part
of the fifth century, and especially in the fourth, th ey seem to present versions
of statuary types and groups. Sometimes this can be proved, but we are entitled
to believe th at many others rep eat types that may not have survived through
copying, and they present as many varian ts as arc often attributed to the inge-
nuity of late copyists. Many sta ndard stat uary types arc created, and many sur-
VIved from the fifth centu ry. The conventions are obv1ous in portrait figures,
with different types for pohtiCians, generals, poets, philosopher<;. D eities are pre-
sented in a comparanvcly restncted range ofseated , standmg, lcanmg poses, dis-
Cinguished only by attnbute or details o f dress and gesture. These, whether in
sta tu e, reli ef, coin or gem, were the images in whiCh the Greek conceived his
gods. They were detcmuned by the way they had been prese nted by artists, nor-
m ally in sculpture, rather th an from significant n arrative images which h ad been
equally infl uential in earli er years (the threatening figures ofa Zeus or H eraclcs).
In this ifnothing else is d emonstrated th e importance ofscu lpture to our under-
standing of the anc1cnt Greek, h is visual experience and his society. And I feel
no compunction about using th e word 'his' in this context . Evcrythmg we have
learned about the role and education of women in ClassiCal urban society sug-
gests that they neither aspired to n o r were allowed any real contribution to major
aesthetic d ecisions except probably at a domestic level (w eaving, but not even
pottery; music-making and rel evant compositions), and were even restricted in
their opportuniti es to contemplate the results. It is no comfort to think that they
were probably worse off in other ancient societies, an d far too late to do any-
thing about it. The attem pt t o project back into Classical antiquity the responses
and preoccupations of the late twentieth century is n o sort ofscholarl y contri-
bution to our understanding of th e past, however much fun it may see m to be.
Whenever we admire what seems to be a sympathetic treatment of the female,
as brave, compassionate or loyal, we need to remember that 1t was almost
certainly devised by a male, for whatever reason.
Pla ces, Patrons and Planning
Athens and Attica domjnated the story of G reek sc ulpture in th e second half of
th e fifth century. Defeat by Sparta at the end ofthe century is not the ma in reason
for Athens' slighter record aft erwards sin ce sh e soon regained power and a d egree
ofwealth, but in m any respects we might regard the city's Pcriclean architectural
programme of building and rebuilding, both civic and religious, virtually com-
plet e, and there were no disasters ofthe type that occasioned new temple build-
ing, with sculpture, elsewhere in Greece. Private commissions, for d edi cation o r
18
an 1mportant source indeed the grave monume nts increase in lav-
· e'\ ren1atn.
•
.
.
gra' ·
d mbcr until they were notably dmumshed by a sumptuary decree
h'."an nu
d..
1'1
" · b D ·metrios of Phalcron, puppet governor fo r the Mace omans 111
passed _Y1
·e however, clear that Athens remained the home of a high propor-
~--lo , tls.
h
h
3.1
• f h fc rth -ce ntury sc ulptors whose names were thoug t wart rcmem-
00110t~0~
.
b ·nng bY anocnt wntcrs.
.
.
c O tll c;cities of central and southern Greece play a more prormnc nt part m th e
d s East Greece where adjacent Persian ru le was n o longer threatcn -
'tory. as oe
.
·
d·
h
·I ·1 later 111 the century Macedoman patronage attractc mterest to nort
tng'"11e<
•
''. . A.ll this apphcs mainly to architectural sc ulpture but pnvatc monuments
Greece. •
fIhdbII
I S w 1dely distnbutcd. While gravestones o qua lty a een arge y an
~00 ~
h
Ath cman phenomenon, they can now be found everywhere. T ere was some~
thing of a boom m sc ulptural dcdjcati~n at the nanonal sanctuanes of Dclph1
and Olympia, promoted by states, pnvate persons and eventually dynasnes,
ted bv a range o f works from maior bronze groups to a plethora of
rcprcscn
,
,
.
small reliefs. Public monuments arc commoner, one of the fun cnons m et by th e
new portrait statues.
.
.
MaJOr artists had alway s been relatively mobile .though there was a lingcnng
tcndcn cv for them to be favo u red for home commiSSions. The ev1dence ISscan ty
smce w~ have to rely on mentions in later texts and th e occasional excavated and
signed base. Leochare\, like Alkame n es before hi m, seem s seldom to have left
home 111 Athens. Other sculptor<; ranged farth er afield on comnlissions, to the
cast and by the Clme of Lys1ppu s, to the north, and h e also exec uted works for
Tarentum 111 th e west. Work by East Greek and some homeland sculptors for
native kmgdoms in As.a Mmor and elsewhere in the east m~y have been the
source for some new sc ulptural forms that were to have an Im portant future :
sculpture for hero-shrines (heroa), relief sarcophagi , and there \vas a slight
renewed 1warencss ofeaste rn, generall y Persian, fo rms, but nothi ng like any new
onentalmng movemen t.
The orgaruzation of any maj or state commission for architectural sculpture
ca n be judged from the ev1dcn cc for the better known commissions for archi-
tecture, all part of the same planrung operation . Ep1daurus is an important
source, as we shall sec, but 1t would be good to know more about this, not just
about the finances but fo r whatever bght mjght be shed on decision-making
about des1gn and subjeCt matter. To what extent were the subjects of temple
sculpture dcternuned by patrons, priests, artists, or even the public? We learn
from ms riptions that architects were appointed by the citizen Assembly on the
recommendation of th e Council, or by com parable bodies in various cities, an d
m sanctuanes by committees kn own as Naopoioi or Hieropoioi (at D elph i and
Delos .., .pectively). Sculptors get mentioned only where it was a m atter of
paying sculptor- masons (for indi vidual figures and groups on the Erechtheion,
GSCP - 48--9) or recording contracts (Epidaurus), with no indication of deci-
Sion ab, ·: mbJects. Prcbminary plans (syngraplwr) and models (paradeigmara) for
19

+ Archaic
0 Classica l
BLACK
+ Daskyloon
+ Dorylaion
P HRYGIA
0
. ~·0
Greece and The A e gea
fArch• •c •nd Clm
n World
ocal G"'ek sculpru "'·
11 soun:es o
tndtcanr ? prtnCip h. l ume.
uoCSAp. S(:p•ndt os'"'
d iU usrr.lt('d
dlscussed an

architecture had to be approved but we do not know to what extent these
included the sculpture. Architects seem to be in overall control and lt might even
be that it was often they who employed the sculptors, perhaps mvmng tenders.
This could imroduce an clement of competition, perhaps even between b1g
names. Where the named architect is also a known sculptor (Scopas at Tegea,
Pytheos and Satyros for the Mausoleum) we need probably look no farther fo r
the sculptural plannmg.
Finan ces
Evidence for payment to sculptors is somewhat confusing. For the Ercchthe1on
it is clear that we have ordinary day wages paid to individual masons who must
h ave been provided with models and material (GSCP 148f.; sixty drachmas per
figure). At Epidaurus H cktoridas was paid 2300 and 2000 dr. for each pedime nt,
which means about one hundred drach mas per figure. These were n early seventy
per cent la rger than th ose for th e Erechtheion, but did Hektoridas (not known
as a sculptor) have to commission o r create the models, a11d supply th e material,
a11d pay the m ason~? In this case the last is p robably all he had contracted for and
the designing (models) might have been in the hands of others. 13ut when a
sculptor (Timoth eos) was com missio n ed to make the akroteria at one te m ple
end (probab ly four figures and two horses) h e received more th an thrice as much
and perhaps had to finance much or all the process (or perhaps just models and
carving). At Delph1 112,000 dr. seems tO have been provided for the pcdimcms,
or about 5000 dr. per figure. This must have included models, materials, carnage
of marble (from Attica) and masons' day wages. All th is means that some name'
we have taken for sculptors may have been architects and / or contractors. So
what did a master-scu lptor earn' Timotheos received 900 dr. for his typoi at
Epidaurus, but 1f these were models to be copied we need to know how many
and of what, and 1f they are stone o r metal reliefs for the statue base, which has
also been suggested, we need to know whether the su m included cost of mate-
rial. Architectural sculpture is pr ized by us but oth er monuments were relatively
more valuable and would have earned m ore for their sc ulptors. Without
knowing a range ofdetails about fees and expenses we can do no more than say
that the major names were also well known to have been very wea lthy. Lysippus
was sa id to have put away one gold coin for each statue he made; his money box
held 1500 when he died - a silly story which at least says that he was held to be
very proli fi c an d very rich.
22
Chapter Two
ARCHJTECTU RA L SCULPT URE
Athens dominated the story of architectural sculpture in the second half ofthe
fifth cenrurv. Her re cord m the fourth century ISshghter, not so much through
her defeat 111 the PclopomlCSian Wa r, since she wa; sull a power to be reckoned
with and not Impoverished, but because Pencles programme of constructiOn
and reconstr ucnon left little still to be done in city or countryside, either fo r
templ e or ovic building. Other parts ofGreece sh ared more ofthe limelight and
the we alth that accompan ied it, whi le the East Greeks could court Persian gold
rather tlun fear Pers1a n arms. Not that these were determinant f.1ctors, and the
first complex we srudy here, at 13assac in so u th ern G reece, is at a site with vir-
tually no hiStory.
T he Templ e of Apollo Epikourios at Bassae in Arcadia is relatively well pre-
served though 1t long es caped the attention of architects and scholars, but it was
rediscovered in 1765 , and at th e start of the last century excavations removed
most ofits sculpture to the Bnnsh Museum. it was an old sanctuary site, which
deternuncd the odd orientation of Its new temple, north-south. This building
was <a id bv Pausanias to have been a thank-offering by nearby Phigaleia for
dehveran e from the plague that had afllicted Athens in 430; he also says that its
archite<'t \3S lktinos, architect ofthe Parthenon. There are chronological prob-
lems wnl th is, sin ce the archnccture at Bassae cannot on stylistic grounds be
earlier th.n about 420, while the sculpture IS generally now placed after about
400 an d could not eas1ly have been added as an afterthought. Fragments of its
metopes arc uninformative about subjeCt but arc of very h1gh quality [4]. T h ey
show ag1tated or danc ing subjects, more Dionysiac in appearance than Apolline.
They have been thought slightly carher th an the frieze, which is complete, but
the difference may be one of style and authorship rather than date. The frieze
was plau·d 111 the interior of the cella, around its four walls above ranges of
engaged l omc columns o f uni que design . An end column was the earliest sur-
VIving Connthian column we know; I say 'was' because it was d estroyed soon
after being discovered (and, fortunately, drawn).
.
Although all slabs ofthe Bassae rrieze [5.1j survive, their placing in the temple
IS st1U unde r disc uss ion, despite the ev1denc e fro m su bject, cutting and cla m p
~ales. ThiS lllggcsts that its original placi n g migh t have been somethi ng of a
otched) ~b too. The slabs were designed and carved individually, with minimal
23

instances ofoverlapping. As an interio r frieze they m ust have been virtually invi~­
lble unless there was some lighting through the ceiling. There are two major
themes, each occupying one short and one long side: an Amazon omachy involv-
ing both ThcseUI an d H cracles [5.Z,J]. and a Ccntauromachy [5.4,5]. It is, 1
thin k, unl1kely that any of the Amazon scenes refer to Troy. Odd men out are
an Amazonomachy slab on the west (left) and the Apollo and Artemis 111 a
char iot drawn by stags (n orth), which IS easier to relate to the Centauro m ac hy
(recall Apollo's presence in the O lympia Centau romachy, not so far away, GSCP
fig. 19), than to th e fight with Amazons, whom Artem is nught even favour. We
are far fro m the pohtical symbolism ofAthenian Classical sculpture here, a nd the
subjects m ust carry other m essages. The Amazonomachy is perhaps th e more
difficult to explain except in terms of the general populanty of the theme.
The style is distinctive. The figures arc rugged, big-headed and almost squat
m proportions, the carving rough yet confident. In sculptural terms one thinks
ofthe thick-set Polyclitan figu res, but there is more to it than this, and in com-
petence or provmc1ahty arc unjust accUiations to level against scenes of such a
vigoroUIIy successfu l na r rative content. Most fighting groups are traditional b ut
not always readily match ed in sculpture. The ccntaur k icking back .n a Greek
(north) was last seen a centu ry before on a vase, and the dramatic (and not ve ry
successful) foreshortening ofa fallen ccntaur beneath them (we sec the top oflm
head) suggests pictorial inspiration, since this wa> a period whi ch entertain ed t he
first trompe l'oeil pai ntin g in Greek art. The frieze has no o bvious predecessor
except, gene r ically, the great compositions of H1gh Class1cal art of the preced-
mg half century; no r had it a followi ng, yet it IS squarely in th e tradition of the
classical na rrative fr iezes, wit h details such as the flying dress in the b ac kg rou nd
an d treatment of drapery and anatomy.
The sanctuary ofH era som e ten kilometres from the nch and important city
ofArgos lost its tem ple to fire in 423. Polycl itus (who was an Argive) had made
a chryselephantinc statue for the building (cf. GSCP fig. 207), but perh aps
earlier, though 1t was su re ly mstalled 111 the new temple w h ich \vaS being built
towards the en d of the cen tu ry. Pausamas' descr ipt ion helps us With the sculp -
ture, imp lying that the pediments sh owed the B irth ofZeus an d the Sack o fTroy,
neith er immediately relevant ro Hera although she was involved, and the
metopcs, at the ends only, a G 1gantomachy and an Amazonomachy. All bu t the
Bi rth (if th is is in deed what 1t \vas) are famili ar from the Athenian buil dings of
the gener ation before. The re m ai ns arc scrap py and cannot be expected to reveal
much about Po lyclitan rehef com pos1t1on; indeed they seem more a re fl ectio n
of what m1ght be expected of mainstrea m Greek work between the Parthenon
and the fu ll fo u rth centu ry. B ut there are some striking action figures (6] and
expressive heads. N1cer . and no less significant, IS the carving of th e gutter [7].
mtroducmg a vers1011 of the new acanthus and ;croll scheme winch IS going to
play a very important role in later arclmectural decoration.
Scraps from a temple at Mazi in Ehs, twen ty k ilometres from Olympia, arc in
rabic to both Bassae and Argos, and indicate a pedunental
k c"mpa
a se}
·h' 1 show one giant's head with magmficcnt stanng eyes and a
Gglllona< ,.
1'·
1 hioncd as a sea-monster 's h ead (ketos) [8].
hel!llct
3
'
·
d.h
•-h
·
..,.
I fAh
11 •IJe Peloponnese, at Tegea 111 Aica 1a, t e £UC a1c . emp e o t ena
Sn11·
·
Ih.
f
.
._
rnt down in 395 / 4· Pausamas says that Scopas was t 1e arc ltect o
A]ea" 1
,.u
·
d·bh
d
I llel1t which >eems roughly m id-century. H e csc n L'S t e east pe -
he rep ace1
,
1
d ·tall and gives the subject of the west. T he m ost fa mous hero1c h unt
JOJellt In C
d.
.
db
·.
" was that for the Calydonian Boar , an Area 1an ep1so e ut n ot
of ann• ·
1"
1a1
d .. Arradia Nor h ad the story anythmg to do With Athena or the oc
locate 1
'
·
·
b
odde" '\lea whose ro le she h ad adopted. 13ur the hcromc was anoth er rave
g . nd an Arcadian princess, Atalante, and the H unt was th e su bject of the
v1rg111 a
.
,
..
·
1h
·
·d:mcnt. At the west was Ach illes expedmon agamst Te ep os, a pn nce
east pc
d·d.d]
ofM pia 111 the Troy area, 111 what \vas a premature an m1s 1recte pro ogue to
the Tropn War. The few fragmen ts can read ily be placed to show the Hunt 1n
convennonal form, though only the pig 111 th e m iddle can be confidently
located; and from the battle one head w ith a honskin cap is likely to be Tclephos,
who was a son of Hcracles, while a helmeted head IS convemencly asc n bcd to
Achillt~· but might be anyone [9.1,2]. There are more substantial p ieces of two
of the ,orncr akroteria [9.J]. The relatiomhip of th e sculpture to Scopas IS
ruscussc 1later, but the heads are good, early examples of the pathetic gaze and
there 1s 1 certain dramatiCswirl to the figures. The vigour ofsome of them was
anncip. ed •t Argos. We learn most about the metopes from inscriptions o n the
arch1tra1 =beneath them, one of which names Telephos and lm mother Auge,
so 1t seems that they told someth ing of the f.1mily histor y. Auge had been a
priest~· at Tegea, raped by H eraclcs, an d this also explains th e subject ofthe west
ped11n e .
A;klep!os, the god ofhealing, \vas a re lau vely new deity for Greece. H 1s pr in -
cipal sanctuary at Epidaurus began to attrac t new building in t he late fift h
centurY, about the time h1s cult was taken to Athens (cf. ARFII II fig. 305). and
m the tourrh century there were many new buildings. T h e god's new tem ple
was completed by around 370, to j u dge !Tom style (but see b elow) and m sc ri p-
tions. It was small but very elaborate and r ichly furnish ed, including a ch rysele-
phanun ~cult statue by Thrasymedes ofParos. The architect was Theodotos, and
a Theo. with Timothcos made the akrotena. T he latter also made typ(ll, an d
one pedm1ent was made by H ektor idas . T he rypoi (possib ly reliefs for th e statue
base) . ,
other information from building accou nts have been discussed in
Chapte• One. Ancient authors say nothing about the oth er scu lpture but lt is
well enough preserved fo r us to be sure about subjects and reasonably sure about
restoration of groups.
The <">t ped1men t had an Amazonomachy (10.1 -J], the east t he Sack ofTroy,
Identifiable irom fragments of t\vo diagnostic scenes - P riam being mu rdered
fro.4]. and the statu e clutched by Cassandra, re n dered in an appropr iately
Archa1c nunner [ 10.5]. Asklepios' so ns provided th e medical ser v1ce at Troy, and
25

this may have been enough to justify the subject here, but then th~
Amazonomachy would also need to be the Trojan one which is surprismg bur
not impossible. Stylistic differences between the pediments arc reasonably held
to reflect the work of d1ffe rent artists, which is what the mscnpnons mdicace.
The corner akrotcria arc Nika1 and woman riders [11]. taken to be Aur.ti: per-
somficanons of hcalmg breezes, one \\~th clinging dress, the other more natu-
rally clothed, as 1f to differentiate identity or function. The central akrotcria arc
a N1kc and a group, thought to be Asklepios' father Apollo encountering his
mother. The style ranges fro m figures and dress that seem to hark back to the
late fifth century, With clinging drapery and the flying figures (cf. CSCP figs.
115-<). 139) to dramatic expressiveness of pose and features that annc1patc the
work of over a generation later. The novelty is not immediately taken up else-
where, yet the date suggested for the Epidaurus sculptures cannot be far wrong.
I add here a fine piece in the R oyal Academy in London [12) for its broad sun-
ilarity; lt recalls Ep1daurus but may be from an Attic building. The general type
is a popular one, represented too by finds in Athens, and may be seen as succes-
sor to the Nikc types ofth e later fifth century, as that ofPai onios (GSCP fi g. 139).
M ov ing north now, to central Greece and Delphi, we find on the lower
terrace (Marmaria) a strange an d bea utiful circular building (the Tholos), built a
little before th e Epidaurus temple. lt ca rried forty mctopcs on the exterior,
another forty around the inner r ing wall. Its architect was a Theodoros (o r, 1f
our source V1truvius mistook a Thcodotos, we would have a link w1th
Epidaurus). The subJects of the o uter metopes were Amazonomachy and
Ccntauromachy - a well-tried combination - but th e most mccllig1ble remains
give us a man wnh rearing horse and a fight [IJ). Style and compositions see m
updated Classical. The morsels ofthe inner metopcs suggest lleraclean subjec ts.
On the mam temple terrace at Delphi we meet a different disaster a~ occasion
for new tem ple building. A landslide after an earthquake wrecked th e Temple of
ApoUo m 373· The ~culpture from the rebuilding is taken to be of the nos and
J205 and the ~culptors, ~ays Pausanias, were Athenian (Praxias, then
Androsthenes). H e also gives the pediment subjects: east , Apollo wnh mother
and sister (Lcto, Artemis) and Muses; west, Dionysos and Thyiades (ecstanc
attendants, hke maenads). For the last, part of the torso ofa woman wearing an
animal-skin IS appropriate [q .1) and there a re pieces of seated women, at a
shghtly ~maller scale, who should be Muses. The eas t pedimem figures are
thought to be slightly smaller than the west, perhaps because more numerom,
but this need not apply to any central group. The central Apo Uo is thought to
have been a seated figure, bm the two fragmentary candidates are ei ther too small
o r perhaps too big. There is a figure ofa standing kithara-playe r who would suit
identity and place [14.2[. and we would expect this to be its correct position.
H owever, it was found near the other e nd ofthe temple, and it has, though with
considerable d1~agreemem, been restored with a head (HS fig.79) that is surely
a Dionysos, to judge from the broad headband (mitra). and might be dated late r:
26
h accordingly been placed at the west. Dionysos was a respected deity at
bu:J i~~a~ut it is unparalleled to find him holding Apollo's kithara, and one
D Pd whether, high on the ped1ment, the shght d1fference 111 co1ffure woul d
"·on er<
h
·
·h
haw been apparent. The Thy1ades suggest t at Pausamas was ng t to see a
J)lom"IJC subJect at the west. The head 1s fine, and the androgynous features
ble 10 either god by tlm date recall a httle even the Cmdian Demeter [49].
~~t~mJOn ":nse suggests that we should have a ~tanding Apollo and a seated
r)1onysos a> cenrrep1eces. The other fragments g1ve little away and arc not par-
Jarlv impressive, but the whole complex and problem~ {the fragments have
~~~y b~cn recogn ized 111 recent years) g1ve a good example of the architecntral
(size). 1conographtc (identity) and textual (accuracy ofdcscnpnon) problems that
ay be mvolved in the study of arch1tccntral Kulprurc.
111
One last monument from Delphi has architecwral associations but is no part
of a bmlding. and offers no less vexing problems of interpretation than the
Templ e. The Acanthus Colu mn stood over thirty metres high, mainly composed
ofth e leafY plant that had been used to create the Corinthian capital. On it stood
a m pod between the legs of which arc three dancers wearing bas ket-shaped
(kalathiskt>s) crowns [15]. They arc gracious, broadly Pr axite lean in th eir appeal
ofboth features and gently swirling dress, but not o f prime execution; they were
after all set very high. On a base associated with it has been read {though not by
all) the name of Praxiteles, as well as indications that it might have been erected
before the earthquake of 373, and re-erected fifty yea rs later. Other readi ngs of
base and style prefer the later date. around 3JO . The fact that both Corinthian
columns and kalatltiskos dancers arc assoc iated with the name of the late fifth-
century arust Kallimac hos (CSCP 207, fig. 242a,b) may be fortuitous; the acan -
thus column seems a fairly popular fourth-centu r y conceit.
The only architectural sculpture of Athens to occupy m in this chapter was a
pnvate dedtcation, not public. Lysikrates had won a tnpod as a theatr ical sponsor
(clwrt;~os) m 334. H e se t 11 on a small cyhndncal but ld mg ofCorinthtan columns
that may haw sheltered a statue ofD1onysos, set on a tall square base. The bui ld-
mg can be seen mll JUSt cast of the Acropolis having survived through being
mcorporated m a Capuchin monastery. What is left oftlte frieze is iu situ . I show
drawmgs and photos ofearly casts [16). The figures are weU spaced, w hich is eco-
nomical a• wcU as making them better read at a considerable height.
The East Greek world was in a more comfortable and expansive mode in the
fourth cemury than it had been in the fifth, on good terms w it h the Persians and
later much favoure d by Alexander who was anxious to impress.
it ts an~ablc that the most important monument, the Mausoleum, should be
c~nslder~d with other work by Greeks for foreigners, later in this volu me, but
~e monuments considered there all owe no little to foreign taste while the
ausol~um owes nothing, except possibly deta il s of its form - the first of all
27

mau~olea. MausolUI was king of Caria, then a semi-independent kingdom
Wi thm the Persian Emptre. The king had planned his new capital
H alikarnassos, a donunant feature of which was to be h is tomb, so It was pro~.t
ably planned and could have been started by about 36o. H e d1ed 111 353, followed
by lm wife Artemisia 111 35 1, bur work continued to complenon , probabl .
shortly afterwards. Texts sugge>t that Artemisia was a major driv111g force In th~
proJect. The Site was thoroughly pillaged for building material but much rehef
sculpture was blll lt Into wa lls ofthe fort at Budrum a nd a cache ofsc ulpture was
excavated near the Site. A combmation of excavatio n and a descripnon of th.
building by Phny has produced o nly roughly agreed results about overall appear~
ance and plac111g of sculptu re, but recent work on the architectural remains ha,
helped ch nu nate some possibilities. I show two schemes now favoured [1 7]. The
whole was some forty-five metres high. The main friezes must go on the
podium, but there \vaS o n e p erhaps within the colonnade above, wh ere the
ceiling coffe rs were also ca rved (a n ovel practice), and perh aps another around
the crown mg cha ri ot base. Free-stand ing statu es may go between columns and
perhaps on the roofbut th ere were free-sta n ding (or at least, carved in the rou n d)
n arrative grou ps which must have been set on deeper ledges around the podium,
hke a pediment but com posed as fri ezes. T h e sc ale of these ranges from lifcsize
to colossal, with one b1 g Sl,!ated figure , probably th e king, set p rominently some -
where, no doubt ccmre front. The chariot atop and the pyramidal roofsee m to
convey non-Greek, Ori ental intimations of immortality for the occupan ts, but
the sculp ture and ItS narranve are purely Greek, and rhe style is that ofthe home-
land, not East Greece like that created for Lycia, Caria's south-eastern neighbour
(Chapter Eleven).
The many fragments brought to London a rc n ow supplemented from n ew
excavations at 13udrum. Much of the fi-iezes was recovered from the Crusader-
th en-Turkish fo rt at the harbour. wh ere they had been set in the ,vaiJs, and then
used for target practice [240) . There are parts of th e colossal chariot horses and
lions [1 8.1,2] (certamly fro m the roof), the horses sp lendidly vital, th e hons rather
tame beasts. Can an nobility is represented in colossal fi gures of which the two
best preserved have mevitably become known as Mausolus and Artemisia [19).
He IS a fine characterization , not a portrait, ofa foreigner (in Greek terms, by a
Greek artist), Wi th lm wild mane o f hair and secret, rather smister expression.
Contrast the ve ry Greek h ead [2o). 'Artemi sia' obeys the gen eral anonymity o f
feature and expression ofall Greek female statuary of the period. The figures in
the round wh1ch were set in friezes show a fight of Persians a nd Greeks [18.J J,
though which Greeks is m oot, and we must rem ember that the monument was
bui lt in a city n ominally under Persian control.
A more conve ntionally executed relief fr ieze has Greeks fi gh ting Amazons,
an other subject wh1ch elsewh ere in the Greek world seems to carry Greek v.
Persia n connotations. This is the version with both Heraclcs and Thcseus m
action. The frieze is composed in duels and threesomes, overlappi ng the slab
.
.
115
[2 1). The figures present ser ies of triangular and oblique schem es which
J01 the narrative without appearmg repetmve, and mdccd, to a v1ewer In
cartYd pnvileged with a closer view than \vaS poss ible m annqmty, conveymg
~ 00·
.
b
f
(,fexcited annciparion of the flow of battle. There are none etter o
degree
·
.
.
ah Cb<wal peri od. Individual figures present standard poses, the lungmg, col-
t e d t\"lstmg back-turned but all. executed w nh a n ew and controlled
I<C
•.
,
•
ap.
' The fim~tes are well spaced with less use of the flymg dress to fill the
P
assJOn.
,.
round (c : [5 .1 J, GSCP fig. 1 27). The Amazons , some n ea r-naked, arc thrcat-
g.
•-et wholly femi nine; the Greeks, It seems, desperate. Acnon scenes m
~~1
.
d
G k sculpture are rarely so movm g, ye t these are figures wh1ch also eserve
1re: in<-•v •dual attention, for expreSSion of derail in features and anatomy.
~~~ther 1o less expressive fi- ieze sh ows cha n ots: [22] Wi th a Carian driver.
Pythc ,5 and Satyros wrote a book abou t the Mausoleum. They were proba-
bly arch;tect/ sculptors, since Pliny says that one Pythis mad e the c hariot group,
robab lv meaning Pyrheos, and Satyros sign ed a base at Dclph1 for statues of
~ausol~< successors. Pl iny an d Vitruvius record the tradition that th e sc ulptures
were the wo rk of fa m ous homeland Greek artists: Lc ochares, Bryax is, Scopas,
Timoth eos and (Vitruvius o nl y) Praxi tel es. The impli cation is that each artist
worked on one si d e of the monument. Scholars have in ev itably attempted to
apportion the survivi n g sculptures, without agree me nt o n any single name or
style. T ht ancient attribution may contain a morsel of truth, but there may be
hardly mo re to the story than can be gleaned from that about the competition
fo rthe Amazons at Eph esus (GSCP 213f.) . Site guides o f antiquity in Asia Minor
may ha•· been as free in rl1 ei r use of great names as many a site guide is today,
bur the•e was litcramre about the buildi ng, consulted by both Vitruvius and
Plmy, ne d oubt, and we can be su re that a maJOr artist (Pyth eos?) o r artists from
Greece c ntrolled the design and execution of the sculpture, even if we ca nnot
name hu• o r them. The fact that th e named arusts executed oth er works in Caria
or nearb may be taken either to support the story of th eir work on the
Mausol eu m, or explain it.
The Mausoleum was o n e ofthe Seven Wonders of the anCie nt world; so was
our nex. subject. The Temple ofArtemis at Ephcsus, o ne ofthe largest and most
ornate of the great Archaic Ionian structures (GSAP 16of.), 'vas burnt to the
ground 356. R ebuildin g was soon in hand, sin ce, when Alexander passed, he
offered o help but was politely turned down ('a god should not make offer ings
to anotl er god'!). One of the rel ief-d ecorated columns (co /wmwe caelatae) \vaS
<aid to nave been carved by Scopas. The principal remain ing relief sc ulpture
whi ch see ms fourth -century is from rectangular column pedestals , and !Tom
drums which were probably set at the tops of the columns; in oth er words, the
Arch aic schem e was p robably retained. R eliefsculpture in the upperworks ofthe
templ e s later (the building \vas said to have taken 120 years to compl ete) but it
looks thou gh th e decorated colu mns were m position by about 320. Their
subJect• are puzzling, even the best preserved [23] which seems to have unex-
29

pected underworld conn otations. There are two Heracl eses, fights, Nereids 011
hippocamps, Victories wtth animal offe rings, groups o f men (incl uding some
Persian, trousered) and wom en. The carving is of high qualiry, the srylc m some
respects very o ld-fashJOned but there is not much to compare at th1s date, o r
indeed earlier, for large nar rative groups {the fi gu res are li fes ize), and the figures
most resemble th e best o n Athenian grave re liefS.
The c1ry of Pnene on the coast south ofEphesus was a new foundanon ofthe
fourth century. Whether tt was founded by the Carian kings (H ekatomn1ds) 10
the nud-fourth century, o r by Alexander later, will naturally affect our view of
the date ofth e sculpture for 1ts Temple ofAthena Polias. Th1s has generall y been
thought H ellenistic and it is difficult to place it earli er, thou gh a recent study has
detected similarities to the Mausoleum. The gen eral appearance of the re mams
certaml y suggem so mething quite advanced, anticipating 111 mood and su bJect,
if not detail o f style, the Great Altar at Perga mum (HS fi gs. 193-9). Tiny bits of
the acrolithic cult statue were found, an d th e re li ef figures from an altar, which
is certai nly later. The early rel ief fragm e nts prove to b e from ce1lt ng coffers ove r
th e temple. pe ri srylc (a lso a feature of the Mausoleum): twenty-six of them
sh owing episod es in the Gigamomachy (HS fig.202) including perhap s fou r
involving Amazo ns.
In the fifth century the subject matter of the architectural sc ulpture of the
great n ew build1ngs ofAthens proves a tantalizing challen ge to th ose who w1sh,
correctly, to determine wh at their message might have been (GSCP eh. 12). An
impress ion that the fou rth cenn1ry was less subtle may simply re fl ect our igno-
rance or lack ofimagination, but fo r the most part the record seems to offe r fewer
challenges. No single theme n eed carry the sa me message everywhere, o f course.
and th e Periclean Amazonomachies of Athens meant somethi ng far different
fro m th ose at Bassae, Argos, Delphi, or on the Mausoleum. We must bel ieve that
th roughout the C lassica l penod the designer's intentions, regardless of w hoever
had mstructed or adv1sed him, were understood by viewers when the work was
first unveiled, or that if th ere was any misunderstanding it \vas the resu lt of
dimm1shcd imcl lt gence or knowledge. The creation ofa building and ItS sculp-
ture took a long time, and in a small communiry of citizens, many of whom
might have been uwo lved in the work, knowledge of what was gomg on and
what \vas intended m u st have been fa irly general and probably detailed, requir-
ing n o commentary. Thereafter responses could vary and the origi nal message
easil y become lost once th e circumstances occasionin g the original d esign had
changed. I low, I wonder, did th e defeated Ath enian of 404 understand the
Parth enon sculptures created over thirry yea rs before in a spirit o f imperial pride
an d d efian ce? O r an Athenian of the mid-fourth ce ntury whose natural foe had
become th e Ma ced onian rather tha n the Persia n ' Did he, ind eed, speculate at
all? Much of th e scul pture was barely visible, certai nly not in the detail which
we require when we try to interp ret it and rea d its orig inal message. It seems
almost as though its function was as much as anything simply to be there, as
30
1a part of the house ofthe god as m roof or columns, and not even
1nt egradan lv as a visual primer for the worshi pper or p asserby. To say that it was
"'
011
'
h
Id
11d
.
to delight the gods w o cou sec a , an not man, 1s crude, butcomes
d
1
•ere More· truly it reflects th e craftsman's desire that his work for such a
c ose.
rfi
I·
·
h
·
f
I
11
Ose <hould be pe ect, tr tiOII, carrymg t e nonon o comp eteness as we as
purp··
perfecuon.
Greeks were essentially practical people an d would have m ade readily visible
hat""' mea nt to be seen and srud1ed. The1r msc ribed decrees are a compara-
~le case. barely legible even to the few lnerate (with no word division and vir-
tuallY no pun ctuation), but important as matenal testimony to things done or
agreed . T he role of th e decorat ion on tem ples changed only when the sc ul p-
tures them<elves became pnzed as art- ObJeCtS to be imitated or copied or stolen,
or when the monument became a tourist attraction. At that point we turn to
Pausanias, author ofthe second-centu ry AD GUtde to Greece, for comment, and
find that at best he recorded th e mytho logy; an d that h e ignored the Parthenon
fr ieze co mp letely. Fourth-century Athenians, at least, we re prouclly consciou s of
the ciry 's historical and myth-historical achievem ents in so fa r as their orators
provided ready eulogies on the subject , but were they as conscious ofthe subtle
messages of the monuments that had been bu ilt to celebrate th em? The orators
seem often to h ave picked on ep isodes generally 1gn orcd in art, at any rate. We
probably do wrong tO assu me that the Greeks shared our devotion to such
matters, att d their antiquarian interests seem to have been quite differently
motivated.
We need also to consider the sc ulpture as pa rt of the architecture and in n o
small degree determined by it. Tlm is an approach whi ch this small book cannot
easily ahu undertake but it should b e 111 the mmds ofthose who view the more
complete asse mblages of scu lptu re 111 reconstructio ns o r o n models of whole
buildings. Thus, the acroterial sculpture \vas th e most distant yet m ost promi-
nent bemg silhouetted aga inst the sky; the pediments were poised over equal-
spaced weight-bearing colu mns wh1 ch nught have played their part in the overall
des•gn of the sculpture groups above them. The narrative m essages ofhigh fri ezes
needed to be simple ifmtended to be understood o r to contribute som ething to
the effectiveness of the temple. That they could not be understood in detail I
have pointed out already, and the impli cations of this fo r ' m essages', bur there
was an absolute need to observe standard formu lae of narrative in their d esign.
Tothis d eg ree th e art o f sculpture is also an archi tectural art; it requires recog-
llltton as such , an d we h ave seen how important a role architects migh t have
played al so 111 sculptural d esign .
3I

4·'
4 Temple of Apollo at Ua\UC, metopc
fr.agme nts. 1 Oeemg wornan. 2 - dancer
with clappers (kr<JMia). ] -old nun or
satyr. Abou1 400. (London 517,512, 5 19)
4·3
l·1
'Temple ofApollo aJ Bame, fneze . Sch eme rc\tored (by Corbett, as displayed in London); the
'Z~ng pteces \haded. The order of slabs 1s: ~ VEST - London SJS,S26,szz,szt,529,524,530,525;
A~RTH 520.\27- 8,523; F.AST 540,5J9 ,5J6,5Jl ,5J7, SJ4.SJJ ,SJ8; SOUTH- SJ 1,541-1.
Ut 40C>-_l90. H 0.6.

