Olympic Victor Monuments and Greek Athletic Art

by Walter Woodburn Hyde

Lysippos was a great reformer in art, breaking away from Argive and Polykleitan traditions, even though he called the Doryphoros as well as Nature his master, and though the influence of Polykleitos is visible in the body of the Agias, just as that of Skopas in the treatment of its forehead, eyes, and mouth, and in the intensity of its expression. Evidently he was strongly affected by the work of his great predecessors and contemporaries, but developed at the same time new and independent tendencies. Thus the Philandridas must have been—just as the lost statue of Troilos—an early work of the master, whereas the Agias was the work of his mature genius. The difference between the two can thus be explained by the lapse of time between them, and by the influences that surrounded the youthful artist; but the similarities between them are, at the same time, striking, and there is little resemblance in either to the Apoxyomenos. This is another link in the chain of evidence that the latter work could not have been produced by the same artist; for artists do not radically change their style after many years of work, and Lysippos must have been at least fifty years old when he created the Agias.

The identification of this marble head with that of the victor statue of the Akarnanian pancratiast by Lysippos raises two questions which we shall briefly examine: whether the statues in the Altis were ever made of marble, and whether Lysippos ever worked in that material. The first of these questions will be left for the following chapter; the second will be discussed in the present connection.

LYSIPPOS AS A WORKER IN MARBLE, AND STATUE “DOUBLES.”

To regard a marble statue as an original work of Lysippos, who has been looked upon almost universally as a sculptor in bronze exclusively, seems at first sight to be baseless. Pliny certainly classed Lysippos among the bronze-workers, for in the preface to his account of bronze-founders[2106] he tells us that this artist produced 1,500 statues, and doubtless we are to infer that the historian regarded them all as being made of metal. He further[2107] speaks of Lysippos’ contributions to the (ars) statuaria, and it seems clear that this term, as the modern title of Book XXXIV, is to be taken in its narrow sense of sculpture in bronze as opposed to sculptura,[2108] that in marble. How firmly the belief is established that Lysippos worked only in bronze can be seen from the following words of Overbeck: “Zu beginnen ist mit wiederholter Hervorhebung der durchaus unzweifelhaften und wichtigen Tatsache dass Lysippos ausschliesslich Erzgiesser war.”[2109] That Lysippos was preëminently a bronze-worker, and that his ancient reputation was due chiefly to his bronze work, can not be doubted. But to say that he never essayed to produce works in marble, as so many other Greek artists did who were famed as bronze-workers,[2110] is, as one writer has lately expressed it, a kindisches Vorurtheil.[2111] That marble work was done in his studio, if not by his hand, is well attested by the reliefs from the base of the victor statue of Polydamas mentioned above, which have been generally referred to Lysippos’ pupils.[2112] These are too damaged to be used as exact evidence of his style, but the legs of Polydamas himself, in the central relief, so far as their contour can be made out, are thin and sinewy, as we should expect in Lysippan work, and this relief doubtless would have been regarded as the work of the master himself, if it had not been taken for granted that he worked only in bronze. But for the same assumption some critics would have seen an original from the hand of Lysippos in the statue of Agias at least, if not in the others of the Delphian group.[2113] It will be interesting to rehearse some of the arguments by which the statue of Agias has been adjudged a copy.[2114]

It has been generally assumed that the original group of statues at Pharsalos was of bronze (though we have no proof that it may not have been of marble), while the one at Delphi was copied almost, if not quite, simultaneously in marble[2115]—so faithfully, indeed, that even the proper marble support to the figure of Agias was omitted. While Homolle notes the absence of this support as evidence of the marble statue being an exact copy of the original bronze, Gardner argues that this proves a free imitation, where the support was not needed.[2116] The inexact modeling of the hair, since hair can not be rendered so perfectly in marble as in bronze, has been adduced as a sign that the marble statue was a copy of the bronze original. This in itself is a weak argument, since the slight and sketchy treatment of the hair of the Hermes of Praxiteles—which is, for the most part, merely blocked out[2117]—might with just as good reason be used as evidence that that statue is only a copy, especially as we know that Praxiteles also worked in bronze.[2118] The omission of the artist’s signature on the base of the Agias has also been taken to indicate that some pupil of Lysippos (Lysistratos, for example) did the work of transference in the master’s studio under his supervision and doubtless from his model.

