Anticlassicism in Greek Sculpture of the Fourth Century B.C. [1 ed.] 9780814709719, 0814709710

Citation preview

Anticlassicism in Greek Sculpture of the Fourth Century B.C.

The publication of this monograph has been aided by a grant from the Samuel H. Kress Foundation

BLANCHE R. BROWN

Anticlassicism

in Greek Sculpture of the Fourth Century B.C.

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS for The Archaeological Institute of America and The College Art Association of America

Monographs on Archaeology and the Fine Arts sponsored by

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA THE COLLEGE ART ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA XXVI Editors:

Carl A. Roebuck Lucy Freeman Sandler

Copyright © 1973 by College Art Association of America Library of Congress Catalog Card No.: 72-94082 ISBN 8147-0971-0

to my father Samuel Levine and life

Preface

THANK PHYLLIS BOBER, Lionel Casson, Elsbeth Dusenbery, Giinter | Kopcke, Naphtali Lewis, Bluma Trell, and my husband Milton W. Brown, all of them colleagues and friends, for their great generosity in giving their time to read this manuscript. They made invaluable corrections and suggestions. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Nicholas Yalouris, of the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, who very generously gave me an oral, illustrated explanation of

the then up-to-date state of his restoration of the architectural sculptures of the Temple of Asklepios in Epidauros. In deference to his right of publication I restrict myself in this book to information that has already been published about the sculptures, to photographs that were taken before Yalouris did his important work, and, with his consent, to verbal observations on those sculptures which are at present on public view in the museum at Athens. I consider it a special favor also that Andrew Stewart, then a student in the British School at Athens, showed me his photographs of all the newly found pieces of figurative sculpture from Tegea, discussed with me the results of his researches on Skopas and related subjects, and suggested several bibliographic items.

I am grateful for favors as well as courtesies to the personnel of the libraries of the Deutsches Archdologisches Institut in Rome, the British School at Rome, and especially the American Academy in Rome, with particular thanks for kindness to

John Ward Perkins, Inez Longobardi, and Frank E. Brown. It was of essential importance to me that I was permitted to see sculptures that were then not on public view in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens and the British Museum in London, for which I offer warm thanks to V. Kallipolitis, Director of the museum in Vil

vil PREFACE

Athens, and Brian F. Cook and R. A. Higgins, Keepers of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities in London. For supporting these researches financially I am indebted to the American Council of Learned Societies for a Fellowship and to New York University for an Arts and science Research Fund Grant.

At the last moment I thank the members of the Monograph Committee of the Archaeological Institute of America for their sound and helpful comments and Annalina Levi, Ruth Nachtigall, and Nada Saporiti for essential help in proofreading.

Contents

Preface Vil List of Illustrations XI

I. The Problem 1 II. Sculpture 5 II. Chronology 25 IV. Other Arts 39 V. Polzs and People 44

Notes 69 Index 89 Plates 105

VI. Epilogue: The Next Problem 64

1X

List of lustrations

1. Figures from the east pediment of the Par- meikos cemetery, Athens. In the National thenon, Athens. In the British Museum, Archaeological Museum, Athens. Photo London. Photo from the British Museum. from the Deutsches Archdologisches Institut, 2. Nike unfastening her sandal, from the Bal- Athens, Ker. 5976. ustrade of the Temple of Nike Apteros, 10. Upper torso of an Amazon from the west Athens. In the Acropolis Museum, Athens. pediment of the Temple of Asklepios, Ept-

Photo from Alinari, 24626. dauros. In the National Archaeological

3. Nike, from the Balustrade of the Temple of Museum, Athens. Photo from the Deutsches Nike Apteros, Athens. In the Acropolis Archaologisches Institut, Athens, Epid. 164. Museum, Athens. Photo from the Deutsches 11. Legs of a fallen Greek from the west pediArchaologisches Institut, Athens, Hege 909. ment of the Temple of Asklepios, Epi4. Nike by Paionios of Mende, from the Sanc- dauros. In the National Archaeological Mutuary of Zeus, Olympia. In the Archaeologi- seum, Athens. Photo from the Deutsches cal Museum, Olympia. Photo from the Archaologisches Institut, Athens, NM 2296.

Deutsches Archdologisches Institut, Athens, " . ; Hege 665. 12. Torso of an Amazon from the west pedi-

5. Detail of the Centauromachy, frieze from ment of the Temp le of ASKP eee idauros.

the Temple of Apollo Epikourios, Phigaleia. a Oh a epee Aan In the British Museum, London. Photo from , the British Museum. logisches Institut, Athens, Epid. 152.

6. Nike by Paionios of Mende, restoration. 13. Torso of a Greek from the west pediment

Photo from Alinari, 24854. of the Temple of Asklepios, Epidauros. In 7. Detail of the Amazonomachy, frieze from the National . Archaeological Museum, the Temple of Apollo Epikourios, Phigaleia. Athens. Photo from the Deutsches ArchioIn the British Museum, London. Photo from logisches Institut, Athens, Epid. 116.

the British Museum. 14. Torso of an Amazon from the west pedi8. °‘Penthesilea”’ from the west pediment of the ment of the Temple of Asklepios, Epidauros.

Temple of Asklepios, Epidauros. In the Na- In the National Archaeological Museum, tional Archaeological Museum, Athens. Athens. Photo from the Deutsches ArchaoPhoto from the Bildarchiv Foto Marburg, ologisches Institut, Athens, Epid. 1-3.

134333, 15. Part of a Nike, akroterion from the east

9. Grave stele of Dexileos from the Kera- side of the Temple of Asklepios, Epidauros. XI

xii = LIST. OF ILLUSTRATIONS

In the National Archaeological Museum, the Temple of Asklepios, Epidauros. In the Athens. Photo from the Bildarchiv Foto National Archaeological Museum, Athens.

Marburg, 134331. Photo from the Bildarchiv Foto Marburg,

16. Riding woman, akroterion from the west 134423.

side of the Temple of Asklepios, Epidauros. 27. Detail of a battle between Greeks and Per-

In the National Archaeological Museum, sians, from the frieze of the Temple of Athens. Photo from the Deutsches Archio- Nike Apteros, Athens. In the British Mu-

logisches Institut, Athens, NM 335. seum, London. Photo from the British

17, Riding woman, akroterion from the west Museum, London. side of the Temple of Asklepios, Epidauros. 28. Detail of the Amazonomachy, frieze from

In the National Archaeological Museum, the Temple of Apollo Epikourios, Phiga-

Athens. leita. In the British Museum, London. Photo

18. One of the Dioskouroi, akroterion from the from the British Museum, B-1536-537. temple at Marasa, outside Lokroi Epizephy- 29. “‘Andromache’’ from the east pediment of tio1. In the National Museum, Reggio Cala- the Temple of Asklepios, Epidauros. In the bria. Photo from the Hirmer Fotoarchiv, 123. National Archaeological Museum, Athens. 19. Riding woman, akroterion from the west Photo from the Deutsches Archaologisches side of the Temple of Asklepios, Epidauros. Institut, Athens, Epid. 144-146. In the National Archaeological Museum, 30. Male figure from the east pediment of the Athens. Photo from the Bildarchiv Foto Temple of Asklepios, Epidauros. In the Na-

Marburg, 134330. tional Archaeological Museum, Athens.

20. Riding woman, akroterion from the west Photo from the Deutsches Archaologisches side of the Temple of Asklepios, Epidauros. Institut, Athens, Epid. 137. In the National Archaeological Museum, 31. Part of an archer from the east pediment Athens. Photo from the Archaologisches In- of the Temple of Asklepios, Epidauros. In

stitut der Universitat Gottingen. the National Archaeological Museum,

21. Nike, akroterion from the west side of the Athens. Photo from the Deutsches ArchioTemple of Asklepios, Epidauros. In the logisches Institut, Athens, Epid. 157. National Archaeological Museum, Athens. 32. Torso of a man perhaps from the east pedi-

Photo from the Deutsches Archaologisches ment of the Temple of Asklepios, Ept-

Institut, Athens, Epid. 147. dauros. In the National Archaeological

22. Nike, akroterion, attributed to the Stoa of Museum, Athens. Photo from the Deutsches Zeus, Athens. In the Agora Museum, Ath- Archdaologisches Institut, Athens, Epid. 754. ens. Photo from the Agora Excavations, 33. Dying man from the east pediment of the

Athens, LV-16. Temple of Asklepios, Epidauros. In the

23. “Nereid,” probably akroterion, from the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Agora, Athens. In the Agora Museum, Photo from the Deutsches Archaologisches Athens. Photo from the Agora Excavations, Institut, Athens, Epid. 251.

Athens, LV-68. 34. Head of ‘Priam’ from the east pediment

24. Nymph, akroterion from the Temple of of the Temple of Asklepios, Epidauros. In

Apollo dedicated by the Athenians, Delos. the National Arent Bia vem

In the Archaeological Museum, Delos. Photo Athens. Photo rom the Deutsches Arc mu

_ . . logisches Institut, Athens, NM 4694.

from L'Ecole francaise d Athenes, 16399. 35. Detail of the dying man from the east pedit-

25. ‘‘Nereid” from the platform of the Tomb ment of the Temple of Asklepios, Epiof the Nereids, Xanthos. In the British Mu- dauros. In the National Archaeological seum, London. Photo from the British Museum, Athens. Photo from the Deutsches

Museum, London, LXV-C-10. Archiaalogisches Institut, Athens, Epid, 250. 26. “‘Neoptolemos’’ from the east pediment of 36. Head of a man from a pediment (which

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS = xu

side is uncertain) of the Temple of Athena British Museum, London, 1007. Photo from Alea, Tegea. In the National Archaeologi- the British Museum, C-2336. cal Museum, Athens. Photo from the 48. Column drum from the Temple of Artemis, Deutsches Archdologisches Institut, Athens, Ephesos. In the British Museum, London.

Hege 876. Photo from the British Museum, XXXVI-

37. Head perhaps from the cult image of Hy- B-35.

gieia by Skopas in the Temple of Athena 49. Column drum from the Temple of Artemis, Alea, Tegea. In the National Archaeologi- Ephesos. In the British Museum, London. cal Museum, Athens. Photo from the Bild- Photo from the British Museum, XIV-P-9.

archiv Foto Marburg, 134246. 50. Daochos I from the votive group dedicated 38. Helmeted head from the west pediment of by Daochos in the Sanctuary of Apollo, the Temple of Athena Alea, Tegea. In the Delphi. In the Archaeological Museum, National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Delphi. Photo from the Deutsches ArchaoPhoto from the Deutsches Archdologisches logisches Institut, Athens, Delphi 400.

Institut, Athens, Hege 879. 51. Sisyphos I from the votive group dedicated 39. Female figure, akroterion from the east side by Daochos in the Sanctuary of Apollo, of the Temple of Athena Alea, Tegea. In Delphi. In the Archaeological Museum, the Museum of Tegea, Alea (formerly Delphi. Photo from the Deutsches ArchaoPiali). Photo from the Deutsches Archdo- logisches Institut, Athens, Delphi 391. logisches Institut, Athens, Arkadien 520. 52. Aknonios from the votive group dedicated 40. Female figure, akroterion from the east side by Daochos in the Sanctuary of Apollo, of the Temple of Athena Alea, Tegea. In Delphi. In the Archaeological Museum, the Museum of Tegea, Alea (formerly Delphi. Photo from the Deutsches ArchaoPialt). Photo from the Bildarchiv Foto logisches Institut, Athens, Delphi 395.

Marburg, 520. 53. Head of Agias, from the votive group ded1-

41. Head of Apollo from the Mausoleum of cated by Daochos in the Sanctuary of Apollo, Halikarnassos. In the British Museum, Lon- Delphi. In the Archaeological Museum, Deldon. Photo from the British Museum, XL- phi. Photo from the Bildarchiv Foto Mar-

C-40. burg, 135113.

42. Seated figure from the Mausoleum of Hali- 54. Sisyphos II from the votive group dedicated

karnassos. In the British Museum, London. by Daochos in the Sanctuary of Apollo, Photo from the British Museum, LX-C-20. Delphi. In the Archaeological Museum, 43. ‘Maussollos” from the Mausoleum of Hali- Delphi. Photo from the Deutsches Archaokarnassos. In the British Museum, London. logisches Institut, Athens, Delphi 387. Photo from the British Museum, XII-D-17. 55. Agias, from the votive group dedicated by 44. Detail of the Amazonomachy, frieze from Daochos in the Sanctuary of Apollo, Delphi. the Mausoleum of Halikarnassos. In the Brit- In the Archaeological Museum, Delphi. ish Museum, London, 1006. Photo from the Photo from the Deutsches Archdologisches

British Museum, C-3684. Institut, Athens, Delphi 369.

45. Detail of the Amazonomachy, frieze from 56. Agelaos from the votive group dedicated by the Mausoleum of Halikarnassos. In the Daochos in the Sanctuary of Apollo, Delphi.

British Museum, London, 1013. Photo from In the Archaeological Museum, Delphi.

the British Museum, LII-C-1. Photo from the Deutsches Archdologisches

46. Detail of the Amazonomachy, frieze from Institut, Athens, Delphi 377. the Mausoleum of Halikarnassos. In the 57. Dionysos and the Tyrrhenian Pirates, frieze British Museum, London, 1015. Photo from of the Monument of Lysikrates, Athens.

the British Museum, C-799. Photo (after a cast) from the British Mu-

47. Detail of the Amazonomachy, frieze from seum, London. the Mausoleum of Halikarnassos. In the 58. Detail, frieze of the Monument of Lysi-

xiv. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

krates, Athens. Photo (after a cast) from 70. Hermes with the Infant Dionysos by Praxt-

the British Museum, London. teles, from Olympia. In the Archaeological 59. Detail, frieze of the Monument of Lysi- Museum, Olympia. krates, Athens. Photo (after a cast) from 71. Head of Hermes, from Hermes with the

the British Museum, London. Infant Dionysos by Praxiteles, from Olym60. Detail, frieze of the Monument of Lysi- pia. In the Archaeological Museum, Olymkrates, Athens. Photo (after a cast) from pia. Photo from the Bildarchiv Foto Mar-

the British Museum, London. burg, 897.

61. Sarcophagus of Abdalonymos, from Sidon. 72. Apollo Sauroktonos, Roman copy of a statue In the Museum of Classical Archaeology, by Praxiteles. In the Museum of the Louvre,

Istanbul. Photo from the Museum of Clas- Paris. Photo from Alinari, 22548. sical Archaeology, through the courtesy of 73. Apollo Sauroktonos, Roman copy of a statue

Nezih Firatlt. by Praxiteles. In the Museums of the Vatt62. Sarcophagus of Abdalonymos, from Sidon. can. Photo from Alinari, 6505. In the Museum of Classical Archaeology, 74. Grave stele from Athens, found at the River Istanbul. Photo from the Museum of Clas- Ilissos. In the National Archaeological Mu-

sical Archaeology, through the couttesy of seum, Athens. Photo from the Bildarchiv

Nezih Firatli. Foto Marburg, 134322.

63. Sarcophagus of Abdalonymos, from Sidon. 75. Grave stele from Rhamnous. In the National

In the Museum of Classical Archaeology, Archaeological Museum, Athens. Photo Istanbul. Photo from the Museum of Clas- from the Bildarchiv Foto Marburg, 134863. sical Archaeology, through the courtesy of 76. Grave stele from Attica. In the Ny Carls-

Nezih Firatli. berg Glyptotek, Copenhagen, 201a. Photo 64. Sarcophagus of Abdalonymos, from Sidon. from the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. In the Museum of Classical Archaeology, 77. Grave stele of Polyxena from Athens. In Istanbul. Photo from the Museum of Clas- the National Archaeological Museum, sical Archaeology, through the courtesy of Athens. Photo from the Bildarchiv Foto

Nezih Firatli. Marburg, 134877.

65. Satyr Pouring Wine, Roman copy of a statue 78. Grave stele of Damasistrate from Athens.

by Praxiteles. In the National Archaeologt- In the National Archaeological Museum, cal Museum, Palermo. Photo from Ander- Athens. Photo from the Bildarchiv Foto

son, 29204. Marburg, 134901.

66. Satyr Pouring Wine, Roman copy of a statue 79. Record Relief of 375-374 B.c.: Treaty be-

by Praxiteles. In the Albertinum, Dresden. tween Athens and Kerkyra. In the National Photo from the Deutsches Archaologisches Archaeological Museum, Athens. Photo

Institut, Rome, 69.2713. from the Deutsches Archdologisches Institut,

67. Aphrodite of Knidos, Roman copy of a Athens, NM 443-1467. statue by Praxiteles. In the Museums of the 80. Record Relief of 355-354 B.c.: Proxeny deVatican. Photo from the Deutsches Archao- cree for Lachares of Apollonia. In the Na-

logisches Institut, Rome, 68.3650. tional Archaeological Museum, Palermo. 68. Aphrodite of Knidos, Roman copy of a Photo from the Deutsches Archaologisches statue by Praxiteles. In the Torlonia Mu- Institut, Rome, 66.201. seum, Rome. Photo from the Deutsches 81. Record Relief of 362-361 B.c.: Treaty beArchaologisches Institut, Rome, 69.2714. tween Athens and the Peloponnesian States. 69. Hermes with the Infant Dionysos by Praxt- In the National Archaeological Museum, teles, from Olympia. In the Archaeological Athens. Photo from the Deutsches ArchaoMuseum, Olympia. Photo from the Deut- logisches Institut, Athens, NM 4499. sches Archaologisches Institut, Athens, Hege 82. Record Relief of 347-346 B.c.: Honorary

668. decree for the three sons of King Leukon

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS _ xv

of the Cimmerian Bosporos. In the National Copenhagen, 436a. Photo from the Ny Archaeological Museum, Athens. Photo Carlsberg Glyptotek. from the Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, 93. Tyche of Antioch-on-the-Orontes, Roman

Athens, NM 2593. copy of a statue by Eutychides. In the Mu-

83. Record Relief of 331-330 B.c.: Honorary seums of the Vatican. Photo from Alinari, decree for Rhebulas, son of King Seuthes. 6497. In the National Archaeological Museum, 94. Tyche of Antioch-on-the-Orontes, Roman

Athens. Photo from the Deutsches Archaolo- copy of a statue by Eutychides. In the

gisches Institut, Athens, Grab 405. Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest. Photo

84. Record Relief of 330-329 B.c.: Honorary de- from the Museum of Fine Arts, A31-44. cree of Demades. In the Archaeological Mu- 95. Crouching Aphrodite, Roman copy of a seum, Delphi. Photo from Deutsches Archa- statue attributed to Doidalsas of Bithynia.

;9.Bis ae oa ep In the National Archaeological Museum Recor eel of 329-328 B.C.: Honorary Naples. Photo from Alinari, 34328. decree for Euphnes and Depios. In the Ny 96. Crouching Aphrodite, Roman copy of a Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen, 231. statue attributed to Doidalsas of Bithynia. In Photo trom the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. the National Museum of Rome. Photo from 86. Coin of Tissaphernes, satrap of the coastal the Deutsches Archiologisches Institut. provinces of Asia Minor. In the British Mu- Rome, 66.1681. Museum, Department f wom us vane 97. Female figure by Chairestratos dedicated by

87. Coin of Pharnabazos, satrap of Daskylion. Ren in the Temple of Themis: 7

In the British Museum, London. Photo from amnous. In the Nation al Archaeological the British Museum Department of Coins Museum, Athens. Photo trom the Deutsches

and Medals. Archaologisches Institut, Athens.

88. Coin of Mithrapata, dynast of Lycia. In the 98. Female figure dedicated by Nikeso in the

British Museum, London. Photo from the Sanctuary of Demeter, Priene. In the PerBritish Museum, Department of Coins and gamon Museum, Berlin. Photo from the

Medals. Staatliche Museen, Berlin, PM 7117.

89. Head of Plato, Roman copy of a portrait ??. Female hgure perhaps dedicated by Nikostatue probably by Silanion. In the collec- Kleia in the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore,

tion of Dr. Robert Béhringer, Geneva. Knidos. In the British Museum, London. Photo from Herr Prof. Dr. Hansjorg Photo from the British Museum, XIV-D-23.

Bloesch. 100. Jockey, found in the sea off Artemision. In

90. Statuette of Plato, reconstructed from a cast the — National _ Archaeological Museum,

of a lost torso (of which copies are in Athens. Photo from Hannibal, Athens. Karlsruhe, Strassburg, and the University 101. Jockey, found in the sea off Artemision. In

Museums of Leipzig, Bonn, Kiel) and a the National Archaeological Museum, head in Athens. Roman copy of a portrait Athens. Photo from Alison Frantz, Athens, statue probably by Silanion. In the National AT 79. Archaeological Museum, Athens. Photo 102. Gaul Committing Suicide after Killing his from the Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Wife, Roman copy of the central group of

Rome, 70.2053. a monument dedicated in Pergamon by At-

91. Demosthenes, Roman copy of a statue by talos I. In the National Museum of Rome. Polyeuktos. In the Museums of the Vatican. Photo from the Deutsches Archiaologisches Photo from the Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Rome, 56.343.

Institut, Rome, 30.639. 103. Detail, frieze of the Monument of Lysik-

92. Demosthenes, Roman copy of a statue by rates, Athens. Photo (after a cast) from Polyeuktos. In the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, the British Museum, London.

1 The Problem

HE FOURTH CENTURY B.c. has long been understood as a century of

[ce change. By the time it ended, the Greek polis was submerged in a

vast imperial system, Greek minds were recasting their ideas about life and death, and Greek art was creating new, non-Classical forms. This is a statement with which few people are likely to disagree. But if one goes on to ask when the crucial change was made from the po/zs system of the fifth century to the imperial system of the late fourth century, or when new attitudes began to govern Greek life, or when a new style appeared in art to replace the Classical style, then not only is disagreement likely, but the argument is in fact under way. There 1s, of course, a traditional answer to the question. Since the nineteenth century, scholars have postulated that the crucial moment came in 323 B.c., with the death of Alexander the Great, when, they say, the Classical period ended and the Hellenistic period began. But this answer itself raises many questions. Why should one date by the death of Alexander changes that were already in effect during his lifetime and which may have been set in motion earlier than that? In fact, 323 B.c. is an oddly negative year, since it marks an ambivalent interval between Alexander's own enormous enterprise and the shifting struggles for alignment and power that fol-

lowed among the epigoni. Didn't that year therefore rather mark a moment of pause during an ongoing imperial power struggle, already past the historic transition from polis to empire? And if so, when did that transition occur? Co-related are the questions about art. What exactly is the relationship between the art style that we call Hellenistic and the death—or the conquests—of Alexander? Did the Classical style

die only when it settled into conquered Eastern lands? Or did Alexander bring a post-Classical style into the East? And if so, when did the art itself begin to show new, non-Classical traits? 1

2 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

Discussion of these issues has seldom assumed the form of a head-on debate. Apparently scholars have preferred to think the matter over quietly in their studies, and they have offered their opinions about when the transition took place most often in tables of contents, in the years chosen for periodization. But the opinions they have come to are in fact very diverse. Many continue to place the epochal change at the traditional year, 323 B.c. Some push the date forward, more push it backward, and recently Carl Schneider made the remarkable suggestion that Hellenistic culture is different from other cultures in that it cannot be given period limits at all.' Those who push the date forward generally go to c. 300 B.c., or a little beyond. Of those who push it backward, most go more cautiously, to 325 or 330 or 334, when Alexander began his Asiatic conquests, or 338 B.c., when his father Philip conquered the Greeks at the Battle of Chaironeia, and the Greek polis succumbed to Macedonian control. But even then, one can ask whether new ideas and configurations would have prevailed only when arms prevailed or whether the sequence was not rather the reverse, so that recently an occasional historian or art historian has proposed that the break was made earlier, in 350 B.c. or in 360.” Going further back in time, beyond 360, we approach still another crucial time of historical change, the one that traditionally has been described as the shift from the Mature Classical to the Late Classical period. Here, too, although it has long been recognized that a change occurred, there is no unanimity as to when it occurred, and various dates have been suggested, falling usually from c. to 405 to c. 375 B.c. Earlier or later dates also have been mentioned, as late on occasion as 350 B.C., in which case we find one man’s date for the end of the Classical period coinciding with another man’s date for the beginning of the Hellenistic period, and the Late Classical period 1s eliminated entirely.’ Thus we are brought to what seems to be a new question. It was put this way recently by Francois Vannier, when he was called upon to write a book on the subject: “Is there a Greek fourth century?” * Does the fourth century, or any part of it, constitute a separate, definable period?

The perplexities and disagreements that are indicated here no doubt reflect in large part the basic and obvious fact that human history is a most complex and untidy phenomenon, that it is multileveled and multimotivated, and its interactions are so dense and so various that one cannot hope for simple and singular answers. This being so, the periodization of history must at best remain a kind of academic game and the division at precise years a kind of gentlemen’s agreement. Everyone knows that changes are prepared in advance and resisted afterward, that there are forerunners and foot draggers, that certain channels of continuity persist, and differentials of place and person and time are innumerable. But historic change does

THE PROBLEM = 3

occur and historians must try to understand it, describe it, and consequently approximate the time when differences become so great as to be notable. In the present instance, no one seems to doubt that there are differences between

the fifth and fourth centuries, and indeed they have been painstakingly studied and described for generations. But it continues to be the prevailing tendency to couple the two periods under the term Classical. Charles Picard, who published the most extensive account of fourth-century art, offered a long, detailed analysis of the changes that occurred, both in life and in art, but he still identified the years from 480 to 405 B.c. as the First Classical period and the years from 405 to 323 B.C. as the Second Classical period.’ Walter Schuchhardt, who devoted a volume specifically to the problem of the periodization of Greek art history, came to very much the same conclusion.” A few scholars take a stronger stance, among them Karl Schefold, who in recent works has emphasized and underlined the continuing Classical nature of the fourth century.’

However, some voices also have been raised on the other side of the argument. Among historians, T. R. Glover, as early as 1910, maintained, “The Battle of Salamis

marks the beginning of a new age of one kind, the day of Aegospotamoi of the other. The fourth century is quite another thing from the fifth’; and further that there was “fresh life in all directions, and if the nation was sick, it was really from tullness of life struggling for expression.” * In 1960 Victor Ehrenberg resumed the issue polemically in an essay on the periodization of ancient history, insisting that with the fourth century “a new age began’’; it was “not simply a continuation of the fifth,”

but a “period of transition, wrongly attached .. . to the classical Athenian century, but standing as a bridge between the Greece of the Polis and the Hellenistic Age.” ° In 1967 Francois Vannier answered his own question in the affirmative, finding a distinct period from 404 to 323, and giving an excellent account of it. “All tension, atdor, and vitality,’ he says, ‘the fourth century is something other than the fifth century degenerated.” '? Among art historians also, some have moved in this direction,

more or less explicitly. One can cite, among others, Collignon, Ziichner, Siisserott, Dohrn, Alscher, Roux in relation to architecture, and, even in a survey history of art, Janson.'' Collignon calls the fourth century an era of transition. Ziichner and Siisserott both refer to fourth century art as post-Classical, and Dohrn says, “From the seventies there are more and more indications that point to a change in the ideal of beauty” and, ‘The great artists of the mid-century are separated from their teachers, as the result of a different concept of life, in taste, temperament, and vitality, by a fissure so deep that the continuity is broken.” '? None of them, however, states positively that the Classical age is over or suggests a new terminology to replace “Late

4 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

Classical.” Alscher also makes a bold statement, saying that if we compare a work of the fourth century, especially the second half of the fourth century, with one of the fifth century, ‘then a division becomes visible which cannot be explained only as

a further development of the style,” but he vitiates his stand, in my opinion, by basing his argument on the Apollo Belvedere.'* Concerning architecture, Roux writes rather more precisely, “. . . I confess for my part to be less aware, in the Greek fourth

century, of the symptoms of degeneracy than of the promises of the future,” and concerning the Argolid architecture which is the specific subject of his book, he notes

“with what vigor, in this beginning of the fourth century, the architecture of the Peloponnesos . . . involves itself boldly along new ways and arrives at certain creations

so fertile... that, by the way of the Roman tradition, it will leave its mark on Western architecture from the Renaissance to the end of the nineteenth century.” Janson says that ‘‘the art of the years 400-325 B.c. can be far better understood if we view it as pre-Hellenistic rather than as Late Classical.” "

I propose to make the question explicit and to look for a forthright answer. [he Classical style, it goes without saying, I consider here as the specific historic manifesta-

tion which began in the fifth century B.c., not as a universal or an absolute.” Given that specific style, when did a new style appear to replace it? Correlatively, when did new attitudes begin to govern Greek life? And when did the crucial break occur be-

tween the polis system of the fifth century and the imperial system of the late fourth? Nor is it permissible, at this point in history, to evade the issue by using the term “transitional.” Surely art historians, if not others, agree by now that all periods are more or less transitional and all are definable with more or less complexity. Only those have been called “‘transitional’’ which were not yet adequately defined.

The question will be examined here primarily in terms of the art of sculpture. Toward that end monuments of the late fifth and the fourth centuries will be examined once more, even though they have been examined many times before. Selection will be based on two important factors. First, as much as possible, major examples

of original Greek art will be chosen, so that we can confront Greek forms directly, without having to cope with the intricate, deceptive problems of copyists’ variations. Second, works will be chosen which can be dated as confidently as possible

in the fourth century, so that we can also confront the century unambiguously, without coping with the possible confusion of chronological intrusions. As we examine these monuments, we will ask: When does a decisive change in content and form occur that marks a qualitative shift to a new idea and a new configuration?

