Pythagoras of Rhegion and early athlete statues

Charles Waldstein The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 1. (1880), pp. 168-201. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4269%281880%291%3C168%3APORATE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4 The Journal of Hellenic Studies is currently published by The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/hellenic.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. http://www.jstor.org Fri Jan 26 12:13:39 2007

ATHLETE STATUES. L THE earliest works of Greek art manifest the inability of the artist to express all he desired by the inherent character of his work. The most striking characteristic of Greek art, and a trait which runs through the whole character of the ancient Greek race, is the simplicity with which it attains its great effects, the perfect harmony which obtains between the desire and conception and the realisation and execution. But it is only in the highest stage that we meet with this power : the genius of Pheidias is characterised by the perfect harmony that subsists between the idea and its realisation. Full proficiency in the technical handling of the material must precede the facile expression of inner conceptions by means of material form; and the study of the history of archaic art is the study of the struggle of the artistic spirit with the reluctant material and its final victory over it. But the desire to give individual character to their statues was felt by the artists, though they had not the power to put it into the essential form of the work itself. This desire found an outlet in expression by means of more accidental and attributive characteristics. The gods, such as Hermes, Apollo, and Zeus, were characterised by means of their distinctive attributes. The conventional and typical form of a male figure, with the feet one before the other, and firmly planted in parallel lines, the arms pressed close to the body down to the elbow, received on the extended hand a thunderbolt or a sceptre to indicate Zeus, a bow or a deer to indicate Apollo, a caduceus to personify Hermes.

We also meet with an Apollo with a lamb or a Hermes with a ram, while there is no markedly distinct feature in the personal appearance of either. The same applies to the archaic representations of Hera, Athene, or Artemis. Grace and beauty are not expressed in the essential forms of a female figure, but in mere outward actions and positions, such as the light suspension of a part of the garment in one hand, or the holding of a blossom. The position of both hands in the earliest Aphrodite type, which reminds us strongly of the Oriental Astarte, was symbolic of fertility, and had not the moral significance which a similar attitude has in the Aphrodite of Knidus, and still less the morbid self-consciousness expressed by the same attitude in the Venus de’ Medici. But not only did they fail in indicating the individual character of gods and their moral qualities by means of the bodily forms, but in the earliest stages we even find that the artists were incapable of indicating in the statues themselves the difference between the human and the divine. This difficulty arose especially in drawing distinctive lines between gods and athletes in statues. For besides the decorative, architectural figures, we meet with no single statues besides those of athletes in the archaic period. And the difficulty became most apparent in dealing with a youthful male figure like Apollo. The statue of the pancratiast Arrhachion in the market-place of Phigalia is described by Pausanias? in a manner which makes him correspond exactly to works like the existing statues of the Apollo of Tenea, Orchomenos, and Thera. Apollo, in these early stages, has all the unadorned dryness of a simple ephebe. He is the type of a youth. A later stage will accentuate strength and muscular development on the one hand, to indicate the athletic character of a human youth, and a more luxurious, comely, physical constitution, fuller and softer forms, on the other hand, to represent the god of male beauty. I do not mean to imply that early Greek art will ever represent an Apollo in 1 A question well worthy of special investigation is, whether, as I am inexpress the subjective nature of the figure bearing them, maidenly, womanly. clined to believe, the frequent eudowcharm, &c., and that it has no further mythological or mystical significance, as is generally assumed. 2 Arcadica, viii, ch. 40. ment of a female figure with a blossom, a fruit, ora flower, as we have it on so-called ‘Spes’ figures and on reliefs, does not simply point to an attempt to

the luxurious, effeminate softness which pleased the taste and corresponded to the spirit of the age of decadence; but I simply mean that the incipient expressive power in art will manifest itself in drawing the broad line between strength and richness of form. And the manifestation of this power we do meet with in one earliest instance of statuary, namely, the small bronze of an Apollo from Miletus in the British Museum, generally assumed to be a replica of the Apollo by the sculptor Kanachos of Sikyon. The exact date of this work is a matter of discussion ;! we may however fairly assume that the Apollo of Miletus falls shortly before or after the 71st Olympiad (493 B.c.). However imperfect the rendering of the original statue may be in so small a replica, and however little adapted, therefore, as a criterion for the details of style, still we cannot help recognising a certain power of giving softer human forms which are clearly opposed to the dryness of the athletic forms. There is no reason to believe that the artistic movement receded, and that the expressive power was smaller after Kanachos than before; the Aeginetan marbles would immediately dispel such an assumption. On the contrary, we must assume that after Kanachos the power to distinguish an Apollo from an athlete grew, and that a statue which in style and technique belongs to a period subsequent to Kanachos is not an Apollo if the bodily forms markedly bear the characteristics of the athletic youth. Even before the times of Kanachos, however, the artists had means of expressing the difference between the god and the athlete in their works, yet in a less essential but a more accessory manner, namely, in the difference of head-dress. A ‘thorough investigation of the question of ancient Greek headdress which combines the literary and monumental evidence is as yet wanting; and as the following considerations are “merely part of a series which prove the importance of elucidating this question, we must devote some space to it. We are accustomed invariably to associate short hair with athletes, and archaeologists have been up to the present day predisposed to ignore the athletic character of a statue if it did not have short hair. But it is quite impossible that athletes 1 Brunn, Sitzwngsberichte der kgl. bayr. Akademie, 1871, p. 518 seg. ; Urlichs, Abhandl. üb. d. Anfänge d. griech. Künstlergeschichte, Würzburg, 1872; M. Fränkel, Arch. Zeit., 1879,

should have been represented with short hair till after the Persian wars. Before this period and for a good while after, the agonistic games and the exercises in the palaestra were an Important part of the training of Greek youths. Originally, they were an institution with a fixed social and political aim. They were a means to produce strong and skilled citizens. More and more this institution, which was originally a means to some further end, asserted its independence, until finally it became the end to which the whole personal existence became a means. In modern terms this signifies that the young Greeks were ‘gentlemen athletes,’ who indulged in exercise to heighten their bodily proficiency, but that, more and more, sports became an end in themselves, until athletic exercise became a profession, and all the time, the exertion and aspirations of an individual became subservient to this acquisition. A similar tendency may be noticed in modern times. We know that the kapnkomówvres ’Axasol took great pride in their long and thick hair, and it was not only the case in the heroic age, that short or thin hair was considered ungainly. So the ugly Thersites is described yreövn ö’ewevnvodeAaxvn. Even in the historic age the same tradition survived. Only the slaves were wekappévor and were not allowed to wear long hair.* Long hair prevailed throughout the whole of Greece. In Sparta Lycurgus fixed the custom by law;? the Spartans not only considered long hair ornamental, but also useful, and devoted great care to its preservation and adornment ;3 before the battle they combed and braided their hair. In Attica, and especially in Athens, long hair was also worn, and after the time of the Alkmaeonidae specially luxurious and ornamental forms of head-dress, such as the xpwBudos, seem to have come into fashion.® Now it is evident that the free-born Greek youth was unwilling to sacrifice his long hair, in which he took such pride, to avoid inconvenience during his exercises in the palaestra, or on every occasion that he took part in one of the national 1 Aristoph. Av. 1. 911. 2 Xenophon, De Republ. Lac. c. xi. 83; cf. J. H. Krause, Plotina, od. über 3 Plutarch, Apophtheym. reg. et imperet. T. i. p. 754; Lacon. Apophthegm. p. 917; Lycurg. c. 22. die Kostüme des Haupthaares. bei den 4 Herodotus, vii. c. 208. Völkern der alten Welt, Leipzig, 1858. 8 Thucydides, i. 6. Abschn. III.

games. On the other hand, though long hair must have been a great impediment in many of the daily exercises, and especially in the palaestra, we can still conceive of its being less troublesome in some of the lighter games of the pentathlon, such as running, jumping, throwing the discus or the spear. But in wrestling, boxing, and in the pancration! (a combination of the two) the trouble caused by long hair must have been too great. They were driven, therefore, to have recourse to such a disposal of their hair as would render it least in their way; this would consist in braiding the hair into two long plaits, and in compactly laying these two braids round the back of the head, along each side, and firmly tying them in front on the top. This is a simple means of disposing of long hair, which we must assume to have been adopted as the most practical. The need for such contrivances was done away with after the Persian wars. The ancient customs were altered; only children retained their long hair, while so soon as they became ephebes in a solemn act their hair was cut off to the length which we notice in the youths on the Parthenon frieze. The feast connected with this act was called oivıornpıa? The so cut off hair was dedicated to one of the gods or a river-god,? and frequently they made a pilgrimage to Delphi to dedicate it to the Pythian Apollo* This change in custom may have been brought about by the reformation in general customs which developed the hardy, warlike spirit of the Greeks, who had learnt the value of strong soldiers through the struggle with the Persians, and this spirit again may have led to a renewed cultivation and accentuation of athletic sports to serve the common need. According to the literary sources, therefore, we are led not to expect short-haired athletes till some time after the Persian wars (for the new fashion would not have transfused art until the old association had died out, and the eye of the public had grown accustomed to the innovation) ; and with works belonging 1 Special mention is even made of a peculiar head-dress of the pancratiasts, ef. Krause, Hellenica, I. Gymnastik und Agonistik der Griechen, &c., p. 54, 2 Hesych. T. ii. p. 730; Pollux, vi. 22, Eupolis ap. Photium, Lexic. p. 321; Eustath. ZZ. xii. 311, p. 967, 18; cf. Krause, ibid. p. 76. 3 Aeschyl. Choeph. 6, Paus. i. 87, 2; Diphilos, sroAvmrpayu. 1. 6 (Comic. Graec. Fragm. ed. Meineke, t. 4, p. 407) ; Dio Chrysost. xxxv. p. 67. 4 Dio Chrysostom, 1.c.

to epochs previous to the Persian wars we shall expect to find long-haired athletes. | The monumental evidence corresponds exactly to the literary traditions which we have just examined. Of the numerous athlete statues which have been recognized as such, not one has been identified as belonging to an earlier date than the Discobolos of Myron. Of this statue there are numerous replicas. But if works have come down to us by later artists and by the famous sculptor Myron, why should no work have survived of one of the earlier artists who were also famous, and of one of whom (Pythagoras of Rhegion) we know that he gained a victory over Myron, his younger contemporary, with an athlete statue?! And if furthermore we take into account that, as has been mentioned above, the only single statues besides architectural groups and gods were athlete statues, and if we but glance into Pausanias and see how enormous was the proportion of statues commemorative of agonistic victories to the number of other works of art, our astonishment will rise to a doubt, whether it is not merely through some oversight or prejudice that archaeologists have hitherto failed to recognise athletes in many statues belonging to the archaic period of Greek art. And so it is. The reason why such statues have not yet been identified among the works belonging to pre-Pheidiac art is simply that the head-dress of the Myronian Discobolos and of all later works has more or less consciously served as a criterion for the athletic character of a work. The Attic sculptor Myron falls exactly into that period in which we should naturally suppose that the new Athenian fashion had transfused art, and his personal character as it manifests itself through his works was exactly of the stamp to delight in introducing an innovation. After Myron we may always expect short hair with athletes, before Myron we may expect long hair. But, as I have said, archaeologists have never looked for athletes in pre-Myronic works, and so it has come to pass that a certain type of head with the hair disposed in two braids wound round and fastened on the top, has crept into literature as a type of an Apollo. Now I have only found two cases in which this head-dress undoubtedly belongs to a god. 1 Pancratiaste Delphis posite, eodem vicit (Myronem).’—Plin., Nat, Hist. xxxiv. 59.

