EGYPTIAN INFLUENCE ON EARLY GREEK SCULPTURE.
This question has been under discussion in all its bearings ever since Brunn, in 1853, tried to demonstrate the originality of the Daidalian ξόανα,[2219] but, strangely enough, archæologists are not yet agreed as to its proper settlement. While some emphasize the spontaneous origin of Greek art, others quite as strongly advocate that the early Greek sculptor, at least, copied Egyptian models.[2220] Thus Furtwaengler, who early assumed a Cretan origin for the “Apollo” type of statues,[2221] later became convinced that it developed in Ionia through Greek contact with the colony of Naukratis in Egypt, which was founded in the middle of the seventh century B. C. He concluded that this plastic type “ist bekanntlich nichts als die Nachahmung des Haupttypus aegyptischer statuarischer Kunst”.[2222] Similarly Collignon traces the archaic male type to Egyptian influence, and assumes that this influence from the Nile valley was exerted on the Greek artist before the latter half of the seventh century B. C.[2223] On the other hand, H. Lechat, in his review of the evolution of Greek sculpture from its beginning, believes that the early sculptor owed but little to Egypt or the East.[2224] Deonna entirely rejects the assumption of Egyptian influence, believing that all the so-called characteristics of early Greek statues can be explained as the result of natural evolution in Greece itself.[2225] Von Mach also completely excludes all foreign influence when he says: “In her sculpture at least, Greece was independent of influence of any one of the countries that can at all come under consideration in this connection, Phœnicia, Assyria, and Egypt.”[2226] But here, as in so many questions about Greek art, the truth must lie between the two extremes.[2227] The economic conditions of early Greece certainly prove that the Greeks were dependent on outside peoples in many ways, and there is no a priori reason for denying this dependence in art. We clearly see Egyptian influence, for example, in the ceiling of the treasury of Orchomenos,[2228] and that the Greeks learned many animal decorative forms as well as a correct observation of nature from Assyrian art is clear, if we study the best examples of the late period of that art, the reliefs from the palace of Assurbanipal at Nineveh (Konyonjik), now in the British Museum. Such decorative designs could be easily transmitted to the Greeks by the Phœnicians on embroidered fabrics. It seems reasonable, therefore, to assume that early Greek artists, especially in the Greek colonies to the east and south of Greece, were acquainted with earlier models and especially with those of Egypt. The Greeks themselves of a later date recognized this debt to Egypt. This is shown by many passages in Pausanias, which mention the similarity existing between early Greek and Egyptian sculptures,[2229] and by the curious tale told by Diodoros about the Samian artist family of Rhoikos, according to which the latter’s two sons made the two halves of the statue of the Pythian Apollo for Samos separately, Telekles working in Samos and Theodoros in Ephesos. When joined together the two parts fitted exactly, just as if they had been made by one and the same artist. Diodoros adds that τοῦτο δὲ τὸ γένος τῆς ἐργασίας παρὰ μὲν τοῖς Ἕλλησι μηδαμῶς ἐπιτηδεύεσθαι, παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις μάλιστα συντελεῖσθαι.[2230] Such a story is valuable in that it shows that the later Greeks believed that they had adopted the conventional Egyptian canon of proportions. If we compare any of the “Apollo” statues with Egyptian standing figures of any period of Egyptian art, as Bulle has done, the resemblances in detail between the two types will be found to be very striking. Thus from the Old Kingdom (Memphitic), which included the first eight dynasties of Manetho,[2231] we may cite the painted limestone statue of Ra-nefer and the wooden one of Tepemankh in the Museum of Cairo (Fig. [80]), two men prominent in the fifth dynasty;[2232] or the wood statue of Ka-aper, the so-called Sheik-el-Beled, which represents the apogee of Memphitic art, and that of his “wife,” without legs or arms, the two statues being found similarly in a grave at Sakkarah (Memphis), and now being in the same museum.[2233] From the Middle Kingdom, including the eleventh to the seventeenth dynasties,[2234] we may mention the painted statue found at Dahshur and now in Cairo, which represents Horfuabra, the co-regent of Amenemhat III, who was one of the kings of the twelfth dynasty.