Hn Sculpture

TIS GENERALLY AGREED that there was an Early Classical period from | c. 480 to c. 450 B.c., which was followed by a Mature Classical period from c. 450

to c. 429. It is also agreed that the Classical style continued afterward with a phase that 1s called Rich or rezch or flewr7. This phase may be considered in part a pause and retrospection, characterized by a preference for grace and elegance, with

a flare-up of linear pattern-making which, in quite new terms of course, perhaps recalled the linear pattern-making of the past. For Athens at least, G. Donnay and C. Delvoye have explained this diversion from Periklean boldness by the aristocratic conservatism that came in with Nikias."°

In the Rich style, bodies tend to become more slender and refined in proportion, more fluent and pretty in movement, and they are often enwebbed in a decorative proliteration of drapery lines, accompanying the shape and movement of the body or elaborating on them, in some cases with fanciful and extravagant embellishments. But the Classical formulae are retained, Classical rhythms prevail, and these give the impetus and the rationale for all the embellishments, however extravagant. The style is embodied in a series of beautiful Greek originals, going from c. 429 B.C. into the early fourth century. They include Paionios’ Nike in Olympia (Figures 4, 6) and the architectural sculptures of the later phases of the Hephaisteion, the Temple of Nike Apteros, the Nike Balustrade (Figures 2, 3), and the Erechtheion in Athens, the Temple of the Athenians in Delos (Figure 24), the Argive Heraion,

the Temple of Apollo in Phigaleia (Figures 5, 7, 28), the Nereid Monument in Xanthos (Figure 25), the tomb enclosure in Gjélbaschi-Trysa, and the tholos of the Marmaria in Delphi. In a number of these monuments, the subjects come from a common repertory, p)

6 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

in which the Amazonomachy and Centauromachy predominate. Within these subjects, also, there is a common catalogue of specific motifs, which incidentally have an earlier history as well as a subsequent one. Among these motifs, for example, are the man advancing in three-quarter view seen from the front, the man advancing in three-

quarter view seen from the rear, the man advancing to the right but turning his upper body to confront an adversary behind him, the prisoner on one knee with hands tied behind his back, the Amazon pulled backward by the hair, the dying Amazon falling from her horse, the man fallen on one knee striking back at an adversary behind him, the dead lying on one side with an arm over the head, two symmetrical centaurs pounding Kaineus into the ground, and others.'’ All are used in a more or less fresh admixture each time, and adapted to the regional style or the personal hand or the particular composition. Many of these figures are represented as moving about with considerable vigor, some of them in violent attitudes, or with pronounced torsions of the neck or body, but almost universally they are governed in their total effect by the Classical format of the integrated, unified flow of line, the harmonious continuum. Even where there is an overt torsion of the head or body, it is neutralized by spreading the form out as flat as possible along the relief plane, by emphasizing the continuous curve of the outline, and by arranging the drapery folds to reiterate and reinforce the formal continuity. Among the essentials of Classical style are not only harmony and poise and idealism and decorum, but also just this fully realized, consummated flow of rhythm which starts at one extremity of the figure and continues, with a marvelously cathartic effect, to complete itself at the other extremity. This, of course, is exactly the effect

of Classical contrapposto, in which the rhythm moves, in full harmonious integration, from the engaged leg, out with the hip, over the upper torso, and back with the turn of the head 1n the direction of the engaged leg, completing and closing the graceful and balanced S-curve of the movement. There are sometimes complications along the way, or elaborations, but the continuum inevitably wins out. This is true, for example, in the Parthenon pediments, where complications are provided by the drapery, which has a rich and even turbulent life, but one which basically enhances the large, integrated movement of each figure. In the two connected sitting and reclining ladies of the right side of the east pediment (Figure 1), where the drapery eddies and swirls around breasts and bellies and thighs, the lines still move as fluently and inevitably over the large forms as freshets, while breaking around rocky obstructions, make their way down a stepped mountainside. It was stated above that the Rich style is governed by the Classical format ‘‘almost universally.”” The proviso was inserted because, within its dominantly integrated and

SCULPTURE 7

unified effect, one sometimes feels the intrusion of other ideas and feelings. There 1s a general tendency to evolve more complex postures and, in some cases, to thicken the mass of the body and the drapery, and to begin to separate the two. Sometimes also there are rhythmic threats to the Classical continuum. In the Nike Balustrade, the ladies attributed by Rhys Carpenter to “Master C’’ '*® (Figure 3) are a little more

loose-jointed in their movement than the others and their limbs jut out at slightly more abrupt angles. But generally the style seems to have been adhered to relatively firmly in Athens. More signs of change appear in the Argive-Sikyonian school, among the followers of Polykleitos. They, Dorothea Arnold found in a recent study, began to make incursions on Polykleitos’ contrapposto system even while he was still alive,

from c. 420 on, taking an important step in the Lysander Monument at Delphi in 405-403 B.c., and gathering momentum during the first two decades of the fourth century.'* Her most dependable evidence comes from a study of the footmarks left on the upper surface of bases inscribed with the names of Polykleitos’ followers. There she found the traces of new stances, implying effects which she characterized with such words as “instability,” “tension,” “restless activity . . . projecting into the surrounding space,” ‘momentary character.” *° Among the original works still extant, also, the most striking signs of change are to be found in monuments of the Pelopon-

nesos. In Paionios’ Nike (Figures 4, 6), in Olympia, the movements of individual limbs and parts of the body have a tendency to separate from one another, producing a looseness in the continuum that slows down the free flow of the movement. The strongest interruptions of harmonious flow, the most jarring breaks in the smooth Classical rhythms, occur in the frieze from the Temple of Apollo in Phigaleia (Figures 5, 7, 28).*' Charline Hofkes-Brukker has argued that the animated Phigaleia style derives from Magna Graecia, making her point by adducing coins and earlier monumental sculpture by the western Greeks.” This could well be the case. But even the Phigaleia frieze still adheres to Classical patterns. Individual figures may interrupt

the composition abruptly, notably the two Lapith ladies with arms outstretched in sudden diagonals (Figure 5) and the Amazon collapsing into zigzags over her falling horse. But, as we can check again now in the recently completed reinstallation in the British Museum, where the entire frieze 1s placed, as it was originally, on the four walls of an interior space, even those ladies are absorbed into an over-all, continuous, curvilinear rhythm which is unusually vivacious but unmistakably Classical.

So far, then, the Classical format has been threatened by a potential separation of its parts and an occasional break in its rhythms, but it has still prevailed. Where I tind that a breakthrough does occur, that new feelings and new formats do insinu-

8 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

ate themselves and then take over, is in the most probable of places, in the most appropriate of monuments—in the Temple of Asklepios at Epidauros—again in the Peloponnesos—the first major building erected in the course of enriching and enlarging that very Sanctuary of Asklepios which has long been considered one of the most characteristic new centers of the fourth century B.c.”" Above the site of the sanctuary of Asklepios, on a mountainside, there had existed since Mycenaean times a cult of the local hero Maleatas, to whom the god Apollo was assimilated. In the mid-sixth century B.c. the cult spread down to the valley, and in the late sixth century Asklepios, who was known from Homeric times as the hero son of Apollo, appeared there as a god, beside his father. The cult of Asklepios seems to have derived from Thessaly, where it was based at Trikka. There was an early Asklepieion in Gortys in Arkadia, from which most of the Peloponnesian Asklepieia apparently derived. At Epidauros, by the mid-fifth century, Asklepios was crowding his father out of the valley sanctuary. In the third quarter of the fifth century, the

Epidaurian cult began to spread beyond local boundaries. From the early fourth century the sanctuary became a major panhellenic center, and of its development K. A. Pfeiff has said, “This event is the beginning of a new world.” *™ In this sanctuary the healing god, elevated relatively recently to divinity, was worshipped by

individuals, individually concerned and involved, whose physical problems were treated, it would seem, by both mystical and material means. The syndrome of such a search and such a response was typical of a developing new world in which the society of men, loosed from the central focus on common polis-regulated ideals, was splintering into private polarities, and individual men were groping for new guidelines and new procedures. The Sanctuary at Epidauros was the most extensive religious building project of the fourth century. In the third quarter of the fifth century a few modest buildings had been raised there for the newly expanding Asklepios cult. But the monumentallization was begun in the early fourth century, when Asklepios was provided with a temple, which was raised on new ground, according to Roux, and was no doubt the first large temple of Asklepios at Epidauros, and perhaps in Greece.” Then, gradually, the temple was supplemented by a new complex in which one building was raised after another throughout the fourth century and into the third century B.c., including

such famous and important structures as the tholos and the theater.*° The idea of the sanctuary was new, the resulting architectural format was new, and in its buildings Georges Roux has found a ‘‘creative activity,’ a “new style,” which he calls ‘‘the Epidaurian style” in quotation marks. On page 4 above he has already been quoted as saying that the architecture of Epidauros “‘involves itself boldly along new ways.”

SCULPTURE 9

He says further that the buildings ‘‘will recall the past less than they will prepare the ways of the future.” He believes that this ‘“Epidaurian” style was prefigured boldly in the Temple of Apollo Epikourios in Phigaleia, which he sees as a transition

from the architecture of the fifth century and a strong influence on the Peloponnesian architecture of the fourth century. The style was crystallized, he declares, in the Temple of Asklepios, and it continued thereafter.” The sculptures of the Temple of Asklepios are available now to a greater extent and with a greater clarity than they were earlier because they have been studied, identified, reassembled, and reconstructed, in publications by Johann Friedrich Crome

and Barbara Schlérb, and physically, most extensively, in the Athenian National Archaeological Museum, by Nicholas Yalouris.*° Some of the temple’s sculptures still conform to the Classical style. The figures of the west pediment, 1n which the Amazonomachy 1s represented, carry on the growing

concern with the substantiality and the specific texture of body and drapery, and begin to move in space more boldly than earlier sculpture had done. The women can be quite deliciously round and soft (Figure 10), the men quite robustly muscled and modeled (Figure 13), while the garments sometimes are thickened enough to suggest a separate layer of yardgoods. Amazons and Greeks move with a crisp energy that

catapults them rather precipitously at this angle or that, not only following the direction of the relief plane, but also occasionally going three dimensionally into space. In the “Penthesilea” of the center (Figure 8), if we compare her, as others have done, with Dexileos of the Athenian tombstone of c. 394 B.c. (Figure 9), we find that her limbs spring a little more loosely from her joints, there is a slight rhythmic break at the hip as she leans forward, and her body makes its torsion more freely in space. But all of the fighting Amazons and Greeks, it seems to me, are still strongly bound to the Classical style. In ‘“Penthesilea” the movement still runs clearly and continuously from top to bottom in a system of harmonious curves which, in a drawn restoration made by Georges Roux,” is completed by an upraised arm and a slightly dropped head. Her garments, while they bunch more heavily than earlier at the waist and neck, are still governed by the body's shape and posture, all unified with the lovely lucidity of the Classical format. In the falling Amazon (Figure 14), the body not only twists at the waist but also breaks into diverse spatial planes, both the upper and lower torso jutting forward at an angle, and yet the arc of her movement flows right across the break at the waist and is repeated melodiously in the echoing arcs of drapery, while her left arm defies the limpness of death to remain on her left side, reiterating its curve. In Yalouris’ more complete restoration of the figure, as it appears now in the National Archaeological Museum, several pieces have been added

10 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

which extend the arc of her movement smoothly and continuously, by the downward drop of her head and her right arm. The Amazon of Figure 12 was grouped by Crome with the Greek of Figure 13. In the Museum, added pieces show the Greek extending his right arm to pull the Amazon’s head backward by the hair.” This is a violent motif, but it is one of our traditional Classical ones, and it is handled with traditional Classical harmonics, the extended head itself marking the beginning of an arc of movement that sweeps through the body to the knees and balances the opposing arc of the movement of the Greek. A pair of prostrate legs from a fallen male figure (Figure 11), it seems to me, fit stylistically here within the Amazonomachy, probably in or near the right corner, where Crome put them in his restoration.” They were part of a man who was lying on his side, his two legs parallel, one on top of the other, maintaining both the planar unity and the decorum of the Classical style. In the present display in the Athens Museum, however, those legs are grouped with the figures of the east pediment and two other prostrate figures are placed in the corners of the Amazonomachy pediment.

Ot the latter two figures, Crome knew only one (Figures 33, 35) and he also put it into the Amazonomachy pediment, in the corner opposite the prostrate legs.” Roux, however, later, argued for assigning that figure to the east pediment on iconographic grounds,” and Schlorb subsequently added stylistic arguments as well. Also, Schlorb knew about the second prostrate figure (“the dying figure discovered by Yalouris in the storerooms of the Athens National Museum’’) and she located them both in the east pediment, in opposite corners.** I agree with Roux and Schlorb, for reasons that will be offered below.” Since the provenance of the latter two figures was not recorded, no evidence can be adduced from that quarter for their original location. The fragmentary legs were found, together with a considerable number of pieces of the temple’s sculptures, within a wall that was built later between the west side of the temple and the tholos. All of the pedimental pieces found in that wall have been incorporated by Crome and Schlorb into the west pediment, which ts closer to their finding place, with the exception of one, the striding man illustrated here in Figure 32, which Schlérb included in the east pediment, and which 1s placed there also in the installation of the Athens Museum. Crome, who was the first to present the striding man within the pedimental groups, had some doubt that it belonged with the temple sculptures at all because, although its size corresponds in general to the others, its individual anatomical members are heavier than those in any of the other temple sculptures. If it does belong in one of the pediments, I would agree that stylistically it must be the east one, for which reason I must acknowledge here that the evidence of provenance may not be conclusive.

SCULPTURE 11

A beautiful, fragmentary Nike, called Iris by Crome, (Figure 15) which was found at the northeast corner of the temple, has been identified as an akroterion of the east side, opposite to the Amazonomachy pediment. Since the statue is extant only down to the waist, and badly broken, we cannot do more than guess at the total effect. The flying drapery is quite complicated. But the fresh, firm young body seems to begin a clear, graceful, sinuous curve, and the drapery that covers the body follows and reiterates its movement in the Classical manner. When we turn back again to the west side of the temple, and look at the two riding ladies who formed the side akroteria over the pediment that contained the Amazonomachy, then we find a noticeable intrusion of new elements. The figure that rides toward the right (Figure 17) has the slender form and linear play of drapery that are familiar in the Rich style, but her movement does not follow the harmonious Classical formula. When seen from the front, she moves quite unrhythmically, and even though she turns somewhat at the waist, her body falls in an oddly abrupt, almost vertical line, enlivened only by the outgoing curves of the windblown drapery.

When seen from the left, she is also awkward. Only when seen from the right (Figure 16), does her body fall into a rhythmic movement, which is followed very prettily in turn by the lightly indicated drapery lines. In the second lady, the one who rides toward the left (Figure 19), only a ghost remains of the graceful continuum. Her movement is splintered into separate, not quite coordinated parts. Disparate and indecisive directions are taken by the head, stiff on the neck, by the equally stiff upper torso, departing at a variant angle, and by the two legs, loosely separated and each breaking somewhat differently at the knee. Perhaps a comparison with a similar, earlier composition from Marasa (Figure 18) can serve to emphasize how much less coordinated is the posture of the Epidaurian lady. Her drapery

also tends to break the flow, as it stops to swirl over her right breast and again around her left breast, without ever breaking away to resume the downward line; it congeals in a knot on her lap, and drops in a semi-independent undulation between her legs. Looking at her from the right, one is struck by the angular bend of knees and elbow and the separate jut of the head. And looking at her from the left, one still finds her awkward, as she returns the spectators gaze directly, head on. Even the rear view (Figure 20) creates the same effect. It is built on two divergent diagonals made by the arm and the curve of the back, both of which are contradicted by the thick bands of the himation moving in the opposite direction and by the odd little flurry of unrelated folds at the armpit, caught there by the girding cord which goes diagonally over the shoulder. As the central akroterion of the same, west facade of the temple, between the two

12. ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

tiding ladies, it is possible again now to place the fine windswept female of Figure 21. Crome had placed her there. Schlérb suggested instead that the figure had been an independent statue, standing beside the temple, and then attributed it to Timotheos, together with all of the eastern pedimental and akroterial sculptures.” An argument used by Schlorb for this displacement was Crome’s identification of the figure as Epione, wife of Asklepios. But Yalouris, in adding pieces to the drapery that flies behind her, found them enmeshed with wing feathers, so that she seems to have been not Epione but a Nike after all, and therefore appropriate in subject for an akroterial position.™

This Nike can be compared with a series of earlier sculptured ladies moving

against a heavy wind, a motif explained by the fact that they were placed high in the air: two Athenian akroteria found in the Agora, (Figures 22, 23), the first attributed to the Stoa of Zeus, the Delian akroterion of the Temple of the Atheni-

ans (Figure 24), a ““Nereid” from the raised platform of the temple-tomb ‘‘of the Nereids” in Xanthos (Figure 25), and Paionios’ Nike in Olympia (Figures 4, 6), which stood on a tall pedestal. The others are represented, characteristically, as moving straight forward, sideward, or downward with the usual pellucid Classical grace, modified in Paionios’ Nike, as indicated above, and the opportunity is taken to echo the line of motion with many related linear flourishes, an opportunity hardly to be neglected by an artist of the Rich style. It is most illuminating to compare the Eptdaurian Nike with one of the side akroterial nymphs of the Delian temple (Figure 24), who twists at the waist from lower limbs moving right in three-quarter view to upper body presented in full view while one arm reaches out toward the left. ‘The Delian torsion is typical of the Classical system, since even here, in a sculpture in the round, both halves flatten out onto the same spatial plane and are reconciled into a single arc of movement, which is reiterated in the lines of drapery. In the previously discussed akroterial Nike of the east side of the temple at Epidauros also

(Figure 15), such Classical lines seem to be followed. But in this Nike of the west facade, a new system of forms is created. Not only does she spiral very substantially, three-dimensionally through space, but she simultaneously sets up a complex of stresses and strains, with the upper torso tilting as well as twisting, with the left arm thrust back at an angle, against the forward thrust of the right shoulder, and with the missing head seemingly pulled to her left. This whole contorted movement sets up a turbulence of drapery that interrupts the free spiral and makes a contradictory eddy in the upper half. Her draperies are substantially heavier than those not only of the riding ladies but also of the other sculptures of the west side of the temple, and, in profile view, they move backward vigorously.

SCULPTURE 13

In the sculptures of the second pediment, on the east facade, where the I/zouperszs is represented, the system of splintered, shifting, contradictory movements has taken over. Figures, as well as drapery, are more massive than on the west side, and they assault the space more aggressively. They are more heroic than the other figures, and

more agitated. In the center Schlorb placed a male figure (Figure 26), which she identified as Neoptolemos, in the act of killing the aged Priam, whose head 1s extant

(Figure 34). This ‘“Neoptolemos” assumes a stance that has a long history: man advancing in three-quarter view, seen from the front. But if we compare him with any Classical prototype—for example a figure in the frieze of the Temple of Nike Apteros (Figure 27) or the relatively stark warrior of Block 537 of Phigaleia (Figure 28), or even the figure of a Greek of the west pediment of the Epidauros Temple itself, which is now on view in the Athens Museum—it becomes obvious that he

does not form a harmonious continuity from top to toe. Instead his body is fragmented into a series of movements, of head, torso, arms, thighs, and lower legs, each of which takes a slightly different direction from the other, while the drapery stops its downward fall to loop over his thigh, and then drops again, rather indecisively, In a variety of not quite vertical lines. The other figures of the east side are much more fragmentary than this one, but they can ofter at least clues to similar rhythms. As participants in this Ilroupersts, they show every sign, even in fragmentary state, of suffering its gory events with a

new kind of passion and a new kind of pain. Physically this is revealed by a rich system of agitated movements, which break into angles rather than melting into curves, and which relate to each other in terms of conflict and contradiction rather than in terms of the smooth and fluent connectives of the Classical style. In the opulent figure of “Andromache” (Figure 29), truncated though it 1s, we feel how dramatically she occupied space, her thighs pushing forward, her body breaking at the waist, her upper torso bending forward, and the thick drapery on her leg forming involuted whirlpools which stop the movement and keep it there. Abrupt angles are dominant in a nude male figure (Figure 30), whose left leg bends in two right angles, while his torso twists to the left in strained and palpably paintul torsion. In a group of two figures cut from a single piece of stone, reconstructed by Yalouris and now on view in the National Museum, a crouching girl, many-angled, is enclosed in a kind of cave of space formed by a second figure, which bends at the waist and inclines forward from the background. Compare the archer of the east pediment (Figure 31) to the kneeling Greek of the west pediment (Figure 13). The legs of the archer, truncated though they are, indicate remarkably vigorous and diverse thrusts into space. The nude male figure (Figure 32), which was found in a

14. ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

later wall near the opposite side of the temple (cf. above, page 10), must belong in this pediment if it belongs to the temple sculpture at all. He plunges forward into space at a precarious angle, his left leg pressed drastically against his torso while his right leg, now lengthened with four pieces in the Museum installation, makes three changes of direction, at the same time two-dimensionally in outline and threedimensionally in space, bending at the groin, the knee, and the ankle. Compared with him, the Greek of the west pediment, mentioned above, which is now on view in Athens, is striking for his decorum, his coherence, and his accommodation to the planar system of the Classical style. The emotion that is implied by such a rich physical presence, by such strained movements and convoluted draperies, is made overt in the head of “Priam” (Figure 34) in which the mouth is open, teeth showing, and the eyes and brows are distorted in an expression of pain and sorrow.

It 1s rather within this system of forms than within that of the west pediment that the two dead figures, aforementioned, can be understood, since each one breaks its way through space three-dimensionally in a series of shattered movements, each segment thrusting obliquely against the next. In the more complex figure on the right side of the the composition (Figures 33, 35), the line of direction shifts repeatedly from the left leg, itself bent at the knee, which crosses over the right one; from the groin to the waist, where the torsion is extreme, graphically described in terms of pulled skin and strained muscle; from the waist to the thorax; from the thorax to the breast, now almost flat on the horizontal surface; from the breast to the neck, and finally to the desperate, vertical fall of the head. The right arm follows the horizontal surface, but in two obliques, bending at the elbow, and the left arm must have

gone up, over the head. From early times, verbally in Homer and visually in art, Greeks have told how awkwardly the human body breaks in death, but earlier examples in art nonetheless had always kept a formal coherence of plane and movement. Here, instead, staccato oppositions have taken over, and the crumpled forms of the body are echoed in the crumpled pockets of drapery that surround it. In the akroteria on the west side of the Temple of Asklepios and in the pedimental figures of the east side, the forms are different from the earlier forms of the Classical style, and the mood is different also. The earlier forms offer lucid, coordinated, fluent harmony, a resolution of forces, and ultimate poise. Here there is a fragmentation of movement, a nervous system of shifting or contending forces, and ultimately a mesh of inner contradictions that remain segmented and unresolved. As the Epidaurian sculptures have become more completely available, other scholars also have observed differences between them and sculptures made in the Classical

style which was established in the fifth century B.c. However no one, as far as I

SCULPTURE 15

know, states explicitly that the differences were more radical than those previously described to characterize the change from the Mature Classical to the Late Classical style. Prominent among those who make such statements are two who have been extensively quoted above—Crome, who prepared the official publication of the Epidauros temple sculptures, and Schloérb, who attempted to reconstruct the oeuvre of Timotheos. Important also is Dohrn, who set himself the task of determining when the break with the Pheidian tradition occurred. Crome uses such words as ‘‘unclassical” and ‘a new vision.” Schlorb says that “the Rich Style is basically superseded.”

Dohrn declares that Timotheos, in Epidauros, was the first manifestation of the generation, which, maturing in the mid-fourth century, broke the continuity of the Pheidian style.*° This sounds very much as though a radical change is implied, yet it is never explicitly stated, and all three scholars, Dohrn in the most detail, describe the change in terms that have long been used to describe the Late Classical style: a

sense of volume, based on ‘‘a binding to the interior, and indeed to the core of the figure,” which resulted in spherical shapes; a sense of existence in light and air, which resulted in a more painterly surface; and a sense of movement in space, which found its most extreme expression in the spiral stance of the Nike formerly called Eptone.”' Explicitly, Schefold cites the Asklepian sculptures as transitional to his Late Classical style.” Incidentally, it is interesting to note that while these scholars tend to agree in their

stylistic characterizations they do not necessarily agree in the applicability of those characterizations to the various parts of the temple sculptures. Crome and Dohrn take all the sculptures together as representing basically the same style. Schlorb deals only with the akroterial and pedimental sculpture of the east side and the figure then called Epione, because she considers that they were all made by Timotheos, and she differentiates their style from that of the other sculptures of the temple.

Schefold feels that in the east pediment the Iioupersis was ‘still depicted twodimensionally, like a painting, after the fashion of the rich style,” while “the grandi-

ose battle with Amazons on the west pediment marks the beginning of the late classical style.” *

The new forms and the new mood that were identified in the latter sculptures of the Temple of Asklepios apparently lived on afterward, since they can be recognized in subsequent works of art. Among these are the sculptures of the Temple of Athena Alea in Tegea, which have been recovered in pathetically fragmentary state but which still offer clues to a very vital style. There is good hope for more extensive recovery of these sculptures in the future because new pieces have been

16 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

turning up since 1964, through accidental find, excavation, the cleaning of the site, and the reorganization of the museum.** But as yet only a limited number of pieces of substantial size are known. Largest are several heads from the pedimental sculp-

ture (Figures 36, 38), two female figures dressed in short chitons, which most likely served as akroteria (Figures 39, 40), and one female head which may have come from the cult image of Hygieia (Figure 37). In the pedimental faces of Tegea a surging emotion has swept away Classical restraint. Not only is passion expressed in the facial features, through large upturned eyes and open mouths, but the modelling itself is passionate, creating rich forms that are soft and knobby and complex, full of the drama of contrast, in depth of modeling, chztroscuro, and texture. In the “Hygieia” head also emotion is expressed, but in gentler, more quiescent terms. Her lids drop over her eyes and her

head tilts in implied introspection, while the irregular ripples of her hair set oft the simple but soft, melting planes of her face. In the chitoned females the emotion sweeps expressively into the drapery, ruffling surfaces and massing forms with a restless complexity, although here again the specific effect is somewhat different, rather sharp and discordant than either fulsome or gentle. In both of these females the edge of the skirt parts over the advancing leg at a sharp angle, in almost straight lines that are echoed by other fold lines on either side, and, as can be seen in Figure 40, that angle is repeated over the second leg in the point of a fold that appears suddenly in an otherwise flat area of skirt and spreads out in a sharp, shadow-catching

inverted V. In both figures, small folds spray from the belt in irregular, almost random rhythms.

The nature of the movement in the Tegea figures is difficult to construe, since clues are limited. Of the pedimental sculptures, among the scraps that remain, there are one sharply bent elbow, a few similar knees, and bits of torsos that obviously were moving in violent action.” Some of the heads, including one of those reproduced here (Figure 36), turn sharply on the neck, and all of them seem to focus their eyes obliquely. Considerable activity is suggested and possibly an activity composed of many diagonals. In the akroterial figures, on the other hand, the posture seems to be simplicity itself. They step forward unilaterally and lucidly, as can be seen more clearly in the more complete example of Figure 39, and yet their movement also becomes fragmented by the oddly abrupt, opposing, or scattered lines of their drapery.

In the great portrait from the Mausoleum of Halikarnassos which goes by the name of ‘Maussollos” (Figure 43), the tradition of the contrapposto position 1s still discernible in legs and torso, but instead of working as a fluent continuum, the forms,

SCULPTURE 17

which are powerful and large, break into mighty forces shifting against one another. The strong, separate, jutting thigh emphasizes this effect, as does the contradictory swathe of diagonal drapery, equally thick and dynamic, which is laid athwart the movement of the body. In Classical contrapposto the turn of the head toward the engaged leg locks the movement in place. But in this sculpture, the position of the head is ambivalent, not favoring one side or the other. It drifts just a little off-center and tilts just a little, introducing a new axis and still another shifting force, so that the movement remains unresolved. The mood of the man is equally unfocussed. The expression of the face and the tilt of the head as well as the sag of the body, in spite of the physical power involved, suggest a mood that is rather dreamy and rather sad. some have ascribed this mood to Oriental sensuality, but we will find Greeks who share it.