The one instance is the youthful Apollo on a relief in the Capitol,! an instance first noticed by Conze; and the other is a Hermes on a coin from Aenos? Yet in the first case we have the youthful Apollo in an assembly of gods at home as it were, and he is then no longer the god, but the ephebe beside Zeus. The artist did well to distinguish him by this means from the other gods who have long hair. In the second instance, Hermes wears the petasos, and this sufficiently indicates the god Hermes ; while the very petasos shows that he is in action, and there he impresses the human, working side of his person, and then he properly arranges his hair to suit his swift vocation. In both these cases the gods are conceived in their most human aspect, while the environment or the petasos indicates their character with sufficient clearness. In all other cases the god Apollo is distinguished from statues of human beings by the ornamental treatment of his hair. He has long curls. Soin the above-mentioned Apollo of Kanachos, in the similar marble head in the British Museum,’ on the numerous vase pictures and reliefs, representing the contest between Apollo and Heracles for the Delphic tripos ; so also in the Eidolon of Apollo on a bas-relief representing a ‘fatto di Paride’5 Frequently, especially when in action, Apollo wears the braid twisted round his head, but this dry and ‘every-day’ appearance is always mitigated either by a curl,’ however short, or by a swelling mass of hair on the back of the head,’ a com1 Conze, Beiträge zur Geschichte der griechischen Plastik, p. 15; Braun, Vorschule der Kunstmythologie, taf. 5; Kekulé, Bullettino dell’ Inst. di Corresp. arch., 1866, p. 71. 2 Müller-Wieseler, Denkmäler d. antichi 5 Guattani, Monumenti inediti, Roma, 1784-5. 6 Archaic silver coins of Leontini, v. laureate, hair short over forehead in format curls over temple, plaited behind, with long curls falling behind alten Kunst, ii. pl. 28, 302. the ear. 3 Overbeck, Geschichte der Griech. Plastik, vol. i. p. 109 ; Müller-Wieseler, Denkmäler, &e., i pl. xv. 61; ef, Millin, Pierres gravées, pl. 6. coins even of later type. 4 Though many of these representations may not be genuinely archaic, but later imitations of the archaic, what is called archaïstic, this does not affect their importance, as the imitator had the archaic before him. I shall deal with this question at greater length in the course of our inquiry. The curl is to be noticed in Ia the one belonging to the best period the curl is very short. Catal. coins in British Museum. Sicily. 7 Lenormant and De Witte, Elite Ceramographique, ii. pl. 57, 55, 5. A marble head recently found in Rome represents the type of an Apollo with the braid, but there is something soft and luxurious in the rest of the hair, and he has a curl on the side.

promise between short and long hair which counteracts the compactness which we consider characteristic of early athlete figures. Even in later art Apollo retains his long hair, which varies in its arrangement with the fashions of different places. But unless a fashion in head-dress, like that of the Apollo Belvedere, prevail, or unless he is represented as a boy, as in the Apollo Sauroktonos, the long curl generally remains his characteristic. It is Hermes, if any god, who in later times partakes more and more of the athlete type, even in the arrangement of the hair; but this not earlier than the age of Praxiteles.! On the other hand, though we notice that while on festive occasions (as may be seen on archaic vase representations) and in solemn moments (as on the archaic Peloponnesian sepulchral stele)? men wear their hair long; yet in moments of physical exertion or moments preceding it, in warlike contests, and especially in athletic sports, the braid wound round the head prevails. Athletes on black-figured vases, and even on the red-figured of the severer order, all have this head-dress, though the technical execution in indicating the details of the hair does not belong to the earliest vase-painters, and is not added by those who in later times imitated the conventionally archaic. The drawings are merely in outline, and the braid is generally indicated in the outline by an elevation in the back, or on the top of the head. There are, however, many instances in which the typical head-dress is clearly given. The finest instance of this is the Achilles with Briseis on the beautiful vase in the Vatican published by Gerhard (Plate VI).* Achilles stands in armour without his helmet, the type of a strong youth, while the artistic style of the work leads us to a period shortly before Pheidias. We notice the same in an Achilles on another vase, “Ira di Achille,’ 5 formerly in the Campana collection, and now 1 On the François vase all the gods have long hair, holding a discus in his hand. In the 2 Dressel and Milchhoefer, Mitth. d. deutsch. arch. Instituts in Athen, II., p. 301, seg., Taf. 20 & 24; also Milchhoefer iii, p. 163; Overbeck, G. d. Gr. Pl. i. p. 83, 84, 85. 3 I have found one instance, in a small bronze in the British Museum, the need of the typically athletic arrangement of hair. This would even tend to throw some doubt upon the ‘ Apollo character’ of another group of archaic statues. in which a youth is represented with vol. vi. tav. 19, also on tav. 20 ; E. Braun, long hair, like the Apollo of Tenea, Annali dell Inst, 1858, pp. 374-383, lighter sports there may not have been 4 Auserwählte Vasenbilder, iii. Tf.184, 5 Monumenti dell’ Instit.di corr.arch.

at Paris. There is also a young man with arms, about to take leave of his father; painted by the vase painter Duris.1 The same occurs also on an Athenian Lekythos, published by De Witte,? on a vase picture published by Panofka,? on several others published by Gerhard,* and on many others. In marble we meet with this mode of wearing the hair in the pedimental statues from the temple of Athene of Aegina. Most of the warriors wear helmets, but even then we can perceive this arrangement, and it is especially clear in the forward-striding nude figure without a helmet from the western pediment. The two figures on either corner of the pediments, it is true, have long hair, but then they are wounded and dying, and by their action, as well as their position, are literally hors de combat. Artistic reasons, such as variety and harmony in the relaxed lines of the figures, must also have prompted the sculptor to make this change. We have mentioned before that earlier Greek art did not represent single statues of warriors, and that we only meet with groups. The only single statues are gods and athletes. Were the early artist to render a warrior in a single statue, he would always represent him armed and with his helmet. In active combat the warrior is an armed and seriously aggressive athlete, and no doubt the sculptor studied in the palaestra the attitudes he rendered in his group. Besides the numerous vase pictures which represent athletes with the braid, so numerous that it is needless to attempt at enumerating them, we also find a similar head-dress on a gem representing an athlete. But what is most conclusive is the evidence afforded by statues. In the Palazzo dei Conservatori there is a mutilated marble figure with braided hair, with legs drawn up, and what remains of the arms extended, so that this figure evidently represents a charioteer. This instance still admits of debate, but not so two bronzes from the numismatic cabinet in Vienna,® one of which is reproduced on Plate V., Fig. 1. Here we have a figure with a discus, undoubtedly an athlete, 1 Mon. vol. viii. tav. 41; Roulez, Annali, 1867, pp. 157, &e. 2 Gazette archéologique, 1867, p. 141, pl. 34. 3 Vasenbilder, Taf. i. 1. 4 Trinkschalen und Gefässe, Taf. 13, 14, 15. 5 Visconti, i. p. 276, and pl. A. iv. 7 Winckelmann, Mon. ant. inedit. No. 106 ; Gemme Stockmar. p. 348. 6 Von Sacken, Die antiken Bronzen des köngl. Münzcabinets in Wien, Taf. 45, fig. i., und Taf. 37, fig. 4.

and with the head-dress most clearly indicated. Besides these two bronzes I found several others corresponding exactly to them in the bronze room of the British Museum. A similar discobolos is also published by E. Braun! Single heads of this type occur very frequently: the Neapolitan bronze head, a marble head in the Sala Chiaramonti of the Vatican Museum, another in the British Museum from Cyrene (Hellenic Room No. 53), and two in the Museum of Berlin.? One of these two heads (Plate V., Fig. 5) is of special interest. Conze says of it that there is great negligence in the execution of the braid, that it can hardly be recognised as hair ; in fact it seems to me to be more of a mixture of a braid and an ornamented band, almost partaking more of the character of the latter. Now I venture to formulate an hypothesis in connexion with this head, but I must impress upon the reader the purely hypothetical character of it. The band was originally not an essentially athletic attribute. The wreath, of which there were different kinds for the different local games, and the palmbranch were the original prizes, while the band was a general article of adornment used on many other occasions. It is only in later times that it became so general in art as an athletic attribute, and I believe that it was from a desire to compensate the eye, which had grown accustomed to the line round the head from the time of braids, that the band was freely adopted. The Berlin head would be the monumental boundary-line of the transition from one custom to the other, and though it has a band, the band is decorated with a zig-zag line as a reminder of the antiquated braid. The evidence, both literary and monumental, which I have adduced with regard to the head-dress of statues belonging to the period previous to Myron leads us without fail to conclude that if a statue has no long hair or ornamental attributes, such as curls, at is in all probability not an Apollo ; and if the hair is arranged in two braids on the back of the head, wound round and fastened on the top, the statue is in all probability that of an athlete. 1 Mon. dell’ Inst. vol. ii. tav. 29, and 2 Conze, Beiträge, &e., Taf. viii. Annali, 1836, p. 54. HB. $.— VOL. I.

THE so-called Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo in the British Museum! (Plate IV.), one of the finest Greek statues in the Museum, evidences in its technical execution a style later than the works of Kanachos Upon examining this statue we are first and chiefly impressed with the high muscular development, with the physical power of the youthful figure. Nay, apart from the heavy youths considered to be replicas of the Polycletian Doryphoros and Diadumenos, there is hardly another athlete statue which represents so strong a man. There can be no doubt as to-the intention of the artist: he desired to fashion a statue whose chief characteristic was to be physical strength. The long hair is neatly and firmly plaited into two braids, which are wound round the head and are tightly fastened together on the top: the head-dress which we have found to be typically that of an athlete before the time of Myron. This suffices to show that the statue is not an Apollo, but an athlete.” It will become more evident the further we proceed. It is also a signal confirmation that a statue on the staircase of the Uffizi in Florence stupidly restored with a short staff in the one hand and a shield in the other, has been generally considered an athlete, and by some even a Doryphoros of Polycleitos, simply because it has a head with short hair, which does not originally belong to the statue at all. Anybody with a trained eye will immediately recognise that the body of this statue, so far as it is genuinely antique, is exactly the same as the London statue, and the other replicas which we shall consider hereafter. The attitude, the outline of the figure, the bodily proportions, the technical handling of the surface, the modelling of the 1 Specimens of ancient sculpture in the British Museum, vol. ii, pl. v.; Conze, Beiträge, Taf. vi. 2 Clarac (vol. iii, pl. 482, 931H. Text, vol. iii. p. 218), who is relatively unprejudiced, expresses his doubt whether this be an Apollo and not an athlete : ‘ce pourrait être un athlète.” The Capitoline replica he simply calls an athlete. 3 Dütschke, Antike Bildwerke in Oberitalien. Griechische Ephebenstatue, p. 8, No. 27. Isubsequently find that Dütschke has also noticed that the head does not belong to the statue, and that he points to a relation between this statue and the ‘ Apollo on the Omphalos.’

muscles, down to the peculiar flatness of the abdomen and the straight line that marks the beginning of the pubes, the back and the strongly prominent nates, the peculiar form of the navel and the strong accentuation of certain veins—all is identical in both. But that the London statue is an Apollo has been fastened into the minds of archaeologists by the fact that it has been published and discussed by Conze (Beiträge, ii.), in connexion with the almost identical statue in the Patissia Museum of Athens known as the Apollo on the Omphalos! (Plate V., Fig. 3), and that it has since then been looked upon as a kind of replica of that statue. The truth is that the London, the Athenian, and the Florentine statues are co-ordinate in artistic excellence, and that they most probably are replicas of an original which, to judge from traces in the marble in the treatmeut of the hair, from a certain sharpness in the modelling of the brows and bones, and other subtle indications, was most probably of bronze. The other replica mentioned by Conze? is in the Capitoline Museum,? and is of inferior workmanship. Now if the Athenian statue really was on an omphalos, then it most likely was an Apollo, and at all events could not have been an athlete. I was fortunate enough to find the statue and the omphalos which is supposed to have served as its base separate in the Museum, and I immediately convinced myself and others by the simplest means (namely, by standing on the omphalos in the position of the ‘ Apollo’) that they do not belong together. But as statements once printed have a strange power of clinging, and as a mere personal assertion on my part will not suffice to disprove an opinion now generally adopted,* I hope to prove 1 Pervanoglu, Bull. dell’ Inst, 1862, p. 168, seg.; Köhler, Bull. 1865, p. 134; Lützow in L.’s Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, 1868, p. 24, 1869, p. 283; Kekulé, Beschreib. d. Theseions, p. 36, No. 70, in Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie, 1869, p. 85, ff. ; also Die Gruppe des Künstlers Menelaos, &c., p. 41; Schwabe, De Apolline in Omphalo, Programm. Dorpat, 1870; Bursian, Literarisches Centralblatt, 1869, p. 592. 2 Ibid. taf. vii. 3 Clarac, Musée de Sculpture, 862, 2189. 4 Köhler says, (l.c.): ‘Un nuovo esame dei due pezzi ci ha verificato pienamente questa congettura, di modo che anche sulla denominazione della statua non può cadere più alcun dubbio.’ This is a step from the probable to the certain; for Pervanoglu, who first wrote about the statue (see previous note), merely says, ‘ Al quale (Apolline) Jforse potrebbe aver appartenuto un onfalo di marmo bianco,’ &c.