5.2 DlS.Sle fneze. Greeks fight Anuzoru. (533)
S-3 Utluae li-1eu. H endes fights the Amazon queen (her h~d restored), the centnl group
ofthe m~m short stde. (5 41 )
5.4 BN>< froeze. l>potru fight cenuun. (s>8)
''-I
5-5 B~e fneze. Lap1th g n h take refuge tlt a goddess' ~ucue. (524)
6 Temple of Hen at Argos. metope fngmenb.. About 400. (At hens 1572, 1574)
7 1: •plr of Hen at Argos. Sinu 1-nd bon. hetld spout. (Athens 158 1-2. H . 0 .27)

8 Temple :u Maz1, head from pednnent.
About 390. (Olympoa H. 0.26)
9 Temple ofAthen• Ale., Tege> t,l he.ds
from west ped1ment, 'Tclephos' ;and 'AchtUn'
3- akrot<non. About 340. (t,3 Tege• 6o, 59;
2 - Athens tl!o)
9·3
Temple ofAsklepim, Ep1daurus, pednncms restored (by Yalour is, dr..winbi"S by K.Eliakis). Su rviving
fnbrrtlents shaded. About J8G-)70. (Ath ens. H . at cen tre about 1.3)
10.2 Ep1daurus, " -'CSt pediment- Amazon (Athens 136)

IO.J
1o.s
11.1
10.3 Epic:burus. west pedtment - Amazon. {Athens IJ7, 14l)
10.4 .5 Epidauru.s. east pednncnt head of Pnam, hlS cap
sc12ed by a GTC"ek; stuue held by C:~~wndr::a
(Athens 144. 468 o)
11 Temple ofA•kleptos. Eptdaurus. •krot eri• t .2- 'Aunt ' , 3 - Ntke. About 38<>-J 70 .
(Athens •se>-?. t 5l. ll . 0 .74. o.7H. o .85)

I 1.)
12 Akroterion {or Andromeda?).
About 380. (London. Royal Academy)
IJ J>elpht, Marm:an a. mecopcs. 1 man 1nd hof'\e. l .J -
figum from AnuzonomJt:hy. About 380. (Ddplu. H . o .62 5)
1].1
IJ.l
13·3
14 le nple of Apollo at Delph1, ped1ments. 1 Thy1ad. 2 - Kttharodc {the head not certainly
belongtng). About 33<>-JlO. (Delpln T l l 6, 1344+2380; drawing by K .Eli•kis)

ll Udpha. Ac>nlhus Column. Abou1 JJO. (Ddpha. H. of6gur<S 1.91)
16 Atherti. Lyucnte\ monum~nt frieze. Dtony,cx
wnh ~tyn punishmg the ptnte~ whom the goJ t$
tur nmg mto dolphtn'. Dn'",ng ~nd c.1sts. For \•tctory
m B4· (Athens. C'.l\U m London. 11 0.2SS)

q.2
17 The Mausoleum at Haltk:anussos.
n:coru:trucrions. 36<r350.
(1 - G.W>ywell/S.Bud. 2 - K .Jeppcscn)
18 Mausoleum. 1 - horse from chariot
group. 2 - hon 3 - mounted Persian
(London 1002, 1075. IO.JS 11 2.JJ ,
1.5, L. 2.15)
1~.1

20 Mausoleum. Male head. (London 1054, H O.JS)
19 Mau~lcum. Un:an prince and IJ.dy: 'M:ausolus and Artenus1a'. (London 1001. 1000. H . J .O, 2.67)

!Ll
21.3
21 1-5 M;m~l~um. Amuononuchy fr1~u. (London 1014, 1oo6. 101:0, 10::. 1015. 1f . o.89)
!I.S
1:1 Mau«)l~um . Ch;mot fn~ZC'.
(London 10]7. 11 . P"'' 0.40)

lJ.I
23.2
2J.J
23 Temple ofArtcnm at fphe\m, ~hef dnun. Subject urudenufied: the sword \\·orn by the w1nged
youth m;~ke') H d•ffic.:ult to coall lmn Eros or I lunatos; the woman bet\veen him and the young Henne\
with upturned glance Jlllght be bemg led from the underworld (so. often nUed Alk~us), ;and oat the n~ht
rmght be Pcrsephone ;and seoated H;ul('); at the lefi ;a sundmg malt. num]y nm~mg. About 320. (London
I200. H I.64)

Chapter Three
NAMES AND ATTRIBUTIONS
The story of High Classical Greek sculpture was donnnated by the names of
Phid1as and Polyclirus, and even the surviVI ng monuments, among which the
arch itectural sculpru re of Athens takes pride of place, arc mamly mtelhg•ble by
reference to what is reasonably deemed to be a style o r styles deviSed by the
former. The fourth century has its b•g names too, and some important stylistic
or thematic innovations can be ascribed to them, but the pattern, or r.1ther
patchwork, o ffourth-century sc ulpnlr:JI achievement ma y have been less depen-
dent upon them.
Our sources here arc much as th ey were in the fifth ccmury (GSCP 15--9): a
very few signed original works and many copies of the R.oman period which
arc ass•gnable on the basis of descriptions in ancient authors. l'liny hsted the
more Important names and indkatcd the1r periods of work, but his dates for
some seem not altogether trustworthy. I exclude attributions made to them on
the basis ofstyle alone though they may be alluded to elsewhere, in the text and
in capnons to Chapter Four. There IS a suffi cient number of Atheman sculptors
to make it worth segregating them here.
ATHENIAN
Kephisodotos
made a statue of Eirene (Peace) holding the infant Ploutos (Wealth) which can
be recognized in copies [z4]. The cult of Peace was inrroduccd in Athens in 374
(after another cessation ofhostilities with Sparta) so the group 1s likely to be only
Imic later and it is shown painted on a Panathenaic vase of360/ 59. (These vessels
are an mtcrcsting source for vignettes of recent and older statues.) Plin y says he
also made a H ermes with the mfant Dionysos, which was to be a subject too for
hi s so n, so he seems to have introdu ced the type for major statuary; also a 'mar-
vell ous Ath ena ' and an incomparable altar for Zeus Sorer in Pirae us, probably
with a bronze of th e god with a sceptre and Nike. H e must have been an inOu-
ennal arrist in his home town. Eirene is a massive figure, a sli ghtly o ld -f .1Shioned
peplophoros dependem on Dcmetcr types, with a long broad back-mantle
semng offthe fall and stretch of the dress at the front. H er maternal concern is
•n dicated by the poise of h er head not her exprcss1on; the chil d has too small a
head, in common with most m Greek art of the period.
Pr axiteles
. v.l> a son of Kephisodotos, and probably active from around 375 to 335 . With
l'lndJas, Polyclitus and Lys ippus he \vas one of the best known of all C lass ica l
,c ulprors and, it seems, no less influential. H e was the first to ac hieve fame for
1is nlJrble statues, rather than the generally more acclaimed bronzes (see Chapter
)ne). His introduction ofthe fe male nude as a sculptur:~l type \vas a crucial inno-
. Jtlon, eschewing th e essential masculinity ofphys1que of most earlier attemptS,
mparting a true femimmty m body and posrure, though conservative sti ll m fea-
<ures which are delicately but not realistically rendered. The appeal \vas basically
erotiC and must have been so conceived, although the ostc ns1ble p re textS for such
•gurcs were necessanly d1fferent- narrative o r cult. T he many anecdotes about
11e sculptor with h1s model Phryne make clea r the Intention. Dressed o r not,
,t.uues of women and of the more langu id , effeminate gods were his forte. The
·h'lla11clmll e"t of his female figures and tl1e leaning poses of some males have led
·m nmentators to dwell on th e Praxitelean S curve, wh1ch was not irsclf so much
>fa novelty, and reflects more on the subd e poise of h1s figures than any posi-
•vcly novel composmon .
With his father's group [z4] m mind we may turn first to his H ermes and
)wnysos. Pausanias records the group m the Temple of Hera at Olympia, w here
l1 e surviving marble [z5] was found, as it were in a mche between two intenor
·o lumns. This is gener:~lly now regarded as a Hellenistic copy, closely following
the original which might have been damaged. There is nothing straightfonvard
1bout the group, ItS history and technique, yet it must give quite a good impres-
"on ofa Praxitelea n male and could be a close copy. I rs h igh polish is a function
of the new use of marble, helped by generations oftemple cleaners. The str ut at
m left hip and the tree trunk, more familiar from marble copies of bronzes,
togethe r with the ultr:J -rcal ism, virtually pictorial, of the cloth dr:~pcd over th e
. runk, may be late features. The god's head looks relatively weak; the poor pro-
porriom of the baby help support the idea of fairly close copyi ng ofthe original
llb'llre, since Hellemsnc bab1es are generally better managed. We might also have
looked for a more engaged expression in the god. H1s sandals arc ofa H ellenistic
. uher than fou rth-century type. Hermes h el d a bunch of g rapes for which the
mfant w ine-god reaches, and the group is familiar in later art, but also with a
dignified satyr taking the place ofthe Hermes. The back ofour statue has been
worked over and some have thoug ht that he was designed, in orig inal or in th e
Xta nt copy, as a young satyr, whatever Pausan ias says. l'li ny does not mention
he group and it 'vas not (again) copied, it seems. R oman period coins show
•umething like the group b ut with a short colu mn replacing th e t re e rrunk. This
probably just a copyist's simplifi cation, a nd th e same could be done fo r the tree
53

in Praxite les' group of the Apoll o Sauroktonos [27).
His most famous statue was the Aphrodite he made for Cnidus [26) in East
Greece (on the prom ontory south o f that with the Mausoleum). The story went
that he made a cloth ed version also, which went to the people of Cos (offshore
nearby) who had first choice, and was promptly forgotten, w h ile Cnidu s took
the shocki ng new nude. H er right hand moves to cover her belly, h er left holds
some ite m of dress over a water j ar, which is furniture for the bath. Is she dress-
ing or undressing'- o r movmg to con ceal h e r selfh aving been su rpnsed bathing
- a rime-honoured hazard and not o nly fo r Classical goddesses? The last expla-
nation must be correct since it provided a semi -narrative excuse for what was
aesthetically a profound innovation. The figure was enorm ously influential la ter
in many derivative versions, where the con cealing motif is made more explicit
by her attempt to cover both belly and breasts (HS 79ff.). To us she is com-
monplace, and it is very difficult to imagine the rime in which suc h a figu re
appeared as a complete novelty, and the effect it must therefore have made upon
viewers. Utter realism for gods and athletes was one thing; for a sex goddess quite
another. It was devised to fu lfil an explicit religious fun c tion , signifYi ng her pres-
ence, and the artist was able to offe r worshippers a view of her which, in other
circumstances, would have had fatal co nsequ e n ces. Sadly, we cannot beli eve that
any ofthe copi es can do justice to the o riginal, and what we have [26) m ay derive
from a H ellenistic variant rather than the statue in Cnidus, although it clearly
follows a fourth-century model fo r the head. Phryne (or even Aphroditc herself,
it was said) modelled for Praxiteles' nudes. The painter Apclles saw Phryne
wringing h e r hair after a dip at Eleusis an d painted the Aphrodite Anadyomene
(rising fi-om the sea). T here are many copies also of a marble of this rype and it
possibly goes back to the fourth century too, even to Praxiteles.
The Apollo Sauroktonos (lizard-slayer) (27) introduces the figure shifrmg his
weight partly onto a support, his left leg wholly slac k , effecting a languorous
curve in the body: a very androgynous study of the yo ung god, teasing a lizard
with an arrow. We would never have identified a god had Pliny not described
the o riginal (a bronze), though the activity remains obscu re and it is hard to see
1t as a version o f Apollo killing the Pytho se rpent, unless the arti st and his cus-
tomers (we do not know where it was placed) were motivated by an extre me
compulsion to demote the god's rare act of aggression. This too sets a fashion for
tl1e use of the adolescem ath lete figure for an Apollo or Dionysos, for alth o ug h
the youth looks almost boneless the anatomy is impeccable.
Eros only reverts to babyhood with the Hellenisti c peri od . Pra xiteles made
one of marble for Thespiae, where Lysippus was to pla ce one of bronze. The
former was sai d to have been destroyed in N ero 's Rome, but it, and the sculp-
to r 's famous Satyr that stood in the Street of the Tripods in Athens, arc lost to
us although they may lurk behind many Praxitelean renderings of the subjects
that have survived in H ellenistic ve r sions or copies (see [7o-1 )). Given that he
was such a prolific artist we are unluc ky not to have more to identifY in copy.
54
llut (apa rt from speculation about the Delphi Acanthus Colu mn [15]) we have
at least o ne original from his studio ifnot hand- three rel ief slabs from the front
oft he base for statues ofLeto and her c hild ren at Manrinea [28). T he subject is
Apollo with Marsyas, attended by the Muses. The last are important, heavy
hunat ion-wrapped figures that mark a clear move a\vay from the Classical
rO\vards the H ellenistic in presentatiOn of the dressed female, also the 'melon'
hairstyle (fo r the seated Muse). Dissatisfied wnh Its quality, scholars prefer to
asc ribe the base to the maste r 's workshop, but the design may be his.
Leochares
worked for the Macedonian royal fam1 ly towards the end of his ca reer, collabo-
rating with Lysippus o n the bronze lion-hunt group for Delphi, and making the
chryselephantines for the family group in the Philippeion at O lympia. But he
~ecms to have been at work in the 36os, perhaps un til the 320s. A letter from
'Plato' to Dionysius 11 ofSyracuse (ruled 367-57) refers to him as a young artist,
and to an Apollo that he bou gh t. Knowing Plato's views on art we may suspect
the detail but the chronological hint may be correct. H is repertory was some -
what more viri le than his contemporary Praxite les', and all in bronze. H e was
particularly busy in Athens where several signed bases have b een fo und. The
Apollo Belvedere [64] is often attributed to Leochares. His Zeus the Thundcrer
was taken to the Capitol in Rome. We are on slightly safer ground w ith Zeus'
eagle 'a\vare ofjust what it is abducting in Ganymede and for whom it ca rries
him, a nd which t herefore refrains from injuring the boy with its cla ws, even
through his clothing' (Pliny). R athe r gross sculptural copies [29 ! give an idea of
the shape of t he original, which \vaS much copied in other media.
Eu phranor
may have been born near Cor inth bm clearly spent h1s life in Athens. H e was
Jlso a painter, making a famous 13attle of Man tinea (362) for the R oyal Stoa in
Athens; and he worked for the Macedonians, depicting Philip and Alexander in
c hariots, so at least as late as 330. H e seems to have been something of a theo-
retician, but criticized for his slight bodies and large heads and limbs. His marble
Apollo Patroos for th e temple in Athens' Agora is p reserved [Jo). He wears the
long robes o f a ki th arode, the treatment ofwhich invites com pariso n with female
\tatues of the period (as the bronze Athcna from Pirae us [46)), but the lack of a
head makes plausible att ribution hazardous: an insipid late copy is use less in t hi s
respec t, but compare th e Apollo on the relieff1J9l· H e made a Paris which, said
Pliny, managed to convey var ious aspects of his nature - th e judge of the god-
desses, lover ofH elen, slaye r ofAchilles. It is easier to imagine that this was done
by attribute - a handsome yo u ng eastern warr ior holding a n apple - than
through treatment of hi s features.
55

Demetrios and Sila nion were portraitists; see Chapter Five. The latter also
made some mythological figures and athlete dedications, and he worked al~o in
Ea~t Greece. Bryaxis is now dmmguished from his third-century namc~akc who
made the fa mou~ Scrap1s (1 JS 2o6f.). For the fourth-century Atheman we have
only a s1gned tnpod ba~e from Athens showing horsemen approaching tnpod~.
wh1ch give nothmg away (31 ]. For the Athenians allegedly at work on the
Mausoleum sec the last chapter.
OTHER
Naukydes
was a pup1l ofPolychtu s, and there was a busy following ofthe great fifth-century
master at work wcll1nto the fourth century, responsible for the originals ofmany
broadly Polychtan fi gures that we ca n recognise in copies, especially ofath letes.
Naukydcs made 'a l lermcs, a diskobolos and a ram-offerer.' There arc var ious
candidates for the second, and a H crmes offer ing a ram , known in various copies
(JzJ, th ough there arc o ther Polyclitan Hermcses.
Tim otheos
played an important role 111 the decoration of the Temple of A~klcpiOS at
Epidaurus (la~t chapter), not least for creation of the mysterious 1ypoi, and was
o n e of the alleged team working on the Mausoleum. H e was perhaps responsi-
ble for the apparent virtuos iry of the Epidaurus sryle but we cannot accurately
JUdge h1s contribuuon.
Scopas
was from the marble 1sland Paros, where there were surely sc ulp ture academ1cs,
and m marble was st111 much used (as for Praxitelcs' Cnidia and by Scopas
himself). H e was also an architect, at Tegea, and since we have suspected archi-
tects of having m u ch to do with the commiss ioning ofscul pture it is not unrea-
sonable (though not compulsory) to think that h e had a hand in the planning o f
th e scul pture there too [91· lt is not superb, in th e eyes of many, but that may
reflect more on the masons ava ilable than the modeller. lt is the Tegea scu lptures
that have assoc iated hi m 1n scholars ' minds with the intense, ' pathetic' trea tme nt
of h eads. Otherwise, copies of the many works attr ibuted to him by Pliny and
oth ers arc n ot readily id entified , and th ere was a Hellenisti c sculptor oft he same
n ame to bedevil th e study. Ours seems rough ly a contemporary of Praxiteles. A
whirl ing, ecstatic maenad evoked a lyrical desc ription by a late author and is
tho ught to be reflected 111 copies or H ell enistic versions as Lu l. The rype is novel,
at least in three dnnemlons, and the twisti ng yet balanced pose heralds later
dancing and fi ghting figures. (The su perficial similariry to the Amazon of the
Mausoleu m [z1.1 I feeds h opes of recogmzing Scopas' work there, probably
vamly, but these twisting poses appear 111 oth er m edia of the day. ) He made a
Pothos (Yearning), attendant on Aphrod1te, tWICe, for Samothrace and Megara,
and it is thought to be represented by numerous copies LHl· lt takes the pose and
phpique of Praxiteles' Apollo [17] a stage further, with all the figure's weight on
one leg and the support. Scopas remams a shadowy figure but wuh a high rep-
utanon in antiquiry and Influential 111 h1s craft.
Lysippus
of Sicyon is the last of the great Class1cal names, working from the 36os to th e
JIOS,Iong-lived and highly prolific. He stands at the th reshold ofthe Hellenistic
and there is much about him in Smith's liS, our com panion volu m e, so this
section is partly summary. He rev1sed Polyclitu s' ca n on for the ideal male fi gure,
an d from hi s earliest works on h e seems to have made m ore of a specialiry of
ath lete figures than did his contemporaries. I l is Apoxyomcnos (athlete scraping
himself) dem onstrates th e n ew, slim, relatively small -headed canon (35]. an d pre-
sents a clea r b reak with esse n tially frontal com posi tion. Though the figure is at
rest, its glance, gesture and pose invite all- ro und viewing. Wheth er it was dis-
played for such effect is another matter, and the satisfa ction may have been
mainly the artist's. One leg is relaxed, yet b ea rs weight; this is a far subtler pose
than it might appear at first sight. The statue was taken to Rome and coveted by
the Emperor Tiberius until the ci ti zens demonstrated fo r its return to public
v1ew. A bronze Agias, a fifth -century Thcssahan athlete VICtor, made by him for
the Thessalian capital at Ph arsa los, demonstrated the same physique and pro-
portions, if (as seems very likely) it is cop1cd [J6) in the marble group set up in
Delphi by the Thessa lian ruler Daochos by 332. Whether Lysippus or his school
had a part in the creation of the rest of the group, which showed distinguished
ancestors of the donor (HS fi g.44. 1), we cannot say, but it seems likely.
Comparable slight figures appear on th e statue base for h1s bronze ofthe athlete
Poulydamas at Olympia (HS fig.46 below) and for statuettes which seem to copy
an early, heroic and nude, portrait ofAlexander IJBI. He \vaS sai d to h ave been
favo ured by Alexander for his portraits, creating a recognizable rype with head
inclined up and to one side, rather starry-gazed (the type of HS fig.6). Other
work for the Macedonians were multi-figure groups - the Com panions who
thcd at the battle of Granikos in 334, set up at Dion, and (with Lcocharcs)
Alexander's li on hunt, set u p by hi s general Kratcros at Delphi . This was no
doubt something like a three-d im ensional version ofthe painting we sec on the
fa~ade o fPhilip Il's tom b at Vc rgina (and sec I154]).
For the hero H eracles Lysippus created what virtu ally amou nts to a portrait,
rend ering him thereafter recognizable Without attribute. A series of groups
showing the Labours was set up at Alyzia (west central Greece) an d taken to
57

Rome where they may have been very mfluential in later art, but they can be
plausibly identified only in very general terms, in schemes th at appear in many
m edia, and often on later R o man sarcophagi. I show one here f.39] to give an
idea of th e groups that may have b een composed in the round by Lys ippus, but
there arc plausible alternatives for some of them. Singl e srudies of the hero
present him weary or aged. The rype fa milia r ffom the H eracles Farnese [37] has
him leaning on his club, exhausted and muscle-b ound , but holding discreetly
bchmd h is back the Apples ofthe H espendes that arc his guarantee of immo r -
taliry. The o rig inal may have been the bronze Lysippus made for his home town.
A colossal bronze for Taremu m showed him resting after cl ean si n g the stables of
Augeas, slu m ped, seated on an upturned basket, head on hand. We ca n get a
rough idea of it from late statuettes [40]. Another sea ted H eraclcs has him sitting
on a rock holding a cup and his club, again an aged figure and perhaps celebrat-
ing the end of his Labours, tho ugh he was a notorious dnnker and said to have
used colossal cups. I show one of many bronze statuettes o f the rype {41 J; the
club is not gen erally set so high. The epithet for this figu re, Epitrapezios, might
mean simply 'at ta ble', though the rock scat does not suggest a banquet se tting,
or 'on the table'- a table ornament: many of the copies are sma ll but the rype
was enlar ged too. We arc aga in deali n g with versions at som e remove from the
detail o f the Lysippan original and certainly not measured copies. lt does seem,
however, that he vaned the scale of fi gurt'S h e made more than most, and not
simply for cult statues. That his colossal figures of Zeus and H eracles were for
the western colo ny of Tare mum might seem a reflection on western Greeks'
taste, o r lack of it, or their wealth.
Of his o ther figures th e rype alone o f the Kairos (Opportuniry) can be recog-
nized in re liefS (liS fig .85), an E ros str inging a bow (i bid. fig .83) h as b een
thought his Eros for Thespiae but looks later, and a dancer (ibid. fig . 1 55) might
be his drunken flute-girl. We have to judge him largely on what Pliny and others
allege about his caree r, and have really o nly the Apoxyomenos (and perhaps
Agias) and some ofthe H craclcses for an assessment ofsrylc. There arc, h owever,
plenry o f clues to the rypcs w hich he created, and recognition of these ryp es is
no less important for any conclusions about his influence, sin ce th e association
with his na m e was enough to guar an tee them a future in many media and over
cen turies. I think particularly of fi gures th at were taken to R ome: H eracles'
L.1bours, the Tarentum H era cles (wh ich went on to Constantinople) and
Epitrapezios, the Grarukos and Dion groups, a Helios (Sol) in a char iot. M ost of
these are more than mere re -working of C lass ical schemes.
ss
•
24 Copy of Kephisodoto~· Eirene holdmg Ploutos . At heman _vases showmg the type tndt~:ilte a
c-ornucop1a hdd by Plo utos. The original ofabo ut 370 scood m the Athen.s Agora. (Mumch 2. 19.
11 2.0 1). Detail fro m P.machenatc vase, Athen.s

25 Hellenistic vers10n ofPraxucle~·
I fermcs holdmg D1ony~m. The god
held a bunch of grapes. (Olympia.
H.2.15)
26 Copy ofPnxttdes' Aphrodtte at
Cmdus. About JSO. (VattcJ.n S 12.
H. z .os)

'7 Copy ofPraxuele;' ApoUo
~Juroktonos. The god's raised
h;and may have held a cord,
tethenng the captive liz.ard; the
other held an arrow. About 350.
,Pms MA 441. H. 1 .49)
~1'1. 1 ·J ReliefS from the base
of ;a st;atue by Praxuel~ from
.\1amme<~ . Apollo watches the
utyr Marsy.b perform; between
them the Scythi:m ,,·ho will fby
\hny~ for f:ulure. Si.x Muses;
there "'-as prohabJy 01t lea5t one
more: sbb. About 330. (Athens
:o 5-7. H 0.98)

Apollo Patroos by Euphr.onor.
m tht Agora, Athem. About
>-JJO. (Agon S 2tj4. ll . l.54)
!I
I
J , Tn pod b;~se sign ed by IJryaxis, from Athens. celebratin g a t n be's su ccess
111 the P.11.nathe naic G ames a11tllippasia (cava lry conten). Det~ul. A bout 350.
\Ath ens 1733)
]l Copy ofHermes by Naukydes, fiom Trotzen. About 390· (Athens 24 3·
H. 1 .80)
13 HeUemstlc ,·ersJon ofScop~· dancmg:
nu.cn.- .d ? (Dresden IJ). ~t in Oxford.
11. 0 .45)
h Copy ofScopas Pothos? About 330.
RomC'. Conscn:ouon 2417. H. t .So)

Jj.l
Jl2
J6
l' Copy ofLys•ppw' Apoxyomenos. AbouiJJO. (V•ucon. H 2.05)
lys1ppan Agias from the Daochos ded1 canon at Dclplu Ueforc 332.
·lph1 J<\9. H . 2.0)

37 Copyofly.oppan Her:adc., the Funese. About J25· (Naples 6ooo. H. J -•7)
38 Copy of Lysoppan(?) portr:au
of Alex.mder; bronze statuette.
About JJO. (Pans 370. 11 . 0.165)
39!
19 L}~•ppan (?) schemes (not style) for the uboun of Her:acles, perhaps denved from the A.ly-m
gmu~ uken to Rome and prob~bly reflected on .urcophag. such as this, ofthe late 2nd cent. AD . Front:
1 L10n dead (the older scheme ofthe sundmg fight 11 ;m ~ternatlve Ly)1ppan scheme). 2 - Hydn,
hunun head added. 3,4- Boar and deer,~ enher. 5 - Btrds. 6- Anuzon. dead, bcmg snipped ofbelt.
7 Subles ofAugeas, H . shoulden mattock, bucket at feet. 8 - Uull. 9- Horse<. 10 - Geryon. At
udes: 11 - Kerberos (Mumch). t .z (mlSS mg} tree of H cspcndcs VISible at corner beside 1. Conmst the
,mJer and schemes at sth cent. Olympia (CSCP fig. .zl). (Ma.ntua, Ducal Palace and Munich)
40 Verston of Lysippan Herades,
originally resting on an upturned basket
and holding h is club between his le!l';
bronze statuette. (Copenhagen, Ny
Carlsberg JJ62. H. 0.45)
41 Version ofLysippus' Her.tcles
Epitrapezios; bronze statuette from
Pompeii. (Naples 2828. H. 0 .75)

Chapter Four
GODS AND GODDESSES , MEN AND WOMEN
ORIGINALS
There are several origina l fourth-century sculptures, neither architectural nor
relief, that deserve separa te consideration . They are sadly few and their only
cormnon factor is their authenticity. Most have inevitably been associated \vith
o ne or other o f the great names mentioned in the last chapte r. We start with the
bronzes; th en marble females, then males.
Bronzes
The Marathon Boy [42) is yet another Classical bronze whose su rv ival we owe
to an acc ident at sea. H e is hardly mo re than halflifesize. The pose is Praxitelean ,
though stiff in comparison with the works more closely associated with the
master, known only in copy, and the physique is more emphatic. The arms were
restored in an tiquity, whkh suggests that the figure was ofsome importance but
does not help us understand what it was doing. If the right arm had been bent
it would have closely resembled statues of a youth or satyr po uring into a cup
from a raised jug, known from copies [71]. It does at least remind us that such
figures were made in bronze as well as marble, and that although by now the
colour is quite wrong, originally these familia r white marbles and black bronzes
must have looked very much alike.
The youth from anothe r wreck, offAntikytbera [43], is ofmuch the same date,
th ou gh not appearance, more Polyclitan in stance, Lysippan in proportion. A
bron ze head from Olympia [44] is taken to be a boxer for the condition of hi s
nose and ears, but if so he is highly idealized . Although this is an age for por-
traiture it see ms that athlete statues, despite being dedications by individuals,
continu ed to demonstrate ge neral type and spo rt rather than identity.
We are denied an y opportunity to judge th e quality of original bronze por-
traiture, but the bronze head ofan Afri ca n from Cyrene [45] demonstrates a skill
in ethnic if not personal characte rization. It also shows the effect ofsu c h detailed
work in bronze, which we miss in the id ealized o r the marble copies.
A more unu sual so urce o fbronzes appeared in excavations in Piraeus in 1959,
where a cac he o f statues emerged, apparently a shipm e nt which may have been
overtaken by the Roman general Sulla's sack of th e town in 86 BC. It is possible
70
that they had been taken from Delos. There were four bronze statues and masks,
as well as some marbles. One statue was a Late Archaic Apollo (GSAP fig.150).
The oth er three are fo urt h-century in style, an Athena and two Artemises. The
Athena [46] and the smalle r Artem1s [48] have been thought late r, Hellenistic
copies, because of details of their sandals. lt seems a little odd that such features
would have been updated, but this may have been true also of the Olympia
Hermes [25]. and, if copies and from Delos, they were presu mably copying
statues elsewhere. The Athena shows what happens to a High Classical type in
a fourth-century atmosphere, relaxed, gently turning. Her dress has prompted
association with Euphranor (cf. I.Jo]). The fact that variants of the type appear
111 copies m ade after this bronze \vas buried gives some idea ofthe var iety ofsur-
viving models that m ust have been available to the copyist. The Artem.ises [47,48]
look more to the H ellenistic, not least in hairstyle, but notice how the stance of
the larger is still essentially Polyclitan, whi le the smaller, somewhat later, is
Praxitel ea n. The faces are bla nkly C lassical. The cross-straps on their breasts are
for the missing qu ivers at their backs.
Marble s
The majestic Demeter from Cnidus [49] may not have been a cult statue but its
mass, co mbin ed with delicacy of treatment of dress (thoug h battered now) and
the calm features, give it a certain unmistakable prese nce. S he belongs to a small
group of fi gures often associated with Leochares. We can not share exactly the
responses ofanc ient v iewers ofsuch works, but when the subject is presented in
a near- realistic human form and at hu man scale there must be fewer barriers
(mainly a matter of religious attitudes) to shared app reciation; fewe r than whe re
the w hole idiom of representation is unreal or conditioned by other aesthetic
standards, as it was in most other ancient cultures.
A peplophoros fro m Samos [5o] is as likely to be a fou rth-century version of
the fami li ar C lass ical type, updated in treatment of dress, as classicizing and of
later date. Another goddess, bur from the mam land, is represented by the colos-
~1 torso found in the Athenian Agora in 1970 [51 J. The fi ne conr.rast of crinkly,
clmging chito n and bulky him ation over the hips makes the most of expression
m dress as well as anatomy.
Marble a rchitectural sculpture and the free-standing dedications or o ther
works from the sa me sa nctuari es are likely often to correspond. So, fro m
Epidaurus, a statu e of the goddess H ygieia (Health) [52] closely resembles the
temple sc ulp ture a nd has encouraged attribution to Timoth eos. The h eavy,
hang in g himati on cont rasts effective ly with her near-naked body. Fro m Tegea,
o n the other hand, the fine head [53]. often called Hygieia, ha s not that much
m comm o n 'vith the architectural scul pture but is more Prax.itelean. Scopas was
·••d to have made an Asklepios and Hygieia that flanked the Athena statue at
legea, an odd combination and su rely nothi ng to do with this head.
71

A special class of votive peculiar to one sanctuary is that of the marble g1rls
dedicated to Artenm at Brauron in Attica. Many of these are, as it were, juve-
n ile versions of the Praxitelean women in the new crinkly dress, and most are
early H ellenistic, before the inund ation ofthe si te in th e third century. I show a
relatively earl y example [54]; artistS are beginning to render child proportions
more accurately. The girls performed a bear-dance for the goddess and arc
known as Little Bears (arkt01). [55] is a seated child, somewhat later, probably
from another Attic sanctuary.
Two Aphrodite heads in Boston demonstrate the Praxttelean style in origmal.
The Bartlett head [)6] wears a topkn ot which will become a m ore regular feature
fo r such figures later but appears already o n th e Apollo Belvedere [64]. We readily
detect the fea tures of copies of the Cnidia [26] here. The second head, from
Chios [57], offers a near liquidity of modelling around the eyes that leaves one
wondering how such an effect could ever have been achieved in anything other
than white marble. She may well be later than our period but the two heads are
still probably the earliest clear demonstration of Praxitelean feminine features m
o r iginal.
T he head ofa woman fro m the south slope ofthe Acropohs [58] is certainly
Dionysiac fo r the for m of the headband, and so possibly an Ariadne, its usual
name. Her head rested o n her arm, recalhng the pose of the sleeping Ariadne
type, which may be hardly late( in inccpnon, but our lady IS w1de awake so the
identity is dubious, and the date must be late for us though wtthin reach of the
Delphi D ionysos (h ead of(14.2]; HS 6g.79).
We are not altogether dependent on copies for knowledge of fou rth-centu ry
types for th e gods. One of th e Asklepios types is represented by an original
marble at Eleusis L59]. A marble h ead so resembles th e head ofthe Phidian Zeus
shown o n coins (GSCP fig.t8t} that it may indeed be inspired by it (6o]. It is
from Mylasa, wh1ch was the Carian capttal before it was moved to Halikarnassos
by Mausolus, so lt could be from a statue of the Carian Zcus. Out the work 1s as
Greek as that for the Mausoleum , and shows that the Carian kings were already
bidding for Greek work of prime qu al ity, and, it seems, from sources other than
those em ployed by their Lycian neigh bou rs.
This is a period in which the dividing line between h ero ic idealizing and por-
traiture is n ot easily drawn. If there had been no Alexander the Great there would
have been no doubttng that the fine Boston head (61] shows a young Heraclcs,
wtth utterly Lys1ppan features and h1s usual curly hair. But since Alexander
allowed assimilanon to th e h ero the possibility of it being a highly idealized
portrait of the rul er has also to be entertained. The Aberdeen h ead in London
[62[ has an heroic air but must be from an athl ete stante, a han dsome bmiser. lt
has often been compared to th e h ead of the Praxitelean Hermes at O lympia
[25] , unfavourably to the latter; but then the subjects are d1fferent and the fine
expressive features may m fact rather betray a Hellenistic date.
Herms are a sculptural type with a long lusrory (see GSAP 87, fig.169; GSCP
72
177. 238, 6g.142). The pillars topped by a head derive from wooden pillars
dressed with heads o r masks an d were objects of cult or markers. Most contin-
ued ro carry archaising heads that arc as much Dionysiac as Hermaic. With time
herms acconm10datc fu ller scu lpt ural forms with a wider ran ge of identities
serving more common place functions but retain ing a religious connotation; and
they lose their phallic addendum. (63] is a 'hip-herm' and the subject is a hero-
cphebe, one ofa senes celebrating the participation ofyoung Athenians in a local
fesuval while domg Nanonal Service at the Rhamnous garrison in the AttiC
c ountryside.
Fi n ally, some marble groups may be mentioned. The dedication of the JJOS
by the Thessal ian Daoch os at Delphi has been considered in connection with
the probably Lysippan Agias IJ6]. T he other figu res in the group are ofvarying
mcnt (HS fig.44) and it has been suggested, probably wron gly, that it was com-
pleted at the nght by a seated Apollo found at the site, otherwise a candidate for
a place on the ApoUo Temple. Two choragic monuments on Thasos celebrating
theatrical successes arc probably late r but are often mentioned in connection
w1th fourth -century work. T hey included a Dionysos (HS fig.8o}, h is head quite
hkc the Delph ic (l iS fig.79), and perso n ifications ofTrage d y, Comedy, etc.
COPIES
Much of our knowledge o f sculptural types, and no little of sculptural style,
depends on th e iden tification of copies, just as it di d in the fifth century. Where
the copies arc confidently identified with works ascr ibed to fourth - ce n tu ry
sculptors, we are on safe ground (C hapter Three); where they arc n ot, we arc
left tojudge from style alone and sometimes from non-sculptural evidence about
Iconographic types. The figures commonly used on origmal fourth-cenmry
vonve reliefs (Chapter Seven} can often be a useful guide. This section assembles
figures, mainly divine, which seem to copy fourth-centu ry originals, or at least
derive from types invented then. Confusion with the early Hellenistic is
mcvitable, but the period can be seen to have created a nu mber of new types
wluch were to be most infl u ential and popu lar both in inspiring H ellenistic va r i-
ants (as with Praxiteles' Aphrodites) and with patrons ofcopyists. I dwell mai n ly
o n the identity of figure rypes (gods, then goddesses, then mortals), 'vith more
discussion only of 1rnportant figures, such as the first:
The APOLLO Belvedere [64] is often clauned as Leochares' Apollo Pyth ios in
Athens, and the original was certainly a very famous statue, re p rese n ted (left
hand and balls su rvive) in the plaster casts from th e Rom an copyist's studio at
Ba1ac (cf. GSCP 18}, and enormously influential fro m the Ren aissa n ce on as a
paragon of Greek art. lt is a very different concept of the serpent-slayer from
Praxiteles' (27]. lt 1s snll a slight figure but posed to suggest movement more
effectively than any free-standing predecessor, almost a flceong apparition. The
73