Most pieces that remain of the other statues of the Mausoleum show every sign of sharing the stylistic characteristics of the ““Mausollos,”’ with the exception of one cool, post-Pheidian, bearded head. The well-known ‘Artemisia’ is relatively tame esthetically. There are other examples which are more fragmentary, but more beauttful and more moving, heads full of the new emotion and drapery impregnated with the vivid new plastic agitation.” Illustrative are a head of Apollo (Figure 41) and the central section of a large seated figure (Figure 42) in which the drapery-folds settle into innumerable little crackling pockets and hardly undertake any large movement at all. On the other hand, the Amazon frieze of the Mausoleum seems at first glance to be rather old-fashioned. It is full of traditional poses: a Greek advancing in threequarter view seen from the front, a Greek advancing in three-quarter view seen from the rear, an Amazon pulled backward by the hair (Figure 44), a Greek fallen to his knee (Figure 45), and a Greek moving to the left but looking back to the right (Figure 46), among others. Even the fallen figures are relatively composed (Figure 47), in the pre-Epidaurian manner. Also, the movement of each figure tends to be two-dimensional, the lines of motion are continuous, from top to toe, and the drapery follows the form of the body and the line of motion. Furthermore the frieze is composed in balanced groups, arranged in a series of triangles or parallelograms which often include the traditional falling figure within. However, all of these characteristics have been updated. The uninterrupted sweep of movement is converted from a harmonious curve to a stark straight line, and submovements become crisscrosses or zig-zags. The old geometrically balanced groups do not ultimately fall into repose, but dissolve into their constituent diagonals, which alternately clash against or echo one another. The effect of movement is abetted by new, longer proportions

18 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

and by new, looser spacing. The long figures are silhouetted against large, bland areas of background, thus increasing the force of each individual diagonal and the opposition expressed when one diagonal crosses another. Here too, the emotion which is abstracted in the conflicting lines of movement is expressed overtly in the faces,

which have deepset eyes and open, expressive mouths. The artist (or artists?) of the Amazonomachy frieze has taken a different route from the Epidaurian, but he has arrived at a related result. Here too harmonics give way to dynamics, continuities to contrasts, and tranquillity to tension. If forms are somewhat clearer and bolder

here, and the mood somewhat more decisive, can it be that an alternate line of development is represented, which also enters new territory but by a route that leaves the Classical style less obliquely?

The sculptured drums from the Temple of Artemis at Ephesos clearly follow the Epidaurian style. The tempo is slower and the mood is quieter, but the fragmentation of forces is similar. The most complete remaining drum serves for illustration. There, in the figure of Hermes (Figure 48), the body-line breaks at the right hip into two shallow obliques, the head lifts at an angle that is unrelated to the swing

of the body, and still other angles are introduced by the bent knee and the bent arm. The drapery over the left arm makes a series of loops that form a transition from arm to body and background, but in their own terms, since they are different from the forms adjacent to them. The right hand flares away from the body, and the small caduceus introduces a new, rather timid angle. In the heavily draped woman (Figure 49) to the left of Hermes, the over-all movement is obscured to an almost perverse degree. The form comes to us in broken rhythms, created by the angled lines of the drapery at the breast, and the rich, layered pattern of the drapery below the right arm, where edges and directional lines keep interrupting each other, and

the cascade that falls from her hand sets up a very insistent separate system of masses, edges, and convolutions in space. The rest of the figures on the drum play variations on the same theme.

The six standing figures that remain of the nine that were dedicated in Delphi by the Thessalian Daochos (Figures 50-56) are permeated with disquiet. Each one moves uneasily, in one subtle way or another. The most complete, as well as the most famous, of the six is the image of Agias, son of Aknonios (Figure 55), who 1s at once tense and ambivalent in posture, nervous and uncertain in mood. ‘Pendulum stance” is a term that has been used by Siisserott, aptly enough, to describe his

SCULPTURE 19

posture,*” since he seems to be caught in the process of shifting from foot to foot, and his head also has the indecisive air of still seeking a position in which to settle. He looks out obliquely, in a direction that goes counter to the oblique angle of his head (Figure 53), and he contemplates his victories, one feels, with some reservation. In this case I share my interpretation of style not with Stisserott alone but with a large and apparently increasing number of scholars. It is recognized more and more that the art of the sculptor Lysippos, with whom the figure of Agias is connected, is not Classical. S. Ferri, for example, calls him “the popularizer .. . of the complicated and tormented Hellenistic spirit of the second half of the fourth century,” * and even Karl Schefold, champion of the concept of fourth-century Classicism, speaks of “the momentary and astringently dissonant character of his style.” * In the small frieze of the Monument of Lysikrates (Figures 57-60, 103), which represents the encounter of Dionysos and his retinue with Tyrrhenian pirates, the figures are very loosely spaced against the background and they move very energetically. Some of the figures are individually silhouetted against the background. A number

of the active ones make bold diagonals from head to foot. The composition 1s punctuated by centralized groups framed by opposing diagonals. On all these counts, it is reminiscent of the Amazonomachy frieze of the Mausoleum. It even includes some of the old, stock motifs—as many as are compatible with the new subject—a man

striding to the right, seen in three-quarter view from the front, a similar man seen from behind, a kneeling prisoner with hands tied behind his back, and a downed figure pulled back by the hair, among others, as well as such quieter postures, unlisted in the previous category of fighting motifs, as a man seated with hands clasping one knee (Figure 59), a motif which may be most easily recalled among the gods of the Parthenon frieze. However, the spacing in the Lysikrates Monument is markedly looser than in the Mausoleum relief, the space implied is deeper, and the figures move more freely within the space. Even when motifs are the same down to the gesture of hands and the turn of heads, such variations can be seen. The Lysikrates figures are more relaxed, modifying the starkness of the Mausoleum postures. Also, they expand their

gestures, turn more easily on their joints, penetrate into the deeper space, and in some cases they permit the directional lines to multiply. As a result there is a thicker mesh of diagonals, which move not only along the two-dimensional surface but into the third dimension as well. More complex and more strained forms are introduced

in two dense fighting groups, each one consisting of a satyr putting his knee on the back of a fallen Tyrrhenian (Figures 58, 60). In them the Tyrrhenian is forced

20 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

into a painfully distorted, crumpled posture, and he is entwined with the satyr in a remarkably intricate pattern of many small, opposing movements in space. This tense complexity apparently could be made to co-exist with the larger, more open effect that was noted at first and compared with the Amazonomachy frieze of the Mauso-

leum. Previously it was suggested that the Mausoleum frieze may represent an alternate route in the fourth century. If so, the Lysikrates Monument may be on a spur of that route. In the “Alexander sarcophagus” (Figures 61-64), in contrast, the relief scenes of hunting and fighting are an extreme example of the composition that is made up of fragmented diagonals. Figures break into what would seem to be the largest possible number of disparate lines of movement, effected simultaneously in silhouette and in three-dimensional space. A maximum configuration of this style is the swinging swastika of the Persian falling with his collapsing horse (second from the left

in the battle scene, Figure 61), where even the blue garment flying behind him breaks into angles. The men who hold their seats firmly also do so in various many-

angled postures, ide Alexander himself (the first figure on the left), who is the falling Persian’s antagonist in the battle scene, or the participant in the lion hunt on the other side (Figure 64, third figure from the left), whose head and sharply bent arm and leg all leave the torso at abrupt and opposing angles. A Persian archer (a little to the right of middle in the battle scene, Figure 61) slants his body, cocks his head, extends his arms in a perpendicular direction across his torso, and turns out his toes. Similarly active is the Persian restraining a horse in the hunt on the short side of the sarcophagus (Figure 63). And so on and on. Even in figures that are portrayed in the traditional format of the advancing man who makes a diagonal from

head to foot, like the two that frame the long side of the lion hunt (Figure 64), bold oppositions are set up by the turn of the head and the thrust of the arms, and distractions are offered along the way by small, fluttering swags of drapery. Moreover, especially in the battle scene (Figure 61), all of these multiform figures are crowded together as densely as possible, in a way that evokes the discomforts of claustrophobia, form overlapping form in outline and depth, with maximum con-

trast and confusion. Compositionally, it is possible to discern residual traces of the old systems of symmetry and group-making, most clearly in the hunt scene of the long side (Figure 64). In that scene also there is still some of the old sense of move-

ment carried along diagonals that oppose each other. But even there the long diagonals are constantly interrupted by many complications, and in the other panels

SCULPTURE 21

the composition is based from beginning to end on an intricate tangle of innumerable small diagonals, coming from all directions, and conflicting with one another.

Praxiteles developed an esthetic based on the unsteady stance and the uneasy mood, similar to what has been described in several instances above. But he did it in a

way of his own, if we can judge by works attributed to him which, with the one possible exception of the Olympic Hermes, we know only in Roman copies. He seems to have started slowly, since the works that are judged to be his early ones—like the Satyr Pouring Wine (Figures 65, 66)—are composed according to the Classical sys-

tem of contrapposto. Thereafter he invented a kind of pseudo-harmony which 1s reminiscent of Classical harmony but is not the same. In the Olympic Hermes with the Infant Dionysos (Figures 69-71) and in the Apollo Sauroktonos (Figures 72, 73), the figure assumes a sinuous stance which is fluent and continuous in its way, but

it slips off its axis entirely and requires a prop to counteract its instability. In the Aphrodite of Knidos (Figures 67, 68) the head is turned not toward the engaged leg but toward the relaxed one, thus by a simple twist of the neck unlocking the closed, serene Classical balance. In addition (there are variants to choose among in the Roman copies) her movement may have been interrupted further by a break at the waist and a forward tilt of the upper torso, while one of her arms embraced the interior space thus created. Pudicity, which was a newer idea than nudity among female divinities,” apparently was accompanied by a crumbling of the confident flow of Classical posture.

Thus with Praxiteles as with the others, new restless rhythms have taken over. Likewise with him as with the others, this restlessness resides not only in the body but also in the spirit. The introverted or languorous poses, the slender, sensitive forms, the tender sfwmato modelling, and the sweet, dreamy faces (Figure 71) all suggest a rather febrile world of personal poetry, self-involvement, and sensuality. The grave stelai of the fourth century seldom equal the more monumental works in quality, but it is useful to refer to them because they offer—what exists only too infrequently otherwise—many examples of complete or nearly complete compositions.

In the extended stylistic studies that have already been made of the grave stelat,”' it is pointed out that from the early fourth century on, as the relief itself is made higher, the individual forms become more substantial, body and drapery are separated, and the whole mass of the figure is freed from the background. What can be said further is that eventually the mass of the figure not only is freed from the back-

22. ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

ground but also is placed in opposition to the background, and furthermore that multiple figures are placed in opposition to each other. Then the forms, characteris-

tically, do not cling to the background or even rise from it, but stand against it, usually at a diagonal. Each figure in a composition, characteristically, is placed at a different angle from each of the others, each figure tends to turn its head and direct its glance at an angle different from the angle of the body, and all of these angles, except when the subject calls specifically for an exchange of glances, tend to exist in contradistinction to each other. Among the grave stelai, composition by disparate movement becomes the most usual order of the day. This kind of composition can be seen in a simple form, consisting only of two standing figures, for example, in a stele of a woman with her servant girl, now in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (Figure 76) and in the very elegant large stele of a man

and woman found in Rhamnous (Figure 75), in both of which there is hardly a movement or line that is echoed by or continued in another. In the first, the figures stand opposite each other in two near-verticals, rigid in the girl, subdivided and flexible in the woman. A jewel box makes an abrupt, not quite horizontal bridge between them, while the gestures of their arms and the lines of their drapery set up a system of smaller oppositions and dissonances. In the second stele, each figure is different from the other in form and stance, rhythm and pattern, so that the composition seems to hang on deliberate disparities. In other cases the sculptor has gone even further than this, underscoring the effect of forms in discord. For example, in

the stele of Polyxena (Figure 77), representing mother, child, and servant, the woman leans forward at a sharp angle, the child, in a further plane behind her knees, counters her movement with a diagonal that comes forward sharply, and the servant assumes still another angle behind the woman's chair. When many-figured compositions are introduced, like the kind of family group that is illustrated by the stele of Damasistrate (Figure 78), then the multiple forms are made in many facets which play against one another with an intricate complexity. The last two examples illustrate still another characteristic which occurs often in the stelai and which was mentioned previously in relation to the “Alexander Sarcophagus,” and that is a dense and uncomfortable crowding of figures, which intensifies the general feeling of uneasiness. Occasionally, the crowding alternates with a complete separation of figures, as in the Rhamnous stele (Figure 75), in which there is a rather ambiguous, oddly pregnant interval of space over which the two figures once

clasped hands. (The separation of the living from the dead may account for the presence of the space but not necessarily for the shape of it.) In the stele found at the Ilissos River (Figure 74) we see another very interesting, individual variation

SCULPTURE = 23

on this compositional scheme. Here, as in the others, each figure assumes its own angle, including the dog, and each glance is directed differently, whether externally or internally, making the usual many-angled composition. In the lower left, this effect is intensified by a clatter of criss-crossing, which is made up of the diagonal steps, the densely folded body of the boy, the crackling drapery, and the counterpoised legs of the beautiful youth, while against all of this activity is played the uncompro-

mising profile of the old man on the right, rigid in stance, perpendicular in gaze, and separated from the rest by one of those fraught, loose areas of space. That the emotional content of these stelai is a new idea in the ancient world has been said often enough to need no more than repeating here.

The Classical style which was created in the fifth century B.c. is characterized by a certainty of mood and a stability of form. Bodies fall into balanced harmonics and faces are serene. Forms center in their own gravity. They reside compactly and completely within their own bulk, defined by convex planes and closed outlines. Gods dwell confidently on Olympos, heroes perform their heroic deeds inevitably, and archetypal humans carry out their exactly allotted public roles without hesitation or question. These are not the characteristics of the works that were examined above, beginning with the latter sculptures of Epidauros. In them, the mood is uncertain and the forms are disturbed. Bodies break into restless rhythms and faces into expressions of disquiet. Forms shift from their centers of gravity and fragment into movements that are left unresolved. They are not self-contained within their own stony bulk but become embroiled with their environment, whether through roughening the surface, cutting concavities into the mass, or extending projections outward which embrace space or play through it or struggle with it. A new spirit, apparently, was abroad in the land, and it found its expression in new esthetic forms.

One has the sense that roles were changing, that questions and hesitations were many.

With the explosion of feeling and form, Classical moderation was supplanted. With the disturbance of rhythms, Classical harmony was supplanted. With the loss of composure and self-confidence, Classical sophrosyne was supplanted. Very human

emotions have appeared, and they are characteristically troubled ones. It is a long time since-Greek faces wore a cheerful smile. In the Classical period they were serious. Now, newly expressive, they tend to register anguish or melancholy or to knit their brows in introspection or intellectual questioning. Even satyrs are not gay. The pervading mood is an uneasy one, and the sculptural forms strain in expressive

24 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

complexities. This, surely, is not a “Second Classical style.” It is rather a First Anticlassical style.

Let me add a parenthesis here to insure clarity. I use the term ‘“‘Anticlassical’’ in

the same sense in which it has long been current among art historians, that is, in the sense of a style which does not necessarily revolt deliberately against Classical principles but which develops principles antithetical to the Classical ones. The term is a direct translation from the German, as in Walter Friedlaender’s “antiklassischer Sti,” used in relation to the art that followed the High Renaissance in Italy c. 1520 A.D.”

The last reference leads to a second parenthesis. The change from a mood of cer-

tainty with forms in plumb to a mood of uncertainty with forms in flux perhaps inevitably will recall a parallel change from the Renaissance style to Mannerism. I mention this now with the hope that the idea can be laid aside, at least until the Greek style is thoroughly understood entirely in its own terms. Obviously, the style, as already described here, is different from sixteenth-century Mannerism in many ways.

m Chronology

HEN THE SUBJECT of fourth-century chronology is raised, we inevitably

W to the Record Reliefs, those figurative panels which are sculptured on the top of stelai that carry inscriptions recording a precisely dated event—

a treaty, or a law, or an honor bestowed on an individual. A series of such stelat exist, dating from the second half of the fifth century into the early third century B.C., of which most have been found in Attica. In a date-starved discipline, they have naturally been seized upon and studied assiduously by a series of scholars tor chronological clues to artistic development.*’ Perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm, some of those scholars have imputed too much to them. Some have assigned to them a guiding position in stylistic development which is not justified by their mediocre quality. Some have applied the evidence contained in them with a strictness that is not justified either by the limited number and restricted geography of these stelat in particular or by the complex nature of art history in general. However, the Record Reliefs certainly can be used to determine when particular signs of stylistic change reached just this limited number of objects, representing this inferior level of craftsmanship, within just the geographic areas where they were made, and there is every reason therefore to look at them now in the light of the stylistic development that has been revealed in more monumental work. The first reflection of the new, “Epidaurian” style that appears in these reliefs is in the stele recording the treaty of 375-374 B.c. between Athens and Kerkyra (Figure 79), where the personification of Kerkyra turns three-dimensionally in space with something of the force of the Epidaurian Nike of the west akroterion (Figure 21), twisting at the waist, displacing her upper torso plastically, turning her head in the

direction of her relaxed leg, and adding a note of tension when she opposes the 25

26 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

turn to the right by pulling her left shoulder back and placing her left hand behind her. In the stele of the treaty between Athens and the Peloponnesian states of 362361 B.c. (Figure 81), the fragmentation of rhythms is already well along, and the composition bristles with sudden angles, jutting knees, elbows, feet, and even fingers. In the proxeny relief of Lachares of Apollonia, of 355-354 B.c. (Figure 80), heavy draperies set up countermovements to ponderous figures, which not only bend and turn in their own space but occupy the common space in varying angles to each other.

In this stele we catch reflections of the fulsome world that is seen full scale in the Tegea and Mausoleum statues. That world is also reflected in the relief of the Leukonides of 347-346 B.c. (Figure 82), in which there is a particular abruptness to the angled penetration of space, the repetition of motifs, and the staccato relationship of figure to figure. The Lysippic posture seems to be reflected in the honorary relief of 331-330 B.C. (Figure 83), and the Delphi stele of 330-329 (Figure 84), but in both cases the quality 1s so poor that the forms are schematic and the effect is remote from monumental art. The influence of Lysippos is more readily recognizable in the honorary relief of 329-328 (Figure 85), where, however, the forms are rather more decisive in their oppositions than they are in Lysippos’ figures. It is interesting to find that there is little or no penetration of the Praxitelean graces into this modest level of production.

The dating of the sculptures of the Temple of Asklepios in Epidauros hinges on several factors. One is a long inscription on a gray limestone stele, which gives a remarkable, detailed account of the building of the temple. Another is the list of artists mentioned in the account, some of whom may be connected with other datable projects. Third is the stylistic evidence, offered by the architecture of the temple itself, by its architectural decorations, and by the sculptures themselves.* Long ago, in 1895, B. Keil wrote that he had found a piece of evidence also in Plato’s Jon, in which Ion, on entering, says that he has just won a contest of rhapsodists at Epidauros.” Starting with that short line, Keil made a series of assumptions: first, that the Epidauros

contests must have been new shortly after 394 B.c., when he dated the Jon, then that they must have been inaugurated with the expansion of the cult, and therefore that they were contemporaty with the building of the new temple, which he consequently put in the years 399/8-395/4 B.c. Although this is a loose and questionable series of assumptions, it was accepted for a surprisingly long time. It was laid to rest, finally, only in 1961, when Paul Bernard published a note disputing its validity

CHRONOLOGY 27

and Georges Roux agreed, with the comment that, “The fragility of that argument does not have to be demonstrated.” ”°

Epigraphically, the building inscription has been dated between 399 and 370 B.C. Among the artists named in the building inscription are Theodotos as architect and

Timotheos as one of the sculptors. Theodotos perhaps is the same man as the “Theodorus” cited by Vitruvius as architect of the tholos in the Marmaria of Delphi, which was built at the beginning of the fourth century.’ The sculptor surely is the

same Timotheos who worked on the Mausoleum of Halikarnassos later in the century.”®

Stylistically, scholars have agreed that both building and sculpture could be accommodated compatibly within the first three decades of the fourth century, but there has been some variation within those limits. Among those, previously mentioned, who have examined the sculpture with particular care, Crome accepted Keil’s date,

depending on the Jon; Schlorb put the date a little later, c. 388; and Dohrn set it at 377-374 B.c. Lapalus, who studied the temple sculptures within the sequential con-

text of the development of pedimental compositions, dated them c. 380.’ Among those who have dealt with the architectural style of the temple, from the earliest publications by Foucart and Defrasse, the inclination has been to date it in the decade 380-370. Schede and Mobius, in their more general studies of architectural ornament, dated the ornament of the Epidaurian temple in that decade. Shoe, in her study of Greek mouldings, placed those of the Epidaurian temple c. 380. Roux, who has made by far the most detailed scrutiny of the building, also fixed its date in the decade 380-370 B.c.” Alison Burford, in her more recent book of 1969 on the building inscriptions of Epidauros, proposed that the temple and its sculpture were made in the second halt of the decade 380-370, but her arguments do not settle the matter. She says, “On technical and stylistic grounds it {the temple} can be dated to the period 390-370, but other (mainly economic) considerations point to a date about 375-370." She does not, however, specify what those economic considerations are. She also says that

the building of the temple in Epidauros must have been followed closely by the building of the Epidaurian tholos, which was begun, she says, about 365-360. In this case citing the building inscriptions, she says, ‘‘the lettering of the first section in the tholos accounts is very like that of the temple accounts, and several names in the temple record also appear in the early part of the tholos record, the inference being that some craftsmen worked on both projects.” °' She still leaves a five-year gap, which

is increased to ten if one accepts Roux’s date for the beginning of the tholos in

28 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

360 B.c. But in any case, Roux proposed that the workmen could have been occupied in that interim, if not in Epidauros itself, where much building went on, then in Tegea, on the Temple of Alea, since there also names of workmen have been found which are identical with those of the tholos records.” In another context, Burford suggests that the temple may have been planned for the interval between festivals, in which case the specific years of its erection could have been either 375-370 or 371-366 B.c.* This introduces the alternative date of 371-366, but she does not explain herself further in this context nor does she refer to it again. Finally,

it can be added now that a date as late as 375 or after for the temple has been challenged by the testimony of the Record Relief which was offered above, on pages 25-26. There it appeared that the forms that were given monumental expression in

the Nike of the west akroterion of the Temple of Asklepios had already been reflected on a modest level, in Attica, in 375/4 B.C. In summary, then, we can say the following. The earlier dates that have been ascribed to the Temple of Asklepios and its sculpture have depended to a considerable extent on Keil’s argument, based on the Jon, which is no longer acceptable. Of all of the stylistic studies of the temple, the most exhaustive and the most precise ate those of Georges Roux, who dates it in the decade 380-370 B.c. If Roux's chronology is modified by the testimony of the Record Relief, then it seems probable

that the Temple of Asklepios was built and decorated within the half-decade 380375 B.C.

Interesting additional information comes from the building inscription. It tells us, to begin with, exactly how long the building took, and what the stages of its construction were. Four years, eight months, and several days elapsed from the beginning to the end of the building and decoration. It was after the roof was affixed, the cella walls polished, and the thirty-four columns fluted, toward the end of the third year, that the sculptures of the pediments and akroteria were begun. They were

finished about one and three quarter years later. Thus, if 380 should be taken as the year when the building was begun, the sculpture would date from 378 or 377 to 376 B.C.

The building inscription also records the fact that early in the building process, while the sculptors’ workshop was still being constructed, Timotheos was paid for making “tUrou.” What that word means is still being argued today.” Some have proposed that they were models or sketches, in which case they have usually assumed that Timotheos was responsible for the conception of all the temple's sculpture. Others have proposed that the word means ‘‘reliefs,” in which case they must decide where such reliefs may have been placed. To that question, the two major

CHRONOLOGY = 29

answers now current are Crome’s, that they were reliefs decorating the sculptors’ workshop which was being built during the period when Timotheos made the toot, and Roux’s, that they were six metopes in the frieze of the pronaos.® Burford says that Roux’s suggestion “‘settles the matter,’ °° but it has not done so noticeably, since the argument has gone right on. The building inscription also provides the sequence of the sculptural decoration, as well as the names of artists who did the work. First, Hektoridas was designated

to do one half of one pediment (the inscription does not tell us which). Then Timotheos was assigned to do the akroteria of the opposite side. Next O£t0... (often taken to be the architect Theodotos) was assigned to do the akroteria of the first side, over Hektoridas’ pediment. Shortly afterward, a sculptor, whose name has been lost from the inscription because of a break in the stone, was assigned to the second pediment, under Timotheos’ akroteria. Only toward the end, after one and a half years had elapsed, do we hear of an allocation to Hektoridas for the second half of the first pediment. Since the inscription does not tell us which pediment was the first one, and since an accidental break has eliminated the name of one artist, these factors are in doubt, and there has been much argument about them. Of the now familiar two scholars who have published the sculptures most extensively, Crome believes that the first pediment undertaken was the one on the east, and Schlorb that it was the one on the west. Also, Schlorb postulates that Timotheos not only made the akroteria of the east side but also was the unnamed artist who made the sculpture of the east pediment.” If we refer back to the description of the temple sculpture given here, on pages 9-14, and postulate a sequence from the old-fashioned style to the new-fashioned style, then the west pediment would

come first (by Hektoridas), followed by the east akroteria (by Timotheos), the west akroteria (by Theodotos [?}), and the east pediment (by the nameless one). However, room must be left for the argument that, since as many as three or four artists were involved and only one and three-quarter years of time, the differences

could be a factor of the individual artist rather than the sequence. If Timotheos made both the pretty akroterial Nike (Figure 15) and the stormy figures of the Ihoupersis (Figures 26, 29-35), he personally underwent a considerable change in a short time. That could happen. But it must be noted that there is more stylistic connection between the west akroteria (Figures 16, 17, 19, 20, 21) and the east pediment.

For the date of the Temple of Athena Alea in Tegea, again, there are several categories of evidence. Pausanias makes the statement that the temple that stood

30 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

there previously had burned during the second year of the ninety-sixth Olympiad, which is 395/4 B.c., and that Skopas of Paros was the architect of the new temple as well as the sculptor of two new cult images of Asklepios and Hygieia, which were placed on either side of the archaic ivory image of Athena Alea that had been made by Endoios long before.®* Stylistic evidence is provided by what remains of the temple and its sculptures. In speculating how long after 395/4 the new temple may have been begun, much argument has been based on the troubled history of the period. It has been suggested that Tegeans must have been too preoccupied with political and military difficulties to undertake a building project until the end of the Corinthian War in 386 B.C. or after the Battle of Leuktra in 371 B.c. This is possible but not necessary, considering the remarkable series of buildings that went up in the troubled Peloponnesos, from the late fifth century B.c. through the fourth and into the third century, including, of course, the Temple of Asklepios and other buildings in Epidauros. It has been pointed out that particularly favorable times for building were the years following immediately after the formation of the Arkadian League in 371 B.C. or the period between the Battles of Mantineia in 362 and Chaironeia in 338, which was relatively peaceful in Arkadia. These too are interesting suggestions but not binding. Some scholars have taken in evidence a votive relief that was found in Tegea, on which are represented Zeus Stratios, patron god of Labranda near Mylasa in Karia, flanked by Idrieus and Ada, who together held the satrapy of Karia from 351 to 344 B.c., after their sister Artemisia died. Concerning the provenance of the

stele we are informed only that it was found in 1868, “. . . in the court of a house in Piali (ancient Tegea), near the Temple of Athena Alea; it was found in place together with some other antiquities. . . .”.” Concerning its relevance, the tendency recently has been to assert that it must have been dedicated by a Karian who had worked with Skopas on the Mausoleum and then travelled to Tegea with him. But others have thought that the dedicator could have been a Tegean who, having followed Skopas to Halikarnassos after finishing the Temple of Athena Alea, dedicated the votive in gratitude when he returned home.” A fertile imagination could probably produce other possibilities. The career of Skopas provides chronological limits. He worked from c. 375 or 370 B.C. to c. 330,” it is generally agreed. But it is not agreed when he worked in Tegea within that time. To decide that, stylistic criteria and the recorded events of Skopas’ career must be added to the evidence given above. Having done so, scholars have arrived at various answers. Sculptural historians still range freely through

CHRONOLOGY = 31

all the available decades. Architectural historians have tended to date the building within the earlier part of the period, most often c. 370-360 B.C., in which case the formation of the Arkadian League in 371 B.c. could have been a relevant factor. But they are not unanimous. In 1957 A. W. Lawrence wrote of it that “the present inadequate knowledge of architectural and sculptural history of the 4th century indicates only the limits of 370-340 B.c.,” although he himself was inclined to date the temple c. 360 B.c. In 1961 very strong evidence for an early dating was offered by Roux, who dealt with the temple repeatedly in the course of his extended treatment of other Peloponnesian buildings. He associated it with a group of buildings made during the first third of the century, including the Temple of Askleptos in Epidauros, and he connected the completion of it with the inception of the tholos of Epidauros, which was begun c. 360 B.c. In fact, he suggested that technical details

are so much alike between the Tegea temple and the earliest parts of the tholos that, “It all happens as though the same workers built both the temple of Tegea and the first parts of the tholos, in the neighborhood of the year 360.” ’* That is a firm and convincing statement, and yet he does not seem to have settled the matter to everyone’s satisfaction. In publications of 1961 H. Gropengiesser argued for a late dating, c. 345, for the temple's akroterion and G. Gruben asserted that the entire temple was begun only c. 350 B.c., after Skopas had worked on the Mausoleum. One notes that these two scholars published in the same year as Roux and there-

fore could not have read his arguments. But when Gruben discussed the Tegea Temple again in a 1966 publication, he repeated the same date, and H. Mobius, in 1968, accepted the opinions of both Gropengiesser and Gruben.”* I find Roux’s arguments very compelling, and, since Gropengiesser and Gruben seem to base their opinions on the assumption of a crescendo development of Skopaic drama, I would like to suggest the possibility that the Skopaic style could have been more robust in

its earlier statements than in its later ones. This seems not unlikely if we look at stylistic developments before and after. Before came the sculptures of the west akroteria and the east pediment of the Temple of Asklepios in Epidauros, which prepared the way for the Tegea style. Afterward, as we will see in the final chapter, in the third century B.C. came a style that was characterized by the drying and hardening

of forms. Finally, we should recall that there are variations in style between the “Hygieta,” the pedimental sculptures, and the akroteria which remain to be explained, whether by differences of time or of hand. Pausanias does not say who carved the pedimental sculptures of the temple, but there is a strong inclination among scholars to ascribe them also to Skopas, because they seem innovative and excellent and because they seem to conform stylistically

32, ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

to other works associated with the name of Skopas. If the head of Figure 37 does

come from the cult image of Hygieia, as some believe, then it would be documented as by the hand of Skopas. In that case it must be decided whether the pedimental sculpture and the head could have been done by the same hand, and that, as mentioned above, ts still another matter.