it conclusively with the assistance of the exact illustrations (Plate V.). Now, in the first place, the circumstances of the discovery are far from furnishing any evidence that the statue and the omphalos belong to one another. It is generally assumed that they were found together. But Conze himself says (p. 14): ‘Es ist zuzugeben, dass eine volle durch äussere Umstände erwiesene Sicherheit für die Zusammengehörigkeit nicht vorhanden ist. Namentlich darf Köhlers Ausdruck, der Omphalos sei nahe bei der Figur gefunden worden, nicht dafür geltend gemacht werden. Der Vorsteher der Alterthümer in Athen Eustratiadis hat mir vielmehr auf meine Anfrage durch. Postolakkas mittheilen lassen, der Omphalos sei ausserhalb der Orchestra zwischen den parallelen Mauern der westlichen Parados, die Statuenstücke seien hinter den mittleren Inschriftsesseln [of the theatre of Dionysos], beide Theile also doch in einigem Abstande von einander, aufgegraben.’ If the Greeks who were present during the excavations, and had the supervision over them, state that the statue was found within, the omphalos without, the walls of the theatre, some distance apart, then no great weight can be attached to the mere conjecture that they were connected. It would be different if the foot-marks on the omphalos did really, as has been asserted, correspond to the position of the legs of the ‘ Apollo’ so far as they are preserved. But this is not the case. In the first place, the feet, as indicated on the omphalos, would be too small for the statue, but furthermore, what is most manifest, the feet of the ‘Apollo’ could not have stood in that position. On the omphalos the left foot was nearer the centre than the right foot, while the left leg of the statue is projected beyond the right leg, and so the left foot would have been nearer the circumference of the omphalos —nay, would have projected beyond it, that is, it would partly, yet firmly, have rested on nothing. In the drawing (Plate V., Fig. 6), the outline shows the footprints as they are, the broken line(- - -) the position of the right foot as it ought to be according to the position of the ankle of the statue as it is now placed on the omphalos in the cast copies of many museums in Germany, the dotted line (..... ) as the left foot ought to be, if the right foot of the statue corresponded to the position of the right foot on the omphalos. At all events it becomes evident

that, if one of the feet of the statue held the position of the corresponding foot on the omphalos, then the other foot could not have corresponded. It is difficult to see, moreover, how another circumstance did not at once serve to show the impossibility of the received view. On the right leg on the left side, somewhat towards the back, a piece of marble runs from above the knee to below the middle of the calf (Plate V., Fig. 4). Conze draws the following conclusion : because the statue ‘doubtless belongs to the omphalos, this addition can surely not have been the connection with the stem of a tree attached to the statue’ (as is the case with all the other copies and with most marble statues of this kind), ‘for there are no traces of a tree stump on the omphalos behind the right foot.’ It is strange when we compare with the premiss to this conclusion the passage several lines below in which the author says, that in placing the cast in the Museum of Halle, he followed the assumption that the omphalos and the statue belonged together, and that ‘ this attempt had made the assumption even more probable.’ Pervanoglu thinks it probable that the statue and omphalos belong together; but he entirely forgets that he before said, ‘Le braccia pendevano allato del corpo, e da alcuni vestigii riconoscibili dietro al piede destro risulta esser ivi stato un tronco forse d’ albero, come spesso lo troviamo in statue reputate copie d’ originali di metallo.’ Conze supposes this projection to have been the rest for an attribute which the statue held in its right hand, but it is too large for this purpose and too far back. It decidedly was the bridge which attached the statue to the stem of a tree, and which the artist placed between the tree and the body (as is frequently the case), to give as much as possible of the roundness of form. But there is no room for a stem on the omphalos, apart from there being no vestiges of such an appendage. This was also seen by Bursian (/. c.); but he furnishes an instance of how difficult it is to dissociate two things that have been bound together with printed paper. Because the Apollo could not have stood on the omphalos, therefore he assumes that the Apollo stood beside the omphalos, and another statue, perhaps an Orestes seeking propitiation, stood on the omphalos. The statue has, in fact, nothing whatever to do with the omphalos. The position of the legs is the same in the London

and in the Athenian statue; and I shall mention a final test, which, together with what has been already said, will, I hope, once for all clear the statue of any connexion with the representation of the sacred omphalos of the earth at Delphi. I suspended a plumb-line from the parting in the hair on the forehead of the London statue, and found that the lead touched the right half of the great toe of the right foot; the line applied to the cast of the Athenian statue in Munich, here placed on the omphalos, showed that the lead fell slightly over two inches from the great toe of the right foot-mark on the omphalos towards the mark of the left foot. As there might be some slight difference in the position of the head in these two replicas, and to verify any resulting inaccuracy, I let the perpendicular fall from the middle of the navel in the London statue, which fell about half an inch to the (our) right of the great toe of the right foot, while applied to the Athenian statue it fell slightly over three inches from the right footmark. The omphalos is therefore fairly got rid of, and we may now return to the consideration of this athlete statue. The question now arises, to what class of athletes does this representation belong ? The intention of the sculptor to present the heavy type of strength is so manifest in the London statue that, negatively, we cannot consider him to belong to the category of light athletes, those, namely, of the pentathlon; and the sculptor who could make such a statue undoubtedly had the power to distinguish different types of men. This statue belongs to the heavier genus of athletes, the boxer or the pancratiast. In the earliest period, as we have mentioned before, the artists were not able to confer individual character upon their statues, and the difficulty must have been greatest in cases where a spear or a discus, or halteres, could not be added as attributes to make the nature of the athlete clear. This kind of athlete had to be expressed in the figure itself. In reading Pausanias we notice that the greatest number of statues of Olympian and other victors which he mentions were pancratiasts and pugilists; but no pancratiast and no early pugilist has as yet been identified, because they were wanting in so simple an attribute as the discus. Such an athlete could, however, clearly be indicated; not as the distortus and elaboratus of some of the pugilist statues of later times, but by

the sculptor’s power of expression by means of the bodily rhythm even in quiet attitudes. On vase figures we generally see them in action, and there is no difficulty in indicating them; but these very vase figures show us an attitude characteristic of these games, one which is not restless and dramatic, but is most suitable for plastic art. It is in figures representing the ephedros. Before a contest the combatants drew lots, and each pair that had drawn the same letter fought; but if there was an uneven number of combatants, the third had to wait until the two had finished, and then he fought the victor. This man was called the ephedros (Plate VI., Fig. 2), and he is represented on vase pictures! waiting, while two are boxing or wrestling, in a peculiar attitude which seems to have been characteristic of a heavy athlete. This position is the same as in the statues we are discussing, The ephedros stands firmly, while the upper part of the body, chest, shoulders, and arms are especially accentuated. Involuntarily the eye of the spectator was drawn to those parts which were of greatest importance in this sport, and when highly developed were the chief characteristics of a pugilist or a pancratiast. The shoulders are drawn back and the chest protrudes, while, by this movement, the skin is tightly drawn over the ribs, which therefore become conspicuous. All lines of the statue converge towards the chest, as in the Pallas of Velletri all lines meet in the forehead. This will account for certain characteristics which Köhler ascribes especially to the archaism in the work, when he says (/. ¢.): ‘Il carattere arcaico si manifesta sopratutto nell’ attitudine della figura, che è quella di un uomo, che con stento torce le braccia e le spalle in dietro di modo che il petto sporge al di fuori, mentre le parti di dietro fui la dove Jinisce la schiena sono molto incavate” The veins, which are, in any case, accentuated with a certain exaggeration, are most visible and protruding on the shoulder and upper arm, a means, in the early times, of indicating which parts are momentarily or habitually more especially exerted. On the 1 Laborde, Vases de Lamberg, i. pl. 74; Gerhard, Antike Bildwerke, Taf. vii. A relief in Clarac (i. pl. 200, 271), though very late in style, shows how the chest was drawn back.—Mus. Bouillon, t. iii. suppl. pl. 2. No. 15; Jahn, Beschr. d. Vas. Sam. K. Ludw. I., No. 787, 497. The illustration which we give of an ephedros does not correspond to the statue with regard to the position of the feet; in the other instances from vases which we quote, and in many not quoted, the position is the same even in this respect.

figures from the western pediment of the temple of Aegina the veins are not generally indicated. But in a few instances, as the so-called Achilles,’ as Brunn has remarked, they are indicated on the right arm to suggest the exertion of the wounded warrior who is struggling to rise. The question then is narrowed to this: is this athlete a pancratiast or a pugilist? At first I supposed that the statue represented a victor in the pancration, the game which, as the name indicates, demanded the greatest strength. The pancration 2 was a combination of wrestling and boxing : the combatants could use their hands and feet, they fought standing, and continued fighting while on the ground; it was the most violent of contests, easily became brutal, and not unfrequently brought on the death of a combatant. A very favourite and advantageous method seems to have been for a pancratiast to get his adversary in what is called with us ‘in chancery, * to catch the 1 Brunn, Beschreibung der kgl. Glyptothek zu München, No. 60, p. 87. 2 Of. Annali, ii. 1830, Gerhard, p. 215, 216, &c. ; Monumenti, pl. xxii. 56, s. 6, also on bronze vase, Mon. v. pl. 25 (1857); Clarac, ii 616, 17, i. pl. 200, 271; Bouillon, vol. iii. suppl. pl. ii. No. 15. The Florence group of ‘wrestlers’ is also a scene from the pancration, Reale Galleria di Fir. ser. mythological scenes to illustrate the contest for which the vase was a prize. I take this opportunity to make one general hypothetical remark which is of importance for the general method of vase interpretation, and which space will not allow me to deal with: at greater length. The Greek vases of better quality may be classed, according to their original destination, into two great classes, sepulchral and agonistic. The sepulchral vases were meant to be iv. vol. iii., pl. 122. 3 Paus. 1. 8, cap. 40. 4 On an archaic tazza, Annali, ib. 1878, p. 34, tav. D., Heracles has the Titan Anteus in chancery; the same Heracles and the lion (Gerhard, Auser. Vasenb. iv. Taf. 266), and Theseus and the Minotaur (Gerh. Auser. Vasenb. vol. iii. Taf. 160 and 161). Prof. Colvin directed my attention to a vase published by Heydemann (third in Hallisches Winckelmann’s Programm) in which a Lapitha holds a Centaur in a placed within the graves ; the agonistic vases contained the oil which was given as a prize to the victors in the games. A third class may be added, namely, those that were given as presents between lovers. I do not refer to common vessels that were used. to convey oil and merchandise. I doubt whether these were ornamented in an artistic style. Now the illustrations were influenced by their desti- Jahn, nation. A sepulchral vase destined for the grave of a youth would be Beschreibung der Vasensamml. König Ludwig's I., No. 307, 476, 1199, on decorated, e.g. on the one side with a scene from the Triptolemos myth; on which vases with mythological combats the other side it may have genre-scenes even the ephedros appears. Motives from the life of a Greek youth, as I from the palaestra were transferred to have shown in the Poniatowski vase, similar position. also,

opponent’s neck in the one arm, and to strike with the fist of the other hand. What chiefly distinguishes the pancratiast from the pugilist is the caestus, which the boxer always has in artistic illustrations, though there are a few cases in which pancratiasts (evidently from the fact of their using their hands to wrestle, and not only to strike) also have the caestus; but these are quite exceptional. The pancratiast is distinguished from the wrestler in that he strikes. A frequent motive is that of one of the combatants catching the leg of his adversary with the one hand, and giving him a blow with the other, as, for instance, on the above quoted vase of Lamberg, published by Laborde. The pugilist is typically indicated in illustrations, in that heis merely striking, and has the caestus. In the earliest times the caestus corresponded somewhat to our boxing-gloves ; it was called pevA‘yn,” and was not meant to enhance the severity of the blow, but, as the name indicates, to avoid pain to the striker, and perhaps even to weaken the blow for the one struck. The next stage, still belonging to the early period, which probably continued till near the decadence, was the stiff thong of hide, inas òEús, which doubtless more effectually spared the fingers and knuckles of the boxer. The boxer generally covered his hand and wrist with some soft material and fastened it by winding the thong round: he placed one end of the thong longitudinally along the wrist, and then wound it tight round the wrist and the hand, passing the other end through the palm of the hand. Ona For the graves of warriors fallen in battle, corresponding scenes from the Trojan war, &c. ornamented with a convivial scene. Ido not mean that this is the only In the case of and exhaustive point from which vaseathletic vases, even in the mythological pictures ought to be viewed ; but what I here suggest is, that it is an important point from which to view vase-pictures, and that if it were carried out it would no doubt throw much new light on scenes, attitudes and situations will be chosen from the game for which they were offered as prizes. Jahn etc. 584, has a representation of the contest between Peleus and Atalante, while these representations. the back is decorated ‘with a scene 1 For illustrations, cf. Inghirami, from a mvyuú. The kaAds, or mais kaAds, seems to me to be a token Pitture di Vasi Fittili, vol. iii. tav. 232 ; Clarac, pl. 851, 2180 A; 1788, 855, 2182; 856, 2180, 858, 2181, 858 d, 2187 a, &c.; Gerhard, Auserw. of approbation and congratulation for the winner, the recipient of the vase. Vases as gifts between lovers will also be decorated with corresponding lovescenes and myths. Of course a «Aig given as a prize will appropriately be Vasenb. iv. Taf. 272 and 271; Jahn, 2 Paus. viii, 40.