Despite all such arguments, which prove little, it must be admitted that the careless finish of the Delphian statue is not what we should expect in a masterpiece by so renowned a sculptor as Lysippos, as the statue can not be said to be a first-rate work of art. But that it was made under the direct supervision of Lysippos can hardly be questioned. It seems reasonable to believe that Daochos, who employed the great artist in the one case, would not have trusted a mere copyist in the other, or one who was free to indulge his individual taste in details,[2119] especially as the statue was to be placed in so prominent a place as Delphi. He probably gave the orders for the two statues at the same time, and Lysippos must have had the oversight of the Delphian one. So it seems best to regard the statue of Agias as a “double,” and not as a copy in the later sense of the word. The custom of making such doubles goes back at least to the middle of the sixth century B. C. Thus the statue of the Delian Apollo by Angelion and Tektaios, known as the “Healer” (Οὔλιος),[2120] had a “double” in both Delphi[2121] and Athens.[2122] Similarly the Philesian Apollo of Branchidai near Miletos, by the elder Kanachos,[2123] had a double in Thebes known as the Ismenian Apollo, which Pausanias says differed from the one in Miletos neither in form nor size, but only in material, for it was of cedar-wood,[2124] while the Milesian one was of bronze. Furtwaengler[2125] has demonstrated that contemporary doubles of works by Polykleitos, Pheidias, and Praxiteles existed. The case of the statues of the athlete Agias at Pharsalos and at Delphi is paralleled by that of the Olympic victor Promachos, who had statues, probably alike, both at Olympia and in his native city Pellene.[2126] A double of the base of the Nike of Paionios at Olympia was discovered at Delphi,[2127] and a fine head in the collection of Miss Hertz in Rome is from the same original.[2128] A Polykleitan head in the British Museum, similar to that of the Westmacott Athlete (Pl. [19]), seems to be a contemporary replica of an original of the fifth century B. C.[2129] Such examples (and many more could be cited) show the difference between contemporary “doubles” and the later copies of Greek masterpieces. The former are Greek originals in a very true sense, made, as we assume the Agias was, under the direct supervision of noted sculptors. In this sense only the Delphian statue should be called a copy.

HEAD OF A STATUE OF A BOY FROM SPARTA, AND THE ART OF SKOPAS.

We shall next discuss the beautiful Pentelic marble head of a boy, with a lion’s scalp drawn over the top so that the muzzle comes down over the forehead, which is said to have been discovered near the

Fig. 72.—Marble Head of a Boy, found near the Akropolis, Sparta. In Private Possession in Philadelphia, U. S. A. Akropolis at Sparta in 1908 (Fig. 72). This head was for a time in the University Museum, Philadelphia, and later was exhibited at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. At last accounts it was in private possession in Philadelphia. It has been published as the head of a youthful Herakles by my colleague, Professor W. N. Bates, in the American Journal of Archæology.[2130] Of its style he says: “The points of resemblance which the Philadelphia Heracles bears to the heads from the Tegean pediments are so many and so striking that they must all be traced back to the same sculptor; and that he was Skopas there can be little doubt.” He therefore concludes that it is “probably a very good copy of a lost work of Skopas.”[2131] A little later, Dr. L. D. Caskey, of the Museum in Boston, found these resemblances hardly close enough, in view of the influence of Skopas on later Greek sculpture, to justify so definite an attribution.[2132] He found them confined to the upper part of the face, while he believed that the lower portion resembled heads which could be assigned to Praxiteles or his influence, and consequently he pronounced the head “an eclectic work in which features borrowed from Skopas and Praxiteles have been combined with an unusually successful effect.”