The Mausoleum of Halikarnassos was one of the most famous monuments of the ancient world, impressive enough to be listed among its Seven Wonders, and Maussollos was an important actor in political events.’” Both the monument and the man are much discussed in ancient literature. The chronology of Maussollos’ life is significant.”° He inherited the satrapy of Karia from his father Hekatomnos in 377 B.c. He moved the capital from inland Mylasa to the seaport of Halikarnassos.”’ After making a synotkismos of six Lelegian cities in order to provide Halikarnassos with additional inhabitants, he enlarged it and elaborated it.”* In what year Maussollos moved the capital to Halikarnassos is not recorded, but it must have been early in his reign, first, because his political career was based on the kind of internationalism that presupposes a marine base and, second, because he was there long enough to complete ambitious building projects, making it, according to Diodorus Siculus, the most

beautiful city in Karia. It must have been laid out by 362 B.c. at the latest, including the massive fortification walls, still standing, which have been dated on archaeological grounds as belonging probably to his time. Vitruvius describes, with some awe, a splendid palace built of brick, reveted with black and white marble, and covered with stucco polished to the brilliance of glass. The palace overlooked both the large public harbor and a secret harbor which had been devised by Maussollos himself.”? He also may have been responsible for other buildings in the city: a Temple of Aphrodite and Hermes on the far side of the harbor, opposite the palace, a Temple of Ares high up, in the middle, and an agora at the water. In the center of the city stood the Mausoleum, half-way up the hill, overlooking the bay, in the middle of a broad median avenue that echoed the semicircular form of the shoreline. In 362 Maussollos joined the Satraps’ Revolt against the Great King, entering on the side of the satraps and finishing on the side of the King, as others also had done, with his lands intact and his position strong. In 357 B.c. he encouraged the revolt of Rhodes, Kos, and Chios against Athens * and emerged from the resulting War of the Allies with a strong hand in the affairs of those three islands. He extended his domain into Lycia and Lydia. When he died in 353, after twenty-four years of tule, he was succeeded by his sister-wife Artemisia, who ruled for two years until her death in 351 B.C.

CHRONOLOGY = 33

Vitruvius, Strabo, and Pliny all say that Artemisia erected the Mausoleum in honor of her husband.” The fullest description of the monument itself is offered by Pliny, who gives its exceedingly large dimensions, describes its complex (still uncertain) form, and says that the sculptures were made by Skopas, Bryaxis, Timotheos, and

Leochares, who worked respectively on the east, north, south, and west sides, as well as by ‘‘Pythis,” who carved the chariot group at the peak of the stepped, pyramidal top. “Pythis” is generally thought to be identical with Pythios, whom Vitruvius names, together with Satyros, as architect of the tomb. The other four, Pliny says, were interrupted in their work by the death of Artemisia, but they nevertheless continued until the work was finished, with the thought that the results would redound to the greater glory of art and themselves.” The chronologies of the artists involved are relevant. Timotheos has been located in Epidauros in c. 380-375 B.c., but he cannot be connected with any other datable monument aside from the Mausoleum. Skopas’ working years went from 375/370 to c. 330 B.c. Pliny says that Leochares “florwit’’ in the Olympiad of 368-364 B.C., and he continued to work as late as c. 320 B.c., when he collaborated with Lysippos on the Krateros commission in Delphi.** Bryaxis was the youngest, but even he 1s shown to have been at work within the decade of c. 360-350 B.c., by the testimony of a signed marble base, dated on epigraphic grounds, which was found near the Hephaisteion in Athens. He apparently lived long, since his latest recorded works are a bronze portrait of Seleukos, who reigned from 312 to 280 B.c., and a colossal, acrolithic Apollo, made for Daphni near Antioch, which was founded in 300 B.c.™ The architect Pythios reappears in Priene, where he designed the Temple of Athena

which was dedicated in 334 Bc.“ There are two major schools of thought on the date of the Mausoleum, and one minor one." The first group, noting the statement that the tomb was built by Artemisia for her husband, therefore date its beginning after Maussollos’ death in 353 B.C. The second, noting Maussollos’ splendid city, the central position of the tomb within the city, and the long-established practice of preparing one’s funeral monu-

ment in advance of death, assume that the tomb was planned integrally with the

city and date it earlier, as beginning c. 362 or 360 B.c. The third school is a small one, led by E. Buschor, who invented a theory, based on his stylistic difterentiation of two periods within the Mausoleum sculpture, that the work on the tomb was interrupted after the death of Artemisia and resumed later at the expense of Alexander the Great.’ Buschor’s idea seems unreasonable on all counts. Of the other two theories, I unhesitatingly support the second, since elementary verities, as well as scholarship, point in this direction. If indeed it was only in 353 B.c. that

34. ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

Pythios and Satyros were summoned and instructed, after which they would have had to make designs, get approval, organize contractors, get delivery of material, contact sculptors, and so on, there could hardly have been much showing above ground when Artemisia died in 351. So massive a project must have taken a substantial amount of time to complete. If it took almost five years to build and decorate the relatively small Temple of Asklepios, at least a decade must be allowed for the wonderfully rich Mausoleum. Four professionals, having gotten well along with an obviously spectacular monument, might take the remarkable step of continuing on their own, without pay, for let us say as much as a year or so, and that would have been remarkable enough to go down in history. They hardly would have been willing to raise the monument as well as decorate it themselves, for years on end. Even if it was Artemisia who sponsored the building of the tomb for her husband—and incidentally for herself as well—she could have done so while they both still lived, beginning any time after the city of Halikarnassos was established. It must have been almost finished when she died in 351 B.C. Endless discussion has been provoked by Pliny’s statement about the four sculptors who worked each on one side of the building. Most scholars have applied this statement to the Amazonomachy frieze, probably because it is largely intact. That frieze they have cut into four portions, variously divided and variously distributed among the four artists. Others, however, say that the Amazonomachy frieze shows enough unity of style to have been designed by a single artist, although the stone cutting itself was obviously done by a number of men. They have suggested instead that Pliny’s statement should be applied to the sculpture in the round that was made for the Mausoleum. I agree with the second position, since I also have found that the Amazonomachy frieze is coherent and distinct in style, though varied in handling.

Concerning the Temple of Artemis at Ephesos, ancient sources provide the information that the previous temple on the site was burned down in 356 B.C., on the day that Alexander the Great was born (a synchronism that involved adjusting Alexander's birthday by a few months), and that it was rebuilt again immediately, even more splendidly than before. A man called Herostratos performed the destructive deed, they say, in order that his name might go down in history.” The architects of the new temple were probably Paionios of Ephesos, who is also credited with the later rebuilding of the Temple of Apollo at Didyma, and Demetrios, temple-slave of the Artemision.*® In 334/333 B.c., when Alexander the Great reached Ephesos, he offered to pay all expenses, past and future, for the building of the temple, but was refused with the reply that it was not fitting for one god to

CHRONOLOGY = 35

build a temple to another god. The Artemision was large and splendid enough to be selected as another of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world. Pliny says that it included 127 Jonic columns, of which 36 had sculptured drums, one of them carved by Skopas.”

Excavations and the study of the remains have confirmed some of this.*' The fourth-century temple was found just eight feet, nine and a half inches above the earlier one, exactly repeating its plan, which is dipteral with deep porches. True, scholars have difficulty accommodating more than 117 of Pliny’s 127 columns, but among the ruins sculptured members were found, some square and some cylindrical. Although Pliny’s statement that the Artemision took 120 years to build does not necessarily apply to the latest building, we must assume that so large and splendid a temple was in the making for a long time. The problems of reconstructing the temple are many and solutions vary. But the date of the sculptured drum in question has been relatively well established. There is little doubt that the sculptured members were at the bottom of columns, so that they would have been put in place early in the process, a fact which is confirmed by the record that Skopas worked on one of them.” They could well have been amongst the work already done that Alexander offered to pay for. Concerning the drum illustrated here, there are few who think that Skopas carved it himself and it has even been questioned whether it 1s Skopaic

in style at all.’ But all agree that it fits comfortably enough between c. 350 and 330 B.C.

Praxiteles’ career, modern scholars on the whole agree, was about contemporary with that of Skopas, extending from c. 375 or 370 to c. 330 B.c.%* They also agree that the Satyr Pouring Wine * was one of his earliest works. But they disagree about other things. The chronology of his works is based on stylistic criteria, which have been interpreted variously. In most cases, three stylistic groupings are made, one around the Satyr, one around the Aphrodite,” and one around the Hermes * and the Apollo Sauroktonos.* The major disagreement lies in reversing the sequence of the two later groups. For present purposes, this inner chronology ts not crucial. It 1s enough to note that Praxiteles was old fashioned when he used the old contrap posto formula as late as c. 370 B.c. His subsequent ideas, in whatever sequence, must have been introduced in the course of the 360s. Whether the Olympian Hermes is a Greek original 1s still being debated. Some think, rather, that it is a Greek original reworked in later times, Roman or modern, and set on a later base; some, that it is a Roman copy. C. Bliimel made a proposal

36 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

in 1948, which still has some currency, that it may be a Hellenistic original made by a Praxiteles known from Pergamene inscriptions who lived in the second half of the second century B.c.” For present purposes it seems enough to reject the last possibility.

The complete group of statues dedicated in Delphi by Daochos II of Thessaly represented, in addition to a figure probably of Apollo, Daochos himself, his son, and six ancestors whom he esteemed, going back seven generations altogether, to the end of the sixth century B.c.'"° The Agias who was discussed above had been a victor in the pankration in the mid-fifth century. (Think how differently he would have been represented as victor in his own day!) In association with the statues, a long inscription was found which consisted of epigrams identifying most of the figures. In Pharsalos, Thessaly, another inscription was found which almost duplicates the epigram connected with the figure of Agias, but with the name of Lysippos added as sculptor.'"’ From this, and related circumstances, it is generally assumed

that the marble statues in Delphi were replicas of bronze originals in Pharsalos. The question is then raised whether the Delphic statues were copies in each case by the master or the studio, and specifically in relation to the Agias, whether the statue in Delphi was made by Lysippos himself. Recently D. Arnold has claimed all of the Daochos figures for the Argive-Sikyonian School, including the Agias, which she says was not a replica of the one made by Lysippos in Pharsalos.'" But in any case these considerations, while interesting, do not affect the date of the monument, which is based on the fact that in the Delphic inscription Daochos is designated as tetrach, a title which he held from 344 to 334 B.c. About Lysippos and his place in art history, Arnold has some interesting things to say. She finds, while insisting on Lysippos’ own originality, that his way was

prepared to a considerable degree by the followers of Polykleitos, who evolved earlier stages of various attributes of Lysippic style, among others, a number of the specific stances that appear in his sculpture, the sense of ambiguity that 1s present in his standing figures, the involvement of the figure with space, the particular ex-

pressive quality of the face, and the characterization of the athlete as a psychologically involved individual. She describes the sequence of stylistic development in the Argive-Sikyonian school in the following terms. The period from c. 420 to betore 380, she says, was a time of the exploration of new forms, or “the testing of newly discovered possibilities.” During the next period there was further development along

like lines but forces of action and arrest were held in “a new balanced harmony”

CHRONOLOGY = 37

and ‘the elements of the momentary and the spiritual are completely blended with

the form.” It was before 350 B.c., she says, that Lysippos took over a leading creative role, and subsequently influenced the Argive-Sikyonian masters in return.’®”

The Lysikrates monument carries an inscription which says that it was set up to commemorate a victory won by Lysikrates as choragos of a boys’ chorus, when Euatentos was archon, which was in 335-334 B.c.'" It still stands where it was set up, on the Street of the Tripods in Athens, which once ran in a continuous circuit from the Theater of Dionysos around the eastern end of the Acropolis to the Agora.’”” It is generally assumed that it was begun immediately after the victory and, given its modest size, finished soon afterward.

The “Alexander Sarcophagus” was found in 1887 in the royal necropolis of Sidon

in Phoenicia, in the latest of seven chambers in which the kings of Sidon were buried.’ Already in 1894 Franz Studniczka showed that it was made for the last of the Sidonian kings, Abdalonymos, who was put on the throne by Alexander the Great after the Battle of Issos in 333 B.c., and who died in Gaza in 311. In 1963 Johann C. Assmann published an architectural study of the tomb complex which confirmed the association of Abdalonymos with the sarcophagus, tor which Assmann accepted the date of c. 320-315 B.c. Schefold, in 1968, published a monograph on the sarcophagus, in which he argued for dating it within Alexander's lifetime, largely on the grounds that the style is still Classical and therefore must precede the year 323 B.c., but I would question both that analysis of style and that understanding of the year 323. In a monograph of 1970 Volkmar von Graeve demonstrated by historic and stylistic factors that the sarcophagus was made c. 312 B.C., and H. Mobius has confirmed this date in his discussion of the ornament of the sarcophagus.’

The production of large, elaborate grave stelai was ended in Attica in 317 B.C. by the prohibitions of a luxury decree passed by Demetrios of Phaleron.'’* Their chronology down to 317 B.c. has been studied carefully by several scholars, who have depended heavily on comparison with the dated Record Reliefs and Panathenaic amphoras.'* Although those scholars sometimes disagree with each other, and of course use stylistic criteria that are different from those oftered here, it ts interesting to note some of the chronological observations that they have made. They

all have found that the tendency to free the mass of the figure from the back-

38 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

ground became noticeable at the turn of the century. Siisserott found a change in style at c. 375 B.c. Dohrn saw the inception of a change during the 370s which matured over a decade later, and he pointed out that the change occurred not only in the manner of representing figures but also in the hairdress, dress, and furniture that were represented.'? The particular stelai that are cited and illustrated here were dated by Diepolder, who put the monuments of the woman and her servant girl (Figure 76) and of Polyxena (Figure 77) within the decade 360-350 B.c., the stele of Damasistrate (Figure 78) after 350 B.c., the stele from the I[lissos (Figure 74), within the decade 340-330, and the stele from Rhamnous (Figure 75), in the last years just before the decree of 317 B.c.'" This dating is followed generally. Some place the Ilissos stele more precisely within the decade, Stisserott, for example, in the mid 330s, and Sheila Adam, c. 330. The Rhamnous stele Siisserott tries to date later, in the decade 310-300 B.c., with the dubious argument that it was made outside of Athens and therefore not limited by Demetrios’ luxury decree.''* Since Demetrios ruled all of Attica, his law would have applied throughout, with a possible variant only in how strictly the law may have been applied in outlying areas.

Iv. Other Arts

N THE HISTORY of the art of sculpture, I have suggested, innovations were | presaged in the decades after c. 429 B.c., within the Rich phase of the Classical style, especially in such monuments as the Nike of Paionios and the frieze of the Temple of Apollo in Phigaleia, and they crystallized in a new style within the sculptures of the Temple of Asklepios in Epidauros, possibly during the years 378 or 377 to 376 B.c. In Epidauros Classical poise was displaced by an Anticlassical uneasiness, as a new mood took over which was disturbed and searching, and which found expression in a new system of shifting and conflicting forms. This Antclassical style continued afterward, not only up to 323 B.c., but beyond into the late years of the fourth century. It will be seen also that many of the new esthetic ideas that were incorporated during this time continued, with modifications, into the Hellenistic world. Inevitably, one wonders whether comparable changes were made in the styles of

the other major arts of the period as well. Even though sculpture is the declared subject of this monograph, it is irresistible to cast at least a brief glance also in the direction of architecture, painting, music, and literature.

For architecture, the answer is at hand, and has already been stated above. Georges

Roux found that new architectural ideas were introduced in the same Temple of Apollo Epikourios at Phigaleia which was decorated with the frieze discussed above, and were then crystallized in the very Temple of Asklepios at Epidauros which was decorated with the pedimental and akroterial sculpture also discussed above. After 39

40 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

that, he tells us, the Peloponnesian architects, “sensitive to the first manifestations of what would be the taste of the Hellenistic epoch, retain from the past only what

would serve to prepare the future.”

Concerning painting the ancients tell of technical innovation, in this case connected with the time around 420 B.c. and with the artist Apollodoros, who ts called “oKaypagoc” (shadow painter).''! Unfortunately, the meaning of that designation was not made clear and modern scholars have not yet finished arguing about it. They seem to agree, at least, that it involves a new step in the art of illusion which had been developing previously. Some believe that it alludes simply to modelling individual forms in light and dark. But there is earlier evidence for such modelling. It seems more probable to me that it alludes to the lighting of the entire scene, implying a further step toward a unified projection of reality, that is, toward the kind of picture (later re-invented during the Renaissance), which creates the illu-

sion of a segment of reality seen through an opening, in which pseudo-threedimensional figures, modelled in light and dark, are presented in a coherent area of pseudo-space, as though illuminated naturally from a given source of pseudolight. This kind of picture is implied repeatedly in ancient descriptions of the works of painters of the period that followed, through the fourth century, on into the Hellenistic period,''* and indeed the classic anecdote about such painterly illusion is told about Parrhasios and Zeuxis, who were working just at the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the fourth. “The story runs,’ says Pliny, ‘that Parthasios and Zeuxis entered into competition, Zeuxis exhibiting a picture of some grapes, so true to nature that the birds flew up to the wall of the stage. Parrhastos then displayed a picture of a linen curtain, realistic to such a degree that Zeuxis, elated by the verdict of the birds, cried out that now at last his rival must draw the curtain and show his picture. On discovering his mistake he surrendered the prize to Parrhasios, admitting candidly that he had deceived the birds, while Parrhasios had deluded himself, a painter.’’ Also, Pliny relates a variant story about Zeuxis, that he “painted a boy carrying grapes, and when the birds flew down to settle on them, he was vexed with his own work, and came forward saying, with like frankness, ‘I have painted the grapes better than the boy, for had I been perfectly successful with the latter, the birds must have been afraid!’ ” ''® However, even though it is clear that an important technical innovation occurred in the late fifth century, it is still unclear to what extent or when it may have been

OTHER ARTS 41

accompanied by a stylistic change. (The painting of the High Renaissance, for example, teaches us that there can be a differential between the two.) Since the paintings themselves no longer exist to answer the question, one necessarily turns to contemporary vase paintings for the evidence, however limited or cloudy, that they may have to offer. Those who have studied the vase paintings tell us that the “Rich” or “‘Ornate’’ style lingered in them until about 380 or 375 B.C., when it was superseded by the “Late Classical’’ style.'’’ I leave it to others to decide whether the “Late Classical” style in vase painting can be redefined, like that of sculpture, as “‘Anttclassical.”

In music, as in painting, the ancients tell of technical innovations. These began even before the Peloponnesian War, with Phrynis of Mitylene, Melanippides of

Melos, and Kinesias of Athens. Agathon and Euripides applied them in their tragedies. The culmination came in the late fifth and early fourth centuries with the work of Philoxenos of Kythera, who lived from c. 436 to 380 B.c., and Timotheos

of Miletos, who lived from c. 450 to c. 360." That a “new” music was created then the ancients insist. “I do not sing the old songs,’ Timotheos is quoted as saying.'" The musicians named apparently introduced a “‘chromatic’” mode, involving heterophonic accompaniments, in place of the “enharmonic” clarity of Classical music. They were not above mixing the forms of dirges, hymns, paeans, or dithyrambs;

nor of imitating the trembling of the flute in the music of the kithara; nor of creating mimetic, theatrical, and emotive effects. More elaborate instruments were developed and a new value was placed on virtuosity, which led to such protessionalization of the performance of music that already in the fourth century even choruses could contain professionals. The “‘new’’ music became the established music during the fourth century. It continued to be so during the Hellenistic period, when the compositions of Philoxenos and Timotheos were the “pop classics” '*” for music recitals, not only unsurpassed but unrivalled, and the earlier music was forgotten. It is clear from all of this that music was taking a new line of development, but no more in music than in painting do technical changes necessarily carry with them an immediate change in style, and one wonders when in the process the stylistic change may have crystallized. Since the music is gone, one can hardly be sure, and

verbal descriptions obviously must be interpreted with the utmost caution. It ts therefore very diffidently pointed out here that when Aristophanes makes mocking references to flamboyant bends (xaunat) or the formless flexibility of the melodic

42. ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

line, when he likens Agathon’s song to the zigzagging of ants, and when he laughs at Euripides’ coloratura repetition of syllables or at dithyrambists with willowy bodies and souls that flutter among clouds,'?' what this evokes, in my mind at least, are the ornate flourishes of the Rich style. Anticlassical associations occur to me when reference is made to “exharmonic”’ effects, which come from false notes produced by violent modulation in the new, more complex styles.'” It is hard to know exactly when such effects may have taken over, but apparently it was no later than the lifetime of Timotheos of Miletos.

In the words that Euripides wrote to accompany his music for the theater, he was of course no less innovative. His literary style, like his music, moved from what might be called the “enharmonic” clarity of his predecessors and contemporaties to a more “‘chromatic”’ flexibility and nuance, and his changing rhythms and

language carried also a changing vision and interpretation of the life of men. He went from the realm of the divine and absolute to a compassionate and questioning involvement with humanity. He was less severe than his predecessors, and more humane, less august and more emotional, less categoric and more involuted, less sure and more troubled. Euripides dealt with man in new terms as well as new tones, and in both these ways he indicated the future, and indeed prepared for it. Yet he did this within old forms and functions. He was still one of the Classical creators of Old Tragedy, even while he was modifying it. The ways that he predicted,

however, did take over after the turn of the century, when Old Tragedy died, and Old Comedy as well.'” In that demise, ironically enough, an important protagonist was Aristophanes, who earlier had mocked the new developments so sharply. His two extant plays of 391 and 388 are different enough from his earlier ones to have been called Middle Comedy, when that term was in vogue, and his Koalos, written before his death in 380 and left to be produced by his son Araros, we are told, began the kind

of personal melodrama which is called New Comedy. Such melodrama was written for the theater through the rest of the fourth century, climaxing with Menander at

the end of the century, and it continued later as well, in Latin as well as Greek. Meanwhile, in 386 B.c., Old Tragedy was classified as history, quite consciously apparently, since a regular repertory of the old plays was presented at the City Dionysia from that year on. In literature, in addition to what was written for the theater, in the early fourth century other new forms also appeared, and they too set patterns for later times." There was an efflorescence of rhetoric, political, legal, and occasional, for example

OTHER ARTS 43

as written by Isokrates. Biography and autobiography were introduced, for example, as written by Xenophon. Each of these forms was continued and developed in the following centuries, not least the public lecture, which can be considered the typical literary form of the Hellenistic period.'’* Of Isokrates C. Schneider says that he was “the gateway to the Hellenistic era,” and of Xenophon that “his life and his writing are already entirely Hellenistic.” '*°

v Polzs and People

OT ONLY IN SCULPTURE, then, but also in the other major arts, \| we have seen that new ideas intruded into the Classical format during the

years from c. 429 to c. 380/375 B.c., and that by the end of this period,

new, quite different formulations had taken over and superseded the Classical. Now

it is time to ask how these changes in the arts fit into the larger picture of life and history in Greece. Specifically, we recall the correlative questions that were posed

at the beginning of this book on page 4: When, within this period, did new attttudes begin to govern Greek life? And when did the crucial break occur between the polzs system of the fifth century and the imperial system of the late fourth century? !?/

The second question must be considered first. In order to answer it, we resume where we began, with the year 323 B.c., when Alexander the Great died in Babylon. But we recall that what brought Alexander to Babylon was a great Macedonian imperial enterprise which itself constituted a very different order of life trom the civilization of the Greek polis in which Classical art first flourished. Therefore we must trace the road back from Babylon, looking for the time when the force of the polis taded, both in temporal power and in moral suasion. In this connection, since the history of the polzs has been discussed so much and so contentiously, perhaps a word of generalization should be offered immediately, as follows.'** The historic process of the change we are dealing with was gradual and complex and often masked by rhetoric and legalisms. Degrees and nuances must be assumed. Generally speaking, the polzs in which Classical art flourished was a 44

POLIS AND PEOPLE 45

limited geographic and governmental entity which characteristically defined itself by city-state boundaries and defined larger groupings by a hegemonial system of alliances. Under Macedonian, and later Roman, imperialism, the city-state did not necessarily disappear and certainly cities not only persisted but multiplied. Local governmental forms continued. Some cities became imperial capitals. An exceptional

polis, like Rhodes or Delos, might continue independent, although only for the convenience of the imperial powers and when they permitted. The characteristic factor is that the city-state or city became a subordinate item within a larger, centralized state organization, with correlative changes in form and substance, both its territory and its government a sub-form in the larger system. To begin with political-military affairs, the road backward from Babylon is thick with significant dates. A sampling includes the following: 334, when Alexander entered Asia and began his spectacular expansion of Macedonian imperialism; 338, when Macedonian imperialism under Philip prevailed over the Greeks themselves militarily in the field of Chaironeia; 346, when Macedonian imperialism prevailed over the Greeks politically, with Philip sitting in the Amphiktyonic League and presiding over the Pythian Festival; 357, when Athens was outmaneuvered by Philip at Amphipolis and undercut by the revolt of her “allies’’; 362, when the Boeotian Confederation saw the end of its power; or, continuing backward with the Boeotian Confederation, 371, when it saw the establishment of its power, with the defeat of Sparta at Leuktra, and 378, when Thebes expelled its Spartan garrison and set about reorganizing its Confederation. Beyond that lie the years when one can trace, step by step, the crumbling of the Spartan hegemonial system. And beyond that comes the crumbling of the Athenian hegemonial system in the Peloponnesian War, -+431404 B.c., when the exigencies of prolonged combat on an imperial scale strained the organization and resources of the polzs to and beyond the breaking point, thus predicting and speeding its obsolescence.

When did the power of the polis break? One can indicate at least a series of cracks, and they began early.'? The latter course of the Peloponnesian War made fissures not only in Attica, but in other places as well. In Sicily, Dionysios the Elder

took power when the war was over, establishing a territorial state autocratically ruled, which has been construed as a proto-Hellenistic phenomenon. He began his takeover in 405 B.c., reached the height of his position c. 385, with the help of his own personal mercenary army, by which time he not only had taken over Syracuse but also had made it into a continental power, and he continued to rule until his death in 367. He was, for many reasons, says Bury, ‘‘the pioneer of a new age in

46 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

which the conditions of the world would be transformed,” and C. Schneider finds Hellenistic parallels also for his successors, Dion, Dionysios II, and Timoleon.'® In north Greece, Thessalian despots were making important bids for power. In Macedonia, Philip II developed an especially effective version of the territorial monarchy, in the kingdom that he inherited in 359 B.c. In Asia Minor, when central control of outlying parts slackened within the Persian Empire, such monarchies or semi-independent satrapies proliferated, reaching a famous climax with the Karian satrapy of Maussollos, from 377 to 353 B.c. These Anatolian realms, like the Macedonian, were often hospitable to Greeks and Greek culture, and we have fallen into the habit of including them in the history of Greek art.’ In most of Greece itself and the Aegean region, the polzs-based hegemonial system continued after the Peloponnesian War, under Sparta’s domination. But critical fissures appeared there too very soon, as Greeks became disenchanted with Spartan ideals and proceeded in successive steps to shatter Spartan power. The disenchantment set in almost immediately, as early as the tyranny of the Thirty in Athens. In 386, when Sparta negotiated the King’s Peace with Persia, not only did the disenchantment become acute, but the Anatolian cities themselves were disenfranchised

and handed over to the Great King, thus reducing considerably the number of independant po/eis that remained in the world. The actual inroads on Spartan power began as early as 394, at Knidos, when the Athenian Konon, leading a fleet financed by the Persian king, defeated a Spartan fleet that had previously been financed by the Persian king. They were completed in 371, when the Boeotian Confederation, led by the Theban Epaminondas, defeated the Spartan army at Leuktra. Then the confederations came to the fore. Already in 378 B.c., the Boeotian Confederation had reorganized, ‘‘along new lines,” says J. A. O. Larsen. In 371, after Leuktra, Thebes encouraged the organization of the Arkadian League along the same lines. Their new framework was democratic, which, Larsen explains, was

an “admirable instrument for the control of a federal state by a large city.” ' This is still not to say that hope for the po/7s system had died. In fact it had enough vitality for Athens to take over the hegemony of Greek polezs from Sparta, through the Second Maritime League, which it had organized in 377 B.c. That League, like earlier ones, was soon in difficulty, with Athens straining unsuccessfully to break

through the limits of the hegemonial system, against the wishes of its “allies.” Ultimately, since Athens was a polzs, it found itself, as Vannier says, “incapable of financing a political program of expansion which became more and more costly...”