Panathenaic vase published by De Witte,! a ruyur is represented, and an ephedros is standing on one side of the combatants, holding his hand to his lips, evidently in the act of pulling the end of the thong between his teeth to tighten it round his hand, which is covered with some cloth or skin. This kind of caestus I believe to have been prevalent during the early Greek age, while it is to the decadence and brutalisation of athletic games that the barbarous caestus of Roman ages belongs, which was furnished with leaden and iron balls, ‘Terga boum plumbo insuto ferroque rigebant ;’ (Verg. Aen. v. 405) ; and with which defeat produced results as described by Vergil (Aen. v. 468), ‘ Ast illum fidi aequales, genua aegra trahentem, lactantemque utroque caput, crassumque cruorem Ore eiectantem, mistosque in sanguine dentes, Ducunt ad naves. On the tree stump of the London statue there runs a band or strap about half an inch in width, and about two and a half feet in length. This strap puzzled archaeologists, especially as they considered the statue to be an Apollo. I at first supposed that it was meant to represent a victor’s band ; but I found that the artist of the statue could have indicated far more clearly the texture of a band, and here there is a decided intention to render the stiff texture of leather, while the thickness and narrowness would not suit a band. It immediately became clear to me that we here have to deal with the leather thong, the ipds d€vs, which shows this athlete to be a pugilist. If, finally, I were to attempt a restoration of this statue, I should give him in his left hand a palm-branch, which would account for the notch on the side of his left leg near the knee. The Athenian statue has a similar remnant of marble, which shows that he also held a long attribute in his left hand. The palm-branch was one of the essential prizes awarded to 1 Monwmenti del? Inst. vol. x. tav. 48. The ephedros quoted above from Gerhard’s Antike Bildwerke, Taf. vii. is to the left of the two boxers who have caestus ; on the right is the agonodikes, This ephedros holds a thong in his left hand (the fuàs ôfús), while his right hand is violently drawn back as if about to strike a heavy blow.

victors in all the games! and they are frequently represented on vase-figures (e.g. on the one above-mentioned, published by De Witte) bearing it. Though it could easily and lastingly be given to bronze figures (of which material the athlete statues generally were), it was most easily broken in marble statues. But if a hand with a piece of a palm-branch was found by one of the restorers during the Renaissance in Italy, and even were found to-day, it would be considered a ‘pezzo d’arco’ of an Apollo; for the tendency prevails to see in every youthful male figure an Apollo, as nearly all the female figures are termed Venere. It now remains to ask, to what period does this pugilist belong? Several of the above mentioned writers on this statue have considered the archaic elements in it to be conventional, and not genuine; what is called archaistic, or ‘ archaisirend,’ in contradistinction to archaic. Ever since statues like the Dresden Athene? and the Neapolitan Artemis? have been found, in which the intentional rendering of imperfections belonging to early art is manifestly connected with considerable power of freedom in execution, and especially since Kekulé * has traced the eclectic style of Pasiteles in the work of one of his pupils, Stephanos, these discoveries, as is so frequently the case, have led to extremes, so that archaeologists nowadays see ‘archaisiren’ and Pasiteles in a disproportionately great number of ancient statues. This exaggeration cannot but be harmful to the investigation of the style of ancient works. Those who merely look for archaising forget one important factor in the copies of the Greek originals from the Roman era which have come down to us— namely, what may be termed modernising. Anybody at all acquainted with the peculiarities of ‘old masters’ knows how difficult it is for artists of a later time to copy exactly the works of their fore1 Paus. vii. 48; Vitruv. Preface to lib. ix. In the Patissia Museum at Athens there is an unfinished marble 3 Overbeck, Gesch. d. Gr. Pl. i. p. 195. statue of a young athlete who holds a 3 Raoul Rochette, Peintures de Pompeii, pl. 5, and Overbeck, Gesch. d. Gr. palm-branch in his hand. In this case the palm has withstood the effect of time, because the statue is Pl. i. p. 194. Pompeiana di Apolline, and in his merely blocked out, and all presented above-quoted work on the Gruppe des Künstlers Menelaos. one firm mass. 4 Annali, 1865, p. 56 segq., ‘Statua

fathers: modern and subjective elements will invariably creep into the work of the copyist. This is most evident in copies from the paintings of old Italian masters. But it can be seen even if we compare the various replicas of the same work in ancient marbles which lead back to a common original, as, for instance, the Discobolos of Myron, the Boy with the Goose, the Thorn-Extractor, &c. We then see how they vary, how the hair—nay, even the position of the head, varies in the Discobolos in the Palazzo Massimi in Rome, and the one in the British Museum. And these works in the original moreover did not belong to the markedly archaic class whose characteristics are so difficult to imitate, because they belong to a period so remote and essentially different in spirit from the age of the copyist. A very clever copyist will be able to avoid to some degree this discord between the modern and the ancient. A comparison, even hasty, between our statue and the ephebe by Stephanos and the manifestly Pasitelean statues will immediately show that there is not the slightest relation between them. The simple fact that there exist four replicas of this work proves that it could not have come from the studio of an obscure imitator, but leads us back, in all probability, to a famous Greek original. An archaeologist in whose artistic tact and thoroughness I have the greatest faith objected to me that he found a lack of unity in the ‘ Apollo of the Omphalos’ which made him doubt its genuine archaism. With this feeling I can thoroughly sympathise, and it can readily be accounted for. Thus an athlete on an omphalos is in itself a contradiction which robs the statue of its unity of composition. The first stimulus to this inquiry was the feeling of incongruity which I experienced upon seeing the London statue with the subscription ‘ Apollo.’ Then again the head-dress, which was not accounted for, and furthermore, the attitude, which seems constrained unless we recognise the intention expressed in it, must produce such an impression. And finally, this statue, as will become clearer, belongs to that very period of transition from the archaic to the greatest freedom, in which we necessarily must assume a mixture of the two elements. On the one hand the head-dress, the peculiar formation of the navel (not perpendicular, but the lower half running inward, and furnished, as it were, with an eyelid—this peculiarity is in all the replicas), the flatness of the

abdomen, the straight line of the pubes, the swelling glutaei, &c.,—all these are archaic elements. On the other hand, the general modelling and the rhythmical treatment of the whole figure are not far from the perfection of the masterpieces of Pheidias. Whoever has studied the anatomical proportions of the human body cannot fail to see that there is the greatest organic unity in this work! According to its execution it cannot be of earlier origin than the Aeginetan marbles, and not later than the Discobolos of Myron. Conze and several other archaeologists have thought it probable that the Apollo was the work of the sculptor Kalamis, whose life falls within this epoch, and he conjectures that it may be a replica of the Apollo Alexikakos? in Athens by that sculptor. But this statue has not the pediaya ceuvòv nab XeXndós,® not the softness and sweetness which is chiefly characteristic of this sculptor. A small Athenian altar with relief, which Overbeck‘ believes to illustrate the style of Kalamis, together with a Calabrian terra-cotta representing Hermes and Aphrodite with Eros in her arms, published by Michaelis, may give us an impression of what the style of Kalamis was like. Far more unfounded is the recent assertion of Furtwaengler® that the “Omphalos Apollo corresponds to the style of Alcamenes.” In fact the style of our statue is not purely Attic; it hasa large admixture of the Peloponnesian severity and dryness, while again it cannot be classed among the Peloponnesian works, and cannot be ascribed to any of the artists of Argos and Sikyon. By this negative method of exclusion there remains but one sculptor in this age, Pythagoras of Rhegion, famous for his athlete statues, who was neither an Attic nor a Peloponnesian sculptor. 1 I cannot refrain from quoting the exclamation of an artist of repute upon examining the London statue in my presence ; it was: ‘Mantegna!’ 2 Paus. i. 3, 4. 3 Lucian, Zmagg. 6. Bild. Künstler bei den Griechen. 95, 98. Pp. 4 Gesch. d. griech. Plastik, i. p. 219. 5 Annali dell’ Inst. 1867, tav. d’agg. D. Cf. Overbeck, Antiken Schriftquellen zur Gesch. d. 6 Mittheilungen des deutschen archaeolog. Instituts in Athen, 1880, p. 37.

PyTHAGORAS of Rhegion! flourished between the 70th and 80th Olympiad. We have two fixed dates on his works, Ol. 73, and Ol. 77. Pliny’s statement that he flourished in the 90th Olympiad, is decidedly an error, and is to be attributed (as Brunn has shown) to his assumption that, as Pythagoras was contemporary with Myron, and Myron with Polycleitos, Pythagoras lived as late as the latter. According to Pausanias,? he was a pupil of Klearchos, who again was a pupil of Eucheiros of Corinth, whose master was Syadras of Sparta. He is chiefly known and praised for his athlete statues. And that this was his strong point is evident from the simple fact that of his fourteen statues which are mentioned by ancient authors, eight were of athletes, while of the remaining six, two again, the winged Perseus? and the contest between Eteokles and Polyneikes,* were athletic in character. Only one female figure is mentioned as by him, the Europa on the Bull?; here we do not know enough to form any opinion. The remaining statues were probably all nude men. It appears that he excelled in rendering the nude male form. How excellent his work was and how highly it was appreciated becomes evident not only from the fact that, as has before been quoted from Pliny, he gained a victory over Myron with his statue of a pancratiast, but from the praise which classical authors bestow upon him. If we bear in mind how sober an author Pausanias was, and how sparing he is with his praise, we can appreciate the weight of his remark on the statue of the pugilist Euthymus by Pythagoras, Oéas és ra uarıcra àä£uos ;® and when we bear in mind that, a few lines after his high praise of the artist Pythagoras with regard to his statue of the 1 Brunn, Geschichte der Griech. Künstler, i. pp. 132, et seq. ; Beulé, 4 Tatian, c. Graec. 54, p. 118 (ed. North). Histoire de V Art grecque avant Péricles, 5 Tatian, c. Graec. 58, p. 116; Varro, p. 405; Overbeck, Gesch. d. griech. PI. i., p. 202. de Ling. Lat, v. 31; Cic. in Verr. iv. 60, 135. 3 Dio Chrysost. Orat. 37, 10.

wrestler Leontiskos! feiwep tis Kai äXXos dyahos Ta és mractixyv), he simply says of Pheidias, évexa kal rs és ra ayarpata Tod beadiov copias,—we can then see in what high appreciation this artist was held. But we know that he was not merely a clever follower of his masters, but that he greatly contributed to the advancement of art, that he was an innovator. So we learn from Pliny:? Hic primus nervos et venas expressit capillumque diligentius. The primus and mp@rov in such a context is not always to be translated literally ‘the first,’ or ‘the first time,’ but it means that something has been done with full consciousness, that it is a marked step in advance. The hair of our pugilist is more carefully worked out than in similar earlier or contemporary works, eg. the Aeginetans. Nervos really means sinews, and Pliny means that he essentially advanced in the rendering of muscles and sinews. The way in which the muscles and sinews are treated in the pugilist we are dealing with is unprecedented in early art. Finally, I have already mentioned the veins as peculiarly pronounced in all the four replicas of this statue. They are no doubt exaggerated, and I have attributed this to the desire of the artist to express the habitual exertion of the upper part of the body in this person; yet even with this consideration there remains a degree of clumsiness and exaggeration in the pronounced indication of veins in this statue which points to the fact that it is a new thing. Moderation is a result of maturity. A beginner in art is apt to exaggerate in drawing and in colour ; an artist who begins to indicate that which was not indicated before will render it more pronouncedly than he will later on, when he is accustomed to it. From the way in which the veins are here indicated, not only on the shoulder and the upper arm, but on the inner side of the arm down to the wrist, and on the foot (sometimes not quite with anatomical correctness) we feel that this was an early attempt. On earlier archaic statues there is no indication of veins. I have carefully examined the Aeginetan marbles, and have found that on the western pediment the indication of veins is very rare, and so to say, timidly ventured upon. Besides the Achilles there are three others who have very slight indications on parts that are

strained.! On the eastern pediment, however, the figures have a highly-developed system of veins, as clear as in the case of the pugilist. It is universally accepted that the temple of Athene at Aegina was built about the 75th Olympiad. Now it is also accepted that the style of the eastern pediment is far more advanced than that of the western pediment. Either there was a great revolution, or rather reformation, within the style of the artist after he had completed the western pediment, or else the older artist died before the temple was completed, and one of his younger pupils or sons who was of the ‘more modern’ school, completed the work of his father or master in the eastern pediment, while he in general retained the style of the western pediment, but especially in the execution of details gave way to his later acquisitions. Pythagoras was already an artist of repute in the 73rd, or at least the 74th Ol, and the striking difference in the eastern and western pediment with regard to the expression of veins justifies the hypothesis that in the western pediment the artist was not wholly under the influence of the innovation of Pythagoras, while in the eastern pediment he freely laid himself open to it.? But this passage in Pliny is not restricted to the three points (nervos, venas, capillum) which he enumerates, but seems to express the general excellency of the modelling, the indication of texture in the statues of Pythagoras. And the whole weight of this dictum can only become clear to us when we bring this passage into connexion with what Diogenes Laertius says of Pythagoras:® mpa@rov Soxodvta puôuod Kai ovppetpias eotoxasdaı. I believe that those * who formerly commented on this passage, though they justly conceived its weight, were more or less unconsciously biassed by the application of the word rhythm to poetry. Rhythm, as here applied to plastic art, is not imme1 The dying one to the left, the arm make a clear but simple chronological on which he rests; so also Achilles ; also the second figure to left, and on statement, I may merely say that Pythagoras was to his older contemporary, Onatas of Aegina, as Myron was the foot of the kneeling hoplite on the right side. 2 Instances in which younger artists have influenced the style of their older contemporaries are frequent. I need only adduce Raphael and Francia. To to Pythagoras, and as Polycleitos and Pheidias were to Myron. 3 viii. 46. 4 Brunn and Overbeck, J.¢.