knotted hair will become a hallmark ofthe god, though essentially feminine, but
the whole figure reflects as much of the Hellenistic as the Late Classical (his
footwear has certainly been updated in the copy) a nd probably has nothing what-
ever to do with Lcocharcs.
Another n aked type for the god is the Apollo Lykeios (65), identified from an
ancient descripuon (Lucian) as standing in the Athens Lyceum. The hand over
head may seem excessiVely languid, but the gesture was a sta ndard one for
expressing relaxation, though not normally for standing fi gures. The hau has a
central plait, perhaps suggesting the pre-adolcscent dedication ofhau to Apollo.
The pose is broadly Prax.itelean but the support can be omitted; the master's
name is often associated with the figure, but the type could be later. The more
dignified, dressed type for Apollo presents him as kitharode and is represe nted
by Euphranor's fine study, preserved in original IJo).
Gods who were provided with new m o numental temples sometimes also
acquired new cult statues which may have proved influential. But some gods
we re only sparsely housed in the Classical period - Arcs, Asklepios, Dionysos,
Hermes, Pose idon, H eracles (as god or hero). The ARES Ludovisi [66) is a famous
figure but was not much replicated in antiquity and its fourth-century origin is
disputed. It somehow recall s th e pose of the Ares on th e Parthenon Frieze
(GSCP fig.94.27) w hi ch may itself indicate the existence of a Classical seated
type for the god, and thi s might give the Ludovisi th e benefit of the doubt. It
looks roughly Lysippa n . The Scopas who made a colossal Arcs for R ome is now
thought to be a second-century sculptor.
Starue types ofASKLFPIOS, a relatively new god, depend in the fourth century
on his main centres ofcult, in Ep idaurus and Athens, where his cult statues were
seated and standing respectively. There is some evidence for him being shown as
a youth but for the most part he bo r rows the Olympian aspect of a Zeus, hiS
prime attribute being his snake (67). There are many minor variants in the pose,
all probably ofearl y inspiration (see (59)), the product ofdifferent artists servi ng
different sanctuaries. He is commonly shown with his companion/daughter
Hygieia (H ealth ; see below).
The youthful DIONYSOS was invented on the Parthenon (GSCP fig.8o.1).
Thereafter he is shown either young and increasingly effeminate, or elderl y,
portly and often drunk. For both types the vine, cup and forehead band (as HS
fi g. 79) are common attrib utes. H e was popular with copyists and their patrons,
for o bvious reasons, and variants on the basic typ es are numerous. A sta nding
nude, leaning (68), must go back to th e fourth century, like Apo ll os and
H ermescs ofsimilar o rigin, and broadly Prax.itelean. In his oth er role som e more
archaizing aspects arc apparent, notably the massive beard which is also retained
for the traditional Dionysiac heads on berms. Another, but fragn1 entary, copy o f
the type represented by the compl ete (69] \vas found near the Thea tre of
Dionysos in Athens. The heavily swathed figure has resisted fourth-century elab-
oration. It had been labelled Sardanapallos in modern times, by which name (a
74
Creek-invented Assyrian king notorious for his effeminate and degenerate
behaviour) the statu e is often known.
The SATYR now claims independence as a statuary type, no doubt assisted by
the Dionysiac imagery, bur there is the sa me problem as with the Dionysoscs,
and copyists may be responsible for some invention and adaptation. B ut this
cannot explain them all since Praxitelcs is known to have made famous free-
<tanding versions, and surviving copies of a leaning (70] and pouring (71) type
are what we migl1t expect from h is hand or studio. Almost all animal elements
have been eliminated from the figu re, the ears barely pointed, t he rail tiny and
goatish (not equine as before).
Eaos remains an adolescent through the fourth century. H e 'vas a favourite
subject of Prax.iteles and I show the Cemocelle type (72) which is among the
most plausible, for its head, the body being somewhat more athletic than is seen
m other copies. Another type, c reated la ter, has him str in ging his bow (HS 66,
fig.8J).
Finds o f the 'EuuouLEUs' head type [73] seem to have Eleusinian associations,
whence the name. Prax.i tcl cs made a Eubouleus, to judge from a headless herm
insc ription , bur there is nothing especially Praxitelean here, so f.1r as we ca n
Judge. Another identification has been the young Al exander, w ho might be
glimpsed in some but not all copies. The shaggy head is distinctive, probably of
a deiry, and T atPTOLEMOS seems a good ca ndidate (compare t he boy on CSCP
fig.I44), e~oying more popularity in places where the cop ies arc found than
Eubouleus.
The com monest fifth-century type for HFRACLES was the standing figure, club
on ground and lionski n over arm, as CSCP fig. 72, with a you nge r version later
m the century (the Hope Heracles). The fourth-century Albertini type [74] gives
him a broader stance, left hand fof\vard with the apples or a bow; and is followed
by the Lenbach type (75) which is more Lysippan. The Lansdowne Heraclcs (76)
shoulders his club and adopts a Po lyclitan sta nce. There are several va ri ants on
these recorded in copies, many ofthem probably based on fourth-century o ri g-
mals. The leaning Heracles was an o ld motif for the weary hero bur its crown-
mg expression is th e Lysippan Farnese l39), which was preceded by a
righ t-hand-on-hip type (Copenhagen/ Dresden), and Lysippus had created
other, narrative types fo r th e hero, al one o r in action g roups.
Classical H ERMES types start with the Ludovisi (GSCP fig.227). Safe identifi-
cation depends on winged cap, boots and his caduceus (kerykeion wand) but in
dealing with copies these are details th at can eas il y be exchanged between athlete
figures and the god. Several fourth-cemury types arc decidedly Polycli tan in p ro-
portions and stance, even head, fo r example the Lansdownc Hcrmes [77]. The
' hghter type of the Andtos H crmes [78] is more Prax ite lean in proportion and
Introduces us to the motif of t he folded end of the cloak (chlamys) sl ung inse-
·urely over the left shoulder, a common motif for many later figures, retained
well into R oman t imes, but presaged in the fifth century. lt becomes almost a
75

barmg motif, like the lumation that is soon to be allowed to droop below the
naked belly (HS fig.75). This sort ofprecarious, unrealistic dress appeared in the
fifth century, with the dress falling down h eroes' legs (GSCP figs.I9K,M,134 and
on vases) an d th e motif may have become intentional for su pernatural figures.
T h e proportions and features of th e famous sandal-binder ( HS fig.70) are more
Lysippan; the identiry as Hermes probable, to judge from the general propriery
of the motif for a traveller, and some versions in other media which are specifi c
m th e identification. Whether the famous Hermes in repose [79] can be added
to the Lysippan creanons is less certain, but the rype is likely to derive !Tom the
later fourth century, a more alert version of l.ysippus' elderly Heracleses.
The handsome h unter j8o] is identified as MELEAGER for the huntin g dog and
boar's head that accompany so m e copies, and is associated with Scopas more for
that artist's presumed work on the Calydonian Hunt at Tegea than from any con-
fidence about that artist's sryle. It has rather a Lysippan air, but the example
shown may be an adJUSted Hellenistic version.
Consideration of copies of goddesses inevitably starts wtth ArnRODITE and
nudiry. Praxiteles' Cnidia [26) made expli cit what the later fifth -century trans-
parently dressed goddesses very effectively left to th e imagination (GSCP
figs. I97,2IJ,2I5-'7). The Cnidia's su ccessors were mainly con ceived after our
period (HS figs.99-105) but some of them are bare only to the waist, provoking
more aTLxiery about precarious drapery of the ruvine (as HS figs. 104-5, 305).
This feature appean. m what has been thought another Praxitelean type [81]
which updates the fifth-century leaning Aphrodite (GSCP fig.216). The
Aphrodite Kallipygos, displaying her bottom [82]. a frankly erotic gesture which
nonetheless carries a certain cult signifi cance, could also derive from a fourth-
century rype si n ce she appears on an engraved seal ofthat date. The half-nudiry
also affects NIKl (Victory) figures although the possible statuary rypes are only
represented in other media in our penod and she is partially bared in some akro-
teria. The superb Nike on the gem [83] is a piece ofongmal sculpture in its own
right, albeit in miniature and whether or not it reflects any full-size figure.
ARTEM is' career as a huntress becomes more explici t in fourth-century statu-
ary. The Pi rae us bronzes [4 7-8] h ave her in long dress, as do two rypes in which
she picks an arrow and holds out her bow- the Dresden [84] and Colonna [85].
Intimation ofa more active life is given by short dress (or dress double-belted to
raise the hem), some with an animal-skin on top, as well as the weapons and
sometim es the presence ofher hunting dog. The running, Versailles rype belongs
h ere (HS fig.87) . The Artemis Gab1i [86) has her dress double-belted to appear
short; she is fasteni n g her cloak an d th e gesture with her right arm, though
normal fo r this action, is so like that ofplucking an arrow from a quiver that one
Is bound to wonder whether this could be a copyist's deviant. But she is often
declared PT<Lxitclean and identified as an Artemis made by the master for the
Brauronion sanctuary on the Acropolis at Athens.
The ATHE:-IA types of the later fifth and early fourth century (GSCP
fi~. 199-2o6) are generally, and probably ri ghtly, taken to denve mainly !Tom
the various Athena figures, most of them Phidian, which had been created
in Athens. Later developmen ts invo lve slight adjustments of pose and dress,
especially the more e nveloping himation over all. The most heavily dressed
fourth-century creation is th e Athena Rospigliosi [87].
HY GIEIA (Health) is Asklepios' companion at Epidaurus, where we have met
her possibly already [.sz]. H er usual rype is a dressed young woman, feeding a
snake !Tom a phialc-cup. The Hope Hygicia [88] is still Classical in conceptio n ,
agitated neither in dress nor pose, while th e later rypes, as [89], are high-girt and
more h eavily wrapped.
KORE (Persephone) carries a torch, like h er mother Demeter. A statuary rype
was devised for her in the fourth century, with one or two torches, and with a
range of variants [go]. The general figure, proportions and head are what we
nught expect of Praxiteles, who is known to have made at least two Korai, one
being of a group that \vas taken to Rome, but no single copy seems to bring us
very close to an original.
A rype for l.EDA protecting her Zeus-swa n had been c reated about 400 (GSCP
fig.140). A developed version of the fou rth century was much copied [91] and
resembles sculpture from Epidaurus, which has suggested attribution to
Tirnotheos.
AGATifE TvcHE (Good Fortune) is a new personificanon and object of
worship. Later, in a rype devised for Antioch by Eurychides (HS fig.91), she
wears a turreted crown and se rves as a ciry goddess. Otherwise, she is essentially
a goddess of plenry, characterized by th e cornucopia she holds. Part of an orig-
inal statue of her in Athens is identifiable from copies, as [92].
77

\
42 Marathon Goy: he we<Jn a leaf-Lake atudunent to lus hauband. About JJO.
(Athens llr tjiiS. H . q)
43 Annkyther:o youth. He h>S been thought • Perseu; but l>cks the expected m•g•c cap •nd
booB. Abom )40. (Athens Br t)J\16. I! 1.94). And see Fronnspiece

• lloxer from Olympta. About JJO. (Ath em llr 6439. 1I. 0 .28)
Head of an Afncan from Cyrenc.
ondon Or 268. H O.JO)
46 Athena, from Piraeus.
About Jl<>-340. (Piraeus.
H 2.JJ)

47 Artenu; Oarger) from Pu·•cus. About 34<>-JJO. (Pu;oeus 46H. H . t .95)
48 AttenU> (SimUcr) hom i'll';JCUI. Copy(?) of ongmal of about 325 (Ptraem 464X. 1 1 1 55)
49 Demeter from Cmdu~. The head made sep.uately, more finely finished; some colour
prcser\'ed. fler throne b01clas nmsmg. About 340. (London 1300. H . 1 .47)

so Woman from Samos. Late 4th cent.(?).
(Berhn 172j. H . 1 .72)
S 1 Goddess from the Agora. Once thought
the personification of Democracy set up
outsi de the Roy.~l Stoa in 333/2, now rather
as Agathe Tyche (Good Fortune) of wh1ch
there are roughJy similar copies l9z]. About
JJO. (Agor.> S 2370. H . o riginally about 2.9j)
j]
52 llygteia from Ep1daurus. Part ofh er snake famil iar
beSide h er, doubtless bemg fed. About 370. (Athens 299.
H. o.87)
SJ llet~d ofa \'lv"Oman from Tegea. About 36o. (Athens
)002. 11 .0 .29)
S4 G1rl w uh h.uc from Bnuron. A 'Little Bear'. (Dr.t uron.
H. 0 .79)
jj Seoced gtrl, perhaps from the Eileithyia sanctuary at
Agr.>1. About JJO. (London 1948-4-14.1. C.m m Oxford.
H O.j9}
jj

56 ·umlett"he>d of Aphrochte. About 330. (Boston OJ.743· H . 0.29)
57 Head ofAphrodue from Ch10s. Lote 4th cent. (13o>tOn 10.70. H . O.J6)

sS Head of'Anadne' from Athens. Late 4th
cent. (Athem 182. H . 0.38)
59 Asklepios from Elemis. ded1catcd by
Epli<r.ates. Lote 4t h ce nt. (Eieus11 so)
6o Head ofZeus from Mylasa. &rly 4th
cent. (Boston 0 4.12. H . 0.48)
61 Head ofyoung Heracles, from Spam (?).
About Jl5- (Doston 52.t741. 11 . 0.24)
62 I lead ofathlete (Aberdeen head). About
)20. (London r6oo. H . 0 .29)
63 Hip-hern1 ofa hero from Rhamnous.
dated by the mscnbed base (wuh ephebe
names) to 33312. (At hem 313 11 offigur<:
0.7)
6o
61. 1

66.1
<•4 Apollo Belvedere. He held a bow m hu left hand. Copy of onguul of
lt' 4th/e~rly 3rd century? (V;mcan. H . 2.24)
<, Apollo Lykei<X. Copy ofongmal ofabout ]20. (Pans 928)
',(} Ares Ludovm. Copy ofongmal ofabom J20. (Rome. Terme I s6. H . J.S6)

67 Askleptm. Copy ofongtnal ofabout 38c:H'>0. (Vatican l3raccio N uovo 2288. I L 2.18)
68 D tonysos le.mmg on a he r m (Racheheu type). Copy of origmal ofabout 340. (Madnd. Pn do
E87. H . 1.73)
69 Oaony~ ('Sardanapallos'). Copy ofan ongmal ofabout 320. (Berhn, once Rome. H. l .o6)

72
7'
70 Lcanmg satyr. (For complete figure see HS fi g. t48.)
Copy of an original of abom 340. (R o m e, Capltolmc 7 39·
H. 1.71)
71 Satyr pou ri ng wine. Copy of an ongmal ofabout JOO.
(Dresden 100. H . '-47)
72 Eros from Ccm oceUe. H e held a bow and an arrow.
Copy ofongmal ofabout J6o. (V.attcan Gal.d .St<1t. 250.
H . o.Sj)
73 Tn ptolemos (?; ' Eubou leus'). Copy ofongmal ofabout JSI)-JJO. From Elem" (Athens t8J. H . 0 .47)

75.1
74 Hcncles Albc:rtmt type. Copy ofongtnal ofeuly 4th cent. Made ofgreen basalt for
Donutun's palace, and perhaps mcorporatmg an Jde.).lJZed portr.ut ofthe emperor. (P1rnu.
H J.sSl
75-1,2 Iter2cles Lenbach cype. Gait bronze copy oforig1rul ofabout 320, from the R.onun
Forum Boanum. and ;a marble copy of the he;~d, crowned as an athlete victor. (Rome,
Conservaton 1265- 11. 2 .41; head Mumch 245)
7j.2
"'6 llerades Lansdowne. Copy ofonguu.J ofabout 350. (Malibu 70.AA.rOC). from Tivoti. H. r .g4)
.. . , Hcrmes Unsdowne. Copy ofonguu.l of.~bout J8o. (New York 56.1)4. 15· H. t .So)
· X Herm~ &om Andros. Copy oforigm~ of.about 350. (Andros 245, once Athens 218. H. 1 .96)
77

79 Her mes from Herculancum: bronze. VenJOn ofbte 4th-cent. origma1. (Naples 841. H. l .os)
g r Aphrodne. Known as "Euplou• for the m4lnnc
attributes shown with many copu:s, as here. Copy of
on •mal ofabout 340. (Ln"Cr pool. H 1 19}

86.t
82 Aphrodne K>llipygos, from Nero's Golden
H ome, Rome. Copy ofa probable origmal ofbte
4th cent. TI1e head IS restorcrd. (N~ples 6o20)
KJ N1ke on a chalcedony gem. Abom )SO. (London
Gr-m'i (>C l. H. J.J cm)
1\4 Artemis Dresden. Copy ofongmal ofabout 340.
(llre>d<n 1 17)
8.s Artenus Colonna. Copy ofongu1al ofabout 330.
il rhn Kl.jJ. H . 1.86)
86 Anemts from Gab11. Copy ofongm~ ofabout
ll• (Pans MA 529. H. 1.65)
87 Athena Rospighosi, from Pc11,~mum . Copy of
ongmal ofabout 330. (Berim P 22. H . 1.87)
s Hyg1eia H ope, from Osua. h1 this rype she feeds
snake over her left sho ulder from a phtale in her
:ht hand . H ere the arms arc restored. Copy of:an
ngmal of about 380. (Los Angeles JO.J3.2J.
11 1.88)
88

89 Hyg1eia. Copy of:~~n ongmal of1bout JlO.
(Florence, Pun)
90 Kore. Copy ofon guul of>bom )40.
(Aon=nce. UffiZJ 120. H 1 .99)
91 UW. Copy oforigmal of :~~bo ut 370.
(Rome. C>puoline 302. H . 1 .32)
92 Agathc: Tyche. The head~~ rht copym\ uwennon.
Copy of original of :~~bout 330. (VJ.tJc;an, llr.:accto
NU0\"0 86. H . 2.2 1)
Chapter Five
PORTRAITURE
Portrait busts were an invention of the R oman period. The head was copied
from a Greek portrait statue and carved or cast on a herm, often without the
pill ar and simply as a bust. The same treatm ent was accorded the h eads from non-
portrait Classical statues. A portrait that made some real attempt to render the
true features of the subject was an innovation of the fourth century BC but not
. l ltogether suc h a concession to realism as the rendering of bodies had become.
The Egyp tians long before had made real istic portraits in plaster, possibly cast
from life or death, bu t they adju sted them for th eir stone statu ary, no doubt rec-
ogni zing that realism may im ply life, bu t also deat h, while their aim was an
expression of eternity. R.o man s had made wax portraits of their dead an cestors
which may or may not have been utterly lifelike from an early date and d epen-
dent o n casts. When Greek Archaic or earlier C lassical scu lptors made a sta tue
identified as an individu al - a victor or a dead man - th ey made no more con-
cession to life than to g ive it a body, and d ress, posture and attributes appropri-
ate to age or profession. A degree of charactcriza n on m features was possible,
distingu ish ing youthful athlete (CSCP fig.147) fro m general (CSCP fig. I 88)
from elderly bon viveur (CSCP fig.235), and this was also achieved in va rious
am for the depiction offoreigners. These were not stri ctly idealizarions, bur gen-
eralizations, and the degree ofresemblance between sitter and his appearance on
his votive o r funerary monument was not closely defined, nor looked for, while
commemorative statues of famous people were generally posthumous.
Depictions ofthe long dead- Homer, Sappho, Alcaeus- could only have been
character srudies. We know nothmg of the appearance of the statues of livin g
generals depicted on commemorative monumen ts erected in the later fifth
century but may suspect that id entification depen ded sti ll m ainly on knowledge
of the context and o n imcriptions. The Athenian gene ral Canon was awarded
an h onorific statue that stood in the Agora fo r his success aga inst th e Spartans in
394. but no labelled copies h ave survived so we do not k now how realistic it was.
If the Themistocles (CSCP fig.246) does carry realistic traits, it is an exceptio n
and perh aps explai n ed by being the product ofan area, East Greece, whose sculp-
ture had always tended towards element\ ofth e reali stic. Kresilas' Per icl es (GSCP
fig . I 88) was posthumous and heavily ideali zed.
The principles of Classic al sculpture rather operated against realistic portrai-
ture, yet ca n be seen to have contributed in time to a practice that could go
IOJ

beyond mere reporting, and combine an element of comment on personality
with accurate rendering of features. So Greek portraiture continues to idealize
to some degree until the extra-realism of the later Hellenistic had to answer
expectations of Roman patrons. And in Greek portraits there was a strong ten-
dency to dwell on family likenesses as much as individual features, espec ially
where dynasties were concerned. The artists did not check back \vtth the ong-
inals and recogmtion did nm depend on familiarity \vith the subject.
An indication of the change appears in reports of the work of the Atheman
sculptor Demetrios who was working in the earlier fourth century. H e made a
statue of a 64-year-old priestess of Athena (cf. GSCP fig.z18), and of a
Corinthian general (Pellichos) '\vith a pot belly, a bald head, half exposed by the
hang ofhis garment, with some ofthe hairs ofhis beard blown by the wind, and
with his veins shO\ving clearly.' But we do not know whether his friends could
have recognised him from the sculptured features alone.
With most portraits being of the long or recent dead we are at a loss to date
the creation of many portrait types except by style, in which we are inevitably
denied opportunity to compare more than the rendering of hair or beard o r
common features. Once the patronage of the Macedonian dynasty is influential
we are on surer ground, with portraits of Philip 11 and yet more certainly with
those of Alexander the Great. In these especially we can detect the degree of
characterization and even of assimilation to what amount to portrait types of
heroes such as Heracles with whom the latter was identified. This is discussed in
HS z1f. and is a mainly H ellenistic phenomenon; and see [111]. Otherwise we
may look for hints in records of portraitists or of portraits that can be dated to
the fourth centu ry and whose subJects are preserved in copies which may well
be of their works rather than of any later renderings crea ted for H ellenistic or
Roman libraries. Examples (apart from portraits of the Macedonians by
Leochares, Euphranor and Lysippus) are lsocrates by Leochares, Corinna and
Plato by Silanion, Socrates and Aesop (with the Seven Sages?) by Lysippus, and
a group ofthe Attic tragedians set up by Lycurgus in the early 34os 111 the theatre
at Athens. Before the appearance of portraits on coins we are h eavily dependent
on the inscribed copies, a few ofwhich were demonstrably mis-identified by the
copyist, but the pairing of heads in copies is sometimes suggestive.
It is clear that, before Macedonian patronage, portrait-making was very much
an Athenian phenomenon, and within this there is an interesting concentration
on portraits ofphilosophers, which says something about their popular standing.
lt must also not be forgotten that there is a very large number of copies of
unidentified portraits that clearly derive from fourth-century originals. It is
understandable that studies of portraiture dwell on names, since they offer the
possibility of dates and of speculati on about character study, but they represent
only part of the surv iving record.
Philosophers are shown seated or standing, dressed figures. Socrates (died 399)
is represented by copies of a type that could be of the early century 19JJ and
104
renders the bald head and satyr-like features recorded by his contemporaries .
Another type, probably Lysippus', depended heavily upon it l94] (a whole, stand-
mg figure, HS fig.z5). Plato (died 347) may have been scu lpted \vithin his life-
nme in the statue by Silanion set up in the Academy at Athens (founded 386) by
a Persian admirer, Mithradates. The type can be identifed [95] and the statue
seems, from a surviving statuette, to have been seated. Aristotle (died 322) is
elusive. A herm copy in Athens proclaims itself a copy of the portrait set up by
Alexander, his pupil, but its head is m1ssmg (sec HS fig.z7).
Ofpublic figures, there is a copy ofthe head ofthe orator and statesman Lysias
:died 380) 196]. One weak portrait labelled lsokrates has him youngish, not the
sage who died near ninety years old. It IS unlikely that it has anything to do with
Leochares' recorded portrait, or w ith lsokrates. We know that the well known
portrait of Demosthenes (died 322) was a work by Polyeuktos over forty years
later (HS fig.39). Copies of long-dead statesmen might be of the late fourth
cencury: the sixth- century Periander ofCorinth l97], Pittakos ofLesbos l98], and
Bias of Prien e l99]. They either answered some local, patriotic need, or were
commemorated for their apophthegms, whic h is why they were cop ied for
Romans eo display; and if primarily the latter, the heads might have been
anyone's, or no-one's, and recruited for an age that liked collections of Seven
Sages and the like. That Lysippus really made a group of Seven Sages, no more
tha n hinted in a later epigram, may be doubted. There was probably no true
portraiture on the Mausoleum beyond ethnic characterization, an d of the only
contemporary on the Daochos monument at Delphi (the donor) we have no
more than his feet.
Ofthe historians Herodotus (died about 424) has a well characterized portrait
for a Father of History [ 100], probably created in the ea rli er fourth century. It
seems to cast him almost in the role of a revered poet, even a Homer. Whether
Thucydides' (died about 400) portrait [10 1] is as early is less clear; it shows the
Intellectual rather than the observant encertainer. H e had been no success as a
general, then exiled, and a portrait would have been a special recognition of his
hterary achievement, but there is some evidence that it stood on the Acropolis.
Xenophon (died about 354) was a man ofletters and ofaction. His portrait (102]
IS likely to be rrue to life but posthumous.
A labelled full-length statuette of the 13oeotian poetess Corinna shows her
holding a scroll [IOJ] and, though poor work, could easily reflect the portrait said
to have been made by Silanion. The features are conventional (she lived in the
<'arly fifth century) and it is perhaps likely t hat portraits of women did not evoke
serious characterization, any more than other statuary of women did in this
period.
The statues of the tragedians set up by Lycurgus in Athens in the 340s may
account for the extant copies. For Aeschylus (died 456) we have to guess the
Identity in heads which were associated with a Homer or Sophocles in Roman
copies [104]; an Olympian figure. Sophocles (died 4o6) is no more secure, but
105

for different reasons. Two types arc known from labelled copies and are not much
like each other. A portrait of the poet was said to have been pa1nted by the mid-
fifth-century artist Polygnotus and to have hung in the Propylaea p1cture gallery
on the Acropolis. This might have been th e basis for a portrait of hnn in his
prime (in his forties) [105]. wh1 le the other [106] is m ore idealized, perhaps the
Lycurgan o n e. Labelled portraits o f Eunpides (died about 406) give a head of
great power [107], also probably Lycurgan but perhaps better based on a portrait
traditi on preserved in painting or some other m edium. A head twice paired in
copies with th e portrait ofthe later poet Menander has been plausibly identified
as t hat of the comic poet Aristophanes, who died about 385 [108]: it h as some-
thing of the comic mask about it but the copies arc weak. The v1cwcr must
provide h1s or her own interpretation of what psych olog1cal nmght the por-
traitist was trying to convey m th ese works.
There could have been no ICOnographic traditions about the appearance of
H o m er, oth er than his blindness. A type which has touches mll of the Early
Classical [109[ might derive from stan1es of Homer and llesiod at O lympia,
dedicated in the 11)id-fifth centur y by Mikythos. A type probably deriving from
the late fourth century [11 0] has more of th e philosopher about him , in keeping
w ith his role in Greek education; the H ell enistic (HS fig.35) makes of him yet
more of a sage.
As well as several unidentified cop1es of portraits which may denvc !Tom
fourth-century types there are also Identified portraits in other media, such as
mosa1c, !Tom which it is not easy to envisage the sc ulptural prototype, if there
was one. Painted portraits of contemporaries by fourth-century artiSts are not
recorded before Alexander: perhaps they were never cop1ed (except m mosaic?)
or never survived. Athlete dedications seem to have remained gen eric; at least
there seem no obvious portrait types on Classical bodies for all t hat Pliny says
that three victories qualified a man for a lifelike statue. On gravestones too there
seem s at best to be a range o f characterization in our period and the heads are
m ainl y idealizing classical. The royal portraits ofMacedon arc well described and
diKussed 111 H S ch.2, and Lysipplll clearly played an important role 111 est.1blish-
in g a type for Alexander , who wa~ ~a1d to have favoured him as h1 ~ portraitist in
sculpture. I show one Alexander, apparently an early portrait and from the
Atheman Acropolis [1 1 1 [, where th e features arc heavily idealized, with mini m al
concession to his characteristic hairstyle and louring u pturned gaze which
appear on later types. See also [38] for a reduced version of a whole figure.
100

.,,
95 Copy ofPb1o. (Gc nn'3)
96 Copy of L}~IU. (N•plcs 6190)
97 Copy ofl'cnandcr. (London 1827)
9b Copy of Pnukos. (Pms)
9'J Copy ofll•». (Yancan)

IOl
101
100 Cop)' ofHerodotus. on .1 double herm \vtth
(101]. (N•plcs 6239)
101 Copy ofThucyd1dcs, !et (wo]. (Naple, 6239)
102 Copy ofXenoph on. (Can-o)
103 Cop)' ofCorinn• (Comple!;J><. H . 0 .48)
104 Copy of Aeschylu!. (N•plcs 6139)
•os Copy ofSophocles. (On« L;Jnsdowne CoU.)
!OS
______________________.........................
..

o6
1o6 Copy ofSophocles. (Van ca n . H e~ght >-04)
107 Copy of Eu np1des; cf. H S fig.z6. (Ikrbn 297)
108 Copy o f An st ophanes? (Bonn)
109 Copy of Homer. (Rome. Barra cco)
I I0 Copy ofHomer. (Rome, c~pnolme 6j)
1 1 1 Alexa nder, from the Acropolts , At hens. (Ac ropolis 133 1)
10R
110
Ill

Chapter Six
FUNERARY SCULPTURE
Athens and Attica
The funerary sculptu re of Athens had a distinguished record in the Archaic
period, unmatched in the rest of Greece (GSAP 162-5), then a bleak, indeed
blank, period dunng the Persian War. and the rebuildmg ofAthens, followed by
an important new ~enes of monuments, begmning about 430, after work on the
Parthenon had been completed (GSCP 183-5). This series continu es 1nto the
fourth century until towards its e nd , when a sumptuary decree by Demetnos
l'oliorketes, who governed Athens 317-307, put an end to lavish display in the
Attic cemeteries. During the fourth century the principa l cemetery of Athcm
became a sc ulptural showplace. It lay outside the western, D1pylon Gate of the
ciry, in the Kerame1kos (potte"rs' quarter) district, with the graves flanking the
mam Dipylon road, and the forked Sacred Way (to Eleusis). This had been a
burial area for half a millennium. Most of the Archa1c monuments had been
overthrown at the time of the Persian W.1rs, many being built into the new
fortifications of Athens. There was to be a simi lar inc ident in the fourth
century after the Greek defeat by the Macedonians at Chaironca in 338, when
Athens expected imminent attack, but 1t seems to have been less destrucuve of
the sculptures than of walls and bases. The latest depredation occurred m
bulldmg the sta rt of the motorway to Eleusis, without the casualties yet bemg
retnevable.
In the Classical period the grave monuments were erected mainly in fam 1ly
plots, marked off by walls and terraces, resulting in a less intimate association of
actual burial and gravestone [11 2]. Those who fell in defence of Athens were
accorded a measure o f h eroic staws and buried in state graves [121-2] along the
ma111 Dipylon road, but could have personal monuments also in their family plot
(as [1 20]). The overall appearance of the cemetery was far more varied than 111
earli er Classical and Archaic times. The fam ily plots must have lent a more land-
scaped air to the whole. Many ofthe relief gravestones were bigger and broader
with near-lifcsize figu res, and they were varied with other monuments, like th e
bull on a pillar [112.J] (the gravestone in front ofit 'vas painted), while the m ore
elaborate plots were laid out in semiCi rcular terraces with low \valls, the main
gravestone at th e centre and the walls or foreground decorated with statues 111
the round. These are commonly pa1rs of animals- dogs [113] or !t ons [JJ4]; or
114
, 1rcns who seem to assu m e the role ofsoul-birds [115-6]; o r mourning women,
crouching, probably slaves [117]; and exceptionally kneehng archers [118].
Although the relationship between the plots was m ore o r less haphazard, the
alignment along the roads, with the ground behi nd filled with other monu-
ments, would have lent a degree of o rder to the ensemble which was probably
not so readily ach1eved by the variety and placing of monuments in a sanctuary.
The conunon range of themes would have been another un1fyin g feature. Yet
the roads beside the graves must have been among the busiest m and out of the
city, ;o the monuments would have made a brave impreSSion on any newcomer;
umque, so far as we can judge, in the Greek world. And the display seems to
have been almost exclusively in marble an d paint, not bronze. There we re oth er
ce meteries outside Athens' other gates, but less important, it seems, and certainly
le« well known to us. There were also cemeteries in the Attic countryside
demes, some ofthem rich, as at Rhamnous.
The grave reli eF.. show the dead as in hfe, which makes 1t possible for the cur-
rently dead and hve to be shown togeth er, though not always readily disnn-
glllsh ed. Many of the simpl er ones arc narrow, with single figures. Most are
broad, with seated figures or groups of sta nding ones. Identifi ca tions from the
grave epitaph s and Inscriptions arc not always easy since n ames can be added on
the occasion of later burials. Where a whole family is shown it does nor mean
that all were dead when the stone was erected, and in many it is a handshake
dl"xtOSJS) that seems symbolically to hnk dead and living. When Demetria died,
.1bout 340, her gravestone showed her seated, holding the hand of h er stand ing
siste r Pamphile. l:lut the stone \vas b roken, perhaps in 338, and pushed to th e
back of th e p lot; and when her sister died too some twenry yea rs later they were
commemorated by a reli efon which they appear side by side, with no handclasp,
and Pamph.ile seated [119[. There arc few added details in su ch fam.ily groups:
so metimes a baby, boxes ofjewellery, a servant or nurse, a hunting dog; the older
men lean on sucks. Background figures arc m the shall owest reh cf, sometimes
b.ucly engraved on th e ground, but all, we must recall, were pamted also.
Men may more often be characterized for their profeSSIOn o r appropriate civic
activity. On [1 2oJ young Dexileos is celebrated with a battle scene and an epitaph
which tells h ow he fell fighting in the front rank at Corinth in 394/3. The sryle
1\ still h eavily H1gh C la ssical. His body would have been interred at the state
grave for horseme n. The finial for this monument has been found [121 ], With
names, includmg hts. It chsplays the elegant new floral embellishment which IS
bcgm ning to invade objects of all scales, including architecture (compare [71).
llorscme n ancf sold1ers who fell that year at Corinth and Coronea (defeats for
Athens and her alli es) had another sta te mon ument, of which we have most of
the relief and some nam es [122]. On later reliefs th e figures may be cut almost
wholl y in the round, and rath er than lymg level with the frame of the re lief, or
even overlapping 1t, they sca nd within ItS proJecting wmgs, as in a box. So, one
ofthe latest monuments shows a storming \varrior, Aristonautes, charging across
115

rising ground, peering out ofhis niche at the passerby ( HS fig.21 7), a fine figure
but a n one too effective substitute for the quieter subjects. Warriors may also
appear w ith a family group, as [12J), where the implication may be of death in
battle and the serong as it were that ofa last farewell.
An athletic 1dentiry had always seemed appropriate for the youthful dead. A
single highly idealized figure appears on (126) with his slave, and a sorrowing
siren as finial; notice the heroicaUy precarious shoulder d ress. The splendid
gravestone fro m n ea r the Ilissos ri ver in Athens [124) has a brawny Lysippan
youth, looking proudly at the passerby, attended by dog and sleeping slave, while
his father contemplates his untimely loss. Major re li efs like this were expensive
and reflected as much on the surviving family's status as on the merits of the
departed. Forgetting this, and responding only to the digniry and very rare inti-
mations of grief indi ca ted in these figures, we would probably have fou n d a
Classical graveyard a far mo re inspiring and even consoling env ironme nt than
most modern ce m eteries, h owever ornate. The modern epitaph, like the
ancient, may sometim es catch the same mood; the monuments neve r. There are
no obvious promises o r threats of what might lie beyond the g rave in a C la ssical
cemetery, si m ply a celebration of life and a quiet record of loss. But the fourth
century begi n s to popularize, even in Attica [125]. the death-feast motif wh ere"
the d ea d reclines as a hero and there are intimations of immortaliry.
Women see m to predominate on th e reliefs, as though th eir sense ofloss, a nd
the grief felt by others at their d ea th, see m ed to deserve special treatment.
Whatever we mayjudge ofthe flimsy evidence for the role ofwomen in Classical
Greece, there can surely be no doubting this demonstration ofthe sympathy and
respect \vith which they could be regarded in a communiry where men held all
the effective political and social power. R!!liefS shO\vin g a woman expiring,
usually in childbirth, are a sort ofheroic analogue to th e males in battle, and rare
en ough anyway. More commonly the women fo rm the major part of a family
group, o r o f a contemplative pair, as in (127) from Athens o r (128) from the Attic
countryside. The baby sh own on [129] could be a quieter intimation of death in
c hildbirth.
Some women are professionals- a priestess ofCybele [1JO] on a base w hich
may have carried another monument. This was probably a marble grave vase in
the shape ofa lekythos or loutrophoros, which by this t ime could equall y serve
as g rave markers, and sometimes th emselves bear small er reli efs [1J1). The
loutrophoroi of amphora shape (two neck handles) are usually fo r m en, the
hydria shape (on e vertical , two side handles) for women, and the implication is
som etimes (not always, h owever) that the dead were unmarried. Examples arc
shown in reli ef on some g ravesto nes [IJ2-J). These, and so m e of the 1impler
o ne-fi gure reliefs, could have been held in stock in masons' studios, requi ring
only the additio n o f an inscription, but we get no impression of any sort ofmass
production o f such sto n es with w holly repetitive figures, so it may be that most
were commissio n ed. This would have given the opportuniry for the more clab-
I16
orate and expensive to allow for m ore accurate indication of other members of
th e fa mily, ali ve or dead. 'I ndication' rather than 'depictio n ', since although this
might seem the obvious place for so mething like true po rtraiture, it is not appar-
ent. The Classical Greek long remained shy ofsuch positive identification in life
or death, w hatever the exhibitionist behaviour o f ruling families elsewh ere.
FinaUy, the early Archaic griffin ca uldrons are re m embered in marble as
crowns for grave-marking pillars, here (134) supported by a capital displaying th e
new architectural o rnam ents of flame palmette and acanthus.
Non-Attic gravestones
In our period Athens rather sets the pattern for th e rest of Greece which had, in
the fifth century, provided the continu ous record of funeral sculpture during
Athens' deliberate withdra,val from the ge nre. O n ly the western Greeks, con-
sidered later in this book, developed funeral sc ulpture of their own. Otherwise
the homeland states, and colonies in th e cast and Bl ac k Sea, offer little to b e di s-
tingui sh ed from the Attic. There was, perhaps, a greater interest in painted stelai,
attested in north Greece and Boeotia- probably m ore economical. And in East
Greece the death-feast motifwas to become especially popular (HS figs .22 4-5).
Monuments
The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus [17] is th e prime fourth-century funeral struc-
ture, a Wonder o f th e World, architecturally elaborate and heavy with sculpture,
m th e round an d in relief. The architecture and sc ulpture are Greek but the form
o f the building is not, o r, more impo rtantly, the idea ofbuilding som ething like
a temple tomb is not. However, we are approaching a time in which th e recent
dead can more readily be heroized and given an appropriate monument, and the
Mausoleu m was to prove an influential model. An early imitation is the smaUe r
Lion Tomb at Cnidus, wh ere the pyramid roof is topped by a recumbent li on.
There is from Attica (Kall ithea, berween Athens and Piraeus) one monument
w hose sculptural composition has something ofthe spir it though not the quality
of Mausolus' romb. It can be seen in Pi raeus Museum but since it has n ot been
even summarily published it ca nno t be shown here, o nly talked about. The main
feature is a high base (podium) crowned by an An1azonomachy fri eze, w hich
re calls the M ausoleum but is novel for homeland G reece in plac in g a mytholog-
ICal su bject ofs.u ch strong po litical connotations o n a private monument. Th"crc
was also a frieze with anim al groups and the crowning feature wa s an elaborate
Ionic naiskos sheltering sta tu es in th e round of fath er, son and attendant .
C onsiderable traces ofpainting are preserved on th e figures and the wh ole mon-
Jment may h ave stood over eight m etres high. lt may have been tolerated as a
or ivate memorial o nly because it was far from the ciry cemeteries. Its occupants,
"J ikeratos and his son Polyxenos, hail from lstros, the Greek ciry near the mouth
117

of th e Danube. This might help explain certain Greco-Persian t rait:s in th e treat-
ment of the an imals.
On bardeficlds the usual monument which celebrated the burial place (the
Athenians normally brough t their dead home) is a lion. The practice starred m
the fifth century, ar Thcspiae 111 13oeotia, bur me most spectacular monument 1s
that on the battlefield of Cha1ronea [135] although it is nor altogether clear
whether it was for the v1ctonous Macedonians or the Theban Sacred Band,
which was w1ped our. Smular m onument:s celebrated Macedonian v1crones or
rhe1r dead, ro as far away as Persia, at Ecbatana.
Sarcophagi
A sarkophagos is litera ll y a flesh-cater, som e li mestones being thought particularly
effective w ith h uman rcmams, though p res u mably only after b eing rendered into
q uicklime; however, the term is applied gener ically ro stone coffins. T h ese arc
essentially t ranslations of wooden coffins, and th eir arch itectural elaboration
copies that offine wooden chest:s. Ston e sa rcoph agi w ith relief decorat ion shou ld
p robably be regarded more at first as copies of what was being made in oth er,
p erishable material, than a separate phenomen on, at least u ntil rl1ey becom e very
common, which is nor until the R.oman period. They also seem more appro-
priate to burial in built chambers than buried in the earth, and such chambers
are more a feature of Anatoha and the east rhan ofthe Greek homeland, at least
until the fourth century. There arc stray examples from the Levant in the ea rly
Iron Age, and several A rch aic and Classical in Cyprus, rather more eastern than
G reek. Elaborately sculptured examples in a pu re G reek sryle appear first only
with the se r ies made for the kings ofSidon in Ph oenicia (sec [zzs-8]). T h ere are
none ofthe Classical pcn od wh1ch seem ro have been made for a Greek bunal,
and the only example aparr from the Sidonian is rath er a puzzle [1]6], in Vienn a.
lt:s findplace 1s not known but both Ephesus and Cyprus are mentioned. It IS
roughly hke the Sidoman bur with important differences. It is carved on all sides,
so for a chamber romb. All sides are decorated with Amazonomachy, b u t the
composition is replicated front an d back, an d for both sides. The sryle is con-
ventional Classical, m poses and dress. It looks old-fashioned beside the
Mausoleum [21[ but is p ro bably later. The repeating o f the compositions is
decidedly odd and seems to imply a full-scale d rawing as guide, w h ich could be
adjusted in detail in the course ofcarv ing to accou nt for the slight discrepan cies.
G reek funerary art of th e fift h and fourth centu r ies is elitist in that it ma inly
served the rich er fam il ies, but it was also conspicuous, on the main approaches
to city gates, fa r more so than the m onuments in san ctuar ies. The dead, or rather
t hei r living survivors, were looking for a measure of recognition an d im m o rta l-
ity in this public display, and not throu gh any excep tional parade ofwealth. This
is not the least of the featu res which mark off classical antiquity from the
common beh aviour ofother an cient cultures.
118
1 1.! Reconstructions ofthree gnvc
pniboloi on the west Str~et ofTomlx
of the Kerarne1kos cemetery at
Athens. 1 - of Dexileos. see IIlo]
2 - ofAg:athon and Sostkr.Hes (nud-
4th cem. mmugr.mts from Her.aklcia
on the Bbck Sea). 3 - of D10np~aos
of Kollytos (still a!"" 346/5; <he
monument 0\.~rturned m 338). The:
stdl" m front was p:amted. (After
Driickner)
1 1;?:.1

I 12,)
Ill
113 Dog, fro m 2 gr.wt monument o n Sab.rms. About JSO. (Mumch 497. L . 0.91)
114 L1on. from a gnv~ monum~nt. probably m Ath~ns. About 380. (Boston 6j.j6j)
"'
11 s Saren wuh lyre, from a gr.wc: monument
m Athens. About )70. (Athens 774. H . o .SJ}
11 6 M o urnmg s:1ren. About JJO. (Boston
OJ.7S7· H.0.37}
11 7 M ournmg V..'Oman (slave), o n e ofa pa1r
&om 2 gra"e monument at MemdJ m Attica.
(Uerhn 499 H. 0.98}
118 Knc~lmg archer m Sc)"t hian dress (one of
a p<Ur) from a grave monument m Athens
(po<sibly lm.Jj}. About 330. (Athens 823.
H. 0.74}
116

119 Gnvestone ofOemetr1a and PJmphtle from Athens. About 320. (Kenme1ku). 11 . 2 .1 S)
120 Gravestone ofDextleos (dted 394/3) from Athens. (Kerametkos. H. 1 .75)

121 FiniaJ to suce gr.lV(: for the cavalry
fallen in 394/3, from Athens. (Athens
754· H . o.so)
T22 Relief from stele for state grave
for the fallen of 394/3. (Ath ens 2744·
W. 1 .03)
123 Gravestone ofProkles and
Proklcides from Ath~ns. About 330.
(Athens 737· H. 1 .80)
124 Gravestone from neu the R"'" llossos. Athens. About JJO. (Athens 8<19. H. 1 .68)

~s (;n\·~tone ofPyrrha;as from Pan.eus. De~th-tl-J\t
About JjO. (Atheru 997. H . 0 .66)
1 6 Gnvenone ofAnstaon from Athcm. He hoh.h a
b•r~t; the slave his sttigil. About J(»>. (Athem 44M7,
HIJM)
1 7 Gravestone of Ktesalam a nd TheJ. u o from Athem.
r1out 38o-36o. (Athem 3472. H. 0.93)
1 )t Grave~tone from R.hamnom 111 Anica, About
·JlO. (Athens 8JJ. ll . 1 .N 1)

About J40. {Athens
129 Gravestone &om Pu·aeus.
8t9. H . L3t)
Priestess ofCybelc, holdmg
I30 Base for funenl v.as~~ beside her. About J70.
npanon and wnh her IOn
{bxford 19l9.203. 11· 0 ·79)
1 k ·thos of Anstomache at Athens.
IJI Gravo-ee3>~ (On \Uc)
About 34
·
h
f P~naltl~ from Atheru WJt
IJ2 Gravestone ~dsh<~ke reliefwuh h?rsenun,
loutrophoros (h> d I kythot (chtld wtth play-
elder andsb.ve) b:: e 6o (Athens 884.
wheel rehef). A ut 3 ·
W.o.82)
fi nent w1th reli ef
IJ3 Gra\<-estonc ~~ldlcs decorated wit~
loutrophorosh, the About 320. (Cambndge
yout hs w1th oops.
GR 1.1964. H .0.47)
ahnette and acanthus
134 Griffin ca~ldro'-;-~~ ;nffins are cast from a
pilbr, from At ;~~·en bck.mg us bowl. About
comparable spe6 fzo 11. about 1.6o)
350. {Athens 3 19 ·

135 L1on nurkmg tomb at battlefield of Cha1mnc;a (HM). (On
sue. H .s.s. on phnth 11 J.O)
IJ6. 1,2 Sucoph3gus; Amuonom.K hy About 315. (Vicnn3 J()'(J
W. of front 2.6.$)
Chapter Seven
OTHER RELIEFS
Vo tive Reliefs
U nhke the record reliefS, comidered below, these arc nor a wholly Athenian phe-
JOmenon, alth ough Attica is the n chesr and most varied so urce. They also
ollow the pattern ofthe fifth century (GSCP figs. 168-76) with more variety of
content than form. Most are simple rectangles with a ca rved 'roof' of tile ends,
,nd arc set in a slot at th e top of a rectangular pillar or arc fas tened by a tenon.
I'he ensemble is to be seen on some of them I142 !. Some refinemen ts arc su g-
~c>ted by the new ways of treating grave reliefs, su ch as the 'wind ow' in whi ch
devam subsidiary figures may appear, which we sec also on the record relief
15 1]. Exceptionally, a big composite group is created with th e deity in a naiskos
hrinc, carved almost in the round, and th e worsh ippers rendered in a se parate
idd which is atta ched 1'47]; this recalls the more elaborate grave mon umen ts.
'\nother new form is the cave or grotto !146!. T h is IS conu1101li y, but not exclu-
·ely, used for ded~eaoon in mo re rustic se ttings, and recipients o r attendants arc
'iermes and the nymphs. Pan, and the river-god Achcloos (or at least, the
\chcloos form of man-bull which can pel'ionify other rivers), or just an
Achcloos mask (cf. GSCP fig. 176). The addition of so much more by way of
·1dscape and furniture to the s1mplc presentation of gods and worshippers is
smdy to be expla ined by the greater pronunence allowed such features in \vall
d panel painting of the day. The archltec!Ural frame in wh ich most Classical
lief> arc set has no greater re levance to the subj ect than does th e decoration of
tcrday pic!Ure frames. It was as natural a \Ya}' of presenting or completing the
10 numenr as were the floral terminals 011 Arch aic gravestones.
Sometimes, as before, just the god or gods arc shown: rhus, Asklepios and
Hygie ia on [1J7l. the probable Asklcpios of[ IJSI (not necessa rily a votive rather
l .111 architectural), or the Apollinc fam.ily [139]. l.lctwecn deities the libation
11otif, with jug and phiale, in dicates fellows hi p !1 4o-1 ]. Worshippers - those
ho have made the offering - arc shown at reduced scale an d often in some
11um bers, som etimes with th e paraph ernalia of a sacr ifice or wo rship I143, 147].
N•"'W or n ewly popu lar d eities attract novel scen es, especially those of h ea li ng.
nph iaraos was a h ero (one ofthe Seven against Thcbcs) who beca me a h ealing
I ·ro at Oropos in Attica and so is shown like an Asklepios. On [142] the h eal ed
A ·hmos stands right, but is also shown bemg tended by th e god at tl1 e left, an d,
IJI

at the centre, beside a pillar-a nd-slab like the o n e he h as offered, he lies in the
sanc tuary b eing visited by t he divine healing snake. The whole story of the
episode is related unde r eyes se t on the roof which resemble body- part offe ri ngs
made at healing shnnes. From reliefS of this type we are able to judge w hat
the occasion for the dedication might have been, which is n ot tru e of ordmary
sce n es of offc nng o r sacrifi ce, unless the inscription is specifi c. [143], from the
Black Sea colony of Panticapaeum, must celebrate initiation a t Elcus•s by an
emigre.
There ISseldom much indication ofse tti ng b ut it is easy to underestimate what
might have been rendered in paint on the backgrounds. A small group ofrchcfs
for H cracles sh ow a columnar shrme (144] which seems assoc iated with the h ero,
not o nly in Athens (cf. ARFH 11 figs.346,385). On (14.5) the h ero IS shown m a
more sta tu ary type, and th e size of the boy le ading the bull to h1m suggests that
h e is to be identifi ed as n on-human also.
ReliefS showing a hero receiving wo rs hippers from his cou ch (k/iu e)(as GSCP
figs.44,170) arc more commonly now rese rved fo r gravestones, soon to be their
normal role. The recipie nts are ge n erally he roes , not gods, bu t may be gods with
h eroic or chthon ic fu n ctions, even a Zeus Philios (148] . Others so honoured arc
Asklepios an d other h ealers, Piuto, the Dioskouroi, Dionysos. A consort seated
on the cou ch end and a b oy \yith wine crater arc th e usual accom paniment, with
the expected reduced worshippers.
Hundreds of these votive reliefs h ave survived. Hundre ds more, so handy in
siz e and shape, must have been rend ered into lime sin ce antiquity, or were carved
in perishable wood. Only th e best now emerge from museum storerooms onto
display, and some indeed are of very high quality, no doubt the work of sculp-
tors otherwise employed o n major statuary for buildings o r dedication. In many
classical sanctuar ies they were su rel y the most num erous scu lptural offe rin gs and,
painted up, stood hke a forest of m a rk ers along the paths, or set in walls, no less
instructive and emertammg, and far more colourful, than the sm all inscribed
memorials that mll grace the inte rio rs of many of our c hurc hes.
Record Relief s
T h e fifth-century Atheman tradition of providing a v ignette ofsy mbo li c fi gures
at the top of an insc r ibed stele to illustrate the decree re corded beneath it (GSCP
figs. 177--9) continu es, with variations. Pe rsonifications of citi es, in the form of
their tut elary gods, persist b eside new personifications ofth e p eople (the Demos)
a s a n eld e rly man [149 , 1.50]. 13ut on (1 .50] democ ra cy h erself (Demokratia) is
shown crowning Demos, marki ng a decree favo uring defenders ofdemocracy-
aimed at supporters of Philip 11 o f Ma cedon w h o had just defea ted the Greeks
at Chai ron ea. Honorary decrees may now show the honora nds, on their own as
ifin lieu of an hon orific statue, or diminished, in the company ofthe appropri-
ate local deities [1 .51[, rather as on ordina ry vo tive reliefS. Alth ough these reliefs
132
arc datable to a year they offer very little info rmation of chron ological val u e
about style rathe r than iconography, espec ially ofdivimties.
Relief Bases
Even bronze sta t ues were normally d1splayed on marbl e bases a nd the more con-
sp icuous o f these ca rried re lief decoranon. If this was ever of applique m etal
figure> th e evide n ce has proved elus ive. Some are un prcss1ve, but most are linle
more than relevant footno tes to the fi gures they supported. But the first relief
base I show [152] bore, not a statue, but a bronze tripod prize for som e theatri-
cal success, displayed on the slopes of the Acropolis, somewhere near th e
Ly>ic rates m onument [16] wh1ch performed the same function in a n architec-
tural fo rm. More closel y comparable in function, perhaps, is the D elphi
Acanthus Column (1.5). The fi gures on the Athens base are a Dionysos, god o f
the theatre, and two Victor ies, w ith ph iale and jug like the women on the
Parthenon east fri eze (GSCP fig .94), intim ating success; the style an d execution
are 1mposm g.
A m onu m ental statu e ba se with reliefs for Praxiteles' group of Apoll o and
fa mily at Mantinea has been considered already [28], its su bject, ApoUo and
Marsyas w ith Muses, ap propriate to th e group; al so a tripod bas e signed by
Uryaxis [31]. The Athens Acropolis naturaUy attracted noble statuary dedi cations,
· 1va Uin g those ofthe national san ctuaries. [1.53[ supported a bronze group dedi-
. lted by the ch o regos Atarbos, who had sponsored the competition for
~yrrichists, a r m ed dan cers, who appear to th e right. The repetitive figures are
•ppropriate to the su bject but not to C lassical art w hi ch prefers to introduce
rnore compositional variety. Such monume nts are commonly datable by the
nag•strate's (a rc hon\) name upon th em; here un ce rtain ty of both reading and
. nterpretation leaves a choice ofdates - 366, 329, 323- the later being the more
rkcly.
Another Acropolis base brings us into the period of Lysipp us and demon-
<\ rates th e compositional variety JUSt mentioned (HS fig.45). The exercising
rthlctes are the Apoxyomenos [3.5] in actio n . More intimately Lysippan is the
•ase to his bronze statue of the athlete Poulydamas at Olympia (HS fig.46) with
'cenes ofthe athlete's achievements. The spirited li on hunt on a c urved base from
Messene (1.54] has unmistakable Macedon ian royal traits and has naturally been
thought to prese nt figures from the g ro u p made by Lysippus and Leochares fo r
Delph i, th ough. it was probably carved much late r.
133

137 Votive rehefto Asklep1m and lly~ieia
About 360. {Hava na , I agunilbs. 11 . o .6o)
138 R elief(vori ve?) from Ep1d au rus show1ng
a ~C'ated god. probably A~klep1m. About JHO.
(Athens 17). H . o .64)
l
A
Vonvc rchef showmg Apollo ( cf. i .Jol),
HI\ ami their mother Lcto. I :ncr 4th
1Athcn< 3917. H. 0.61)
~ Vom·e rehef lO Apollo, with kulura,
Ar «nm filhng his phiale. Between t hem
th Delphic omphalos (navd stone) and the
t\ u clgles of Zeus that located n . About
1• (Sparu 468. H. 0 .46)

141 Vot:Jv~: rt:ll~:f to Cybdc, \e~ted,
holdmg her ryrnpanon (tlu drum)
and a pluale to be filled by
H erm~(?). Between them Kore
wuh torch and be')1de Cybele her
hon. About J70. (Berlm K 100
c." m Oxford. If. O.J6)
142 Vonve reliefto Ampluano'),
from Ompos, ded1cated by
Archinos. Abour 380. (Athcm
JJ69. H . 0.49)
1 o Voove reliefto lJemeter. Kore be1i1de her and at the nght youn g Her.tdes. The man between must
be the in itiate, only the t'\vo attendams be111g markedJy rc:dutcd 1n SIZe. AU hold ntual tor chi!'). From
P.mucap;,.e um. About 400. (St Petenburg P.m. 160. If O.J6)
144 Vonve n-ltefto H er.tcles AJextblm (averter ofevtl, so \vordupped m Athens), wnh Hermes, bes1de
.tt·olunuur shrine. About 370. (Bo~ton 96.6<)6. H . O.SJ)

141 Vou,·e rebefto ller>cle.. (Athem. Epigr.Mus. 394>)
14(1 Vot1ve rehefdcdKOltcd by Ncoptolemo~. The figures lre Dc:m<-ter, Apollo. Artenus.
llermC'\ Hlvm~ the mf.mt D1ony'lh to three nymphs, P;m and traces ofAc.:heJoo,; Zeu~
«Jt<d >hove. About JJO. (Agora I 7154)
1.17 Vouve monument to AsklepiO!I, seated Jt left wuh llygJcta and Epaone (Ins consort); slave wJth
r nfioal p1g and '':orsh1ppers 111 the \Cparonc frieze: Hecatc Jnd .a hcrm on the short sJdes, not shown.
Fro m the 'ihrme on the muth do~ ofthe At:I'O}Xlla\. About HO. (Athem 1377. W 0.95)
q:-; Vonve rehefto Zem Ph1llo.,, fmm P•ratu\. {CopcnhJgen. Ny Culsberg :!J4. 11 . 043)

149 R ecord rehefofa trc:aty between Athem J.nd Corcyn: Zeus (or
Dem os), C o rcyra and Arhena. 375/4. (Athens 1467. H . 0.37)
150 lt~cord rd..1ef. The people (Demos) crowned by Dcm ocn cy. 337/6.
(Athcm, Agora I 6524 W. 0.41)
1 s1 Rec:ord rch effo r d~uee
ho n oun ng Euphn~ and Dept<X,
from Pu-aem. In a box above the
honoran <h, Pan, J ll}1nphs ami
H~rmes wuh cornucopia. T he
DUJOr dem~ arc A\klept<X and
13endfi, th e Thr.actan Artenw
whose cult had been mtroducecJ
to Athens by about 400. 3291g.
(Copenh agen. Ny Cnlsberg 23 t .
w. 0 .45)
152 Tnpod b:&~c from Athens.
D10nysos wnh b mh~ros ~nd
thyrsos; two N tka t, wnh
oinoc hoe ( not li hown ), and
ph~ale. About 340. ( Ath e m 1463
11. I.JO)
I<!

1 H Sutue b.1o.e dedu:.lted b)· At.lrbo~. from the Acropolis. On the left blcxk (abov(' .1nd the fi~t fibrtii"C'
on the nght) a cvchc chorm; at the nght P}Trhtc dancer>. J20S. (Acropobs tJJ8. H . 0 .32}
r54 Uasc from Me<"'icnc; hon hunt. jrd cent. (P.u1s 858. H . 0.59)
PART 11. TH E WESTERN GREEKS
Chapter Eight
IN T RODUCTION
South Ital y and Sic il y - Magna Graccta, Great Greece - were rhe earliest and
most prosperous of t he Greek colomzmg areas. The great cities of Syracuse,
Selinus, Acragas, T arentum, had been founded before 700 B<., and the process of
building new cities had nor ceased in the sixth century. The chal lenge of
Phoeni cian Carthage (Tunisia), which waxed strong as the Greek cities also grew,
was met; the Etruscans in central-north Italy had proved uneasy but profi table
neighbours; Rome had yet to stake tts claim to Italy. The land was ferti le and the
seas gave access to mineral wea lth beyond. The colonies we re new, in dependent
cit ies, with the ir own assemblies, tyrants, and aristocratic families, a nd the links
with their mother citi es depended more on convenience and sentiment than
political, commercial or military necessity. Life and manners we re Greek, only
superficially in fluenced by displaced native peoples, and the life and arts of the
homeland citi es were emulated.
The colonists lacked nothing that money or cheap labour could procure, but
111 the arts there was some dependence on the import of finished goods and, to
lesser degree, the immigration of artists. Some western traditions in the arts
were to develop well and march or even outshmc those ofthe homeland, notably
1n rhe lmmry arts which travel well m rc n m of objects, materials and crafts-
men. The finer decorated clay pottery was unportcd bur there were some
dMi nguished local schools, especially m the fourth century. Architecture was
1mbt tious and we can detect p nnctples of construction and design which
•)On become the hallmark of the Western G reeks.
The major sculpture we know mainly from the architecture, and more 111
· rms ofmetopal decoration than pedtmcnral (the temples were Doric but details
111d minor monuments often Ionic). J>rovmctal is the epithet that naturally
omes to mind when we look at it, bur this is often unjust. Western rulers we re
Ltvish in their dedications to the homeland sanctuaries, especia ll y Olympia. The
rrhJtecrure of the Treasuries they dedicated there has a strong weste rn fla vou r,
Htt the sc ulpture is the work ofPcloponne;ian artists (e.g., GSA P fi g.215), espc-
· •ally Argive and Aeginetan where their nam es arc recorded, and not easily
•natched in the dedi cators' home cities, wh ere only P ythagoras, an immigrant
rom Samos, could claim an international reputation (CSCP 79) . The Delphi
luriotcer (CSCP fig. 34) was the gift ofa western ruler, and there were many
hers.
143

There arc some fine works in the west, of course, and of these som e may
reflect a true western tradition and not a first-generation immigrant style, but
the idioms of the architectural sculpture seem almost eo have developed inde-
pendently, not closely tied to any of the mainland schools or, if related at all,
related to sculptural styles which are not architectural or which seem to hark
back to pnnetples of earlier days - almost residual Daedalic in some cases, to
Judge from the frontal postures and odd proportions. Indeed, stories ofthe myth-
icaiDaedalus hnnsclfwere attached to som e primitive western works. Mere ISO-
lati on from homeland fashions, glimpsed in imported works in other media, may
account for much; also, for all the apparent wealth ofsc ulpture from at least som e
colonial sanctuanes, the comparative dearth of demand; and probably th e lack
ofwell established teaching studios where a dominant master could set and exact
standards. There must always have been more sculptors and craftsmen per capita
of the population m the h omeland than in the western colonies. This led to an
element ofinbreeding ofstyles and an almost once-offcharacter for many ofthe
architectural assemblages. We h ave more names of hom eland sculptor s worki n g
in the west th an ofh ome-born western sculptors, and no per so n al styles or even
works of importance can be identified.
Some common characteristics of western style have been detected, more
convincingly as the Archai~ is left behind, since in the later seventh and sixth
centuries we m 1gh t b e in almost any corner of the Greek world away from thl!
main centres. What common features do develop must be attributed to the
influence of teaching studios and masters.
Material problems also influenced style and taste. The fact that fine wlute
marble was not available from western quarries acted against the practice of the
subtler carvmg techmques and contributed to the sometimes crude carving and
simple linear, decoranve effect of much of the work. Marble could eas1ly be
imported from Greece, m 6mshed works or in blocks, as ballast, but 1t seldom
was; oth erwise much more would surely have been used on the more preten-
tious architecture. The lack ofa native studio tradition in working marble mig ht
have snfled the demand. The marble that did come was often used sparingly, and
this accounts for the peculiarly (though not exclusive) western fondness for
acrolith ic statuary - fl esh parts marble, the rest limestone or wood. This also
accounts for the widespread use of clay for major sculpture in the west. lt \vas
certainly not u n known in th e homeland (GSAP figs.120, 186; GSCP figs.p. · -J)
where Cor inthian artists were leading exponents. Corinthian art \vas infl uential
in the west, and there were obvious and good reasons for clay stawary to become
popular there too. This readiness fo r work in clay m ay have influenced work in
stone, encou raging a softer, puffier, more p lastic style, which has been detected
by some scholars especially in South Italian wor k. Whether or not this is true,
the clay sc u lpture of th e Western Greeks repays attention in any study of sc ulp-
ture ofthe region, whatever its scale. In the later Archaic per iod more East Greek
influence may be detected - the result of the diaspora of Ionian artists that had
such profound effect from Athens to Etruria and farther west, and in South Italy
attested by the foundation of Elea by the Phocaeans in 540 BC.
In this part of the book the sc ulpture is considered by type rather than site,
.1lthough m the chapter on architectural sculpture we move from site to site, since
1t IS in this field that any local characteristics might most easily be discerned. The
other main heads are - other sculpture m local stone, m the round or relief;
marble sculpture incluchng 1mpom (not always readily detectable); acroliths;
bronze and clay sculpture; and finally a bnefconsideration of Greek sculptural
styles practised for non-Creek neighbours in Etruria and R ome.
ETRURIA
TYRRHENIAN
~
R Sliarts t__
Paqstum v
SEA
G+mentum
lUCAN lA
"'
M~dma.&.
00
V
~ Hi~~ra-/ 0 Locri
0 Alotya
0
+Rhqg,um
\0
SICILY
\.--./
S.lin us-...... ,_
+ 0 Catanla
. "-.A
+ k,L~ont1ru
Acra9,1S Y"-.
T-t IMgara Hyblaea
Gel a =$-\ ts~ Syracuse
~m<nae
South Italy and Sicil y
SEA
10NIAN
SEA
+ Archaic
0 Classical
mdic<~ring the princip011J sources of Archa1c and CLassical Greek sculpture
d1scussed m th1s volume.

Chapter Nine
ARCHITECTURAL SCULPTURE
The dominant type of stone sculpture on the buildings of the west is metopal.
Only clay offers a medium for a yet wider variety of architectural decoration.
Sixth-century pediments at several western sites, especially in Sicily, including
Selinus (for Temple C [155]), were decorated with large, shallow-reliefgorgoneia
executed in painted clay and recalling the use of the same motif in pediments of
the homeland (with the whole figure at Corfu, GSAP fig. 187, and cf. figs. 188,
192), but there is very little other certain pedimental decoration from the west.
The clay revetmcnts framing the pediments and gutters were, however, the most
ornate and colourful of the Greek world. The heyday for Western Greek archi-
tectural sculpture was the Archaic and Early Classical periods and there is little
ofsignificance later.
•
SELl NUS offers three major Archaic groups ofmetopes and one Early Classical,
as well as scraps. This is a little surprising since it was the remotest colony (in the
south west) and one ofthe latest (founded about 625 se) in Sicily, pressed by the
Phoenicians who had occupied western Sicily and eventually siding with them.
On the ground it was an extensive and prosperous city and the site remains most
impressive. The Selinus temples arc generally referred to by letters and attribu -
tions to deities are uncertain, but C might be for Apollo, E for Hera, FS for
Athcna.
Ofthe Archaic groups of metopes the more primitive two\'{ and C) have suf-
fered an extreme range ofdating by scholars. There is a tendency to spread dates
because the disparity of style seems to some unacceptable if they are near-con-
temporary or placed too close to the third Archaic group (FS). All the disparity
may indicate is the total absence of any lasting local sculptural tradition. Masons
were brought in for each project, with their own styles and background training
and experience, influenced perhaps only by instructions about subjects to be
carved, though even this may be questioned. Dates must be suggested by termi11i
post quos, suggested by comparison with homeland styles and iconography.
From Temple Y we have six substantial metopes [156] and some fragments.
Three have carved and painted mouldings at the top while at least one other has
not, but it may have been painted only, or come from the less finished back of
the builtling. Congruity of size and style determine the group. The figures are
big-headed, tiny-handed, with emphatic features, and there is much linear pat-
terning on bodies, once enhanced with colour. The facing heads and hairstyles
arc old-fashioned whatever the date. Much is hardly more than drawing with
the background cut away, and I see the craftsmen as masons and draughtsmen
called upon to execute these smal.l reliefs (the carved part only about 6 .5 cm high)
as a special commission. The hem folds ofdress on [156.6] must be later than 550.
Uroader stylistic comparisons with works of homeland schools (as [156.z] with
the Sicyonian Europa at Delphi, GSAP fig. 208.3) are meaningless. T he Selinus
artist seeks his effect by a combination offormulae- exaggeration ofproportion
tn favour ofheads, linear detail, frontality -long exploited in other media, espe-
cially at small scale, but by this date abandoned in the homeland stutlios.
From Temple C we have three nearly complete meropes and several fragments
[157], apparently from the back and front of the builtling; in the pediment the
clay gorgon head was 2.75 m h igh. The proportions and frontality ofthe metope
figures recall Temple Y but th e general style is utterly different and their assured
~tolidity suggests a hand with an effective stone-sculptural training. The relief is
24 cm deep and the figures are conceived virrually in the round. [157-J ], with
the frontal chariot, is a parricularly bold work and very deep cut, perhaps un-
necessarily so considering how the m aster of the Sicyonian Treasury at Delphi
(GSAP fig. 208.1) dealt with a frontal horse on a metope. The Selinus mason
had more to learn about illusion in reliefand his horses are awkward beasts. The
narrative vigour of the other two mctopes is undeniable, well composed and
more memorable even in detail than any of the metopes from Temple Y. T he
dress ofPer seus and Athena [157 .1] , especially the double stacked folds of the
former's tunic, must be later than about 525, and so should the anatomy pat-
tcrning. i t has been suggested that the dress was recut on the building, but it is
very hard to imagine what could have occasioned such a trivial adjustm ent. Still,
the difference between Y and C may be more one of temperament than date.
From Temple FS, of about 500 DC or later, there are large pieces of two
metopes with a Gigantomachy (158]. On one Athena downs a g iant (Enkelados)
who throws his head back, gaping, eyes dimmed, in a fine theatrical gesture. On
the other the rather overdressed deity may be Dionysos and the composition h as
less verve. T he figures are almost in the round, strongly and competently carved.
There is rather an over-emphasis on linear pattern - Dionysos' d ress, Enkclados'
beard and helmet - and if we could see them complete we nlight have judged
them unduly fussy for metopes; contrast the better balanced detail on the sljghtly
later Athenian Treasury at Delphi (GSAP fig. 213). A more pronlising effect,
though with some ofthe same faults, is given by a metope from an unidentified
temple at Seli!lus, with a pursuit [159], and there arc two badly bartered
slabs (not, perhaps, necessarily from an lonk frieze as h as been assumed) w ith a
probable Amazonomachy.
The last architectural complex at Selinus, from Temple E, is also the latest of
unporcan ce from any Western G reek site. Five near-complete metopes are pre-
served (four in [160]) and they afford us our first glimpse in this chapter of the
acrolithic technique, since the exposed flesh parts of the women {bu t not the
147

men!) arc carved in white marble set into the usual rathe r coarse lim es t one. This
is a fully developed Severe Style, revealed more in posture (th e Artemis and He ra)
and heads (especially the Zeus and H era, cf. GSCP figs. JJ, 35-6) than in the
treatment of dress w he re there is still much Archaic linear pattern (notably o n
Athena), w h1l e the fighting compositions too have more of the Late Archaic (as
on the Atheman Treasury at Delphi) than of the more nea rly contemporary
Olymp1a. The mood of the Zeus and Hera metope is decidedly Olymp1an and
the Artemis recalls the Athena o f the Olympia m etopes (GSCP fig. 2J.1 -J)
despite the very different ethos each should portray- h e re revenge, at Olympia
compass ion and aid. Comparisons with Olympia are inevitable - indeed the
Selinus metopes may also have been se t on the porches rather than th e fa~ades
of the building- but despite the depth of rel.ief the effect remains more pictor-
ial th an sculptu ral, and th e opportunities offered by the nude torsos ofthe giant
and Zeus are not par ti c ularly well taken. Notice that all subjects invo lve a con-
frontation ofthe sexes; so m e have seen here an express ion of Pyth agor ea n views
o n the cosmos. (Pythagoras the ph ilosopher/ mathematician was rathe r o lder
than his namesake sculptor, both ofthem imrn.igrants from Samos.)
Finall y, there are tiny figures of a reclin.ing [161] and a seated wom an which
are in the round, in marble, and possibly from the pediment ofa sm all stru cture
or m onu m ent, found at the D e m etcr Malophoros sanc tuary outside Selinus' city
walls. The style is Severe or little lat er, sub-Olympian.
A m ore prolific ifless varied so urce ofwes te rn architectural scu lpture h as been
the H era ion n ear the mouth of the RIVER Sn.ARIS (Foce del Sele), just north of
Paesrum (Posidonia) in South Italy. This too was a late foundation , later even
than Selinus, but far less isolated both in terms of pote ntially hostile n eighbou rs
and passing trade routes.
From the fim Temple of H era (so metimes called Treasury) thirty-five com-
plete or mai nly intellig1ble metopes have survived, with fragme nts ofthree oth ers
(16z.1] and some possible re pla cemen ts made around 400 BC. Each is un usual ly
cut in one block with 1ts neigh bour triglyph. This must be n ea rly the full com-
plem e nt for the buildi ng and prese n ts some problems of architectural restoration
which need n or concern us since it offers oruy the sl.ighres r indication of the
pla cing ofany m etope. The lates t study suggests fift ee n metopes along each si d e,
six across each end. The wealth of mythological subjects they offer, H e ra clean
and ma ny others, includes so me sha red by other weste rn sc ulpture or clearly of
western o rigin. Any cohe rent program me which explains th e choice rema ins
elusive. Some subjects arc demonstrably appropriate for H cra; the oth ers, ipso
facto, m ust also b e, even though we cannot readily fathom the reason. T h e style
is di stinctive, u n pretentious but with st rong na rrative ap peal , compositionally
success fu l if unambitio us, d es pite much of th e u n usual subj ect matte r. H eads are
large, fe atures and limbs pl u mp and puffy. The modelled look naturally su ggests
the coroplast, but th is is not m ere ly the product of clay m odellers mrned sculp-
tors and th ere is a pl easing and forceful un.ity ofstyle which grows o n the viewer,
particularl y if he does not draw too detailed comparisons with contemporary
work in marble of the Greek homeland. Within t heir lirn.its th ey are far more
assured works than the metopes of Selinus Y, which must be close in date. The
small bronze shi eld-band relicti; of the Peloponnese ha ve been compared with
them. I su spect they may m ore closely resemble Corimhia n painted clay
metopes, plastically rendered. Several are only blocked o ut, unfinished, and the
detail upon them must have been rendered 1n paint, if at all . So m e architectural
feat u res ofthe building are in complete tOO, so it must have been assembled in a
hurry or ran short of funds, or both. For several subjects th e action is continued
across the intervening triglyphs, as o n the Delphi Treasuries.
From the later Templ e of He ra at the River Silaris, at the end ofthe century,
there are eight near-complete mcropcs (163] and some fragm ents. Most show
pairs of dan cing/running women and one a fight , perhaps an Am azonomac hy.
All owing for the d ifference in dare there is more in common \vith the earlier
metopes he re than there was any stylisti c unity or su ccess ion to be perceived in
the Selinus series. Proportions are only sligh tl y improved and there is still the
rather doughy quality which is conununicarcd eve n to th e dress with its L1te
Archaic pattern.i ng of stac ked fo lds and zigzag h ems. T h ere is more detail too in
hair and dress, less left to pain t. An oth er exa m pl e, then, of an unpretentious,
decorati ve style, with more unity of theme than is usual in mctope se ries. T his
must have lent a m ore fri eze-like effect to the entablatu re o f the bui ldin g.
There is little other Arc hai c architectural sculpture in stone worth remark
here: the colossal Telamon es which decorated the exterio r of the Late Archai c
Temple of Zeus at Acragas (164] ; and the cl aims of the giant [1 73] and warrior
[186] to be from pediments h ave to be borne in mind. There is little, but good
sculpture preserved from the temple built at Hnnera to celebrate the victory over
the Carrhagin.ians In 480; an d there are scraps of a Late Archaic limeston e
pediment \vith a fight from the Te mpl e of Apollo Lykeios at Metapontum. I
show a relief clay metope from a building at Rhegium (R eggio) [165] mairuy to
rern.ind th e r eader what architectural reliefsc ulpture looks like when the paint is
preserved; but notice that the background h ere is light, nor dark as is usually
assumed and sometimes d emonstrable for the stone reliefs.
The Classical rulers ofthe western cities were oruy little less ambitious in their
arc hitecture than their predecessors, but the sculptural decoration has b een
sparsely pre se r ved. An Ionic temple at Locr i has ma rble akroteria showing horse-
men dismou nting, supported by Trirons [166] . Both the action and the support
look odd to us though they are found elsewhere in the Greek world (the Triton
support on the' Parth enon, GSCP fig. 77), bur there is a stiff naivety about the
groups. A clay horseman of th e same size, supported by a mass ive sphi nx,
appeared on another temple near Locri at about this time [167]; it looks ungainly,
ill-proportioned , at va r ian ce with its essentially Classical style. But the clay and
stone lion-head spou ts from two western buildings [ 1 68--s~J rern.in d us what co n-
su mmate scu lptors of an.imal subjects Greeks could be.
149

155 Clay revetments and rehefgor.,;oneton
(restored) from the pedunent of· l"'cmpl e C,
Selinus. About 530. (Palcrmo. H . ofgorgoncton
about 2.75)
156.1
IC.6 .1
I sf> Metopes from Temple Y, Selmus.
1 Iwo figures (Demctc r and Korc, 1f
both are women; but perhaps a h~ and
cc sort) m a chan o t , the second figure
dl !.J" ed to the n ght , off-unrrc. They
p.d the muzzles ofthe r.llmpant trace
h01sn .u either stde. whach a~ borrowed
from hcr2ldic scenes, ""'nhout chan ocs.
1 E uropa on the BuD. dolpluns
henC".Ith. The better p~n~d surUce on
P>rts ofthe body (patch below Europa'•
rt ght hand) nuy mdtcatc the pbc111g of
p.nnt rna~~ - so the bull wa.o; dappled
3 "'iphtn...'<. 4 (not shown) - Her.tdes and
the Bull (a Cretan subject, as was
[ JTnpa). 5 - ApoUo w1th lyre and
"" ;nged boou; Leto with a wreath;
Art emt<. w ith a bow and arrow (missmg) .
6 I hree godd~ses, two crowned,
ho!.hng flowers or spinning. Sandst o n e.
Aho ut lS<>-JO . (Palen!to. H. 0.84)
I~6.~

157.1
157-2
157 M~to~ from Temple C. Selinus. 1- Athen~ supports Perseus as he dec01p1~tcs Meduu, who cbsps
to her s1de h er child PegilSOS. Perseus wean h 1s cap ofcbrkness and nug:ac wmged boots. 2 - Hencl~
carno the robber Kerkopcs from 2 yoke. 3 - A god 111 front~ clunot. B ehind, at e1ther s1de, ru'O fif,rures,
one cert~mly female. Perh:tps Apollo. Artenus and Leto. There are fragmentS ofa nother metopc wtth a
fronul cha n ot, of one With 211 Ollttack, and a f~cmg hclmeted head. Sandstone. About sJcrl o . (P:tlermo.
H. 1.47)
157.)
1 j 1.2 Metopes from Temple
F"i Sdmus. 1 - AthenJ. :md gtant.
l
)eonysos (?) 011nd g~ant.
(1
. rone. About jCI0-490-
(I'llmno 3909. H . pr<>erved
0.8 ... , the metope:s w·ere nude 111
"' >bb.)
159 Mctopc from Sel mus. A goddess
pursuf!4< a youth: Eos and Kephalos?
Lnnestone. SCI0-490- (Palermo 3903-
H. o .62)

160.1
16o Metopes from Temple E, Selmm. 1 Athe1t:a and g.ant (nurblc: her feet, :Jegts gorgoneton
(missmg)). 2- Hen.cles and Amazon wuh battle axe (nu.rble: her feet \\-,th hlS toes, face, hand!i).
3 - Anemi4i and Aku1on torn by h1s dOb'"i (nurble: her f.1ce. fore::trm, feet). 4 - lien unveils henelf to
Zeus who ukes her \\TI\1 (marble: her fo~cC', arms, feet). A 6fih metope nuy have Apollo punumg
Daphne. Lnn~tone With marble. About 47o-6o. (P.1lermo. l-1. 1 .62)
"I R.cchmng figure from Sc-lmus.
P K~tbly from a ~~;mall ped1mcnt. ~hrble.
:\bout 46o. (l'>iermo)

I~
'
.
'
'
'
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
M -~m~
38
18
ZJ
37
~~ ~~
28
29
24
zs
31
~~
36
27
f!J33
23
162.1
162.2 Metope 12
162.3 M<1opc q
162.5 Mecope 27
162.6 Metopc 29
162.7 Metope 38
162.1 "'""7 Mctopcs from the Hcn~on, Silans. The pbcmg .tnd adcntlf'ic.auon ofthe metopcs h~ occasioned
o n\lderablc spc-cubnon. I gav~ here the pubhshed mnnbc-n ofthe relic& .11nd group them numly thcnuuc.illy.
Re-.tored part'S and nUSSlng surf:r.cn are shaded. Most , ..·ere bwlt uuo bter structum but 29 was found at the sw
, orner ofthe bwldmg. so 28+29 nuy ha'e been towo1nls thew end ofthe south face. 1 , ..- as found at the SE
t. orner and should be at the lefi end of a sequence, and 4 at the £, su~ung 1 ~ for the east fot.(:ade. 8, 9, 30. 31
and 27 ha ...e a red pamted H on them and mtght go together, .11nd addmg 7 (for 8+9) nuke a poss1ble wnt fa~ade.
I hu gt\"n a H eraclcs O\"Cr the temple door a.nd the hcro's deeds accow1t for <tt le;ast half the mctopcs. They MC
prncnt~ here m the order- H er.acle;a.n; other tdenufhblc or andc~ndetH subj«ts; other wuh different
po»1ble associanoru.
fl,y«kJ (= H .): 1-6 - Pholos the hon cenuur bchand H 'hooong down 1tt1ckmg centaurs. ?-9- H en
· ounges H . to n:1ist h ..." O pa~rs of;a.tuckmg s;a.tyn (horse-legs. 111 lonun fc1ture); 1 rare subject. cf ARFH I
V- lSl -1 . 10+11 - H . protects De1~netra from the ;m;~clmg ccnuur Euryuon. 12- H . selZes ApoUo's trtpod;
f. ABFH fig. 228. IJ- H . c>rro<i the robbc• Kc.kopc1; cf I•Jpland A lJf'H fig. 234. 14 - H . dchven the
ynunth11n bc»r onto Kmg Eurysthew; cf. ABI 'JI fig. 191, CSAP fig. 26o. IS- H . \\- -rntles Antai05? 16 - H.
&}lu the L10n. 17- H . fights a centaur (if N~SOi we ~xpcct .tm~tope \\-tth Dci~nc&ra rescued); cf. ARFH I
g. 74 - 38 - H . fights a gtant (probably not t\lkyon~us; there: ;a.re smuJ;u o n Velopormesian Weld-bands).
'1~ttt Tro;an mbjtcts: 18 - Achilles m .1mbush ((or Trotl~. on .1 I05t metope?); cf. ABFII6g. H · 2 1 -Hect or l dls
1trokJos; lus corselet- he 1.$ holding tt- w.l$ struck offby ApoUo. 37- AJ .lx conmuts smcide.
Jtlu-r Sltnts: 28+29- ApoUo and Artenw ' hoot Tityos who h.1s ~1zed thetr mother Leto; cf. ABFH fi g. 59 ·
4+25 ~A woman rcstraim axe-swmgmg Klyutmn~tn from Orcstes who ts lulhng Aigisthos, takmg refug~ :u ;a
olunm (an anicom c Hera?) JO+J • -Two men punuc t\\"0 women (Dtoskourot and Lculopptdlt?). 36 -
nyphos, demon-ndden (Thanatos?), trundles hts boulder uphill m H2des. 27- O dysst"us ndes 2 turtle, 2 subject
•tet 111 lt.aly. 32- A nun wtth ratsed hands m a c;a.uldron: Pelops cooked by Tant~los, o r Agamemnon or Mmos
111 Stctly) killed m a bath, or Pelias o r Jason (an all eged fo under of the H cr.uon) bei ng rejuvenated. 26 - Fight of
- 11 1 and serpent: Hencles .and se r pent/ ! t ydr1 , or Ore~tcs ('K) wnh 24+2.5) or lxion attacked by a snake Fury.
Wmgcd detty carrymg a sundtsc: I l~rmes o r Im or Em or an onenuhz.m g Hclios. 19-Seated god wuh
u~d a rm: Zeus Wtlh thunderbolt, perh1 ps ltte tldulg one ofthe other scenes. 22+l3- M ou rnmg women,
rte carrym g a child: posstbly at Troy, so Andronuche w tth Astyan.lX. 33 - T\\.'0 women Oee, one holding phtale.
4(110l shown) - fr. with part of a bull (Europ.1?).
111on proposed the idemificanon of four fa mous smncrs, add mg l xton (26) and Tanta1os (32) to the ccrum
\yphos (36) and Tityos (28+29), wuh Lcus (19) th re.ltenHlg 'll.Ju <llos; pbcmg these SlX on the cast fa~.ade. Van
·uren assembles groups much as here, wtth expbzuoons for others onuued a.nd pbus.tble pbcmg on the
~dmg.
"Ulttbtone About SJO. (P.ll~tum. H t. 0 .79)

I6J.I,Z M etopes from beer Her.uon, Sd;ms. Seve n are qmte weU preserved w1th pa1rs of runnmg
women, o ne wnh o nl y one; another has~ fight, posstbly Amazonomachy. The women show some alarm,
so nught be Ncrenh fleemg from the encounter of Hcncl~ and Nerem of whom there IS no sagn.
Sandstone About soo. (Paestum. H . c . 0 .85)
(-
flifr
(_
r6p
-
---
-
-
-
164 R econstruction of part of the "l emple ofZew at Acraga~
showing the at t<~chcd g1ant (fclamoncs) fit:.'llres, each 7.65 high .
About 4 80-
165 Cby metope from temple ilt Rhegmm. About 530. (R cgg10.
Wo_I)CS)

166 H orsem~n (010skouros?) d1smountmg. supported by Traton . Akroterion from Locri. About 420.
(Rcgg•o u;.ll.1.30)
167 Cby horscm>n (Dioskouros?) supported by splunx, from pcdnncnt (?) of
temple near Locn. About 400. (R egg10. H 1 30)
16 Cby lion-head spout from M~upontum. About 450.
(l':
,.,)
If)( l to n- head spout from Hunera. About 475·
(P no. H .0.4;)

Chapter Ten
OTHER SCULPTUR E
Loca l stone
Several Archa1c works, though few of much merit, in local stone demonstrate
rather better than the architectural sculpture both the extent to which the
western studios succeeded in creating versions ofthe basic scu lptural types fami l-
iar in the homeland, and some real measure oflocal style, even of idiosync ra sy.
T he poor quality of the stone would have been largely disguised by paint, and
on some pie~es a finer stucco layer, such as was used also on some architecture,
might have provided a better surface.
Late Dacdalic figures a rc represe nted by pieces in Sicily, from Gela and M egara
H yblaea, with fcaturelc~s dress, bm the sixth-century korai arc a more ambiti ous
series. The master of the Laganello head [170) is within hailing distance of the
artists of the early Attic kouroi. The flat checks, confident bulgy hair, patterned
ear, level gaze through arched li ds, achieve a quality which many a homeland
studio might not readily match. But if these may be the hallmarks of an immi-
grant artist, other figure~ betray a less balanced approach to detail and a certain
rawness ofexecut•on. Best among the ea rlie r pieces are the kore from Gela (171),
recalling the pre-chnon-dresssed korai of Greece, and the upper part ofanother
from Casmenae (171], attached to her ground like the 13oeotian Dcrmys and
K.ittylos (GSAP fig. 66). For more developed kotai we have to turn to work in
m arble, and the figures so far mentioned seem to represent the end of an early
Archaic series rather than precursors of korai such as we meet in the homeland
-
though not, of course, m the Peloponnese which seems to have set the stan-
dards for most western work.
Sclinus offers some more distinguished later Archaic work in local stone: part
ofa woman's head and a fine head and trunk of a man [173] which some schol-
ars see as from the pediment of one of the great temples (G T?). This challenges
the quality of the mctopcs from Temple FS (1 58).
There arc oth er, c ruder Archaic pi eces such as warriors from the h cll cnizc d
native town at Grammichclc in Sicily, but the most remarkabl e stawc in th e
round is th e great kourotroplros (nursin g mother) from M ega ra Hyb laea I174],
whose striking appearance is not to be explained by provinciality or incompe-
tence or native influence. lt gives an almost overwhelming impression of
embrace m its overlapping, clinging planes - the throne, the cloak sweeping
around the twins, the eager hands pressed to swelling breasts answering the big
reassuring hands cradling their swaddled bodies. Stone was perhaps not the
artist's natural medium and he has triumphed over its solidity, but we look in
vain for the work of any Sicilian coroplast to match this palpable expression of
t he feel ofbodies rather than their mere shape. From the succeed ing period there
are some Severe Style heads ofmerit from Acragas and Selinus, but the archaism
JJeS hard.
For non-architectural reliefsculpwre m loca l stone the record is sl ight but dis-
mguished. A relief[175] from Monte S.Mauro (west ofSyracuse) is hardly more
than a good copy of Corinthian vase painting, ofthe second quarter ofthe sixth
cntury, on stone with the backg round cut away. The cemetery at Megara
4yblaea provides some fine relief monuments, though none in the style of the
ko urotroplros. Soon after the mid-century is a bold, high relief oftwo horsemen
r iding sid e by side, and perhaps in the 520~ a shallow relief ofa horseman in an
>dd architectural se tting whi ch transplan ts t ri glyphs to be pedime nt decoration
176]. Detail is cri sp and fine , despite the material, and the hand more assured
ban that of the apparently near-contemporary metopes from Selinus. At Selinus
here are la te Archaic reli efs which look more like na r rative decoration, eve n if
1o t metopes, than stelai fo r a cemetery: two slabs of an Amazo nomachy (?), a
m an-meets-girl pursuit rathe r than dance [177], and a horsema n and faUi ng
,, ·arrior. All the pieces mentioned arc small scale works in comparison with
homeland stclai and eve n the monumental kourotroplros [174) was only 78 cm
lgh. Of the pieces illuStrated only the LagancUo head rI 70I is roughly lifesize,
nd we have to turn to marble for works in the west at homeland scale.
Towa rds th e very end of our period begins an important series of reliefS
rvmg the cemeteries of Tarentum, sometimes o n impressive architectural
nonuments (see H S J8Jf.) . The style of most is weU embedded in Classical
>rms; I show one to make the pomt (178].
Marble
hlte marble had to be imported to the west. That there were hands w hich
>Uld work it effectively is clear from the marble inserts on the Selinus metopes
6o], but finished works travel easily enough, and, no less eas il y, partly finis h ed
»O rks which were accompanied by th eir a rtist (the usual practice in Archaic
(.recce as the evi dence of t he island quarries shows; GSAP 18-19). T he tech-
' 1ques ofcutti!Jg marble need to be taught if work of quality is to be achieved,
""' the recurrent problem with marb le sta tu es in the west is to determine
whethe r the work is essentially h omeland Greek (imported o r by a visiting or
•mnligram artist) or the product of a locally established school. It is not made
e ·•e r by the acquisition by Romans of Greek marble originals in late r years.
Heads from Acragas seem to show that there may have been work in marble
c., :c uted in the west in the first half of the sixth century (179). They arc from

kouroi, but the other marble kouroi from the west, of the mid-century to Late
Archaic, are all (barely a dozen pieces) ofa quality and style not readily matched
by local work in other materials and therefore to be regarded as probable imports.
One of the earliest is the grave kouros [18o] bearing the name of Doctor
Sombrotidas from Megara Hyblaea (cf. GSAP fig. 102). The best of the others
are also the latest, verging on the Early Classical in date if not style, smce the
new relaxed poses are not adopted. I show a head and body [181] from Lcomini
(they may belong together) and a figure from Acragas [182]- not strictly a kouros
since the arms are held away from the body to hold offerin~ or attributes.
Anoth er late work, from Syracuse, is a kouros with his back and flanks swathed
in a cloak. The possibili ty that some of these were made in the west cannot be
excluded: it m ight expla in why some seem advanced in anatomical detail but not
in posture.
The few korai found in th e west add little. All are quite late. None arc obvi-
ously of local manuf.1cntrc, and an u nfinished exam ple in Tarcmum [183] does
not in itself prove anything about where the wor k was initiated; in deed it was
foun d out-of-town a n d seems n ever to have a rrived at its intended site for com-
pletion. There is also the occasional sphinx, like the h omeland dedicat ions o r
g rave markers; even a marble Nike from Syra cuse li ke the Acropolis ones ([184]
cf., but n ot for style, GSA P fig. 167), but, if this is fo r the Athcn a temple built
to celebrate victory over Carthage, it is later th an 480 BC. I n the Archaic per iod
o u r problem is more li kely to be answered by work which had obviously been
commissioned for a specific local purpose, and not these stock, por table, home-
land sculprural types.
The most srrik.ing single marble figure is the seated goddess in Berlin from
Tarentum [185). Her dress is still wholly Archaic in conception but already
becom1ng mannered; close enough to the dress of the Athena from the later of
the Aegma pcdtmcnts (cf. GSAP fig. 2o6) for scholars to declare her the work
of an Acgin etan sculptor or ar least of Aeginetan parentage. Athena's head is
similar too, but that ofthe seated goddess is also u n mistakably Severe 111 style. It
is a dull but wholly competent work, n ot enlivened by its various triv1al asym-
metries and owmg noth ing very obvious to any western rraditions.
Far more impressive is the torso of a fighting \var rior from Acragas f186],
w hose head has probably been rightly identified, a n d which might well be fro m
a pedimental com position - if so, one to set beside the best fro m Greece, already
suppler rhan the Aeginetan warriors and again unmistakably Severe in treatment
ofthe head. Other Severe Style sculpture in marble includes a male head from
Selinus, several female, incl udi n g a fine spec imen from Temp le E (b ut probably
not from a metopc), and som e small peplop horoi from Pa estum and Sclinu s.
Marble sculptures in th e west in what appea rs a purely homelan d Greek style
all present problems. Least difficult are th e pediments and pedimental figures
taken to Rom e (GSAP fig. 205.1; GSCPfigs. 133-4). We can not be su re ofrhc
origin of the Ludovisi Throne (GSCP fig. 46). The finest of the Greek marbles
m the west was found at Motya, th e west S icilian Ph oen.ician city, in 1979 [187).
It is of a youth in a long, girt costume, standing in a relaxed, advanced Early
Classical pose, his dress supple in the \vay it clings to and swings a\vay from his
body. Some have doubted its early date, buc th is is because it is such a rarity in
being an original marble of prime quality for th e period, and therefore better
comparable with surviving major bronzes. Attempts tO identify here a
Phoen.ician priest or even Dacdalus are unconvm cmg, not least because it is hard
to believe that a Phoenician would have a priest in other than an hieratic pose,
even at this date and made by a Greek. H e looks m ore like a charioteer with
,!Jghtly unorthodox dress, a n d nught then be loot from a Sicilian city. Selinus
and Acragas, for example, were sacked by Phoenicrans in the later fifth century,
1nd statues were taken from Hm1era and Acragas. This would make th e Motya
youth a near successor to the bronze charioteer dedicated at Delphi by anoth er
w estern victor (GSCP fig. 34).
Acroliths
fhe use ofa different m aterial for the flesh part offigures is m ost familiar from
.he use of ivory, from th e Archaic period (GSAP figs. 51, 127) on to the g reat
Classical chrysclep ha n tine c u lt statues (GSCP 12, 1Io-I, 203-4; and above,
~hapter One). For these th e rest ofrhe figure was wooden, rarely perhaps ofter-
acotta, with gold cladding. Pieces ofArcha ic acrolithic stat ues a re reported now
ro m Morgantina in Sicily. At Selinus we have seen marble set in the poorer local
to ne on the metopes ofTemple E [16o]. and there is sometimes doubt wherhcr
~ads often regarded as acrolnhs were similarly employed or may even have been
• 1o untcd as heads alone. In the former carcgory are marble h eads from Paesntm
,fabout 500. More substanrial is the Ludovisi Head [188], an Early Classical work
though some suspect it ofbemg a late copy) wh1ch was found in R.ome but is
:cnerally regarded as having been made in South Italy or Sicily and compared,
'r derails of hair (the crown) and shallow facial profile, with sculpture from
cragas, especially the kouros [182] whrch may not, of course, have been made
cally. There is a lot ofwor k in this head but the impression it makes is weak
·1 d 1t fails, somehow, to achieve monumental presence despite its more than life
rze. The head of a goddess in the Vatican r189). perhaps slightly later th an the
Ludovisi, is also probably western Greek. On this and th e next to be considered
11<! hair was added separately, un like th e Ludovisi Head.
The most important of the western acroliths arc the h ead, feet and part ofa
and from th e temple ofApollo Alaios at Krimisa (between Kroton a n d Sybaris)
90]. 1t can be restored as a seated Apollo playing a kithara, but the distinct Ven us
rn gs look very feminine. Separate bronze locks were attached to the h ead . Parr
uf a bronze wig found near by l191l does not, however, fit, though it demon-
ra tes the type of attachm ent pmsrblc for such statues and is clearly earl y
( lass ical. The marble h ead is noble, vcrgmg on th e Classical, and by the tim e it

was made we may believe that there were western studios ofsome com petence
and tradition in marble which might have created such a confident work.
Difficulties in datm g (even Hadrianic has been suggested) may be in part th e
result ofthe unusual hieratic quality of th ese acrolithic figures, for wh ich home-
land comparanda are hard to find.
T h e greatest ofthe western acroliths is also near-complete since the body parrs
were carved 111 softer ston e and are preserved [192]. lt is a portly figure, proba-
bly a Dcmetcr, whose marble head looks rather small because 1t lacks the cloak
drawn up over it like a hood. The mass of the body and faU of the dress recall
the late fifth-century Aphrodite from the Athenian Agora (CSCP fig. 136) and
the style is such that we may well imagine a sculptor invited from the Greek
h omeland to ca rve h er; at least, there is nothi ng else of th is quality and monu-
m entality to be seen so fa r 111 Western Greek work of this date. (For acroh th
successors sec HS 206, 240.)
Bronze and Clay
South Ita lian studios were busy in the production offi n e small bronzes - vessels,
their cast attachments, and fi gurin es - from at least th e Late Arch aic period on.
Small bronzes, o f course, are both valuable and readily porta ble. lt is d1fficult not
to believe that t he splendid Zeus from Ugentum (at the very heel of Italy) is not
prime Late Arc haic Spartan work, wherever cast [193]. But there are Archa1c and
Early C lassical works which bear a d istin ctly local stamp. A littl e Archaic kouros
from Medma [194[ IS decidedly a local lad, with h is bulgy locks and shallow
profile; so too, probably, the Grumcntum horseman [195], more fo r h1s propor-
tions than the tcchruquc, which is superb. T he Castelvetran o youth [196], from
a Selinus cemetery, is more ambitious in style and techmque - too ambitious,
one m1ght say, smce the artist had serious problems with scale (the tiny hands,
the skull) and the posture IS ungainly. The h ead can be compared with the
Aktaion of Temple E (16o.J]. There is a number ofsmaller cast statucnes ofath -
letes, Early Classical, wh1c h are often attributed to th e west. One from Adrano
(near Catania 111 Sic1ly) is a local find, and its inlaid eyes and shallow profile g1ve
it a non-homeland air [197[. Tarentum, a Spartan colony, follows its mother city's
tradition in the production of fine bronzes (cf. (193]?) and is one of the candi-
dates for being the source ofthe great Vi.x crater (GOfig.261).
The tech niq ues o f ma.~or clay sc ulpture had been ca r ried west as early as th e
seventh cen tu ry, to Etru r ia (see n ext section). Farther south th ere is a seated Late
Arch aic figu re from Pacst um f198) an d many excellent archi tectural terracottas
from South Italy and Sicily, for which more direct Corinthian inspiration m ay
b e assumed. T he satyr head from Gela [1 99] is a fi ne sculptural study, but simply
one ofa set, mould- made , th at se rved as gargoyles. There were also major figures
and g ro u ps o n temple roofs (notably riders, cf. (166--7]), a ph enomenon m ore
comm on in Etruna than in th e Greek homeland; and a wide range ofclay rel ief
166
work fo r altars of variou s sizes [zoo [. Even smaUcr figures h ave a distinction not
1 Jways so apparent in homeland work. The best are Early Classical, major so u rces
hcing Medm a [201] and Locri in South Italy, bu t th ey seem generaUy popular
'"ith western Greeks and the fact th at most arc mould-made seems not to have
nhibited their modellers in devoti ng considerable care to th eir production. lt is
h" devotion to design and execution that justifies th e inclusion here ofaUusion
10 the clay votive reliefs [zoz], best known from Locri, again m ainly Early
Classical. T h ey are assumed to be of Locrian production (two clay types are
•bscrved in the finds) but are found in other western sanctuaries and their o rig-
•Jal source might be elsewhere.
In the fifth century Greek m odcUi n g styles th at expressed the growing inter-
.,t in realism might be expected to have flourished also in the west, but the
natomical experiments of Late Archaic Greek scul pture fou n d little response
here. Yet, if marble was lackin g in the west there \vas always clay, a nd the more
·"pensive bronze, as well as the fun ds to procure it. Out we awai t discovery of
he m:Yor bronzes of th e west. If th e Riace bronzes (GSCP fi gs.38 --9) were
mdecd m ade and disp layed in the west, as a few have thought, then th ey m ust
he the work ofvisiting m asters.
Etruria and Early Rome
Tha major, and most of th e minor sculpture ofearly Etru ria and Rom e is tota.lly
. lependcnt on Greek example. T h at t h is was dependent on th e presence ofG reek
r tists is amply demonstrated by other media (pa1nted vases, bronzes, gem
· n graving) but it is less easy for us to detect sculpture executed locally by Greeks.
We are told that in the mid seventh century the Corimhian Demaratus erni-
ratcd to Etru ria (Ta rquinia) where he made good, and was accompanied by clay
ulptors, Eucheir, D1opos and Eugrammos, who Introduced their craft, which
·ertainly thereafter flourished. The Connthian mflucncc becomes ove rlaid by
.ast Greek in the sixth cenmry, very readily apparent in the sculpture, an d there-
Iter changes in h omeland Greek styles arc Intermittently observed, though there
was a tendency to cling to any style once adopted. The naked goddess from
O rvie10 (2o3] is in Greek marble (very rare m Etnoria) and very probably the
wk ofa Greek but the pose and th e frank nudity indicate Etruscan patronage
nd it is excep ti onal. Early R ome accepted Etruscan standards in th e visual arts,
'U t we hear of Greeks, Damophilos and Gorgasos, providing clay sculpture for
he Temple ofCcrcs in the earl y fifth century, an d R ome ofthe (Greek) Classical
period can claim some m ajor works in clay of fin e Greek style [zo4]. While the
rt ruscans were always active patrons of Greek art, th eir own artists absorbed
nou gh of Greek styles and tech n iqu es for it to be difficult o n occasion to be
11 re of th e 'nationality' of the artists; n or does it really m atter, g iven that th e
ource of inspiration and instruction is always apparent.

170 I lead (maJc or fema le?) from Laganello, Syracu\e. I Jmc\tone.
58<>-70 . (Syrocu<c. H . 0 .55)
171 Kore h oldtn.,; a wreath, from Gcla . Ltmcstonc. About 560.
(Gel> 8~10. 11. 0.38)
172 Kore holdmg a dove, from Dsmenae. C .uved wuh
background :md hc~dp•ece, shaped to the body, .and the \\1ngs'
~•de the hcul no doubt oncc p:unted wuh volute> . lun~rone.
57<>-00 . (Syncu'< 47041 H. 0 .45)
173 Tono ('gtant') from Sclinus. L•mcstone. About soo. (Palermo
3891 H 0.40)
174 Woman suck.hng twJm (kourotrophos) from the cemetery, Mcgara Hyblaea. Limestone.
Later 6th cent. (Syra cuse 5323 4· H . 0 .78)

'75
175 Rdu:f from Monte S.Mauro. Top fr1eu
rukcd t.l .mcmg men (kom.asts); below, rwo
'Phmxo, the feathering of thear wmgs hnked by .1
double p.t1mette. limestone. .S?.s-sso . (Syracu\C
JOii<J H. o.S4)
17<1 \tj·le w1th :a horseman, triglyphs 111 the
pcdnnent, from the cemetery, M egara Hybl.aea.
lnnenone. uo--zo. (Syncuse. H . 1 .1 S)
•n Rdief. man pursumg g •rl. se1zmg h er left
\houllt"r (f-l ades and Persephone?) from Sehnm
Lun llnt'. About 500. (Palcrmo. 11 O.,St)

178 Rdt~ffrom Tarc=ntum. Mournmg M:ene ;n 1n alur, poss1bly mythologtc.tl. Limestone.
About 320-300 . (New York 29.54. H 0.59)
179 Kouro~ head from Acragas. Marble. 57o-56o.
(AgngentoS 51. 11. O.t j)
180 Kouros from the ceme,ery, M egara HyblaeJ..
l ns.c nbed on the leg 'OfSombroudas the doctor, son
ofMandrokles' M>rblc. 55<>-540. (Syr:~cuse 49401.
H . 1.19)
t81. 1,2 H c>d (ovrr I".\'<) and body (probably bclongmg)
ofa kouros from Leomm1. Marble. Late 6th cent. (he1d
-
C.tam> t , H . 0.2j; body Syr:~cuse 23624. H . t .OJ)
r!h 1

18u llead
182 Kourm from Acngas. M arble. 490-480.
(Agrogemo. H . 1 .10)
183 Unfimshed kore from Tare ntum. Marble.
(Tar.m10 2092). 11 . 1.29)
1R4 Nike from Syncuse; possibly an akroten on
from the Temple ofA thena. M .ublc. About
48<>-70 . (Syr.ocuK 11 o.73)

185.1 'lkrbn Se>~ed Godd=' liom Tuenrum. Poss1bly a culr St>lue. Marble. 470-6<>.
(Uerhn 1761. H. 1.51)
186 Warnor from Acrngas. Head and body probably
belong. The righc arm was made sepanrdy and swung
f<1r back with its weapon. The shield too must have
been pulled back from the body. Perhaps :1 coUJpsmg
fib•ure trymg to defend hunself. Helmet cheek p1eces
broken aw.lly. Marble. About 470. (Agrigemo
217+0077. H. of head 0.26, oftorso o.6J)
187 Youth from Motya. Marble. About 400. (Morya
H. 1 .81)

188 'Ludovm He:~d' ofa goddeso, probably acroh th.
Small holes along the foreh~d suggcs[ ;m addmorul row
ofbronze locks. Marble. 48()-?0 . (R.ome, Terme.
11 o.8J)
189 'Varic<~n Head' ofa goddess, us ually taken for
Athcru bu t perhaps With a dtffercnt he;address. Bronze
eyebshes. grey 1nbid stone eyes. Acrohth Marble
4"70-00. (Vatican. H . 0.44)
II)O.J
190 Head o f 'Apollo' fiom temple o f Apollo Ab•os at
Knnu~. Bronze locks lud been atuched. T he fee t and
put ofa ha nd are preserved; restored as a seated Apollo
w1th k1thu~. Ac roht h . M arble. About 450. (Reggto.
H 0.39)
19().2
'9
1
a, lU wig 6-om a nurble statu e :ill Knn usa. About 450. (R eggJO. 0 .27 X 0.18)

192.1,2 C ult suruc ofa goddess (Dcmcter?). L1mestone wtth nurblc head, arnu and feet.
La t< Sth cent. (M•hbu 88.AA.76. H . 2 .37)

193-2
193 Bronze Zeus from Ugcntum, once holdmg an eagle
and thunderbolt. Mounted on a Doric column. About soo.
(Taranoo 121327. H. 0 .75)
194 Bronze statuette from Mcdma. 575· so. (Rome, pnvatc
11. 0.14)
195 Uronze horseman from Grumcntum. I hs helmet h01d a
transverse crest. About 550. (London 1904 ?-·). 1 . H . O .lS,
feet restored)
19)-1
19<'1 JHclvetrano youth', bronze from Sehnm. lie nuy once have held a plualt-. 47o-6o.
(Pole, 10. H. o.84) •
1S97 hon7c athlete from Adrano, posstbly holdmg::. phtale: the eyes were mlatd. About 46<>.
( '"' \C. H. 0.19)

199
198 Cb.y seated god (Zcus?) from a "'OU\>e p1t at P~cstum
About po. (Paestum. H . 0 .90)
199 Clay roofantefi x from Gcla. About 490· (Geb.
11. 0 .20)
200 C lay altar fro m Locri. l leroic duel. Abo ut 520.
(Regg10 6498. H . O.J 1)
20 1 Clay head from Medma. Abo ut 46o. (Regg•o. 11 . O.lj)
202 Clay vonve plaque from s;~. nctuary of Pen ephone and
Aphrodltc at Locri. Hades and Persephone. About 460.
(Reggto. H . 0.28)
20<.

lOJ Goddc-s\ fiom th~ Camc~Ua t~mple at Orv1eto. Marbl~. Later
(,th c ent. (Orv1eto IJO']. H. 0.73)
204 Cby he>d from the Esquiline, Rome. 35<>-25. (OxfordS.'_
H. 0.29)
PART Ill. GREEK SCULPTURE TO
EAST AND SOUT H
Chapter Eleve n
ANA T OLIA
1he Arch aic sculptors of th e East Greek world, along the western coastline of
1\,natolia (Turkey) and especially m lonia, played an mfluential role in the devcl-
·1pment ofsc ulptural styles not only m their homeland but in mainland Greece
1nd even farther afield. This was especia lly true after the diaspora of artists that
o llowed the absorption of most of their homes in the Persian Empire in the
, mddle years of the sixth ce ntury RC. The Anatolian peoples who were the
Greeks' inland neighbours had been well aware of their neighbour Greeks long
b efore. In the case of the estab lished kingdoms of the north, Phrygia an d Lyd ia,
the relationship became in places that of master and client o r even serf, and in
t he first halfof the sixth century most of the Ionian Greeks on the central coast,
t xcept in the islands, owed some measure ofallegiance to the Lydian kings, and
the cultural flow was two-way. Relations with the more southerly kingdoms of
·ana and Lycia were better and the Greeks seem to have been the dominant
. m ner, ifonly culturally. All these kingdoms. as well as those Greek stares dom-
ulated by Lydia, fell with in the bounds of the Persian Empire by about 540, and
te grea ter part of Greek sculptural activity m non-Greek areas dates to the
t'crsian period. This is an indication of the generally relaxed character of the
,·rsians' r ule (except when they were challenged) as well as of the pervasive
•fluence of Archaic Greek art.
The native kingdoms, and m places the l'crstamzed courts, employed Greek
· ulptors mainly for funerary sculpture. In the Classical period the style is almost
ure Greek and betrays little provinc1ahry, while the subject matter seems to owe
c )mparatively little to its non-Creek environment. On earlier works, however,
•n d on the so-called Greco-Persian, the style may seem raw and provincial, and
u Lycia it looks al most like Greek apprentice work for an indiscriminate foreign
employer who had dictated t he subjects. On gravestones in the north the style
" as much provincial Persian as provi ncia l Greek, and the subject matter non-
<. rcck, altho ugh the form of the monuments and the appearance of ma ny of th e
figures upon them arc strongly hcllcn izcd. Indeed, some may be Greek stelai
'' n h the usual Late Archaic palmettc anthcmia, recut with reliefS on the shaft
\•·h ich, in East Greece unlike t he mainland, was usually left plain (GSAP 162-3).
On characterization of Persians (rather than portraiture, perhaps) in Anatolia sec
c·scp fig.245 (coin).
--------------------~---------------------