Even then some independent poleis still survived, and so did the polss ideal, if always more tenuously based. But, in the context of our question, we can note that

POLIS AND PEOPLE 47

the federation was a present and potent alternative to the po/zs in the Greek heartland itself at least as early as 378 B.C. Larsen puts the critical date a little earlier, to 386 B.c. In his recent large volume on the history of Greek federal states which has already been quoted, he takes pains to point out that the organization of the new Boeotian Confederation in 378 B.C. was itself prepared by the earlier crisis of the King’s Peace in 386 B.c., when the old Boeotian Confederation was dissolved. It is with the year 386 that he divides his history into two periods, and he insists that, “The King’s Peace . . . marks the greatest

break in the history of Greek federalism, much more so than the establishment of Macedonian supremacy in Greece. During the 40 years between the liberation of Thebes and the Battle of Chaironeia, federalism was on the rise again, and Philip II, with his creation of the Hellenic League, did nothing to discourage it.” The King’s Peace, he says, was ‘one of the great turning points in Greek history.” '™ A similar judgment was made some years ago by W. S. Ferguson, who said that the downfall of Greek freedom and autonomy dates not from Chaironeia but from the Peace of the King, ‘which not only surrendered Greek territory to Persian rule

but conceded the right of the Persian king to dictate the relations of the Greek states generally.” '* As usual there are serial steps to take into consideration. But it seems clear that

a significant breakthrough in the ascendancy of Greek federation came from 386 to 378 B.c. Later in the fourth century, when it turned out that the federations were unable to maintain a supra-political unification in Greece, then the Macedonians

were able to step in and impose unification on their own terms. In the west, in the course of the third century, the Romans did the same, on their own terms. Throughout this time there was much talk about panhellenism, as an ideal that transcended the individual po/zs. Of course intellectual theories and programs for supra-political solutions among Greeks, and even the practice of some forms of panhellenism, did not begin with the period now under discussion. There were panhellenic sanctuaries and games, after all, from early days. Greeks had united against the Persian armies when they invaded Greece in the early fifth century, and they continued both to advocate and to act on the idea of united Greek action against the Persians afterward. A traditional vehicle for panhellenic proposals seems to have been, appropriately, an oration in the great panhellenic sanctuary of Zeus in Olympia. For example, a number of passages in ancient literature refer to a famous address delivered there by Gorgias in 408 B.c., while the Peloponnesian War was still in progress, in which he reminded the Greeks that they ought to unite instead against the common enemy in the east.'*°

48 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

However, there seem to be indications that when the King’s Peace was announced

in 386 B.c. the shame and indignation that it aroused led to a resurgence of such ideas, to what G. Norlin sees as “much irresponsible talk of a united campaign to deliver the Greeks in Europe from Persian interference and the Asiatic Greeks from Persian rule.” '*’ It was perhaps after 386 that Lysias, in Olympia, delivered an ex-

hortation for united action against both Artaxerxes of Persia and Dionysios of Sytacuse, whom he considered equally oppressors of Greeks.'®* It was certainly after

386, in c. 380 B.c., that Isokrates delivered his Panegyric in Olympia, deploring intra-Hellenic rivalries, pointing to the common aspirations of the Hellenic commu-

nity, and asking for a league of free states under a single leadership, to carry the war against Persia into Asia. This is the oration which established Isokrates’ fame then, and was considered his masterpiece thereafter, even to the end of antiquity.'*°

The idea of Greek unity against Persia became an intense preoccupation with Isokrates and he became its principal spokesman, adapting the form of his project to the emerging personalities and changing conditions of the succeeding decades of the fourth century, and presently focussing his hopes on Philip II] of Macedon. In his Address to Philip in 346, shortly after the Peace of Philokrates, which ended the ten years of war between Philip and Athens that had begun with the altercation over Amphipolis, he applauded Philip’s declared ambition to lead the Greeks against Persia.'*°

Not war alone, but peace as well was sometimes associated with panhellenism. The phrase kotvt) eipyvn (general peace), which became current in the Hellenistic

world, was already heard in 391, in a speech On the Peace with Sparta, by Andokides."*!

Proto-Hellenistic ideas about monarchism also seem to have grown during this time. Here too there are subtle tales to tell of continuity as well as change, and definitions are still being debated. C. Schneider makes the point that the idea of the king never died in the Greek world, that the word never lost the sacred ring it had in Homer, that the good king was a hero of tragedy, and the gods continued to live regally on Olympos." But it surely indicates a discernible change when leading intellectuals define and advocate monarchy in specific, contemporary terms as a solution to current problems, as was done already in the fourth century by Isokrates, Xenophon, and Plato. A. Heuss emphasizes the variety of forms that monarchy could take, and finds an epochal change for the Greeks only with the rule of Alexander the Great, based as it was on Persian Kingship.’** But then one remembers that Xenophon, in the early fourth century, had already taken the Persian Cyrus as his

POLIS AND PEOPLE 49

ideal.'** In some circles at least there was a re-orientation of political thought along such lines, so that C. B. Welles could say, “The Hellenistic monarchy was not created by Philip or Alexander or their successors, it was created by Greek theoreticians and publicists.” '®”

The techniques of military organization and maneuver also underwent basic changes during this time. Most drastically they were recast by autocrats and confederations, to meet the needs of a more personal or a more complex form of power. In this way, as in so many others, Dionysios of Syracuse was a pioneer. Says Bury, “The outworn formulas of Greek warfare were cast aside and with the cam-

paigns of Dionysios, as with those of Napoleon, we enter a new phase in the art of war.” '*® Dionysios made a scientific study of the co-ordination of the several parts of his army, developing cavalry, heavy-armed troops and light-armed troops, and using them with new flexibility and new shrewdness. He employed engineers who developed military devices for him, including the many-storied siege towers with which he brought Motya to subjection. He made Syracuse the best fortified city of the Greeks, developing fortifications on the island of Ortygia, at Epipolai, and Euryalos which were unprecedented in form and in strength. In sum, to quote Bury again, he was ‘the first great scientific soldier, the forerunner of Epaminondas and

the great Macedonians.” His “innovations in the art of war... were to have a profound influence on the history of the Macedonian monarchies of which his rule was the forerunner.” '*’ Epaminondas, in turn, as general of the armies of the Boeotian Confederation, followed in the military footsteps of Dionysios, and he was followed in his turn by Philip II of Macedon. Let M. Cary now make the point, “In his (Epaminondas’) methodical exploitation of Greek shock tactics, in his handling of multiple columns on the march and in the personal magnetism by which he bound men of diverse cities and political interests into his service, he will bear comparison with the great Macedonian captains who followed him and indeed may be called his pupils.” '* Such dramatic reorganization seems appropriate to the considerable changes involved in the organization of a territorial autocracy or a confederation. But the fact 1s that a basic change was being made in military matters within the continuing polezs as well. It had begun, in fact, with the circumstances of the Peloponnesian War, which, as it took on larger dimensions, proved to be more than could be sustained by farmers who had to go home at harvest time or shopkeepers who had a store to

50 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

mind. Of necessity, professionals began to take over the soldiering, and they con-

tined to do so increasingly afterward, with resounding repercussions in many directions.'*9

Economic adjustments also were being made, interconnected with the political and military changes. Like them, they usually happened gradually and variously in various places.’*® For example, in the countryside, where the independent smallholder lived who was the key figure of the polzs, there was an intrusion of larger holdings which were cultivated more scientifically and more profitably. In the city at the same time, commercial activity was becoming more heavily accented than before in the economic ratio, together with an appropriate amount of handicraft industry. Among the more noticeable sources of new money that was going into both farming and business were the accumulated funds of mercenary soldiers, retiring from service. Even Sparta, finding wealth unavoidable when she was in power, became more and more involved in an economy of money and exchange, and more and more beset by problems arising from the concentration of landholdings, which led inevitably to modifications in her internal structure and in the nature and quality of her leadership.'*! As a concomitant to such developments, after the Peloponnesian War, in a number of places, the old aristocratic names that had led the Greeks for generations, the eupatrids who were based on the land, tended to disappear from leadership, and new names appeared in their place. The forebears of Dionysios of Syracuse are not known to us. It was new men in Athens who achieved crucial victories shortly after the war, Thrasyboulos against the tyrants in 403 B.c. and Konon against the Spartans at Knidos in 394. It was new men also who oversaw the revival of the city, Thrasyboulos himself and Archinos, who led the first generation, and Kallistratos, Chabrias, and Timotheos, son of Konon, who led the more drastic internal reor-

ganization that went with the formation of the Second Maritime League from 377 on.'”*

Now the second question presents itself. When in this period did new attitudes begin to govern Greek life? The answers to this question, not surprisingly, are intricately interwoven with the answers to the first question, and margins are often arbitrary or indiscernible. In some instances connections are direct and overt. In art, for example, during the fourth century, the powerful new forces, the autocrats and the federations, account for many of the most important commissions. The major urban developments were

POLIS AND PEOPLE 51

theirs. We know something of the extension of Syracuse under Dionysios, including the fortifications, the rebuilding of Halikarnassos under Maussollos, the re-establish-

ment of Mantineia in Arkadia in 370 B.c., the foundation of Megalopolis for the Arkadian League, the enrichment of Pella for Archelaos and later Macedonian kings," and we can speculate about such places as the Thebes of Epaminondas. Sanctuaries fell under the control of the same forces. The building of a very important new temple to Athena Alea in Tegea, the largest Doric Temple in the Peloponnesos, seems to have been connected with the formation of the Arkadian League. The panhellenic sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi was a crucial field of operations for Philip

of Macedon. In both cities and sanctuaries individual despots raised spectacular monuments to their own glory, of which the grandest was the tomb of Maussollos in Halikarnassos. In the genre of family memorial, the Thessalian Daochos was outdone by the Macedonian Philip, who raised a monument in Olympia to himself and his family in which the portraits, made of ivory and gold by Leochares, were enclosed in a richly decorated tholos.'”

The courts of autocrats became important cultural centers. Already in the late fifth century a remarkable concentration of talent was assembled in Macedonia by King Archelaos, who ruled from 413 to 399 B.c. He summoned to his side the poets Euripides, Agathon, and Choiriles, the citharist Timotheos, and the painter Zeuxis, not to mention Socrates, who received an invitation but refused. Zeuxis decorated Archelaos’ palace with paintings,’ probably the palace at Dion, where Archelaos is known to have given great artistic fétes in the year 406. Dionysios of Syracuse gathered at his court the musician Philoxenos of Kythera, the philosopher Aristippos of Kyrene, and the Syracusan historian Philistos, not to mention Plato, who was expelled ignominiously by Dionysios but returned to grace the court of his son Dionysios II. Alexander of Macedonia, in his turn, kept a staff of Greek artists, including the best, Lysippos, Apelles, and Deinokrates, who worked for his greater glory. In the East, Greek artists had worked long before in archaic times, as in the palace

of the Great King himself in Persepolis. But a new surge of activity among the nearer monarchies and satrapies set in for them from the latter fifth century on, ride the royal sarcophagi of Sidon, a number of tombs in Lycia, and the works made for Maussollos, satrap of Karia.""° This kind of monarchic patronage and this kind of self-aggrandizing monument found a logical continuation in the state or court art of the Hellenistic period.

Individual patronage of art also took on a new aspect and a new importance. How much the level of individual income may have risen during the fourth cen-

52. ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

tury is a problem that is still being discussed by economists. But an examination of physical remains indicates that for one thing, in any case, income must have taken the form of negotiable coin, rather than land or produce, to a greater degree than before, since it was made visible in a larger amount of individual display, and that for another thing a greater proportion of the population must have had such money, since they have left tangible evidence of spending it. We have seen that new men replaced the eupatrids in the exercise of leadership and power. The same seems to have been true of art patronage as well. In public places this new patronage showed in some ways that have already been illustrated here. One is the elaboration of private monuments, like the one that was dedicated by Lysikrates (Figures 57-60), which celebrates his victory in the theater as choragos of a boys’ chorus. Another 1s the proliferation of fine tombstones, like the ones that were examined above (Figures 74-78), which express a personal and familial sentiment now newly made visible in art. Still another, which will be discussed further on page 57, is the dedication of large numbers of personal votive reliefs, often to a spectrum of new, more personal gods.

In their private houses, also, Greeks now turned to enrichment and expense in ways that have not been heard of before. Already in the late fifth century, we learn from ancient literature, Alkibiades, himself a new kind of man within his generation, shocked his contemporaries by forcing the painter Agatharchos to paint the walls of his private house.'*” In Macedonia, not in Greece itself, as reported above, the palace of King Archelaos was decorated by the Greek painter Zeuxis.'** During the fourth century the attitudes that were prefigured in this way apparently became general.

Ancient literature tells of grand houses that were built by several fourth-century men, for instance Timotheos, Lykon, Chabrias, and Meidias, and Demosthenes says, “Some people have provided themselves with private houses more imposing than our public buildings.” '°? In Greek cities excavators have found middle-class houses of this period which are pleasant and comfortable, built more airily and elaborately than before, around an open court. Most notable is Olynthos, the Chalkidian city that was

founded in the latter fifth century and destroyed by Philip IH in 348 B.c., where extensive residential areas are filled with such houses, many of them embellished with patterned and figured pebble-mosaic floors.” Within the domestic setting metal tableware came into use. Until the end of the fifth century household silver was rare, D. E. Strong pointed out recently, but its use was already expanding in the early fourth century.’ This, parenthetically, may well have contributed to the much-discussed decline of painted ceramic ware, since the best ware would now be made in silver or gold, and painted ware would be only second best. This kind of

POLIS AND PEOPLE = 53

individual patronage, which began at this time, continued and increased in the Hellenistic period, expressed similarly in public dedications and in the elaboration of private homes.

At the same time that the comforts of the individual were being catered to privately, they also were being provided for publicly. A new range of urban amentties began to be monumentalized from the early fourth century on.’” Theaters began to be built entirely of stone during the fourth century, and they continued so thereafter.'* In addition stadia, gymnasia, pompeza, and hotels were now built of stone, and they also continued so thereafter.'** When the small city of Priene was

re-founded on a new site in the fourth century, although on a relatively modest level, such facilities were considered an integral part of the city plan, and they were provided attractively.'” A pretty theater was built, quite secularized, it 1s interesting to note, unconnected with a sanctuary, with only an altar provided for Dionysos. Gymnasium and stadium make a handsome complex within the city walls. The Agora was planned coherently as a formal, unified rectangle, in its original state enclosed on three sides by a stone colonnade, the earliest such planned square that we know.

Amenities of this kind continued to be monumentalized, in such a manner, with increasing grandeur, in the Hellenistic period and after. The large public events of the time were reflected in the private lives of individuals in other important ways. Out of the circumstances of the Peloponnesian War, and increasingly afterwards, specialization and professionalism became the order of the day, and that fundamentally changed the way Greeks lived, including the range of their ideals and ambitions. We have already seen that the exigencies of prolonged campaigns during the Peloponnesian War led to the professionalization of the army. The same exigencies led to a professionalization of administration. The supervision of finances could no longer be left in the hands of treasurers who were chosen anew each year by lot. It also had to become more consecutive and more specialized.’ In the fourth century it was characteristically the man who handled the finances who dominated the city, whether Thrasyboulos or Kallistratos or, later, Eubules or Lykourgos. For similar reasons other functions as well had to be specialized, including those of politician, lawyer, educator, actor, and athlete.'*’ Very likely there is a connection between the professionalization of the last-named and the fact that the first

Zanes were set up in Olympia, as penalties for a violation of the rules, after the 98th Games, of 388 B.c.'® The implications of such specialization were profound. Before, men had participated together in all aspects of the community’s life. Now they were becoming dis-

54. ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

engaged from many of those aspects, and turning of necessity to more limited and

more private areas of interest. Inevitably, therefore, they were also becoming disengaged from the community ideals by which they had lived as participating citizens, and they were being forced, singly, individually, to seek elsewhere for substitute ideals. During the earlier fourth century, men could still shift between their public and private interests, to the extent that each political situation allowed. But as the Hellenistic period approached, the public man was increasingly restricted and the private man increasingly emerged. In public affairs, reciprocally, there was a new stress on individualism. Demosthenes complained that individuals, not the state, were now credited with military victories. In 393 B.c., he said, for the first time since c. 511 and c. 479 B.c., when statues of the Tyrannicides were placed in the Agora, the Athenian polis commissioned a portrait of a private citizen, Konon, the hero of the naval victory over the

Spartans at Knidos. They set it up on the Acropolis, and later put beside it a portrait of his son Timotheos.'* Not only military and political leaders but also an increasing number of philosophers and poets were honored by the dedication of their portraits, in semt-public as well as public places, under private as well as public patronage. Thus were the floodgates opened for the countless portraits that were made during the rest of the fourth century, and on into the Hellenistic period and later.

It is natural to wonder, given these facts, whether the individual was represented in portraiture in a new way at the same time that he was represented to a new degree

and apparently in a new spirit. It seems logical that he should be, and it is clear from known examples that a new kind of portraiture was general by the last third of

the fourth century, though documentation is not clear as to when it began. That new kind of portraiture is characterized by an interest in capturing the appearance not just of an individual person but of an individual personality. The degree of verism seems to have been variable—and continued so after the fourth century also—running a gamut that could include the personal, the typical, the ideal, and even the caricature, at will. What is central is the representation of a face and figure that are not only particularized by physical traits but also animated with human sentiment and thought. The interest 1s in the inner as well as the outer man. There is no point in quibbling over whether this is “true portraiture.” '” There are many possible truths in portraiture, and, as H. Bloesch has pointed out, the going vogue in portraiture, inversely, can influence the representation of ideal types as well.'”’ The Greeks had already explored some of those truths. In early days they, like other peoples, had portrayed individuals by attaching individual names to type-

POLIS AND PEOPLE 55

representations. In the fifth century, within the Classical style, they sometimes referred to an individual or a type by particularizing key aspects of the physiognomy or body, and occasionally they made tentative beginnings in the expression of feelings behind the face by representing frown lines and wrinkled brows. The earliest clue to a strongly individualized portraiture comes to us through ancient literature, in descriptions of the work of an artist named Demetrios of Alopeke, who has been dated epigraphically in the first half of the fourth century, and may have begun to work in the late fifth century.’” Lucian describes a portrait of his which represented a man “thought to be Pellichos the Corinthian general” as ‘‘pot-bellied, bald on the forehead, half bared by the hang of his cloak, with some of the hairs of his beard wind-blown and his veins prominent, the image of a real man.’ !’ Pliny credits Demetrios with a portrait of a very old woman named Lysimache, who had been priestess of Athena for 64 years.’"* Quintilian says that he “is blamed for carrying realism too far, and is less concerned about the beauty than the truth of his work.” '” Can we understand Lucian’s description to indicate that Demetrios’ portrait of Pellichos showed not only his person but also his personality? Should we recall Roger Hinks’ speculation that such a development in portraiture was “probably an outcome of the invention of the soul as a psychological fact, which is attributable by the historians of philosophy to Socrates?” 1 The extant monuments unfortunately offer little evidence for the work of Demetrios, since no attribution to him is secure enough to be depended on. Nor do they reveal much that is certain concerning other portraiture of the same period. There are coins of the late fifth and early fourth centuries (Figures 86-88), which carry the head of a satrap or dynast. They are usually cited as early examples of realistic portraiture, but they seem to me to represent a satrap type as idealized in its way as the strategos type is among Greek portraits. Of larger originals, not one can be dated by objective evidence as having been made earlier in the fourth century than the “Maussollos.’’ There are Roman copies of portraits of people who are known to have lived during this period, but hardly any of them can be correlated to a documented original with any certainty. The likeliest candidate among them is a portrait of Plato, known in about sixteen Roman replicas of the head (Figure 89) and one of the entire figure (Figure 90), which may well reproduce the portrait recorded by Diogenes Laertes as made by Silanion and dedicated to the Muses in the Academy by the Persian Mithradates.'’’ The surmise made by most is that the original was done in the 360s, because Plato, who lived from c. 427 to 347 B.c., looks about sixty years old, because a likely Mithradates has been found who died in 363, and because the style seems to fit well within the earlier decades of the fourth century.!”

56 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

Breckenridge says that, “. . . the likeness of Plato exemplified by (these copies) 1s probably the earliest of extant Greek portraits which could have been made directly from its living subject.’ !”% This is a portrait done in relatively noble and ideal terms, but it clearly presents an individual, sentient person, expressive in face and

body. The “Mausollos” (Figure 43), probably of the 350s, is the same kind of portrait. When Pliny tells us that Lysistratos, brother of Lysippos, was the first to do portraiture with the help of lifemasks,'*° it would seem to indicate that the interest in individual likeness became stronger later in the fourth century. Extant portraits of the period confirm that fact, and show that the expressive quality sometimes intensified also. Subsequent portraiture continued along the same route. When we turn to the ideas that men were discussing, as well as the practices and

procedures that were contingent on those ideas,'"' we find the same Lestmotrf recurring that we have found before. Repeatedly what seems to have been involved was the dissolution of the community bonds of the po/is and the exploration of individual-based values. We have already seen, for example, that the ideas that were expressed in the theater had shifted, by the early fourth century, from great community issues to the particular interests of men, from great causes and noble emotions to manners and romance.'® In the fifth century Euripides had precociously explored personal verities within traditional themes. It is possible that some more personal plays also were written then, concurrently with the grand themes of the dramas that remain. But certainly from the early fourth century on Old Tragedy and Old Comedy were written no longer. Personal melodrama had taken their place, and was to hold that place thereafter. For religion also the polis-nexus was loosened. State functions continued to be served by state gods. But from the years of the Peloponnesian War on, people as individuals were turning more and more to gods of personal salvation." The most popular of them was Asklepios, kind and loving, savior and healer.'** Not only was his image inserted beside those of older divinities, in their temples, but many new temples were built for him as well. The climax came in Epidauros, where his modest, local shrine was converted into a new, major, panhellenic sanctuary, with many cult buildings, richly decorated, and accommodations for a constant flow of individual visitors. As we already know, the Epidaurian cult began to spread during the Peloponnesian War, and the monumentalization of the sanctuary, which began with the Temple of Asklepios probably in 380-375 B.C., constituted the most extensive religious building program of the period. Mystery religions also were popular.’” In Eleusis in the first half of the fourth

POLIS AND PEOPLE 57

century, the rites were somewhat changed to appeal more to the emotions, Ploutos

regained his importance, and Iacchos was added.’ But more popular than the Eleusinian mysteries were the more emotional, or orgiastic, rites of Dionysos.'*’ The god himself became so important that he was introduced into the Eleusinian mys-

teries by the late fifth century. By the fourth century he was even taken into the Apollonian stronghold of Delphi, to the degree that when the temple was rebuilt then, he shared it equally with Apollo. His tomb was placed inside the temple, and secret ceremonies were performed there at night by priestesses of a particular family. While Apollo was represented with Artemis, Leto, and the nine Muses in the east pediment, Dionysos and the Thyiades were represented in the west pediment.’ Many Greeks were ready to go even further in religious experience, beyond the gods who had already been acclimatized on Mount Olympos, to the not-yet-Hellenized mysteries of Dionysos Sabazios, introduced from Phrygia and Thrace; Artemis

Bendis, also from Thrace; Cybele and Attis, from the East; and others.’ These foreign gods had begun to enter Greek cities during the Peloponnesian War, and “Middle Comedy” mocks their worshippers. Thus, assorted mystery religions, secret associations, orgiastic groups, and the like, in ethnic mixtures, were already flourishing generations before Alexander's expedition. This fact, incidentally, was estab-

lished as long ago as 1873 by Foucart, although it has not always been remembered since then.'® That such practices were characteristic in the Hellenistic period and afterward is well known. In the art of the time these deities played proportionate roles, some of them for the first time, some more than before, some differently than before. They were accommodated in architecture and represented in the figurative arts. A characteristic vehicle of religious expression which developed in connection with them was the small votive relief panel, dedicated by individuals in the appropriate sanctuaries or sacred places.'"' These began to appear in the latter fitth century, became numerous in the fourth century, and continued thereafter. In some of them, usually among those

of the lesser cults, an esthetic appears which is different from the art of illusion which was dominant then. It relies not on nature but on repeated, formulaic stances and hieratic proportions. Obviously, it taps a mentality which is quite different from the dominant one, and this kind of mentality also continued later, in the Hellenistic period and afterward. The development of philosophy simultaneously discredited formal religion and offered an alternative, to it.'!°? Those who were so inclined could turn to rationalism, and philosophers responsively turned to the individual and his needs. Around the turn to the fourth century, two followers of Socrates provided basic philosophic an-

58 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

swets for the individual approach to life, Aristippos of Kyrene in hedonism and Antisthenes of Athens in cynicism.’ These exactly were the answers that were enriched and elaborated a century later by Epicurus and Zeno,’ and through them dominated the personal philosophy of the Hellenistic period and later. Plato and Aristotle, as political commentators, always clung to the fading ideal of the polis, but as philosophers they opened vital new avenues to an expanding mental world. Plato, from the earlier fourth century until his death in 347, developed the logical structure upon which the intellectual process could be based, not only for his own time but

for the centuries that followed. Aristotle, continuing along the same line, spelled out the laws of logic. Also, he defined the branches of knowledge and systematized their methods in ways that were adapted in the Museum of Alexandria, and used for centuries. According to J. H. Finley, Jr., ‘‘an intellectual revolution” took place in 404 B.c. which far outweighed the Peloponnesian War as a cause of change. Then,

he says, the “rational mind” replaced the ‘'theoretical mind,” and with that the mood that dawned on Athens “created a new world, in itself and retrospectively.” ™

The humane assumptions of the philosophers entered Greek art early, and permeated it in basic ways. A specialized form of thought that became visible in art during the period under discussion is allegory. This is an allegory different from the mythic personifications of earlier times in that it was deliberately and rationally conceived, out of philosophic reflection.’ In the fifth century allegorical figures were used abundantly by Aristophanes. They were represented often in vase painting, culminating in the last quarter of the century, but they appeared only occasionally in monumental art. In the fourth century they became a characteristic subject of monu-

mental art, and then, says Charles Picard, such allegory became “an immediate, astonishing need of the Greek spirit.” '°” It became increasingly popular in the Hellenistic period, and continued afterward.

For example, in the latter 370s Kephisodotos made a statue of Peace (Etoyvn) carrying the child Wealth (TlAodtoc¢)'* which stood in the Agora of Athens. Euphranor, painter and sculptor, who worked during the second quarter of the fourth century, painted a picture of Theseus between the People (Anjpos) and Democracy (Anuoxpatia) on the wall of the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios in Athens, and he sculp-

tured a colossal group of Valor (Virtus) and Greece (Graecia).’ Attributes of Aphrodite, such as Love ("Epwe), Desire (Ilo80c), Yearning (“Iuepoc), Persuasion (Tlet$a), and Consolation (Mapnyopa), were frequently illustrated on vases, especially by the Meidias Painter and his school in the late fifth century."” In the fourth century, in the Temple of Aphrodite in Megara, Praxiteles made statues of Persuasion and Consolation, and Skopas, of Love, Desire, and Yearning.””’ The attributes of

POLIS AND PEOPLE = 59

Dionysos also were popular in fifth-century vase painting. In the fourth century, for the tholos at Epidauros, Praxiteles made a sculpture of Dionysos with Drunkenness (Mé8n), and Pausias painted a picture of Drunkenness, sipping from her crystal cup.*”* Later in the century even more elaborate allegories were made, for example, by Lysippos, in his multi-metaphorical statue of Opportunity (Kowpoc),? and by Apelles, in his many-figured painting of Calumny.”” Science,” which developed so remarkably among Greek philosophers, had also been penetrating the practice of art for a long time before. In the course of the sixth century the developing scientific point of view had begun to turn Greek eyes toward actuality. In the early fifth century it led to the innovative idea of fixing the focus on nature and making it a central point of reference in the creation of artistic form. In the late fifth century it must have been a factor in the technical developments made in the art of painting, which were discussed above. In the fourth century the focus was sharpened, and it continued to sharpen into the Hellenistic period, accompanied by increased skill in observation and widening knowledge of physical fact. In art as in science, value was placed on accuracy, which showed not only in more individualized portraits but also in more natural rendering of movement, more detailed modelling of body structure, greater corporeality of the figure and materiality of cloth. Greater realism one can call it, while remembering that realistic devices as much as abstract devices are bent to the expressive needs of particular styles. The education of the young was one of the most overtly controversial issues of the

polts, from the time when the Sophists appeared in the midffth century.“ The higher education that they offered, and that Socrates adapted, was desperately opposed by conservative citizens, and by the state itself, on the ground that it challenged the very roots of traditional Greece, its gods, and its family structure. To a great degree the opposition were right, although of course the Sophists did not invent the changes that were undermining tradition but only accompanied them. However, these very ideas, which were challenged drastically, in the case of Socrates as late as 399 B.C., were institutionalized and regularized only a few years later, first in the school that was established by Isokrates in 393 B.c., then in the Academy that was established by Plato in 387 B.c. Later in the fourth century they found further expression in the Lyceum of Aristotle, which was founded in 335 B.c., and in the Stoa of Zeno, founded by 300. These men formulated a new higher education, using new information and new techniques, to prepare for a new kind of world. Zimmern says, “The Academy and Lyceum were not so much a training for CityState life as a substitute for it. Socrates taught in the market place and in public

60 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

wrestling grounds; Plato and Aristotle moved out into the country.” 2” Marrou says that the form of such education matured c. 390-380 B.c., and assumed its definitive form in the generation after Alexander.** The four institutions that were established by Isokrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno in the fourth century B.c. themselves con-

tinued to function until the end of the classical world as its central educational institutions.