diately connected with rhythm in poetry,’ and at all events plastic rhythm does not derive its meaning from poetic rhythm with the Greeks. The word pvYuös, in the first instance, is to be translated simply by ‘flow.’ While symmetry is an architectural idea, the exact accordance between the two halves of one body, which forms the essential quality of architecture, rhythm is a plastic idea, has its essence in a certain deviation from this absolute equality, and is the characteristic of sculpture. Symmetry implies and expresses the lasting, uniform and inorganic; rhythm implies change, the organic, as sculpture deals with animal life. Life manifests itself to our senses in motion, flow, and change; life is individual, and the individual consists in a deviation from the absolutely regular. Archaic sculpture was too architectural, and in the regularity of its figures it counteracted all appearance of individuality, and the statues did not produce the effect of vitality. It expressed symmetry to the exclusion of rhythm. The innovation of Pythagoras was, that he added this flowing,. irregular element to art, and thereby contributed to the appearance of vitality. But he kept within the bounds of what is pleasing to the human eye, which demands a certain regularity ; and though he furthered rhythm, he did not do it to the exclusion of symmetry. While infusing the greatest life into his statues, he kept within the bounds of what we should call plastic composition, in which certain elements of living nature are eliminated, others accentuated, and all are bound together by the unity of form. This harmony between life and form is the most characteristic feature of Greek art. Now within this general definition of rhythm and its relation to symmetry, we can distinguish several stages: a. Vitality is in the first place given to the statue by means of the continuous flow of the surface. Each smallest part of the surface in a good statue must have the resemblance of moving and vibrating like the skin of a real body, which never presents a geometrically straight line, but is a continuous succession of elevations or recessions, arsis and thesis—that is, it flows. Vitality must, as it were, stream into the clay through 1 Aristotle (Rhetor. 3, 8) distinguishes between pérpoy and fu@uds, in assigning the former to poetry and the H. S.— VOL, I. latter to prose.—Cf. Plato, Zeg. 2, init. Dionys. Hal. De Comp. Verb., ch. ii. p. 56, ed. Reiske.

the fingers of the modelling artist. The difference in this respect between Greek works and Roman copies that were made to order like mechanical ware will illustrate the difference between a statue possessed of this vitality of texture and one which is wanting in this first requisite. The statue we are dealing with, though a copy from the bronze original, is still an excellent Greek copy. Each part of the surface is carefully and thoroughly executed, and the difference in texture between the hair, the skin, and the stem of the tree is clearly indicated. To attain this effect, besides the feeling of form which must be inherent in the artist, much and intense work is needed. Hasty modelling (unless it is meant to be a sketch) can never convey vitality. The same holds good in all arts. The organic quality, the continuity of composition in literary work can only be attained when the subject has been thoroughly and for a long while revolved in the brain of the author, or has been modelled and remodelled during the process of fixing it on paper. But the texture of the surface varies in appearance in accordance with what is below it, which it covers. As it covers bone or muscle or softer material, so will its appearance be different. This difference the sculptor must indicate by means of modelling, he must look deeper than the mere superficial appearance to what anatomically lies below, as the cause of the phenomenal difference. But in poor work the muscles, joints, &c., are indicated by means of simple elevations that do not gradually rise and fall, are not intermediated—they seem put together ; while-in good work the transition is gradual, the lines are not torn asunder— all flows together, as in nature. An excellent instance of this is furnished by our statue, the earliest statue in which we notice this quality. Finally, each distinct part of the body has a character of its own: an arm, a leg, the neck—all have a distinguishable character in their form and texture from the torso itself, and this difference of appearance must be rendered in a good statue. The artists who made the earliest works which have come down to us could not do this. What Pliny says of Pythagoras, that he was the first clearly to express sinews and veins, and that he rendered hair more carefully, is an incomplete way (by enumeration of a few attributes for the essence of the thing) of expressing, that Pythagoras was the first to infuse vitality into his statues by means of the indication of

natural texture in the surface of the human body. And this is the first stage in the realisation of plastic puôuos. b. Rhythm, the organic quality of a work of sculpture, is furthermore to be found in the relation which subsists between the parts of the body among each other and between the parts and the body as a whole. Here symmetry begins to be manifestly and organically connected with rhythm. In the first place, no part must be out of proportion with the whole. The leg must be of a certain dimension in proportion to the arm, the neck of a certain thickness and length in comparison to the width of the shoulders, &c., and all members must bear a certain relation to the size and physical character of the whole figure. But in the second place this well-proportioned figure must not appear architectural, but must impress us with the life which is essential to the animal organism which it represents. Such life manifests itself to us in the moving power of the organism. An architectural edifice must above all impress us with its immovability; its power of lasting and remaining unchanged. This quality becomes manifest to our senses, e.g. in that the columns are all parallel and of equal height, so that the roof rests firmly on them. But movement in nature, physical motion, is a deviation from this absolute regularity and sameness ; it is not represented by a straight line, but a spiral, wavy line—it flows. We notice this throughout nature ; in its grosser appearance it is the system of alternation, A diagram of the succession of the branches of a tree shows us a-spiral growth. Animals and human beings in walking move their legs alternately ; nay, in walking we move the arm and the corresponding leg in an opposed direction, and this very opposition between the upper and lower half of our body is one of the chief causes of progression in walking. Now the Archaic statues of a date before our athlete have both legs firmly planted, the one before the other, and the body is equally balanced between the two. It is the same principle as that which subsists in the columns in architecture, and this adds to the impression of lifelessness which these early works convey to us; they do not suggest movement. In our statue, however, the weight is thrown upon the right leg, while the left leg is comparatively unfreighted. This is the plastic rhythm which has been introduced into this work, and

has superseded the autocracy of architectural symmetry which reigned supreme previous to this epoch. This gives the statue the potentiality of moving, and actually gives it the appearance of inner movement to and fro, and from one leg to the other (as in the indication of texture the skin seems to vibrate), while the restful firm position on the one leg gives the monumental quiet which works of sculpture need. We shall presently see how this position of the legs in connexion with the attitude of the upper part of the body serves to give expression to a still higher stage of rhythm. The Germans express this in distinguishing between Standbein and Spielbein, the leg of rest and the leg of play; and it was generally believed, from a note in Pliny, that this was an innovation of Polycleitos. But this cannot possibly be so; for the violently moving figures of Myron, and even the Aeginetan marbles, are a stage further in the expression of motion. And yet, when Pliny says of Polycleitos, Proprium eius est uno crure ut insisterent signa excogitasse,! there must be some meaning and truth in what he says, though again we need here not conceive this as if literally for the very first time such a thing had been done, but as habitually, with full consciousness and accentuation. It is clear that some innovation must have been introduced. The mere resting on one leg it cannot mean. As is so frequently the case, the monuments lead us to the correct interpretation of the literary passage. All the numerous replicas of the Doryphoros and Diadumenos of Polycleitos represent the figure as striding forward. The one leg is placed forward, while the other, merely touching the ground with the toes, is dragged behind. This is no doubt a step in advance in the expression of motion, and is much more ‘uno crure insistere, than in our statue, where the left leg, though relatively free, still fully touches the ground and bears some part of the weight. Michaelis,’ I am pleased to find, has given exactly the same interpretation to this passage. c. The third stage, in which rhythm and vitality are expressed in statues, is in the harmony between all parts and the uniform physical character and the situation of the figure. This would be, for instance, if all the parts united to convey the impression 1 N. H. xxxiv. 56. 2 Annali dell’ Instit. 1878, pp. 28 and 29. Cf. Blümner in Rhein. Museum, vol. 32, p. 593, and Petersen, Arch. Zeit. 1864, p. 131.

of a strong or a weak man in relaxation or exertion. This statue of a pugilist must represent a strong man, and so each part of the body is in keeping with this salient feature ; an arm or leg, or a foot found alone could immediately be identified as belonging toastrong man. But it isin the way in which the parts combine to one attitude that the special nature of this athlete is expressed. He stands firmly, and we almost feel how he presses the ground with his right foot; and this is indicated in the way in which the muscle above the knee stands forth markedly, and the ankle is curved,—he is pressing back the knee. The muscles of the calf are also strongly pronounced. The shoulders are pressed back in the position of the ephedros, while the chest is pressed forward. The more the chest is pressed forward, the more must the lower part of the back and the spine recede. This position, however, if we stand equally on both feet, becomes stiff and unnatural; but the exertion of the upper part of the body is compensated as soon as we throw the weight more on one leg.* This compensation of rhythm is carried still further in what may be called ‘crossed rhythm’ (ytacpés), to which Brunn has drawn attention in: his recent article on a ‘ Tipo statuario di atleta.’? This rhythmic compensation becomes still more evident in the fact that, while below the waist the balance of our figure dips towards the right, that of the parts above draws towards the left. The palm-branch he held in his hand no doubt added to this effect, and counteracted the heaviness in composition produced on the right side below by the tree-stem. Were we to imitate an orator projecting his left hand, we should naturally throw the weight of the body on the right leg. This is in figures in rest. In actual movement in a forward direction, the right arm will recede while the right foot advances, and vice vers. This, as Brunn has pointed out, is not to be found in the earliest works. We meet this expression of rhythm for the first time in our statue. How far Pythagoras had advanced in rhythmical expression becomes evident when Pliny® tells us that the spectator almost felt the pain of 1 It is most important for one who studies these questions to imitate himself the position of statues. In fragmentary condition. 2 Annali, 1879, p. 201, segq. many cases this is the simplest method ef recognising how a statue must claudicantem, cujus ulceris dolorem sentire etiam spectantes videntur.’ Overbeck, Schriftquellen, &c. No. 499. have been, which we see in a very 8 xxxiv. ‘Syracusis autem

the ‘limping one’ (Philoctetes) by Pythagoras. But this merely means physical pain, and not moral grief. And here we have the limit of the artistic powers of Pythagoras. There are still higher stages in the development of plastic rhythm,! to which Pythagoras did not attain; but these belong to a later period. They are the expression of moral character and individual mood in plastic rhythm. The statue of the pugilist which we have been considering affords the best illustration for the various stages of rhythm, so far as we have traced them. At the same time the pleasing outline of the composition, the symmetry of the whole, is blended in harmony with its flowing vitality. And thus the positive evidence also leads us to assign this work to Pythagoras. If, finally, we look amongst the recorded works of this sculptor for one which corresponds to this statue, we find that we can, with the greatest hypothetical probability, consider this a copy of the statue of the pugilist Euthymos,? which Pausanias considered so worthy of admiration; we know that this statue existed in many copies. To account for the great strength of very famous athletes, the Greeks in several instances ascribed to them divine origin. So the Thasians maintained that Heracles took the form of the 1 The completion of the examination of this most important factor of plastic art I must defer to a special inquiry on rhythm. 2 Since the above was written Mr. Percy Gardner has drawn my attention to an inscription from a base at Olympia, published by E. Curtius, Arch. Zeit, xxxvi. p. 88. thesis would be finally verified or disproved. Pythagoras here calls himself a Samian. Pliny (xxxiv. 60) is the only author who makes two persons of the Samian and Rhegian. Urlichs has shown some time ago (Chrestomathia Pliniana, p. 320) that Pythagoras belonged to the Samian emigrants who This base belonged were induced by Anaxilas the tyrant of to the statue of Euthymos : Ev@upos Aokpòs ’AvrırAdovus Tpls "OA dure evikwv, eindva d'écrnoer Thvde Bporoîs écopür. Ev@upos Aokpds Amd Zepuplov Aveßnke Rhegion to settle in Zankle (subsequently called Messana). This town Tlvdaydpas Sdutos emoinoer. Dr. Weil mentions a cavity on the top of the base, 0,41 metres in length probably admitting a plinth. If anythingcould be ascertained with regard to the position of the feet of the statue that stood on this pedestal, my hypocame under the sway of Anaxilas, and so Pythagoras could naturally call himself a Samian or a Rhegian. This may have induced a Syracusan comic writer to make a jest of ‘the two persons who looked so very much alike,’ and this was probably the source from which Pliny gathered his information regarding the two sculptors and the striking resemblance between them.