[2235] From the New Empire, including the eighteenth to the twentieth dynasties,[2236] we cite the draped wood statue of the priestess Tui, a gem of Egyptian art, which was found in a grave near Gurna, and is now in the Louvre;[2237] and lastly the draped alabaster statue of Queen Amenerdis (or Amenartas) in Cairo, the wife of the Aethiopian King Piankhi, who began to absorb Egypt by 721–722 B. C., just before the twenty-fourth dynasty.[2238] After the early dynasties, the Egyptian type of statue was reduced to a fixed and mechanical canon, which was used over and over again with lifeless monotony. In all these statues, whose dates extend over a period of many centuries, we note the same technical characteristics which are observable in the Greek “Apollos,” with the exception that the latter are always nude and lifelike. These characteristics may be summarized thus: long hair falling down over the shoulders in a mass;[2239] shoulders broad in comparison with the hips; arms hanging down stiffly by the sides[2240] or crooked at the elbows;[2241] hands closed, with the thumbs facing forward and touching the ends of the index fingers; the left leg slightly advanced and the soles placed flat on the ground; high ears,[2242] and the upper body and head turned straight to the front.[2243] Only minor differences in the two types appear. Thus the left foot is always further advanced in the Egyptian than in the Greek statues, so that the former appear to have less movement and life.[2244] Since there is no trace of this type in Mycenæan art it seems impossible not to conclude that in some way, doubtless through Ionian sources, it was originally borrowed from Egypt. The imitation of the Egyptian models, however, was never slavishly done. The Greek artist immediately rendered the type his own by making it nude,[2245] and by transmuting the abstract lifeless schema of the Egyptians into a highly individualized one characterized by life and vigor.[2246] This Egyptian influence, it must be remarked, was operative only in the initial stage of Greek sculpture; it was soon lost, as the Greek artist came to rely upon himself. F. A. Lange has truly said: “Die wahre Unabhaengigkeit der hellenischen Kultur ruht in ihrer Vollendung, nicht in ihren Anfaengen”.[2247]
Fig. 80.—Statues of Ra-nefer and Tepemankh, from Sakkarah. Museum of Cairo.
After this digression we will return to the statue of Arrhachion. Dr. Frazer was unable to decipher the inscription upon the breast with certainty, but made out the following letters, the last four of which are plainly visible in the photograph: ΕΥΝΛΙΑΔ. He believed them to be archaic and the first instance of an inscription on this class of statues. He thought that the name was that of a man, which favored the view that the “Apollo” statues represented mortals rather than gods. The letters form a combination manifestly not Greek, and so may have no significance; it is even possible that they were engraved in modern times.[2248] In any case we have the statement of Pausanias that the inscription was illegible in his day.
There seems little doubt, then, that this mutilated and weather-worn statue is the very one seen and described by Pausanias and referred by him to the victor Arrhachion.[2249] It is presented here for two reasons. In the first place, it is the oldest dated Olympic victor statue in existence. Only three older ones are recorded, and none of these has survived to our time. These three are the statues of the Spartan Eutelidas at Olympia, who won the boys’ wrestling and pentathlon matches in Ol. 38 ( = 628 B. C.);[2250] of the Athenian Kylon on the Akropolis, who won the double running-race in Ol. 35 ( = 640 B. C.);[2251] of the Spartan Hetoimokles at Sparta, who won five times in wrestling at the beginning of the sixth century B. C.[2252] The statue of Oibotas of Dyme, who won the stade-race in Ol. 6 ( = 756 B. C.), was not set up until Ol. 80 ( = 460 B. C.);[2253] that of the Spartan Chionis, who won five running-races in Ols. 28–31 ( = 668–656 B. C.), was made later by Myron.[2254] Pausanias’ statement (VI. 18.7) that the wooden statues of Praxidamas and Rhexibios, who won in Ols. 59 and 61 respectively ( = 544 and 536 B. C.), were the oldest at Olympia, is of course incorrect. In the second place, the statue of Arrhachion actually proves what has often been assumed, that some of the statues classed as “Apollos” are really victor monuments. As this question has provoked a good deal of discussion in recent years, I will briefly review the arguments by which the opinion has gradually gained acceptance.