The education of artists also seems to have taken a new turn. Ancient literature tells of an academy for the training of painters, which was established in Sikyon by Eupompos, a contemporary of Zeuxis and Parrhasios, who worked at the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the fourth.” His successor Pamphilos, early in the fourth century, apparently gave the training a scientific basis, with a curriculum that included arithmetic, geometry, optics, and color effects. “He gave lessons for not less than a talent or 500 deniers a year,’ says Pliny, and that is the price that was paid to him by Melanthios, of the next generation, and Apelles, who became court painter to Alexander the Great.?" Have we, then, found justification in history as well as in art for a changeover from the Classical period to a definable new period, somewhere around 380-375 B.C.? Had the conditions of life and the mentality of people changed enough by then to account for a change in artistic expression? The present author has convinced

at least herself that the answer is yes. We have seen repeatedly, in the history of states and people, that important new stirrings occurred already during the generation of the Peloponnesian War, and that breakthroughs and adjustments followed throughout the next generation. We know that during such a period of dynamic change, among so many diverse states, between such contending social groups, differentials of many kinds are possible, in relation to communities, classes, disciplines, or arts. But we have seen not only in sculpture that a decisive change of style took over at the end of the generation that followed the Peloponnesian War, but also in a significant number of other areas, that changes which had begun and grown before now settled in, at the end of the generation, and in some instances became regularized and institutionalized. Again and again we have seen that these changed ways

of life, which diverged from the Classical, pointed instead in the direction of the imperial world to come. Let me reaffirm all of this by a summary of what was said before, with some additional words about the implications that can be drawn. Both the power and the idea of the polzs, or the hegemonial system based on the polzs, which lay at the heart of the Classical world, were shaken in the course of the Peloponnesian War. In the generation that followed, territorial autocracies

POLIS AND PEOPLE 61

were established by Greeks in Sicily and north Greece and, in contact with Greeks, in Macedonia and Asia Minor. From c. 386-378 B.c. the remaining po/ezs were critically challenged and further superseded by confederations within Greece itself. Meanwhile the poleis themselves were not only decreasing in number because of inroads made by alternative political forms, but those that survived were adjusting internally to new times, while the validity of their hegemonial alliances was open to question both in fact and in effectiveness. In art these shifts in power were reflected immediately by shifts in patronage. Major commissions came now from the autocrats and confederations. By the early fourth century military organization was already being reshaped to fit the reorganization of power, not only within the autocracies and confederations, where it would seem inevitable, but, through the use of mercenaries, also within the poleis themselves. Theorists were talking about monarchism as well as federation, even within the po/ezs, and their ideas about panhellenism were exacerbated by the King’s Peace of 386. Economic adjustments were under way, interconnectedly. As the polzs was being transformed or displaced, so also were its citizens. From

the latter years of the Peloponnesian War on, there was a rapid development of specialization and professionalization, a phenomenon which shook the tight bonds of the po/rs, threatening its traditional practices and ideals, and increasingly isolating the individuals within the community. The consequences of such changes for the resulting man were many and radical. Going or gone was the ideal Classical man who was soldier-financier-politician-lawyer-educator-actor-athlete-and-more, interwov-

en and integrated into one complete, coordinated, balanced person. Going or gone was the ideal Classical security of prestated values and shared responsibility, the Classical cohesion between citizen and city. Instead, a different kind of man was developing. Increasingly separated from his political base, he was shifting to a more personal footing in private affairs. Increasingly divorced from a total spectrum of activities, he was turning to a more uneven concentration on limited skills. Increasingly deprived of the values that had been commonly assumed and expressed for many generations, he was seeking in whatever way he personally could, whether intellectual, emotional, or mystical, to find new values by which to live. Some men turned for guidance to new gods and new, more personal forms of religion. This began during the Peloponnesian War. In c. 380 B.c., the cult place of one of those new gods was turned into a major panhellenic sanctuary, when the monumentalization of Epidauros began. Other men turned for guidance to the new philosophic ideas. These were conveyed most dynamically by Socrates during the

generation of the war. In the course of the following generation Antisthenes of

62. ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

Athens and Aristippos of Kyrene crystallized programs by which individual men might live, and in 387 Plato established the Academy, where philosophy was taught. In the theater Old Tragedy and Old Comedy were undergoing modifications during the Peloponnesian War and after, notably at the hands of Euripides and Aristophanes. In 386 Old Tragedy was officially classified as history and New Comedy was formed

by 380. A new kind of higher education was promulgated and promoted by the Sophists and Socrates. In 393 Isokrates and in 387 Plato institutionalized it, setting

up the kind of educational system that was to prepare men for the world during the rest of pagan antiquity. With such changes, different dimensions and different focuses had to come into operation. The dimensions could be as wide as the enlarged governmental or philosophical vistas. The focus could sharpen on the individual person who sought to define his own life within them. Antisthenes and Aristippos proclaimed themselves citizens of the world; Plato, disenchanted with political life, advised men to turn “to the polity inside oneself; and Diogenes advocated individual isolation and selfsufficiency.*!! The new Greek, at his best, could look both outward farther and inward deeper, and he saw more complexities along the way. By the early fourth century this new self-determining individual had emerged as a patron of art. Commissions came from many such private people, who characteristically seemed to hold more of their wealth in money than their predecessors had done. Not only economic shifts but also ideological ones must have influenced his patronage. Art forms were developed through which he could assert himself publicly and indulge himself privately, while the state sought to indulge him also, by monumentalizing the public accommodations that were provided for him. Perhaps his influence should be read in some aspects of style as well, among them, the emotional probing of the human heart. Thus, new iconography and new content were flowing into art at this time from many sources.?!'* They came from the particular needs and configurations of the new patronage, which included autocrats, confederations, individual people, and the cult organizations of new or newly important divinities. They were influenced by new functions, new ideas, and new knowledge. Involved here are a number of levels of society and facets of thought, which we find co-existing. Not only are such co-exist: ing interests various, but they can also be contradictory, like the objective scrutiny of the facts of nature and the subjective appeal of emotional interpretation, or the ostentation of material display and the reassurance of pietistic formula, or intellectualism and mysticism.

Multiplicity was a factor of the times in still another way. Characteristically,

POLIS AND PEOPLE 63

during this period, individual men were confronted with the simultaneous existence of multiple, and often conflicting, choices. They were watching the dissolution of old values and the undermining of old habits, while they were groping to put together

new ones. Evaluations had to be made and remade, on the basis of constantly changing circumstances. It was a time of flux, of shifting grounds, of co-existing possibilities, of questioning and requestioning. In many ways it was an expanding, adventurous world, where new ground was being broken and new ways tried, where vistas were broadening mentally as well as geographically. But it was also a shifting, uncertain world, in which values were being lost as well as won, and the fourth century Greek seems to have contemplated it with considerable trepidation. The integrated, balanced, harmonious forms of the Classical style lived within the compact, firmly organized Classical polzs, where each citizen was a participating member in the basic, coordinated activities of the community. The disturbed, shifting, unresolved forms of the Anticlassical style evolved as the polzs crumbled, when the citizen’s place in the community was increasingly uncertain and specialist, and alternative bases had to be sought for each life.

vl Epilogue: The Next Problem

F THE CONTINUITY from the fourth century into the Hellenistic period has | been stressed repeatedly, it was done to underline the changes that occurred among Greeks between the fifth century and the fourth. But there is no intention whatsoever to underestimate the changes that were to occur later, at the end of the fourth

century. It was certainly no small matter in the lives of people when Alexander made his conquests of the East, and important changes had to follow. Stylistically, in art, however, I have found no evidence of a break in 323 B.c. Rather, it seems

to be at the beginning of the third century that a new phase of style developed, toward the end of the first generation of Alexandet’s epigoni, at the time when they were arriving at a relatively tenable division of power and settling into their empires, when the implications of Alexander's activities were being realized, regularized, and institutionalized. This is the periodization suggested by Pliny, although negatively, when he says that art stopped during the 121st Olympiad, which 1s 296292 B.c.*" This, approximately, is also the periodization suggested some years ago by

G. Krahmer, who said, “The fourth century presents itself to me as a consistent development to its end,” and “Something new and different, a new epoch, it seems to me, appears for the first time in the statue of Demosthenes by Polyeuktos.” ** The portrait of Demosthenes by Polyeuktos was set up in the Agora of Athens c. 280-279 B.c.*"* It is known in many Roman replicas, of which two full-length figures are illustrated here (Figures 91, 92). The original was made of bronze, and a 64

EPILOGUE: THE NEXT PROBLEM _ 65

passage in Plutarch indicates that it represented Demosthenes standing, as he is shown in Figure 92, with his hands clenched. Krahmer called the new style that he saw in

this statue the Schlichte Stil (Plain style), and he described it as having forms more closed than those of the fourth century and more concentrated, held by simple outlines and imbued with a severe ethos. Horn later elaborated, in a long, fine description of the Demosthenes, in which he emphasized its tensions, contrasts, and compressions, both in form and feeling.’ To this, I would like to add now that the multiple shifting forces that were loosed in the fourth century seem to have been tightened, in the third century, into a system of compressed dynamics, producing a taut structure of conflicting tensions which are held in control by a constraining outline. Seen in this way, the new phase of development in the third century, following upon the older one of the fourth century, can be understood as a Second Anticlassical style.

This style, which Krahmer was the first to define, perhaps began a little earlier than he thought. It seems to me, as it has to others as well, that we can also accommodate within its terms the image of Tyche that Eutychides of Sikyon made for the city of Antioch-on-the-Orontes immediately after it was founded by Seleukos in 300 B.C. as capital of the Syrian Empire.”!® Its original appearance is rather more questionable than that of the Demosthenes, since two major variants of it exist 1n Roman copies, of which the key examples are illustrated here (Figures 93, 94), and scholars have been divided as to which of them reflects the original more closely. Dohrn, in a recent monograph on the Tyche, spoke out strongly, and convincingly, for the one illustrated in Figure 94, finding that the three-dimensional movement and the ribbed drapery are more consonant with the style of the period. In both versions in fact, even in what would seem to be the more classicizing variant of the Vatican (Figure 93), one can recognize the characteristic configuration of the style. It consists of a web of conflicting lines, made by body movement and drapery, crossing each other, in rectilinear tension, with considerable thrust in many directions, all of them contained by an outline which is strong and remarkably simple, considering the contending forces within it. Also, we can join others in adducing the original Greek statue of a woman that was made by Chairestratos, son of Chairedemos, and dedicated in the Temple of Themis in Rhamnous by Megakles (Figure 97) —puce Kleiner, who describes her as among “mannered late work of post-Classical, already almost Classicistic art.” *” It has been dated within the decades 310-280, most often 300-280, on the basis of the

epigraphy of the inscription that was found with it, plus the fact that the father of

66 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

the sculptor, Chairedemos, is mentioned in an inscription of 315 B.c. The new harshness and tautness are visible here in the partial rigidity of the posture and the relative dryness of the drapery folds, but they have not yet taken full possession. For the subsequent history of the style there are other examples known to us, some in Roman copy and some in the original, to which more or less secure dates can be attached. Among them is the Crouching Aphrodite, which was obviously a famous work since it appears in so many Roman copies.?'* Two of them are presented here (Figures 95, 96). The composition has been generally thought to mirror a statue by Doidalsas or Daidalos of Bithynia, who worked in Nikomedia, probably before the middle of the third century B.c. In the past some scholars have questioned the evidence on which this attribution is based and a recent article by Linfert throws very serious doubt on it. However the style that is indicated in the copies reminds us of the Tyche of Antioch, and accords well enough with the suggested date. The criss-

crossing of lines and movements, the complex contradictions held in check by a simple outline, all produce an effect that fits well here, among the other statues of the group. Prominent among Greek originals that have been included in the same style is the

statue dedicated by Nikeso at the door of the Sanctuary of Demeter in Priene (Figure 98), which is generally dated in the first half of the third century, with the help of its inscription.?”® It is listed here in spite of the dissident voice, once more, of Kleiner, who tried to prove that the Schlichte Stil had a foothold only in Attica. In fact it offers an extreme example of the rectilinear harshness of this style, both in the staccato beat of the opposing thrusts of the countermovements of the various parts of her clearly jointed body and in the uncompromising severity of the drapery folds which form a jarring system of straight lines that interrupt and contend with one another. Less sure both in the realization of its forms and in the date ascribed to it by scholars, but interesting enough to be included here, is the draped female illustrated in Figure 99.%° The torso and head were found by Newton near one another in the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore in Knidos, and near them also was a base on which was inscribed a dedication by a woman named Nikokleia. The inscription has been dated epigraphically, most recently between the midthird century and the beginning of the second by one scholar, and in the third century B.c. by another. For a long time the statue was dated together with the inscription. But the fit of the statue upon the

base is questionable, and the way is open to date the figure by its style. Recently Schuchhardt argued for a date at c. 100 B.c. or in the early first century. But Kleiner, earlier, felt that he could date the statue stylistically in the third quarter of the third

EPILOGUE: THE NEXT PROBLEM = 67

century, and it seems true to me that its form, while looser and cruder than the others above, encourages its assimilation within the group. For the bronze statue of a spitfire jockey that was brought up from the seabottom

at Artemision (Figures 100, 101), there is no external evidence for dating at all.” On the basis of style alone it is offered here to suggest what may have happened when figures of the Second Anticlassical style were represented in action. Multiple explosions break out in him, but there is still no release from tension. It is likely that other variants of style coexisted with the Second Anticlassical style.

Already during the fourth century, it has been indicated, the levels and forms of patronage and the functions of art were multiplying, and with that, logically, the strands of style that make up the large skein of development could also multiply. One would expect the situation to be even more complex during Hellenistic times. But the second Anticlassical style must have been an important component of the period that began with the early third century B.c. An important component of the period that followed, later in the third century, was the style often called “Baroque,” which Krahmer, who very sensibly was suspicious of such a borrowed term, preferred to call the Pompdose or Pathetische Sul (Grand or Pathetic style) .” It is recalled here by the statue of a Gaul committing suicide after killing his wife (Figure 102). This is generally understood to be a Roman copy of a bronze original which was part of a sculptural monument raised by Attalos I of Pergamon, who reigned 241-197 B.c., to celebrate victories won over the Gauls during wars that lasted from 241 to 228 B.c. Decisive victories were won both in 241 and in 228, so history provides that much leeway in the chronology. Schober, who made an extended study of the monument, dated it 235-230 B.c. He also made a hypothetical reconstruction of the monument, with the help of an inscription on pieces of a high cylindrical base, which were found in association with a foundation in the center of the Agora of the Temple of Athena in Pergamon. The present group stood on the middle of the high base, he says, surrounded by four Gauls who

had already fallen to the earth, including the original of the most famous of dying Gauls, the one in the Capitoline Museum. In the statue of the Gaul and his wife, the forces within obviously have chal-

lenged the constraint of the outline to find a large, loud, extraverted, “grand,” and “pathetic” expression. Not all of the inner complexities have been resolved, but

they are overridden by the open, unified thrust of the bold diagonal swinging through space, and emotions are expressed as overtly as movement. Going backward in time, returning once more to the fourth century from which we have come, com-

68 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

pare this Attalid Gaul with one of the satyrs in the Dionysos frieze of the Monument of Lysikrates (Figure 103). In the satyr we can still recognize easily the traditional, Classical motif of the advancing warrior turning back. But he has already changed in such a way, moving more vigorously and turning more freely in space,

that he reminds us of the “Grand” Gaul. Looking back to the Lysikrates frieze, and beyond that to the Amazonomachy frieze of the Mausoleum, with their relatively clear forms and large movements, is it possible to think that the stylistic trend which they represent not only left the Classical style behind less obliquely, but also made its

way to the “Grand” style more directly?

1. Kulturgeschichte des Hellentsmus, Munich, 6. W. Schuchhardt, Dre Epochen der grie-

1967, I, 2. He says, “Denn das unter- chischen Plastik, Baden-Baden, 1959.

scheidet die hellenistische Kultur von der 7. K. Schefold, The Art of Classical Greece, vieler anderer Epochen: sie hat keine festen New York, 1967, Art of the World; idem, Grenzen und auch kein statisch festlegbares Die Griechen und thre Nachbarn, Berlin, Gesamtmerkmal.’” However he does use the 1967, Propylaen Kunstgeschichte, ns. I. dates 323 and 30 B.c. as the limits of his 8. T. R. Glover, From Pericles to Philip, Lontwo-volume study. He finds these dates po- don, 1910, 267, 268. litically acceptable, he says, providing one 9. V. Ehrenberg, ‘‘Epochs of Greek History,” understands that the last two centuries were Greece and Rome, VII, 1960, 100-113; re-

increasingly Roman. printed in Polzs und Imperium: Beitrage

2. Only a few of the extreme instances are zur alten Geschichte, Zurich, Stuttgart, offered: L. Alscher, Griechische Plasttk, 1965, 28, 29, 30-31.

Berlin, III, Nachklasstk und Vorhellenis- 10. VWannier, Le IVe szécle, 5, 6: ‘““Tout en ten-

mus, 1956, calls the period 400-350 B.c. sion, ardeur et vitalité, le [Ve siécle est ‘‘Nachklassik,”” the period 350-300 B.c., autre chose qu’un ve siécle dégénéré.”’ ‘“Vorhellenismus.”’ H. Bengtson, Grie- 11. M. Collignon, Histoire de la sculpture chische Geschichte: von den Anfdngen bis grecque, Paris, II, 1897; W. Ziichner, Der

in die romische Katserzeit, 2nd ed., Mu- Berliner Madnadenkrater, Berlin, 1938, nich, 1960, Handbuch der Altertumswissen- K’inckelmannsprogramm der Archdologt-

schaft, WII, 4, devotes his third section to schen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, 98; H. K. “Das Zeitalter der griechischen Polis,’’ 500- Susserott, Griechische Plastik des vierten 360 B.c., his fourth section to ‘“Hellenis- Jahrhunderts vor Christus: Untersuchungen

mus,’ 360-30 B.C. zur Zeitbestimmung, Frankfort, 1938; AI-

3. A.W. Byvanck, De Kunst der Oudheid, MI, scher, Griechische Plastik, lI, 1956;

Leyden, 1957, describes a period of transi- T. Dohrn, Attische Plastik vom Tode des tion from the fourth quarter of the fifth Phidtas bis zum Wirken der grossen Metcentury through the first half of the fourth ster des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Krefeld, century, followed by the second Classical 1957; G. Roux, L’ Architecture de l' Argolide

period from c. 350-300 B.C. aux We et Ile stécle avant J]. C.. Paris,

4. F. Vannier, Le Ve siécle grec, Paris, 1967, 1961; H. W. Janson, History of Art, 2nd

5: “Y a t-il un ive siécle grec?” ed., New York, 1969. At the last moment let

5. C. Picard, Manuel d’Archéologie grecque: me mention an interesting and relevant book La Sculpture, Paris, I, 1, 2, Période Chass just received, J. J. Pollitt, Art and Experiique—Ve Siécle, 1939; III, 1, 2, IV, 1, 2, ence in Classical Greece, Cambridge, 1972. Pértode Classique—IVe Siécle, 1948, 1948, Pollitt includes the art of the fourth century 1954, 1963; V, Index général des tomes within his Classical style. He says, pp. 195-

Ill et IV, 1966. The discussion of changes 196, that it shares with earlier Classical

is in III, 1, 1-67. art “a consciousness of the absolute inherent

69

70 ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

in and pervading the relative.’ More spe- Studies, XYX/XX, 1957-1958, 107-124; G. cifically he says, p. 136, that types of monu- Kantorowicz, Vom Wesen der griechischen ments and commissioners tended to be sim- Kunst, Heidelberg, Darmstadt, 1961; B. ilar to those of the fifth century. “But,” he Ashmole, The Classic Ideal in Greek Sculp-

continues, “if one approaches the art of fure, Cincinnati, 1964; Schefold, The Art the fourth century from the standpoint of of Classical Greece, 1967; Pollitt, Art and

what it expresses, rather than from the Experience, 1972.

standpoint of formal stylistic analysis, it is 16. G. Donnay, ‘Art et Politique dans |’ Athénes

possible to make a case for its having more classique, Gazette des beaux arts, LIX, in common with the art of the succeeding 1962, 5-20; C. Delvoye, “Le Développement Hellenistic Age than with its High Classi- des arts plastiques a Athénes pendant la cal precedents. In fact, one might view the guerre du Péloponnése,” Archeologia Clasperiod from the early fourth century to sica, XV, 1, 1963, 1-12. Pollitt, Art and the late first century B.c. as a continuum, Experience, 1972, 111-135, describes the with the major break between ‘Classical’ period in terms of a breakdown of morality and whatever one chose to call the suc- and a resurgence of the irrational, from ceeding era occurring around the end of which, he says, p. 115, art found a “refuge

the Peloponnesian War.” in gesture.”

12. Dohrn, Attische Plastik, 156, 157: ‘‘Seit den 17. E. Bielefeld, Amazonomachia, Bettrage zur siebziger Jahren mehren sich die Anzeichen, Geschichte der Motivwanderung in der an-

die auf einen Wandel des Schonheitsideals tiken Kunst, Halle, 1951, Hallische Monohinweisen,’’ and, ‘‘So sind die grossen Kinst- graphien, XXI, deals with a number of the

ler aus der Mitte des Jahrhunderts von Amazonomachy motifs, largely in the conihren Lehrern infolge einer andersartigen text of identifying motifs in works of art Lebensauffassung, in Geschmack, Tempera- that are mentioned in ancient literature, ment und Vitalitat durch eine so tiefe Kluft with particular attention to Mikon’s two getrennt, dass die Kontinuitat abreisst.”’ paintings in Athens, the shield of the

13. Alscher, Grrechische Plastrk, III, 7: . . . so Athena Parthenos, and the footstool of Phetwird eine Kluft spurbar, die sich nicht allein dias’ Olympian Zeus. Several of the motifs mit einer konsequenten Weiterentwicklung mentioned here are included. D. von Both-

der Stilmittel erklaren lasst.’’ mer, Amazons in Greek Art, Oxford, 1957,

14. Roux, L’Architecture de Il'Argolide, 9: Oxford Monographs on Classical Archae‘“. . . jlavoue pour ma part étre moins ology, deals with the representation of sensible, en ce IVe siécle grec, aux symp- Amazons on vases and, of the period int6mes d’abatardissement qu’aux promesses volved here, with the sculptures of the d’avenir. . . . avec quelle vigueur, en ce Parthenon, the shield of the Athena Pardébut du IVe_ siécle, l’architecture du thenos, the Phigaleia frieze, and the four Péloponnése . . . s’'engage résolument dans statues made for the Artemision of Ephesos.

les voies nouvelles et aboutit a certaines H. Walter, ‘Zu den attischen Amazonencréations sit fécondes . . . qu’a travers la bildern des vierten Jahrhunderts v. Chr.,”’ tradition romaine elle marquera l’architec- Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archdologischen In-

ture de l’Occident depuis la Renaissance stituts, LXXIII, 1958, 36-47, deals with jusqu’a la fin du XIXe siécle.”’ Janson, H7zs- vase painting.

tory of Art, 113. 18. R. Carpenter, The Sculpture of the Nike

15. Among the countless discussions of Classical Temple Parapet, Cambridge, Mass., 1929, style, both in universal and historic terms, 39-45, nos. 6, 23-27, pls. 14-17. He finds

cf. A. W. Lawrence, Classical Srulpiare, them so different from the others and so

London, 1929; H. Rose, Klassik als ktinst- “inept” that he would be inclined to postu. lerische Denkform des Abendlandes, Mu- late a restoration, perhaps Roman, had they nich, 1937; E. Buschor, Vom Sinn der not been proved contemporary on technical

griechischen Standbilder, Berlin, 1942; E. grounds.

Langlotz, Griechische Klasstk, ihr Wesen 19. D. Arnold, Die Polykletnachfolge: Unterund thre Bedeutung fiir die Gegenwart, suchungen zur Kunst von Argos und Sikyon Bonn, 1946; E. Langlotz, Uber das Inter- zwischen Polyklet und wht Berlin, 1969, pretieren griechischer Plastik, Bonn, 1947, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archdologischen InK. Schefold, Orient, Hellas und Rom in stituts, Erganzungsheft, XXV. Thanks to der archdologischen Forschung seit 1939, Richard Brilliant for reminding me of this

Bern, 1949, 14-29; V. J. Scully, “The Na- book.

ture of the Classical in Art,’ Yale French 20. Arnold, Die Polykletnachfolge, 33, 34, 40:

NOTES 71 “... Labilitat .. . Spannung . . . unruhige Passato, XXI, 1966, 449-459; G. Heiderich, Aktivitat . . . auf den umgebenden Raum Asklepios, diss., Freiburg, 1966. The history

bezogen . . . Augenblickscharakter.”’ of Asklepios as hero and god, in relation

21. Of the sculptures of the Phigaleia temple, to Epidauros, was retold recently by A. Burthe fragments that remain of the metopes ford, The Greek Temple Builders at Epr-

and the blocks of the frieze that are now dauros: A social and economic study of numbered 13-16 in the British Museum building in the Asklepian sanctuary during (their earlier numbers, in order, were 539, the fourth and early third centuries B.C.,

536, 532, 537) are done in what seems to Liverpool, 1969. .

me quite orthodox Rich style. The state- 24. K. A. Pfeiff, Apollon. Die Wandlung seines

ment in the text refers to the rest of the Bildes in der griechischen Kunst, Frankfurt-

frieze. am-Main, 1943, 117: ‘Dieses Ereignis ist

22. C. Hofkes-Brukker, “Das werdende Ge- der Anfang einer neuen Wellt.”’

schehen,”” Bulletin van den vereeniging tot 25. Roux, L' Architecture de l'Argolide, 90.

bevordering der Kennis van de antieke 26. P. Kavvadias, Fouilles d'Epidaure, Athens, Beschaving, Leiden, XXXV, 1960, 63-71. 1891; sdem,To tepdv tod *AoKAntiov év

She discusses the sculptures of the temple "EmSavpm Kai Onpatela tov coe_e-

in a series of articles in the Bulletin: ‘‘Un- vav, Athens, 1900, Bi6Ato8ryKn tHS Ev tersuchungen zur Deutung und Motiv- "AOfvaig a&pxatoAoyiKns Etaipelac, I]. geschichte des Bassaefrieses,’’ XXXIV, 1959, Later excavation reports are in the Bul-

1-39; “Die Nike Paionios und der Bassae- letn de la correspondance hellénique, fries,’ XXXVI, 1961, 1-40; “Die Um- including: F. Robert, “L’Edifice E d'Epiformung ubernommener Motive in Friesen daure et la topographie du _hiéron und in den Metopen aus Bassae,”” XXXVI, d’Asklépios,” LVII, 1933, 380ff; R. Martin, 1962, 52-60; “Die Metopen des Bassaetem- H. Metzger, “Chronique des fouilles: Epi-

pels,” XXXVIII, 1963, 52-83; “Die Akro- daure,’ LXVI/LXVII, 1942-1943, 327ff; tere des Bassaetempels,”” XL, 1965, 51- R. Martin, “Sur quelques particularités du 71. In the article of 1961, she attributes temple d’Asklépios 4 Epidaure,”’ LXX, the temple sculpture to Paionios. This 1946, 352ff; J. Papadimitriou, “Le Sanctu-

is more convincing than the attribution aire d'Apollon Maléatas a Epidaure,”’

to Kallimachos by B. Schlérb, Unter- LXXIII, 1949, 361ff. J. Lechat, A. Defrasse, suchungen zur Bildhauergeneration nach Epidaure, restaurations et descriptions des Phidias, Waldsassen, 1964, 46 ff. State- principaux monuments du sanctuaire d'Asments were made earlier also about the clépios, Paris, 1895; F. Robert, Epidaure. advanced development of style in Sicily and Paris, 1935, Le Monde hellénique; M. Del-

Magna Graecia in general: E. Langlotz, court, Les grands sanctuatres de la Gréce. “Wesensziige der bildenden Kunst Gross- Paris, 1947; Burtord, The Greek Temple griechenlands,” Antike und Abendland, Il, Builders, 1969. 1946, 114-139; T. J. Dunbabin, The W'est- 27. Roux, L'Architecture de Il'Argolide, 9:

ern Greeks, Oxford, 1948; more recently, “. . . activité créatrice . . . ,” 55: “‘Style

by A. G. Woodhead, The Greeks in the nouveau... , 409: "... s’engage résolu-

West, London, 1962. ment dans les voies nouvelles... ,” 62:

23. R. Herzog, Die Wunderheiligen von Epi- “... rapelleront moins le passé qu'ils prépardauros, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Me- eront les voies de l'avenir,’ 55: the sumdizin und der Religion, Leipzig, 1931, mary statement about Phigaleia. Philologus, sup. XXU, 3; F. Robert, Th4- 28. J. F. Crome, Dre Skulpturen des Asklepios-

mele, recherches sur la signification et la tempels von Epidauros, Berlin, 1951;

destination des monuments circulaires dans B. Schlérb (now Mrs. Schlérb-Vierneisel),

architecture religieuse de la Gréce, Paris, Timotheos, Berlin, 1965, Jahrbuch des 1939; E. J. Edelstein, L. Edelstein, Asclepius. Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts, Ergan-

A Collection and Interpretation of the Testi- zungsheft, XXII.

monies, Baltimore, 1945; C. A. Meier, Ar- 29. Roux, L' Architecture de |' Argolide, pl. 32a.

tike Inkubation und moderne Psychothera- He proposes this reconstruction as against pie, Zurich, 1949; K. Kerenyi, Asklepios: those made previously by Defrasse, in EpiArchetypal Image of the Physician's Ex- daure, and Crome, Die Skulpturen. istence, translated and revised, London, 30. Crome groups them as nos. 16 and 17 1960; T. A. Vos, “‘Asklepios en zijn heilig- in Die Skulpturen, Beilage 1. dommen,”’ Hermeneus, XXXIV, 1963, 222- 31. Crome, Die Skulpturen, Beilage 1, no. 22b,

238, V. Cilento, “Asclepio,” La Parola del p. 40. He combined the legs with an upper

72. ANTICLASSICISM IN GREEK SCULPTURE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

torso which since has been attached to an- Reiche Stil im Grunde uberwunden ist. . .”’

other body. Dohrn, Attische Plastik: cf. p. 3, above,

32. Crome, Die Skulpturen, Beilage 1, no. 19, and Footnote 12.

pp. 37-38. 41. Dohrn, Aftische Plastik: the direct quota-

33. Roux, L’ Architecture de I’ Argolide, 99. The tion is on p. 219: “. . . eine Bindung nach subject of the east pediment has been identi- innen, und zwar an den Kern der Figur.” fied as the I/zoupersis, and Roux says that 42. Schefold, The Art of Classical Greece, 201f;

the cloth on which the man lies indicates idem, Die Griechen, 117F.

that he was a Trojan, murdered in his bed. 43. Schefold, The Art of Classical Greece, 202. 34. Schlorb, Tmotheos, Beilage, pl. 6, fig. 24, 44. One of the first new pieces found is illuspp. 16-17: “Der von Yalouris in den Maga- trated in Figure 40. She is almost identical

zinen des Athener Nationalmuseums ent- with Figure 39, which suggests that both deckte Sterbende.”’ She illustrates the second were akroterial, thus laying to rest the con-

figure with a line drawing only, in the tinuing argument that the latter represents

Beilage. Atalante, from the front pediment, where

35. Cf. p. 14. the Calydonian boar hunt was represented. 36. Crome, Dre Skulpturen, 41. Schlorb, Timo- The newly found figure was built into a theos, 14, figs. 14-17. Tentatively Schlorb wall, discovered by Nikolaos Panegopoulos also puts a head found in the wall (Athens, when he was cleaning his well, which National Archaeological Museum no. 154) stands about 200 meters from the Temple together with two fragments that she found of Athena Alea. Subsequent excavation, in the Epidauros Museum, to reassemble a by Christou and Demakopoulou, although

kneeling figure which she places in the limited in extent by the installations of right side of the east pediment. The record Panegopoulos’ household, uncovered sev-

of provenance for the temple sculptures eral more walls of what turned out to be stops with 1893; after that it was not re- a late Roman house, and in them other corded where the sculptures were found. reused pieces from the temple, including The provenance of the pieces discussed many fragments of architectural decoration here is as follows. Of those that I place and a few figurative fragments: the middle on the west side of the temple: Figures 8, part of a nude male torso, a piece of leg, 11, 16 and 17, 19 and 20, and 21 were a bit of drapery. Ch. Christou, A. Demafound directly west of the temple. Figure kopoulou, «’Epyaoiat cic yOpov Naov 10 was found in the wall between the west "Aréag “ASnvac év Teyea,» “Apyaiodo-

side of the temple and the tholos. Of the yixov Aedtiov, XX, Bl, 1965, 169-

Greek-and-Amazon group, the upper torso 170, pls. 151, 152; A. H. S. Megaw, of the Amazon (Figure 12) was found “Archaeology in Greece, 1965-66," Arwest of the temple, her lower torso was chaeological Reports for 1965-66 (Hel-

found in the wall between the west side lenic Society and British School at

of the temple and the tholos, and the prov- Athens), 8-9; A. Demakopoulou, «’AvaoKxa-

enance of the Greek (Figure 13) was not or elc Teyéav,» “ApyatorAoyikov AeaA-

recorded. Of those that I place on the east tiov, X XI, 1966, 152-154; Bulletin de la corside of the temple: Figures 15, 29, 31, and respondance hellénique, XCII, 1968, 80834 were found directly east of the temple. 810, figs. 1-4. The most important piece that The provenance of Figures 33 and 35 was came to light during the reorganization of not recorded. Figure 26 was found in the the museum is a fragment of a draped female

Epidauros Museum by Schlorb, its prov- figure, over lifesize, comprising only the enance unrecorded. Of Figure 30, the lower area of the breasts and a bit of the girdle, torso was found east of the temple, one which however so impressed its finder, A.

piece of leg was not recorded, and the Delivorrias, that he has suggested that it

other was found in the Epidauros Museum, may be part of a statue that stood in the

provenance unrecorded. cella, by Skopas himself. A. Delivorrtas,

37. Crome, Die Skulpturen, 41; Schlorb, T7mo- «Eldjoetg €€& “Apxadlac Teyéa. “2K0-

theos, 25-28. ma Tlolnua’» “Apyatoroytka “AvaAg-

38. F. Brommer, ‘“‘Epione,” Archdologischer Kta €€ “AOnvddv, A’ 2, 1968, 117-119, 121-

Anzeiger, 1966, 67-68. 122, fig. 1; P. M. Fraser, “Archaeology in

39. Schlorb, Timotheos, 10-11. Greece, Tegea,”’ Archaeological Reports for

40. Cf. Footnotes 28, 11. Crome, Die Skulp- 1968-69 (Hellenic Society and British School

turen, 35: “. .. unklassisch . .. . ein neues at Athens), XV, 1969, 15.

Sehen .. .”” Schlérb, Timotheos, 26: ". . . der 45. The pieces found previously, by French

NOTES = 73

excavators, are illustrated in C. Dugas, J. three Record Reliefs of the years 375/4, Berchmans, M. Clemmensen, Le Sanctuaire 369/8, and 362/1. The first, he says on d’Aléa Athéna a Tégée au IVe siécle, Paris, p. 157, still shows characteristics of the 1924, Fouilles de TEcole frangaise style of the Hegeso Master, the second shows’

d' Athénes, pls. 96-112. changes of style, and the third shows the

46. The Mausoleum statues, which are almost all full style of the new generation. in the British Museum, are illustrated in E. 54. For the inscription, Inscriptiones Graecae,

Buschor, Mazssollos und Alexander, Mu- editio minor, Berlin, IV, Inseriptiones

nich, 1950, and K. Jeppesen, Paradeigmata. Argolides, 1929, no. 102. Roux, L'ArchrThree Mid-Fourth Century Main Works of tecture de l’Argolide, 1961, Annexe 7, pp. Hellenic Architecture Reconsidered, Aarhus, 424-432, translates the inscription into 1958, Jutland Archaeological Society Papers. French and gives an account of the building IV. The post-Pheidian head is British Mu- in relation to architectural history and to

seum no. 1054; Artemisia is no. 1001. the inscription. A. Burford, in Annual of 47. Susserott, Griechische Plastik, 168. the British School in Athens, LXI, 1967,

48. S. Ferri, ““Lisippo,” Enciclopedia dell’ Arte publishes her own readings of this and Antica, IV, 1961, 660: “. . . il volgariz- other Epidaurian inscriptions; in The Greek zatore . . . della complicata e travagliata Temple Builders, 212-220, she gives her anima ellenistica nella seconda meta del tv translation of the temple inscription, and

secolo.”’ deals particularly with the evidence in the

49. Schefold, The Art of Classical Greece, 226. inscription for the ancient economic and 50. Concerning earlier examples of nude Aphro- social organization in relation to temple dites, which existed especially in small arts: building. For the architecture, cf. FootN. Himmelman-Wildschitz, “Zur knidi- note 26. For the sculpture, cf. Footnote 28. schen Aphrodite I,” Marburger Winckel- Pausanias, Description of Greece, I1.27.2,

mann-Programm, 1957, 11-16. in Epidauros, describes the cult image of

51. Notably by des H. Diepolder Die attischenBerAsklepios, of gold ivorythe bytemple. ThraGrabreliefs 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts, symedes,made but does not and mention lin, 1931; J. Kamps, Grabreliefs und Fret- 55. Plato, Jow, IA. B. Keil, “Die Rechnungen plastik, Rostock, 1932; Siisserott, Greichische ber den epidaurischen Tholosbau,” A7tPlastik, 1938; E. F. Prins de Jong, Griekse tellungen des Karserlich Deutschen ArchaGrabreliefs, Bussum, 1947, Kunsboeken ologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung, ‘“Vorm en klemn,’’ V; Dohrn, Attische Plas- XX, 1895, 75.

tik, 1957. 56. P. Bernard, “Note épidaurienne: la datation

52. W. Friedlaender, “Die Entstehung des antt- du temple d’Asclépios et I'Ion de Platon,”’ klassischen Stils in der italienischen Malerei Bulletin de la correspondance hellénique, um 1520,” Repertorium fir Kunstwtssen- LXXXV, 1961, 400-402. Roux, L’Archr-

schaft, XLVI, 1925, 49-86; translated as tecture de 1l'Argolide, 1961, 129: “La “The Anticlassical Style,” 3-43 in Manner- fragilité de cette argumentation n’a pas a ism and Anti-Mannertsm in Italian Paint- étre démontrée.”’

ing, New York, 1957. 57. Vitruvius, Ov Architecture, VII. Preface.

53. Diepolder, Die attischen Grabreliefs, 1931; 12, among architects who wrote about their R. E. Binnebossel, Studien zu den attischen buildings, cites “Theodorus of Phocia,” who Urkundenreliefs des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts, wrote about the tholos in Delphi. diss., Leipzig, 1932; H. Speier, ‘“Zweifi- 58. Cf. Footnotes 28, 82. Also notable in relagurengruppen im 5. und 4. Jahrhundert v. tion to Timotheos: P. G. Leoncini, “ConChr.,"" Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdo- tributo per una ricostruzione della perlogischen Instituts, Rémuische Abteilung, sonalita di Timotheos,’ as| Ae, beLP Fi bsae }™ j é bs

—

igures from the east pediment t the Parthenon, Athens

eea*’mR as‘est 34iLP a a. | 4be - =Re os +on gh . eu eat ra Loe Bee = a “= a eeoS a —* 44 : \ : y’,fe>,Bs 4 MA

-_ 4|\$. ;a~ti R i te 4¥ ‘ ; a\\ae iF \ oi \ ie 5~~ : ;i > :kel 4hy’ “3, = "' :F: J7/ /,"

“Se ee ; : ag : . y ‘ j es Pel

4 3 2 eee : : x ey * re wt Se. ——— + - 7 rs ~ or 4

. \ Ny\&7 F>» Xd\| 7 ‘fs77r>‘> ’ 3e :* 1> “,FN \ \ ¥ ff y 4 ‘ sg te Ay rd ye ’ “ f F * \ ; ws : “4 (BM ‘ §:

Pa.’ »ie‘ira + froa f é;4. +

|oo A — | fe | Ue ma A -|> |:, i‘wet / rN Bri a ' \ ; vee j \ . a \ es a=.) me Y . ; a : 4 4 7 . . . ae ALAN \ r | Pe ts 7a 2f! ‘ ‘* >: ‘~ ER.

ARAN 7/4 9 o! ; 'APvome }: Vee “> SON i a"ah Pees. Mon’ ih.) 1 3 ng ' \ | ge : / * te e ; \ , * cm ; : $ : gon? ae ™ om. ey 2? %

< L—_=... ~hee.| pe...-‘Bae ’ ty*a5eady. *A'.i 5 ot

». Nike unfastening her sandal, from the Balustrad« 3. Nike, trom the Balustrade of the Temple of Nike

Of the Temple Ol Nike Apteros, Athens Apte COS, Athens

Bee

2 ae sah

eRe Pe a og nan >

, + re an =. = ‘a B aa eg Nh Tae UN, ts oat Sea eee Als. BG de Ais ae : a ee ao:7Sie ks Wile. |“a8 gored pds ; te - ”#0 4 eat ( Sa iaOOS aaa & x ice 0) Wate2| bh ces Savwie : nf vy ; : , 4 fe . Mt. >

Spay: a SA > Ay Be it a = f pees 3 are os = . Kies

0t..i.te iae aa 3a.ae WR Pan eesee Be

“a3 ic. Bs J i yy X Sy ee

strane =_—_ a — ai > at Se. rp. yr

: ee ee

f PP ‘4 . (sha E Ay a

FA NS & eM ahd, ; a! Ee - rn fe 4 |a~* Y me aSe 7ai -j£ yi 3 a 4 i 6. Nike by Patonitos of Mende,:restoratio1 | Oe: . ae ¢ ary Ap . + & i s by € ’: Ah Rs a4 ‘ . hea ESE. > Fis ea

: hb J) i. 6A oa ® : De 7 : 5 ine ' ’ ae {/ alee

4 a bs a « | ; Ae tats > ‘S $3 pa ,

“ =’Pes 4&% oe*#Ie

Temple of Apollo | pikourios, Phigaleia itinatiiaci te ’ .

4 Ba , : . ; 2 ~~ 1 » a & ‘ . a . . a ait = e _ oe ~a>_— °. ew $a>bata 426 ~~ >: “ ‘ ms = 2 :4:4j‘74s/fj.i. \Jpnt

ae yA a ay’ } a } >. 9) my pit \ ; " 4 ' . dk “ bs , -_ (C y x oO os = aes ' 5 ‘ a 2 ad Si od /. , N . 4 5 . — ie AF a iad ANY be f v4 yj : o> , ‘ . ae "i = ;,, oe ~~etal C2 ers4.0f |y)Pii )‘. : Pj 5A —ts,,ma. 4 5 F‘ae

§:_~-

:f : rieeh ee ee py Ce eg Se ol eee _ 2 ee eee / GF f Ee or en a) eae me 7 ac oe :»* “Ss pavers Sy, ; = eae. ber El ee Poie. eR are Se 85 ‘ais 2| ;A F;7-* " . 1 m, . a a ¢ “oy Ze Pi fy 4 M * { ee bi. oF = , a. fa 4 ‘a4 = ‘ . ; : s# a = 5 f 4 oe . a . a “

10. Upper torso of an Amazon from the west pedi ll. Legs of a fallen Greek from the west pediment

ment of the Temple of Askleptos, Epidauros of the Temple ot Asklepios, | pidauros

| om

4ee, ; | i a a %. :5 “i -*

er aa Sle ; ie . . #a O: ee(oa Saal Kea ieSe “gsé 3: ee a : ; eats agi Ste tii, ee eee eS ee ae Pah A gees Pati eon

CY ea ee5-2 ~~ ‘3« ¥ .j|5a.7=.7~~»a,Se VS 'Wee Chee: ae * fa wet e ae ee ZA okoSte 4ae .eS — .ape =.=tS -- -F es Py ee — I — = be? a.iad -ak 3 . pea] oe ™“. ‘faa ro - a Rie oe:, ;, So, - 5 ae a ——— Fe sound ~

sey wa? , ¥ y . & . ~ ta x S & ‘ % ;

aa ay “ . "ad te . \ Riis pees

4 : 4*We q Wrasse" ~ q¢Ven 3 , . % see. atoo ‘ ,= by ~ * 3aattn J 3 |-j ‘C40

.% ..’i.% : “hee t : 5aaSpo -s oy“4 5a. : 5 \ Sat é pet Sauna . ’ iw “2 ~ —- a. « Bo re. M . Za » Cx SE t | iow 4 . é ‘ ' 2 ied a a rs Fe Ba a. ;; ;~~ * r™ & te omSya “ee>--a Z ee)v ~. .

Sea ae

. > 2 " ag : 34

> tyeea YU e* . eee - - 4“ | PCa*ess ie&- a— : >Ye > an - 34 Bx °< ;Oh ee—_—~ itcs — 4 aty— .«4 .;»~";ai:w‘2 ca” .. eee ~~"? sf -&. E 4 ~ —— > " ». ~. Med Pad a , . -—4€5 .cms ‘PL¥éfa=i » < ; ¢ 4 i . ; *& = a hg: Oe eam SS ; 3 P oe ‘ ‘¥ hak: t > “ : . ae abe +on —Ss , a. .“se } a ‘ ; :ie ’*~ xA So ~ a? “« Mt eeFg*oe: fe.aN«= ee i ws Ps : —

. Bae uo +4 “ ‘. ; ec a AN imiy, = soa a , er fe

,&; ¢ ——— ae \\ : ‘} j * : oa ;CF = = * es %/ ~. ayaei re &eee: py

>(Rs. =-—+fs : : :“a:— -: Be : a*RASS re i . .

‘4 ) . af' os ae J Se ’ >& ex cc a * ~*~ a ei 2 ; : ey Seah. BS = \ : ad Se Sa. c 4 3 r=af ~~~ >Fio |eod ar oS . = re So~

ee ea. Ss : — bs Se 3 ~ A sy a — > > “ wae e < :

l4. Torso of an Amazon from the west pediment ot the Temple of Asklepios Epidauros

‘SO Re ae ae ¥4 Seas . x& aiak ia Rapa A ty >ae see &eee ae Nee POSER eRpats ANS oe, > shuns

OK : . ae i a yoo he c Soca re a a es oem Aiea i ine Ps aye AES Ca tej e+=*SE aesteks SEE os ae CRE Peeee Cee hae

. e Ane Zz = pipet ; or. ex e . d ss, \ x 9 a , be Bis Sines 7 4of: me “‘ 4— RPart y _of”a Nike, " 3 a st a d aN hiy “, ee ee : RP iP — as * Be ee " sO yy a z = Ae as, FT Fe ” ae 3 ead “7, IR ;

tee Ae — i a ‘ By Se ; a aed LS ee me +: . . a ¢ “4 wae _ . . rs E38 4 Ri ae / sid :a z E ia aae eR-="Pas » abi = . ea »xs ey - : = a a < = +> :* ar a oR, rd .gol4 ES x ,jae » . 54 . ‘ csi & 4 aa.ida ;eaPsry: f*a4Be

a_ eg &} aae — 4% #2 itra hi ‘ie4cD P28. ve: ee % oe ae ‘-Vea ‘ecieays aS, 4} ;Ae fe en ane lei i we ” oe » rn i a ee a beet yr ) Ls ite i ‘ " us) & , ' eo + ox $ fa ag ’ ‘ : . ’ 5 . Xa sah > ve * oa by : = alll mn a mo 1s * s bg - es lS Ro »

>? byasve Eead oyee. .he :Rs ’de>)tSe Ae. A? 2> eA : §: aoe- sj E* iene SEP %“eS 2noRe 4 >\ veg Zs 3q‘ia, | 4rt a ——_ ne .wi *& _“a. ‘% ae, 4:ee is j oe e ? w a |f ayy , : peat ae “< ® = ). ' » Bile SRE Sere " oy Me“F : \ 3 wv j . ai = s\\ a tee” re : j:, ve ro ; © ; Wat at C™, oan < 4° 5 ie ee © ‘ rq a ‘ wo Ww Zz f é tal 3: i”r« PgTs

eeORR lg UO BAA) oe a :j, te To rr. aay... Ke. Ry i ae ‘ i ha

Z¢ % . Se. ey 5: Te oi. ge ar. 8

,_.;‘

“y . e : ¥ My, . 4 “e" "Vea % =

c. b> my 4 aasooe7 eee” ra “s *oe: unis _— £. :aeer te 2 4 , ; J SIR tea re . 2 eae & oe Now hy"

16. Riding woman, akroterion from the west side | Riding woman, akroterion from the west side of the

of the Temple of Asklepios, Epidauros. [Temple of Askleptos, Epidauros.

. ‘ a, ee

id » y a

. ya he “3 2 é oe REeh. Sicheee ak : aK " tes Ee oe ee ¥ Ss e, @ ES ey Oe ola ee3oe s : 4a Pe x = = os cawe y eli, 7 7 J Tete SH are < < . Fed ‘S

4 >+, SSS ESS a we ,ee Page or) Bis F a: ‘ Zos oO eget oe oa >,Rete ee‘ae oe . Ah ._aRar Fep Ree cs aHY : eS ’oe -=4Ba me, & Maso yLy tS oS «4,f,aie: ~* ; ee Oe CEG Bee eer ie eae 2 ee ee e os Pe ee 4 7 ; Ba > r 4 e ey oH, AE = 5 Rs: 4 a AK Be:aca

% ; a aor eee ys %:7 er # ; Se. 5. ; eG ee "Paw @ Set Bae. & 2 oe i LS5 oe oSseeet,gee"3 See a er re +P a = eee: ; Ae ea nan Sy

ie P. (4 eee ee eee ~ ae Ree Oe mats & SSR ae "a"ha ;neeen 5ys ity oteS eae ee ‘3 eax. ve, Pe x - eee

: i: : 2 eS Ngee ae © Nae ee ed wk “3.2 .* eee “4yt >. :c7 =:Feeee ca ae % ssby 25 et x5 , :: 4 ———\. 9 ~ ee 5 . : m * . >> a ~f 4 45. Sad ERY eae Dy wt > Pe Sane ae| , Pe -, ~~ « Be eo . Ld L aa “a J Ba te. eet = a #F we “a : bk dee po : hat =e J ” oe : GA). px = Vf 4 : ke ae a3 “se a .ye =~ten) “4 a= . i ; a CARD engi eB ea 18..One of!, the Dioskourot, akro/. =:ea] :ey Ce Seen, Sig Cb = . 3 Sete eg terion from ata Ep: ;Ae ‘ >er4i_aeer .ie| fa “Biko Se |outside J "theoxtempie ah Hie Sick? FY ~;ie we ot, Ce ace ame ee ae ye 4 os ee Oo ata Marasa, Lokro: ~ Le, eee . ~~ : ; ‘ , ‘ bs pan Pip oe 4 > Gp. \\Lyog -ie' iif} ,aa tS a Bere: 5 ao Ge ree a Peas a zephyrio! TR Aaa nee eos C| IVE ae he ~ ~+ ’,|a CE ..SRA ties A ‘ and ae: >. “Sic! “See aeet: ie the ie i 3 5 7 :tj| er : -fe1! = SS Gols ie i, Sie .ee } |’ a7 adie Se pe : b‘;gf ¥> F ' D5 Ey “~ 3 a . x ae eS ~The oe . ee o . 1 lene te ; 4 ; “ a \ ye eats ey : e =) ,_ > = Be ove Mia oe : 4 ee > on! ~~ in Be \ a + “ a ~~ _ : -at » ¥ e “a a P ‘ ‘7 y4,¥eal *ce ee-*= ~ : Ay 4 Ps ae ] j eC ‘ge ih} iter iif : on Pas tet ee oe ; : Z A 7eo is at ye >, Pe =? 7 ,unsi, ee a % ; We. Se . .‘Sahl gee, he ~ gh : 4 ¥ P git tee PS 7" ‘‘ ae a Phe i Q iit x eM : , : . ee aa’ = 4 _ * g ’ : RS ‘ > ni ans4ee oy i “h : ? = . s = 7 F = ae $ . % —_—‘ & Rae 2 , — a le P, sate , : at 2 ae “ — ve wit: ¥ . . 4 . —>»' rf xrs Fs be F ™ . * — . “ ni -_ yy ‘ s — oa Pag . s . . 4 =. 2jig:F abh : Sa me ‘a "\ :. re; Ldisae éx ny r+ —— *

me if Pa -~aae . *% ea" 7oe eneet .) es .¢ . $ A . acer oy. . ‘ ) eerrenas “ a a )3 ;nein: .. ~»é r)7 4aa .- a.3 2 } } —— .

19. Riding woman, akroterion from the west side 20. Riding woman, akroterion from the west side

of the Temple of Asklepios, | pidauros of the Temple ot Asklepios, Epidauros

“ ee Wee |

Meee to Bias 8 TA rete Y : 2) SES aCae ae Pane fa oie BAY se Be Pah eo sgnSe At gee ieeee OA ys tak. Sauidf=a ate tes ;é ¢ Pg as ae HES —a: | a : Fao ae it Ea my se 5 ae ecg a ee aL SsRSase ‘7 eteFk, ig See) ; 2Se RSS : rereEEO Kae Kosklee. ieee‘sy ree*a//\¢ ,

Ee eaiOe

s = : ‘ a - en

;; t:ae=> ae , : it ee “i ; x: ee, SS*ee ae x: > . wie z a: | ' ”5oP : F ae a \2on:.2,\y"Ve Ae ba. {oi ‘s " ce se: 4 - BAS op x re i a oaPPat is ; te P

:Ri-aereey ia’ ffein no ba? a\ ;? PRA oe. . \ bsgees” “ ‘au-&eaot+ nee - ; be Es g r4 ’ q | >

Pa3 a. Pas iPee PBer A P ae L“a Seen : aae oeagoe }We . eee PREV shes :; ;“a ;' ti ee Dar "=ae

+ ;7ae 4.M §-< :ow ws: -_3 ’me 7i.‘ES ; ,,2és toa bas _..

aPry ¥he ae ;;pa a iS seSraies C4Z2f s5a ’i °

~saesaa 2—es xf . 2) ,ee, 4 ed a : ; ‘ =” os . £ a ee 7ae 4|4 ,a~q£3 om: #a OR e— bala. 4 a Pe ey bp age « a44 « . 42 -. id Ga oS : .,»4— Fa ., s : Pe? oe MP :

& om . * , ca 7 sg

be‘SF, 4°. 7 % be a” a ¢* + CZ i) aWi FB oeae—¥ ns a a™ a

i JZi= eeae” t? “ ae * ey te SG a, a a ah oe. inee ee 2*neg ee . a +nok ea.ae r ott

Ps v ->Ry. ' = P > +h, L Pd

Sad wes 7 ~ < x9 4 ; — > P ‘

ube. _ f #3

a , b> oS ~apfé *. eee ST % he 4 =

a

~*~ we

ee

4

21. Nike, akroterion from the west side of the Temple of Asklepios, Epidauros.

ae i : me

Wy,hen AsaYap a: - . -ees eae SMES . C EPS CT eg -ee .=: ae foLae ware fe Co BE LIE ae “Saeeae™ ; :oA .“ee [iog. ay 4pas Fars, 3eeee ee= ey aL % ee eee See ‘ eee , 2 Fai . . “A mt 4% é ar: Be4 oc f_. 7ae. ayPe 2, py - 3 ae 4 ae

‘ - — = yo : be ak ig : zs 7 ie wt, . " % ofa ~ 3 ? ee

= ja oS s.* Teen ~~ ee ae oa Ss ee irene - 4‘34 34‘

: el phe] a ape“Si “eee : od -. ‘>*: t:3-. om 2: £4 ee -ee ;:panes onBaa Ss Fon’ See a. .ao, ple -tex 8SRA Soa, Ne tae ;‘=-; if::: Lud eh>ee *» ie ee Sy Amite yt o42a A‘-greet ae : PS ee 2et: Sa ae Ret ;F a ~~ 4> -> ;>aBR Pscy a>a= Es a fo 84ee

aa ey eee re oa | es} 9 ER ae pe eo | pi Aa é a ; ° sa ee ‘ 4 : 4 5 ~ — ” ; . we o : ‘ a PP te © aah be iSere Ee. Lan r as Es : Bi ‘vie ie nt =: =z ,>Athens T - - ~Agora, @:= “ . , ‘ . Athens

ee fe fF

22. Nike, akroterion, attributed to the Stoa of Zeus, 23 Nereid,” probably akroterion, from the

», = ¥ . 5 >eae3 “— Fix ;+ “f= ‘‘ ae : 4 i +, oS tS 4 . A (ae .,oy;¥-th ~2% ee a be er cele thf . S, te . 3 . Py > dng J ' 45 , ee ‘ a. * ' in aoe ) < qe a ; >? S7m5 om ioe a. Z Zz a a te ; “£4 “4 a ame, ‘ ys = £ ,:ae Pi yr € + I J Rf , ¢ nw = P at *. eo . a 2% :ia 2 3 , . ~— = a > . 4 ~~

VO j roo “4 er f He SS f ie _" . we ‘ ‘ ‘4 * z , % ‘ | ‘ ’ ‘ a + .-

‘eee = a . : * pay jae S ¥ ~ bs . f ~% ve . se a) * aa 4 : La ~~ e .\ = > oo 2x “ ra .7aaeFe < A , ‘ ah J, Va A an) kak Pr. + ln, ES . 7” . af Pl < * 7 | 7 aea 4:.-asste ?7)oe : fZ oe ’ ;Ry f tqosa— gf -a7® xX ¢ Xs 2; + har 4keg @— “= —_ mY awywe, a> ejpon QO.

’ P . ‘ . =} Ra] : 4 . ; . : : a & ph : , r a — | f j va) je dt i . a . % a , ' c J #, pe : ~ * r ‘ . ing U \e | x) Wt E \ Sy ne = b ;He ‘ ‘ ‘-= 4 x e ‘ “a . , 2 uk, ’ , : a y 24 “i : j ’ $ A i cS | ies i S y-.Ay rr: ye x i: ae A a) &: ; aoe ae y ery ; se La? & ee, ale Pe = td) ue w < Joe ee bic Sanne we 8 ee , an ‘ee i i ba AT a Dh (= aa ; "7 4 2a iS “a yg DS s‘ , :i sEnte . +i :ee64hiei de Ri 4i\ nf bite Py ; . - : cs es be 4 “ie al a oF i 4 cs

ed oe FF ; , cc ; he Ss a eB) 4 ’:ills iy p i D 4 4 on Ed — N |?i !t| 4‘,ftaas al 3 2 CY Mm Joes yee AS RY 4 / a c = 3 ee “— fhe : = 2 e bad : { ~ 4 7 ‘ ft ‘i 7 is Ms ; : - Pad

>eit ,.ese oo.es’ .§ be e*. osbo \ ,”-Phy e oe cond ;;™;}¢ rFe%/ahjBy : 7p = ing t i;j4"My TM’ “ Jf ” —— + (* + = C4 : ot é Pi 4. =~= ia—_— - il j Na ONG Gi"aes a ‘ F3 De uy co .in ne Aa aoe ss my i me eh 2 oe pale c < bean “Me cole ae J‘yee , 1‘ ge or od t & =. : PD < Pee, : ~ alms : at . A 4 Ps hye, ay ” —) pe ee Las |~ _ geet ,. ,,7“_ oe cr, ge a.Rie 2 ‘SS 2a x< a,ee =bf in ra 4 ER "ee t te | 5 : » ae bs ;ey i “77 := aL aT: +.aeote ';' re x4 Mai) {oll -Oo a7 a. oe » Sa. “i?oc fh

‘ee ~CCC e ite '=; |aats, eee cdl | » ~* CNS > a. 2 ’ 4 vy (—— the Be — . ‘ae + s ‘ ;pi ¢ \y Q — pa’ AS. ae > hits _— eed . CQ, eB =e 2 ee ie . ew —_ at “4 4 fie OS ' so , ry ~_ «'¥;:;“'{ : . > ‘ A Cie > 5 . _ 37niall = e ? ‘ | = r i ; il EP , . ‘"-

iP*i5:on "” ’°:—— uv cs ,” a >) Cd Soe. Ce Sat" iat (; ‘diel ~ . ~~ + a . ae Set te! sal ~ .;'y4” Le iP , ~ “ ‘ ae ‘ ais ‘ 4 M4 a o) ’ r ~{\ \¥ od e iaVY >} . oo, ; . 7 «x oF =~. -, +e a 5; -of¥See, ENcitteaeBet a

oft = : F mo? a a aS oF 3>ae + # 1 im ; - E > os i" * = wee ef. — =Ee,ae lS, as REE ‘ t ON -, othe é Fe, ero ae ™

rs Spe ig sine ee eee - mo a ~

YU

C,

¢ ‘a whee m ,is = .* i2=. 7< B.S 4;TN ™~ 4 Ez re ‘ ~ 7 4 - f nie og aon rr 4 : an ti — e ”$s. ea iSa aska Pe 3 , ¢ Rec 4i’ ;%.5.. ~~ ~ c ~ z : ie ie nef “Se + 4 ae — : ae 5 » 2 ae” 2 ho e a Ss > : = . eset ae “ a = >. = 2 nite : i ~ ’ : =~, + as ie : . di : 5 3i~ ;srr niger] ~a tes v hee Seo “ ‘oe *pe ei; y.‘i# “ag.4= :A ud :‘.-_ YY . xee ‘2:o~ #.” tee ee_=>a*— lie BSP Soh eti, .7ats :‘4ok “id = . et aan . 4 : ree es CRege a 2 ° Sit a 2 at , : = :>= — P, hd Se z , aoe ee a. Se. = 4)diA, .dpe Sensaa. a. Se-G a = Ea * asas .= he tSDS ee —_—— t .ys .* Pes | P Snape 0TS! an eeaPsoe a. he "Ta e ~ ® PAP) ee eg. ra “eo ba Meae Re iiseS a iz aa*© v~ ayy ala 4 tyAe eke eee --* -

LU —— ea. > i

e4

pay tent — & -a: ~~hg aPa a:Sa eea44oly ie *a*+" rs Bhs me "ex * . pe i Oe ote eS ; Lee, SHO ete = ee rl ty ES “ ry Sa ee we. 4 = & , ; aN vie vé ay ; . : : : ¥ : ry = fr : f z ee a he ee “t > ao 4 VRro ‘ 4 J > , . ‘* 10 ad j yw “ . oO ie : \ * be “3 . 5 Roe = } - . iz , the 5 sed

ea? Foe a es > a a * < ? ee C* e oe P ae ne ag 5S», ete 4 es Fee Ki gt . " “¥ees n.d S a 00 gten. — oe ee + Fas “aa eee Se ee2‘aa Ee ee — rs 2 =‘Re .*Ne ’ a?: :

fF ORE RLS — i ke Eee ew ot : ‘ : ; v = a |} . eb

ane 4 ee,ssai a3‘¥ 2s of : ee, oo — \“x > . AS > . rs i?5af~me: .da ie 3 ~~" haa4cy 4 . * ar eet " € cs‘, A ee ’ . —; _ e. - -~-2 $4 ~ ; .*‘ »‘ m Fx]i >? - _— Pe- ‘.~i)": ie

e. Se a ie © ee es ee By t a ™ J , ry ' , * SX . PFs Pe, ee Re AD, ta ry, ‘ poe 4 5 Bs ne ai. Sle eM, Sees ~a *aaeSe)

ms - iyi ~ , ~ 2 4. < ; ) ae

;reont } " Page Ok Sl oa ¥ > = ie es ie a 4 al ss ab >" ‘ . * Se : u xe . : ~_ _ = =. Lr 7 fa ‘ , oo ee , o i age A PY, “ ; on Re | 2 — Se . : : > a 4 . %. , | ae 32 ta Ae | are ; Y ew gt -s = a sz t— **

Ee: a os . ie * it be a i e

sotoee 3 7 Ss ae ‘ Se Pate Tag aha wat > m ; ; tak ss *- ve Pe a _ he . Jae _. Sa ed < !laing Be “SSS aoa ca — ae me- =.aoe, au a 2 a, 0 ¥ a c : 4, =~. a ae “ — Ee, i: -a~« * : 4 Rd a ee oy ; ‘ : ~ ~ a Rac an as e%. , + : ae 7 * ; -— we -—| es : = x» r —_ = Pd a > i : a8 oy 7—— Y Sipe = Ss ik ae * Bs eeNee 8 5~~ a =a ‘.secileewar a 4-;

_6 Shs FAaes ~ 4. aSoe a. %,.et3 as at ; a. ee “4 . = :a% ‘ ‘a—> ae ‘a ;

Boe a~a$ =os ae ae-7” ¥. _? . ¢4c a‘; Fra= : : ae ty 7 ¥o3 ::= mF. ; Ee 4pic 4 ad J. eX ; ES Bsa. ae \ oa a eS Z 3 po 4 , ee i er re ' es “st _ al ms e Bones. r x Ps a — & “als. 7 * ” a“st > oa F a P; 7 al a a et, a ae Se ‘ SESS ins came. + 4 ’ a so * . AY ) sS. Helmeted head trom the west pe diment Of the Skopas in the Temple of Athena Alea, Tegea. Temple of Athena Alea, Tegea.

see Ree megaee SSeS? Sin S: ee

ge ee. :

ae ;

ae is. oe fl » Sr + ° ~ 2" We = . = aONS 7 re or : r ‘Os 7 SecGRS oe : mai meee:eTA ; ee Ts ‘ ig EAE - eA

: a) 4 eg ; e

> hy Wyre} > $ ye f -

Baewaa

Na ’ a © eh Reales ” : a 2 4- Se Bae eee 7

aMigs y, :. -oe5i,Oe Re 4, ea Bae ts% ssee fF&ae eeqoe TeKeok

ee “ae? ede 4 ip ’ , - ; Testa mS ae . pea Se -* ee: fi sg ee ies ie4ie' aee ee ieee aime Se =e / Pe aN a Pile. gs Se ages: a ae one , wee ' | aa A p> 2 : . we 2 ¥ pga ke i ne, &: . ae oe 7 rf. ‘| , 4 walt a Es Pee 4 ¥ Ns ; es pr es ’ fy ‘4 5 . ") /

in A Cc». ef , ; ' * af + . . 2 7 ; P,:_-_nBefi¢’-ig~" .e*; ;.P‘ >, i : ca | |1.| I,¥Bi: :kactn ae Si;F. 7-?‘ny' e, ; % 4 is fr F Lon *

, em FF - p “ys ™ ™

AEvas Boo¥POMS " ‘ive Pe ge P ool re | we » te ae

¥ f ‘ ae < 7 + , s Sy 4 5 es . ae Fd

Reev4 Ad. WP viettate . "| 7Se ‘%.aeee +‘ setBa pe »A? id eae! esA >) eepak kak cep > ;

F|\ ‘. ty = . ,=7i.‘.:‘.,;;;:m : 4Ke° |.

0. Female figure,akroterion akroterion from fh Ra 40. emale figure, from thethe easteast sideside o bhofer| ees ee Le

the Temple of Athena Alea, Tegea a ae f . 4 ‘a + at_ Ta oe a%: } mo ‘

;. »_ ive ;; ES Sa Ng, ‘a et74F.4;{‘f :=ue , (+,{a.¥”'‘Soe ya;

ee pee Fi, 6 % Lis ke a. : Pee Laing .“i;8 KA eb ‘3« a|: \:hy‘ Se . ‘rm tRe “¢aM :% .:.Pes A3it-“a "“a S ‘. FR »Us Me ‘’[ *s 53 S:‘ a 4 . Ke 1 é % 7 ped 4 . yk Pit Dom ’*54-. i; . : *ae : = t 3 ‘i SA we * wee eg + j/j ~~) ;Ahte: aa¥ ad, a? : ye P Van ; . ‘> Be“ee Be

aN * : ” oe ae oe /i|/ = q ‘ “ : e " .—— ‘;4ets" ;:— 3,

a

™ : on : 4 ‘ya ag, % >ty pare, %e:a ane ti 2#\ ri “ i = 1. a)

le i =. " — zy 4% = a * pe = > 2 . by opt " € ” St. Pr = ~, 2 Ay ~~ \ P i+s ce oF 4 o" Ai ys % me : . + 9 . y \ VsZ ‘ a ae .»4§." cs P my = i Fi ’ :f2 ; . _—* a 4 \ 5 : ‘4=: f., A \. j’i-:‘i4| vs; oy} > |; o.

Ne ee lle

‘ta"— Nae : . : : o }PA 7. “~ ‘,4a X =>~ is —_ ~ = > e F “ ae | ete , 7 a? at ae ‘+ ” . 2 + Me Sn, ) a ae eS _- )—ae i @ OM /q = -~ Dxog7} ~. ’ P, oo ‘ gin , " ‘% ¥ b ‘ a. . $ é * ¢ . < _——£_* : = ; = i

rya :. NI * ». ’ 9 y = Bs 2% Gy , a — ‘~4 j lye \ } | . + & y= = -—_—— Ps ; ]; J~a:’ t | Head of Apollo trom the Mausoleum I 4% md

. : en, ; : s ol Tee ‘ yi -bi rs id * > i ead ; * » a \ . q F~—— ayoe LLoY ae = Xe' :J. oS x 4 — » + ", :: -aatin**_Ro -; — . “ e a = ef ma F 4 Ny . ¢ z | 7 N ~ =~ ae ix eS .* . *3 og ’ an. = Setiak |< 2 : ; +. ~ Tix : ‘ * ® : - ;4~tk™me» A m , ¢=—_ .a idea le a Se Gea >ae%ek j_;~~ *ow —_— y 3Sf™ : :3oe x'ag 4\ up 2. , — ke y * ¥ 2 é: —— ‘ . a \ of oS 3 > / oe ; A as ee \ |

i. ~ / , ; aw . ag * ; / : ‘ os ~ v = iy, 6a . fe ' ; yr — ~ aw ; ‘ q . be x 7 2 ~~ e an ee MN he ds Fr a= ~ Saaee 4 ‘s “afiF PAio pe oti .a— %.| VV ‘ =- ’°\ .‘riZ’s- ae i 4 -— | in " f f ’ 4 r. % LY " ° ¢ 4 Zz ‘ ——" / SF ’ , *. , 3 7 ,a es * ' Ar) \ ‘ ’ ¥ . : . b \ Bs . wy mS ~. = ; 2 . ae | 7 > Me 5 3 — . a

: . t 4 " ry oS

. :ayy Vay ; &+a ; iz z ie N4As,ers 2| siae or 2". iaCn 4 XK fa ae * ) 7 . Se: 7 4 NS > ie ; # ~s—#. wy veiat3~*a)a.+Ne“n+ee¢chat | eeOe~*~ . a“ 7 ‘/}+rf|3AS 4 cans < P > 2 == SS amen, Cine So a j ics -% : > > eng ae td Ln Fe | = ie , = , ¥ ‘> : -* ; on ‘ Re ‘ ont a aSe ee te~~ e-=~ —~ — me seat AS staat 2 asst er.

fF xs a a . . at .> = a i te _—— : P : . ‘ : : an . es i4. Detail of the Amazonomachy, frieze from the Mausoleum of Halikarnassos British Museum, 1006

pe’ rs bs R ee . ~ ad ae, ~ z = ice = - — - ms. = = ~ ,

* ‘: “pial >.* _ . / & ey ; 4 | ai ~— R / ; 5 . . —_— } " . ; % = .uf “Btn | 7Fa, f* .ie: .‘i| :‘ re

.-.

— aoehei6-.ae . a ee " ‘, ve oeLar “wn does*

45. Detail of the Amazonomachy, frieze from the Mausoleum of Halikarnassos, British Museum, 1013.

=*y.dis>.. x| xya -_Se—-=.ee-7:

ie .ae=aSe Sens :;i:-5ee ee Se ee eee PI. .” gy

ase . : OS . we = a a Te ™ 4 yi jAt ’ ra ~{ . a * ane Oe oe nls, = ; —. S es ; oS a re een a aes e SO ea x ae ~ ) ” = to . — — see . “ay . ae. , ete. > : 4 a -. «, = -* 2. sf = “ey * ~ :ae g a * “a AQ ~S Baal : ;LL,iLiio §.iF : 5? 3 ys is —’ ‘ ey , ‘ Fe . a % 7 — 4 ’ 7 . , .: . > > ; : he ne : 4 : a L, P Wy = : . c-_ es pF . ~ . am . f’ ——na "]-Y>rt $s ‘ \* “ei B5a3 |/. ‘¢aa“«& “4 cs ae as - A > es = ‘ gee ee \s:om ~ ,

Le a ae ee te \ go : i, 4 Le ‘als ivi e-> \ i an | .\vai PSH © ~ sy 1S a 3 _ = ee ‘ i ee PYe/,| q‘eis =e ee Shk =. se94 Ataf) E $| io 4+." &oY 554) HY f, eea 7) a, FS i ihy e/§ ee. J i? a ry 1 ik 7 ie }

md . » 4 : ‘ ey ae on e ‘ p \ :e,_i= i i, > “ae : i} , ry | : B J g ij _ 4 als 1 4 . 3ee i}—ie —.WW |S ioe 7 te Ee ot Vilen\> § | Pee Ya aPod > Ae f;2+ wa y — PS r i . PsFa) *:

‘. ~Aiainp”. aiaANS :ae 4- cSen .ore %-Fa1206 4WON Bh k | ;fe 7 af \ % YN cdl _ \ wy »* a — a “ ' . = : | ‘ wa Sh SS , +. ee =: J i eRa > ss i._— is oe . * —— - ~ tom = z Nd Li” ot ce aa eee ~ L : mr ’ Re _ ats ier ‘ sic ‘ eae -oan eae hs a——_ —> enema Me Sri tg 4:a — eee ; 2 — y, ra g~~ eee¥. ———— se Sai Niemen : ‘a

®Sa= — reesei a A y — iii ,A ‘ eee — —_ “ ; , ee cet Ephes S phi SOS

Ls ( olumn drum from the Templ oO! Artemis LY) ( olumn drum trom. the Templ Ol Artes

> as a es. So ‘ee : Ney | ; i am \ NSFaSey| fe\ a NW

* iS = \ ~ . Ae on — a Nis nae Ms F ~ a : 5 er ; _ ot ‘ . H . i\a4 }? f ik . canal al . ah \ te ‘4, a 3 ‘‘ eh ey re rom Jaaj\ ne yo :Ke ¢\ ss i. % ya : * 7 a oe “a AY r v 4 oo . ; » ” tS ;’eS 5éMS —> ance’ F ZL) / — ‘ * : rm Yi ; bese META ))y a £97 ~ oe, % ty if "EB } li af i . { . )

re hs ‘= . ‘

Pol hs ge 2 \ 4 Fi J " » | eil ‘= t:: . Ri/ “ae. TF ; aa ’ |rar Tab Tal : ef J \ aa ; ae | a fe Pe. | be 7a. o ie ;>. 4 ".£tm PP ;oo : : ie » Te | 7 ee) fen Ba Meee. |: | ie 4 Aye P . oli * 4 a . Ss “ % f ; a . % . ‘* ~~ 2 s a ‘ o «% wr ry te . ™ ’ ee se wcs / x ee a cS & x eed . A ' y " ‘a : s ‘ “f ne ete” J f e Aa f 7 | x z ; z . Se F . = : ; } \ ing

La ~ . ae, ss we \ f ie “"

. ;‘2|est ‘4 ee : : i‘ eon | a a : . va ge. 4 _— i s \

« ” y P, my ¥ , 4 PF ., le| 4Fs. :: x Pe ? at ail %

i

; : ma ig aokSei *+iea me ‘Sa 7

53. Head of Agias. a Se ee. e a (Beh am te ps:2 ze

aa SIR iy ee es ae " > f5wid~~

.nd1a= 4¥-7i“aae ? : es s

oi =

a tg ¥ a r* % BY) -_ “at Gs _ +

ad —— es ae: - t B: :&:=aF :¥ € ? cau ; 7 =4..

a7 ae % a : og SF a:7] "7 4RN _— £ = oe ,:= Pe ; 5 > , *3 : % 7 a § ; 4 zy Py ¢ .: -«:oe < 4 < . > 4%¢ { . ' : 5 : = 4 4te © :*: :the lt: Pa, oe. p a 3 x 3 niBS - pS 4 + ‘:

: ie ey A ee ae = |% {, Eee es mee

an . ¥ = fa . : “as + 7 b, ; s Ee See E ; /i )! Be ee ) > | 3 Rick S =

8 f Mg > : me ote fy ML ee Wea =

54. Sisyphos I. 55. Agias. 56. Agelaos.

‘ey — — toe a Sra: i — mae zsa&., - -_ =a> —— +—— TE — > Cry tes ~weegine! Be: teZzA"> *.>“ &a - tine eeGpin £4 aeSS. é ey? weet ~~ 4om . ' Jy et eeCN San nie“Ee whee hrSs2-4 ee Ft 57. Dionysos and the Tyrrhenian Pirates, frieze of the Monument of Lysikrates,

Athens. (Photo after a cast.)

a see p qe 3 eae ee ms al _ “ 7 : ant -

' a:,— ; —: 45 ~~ eas - 3 : ae sy ie ee—— elaeOY a —— wm -a

i:] re on aefit : aiiss % €2, a PD. OC eet=~ao meee i ~ ms aeFe, » age rd wt©; be ra asites? _ ‘i 4 — as “aeyBOR oHi3 ne -. IF ¥ :¥ Mos me f Sea Ww sc Tal ied ——— Me Pee aa oe ms : Stat .. eee ee Gh So OS ia »4 . ;aagp we yLY pee .‘NES SE ME ee) ~ 2 wt 1ae” re“ee: 5 é . oemit ae ae ee a‘ ;ba eee es ii ge, be lens 9 2~aearFe = Te alee ee aSoe ie aPe in ee ~ tae searsoeSlati > ne ehaa tesm~ ae: :

% . ye eee >~4 Tee . the oo” ,lagi - “* oo 3 : ae, weee , ret tees “See. 2h = pe ie %eee b adie oan5z Pit ee 5!aysaa ; :: Hy Bh- =Se, Fh. So 8SeX: Sed ee Soy re 1: =ey aore ee ga Hex.” ¢ Le reset: EE,Ee TEES. ee . eewa eatee obaesie, ek ahSek ees eS>Ae Sige, pees “s one?) =See 2 s ing ae _\ SO" Pea CFSO otheOt 5 aee imee epstoe i : Pas , . 7=. 6ENS ; poe e. tg yo Poe a ye,a%. ee ee

pdt ea ee SEs Soe i ee Se Sore OE a eer oe Su ee Sates

. ~ >Wy ° a 4ieaeee 6 Se aeree ’ 7; shh = 2. ’" :. ~~ Se"Pte sae . MaaN ~ a~~ 35% _.. et err SJ) — ‘Tt, e's To - 3od 2oe ee + .ete , :>a‘ we ’a % aigae “An ~

+ ‘ * ‘. yo ~*~ :

a . al Px “aN Py 5. ae;wy

4 7a |

a -_ nage * ~< a 7 “ . ; ; aa ° a . eS ‘a ee? . = os ms " te “ amen =~, x + . ‘ ~ oa ns , > — es hy cr a%2me ~~ 7 ~ . a : x ~ — -“—— ‘ :— — wn a 5 a \~ -_ ~~ “ ae Se ~< es | 4 F -Ta ‘ a i =: on ’ — J “ F. 3 tA oe te ae b. Wy =aot , £j >} a*‘.. ae 2 Py anee * Tim . ., ae

* aeee aesees a oe >= *= ;g- Ff % ee ok ey = a soe — a Se FAN a . 7 yas » YAP y Ne oS we Yi i 2 ee : OS om a o ™ , ’ ~d ror aS ge . oe wees = ; “a a x ces ; q:es ‘ , * . oy ~ re mene oe aa ’ aaa : . \ + > .% see ‘ . tt . . A, al to ~. a il “ht eS “4 —— . one i a>} h*. ad 2”~ ‘-i";= 7 en en ee ees ; oe * ; 4 ; = D -, Xx ¥ . a 2 a . ~ % ° — ss ee eee mn es ; te: eet Te en mre . ;e1.?.=al ~ eee eesti “~~ ie a a

Wt . ; ¥ "by be ~ hep * é a. & nS * P 7 L ¥ a . 7 ‘= : x —~ I 3 < ? me ti Seite .3»: 2s mS aAg jal cage =, otter econ es“Re : ail© ErPe e.ee a) %> Ft ,Qa“a . - 4-_—, +#FyAES s. 7pe ‘ cs nee _illgflaamat™ gent nod bi¥x 3‘ :>:& — ra eee ¥ ‘ a hs i ee ee oe AN < =JPor ee aes amie gt Pin:th ewe t> * |~ ~~ “a Pd = , *

2 " —. _— ~ . = > :1ea dj . SS — ad, ~ - P 3 as: ~ tad

x .i ~™ —_4 Z .* ™ .»“a,an a > y 1 = 4 ze. a,:od : ¥ .VU ==

. . \ — ys —— CO Rome oP es

~~ fo i cS 3 saul

i“' BPS Ge . ~~ } te. % i)I agli, * Orns _~-_~omee” ie Bi

|x

‘ — af% ae fs-‘c i ‘.7— .= > ia ~ eee beWin a—= ad 4 ;P- ~ = G vn “ a os a ss cts me § ae ye ‘ : 3 LE att ome ff .4-sme ;y- ‘3 a-= Ls ~< — . ; el “== : se =a _ cs /2.= é+. t noel oe? £5. 5 sald " = & } (e 2. i;45] ¥ i — af’ ly ‘ ‘ a* 'f— ,me ;:\% oe >*ee nib =[aed 22ieee =ae4 p . ; : oC The = Zz fe Bes rt o% ‘ dye PMG st J) ae : : Pr ae > Pa ‘ a! FP hie, os eee Se i— > » «VF, a3 ‘ srI :Bares 7|2UL : 8in” OS a2Seas 4.4 ?aon| |® ae a. F gat Sag a ee eS a ae an “ 3 ghe &WO ®©be te- 69 eae Dx @< ek; F.Q%e? cee ——— yo ee Peg ee Ss A a =e eee ae a | te . =e ge me

82. Record Relief of 347-346 Buc Honorary 83. Record Relief of 331-330 Bu. Honorary decree for de ree for the three sons of King | euk nN Rhet las son of! King Seuthes of the Cimmerian Bosporos

— ie aj Cie ; ss 2UeMie ae Nog A >=% : ee del fa e. af si JiHSeu eth Se ee‘) Sic: eal35 vo' xai%¢ ‘s Ao OR Ta pe ie meet s F , a La = » = , : > Le : : Ee fe Ee oe ~% Loa “tee. ‘“oI x 4. oe- 4ae4 . ; ” Py 4hs os a3 a WSt: * eees aa 5a 42— \fe. h ’:Wont wy ue) ) ee. Shes ’ =v ’ss ;,)FaS » ~~: » 7 .-7¥aA ey)“9 es f :ss— zz .i }* = S & fi. ~ Saat oe ' wba’ ain : 4 . ae : “e “} . a ' Ly ay i" ; = a %| ‘aA Y R SK , fF a SS hs ee -| / 4 -mie y oy ; a } gvs oad : a s . PAs = 1) 3 Vo a Beet . a if 2. 9% : : M . . y : : "3 at te S fe pa — 3 i z “4 A ' 7 AS “4 bt Y 4 * a ml Ee Sorte HP bx: — wy a edests a a er iat :

a” a ~*~Sat y xe «s -_ Be it A, & Magee j aYs , cm.eS ." . 2 “Se t a Res te :ee ae

84. Record Relief of 330-329 Bu. Honorary de- 85. Record Relief of 329-328 B.c.: Honorary decree for Euphnes

cree ol Demades and Deptios

-. , ~\:So“ype a (6 iL Cte

° + EAR cepe einksl og . i> 7 " be gat ie > Ve:- rm ‘Ge fy PesSS fFheEL ite 4 ¥of (ck ABRs -me a igen —Pry-‘‘ro nae .*,;fp. é t “¥ |

ig ee F : + nel ? \ 5 i= ed 7 >ee = . ta a . tS S> 7 - = * of =i we A ad OAS; 4bP.,wee! CoE

ab \ : i, ip : — ~~ " io See

ba 4 *. “a " \ ae - , § % A —o_ws

gR36. Co} esTissay 5 5 Ss satr: _ 88 Coin of Mithrapata. oin of hernes, satrap P Coin of Pharnabazos, satrap ofdynast Das : of

of the coastal provinces of | ycia kvlion

Asia Minor

. LsAS' ,‘KE ~T rh.

‘, j Pe if LT. wy m. : \ — Me dag \ , oe 5 17 =~ ~ 7 ii . . ( -—a , _ x . S&S a ad , — x

oe : , . = ae — | F ’ , $i ar. —— ‘ : -sg | ay < BS se? 44 . « s . ian in ’

|PAeeie! if ;' , “ae i. — he ; F -* : : { we Yj ? . a a Sa _ . i f.? =>es a >.ieu~

A : ~ : a ay ee: qbe: 4

x = 4 Lis=. fit *® Eq’ : : :A7%#‘:&~~~—_. «2s*J 4 / ~. -

. ;‘f 7:? ;A Z

Er. # * 735 Sey

89 i ‘ Plato. of a |portrait statue of Plato. reconstructed from a cast of 5 Head of Roman Plato, copy . COP) 90. Statuette :probal yably by Silanton In the collection ly ys torso and aofhead in Athens. Roman copy of

Ms | vad trait statue probably by Silanton Yr. Robert Bohringer, Geneva

a lost

a por

E / ae *

+ :: e.=Bee = ’ ;3 1 . $4 Ae ; > | bile a ae ‘a% nif e: na ’ fore es . #i é Psy. =| . lin > , + Taree : j 4 j " ae F ea ia * eR %,Ty "4 ~ . Pi a = 4 ; ;->y‘of { : } S if a : * 3 ,

' 7 : ’ 3 a 7 a '? » J. fj

al J 3 > 4

&©=eee , K 2=es oF #, e& .. + J4 Ks -t . ¥ ' tae. %

) be_“4_—— ee »aa — Ike , = ° ” ’ 3 ee be " " -

q'* #&, .a|

93. Tyche of Antioch-on-the-Orontes, Ro- 94. Tyche of Anttoch-on-the-Orontes, Roman

man copy of a statue by Eutyc hides copy of a statue by Luty¢ hides. In the

In the Museums of the Vatican Museum of Fine Arts, Budape st

i ae 7.Sy Aamer, A ; ok silt

\-a 4 ~Bs[¢ »; *~ ad St :

: > . >. - i” — ‘ Ps ; ™ y

| x. Se > a 4——— ie it Ws OR, ay: ey: Bi lake, : ; 3 = ae ees a ae = i ow ‘ i , s > * ‘ Ste 2 Lo &. a 1. j32-@ "1\s=,>” 7 i. a +N oS ?

= j £* . i4a PA as ee gJ 4re‘ .a“‘ . : - 4 ce ‘ ON Se pis ; gi et = a - "Rat * = aL > wth ry jRai aS ee og_ Lo S oe Se stn; -a4, -oa ae ‘Sy a adi ol~ be ~— iF ————-§86Esir£ f cr] ~~

ae a os OO

102. Gaul Committing Suicide after Killing his Wife, 103. Detail, frieze of the Monument of Lysikrates,

Roman copy of the central group of a monument Athens. (Photo after a cast.) dedicated in Pergamon by Attalos I.