father of the famous athlete Theagenes! and begot him. Euthymos? was reputed to be the son of the river-god Kaekinos. After death they became heroes: so the pugilists Kleomedes,? Theagenes, and Euthymos. They were then adored, as was natural, as a kind of minor gods who bestowed physical strength upon their adorers. Their statues were placed all over the country, at the roadsides, on public places, and in the gymnasia. Pausanias says of Theagenes: ‘I also know that statues of Theagenes are erected in many places within and beyond Greece, and that he heals sicknesses and receives adoration as a god. The statue which he has in the Altis is by Glaukias of Aegina.’ I think it not improbable that the so-called Strangford ‘ Apollo,’ * which is doubtlessly an athlete, and in the style of work corresponds exactly to Archaic Aeginetan art of the time of Glaukias, may be a copy of the statue of Theagenes. Now Euthymos is held in equal honour. Fabulous feats, such as the expulsion of the Black Spirit who ‘haunted Temessa (or Thempsa), are ascribed to him. Pausanias also saw an illustration of this feat on the copy of a painting. ‘He arrived at a very advanced age (so Pausanias proceeds), and left this earth, without dying, in a peculiar manner.’ He was worshipped as a hero, and, as we know from a passage in Pliny, there must have been many copies of his statue scattered about, for Pliny tells us of two that were struck by lightning on the same day.’ All these circumstances make it highly probable that the so-called Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo, together with the so-called Apollo on the Omphalos and the other replicas of this statue, are copies of the statue of the pugilist Euthymos by Pythagoras of Rhegion. In the beginning of this inquiry I pointed to the fact that before Greek art could arrive at the height in which in Athens 1 Paus. vi. 11. 2 Paus. vi. 6. 3 Paus. vi. 9. 4 Said to come from the island of Anaphe.—Newton, Essays on Art and „Archaeology, London, 1880, p. 81. 5 N. H. vii. 152. ‘Consecratus est vivos sentiensque eiusdem oraculi iussu et Iovis deorum summi adstipulatu Euthymus pycta, semper Olympiae victor et semel victus. Patria ei Locriin Italia. Ibi imaginem eius et Olympiae alteram eodem die tactam fulmine Callimachum ut nihil aliud miratum video,’ &c. Overbeck, Schriftquellen,

Pheidias infused with ideal forms the figures which he rendered true to nature, perfection in the technical handling of the material had to precede. The history of Archaic art in Greece is the history of the struggle of the artistic spirit with the reluctant material, and its final victory over it. Now if we consider the sculptor Pythagoras in this connexion we find that he holds the most prominent position in the consummation of this end. The earliest works are architectural, to the exclusion of vitality. And the struggle will now be for a combination of vitality and regularity of form in the full harmony of the organic body. But the progression was not simple; we find extreme action in one direction, and reaction back to another. And yet the whole movement is progressive. Greek art was not like Oriental art in clinging to fixed forms. The Greeks clung to nature, and learnt from her. In the seated figures of the Branchidae from the Sacred Way near Miletus we have this want of vitality, and the extreme reaction to a formless attempt at imitating nature sets in in works like the earlier metopes from the temple of Selinus. In Athens there will be this harmony; but the Athenian spirit, with its keen sense for movement and vitality, will transgress the bounds of the law of form which we notice in the dry and stern figures of early Peloponnesian reliefs. And so, though a keen sense for rhythm and texture is already manifest in the archaic seated Athene on the Acropolis, still there is an absence of the stern regularity which exists in Archaic Peloponnesian work to the exclusion of vitality. The Athenian spirit for rhythm will have to be transfused with the Peloponnesian spirit for symmetry. Symmetry and rhythm were first combined by Pythagoras of Rhegion, and it is more than mere chance that Rhegion, originally a Chalcidian settlement, received a large body of Messenians at the close of the Messenian war, and that the teacher of Pythagoras held Peloponnesian traditions in his art. No fitter person could have effectuated this final step. But Pythagoras was not universal. He did not excel in rendering the female figure, and though he was proficient in the correct modelling of the form and the manifestation of masculine strength, he was wanting in the power to give expression to grace and sweetness. The female form and the treatment of drapery were also neglected by him. This gap was filled by Kalamis. Now the soil is prepared

for the richest fruit. But again the restless Athenian spirit is about to transgress in the direction of rhythm, to the detriment of symmetry, in the distorta and elaborata (as Quintilian would call them) figures of Myron. But the artistic tact and the power and genius of Pheidias are a safeguard against any violent reaction, and the highest period of artistic manifestation is arrived at, in which great and beautiful ideas and natural and pleasing forms are united in the harmony of one work of art. CHARLES WALDSTEIN.

PL. IV,

KN N ANS

PL. VI.

Pythagoras of Rhegion and the Early Athlete Statues (Continued) Author(s): Charles Waldstein Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 2 (1881), pp. 332-351 Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/623575 . Accessed: 23/05/2013 12:34 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ATHLETE STATUES. SECOND ARTICLE. I. SINCEwhat I last wrote on the subject of Pythagoras of Rhegion in this Journal,1 much evidence has accumulated to verify what was then brought forward in a more or less hypothetical form. I was greatly encouraged to carry on this research by the sympathetic criticism of archaeologists both published and privately communicated, but all, with one slight exception, evidently written with the view of facilitating an increase of information,of advancing the common object-the study of classical archaeology. Among the published criticisms, I have received the greatest stimulus to continue my research from the reports 2 of a lecture delivered by Professor C. T. Newton at University College, London, in January of this year; and, among the unpublished, a letter from Professor Michaelis with a full and detailed criticism; while the fact that in the Berlin Museum of Casts the 'Apollo' is now entirely severed from the 'Omphalos,' and that, in the new catalogue 3 of the Museum of Casts at Munich the words 'nicht zugehorigen,' are inserted into the phrase 'Apollo auf dem Omphalos' is the most important of confirmations I have received from without: for, it was the possible, and formerly firmly maintained, association of the statue with the I No. I. pp. 168-201. The Times of January 10th, and fuller in the Builder of the same week. 2 SKurzes Verzeichniss des Museums von Gypsabgitssen, Klass. Bildwerke in Miinchen, No. 218, B. This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

omphalos as its base that I felt to be the only positive evidence against my hypothetical assumption. Still, it will ever remain a most difficult task to convey to others, with anything like adequate convincing power, the actual weight of an inner conviction which has grown gradually in time, passing through many stages of individual confirmation, and confirmation, moreover, which often came from quarters where the facts seemed at first to run counter to it. Such inner workings of the mind which lead to conviction cannot, from their very organic quality, be imparted fully and at once to others, even if they are not previously biassed in having formed differing opinions on the same subject. It is like attempting to transfer to a third person the faith one has in a friend, which has arisen almost unconsciously with the first touch of sympathy, has grown with long acquaintance, and has become fixed and fastened by his actions under the most varying circumstances. Such an organism of faith and well-founded inner feeling cannot be taken asunder into words and reunited together in half-anhour's conversation, so that it will present a new organism with all the life which growth in time and under favouring circumstances has given it. To continue the simile: it is in some cases only the specialist who has the means of forming so intimate an acquaintance with certain questions of his study, it is only he who lives in that atmosphere in which he can see the subtle bearing of each smallest manifestation upon the particular question and can feel and appreciate the relation it holds to the whole-as the friend can see the weight of each trivial action in the light of the whole character of his friend. But science cannot heed the inner workings of the mind of even the greatest of its especial professors, it cannot attach any weight to the feelings of the researcher-so long as they remain feelings. It is one of the great tasks of the man of science to study, to recognise, and to enumerate the causes of his belief, recognise and impart the origin of his feelings. He must, by his method of exposition, force the reader to make the synthesis anew, so that he re-creates in the reader the conviction which before was only in his own mind. But if the exponent is not to depend upon subjective support he can at least claim that the reader be not subjective in the way he receives the evidence. Yet here it is frequently the case that This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

each exoteric reader sets himself against making any attempt at combining into life the various arguments, but selects from them all one or a group which, by experience or disposition, lies nearest to him, and bases upon this his acceptance or rejection of an hypothesis. The nature of an hypothesis, however, generally is that it does not originate from or wholly depend upon one argument only, but that the sum of all the reasons together produce that high degree of probability. In the present case of the identification of the Choiseul-Gouffier statue with Pythagoras of Rhegion, we must also not forget that there is a negative way of testing the tenability of the hypothesis, and we must ask: if not this, what then ? The third possibility of entirely withholding our judgment will not hold good. For the statue exists and has been the subject of published discussion (and if it had not it would be high time that it should be); and the notices concerning Pythagoras exist and have been commented upon, and an omission of this important figure in the history of Greek Art would make that history incomplete; it is therefore the duty of archaeologists to fix and make perfect our notions both about the statue and about the sculptor Pythagoras. The question then must be asked: If this statue is not an athlete, what is it ? If an Apollo, enumerate the reasons for this belief, and compare them with those in favour of an athlete. For the fact of his having previously been called Apollo, does not, to say the least, make it unnecessary to prove why he is so called. There can be no question of a shifting of the burden of proof in such a case. Priority or antiquity of statement is not, as it may be in the practice of law, equivalent to a certain quantity of evidence which gives it a start in proof before all other claimant propositions. It is this very unconscious inference by analogy which makes people set themselves against a correction of an earlier statement, even though it be manifestly more probable on equal grounds of inquiry. On the contrary, we may say, that the tendency in modern times, ever since the mania for seeing subjects representing scenes from the 'mysteries' which raged even thirty years ago has subsided, has been to rob many an illustration of its divine or religious character, and to bring it much nearer the hearth and human life. Greek art represented much more of the life that was about it than was formerly supposed: the sepulchral slabs have been most in- This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STATUES. structive in this respect. Many a so-called Apollo and Hermes will have to quit his divine epithet and descend to the character of a simple ephebus or a particular athlete.' The question must further be asked: If this statue represents an athlete and is not by Pythagoras, by whom is it ? Exception might be taken to the putting of this question; for it may be objected, that it may belong to a sculptor or a school unknown to archaeologists, Yet this objection will not hold good, for the host of passages in the numerous authors relating to Greek art make it more than probable that no great sculptor and school have been omitted, and no very celebrated work of such a sculptor. Now, if any athlete statue exists in as many replicas as does this statue, one is justified in concluding that it must have been, not only the work of a celebrated sculptor, but also an individual statue of much repute. Then let the answer to both these questions be compared with the reasons for this attribution of the ' pugilist ' to Pythagoras of Rhegion on equal grounds, and whichever is weightier let it be considered the better hypothesis, that is, the best explanation of facts about which it is our duty to know something. But I may hope that with the confirmation now given the subject has been, if not lifted entirely out of the sphere of the probable into the sphere of the certain, yet at least placed so high in probability that it practically is on the very boundary line between these two phases of human knowledge. II. It appears from the report of Mr. Newton's lecture that he ranges the arguments adduced in the first paper under two heads, those that go to prove that the statue under consideration is not an Apollo, and those that tend to show that it is an 1 But we must also take a warning from the evils of a former 'fashion,' and not, in combating this very exaggeration run to the other extreme of overhumanising Greek art, of seeing scenes from human life everywhere, and of ignoring the fact that, after all, divinities were the subjects most commonly thought worthy of artistic representation by the Greek artists. This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