From PuRYGIA there IS a two-s1dcd stele (a spcciah ty of the north-cast Greek
rcg1on, 1t seems) from Doryla1on [205], purely Greek m 1ts execuuon and subject
mancr even if executed for a non-Greck's grave. The Grcco-Persian stclai are
mamly from near the Persian d istrict capital at Daskylion and need not delay us.
The reliefS are shaDow, the style cha racterless, th e subjects - cortege, feast,
animals an d animal fights- som etimes disposed in two reg1sters [zo6]. Most are
fifth-cen tury. Greek styles penetrated farther into Phrygia, out of Greek hands
(GO figs. 103-6).
LYOIA of the early sixth century was closely involved in Greek affairs. T he
court at Sardis was a byword fo r luxury, Sappho's young women coveted its
finery, Alcaeus (the poet of Lesbos) and his political friends coveted its gold, and
lt was golden Croesus, benef.1ctor of Greek temples, that was the last of the
Lydian k ings, deposed by Persia in 546. In the seventh and early sixth centuries
the ivory-workers ofLydia and loma are barely distingUishable (GSAPfigs.5 1 -4,
88). In stone we fin d palmette-stclai li ke the Greek, and fro m Sardis a Kybele
sh rin e where the goddess stan ds like a rath er awkward kore of the new style,
wearing the Ionian chiton and ma ntle [207]. This must be from early years of
Persian occupation yet seem s to owe not hin g to tl1 e interests oft he conquerors.
The style an d type of al m ost all t he other sculptural monuments - relief stelai
(one wit h a frontal youth carved almost in t he round), a kou ros, korc, ma ny lions
-
are far closer to those of th e1r G reek neighbours than to any so far found in
other Anatolian kingdoms. We have to be cautious about dismissing tratlitional
arts m Anatolia, but their expressiOn in ston e in the sixth century does seem to
be heavily conditioned by th e example of the Greeks on the coast. CARIA has
little important to offer us until the fourth century, as we have seen, and then in
a purely Greek, h omeland style on th e Mausoleum [tJ-22].
LYCIA, in south west Anatolia, offers a rich and inform at ive record of G reek
sculptors working fo r fo reign neigh bours. The hilly, diffi cult cou ntry h ad been
reached by Greek goods by about 700. Access was principally fro m the south on
a coast n ot settled by th e Greeks th ough they sailed an d settled f.1rth er east. But
t he inland Lycian capital ofXanthos provides a fascinating scncs of relief sculp-
tures of Greek type from arou nd the mid-sixth century on. Hcrodotus says t he
Persians sacked Xamhos m about 540. T he sculptures come from tombs but these
were free-standing monuments, with reliefs decorating th e grave chambers set
on h1gh ston e pillars, some ofthem within th e city limits. T he earl iest, ofwhich
the m ost notable is th e Lion Tomb [zo8]. are commonly dated around 550 or
earlter but it is more li kely that th ey all belong to a new period of prosperity
inaugurat ed by Persian ru le, whi ch m ay even have served t o open up th e area to
the recruitment of Ionian c raftsmen, m any of whom were also by then from
Pcrsian-dominated t owns. We arc approaching t he period in which the Persian
Kmg was recru iti ng East Greek, Lydian a nd Carian masons to work in Persia
Itself. 13 ut the style of the carving is rough. The hump-necked lions are Lat e
Archaic, the human figures of hunters and warriors barely Greek, their heads
188
certainly more oriental than sub-Daedalic, and G reek features such as t he
corselet type on [209] hardly as early as 550 even 111 Greece. We should perhaps
JUdge these early reli efS m ore Creek-inspired than Greek-executed.
At lsinda there was a comb of similar but slightly more advanced style [ztoj.
The figure relief is still flat and featureless and the subjects of th ree sides - war-
nors with captured shields and piled bod ies, and h unting scenes, are of eastern
or Anatolian inspiration, but the party and contestants on the fourth side are
more Greek in spi r it and to some degree also in execution, the lusty bodies of
the wrestlers being well observed thou gh not very carefuUy re ndered. There are
·omparable monuments to these at Trysa and Gli rscs, and at Xanthos a piece
With a fine r re n dering of these subjects and style.
The best known ofthe Archaic monuments from Xanthos is the Harpy Tomb
. vhose sculptures, with those from oth er Late Archa1c tombs, were brought to
he British Museum m the last century [211 ]. The style 1s pure East Greek, latest
J\rchaic, and of a quality that betrays a Greek han d. The portly fi gures demon-
. trate that tenden cy towards individual character ization which had been appar-
·nt in ea rl ier East Greek sculpt ure (GSAP 87-8, 16o-1). T he su bjects are
· xplicable in G reek terms- o fferings t o deities and pe rhaps th e dead man, and
he sirens (not, strictly, H arpies) carrying fema le souls. Adva nced elem ents,
•erhaps, are some details of dress, the feat ures of women and sirens which are
·lose to Severe in style, an d th e provision of h uman breasts for the sirens. The
1earby acropolis of Xanthos was, accordi ng to the excavators, swept by fi re in
bout 470. T he monument is in good contlition and 1t IS tempting to date it after
l,e fire, the date and extent of which require closer defin it ion. In Greek terms
'le work is hardly later than about 480. Slightly earli er perhaps IS a tomb mon-
Iment of tlifferent and m ore Greek type from Loryma [z 1z]. a stele base dcco-
lted on its sh ort sides w ith excell ent animal studies in a style m et at Xanthos as
wcU as in oth er Greco-oriental areas such as Cyprus (on coi n s and gem s) .
T h e Severe Style sc ulpture of Xanthos comes from a terrace j ust north of the
ropolis which carried th ree tower m onu ments, imitating t imber forms, two of
1cm with high-pit ched, convex roofS w h ich could accommodate petlimental
· ltefs ofrather different proportions to those familiar m Greece (and pctlimen-
'Culpture \vaS 1101 a feature of East Greek buildings). T he Lycian builtlings are
I Ke tombs but may have been lreroa, focuses of worslup. The shape will appear
a sarcophagus at Sidon [zz6]. Builtling H had sphinxes in the gables (ZtJ]. Their
I ·ads and hair are utterly Severe and t he provision of human breasts a novelty
Jr the monsters (compare th e si rens of [2 11)). On Building G whi ch was flat-
t <•pped an d m us t be neare r t he mid-century in date, t he friezes are m ore sub-
untial and t he cham ber had a pill ared interi or, also fr ieze-decorated. The style
I• h1gh ly com pet ent but th e com positio n g ives a mechan ical, woode n effect
· ailing Persian friezes, and there are many Achaemen id Persian features here
t· ~ (214] - the horses, their chariots, harnessing and the way they are h eld, and
t . procession of men with their fly-whisks (alm ost a cross between Persepolis

and the Parthenon). l3ut the elder in the chariot harks back to the Harpy Tomb
and his dress combines Archaic pattern with the new broad and broken folds of
the Severe. Tlm 1s true Greco-Persian and of high quality. A shallow fneze of
cocks and hens [216] is put on the socle of Building F, to wh1ch another gable
relief is atrnbuted, but some would have the frieze on the podmm ofG together
with another fneze, ofanimals and satyrs [215]. The latter are shown as hunters,
not an impossible role for them in Greece but odd here, and their phys•que is
not particularly East Greek. Given the slight evidence for the Severe Style 111 East
Greece proper we •mght begin to wonder about the source ofGreek msp•rarion
and collaboranon 111 these works, m a period in which the Pers1an hold on the
seaboard kmgdoms had been loosened by the successes of Athens' new •mper-
ial navy. Another frieze from Xanthos with angelic Nikai (Victories)[217]
reminded their publisher ofAthenian red figure. Ifthe smaller friezes at Xanthos
are not from these buildings they belong to other decorative elements on the
terrace, where there were also peplophoros figures of wholly ca nonical Severe
Style (CSCP fig. 15). There arc many questions of the meeting ofcast and west
to be resolved in the study of these works, and much the same problems arc
posed more than fifty years later by greater monuments to which we now turn.
The Nereid Monument at Xanthos is the greatest ofthe classical tombs made
by Greek architects and sculptors for a Lycian king. Its members were recovered
for the 13rirish Museum •:So years ago but it is the recent excavations by the
French that have occasioned the fullest study of the remains, and incidentally
shifted ItS trathnona l date down closer to 380. it was a pillar monument m the
Lycian tradition, but m th•s case the pillar was a massive podium, and bmlt on it
was an Ionic building, like a Greek temple and adorned with Greek decorative
mouldmgs [21 8.1). Its cella, however, housed no cult statue, but was a funeral
room with stone couches, following the manner of many noble buriah of the
penod m Anatolia. The sculptural decoration was lavish. Although the building
was lomc 1t sported decorated pediments at either end, a frieze filhng the archi-
trave, and a smaller fneze on the outer wall ofthe funeral chamber/ cella. There
were central akroteria ofyouths carrying offyoung women, corner akroteria of
single women, and free-standing figures between the columns [218.y -5[, proba-
bly Lycian nymphs, identifiable with Greek Nereids. There are also some
unplaced lions [218.2), and some ceiling coffers had painted figure decoration,
the first example ofa feature to be copied in reliefon later buildings in Anatolia
(as the Mausoleum). This is all very Greek, and would not have been altogether
out of place on a temple. I lowever, the podium offered further opportunities
and on it are two friezes, also anticipating the Mausoleum.
This is a tomb for a non-Creek dynast, and its pediments and reliefs carry
scenes which reflect the life and preoccupations ofthe occupant(s) and introduce
several subjects which recur in these essays by Greek sculptors for eastern
masters: most notable arc the scenes of hunting and fighting, especially scenes of
the siege ofa city which seems a speciality ofsculptors in Lycia, and derives from
190
the cast, not the west, and occasions some rather haphazard essays in perspective.
Outside the cella the scene of a feast, sacrifice and offerants suits the location
[z 18.8 -9]. In the front pediment IS a court scene with the king and queen; at the
re ar another fight (218.6-7]. Elements of Persian dress appear for the figure ofthe
·uler and in some of the fighting, w hich is not surprising in view ofthe fact that
he king was a Persian vassal. But the warriors are dressed as Creeks, the drcss-
•ng being quite conspicuous, often w1th shin-length chitons. There is very little
fthe nudity visible in the fights on mamland monuments (and the Mausoleum),
nd since the dress appears on other Lyc•an tombs it must be regarded as another
<K al trait. The device ofallowing the ddamys cloak to fly offinto the background
paces is, however, adopted. Dress chngs to lnnbs, notably on some of the
"'ereids, in the manner introduced on the Parthenon and most fully exploited
n the better Greek sculpture ofaround the end ofthe fifth century. There is not
great deal ofcompositional subtlety Clther in pediments or on the main podium
lriezes [218.11-16). The figures naively diminish in size in the east pediment
121 8.6], and the chorus-like ranks of warriors [z18.14] recall oriental friezes, but
. 1 lso the occasional Archaic Ionian relief; these arc, at any rate, eastern features
which reinforce the view that the sculptors were East Greeks (as were the archi-
t••cts, it seems). Two major Greek ateliers at work here have been detected
•e rhaps recruited from different cities, and differing mainly in their creation of
lrc ely modeUed, sometimes flamboyant figures, or offar lesser p lasticity ofform.
"he designers and masters were not major artists, and their apprentice workers
11 eluded no stars.
The style and subjects of the Nereid Monument arc typical of most of the
(;reek-inspired Lycian tombs and reliefs which span the rest of the fourth
< 'ltury. There are so many, so uniform, that we must judge the style acclima-
t 1cd to the region and mainly the product oflocally trained artisans . Many are
p la r tombs topped by sarcophagi w1t h the characteristic high, arched roofS we
' et first with the Early Classical. ! illustrate a typical example (219) and a drawing
c a very fine relief from another [zzo]. There are closely comparable rock-cut
r~l•efs for cave tombs. These have the fanuhar hunt, fight and feasting scenes, but
t' ~re are also many with domestic groups - men, women a nd children - recall-
" ~ the content if not the intent of homeland Greek grave reliefs.
Just two, rather more unusual Lycian monuments, deserve closer attention.
One is another pillar-temple tomb for the dynast Pericles, at Limyra, smalle r than
t1 ,. Nere id Monument but ofdifferent form. It appa rently took the shape ofan
lon •c temple, amphiprostyle, but with Caryatids in place ofcolunu1s at each end
[2.? 1 .2[. Moreover, it ca rried large ak roterial groups, one of them show in g
Pcrs cus with the Gorgon head [221.1 J. This intrusion of Greek mythological
su 1JCCts is relatively new (about 370) in Lycian sculpture, though it had appeared
Ill tomb paintings earlier (CO 106-7). it is overwhelming on the next monu-
"' ·n t to be discussed.
1 the heroon at Trysa the graves and a funerary building are set in a rectan-
191

gular enclosure meas uring approximately 20 x 24111, with walls 3 m high. The
top of th e interior ofthe walls was decorated with two tiers of reliefs, as was the
outer south ~idc, where there was the relief-decorated gate. There are some
210m of rchcf fneze~ m all with about 6oo figures [zz2.1). The 1cu lpturc was
taken to Vienna at the end of the last century.
The two regastcrs ofthe Trysa reliefS sometimes carry discrete sub;ects, some-
times they correspond m sub;ect, and rarely, and only in the fighttng scenes, do
they overlap [221.4]. The gate rebelS [zz2.2] remind us that we arc m an area sttU
wnhm the Perstan Em pire. They include figures ofthe Egypto-Phoenman god
Bes, and pro;ectmg bull-foreparts, a Persian architectural motif; bur bcstde the
Beses arc Greek kalathiskos dancers (cf. GSCP fig.242b). Of the m ain reliefS a
minority deal w tth the fami li ar Lycian subjects (hunt, fi gh t, feast) but th ey
in clude another fine Lycia n siege scene and a seashore battle [222.4 - 5[ . The date
ca nnot be fa r removed fro m th at of the Nereid Monument, and there are many
points of comparison, but th e poor lim estone a nd its weath ered state tmpede
j udgemen t ofq u al ity. The o the r reliefs are of Greek myth. There arc th e classic
big fights - with Amazons, with centaurs and th e gods fi gh ti n g gian ts; but also
the Seve n against Thebes, Pen e lope at he r loom and the seq uel Shooting of the
Sui tors by Odysscus, a Calydoni an boar-hunt, and episodes involving
13 eUeropho n , Pcrscus, Theseus and the rape of the Lcuk ippids [zzz.J ,6-9]. The
sc h emes are all basica lly conventional in Greek terms, but with some changed
dress and so m e imaginative in-filling with exrra figures in w hi ch the long
stre tch es of th e friezes allowed the designer to indu lge. Although l3cllcrop hon
fo u gh t hts chnnaera in Lycia it is difficult to find any common theme o r even
necessary fu n crary connotation in the choice of subjects. The whole ensemble
gives very much th e impression of Greek myth bought by the metre.
192
>oss,·lefromDo 1· Th ab
hon. 1 he relief bacf?' ation.
c p ll~ctte anth enuon mp ~~ broken off. Winged goddess with a
u n rwo panes. a cavalier, and a ch.1rtot. About 500. (lsta nbul 68o. H. 0
_
73)
>o6 s, ·le from Daskylion (Greek, recut?). About soo. (Istanbul !764. H . J .o8)

207 Modd ofshnn< ofKybde, from S.rdu. T he b.oodess in the door: rehefp>nels" the "des
>nd back wnh festl\-c •nd myth figures. About 540. (M•nis> 4029. H. o .6o)
Sc:e 108.1
zoS. 1
208 Jhe Lion Tomb from X:m thos. Lt mestone. About
Ho. London B 286. t .J x 1.9 mplan; on aJ.Op1llar)
~( (R ·tief fragment from Xa nrhos. Ltmestone. About
0· >nbul 1450. H. 0. 40)

__) ---~
210. 1- 4 Tomb from lsm<b
Lomtstone. About SJO. (lst>nbul
763.1.25x1.6mpbn;ona4
p.U.r)
2to. t -4 The Harpy Tomb fiom )Unthos. About 470. (London B 287. H . 1 .01 on 8.9 pillar)

211.4
212 Rebefbasc for stdt. from
Loryma (near X•mhos). Laon;
[lion fighnng bull[. On ahe
narrow sides of the b~~. About
490. (lzarur 904)
213 G•ble from 13ualdmg 11 from X•nthos. Lames<One. Abou< 450. (London 13 290. 11 . 1 .09)
214 Fneu from Bualdmg G from Xlnthos. Ch.lnOb ;md hones. W1thm the chamber a friezt with a
feast. Lnn~tonc. Abom 450. (London B 312. H. o.Ss)
215 Friezes from terrace ofBt~~ldmg G from Xanthos. Satyrs and ammals. Lnnestone. About 450.
(London 13 292. 29S· H. 0 .77)
216 Fneze from 13UJ1dmg F from Xanth01. Cocks land hem!. Limestone. About 46o.
(London B )oo-a . 11 . 0 .42)
217 Fneze wnh Nab.a from X.mhos. Aboua 450. (lsa.nbul. H. 0.29)
----------------~----------------

218.1 The Neretd Monument from Xanthos, restored E fa~ade. Akroteria: rape groups. Peduntnts:
E- court; W fight. Archttrave fnezc: E,W- hunt and preparation; N - preparation for b;.mquct?;
S - fight. Fneze around ceUa: N feast: W - s.acnfice; E - assembly. Between columns: Ntretds.
Podium upper fneze: king receaves elders, stege, fight. Podtum lower frieze: fight, wtth horsemen.
About 40<>-J8o. (London)
~ X.2 l ion. (London 929. L. 1.6o)
l .J Akroterion; unidentified rape scen e:
Pc ·us and Theris, H erades and AuJ;e?
(L ndon 927. H . 0.87)

218.4 'Nere1d'. (London 910. H . 1 .43)
"" i 'Nere1d'. (London 909. H. 1.40)
-----------------~-----------------

218.6 E pediment: royal court . {London 924. I f. at centre 0.95)
10 Archltra\--e fiieze: bear hum. (London 8R9 H . o. ~o)
218.7 W pedm1em: fight. (London 925).
218 .8 N ceU1 fneze: fenl. (London 8981 H. 0.44)

218. 12 Podium up per frieze: si egr. (Lo ndon 869)
21R .1 3 Podium u pper fr 1eze: figh t. (Lo ndon 866)
Zl S. 14 Podium up per frteze: ph• b nx ad,~ ne<s. {London R68)
ZIR. t j Podtum lower fn eze: fight. {London Rss . H t.Ol)
Z!S. t6 Podium lower fn eze: fight (London 858)

:19.1
"9 The sarcophagus of Paya\·a. About 37<>-J6o. (Lond o n 950)
~zo Relieffrom the tomb ofthe w ife of
Saln at Cadyanda. Knuckle-bone players.
About 400. (Drawing)
121 1.1 The heroon ofPericles ~~ Lnnyn . 1 Cuy.uid. . 2- Akrotenon; Pcrscus holding the head
of Medusa over her body. About 36o-350 . (Anulya. 11 . r.2 .55; 6gu"' only c. 1.58)

222.1 T~- The hcroon_ About JC)0-)80. (rchefi m Vienn;a)
222.2 Gate mtcnor: Bes figutc'lo, Wnccn; ;at left the hero m ch;anot, over UeUcrophon fightmg the
chmucra (a myth located m Lyc:IJ). ~~ of h'";ue wtth Jambs l.IS.z)
222.3 Ea>t. Th<scus >nd Suus; Theseus >nd Sk~ron; cf. GSCP fig.111. N2, S2. (H. 0.55)
222.5 W«l. F1gh t beSI<I< sh1ps (>< ldi). (H. 1 .1)
222.6 North. Rape of the Lculopp1d~ by the D 1oskouroi. in char i ots. (H. 1. 1)

2>2.7 South Odysscus slays the sunon; c..lydonian boar hunt. (H. t . o)
222.8 Lefi off.J~.ade. Amu.onomachy; Cenburonuchy.
222.9 R.ogh <of fa~ade. Seven against T hebes; fight beside ships (a< right).
222.10 Deutl. (Od~seus) and the Smtors.
222.11 Detail. Siege.

Chapter Twelve
THE LEVANT AND NORTH AFRICA
CYPRUS became 1nc reasm gly permeated by G reek culture from th e eighth
century BC on, but was at the same time well exposed to the arts of the m ai n -
land to the east and to Egypt. Its plentiful soft-stone sc ulpture ofthe Archaic and
Classical per iod is broadly Greek without having anything ofnote to con tr ibute
to the history of G reek scu lptu re rather than to its influence on receptive
peoples. A number ofreli efsarcoph agi, a class we have already n oted, ca rry stiffiy
Archaic figure~. not very G reek in style or subject, b ut sometimes including
Greek myth scen es. Greeks resident in Cypr us seem to have been satisfied largely
with th e local h ell enizing styles, though the big bronze from which we have th e
C h atsworth head (GSCP fig.12) su ggests an immigrant artist o f quality in th e
fifth century. H e did no t stay, it seems. Thereafter various Greek sc ulpmral
forms, in cluding the grave stelai, are copied. One unusual monument ofthe very
end of our period is worth mentioning - the cenotaph -pyre of the last Greek
king o fSalamis, Nikokreon an d his family, w h o perish ed in th e fire with which
they destroyed their palace in JIIIIO. Severallifesize stames \vith portrait heads
h ad b een modelled 111 clay o n wooden posts and set around a comm emorative
pyr e, which baked and partially preser ved them [22J).
There were no maJor Greek settl ements on the coast of Syria or PHOLNICIA
until after th e arnval of Al exander the Great, so examples ofGreek sculpture are
the work of guest-artists. Of the Phoenician citi es Sidon \vas the one whose
rulers were m ost engaged in th e employment of Greek sculptors, but the first
manifestations are unusual and exercised on objects of foreign form. About 500
the Sidonian s acquired some Egyptian anthropoid sa rcophagi, roughly shaped to
the human body with a frontal human head on them in relief. They were reused
fo r burials in the royal cemetery. In the Early Classical period th eir successor s
appear, in Greek marble and with G reek-style h ea ds upon th em, apparently exe-
cuted by Greeks [224]. Most have female h eads but th ere arc a few male. These
go o n being made into th e fourth century and gain currency thro u ghout the
Phoenician world, to distant Carthage, Sicily and Spain, many then being the
wor k of local artists. (M any of the Sidonian examples, an d oth ers to b e men-
tioned, were excavated while the area was \vithin the Ottoman Empire and so
arc to be seen in Istanbul Museum.)
Later in the fift h century a new type of burial was adopted, in marble relief
214
sarcophagi. The form is one most fam il iar to us in th e R.oman period but there
were occasional Greek examples as early as Archaic though not so fully deco-
rated (see above, on [136)). The Sidoman take an architectural form, like small
buildings or massive chests. However, one of them does take the form of the
Lycian house-tombs just discussed, which is a strong him about origin of type
and probably artist. Earliest, towards the end of the fifth century, is the Satrap
Sarcophagus [225] whose Oat style of carving recalls the Greco-Persian reliefs of
Anatolia. The subjects are like the Lyc1an, reflecting the ruler's life - hunting,
reclining at court, inspecting cavalry and cha not. The ruler's dress is naturally
Persian. The Lyc1an Sarcophagus brings u s mto the fourth century, with
crowded scenes ofthe hum on either Sid e, Greek in dress as well as style [226).
At the ends the rath er Gothic pediments have rampant griffins and human-
breasted sphinxes (as earlier in Lycia), and the box a scen e from the Lapi th cen-
tauromachy, with Kaineus beaten into the ground. At the oth er e nd two centaurs
attack each other, w hich leads o n e to think that the artist had rather lost touch
with h is su bject matter. The fi gu res hark back to the Parthenon but the bustling
h unts are in t heir way p ictorial in con cept rath er than sc ulptural. The Mourners
Sarcophagus [227], near the mid century, is more temple-like, but wi th extra
rel iefs on the attic and th e base. Between the column s all round stand figures of
m ourning women , but mourning w ith the quiet dignity ofan Attic gravestone,
not the traditional aban don ofthe easte rne r o r ofearl ier Greece. The last of the
sarcophagi, th e Al exander Sarcophagus [218], takes u s to th e end of o ur period
and is stylistically the fin est (also HS fi g.226, and fo r discussion). Its form is
wholly architectural with its roof-lid, but the sides have relief panels, introduc-
ing Alexander hunting and the battles of Macedonians and Persians. It heralds
the true Hellenistic in mood and execution.
The Sidon sarcophagi display no continuity ofstyle which might suggest that
there \vas an establi shed Greek workshop there. They were obviously individu-
ally commissioned from Greek sculptOrs, all probably (except perhaps fo r the
last) from A natolia. There are a few other isolated Greek sculptural works at
Sidon and one other major monument ofGreek workmanship ofthe mid-fourth
century which show that the patrons were not obsessed by preparations for the
tom b. In the sanctuary of Eshmun there IS a structure of unknown purpose
(call ed a Tribune jiwte de mieux) decorated w ith two relief fri ezes on three si des.
Above there is an assembly of Greek gods centring on Apollo and Ath ena, and
below a Dionysiac dance with macnads an d a satyr [229]. The subjects ofthe sar -
cop hagi were ?ctermined by th eir occupants' interests in life, or appropr iate
scenes of mourning and only th e centaurs admit a G reek irrelevance; but it is
difficult to find any loca l o r native explanati o n fo r th e scen es on the Tribune ,
which seem more a Greek artist's view of divine pr esence and mer ry-making
with no attempt to assimilate them to eastern identities or practices. It says m u ch
fo r the prestige in w h ich Greek sc ulptor s seem to have been held by Sidonian
courts and priests.
215

EGYPl had admitted Greeks in the seventh century BC but, ever xenophobe,
had successfully resrncted their activity mainly to the town of Naucratis, in the
delta, where there were Greek workshops but no sculptural activity ofany note.
The isolated Instances of Archaic Greek style mixed with Egyptian form con-
tribute nothing ro rhe history ofGreek sculpture (GO ch.4) and amount to little
more than a few IOlliC IZin g alabaster statuettes. The history of Greek sculpture
in Egypt begins with the foundation of Alexandria in 331.
CvRENhlCh, to the west, was a colonizing area comparable with South Italy
and Sic1ly though nor v1s1ted before the mid-seventh century. The sculpmral
record is confined mamly to the pnncipal city, Cyrene, and differs from that of
other western Greeks matnly for being more closely dependent on homeland
styles, developing no strong local tradition although the patronage was clearly
wea.lthy and ambitious. From the m id-sixth century on there are korai, kouroi,
and a sphinx-on-column monument which would have made the sanctuary
areas of Cyrene more metropolitan in appearance than most in Sicily or Italy,
and better provided with whi te-marble statuary. An early kore [ZJO] has a stro n g
Ionian aspect (com pare GSAP figs.87-92) and there is a strangely composed
akrorerion for the Apollo Temple [23 1J of l ate Archaic date. Thereafter th ere is
a range ofstatuary and stclai, mainly marble, which would not disgrace a hom e-
land city of substance, and fine bron ze heads ([45] and GSCP fig.141). A local
spec ialiry are waist-length female figures, some, but not all fzJzl. faceless. They
were set on shelves over rock-cut tombs, and h ave been thought Perscphoncs.
Western Phoen ician colonization, th e PUNI C WORLD, cenrres on Carthage
and embraces west Sicily, Sardinia and southern Spain. We might have expected
patronage of Greek sculptors comparable to that of homeland Sidon, and there
is limited evidence for this in Carthage, but elsewhere no more than the adop-
tion by local artists ofsome Greek sculptural types (standing and seared figures,
generally Archa1c m ongm, and stele types of all periods) and styhsnc derails,
notably in Spatn. The anthropoid sarcophagi we examined in Sidon are found
throughout the west also, bur in Carthage, in one cemetery (Sec Momque;
Rabs), there is around the end of the fourth cen tury a group of marble sa r -
cophagi of Greek form, bur unlike those ofSidon in having full-length supine
relief figures on their lids [2JJ] and no reliefs on the sides. A related type had a
brief currency also in Etruria at about this time and m ust be d istinguished from
the comm oner reclinmg fi gures which appear on sarcophagi in the Greek cast
and Erruria. T h ere arc intimations ofGreek Arch aic and Classical styles in Spain,
introduced by Phocaean traders, later probably via Phoenicians, bur Greek sc u lp-
tors seem not to have been employed there and Iberian art has an idiom of its
own, whatever its foreign sources of inspiration, which were not only Greek.
216
223 Cl>y h<•d from the funeral pyre ofKmg
Ntkokreon 's family at Salarms, Cyprus. After J 11.
(Nic~ia. Salanus 951. H . 0 .28)
224 Anthropoid sarcophagus from Sidon. About 440.
(Bwul)
. zzs Sarrap Sarcophagus from Sidon. About 410.
(Istanbul 367. H . 1 .45)

~.I
22.6 .2
,'~WJ\f[i~~~U;#~;J~~~~:.J~fJ}l~r;M;J'~Jt '';)~'~'( ~t<.tt;J\( ~~~~·
Z.!R .2
~6 'lycim' sarcophagus from Sidon About 38o. (Istanbul 369. H >.96)
l7 Mournen' Sarcophagus from Srdon. About 36o. (Istanb ul 368. H . 1 .80)
.~.1 ·3 The Alexander S.rcopha!,'liS from Sidon. About 3 15. (lsunbu] J70. H . 1. 95)
..................~-------------------

228.3 The Alexander Sarcophaguc;
229 'Tribune' from the sanctuuy of
Eshmun, Sodon. About J40- (Beirut. If of
double frieze 1.15)
2)0. 1
2)0 Kore from Cyrene. About po. (Cyrene 14.008. 11 0 .9R)
231 Akrotenon from the Temple of Apollo at Cyrcnc:. About
490- (Cyrene q.017. H . 1 .35)
232 Funerary bust from Cyre-n .e. About ),SO. (PuiS 1777
H. 0.73)
233 Sarcophagus fiom the Ste Moruque cemetery. C.uth~~:,rc
About )2o-)oo. (funos)
2)2
Z))
2)1

PART IV. ANCIENT A ND ANTIQUE
Chapter Thirteen
COLLECTING AND COLLECTIONS
Antiquity
We are probably right to recogmze the importance of sculpture m ancient
Greece; rh1s is nor simply a projecnon back of its later mfluence and the esteem
m wh1ch 1t has been, and is still held. In a society of small City states, unbur-
dened, even after Alexander the Great, with undue dommation by palace or
temple hierarchies, all art \vaS more accessible. The Greeks seem ro have been
exceptional in antiquity for rhc1r use of 1mages ro communicate, inspire or
simply decorate, and were unique in their Classical period for seeking sheer
realism in these images. They took their most substantial form as sculpture,
which was a common factor in the visual experience of all Greeks, in their
market-places, cemeteries and sanctuaries. Elsewhere in annqmty sculpture was
no less imposmg bur, as in Egypt or Mesopotamja, more a private matter for
court or temple. Only in Ind1a must there have been a comparable public expo-
sure ro ma.Jor rhree -dimens10nal art. The subjects of most Greek sculpture are
divme or heroic, or (as in funerary sculpture) imbued with a rehgious Intention.
Its Importance was a reflection of the uses to which the Greeks put their myth-
history and the roles of their gods in explaining and justifying contemporary life
and problems. This is as apparent in art as in literature.
The concentrations of sculpture in sanctuaries, both local (as on Athens'
Acropolis) and national (at Olympia and Delphi), which Greeks visited for other
reasom (sport, oracles), hardly amounts to coUecting since this was incidental to
their prime purposes, but it had a comparable role in demonstrating to people
and artiSts vaneties of sculptural style and function. This had its effect on non-
Creek peoples too and the first clear mstances of coUecting Greek sculpture per
se derive from its acquisition as loot by a people already conditioned to its quality
and porennal - the Romans. Troph1es of victory brought back ro adorn tri -
umphs included the valuables ofthe enemy. When the enemy is Greek the valu-
ables 1nclude sculpture. Since these were as often of marble as of bronze, which
could have been melted down, the attraction was more than purely mercenary.
13ut this does not mean that it was at first aesthetic, rather than a response to the
novelty of the genre and its associations in the Greek world with a display of
power, mortal or divine. The first such looting was in the western Greek colonies
in the th~rd century BC, followed by looting in Greece in the second. Phoenicians
had set the pattern of such behaviour in Sicily, bur on a much smaller scale.
222
In Rome, which was becoming fully stocked with Greek sculpture in public
places, in and on temples, private coUecting soon followed. Special exhibitions
w1th borrowed pieces were arranged, and the orator-statesman Cicero had an
agent m Greece to send appropriate statuary for h1s house and garden. Supply
was augmented by the copymg of famous statues, working from plaster casts
brought to Italy from Greece (GSCP r8), and a wealthy man in Herculaneum
(in the ViUa dei Papiri, under the shadow ofVesuvius), could assemble a collec-
tion of accurate copies of Greek portraits of intellectuals and rulers ro enhance
the cultured atmosphere of lm home. In the second century AD a hellenized
Roman tycoon living m Greece was collecting Class1cal sculptu re, original and
cop1es, for Ills villas near Athens and in the Peloponnese (!!erodes Articus).
Greek art was influential m antiquity far from Greece Itself, and this included
Creek sculptural styles and motifs, but these were not, it seems, accompanied by
deliberate collecting rather than through the influence of smaller, portable
obJects and travelling craftsmen.
Taste and t he Antique
Invasions and general neglect had sti ll left Italy a'vash with the sculptural remains
ofclassical antiquity. As an interest in classical literature, Greek as well as Latin,
grew, the relevance of many of the monuments became more and more appar-
ent and in the fifteenth century they were being aSSiduously collected, mainly in
Florence and Rome, by Popes and pnnces. They provided a material back-
ground to the intellectual and literary interest in antiquity, but were no less
prized as models of perfection for artists [234]. In 1 s15 Pope Leo X appointed
Raphael Commissioner of Antiquities for R ome. Art and scholarship conspired
to assemble as much as possible of these messengers ofthe past, and the marbl es,
bleached by burial, and the bronzes, blackened by oxidizati o n , became th e
models for the classicizing arts of the European Renaissance. Many were of
Rom an style and content, but many others were those copies of Greek originals
that had been the response of the art market to the collecting man1a of anc ient
Romam.
The Italian collecuons, made by state and church, attracted the artention of
VISitors from the rest of Europe who had been no less drawn to the quality of
the classical past by its art as by Its literature. The royalty and nobles of 13ritain
and France aspired to comparable collections designed to lend an appropriate
cultural and intellectual atmosphere to their stately homes, and on the whole
with less immediate effect on a rtists of the day who travelled to Italy for inspi-
ration and training. Few of these British country house collections, created
through agents or from the Gra nd Tour, are still intact [235]. One ofthe earliest,
made by Charles l's courticr the Earl ofArundcl, has survived in parr in Oxford.
Others have formed the bam of public collections, such as Charles Townley's,
bought by the British Museum in 1805. The b1g pubhc coUcctions in Europe
22]

depended on, and some were mainly denved from, similar sources: in Paris, from
the Borghese and Campana collections; in Dresden from the Chigi collection;
in Madrid from Queen Christina of Sweden's collection; Catherine the Great
collected for the new Hermitage palace in St Petcrsburg. In later days the great
Ny Carlsberg collection was formed in Copenhagen. The collections in Paris
were briefly and dramatically enhanced by Napoleon's 'art trophies ofthe Crmrde
Amree' but these were eventually returned to their homes.
Supply was apparendy unlimited but the quality was m1xed. There was no par-
ticular taste for the mcomplete, and ltahan sculptors ofthe second rank who spe-
cialized in such work were employed to make good missing heads and limbs in
styles which, to our eyes at least, often too readily betray the period in which
they were supplied. Most such additions have been removed in public galleries,
and to replace them does no justice or ~ervice to the originals, or to scholars, or
to the public (we arc by now used to the incomplete and some even prize tt),
and it demotes collecuons again to the status of interior decoranon.
The Roman collector unable to possess h1s own statue by Polyclitus made do
w ith a close copy, usually a marble instead of a bronze. The European collector
could do the same, but also saw virtue in collecting plaster casts of the f.1mous
pieces in the major collections [2;6,2;8]. For a while these were deemed at least
as important as less f.1mous originals, and galleries were designed as m uch or
more for their display as for the marbles. There was some point in this since, as
modern scholarship has found, there IS much to gain from the possibility of
making direct comparisons berween fi.11l-size three-dimensiOnal copies ofworks
whose originals arc widely dispersed. Part of the intention in the early galleries
was, however, somewhat different, since the pure white plaster was thought
preferable to the condition ofstained and battered o ri ginals. We now know that
neither state at all closely reflects their appearance in antiquity.
The cast galleries were at first adJuncts to the collections of originals, then
increasingly created for the enlightenment of scholars and artists, who had been
long used to the value of plaster as a copying and moulding medium. For artists
they were used as a complem ent to the life class. Indeed the cwo functions could
be combined, as they arc in Oxford today [247].
Souvenirs of the Grand Tour taught the public about the superficial appear-
ance ofclassical art, both its architecture and its sculpture. Those who could not
afford casts from the antique were catered for by collections of plaster impres-
sions and casts of gem intaglios and cameos. Some of these were from ancient
stones, many from later derivatives or copies, and some especially made to display
in miniature copies of famous pieces of sculpture [237). These, with collections
of coins and coin casts, offered a corporeal record of the past which the many
new publications of drawings could not match.
Status and the Antique
Scholarship, artistic production and interior decoration all have ro do with status.
The necessity ofhaving major classical collection s was well in the minds ofkings,
queens, pnnces and governments. Smaller private collect ions could be absorbed
into scare collections, and the private collector may often have had as his goal the
acqUisition of material that would interest the stare. Real Greek sculpture was
becoming access1ble, and the homeland had in fact been visited by scholars and
travellers regularly for some time [z;9], though they were generally more
absorbed by its literary associations. Venerian and Genoese military and com-
mercial involvement in t he Aegean during the thirteenth eo sixteenth centuries
revived som ething of th e acquisitive traditions of triumphant R.oman generals.
From the fourteenth century the Greek mainland w:1s effectively within the
Turkish Empire, along with western modern Turkey which \vas ancient East
Greece. The Turks were fairly indifferent to Greek monuments and arc, as are
many peoples co the present day when the cultural remains on their land are
foreign. Acquisition ofsculpture by foreigners no longer depended on connec-
tions in Italy rather than in Istanbul and Athens. Scientific expeditions ofartists
and architects travelled east, busy recording, and incidentally casting and
collecnng for home. Lord Elgin's purchase/theft ('rescue' is the best word)
of marbles in Athens soon enriched the British Museum and \vas followed by
the results of architectural surveys of Greek remains, such as the acquisition
of the sculpture from Bassae [4,5). The first major Archaic assemblage, the
Aegma sculptures ( CSA P fig.zo6), made th eir \vay eo Munich's new Glyptothek,
thanks to Ludwig I.
With Greek indepen dence in 1832 attention turned rather to the East Greek
lands still (as today, except for the islands) in Turkey. So the British Museum
acquired much from Pricnc, Oidyma, Ephesus [z;). the Mausoleum [17-22,240),
and all over Lycia [zo8,z 11 ,zlJ-6,z 18-9). Vienna got the Trysa sculptures in Lycia
[222]; Berlin, the Great Altar from Pergamum (HS ch.9); Paris, sculptures from
Assos (CSAP fig.216), Magnesia and Didyma. Excavation for such prizes was
conducted with varying degrees ofcare- more for the sculp ture than for what
w:lS left behind or, to the distress of the modern archaeologist, the context
and other finds. The publication of these European collections has generally
been thorough but there are some serious gaps, even in major collections. The
diligence in these matters of a hundred years ago has nor umversally survived
the demands of other interests. Justificanon for possession of such collections
must to a large degree lie in the w:~y they are made available to scholars and the
public, in books no less than in galleries.
The second half of the nineteenth century saw the beginning of major exca-
vation in Greek lands, for the most part conducted by foreign powers, bur with
the finds remaining 111 Greece. It \'VaS nor accidental that the sires which were
chosen and received sustained attention were those most productive ofthe sculp-
225

tu re which had seemed the hallmark ofthe best in Greek art, but the intentions
were also scholarly and this was no mere treasure - hunting. The motivation for
excavation has changed a great deal to the present day, but the major excavations
of the last h undred years have stocked Greek museums generously an d to ove r-
flowing: the Ger mans at Olympia; the French at Delphi, D elos, Tegea and the
Boeotian Ptoon; the Americans m Athens' Agora; the Italians on Rhodes (when
it \vas Italian). The Greek Archaeological Service and Society have been no less
busy in sculpture-rich mes - the Athens Acropolis, cemetcncs m Attica,
Corcyra, Eleusis, Epidaurus, Eretria, Sunium. Outside Greece the extent of the
Onoman Emp•re has made the Istanbul Museum th e home of much sculpture
fro m East Greek, Anatolian and Levanti ne (as Sidon) sites. In Italy th e major
sculpture museums have been created by Italian enter prise and no original Greek
architectural sculpture from Sici lian and South Italian sites has travelled. I n
North Africa the activities of various na ti onalities have stocked impor tant sculp-
ture museums in Alexandria, Cyrene, T ripoli, Tunis and Cherchel (Alger ia). T h e
publication record ofall involved has been good but there is some neglect of the
less im posing pieces, and even of some masterp ieces, by overworked archaeo-
logical se r vices.
New Wo rld collections were too late to sha re in th e rewards ofthe Grand Tour
and its aftermath and have had to depend on the sale and dispersal of various
Eu ropean private collections and on com petition in an increasingly expensive
market. T he private collector has played an important ro le, both in stocking
major existing collections, as in Boston and New York, and in creating new
museums, as J. Paul Getty's 111 Malibu.
The conduct of th is antiquities trade and the role of the private collector has
come under scrutiny 111 recent years. The concept of'narional her itage', like all
natlonabst movements, has its flaws. With Greek sculpture we arc deahng with
a heritage that 1s shared by the whole western world, no less alive to a Greek m
Los Angeles than to one in Athens, and just as re levant to ma ny other national-
ities who continue to chcnsh the tradition. That a work of art belongs only
where it was made becomes an absurd precept when its presence elsew here has
obviously enhanced its appreciation and educative role, and when it can be com-
pared with the wor k of other cultures. At any rate, when we observe the neglect
ofthe non-Islamic by many Islamic countries, and the neglect o flslamic art and
architecture by some Christian ones, we do well not to dogmatize. The delib-
erate rape of sites for collections is criminal though seldom taken very seriously,
and mother countries o nly fuss when they sec they have lost something valuable
that t hey never knew they had. The scho lar naturally mourns the damage and
loss of record of context . Some museums and arch aeological associations th ink
the trade can be beaten by re fusing to buy, but the theft ofthe past started as soon
as the past created itself and w ill not be halted now, a lthough it might be con-
trolled with less damage to information potentially rewarding to scholars; it is
almost a natural and inevitable form ofre-cycling, although also destructive. To
226
ignore the products ofsuch trade IS pointless; to oblige others to ignore them is
a form of censorsh ip. It is left to a few museums and to those private collectors
who are open with their possessions and likely to give them to a public collec-
tion (ifit will take them!) to rescue what they can before the objects are lost from
sight to gr eedier or self-indulgent hands. Classical Greek sculpture suffers less
from this problem than many other classical artefacts, bm cases in w h ich it is
involved tend to be more conspicuous. Conservation and accessibility tend to
1mprove for objects the farther they arc from home!
Attitudes and the Antique
Sir William H amilton (died 1803), British ambassador to the court of Naples,
collected Greek vases to sell to the British Museum. H is wife Emma (Nelson's
mistress) entertai n ed Neapolitan society wi th her ' Attitudes'- tableaux in which
she posed in classical dress inspired by classical statues and impersonating figures
of Greek mythology [241 ]. T he English cartoon ist might snigger [24 2). but
Goethe was impressed, an d in its day such a reaction to G reek art was a natural
resultof the new esteem in which it was held. One reason for this was the work
of the German W inckelmann (1717-68) w hose studies went beyon d the more
obvious associations of ancient litera t ure and the new coll ections ofstatuary, to
disce rn in them significant d iffe rences in style, to treat t hem in terms of a true
history ofart. It was the more of an achievement in that it was based on R oman
copies and not real Greek art at all. Some might now complain that he set the
stu dy offon the wrong foot. As well complain that Galileo was no Newton , and
Newton no Einstein.
C lassical statuary had made nudity respectable, at least for artists and in the
service oft he Christian no less than the pagan. Whence the flow of neo-Classical
statuary. When real Greek sculpture \vaS revealed in the Parthenon marbles it was
a minority of artists who got the message first, and it took some time for schol-
arship to follow and to recognise the inadequacy ofthe study ofcopies that effec-
tively masked the true quality ofclaSSical sculpture, and to abjure the false images
offered by t he neo-Classical (and Emma). Recognition that ancient marble
sculpture was colou red is one thing that many find it ha rd to accept even today.
When John Gibson experimented with colour on a classical Aphrodite figure
[243] he shocked contemporaries. lt is exhibited today in Live r pool in a setting
not that un like the one designed by antiquity fo r its insp iration, the Cnidian
Aph rodite [26], but surrounded by colourless neo-Classical figures. More recent
trials at re placing the colour, on casts, d rawings or photographs, remai n te nta-
tive (cf. GSAP figs.128-33). T he full-size Athena Parthenos in the copy of t he
Parthenon built at Nashville, Tennessee, is plain: better to look at the French
sculptor Si mart's version of the mid-nineteenth century, only nine feet high
instead offorty, but colourful and lavish in material [244 ].
Greek sculpture has acquired other connotations, not always savoury. Its
227

expression ofth e athleti c ideal made it a natural symbo l for the mode rn Olym pic
Games. lt could also be rec ruited to express an imaginary Aryan ideal, which is
why Hirler insisted o n the long loan ofMyron's Diskobolos (GSAPfig.6o) from
Rome. The naked healthy bodies o f Greek art could provide the propaga nda for
elitist and racist views, howeve r inappropriately. Just as they provided the idio m
for Christian monume nts , or imposed the convention of'heroic nudity' (n o r an
ancient Greek conceptio n) o n unlikely subjects, so they were p ressed to the
servi ce of national is m . In the 19105 an artist taught drawi ng tech niques from
classical statuary and its principles ofproportion, but went on ro demonstrate the
valu e of photography to the same end, in heroic figures based on the same
models (245). 13 eauty and truth could be attained by exercises based on classical
statues [246). I recall ar sc h ool in the early 40s a visiting display by you ng men,
holding imm obile the poses of Greek warrior statues, as a d emonst ra ti on of the
classical road to compl ete fitn ess of mind and body! I suppose it is so me so rt o f
tr ibute to its reputatio n that Greek sc ulpture could so readily se rve the noble,
th e si ni ster and the absurd. Its service to the mode r n advertise r see ms limitless.
And what of Greek sculpture today? It is pe r haps time for scholars to recon-
si d er approach es and m eth ods ofinterpretation, although not at the expe nse of
essen tial principles of o bs ervation an d analysis, which have so m etimes been
abandoned by those seek in g ne-v views ofother subjects in cl assica l archaeology.
In a more public sph ere, a nd from personal experien ce, I can record simply what
I see now in Oxford. Classical students are no less taken by the stu dy of Greek
sculpture than th ey were a hun dred years ago, although it is no longer taught
si m ply as a commentary on an cient texts. In th e Cast Gallery th e studen ts are
eas il y outnumbered by school parties whose teachers find rhe casts a popular
method ofreaching about classical antiquity, mythology and art. There are pho-
tographers as well as artists, and life classes using models a nd casts (247).
Meanwhile, in back rooms, a mu lti-media program is being compiled in cludmg
the reconstruction ofthe Arhena Parrhenos in computer graphi cs, and there are
darabases being created on classical art which are now on- lin e worldwide. There
is life in these dry stones yet !
228
+
234 Michelangelo's pscudo-;mtiquc &alms in 3 Rome ga rden surrou nded by real :m c ient
sculptor~. D rawmg by H eemskerck who w;as m Rome, 1532-5.
235 The Panrheon sculpture gallery bu~t for Inee BlundeU H•ll m 1810. The nurbles are
now m the L1"~rpool Museum.

Zl7
236 Measured drawmg ofan Aphrochte made for copymg, t 6RJ.
!37 Pbster Impressions ofgems engraved w tth copiC<~ offamou\
ancient sutuc:s, <~v:nbblc: 10 visitors to R ome, 18th-191h cenrury
Compare (J9. Sz], HS figs.99 . )9. 143- (Oxford, Cast Gallery)
Makmg pbster C2Sts ofst:arues. 1802.
....rJ""" -r.....,_ ,., ___ ,_. •... -- .
w,.J:wb~(o-rnd trt<>(.,,..""-r
.,J."),~, !<... mkt
t':r• {h/rlh A b
239 Cyriacus ofAncona·~ drawmg (from memory, one 1m.1gmes: cf. C CPfig.77) ofthe west
pedtment of the Parth enon , 1436.
240 The Castle ofSt Pe[et, Budrum. Wtth slabs from th e Mausoleum jz 1J built into the walls.

.2 41
Lady lllmtlton's Attitude
1mpersonacing E1eccra. (l)rawing,
Rehburg)
.2.42 Lldy H amilton's Artttude~.
mterpreted by the cartOOill\t Thoma\
Rowlandson.
2:4). 1 ,2. John Gibson·s Tinted Venus. 1- m tb;
ongmal shnne, 1862:; 2 - as d isplayed smce
19S7 at the \V;~lker Art Gallery, Ll\"erpool

244 Smurt's reconstruction of the Ath en~ P.uthenos for the
Due de luynes chateau at Damp1erre. 18s.s. Made of
bronze. 1vory, gilt silver and prec1ous stones. 11 . about J.O.
24 _S 'JJrawmg the Sword', a ph oto-sculpwral art1st1c
tableau, 1921
246 A fitness exercise copymg rhe pose ofthe Hcracle\
from Aegma (GSAP fig.2o6.6), 1914.

ABBREVIATIONS
AA
Archaologfschtr An;u~ttr
U.IIC
UxJCotl lcotuJgraphitwrr
AJA
Amtri<an Journal ofAtrha<o/~
.1/yrlrolog"'' Cfassica<
AKGP
Auhaistht u11d Kla.mMht
L,H
E.langlotz/M.Hirmer, At~ottll
Gnrchuch< PIOJt<k 11 (1986) (ed
Grnk Smfpturt ofS.ltaly aud
H .Kyneleos)
Siafy (1963 )
AM
Athn~isdrt .\IJtttiluti,~J
,\totrAtll
.\ lotuuHbltr At~tJCJri
AmPI
Atlllkt Pfrutrk
.VSe
,"\'otiz rt dtgli Scavi
ABFH
J.Boardrnan, Atlanuatr BIQ(k
Ojlr
Jalrrtshtjtt dts OstmeiclriuhetJ
Figur< VOJ<S (1974)
Arch. ltLstitutts itr '+itu
ARFHll
J.Bo ard.man, Athttmm Rtd F(~urt
l'ollm
JJ. Pollitt, Art i11 tht Htllmutic
llilsr~ Cfassl(af Period (1989)
Ag< (1986)
BA&$Cir
Bulletin vat1 de Vtrrrt~(~mx. . .
RA
Rev11e arclr(ofO&iqlle
BCH
811IIetitJ de Correspondmue
R1chter,
G.M .A .Richter, Korai (1968)
Helffniqr~t
Korai
Cat.&ston
M.D.Comsoock/C.C .Vermeule,
R.1chter,
G.M.A .Richocr, Kouroi (1970)
Sculpturt ;, Stont, &sto11 (1976)
Kou roi
DtmOlraty
1Nt Archaeology ofAtlrtm arrd
R1db"'"Y · AS D.S.R1dgw;.y, TI~e Arrlraic Sryl<
Attica under tht Dtmotracy (edd.
'" Greek Sa.fpwr< ( 1977)
WCoulson and O.Pabgi> 1994)
Rrdgway, FC 13.S .Rrdgw;.y . Fifrh·Cmmry
Flo~n
J.Ao~n. Dtt ~omttnscht und
Slyf<J . .. (198 1)
arrhaischt PIOJr.k (1987)
Rrdgway, HS 13.S .Rrdgw;.y . H tlffflut<t
GO
J.Boardm>n, Th< Grttks
Scufpwrt I (1990)
o.vm.., (1980)
Rul!l''~). SS B.S.R .rdgway, Tilt &vrrr Sryl<
GSAP
J.Boardman, Grak Saliptur<.
... (1970)
A rthaic l'rriod ( 1978)
R.:\1
Romischt .\-llll~fun~~
GSCP
J.Boardnun, Grttk Smlpwrt.
Robcroon.
M.R.obcrtsoo, Hurory ofGrttk
Cfassrcaf l'rriod ( 1985)
HGA
Art(1975)
HoU ow:ay
R.R.HoiJoway. ltrflutr~m 1md
Schefold, CH K.Schefold, Gods arrd f-ltrOfi rn
Styles In tlrt l.Att Arrllalt a11d
Early Cfassuaf Gr<tk Salipwrt of
lAit Arc/rail Grttk Art (1992)
Sicily and .\fagua GMtria (1975)
Stewart. CS A.Stc:w~rt. Grttk Sculpturt. Au
HS
R.R .R.Smrth, HtlfmJStic
Expforiltiofl (1990)
Salipl<lrt (1991)
Stewart, Sk. A .Stew:art, Skopas ofP11ros
Jdl
Jahrburlt des Dtr~tschtu
(•977)
Arcluiologiscltttl IIIStill!t.s
247 Oxford, Ashmole.m Museum, hfe cbss m the Cast Gallery. 1994·
237

N O TES AND BIBLI O GRAPHIES
:ENERAL
te\\'OIIft, CS 1s the fui1C1ot recent hlndbook.
:.Picard, .\fatmd d~ l'arthloletgit> ~r«qut. Lt smlpturt
11. IV (1948-<S3) 15 d.ued bu1 very full and well illus-
"'ated. A useful general account m ll Brown,
lmlc11llSUiJtn m Grttlt Stulpturt of tltt 4tlr wWtry
1973). A nchly 1Uunrated source (but extremely
xpensive) now IS l.Tod1K0, Smlllira grtca dtl IV
"'Colo ( 1993), to be consulted for further plctun!).
~r discussion of mdividull pteces see also
~oberuon. HGA and Rodgway"s FC and /IS. On
ubJeCIS, K.Schefold, GH. O.t C.oum~~'-·· (1981),
)ie Urkomge... (1988) and Dtt .'i<l.f/<11 vcm dnc
lrgonmltm ... ( 1989); ;tnd LIMC.
u1cient sources: J.J .Pollltt, Art of Crtt(t JJOCJ-Jl
l.C . (1985)-
A.uch ofthe bibliography given m GSCP tS relevant
ere also.
>ART I. LATE CLASSICAL SCULPTIIRE
INTRODUCfiON
echruques: Se< bobl Ill GSCP 242; and.
J.E .L Haynes, Tnlrmqut of Grttlt Btottzt Stat11ary
1992); I'Rockwell, Tht Art ofSt01tt llork111g (1993).
1] - Vasnfrom M~na Crroa (ed. M .E .Mayo 1972)
•0-37- Propomons: E.Berger <1 al. D<r £nrw11if dts
(mutlm. &Jdlta11Nkanotr (19CJ2). Wood m sculpture
R.Me1ggs, Trm arod "fimbn (19S2) ch.oo
\n:hatzong and hernu: [1) - M.AZ..gdoun, La
rulplurr arrhaisatltr datu /'art Htllhu·suqut (1989)
45ff.. pl. 18.to; E.B. H arnson. Atlrnuau Agora XJ
1965) sofT.• 108fT. , pl.64a-d. I.JI UMC Eirene oo:
o.Vikelas and WFuchs, &rras 8, 41fT
rypoi: WPosh, AA 1991, 69fT
•tanning, pay: JJ.Coulton, Crttk A"hums at ~~'Ork
1977) z If.; J. Boersma, Atlltman Burldmx Policy
1970) 4fT.; A.Burford. C rttk Ttmplt Bwlden al
OJ>idaurus (1969); S1ewan, CS 59f., 65fT.; .culp1on'
veallh - N .llimmclmann, jdf 94. 127fT. and
~-L:tuter, AA 1980. 525fT.
.J . Pollitt. A11ciem Vieov ofCretk Arr (1974).
Jated monuments: Stewart, CS poff.
ARCHITECTVR.AL SCUli'TUitf
;eneral: akrotena- P.Oanner, Cr. Akrolrrt dtr arrll.
md klasr Ztlr (1989); rdoef coffen K Tancke,
=iguralkantttm (1989).
Ba»ae 14-51: F.A.Cooper, Tt~nplt of Apollo al B
(1978). B.C.Madigan, Tht T. of Apollo Bassoras 11
(1993). M<1opes- C .Hofkes-Brukker. BA Bach 40,
pff. Fnez~ - tadtm and A.Mallwttz. Bassm-FnN
(1975); I.Jenkins/D.Williams m &.from A"odra and
La.:oma (edd. O .Pilig1> and WCoulson 1993) 57fi
Cult statue - B.C.Madogan. 1bod., 111f f .
Aq,>OS [6-7]: S1"''~n. Sk. 8sf.: R.Jd!l''~y. FC 32fT.
Mazo: I..Tnana, AKGPII 155-<18, pl.oJ8.J 4 181.
Tegea 191: Stewan, Sk.: G.Desponos on
Pmg~>/Coulson, op.cit., 87ff. for pock-a-back akro-
tcria fro m anocher temple at T.
Eptdau rus [1o-11 ): N.Yalouns, AntPI21 (1992) and
AKCP 11 175ff.; S<e\v.trt, CS 17of.
Royal Academy frz] - also compared w ith a passa-
b le Andromeda, LIMC s. v . 162.
Delp ho, Marmaria [rJ]: J.Marcade, A KGI' 11 •69fT.:
Coridt de 0.: le Morsee (1991) 66fT.
IJdpho, Apollo: F.Croissant, AKCP 11 o87£f. l r! ),
Coridt dt D. 77£f.; Ridgway, HS 17£f.: M Flashar,
Apollo11 Kirloaroidos (1992) 6ofT.
IJclpho, Acanlhus [r5]: R obertson, 4o6f.; Rodgway.
HS 22ff.; Coridt de D. 84/f.
A1hens, Lysicr.lles [r6]: Rid!l'""Y · HS tsff.; HS 183:
AmP/22 (1993).
Mausoleum [r;>-11]: B.Ashmole, ArdorrM ond
Sculptor m CI.Cretc~ (1972) ch.7; G.W.;~Y"'•-cll, Fret-
Srartdmg &. ofrht M. ar H (1978) and m 11ot Stwn
WimJ~n- of tlr~ Ancimt rt'cm'd (edd. P.CUyton ;md
M.Pnce 1988) 10off.; S.Hornblower, Afaruoltts
(1982) ch.9: S1ewan, CS 18off.• l8tff.; A"h and
Socirty in Htcatomt~id Cana (Boreas, 1989), ~p
WaY'vell, B.F . Cook: KJeppesen. AA 1992. 59ff
Ephesus [zJJ: A.RUgler, Dltco/mnr~at catlatM dts jrm-
gtmr Arr. von £ph. (1988): Rldj::way. HS 28ff.;
O.Bmg<>l, Artadolu 22, nsfJ. (pbcong): )liS JJ. 87
(dr>wmg I1Ji}.
Pnene: J.C~rcer, Se. oftht Sanctuary ofAthttla Polias
ar P. (1983) and &r/111 Korogffrr r988 129ff.: Tancke,
op.cit., no.6, coffers late.
J NAMES AND AITRIDUTIONS
See Stewart, CS andJJ. Pollict, A rt of Anritlll Creect
(1990) for sou rces, b ut J.Overbeck, Dit anrikttt
Scl~rifiqllellen (t868!t971) remams th e most com-
plete. Discussions of most figures arc found 111
Stewart, CS and RJdgway, HS, so the notes below
are selecove. M .Bieber, Sculptu rr ofthr HrlJr,Jistit A.~r
(t96t) IS cb.ted but rich m tUustra.tlon of coptes of
4th-century work, and G.M .A .R1chrcr, Sc11lptr1rts
and Sarlpro" of rht Cr<tks (1970), also dated, o; sull
useful on names. L. Lacroix, lL reprodll(tiou dt stotuts
s11r lrs tno11nara grttqu~s (1949).
St.arues on Panachen~1c vases: N.Eschbach. Starunr
auf Panath, Preisamphortn d~s 4)/rs.v.Citr. (1986).
Kephisodotos l14): H Jung, Jdl 91, 97ff.:
&r.Skn/pr.MrrrtC/rtn 11 (1979) n0.25.
Pr.>xueles: Stewart, CS 176ff., 277ff.. R1dgwa). HS
90ff.; H ermes 115) - U .IIC Herme< 394, S.Adam.
Ta-hmqut (1966) 124ff.; A. Corso, Pr.usrrtlt
(1988'-90)- sources: K.D.Morrow, Crttk Foo111~ar
arrd rht Dorrng ofSa•lprrrrr (1985) 8Jf. Cmdoa [16[ -
C.Bhnkenberg, Kmdra (1933); Kar.Skulpr.Morr~<htrl
11 (1970) on no.31; UMC Aphrodue 391
Saurok[onos {17) - J.Ma.xrmn, Crua and Romf 20.
)6f.(subject). Manunea base [18) - R.Jdgw:ty, HS
25)-
Leochares: Ganymedes !z9] - SteWlrl, CS 283:
U.~IC s.v. 251 . 1\ttnburions- B.Ashmole,jHS 71,
• 3ff.
Euphranor: 0. Palagia, E11pltranor ( 1980); Stcw·art,
CS 287-8.
Bryaxis: Rid{l\vay, H S 95f.
Naukydcs: A.Linfert in Po/yk/<1 (ed. I I .Ueck e t al.
1990) 266ff.; LIMC I lermes 298 [Jz[, an d cf. 943-
Scopas: Stewart, Sk. an d CS 182fT., 284ff.; R odb-way,
liS 82£[: nuenad I.JJ) - C .Pocon, AmP/ 22. 89ff
Pothos [14]-S . L:tttimore, AJA 91. 411ff . O.P:olagoa,
forthcoming.
Lysippus: Stewart, CS 186£f., 289ff.. R.Jdb""'Y · HS
73ff.: Polht~ ch.l; I'Moreno. Usrppo (1974: 1991-)
and m Lysippr rl so11 i11j114nrrr (edd. J .Chanuy and J
L.M;ucr 1987). Her>cles' L:tboun - PMoreno.
,\1f!at~~N &ol~ Frmr(. de Romtt 96. 117fT.; UMC s.v.
1709 and P-793 for OISCUSSton of L}~oppan
H.(O.P:olagu); (J9] - H.Sochtermann "G. Koch.
Cdfyrlrm auf rom.Sark. (1975) no.22. H Farnese
I.J71 - U.\fC s.v . p.702; I'Moreno. Mtlartgts Erolt
Frallf. dt Romt 94, 379fT.; U.Krull, Dtr H von Typ
famt.«(1985). H . at Taremum [4o]- UMCs.v. 936.
H . Epompezoos l4r[-1bod. 975
4 GODS AND GODDESSES. MEN AND WOMFN
0RIG1r-<ALS
C. Houser/D. Finn, Grerk A-·lollwttetrttrl Brcmzt
&n/plllr< (1983)
Marathon Boy [4z]: Houser, 104.
An 1iky1hera youth I4JI: Stewart, CS 185: flouscr,
93·
Olympia boxer IHI: S<e,varo, CS 180 (Solaruon).
Cyren e h ead 145]: R.Lullocs/M.Hormer. Grttk &
(1957) pL 198.
l'or.teus bronzes [46-8]: Stewm, CS 179: Rodgway,
HS 363; HS fig.86 (Athena): UMC Anemos o6o-2;
H ouser, 59, 6). 67.
Cmdus IJemetcr 149): B.Ashmole,JH S 71, IJff.
Samos woman [so]: I~dgw:~y, HS 53: Samor XII,
no.1
Agora b'Oddess l5r): O.Palagia, Hesp 51. 99fi. and m
Dt-motrilfY I I Jff.
Hygoeoa [szJ: B.Schlorb, "limorlreos (<96s); UMC
s.v. 20.
Tegea head [5J]: S1ewart. Sk. 83f.
Bnuron guh I.HJ: C.Vorster. Cr. Kmdmtawna
(198l).
Seated gtrl[55]: B.\1Quarrtrly 15, 64fT.
Boston Aphrodote heads [56-7): Car. Bosro11
""'-ss-<~.
'Ariadne' head 1581: Rodgway, HS 332: UMC
Ariadne 113, p .Io68f.
Eleum A;klepoos 159]: S.Ad.am, Tec/rrriqrrt (1966)
102f.
Zeus from Myla.sa 16ol : Cat. Boston no.4 4.
Bonon lleracles [61]: Cat.&stou no. t26; L/ MCs.v.
IJIO.
Aberdeen head 16z]: Stc\vart, CS 177; Ridgway, HS
91; R .M.Cook in Fwsclrrifi Brommer(1977) 77-
1fop-h eron [63]: O.Palag~> and D.M.Lewis, BSA 84,
337fJ.; on herms, H.Wrede. Ditanrike Ht~nrt (1985).
l)oochos: Stewm. CS 187.; R .idgway, H S 46ff.;
T.IJohrn 111 Anti'/ 8 (•968). Thasos c horagoc:
Rodgway, 11s sofT.
COPIES
For these the lists and p1ctu.r -cs m UMC are 111\';llu-
able, and see M.Uoeber, Arrtienr Caprts (1977) and
B.S Rldgway, Roman Caprtr of Grer-k & (1984) for
dascuss1on ofproblems and rypes.
ApoUo Belvedere [64): R.Jdll'""Y· HS 93-4; Stew:m.
GS 191, 28Jf.: F.Haskdl and N.Penny. Tasrt and rltt
Arrtrq~<t (1981) 148ff.
Apollo Lykeios 165]: Ridf!''~)'. HS 91; UMC
Apollon )9fb11: M.Nagele, Ojh 55, nff.:
S.F .Schroocr, AM 101, <67fT.
Ares Ludov151 166]: Rld!l''"Y· HS 84fT.
Asklepoos (671: UMCs.v. 157.
Doonysos: LIMC s.v. 119fT. (nudes): 122> 1681: 89
>nd Doonysos/Bacchus 37 [69) wi1h E.Pochnunkt,
Das Brld dts Dooroysor (1974) and Oj/r so, 41fT.
Satyrs: HS 128f. fig.148 (leaning= l 7o]); pou rong
171 I Rod(!'vay. liS 91.
Eros 1711: LIM C s.v. 79a.
'Eubouleus' I7JI: G.Sch,varz, CttryM~<s) 2, 71ff.;
Rod{l\v:ty, HS 117: S1ewan, GS 279: K.Ciomon ,
Myrlr arrd Crrlr (1992) 57fi.
H cracles: LIMC s.v . PP-79•ff. (O.Palagia), JOO 174].
372+)6) [75] . 659 176]: S.L:ttcimorc, GetryMusJ. 2 .
17fT.(Hope an d 176]): O.P:olagia, Oxfordj.Arrlr. 3 .
107fT. (H ope) and 9, 5111 '.[75].
flerme>: L/MCs.v. pp.364ff. (G.Siebert), 943a [771.
239

950 (78], 961 [791 · Sh oulder cloak H .Oehler,
Vrrtenmhungtrt Z ll dtn mdmrl.rom. i\lamtlstatum I o~r
Sehulterbauschcypus (196 1).
M eleager [So): L/.IIC •. v. 3: Antl't 3 (1964) 6df.;
R.tdgway, HS 87ff.
Aphrodit<: LIMCs v. section Ill, 59918•): 765 (770)
[82)(Kalhpygos). G .S ..Oun d. AplrrKalltp~ (1963).
Nike [SJ): J.Boardnun, Gll'tk ('..tnU and hn~ Rings
(1970) pi.S90 ·
Anenus: U.\fC s.v. and ArtcmiSi 0101n<1; Artenus
137 [&41. 163 (8J). 250 (Vers>tllcs), 190 [86).
Athena Rosptglios• l87): UMC Athena 267;
A.Borbcm , .\farbl~rgtr ~Viuclttlmannspr. 1970, 19f.
H ygieia: L/.IICs.v. 16o (881, 2071891·
Kore [9o]: Cal. Uffizt I ( 1958) no.J7.
Leda 19•1: L/MC s.v. 6a/73; A .R1eche m A1111't 17
(1978).
Agathe Tych e: see on J.s •l (O.P.Jag~a).
l PORTRAITURE
All \ VOrks mentioned and Illustra ted wtll be fou nd 111
G.M .A .i1 ..1c h ter, Portrmrs <if rite Crreks 1- 1'1 (1965),
and most m Its one-volume rev iSion by
R .R .R .Smirh (198 4). E.Vouriras. Swdietl ~~~
blterprttatiorr tmd St1lgr. Portr;JU ( 1980).
Alex.mder: A.Stewart, Farts o{Pot«r( l993).1ttti·-
O.Palagia, Bor<as 9. 142 (froni a cult statue of 324?).
6 FUNERARV SCULPTIJRE
The ma1or srudy "~ A.Conze, Die auiulrttl
Grabrdi1s (1893-1922) now reworked and updated
by C.W.Clamnom 111 a monumenul srudy, Clas.sual
Attrc C ravNtOrlt'S (1993), to be coruult~d (or all Amc
reliefS menooned.
A.Bruckner. Dn l'ritdltofom Einda11os (1909) figs.34.
43, 49 [uz). H . D 1epolder, Dit oltutlttll Gr•brtlttfs
(193 1) fine p1crures. K.EJohansen, Tht Amt Gravt·
rtlitfs (195 1) 101erpreu110n. U.Sehnultz. Gr
Grilbrrlitfs (1983). KotSkulpt.Mtmrhtrt Ill ( 1988)
D.C .Kurtz and J.8oudman, Grttk Burial. C1moms
(1971) ch.6 (Athens cemetery and Slelat), IJ2ff.
(statuary), 223ff. (non -AttiC steb1), 234 (death-
feasl), 248ff. O •on monuments on b>tdefields).
28sf.(L10n To mb, Cmdus). R .Sruppen ch ,
Staaubegrabnis und Prh'll{~rabmal (1977) (or typology
and hiStory; no.so8 [lJO], no.124 11u1. and 10
Democracy 93ff. C. W.Clatrmont, G ravtsrom• aud
Eipigrom (1970), no.76ltt2.JI·
U.Kniggc:, Der Ktramtikos vcm Athttl (1988) (o r
layout :md monu ments, esp. tll fT . [t z~.zJ; 115fT.
[119); 122ff. ltt2.J, ttSI; 127f. I12J); t 35ff. 1126];
152ff. [tJl]. U .Vedder, Uuttmulum,J!tll z ur plast.
A1mtawmg attisrlrtr Crabanlagm dts 4 )du. (1985),
especially for sutuary: SS I• 15), S25 l1t6), S1 1 l118l,
T38 lu4J, T59 lu;l. G17 I•.J41 . G3s I•JJJ.
240
R.Garb nd, BSA 77, 125ff . (gnve penboloi),
Bu/1. /nsr.C/ass.Swd . 36, 1ff. Qegislanon). and Titt
Grttk Way <if Death (1985).
Dexileos 112o): S.Ensoh, L'H croo11 dt D. (t9ij7).
Armonautc:s: B.S .Ridgway m Kotinos (fen.
E.Simon 1992) 270ft'.
Armomache I•J •): ADtlt 19, B pl.34a
Kalln hn: Rld(;''"Y· HS 31ff. (wron g lmos,
howe\'er); C.W Clairmom, Cla.m<al Attic
Gral'tStolla (1993) I, 59, 6g .25 .
Handslu.kc:s (do:iosis): E. Pembc:rton, .\ltdlttrratlt'all
Arrhorology 2. 45ff . Gnve dogs: F.Ecks<e10,
Rmd.Potii.Acrad. 49 (1976/7) 235ff. Wamor siCbi:
C.W.CI.unnom, c ...k Rom Byz.Swd 13. 49ff.
Gnve animals: C.C. Vermeule. AJA 76, 49ff.;
D. Woysch-M6auos. La rrprkmtahorl dts anima11x
(1982).
Non-Amc: H .B iesantt, Dit TIItssaliMhtu Grabnlrtft
(1965); W.Se hild-Xenidou, BototiJI'Itt Crab· tmd
Weiltrelitfs (1972).
V1enna sa rco phagus [136]: A. Ba mmer, RA 1976,
99f.; Ridgwoy, HS 45f.; I .H itzl, Oit 8'· Sarkophage
(1991) n0.52.
7 O THER RELI EFS
Votwe: U. Hausmann. Cr. ~t?ill rtlrrft (1960);
G.Neum.ann, Probltmt des,f.r. l'f,h/JTtlitjs (1979);
M.Mangold, Alhtnalyptrt all att. 1Hthr<1ttfs (t 993);
G.Gtintn er, Gottnwrtint ... a1if atl ll'trhrtl1tjs
(1994).
H ausmann, 6gs.14 1• 48), JS 1'4•1. 38 1•171-
Neumann, figu8 [1 421, 29 1•47]. 48a I•J71· LIMC
Amphiaraos 63 [142], Apollon 679b I140), Asklep•os
201 [ •47]. H enkles IJ78[•H). 1388I•4J), Demeter
270 I14J].
Record: M.M eyer, Dit gr L·rktmdtull'lttfs (1989);
C.lawton. (orthcommg; O.Alex;mdn m ~rocrat')'
ssff. L/.1/C Korlcyra 8 (1491. Asklep1os 211 llJt l,
Oemokr:>na 7 [•J•J; Hausmann, fig>.21 -2 I•Jo).
Bases: M.S. Urouskan, Titt A(TIJpo/ts MuStum (t974)
18-20; [•JJ]- Dtmll<l'<lC)> 1 15f. I1J41 G.L<>cschke,
)df 3. 189ff.
PA RT 11. THE W ES T EiRI\1 GREEKS
8 INTRODUCT ION
HoUow;~y- full illustrat ion (s mall) and b1bhogrnphy;
3~42 o n western sculptors' names. Llf I - good
illustratio n o( all m.ajor p1eces. R obcnson , H GA
11s-20, 201- 14 . B. Ashmole, Latt A rrharr and Early
Classiral Smlpt11rt irr Sidly atrd Somh Italy (1934)- a
fine essay. Rld(;'vay, AS 213-5 (pedunems). 238-48
(metopcs), 266-7 (fnezcs); SS 23-4. 2(>. Floren,
417-39, g1ves a dense <~~nd (ully documented survey.
y ARCHITECTURAL SCULI'TURr
I•JJ]: A.W .l.awrence, Gr«k Artluttrlurr (1957) 123f
Selinu.s: L. Giuliam, Dit arch ..\lttopnr votr Stlrmmt
(1979) w1th full 1Uwrrauon~ HoUow.ty, and m AJA
92, 177ff.; LIH pls.S, 14-5. 1oo-13. Temple E lr6cl
subJects - E. Ostby, Pr•kt.X/1 Co11.~r Clas< Arch
(1988) 2oolf.; C. Marcom, Rtrtd.Acr.Pom 61, ssff
Temple FS IIJ81- U .\I C Gtgame< t3 Marble ped-
Iment figures l161)- Hollo"~Y· fig.149.
S1bns: P. Zancani-Montuoro & U. Zlnotu l3~<uu.:o,
Hrwo11 alia Foce dtl Stlt I ( 195 1) second temple (and
AtttSodlag11Grte z, pls.z -6); 11 (1954) first temple
(and Atti s. 57ff.). L/1-1 pls.!)-11, 3o-1 . Mct opes
(rom o ther bu tldm&', Hero~ioH I pls.62-5, late
replaceme nt? pl.66. Subjects o( earl1cr temple E.
Suno n , )dl 42, 25ff. and 82, 275fT. and Aui J.l
(1992), 209ff.; Zancani, Att1 5. 83~95: M . Napoh,
Civiltd 369-82; M. Schrmdt m Prsr. Brommrr (1977)
265ff.; F Croissant , BCH 89. 390ff. (on 38);
Schc:fold. C l/ s.v . index; F. Van Kc:un:n, 77u• Friar
from tlrt Hrra I Umplr ( t 989); S Rozcnbcrg, Tirr
SiltrwmtJdty ... {D1ss. Jerusa lem 1 9!:U~)
P<1esnrm metopc Her.1io" I fig. 39 . Acng<1s
Td<~~mones [164 ] - I~ Gnffo, Sulla rol/(l(a~ionr dti
Ttlamom (1952); Lawrence.
op.cn.,
47f.
Mc:upomum. Apollo Lyketos, AA t9{>6, 322.
Metope [165] L/H pl.ll Locn l166-7] - L/11
pls.122-4 . Lion heads- LIH pls.77-9 l189]
10 OTHER SCULI'TURr
Ocdl.hc: ,\fottAIIt 17, 592; I l oiiO\\'Ol)', 6g.195.
LaganeUo [170) - Hollo""Y· figs.167-<J, L ! I pl.3.
Kor:u - Richter. Kort~t no.46 [17ZI and HoUowiJy,
figs.173-4 · Sdinus. woman's he<~~d -
.\ lotrA"' J2,
pl.23.4; torso [17JI - Holloway, fig.t20; LIMC
Gigances 14. Gr.unmichde. ll oUow.;ay. fig. 179.
Kourotrophos 11741 - HoUo"~Y. fig>.20C)-1 1, L/H
pl.17 . Severe heads - llolloway, figs.87-91. 145 -6,
•so- ..
RelieiS: Monte S.Mauro f•7JI- H olloway. fig.175,
L/H pl.13. M eg.H yblaea 2 horsemen, N& 1954.
110; !176]- horseman , l lolloway. fig.2o8. Sdmw:
Amazonomachy, Holloway, figs.r 18-iJ, Grulianr,
pl.2o. Rldgway. AS 266; man a nd gtrl I1771
Holloway, fig.123; horseman and warrior
l lolloway, fig . 124; cf the odd two-he.ldcd std ar -
MotiAIIt 32, pls.27-9, GOfig.224. Tarentum [178l
j.Carter. Titt Smlpturr <if Tams (1975); liS 183f.,
R•d!;way, HS 18olf.
MAM6U
The problem - Ash mole. 5 , 14-5. Acragas heads
Ir791 - Hollow.>y, figs. • 52-s .
Kouro1~ Rtchter, Kouroi nos. 134 (Jr8oJ Somb roudas:
LIH pl.7), 182 (1182] Acngas; L/H pls.s .- s). 183
(l181l Leo nuru; L/11 pls.48-9), 185 (LIH plq6-7).
186-7; Syracuse, dressed, Holloway, figs.212·~4
Ko~i: Richter, Kora1 n0.17 1 ([JSJ] Taremum); l /H
pl.42; H ollo""Y · figs.2 12-4.
~phmx: llollo""Y · 6g>.199-200, cf. 21(>-7. N 1ke
(184]: H ollow>y, fig.223. LIH pl.43.
Berhn Seated Goddess (•8J] - Hollo""Y· 6gs.ns.
227-8; Blumel, ArchGr.Sk.lltrlin (1963) no.21; LIH
pls.so-1; A H .Borbetn 10 BoJitrort (Fest. H .Drerup
1988) 93ff. Acngas warnor 1•86) - Hollo""Y·
fill'·' 58-<l>; Crowulte 7, pls.3 1-41; LIMC G•gant<>
16.
Severe h eads: H olloway, figs. 133-5 (nule); female-
figs. 13-4 . 142-3; R 1chter, Korai pl.2oc,d (Seh nus E).
Peplophoroi · Arrlr.Ciass. 5. pls.9, 10.1; MmrAm 32,
pl.23.3. fi1,~.14-5·
MocyaiJ87I Stud.e Mar. ,l'alermo 8 (1988); V.Tusa,
A K CP 11 , 1ff.; F.Canciani 111 Kotiuos (Fesc. Simon)
1721f.
AC: ROJITHS
Paestum: Holloway, figs.1 -4 , 56; L/11 pl.45.
Lu dovtst l t88J - H oUo,vay, 6gs.163-4; LIH
pi<.6>~J Vauc.n l189 l - G.Hafn er, Jdl 81, 186ff.;
LIH pls.86 -7 . Cnmisa (Ci ro) l 190) - Hollo""Y·
fih'S.65~~; L/H pls.1 18-<); P. Orsi, T.mplmn Apollmis
Alatt (1933). the w 1g 1•9 •) . pl.2o. R.td~~y. SS
121 3·
BRO,LL, Cuv
V~l.s C. Rollcy. Ln a..'Wt'S Jt bronz~. . nt Cr.Jrrd·
Crrrt (1982). Ugentum I•9J)- H oUo""Y· 6?-8: N.
Degrass•. Lo Z.us slllllo di l.'g<nlo ( 1981). Mednu
11941- ArrltC/ass 23, pis. 16-9. Grumentum [19J]
LIH pl.z6. Cas1elve<rano [196)- HoUow>y, 14?-R,
SS 4o-1; LIH pl.81; A.M.Carruba, Borras 6, Hff
Adt:>.no lt97) Attsallia 8, 44 . pl.z; Ridgway, SS91;
LIH pls.84-5. X .
Clay: l'aestum 1•981- L/H pls.I II , IV. Gela 1•991-
LIH pi. JJ. Locn altar [zoo) - LIH pl.24 below.
Medma head lzo• J - L/H pls.6o-1 . Locn plaques
!zoz] - L/H pls.71-S; H. Pri ick ner, Dit lokrisrhn•
To11reltif> ( 1968). Cf. LIH pis. 4 -6, 5cHS 1, 65-70.
l lo Uoway passim. There is an acro-ceranUc hfe-s1ze
head, <~~rms and fc:c:t in Copenhagen , Ny Carlsberg
I.N . 3499·
EIHURIAIR OME
Camcello 12o;) - Floren, 44o-1 (pl. 4o.6); AmP/ 1.
10ff. 0. Urendel, Etmsra•t Ar1 ( 1978). [204)- Roma
Mtdro Rt pubblrtana ( 1973) 19"?-200. J. Boardnun ,
D!ffiuloll ofClassiral Art in Antiq11ity (1994) eh. 7.

PART TIT GREEK SCVLPTI!Rl' TO
EAST AND SOU'J ll
11 ANATOLlA
Doryl.;uon stele !zosl etc fU i dlc:r, Ion. Crabrrlufs
(1975); F.Naum.mn. O.t ll'<Jtl~rapJ,, drr Kyb<lt
( 1983) n0.31.
Greco-Persu.n \teba (zo6): H.Metzger. Am.CiaJs..
40, sosfT.; RA 1975. 209ff.
llog:Izkoy godde\S: GO figo.1ol'r-7; ~~~~PI 2, 7ff.
Sardis: GO fig.1()(); R.1chter, Kori.ll no.164;
G.M .A.Hanfinann/N.H.Ramagc, S<. from SardiJ
(1978) no.7(107): Naumann, op.cit. , no.34
Lydia: stelai - Hanfmann, RA 1976. 35fT.;
M.CoU1gnon, ILJ Jtal fim/r,,rr, (191 1) 47; I Idler,
op.c1t. O~d kouro~- Anatolla 4, pl~.9-10.
lycia, [Ombs: d1scovery - E .Siatter. XamJms (1994);
8.\/ Scu/pwrr Cat. ! .1 117ff.; E.Akurbr.tl. Gr Rrlu:fs dtJ
1{/du a11J Lykrm (1941; LIOn T(zoS(, 1\mda(llo(,
Try,.); T.Markstemcr, Ojlt 6 1, 6<)ff. (Jry,.): X.multoJ
I (LIOn T., HarpyT.(m]), pi.4 (109(, II (other), VII I
(Ncre•d Mon . )liBJ); C.llru ns-Otg<UI, Lyk.
Grabrrliifs drs s. mul4.)du ( 19H7.) with fi •lllms a n d
b•b l., also AA r91\8, r 74ff. (Cadyand.1(zzo(). RA
1990, 367ff. ( Lnnyra). P .Dcmargnc, RA 1968, SsfT.
fzz;]; P.Cou pd and li.Metzg:cr, RA 1976 247ff.
(ZI6]. Cf. aim THiil<ehcr, ' lirrkampjl!ilder (1972)
pl.z!ziZJ; T. Robmson, Oja forth coming (Nen:ids,.
L1myra monument (ur]: J.Borchhardt, Umym
( 1976); P.Danner, Cr. Akrotrrr (1989) nos. 149f. Try..
heroon Jzzz] O.llenndorf and G.Nlem;Jnn, Das
Heroo11 """ Gjolb=lll · Try.<a ( 1889); FEichler, Dlr
Rtliifs des Huoo11 ""' GJ· Tr. (1950); W Ch1ld•. RA
1976, 28lff. and Clly·Rtlrifs of Lycia (1978).
Rock-cut tomb ofAl.keus, Term~sos: A.Pck.ndou.
[). , Alknas- Crab (19~6); R•d!l'''>l'· liS 36f
12 THE LEVANT AND N()llTII AFil i(:A
Cypms. N1kokreon (22J] V Karageol'l\hiS, Sal"'""
(191\9) ch.4; /lw. " ' '' "' o(.' i.tlamiS 3 (1974) 128lf.
Sidon sarcophag.· anthropo•d (u4] - E .Kukahn,
A111ilr.Sark. (1955); M L.Buhl, A "a Arc/1. 58, 213ff..
[zzs-8]- I . Kieemann, D.-r Satraptllsark. (1958); R
FleJscher. Dtr K/~1/<'fwmrsark. (1983): B. Schnudt-
Dounas, Dtrlyki$drt Sark (1985): V. \-'"On Gracvc, Dt-r
Altx. - sark. rmd stmt U?rk.ittut (1970); Radt-;w<~y. FS
149-51, HS I 37-45. 65 --7. Tnbunc (zz9(
R.A .Stucky, 1hbrmt d'lithmorm (1984) and 111 AK
Beih efi 17 ( 1993).
Cyn:naica: E. Pan bem, Cat.tlr!lt &. dt Cinme (1Y59)
.nos.S [ZJO] (Richter, Kow n o. 168), 22.JZJIJ. Archa1c
-
J.C.Ped ley, AJA 75, 39ff.; D. W h rtc, 1h1d. 47ff.
Funerary bus[S - LD~ch t , Am111nrio lltrflt ] r/2.
133ff., no. 105 (lJl].
Cart hage [1JJ] - I I . De n ichou -Safar, Us hlmbts
prmiquts dt Carthage ( 1982) IJOfT.
Phoem caans e ase and \\-" C SC J. Boardnun, Dtffusiort of
ClassictJI Art m At1trqur1y (19<)4) ch.J.
!'ART W A!\'CIE:\'T ASD A,V'J1QL'c
IJ COLLECfiNG AND COLLECfiONS
A.Rumpf. Archllo10$!1t I (EinJe1rung. llmor1\Cher
Uberbhck; 1953)- a . succinct .survey ofthe ~ubj«t.
Anoquny:JJ.Pollm. 17rrArt ofAnnrlll Grtr<t (t <J<)O)
-
. so urces. a .nd Tro1tJS.Amtr.Pilii.A5S. I OR. I ssff. On
Greek .sutues m Rome. J .Doo.rdnun, ·n,t D!Jfusiotl
ofCitUSical Art in Amrqurty (1994) 272-91
P.P.Bobcr and R.O .Rubmstem, Rt~~aiSJaiUt ArtiSIJ
oud Autrqut &rtlpturt (1986). EHa~kcll and N Penny,
Tastt a, J the Atlttque (1981)- whence my ~ubt1tle.
S.Howard, Bartolomro CaJ.U(fPP' (1958, 1982) 18th
cent. restorer.
Ca~ts: P.Connor 111 Rn/ismwrifl}( H rllruism (ed.
G.WC!arke,
1989) 187fT. N .Hunmdman n ,
Utopisd1e Vtf$?auxeuheit ( 1976) 138fT. Essays 111
jouru. llist.Collertious 3.2 (1991).
J.Cranr, A Pilla,R< of Art (1966). l.Jenluns.
Archaeologists at~d Aesthetes (1992) Urau~h Mu\Cum.
Atutudes and t he: A.nnque: llurundmann , op.clt.
Stcwan, CS 33 1f. -
hst of museum nulogues and
b"lldt!S. A .M1chaebs. Anritm Marblts w Crrm Bntam
(1882); updated by C.C .Ver meule and D.von
Bothmcr m AJA 59, 129ff.; 6o, 321ff.; 63, 139ff.,
329ff
(1J4] - Bobcr/Rubmuem, op.c11., 475; E Wmd,
P•g•n .\fyJttriN (1968) ch.12 . (ZJS] - U.A,hmolc.
Catai£Jgllt of tilt Atllitrtl ,\farblts at lB. H . (1929).
Jz.J6 .ZJS] - l bskeU/Penny, op.cu . . fig .t and cf 21.
(ZJ9] - U .Ashmole, f>ro<.Bnt.Arad 45. 2yf., pl.2.
(140] B.Aslunole, Awlurw aud 5(11/ptor (1972)
tig.174. [.141]- H .Gamlm, &mna, LAdy Hatmlttm
(1891). drawing by F.Rehburg, pamt<r eo the Kmg
of PruS!IJa m Rome. [z4J· ' ·z]- 1862 phoco from
<stereoscope: pacnare, and 1987 l5 now d ispbyed; both
by permassaon of the Trusteei, N:uaonal Mucoeurm
;md Gallcri~ on Mc~side. IZ44I - V.Our uy.
Hutory of Grecrr (1898). ]145(
A.A.Ur.~ un.
H u·roglypllic or Grrtk .\l ethoJ of Lift Dr.lll'lfl,'( ( 1921)
114 . lz46J- D .Wan.s, 771t Rmaissmut of tilt Grrrk
Ideal (191 4) p i.J.
GAllERIES
The maJor collections of copies are m London
(UM), Par is (the Louvre), Ucrlm, Mun1th,
Frankfurt, Kassel, D resden, Madnd (the Prado),
Copenhagen (Ny Ca rlsberg), Istanbul, Sr
Petcrsbu rg, V1enn.1; and se'<eral l u.h;m m useums,
notably m Rome (th e Vatican, Terme Nau onal
Mmeum, Villas Uorgh~ and Albam, the lbrlomoa.
Bar racco :md Dpat olme/Conservaton Museums),
Florence (Uffiz•). Napl01, VeniCe (Doge's Palace).
Manrua. ~t101, Tu n n. There are useful collecnons
m Brussels, Budapest, Oxford, Cambndge, Geneva.
Scockhoh n. Local finds m Cyrcne. Chen:hel
(Aigena), Alcx.1ndna, Ca1ro, lznur.
Survi\-;ng country house collectiOns m Engl.tnd
of substance are Broadland,, Pecworth, Brocklc:<by.
Holkham l l all, Mubury Hall, RI<hmond
(Doughty House). Wdcon !louse, Woburn Abbey.
Port Sunlight; the I nee lllundell collecuon tS now 111
l1'<erpool. Not all th~ collecuons a re re.1dlly
accessible.
Of the p ubhc collections mentioned thmc l hat
have a substannal range ofo n gmal Creek work\ are
111 London, Pa n s, Berlin, M umch, I stanbul, V1enn a;
oand m Italy. for the loc.a .l finds, th e museunu m
Paestum, Reggao, TAranto. Palcrmo, Syracu~. In
Greece the Achens Naciona1 Museu m 1s t he prune
. so urce, but there are also in Athens th e Kerame1km,
Ab't>r.l and Acropolis Museums, and nuny loc;al
museums ofwhich the most important for .sculpture
Oli"'C Ptracus, Olymp1a, Delplu, Eleus1s, Thebes,
IJelos, Ep1daurus, Corcyn, Herakl10n, Corfu,
Connth, Samos, Rhodes, Sparu. Te~a. Th.asos.
In the USA the museurm in Boston. New York
and Mahbu Q. Paul Getty) have by now a good
r.mge of coptcs and ongmals.
MaJor C'..a5t G.allen es are t o be found m Oxford
. 1nd Dmbndge; the great collection of the Ecole
des Ue.;a. u x-Ar[S m Pa r is will reopen m VeJYillei;
Lyon; th ere ;are several m Germany
llonn.
GOtt mgen, Mumch , Berlin, and m many U m verstty
lruutute.s; R ome (M useo de1 Gessi), Florence
(Mmco dei Calchi); At hens (Univers•ty); Basd
(Umversity): Cop e nhagen (Ny Car lsbcrg); Pr.~gue.
24J

INDEX OF ILLUSTRATIONS
IGL,TO. Mus.Arch Reg.
n+oo77. tS6; s 51, 179; 164,
'2
JROS, Museum 245, 78
ALYA. Museum ZZI
lE."iS, Acropohs Museum 610,
IJjl, 111; 1]38, Jjj
IE..."iS, Agon. Museum I 6524,
50; I 7154. 146; s 2154. JO; s
)70. 51
lf..., .S, Kerameakos 119, 110, 131
lENS, N<~tional Museum
36-?,142.14 -4 . 10; ISS· -'7. 11;
73,138; 180,9; 181.7]; 182, _s8;
I S--?. 28; 2 18, 78; 24), ]2; 299,
•; 3 IJ, 63; 737. IZJ; 754, Ill;
74, 11j; 819. 1Z9; 82), 118; 8JJ,
•8; 869, 124; 88 4, IJZ; 997. llj;
377. ' 4 7: 146), lj2; 1467, 149:
572, 1574. 6; l j81-2 , 7: 1733.
1; 2744, 1ZZ; 3369, 141; 3472,
>7: )002, 53: )619" -20, 1]4'
~1 7, 139: 4487, tz6; 4680. t o;
r 6439, 44; llr IJ39(\, o: Br
511 8, 42; Ep1gr 3942, 145
WT, Arch.Mus. 214, ZZ9
UN, Staat.hche Museen 297.
J]; 499. 11]; 1725, .so: 1761,
~5; K 106, 141; K 2~3. 85; P 22.,
7; 69
~:-~. Alu;d.Kunstmus. 108
To-., Mus.Fine Am 9(1.69(1,
14; 0).74).
_ s6; OJ-757 . tt6;
~.1 2, 6o; 10.70,57; 52 17-P, 61~
j.j6j, 114
TOS, Sackle r (Fogg) Mus
)26.48, So
uao~. M useum 1177, 3; .54
RO, Mus. 101
\ BRIDCE, Fitzwtlham M us. GR
1964. IJJ
<1PIEG~E. Mus. Vt\'enel 103
•ENHAGL,, Ny C:l r~b<rg 231,
H; 234, 148; 3362, 40
ltahc numbers refer to figures
Cvar~r. 1\rch.Mus. 14 .008, zJo;
14.017,l .JJ
OJ tPIIl, Mu~um 36<), 36;
TH6.1J44.238o. 14; t], t.S
DaJ.SOeo~. A.lbertmum 100, 71:
117. S4; IJJ. JJ
E1 n.:~1~. Mu\eum so, 59
Ft ORF'ICE. Puu P.tbce 89
Ft o Rt se[, Uffiz1 9<'
GUA. Mus.Arch 8410.171:199
G1'l.vA. Mus.d'Arch et d'Hist. 95
l iAVANA, Ugumlbs Coli . 137
hTAN8lJI, Arch.Mus. ]67, zzs;
368, ZZ7; 369, zz6; 310, zz8; 680,
lOj; 763. 210; 1450, 209; 576 4,
zo6; zq
I.£MUt, Arch. Mu~. 904, 21z
LIVI Rl)(")()l , Pubhc Mus. 81
LONOON, Orittsh M meum
512,7,9, 4; 124,8,3J.41, .s: sss.s.
866,8.9 , 879. 889 , 898a, 905,
C)09, 910, 9,4,5 ,7.9, 218; 950,
219; ICM)O-T , 19; 1002, 18;
l oo6,f4,s,zo,z, 21; IOJ7, zz;
1045, 18; IOS4 . to; 1075. 18;
12o6, 2]; IJOO, 49; IOOo,
62: 1827. 97: 1904-7 -J .I, 195;
19484141,5.5;l3286,208;B
287. 2u; B 190. 213; B 292.5,
Zl$~BJOO,I, zr6;BJl2,114:
Dr 268. 4.l· Gems 001, SJ
LO!I.OO ,, Roy~J Ac~demy 11
Los A"'CELES, County Mus.
jO.JJ .2J , ~
MAoRJo. Pr.tdo E 87, 68
MALIBU, J Paul Gcny M us.
70.M 109. 76: 88.M .76, 192
MAI'-;1~1\, Arch.Mus. 4029, ZOJ
M"T"•· P .ll. Du<.llc 39
M oTYA, Mus.Arch. 187
M UN ICH, Glyptoll1ek 219,24; 245,
7.l: 497, IIJ; J9
NAPn~. Mus.N;az. 841, 79; 2828,
41; 6oo1. 37: (1020, 82; 6 129, 93;
6 139. 104; 6190.96:6239. IOD-I.
641 5, 94: 168
NEw Yoa.x, M clropoht;an Mus
29.54 , 178; )0.11.4, 1;
s6.2J4.1S. n
NJCOSIA, Cyprus MuS<um llJ
OLYMPIA, Mu~um S, 25
0Rvt ETO, Museum 1307, ZOJ
OxFORD, Ashmolc;an Mu\Cum
1959.203, IJO; S_t, 204
PAFSTUM, Mus.An:h. 161-}, 19S
PARIS, Louvre 370, 38; 8s8. •.H .
928, 65; 1177.132: MA 441.27:
MA 529. 86; 98
PARMI\, Mu~.Naz. 74
P!RAEUS, Museum 46, ,o·-8
R.FCCIO, Mus.Naz. IZS, 166; 649ft
zoo; 16.5, 167, 19<'--1, 20 1 -.z
R OME. Mus, Barracco 109
R o ME, Mus. Cap1tohno 6s. 110;
)02, 9 1; 739. 70
RoME, Mus. Conscrvaton 2417,
34
RoME. Mus.Naz. (Termc) I s6. 66:
t88
R oME, pnv.ate 194
SPARTA, Mu\eum 468, 140
Sr PnERSBT... -RC P;an.t6o. 143
SvltACLSE, Mus.R~g. 23624, 181;
Jo6jl, 17 _s; 47041, 172; 49401.
r8o; 53234, 174; 169, 170, 1;6,
184, '9 7
TARA~TO. Mus.Noz. 20923. IS);
121]27. '91
TECt.A, Museum 59,6o, 9
Tt;!l." lS, B:illrdo M us. ZJJ
VATICAN, MuS<I 812, t6; 13racclo
Nuovo 2288, 67; 2286. 9Z;
Gal.d.Sut. 250, 72; 29, J.l, 64 ,
99. 106, 189
V t ENNA, Kunsthl~t.Mu). 169, 136;
lll
Once Lansdowne Coli 105
INDEX OF ANCIENT ARTISTS' NAMES
Albmenes 19
.1\ndrosthenes 26
ApcUcs I J. 54
Or)<tXIS 29. 56 . IJJ; Jl
Dcmctnos 56, I04
Euphr:mo..-
12, ss. 71. 74, 104; JO
Eurych1de< 77
Hektondas 22, 25
lknnos 23
Ka.llunachos 27
Kephisodotos 52-3; 14
The pubhshcr and :iiiUthor arc
md~bt~d to many mu~cunl5 and
collectJom n:illmed m capuon.s for
photogr.~phs :illnd penniss10n to
use them. O the r soure~ are:
Germa n Institute, Athens 6. 8 .
9( 1. )), 10(2). " · 1J(2,J). )2. 6) .
122. 125, IJI, IJl, 138; German
lt~hc numbe ~ refer t o ligu~ coapuons
Kln1b~ IOJ
Lcoc:hncs 19. 29. SS · 71, 73,
104-S · IJJ; 29
l)".,lppus 12, 15-1(•, 1 ~22. ss.
57-8.70, 72 -6 . IO.f-6. 116. IJJ;
.U-41
Ly~l(tr:ltOS 12
N•ukyde< j(>; _12
Niki.u u
P;a1omos 26
l'htdta< 72. 77
Polychtu~ 12, 1s- 10, Z.l, 56-7,
7<>-1 . 7l
Pol yeukto~ 1os
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
l nsucutc. lsunbul 217~ GcnnJn
lmunuc, Rome z.r.. ]4. H(t). 41,
67. 75(1). lo6. 162(2-6). 16),
Amennn School of Cla..,teal
StudJe<, A1he11> JO. 51 . 14 5. 146,
ISO: M.Cri'lofam .103; D. Finn
46-8; A Framz 9(2). 2 1(1-5). 169;
G1raudon 154: I hrmcr Vcrlag 25,
J7. 42(1), 43(1). 49. SJ. 124(1).
Polygnotus 1o6
Pnxias 26
Pr:a...xneles 12-IJ. 15, 27, 29, sJ-7 .
7<>-7 . 133; z.s-11
l'}'lugor.os 143
P\.1hcos 22. 29
pYtlus 29
Saryros 22 . 29
Scopas I S. 22 , 25, 29, 56-7. 71.
74' J4- .s
Silaruon 1 2, s6, 104
Theodoros 26
Theod otos 25-6
Thrasymedes 25
Timotheos 22. 25, 29, 56, 71, 77
IJS, 156(2), 157(2). 16o(2-4). 1r•s.
180. 18 1(1). 182-4. 188-<]. 19(\-8.
201-2 ,
. 226-8; D.C .Kunz 247;
0.Palagia 59: R.S1ucky 229;
Totnbaz1 54; R.L . WilkmJ 83;
Author J. 13(1). 14(2). 27. JJ. 55.
ss. 69. 70, 98, 115-6. 121, t.n-8.
14<>-2, 144 · 147. 18j(2), 214 6,
2)2. 2)8.
245

rdccn H ~;ad 72; 6z
,thu~ column 14. 27, $5. 133;
;
doos 131; 146
illcs 25: 9, 162
•gas 143. 149. t6J-s; '""· 119.
~2. 186
>bth~ l44. J6j-6; 18$- i)l
.11 10 166: 197
ma 164
~hylus 105; 104
'P 104
thon 112
.IS s-r8. 73: 36
at 55
tst hos 16.1
aion 166; 160
1e us 103
12j
"Candcr 2g-JO, 55, 57 , 72, 75,
0 4--6, 21j;JS, 111
~StlS 2J
zia 57-R
:nons 14, 24-6, 28-JO, 57.
1]-18, 149. 16], 192;.,S, 10,11 ,
}6. J6o. 1ZZ
phtaraos 131; J4l
lromachc 161
:lromeda 11
lros 75; 78
1kyther.t 10: 43
ioch 77
1rodtte IJ, 15, H. 57, 7>-J.
6, 166; z6, 56-7, SJ z, 136
>llo 23, 26--7, 54-s. 57· 7' 4·
Jl, 13J, 146, 149, t6j,21j-·J(I;
, '4· z;-8, ]0, 64 J, l]<r-"40, q6,
56-J, l6o, 161, 190
>Xyo menos 15, 57-8, 133: J.S
hinos 132; 1-1 .1
s74:66
;os 24, 30: 6-7
hatzmg t6
adne 72; .ss
)tiOil 116
stonautcs 115
stophanes 1o6; 108
stotle 105
enus 24, 26. 71-2, 76, 148;
J-8, 84-6, l.J<r-"40, 146, 151,
56-7, 160, 16z
emisi;a 28; 19
GENERAL INDEX
ltaht: n umbers refer t o figure capnons
ll'klep10< 2\-1 '> , 71-2 . 74. 7S ,
IJI-.!; 59· 67, q;--8. 1-fJ. ljl
AtJio~ntc: lS
1\t>rbos IJJ
/\then• 11>, 25. JO, jj, 71, 76-7 .
14(r-?, llj; z. .f 6. ' 49· lj;-8.
1M. 184 - P.utheno~ 15. 22R:
144
Athem 7. 16, 18. 23-5. 29-31,
jZ6,7J4•77•IOj, Iq-17,
131 J, 14S Acropolis 16. 27,
76. IOS-<1, IJJ, 222: l . .ss . Ill.
147. ljJ. Ag:ora 55. 71. 103.
1(»6; 24, JO , jl, ljO.
Lr~chtllt:Jon 19..H .
Kcnmctkos 114 17: 11 2-16,
11 8-1_1, 126-J, IJI ·1 , 1]4·
Puthcnon 1 1, 23 4, ]o-1 ,
74, 114, IJJ, 149,225.227.
Theatre 74
Athletes 16. 1 0~. 1o6. 116, 133: 6z
1\ugc 25: 118
Aur.u 2(,; 11
JJ.nae 73
Jl><S>C 2J j, JO; 4 5
Uc:Uerophon 192: zz1
Bcnd1\ ljl
Bcs 191: zzz
OtJiS 105:99
Ub.ck Sc;a 1 17, 132: 143
Bocou.1 117. 162
Bo,cr 70; 44
Onuron 16, 72; .J . . .S4
Cad}~nd.l uo
CJiydoman llo.n 25. 76. 192; .z .zz
C,ml(."ell<1 ZOJ
Canon 15 .
Cm• 28 ·JO, 72, 187-8
Carthagc 143. 149, 164.21 4 . 2 16;
1JJ
Ca~mcn.1c 162; 172
ca~\<11ldra 25; 10
Casu:lvctnno 166; 196
Ccntaur~ 24. 26. 215; j, zzz
Ccntocc:ll e 71
Ccrcs 167
Chauonc~ 114, 11 8, 132; '.15
Chan\3
Cluos 72,57
chry,clcpllil nUn e l l, 15, 55, 165
clay 144 , 146, J.t 9. J(t0-77; 16."1.
J(jS-ZOZ, ZO.f
Cnidus IJ,15.27. s4 .7I.76,117;
z6, 49
COtn\ 11.\, I04
colosul 12
colour t t-14
Conon 103
Corcyr.a 1.19
Corfu 146
Cormna 104-5: IOJ
Corinth 115, 144 ,·149, 167
Coronca 11 5
Cos 13,54
Cybclc: 11 6, t 88; IJO, 1~1. 207
Cypru\ 118, 189. 2 14; ll)
Cyn:ne 70, 216; 45, ZJ0·- 2
CyTia cus 139
Dacdalus 144 , 165
Damoph 1los ' (q
Daocho, 57, 73, •os; 36
Daphne 16o
Oaskyl.Jon t88; zo6
D ci;anctn 161
O el<h 19, 71
Delph1 I4, I6, 19, .22. 2(r7,
29-JO, jj , j7, 72-j, I Oj, 14~-<J.
• 6s. 222; •r15, .16
Oemar.atu\ 167
Dcmcu:r 27, 52, 71, 14~t 166; 49,
J4], 146, 156, 191
Dcmctna 115; 119
Demetnos 19, 114
D cmocncy 132; ,SI, 150
Demos 132; l.f 9-. SO
Demosthen~ 105
death-fe~t 116-17
Dep1os JjJ
Dex1lcos I IS; 111, 120
Dion 57
D10nysios IJ1
Dionysios If S.S
D1onysos t6, :z.6--7. 52--4 . 72-s,
13 2~~3, 147, Z l j; J, 16, lj, 68-9,
146. l jl, 1)8
Dioskouroi 132; 162, 1 6~7. 1l2
Donutian 74
D orylaion t RR; 20.5
Ecbauna 118
Egypt 103, 214, 216,22.2
Eirene p;J. .14
Eb 145
Eleusl.\ 72. 1 14 , 132; 59. 7J
Enkebdv~ 147
Eos 159
Ep1daurus 19, 22, 2,5-<i, 56, 71,
74• 77: ID-11. j .l , 1)8
Eptkrate'i 59
Ep10ne 147
En'i 16z
Eros 14· sS. 75: ZJ. 71
E\hmun 29, 11 8; 13
Etrun<1 143. 145, 167
Funonu<~ J
Euphnes 151
Eunptdes 1o6: 107
Europa lj6, 161
Eurystheus 162
Euboulcus 75: 73
Eurytton 16.2
Ganymcdc 5 .S; 19
Gda 162, 166; 171, 199
gems 18, 76; 8J
gian ts 24-5, 30, 147; 161
G1bson 13, 227; 143
Gocthc 227
b'Orgone1on 146, 191; I.S.S
Gr.1rn michdc 162
Gr3nd Tour 223-4
Gramkos l7
gnffins 117; 13-4
Grumcmum 166; 195
H<~des ZJ, 177, zo1
H~likarnnsos 28. 72
l bnulton 227; 141-z
H arp1cs 189; .111
llec;atc 14::0
H ector 162
H clios sS: 161
Hellemsnc 11 -12,16,s3 - 8.71· 4 .
104. 1o6: z..s . So
HephJistos 1
Hen 24. 146, 148--<): 16o, 161
Herades 18, 25-6, :z.S, 30, 57· ·8,
71. 74-5. 104. 132; ' · 5• JJ,
J!)-~ 1, 61, 74 -(j, l~J, 145, 156-7,
160, 161, 218
llcrcul,m~um 223; 79
I fermcs 14, 52-3: 56, 72. 74 6,
IJI; ), 1), lj, ]l, 77-9, 141 , 146,
ljl , 162
henm 72-3, 103, 105; 63, 9., . 98,
lOo-~. JO., . 108-10, 1 -47
Herodes Atricus 223
Hcrodotus 105: 100
Hes1od 100
Huncra 149, 165; 169
Hulcr .uR
Home r 103, 105-<1; 109-10
llydn 16z
Ily~,.,. 71. 74. 77, 131; 51, 88-9,
IJ7, 147
lh\)0) 116; l.l4
Inee 131undell I b ll 1Jj
lnd1a 2.22.
In~ 161
hmdl 1X9; 210
lsocr.uc -s IO.l·5
lstro' 117
lxton 161
Kauo~ ~8
Kalluhca 11 7
Kcphalm 159
Kcrko}X:\ ljJ, 161
Klyummcstra 162
Kore 77: 90, 141 , 143, 156
Knrcm'i ~7
Krmma 1b5; 19CJ-I
Ktc'itlam 127
Laganello 1b2 3: 170
Lapnh~ .~
L<d> 77: 91
l~ontmi 164, 181
L<to z6, . ll: IJ9. 156-7
lnnyu 191; 111
hon\ 114, I IM. 149; 114, l)j, 141.
'5 4 · 16..~. 118
l ocn 1.49, 167; 166-7. zoo, zoz
lorynu 1~9; 112
loutrophof'O\ 116; I.Jl-.f
lyc1a I M~2, 21 S
l .yt:ur~'tiS 10 4 -6
Lyd•• 187 8
Lysander 1(,
Lpta"i 105: 96
Ly'iikratc:' 27. 133: 16
M acedom<t 7, 19, 55. 57 . 104. 1o6.
I18,133,21~
maenad Jl
Manttnc:J. 55. 133; z8
Marnthon 70; 42
M arsy;u ss. 13.1: .z8
Mamolu~. Mausoleum 22, 27- JO,
S6-7 . 105, I 17-1H, lg<rl;
I J--ll , 140
Mazt 24; 8
Mednu 1<>6-7: 1$7. 194. 201, 111
MCb'3ra H yblaea 162-4, t8o: 17-1 ,
176
Meg:tra l7
Mele:.b~r 76; So
Menande r 1o6
Menidt 117
Meo;.senc 133; 154
Meupomum 149: 168
M •chebngclo ZJ4
M •k},hos 100
Monte S. Mauro 163; 175
Morg;mana 165
Mo[}~ •6s: 187
Muses 26, 55. IJJ; 18
Myb so 72: 6o
Napoleon 224
N eoptolcmos 1~6
N crc1d, 30, 190-2; t 6J, 218
Nero S.z
Nessos 162
N ike 26, 30, 52, 76, 133, 190: 1,
11, 8j, lj2, 2 1)
N ikeratos I 17
nudity IJ, 15, 53 -4
Odysseus 192; 162, z .zz
Olymp1a 12, 19, 24, jJ, jj, 57,
70, 72, lo6, IJJ, I43, 148, .222:
J9, 44
Orestcs 161
Oropos 131; ·~z
Orvteto 167; .ZOJ
Onia 88
Oxford 223-4 •.2 28: 1-47
Paestum q8, 164--6; 1l}3
Pamph1le 115; 119
Pan IJI; 146, ljJ
P.1in.lllJOS IJZ
P.1inathcru.Ic \-~ p; 14
Pms Sl
P•ros 56
P<1trok1os 16z
P<1us.amas 31 , 53
Payava 2 19
Pegasos 157
Peleus 218
Pclias 162
Pd!Jch os IO..J .
Pdops 162
Penelope 192
Pcrgamum 30; 87
Periander 105; 97
Periclcs 23, 103
Persep hone 216; 1J, 177, 102
Pcrsem 147, 191 -l; 4J, 1.57. zz 1
247

berdec
=-~mht
15
ehdo<
chiUes
eragas
181, I
crohth
dr:mo
cg:uu
eschyl
esop
gathOJ
gtas 5
gni 5
igistln
ktaion
lcaeus
lea 25
lexan c
104-4
lkestis
lyz~>
lll;I.ZOI
11 ?-
1]6. I
mphta
ndron
ndron
ndros
nuk:yt
lltiOd
phrod
76, I
poUo
1)1,
J. q,
Jj6-;
poxyo
rchinc
ftS 74
.rgos.
Jchatz
.riadm
. r isttot
.riston
.ristop
.ristotl
.rtenu•
47-8,
156-:
~rtenw
Per<.ta 19, lJ, 27-H . JO, 105, 114,
ttS, 187-92.215: 18
per<.omficauom 16
Plun.alo~ 57
Phtbraleta 23
Ph.hp 11 ll, 55 • .17- 104. IJl
Phocaea 145
Phocmcta 118, 146, 165, 214 ~ 1 6,
lll
Proklc<i and Proldetd~ 11_ ,
PhoiO\ 161
Phryg~a I R7-R
Phryne 13, 53 4
Pnoem s>. jj, 7<>-1, 76: 46-S.
llj, 119, l.f~lf, I'll
l'ltuk"' lOS: 98 -
plaster IJ, IOJ, 124 ; lJJ~S
Plato 11, ss. 104-s: 95
Plmy Is. l9, p, ss. sR. 100
Plou1os s>: 14
Pluto 132
Polyxcnos 1 17
portram t6,ch s. ,,7, 214
Poscu.lon 74
P01hos .17; JJ
Poulydamas 57. , 33
Pnam zs; 10
Pnene 30
pne<~tess 104
Pyrrht;a~ 115
R aph ael 123
rc;a.hsm 1 1-1 S
Rhamnou' 73. 11 s; 6J, 11s
RheglUm •·w; J6j ·
R•;acr • 5• •6?
Rodm 13
R ome 54~8, 74, 143. 164, 167,
l.U -4; 75, 81, 104
S;abmis 214; 113
S3b'i 110
~111~ 71, 143; )0
~mothnce 57
S.ppho IOJ. 188
<>rcophag~ ss. 118, 214-16; ;8.
l_f6. 119. 114 -8
S.rd.m>p>il<>'i 74: 69
Sardr; 1~I>; 107
~tyr 54. 75; 16, t t>-1, 115
Scythi;a n 118
!>ehnus 143 , 146-88, 162--<i;
1 55~1. 17)· 177
Senpt'i 56
Seven 3b"lllbt Thebes 1 92; zu
Seven Sages 104- 5
Sidon 11 8, 189. zq-16; 114-9
S1l.uis 148-9: 16z-J
Sunan 227: 144
Sum 1zz
SlfCilS I I 5; I 15-16
S"yphos 161
Socrates ro4-ss: 93_4
Sombroudas 16 4; 180
Sophodcs 105-6: 1os 6
Sos1kratcs 111
Spam 216
Sparu 16. 18. 166; 61
Sperlong• 16
SUte gr.wes 11 5, 1 1 1~2
Sulb 70
Syncu.se 143, 164; 184
T.mulm 161
Tarentum 19, s~. 143, r64 , 16(,;
178. ISJ. 185
tcchn1que •z-- 14 , , 44
li
Telge•h 22, 2S, s6, 71, 76: 9. 53
ccposz.s:9
Thanatos 1}
Tlusos 73-
The;ano 1.17
The nustokles 1oJ
TheieU'i 24. zs, 1<)2; 211
The<piOe 54, 18. 11 8
Them 1 18
Thucydades •os: 101
Thytadei 26-?; 14
T1C)-os 161
TnptolcmO\ 75; 71
Truorn 149; 166 ·
Troczrn ;z
Troilo\ r6z
Troy >4--6; 10, 161
Try~ 189. 19 1 -2
IUssauds t6
Tyche 16,77; 5 1, 91
'YJI'O' 22, 25. 56
Ugentum t66: , 9J
V•ccory, srr N1ke
Vitruvtu'i 29
Wmckelmann 227
women 18,116
XJnthcx rRR-<Jr; 108-(}. 1 11 ,
li_J -18
Xenophon lOS; 10.1