OF RHEGION PYTHAGORAS athlete and the work of a particular sculptor, Pythagoras. Strange to say, Mr. Newton looks with greater favour than I could have possibly expected upon the arguments I have adduced to show that the statue is an athlete and may probably be the work of Pythagoras, yet does not consider that the arguments that go to show that it is not an Apollo are so conclusive. Others, however, consider the first part of the paper to prove its point beyond any doubt, while they hesitate to accept the second half. Some archaeologists think I am right in the positive part and wrong in the negative, others, that I am right in the negative and wrong in the positive; so that between the two I am either wholly right or wholly wrong. However, I prefer to accept their joint verdict in so far as it is positive. No evidence has been adduced to show that the conclusions I arrived at in the first paper concerning the typical head-dress of the early athletes, in contradistinction to divinities, were unfounded. These conclusions were based upon a great number of instances of ancient monuments quoted in that paper, and a considerable number which I met with in the various museums of Europe, and which I judged unnecessary to add to the list of evidence. Quite recently again I have seen several bronzes in the museum at Berlin which entirely bear out my conclusion -nay, even serve to show that for some of the lighter games, such as the throwing of the discus, even long hair floating down the back was worn. A most noteworthy instance of this is the stele with a diskophoros,1an archaic monument found under the ruins of the old Themistoclean wall at Athens. At all events, I may say that I have found numerous archaic figures whose attitude, attributes, or if paintings environment, evidently show them to be athlreteswith the hair braided after the manner of the Choiseul-Gouffier statue; while I have not met with a single work with similar hair which, from other reasons, can be shown without a doubt to be an Apollo. It is hardly necessary to say that the enumeration of a number of busts or heads, or ignorantly restored statues, which have been called Apollos, can not be used as evidence on either side of the question, especially since the Athenian statue and the Omphalos have been shown to be in no way connected. I have vainly endeavoured to find the first instance in which this type 1 Overbeck, Geschichteder Griech. Plastik., 3rd ed., vol. I. p. 152. This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of head has been described in print as that of an Apollo, and which since has fixed it in archaeological literature; and I must attribute it to the habit of early archaeologists to consider every youthful and beardless figure that came to light from the classical world to be an Apollo, as most bearded figures were named Zeus or Jupiter. But as I have before said, the prolonged continuance of a proposition put forth in a period when archaeology was comparatively in its infancy cannot be a claim to more ready acceptance. To show that this type of head is that of an Apollo, it will be necessary to adduce at least as many figures undoubtedly Apollos with this arrangement of hair as I have enumerated instances of undoubted athletes. And this will be especially called for in an instance in which we have to deal with that marked illustration of bodily strength and with that peculiar athletic attitude which is found in the Choiseul-Gouffier statue. I may here say that an anatomist of wide reputation, commenting upon the development of the pectoral muscles and the whole of the upper part of the body of the Lo'ndon statue, quite recently expressed his opinion that there could be no doubt of the intention of the sculptor to accentuate the strength of the man, especially in the upper part of the body. I must confess I was astonished to find that no notice was taken by my critics of one of the most important arguments, namely, the connexion between the attitude of the statue and the ever-recurring typical position of the ephedrosin the athletic contests. The Greeks had a firmly founded system of exercise and drill in the Palaestra for each special game, and this drill included numerous typical attitudes for each individual contest and the various stages of each contest. This drill, which amounted to sham fight, was called by them oickatax/a. Now, on innumerable vases we find, besides the judge and the two combatants, a third pugilist or pancratiast waiting for his turn in a constant and peculiar position, which was, we may say, 'attitude No. 1, before the fight.' The same is the case in boxing in our days, and still more in fencing. This preliminary position, moreover, with the arms and shoulders drawn back and the chest protruding, is a most rational one to the Greek's artistic eye, for it tells its story clearly; the most important part of such a man's body where his strength chiefly lies, is the This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

chest, arms, and shoulders. These typical positions in the were the most ready subjects for the Greek sculptor, o-lcataXia made his studies in the who Palaestra; and, as a matter chiefly of fact, the great number of monuments, statues, vases, figures, &c., representing the throwing of the discus that are extant, could readily, and with great profit, be used to show all the various stages of procedure in this game, from its preparation to the expectant attitude of the thrower after the discus has left his hand. Myron chose the moment of highest tension and of complex contortion in his representation of a discobolos, and we know from the notices of ancient authors that this suited his peculiar artistic nature which delighted in the expression of extreme vitality. If he were to have represented the pugilist it is likely that like some later artists he would have chosen from the various postures of the o-x~altaxla an attitude of actual engagement expressive of intense exertion. Not so the earlier artists and those of a more moderate and noble taste for what is most suitable for reproduction in sculpture. They would with preference choose the monumental attitude of the preliminary posture in the pugilistic contest, that of the Ephedros, as we see him on almost every vase representing a rvyiT), and as we see him in this statue in the British Museum. Professor Michaelis asks in his letter that I should explain to him the adjunct to the tree stump in front of the strap and the two puntelli above it, before he is preparedto accept my interpretation of the statue. Yet if I have shown that the strap on the stem is decidedly a himas, this evidence is not nullified by my incapacity to explain the other adjuncts. One thing is certain, that the projection in front of the strap is not the extremity of the lyre of an Apollo nor of any Apollinian attribute that I can think of. Mr. Newton confirms the athletic character of the attributes in holding this projection to be a plait. This may be so, though it is not very distinct. Yet if it is a broad plait or network the question still remains, what purpose it served ? And if I am bound to make some conjecture on the matter, I should with all caution draw the attention of archaeologists towards many vases with athletic scenes on which athletes carry their athletic implements (strigil, flask, &c.) in small nets very similar to those used for lawn-tennis balls with us. In some cases these nets are represented as hanging on the This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

wall together with other similar objects, and their pointed ends may bear some similarity with the end of this plaited adjunct. However, I must say, that it is not unlikely that this rough surface is meant rudely to indicate the bark of the knotty branch there chopped off, as the peculiar appearance at the bottom of the stem has no attributive meaning, but is merely an indication of a form continually to be met with in trees when the bark has split in places and a thick seam incloses the 5:? I: I FiI1 i ,i~ii:~ liiillitllllIIlIHII~\~ Ii ,iii ,i ,, . i• . I , iFIG 1. wound (if we may call it 'so) in the process of growth. The same applies to the first of the puntelli alluded to by Mfichaelis. This is simply the stump of the lopped off branch. Similar projections can be seen on almost every tree stump of the numerous statues that have them. I am very grateful to Professor Michaelis for having led me to examine more closely the uppermost of these small projections (Fig. 1). For I believe This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

that the.outline of the thumb which was broken away is distinctly visible on the fracture. The measurements of the arm show that the hand would reach to the top of the tree-stump. The action of the right arm would then be most natural. Similar to the ephedroson the vase published by Gerhard,' this pl' . j:. (:',. i FIG. 2. athlete would hold the himas passing through one hand between the thumb and palm over the first joint of the forefinger,and hanging down the side of the tree. The hand would thus be touching the edge of the stump. Thus, closing his hand through 1 Antike Bildwerke, Taf. vii. This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

which a strap is suspended, the thumb in a perpendicular position crossing the horizontal though upturned forefinger, will project downwards beyond the other fingers, the forefinger again projects downwards over the middle finger, the middle over the third, and so on. If the hand is turned up and examined, it presents the picture of four steps leading up to a pinnacle severed from the last by a small breadth. Now, above, and soinewhat behind this fracture of the thumb, a small piece is broken away from the top of the stem proper, which would well correspond to the place where the forefinger rested on the trunk. The remainder of the hand would have been free. The nature of the fractures will well bear out this assumption, and this becomes still more probable when we bear in mind that as the himas does not hang over a branch it must have been held in some way by the athlete. When once guided by the nature of the fractures on the tree stumps we have made this restoration, the position becomes most natural, in fact, the only possible one. The somewhat inadequate sketch (Fig. 2) will serve to illustrate this position. The arm could not have been further forward or else the shoulder would follow, while it is strongly drawn backward. The nature of the relaxed muscles of the upper arm as it is extant, show that the forearm must have gone down to the stump; or else the biceps would be contracted. If one imitates this natural position, one would immediately feel by "experiment " as it were, that this is the real position of a figure in such an attitude with regard to the upper part of the body. That this statue is that of an athlete, and more especially a pugilist, is finally confirmed when we compare it with the marble statue of the pugilist formerly in the Palazzo Gentili, and now in the Palazzo Albani (Fig. 3). I have previously noticed this work and quoted it from Clarac, yet the outline drawing was so incomplete that its important bearing upon our question was not evident to me. The similarity of attitude in the character of chest and shoulders down to the position of the feet is quite evident upon comparison. Professor v. Duhn has very kindly sent me the proof-sheets of his new edition of Matz's Antike Bildwerklein Bom, which contains a careful notice of all accessible monuments in the private collections in Rome, and it is from him that I have learned its This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

!~.: i i, i F:, ,• i, i This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

present position: for it is published 1 as being in the Palazzo Gentili. We here have the typical position of the pugilist, and, what is most important is that, though a great deal of the statue is restored,2the right forearm, with a part of the caestus and joining puntello, is original. This statue is no doubt of later date than those we are dealing with, yet it is a modified adaptation of the same athletic type. And though there may not be any similarity in the details of style and of modelling, there is something more than similarity in the subject represented: there may be a difference in 'the how' he is represented, but there is no difference in 'the what' is represented. The relation between the style of these two pugilists, if there is any, is of no concern to us; but for the present the Gentili pugilist finally shows that the statues in the British Museum, the Patissia Museum at Athens, &c., formerly called the ChoiseulGouffier Apollo, the Apollo on the Omphalos, &c., are not Apollos, but pugilists. III. I may hope to have proved definitely that the statue in question is that of a pugilist. The second point, the attribution of this work to Pythagoras of Rhegion has received further confirmation since it was first put in a hypothetical form. It will readily be seen that the fact that this statue represents a pugilist greatly adds to the probability of its proposed attribution. 1 Cf. Matz, Antike Bildwerke in Rom, new ed. p. 319 ; Ficoroni, Breve descriz. di tre particolari statue scopertesi in Roma, I'anno 1739, viii., &c. ; also in Raccolta d'opuscoli scientif. e filolog. pubbl. da A. Calogierah,vol. xxii., 491-506, Venezia 1740; Fea, Misc. i. cxxxv. 57, and, Singolarita. di Roma Moderna, 61; Gerhard, Antike Bildwerke,1xviii. 3 ; Clarac, P1. 858 D n., 2187 A. 2 The restoration was made for the Marchesa Gentili by Vincenzo Pacetti between 1770 and 1775. Mem. Enciclop. iii., 85. It is not quite certain whether the antique head belongs to this statue or not. In it are restored the nose and a piece of the left eyebrow. Further restorations are : the neck, the left hand, right upper arm, and right hand (the fore-arm, with puntello, is original), and both legs, the right from above the knee down, the left frombelow the knee, also trunk and base. Cf. v. Duhn, Matz, 1.c. The restorations are marked with dotted lines in our engraving. This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

For, among the sculptors before Pheidias, there is no other to whom such a work could be attributed, while Pythagoras of Rhegion was a sculptor of athlete statues par excellence,among which that of a heroified pugilist, Euthymos, was most celebrated and frequently copied. Moreover this sculptor, according to the ancients, was 'the first' to express sinews and veins and to aim at the expression of rhythm and symmetry in his works. It is inconceivable how the 'archaising' mania should have impaired the vision of some archaeologists even with regard to this work, and it can only be explained by a circumstance to which I have previously drawn attention, namely, that the very incongruity of an athlete on an omphalos to which the statue did not properly fit, gave the whole work a want of unity which is the chief characteristic of the later archaising schools, such as that of Pasiteles. I readily take this opportunity of again impressing upon those who have had the great merit to discover a current in the later Greek art which more or less consciously strove towards the reproduction of remote and even conventional styles, that in all the work of the later copyists there is the unavoidable tendency towards introducing the innovations of their contemporary art. This tendency may be called modernising, and its involuntary influence upon the bondfide copy of a work remote in antiquity, would readily produce an effect in some respects similar to that of a new creation with a conscious attempt at reproducing the characteristics of an early art. There is nothing severely archaic in this work, no evident attempt at reproducing the imperfections of an artistic technique which is in its infancy, except perhaps the exaggeration and clumsiness of the indication of veins, and this is a most important positive argument in favour of our attribution. The general modelling in all the parts of the surface is not inferior to the composition of the whole figure. The germs of the very highest power of representing the surface of the human body in its full vitality, the naturalness of the pose, the combination of each member with the main body, while, on the other hand, a certain simplicity, almost severity, still binds this posture, and is more evidently cast over the face-all this points most definitely towards that period of transition from quaint archaism to the highest freedom of Pheidiac art. This mixture of freedom with traces This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STATUES. of constraint and unobtrusive severity similarly marks the period of transition in the history of Italian painting; and the unprejudiced exclamation of the modern painter upon seeing the London statue 'Maintegna', was a great confirmation of the conclusion towards which I had been driven through so many definite reasons. Should this statue appear too free in its style for a work of Pythagoras, I would direct the attention of the archaeologist to the Aegina marbles, and remind him of the fact that they are contemporary, and that the Epyao-ia Aleyvata was considered hard in style by the ancients 1; and I would beg him to examine the extreme freedom of the works of Myron, who was but a few years younger than Pythagoras, and who was vanquished by his senior with the Delphic Pancratiast.2 And if some consider it too archaic, I would recall to their minds that, after all, Pythagoras is not yet Pheidias, nay, that he is, in the midst of this transition, one of its most powerful agents; that he is the innovator, as is evident from the passages in which he is primus and to have added new freedom to his works. And they -rpCowro must furthermore bear in mind that the idea of constraint which was suggested to them by the back-drawn shoulders bearing some similarity to the cramped position of some very archaic works, and in which K6hler 3 saw the marked archaism of the figure, has a definite intended meaning in the representation of a pugilist-ephedros, and cannot therefore be compared to the stiffness which is the result of the early artist's incapacity to represent the easy, natural 'flow of life.' The question must be asked, How did archaeologists conceive a statue by Pythagoras ? And here it was most interesting to me to learn from the letter of Professor Michaelis that he had formerly thought of this very statue as an illustration of the art of Pythagoras, and had even mentioned this in some of his lectures. It is not unlikely that the appearance of Conze's essay on'The Apollo on the Omphalos' made him desist from prosecuting his research in this direction. The mischievous archaising theory must be dropped in 1 Paus. v. 25, 12; Quintil. Inst. Orat. xii. 10, 7, ' duriora et Tuscanicis proxima Callon atque Hegesias, iam minus rigida Calamis,' &c. Cf. OverII.S.-VOL. II. beck, Sq. pp. 81 and 82. 2 Plin. xxxiv. 59, 8. 3 As quoted in my first paper. This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PYTHAGORAS OF RHEGION connexion with this statue. Its origin can be very easily accounted for: No instance of the work of the important sculptor, Pythagoras, had as yet been put forth, even hypothetically; therefore any instance of his work must be new to our eyes; and what is new and unwonted is strange; and strangeness is the chief characteristic of the work of the archaising schools. A work of Pasiteles has neither wholly the characteristics of early nor of late art, of Attic nor of Peloponnesian art. But the work of Pythagoras is neither Attic nor Peloponnesian, neither typically archaic nor post-Pheidiac, and still it has some of the characteristics of Attic art, so that Conze would attribute it to Kalamis, and many Peloponnesian elements, so that two of my correspondents lead it back to a Polykleitan archetype; and it has slight traces of archaism, so that half the authorities place it before Pheidias, and also elements of great freedom, so that the other half place it in the time of Pasiteles. But what all this uncertainty clearly means is, that we here have to deal with a school, the work of which was not known to us before, and that, in point of time, this 'neither early nor late' means the period of transition, and the 'neither wholly Attic nor Peloponnesian with elements of both' means a new South Italian school which was sufficiently connected with the great Greek schools to profit by their teaching, and of sufficient independence that one of its sculptors could in important points of artistic advancement be the primnus and the rp"Tros. Another very simple but none the less probable origin of the idea that the Apollo on the Omphalos belongs to the late archaising period, is the peculiar proportions of the figure, very tall and with a comparatively small head. Now it is well known that the Polykleitan canon was square and massive, while Lysippus created a new canon in elongating the figure and in dinminishingthe size of the head. Now as there were unmistakable elements of archaism in our statue, and as the proportions seemed to correspond to the Lysippian canon, the conclusion was a very natural one, that it belonged to a time posterior to Lysippus, yet which strove back to the very earliest periods of art: i.e. that it is archaistic. Conze has quoted archaic vases in which these proportions occur; from which he rightly upholds the archaic character of the work. Now because This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the Lysippian did thus differ from the Polykleitan canon, there is no reason to assume that there were not all kinds of human proportions in sculpture (including some like those of Lysippus) before a. canon was at all established by Polykleitos. The coin from Selinus (Fig. 5) to which we shall direct our attention, and which cannot be later than the fifth century, manifests the same proportions (if not even more exaggerated in slimness) as our statue. I should like to venture upon a wider generalisation which suggests itself to me through these considerations on the development of Greek art. It appears to me that the reactive influence of Greek culture in the colonies of Southern Italy and Sicily upon the life and culture of the mother country has not been sufficiently noticed. A colony which from its origin is in sympathy with the life and aspirations of the mother country, yet is unhampered by the fixed traditions that often act as a check to originality, is pre-formed to introduce and rapidly to live through great reformatory movements. This is true in all periods of history, and in Greece this must have been to some degree the position of Magna Graecia. Among many instances I need merely point to the activity of the philosopher Pythagoras at Croton, an idealistic yet real reform in philosophical theory no less than in social and political life. In art I had always been puzzled by the unique character of the earliest metopes from Selinus, unique alike for their boldness, as also for the evident traces of schooling, so that they are above all the contemporary works from the rest of Greece. Yet if we consider that the emigrant artist who was one of the party of settlers, though he had received strict schooling at home, worked with a certain freedom when removed from the eye of his master and the school, the mixture in these works will no longer strike us as strange. Such inferences concerning remote antiquity are not more improbable because they happen to conform with the general likelihood of human action even in our own very modern times. Pythagoras of Rhegion was the very person who, from his hereditary and natural predispositions, could conciliate and bring together the striking characteristics of the great Attic and Peloponnesian schools, which, in archaic art, stood as it were opposed to one another: the strong feeling for vitality, This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

which frequently, from the want of skill in the early artists, transgressed the laws of form and composition, and the Peloponnesian feeling for law and conventional regularity, which, as in the numerous reliefs from Sparta that have come down to us, does not allow the figures to attain the appearance of free vitality. Before these two elements have been well knit together in harmony we have not yet entered the period of artistic freedom. Free from the immediate pressure, from the shackles of any one school, this Rhegian of Samian origin, whose very adopted country was a mixture of both races, whose first master was a Rhegian and the second a Spartan, had all the opportunity to travel and to learn what each school could give, and not enough to be a slave to the idiosyncrasies of either of them. And so Pythagoras became, if not the founder, at least the chief representative of a school of sculpture which must have flourished for some time in the Greek colonies of the south of Italy, and whose numerous remains, found on the spot, have not yet been sufficiently studied with regard to their distinctive features. An illustration in favour of the uniform character among the works found in the south of Italy will at the same time be the final confirmation I have to offer for the attribution of our statue to Pythagoras of Rhegion. A Didrachm of FIG. 4. FIG. 5. Metapontum,' which belongs to the first half of the fifth century B.C.,represents the river-god Achelous with a human body and a bearded head, which has the horns and ears of a bull (a combination of a man and a bull is a common representation of a river-god). He holds in his right hand a patera, and in his left the branch of some tree. A coin 1 Millingen, Considdrations sur les Monnaies de l'Ancienne Italie, &c. NoticesdesMonnaiesgravies, &c., suppl. P 5, P1. i. No. 1; Sambon, Recherches sur lesMonnaies de la Presqu'ileItalique, &c., Naples, 1870, p. 264, Nos. 13 and 14, P1. xix. 7 and 9 ; Jahn, Arch. Zeit. 1862, t. 168, 4, p. 321. This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STATUES. from Pandosia in Bruttium 1 has on the obverse a female head with inscription, FANAOZIA, surrounded by a laurel wreath, and on the reverse a youth (Fig. 4) holding in his right a patera or a wreath, and in his left a laurel branch; the inscription is KPAOI. The date of this coin is placed at about 430 B.c. Finally, the most important of all for comparison with our statue is the coin from Selinus, before mentioned (Fig. 5), whose similarity in attitude, proportions, indication of muscles down to the headdress, is most evident.2 It may be difficult for many3 to compare properly a figure on a small coin rubbed and effaced by age with a more than over lifesize statue with regard to the similarity of both. The points of difference between the two will be so striking that they will monopolise attention to the detriment of any claims to similarity to one who has but a small number of instances which would give him a scale of relative difference. But to a specialist, or one at all conversant with the comparative study of this class of objects, the similarity of the general type, of the definite attitude and proportions of the body, will be most manifest. I must remind the reader that. on p. 187 of the first article, I suggested as the possible restoration of this statue a palm branch in his left hand (which would account for the notch on the left leg of both the London and Athenian statues) and a wreath in his right. Both these accessories were the typical attributes of athletic victors. In this case we must substitute the himas for the wreath. Now, in the river-gods on both these coins, we seem to have the type borrowed by the inferior artist, the die-sinker, from the well-known athlete statues he saw in his own immediate environment. It has been shown in numerous instances4 that the figures on coins were generally 1 Sambon, ibid., P. 342, P1. xxiii. No. 13 ; Catalogueof Gr. Coins in Brit. Mus. (edited by R. S. Poole), Italy, p. 370, No. 1. 2 P. Gardner, River Worship, &c. Transact. of R. Soc. of Lit. vol. xi. p. 173. a Whoever has been called upon for the first time to look through a microscope to notice the likeness between minute structures, will see how much practice it needs to perceive similarity in such instances. I have ever found it more difficult to teach people to perceive similarity than difference. Perhaps because the perception of likeness is more a matter of feeling, while difference is more a matter of the intellect. 4 e.g., the Athenian coins with regard to the reproductionof the Promachos, the Tyrannicides by Kritios Nesiotes, the Eirene with the infant Plutos by Kephisodotos the Elder, &c. This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

taken from some well-known and celebrated work. But, one might ask, what is the connexion between these river-gods and athletes ? The ever-moving, twining and twisting mountainriver of Greece presented himself to the imagination of the Greek as an active and powerful man, half a beast in his physical strength; and so, in the earlier representations, he is generally a combination of man and snake, or man and bull, from his twining movement and his roaringrush. On innumerable vases there are scenes in which heroes wrestle with rivergods, the prototype of which contest is the wrestling between Herakles and this very Acheloos.' They are the fathers of great heroes and athletes, and the very pugilist Euthymos was made the son of the local river-god Kekynos.2 But especially important is their connexion with the athletic games whieh they no doubt localised, and of which they shared the honour. The hair of the youths, upon their entry into manhood, is offered them.3 At Olympia the victor honours the Alpheios 4 along with the twelve great gods among whom he also has his altar.5 Now, as the great Olympian games were a chronological landmark for the whole of Greece, so the local games would be for smaller districts, and this would be a definite time to strike coins. Mr. Head has made to me a very ingenious suggestion, that in connexion with these games there was also a kind of fair, where, all the neighbouring people streaming together, considerable commerce was carried on, and thus there would be a call for money and a natural time to strike it. This would be the purport of the 'Axexdov aXXovon one of the Metapontine coins. The river-gods were represented either as old or young, generally with some relation to the size of the river. On the coin of Pandosia the river Krathis is a young man, so also on the Selinus coin. Now when the die-sinker desired to represent a young river-god in an athletic connexion, he would naturally, to some extent, rely upon some famous statue of an artist of repute within his country. What is more, all these 'guilds' of the higher or smaller art (though the Greeks never made this distinction, the lesser arts being to them of the highest 1 Soph. Trach. 510, &c. Cf. Gardner, 1.c. 2 Vid. first paper. 3 II. xxiii. 142-148, Aesch. Chocph. 6, Paus. viii. 41, 3, &c. 4 Pind. 01. xi. 48. " Paus. v. 14, 5. This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

importance), such as sculptors, painters, and architects on the one hand, and gem-cutters, goldsmiths, vase-painters, and die-sinkers on the other, were all immediately connected. Nay, the same artist very frequently practised several of these together. The figures on the Pandosian and Selinuntine coin are entirely the type of an athlete, so much so that Sambon simply calls the first un ephAbe.1 It will readily be seen what important confirmation for our attribution of the statue to Pythagoras of Rhegion the similarity of the coin from a neighbouring town in the same province and from a town in the vicinity in Sicily is; for, to put it negatively to those unaccustomed to this study, no other coin from any part of Greece can offer a figure that has anything like the similarity that subsists between this coin and our statue. Coins, then, have thus helped us to clench our previous arguments. By giving a definite locality, or group of localities, as the home of these mixed characteristics of style, which a study of the monuments themselves and their history had led us to point to as marks of a positive school, well defined though ill recognised as yet, they have enabled us to feel ourselves on safe ground. Let me only add one point more. During the last few months M. Rayet has given us an excellent reproduction of the archaic bronze head at Naples in his Monuments de l'Art Antique, Livraison II., referred to in my former paper, p. 177. A more thorough comparison of this head with the head of our statue is called for. I must remind the reader that I have throughout accepted the view that the marbles under consideration are not late and Roman, but early Greek, copies from a bronze original. Now, if our plate of the ChoiseulGouffier statue is placed beside the plate of the Naples bronze in M. Rayet's book, the extraordinary similarity, almost amounting to identity, will be most evident. I must, moreover, draw attentiori to the fact that this original bronze head was found at Herculaneum in Southern Italy. But these suggestions open the way to a very wide field, which it is impossible to enter upon now. CHARLESWALDSTEIN, This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions