THE

BRONZES OF ᾽ SIRIS

AN ARCHEOLOGICAL ESSAY

BY

P, ο͵͵,᾽ ΒΕὁΝΒΞΤΕΙ).

 

 

’ ‘ ’ Χ
Οὐκ ἐν τῷ μεγάλῳ τὁ εὖ κείμενον εἶναι, αλλα εν τῷ εὖ το μέγα.

KAPHESIAS APUD ATHENEUM.

 

 

 

 

L Ο Ν D O N
PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY OF DILETTANTI BY W. NICOL, PALL-MALL.

MDCCCXXXVI.

Μ
. ‘21.“ ι

 

CHAPTER I.

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

CONTENTS.

FORM AND MATERIAL OF THE BRONZES
CHARACTER OF THE BRONZES AS WORKS OF ART

ON THE CUIRASS AND OTHER DEFENSIVE ARMOUR OF
THE GREEKS

THE SUBJECT REPRESENTED ON THE BRONZES OF SIRIS

THE TWO AJACES ON THE BRONZES OF SIRIS

THE TYPE OF AJAX TELAMONIOS CONFIRMED BY AN-
CIENT GROUPS IN ROME AND FLORENCE

FURTHER PROOFS OF THE REAL TYPE OF AJAX TELA-
MONIOS

AGE AND SCHOOL OF ART TO WHICH THE BRONZES OF
SIRIS BELONG

ON SOME HISTORICAL EVENTS WITH WHICH THE BRONZES
OF SIRIS ARE CONNECTED

ADDITIONAL NOTES

INDEX

page 1

16

20

29

32

35

39

41

53

Nos. I. and II.
III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

PLATES .

The Bronzes of Siris, drawn by Riepenhausen, engraved by Bettelini, at Rome,

The Piombino Gem, engraved by Ruschweigh at Rome. Vignette. See Additional Note XIV.

Outline of the Breast-plate on a Statue at the Villa Albani,
Disposition of the Bronzes of Siris; an etching by Ruspi at Rome,
Outlines of the features of the two Ajaces,

Engraving of a Bronze Plate belonging to an ancient Greek μίτρα. See Additional Note III.

page 1

15
17
34

42

Coin of the Locri Opuntii, engraved by I. S. Agar. Tail-piece to the Index. See Additional Note XII.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,.3

 

 

 

 

ι
;
.
A
0.
D
Ὁ
" ..κζ;
. ᾽, w
w a ᾽
.- . '
“ ,
“᾽ .͵.
'{
.
( ι
ἓ
, .
,, .
ν
'2
*9
V f
ἵπ
’ ;-
.'-τ͵
' “ π
- R
ἑᾷ
. a,
. :. ι '"
ἆ
v
.151»
κ ᾽΄΄΄΄΄΄
».» - [WW/mm”
ι 9 .
υς’
ré—
͵,
Ὁ
’9!
W 4; ΄
fir
κ
. έ:
ε
!.
͵͵
»

 

EH!

 

 

h
Ι’-
's! : It
{ἔτ᾽ ,ν '
ψ a . κ
U
α A « ᾿
ὦ ; ”
᾽ξ
at ᾽- ι
γί fl ζ {ἆ
ἠ : ᾿ “
; Ἰ
:- ͵ Ὁ
ι
9 ..
’!

4n ., '3‘ A.

:1" .
᾽ .γ : ’
.ἃ I.

     

 

I
γῇ,;
(. “
ε
~'.
ἠέ ι m .
ι
.
«.
ι

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:5;

᾽να-Ὁ

Ἐ'

{ἦν”}-

3“)

ὦ.

 

;,ς͵ »-

ῥ᾽,
ὶἡ’μ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Π,...

"B'fi

d
-‘r
~'x
.4'
..
.“͵
«

.

ζω

/

Χ

\\\

\
'\\\\‘

 

.. "x

 

 

 

ON THE

BRONZES OF SIRIS.

 

I.

FORM AND MATERIAL OF THE BRONZES.

IN attempting to describe these remarkable works, perhaps the most beautiful ancient rilievi
in bronze which have been preserved to us, I am well aware that I am undertaking a task by
no means easy; for the adage of Plato, “ χαλεπὰ τὰ καλὰ,” the beautiful is difi‘icult, is not
only true in its application to the production of what is beautiful by thought and by act, but
also when applied to the faithful and satisfactory representation of what is beautiful, through
meditation and by words.

That these monuments would have well deserved to occupy the genius which animated
Winckelmann and E. Q. Visconti, is a reflection but ill adapted to inspire with courage one
who is acquainted with the Muses and the Graces much more by the homage he pays them,
than by the favours he receives from them. In truth, the more I have familiarized myself
with this chef-d’oeuvre, the contemplation of which has, for several years, been at my command,
the more time and pains I have taken to appreciate the great beauty which is, as it were, shed
over all its parts, the less have I found myself inclined to be diffuse in speaking of it. I
would willingly prefer to use the words of Sophocles, preserved by Plutarch,1 and applied to
Timoleon 1——

 

ὦ θεοὶ, τίς ἄρα Κύπρις

ἢ τίς ἵμερος τοῦδε συνήψατο;
But every work of art is to be considered not only aesthetically, but also historically; and he
who has carefully examined a fine work of art, and especially one'of ancient Greek art, in this
last point of View, can sometimes perform for the elucidation of it, by the simple exposition of
historical facts, more than others are able to do by their reflections on its intrinsic qualities.
It is in this persuasion that I submit to the friends of Grecian art, to those who truly admire
their immortal genius, the following pages upon a production of the most pre-eminent beauty.
Moreover I feel that its just appreciation will not after all depend upon the manner in which I
shall represent it, but upon the taste and penetration of those who devote their attention to it.

These bronzes, originally gilt, and ornamented with figures in very salient relief; may, at
the first view, be recognised as fragments of a magnificent cuirass. We shall afterwards examine

1 Vita Timoleon. p. 253, ed. Paris. 1624, in fol.
B

2 FORM AND MATERIAL.

what portion of it they formed. They were found, in the year 1820, in Italian Greece, not far
from the small river anciently called Siris, and near the site of the old town of Grumentum in
Lucania (now Saponara, in the province of Basilicata), and within the enclosure of a ruin, which
has, perhaps, been a small temple. These are the only facts which I have been able to learn,
up to the present moment, as to the place where these precious relics were found; I have
not been there myself : Ι acquired them at Naples in the same year, soon after they had been
sent thither from Saponara, on my return from a tour through the Ionian Islands, Malta and
Sicily. As it is useful in the history of the arts to give a decided denomination to each
remarkable monument of antiquity, I propose henceforth to term them Bronzes of Siris, in
consideration of the place where they were discovered.

That these two groups represent two Grecian heroes combating two Amazons is evident;
and I merely mention it here by the way, in order to point out, with the necessary precision,
the material properties of the work in question. Hereafter we shall enter upon an attentive
and scrupulous examination of the subject.

The two slightly curved plates, which form at once the ground and the substance of the
four figures in high relief with their arms and draperies, are composed of a fine bronze (χαλκὸς
κεκραμένος), the colour and appearance of which indicate a considerable addition of some other
metal besides copper.2 From the influence of a strong gilding, which in great part has disap—
peared, the upper surface of the two plates has taken a blueish tint, soft and pleasing to the
eye; whilst the concave reverse, which has not been gilt, has a lighter shade, approaching to
green. The length of the bronze, N0. Ι., from the top, where the hinge is neatly fitted and
fixed by four rivets, as far as the lower rim of the lion’s head, is exactly nine-twelfths and five
lines of a Roman palm, a little more than seven English inches. The trifling difference in length
of No. II. is owing to its having, unfortunately, lost the lien’s head. But the latter has preserved
its original breadth (which is not the case with No. Ι.), and is precisely one-half and four lines
of a Roman palm, measuring from the curved edge (which approached the shoulder joint where
the deltoides begins) to the opposite border. The thickness of the plates, where they are smooth,
and without figures, is scarcely half a line. No. I. weighs 4 οΖ., 10 dwt., 2117—0 gr.; No. II.
weighs 4 oz., 5 dwt., 22 gr. The traces of the gilding on No. I. are chiefly preserved on the
right shoulder of the hero, and upon the reversed escutcheon of the Amazon behind the left
leg of the warrior; on No. II. upon the body of the hero, and on the buckler of the Amazon,
behind her right leg, as well as upon the part which immediately encompasses the edge of the
buckler.3 Upon attentively examining these monuments, it is evident that the plates, after
having been cast smooth, and of a perfect level, were hammered to a proper consistency; the
figures were then beat out from the inner side, and thus we have an elaborate specimen of the
works denominated by the Greeks ἔργα ἑξήλατα and σφυρήλατα. Several important statues still
existing make us acquainted with the perfection of the casting in antique bronzes: there are
some of them, to which the chisel has doubtless had but very little to add; for example, the
seated Faun at Naples, and the youth drawing a thorn from his foot, in the Capitol at Rome ;4
but it would be difficult to find any other instance of ancient art that proved, like these bronzes
of Siris, the astonishing skill of the Greeks in works struck out with the hammer and chiselled.
Although the relief is extremely prominent, so that some of the most salient parts, as the
heads, the thighs, the knees of the figures, their shields, and some portions of their draperies,
appear almost to be detached from the ground, nevertheless all is gained upon the plate
itself; which proves that the ancients had an extraordinary skill in this kind of workmanship,
and a perfection of tools of which they have left us very few satisfactory indications. It is also
evident from the above, that the parts less convex are generally more massive and more furnished
with metal than those which have a greater projection. Where the relief is very strong, for

’ The result of an analysis of a fragment of one of the plates, performed in 1835 by Mr. H. Hennell, produced
86% copper and 13% tin.

3 Compare the two plates, Nos. I. and II. drawn by G. Riepenhausen and engraved by Bettelim' in Rome.

4 The editors of Winckelmann’s works have spoken with much truth of the superiority of the casting in the antique
bronzes. See VVinckelmann’s Werke herausgegeben von H. ZVIeyer “παῖ J. Schulze, 5 Band, Note 664, pp. 454-455.

FORM AND MATERIAL. ᾽ 3

instance in the heads of the figures of the men, the plate is reduced to the thickness of a sheet
of thin writing paper, and upon the reverse we observe cavities nearly an inch deep.

The lost parts of these groups are, in No. Ι., the right shoulder, arm and hand of the
Amazon; in No. II. the right part of the hero’s head, and his right hand; moreover, the
left shoulder, a part of the body, the left arm and hand of the Amazon, and the lion’s head
below. There was, absolutely, nothing more in No. II. since what remains of the breadth (which
is preserved in this plate as We have seen above) leaves room only for the left arm, upon which
the Amazon apparently leaned in her fall. The great symmetry of the composition makes it
probable that it was the same in respect to the right arm of the female warrior of No. I.

As we observe, that under the left foot of the hero in No. I. and under the right foot
of that in No. II. there have been certain conventional projections, which indicate rocks, I
presume that there were likewise similar projections under the hands of the Amazons which

have been destroyed; since the movement of each of the two prostrate female figures indi-
cates an effort to rise again.

The analogy of the male figure of No. Π., both hands of which are employed, and both
without a weapon, induces me to believe that none of the four figures had either sword or
battle-axe in their hands. This supposition is strengthened by the circumstance of there being,
absolutely, no room whatever for a sword in the right hand of the hero in No. II. The hand
of this warrior is simply clenched. The artist probably found it difficult to introduce offensive
arms, because they would have been too liable to injury; he has sufficiently shewn by means
of shields of Amazons thrown on the ground, which do not belong to either of the four
combatants, that the actions are not merely single combats, but are passing upon a field of
battle. The custom of the Greek artists to give similar indications is well known; a wheel,
for instance, signifies the chariot of Theseus in the gem of Piombino, and that of Diomedes
of Thrace, in the has-relief of the Villa Albani, (see Winckelmann, Mon. Ant. Ined. p. 82.).5

The preservation of the group No. I. is admirable. Almost the whole, fiom the minutest
traits of the countenances, to the slightest folds and ornaments of the draperies and of the
armour, is preserved. The figures of No. II. have received considerable injury. The dampness
of a corrosive soil, which, during so many ages, covered this fine production, has formed upon
it, especially on the body of the warrior, a crust, the detaching of which we have not been

willing to risk, from the apprehension that small cavities, still more detrimental, would have
been the result.

5 The games of the Stadion are also indicated on many ancient Greek terra-cotta vases, and on thousands of
Greek coins, merely by a wheel, or by the ἄντυγες of the upper part of the car, or by a vase of a certain form, intended
as a prize-vase, or by the columns and cooks, well known emblems of the Stadion, or by one human leg or three
legs united (triquetra), which is intended to indicate speed, race-course (δρόμος), and has no geographical signification

whatever. See my Letter on Panathenaic Vases, in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, Vol. II. Part. I.
p. 105, note 7.

ΙΙ.

CHARACTER OF THE BRONZES AS WORKS OF ART.

WE now pass to considerations, much more interesting and instructive, suggested to us by
this work, and relating to the higher qualities of art. After having repeatedly contemplated
these Bronzes, an individual of great intelligence and experience affirmed, that he had never
seen anything which had more evidently, and more powerfully, convinced him of the high
superiority of the Greeks over all other people in the arts of design. The Author of this
work would not express the same sentiment, had he not in his favour the constantly uniform
judgment of numerous artists of distinguished talent, who often, and attentively, examined these
bronzes in Italy and elsewhere. A great number of comparisons has confirmed him in the same
opinion, and he does not hesitate, therefore, to declare, that he knows of no finer relief in
bronze, now existing, nor of any one more adapted to convey a judgment of the finest style of
the Greeks, and of their extraordinary pre-eminence in the technical parts of the art. It is
indeed true that the Museo Borbonico at Naples, the richest in the world in antique bronzes,
since the discovery of the treasures at Herculaneum and at Pompeii, possesses many remarkable
monuments of this material; and Rome, Florence and Venice, have likewise some important
relics of the same kind; but the author is nOt acquainted with any ancient relief in bronze,
which is of so high a style, and of such perfect execution.6

Let us first consider the composition and design of the two groups. Both plates present
the male figures as conquerors; those of the two women as overthrown and nearly vanquished,
although still vigorously defending themselves. Each victor casts on the vanquished female
a fierce insulting look, presses her side with his knee, seizes her by the hair, and appears
disposed to strike the mortal blow. In each bronze the woman, half thrown down, bends
one knee towards the earth, which causes one of her legs to lie back under her, and to
appear upon a foreshortened scale, _ whilst the other is stretched out. According to the
usual costume observed on Greek monuments of the most flourishing time of art, the heroes
have merely a helmet upon the head, a large buckler on the left arm, and a wide freely
flowing drapery thrown over the same arm; in other respects they are entirely naked. The
Amazons have the head uncovered, a light tunic passed over the right shoulder, and which,
fastened round the body by a girdle, leaves naked the greatest part of the breast and arms,
and terminates above the knees. They wear laced buskins, which reach just up to the calf,
and are lapped over in front in a triangular form. Their shields are completely oval, without
a notch, and have ornament-s on the two sides. The Amazon of No. I. holds such a shield
on the left arm; in each plate is seen a similar shield lying upon the ground, and which
is behind the feet of the two combatants.

By these details we have indicated the principal features of a composition, which is at
once simple and grand. We must further observe, that the lines blend into each other
in the most graceful manner. There is nowhere anything tame, insignificant, or void of

5 The best Greek has-relief in bronze hitherto known is that, which Mr. Hawkins found in Epirus nearly forty
years ago, I believe, and which Mr. Millingen has published in his Ancient Unedited Monuments, Plate XII. and
p. 21. It has also been further illustrated in'the IId. Vol. of the Select Specimens published by the Society, 1835,
Plate XX. This group is indeed of exquisite workmanship, but of a style and execution very different from those of

the Bronzes of Siris.

CHARACTER, AS WORKS OF ART. 5

motive or purpose ; one object balances the other; the fierce beauty of the male figures, which,
as victorious, are the most commanding, presents a striking contrast with the female forms,
which are more rounded and delicate, though not without a certain degree of martial energy. It
is the same with the accessories in each composition; the bucklers, and the light draperies,
by their lines of connection, contribute much to the harmony of the groups. The great
symmetry which the artist was bound to observe, allOwed but little variety in the leading lines.
That which in No. I. runs from the left shoulder of the warrior to his left foot, corresponds
exactly with the analogous contour of the right side in the hero of No. II. In the same
manner, the second dominant line of the contour, that of the Amazon’s left side in No. Ι.,
from the shoulder as far as the foot, is very similar to that of the female figure in No. II.
The same may be said of the right side of the Amazon of No. Ι., compared with the left of
that of No. Π.; the right arm of the warrior No. Ι., and again his right side as far as the
knee, correspond precisely with the same parts of the left side, in the analogous figure of No. II.
The movement of the heads of the warriors is also the same in both plates. This symmetry
in the arrangement is owing to the nature of the subject, and to the destination of the two
groups as symmetrical ornaments of one and the same armour. But how skilfully has the
artist varied all the subordinate details! The round shield of the hero No. II. is well
suited to the composition of that plate; it is, notwithstanding, by its form and place in the
group, altogether different from the large, and rather oval buckler, of the hero in No. I. It
is the same with the fine fall of the drapery of No. Π., which singularly relieves the animated
movement of the group, but which would not be adapted to the grouping of the figures in
No. Ι.: since in this last the oval shield of the warrior, and the uplifted shield of the
Amazon, fill up the places which in No. II. are occupied by the drapery floating behind the
back of the hero, and by a part of his circular shield ; it was, therefore, necessary to place the
drapery of the warrior No. I. lower down, to avoid deranging the harmony of that composi-
tion, and not to destroy the dignified deportment which it was to express?

The same sagacity is observable in all the other details. Thus, for instance, in No. I. the
right foot of the warrior is seen, whilst the left of that of No. II. is concealed by the vesture
of the Amazon; in No. I. is perceived the left hand of the female, who elevates her buckler
behind the right arm of the hero, whilst in No. II. the Amazon seizes with her right hand
the left arm of the warrior, seeking to disengage herself; so in No. I. the left arm of the
hero remains and appears foreshortened, and he closes the hand with which he holds his
buckler; whilst in No. II. the right arm (the hand of which apparently was also closed),
is stretched out to strike the hostile figure, which is nearly thrown down. He who
attentively considers these, and other evident distinctions, in the detail, and in the cast of the
drapery, will experience a similar sensation to him who is moved by very fine variations in music
on the same theme. The design and modelling of the figures are altogether so perfect, that
the most refined taste can desire nothing more.

If, by means of any optical process, these groups could be so magnified as to appear of
the size of the colossal figures of the Quirinal at Rome, 3. practised eye would still be
unable to discover faults in any part of them. ' The great superiority in the art of modelling
appears most particularly in the body of the hero in No. Ι., which is wonderfully well pre-
served, and in a part of that of the Amazon of the same group. In the movement of this
figure, which does not exhibit an adolescent, but a man at an age when the body is fully
developed, there is a play in all the muscles, which, though not exaggerated, is very striking,
particularly in reference to the small scale of the figures. The feminine forms are conceived
with an equal degree of truth and judgment ; and their peculiar grace is as easy to feel, as it is
difficult to explain.

The draperies are designed and executed by the same master-hand. They present nothing

conventional, but their flow is in perfect accordance with the movements; and in this view

7 See what is said further, in chapter V., relative to the signification and the ancient type of the hero in No. I.

C

6 CHARACTER, AS WORKS OF ART.

also this monument attests a highly accomplished taste. In the least essential details is
traced the amore which presided at the performance of the whole; as may be observed in
the vigorous head of the Lion (the purport of which I shall subsequently speak of), and
in the ornaments of the shields. The leaves which surround the wide margins (ἄντυγες) of
the two large shields of the heroes, seem to be leaves of laurel. The bucklers of the
Amazons are smaller, and less richly ornamented, but very suitable. There are three of
these; two upon the plate No. Ι., and one on that of No. Π.; of this last only the outward
side is seen. It is covered with little dots or points arranged in groups of three each. These
dots appear to indicate the rivets (ἥλω) which held together the layers (πτυχαἰ) of which
the shield was composed. Sometimes they serve only for ornament.8 In the two shields of
the Amazons of No. I. the rounded straps, or κάνονες, which fix them to the left arm9 are
represented, at least in regard to the form.

From these qualities of the composition, of the design, and. of the modelling, results the
expression, or the πάθος of the Greeks ;1 it was only by those qualities that expression was
effected, and made apparent in all the good productions of the plastic art, as practised by
that people; for it is always in art the mark of a bad and corrupted taste, when this expres-
sion is sought to be produced by other means than by the united effect of the qualities of
any work. Indeed as the expression is not in a certain and single portion, like a leg and
arm, &c., but belongs to the whole composition, it follows necessarily that truth, which is
the essential basis of the beautiful, must be destroyed whenever there appears an endeavour
to increase the expression, which should result from the whole, by exaggerating the movements
and the efforts in some parts, or by other devious and partial resources of the art. It is into
this false track that all the mannerists of every age have fallen ; but they have always failed
in their end. The grand, the sublime, which they wished to produce, was ever with them
turgid and insipid. Nature herself belied them, since that sublime parent of all real art is
eminently true in all her productions, and requires, above all, that quality in her disciples.
It is only by their having followed this route of nature and of truth, that the works of the
Greeks are become eternal models.

As the Greek artists, in the glorious times of that people, were, by the national feeling
accustomed to pursue everything they undertook with great energy, but at the same time with
simplicity, and without afl‘ectation or artificial shew, the effect of their productions of art
never appears an unconnected effort, but is always the product of the whole composition taken
together. It is thus with the master-pieces with which we are at present engaged : everything
here is in its place; everything expresses what it ought to express, neither more nor less.
Attempt in any way to strengthen the expression, and these groups, animated as they now are,
will fall into mannerism. It is precisely from this simplicity, from this truth, sustained by the
purity and grace of the design, that the grandioso results? This quality entirely organical
is independent of the mass. In nature it is derived from an internal force, from an harmo-
nious and healthy existence; in human productions it springs likewise from the deepest
source which is in art, namely, from proportions perfectly pure and harmonious. It is
always simple and natural, never arrogating nor affected. Thus a great artist,3 after having
attentively examined the Bronzes of Siris, said,—“ In my judgement, these bronzes afford the
strongest possible proof of this truth: that the grandioso does not lie in the mass, since this
diminutive work is truly great, whilst many of the modern colossal figures, as we all know, are,
notwithstanding their dimensions, extremely petty and mean.” This opinion of an eminent

9 See Additional Note I.
9 Look for the κἆνονες of the shield in ΙΙ. VIII. 193, and XIII. 407. They are extremely well distinguished in some

of the figures from the pediment of the great temple at Egina, which are now in Munich.

᾽ Compare, for the signification of the words ἦθος and πάθος, in VVinclcelmann’s Geschichte der Kunst des Alterthums,
Buch 5, cap. 3, § 2, and the note 392, (in the 4th volume of the Dresden Edition.)

2 We see, also, in nature, the grandioso spring from the same sources ;—for example, we are often surprised by
an expression of this kind in the movements of animals, even of those which are not at all distinguished by their
physical force, or by their large bulk; and why? because they are eminently ”'πε and unafiected.

, 3 A. Thorwaldsen.

CHARACTER, AS WORKS OF ART. 7

individual appears to me so much the more worthy of note, as all those who understand what
is style in the arts, will feel, that it would be difficult to find in modern productions a style
more similar to that of the ancient Greeks than that of Thorwaldsen. His manner of
imitating the Greek antique in the highest degree confirms a saying, full of sense, of a
distinguished scholar :4 “ scilicet praeclarum exemplum recte sequi, id est ejus tantum, qui
ipse in exemplis esse possit.”

It is this quality of the Bronzes of Siris that has suggested as a motto for this work
the following energetic saying of a Greek author: Οὐκ ἐν τῷ μεγάλῳ τὁ Ε᾿Ὑ κείμενόν ἐστι,
ἀλλὰ ἐν τῷ εὖ τὀ μέγα, which may be thus rendered: “ Excellence consists not in greatness,
but greatness consists in excellence.”

However, though the expression ought to result from the ensemble of a production, we do
not mean to say that each part of a composition contributes as much as another. to that
expression. Such an assertion would be absurd, and contradicted by the fact itself, that is to
say, by the works of art of every period. It is intended, merely in the sense, and after the
example, of our ancient masters, that no part of the composition ought to be void of expres-
sion ’; as, on the other hand, not any part should be too prominently separated from the whole
by its expression; for this would constitute the afiected. But it is true nevertheless that the
chief portion of the expression ought to be given to the most important part of the compo-
sition. For example, the head, which is the most important part of the human body, is also
the mirror of the mind, and of the sentiments, in a much higher degree than any other por-
tion of the body, and, consequently, the principal seat of the expression.5 The natural law
which flows from this principle for every representation due to the arts of design is observed
with wonderful truth in all the works produced during the flourishing times of Greece. We
see, in these master-pieces, that it is constantly the expression of the head which predominates;
for instance, in the Laocoon, in the Niobe, in the Barberini faun, in the Apollo of Antium, in
the bronze faun at Naples, &c. ;6 and we observe the same in our Bronzes of Siris. On
this account, it is peculiarly fortunate that the hero’s head in No. I. is entirely preserved, since
the heads of the Amazons are much injured, and that of the hero of No. II. is more than half
destroyed. A fixed look, which lowers the eyes proportionably large, a certain movement of
the nostrils, the mouth half open, the thick and strong beard, give to the hero’s head an
admirable expression of anger and haughtiness. “ With a terrific smile,” as Homer says of
Ajax, son of Telamonf he lets fall an insulting look upon his prostrate foe, and seems to say
to her : “ feeble and rash creature, thou desirest to give death to me ! thou art about to learn
what it is to combat with men !” The delicate beauty of the young woman, and the mas-

culine beauty of the warrior, in the strength of his age, form a contrast which is exhibited
with as much fidelity as skill. ᾽

4 G. Hermann, Dissertatio de wtate scriptoris Argonauticorum, in his Edition of Orphica, (Lipsiae, 1805), p. 687.
5 Plutarch (in the beginning of his life of Alexander) says very well: “ ὥσπερ οἱ ζωγράφοι τᾶς ὁμοιότητας ἀπὸ τοῦ
προσώπου καῖ τῶν περὶ τὴν ὄψιν εἰδῶν, οἷς ἐμφαίνεται τὸ ἦθος, ἀναλαμβἆνουσιν,” κ. τ. λ.

6 See Additional Note II. 7‘Iliad, VII. 212.

III.

ON THE CUIRASS AND OTHER DEFENSIVE ARMOUR OF THE GREEKS.

IN proceeding to treat of our subject archaeologically as well as historically, we must first
determine the place which this ornament occupied as forming part of a cuirass, and what were
its use and destination. We shall then endeavour to throw some light upon the subject of
the groups, or upon their signification as representing a mythological or historic fact.

There is no longer any room for doubt in regard to the place which these bronze plates
occupied upon the cuirass. But in order to make this perfectly intelligible, it will be necessary
to offer some preliminary observations on the different kinds of Greek cuirasses and on their
composition.

In the heroic times, the complete equipment (πανοπλία) of a heavy armed Hellenian
warrior of the first rank, was composed principally of the following parts: the light boots or
buskins (κνημίδες) with their ancle-pieces (ἐπισφὑρια); the cuirass (θώραξ); the sword (ξίφος,
ἐι’ορ, φάσγανον, &c.) suspended from the left side by a scarf (τελαμὢν) thrown over the right
shoulder; the shield (ἆσπις, σάκος, &c.) on the left arm; the helmet (κράνος, κόρυς, πήληξ,
κυνέη, &c.) upon the head; and the lance (ἔγχος) or two javelins (ὃοὔρατα, δοῦρα) in the
right hand. The order followed in this enumeration is exactly that which is constantly
observed in Homer when he describes a warrior preparing himself for battle. The principal
passages in which it is mentioned, are, in the Iliad, III. 330, sq. in reference to Paris;
XI. 15, sq. to Agamemnon; XVI. 130, sq. to Patroclos; and XIX. 367, sq. to Achilles. In
these and other similar passages, where a warrior’s accoutrements are detailed, if no notice
be taken of a band (μίτρα) furnished with a silver or brass plate, nor of the girdle (ζωστἢρ,
ζώνη, ζῶμα), although these pieces of armour were very essential to secure the abdomen, it is
solely because they were merely defensive, and less exposed to View. In many parts, however,
of the Homeric poem, we find proofs that a warrior of the first rank (πρόμαχος) never went to
combat without the band and the belt :8 and notwithstanding all the modifications which
occurred in military tactics in subsequent times, the armour continued to be nearly the same,
in the main, during all the ages of ancient Greece. Time and refinement of manners,
produced many changes in the materials, and in the form and ornaments of several parts
of the armour, but the cuirass suffered no important alteration in its essential constitution;
and from a careful comparison of the epos of Homer with the historians of the most
cultivated ages of Greece, it is evident that a hero, completely armed, in the fourth or
third century before our era, for instance, an Alexander the Great, an Epaminondas, or a
Pyrrhos, king of Epiros, bore a much stronger resemblance to an Homeric πρόμαχος,
or chieftain in battle, such as Agamemnon, Ajax Telamonios, or Diomedes, than, a priori,
we should expect, after the interval of so many ages, and the great difference of customs
and of tactics. The comparison serves to prove, that in Homer’s time civilization was, in
this respect also, much more advanced than we are generally inclined to admit.9 Pyrrhos

8 See Additional Note III.

9 That Homer has always taken great care to distinguish the moral and social state of his heroes from that of his
own contemporaries, is an opinion that I cannot discuss here, but which I do not much approve, although it has been
adopted by an illustrious scholar. Heyne states his sentiments several times on this point; for instance, he observes in

ON THE GREEK CUIRASS AND ITS PARTS. 9

wore a helmet from which rose the horns of a he-goat,1 and that which Meriones gives to
Ulysses in the Iliad, was furnished with the tusks of the wild boar.2 These decorations
of a royal and accomplished hero of the third century before the christian era are certainly
as fantastical as were those of the Cretan warrior in a more remote antiquity. Alexander
the Great, during his military campaigns, slept occasionally under the cover of his shield, as
did Ulysses and Menelaos, when placed in ambuscade before Troy.3 The importance of the
great shield is continually occurring throughout the history of the art of war amongst the
Greeks, and it seldom failed to bear some individual and distinctive symbol (ἐπίση͵ιιον). The
characteristic figure of Eros launching the thunderbolt,4 upon the golden shield of Alcibiades,
caused him to be easily recognised, just as the Gorgon, encompassed with Horror and Dis-
may in the centre of Agamemnon’s buckler5 had made conspicuous the leader of the Greeks,
and as Pandaros had recognized Diomedes by his coat of mail and shield.6 The dragon
of the shield which decorated the tomb of Epaminondas near Mantinea, was intended to
typify the origin of that hero, and to shew that Epaminondas, being an Autocht/zon of
Thebes, was descended from the Σπαρτοἰ who had sprung from the dragon’s teeth sown by
Cadmus.7 In the same manner the cock on the shield of Idomeneus, indicated the origin8
of that Homeric hero; and the dragon on the buckler of Menelaos related to a particular
event which occurred to him at ΑπΙἰε.9 When, indeed, the multitude of arms, so varied by
form and ornament, of which Homer speaks, is considered, one is disposed to believe, that, in
this respect, there was not much left to invent in succeeding and more civilized ages. The
cuirass of linen-cloth, worn by Alexander of Macedonia,10 resembled those of Ajax Oileus, and
Amphios,11 and the two richly embroidered linen cuirasses which Amasis of Egypt sent as
presents, the one (which the Samians captured) for the Lacedaemonians, the other to the
temple of Athene at Lindos.” There is no mention however in Homer, of those semi-
cuirasses (ἡμιθωρἄκια) which only covered the front of the warrior, and which are said to
have been introduced by Alexander, who wished to deprive such of his troops, as had not
stood firm, of the temptation to flight.13 Pollux attributes the invention of this kind of
defensive armour to the Thessalian Jason ;14 and it is possible that Alexander the Great and
his generals made use of them; although in works of art they are never represented with
such cuirasses. Among both Greeks and Romans, the large complete cuirass (θώραξ στάδιος
or στατὸς) belonged exclusively to the equipment of a warrior of rank, armed at all
points, on momentous occasions. We invariably retrace it in the works of sculpture which
represent armed warriors. It is of this kind of cuirass with which we are now particularly
concerned.

a note on Iliad. XV. 679-684—(it is the well known passage which treats of a species of horsemanship) :——“ caeterum
vel ex hoe loco probari potest morem saeculi Trojani diligenter Homerum servasse, nam suae aetatis morem sedulo
discernit.” The only other passage of Homer in which the riding horse (ἵππος κέλης) is mentioned, is in the Odyss.
V. 371. ,
' Plutarch. in Pyrrho. Paris edit. (1624 in folio), p. 389, C.

2 Iliad. X. 263, et seq. 3 Odyss. XIV. 479.

4 Plutarch. in Alcibiad. edit. before quoted, p. 198, F. :--ιἰσπι΄δος τε διαχρὐσου ποίησιν, οὐδὲν ἐπίσημον τῶν πατρίων
ἔχουσαν, ἀλλ᾽ ᾽΄Ερωτα κεραυνοφὄρον.

5 Iliad. XI. 37. ' 6 Iliad. V. 182.

7 Pausanias says expressly (1. viii. cap. 11. § 5.) :--τᾧ τάφῳ δὲ κίων ἐφέστηκε καὶ α’σπἳς ἐπ’ αὐτῷ δράκοντα ἔχουσα
ἔπειργασμε’νον' ὁ μὲν δὴ δράκων ἐθέλει σημαίνειν γένους τῶν Σπαρτῶν καλουμένων εἶναι τὸν ᾿Επαμινώνδαν.

8 He wore this mark as a descendant from Helios, (the Sun) to which deity the cock was sacred. See Pausan. l. V.
cap. 25, § 5 (ed. Facii, tom. II. p. 113).

9 Iliad. II. 307, et seq.; compare Pausan. x. cap. 26, § 1 (ed. Facii, tom. III. p. 242).

"’ Plutarch. in Alexandro, same edit. p. 684, Β. This linen cuirass was from the booty found in the camp of Darius
says Plutarch, “ θώρακα διπλοῦν λινοῦν, ἐκ τῶν ληφθέντων ἐν Ἰσσῷ.”

" ΙΙ. ΙΙ. 529 and 830. I recollect only these two examples in Homer. Pliny, also, says (Hist. Nat. xix. oh. i.
§ 6), thoracibus lineis paucos tamen pugnasse, testis est Homerus.

" See Herodot. 1. III. cap. 47. and II. cap. 182.

13 From the danger of turning to the enemy that part of the body which remained without defence. These are
the words of Polywnus, who relates this anecdote (Stratagem. lib. iv. cap. 3, § 13) : “ ἰνα μένοντες μὲν ἀσφάλειαν ᾽ἔχοιεν

,

at Issus : “ ἐπὶ δε τοὐτῳ,’

τῶν κατὰ πρόσωπον κρυπτομένων' φεύγοντες δὲ, τὰ ὄπισθεν μέρη φυλάσσειν μὴ δύναιντο κ. τ. λ.” _

“ Pollux, I. 134. This Jason is probably the same prince who lived in the time of Pelopidas and of Epaminondas,
and was a friend of the first of these warriors. He had a daughter named Thebe, who was married to that Alexander, the
odious tyrant of Pherae, who caused so many evils to Thessaly. See Plutarch. in Pelopid. edit. above quoted, p. 293,
where the conversation is spoken of which Pelopidas had with her when he had been surprised and made prisoner by

Alexander.
D

10 ON THE GREEK CUIRASS AND ITS PARTS.

The θώραξ στάδιος or στατὸς, so named because, when taken off; it could stand
upright upon its lower edge, is exclusively the body armour of Homer’s heroes for single
combat, and in all regular and close combat (ἐν σταὃίῃ ὑσμίνῃ or ἐν σταὃίῃ, we find also,
ΙΙ. ΧΙΙΙ. 825, the expression ἐν αὐτοσταὃι'ῃ). This large cuirass, which covered the trunk
of the body to the hips, constitute the principal difference between the full and heavy armour
of every description, and the light armour. In fact, for a simple expedition, an ambuscade,
or for any other march where an enemy might be encountered, but where no regular combat
was expected, the heroes of Homer did not wear a cuirass.1 We proceed to examine more par-
ticularly its various parts.

This cuirass was chiefly composed of the two Γὑαλα, or of the two concave pieces, one
of which covered the breast and abdomen of the warrior, the other his back. These two
parts were fastened together on one side by rivets, and when the cuirass was put on, it was
attached on the other side by buckles or small hooks? The passage in Iliad, XIII. 586-
5873 proves that a γύαλον of the cuirass covered the breast; it also protected the stomach
and the abdomen, as appears from Iliad, XIII. 507, and XVII. 312.4 Another passage5
shows that the shoulders were equally covered by a γύαλον. Homer, therefore, is found
to agree perfectly with Pausanias, as cited from his lib. x. ch. 26, ἓ 2, as well as with
the explanations of the Scholiasts, and of the lexicographers. Indeed, the data which Homer
furnishes in various passages upon those parts of the body, of the breast, or of the abdomen,
&c. where the enemy’s dart pierced the yfiahou, confirm the explanations of the ancient
expounders, who rendered τὰ γύαλον by τὸ κύτος 01' τὸ κοῖλον τοῦ θώρακος, i. e. the concave
part of the cuirass. It was thus that Aristarchos explained the γὗαλον; Hesychios, Apollo-
nios, and the scholiast to Iliad, V. 99, and XIII. 507, agree with that critic.6 The words
of Pollux (Onom. 1, §' 134), καὶ τὸ μέσον αὐτοῦ (τοῦ θώρακος), have a similar meaning, where,
instead of κύτος or κοῖλον τοῦ θώρακος, he makes use of the word μέσον, on account of the
contrast with the word πτέρυγες,7 which immediately follows, and which, as we shall hereafter
see, signifies the extremities of the cuirass.

1 See Additional Note IV.

2 This is seen in two of the marble figures of [Egina The interpretation which Heyne, perhaps misled by the
practice of the middle ages, gives of the passage of the Iliad, XV. 530, θώρηξ γυάλοισιν ἀρηρὼς, is not exact. He
says on this subject (Observ. ad. 11. V. v. 99, in the 5th volume of his edition of Homer, p. 19), “ ...... sic alii
-(thoraces) e binis cavis constantes conserti in media tergi ε! pectm'is, ut infra, XV. 530, θώρηξ γυάλοισιν ἀρηρὠς, memo-
ratur.” But this phrase only denotes that it was a cuirass composed of two γύαλα, a γυαλοθώραξ, that is to say,
(κατὰ) γύαλα ἀρηρὢς or γυάλοις συνηρμοσμένος, as Pausanias, Phoc. lib. X. ch. 27, describes it ; and it does not at all
indicate that the two concave pieces were entire upon the flanks, and buckled on the breast and on the back, which
would be equally contrary to the monuments of art, and to the known passage of Pausanias, lib. x. ch. 26, § 2.
This phrase, Il. XV. 530, is altogether in the same analogy as (11. XIV. 181) ζώνην ἑκατὸν θυσάνοις ἀραρυῖαν, in
speaking of the zone of Here.

3 Helenos, the son of Priam, shoots an arrow against Menelaos :—

Πριαμίδης μὲν ἔπειτα κατὰ στῆθος βάλεν ἰῷ
θώρηκος γύαλον, ἀπὸ 3’ ἔπτατο πικρὸς ὀϊστός.

‘ II. XIII. 506, and foll. where Idomeneus kills Oenomaosz—
᾽Ιδομενεὺς δ᾽ ἄρα Οἰνόμαον βάλε γαστέρα μέσσην
ῥῆξε δὲ θώρηκος γύαλον, διὰ δ’ ᾽ἔντερα χαλκὸς
ἥφυσ’, κ. τ. λ.

likewise ΙΙ. XVII. v. 312, and foll. where Phorkys is killed by Ajax :—
Α’ι’ας δ᾽ αὖ Φόρκυνα δαΐφρονα, Φαίνοπος υἱὸν,
Ἱπποθόῳ περιβάντα, μέσην κατὰ γαστέρα τύψευ'
ῥῆξε δὲ θώρηκος γύαλον, κ. τ. λ.

5 ΙΙ. V. 98, and foll. where, Pandarus wounds Diomedes by a dart hurled from his bow :—
καὶ βάλ’ ἐπαΐσσοντα, τυχὼν κατὰ δεξιὸν ὦμον,
θώρηκος γύαλον' διὰ δ’ ἔπτατο πικρὸς ὀ'ι'στὸς,
ἀντικρὺ δὲ ὃιε'σχε' παλάσσετο δ’ αἵματι θώρηξ.

6 “ "On οὐ κεχωρισμένος τοῦ θώρακος τόπος τὸ γύαλον, ἀλλὰ καθόλου τὸ κύτος,” says a scholiast to II. XIII. V. 507,
and ibid. to v. 580, “ οὐκ ὡρισμένος τόπος.” See Heyne, Observ. on Iliad, XIII. 507, and on V. 99.

7 We may add, that in modern Greek, τὸ μέσον or τὰ μέσα signifies the inside of a thing. From the analogy of the
passages quoted, we may with safety interpret ΙΙ. ΧΧ. 414, in the sense, that Achilles killed Polydoros, because his lance
not only pierced the cincture and the γύαλον which covered the back, but went right through the body and that γύαλον
also which covered the breast :—

τὸν βάλε μέσσον ἀ’κοντι ποδάρκης δῖος ’Αχιλλεὺς

’“ .|͵ ~ .-
νωτα παραισσοντος, ὅθι ζωστηρος (ix/neg-

ON THE GREEK CUIRASS AND ITS PARTS. 11

It appears, from all that precedes——

1st. That γύαλα denotes the two principal parts of the cuirass, or those two great oblong

plates, lined within,8 one of which protected the breast, the stomach, and the abdomen, and the
other the back of the warrior.

2dly. That every such cuirass was at the same time a θώραξ κραταιγὑαλος, or γυαλοθώραξ,
θώραξ γυαλοῖσιν ἀρηρὢς, θώραξ γυάλοις συνηρμοσμένος (phrases entirely synonymous), also a θώραξ
στάδιος or στατὄς, as, consisting of two firm plates of brass, it could be placed vertically, and
stand upright; it was called στατὸς, in opposition to coats of mail formed of chains, or of small
plates of metal imitating the scales of a fish or a serpent (θώραξιν ἀλυσιὃωτοῖς, λεπιδωτοῖς,
φολιδωτοῖς); as well as to cuirasses of linen-cloth, which fell together when taken off the
body. The appellation of στ'ἁὃιος or o-rardg, given to the great cuirass of the Greeks, may,
perhaps, be considered analogous to the epithet στατὸς applied to a horse standing upright
before his manger9 (Π. VI. 506, ἵππος στατὄς). The expression σταὃίη ὑσμίνη, to designate a

regular combat (in which the Greeks especially made use of the θώραξ στάδιος), has the same
origin.

This explanation of the two principal pieces of the great cuirass perfectly agrees with
the description given by Pausanias of the γυαλοθώραξ pourtrayed by Polygnotos in the Lesclie
of Delphi (Paus. lib. X. cap. 26, § 2) which passage deserves to be quoted. “ We
also see there,” says this author, “ the painting of an altar, to which a young boy is seen
clinging, from fear. Upon the altar is a cuirass of bronze. In our days such a cuirass
is no longer in use ;1 but it was anciently worn. It was composed of two pieces of this
metal; the one covered the breast and abdomen, the other the back: both were called γὐαλα.
When the one was placed before and the other behind, they were fastened together by
means of buckles (mpévai).2 They appeared to cover the body sufficiently even without a
shield. Thus Homer represents the Phrygian Phorkys without a buckler,3 because he wore
one of those cuirasses; one of which I have seen in the painting of Polygnotos. Calliphon

of Samos has also painted, in the temple of Artemis at Ephesos, women employed in
buckling the two plates of the cuirass of Patroclos.“

We must now proceed to the consideration of other parts of the Greek cuirass, and parti-
cularly the πτέρυγες and the περόναι.

It is easy to imagine what the Greeks understood by the πτέρυγες (wings) of the cuirass,
as the meaning of the word itself conducts to the idea of something salient and spreading
out, and as it is further explained by many productions of ancient sculpture.

χρύσειοι σύνεχον, καὶ διπλόος ἥντετο θώρηξ'
ἀντικρὺ δὲ διέσχε παρ᾽ ὀμφαλὸν ἔγχεος αἷχμἡ'
Ι am inclined to think that the epithet διπλόος given to the cuirass in this passage, and in Iliad, IV. 133, relates to the
two γύαλα of which it was composed. Heyne could not make up his mind on this subject. He had, however, a true per-
ception, when he said, in the note to Iliad. V. 132-138, “ inde διπλοῦς θώραξ vel propter duo cava, vel oras cavorum sibi
innexas, altera super alteram, vel duplex, quia thorax duplicatus erat cingulo; verius esse puto quod primo loco posui.”
It might be, notwithstanding, that the διπλόος of Homer meant a lined cuirass according to the analogy of the warm
and lined cloak (the χλαίνα διπλῆ) which the aged Nestor threw over his shoulders to protect him from the cold of the
night. Or rather (to choose my example from armour) like the cuirass of Alexander the Great, who, as we have
already remarked according to Plutarch, wore a doubled linenlcuirass, a θώρακα λινοῦν διπλοῦν.
8 There can be no question of the bronze cuirass having been lined from the earliest periods.

Nevertheless,
throughout Homer there is not a single word which positively signifies the lining of a cuirass.

I am disposed to
believe that the word ὑποπτυχίς, which Plutarch employs in speaking of the cuirass of Alexander, has no other meaning.

These are his own expressions (in Alex. Paris edit. fol. p. 672, F): “ ἄκοντισθεὶς μεν (Alexander at the passage of the
Granicus) ὑπὸ τὴν ὗποπτυχίδα τοῦ θώρακος οὐκ ἐτρώθη.”

9 In the same manner the Germans say Standbild, Stand halten, &c.

' See Addilional Note V. 2 See Additional Note VI. 3 See Additional Note VII.

4 When the two γύαλα were buckled, this massive cuirass could, without being injured, bear a considerable weight;
this permitted Polygnotos to represent Glaucos seated upon such a piece of armour (Paus. lib. X. cap. ‘27):

γέγραπται
᾿ .- « | ᾽ ’ a I l ͵
δε . . . Γλαυκος μεν woman/0v, επι θωρακι γυαλοις συνηρμοσμενῳ.

12 ON THE GREEK CUIRASS AND ITS PARTS.

The destination of the cuirass did not admit of placing anything very salient at those
central parts, which covered especially the chest, the navel and the spine. Such an addition
could only be placed at the lateral extremities. To protect the shoulders was an essential
object of the cuirass; for this purpose it was elongated a little outwardly over that joint,
following the form of the upper part of the arms. (In the heroic times, both arms of the
warrior were always uncovered, and protected only by the shield). Around the lower edge of
the cuirass were attached straps, four or five inches long, of leather, or, perhaps, of felt, and
covered with small plates of metal. These straps served in part for ornament, and partly,
also, to protect the lower region of the body in concert with the belt and the band.
Xenophon speaks of straps of this kind, in the well known passage of his book περὶ ἱππικῆς,
in the XIIth chapter, and he establishes the very proper principle that such πτέρυγες should
be made sufficiently long and broad to protect the abdomen, &c., but not too long, so as
to incommode the rider. Indeed, this is the sense of the words, περὶ δὲ τὸ ἦτρον καὶ τὰ

’ ͵.͵ \ Χ I 'λ ( έ _ ω \ π a! (I I \ I
αιὃοια και τα mm ῳ αι πτ ρυγες τοια’υται και τοσαυται εστωσαν, ωστε στεγειν τα μελη.

These straps are visible on many figures of the pediments of the temple of [Eginm Thus
the two archers armed with cuirasses have two rows of straps obliquely placed one above the
other. One of those figures (that which wears a helmet formed as a lion’s head), has in
each row fourteen straps, 2% inches wide, by 4% long; the other figure, (which belongs to
the west tympanon) has nineteen; but those of the upper row are but four inches in length,
and two in breadth.

These straps, or lappets, at the lower extremity of the cuirass, and the prolongation at
the shoulders, 'gave it, when it was taken off from the body, a lightness of appearance, as if
it had small wings at the two sides. This analogy may have led to the Greek denomina-
tion of these appendages. Indeed, the Greeks applied the term πτέρυγες occasionally to
extremities and projections of almost every kind.

But a more important matter for our present purpose is to give an exact and satisfactory
idea of the Περόναι of the cuirass.

Περόνη was a word of various significations. By its etymology (from πει’ρω or πἐρω),
it primarily meant a needle, but one only of a certain dimension, capable of supporting a
certain weight, or of holding together the different parts of a vesture, of drapery, &c. In
later times, and even in most of the passages where this word occurs, it loses the proper
acceptation of needle, and retains only the idea of fastening or holding together, as by a fibula
or clasp; it therefore becomes entirely synonymous with πόρπη. Indeed Pollux seems, in the
place where he speaks of a garment divided into two parts,5 to indicate that the form of the
περόνη differed from that of the πόρπη ; but we have no means of understanding the difference.
As early as Homer, περόνη was decidedly taken in the sense of clasp, or buckle. For instance,
in the XVIIIth book of the Odyssey, where the suitors order some gifts to.be brought to
Penelope, Antinoos presents her with a large and precious garment on which are twelve
golden clasps that fit exactly to their eyes or κληΐὃες.6 The poet has represented under
another shape, but evidently as of a considerable size, the buckle with which Nestor, 11. X.
133, clasped (περονήσατο) his great and double mantle of woollen cloth, as also the περόνη
that held the purple woollen mantle (χλαῖνα), which Ulysses wore. This περόνη was of gold,
and composed of two tubes, or small cylinders, which entered the one into the other (we
see its form in many antique fibulae) ; in front of it was an ornament skilfully worked in relief;
representing a dog holding under his feet a young kid, struggling to disengage itself.7

ὃ Pollux, Onomasticon, lib. VII. ξ 54. His proper words are: ὁ δὲ σχιστὸς χιτὼν περόναις κατὰ τοὺς ὤμους
διῆρτο' ἡ δὲ πὄρπη κατὰ τὰ στέρνα ἔνἡπτετο.
6 Odyss. XVIII. 292 et seq.:
’Αντινὄω μὲν ᾽ε΄νεικε μέγαν περικαλλέα πέπλον,
ποικίλον' ἐν δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ’ε’σαν περόναι δυοκἄιδεκα πᾶσαι
χρύσειαι, κληῖσιν ἕὕγνἆμπτοις ἀραρυῖαι.

7 See Additional Note VIII.

ON THE CLASPS AND BUCKLES OF THE GREEK CUIRASS. 13

If then in the heroic times, the garments used in civil life, were furnished with such
large and ornamented clasps, we must not be surprised at their size and magnificence when
they were applied to the defensive armour of the ancients.

Such clasps were also in a manner indispensable, as the cuirass must necessarily fit
close to the body in its various forms and movements, without inconvenience ; it was requisite
also that they should be strong enough to resist the missiles hurled against them, such as
arrows, javelins, stones, &c.5 The generic name of these clasps, and buckles of the cuirass, of
whatever sort or shape they were, was, according to the above quoted passage of Pausanias,
περόναι. In Homer we find, also, several other names which denote similar objects, for
instance, ἕνεται and ὀχέες, in the Ionic dialect ὀχῆες. See, for instance, I]. XIV. 180, in
speaking of the golden buckles with which Here fixes her costly garment around her breast;
and ΙΙ. ΧΧ. 414, where the golden buckles of the belt of Polydoros are described.

Now besides the joints which united on the right side of the body, the two great con-
cave pieces of the cuirass, forming together the θώραξ στατὸς, it was necessary . that there
should be at least three buckles or clasps, at the γυαλοθὧραξ, viz., one towards the left
breast, and, probably, two on the left side of the body. But in the more remote periods,
there were usually four ; two upon the breast, and two at the left side. We see the
three clasps exemplified, on one of the archers, among the figures from the pediments of
the temple of zzEgina. In fact, the two γύαλα are there joined above the right shoulder;
fastened however not by a περόνη, but a strap about two inches broad, apparently of leather
or some soft material; this strap was not intended to be buckled and unbuckled, but served
as a kind of narrow and fixed epaulet, covering the opening for the right arm. To protect
in this manner the shoulder, by the means of a more flexible and softer stuff; was very
appropriate, considering the constant movement of an archer, who, whenever he bent his bow,
necessarily made an effort of the right shoulder in raising it up. On the left side of the
breast, is the buckle (περόνη), consisting of a prolongation of four inches in length by two in
breadth, from the γύαλον behind, and ending at that part of the cuirass which is a little
above the papilla. This band is flat, and the hook by which it is fastened to the front or
pectoral γύαλον is not visible. Lower down and on the left side is found a larger clasp of
a very different form——like a latticed grate, which to all appearance indicates, not cords, but
small bars of metal, and which, evidently, served to fasten or unfasten the cuirass. The second
archer armed with a cuirass, among the [Eginetan figures, presents the περόναι of a shape
somewhat different. There we find two symmetrical and perfectly similar pieces, by means
of which the dorsal γύαλον is fastened to the pectoral on the two sides of the breast; and
at the left side of the body the latter bends over the edge of the former, where they
meet. The artist’s design was evidently to make these two γύαλα appear attached by hooks
or small buckles, which are not visible. In the large marble figures of Roman emperors
and heroes, the disposition of the fibulae of the cuirass is in some respects different. Some-
times on both sides of the body there are neither hooks nor buckles, nor any other means
of fastening pointed out by the artist; in other statues, the joints, or buckles, are faithfully
represented on both sides.

The absence of the lateral fibulae in the monuments of art, is nowise a true repre-
sentation of the real state of the cuirass used on occasions of ceremony, but a matter of
pure convention; this is beyond doubt, since it is clear that a cuirass fitting closely to the
body, and composed of strong plates of metal (a θώραξ στατὄς), could not have been put
on, if there had been no opening, either before or behind, or at one of the sides. On the
other hand, there are regularly found, on the breasts of the Roman figures and busts in
cuirass, the two fibulae of the shoulders; though one of these pieces is often covered by
some folds of the mantle falling backward, which the Roman artists so frequently placed
on the left shoulders of the statues or portraits of their emperors. Upon many of these
monuments, the manner in which the two pieces were attached on both sides of the

5 See Additional Note IX.
E

14 USE AND DESTINATION OF THE BRONZES OF SIRIS.

breast, is clearly indicated. The two Clasps commonly terminate in lions’ heads furnished
with small rings; two other rings of the same size are fixed a little lower down upon the
cuirass; they are connected with those of the lions’ heads by means of knots or bows in
the vicinity of the papilla, which are often indicated in the cuirasses of the Roman statues.
Sometimes, but more rarely, instead of lions’ heads there are merely rings fixed to those
shoulder pieces, and then they are united by bows with the rings placed lower down. Such
is the case with a colossal statue at the museum of the Capitol, which is taken by some
(but without sufficient reason), for an image of Pyrrhos. This statue, though by no means
very beautiful, is remarkable for a profusion of ornaments on the cuirass; two cornucopice, of
a very salient rilievo, are seen upon the shoulder-pieces, which unite the fore and hind parts
of the armour.“

The position of this ornament answers exactly to the place which our two Bronze Plates
occupied; nevertheless I suspect that their destination was a little different. In fact, it
does not seem to me admissible that these two beautiful productions, chiselled in alto-relievo
with such delicacy and skill, can have themselves served to fasten the cuirass; they are not
adapted long to resist blows, nor violent pressure or tension; they are also much too wide
to have served for περόναι, or Shoulder straps, to hold together the two γύαλα of the cuirass.
They occupied nearly the whole breadth of the thorax or breast, and extended to the openings
for the arms; as is proved by the edge folded up in No. II. These considerations have
suggested to me the idea, that the plates in question are not the περόναι themselves, but
a species of capsulae, or masks, serving to cover, in a manner harmonizing with the rest
of the armour, narrow bands of leather, which, if exposed to view upon a very rich and
highly ornamented cuirass, would from the meanness of their form have produced a very
indifferent effect. When the bronzes were discovered, there was still a small hook upon the
lion’s head of No. Ι., but in the operation of digging, it was broken and lost from inad-
vertence. There would, doubtless, have been a similar hook at the head of the lion, in
No. Π., and both were fitted so as to catch into staples placed lower down, and the two
capsulae, or masks, would be thus steadily fixed. It is not difficult to comprehend in what
manner these masks were fastened to the shoulder above the περόναι which they covered;
for the two hinges at the top are sufficiently well preserved to give a clear idea of the
mechanism. The cuirass being put on, the two lower Clasps, the real περόναι, were at first
shut fast, or buckled, and then the ornamental capsulae, or masks (of the kind to which the
bronzes of Siris belong), were applied and fastened on by their hooks. In taking the cuirass
off, the method pursued was of course exactly the reverse. Between these two pieces, or
towards the middle of the chest, the pectoral γόαλον had probably an ornament which rose
in serpentine windings; as in the XIth canto of the Iliad, verse 26 and following, Homer
very clearly describes the six serpents which were on the thorax of Agamemnon:

κυάνεοι δὲ δράκοντες ὄρωρε’χατο προτὶ ὃειρἢν

τρεῖς ἑκάτερθ᾽, ᾽ι΄ρισσιν ἐοικότες κ. 7'. λ.7
Upon the Roman busts and statues in marble, where cuirasses of ceremony are seen,
there is almost always an ornament of this kind; frequently a head of Medusa; sometimes
a grotesque or architectural ornament.

In searching for proofs of the truth of this opinion, amongst the ancient works of
sculpture, especially in Rome, I found many things which fully confirmed it. For instance,
at the Museum Capitolinum, in the room commonly called Camera deglz’ Imperatorz' (in the
centre of which is the seated statue of Agrippina), is found a marble bust, marked No. 30,
of good execution, and representing Adrian. This portrait has upon the breast of its cuirass
two pieces, not, it is true, entirely of the form of the bronzes of Siris, but which, like them,

6 This statue was found on the Mons Aventinus. The arms and legs are modern, and it appears that in restoring
them they wished to make it a Mars. In the printed accounts of the Monuments of Rome, it commonly bears the
name of Marie barbalo. The cuirass is richly decorated, and the two griffins, which form its principal ornament, are
well executed. The ground of the shoulder-pieces, upon which the cornucopizc cross each other, is in imitation of
fishes’ scales (λεπιδωτὄν).

7 See Additional Nole X.

 

 

 

 

USE AND DESTINATION OF THE BRONZES OF SIRIS. 15

are detached from the cuirass; and having at the bottom neither ring nor joint, they seem
to be merely the prolongation of the dorsal γύαλον intended to cover the fastenings of the
cuirass. They have, also, upon their outer side, (each is about three and a half inches
wide), two small bearded figures, which, with one hand placed upon the hip, have the other
arm lifted up, and from the middle of the body to the lower part terminate in curved lines,
as in compositions, which are commonly called arabesque. In the same manner the fine statue
of the young Marcus Aurelius, in the gallery of the Museum Capitolinum (marked No. 72),
has upon the right breast (the only one visible, the left being covered by the mantle) a
piece altogether analogous, detached from the cuirass, and upon which is represented in
relief a thunderbolt well executed, an ornament which is often found thus placed upon the
cuirasses of the busts or statues of the Romans. A bust of Vitellius (No. 18, also in the

Camera degli Imperatori), bears upon the right breast-plate (the only one which is seen)
a winged Victory, which has a trophy in her right hand.

But what is much more interesting, especially for determining the place which our
bronzes occupied on the cuirass, is, the ornament of a breast-plate of a colossal statue
representing Adrian, seen at the Villa Albani at Rome. It stands in the last niche of the
corridor, or gallery, of the palace, to the left in going out by the middle door of the
edifice. This statue, which is by no means bad, but which, apparently, has never been
finished, has the left shoulder covered by a part of the mantle, as frequently seen in statues
of emperors, and bears upon the right breast-plate an ornament which exhibits two figures
combating, the one being that of a man, the other appearing to represent a woman.8 It
will be seen at the first glance that,—for the principal object, and as much as what is

insignificant can resemble what is very transcendent,—this production exactly corresponds to
those of the bronzes of Siris.

In order to give a clear idea of the manner in which the plates in question were
attached, by the means of a joint above the two shoulders, to the γύαλον behind, I have
annexed a large engraving in outline.9 The lower parts of the drawing, marked A B C
and D E F, represent the bronzes of Siris, but the upper part G H I K is a fragment,
found in Greece, of an antique bronze cuirass which my friend the late Mr. Dodwell was
so kind as to cede to me. Although of a careful and neat workmanship, this fragment of
the dorsal γύαλον of a Greek cuirass, being broken and mutilated, would be insignificant
enough by itself ; but its hinges, both of which are in very good preservation, afford the

best possible explanation of the essential purpose of our bronzes, and they remove every kind
of doubt relative to their place upon the cuirass.1

I now leave it to my readers to judge whether I have succeeded in determining the

destination of these bronzes, and proceed to a more interesting question: What do the
figures of this beautiful production represent? - ’

’3 Sec I’late IV. Convinced that nothing could be more explanatory of the place which the bronzes of Siris
occupied on the cuirass, I procured, with the assistance of my friend Professor Freund of Copenhagen, a mould of the
part of the monument to which I allude; from the cast of this mould, the present outline has been exactly delineated.

9 See Plate V.

1 It is worth while to remark, by the way, that the joint t at the left shoulder enables us to recognize an
ancient reparation of the cuirass. Without doubt the two hinges were originally similar and fixed, as that of the
right shoulder m, by three rivets only. Later, and probably by another workman, the hinge I, a little different from
the other, was fastened by four rivets to the damaged cuirass.

IV.

THE SUBJECT, REPRESENTED ON THE BRONZES OF SIRIS.

IN considering these two groups, it is seen, at the first view, that the action they exhibit is
taken from the cycle of the Amazonian μῦθος. Every one knows generally, in what manner and
how successfully Grecian art appropriated this beautiful fable ; and we at once enter upon these
questions :———From which of the three epochs of the mythos of the Amazons has the subject
represented in the bronzes of Siris been taken? Is it from the exploits of Hercules, from those
of Theseus, or from those of Penthesilea and her companions in arms under the walls of Troy?

It is immediately observable that there is nothing in these groups which indicates either
Hercules or Theseus, according to the accustomed types of those heroes in the productions of
Greek art. We have neither the lion’s skin, nor the club, nor the bow and quiver. Neither
Hercules nor Theseus ever appeared with helmets, or shields like these. Neither is the form
given, to the heroes of our bronzes at all that of Theseus, and much less that of Hercules.
To represent a Theseus vanquisher of the Amazons, the hero of the plate No. I. has too much
beard, and is not yéung enough; if it were a Hercules, the action of the muscles would be
more powerful, nor is the outline of the head (even supposing it without the helmet) that of

HerCules.

But if we call to mind the various accounts which art and poetry have transmitted to us
of the achievements of Penthesilea, and of the band of heroines which followed her to the
defence of Troy, we shall readily discover many details in these fine productions, which corres-
pond not only to that age, that is to say, to the idea which the monuments of art and poetry
have given us of it, but also to the particular circumstances of that event; or rather the
whole manner, in which the author of these bronzes has treated the subject, corresponds precisely
with the data which remain to us upon this point of mythical story. The rhapsodists and
the cyclic poets who came after Homer, took for the frequent subject of their songs this
exploit, supposed the last of a queen of Amazons ;2 though we are only made acquainted with
these poetic fables by the feeble and spiritless copies of them, which have been handed down
to us in prose or verse, by Justin, Quintus of Smyrna, Tryphiodoros, the pretended Dictys of
Crete, Dares the Phrygian, Tzetzes, and others.3 The best which is preserved to us upon the
exploits of Penthesilea and her Amazons, is the first 60011: of the Parelez'pomena of Quintus,
who, though a very afi‘ected poet, and disfigured by exaggerations and tautologies, deserved, by
his very animated style of composition, and by his rich colouring, to have lived in better times.
The plan of this part of the work is not undeserving of our attention.

᾽ Consult Diod. Sic. lib. II. 45, 46.

3 Many works of art which remain to us, and which represent Penthesilea, her companions and their array, are
much more ancient than any of the now existing poetical or historical evidences on the same subject. Those works
of art however were copies of more ancient monuments, just as Quintus, Tryphiodoros, and the pretended Dictys, had
also their models. The combat of the Amazons which Micon painted in the Pagcz'Ze and upon the walls of the
temple of Theseus at Athens; that which Phidias represented in relief upon the shield of the Colossus in the Parthenon,
and on the pedestal of his Olympian Zeus (See Schol. ad Aristoph. Lysistr. 679, and Pausan. lib. I. c. 15 § 2, and c. 17, ξ 2,
compared with lib. V. cap. xi. § 2), were, without doubt, the models of many representations of the kind; and were
afterwards copies on copies indefinitely multiplied. It may have been the same in respect to the Penthesilea which had
been painted by. Panwnos, brother of Phidias, at Olympia, upon the throne of the great statue of Zeus (Pausan.
lib. V. cap. xi. § 2, p. 46-47, edit. of Facius): this composition may, in all probability, be regarded as the model
of many others which represented the death of that queen of the Amazons.

 

 

α . w wifiiixixadifl/Vx.

 

             
   

 

κι. 1.5“ /// ᾽, ,
...... :. m .. , ἕξ͵
.,... ιν , 7% τ, T/MI/
:͵.͵͵͵͵.͵͵.͵͵͵|͵.. . . ,͵͵͵.͵͵͵7͵͵μ͵͵ ) 11w,
ᾖ... rig/9,,”
@ ι,.

  

witty».

,J,

ξ.

 

 
 

.
. ........... . .
......ᾷ..........................

 

          

2.
_ ξ gal/2&4
| “..... ......
./ ,.
.. ..
. ..

 

 

 

Ill/flaw...
i9...

 

 

mum“
4

         

͵͵
͵͵͵͵
;
ψ,.

x
., ͵͵͵
.....ἷυἓἓ.

W

 

PENTHESILEA AND HER AMAZONS. 17

The opening of the poem, in the first hundred and twenty verses, contains some very
pleasing scenes. Penthesilea comes to Troy with twelve companions (whose Greek names
are enumerated); she had involuntarily killed her sister in the chase, and is, therefore, per-
secuted by the furies; she finds the city in mourning for the death of Hector; she is wel-
comed by the Trojans, whose courage revives at this unlocked for aid; even in the breast
of Priam, bowed down by age and grief, hope is rekindled; Penthesilea makes extravagant
promises to the prince, which are reproved by Andromache; and she partakes, during the
night, the hospitalities of the old monarch. Such is the opening; after which, Pallas—Athene
having sent a fallacious dream to the queen of the Amazons, she burns with desire to
engage in immediate combat with Achilles; she arms herself at day-break,"‘ issues from the
walls, and animates the Trojans, who cheerfully prepare for battle. She leaps upon her courser,
the gift of Orithyia, consort of Boreas, and swift as the winged harpies, and then takes the
field encircled by Amazons, and numerous Trojans. Whilst the venerable Priam implores of
Zeus Idaeos to protect the Trojans, and the Amazonian queen, the offspring of the same divine
stock from which he himself was descended, a fatal presage chills the hopes which he had
nourished on her arrival (v. 1-204).

The Greeks perceiving at a distance the march of the Trojans, and astonished at their
daring, quickly arm themselves, leave their vessels, and march up to the enemy, when the battle
begins (v. 220.) Penthesilea commences by overthrowing eight Greek warriors (227-229), Derione
subdues Laogonos, Klonie kills Menippos ; to avenge this last, Podarkes, son of Iphicles, lays the
Amazon Klonie prostrate, (v. 235). Irritated at the death of her companion, Penthesilea, with
her lance, gives a mortal stroke to Podarkes (v. 240). Idomeneus immolates Bremusa, (v. 247,
and foll.), Meriones kills Evandre and Thermodusa, Derione is slain by Ajax, son of Oileus
(258), Alkibia and Derimachia by Diomedes, (260 and foll.). The description of the combat
is prolonged to verse 313.

In verse 314, and following, the author describes, with a superabundance of poetic colouring,
the surprising heroism of Penthesilea; the Greeks are compelled to give way wherever she
directs her courser. Insulting the foes, she exclaims, “ Where is the might of the son of
Tydeus, and of Ajax the fEacida? They are said to be the most valiant of the Greeks,
but they dare not risk a combat with me, for dread of being vanquished, and descending
to the mansions of the dead.” In the midst of these cries she precipitates herself, with the
Trojan host, upon the Greeks, who fall around her like the leaves of autumn from the ruth-
less blast, or the drops of the fast descending shower. The earth, streaming with gore,
groans beneath the weight of dead bodies. Exulting shouts are raised by the Trojans, to
whom their heroine appears as a dark tempest, exercising its fury upon the enemy’s astounded
host, or as one of the immortal goddesses, Pallas or Enyo, Eris or Artemis, who has come to
their aid (v. 365 and foll.), and is about to destroy all the Argives and to set fire to their
ships (v. 372). Blind and thoughtless, they foresee not the evils ready to burst on their own
heads and on Penthesilea; for neither Ajax (son of Telamon) nor Achilles have hitherto heard of
the combat. Both of them are far off, at the tomb of Patroclos, plunged in the deepest affliction,
and thinking of the friend they have lost. A god has kept them at a distance from the fight,
in order that the sad destiny of many of the Greeks, killed by Penthesilea and the Trojans,
should be accomplished (verse 380). This manner of representing human destiny is com-
pletely homeric; as well as that of introducing an invisible Parca or Fate (Αἶσα λυγρὰ), who
excites Penthesilea, and who, herself removed from the conflict, delights in the massacre
and grants a momentary triumph to the rash and royal virgin, only to reserve her more
infallibly as a victim for the arm of Achilles (V. 390 and foll.). An episode (v. 403 to 474)
takes us back to the city, and affords several fine poetic touches. The Trojan women,
heated by the example of the Amazons, and the discourse of Hippodameia, wish to take arms,
and to share the perils and the victory of their husbands and their brethren. The wiser
counsels of Theano, however, restrain them. The verse 476 and fol]. bring us back into the

“’ It is well worthy of note, that Quintus gives to her, buskins of gold, a cuirass, a crescent shield, a casque surmounted
by a golden crest, two javelins in the left hand, beneath the shield, and a two-edged battle-axe in the right.

F

18 PENTHESILEA AND HER AMAZONS.

midst of the fight, where the impetuous Penthesilea proceeds constantly onward, overcoming
every obstacle. The Greeks are defeated and put to flight (v. 493); and it is only when
the victorious Trojans, having advanced nearly to the vessels, are ready to set them on fire
(v. 494 and fell.) that Ajax hears the din of battle, and prevails upon Achilles to hasten
with him to the scene of carnage, to avert their ruin. He adds, that, being fEacidae, it becomes
tlzem, above all, to do so; he recalls with pride their divine origin, and the achievements of
their ancestors, who, in company with Hercules, had already once overthrown Troy. Achilles
himself now hears the clang of war, and the tumult of the combat. Both heroes hasten to arm
themselves, and, to the great joy of the closely pursued Greeks, they appear in the midst of
the conflict, Where the two heroes, like two lions rushing upon a herd, make a dreadful carnage
of the foe (528). Ajax kills four of the chief Trojan warriors, Achilles four Amazons. Unitedly
they fall upon the Trojan army, the close phalanx of which is as easily and quickly annihi—
lated, as the forest before the fire lighted up by the tempest. Penthesilea sees from afar (ν.
588) the defeat of her party, and the rapid progress of the two heroes. She flies to encounter
them. At first she hurls a javelin at Achilles, then another at Ajax, but each without effect.
She braves them both with arrogant words, which only excite their smiles (v. 563). The dart
she has thrown at Ajax pierces his silver buskins, but leaves no wound. Ajax assails the troop
of Trojans, leaving to Achilles the task of combating the Amazon, well knowing that whatever
her strength might be, it would be as easy for that hero to vanquish her, as for a vulture to
strike down a dove (v. 572). We have deemed it necessary to extend thus far the extract
from the first book, that the ideas which directed Quintus may be clearly understood. We
shall merely add, by way of connecting the facts together, an abridgement of the principal
features of the action which follows in this first division of the poem.

Achilles addresses a speech, full of indignation, to Penthesilea; he then fights with and kills
the queen: her horse too shares the same fate (574-629). As soon as the Trojans behold the
Amazon fall, they flee into the city, and deplore the destiny of the daughter of flres, and of her
associates (630-642). The son of Peleus speaks in words of derision to his victim (643-653). But
when he draws out his lance from the still quivering body, and takes οΗ᾿ her helmet, he remains,
as well as the Greeks who flock around him, struck with astonishment at the great beauty Of
the virgin warrior.5 Aphrodite increases her attractions in the arms of death to redouble the
grief of the cruel vanquisher (v. 654-674). Informed by the winds, daughters of Boreas, of the
fate of Penthesilea, Ares, exasperated, precipitates himself from the top of Olympos to avenge
his daughter : but averted by the thunder of Jove, and by the lightnings which glance before his
feet, he renounces his mad enterprize, and returns to his station among the Gods (675-715).
Whilst the Argives are despoiling the dead bodies of their enemies, Achilles unceasingly contem-
plates the corpse of the beautiful Amazon. Thersites jeers him on it in insolent terms. The
indignant hero kills him with a blow of his fist. All the Greeks applaud the act, save only
Diomedes, the kinsman of Thersites, who is irritated at it. A single combat is about to ensue
between the two heroes, when they are appeased by their friends (716-781). The Atridae
themselves lament and admire the lovely Penthesilea, and freely give her up, as well as her
arms, to the heralds of Priam. The body, the horse, and the arms of the Amazonian queen,
with other precious objects, are burnt by the Trojans, and the urn which encloSes her
ashes is placed in a tower at the sepulchre of Laomedon. Her companions, the other
Amazons, are interred not far from their queen, for the Atridae had not refused the last
honours to the Amazons or to the Trojans who had perished (782-810). The Greeks also
bury their dead, and pay especial honours to Podarkes immolated by Penthesilea. A distinct
funeral mount is raised to his memory. A sepulchre apart is prepared for Thersites. Towards
the evening they return to their ships. Achilles and the other princes partake of a
hospitable repast in the tent of Agamemnon (fin. lib. ]).

5 Nothing can be more beautiful than the comparison of the majestic virgin, extended on the earth, with Artemis,
fatigued and sleeping, after a lion chase, (v. 668-665) :—
κεῖτο γὰρ ἔν τεύχεσσι κατὰ χθονὸς, ἡὕτ’ ἀτειρὴς
᾽͵Αρ’ι'εμις ὗπυώουσα, Διὸς τέκος, εὖτε κἄμῃσι

γυῖα, κατ’ οὔρεα μακρὰ θοοὺς βάλλουσα λέοντας.

PENTHESILEA AND HER AMAZONS. 19

Before we attempt to bring forward what may be important to our object in these
animated fictions, we will observe generally that in the rhapsodists and poets more or
less removed fiom the time of the Homeric school of poetry, a great difference existed
in the manner of representing the exploits of Penthesilea. This is sufficiently proved by the
wretched compilations, bad extracts from better things, which remain to us. The short nar-
rative of the last warlike feat of this heroine and of her death by Tryphiodoros, (᾽Ιλίου
ἅλωσις v. 33 et seq.) is, in the essential points, not far removed from the tradition which
Quintus followed. On the other hand, according to the compilation of Ptolemreos, son (3“
Hephwstion, (who lived under Trajan and Adrian long before Quintus), Achilles is at first slain
by Penthesilea; but being afterwards restored to life, through the intercession of his mother
Thetis, he overcomes and kills the Amazon Queen, and then returns into the world of shades.6
The recital of the pretended Dares the Phrygian is less absurd, although very remote
from that of Quintus and of Tryphiodoros. According to him Penthesilea does not arrive
with an army of Amazons to aid the Trojans, till after the death of Achilles. In a great
battle, which lasted several days, the Greeks are driven back 'to their camp, and there
shut themselves up by the orders of Agamemnon, until Menelaos, sent for the purpose, con-
ducts Neoptolemos the son of Achilles into the camp. As soon as they are arrived, and
Neoptolemos has wept his father’s loss over his tomb, and received his arms, he makes
his Myrmidons march, as Agamemnon does his army, against Penthesilea and her followers.
In the battle which ensues Neoptolemos performs great exploits. The rash Penthesilea
ventures to face him. An obstinate combat is renewed for several days successively. The
son of Achilles, at first wounded by the Amazon, at last vanquishes her and puts her to
death. The Trojans take refuge within their walls.7

The pretended Dictys of Crete does indeed make Achilles defeat and kill Penthesilea,
but in other respects his account is very different from that of Quintus. He does not,
like this latter, represent the Queen of the Amazons as coming to Troy with a small troop
of twelve female warriors, but with a great army, and before the death of Hector. When
they went out to battle, this hero had preceded her with a trifling escort. Achilles, aware
of this circumstance, places himself in ambuscade, surprises and slays him near the river.
Penthesilea, coming up soon after with her army, learns the death of Hector ; she is dismayed
at the news, and is fain to retrace her steps. In the mean while, by the force of presents,
Paris engages her to proceed to the succour of his countrymen. In the battle, which soon
takes place, Achilles encounters Penthesilea, and mortally wounds her with his lance; he then
seizes her by the hair and throws her from her horse in the agonies of death. The Trojans
flee to the city. Penthesilea, who yet breathes, is found amongst the dead; Achilles wishes
to give to her remains the rites of sepulchre, Diomedes prevents him, and, with the appro-
bation of the greatest number present, he seizes the corpse by the foot, and throws it into
the Scamander.8 According to Tzetzes, who abounds in absurdities regarding the fate of
Penthesilea,9 it was not till after many combats, and with much difficulty, that Achilles con-
quered and slew the heroine; and then deploring the beauty and the valour of the virgin
queen, he sought to engage the Greeks to grant her an interment worthy of her fame.
Thersites is represented as expressing himself on the occasion in a manner very injurious
and disgraceful to Achilles, who instantly kills him. Diomedes, irritated at this rash deed,
drags the body of the heroine queen by the foot, and precipitates it into the flood.1

These stories are very absurd; but they were founded undoubtedly upon some more
ancient authority, and they prove the great diversity in the accounts of the poets and mytho-

6 Ptolemaeos Hephaestion. See Historiae Poeticae Scriptores Antiq. (Parisiis 1675, 8vo.) p. 330.

7 Dares Phrygius de excidio Trojae, cum Dicty Cretensi ed. Anna Tannaquilli Fabri filia (Lut. Par. 1680 in 4to.)
p. 173 et seq.

Η Dictys Cretensis. edit. quoted, p. 75, 77, 87, 88.

9 Tzetzes ad Lycophronis Cassandram, v. 999. Potter’s 2nd edit. in fol., Oxon. 1702, p. 110.

' It is still more singular to read also in Tzetzes, that a Troy,—-—risen up again a third time from its ruins,—
flourished under the sceptre of Eneas, and had been destroyed by the Amazons. This notion is found in his com—

20 PENTHESILEA AND HER AMAZONS.

logists regarding Penthesilea. It is remarkable that this discordance is much greater in the
mythoi and traditions which are unnoticed in the Odyssey or Iliad, arising evidently from the
veneration with which all Greek antiquity regarded the authority of Homer. The quidlibet
audendi potestas therefore was much more freely used by the later cyclics, versificators and
mythologists, in the histories and traditions on which the Homeric epos had not decidedly
fixed its impress; and this is the case not only of the tradition relative to Penthesilea, but
also of the whole mythos of the Amazons. Amongst the many versions, often directly at
variance, each subsequent writer chose that which seemed to him the best suited to his
object. Quintus made a liberal use of this privilege.

mentaries upon the Cassandra of LyCOphron, V. 969 :-πρὦτον μὲν γὰρ ὑπὸ cHpoucke’ovc ἔκρατἢἓη ἡ Tpoia' δεύτερον ὑπὸ
τῶν ᾽Ελλἠνων διὰ τὴν .Ἑλένην, τρίτον δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν ᾽Αμαζόνων' ὃ γὰρ Αἰνείας, μόνος φυγὼν ἐκ τῆς ἁλώσεως,
πάλιν ᾠ’κησε τὴν Τροίαν, ἐλθοῦσαι δὲ αἱ ᾿Αμαζὄνες πάλιν ἕσκαψαν ταὐτην' This tradition of a Troy built up again by
xEneas after the destruction of that city by the Greeks, is to be found in Homer (11. XX. 306 et seq.), but I
have nowhere else seen the Amazons blended with the fate of this new Ilion.

V.

THE TWO AJACES ON THE BRONZES OF SIRIS.

AMONGST the warriors who,—-»in the disposition of the picture conceived by Quintus,—
fought with the heroine and her companions, Achilles acts the most distinguished part. The
two Ajaces, Idomeneus, Meriones and Diomedes, take a share in the action. Whoever is
acquainted with the practice of the ancient poets, must be convinced, that in this respect
Quintus followed some earlier author who had himself adopted a traditional mythos. The
principal figures of the picture being given, their disposition only remained in the power of
the poet. Quintus has chosen to bring together in the same scene Achilles and Ajax
Telamonios; others may have distributed their principal characters in a different manner.
It is enough for us to know that, according to ancient traditions, THE TWO AJACES tooh
part in this warlihe feat; these being, according to our opinion, the two warriors repre-
sented on the Bronzes of Siris. We now proceed to offer the principal arguments which
have determined our conviction on this question, and the more in detail, because from such
an enquiry some light may be thrown, not only upon the fine work before us, but also
upon several other remarkable monuments of antiquity.

l. The Iliad throughout may be said to testify the friendship and union of the two
Ajaces, as well as the aid they mutually afi‘orded to each other. The greater Ajax, the
fEacida, son of Telamon, King of Salamis, is, by his gigantic stature, his valour, and his
achievements, the most distinguished hero, after Achilles, in the poem of Homer. He has

THE TWO AJACES. 21

numerous and valiant brethren in arms who follow him in the combats, and receive his buckler
when the hero is fatigued (ll. XIII. 709-711); but two of his companions are represented in
the Iliad as especially dear and attached to him by inclination and by friendship. The one is
Teucer, his half brother,”2 the other is Ajax, son of Oileus and King of Opus in Locris.
Sophocles, in his immortal tragedy of Ajax, which has been handed down to us in a more
genuine state than most of the pieces of the Greek drama, has beautifully delineated the
attachment of the hero for his brother Teucer, as well as the warm and fraternal afi‘ection of
Teucer after the hero’s death, notwithstanding the difficulty of his situation, and his conflict
with powerful adversaries. But the parts of the Iliad where the two Ajaces appear together,
and where their amity is treated of} are still more frequent. They scarcely, it may be said,
quit each other. The youngest of the two, the swift Ajax, (in the Iliad and in the imitators
of Homer, such as Quintus, Tryphiodoros, &c., his usual epithet is ταχὺς), does not himself
command his Locrians,3 but adheres closely to the person of the son of Telamon, and accom-
panies him in all the battles of the Iliad. We may particularly refer to Iliad XIII. 701-708.

The passages in which these heroes appear together, and their constant union is described,
are very numerous.4

This intimacy of the two Ajaces in the epos of Homer Was not unobserved by Greek
authors of subsequent ages. Thus Philostratos relates that Homer disputing at Chalcis the
prize of song with Hesiod, selected for that purpose the passage which relates to the two
Ajaces.5 For the same reason these two heroes are brought together in Euripides6 and in
several works of art, for instance in the picture described by Philostratos, in which are seen the

body of the youthful Antilochos (slain by Memnon), and some of the Greek heroes who lament
his loss.7

If then one of the best Greek versions of the story of Penthesilea (and Quintus has
certainly not chosen the worst version of it) makes the two Ajaces enact parts in this exploit ;
if we further consider that the subject of the groups of the bronzes is drawn from the
history of Penthesilea; and that there are but two Greek heroes, altogether symmetrical,
that could be here represented combating Amazons (for the size of the plates did not allow
them to be adorned with other figures), it may be fairly presumed that, Where the choice
was to be made of two out of six heroes who, according to the old traditional story, vand
quished Penthesilea and her companions, the Greek artist would willingly have selected for
the subject of his two symmetrical groups, precisely those two Greek heroes whose constant

union, and invariable friendship, praised by the epos of Homer, was often represented by
other works of art and of poetry.

2. The following considerations, in my opinion, are of still greater weight. An artist of
the present day would be at liberty to delineate Raymond and his sons, Ogier the Dane, or
Rollo, nearly as his imagination might prompt him, for neither the religion, nor the rude

2 See, for instance, ΙΙ. VIII. 266-272, 330-331. XII. 350, &c.

3 The reason of this circumstance is found in the Iliad, XIII. 712-718. The Locrians, as archers lightly armed,
could not be employed in close combat (ἐν σταδίῃ ὑσμίνῃ) against heavily armed troops.

‘ For example, 11. II. 406. IV. 273 et seq. V. 519. VI. 436. VII. 164. VIII. 79, 262. XII. 265, 335, 343-353.
XIII. 46, 126, 197, 313, 701 et seq. XV. 300. XVII. 507, 531, 668, 707, 732, 747, 752. XVIII. 157-163.

5 Philostratos Heroica, cap. XVIII. ς 2. p. 727 (Edit. Olearii) ὅτε δὴ ᾷσαι ἀ'μφω (Homer and Hesiod) ἐν Χαλκίδι,
τὸν μὲν (Homer) τὰ ’ἔπη τὰ περὶ τοῖν Αἰα’ντοιν καἶ ὡς αἱ φάλαγγες αὐτοῖς ἄραρυῖαι’ τε καὶ καρτεραἵ ἦσαν, κ. τ. λ.
It may be doubted whether the passage in Homer here alluded to was 11. XIII. 126 et seq., as Olearius and Boissonade
supposed; I am more inclined to believe that it was ΙΙ. IV. 273 et seq.

5 Iphigenia in Aulis. v. 192, and foll. where the choir sings:

κατεῖδον δὲ ὐ’ Αἴαντε συνέδριο,
τὸν ’Οϊλἕως, Τελαμὧνός τε γόνον,
τῆς Σαλαμῖνος στέφανον.

7 Philostr. Icon. lib. II. cap. 7. p. 63, ed. Jacobs and Welcker (Lipsiae, 1825, in 8vo): κρατοῦντες δὲ οἱ ᾽Αχαιοὶ
τοῦ σώματος, ὀδύρονται τὸν ᾽Αντι΄λοχον οἱ ᾽Ατρεῖἓαι, καὶ ὁ ἐκ τῆς Ἰθάκης, καὶ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ Τυδε’ως, καὶ οἱ ὁμώνυμοι (the
two Ajaces). According to a Crotonean fable, both Ajaces were likewise with the immortalized Achilles in the isle
Leuke (See Pausan. 1. III. c. 19. § Π.).

U

22 TYPES OF THE GREEK HEROES.

arts of the dark ages have consecrated any decided likeness of those Paladins; but it must
not be imagined that the Greek artist who wished to represent the demi—gods, and the antique
heroes of his country, could act upon the same principle. The heroes of Grecian antiquity,
and especially those who had been sung by Homer, had determined types, which all the arts
had celebrated, and which religion herself had made inviolable. For each of those demi—gods
the Greeks had an established mode of representation, to which the artist was bound to con-
form himself, as well from the subjective impressions under the empire of which he had grown
up, as by external motives arising from religious belief and uniform traditions. Sufficient
liberty was still left to the Greek artist, in the disposition of his figures according to their
various exploits, in the situation of the heroes, in the expression, costume, and other details.

The preceding remark may be thus illustrated: a modern artist may undertake to make
a group of a Greeh hero fighting an Amazon, and, if he be an able artist, he will execute
and substantiate his design to the satisfaction of the best judges. But a Greek artist, of the
time of Perikles or of Alexander, could only represent a Theseus as fighting the Amazon
Hippolyta, or an Achilles combating with Penthesilea, or an Ajax Oileus contending with
Derione, &c. &c., that is to say, he would be under the necessity of individualizing his
subject.

I do not pretend that in every case we are able precisely to distinguish this determined
type of the Hellenic heroes; for the bequests which we have inherited from the literature
and arts of Greece are still but fragmentary relics of a prodigious wreck, which commenced
long before what is termed the middle ages. Most of the works of sculpture still existing,
which fill our museums, are copies of copies, made in the time of Roman preponderance,
especially during the period of Adrian and the Antonines, when the principal energies of
the Greek character were broken down, and when the delicate and refined notion of their
own national dignity no longer influenced their imaginations in the forms which they gave
to their national heroes. In fact the following phrase of Homer is also verified in that
respect :—“ When heaven deprives a man of his liberty, it takes away the half of his virtue.”8
This is not, however, the place to discuss how far the loss of liberty, and, with it, the
extinction of the most exalted feelings of national pride, gradually efl‘ace from our souls the
image of an illustrious ancestry. My object is solely to prove the pre-existence of types, the
forms and outlines of which were decidedly pronounced, and almost universal.

Two important circumstances, entirely historical, are sufficient to make this truth evident;
first, that the worship paid by the Greeks to their heroes was of great antiquity, and inti-
mately connected with the essence of their religion ;" next, that this people at a very early
period were alive to the arts, and at a very early period also the social life of that people
participated in the advantages and influence which resulted from them. At a time when wine
and incense were still offered on the altar of a national or local hero, for example, an fEacus,
a Theseus, an Ajax, an Achilles, when these offerings were made as assiduously, or even more
so, than the greater sacrifices upon the altars of Zeus or of Athene, these worshippers had
often before their eyes, and always present to their mind, a certain definite image of the
favourite hero in wood, brass, or marble; and this was the more inevitable, as the type, at
least in its principal traits, was already furnished by the most ancient national poesy, and
had long been individualized by the early aid of the arts of design and imitation.

The Greeks were too sound a people, and too happily organized, to be satisfied with
obscure and mystical sentiments, or with vague and fleeting shadows. Being themselves a
fine handsome race, healthy and robust, the most lively, the richest in forms that ever existed
upon earth, they desired above all things clearness, energy of life, and decided forms. It is

8 0d. XVII. 322-323:
ἥμισυ γὰρ τ᾿ ἀρετῆς ἄποαΐνυται εὐρύοπα Ζεὺς
ἀνέρος, εὖτ᾽ ἂν μιν κατὰ δούλιον ἦμαρ 'ε’λῃσιν.
9 It is not here intended to imply that the whole Greek religion owed its origin to hero-worship; a thesis which
appears to me indefensible and conducting to points of view absolutely erroneous.

TYPES OF THE GREEK HEROES. 23

from this organization that the arts were produced, which in their turn ennobled the natural
dispositions of the Greeks. In truth there exists in this respect a happy reciprocity of influ-
ence; for as a prompt and clear perception, and the faculty, possessed by the imagination of
highly gifted beings, of retaining faithfully the image which it has vividly seized, inspire the wish
to represent that image by Art and lead to its lively representation, in like manner this noble
faculty of seizing and retaining the images is, in its turn, fortified and quickened by frequent
use, and by the habitual contemplation of what is beautiful in art. Wherever this inestimable
faculty is become quite general and in some sort a national property; wherever it has
created an indispensable necessity of beholding something preeminently pleasing, beautiful, sub-
lime, excited as it is by the faculty of real sight1 and by a real enjoyment in that which
is beautiful,——there, Art requires no Maecenas’ nor lofty patrons to make it flourish; it
flourishes of itself, as a natural and living branch of the prolific trunk to which it belongs,
and because the nation from which it emanates, and for which it is indispensable, is itself
flourishing? Thus it was with the Greeks; and a people who, like them, lived in the
atmosphere of art, and were so eminently endowed with plastic sense, never confounded or
misunderstood the mythical bearings of their national art, especially when it related to the
representations of their heroic ancestors, the objects of their deepest veneration.

3. But what might be presumed a priori from the organic qualities of the Grecian people,
is plainly confirmed by the lights, which history furnishes, or by the inductions that can be
drawn from it. Plutarch, for example, in the life of Aratos, thus speaks of Nicocles, who, a
little before the time of Aratos, had killed Pasias, tyrant of Sicyon, and made himself master
of his dominions: “ It is affirmed that this Nicocles bore an extraordinary resemblance to
Periander son of Kypselos, as did Orontes the Persian to Alcmaeon son of Amphiaraos, and
the Lacedaemomian youth to Hector, of which youth Myrsilos relates, that when this resem-
blance became known, he was near being crushed by the crowd of people who flocked to
see him.” How could they know, either in the third or in the fifth century before our
era, what were the traits of Periander, or of the heroes of a much more remote antiquity,

such as Alcmaeon and Hector? It, unquestionably, could only be by the types which art
had defined and preserved of them.

Amongst the writers that remain to us of the prosperous days of Greece, there indeed
are but few, who afford any elucidations upon the various types preserved by the arts in the
representation of heroes. The real poet, historian, or philosopher, does not tell us what we
all know; the active life of the Greeks occupied them too much to allow them to take any
solicitude for the wants which a distant posterity might one day have. It is only in authors
of a much later date, such as Pausanias, Philostratos, several of the scholiasts, Dares of
Phrygia, &c. that we find important hints for understanding how the Greeks applied, in their
productions of art, the ‘various heroic types handed down to them from a remote antiquity.
To collect these types together, to dispose them with discernment, and to compare them,
would be a meritorious task, and highly useful in archaeological pursuits. It is true there are
found scattered in Winckelmann’s works valuable notices for the iconology, or, as I should
prefer to call it, the typology, of the Greek heroes. But he did not leave behind him any-
thing complete or satisfactory upon this interesting subject; nor did E. Q. Visconti undertake

the task; and in his important work upon Greek and Roman Iconography he has strictly

confined himself to the historical period. The contents of previous iconological works, as far

1 I have known people who, with corporeal eyes perfectly sound, see nothing right—absolutely nothing; because

the interior eyesight is wanting to them. The corporeal eye in general sees nothing at all; it merely reflects the

object by a wonderful mechanism furnished by the bounty of Nature. It is only the intellectual eye (whatever name

be given to this power of the soul to seize upon reflected objects) it is but this eye which actually sees. Where
this faculty is wanting, there exists mental blindness,-—-a state worthy of commiseration, but which only becomes annoying
to others when it is connected, as is often the case, with a κακοήθεια for talking copiously on Art.

2 See Additional Note XI.

3 Plutarch. in Arato (Corray’s edition, vol. VI. p. 235) “ Τοῦτον (Nicoclem) ἕμφερἕστατον λέγουσι τἢν ὄψιν Περιάνδρῳ,
rd; Κυψέλου, γενέσθαι' καθάπερ ’Αλκμαἵωνι μὲν, τῷ ᾿Αμφιιἷριεω, τὸν Πέρσην ᾽Ορόντην, "Em-opt δὲ τὸν Λακεδαιμόνιον νεανίσκον,
ὃν ἱστορεῖ Μυρσίλος ὑπὸ πλήθιους τῶν ἓεομε’νων, ὡς τοῦτ᾽ ἔγνωσαν, καταπατηἓτἤναι.

24 TYPES OF THE TWO AJACES.

as they relate to the form and features of heroic personages, are too uncritical to be relied
upon in any research of historical or scientific tendency.‘

4. But to return to our two heroes, we have to consider the individual lineaments which
appear particularly worthy of remark:

The two Ajaces, who in the Iliad are ever fighting by each other’s side, are doubtless
both of them very distinguished heroes; they are both leaders and principal champions
amongst the Greeks ;5 of rare valour, companions of Ares, insatiable for combat, &c. ;6 never-
theless, they differ much, as well in features and height, as in dignity and merit.

Ajax, son of Telamon, is of a very lofty stature; his characteristic epithets are μέγας
and πελώριος ;7 but grouped with other heroes he is distinguished from them, as much by
his fine and regular structure, and by his proportions, as by his lofty height. Indeed, Homer
gives him, in that respect, the highest panegyric which he can bestow.8 When the son of
Telamon has armed himself for single combat with Hector, he advances with a lofty bearing,

4 Visconti has quoted, and fairly judged, the whole of these works, in the preliminary discourse of his Greek Icono-
graphy, Book I. (Paris, 1811. 4to), page 17, and foll.

“ ᾿Αργείων ἡγἠτορε (II. IV. 285; XII. 354; XVII. 508).

6 θοῦριν ἐπιειμένοι ἂλκἢν (Il. VII. 164, VIII. 262); πολέμου ἆκορἡτω (XII. 335); θεράποντες “Αρηος (VIII. 79); μεμαο’τε
θούριδος ἀλκῆς (XIII. 197); κορυστα’ (XVIII. 163).

7 In Iliad, III. 225, and foll., Priam, perceiving Ajax, asks Helena—

τι’ς τ’ ἄρ᾽ " ’ ἄλλος ’Αχαιὃς ἀνὴρ ἠὶ’ἱς τε μέγας τε,
᾿ἔξοχος ᾿Αργείων κεφαλὴν ἠδ᾽ εὐρέας ὤμους;
Helena answers——

οὗτος δ᾽ Α’ι’ας ἐστὶ πελώριος, ἕρκος ᾽Αχαιῶν.

The epithet μέγας is so often reiterated when Ajax is spoken of, that it may be considered as a constans epitheton,
for example, Π. ΙΧ. 169, XI. 591, XII. 364, XIII. 321, XIV. 409, XV. 471, XVII. 115, 628; πελώριος is used in the
same manner, as in 11. VII. 211, XVII. 174. Nevertheless it would be deviating from Homer’s idea to figure to one’s self
the dimensions of the body of Ajax as monstrous and altogether colossal. This, certainly, is the predominant notion in the
Ajax of Sophocles, v. 1247, and foll. ; and this notion likewise prevails in Pausanias, Philostratos, and other ancient authors
(vide Pausanias, lib. I. cap. 35, § 3; Philostr. Heroica, p. 28, ed. Boissonade, p. 668, ed. Olearii); this it is which made
Alexander give the name of Ajax to the largest of the elephants, which he captured in the battle against Poros (see Philost.
Life of Apollonios of Tyana, Book II. ch. 12, p. 62, edit. of Olearius), Antiochos the Great, in succeeding times, attached
the same name to his largest elephant (Plin. Nat. Hist. lib. VIII. cap. 5). But although Homer gives also the epithet of
πέλωρ and πελώριος to objects of an enormous size (for example, to the Cyclops, 0d. IX. 187, to Scylla, 0d. XII. 87, to
Hephaestos, Il. XVIII. 410), yet, when this adjective is applied to the heroes of his poems, it is necessary to retrench
fr0m its meaning every idea of the heaviness, or aukwardness, which are common accompaniments of a prodigious bulk.
Thus Achilles, the most handsome, the swiftest at the course, the most alert of the heroes of the Iliad, is also
entitled πελώριος, as in 11. XXI. 527, XXII. 92. Ares himself is called πελώριος, ΙΙ. VII. 208. The expression of
Helena, ἕρκος ᾽Αχαιῶν (where she is speaking of Ajax, Telamon’s son), is also frequently repeated, as B. VI. 5, VII. 211,
&c. to denote his valour, and the services he has rendered to the common cause. In the same sense, Ulysses says
to Ajax (0d. X1. 555)—

τοῖος γάρ σφιν πύργος ἀπώλεσ᾽ σεῖο δ᾽ ᾽Αχαιοὶ
ἶσον ᾽Αχιλλἣος κεφαλῇ Πηληϊάὃαο,
ἀχνύμεθα φθιμένοιο διαμπερές'
The other surnames of Ajax, son of Telamon, are, ἀντίθεος, κυδάλιμος, μεγαλἡτωρ, βοὴν ἀγαθὸς, ἄλκιμος, δαΐφρων,

μεγάθυμος, φαίδιμος, &c.

As Achilles and Ajax are the only two zEacidee of the Grecian army before Troy, they are distinguished from the
other heroes by a very lofty stature. Thus Achilles says to Iris, when dispatched to him by Héré, (Π. XVIII. 192, and
foll.) “ that he could not appear in the battle without armour, (which his mother had also forbidden him to do); that,
besides, he knew not of any warrior in the army whose armour would fit him, unless, perhaps, those of Ajax Telamonios,
but that this hero was, without doubt, himself in the first rank of the combatants.” Relying on their courage and their
strength, ἠνορέῃ πίσυνοι καὶ κο’ιρτε'ι' χειρῶν, the two fEacidae, Achilles and Ajax, had chosen the two most dangerous
stations for their vessels and for their camps, that is, those of the two wings, 11. XI. 6—9.

Β Viz., that, for corporeal beauty, as for warlike achievements, Ajax was the first of the Greeks, after Achilles. See,
for instance, Iliad, XVII. 278, and foil.

μάλα γὰρ σφέας ὦκ’ ἐλέλιξεν
Α’ι’ας, ὃς πέρι μὲν εἶδος, πέρι δ’ ’ἔργα τέτυκτο
τῶν ἄλλων Δαναῶν, μετ᾽ ἀμύμονα Πηλείωνα'
praise which is also bestowed on him in the Odyssey, XI. 549-550, and in Odyss. XXIV. 15, and foll., where the souls

TYPES OF THE TWO AJACES. 25

equal to that of Ares himself, and as he brandishes his lance, a disdainf'ul smile is upon his

countenance ;9 he is distinguished by an enormous shield, which he bears before him like a
tower.1 ᾽

of Penelope’s suitors, conducted by Hermes to the abode of Aides (Pluto), find the shades of Achilles, Patroclos, and
Ajax. We there read—

Α’ι’αντὄς θ’, ὃς ἀ’ριστος ἔην εἶδός τε δέμας τε

τῶν ἄλλων Δαναῶν, μετ’ ἀμύμονα Πηλείωνα.
εἶδος signifies the beauty of the body in its ensemble,- δέμας applies rather to the regular form of the limbs. The
adjective καλὸς, when it is not said of the qualities of the mind, and of the character, is principally understood, in Homer,
to relate to the features of the face. Hence this eulogy of the beauty of Ajax is not at all in contradiction with what is
said of that of Nireus who came from Syme (Il. ΙΙ. 673) :—

Νιρεὺς, ὃς κάλλιστος ἆνηρ ὑπὸ Ἴλιον ἦλθε

τῶν ἄλλων Δαναῶν, μετ᾽ ἀμύμονα Πηλείωνα.
The praise which Homer bestows on Ajax has been often repeated by the more recent Greek poets. See the beautiful
verses of Quintus Smyrn. (Paralip. lib. V. v. 130 and fell.) :—

Αἴας, ὃς μέγα πάντας ὑπείρεχεν ἐν Δαναοῖσιν'

ἀστὴρ ὡς ἆρίδηλος ἀν᾽ οὐρανὸν αἷγλἣεντα

“Εσπερος, ὃς μέγα πἆσι μετ᾿ ἀστράσι παμφαίνῃσι'

τῷ εἶκὼς, τεύχεσσι παρίστατο Πηλεΐδαο.
~In close combat Ajax yielded to no one breathing, scarcely to Achilles, who was merely swifter in running, ΙΙ. XIII.
321—325.

9 ΙΙ. VII. 206 et seq. :—
Αἴας δὲ κορύσσετο νώροπι χαλκῷ"

αὐτὰρ ἐπειδὴ πάντα περὶ χροὶ" ἕσσατο τεύχη,

σεύατ᾽ ἔπειθ᾽, οἷός τε πελώριος ἔρχεται ᾽΄Αρης, —- —-

τοῖος ἀ’ρ᾿ Α’ι’ας ὦρτο πελώριος, ἕρκος ᾿Αχαιῶν,

μειδιὄων βλοσυροῖσι προσώπασι' νέρθε δὲ ποσσὶν

ἤϊε μακρὰ βιβὰς, κραδάων δολιχόσκιον ἔγχος.

1 ΙΙ. VII. 219:

Α’ι’ας᾿ δ’ ἐγγύθεν ἦλθε, φέρων σάκος, ἠύτε πύργον.
The same expression is repeated in the Iliad, XI. 485, and XVII. 128. The enemies themselves knew Ajax by his
immense shield. Thus when (ΙΙ. ΧΙ. 523 and foll.) Kebriones counsels Hector to hasten to the spot where Ajax is
carrying disorder into the ranks of the Trojans, he says——

εὖ δέ μιν ᾽ἐγνων'

εὐρὺ γὰρ ἀμφ’ ὤμοισιν ᾽ε΄χει σάκος.
This magnificent defensive armour bore a conspicuous part in the exploits of Ajax. It is with this that he protects his
brother Teucer, in that beautiful and most picturesque passage in II. VIII. 266—272; see, also, ΙΙ. VIII. 330-331. With
this, too, he covers the body of Patroclos, the defence of which is one of his noblest feats of arms, 11. XVII. 128 and
foll. From thence is derived the epithet of Α’ίας σακεσφό ρος, which, though not Homeric, is used by Sophocles
(Aj. v. 19). (No ancient authority that I know of confirms the singular assertion of the Scholiast, at verse 127 of this
tragedy. He states that Minerva was irritated at Ajax, because he had caused the owl to be effaced from his shield,
which he had previously borne as the device of his race. At any rate, Homer and Sophocles knew nothing of it; and in
the Ajax of this last poet, v. 762-777, are found very different reasons for the disgrace in question, and much more
worthy of the goddess, as well as of the great tragedian). Homer enhances the value of this shield, in giving us an
exact description of it (11. VII. 220-223); he even names the artist who fabricated it; Tychios, the most skilful work-
man in leather, made it at Hyle in Boeotia; it was composed of seven bulls’ hides laid one over the other, and the
whole covered with an eighth layer of brass. Allusions to this description of the shield of Ajax are often met with in
other authors; for instance, we read in Ovid (Metam. XVII. 2.)—

“ surgit ad hos clypei dominus septemplicis Ajax.”

Bceotia, even in much later times, was celebrated for the fabrication of good armour. Thus Xenophon (περὶ ἱππικῆς, cap. 12)
recommends the Boeotian casque: κράνος γε μὴν κράτιστον εἶναι νομίζομεν τὸ βοιωτιουργἔς' κ. τ. λ. The large round
shield with two incisions, which is so often seen upon the Boeotian coins, seems to have relation to the excellence of the
manufacture of arms in that country.

Homer is not aware of Ajax having had α son; but the tradition is very ancient which gives to him one by
Tecmessa, who plays so beautiful and affecting a part in the Ajax of Sophocles, and who was named Eurysa/ces, after
his father’s shield. According to the same poet, his last wish was to preserve this shield for his son; his other arms
were to be buried with his body after his death. I will quote here the fine lines of Sophocles (Ajax, 572-77) :———

καὶ τἀμὰ τεύχη μήτ᾿ ἀγωνάρχαι τινὲς
θήσουσ’ ᾽Αχαιο'ἰς, μἠθ᾿ ὁ λυμεὼν ἐμὄς'
ἀλλ᾽ αὐτό μοι σὺ, παῖ, λαβὼν ἐπώνυμον,
Εὗρύσακες, ᾽ἴσχε, διὰ πολυῤῥἄφου στρέφων
πόρπακος, ἑπτάβοιον ἄῤῥηκτον σάκος"
τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα τεύχη κοίν᾽ ἐμοὶ τεθάψεται.
It was this memorable portion of the armour of Ajax (not the shield of Achilles, as Sestini presumed) which, together

H

26 ͵ TYPES OF THE TWO AJACES.

In the greatest heat of the fray this hero always preserves a calm tranquillity, and a cir-
cumspection, which accords well with his martial air, and the dignity of his deportment. A
certain elevation in his sentiments, and in his actions, distinguishes him in situations the most dif-
ferent. In his single combat with Hector, in the seventh book, although he has the advantage,
he listens to the proposal of the herald, and shows a readiness to put an end to the contest,
if Hector, who was the challenger, agrees to it ;2 in the defence of his brother Teucer (in the
eighth book); in the speech which he addresses (ΙΙ. ΙΧ. 624, and foll.) to Achilles, his inex-
orable kinsman, at whose obstinacy he is doubtless provoked, but whom he seeks, nevertheless,
to persuade by gentleness and good words; in the noble defence of the body of Patroclos,
in the seventeenth book; in the contentions of the twenty-third book, where the craft of
Ulysses, and the unworthy conduct of Diomedes,3 fail to excite the hero’s choler; finally, in
the friendly relations he maintains with all the heroes of the Iliad,4 Ajax,‘ son of Telamon, is
ever the same, and combined all the requisites of a perfect hero. F ormidable and irresistible
in battle, but never cunning, treacherous, or cruel; as soon as he has laid aside his arms,
he is peaceful, gentle, and benevolent. Ever courteous, just, and without pretensions, he
never disputes for the rank he is to occupy in the camp; every one cedes it to him in
deference to his superiority. It required nothing less than the highest degree of injustice,
such as the adjudication of the arms of Achilles (so often and variously treated of in Grecian
antiquity), to put him off his guard; but that throws him at once into the most ungovernable
phrenzy. This effect of an act of injustice, and his tragical end, are in strict accordance with
his elevated and heroic character.5

The younger Ajax, the Locriau, son of Oileus, is quite a different personage. He is
much smaller in stature than the son of Telamon (ΙΙ. ΙΙ. 528-29); he usually wears a
cuirass of linen (ibid); he is an excellent runner, on which account his customary epithet in
the Iliad is Tax/896 The poet gives him, but much more rarely, the titles of skilful lancer,
δουρικλυτὸς (for example, ΙΙ. XIV. 446) and of high-spirited, μεγαλήτωρ (Il. XIII. 712). His
unrivalled swiftness of foot comes into play most opportunely when the Trojans, foiled in
their attack on the retrenchment which covered the Greek fleet, are to be pursued. It is
for this reason they give him the praise of having on that day killed the greatest number of
enemies (ΙΙ. XIV. 520 and foll.) Thus also, at the public games in the XXIIId book, he was
on the point of gaining the first prize at the race, when Pallas Athene gave it to be won

with his sword, was represented on the coins of Salamis, frequently found in that island and at Athens. Compare my
dissertation on one of these coins in my Voyages εἰ Recherches en Gréce, deuxiéme livraison, p. 308-310.

2 11. VII. 283 and fell. Hector is perfectly sensible of the noble conduct of Ajax, and he proves it in the words
which he addresses at the time to his adversary, VII. 288 and foll., where he not only praises his stature and his strength,
but he extols still more his moderation :—

Αἶαν, ἐπεί τοι δῶκε θεὸς μέγεθός τε βίην τε,
καὶ π'ινυτἢν, περὶ δ᾽ ἔγχει ᾽Αχαιῶν φέρτατός ἐσσι, κ. τ. λ.
In Sophocles, l. c. v. 119, Minerva says that this hero was equally eminent at the council, and by his exploits :—
τούτου τίς ἄν σοι τἀνδρὸς ἢ προνοὗστερος,
ἢ δρᾷν α᾽μει΄νων εὑρέθη τὰ καίρια;
which entirely agrees with the idea which Homer gives of him.

3 In the combat he invariably directed his lance at the neck of Ajax (ΙΙ. ΧΧΙΙΙ. 820 and foll.), a very dangerous part
of the body, and where a wound readily becomes mortal ; thence it is that Xenophon says, περἳ ἱππικῆς, cap. 12, § 2:
ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ ὁ αὐχήν ἐστι τῶν και ρίων, &c. In fact, most of the mortal wounds in the Iliad take place at the neck, or
in the abdomen. Thus Achilles, exasperated, seeks on the neck of Hector the place where he can give him the fatal
blow (Il. XXII. 321 and foll.)

4 Most especially in his entire freedom from envy, with respect to Achilles, and in his generous acknowledgement
of the rare endowments of that hero, although Ajax was the only one who was able in any way to dispute with him the
first rank of valour. This is the reason why it is said of these two principal heroes of the Iliad, in Pkilostr. Heroica'
(cap. XI. p. 719, ed. Olearii, p. 170, ed. Boissonade), καθημένων δὲ ὁμοῦ καὶ βαδιζόντων, ἐπεστρε'φετο ἡ Ἑλλὰς, ἐς ἀ’νδρε
ὁρῶσα, οἵω μετὰ ΄Ηρακλε’α οὔπω ἐγενέσθην.

5 Compare what we have quoted from Philostratos, p. 27, note 3. We must not allow ourselves to be led into error by
the various allegations of modern authors on the supposed ferocity of Ajax Telamonios in Homer. For instance, Visconti
(Mus. Pio-Clement. tome VI. p. 29) says of the great Ajax: “ ugualmente per la mole delle membra, che per la sua
robustezza e ferocia singulare nell’ esercito argivo.” Such an assertion proves either that the matter had not been
sufficiently examined, or that the furious Ajax of Sophocles was in View. But in representing the character of any per-
sonage, whoever it may be, it is unfair to take him abstractedly in a state of malady and delirium.

“ For example, 11. II. 527; X. 110, 175; XIII. 66; XIV. 442, 520; XVII. 256; XXIII. 473, 75/1.

TYPES OF THE TVV () AJACES. 27'

by Ulysses, whom she favoured more. Ajax Oileus was obliged to be satisfied with the
second prize, and Antilochos received the third (11. XXIII. 754-786).7 He yielded, however,
in valour but to few of the heroes of Homer, and he bears an important part in several
of the exploits of his great friend and companion, Ajax, son of Telamon, He is of a very
impetuous and irritable temper, which is frequently proved by his conduct; thus (11. XIII.
202 and foll.) exasperated at the death of his friend Amphimachos, he cuts off the head of
Imbrios, though slain by another, and casts it at the feet of Hector. In the XVIth book
(v. 330 and foll.) he makes Kleobulos prisoner, and slaughters him on the spot. In the
XXIIId (473 and foll.) he enters into a violent quarrel with Idomeneus on a very slight
occasion. His death upon the Gyrian rock, at least as it is related in the 0d. IV. 499
and foll. (for on this Ajax, also, the traditions vary), proves, likewise, his violent and fiery
temper. In the Iliad he is yet but a young man, since he is only a little older (ὀλίγον

προγενέστερος: Il. XXIII. 789) than Antilochos, son of Nestor, the youngest of the heroes before
Troy.

If the authority of Homer were insufficient to prove that the ancients understood the
character of the two Ajaces, in the manner exemplified by the preceding sketches, some
remarkable traits might also be cited from the work on pictures by Philostratos. We there-
read,8 that in the picture which exhibited the chiefs of the Greeks assembled round the
body of the young Antilochos, and deploring his death, Ajax Telamonios is recognized by
his sombre loolrs,9 and Ajax the Locrian, by his ardent and animated air.1 The same
author also, in his Heroicaf relates several proofs of the free and haughty character of the
latter, a character which stimulates him often to oppose even Agamemnon. Amongst the
qualities which distinguish Ajax Telamonios are noticed his fine and lofty form, his noble
and prudent conduct, his skill in managing his great shield, his kind demeanour as soon as
the battle was over, and the goodness which beamed in his eyes, which are likened to
those of the lion in repose.3 Many individual traits might thus be extracted from Philos-
tratos and some later writers, by which the ancients themselves particularized and charac-
terized many others of the principal heroes of the Iliad, such as Agamemnon, Achilles,
Patroclos, Nestor, Hector, Sthenelos, Diomedes, fEneas, Ulysses, &c. But this would be
foreign to our present purpose; and «we may now proceed to compare our bronzes with
the data thus furnished to us by the ancient authors.

Every one who pays attention to the corporeal qualities observed either in nature, or
in the works of art, will easily perceive, that the vigorous body of the hero in the plate
No. I. represents a man in the maturity of age, and in tire complete developement of his
manly strength. The traits of his visage, his nervous structure, the whole muscular system,
his beard, &c. are in strict conformity with the appearance of a well formed and well built
man. This perfectly accords with the idea we have of Ajax Telamonios. Indeed of the
two [Eacidae who play their parts in the Iliad, the one, Achilles, is always represented as
a young man, the other, Ajax son of Telamon, as a man of ripe age.4 This latter was,

7 In Quintus Smyrn. Paralip. lib. IV. 206 and foll., it is Ajax, son of Oileus, who gains the prize of the course in
the games which succeed the funeral rites of Achilles.

’3 Philostr. Icon. lib. II. cap. vii. page 63 ed. Jacobs et Welcker, (p. 820. Ed. Olearii.)

9 γνωρίζοις δ᾽ἂν καὶ τὸν Τελαμώνιον ἀπὸ τοῦ βλοσὗρου: The hero appeared in mourning for the
death of the beautiful youth, and incensed against the warrior who had slain him. Moreover the expression of
Philostratos has, doubtless, relation to the passage already quoted (p. 25 note 9.) ΙΙ. VII. 212: μειδιόω ν βλοσυροῖσι
προσώπασι'

' και τὸν Λοκρὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑτοίμου. This word is taken here in the same sense that Hesychios had in
View, when he explained it by ταχύς.

2 Philostr. Heroica, cap. VIII. ed. Olear. page 706 (p. 134, ed. Boissonade).

3 I will here quote the passage of which I have availed myself in this place. Philostr. Her. cap. XI. p. 718
ed. Olear. :-᾽ε΄χαῳον μὲν οὖν (the Greeks in the camp before Troy) αὐτῷ (Ajax son of Telamon) καὶ ἀόπλῳ. Πελὠριος
γὰρ τις ἦν καὶ ὑπὲρ τὴν στρατιὰν πᾶσαν, καὶ φρόνημα αἴρων εὐἣνιο'ν τε καὶ σῶφρον. ᾽9πλισμἔν0υ δὲ ἐξεκρἔμαντω μετέωρὄν τε
βαίνοντος ἐπὶ τοὺς Τρῶας, καὶ τὴν ἀσπίδα εὖ μεταχειριζομε’νου τοσαύτην οὖσαν, βλέποντὄς τε χαιροποἳς τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ὑπὸ τὴν
κόρυν, οἷον οἱ λέοντες ἐν ἀναβολῇ τοῦ ὁρμῆσαι.

4 Philostratos, Her. p. 48 ed. Boissonade (p. 676, ed. Clean): τῶν γὰρ Αἰακιδῶν (Achilles and Ajax)—r2w μὲν

᾽ 'ΐ
Αχιλλἕα ειναι νεανίαν, τὸν δὲ Αἴαντα (Worm.

Ἡ

28 TYPES OF THE TWO AJACES.

indeed born in the life time of Hercules, who had carried him in his arms, and having
witnessed a fortunate omen, had given him the name of Ajax.5

The admirable expression also which is conspicuous in the countenance of the hero in
No. I. completely answers to the character of Ajax engaged in combat, such as it was
conceived by Homer (Iliad. VII. 211), and afterwards, as we learn from Philostratos, imitated
by Greek artists. The hero on our bronze is altogether after these types, “ smiling in

disdain.”

Still, notwithstanding this expression of the countenance, notwithstanding the movement,
so true, so vigorous, of this body in a decisive combat, there reigns, at the same time, in
him, so much dignified repose and such measured deportment, that it seems to me impos-
sible, when the idea of the son of Telamon has been once attached to this figure, not to
recognize the hero precisely as Homer has delineated him. The movement announces no
extraordinary effort, it merely expresses what is necessarily required by the ultimate design
of the group: the warrior only makes his Victory over his enemy secure. It is according
to this quiet and dignified demeanour of the principal figure that the cast of the drapery
is regulated, which the judicious artist, doubtless for good reasons, held to be inferior and
subordinate. Finally we must also take into consideration the great and powerful shield of
the hero. This armour is so predominant in the composition we are considering, that I do
not remember to have seen a shield of equal proportions in any Greek relief of the fine
age of art. Let what has been previously said of it be consulted (page 25, note 1.), and
every one will see that art has rendered perceptible in this group the expressions of Homer:
φέρων σάκος ἠὔτε πύργον, and the εὐρὺ ἀμφ᾽ ὤμοισιν ἔχει σάκος 0f the XIth book of the
Iliad, which are exclusively characteristic of this hero, and which in the words of the
scholiast on Sophocles at once individualizes the Telamonian Ajax: Οἰκεἶον δὲ τοῦτο τοῦ

Αἴαντος (Aj. V. 19.)

The hero of No. II. equally corresponds to the idea which Homer has given us of
Ajax son of Oileus. Unfortunately we can trace but little of the features of the face at
present so much mutilated, but originally doubtless of the greatest beauty. However the
following circumstances, if the group be attentively considered, will furnish, I presume, suffi-
cient evidence that such a representation was intended by the artist.

The body of the hero is decidedly that of a much younger person than that in No. I.
The artist’s design to exhibit a youthful personage is evidently shown, not only by the form
of the limbs taken apart, but still more by the general outline of the figure, and by the
more lively and animated movement which is given to it. I do not go so far as to say
that this group is more beautiful than that of No. Ι., but it certainly is more spirited, and
with greater force of action. In the whole’ of his person the warrior expresses an ardent
desire to exterminate his enemy. With the left hand and knee he keeps her fixed to the
earth; with the right hand he is about to strike the fatal blow. In the group of plate
No. Ι., the entire left arm of the hero is drawn back, and is, as it were, quiescent; but
in the group of plate No. II., the artist having represented the buckler as suspended on the
left arm, without being grasped by the hand, both the hands of the warrior are seen taking

5 According to some ancient notions Hercules had even brought him up. See what Winckelmann says on this
point, in the Trattato Preliminare to his Monumenti inediti, page xcix. A group at the Vatican represents Hercules
(the head of the hero is of great beauty) bearing the little Ajax in his arms. Winckelmann relates that in a
copy of this group, sent to France, three Hesperian apples had been substituted for the child. This anecdote is
striking, and testifies how antique works are treated, and what we have to suffer on the part of the copyists,
amateurs, διε. The common tradition of the prayer addressed to Zeus by Hercules, to grant a son to Telamon his
faithful associate; of the appearance of the king of birds sent by Zeus, an omen, which Hercules immediately
interprets, when he orders Telamon to name his son Α’ι’ας, as Zeus has sent ἀρχὸν οἰουὧν μέγαν aierbv,—this
tradition occurs again in an admirable passage of Pindar. Isthm. V. 60-80, where Heyne’s remarks in his note to
verse 52 should also be considered.——I would observe by the way that E. Q. Visconti preferred to explain the
Vatican group, by Hercules carrying the little Telephos (Mus. Pic-Clem. tom. II. tav. IX. p. 15. and ]6).

TYPES OF THE TWO AJACES. 29

an active part in the contest. By this arrangement, and the greater extension of the limbs,
the whole figure is in much more powerful motion. The free and fine flow of the drapery,
which is in perfect harmony with the animated efforts of the young warrior, corresponds

extremely well to the same end. Ajax son of Oileus the Locrz'cm of Opus, therefore, is the
hero whom I recognize in this figure.

To give a further proof of the fidelity with which the Greeks, even with views and under
circumstances the most different, preserved the types once admitted of their heroes, I have
added, as a tail-piece to this memoir, an engraving of a well known silver coin of the
Opuntian Locrians,6 on the reverse of which this, their national hero, is represented. The indi-
vidual movement, or, in the technical language of the art, the principal motive of this figure,
is evidently the same as that of the warrior of our group in plate No. II.

6 See the coin at the end of the Index, and Additional Note XII.

VI.

THE TYPE OF AJAX TELAMONIOS CONFIRMED BY ANCIENT GROUPS IN
ROME AND FLORENCE.

THE opinion expressed in the preceding pages upon the object represented in the two Bronzes
of Siris, has received additional strength from a quarter whence it was not to be expected.

From the first view of this production I was struck with the great resemblance of the
remarkable head of the hero in No. Ι., to another antique head, with which I was well
acquainted, though I could not then remember its locality. But I soon recollected that it was
the beautiful marble head, of very fine execution, which was found, about the year 17 7 2, in the
villa Hadriani, near Tivoli, and which is now in the museum of the Vatican, forming part of a
bust, the shoulders of which have been moulded upon the standing figure of the group called
Pasquino. At the time this discovery was made, there were also found on the same spot two
other fragments, forming two legs and part of a shoulder of a young but dead body, and
evidently belonging to the same group with the head; all these three pieces are now together
in the Vatican, and have been published in the Museo Pio-Clementino, Tomo VI. Tab. XVIII?
(Engraved by G. F010, after the design of del Frate). The 19th plate of that volume,
executed by the same artists, exhibits the two fragments, namely, the legs, and the piece of

7 The material of these fragments appears to me, as it did to E. Q. Visconti, of Pentelic marble. But I do not
feel assured of it.

I

30 STATUES OF AJAX IN ROME AND FLORENCE.

the shoulder, and also an ideal restoration, in miniature, of the entire group. At page 28 and
foll. the distinguished author of the Museo Pio-Clementino gives an explanation of those fragments.

Visconti has the double merit, first, of having recognized the perfect similarity of this
group to three other antique groups, of which one is that commonly called at Rome the
Pasquz'no, and the two others (also found at Rome) are now at Florence,8 and, secondly, of
having divined and indisputably established the subject of these four groups, viz. the defence
of the body of Patroclos, as described in the XVIIth book of the Iliad. He had already
brought forward this explanation, in 17 89, (but with especial reference to the Pasquino), in his
letter to Cancellieri, which the latter inserted in his interesting work.9 Visconti availed himself
of what was essential in this letter for his dissertation in the Museo Pio-Clementino (l. c.
t. VI.) and proved, in the most satisfactory manner, partly by the nature of the two mutilated
groups at Rome, and partly by comparing them with those of Florence, that the subject of
all the four "᾽ is the same, to wit,—the heroic defence of the body of Patroclos. So far I
must needs side with the decision of Visconti, which, indeed, has hitherto received the general

approbation of the learned world.

I am, however, by no means so satisfied with the particular explanation which the same
author has given of the erect figure which holds in its arms the dead body. It was not a
happy idea to make a Menelaos of this figure in the group of Pasquino, or in the two groups
of Florence, or of the fine head in the Vatican; and I think it may be proved that this
supposition is grounded upon a false interpretation of various passages of the XVIIth book of
the Iliad. Visconti’s words are as follows: “ Se Patroclo e dunque 1’ ucciso, non sara difficile
dedurre dalle circostanze dell’ Omerica narrazione chi sia i1 guerriero che sembra εἰ volonteroso
di sottrar’ dalla mischia quel combattuto cadavere. Ma quantunque d’ ambi gli Ajaci, di
Diomede, d’ Ulysse e d’ altri εἰ faccia menzione in quella zuffa, parmi che l’ Eroe del grupo
sia Menelao, di cui e non d’ altri εἰ dice ‘ Sollevo solo i1 morto corpo, e’ l tolse dal cerchio
de’ Trojani, e a’ suoi lo trasse’ (οἷος ἀείρας νεκρὃν ὑπὲκ Τρώων . . . . ἔρυσεν μετὰ ἔθνος
ἑταίρων. Iliad, XVII. v. 588 e 581). II figlio d’ Atreo piu non bada all’ estinto, gia assicurato
fralle sue braccia; ma solleva, e quasi par che giri lo sguardo attorno per veder fra’ Greci chi
chiamare in quel diflicil momento alla sua difesa, πάντοσε παπταίνων, undequaque circumspiciens,
come Omero εἰ esprime, descrivendoci quest’ azione di Menelao” (ivi v. 674).1

Without wishing to criticize too severely an error of a distinguished writer, I must
confess, that the assertion of Visconti,— that Diomedes, Ulysses, and others are also spoken
of in this combat, has much surprized me. This statement is sufficient to prove that the
letter to Cancellieri, written in 1789, was not revised with that coolness and precision which
the article in the VIth volume of such a splendid work as the Museo Pio-Clementino

S Cosmo I. acquired them at Rome. See the details concerning those two groups in Visconti: Museo Pio-Clem.
t. VI. p. 28, note 6.

9 Notizie delle due famose statue di un fiume e di Patroclo dette volgarmente di Marforio e di Pasquino, Roma,
1789, 8vo. The letter of Visconti is there inserted, p. 27-30. It is singular that in the work of Cancellieri at p.
24, we read beneath the good engraving representing the erect figure of the group of Pasquino: “ statua di Patroclo
volgarmente detta di Pasquino ;” whilst from the opinion of Visconti, which Cancellieri adopts, it should be named
Statue άπ' Menelao.

"’ Visconti had found at the English statuary’s, C. Morison, a fifth antique repetition of the same group, but of
smaller size (Museo P. Clem. tomo VI. p. 31, note a). I have not been able to learn with certainty where this
work now is.

1 “ If then the dead body is that of Patroclos, it will not be diflicult to divine, from the details of the description
in Homer, who is the warrior who appears so zealous in rescuing from the midst of the conflict the body of the dead
hero. Although in the same battle the two Ajaces, Diomedes, Ulysses and others, are spoken of, it seems to me
however that the hero of this group is Menelaos. It is of him and not of the others that it said—‘ but now by
himself he drags along the body from the midst of the Trojans’ and ‘ from the midst of the Trojans he draws
the body into the ranks of his own party’ (ΙΙ. XVII. 588 and 581). The son of Atreus no longer fixes his eyes upon
the body of Patroclos when it is safe in his arms; he raises them and appears to search out, amongst the Greeks,
whom he shall call to his aid, (πάντοσε παπταίνων), according to the expression of Homer, v. 674, when he depicts
to us this exploit of Menelaos.” Mus. P. Cl. 1. c.

 

 

STATUES OF AJAX IN ROME AND FLORENCE. 31

published in 1792, evidently deserved. Homer in fact speaks neither of Diomedes, nor
of Ulysses in the defence of the body of Patroclos. In the combats which take place
around the dead hero, and which, described with very brilliant colours, occupy the whole
of the XVIIth and part of the XVIIIth book, the two Ajaces, Menelaos and Meriones, are
from beginning to end the chief actors; neither Diomedes nor Ulysses are even once named
in the two books. Moreover the πάντοσε παπταίνων (which is related of Menelaos in, the
XVIIth book, V. 674) is inapplicable to the group of Pasquino, to that of Florence, and
equally to the beautiful head in the Vatican, for in these compositions the standing figure
holds the dead body between its arms, defends it, and seems to be occupied in endeavouring
to save it; whereas this πάντοσε παπταίνων “ looking around in all directions” is said of
Menelaos, when he has already quitted the body, and when he is going, by the advice of
Ajax, into the ranks to seek for Antilochos. It is, therefore, for his own security, and not
for that of the dead body, and also to find the young Antilochos, if possible, that Menelaos
“ glances his eyes around, piercing as those of an eagle,” &c. Hence it is clear that the
following assertion of Visconti—“ ΙΙ figlio d’Atreo piu non bada all’ estinto, ma solleva e
quasi par che giri lo sguardo attorno, πάντοσε παπταίνων, come Omero si esprime descri-
vendoci quest’ azione di Menelao” is not at all verified by the facts alleged in Homer.

The same author is not more successful in the application he makes to these groups of
the expressions of Homer—0709 άείρας νεκρὄν ὑπὲκ Τρώων ειΙΙᾶ-ἓ’ρυσεν μετὰ ἔθνος ἑταίρων
(Π. XVII. 588 and 581); for those groups cannot in any manner be thought, as Visconti
erroneously imagined, to represent the moment when the contending parties were alternately
taking possession of the body—(which the XVIIth book describes to us frequently, according
as the Greeks or the Trojans had the advantage)—but they exhibit α more prolonged possession
of the body in dispute : whereas Menelaos, as indicated by the above quoted words of Homer,
was only momentarily master of it?

These groups do not, therefore, represent M enelaos, but Ajax son of Telamon defending
against the enemy the body of the young friend of Achilles slain by Hector; and the real
theme of this representation of Art is found in Iliad, XVII. V. 132 and foll.

Α’ι’ας ὃ᾽άμφἰ Μενοιτιάδῃ, σάκος εὐρὺ καλύψας,

ἑστήκει, ὥς τίς τε λέων περὶ οἷσι τέκεσσιν,

ᾧ ῥά τε νήπι’ ἄγοντι σνναντήσωνται ἐν ὕλῃ

ἄνδρες ἐπακτῆρες' ὁ δέ τε σθένεϊ βλεμεαίνει,

πᾶν δέ τ᾽ ἐπισκύνιον κάτω ἕλκεται, ὄσσε καλύπτων'

ὡς Α’ι’ας περὶ Πατρόκλῳ ἥρωϊ βεβήκει.
Α simple exposition of the contents of this XVIIth book of the Iliad will offer us the
best and most conclusive proof that Ajax the son of Telamon is indeed the principal per-
sonage in the defence of the body of Patroclos. In differing from a highly respectable modern
authority, that of E. Q. Visconti, I rely upon an ancient and a greater one, viz. that of the
Iliad itself, for the proof of what I advance.3

2 Visconti might have much better applied to his Menelaos the words of Homer (ΙΙ. XVII. v. 4.): ἀμφὶ δ’ ἄρ’ αὐτῷ
βαἷν᾽, ὥς τις περὶ πόρτακι μήτηρ πρωτοτόκος. But even these words do not apply to the moment expressed in these
remarkable sculptures.

3 See Additional Note XIII.

VII.

FURTHER PROOFS OF THE REAL TYPE OF AJAX TELAMONIOS.

THOUGH we must be fully convinced, by the simple recital, (in additional note XIII.), of
that part of the Iliad, which has inspired the composition of the abovementioned marble
groups, that Ajax son of Telamon. was indeed the principal personage in the defence of the
body of Patroelos, we may still refer to some other circumstances which tend to confirm the
persuasion of his identity with the upright figure in those monuments.

l. The figure which embraces the lifeless, and still very young body,4 is in all these
groups not only a hero of ripe age, but also, by comparison with the dead body, a man
of lofty stature, and of very strong make. The fine head which belongs to the fragments
preserved in the Vatican5 is decidedly in the same style and character. It is, also, of the
same proportions as the powerful body of the group of Pasquino, and these two fragments
might readily be united, since the head of the Pasquino is unfortunately too much muti-
lated for any one to speak with certainty of the character it expressed. The head in the
Vatican has an expression extremely vigorous, and, if closely examined, its details may be
thought somewhat exaggerated. Visconti, whose eye was keen and true, had also remarked
this circumstance; and in his Museo P. C]. (l. l. p. 31) he speaks “ di qualche exagge-
razione che sembra adoperata nelle fatezze di Menelao.” But the fact is that the elevated
height of ‘the erect figure in these groups, and the marked traits of the head in the Vatican,
its forehead strongly wrinkled, as well as its brows knit with sorrow and indignation, &c.—
represent wonderfully well the Ajax Telamonios of Homer, in a situation as difficult as it
was decisive. We have before spoken sufficiently of his height, of the sombre look (τοῦ
βλοσυροῦ), which Homer gives him in the combats, and I would here merely add, that pre-
cisely the passage of Homer, which I consider as having furnished the subject of this group,
(11. XVII. 132-137) contains, in the comparison of the lion, traits which are almost literally
applicable to the head in the Vatican.6 Now the traits of a lofty stature, 'and vigorous

4 The great youth of the dead hero (in conformity with what Homer says of the age of Patroclos) cannot escape
observation in the group called Pasquino at Rome, and in the two which are at Florence. This youthfulness is
likewise expressed with a master’s hand, by the gentle forms, by the smoothness and relaxation of the muscles, in
the fine fragments of the legs preserved in the Vatican. Visconti justly says on this subject (Mus. P. Cl. 1. 1.
p. 31) “ vi son delle altre parti, dove la verita e maravigliosamente imitata. Tali sono 1e gambe distese e rigide
del cadavere, i lineamenti delle quali, come quelli delle spalle ferite, sono eleganti e gentili, ma pur toccati con tal

,

franchezza, e condotti con si raro intendimento, da paragonarsi co’ capi d’ opera di quest’ arte ;’ his observation, ib.
p. 28, is also very true, when he states that the youth of the dead figure, and the maturity of the age of the
other which is standing up, are sufficient to refute the opinion of Cinelli (Bocchi ampliato, by Cinelli in his Bellezze
di Firenze, p. 114) that this group represents Teucer holding in his arms his brother Ajax who has killed himself.
Indeed the youthfulness of the dead body corresponds no more to the age of Ajax at the time of his fatal end, than
the ripe age of the erect figure displays the character of Teucer, younger brother of this hero. Nevertheless P. A. Maffei,
who in his Raccolta di Statue, &c. (Roma, 1704, in fol.) has given an engraving of this group on the Ponte Vecchio at
Florence, has approved the opinion uttered by Cinelli. I perceive in Mafi'ei (text, p. 43) that this group of the Ponte
Vecchio at Florence has been restored by the sculptor Lud. Salvetti. The engraving in Maffei (by G. G. Frezza) is
executed with spirit, but the artist has not taken sufficient care to render all the play of the muscles of the figures
in , question.
5 The Roman sculptor Giov. Picrantoni has superintended the restoration, upon the whole not unsuccessful, of
the injured parts of the beautiful head.
6 This passage is thus translated by Pope:
Meanwhile great Ajax, his broad shield displayed,
Guards the dead hero with the dreadful shade;

FURTHER PROOFS OF THE TYPE OF AJAX. 33

expression of countenance, are not the characteristics of the fair complexioned Menelaos, who,
though not a bad warrior (however qualified by Apollo, judging as an enemy, as a μαλθακὸς
αἰχμητἢς), was a man of middling height,7 and of mild character, and is called by Homer
dyaS‘dg Μενέλαος (11. IV. v. 181). That this was the conception of the character of Menelaos
by the ancient artists, is proved also by the above quoted description in Philostratos of the
picture which exhibited the leaders of the Greeks assembled round the dead body of Anti-
lochos (Icon. lib. II. n. vii. p. 820, edit. Olearii). It is there said of Ulysses and of
Menelaos, that the former is recognized by his subtle and sprightly air, the latter by his
mild expression: ἐπίδηλος δὲ ὁ μὲν ᾽Ιὃ᾿ακήσιος ἄπ'ὄ τοῦ στρυφνοὓ καἰ ἐγρηγορότος, ὁ δὲ
Μενέλεως ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡμέρου.

2. Attention, moreover, should be paid to the ornaments of the casque, both on the
upright figure in the group of Pasquino, and on the head in the Vatican. They are alike in
each, which furnishes a new, although subordinate, proof of the identity of the two figures.
The principal ornament of this handsome casque, is a Hercules vanquisher of a Centaur ;8
it is symmetrically repeated on the two sides of the convex part of the casque (properly
called ἐπίκρανον). The hero with his right knee has half pressed down the monster, and has
lifted his right arm to strike a blow, a subject often presented in the antique monuments,
whilst on his left arm, he hears the skin of the lion. On the head in the Vatican are seen
also two grifiins upon the front rim of the casque (γεῖσσον) which protects the forehead and
the eyes.9 Visconti is incorrect, when he describes them as upon the leathern chinbands.1

The two griffins are like those frequently seen on Greek vases, composed of half an eagle
and half a lion.

These figures, as Visconti very justly remarks, have been changed by a singular mistake
of the restorer, who only found a part of the wing and of the tail, into two eagles with
lion’s tails—a combination which the Greeks, rich as they were in fantastical compositions, never,
I believe, imagined. This principal decoration of the casque in question, that which represented
Hercules fighting a Centaur, is, it is true, much better preserved on the head of the Vatican
(which in Winckelmann’s time had not yet been discovered) than on the mutilated figure of
Pasquino: notwithstanding this circumstance I can scarcely conceive how such an eminent
antiquary could mistake the figure on the casque for a Hercules seizing the horses of Diomedes
king of Thrace.2

And now before, and now behind, he stood:

Thus, in the centre of some gloomy wood,

With many a step the lioness surrounds

Her tawny young, beset by men and hounds;

Elate her heart, and reusing all her powers,

Dark o’er the fiery balls each hanging eye-brow lowers.
Fast by his side the generous Spartan glows

With great revenge, and feeds his inward woes.

7 According to the Iliad (III. 193 and 210) the two Atrides, Agamemnon and Menelaos, were taller than Ulysses,
though when Menelaos and the King of Ithaca were seated 'by each other, Ulysses had the noblest air (γεραρώτερος).
In the compilation, upon the whole a very wretched one, attributed to Dares the Phrygian, but in which now and then
assertions are found drawn from good and ancient sources, it is said of this hero; “ Menelaum, mediocri corpore,
rufum, formosum, acceptum, gratum.”—(Ed. Anna Tanaqu. Fabri f. Paris, 1680, in Quarto, p. 157.)

8 We repeatedly find in the monuments of Greek, and even of Roman art, the custom of placing upon the
casque ornaments in relief. Quintns (Paralip. Book V. v. 102 and foll.) gives to the casque of Achilles a decoration
analogous to those here alluded to; viz. the battle of the Titans with the Gods of Olympos.

9 Pollux. lib. I. cap. 10. § 135 : Τὸ (τοῦ κράνους μέρος) ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν (τῶν ὀφρύων) προβεβλημένον, γεῖσσον.

' Mus. P. Clem. VI. p. 30: “ sul principio delle due lingue o striscie di cuojo, usate per allacciar sotto il mento gli
antichi elmetti, vedonsi scolpite due aquile,” 810. They were termed ὀχεῖς. See for example 11. III. v. 372 relative to this
part of the casque of Paris:

ἄγχε δέ μιν πολύκεστος ἱμὰς ἁπαλὴν ὑπὸ δειρὴν,
ὅς οἱ ὑπ᾽ ι’ιυἓερεὧνος ὀχεὺς τέτατο τρυφαλεἴης.

2 He says on this subject (Mon. Ant. ined. p. 82) “ questi cavalli (di Diomede) ordino Euristeo, che da Ercole gli
fussero portati di Tracia ad Argo ——————-. Finahncnte v’ ha in Roma i1 famoso tronco della statua detta communemente
Pasqm’no ; or dall’ una e dall’ altra parte dell’ elmo ch’ egli ha in capo, vedesi scolpita la stessa fatica d’ Ercole.”

K

84 FURTHER PROOFS OF THE TYPE OF AJAX.

If the opinion of Visconti were adopted, that the erect figure in the three groups was
a Menelaos, what possible relation could this principal ornament of the casque (an exploit of
Hercules) have had with its owner? If it be answered that none is required; that it is
there merely as an ornament; I should be much better satisfied with this reply, than with
the forced and far-fetched explanation which Visconti gives.3 But it would still be quite in the
modern way of thinking, and very unsatisfactory to those who are at all acquainted with
Greek antiquity. A Greek artist of such powerful intellect (as the conception of the group itself
proves him to have been), and in a time in which every Greek mind was intimately imbibed
with all the bearings of national creed and tradition,4 a Greek artist of that stamp never
executed any ornamental accessories to his works without some well determined motive. They
understood too perfectly the spirit of their heroic antiquity, to give to the Pelopz'dw the
attributes which were adapted only to the Eacidw. As those heroes themselves had been
too high minded and haughty to borrow from each other, in the same manner the artists
of that people knew too well the national heroes and their types, ever to confound the charac-
teristical emblems of one of them with those of the heroes of a different lineage. Thus, as
it was not without motive that Menelaos bore upon his shield the figure of a dragon,5 and
Idomeneus that of a cock,6 we are warranted in concluding, in the instance before us, that
there must have been a direct connection between the Homeric hero who wore the casque,
and the ornament drawn from the achievements of Hercules, which was upon it.7 The slightest
acquaintance with the mythos concerning the parentage of Hercules and of Ajax, and the
intimate union which had subsisted between the former, and the father of Ajax (see above,
p. 28, note 5), prove the propriety of the ornament on the casque. The speech of Ajax to
Achilles, in the first book of the Paralipomena, is quite in the spirit of the son of Telamon
as an fEacida, and as a pupil of Hercules.8

3. What I have above advanced respecting the true type of ancient art in regard to Ajax,
and upon the subject of the four groups of Rome and of Florence, is strongly confirmed
by the great resemblance of the head in the Vatican to that of the hero on No. I. of the
Bronzes of Siris. This resemblance is so striking that it cannot escape the notice of any one,
who will carefully compare the two productions. ᾿ For those who have not seen the originals,
it may be sufficient to say that the two designs of the heads, of which I here annex the
engravings," were executed with great exactness; the one marked M. V. (marmor vaticanum)
is upon a reduced scale, the head of the bronze No. I. marked ΖΕ. S. (ZES Sirisium) upon
an increased scale.

These two heads are, as any one can see, absolutely the same, not only in the general

3 In other respects Visconti very sensibly felt the difficulty of reconciling this subject with his Menelaos (Museo Pio-
Clementino l. 1. p. 30) “ La relazione di questa storia con Menelao non ὲ molto chiara,” &c.

4 That is to say, centuries before the σύγχυσις, or confusion of all national feelings and traditions, took place
among the Greeks. It begun under the Ptolemies, who gradually lost sight of every thing Greek, except the vices
of the nation; and it was finally consummated by the selfish power of Roman ascendency, which annihilated all but the
resources and the machinery of its own growth.

5 See above, page 9, note 9.

6 See above, page 9, note 8.

7 The shield of Achilles might be objected to this position; but that piece of armour, Hephaestos’ own work-
manship, was an individual and miraculous gift, representing upon its broad surface the entire picture of human life;
in the words of Ovid: “ clypeus vasti coalatus imagine mundi.” With respect to this work, I am rather disposed to
adopt the ideas of Heyne in his 3d excursus on 1. XVIII. of the Iliad, and particularly those expressed in the VIIth
Vol. of his edition of that poem, p. 589-592, upon the origin and insertion of this beautiful episode.

3 Quintus Paralip. 1. I. v. 502 et seq. (ed. Th. C. Tychsen. Argentorati, 1807, in 8vo.) :—

οὐ γὰρ ἔοικε Διὸς μεγαλοῖο γεγαῶτας
αἰσχύνειν πατέρων ἱερὸν γένος, οἵ ῥα καὶ αὐτοὶ
Τρώων ἀγλαὸν ἄστυ διέπρἆἓον, ἄφραὃἴῃσι
τὸ πρὶν, ἅμ᾽ cHpaxhr’fi δαΐφρονι, Λαομέδοντος-'
ὥσπερ νῦν ”Mm-Sat ὑφ᾽ ἡμετέρῃσιν ὀΐω
χερσὶν, ἐπὶ μέγα κάρτος ἆἕξεται ἀμφοτέροισιν.

9 See the Plate VI.

 

 

 

 

FURTHER PROOFS OF THE TYPE OF AJAX. 35

form and the profile, but also in all the essential traits and characteristics; for example, the
shape of the forehead, the eyes, the lips, and even the minor accessories, as the shape of the
beard, and the form of the casque. There is no difference, but in the movement of the two
heads, which arises from the different motive of the two groups. The Ajax of the marble group
is a little bent forward, because he holds between his arms the cherished body of Patroclos,
whilst he looks around him to observe the enemies’ advance. On the contrary the Ajax of
the bronze group looks down upon the vanquished Amazon. In a production of so small
a size, there would be no room for ornaments upon the casque.

VIII.

AGE AND SCHOOL OF ART TO WHICH THE BRONZES OF SIRIS BELONG.

IF we have succeeded in ascertaining the subject of the Bronzes of Siris, and in showing,
according to definite types of art, their affinity with other antique groups, it only remains
for us to enter upon some ulterior researches, first as to the age and school to which they

belong; and secondly upon the events which may possibly have led to their being found on
the banks of the river known by this name.

1. With reference to the first question,——viz. to what age and to what school this pro-
duction can appertain, a fine and fruitful subject for investigation, regard ought principally
to be paid to the following considerations:

Notwithstanding the perishable state of every thing human, and our poverty in original
works of art produced in the flourishing times of free and independent Greece, which in
many ways obscures our knowledge of antiquity, we can no longer doubt about, or mistake
the principal qualities of the antique or archaic style, strictly so called, nor the criterions of
that which succeeded it, and which Winckelmann justly terms the elevated, or lofty style.

Whoever may wish to describe the character of the schools anterior to that of Phidias, will
derive inestimable advantage from the statues of the frontons of the temple of [Egina, how-
ever lately they lilave been introduced into the circle of archaeological knowledge. Clearer
notions may likewise with justice now be expected, on the essence and the tendency of art
in the time of Phidias, and of the schools which had the ascendance immediately after him;
since the works of Athenian sculpture from the temples of the Acropolis, have become
more generally known. For this we are indebted first to the work of Stuart and his
associates; next to the enterprizing spirit of the Earl of Elgin, which first made the west
of Europe acquainted with the remains of the noblest monuments of Athens; and finally to
more recent researches. The characteristic of the earlier schools of Greek art, that is the

36 ALEXANDER’S INFLUENCE UPON THE ART.

OLD or archaic style, was a stiff and rigorous observation of certain conventional types and
manners; these had been handed down by tradition, consecrated by usage, and often enforced
by religious superstition and hieratic obligations; and, as far as sculpture is concerned, its
productions were very often influenced by the nature of the first material, which, in the
earliest times of Greece was generally wood, the first images of all the gods of Greece
having been real ξόανα. Successive enfranchisement from this yoke of what was hieratic and
conventional; the imitation of nature considered as the means not as the end; acknowledge-
ment of an ideal beauty; sober, modest and rational, but sublime efforts, to raise by real
art, and without vanity or exaggeration, natural beauty to a higher order of beauty—~these
formed the high or elevated style ; such are the principal criteria of the tendency of the
art of the Greeks in the time of Phidias and of his disciples.

The bronzes of Siris cannot belong either to the productiOHs of the ancient style, or to
that which is rightly called the elevated style. They must, incontestably, be adjudged to a
later period, and to one of the highest refinement, the style of which has, by Winckelmann
and others, properly been termed the beautiful style. We shall come to this conclusion, by
comparing them with the very precise notions furnished to us by other sources, upon the
tendency, and the productions of the age, which comprized the schools of Lysippos and
Apelles, that is, the age of Alexander and his immediate successors.1

The impulse which Grecian art received during this remarkable period, was produced by
men of extraordinary capacity and fine sentiments, leaving the holder path of the ideal, and
seeking their way to the sanctuary of art in a highly refined, and faithful imitation of nature.
The tendency of great talents in this direction made art appear as if called down from
heaven upon earth, perhaps with an air less imposing, less divine, but more accurate, more
human, more approaching to our nature; and so it became to be better understood by man,
having a readier access to his heart, and more seductive charms.

This new tendency of the Grecian genius was no creation of accident; it was founded
upon the spirit of the age, upon its wants and exigencies. It is with the moral world, as
with the physical or material world, where nothing is due to chance; and where, if any
thing appears to us fortuitous, it is only because with our limited faculties we consider it
individually, and out of the great chain of causes and effects. The new relations which
owed their existence to Alexander, would necessarily have also a powerful influence upon art.
At no period has any mortal ever given a greater impulse to the age in which he lived, in
every sense. The exploits of this conqueror form in a manner the history of his time. A
genuine Greek in mind, character, and education, as full of genius as insatiable of glory,
this crowned hero (and especially when he came to dispose of all the treasures of Asia),
was necessarily obliged to have recourse to art for immortalizing his glory, and that of his
associates in arms; and art gladly seized upon a subject so rich and so beautiful. It was
in this manner that art, gradually issuing from the sanctuaries of religion, and from beneath
the vaults consecrated to the national worship (which was often connected with circumstances
and traditions purely local), was called into complete day, and, so to express it, into common
life. The warrior loves the open air and the sun. He loves also that his statues, or the
works which are to perpetuate his deeds, should be exposed to all eyes. The artist lends

1 See Hist. of Art. B. VIII. ch. 2 (Winckelmann’s Works, Vol. V. p. 241). What Winckelmann says in the
following chapter, and especially from the § 13 to 18, of two kinds of grace, is highly intellectual, and very deli-
cately felt. He means that the first, or sublime grace, may have been proper to works of the elevated style, but
that the second, the elegant grace, was associated to the first, in those of the beautiful style. Nevertheless in treating
of the dominion of art, where language,—more suited to express the variations of thought than the refinements of
sentiment,———is often very inadequate, I would not be too fastidious in the use of the expression grace. The reasoning
of Winckelmann is, undoubtedly, as much founded in nature (where nothing appears truly sublime without harmonious
grace), as in the way of thinking of the great men of antiquity. But when we Wish to distinguish historically the
different styles of Grecian art, it will be more perspicuous, if the term sublime is applied to that style of art in
which the sublime is predominant; and beautiful or graceful to that in which a nice and delicate imitation of nature
prevails.

LYSIPPOS AND HIS SCHOOL. 37

himself cheerfully to this desire, so conformable to his own inclinations and to his interest:
publicity is the element equally of the hero and the artist.

These being the principal features of the age of Alexander, sculpture in bronze would
necessarily meet with great encouragement, no other material being so well adapted for great
works of statuary, intended to be transported to a distance, and placed in the open air.
Where the art of ͵ casting has been once brought to great perfection, bronze, used for large
figures, has an advantage over most materials, from the facility of working it; and copies
of the same work may be multiplied with more expedition, and with greater truth. In
these two respects it gives place only to terra-cotta. But better than terra-cotta, used as
this had been from the earliest times as a plastic material in Greece; better than wood,
often employed also by sculpture in the most remote periods; better than the great poly-
chrome statues οἳ wood, of ivory and of gold, which, composed of a thousand pieces united
by a complex mechanism, required great care for their preservation, were unfit for being
placed in the open air, and could only be removed with difficulty ; better than marble, which
is fragile, and also suffers in the open air; brass, as a material of statuary, could not but
satisfy the ambition of Alexander; whilst it met the necessities, as well as the events, that
his prodigious activity gave birth to.2

This state of things had a great influence upon Lysippos and his brilliant career, since
every being is modified, and determined, in many ways, by the age he lives in ; even when, full
of genius and activity, he re—acts in numerous respects upon the same age.

Lysippos was exclusively a statuary in brass. No ancient writer speaks of any work, executed
by this artist in any other material. It may be very well admitted that, in this respect,
there exists a kind of reciprocal influence; indeed, as, on one hand, a genius so productive,
and so privileged, must necessarily have had the most decided influence upon all the manual
and technical part of his art, so on the other, the extraordinary fecundity of the artist can
only be explained by the great perfection, to which in his time they had brought the mani-‘
pulation and working of bronze. In fact, although Lysippos attained an advanced age?
and though, admired and esteemed by the greatest sovereign of the ancient times, he possessed
all the advantages of fortune in abundance, the assertion of Pliny, who makes the works he
had executed in bronze amount to 1500, would appear fabulous,4 if we were not authorized
to take into consideration the consummate ability, which distinguished his time, in regard to
the technical part. But aided as he was by the talents of the most skilful of his contem-
poraries, who were at his disposal, Lysippos may have employed himself almost exclusively on
the models of the works which went by his name. In modern times also, there have been
artists, Raphael and Rubens for instance, whose fecundity, particularly for a life so short as that
of the first of these great artists, would be an enigma, if we did not take into the calculation
the very active aid of many able pupils.

If a careful comparison be made of the different data and opinions found in ancient authors,
respecting Lysippos and his school, no doubt can remain as to the characteristic of this great
artist. It consisted in an imitation of nature altogether faithful and bold, that is, individual
and free. I purposely select these words, because the expression, so often repeated, of a
faithful representation of nature, as the principal aim of Lysippos, gives but an inadequate idea
of the nature and extent of his powers. Indeed, his workmanship was as far removed from

2 Quatremére dc Q‘uincy has correctly observed the causes of the extraordinary impulse which the art of statuary
in bronze received in the time of Alexander the Great. He has in part noticed them in his important work on the
“ Jupiter Olympien.” (Vide part. V. paragr. IV. page 335 and foll.)

3 The great age of Lysippos can only be inferred from an epigram of Agathias (see Brunck’s Analecta Vet. Poetar.
Greecorum, Tom. III. p. 45, No. 35): “ Εὖγε ποιῶν, Λὗσιππε γέρων, Σικυώνιε «Mm-Ta,” &c. I do not recollect any
other ancient data upon this subject.

4 The best MSS. of Pliny exhibit the numerical cypher MD in the XXXIVth book, sect. 17, of the Historia
Naturalis. The passage seems to be as follows: “ Insignia tamen maxime, et aliqua de causa‘notata, voluptuarium sit
attigisse, artificesque celebratos nominavisse; signorum quoque inexplicabili multitudine, cum Lysippus ad MD (mille quin-
genta) opera fecisse dicatur, tantae omnia artis, ut claritatem possent dare vel singula.” &c.

L

38 LYSIPPOS AND HIS SCHOOL.

the anxious and anatomical precision of a Demetrios (of whom Pliny and Quintilian speak), or of
other such artists who servilely copied nature, as from the conventional ideal of the more
ancient schools.5 To such an imitation of nature he added the greatest exactness in the
proportions, an expression full of life, a grace entirely his own, and the utmost possible finish
in the execution, even to the minutest details.6 It was, doubtless, a sense of these qualities
which made Alexander order that none but Lysippos should make his portraits in bronze.’

The Bronzes of Siris agree in the most remarkable and striking manner With this sketch
of the distinctive character of the school of Lysippos.

The groups of these rilievi present to us the most beautiful nature; essentially different
from those dignified personages of an earlier school of art, whose severe deportment, and
profound gravity, seem to place them in another sphere. The draperies and decorations, like
the figures themselves, have the stamp of a free, though graceful, imitation of unaffected nature,
copied from life itself. The groups are so treated that, by the distribution of the light, by
the nicely calculated contrast of salient parts, and of symmetrical combinations, they might
almost be said to partake equally of plastic and graphic effect. In these respects also they
are as distinct from the severe simplicity of a preceding period, for instance, from the rilievi
of the frieze of the Parthenon, as these are from the conventional stiffness, and hieratic harsh-
ness of old Attic or EEginetan sculpture.

The technical, skill in the manner of treating the bronze, the perfect command of the
material, the delicacy of the execution even in the most minute details, and all the qualities
of the composition and of the design, which we have alluded to in the beginning of this
memoir, all point to the period in question, viz., that of the school of Lysippos. This is all
we venture at present to vouch for; it would be requiring too much from our limited know-
ledge, that we should fix more precisely their time and author.

“ Here, as in his usual manner when he speaks of art, Quintilian, giving the judgments of others, but known
to be correct, says (Inst. Or. XII. 10, § 9): “ ad veritatem Lysippum et Praxitelem accessisse optime affirmant. Nam
Demetrius tanquam nimius in ea reprehenditur, et fuit similitudinis quam pulchritudinis amantior.” In Pliny, H. N. (lib.
XXXIV. cap. 8, sect. 19, no. 6), are found the most important notions on Lysippos and his productions, which antiquity
has transmitted to us. When, amongst other things, it is there said, “ vulgo dicebat (Lysippus) ab illis (the common

’

artists) factos quales essent homines, a se quales viderentur esse 3’ the sense of these words appears to me to be’
that Lysippos disdained in his portraits a mean resemblance, material or anatomical, but endeavoured to find, and to
express that resemblance which shows the soul, and which is drawn by abstraction, as the reflection of the happiest
moments of the individual, and of what is the most characteristic in his form and features. In comparing a portrait
by Raphael or Rembrandt with an ordinary modern production, every one is sensible of the difference between a flat
and insipid resemblance, and one which is spirited and full of soul.

5 Here we may apply what Pliny says in the passage cited, of the accurate execution of the hair, of the smallness of
the heads, and, in general, of the great symmetry in his forms. He adds, on the subject of Lysippos: “ propriae hujus
videntur esse argutiee operum custoditae in minimis quoque rebus.” That by argutiw operum was meant the finish of the
execution, is proved by what he states (1. XXXV. cap. 10, § 5) in speaking of Parrhasios: “ primus symmetriam picturee
dedit, primus argutias vultus, elegantiam capilli, venustatem oris, confessione artificum in lineis extremis palmam adeptus.”
Propertius means to eulogise the force of expression, the life in the statue-portraits of Lysippos, when he says (lib. III.
El. IX. v. 9-10), “ gloria Lysippo est, animosa eflingere signa.” An epigram of Archelaos (quoted also by Plutarch,
περὶ τῆς ᾿Αλεξάνδρου τύχης ἢ ἀρετῆς λόγος, 2, ed. Paris. in fol. p. 385) contains a fine testimony of the expression
eminently animated in a production of Lysippos representing Alexander the Great. See Anthol. Graec. ed. Jacobs,
Tom. II. (Lipsize, 1814) p. 66], N. 120 :- ,

Τόλμαν ᾿Αλεξάνδρου καὶ ὅλαν ἄπεμάξετο μορφἃν
Λὐσιππος' τίν᾽ ὁδὶ χαλκὸς ἔχει δύναμιν;

αὐδασοῦντι δ᾽ ἔοικεν ὁ χάλκεος ἐς Δι’ιι λεύσσων'
Γἆν ὑπ" ἐμοὶ τίθεμαι, Ζεῦ' σὺ δ᾽ ᾽΄Ολυμπον ἕχε'

7 The most positive assertions in this respect are handed down to us. See, for example, Arrian. De Exped. Alex.
lib. I. p. 47 (ed. Amstelod. 1668, in 8vo.), where he says of Lysippos: “ ὅσπερ καὶ ᾿Αλέξανδρον μόνος προκριθεὶς ἐποίει.”
Cicero, Epist. l. V. 12; Horat. Epist. 1. II. Ep. 1. v. 239 et seq., “ edicto vetuit,” &c. ; Valer. Max. 1. VIII. cap. 11,
Externa, No. 2 ; Plin. Hist. Nat. 1. VII. cap. 38; Apulejus Floridorum, lib. Ι. No. 7, § 2 (in the Valpy reprint of
Oudendorp’s edition, London, 1825, vol. II.) In Plutarch, 1. Ο.-π'ερἳ τῆς ᾿Αλεξάνδρου τύχης λόγος 2—-the sole motive,
worthy of a great prince, which is alleged in behalf of an edict apparently despotic, is, that Lysippos alone had the
talent to seize upon the peculiar character of the monarch of Macedonia, whilst the other artists only expressed his
manners and a common likeness: μόνος γὰρ οὗτος (Lysippos) ὡς ἔοικε, κατεμήνυε τῷ χαλκῷ τὸ ἦθος αὐτοῦ, καὶ συνεξε’φερε
τῇ μορφῇ τῆν ἆρετῆν' οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι τὴν ἀποστροφὴν τοῦ τραχήλου, καὶ τῶν ὀμμἆτων τῆν διάχυσιν καὶ ὑγρότηταΐμιμεἷσθαι

θέλοντες, οὐ διεφύλαττον αὐτοῦ τὸ ἆῥῥενωπ’ὸν καἶ λεοντὧδες.

LYSIPPOS AND HIS SCHOOL. 39

It cannot be doubted, that Lysippos himself often treated subjects drawn from the cycle
of the family of the Eacidae, and from their exploits, when we consider that his illustrious
protector, Alexander the Great, was sprung from that race on his -mother’s side; whilst, on
the father’s side, he was also a Heraclida ;8 and notwithstanding his pretension (which may
appear to us as fanciful, but which was in fact political) to pass for the son of Zeus Ammon,
Alexander assuredly was not less proud of the real origin of his race, than of an opinion,
however general among the vulgar, that he was in a. still nearer relationship to the gods.

' See Plutarch’s Alexander, in init.

IX.

ON SOME HISTORICAL EVENTS WITH WHICH THE BRONZES OF SIRIS
ARE PROBABLY CONNECTED.

ANOTHER fEacida, Pyrrhos, king of Epiros, who resembled Alexander in genius, in his rare
endowments of mind, in the most undaunted bravery, and in his adventurous achievements,
was not less proud of belonging to the same heroic family, to which the representation of our
bronzes refers. After the brilliant victory he had gained over Antigonos and his Galatian
troops, Pyrrhos consecrated, according to an ancient usage,9 to Athene—Itonis the most beautiful
and splendid amongst the spoils of his conquest, and added the haughty inscription which
Plutarch has preserved to us.1

The expedition which this warlike prince made in aid of Tarentum against the Romans
(B. C. 280), must necessarily have brought into the south of Italy a great variety of rich and
splendid Greek armour, the produce of the best manufactories of the time: and a large portion
of these valuable objects would have been left there by the Greeks when they returned
home. In the first battle which Pyrrhos fought with the Romans (near the river Siris,
between Heraclea and Pandosia), his splendid armour was very near being fatal to him, in
attracting the assaults _of the enemy. He was prevailed upon to exchange it for that of his
friend Megacles, who was soon after slain by a Roman (whom Plutarch calls Dexoos), and who

ᾳ

9 See Additional Note XV.

’ Pyrrhos (ed. Paris. p. 400). This is the passage in Plutarch: —— -— ὁ δὲ Πύῤῥος εὐτυχήμασι τοσούτοις μέγιστον
αὐτῷ πρὸς δόξαν οἰόμενος διαπεπρᾶχθαι τὸ περὶ τοὺς Γαλάτας, τὰ κάλλιστα καὶ λαμπρότατα τῶν λαφὔρων ἀνέθηκεν εἰς τὸ
ἱερὸν τῆς Ἰτωνἵδος ᾿Αθηνᾶς, τόδε τὸ ἐλεγεῖον ἐπιγράψας: ᾽

Τοὺς θυρεοὺς ὁ Μολοσσὸς Ἰτωνίὃι δῶρον ᾽Αθἀνᾳ
Πύῤῥος ἀπὸ θρασέων ἐκρέμασεν Γαλατἆν,
πάντα τὸν ᾽Αντιγὄνου καθελὼν στρατόν'͵ οὐ μέγα θαῦμα'

Αἷχμηταὶ καὶ νῦν καὶ πάρος Αἰακίδαι.

40 HISTORICAL EVENTS WITH WHICH THE BRONZES ARE CONNECTED.

hastened to the consul Laevinus, crying aloud that Pyrrhos was no more. A shout of joy
arose in the ranks of the Romans, and the consternation amongst the Greeks was at its
height, when the king perceiving the mistake advanced with his head uncovered, and restored
the courage of his troops?

Such are the principal facts connected with the discovery of the bronzes of Siris; and I
have endeavoured, as concisely as the subject admitted of, to describe them as works of great
interest, both in an historical and aesthetical point of view, and no less important as offering
types of heroical character, than as master-pieces of one of the most beautiful branches of
imitative art. ᾽

Notwithstanding that these bronzes were found in the vicinity of the field of battle, in which
the Romans first felt the prowess of the arms of Pyrrhos, I do not pretend to assert as a fact,
that they formed part of the spoils of that day, much less to say that they had belonged to
the armour either of. Pyrrhos himself, or of any of the generals who served under him: but one
or the other of these suppositions is not unlikely, and they may be defended on the coincidence
of the time, the site, historical propriety, and the school of art to which the bronzes belong.

The cuirass to which they were attached must have been a Θώραξ ἐπίχρυσος; it must
have been worn by some one of distinguished eminence; he must have been a Greek; and he
must have lived not prior, nor long subsequent, to the age of Alexander. All these circum-
stances unite in Pyrrhos; but they might agree too with others, his contemporaries, whose
name and fate are unknown to us: Hellas was never so rich in eminent individuals, who were
at the same time opulent, luxurious, patrons of the fine arts, and proud of an exalted lineage,
as during the time of the early successors of Alexander. But, after all, the Bronzes of Siris
are of such extraordinary beauty, that the question, to whom they may have belonged, being
a mere question of curiosity, does not by any means either affect or heighten their real value
as a work of art.

As the bronzes are undoubtedly of the school of Lysippos, we have only to observe that
that distinguished artist did in all probability reside for a time and work at Tarentum. Two
of his great productions in bronze were erected in that city, and we cannot suppose that
these statues, 60 or 80 feet in height, could have been modelled and cast on the other side of
the Adriatic. Such a proceeding would have been contrary to the analogy of the most precise
notions that we have of the practice of Phidias and other great artists under similar circum-
stances. Besides what Pliny recounts of an ingenious expedient, by means of which one of
these colossi was sheltered from the violence of the wind, seems sufficiently to indicate that
Lysippos had come in person to Tarentum, and had there himself erected this monument.3
The victories of Q. Metellus, and the conquest of Macedonia, caused in the sequel numerous
and bulky works of Lysippos to be removed to Italy. In later times doubtless, the pillage of
hapless Greece by the Romans brought in more. Adhering only to Pliny’s statement, we count
nearly thirty statues of bronze by the same artist, which were transported to Rome."‘

” Plutarch. Vita Pyrrhi, ed. laud. pag. 393-394.

9 These are Pliny’s words in the remarkable passage here alluded to: Hist. Natur. l. XXXIV. sect. 18 (ed. Franzii,
tom. IX. p. 233): — —— talis colossus et Tarenti factus a Lysippo XL. cubitorum. Mirum in eo, quod manu ut ferunt
mobilis (ea ratio libramenti est) nullis convellatur procellis. Id quidem providisse ct artifex dicitur, modico intervallo, unde
maxime flatum opus erat frangi, opposita columna. Itaque prOpter magnitudinem diflicultatemque movendi non attigit
cum Fabius verrucosus, quum Herculem, qui est in Capitolio, inde transferret.

' Compare the article on Lysippos in “ Catalogus artificum Graecorum et Romanorum auctore Julio Sillig” (Lipsiee,
1827, in 8vo) p. 252 sq.

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES.

Note I. See page 6.

In Homer we not only read of arms which are ἀργυρόηλα and with “ ἧλοι χρὔσειοι”
(decked with gold and silver rivets) for example ΙΙ. ΙΙ. 45; III. 334; XIV. 405; XIX.
372; XXIII. 807 ; and Il. XI. 29-30 where a ξίφος, or glaive, is spoken of . . ἐν δέ οἱ
ἧλοι χρ’ὕσειοι παμφαίνον; but the same embellishment is given also to other objects. Thus
the goblet (δέπας) of Nestor (ΙΙ. XI. 632) is χρυσείοις ἥλοισι πεπαρμἐνον. A seat (3961/09)
in the palace of Alcinoos is also ἀργυρόηλος, 0d. VII. 162, and VIII. 65; and Ulysses says
of the abode of Circe, Od. X. 366 :—

εἷσε δέ ͵ιι᾽εἷσαγαγοῦσα ἐπὶ Θρὄνου ἀργυροήλου,

καλοῦ, ὃαιὃαλἐου, κ. τ. λ.

Note II. See page 7.

If we sometimes see in very remarkable works of Grecian sculpture, that the heads
are treated either in a manner altogether conventional, and are thus left without individual
expression, as is the case in the statues (now in Munich) from the pediments of the temple
of ZEgina; or that, notwithstanding all the Vivacity and variety of the composition, there
are still in the heads an indifference, and a sort of frigidity, which we observe in some
of the Phigaleian bas-reliefs (now in the British Museum) from the temple of Apollo Epi-
curios at Bassae, this fact, which appears so inconsistent with the excellence of these works
in other respects, arises from several causes, which ought to be noticed, if we wish to avoid
coming to false conclusions.

With respect to the heads of the figures of the temple of ZEgina, we must not forget
that before the time of Phidias, in the most ancient schools of Greek Art, there prevailed
not only an antique usage or a traditional manner in art, but also a religious restraint.
The artist could scarcely escape from this double influence, so long as the principle of' the
ideal, or, what amounts to the same thing, that of beauty as the supreme law (f Art, was
neither recognized, nor in possession of its rights. But to establish this principle, as the
supreme rule of art, is a great revolution, which could not take place in the earlier times,
anterior to the fifth century before our aera, whilst the fine arts in Greece were, if not
exclusively, at least chiefly subordinate to religious purposes and necessities. Restrained and
limited by all that was exacted of them, in regard to religion, traditional types, and the
superstition of the times, the artists who were employed on the temple of ngina, and by
whom the figures of the pediments were made, were bound to pursue a much more rigorous
method, than Phidias and his school were at liberty to adopt in Athens, at a period much
more liberal, and less enslaved by prejudices, and when they were backed by the power of
Pericles. Who knows whether certain archaic figures of painted wood, of a more ancient
temple of ngina, did not religiously serve as models for the authors of the statues
of this more mo‘dern and spacious edifice? Onatas of ACgina, when he made for the Phi—
galeians the new bronze statue of their local deity the Black Demeter, was obliged to follow
a design, or a copy, of the old figure which had been carved in wood (Paus. Book VIII.
ch. 42, § 4). This part of the history of Greek art deserves a fuller consideration than
the present occasion will allow of. In reference to the revolution, which Phidias and his
school operated in art, it is important to observe, that as the most distinguished man, as
well as every other human being, is the product of his own time and his own age, it
would have been impossible, even for a Phidias, to establish the principle of the ideal, and

M

42 ADDITIONAL NOTES.

in that way to have opened a new career to the arts, if other circumstances leading to such a
transition had not pre—existed. If, for example, the religious belief of the Athenians had
tolerated in his time no other figure of their goddess, but that worshipped by their forefathers,
of which the Pallas from one of the pediments of the ngina-temple may be looked upon as a
fair example, (the type of such an archaic Pallas was well known from other monuments,
and also by many coins, long previous to the excavations of [Egina in 1811)—-if that had
been the case, it is evident that Phidias could never have produced such an image of the
goddess of Athens, as the great chryselephantine statue in the Parthenon must necessarily have
been. It would have been totally different. As for the heads of the has-reliefs of the
temple of Phigaleia, the indifference, or the want of expression, observable in them, appears
to me to have arisen from quite another cause. I shall endeavour to prove, in another
place, that this frieze, as a subordinate ornament of architecture, and intended for a place
elevated nearly twenty-two feet above the eye of the beholder, had, probably, been made
at Athens by different artists, and after simple designs or cartoons upon compositions exe-
cuted elsewhere; and that it is principally to this reason that the want of expression in
the heads, as well as some other faults in the execution, must be attributed.

Note 111. See page 8.

It is for this reason that we sometimes find (as for example in 11. ΧΙ. l5) ζὤννυσθαι
and ζώσασἓαι in the sense of Swpfio-o-so-Sat, καἓοπλίζεσἓαι, to arm one’s self; a signification
which gave rise to the surname of Athene ζωστηρία (who arms, or armed, herself). On
this point Pausam'as may be consulted, lib. IX. cap. 17, § 2, where he expressly says:
τὸ δὲ ἐνδῦναι τὰ ὅπλα ἐκάλουν ἄρα οἱ παλαιοὶ ζώσασθαι (compare Wincltelmann’s Déscription
des pierres gravées de M. de Stosch, p. 62-63, and Siebelis Adnott. ad Pausan. lib. IX. 1. l.
p. 56). Homer remarks as a peculiarity of the armour of the Lycians, commanded by Sarpedon,
that they were without the μίτρα, “ ἀμιτροχι'τωνες ” (Iliad. XVI. 419). See also the following
passages of Homer, on the belt and the band: Iliad. IV. 135; V. 537 foll. and 857; X. ’74
and foll. ; XI. 234; XVII. 519; and XX. 413 and foll. From this last passage it might be
thought, that the belt (ζώνη, ζῶμα) was buckled behind the back; and it is thus that Heyne
has understood it. It is sufficiently proved by 11. IV. 135 and foll. that it buckled above the
lower part of the cuirass, whilst the μίτρα was placed below, viz. under the cuirass. The manner
in which the μίτρα was applied, is apparent on many ancient Greek terra-cotta vases. It may be
looked upon as having been used by the ancient Greeks instead of caleeons, and was, at least
very often, and when the man was armed for battle, attached to a bronze plate, quite separate
from the cuirass, and which covered the abdomen of the warrior. As that piece of ancient
Greek armour is seldom to be met with, at least not in an unbroken state, I have had engraved
a very fine specimen of it, which, I acquired in the island of Euboea, and which is now
in the Cabinet des Antiques of the Royal Library at Paris. The engravingf‘ which shews both
the outside (A. B.) and inside (C. D.) surfaces of this curious plate, is exactly of the size of the
original. The inner side, C. D. is provided with fifteen great and thirteen small spheroidal
cavities, the purpose of which was to receive the elastic lining, probably of leather stuffed
with wool or cotton; which, when the apparatus was tightly strapped, secured the body from
being injured by the pressure of the plate itself. The extremity, C. g. h., the sides of
which are bent inwardly, shews the manner in which the leathern strap, which kept the μίτρα
and its front-plate steady, was there attached. This strap, which must not be confounded with
the ζώνη, went of course under the cuirass, around the waist of the warrior, and was fur-
nished with a brass or iron ring, which hooked into the other extremity, D, of the plate.

Note IV. See page 10.

It appears to me necessary to prove this assertion by some examples. When Aga-
memnon (Ι]. X.) full of anxiety and unable to sleep, quits his tent in the night, and
goes to seek Nestor to consult with him, he puts on only (verse 21 and foll.) his tunic, his
sandals, and a large lion’s hide, and takes a lance in his hand. In the same manner (v. 29
and foll.), when a similar restlessness causes Menelaos to sally forth in the night-time, he

5 See Plate VII.

 

ἔξ': ἓξ»

 

as,“ X

Ἡ ΗΛ

   

Li)

 

 

να ννυνννῳννννψνννυχ

 

3ZOOQ Q Q

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

   

....ι

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES. 43

puts on a. kind of helmet, (στεφάνην κεφιιλᾗφιν ἀείρας θήκατο χαλκείην) and arms himself
with a javelin. Afterwards, when Nestor, awakened by Agamemnon, agrees to go out with him
to rouse the other chiefs and demand their advice, he takes (v. 131 and foll.) only his tunic,
his sandals, and a purple mantle, and arms himself with his lance. When Nestor recommends
a reconnoissance of the Trojan camp, and Diornedes and Ulysses undertake it, Thrasyme‘des
gives the son of Tydeus only a two-edged sword, a buckler, and a light helmet, called mmmg,
without crest or plume. Meriones presents to Ulysses a bow and a quiver, a sword, and a
leathern helmet furnished with leathern straps in the inside, the tusks of the wild boar outside,
and covered with felt.

When, during the same night, at the request of Hector, Dolon prepares to steal towards
the enemies’ vessels in order to reconnoitre their condition, he merely throws across his
shoulders a bow, and the hide of a wolf, covers his head with a cap of otter’s-skin (κτιδέην
κυνέην), and takes a javelin in his hand. According to the Odyss. Ι. 255-256, it appears that
the casque, the shield, and a couple of javelins, formed the usual equipment of warriors on
a journey. Such, also, were the arms with which Telemachos provides his father, when the
latter had discharged all his arrows against the suitors (Odyss. XXII. 110.). They were,
likewise, the only weapons that Melanthios, after having stolen into the upper apartment,
brought to them, when they were closely pressed by Ulysses (ibid. vers. 144). In the whole

of this book there is no mention of the cuirass, because neither the opportunity, nor the
nature of the conflict, allowed the use of it.

Note V. See page 11.

Pausanias thus writes: κατὰ (in ἐμὲ σπάνιον τῶν θωράκων rd σχῆμα ἦν τοὔτων; but
he does not state that it was a species of cuirass unknown in his time, as Schneider asserts
in his Lexicon at the word γύαλον. On the contrary, even during the days of Pausanias,
the solemn costume of a Roman emperor was a γυαλοθὤραξ, although varying a little from the
ancient Greek by the shape and the mode of {wearing it. The Roman cuirass of ceremony,
such as we behold it in so many good and bad works, is longer than that of the Greeks,
and following the form of the oblique muscle, external and internal; it descends from the
hips as far as the os pubis, which was not the case with the more antique Greek cuirasses.
These latter terminated above the hips in a line almost circular and horizontal; at least they
did not descend very much in front. This can be clearly seen in two of the nginetan statues,
which are also very remarkable as being the only specimens which remain to us of statues
clothed in a cuirass, of truly Greek workmanship. Since the influence of the school of
Phidias, and the admission of the principle of the idea], which it had mainly contributed to
introduce, Greek art had, in general, substituted the na/red, instead of the custom of repre-
senting the heroes in armour. It is for this reason Pliny says (Hist. Nat. 34, 5), “ Graaca
res est nihil velare, at contra romana ac militaris thoracas addere.” That, since the time of
Phidias, the heroic figures are almost always exhibited naked, or only with a light drapery, is a
matter of convention, but of a convention favourable to beauty. Arista’netos (lib. I. ep. 1.)
understood this principle of the art in its true point of view, when he said, “ ἐνδεδυμἑνη μὲν
εὐπροσωποτάτη' ἐκὃὔσα δὲ ὅλη πρόσωπον φαίνεται.” Moreover, in the time of Pausanias,
this species of ancient Greek cuirass might well be named σπάνιον, since the usual body-armour
of the Roman soldiers (and Pausanias had no other warriors in view) was either the Roman half-
cuirass (semi-lorica), or the breast-plate (pectoralis), which Polybius translates by καρδιοφὐλαξ,
and which is so frequently repeated upon the columns of Trajan and of Antoninus.

“ Note VI. See page 11.

I believe that Facius has selected the true punctuation. But it was not necessary to
admit, as Camerarius proposed, περόναις in the text, considering that the trifling irregularity
of these words ἔπειτα περόναι συνῆπτον πρὄς ἄλληλα, Which is found in all the known

manuscripts up to the present day, agrees very well with the style of Pausanias. Compare
Siebelz's Adnotatt. ad libr. X. p. 249.

Note VII. See page 11.
I]. XVII, 312 and foll. Homer, however, does not state that Phorkys was without

44 ADDITIONAL NOTES.

a shield; he relates that Ajax killed him by a blow which broke a γόαλον of his cuirass,
and wounded him in the abdomen. He is silent in regard to the shield, in this as in many
other accounts of battles and of combats.

Note VIII. See page 12.

0d. XIX. 225 and foll.:
' χλαῖναν πορφυρέην οὔλην ᾿ε΄χε δῖος ᾽Οδυσσεὺς

διπλῆν' αὐτάρ οἱ περόνη χρυσοῖο τέτυκτο

αὐλοῖσιν διδὗμοισι' πάροιθε δὲ δαίδαλον ἦεν'

᾿Εν προτέροισι πόδεσσι κ’ὐων ᾽ε΄χε ποικίλον ἑλλδν,

ἀσπαίροντα λάων' rd δὲ θαυμάζεσκον ἅπαντες,

ὡς οἱ χρύσεοι ὄντες, ὁ μὲν λάε νεβρδν ἀπάγχων,

αὐτὰρ ὁ, ἐκφυγέειν μεμαὼς, ήσπαιρε πόδεσσιν.
I do not agree with the usual interpretation of this passage. The words πάροιθε δὲ δαίδαλον
ἦεν have been understood as relating to the cloak (χλαῖναν πορφυρέην), that is, as an
ornament embroidered upon the garment. To me it appears rather that these words, as well as
the detailed description which follows, apply only to the clasp, περόνη, and indicate a work
in rilievo upon it. The words χρύσεοι ὄντες, &c. confirm this opinion; and we see (v. 256-
257) that Penelope attached great value to the clasp in question. She herself fixed it upon
the vestment, to adorn her consort——

— ——— περόνην τ᾽ ἐπέθηκα φαείνην,

κείνῳ ἄγαλμ᾽ εἶναι. — —6
Not to add that the χλαῖνα of wool was by no means a garment proper to receive a rich
embroidery. Indeed I am not able to point out any example in Homer of an embroidered
χλαῖνα, although he very frequently speaks of that garment. In Homer it is generally the
πε’ πλοι which have embroidered decorations (ποικίλματα, δαίδαλα), as for instance ΙΙ. VI. 289

and foll.; ΙΙ. VIII. 385; ΙΙ. XIV. 178; Odyss. XV. 106, &c.

Note ΙΧ. See page 13.

In the most remote times, when all arms were of brass, it was of course by beating,
that this metal acquired its consistence and durability. . Such, for instance, was the process,
which Vulcan followed, in fabricating the armour of Achilles (ΙΙ. XVIII. 474 and foll.).
In like manner the shield of Sarpedon (ll. XII. 295 and foll.) was ἐξήλατος, a term
synonimous with σφυρήλατος (embossed with the hammer). The workman commenced by
forging a broad plate; under which he fastened several folds of an ox’s hide (ἢν ἄρα
χαλκεὺς ἤλασεν, ἔντοσθεν δὲ βοείας ῥἁψε θαμειὰς). The Boeotian artisan of Hyle, who
made the enormous buckler of Ajax Telamonios, ΙΙ. VII. v. 219, proceeded in the same
manner, “ and over seven layers of bull’s hide he forged the eighth of brass.” The
well known hardness and consistency of forged metal is the cause why later writers
expressed moral relations by the word σφυρήλατος; thus Plutarch has these expressions:
πυκνὄς καἰ σφυρήλατος νοῦς - -— ἀληθινὴ καἰ ἐμβριθἢς καὶ σφυρήλατος φιλία.
Homer was well acquainted with iron and its use for tools, implements of husbandry, &c.
(for example, ΙΙ. ΧΧΙΙΙ. 834-35, and see Eustathios on the same passage); he also very
well understood the manner of tempering that metal (0d. IX. 391 and foll.). By the epithet
πολόκμητος he indicates its brittleness, and its refractory qualities, or, as our workmen express
it, its caprices ; it is however highly probable that in Homer’s time iron was yet too
scarce, and too precious in Greece to be used for making arms; bronze is essentially the
material of all the kinds of armour, and of the most part of the utensils mentioned in the
Homeric epos. Even the wood for ship-building, and that for ordinary purposes, were hewed
and split with a brazen axe (0d. V. 244, and XIV. 418). It is on this account that the

line in the Odyssey XVI. 294, and XIX. 13:
-— — αὐτδς γὰρ ἐφέλκεται ἄνδρα σίδηρος,

6 The signification of ἄγαλμα in Homer is well known. Eustathios very justly says of it, on Odyss. III. 274:
ἀγάλματα δὲ παρὰ μὲν τοῖς ὕστερον τὰ Ξόανα' παρὰ δὲ τῷ ποιητῇ παν ᾧ τις ἀγάλλεται κ. τ. λ. This remark is substantiated

by 0d. IV. 602, ΙΙ. IV. 144, and other passages.

ADDITIONAL NOTES. 45

is very remarkable, as it would seem to denote a time, in which iron and steel were em-
ployed for the formation of arms. This would not be at all surprizing, if the original sources
of the Homeric epos are considered in the light, which the acute researches of F. A. Wolff
have principally contributed to sanction. There might, however, still be an expedient for
attributing this verse to Homer, by adopting the opinion, that the poet sometimes used
σίδηρος for metal generally. An assertion of Aristarchos on ΙΙ. ΧΧΙΙΙ. 826 upon the subject
of the σὄλος αὐτοχὀωνος of iron, which Achilles proposed as the prize at the discos, might
favour this idea; but Aristarchos is contradicted by Eustathios (p. 1332, lin. 6-10, ed. rom.)
When subsequently iron and steel were generally employed in the fabrication of arms in
Greece, they soon learnt various ways of tempering the metals. The artist Zoilos from Cyprus
had,——on the evidence of Plutarch (life of Demetrios, edit. Paris, in fol. 898, c.),——given to
Demetrios Poliorcetes two steel cuirasses so hard and impenetrable, that a weapon discharged
from a catapult at the distance of twenty-six paces, scarcely left a visible scratch on
the surface of it. On this occasion Plutarch supplies us with remarkable data upon the
collective weight of all the pieces which composed a complete suit of Greek armour (πανοπλία).
He relates that the king Demetrios himself wore one of those cuirasses, thus skilfiilly fabricated
by Zoilos, and his friend Alkimos the other. This Alkimos, says he, a valiant Epirote, and
very strong, had a suit of armour which weighed two talents ; whilst those of the other
Epirote warriors weighed but one. We may therefore say generally, that a common suit
of Greek armour, πανοπλία, viz. casque, cuirass, belt, buskins, sword, lance, and shield, weighed
about 601bs.; consequently, that of Alkimos weighed 1201bs.

Note X. See page 14.

The description which Homer gives of this cuirass is very remarkable. The details
into which he enters being foreign to my present subject, I shall merely take notice of the
following circumstances :

The οἶμοι, forty-two of which are counted upon this costly cuirass, can only be the
horizontal lines or windings upon the surface of the two γύαλα. Eustathios, in interpreting
οἷμοι by ζ ὦ ν α ι, seems to confirm this opinion. Nevertheless, Heyne, who still retained some
doubts, puts the following question in his Observatt. ad XI. v. 24: “ rectae an obliquae fuerint
(these virgae, striae, οἶμοι) quis dixerit Ρ” The thorax however of a man’s breast determined
the form of a cuirass skilfully made. As the ribs are obliquely directed towards the line
at the middle of the breast (linea alba), it was quite natural that the striw of the cuirass,
if there were any, should have a like direction. It is by a similar principle, or rather by
encroaching on this principle, that the Roman figures in cuirass exhibit not only the form of
the pit of the stomach, but also that of the papillae and the navel; details altogether conven-
tional, and of which it would be difficult to quote an example in cuirasses truly Greek.

In respect. to the ornaments representing serpents erect and twining themselves upwards, I
form, from the analogy of the grotesque forms upon the Roman cuirasses of ceremony, this idea
of them: that the inferior spiral lines were the greatest, that these were carved upon the
γύαλον in front, at the place where it covered the warrior’s abdomen; and that the six lines
representing the necks of the serpents drawn up towards the breast, between the two breast-
plates (περόναι), their movement would be nearly Similar to that of the two serpents writhing
themselves upwards, as seen on several Greek medals, for example, of Pergamos in Mysia,
and of the island of Kos; and these 'thus came to encompass the neck or throat-opening of
the cuirass. In this manner the 42 εἰπῶ (12 of which of gold, consequently somewhat red;
20 of fine lead, and therefore white; and 10 of a kind of steel, deep blue) were continuous
upon the dorsal ᾳὑαλον, though intersected upon the pectoral γὔαλον by the bluish writhings,
in demi-relief, of the serpents.

I cannot here enter into an examination upon the two Homeric metals, ὁ κασσίτερος and
ὁ κὔανος. I shall merely refer at present to the motley-coloured armour of Agamemnon, of
his cuirass, described in the passage quoted, of his sword, and of his shield (v. 29 and fell).
This feature, which is equally remarkable in the shield of Achilles (Π. XVIII), in the ornaments
of the palace of Alcinoos (Odyss. B. VII. V. 82 and foll.), and in several other works of art
in Homer, shows precisely, in that respect, the taste of the heroic and Homeric times, and
ought to prevent surprise, when discoveries made in our own days introduce, as irrefragable

N

46 ADDITIONAL NOTES.

facts, in the study and history of art, polychromatic temples, painted in blue, red, yellow, &c.,
with rilievi and statues covered with glaring colours. The Greeks always liked lively colours
and a certain gaudiness.

Note XI. See page 23.

I do not mean to undervalue the liberal friends and protectors of the finest efforts of
the human mind. No one can respect or esteem them more than I do. But the very cir-
cumstance, that their most meritorious activity should be lauded as a service rendered to the
State, certainly proves how low-spirited in this point of view is the age we live in. It would
be much happier for artists, if their works were sought after from no other motive than that
which makes us seek after raiment, lodging, &c., that is, from necessity. These times would
then be flourishing times; but we should no longer be called upon to bestow our praises
upon any men as protectors of the arts, for to satisfy his own wants, however noble they may
be, cannot be accounted as a merit in any one. It was never considered a particular merit
among the ancients, certainly not among the Greeks, for princes and personages in high station
to bring around them men of great talents, who might produce for them the best works of
their art. Assuredly Archelaos of Macedonia, when he drew to his court Euripides and
Agathon, or the artists Timotheus and Zeuxis, never thought of making a merit of having
been the first to enjoy the productions of men of such genius; never did Pericles, the most
powerful prince of his age, arrogate to himself any particular merit from having employed
the vast talents of a Phidias, of an Ictinos, of an Alcamenes, &c. On the contrary, they
undoubtedly esteemed themselves fortunate in being able to confide the execution of their
plans to such men. Thus the princely heart of Alexander expressed his great delight by
joyous fétes, when three thousand artists from Greece came to join him at Ecbatana (Plutarcli.
in Alexandro. ed. quoted. pag. 704 E: —— ὡς δὲ ἧκεν εἰς ᾽Εκβάτανα τῆς Μηδίας καὶ
διῴκησε τὰ κατεπείγοντα, πάλιν ἦν ἐν θεάτροις καὶ πανηγύρεσιν, ἅτε ὃἣ τρισχιλίων αὐτῷ τεχνιτῶν
ἀπὸ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἀφιγμένων). But when, as in our times, and in what is called le grand
monde, the fine arts, in relation to human life, are looked upon merely as a lace trimming to a
purple cloak, then there is, doubtless, considerable merit due to a prince, or nobleman, who,
from benevolence and esteem for the artist, purchases at a high price an ornament which he
could well do without.

Note XII. See page 29.

The smaller pieces of silver coin with this figure are frequently found in Greece. Those
of the value of three and four drachmae are more rare. I have selected the finest tetra-
drachm of this kind in my collection. It is a received opinion amongst medallists, that
the warrior on the reverse represents Ajax son of Oileus. See for instance Eclrkel Doctr.
Num. Vett. Vol. II. p. 192. I am inclined to think that the fine female head on the
obverse of these coins, is not, as commonly believed, that of a Demeter, but that it is
rather intended to represent some local divinity, possibly the nymph Rhene, or Eriopis,
whichever of the two may have been worshipped at Opus as the mother of Ajax. According
to traditions which Hyginus followed,7 it should seem that the nymph Rhene has been
considered as the mother of Ajax; but the notions that are found in Homer on this subject
are not very clear. It is merely stated there in respect to Medon brother to Ajax, that he
was the illegitimate son of Oileus and of Rhene (νόθος υἱὸς Ὀϊλῆος) and that he had fled
from Opus in consequence of having killed the brother of his mother-in-law Eriopis (see ΙΙ.
᾽ΙΙ. 727 and foll. compared with XIII. 694 and foll. and XV. 333..) Nevertheless this
Eriopis, consort of Oileus, is in no part of the Iliad positively indicated as the mother of
Ajax.

What imports us more to notice is, that this hero, much esteemed by the Greeks
before Troy (compare on this subject Philostrat. Heroica, p. 706 and 707, Edit. Olear.), was,
at a later time in the historic period, worshipped by his kinsmen, the Locrians, in Greece
and in Italy, as a national hero, and a tutelar divinity. To this refers, also, the story
related by Pausanias (1. III. cap. 19, § 11), by Canon in the Διηγήσεις (see Historiae poeticae

7 Fab. 97. See Auctores Mythographi Lat. ed. Van Staveren, p. 179.

ADDITIONAL' NOTES. 47

scriptores antiqui, &c. I’arisiis, 1675, in 8V0. pag. 257), and by other ancient authors, that.
the Locrians of Italy left a place open in their battle array for this national hero; and that
Autoleon (as Conon calls him; Pausanias names him Leonymos) the Crotonian, having en-
deavoured to penetrate by this opening into the ranks of the Locrians, was dangerously
wounded by a spectre, and found himself compelled by an oracle to present himself in the
island of the shade of Achilles, in the Euxine, to appease the heroes, and especially the soul
of the Locrian Ajax. .

This hero is often represented in the works of art among the ancients, principally on, the
occasion of his attack upon Cassandra (which is denied by several authors), and of his
tragic death upon the rocks of Gyra; the first of these events had furnished the subject
of the picture of Polygnotos in the Lesche of Delphi described by Pausanias (Book X. ch. 26,
§ 1.) He was also exhibited in another compartment of the same great composition (Paus.
b. X. ch. 31, ἕ 1). Ajax pursued by the wrath of the gods, and perishing on the Gyrian
rocks, was represented with great effect in a picture described by Philostratos (Icon. II. No.
13, p. 830, ed. Olearii; p. 72 ed. Jacobs et Welcker.). ΄ Apollodoros also had painted the
same subject. Pliny says (Hist. Nat. lib. XXXV. cap. 36, ξ 1.) “ Ejus (Apollodori Athe-
niensis) est sacerdos adorans, et Ajax fiilmine incensus, qui Pergami spectatur hodie.”

The ancient artists differed much among themselves in regard to the beard in their youth
ful figures. Winckelmann treats of this subject (in his Mon. antichi inediti, part II, p. 189-190)
and speaks of the figures of the Locrian Ajax with and without a beard. In the bronze of
Siris he has a beard, as well as in the Cameo of the Cardinal Ottoboni, spoken of by Winckel-
mann (in the work cited). It is also in this manner that Polygnotos has depicted him in
the Delphian Lesche, Pausanias, I. 0. cap. 31, § 1, -- -- Τούτοις, πλἠν τῷ Παλαμήὃει, γένειά
ἐστι τοῖς ἄλλοις. This Ajax was often produced on the tragic stage by the most distin-v
guished poets of Attica. Thus Eschylos and Sophocles had each written an Αἴας Λοκρὄς; see
Fabricii Bibl. Gr. lib. ΙΙ. cap. 16, ᾖ 7, (ed. Harles tom. II. pag. 177) and 1. II. cap. 17, ἓ 3,
(ed. Harles tom. ΙΙ. pag. 203), and Winckelmann certainly deceives himself when he says
(Mon. Ant. ined. p. 188, cap. 22): “ Ajace figliuolo d’Oileo, re de Locri, dalle cui geste
gli antichi poeti non hanno mai cavato argomento da Tragedia, come dagli altri eroi statigli
compagni nella spedizione contro di Troja, ha avuto piu sorte presso gli artefici” &c. There
are now and then met with in 'Winckelmann small mistakes of this kind. However he must
not be too severely blamed for them, since we may apply to this immortal writer what was
said of a great painter of Athens: μωμήσεπιί τις μᾶλλον ἢ μιμήσεται.

Note XIII. See page 31.

In the XVIth book of the Iliad, when Hector, assisted by the partial agency of Apollo,
had slain Patroclos, he instantly leaves the body, and desirous, if possible, to seize upon the
immortal horses of the son of Peleus, he hastens after Automedon, the charioteer of Achilles.
Such is the conclusion of the XVIth book.

At the beginning of the XVIIth, Menelaos has just perceived that Patroclos is slain;
he runs up to the body to defend it. Euphorbos, son of Panthoos, attempts to drive him
from it; Menelaos kills him and strips him of his arms (V. 1-60): Apollo, under the form
of Mentes, brings the intelligence to Hector. 'The latter, renouncing his impetuous, but
useless pursuit of the Achillean horses, perceives ᾽ from afar his associate in arms, Euphorbos,
slain by Menelaos, and immediately hastens to the spot (v. 87). Menelaos is alarmed; he
is apprehensive of being surrounded. by the Trojans; and dreads to engage in single combat
with Hector (89-101). “ If,” says he, v. 102, “ Ι could discover Ajax the hero, we might
hope, by advancing together, to repulse the enemy, and to hear of the body of Patroclos;
our distress would then be less poignant.” Whilst he makes these reflections, the Trojan bands
approach, with Hector at their head. Menelaos retires and abandons the body; (the com-
parison, v. 109 and foll., of the lion who, repulsed by the men and dogs, unwillingly retires
from the sheep-fold, palliates in some measure this conduct.)

It is only when Menelaos has found Ajax, and has engaged his powerful aid, that they
both advance to the front of the combat (v. 114-124). Hector, during the interval, had
stripped the body of its armour, and sought to drag it towards the Trojans; but as soon
as he beholds Ajax advance with his enormous shield, he promptly retires into his own

48 ADDITIONAL NOTES.

ranks, reascends his chariot, and consigns to his friends the arms he had won, that they
may take them into the city (125-131). Ajax covers the corpse of Patroclos with his large
shield, and defends it from the Trojan host, as the lioness defends her young when met by
the hunter of the forest, &c. (as far as 137). Menelaos, struck to the heart by grief, takes
his station near Ajax (138-139). Glaucos chief of the Lycians reproaches Hector that the
valiant Sarpedon is still unavenged, that his body remains in the hands of the foe, and that
the Trojans are not masters of that of Patroclos, which, if in their power, they might easily
exchange for the beloved Sarpedon: “ but thou,” he insolently adds, “ thou darest not sustain
a combat with the noble Ajax, for thou art his inferior in valour” (168). Hector, moved by
these offensive words, boasts that he is not afraid of the great Ajax, and summons Glaucos him-
self to remain near him, as spectator of his assault upon the defenders of the body of Patroclos.
He calls out to the Trojans to stand firm in their ranks, until he shall have overtaken those
who are bearing to the city the arms he had won, and shall have equipped himself in them.
Upon this, Hector joins his companions in the rear of the combatants, soon returns with them
laden with the armour of Achilles, and puts it on (194 and foll.).

Hector, thus armed, and proud of his success, returns to the combat. Zeus has increased
his strength (v. 206). The prince restores the courage of the combatants. He solemnly
promises to cede the half of the arms of Achilles, and the half of his own glory, to the
warrior who will draw the body of Patroclos into the Trojan ranks, and force Ajax to. retire (232).

The son of Telamon perceives the enemy, emboldened by this speech of Hector, ready
to fall upon him. Anxious, not only for the body he defends, but also on account of the
danger which menaces Menelaos and himself, he calls upon the latter to summon the most
valiant amongst the Greeks to their aid. Upon this, Menelaos shouts aloud, and is heard from
afar (v. 249). Ajax, son of Oileus, is the first to join them (256), next comes Idomeneus,
then Meriones, and several others, whose names the poet is unable to recount (v. 260).

Then follows the charge of the Trojans led on by Hector; and a battle with alternate
success (263 foll.). The Trojans (274) repulse the Greeks for a moment; but Ajax quickly
compels them to fight: for manly beauty, as for achievements, he is the most distinguished of the
Greeks, after the son of Peleus (278 and foll.). His bravery is compared to that of the wild
boar which, attacked in the forest, repulses the hunters and the dogs. Hippothoos, son of Lethos,
had contrived to draw away the body of Patroclos by means of a strap attached to one of the
feet ;8 Ajax, son of Telamon, kills him (288-303). Hector hurls his lance at the victor, but
misses him, and slays Schedios fighting in the front ranks of the Phocians (311). Ajax kills
Phorkys, who wished to defend the body of Hippothoos (315). Hector and the principal Trojans
fall back; the Greeks have the advantage, until fEneas, urged by Apollo, appears amongst the
combatants, and re-establishes order in their ranks (343). He kills Leocritos, and the battle
becomes more fierce than ever around the body, which the Greeks protect with their bucklers,
and by presenting the points of their lances. Ajax is everywhere; he frequently exhorts the
champions not to recede from the vicinity of the corpse, and not to press forward to engage
singly, but to form in close order round Patroclos, and to fight in mass. “ Such are the orders
of the powerful Ajax” (360). The fury of the battle increases (360 and foll.). The band of
combatants around the body of Patroclos is between the two armies (τοὶ δ᾽ ἐν μέσῳ v. 375);
they are enveloped in a cloud of dust, whilst the rest of the troops are engaged under the
bright beams of the sun (367 and foll.). The poet compares the struggle of the Trojans
and Greeks, around the contested body, to the efforts of curriers employed in stretching a bull’s
hide (389 and foll.). Ares himself, and Athene, could not withhold their praises at so gallant
a struggle (398 and foll.). Achilles had not yet learnt the death of his much-loved companion
in arms (401 and foll.). We have then the episode of the horses of Achilles weeping the
death of Patroclos (v. 426). Zeus inspires them with fresh courage, and they reconduct
Automedon into the fray. Alcimedon sees him fighting singly in the chariot; they unite to
combat in common; Alcimedon mounts into the chariot, and takes the reins; when Auto-
medon alights; Hector, who perceives them, instantly proposes to [Eneas to join their efforts,
and seize upon the horses of the swift fEacida (Achilles) (v. 485 and foll.). [Eneas cheerfully
consents; they rush towards the chariot, followed by Chromios and Aretos. Automedon,

” See the Vignetle on the title-page and Additional Note XIV.

ADDITIONAL NOTES. 49

beholding the two formidable foes approach, calls to his aid the two Ajaces and Menelaos
(507 and foll.). He himself slays Aretos; Hector hurls ineffectually his lance against Auto-
medon; but that combat soon ceases, at the arrival of the two Ajaces (v. 530 and foll.).
Hector, 1Eneas, and Chromios, dread to encounter them, and retire; Automedon strips the
slain Aretos of his arms (537).

The contest around the body of Patroclos continues with renewed ardour, when Athene,
having descended from the skies, by the commands of Zeus, rouses the courage of the
Greeks (543-546). Under the form of Phoenix, she at first animates Menelaos, and inspires
him with new energy. He kills Podes, and drags the body of Patroclos to the side of the
Greeks (581). On the other hand, Apollo, in the shape of Phaenops, comes to excite Hector,‘
and reproaches him for having suffered Menelaos, a warrior until now but little distinguished,
to bear off the body from the Trojans, and to have killed Podes, his faithful associate (590).
Moved with profound grief, Hector impetuously rushes into the midst of the combatants.
Zeus envelopes mount Ida with tempestuous clouds; darts his lightnings, and shakes his aegis;
he grants victory to the Trojans, and forces the Greeks to yield (to 696). The Boeotian Peneleos,
wounded in the shoulder, first quits the field. Leitos next receives a wound by the hand
of Hector; the lance of Idomeneus shivers on the cuirass of this warrior; the latter, it is
true, misses Idomeneus, but he kills Koiranos, who guides the chariot of Meriones; Idomeneus,
by the advice of Meriones, retires from the combat towards the vessels. Ajax and Menelaos
now perceive that Zeus is granting victory to the Trojans. Ajax himself expresses his
anxiety for the body, and for themselves; he thinks it will be necessary for some one to
hasten to inform the son of Peleus of the death of his friend. However, in the darkness
which envelopes the army, he cannot find a suitable person for the purpose. The prayer
which the hero addresses to Zeus is extremely pathetic (v. 645 and foll.). “ O, my father !”
he exclaims, “ if thou art resolved to destroy us, at least let us perish in the light of the day !”
The god, prevailed upon by the supplication of the hero, dissipates the murky clouds, and
Ajax forthwith invites Menelaos to seek the young Antilochos, that he may bear the fatal
intelligence to Achilles. Menelaos complies (656), and, however reluctantly, abandons Patroclos
(665), and the defence of his body, to the two Ajaces, and to Meriones. He recommends it
to their care in an affectionate manner. Menelaos, looking around him in every direction,
as the quick—sighted eagle (674), passes rapidly through the ranks of the Greeks, and soon
finds the son of Nestor at the left wing, who immediately enters into the proposal of Mene-
laos, and, delivering his arms to Laodocos, his charioteer, prepares to proceed to the ships
for the purpose of announcing to the son of Peleus the painful news (701).

Menelaos immediately returns towards the body and the two Ajaces; he announces to
the latter that Antilochos is dispatched to Achilles.) He then consults with them upon
the means of drawing of the corpse from the scene of contention, and of saving themselves.
The son of Telamon advises that Menelaos and Meriones immediately lift up the body and
bear it away, whilst himself and his companions, forming in close order as before, Will cover
their retreat, combating, as they fall back, with Hector and the Trojans (721).4 This counsel
is forthwith followed. At the moment they raise the body from the earth, the Trojans send
forth loud cries, and rush towards it with the, greatest impetuosity, as dogs upon a wild
boar wounded by the spears of the hunters: but as soon as the animal, relying upon his
strength, turns against them, they quickly recede and fly on every side. By this very just
comparison the poet places before the eyes the combats that occur in the rear of those who
are bearing of the dead body. The Trojans briskly follow it, it is true, but as often as
the two Ajaces face about, they fall back trembling, not daring to maintain a close fight
with them (734). “

The body is thus borne to the vessels, and the XVIIth book closes with some com-
parisons, which depict, in an admirable manner, the vigorous attack made by the Trojans, the

toil of the two heroes who precipitately bear off the body, and the efforts of the two Ajaces
who cover the retiring party.

4 This is the action (Ajax Telamonios covering the retreat of those who carry away the body of Patroclos)

expressed in division “ 'P,” XVII. of the tasteless, but curious reliefs commonly called Tabula Iliaca. See Bottari’s
Musei Capitolini Tom. IV. (Romae, 1782, in fol.) p. 333.

Ο

50 ADDITIONAL NOTES.

The XVIIIth book opens with some very fine scenes which pass within, or in front, of the
tent of Achilles. Antilochos brings the afflicting intelligence (v. 17 and foll.). Thetis, accom-
panied by her Nerei'des, quits the bosom of the Ocean and comes to her son; she seeks to
console him, and forbids him to go to the field of battle, till she returns the next morning,
with new armour forged by Vulcan (134 and foll.). Upon this she sends back her Nerei'des,
and ascends alone to Olympos (148).

The scene which had terminated the XVIIth book re—opens at the 148th verse. We
behold the Greeks, hurrying off with the body of Patroclos; Hector and the Trojans pursue
them with ardour. Three times Hector seizes the corpse by the foot (155) endeavouring
to drag it towards him; three times he is repulsed by the two Ajaces. Nevertheless his
attack is constantly renewed (158); and “ as, during the night, the shepherds are unable to
prevent the famished lion from bearing away its prey, so would Hector have succeeded in
carrying of the body in spite of the resistance of the two Ajaces, and would thus have
acquired infinite glory (165), if Iris, dispatched by Here, had not engaged Achilles to show
himself upon the intrenchment.” This reappearance of the principal hero of the Iliad is
attended, by the favour of Pallas Athene, with the most brilliant phaenomena (203 foll.). The
Goddess covers with her aegis the shoulders of the hero, she surrounds his head with a
golden cloud, the splendour of which reaches to the highest regions of ether (214). It is
thus he appears above the foss of the camp; he utters a loud cry, to which Pallas gives
a more powerful efi’ect. Terror and consternation seize upon the Trojans, and their auxiliaries.
Twelve of the most valiant of them perish in the tumult beneath their own horses, and
by their own lances (230). It is only now that the body of Patroclos is finally rescued.
Placed upon a couch, it is carried on a funeral bier, Achilles himself following the mournful
train, and shedding a torrent of tears.

Note XIV. See the Vignette on the title-page, and page 48.

The Piombino gem represents the scene in the combat for the body of Patroclos,
described in the preceding note. Winckelmann unanswerably proves it (Mon. Ined. p. 169-170);
but I do not agree with some of the details in his explanation of the figures of this fine monu-
ment. The stone presents eight personages; three Trojan combatants, three Greeks, Patroclos
thrown down nearest the Trojans, and another figure fallen upon its knees, over which figure
one of the Trojan heroes seems to advance with his uplifted spear.

This representation must necessarily be explained according to that part of the XVIIth
book of the Iliad, which relates the attempt of Hippothoos to drag towards him the body
of Patroclos, by means of a leathern strap which he had tied to its foot, as the gem
represents Hippothoos himself drawing the body with a string or thong; and although the artist
was not obliged strictly to follow the recital of the poet, it would be scarcely possible that, in
choosing his subject from this narrative, he should have brought forward personages, who were
not together in the action of the poem which he meant to exhibit. For this reason none of
the three Trojan figures of this stone can be fEneas, as Winckelmann imagined. This hero
is not summoned to the fight by Apollo (XVII. 326 and foll.), until Hippothoos (whom Ajax
slays, v. 293-303) is dead. The interpretation of the gem must, therefore, be sought between
the verses 262 and 316. On one side Hector is at the head of his party—17px»: δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ "Em-cop,
v. 262. He then is one of the Trojan figures. Hippothoos, who draws the corpse by
a leathern strap (v. 289 and foll.), must be the second. In respect to the third, who,
from the preceding observation, could not be fEneas, it most probably represents one of the
companions of Hector in this afi’air—Glaucos, Thersilochos, Phorkys, or some other of the
ten heroes whom Hector exhorts (v. 215 and foll.) to sustain the combat in conjunction with
him. The three Greek figures of the gem advance closely locked to each other, as the
poet points out, in v. 268 :—

φραχθἐντες σάκεσι χαλκήρεσιν — --
One of these figures is necessarily the son of Telamon (Winckelmann has not observed this),

since he plays the principal part in the whole of the scene. The two others may be Menelaos
and Ajax son of Oileus (who hastens to answer the call of Menelaos, v. 256), or Idomeneus and

ADDITIONAL NOTES. 51

Meriones (ib. v. 258-259). The seventh figure, the body of Patroclos, it is not requisite to
enlarge on. In the eighth, that of the warrior fallen on his knees, which is very ill-drawn in
Winckelmann’s Plate 128, I recognise Schedios (v. 304-311) slain by Hector, who had aimed
the blow at Ajax. It might be objected that Hippothoos, exhibited here as living and acting,
is in Homer (v. 298 and foll.) killed by the son of Telamon before Schedios is slain by Hector
(v. 306 and foll.); but these two events succeed so immediately in the same scene, that the
artist might well allow himself a small deviation, which suited his composition. Another trifling
liberty which he took, was to represent Patroclos with the shield still on his left arm (there
was no other motive for this, I imagine, than to follow what appeared 'to him advantageous for
the group), although Hector, previous to this moment (v. 125), had stripped the dead body,
and accoutred himself in its arms (v. 194 and foll.).

Ο

Note XV. See page 39.

Throughout the whole history of the Greeks we find this usage of consecrating in the
temples of their national gods, the arms and other spoils of vanquished enemies. Thus in
the Iliad, Ulysses having slain Dolon, consecrates his arms to ’AOfia/n ληἶ'τιςἶ Hector vows,
that if he shall return victorious from the single combat, which he himself has proposed, he
will suspend the arms of the foe he shall have overcome, in the temple of Apollo in Ilion.‘s
After the same manner, according to the tradition, Menelaos consecrated the buckler of Eu-
phorbos, whom he had vanquished, in the temple of Héré near Mycenae ;7 according to
another tradition, Ulysses and Meriones consecrated arms (casques and lances) in a very ancient
temple at Engyion in Sicily.8 It was with a similar devotion, that more recent Greek
commanders, such as Alexander, Timoleon, Pyrrhos, &c. made offerings in the temples of
the gods of the finest arms which victory had given into their hands. Historians fur-
nish examples enough of ἀκροθίνια dedicated in this manner; and when, in the sequel, the
Roman leaders did the same in Greece, when, for instance, Q. Flamininus, after his victory over
Philip III. of Macedonia, consecrated to the Delphian god shields of silver, and amongst them
even his own shield, and a crown of gold. with inscriptions cited by Plutarch ;9 or when
Mummius, after the destruction of Corinth, made at Olympia an ablation of twenty-one gilt
bucklers, and of a brass statue, perhaps even two statues representing J upiter,10 I believe, that
in so doing, these commanders followed less the impulse of their piety, and the usage of their
country, than the conviction that they were acting politically, in adopting an ancient custom of
Greece.

It would be useless to dilate much upon the custom of exposing captured arms outside
the temples, and in open air, as a sign of victory, since the ancient practice of setting up
trophies is mentioned by every Greek historian. A collection of arms erected by a Greek
general, analogous to the display of the arms of the vanquished in a Roman triumph,1 is
recorded in the life of Timoleon, who, after his brilliant victory over the Carthaginians, on
the banks of the Crimesos in Sicily, caused to be heaped around his tent, as a trophy, spoils
of every description, and amongst them a thousand beautiful and high-wrought cuirasses, and
ten thousand shields.f2

Magnificent and brilliant arms of gold are noticed not only in the poetical descriptions

5 ΙΙ. Χ. 458. ‘
“ ΙΙ. VII. 82. .
7 Pausan. 1. II. cap. 17, § 3; cf. Heyne ad Iliad. XVII. v. 70 δι Abbé Massz'eu’s Dissertation sur les boucliers

votifs, in the Hist01re de l’Acad. royale des Inscript. et belles lettres Tome I. (Paris, 1736, in 4to.) pag. 180 of the
Memoires.

8 Plutarch. Vita Marcelli pag. 309 B. C. ed. Paris. in fol.

9 Id. Vita Q. Flamin. pag. 376. B. ed. laud.

"᾽ Pausan. l. V. cap. 10, § 2, and cap. 24, § 1 (ed. Siebelis II. p. 418 and 420).

' For example, the triumphs of Marcellus and of Paulus Emilius. Plutarch. Vita Marcelli, p. 310, A., and Vita
P. fEmilii, p. 272, D. E.

2 Plutarch. Vita Timoleon. p. 250, C. Β.: - — καλλίστην δὲ καὶ μεγαλοπρεπεστἆτην ὄψιν ἡ Τιμολέοντος ἐπεδείκνυτο

σκηνἢ, περισωρευθεἳσα παντοδαποῖς λαφύροις, ἐν οἷς χίλιοι μὲν θώρακες ἐργασίᾳ καὶ κάλλει διαφέροντες, μύριαι δὲ ἀσπίδες
προσετέθησαν.

52 ADDITIONAL NOTES.

of heroic personages,3 but also in the historical accounts of times much nearer to our own
era. In the army, for instance, of the unfortunate Perseus, the last king of Macedonia, his
chosen phalanxes, previous to the battle of Pydna, glittered in purple and in armour of

gold.4

’ The buckler of Nestor, for instance, was of pure gold. 11. VIII. v. 192 and foll., Where Hector presses his
horses Xanthos and Podargos, to carry off, if possible, the magnificent armour:
ἄλ ’ ἔφομαρτεῖτον καὶ σπεύδετον, ὄφρα λάβωμεν
ἀσπίδα Νεστορἔην, τῆς νῦν κλέος οὐρανὸν 'ι'κει,
πἆσαν χρυσείην ᾿ἔμεναι, κανόνας τε καὶ αὐτήν.
‘ Plutarck. Vita. P. xEmilii, p. 264, E.: -- -- ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις ἄγημα τρίτον οἷ λογάδες αὐτῶν Μακεδόνων ἀρετῇ καὶ

ἡλικίᾳ τὸ καθαρώτατον, ἆστρἀπτοντες ἐπιχρύσοις ὅπλοις καὶ νεουργοἳς φοινικἵσιν.

 

INDEX.

a after the cipher signifies above ,- m, in the middle of the page, or nearly so; 1), below.

Accessories, ornamental, on Greek works of art, were never
without some well determined motive founded on
the national creed and tradition, 34 a.

Achilles, the principal hero of the Iliad, his reappearance
attended with the most brilliant phenomena, 50 a ;
in the poem of Quintus, visits, together with
Ajax Telamonios, the tomb of Patroklos, 17 I) ;
defeats the Amazons, 18 a ,- fights with and kills
Penthesilea, ib. Μ; admires her great beauty after
her death, ib.; kills Thersites, who had jeered him
in insolent terms, ib.

Eacidaa, the two only [Eacidae of the Grecian army
before Troy, Achilles and Ajax Telamonios, how
distinguished from the other heroes, 24 note 7;
the one (Achilles) is always represented as a young
man, the other (Ajax) as a man of ripe age, 27 b ;
attributes and emblems of, quite different from
those of the Pelopidae, 34 a.

Egina, marble figures from the temple of, 10 note 2;
12 a,- how their cuirasses are arranged, 13 m,
and 43 1); why the heads of these remarkable
figures are left without individual expression, 41.

Afi'ected, the, what constitutes it in a work of art, 7 a b.

᾽’Αγαλμα, in Homer, what, 44 a, and note 6.

Agamemnon, symbols on his buckler, 9 a; remarkable de—
scription of his cuirass, 45 m.

Agathias, quoted, 37 note 3.

Αἶσα λυγρὰ, Parca, Fate, in the poem of Quintus, 17 b.

Aischglos, had written an Α’ι’ας Λοκρός, 47 Μ.

Ajaces, the two, their intimacy in the Epos of Homer,
21 a ,- appearing together in various poetical fic—
tions and works of art, 21 Μ; symmetrically
represented on the Bronzes of Siris, ib. I) ; how
represented in the Iliad, 24 a.

Ajax, Son of O'z'leus, wore a linen cuirass, 9 m ,- in the
poem of Quintus he kills Derione the Amazon,
17 Μ; is one of the two warriors represented
on the Bronzes of Siris, 20 b ; constantly attached
to the great Ajax in the Iliad, 21 a ; his usual
epithet is the swift (ταχὺς), ib.; does not himself
command his Locrians, and why, ib. and note 3;
how represented in the Iliad, 26 m; 27 a; how
represented on one of the Bronzes of Siris, 28 Μ,-
on coins of the Opuntian Locrians, 29 a; his
mother (Rhene or Eriopis), 46 b; worshipped
by the Locrians in Greece and in Italy as
a national hero and a tutelar divinity, 46 b,-
often represented in the works of art, 47 a,-
on ancient monuments sometimes with, sometimes
without, a beard, 47 m; often produced on the
tragic stage, ib.; represented on the Piombino
gem, 50 b. 4

Ajax, Son of Telmnon, the Eacida, in the poem of
Quintus, 17 Μ ; prevails upon Achilles to hasten
with him to the scene of battle, 18 a; . kills
four of the chief Trojan warriors, whilst Achilles
destroys four Amazons, 18 a ,- aimed at by Pen—
thesilea, but in vain, ib.; is one of the two
heroes represented on the Bronzes of Siris, 20 1);
his friendship and constant union with the swift
Ajax (Oileos), in the Iliad, 21 a, and note 4;
his intimacy with Ajax Oileos in the epos of
Homer observed by Greek authors of subsequent

 

ages, 21 Μ; how represented in the Iliad, 24,
and note 7; 25 passim; 26 a; how represented
on one of the Bronzes of Siris, 27 b; and 28;
born in the lifetime of Hercules, who gave him
the name Α’ι’ας, 28 α; his shield and sword re-
presented on coins of Salamis, 25 b,- defending
the body of Patroklos, is the subject of several
ancient groups in Rome and Florence, 31 m ;
resemblance of Ajax Telamonios on one of the
Bronzes of Siris with the head in the Vatican
which represents that hero, 34 Μ; his enormous
buckler, how fabricated, 44 Μ; is the principal
figure in the XVIIth book of the Iliad as de-
fending the body of Patroklos, 47 and foll.;
represented on the Piombino gem, 50 b.
’Ακροθίνια, usage of dedicating them to the national gods,
very old in Greece, 51 a,- consecrated by Roman
leaders, less out of piety than from political rea-
sons, 51 m.
Alcibiades, characteristic figure on his golden shield, 9 a.
Alcimos, an Epirote, his armour weighed two talents, 45 a.
Alexander, the Great, 9 a; his cuirass of linen cloth, 9 m ,-
is said to have introduced semi-cuirasses, ib. and
note 13; at the passage of the Granicus, 11
note 8; his influence on art, 36; ordered that
none but Lysippos should make his portraits in
bronze, 38 a and note 7; was an [Eacida on
his mother’s side, and a Heraclida by his father’s,
39 a; his great satisfaction when 3000 Greek
artists joined him at Ecbatana, 46 Μ.
Amasis, King of Egypt, sent two richly embroidered
cuirasses as presents, 9 m and note 12.
Amazons, three epochs of the mythos of the, 16 a; with
Penthesilea, frequent subject of the songs of poets
and rhapsodists who came after Homer, 16 m,-
the data which remain to us upon this point
of mythical story correspond with the subject of
the Bronzes of Siris, ib.; works of art repre-
senting Penthesilea and her Amazons, 16 note 3;
who came to Troy with Penthesilea, 17 a; their
bravery and fate, ib. and 17 Μ.

Amphios, wore a linen cuirass, 9 Μ.

Anthologia Graeca, quoted, 38, note 6.

"Am-v7.59, margins of the shields, 6 a 6.

Apollo of Antium, 7 Μ.

'Apollodoros, painted an Ajax Oileos pursued by the wrath

of the gods, 47 a.

Apollom'os quoted, 10 Μ.

Apulejas quoted, 38 note 7.

Archelaos of Macedonia, men of genius at his court, 46 Μ.

Ares, in the poem of Quintus, being about to avenge
his daughter Penthesilea, is averted by the thunder
of Jove, 18 Μ.

Aristwnetos quoted, 43 b.

Aristarchos, how he explained the γύαλον, 10 Μ; quoted,
45 a.

᾽Αργυρὄηλα, what, 41 a.

Armour of Agamemnon, motley-coloured, 45 b.

Arms and other objects decked with gold and silver
rivets, 41 a; offensive, omitted in the Bronzes
of Siris, and why, 3; ofbrass, how fabricated in the
time of Homer, 44 m; magnificent, of gold, 51-52.

Arrimz quoted, 38 note 7.

INDEX.

Band, the, (μίτρα), 8 Μ, and 42 m.

Beauty as the supreme law of art, was a principle not
acknowledged in Greece before Phidias, and why,
41 and 42.

Bettelini, engraved the Bronzes of Siris, 2 note 3.

Breast-plate, of a colossal statue of Adrian, exhibits two
figures combating, and corresponding to those of
the Bronzes of Siris, 15 m and Plate IV.

Bronze is essentially the material of all the kinds of arms,
and of the most part of the utensils mentioned in
Homer, 44 b.

Bronzes of Siris, form and material of the, I; originally
gilt, 1; fragments of a magnificent cuirass, which
must have been a θώραξ ἐπίχρυσος, 1 and 40; where
found, 2 and 40; what they represent, 2 ; analysis
of a fragment of one of them, ib. note 2; length
of the, 2; original breadth of one of them, ib.;
thickness of the plates, ib.; their weight, ib. ; beat
out from the inner side (σφυρήλατα), ib; drawn and
engraved, by whom, ib. note 3; lost parts of the,
3a 1); character of the, 4; probably the finest
relief in bronze now existing, 4; heroes in the,
how dressed, 4; Amazons in the, how dressed, ib.;
symmetry of the, 5 ab; their subordinate details
varied, ib.; peculiar grace of the feminine forms
in the, 5 b; draperies in the, ib.; bucklers of the
Amazons in the, 6 a b ,- the, were ornamental cap-
sulae or masks, serving to cover narrow bands of
leather, by which the two γύαλα of the cuirass were
united, 14 m; attached by the means of a joint
above the two shoulders, 15 b; subject represented
on the, 16 and fol.; taken from the Mythos of
Penthesilea and her Amazons, 16 Μ; belong to
that style of art which has properly been termed
the beautiful style, 36 a; agree in a remarkable
manner with the notions, which the Ancients have
transmitted to us, on the character of the school
of Lysippos, 38 ,- were found in the vicinity of the
field of battle in which the Romans were defeated
by Pyrrhos, King of Epiros, 40.

Buckles, see Clasps.

East of Adrian, how decorated, 14 I) and 15 a,- of Vitellius,
15 a.

Cancellieri, quoted, 30, note 9.

Casting, in antique bronzes, 2 I).

Cinelli, quoted, 32 note 4.

Χλα'ἰνα cloak, not embroidered, in Homer, 44 Μ.

Clasps, or buckles, of the cuirass, how arranged, 13.

Colossal figures on the Quirinal at Rome, 5 b.

Colours, lively, the Greeks always liked them, 46 α.

Conan, quoted, 46 b.

Cuirass, the (Θώραξ), place on it which the bronzes of Siris
occupied, 8 a ,- suffered no important alteration
in its essential constitution, 8 b ; of linen cloth,
9 m and notes 12 and 13; Semi-, fipiErwpémov, said
to have been introduced by Alexander the Great,
9 m and note 13; the invention of it attributed by
Pollux to the Thessalian Jason, 9 m and note 14;
the large complete (Θώραξ στατὸς), 9 b; belonged
exclusively to the full equipment of a warrior of
rank, ib.; often seen in the works of sculpture,
ib. ; why called στἀδιος or στατὸς, 10 a ,- was
chiefly composed of two γύαλα, 10 a ,- 11 α; διπλοῦς,
what, 11 note 7; was lined from the earliest times,
11 note 8 ; remarkable, of Agamemnon, 45 m.

Cuirasses of the archers among the figures from the pedi-
ments of the temple of ngina, 12 a; 13 m ,- of
busts of Adrian and Vitellius, how decorated, 14 b
and 15 a ; of the Greeks, how they differ from
those of the Romans, 43 b.

Δαίδαλα, in Homer, what, 44 Μ.

Dares, the Phrygian, quoted, 16 b ; 19 a; 33 note 7.

Δἕμας, what, 25 note 8.

Demeter, the black, see Onatas.

Dictys of Crete, quoted, 16 I); 19 m.

 

Diodoros, the Sicilian, quoted, 16 note 2.
Diomedes recognized by his coat of mail and shield, 9 a.

Eek/tel, quoted, 46 b.

Εἶδος and δέμας, what, 25 note 8.

Elgin, Earl of, effect of his enterprizing spirit, 35 b.

᾿Ηλοι, rivets, 6 a b; τΗλοι χρύσειοι on arms and other objects,
41 a.

'HMLSwpéma (semi-cuirasses), said to have been introduced
by Alexander the Great, 9 m,- not represented in
works of art, ib. b.

’Evarai, in Homer, what, 13 a.

Epaminondas, his descent, how typified, 9 a.

᾿Επι’κρανον, of the casque, what, 33 a.

’Επἰσημον, symbol on the shield, 9 a (see Shield).

᾽Επισφὗρια, 8 a.

᾽Ηθος, what, 6 note 1.

Euripides quoted, 21 m and note 6.

Eustathios quoted, 45 a; ib. m.

Expression, what, and how effected in the works of art of
the Greeks, 6 a b; the head is its principal seat,
7 m.

Faun, Barberini (now at Munich), 7 m,- a bronze, at Naples,
ib.

Fibulce, of Roman figures in cuirass, how arranged, 13 b.

Freund, Professor, moulded the breast plate from which
the outline of Plate IV was made, 15 note 8.

Γεῖσσον, of the helmet, what, 33 m and note 1.

Gem, see Piombino-gem.

Girdle, the (ζωστἢρ, ζώνη, &c.) 8 m.

Grandioso, the, from what it results, 6 b and note 2.

Grifiins, two, on the front border of a casque, 33 m ,- singular
mistake of the restorer of these figures, observed
by Visconti, ib.

Γυαλοθώραξ, what, 10 note 2; painted by Polygnotos in the
Lesche of Delphi, 11 m; Glaucos seated upon such
a piece of armour, 11 note 4; had at least three,
often four, buckles 0r Clasps, 13 a,- solemn costume
of a Roman Emperor, 43; the Roman, was longer
than that of the Greeks, 43 I).

Γύαλον of the cuirass, what, 10 a; 11 a; dorsal, fragment of

a, found in Greece, 15 b and Plate V.

Hawkins, John, Esq. possessor of a beautiful bas-relief in
bronze, found in Epiros, 4 note 6.

Head, the, with respect to expression, 7 m ,- of the hero in
Plate No. l, entirely preserved, 7 b.

Heads of the statues from the pediments of the temple of
ngina; see Egina; of the bas-reliefs of the
Phigaleian temple at Bassae without individual ex-
pression, and why, 42.

Helrtor, a Lacedemonian youth bore an extraordinary re-
semblance to him, 23 m and note 3; his prowess
in the attack for conquering the body of Patroklos,
48; represented on the Piombino-gem, 50 I).

Helmet, the (κράνος, κόρυς, &c.), 8 m ,- (of Pyrrhos), from~
which rose the horns of a he-goat, 9 a ,- furnished
with the tusks of the wild boar, 9 a.

Hercules carried the young son of Telamon in his arms and
gave him the name Α’ι’ας, 28 a and note 5; repre-
sented as vanquisher of a Centaur on the casque of
Ajax in the Pasquino and other groups. 33 a ,-
his intimate union with the father of Ajax, 34 Μ.

Hermann, G. quoted, 7 a b and note 4.

Herodotos quoted, 9 note 12.

Hesyc/iios quoted, 10 m.

Heyne quoted, 8 note 9; 10 note 2; ib. note 6; 11 note 7;
28 note 5; 34 note 8; 42 m ,- 44 m.

Hippotlzoos, represented on the Piombino-gem as con-
triving to draw away the body of Patroklos by
means of a strap attached to one of the feet, 48 m
and 50 m.

Homer quoted, 7 b; 8 Μ ,- 8 b ,- civilization in his time more
advanced than we are generally inclined to admit, ib. ;

INDEX.

quoted, 9, 10, 11, passim ,- has no single word for
the lining of a cuirass, 11 note 8 ; quoted, l2,
13 a; 14 b; 21; 24; 25; 26; 27; 30; 31;
32; 33; 41 ; 42; 43; 44, passim ,- his descrip-
tion of the cuirass of Agamemnon, 45 m.

Horatius quoted, 38 note 7.

Horsemanship, where mentioned in Homer, 8 note 9.

Hyginus quoted, 46 1).

Jason, the Thessalian, is said to have invented semi-cuirasses,
9 b, and note 14.

Javelins (δούρατα, δοῦρα), 8 m.

Idomeneus, the cock on his shield shewed his origin, 9 m.

Iliad, contents of the XVIIth book of the, 47-50.

Iron (σίδηρος), too scarce and too precious in Homer’s time

to be used for making arms, 44 6; Homer was
however well acquainted with its use for tools,
&c. ib.

Justinus quoted 16 b.

Κανὄνες, straps of the shields, 6 a b, and note 9.

Kaplzesias apud Athenaeum, saying of, title page, and 7 a b.

Καρἓιοφὐλαξ in Polybios is the breastplate or pectorale of
the Romans, 43 b.

Καταῖτυξ, a light helmet without crest or plume, 43.

Κνἡμιδες, 8 a.

Κύτος, τὸ, of the cuirass, what, 10 Μ.

Lance, the, (ἔγχος), 8 m.

Laocoon, 7 m.

Lions’ heads, on the shoulder clasps of figures in cuirasses,
14 α ; at the lower edge of the Bronzes of Siris,
had small hooks so as to catch into staples placed
lower down on the cuirass, 14 m.

Lysippos and his school of art, tendency of, 36 Μ; was ex-
clusively a statuary in brass, 37 Μ; attained an
advanced age, ib; number of works he had executed
in bronze, ib. ; the prodigious number of his works
how to be explained, ib. ; characteristic of this great
artist, 37 b ,- often treated subjects drawn from the
cycle of the family of the fEacidae, 39 a; resided
and worked for a time in Tarentum, 40.

Mafiei, P. A. quoted, 32 note 4.

Marte barbato, statue restored as a, 14 note 6.

Menelaos .- the dragon on his buckler related to a particular
event, 9 m ,- is not represented by the erect figure
in the group of Pasquino at Rome, or in similar
groups at Florence, 30 Μ; was fair complexioned,
of middling heighth, and of mild character and ex-
pression, 33 a and note 7.

Με'σον, τὸ, in modern Greek, what, 10 note 7.

Mieon painted a combat of the Amazons, and where, 16
note 3.

Millingen, his ancient unedited monuments quoted, 4 note 6.

Mi-rpa, what part of Greek armour, and how arranged, 42 Μ.

Morison, C., an ancient group, which formerly belonged to
him, is now unknown, 30 note 10.

Museo Pio-Clementino, memorable fragments published in
the, 29 b; 32 m,-

Museum of the Capitol, statue of the, taken by some for an
image of Pyrrhos, 14 a ,- why remarkable, ib; other
ancient works in that Museum quoted, 14 l) and 15 α.

Naked, the, substituted by Phidias and his school, instead
of the custom of representing the heroes in armour,
43 b; is a matter of convention, ib.

Nestor fastens his double mantle, with a large περόνη, 12 5;

his buckler was of pure gold, 52 note 3.
Niobe, 7 Μ.

᾽Οχεὺς and ᾿Οχἕες, ἰπ Homer, what, 13 a; 33 note 2.

Οἷμοι on the cuirass of Agamemnon, what, 45 Μ.

Onatas of ngina, made a bronze statue of the local deity,
the black Demeter, of the Phigaleians, and how,
41 I).

 

Opus, coins of, represent probably the mother of Ajax Oileos
or some otherlocal deity, 46 Μ.
Ovid quoted, 25 note 1 ; 34 note 8.

Panwnos, brother of Phidias, painted a Penthesilea and
Achilles, and where, 16 note 3.

Πανοπλι’α, What, 8 a.

Pasquino, ancient group at Rome, commonly called, its sub-
ject, as well as that of three other similar groups,
recognized by E. Q. Visconti, 30 a.

Πάθος, what, 6 a l) and note 1.

Patrolclos, defence of the body of, subject of four ancient
groups in Rome and Florence, 30 a.

Pausanias quoted, 9 notes pas-Sim,- 10 note 2; his descrip-
tion of a γυαλοθὠραξ, 11 Μ; quoted, 11 note 4;
16 note 3; 24 note 7; 41 5; 43m; 46 b; 47 a,-
51 passim.

Pentkesilea, Queen of the Amazons, in the 1st book of
Quintus’ Paraleipomena comes to Troy with twelve
companions, 17 a; her bravery, ib. m ,- is killed by
Achilles, 18 Μ ; interred by the Trojans, ib. b ,- diver-
sityin the accounts of her exploits and fate, 19 and 20.

Πέπλοι, the, had often embroidered ornaments (ποικίλματα,
δαίδαλα), in the time of Homer, 44 m.

Περὄνη, what, 11 Μ; 12 b ,- becomes synonymous with πόρπῃ,
ibid ; 44 m ,- of gold, with an ornament skilfully
worked, 12 b.

Perseus, the last king of Macedonia, his chosen phalanxes
glittered in purple and in armour of gold, 52.

Pkidias represented in rilievo, a combat of Amazons, and
where, 16 note 3 ; principal criteria of the tendency
of his school of art, 36 a; revolution operated by
him in the art, 41-42.

Pkilostratos quoted, 21 m, and notes 5 and 7; 24 note 7 ; 26
note 4; 27passim; 33 a; 46 I); 47 a.

Pierantoni, Giov., superintended the restoration of the beau-
tiful marble head representing Ajax Telamonios,
now in the Museum of the Vatican, 32 note 5.

Pindar quoted, 28 note 5.

Piombino—gem explained, 50 m.

Plato quoted, 1.

Pliny quoted, 9 note 11; 37 note 4; 38 note 5; ib. note 6;
ib. note 7 ; 40 note 3; 43 Μ; 47 a.

Plutarcli quoted, 1 ; 7 note 5; 9 notes passim ; 11 note 8;
23 Μ; 38 note 6 and 7; 39; 40, 44 b; 43 a; sup-
plies remarkable data upon the collective weight of
a complete suit of Greek armour (πανοπλία), 45 a ,-
quoted, 46 Μ ; 51 passim; 52.

Pollux quoted, 9 note 14; 10 Μ; 12 b ,- 33 note 1.

Polya’nos quoted, 9 note 13.

Polybios quoted, 43 b.

Polygnotos (see γυαλοθώραξ), represented Ajax, son of
Oileus, twice in the Lesche at Delphi, 47 a.

Πολὐκμητος (σίδηρος), What, 44 b.

Pope’s translation of the Iliad quoted, 32 note 6.

11697711 (see Περὄνη).

Projections, conventional, in the bronzes of Siris, 3 a I).

Πρόμαχος, what, 8 Μ ; 8 b.

Propertius quoted, 38 note 6.

Πτἕρυγες of the cuirass, what, 10 Μ ; ll Μ ; 12 a.

Ptolemwos, son of Hephaestion, quoted, 19 a.

Πτυχαὶ, the layers of which the shield was composed,
6 a b.

Pyrrlzos, King of Epiros, prided himself on being an zEacida,
39 m; haughty inscription added by him to the
spoils which he consecrated to Athene—Itonis after
his brilliant victory over Antigonos, 39 Μ; in the
battle which he fought with the Romans near the
river Siris in Lucania, his splendid armour was cap-
tured by the enemy under some peculiar circum-
stance, 39 b, and 40 a.

Quatremere de Quincy quoted, 37 note 2.

Quintilian quoted, 38 note 5.

Quintus Smyrnensis quoted, 16 b ; the first book of his
Paraleipomena is the best narrative preserved to

 

 

INDEX.

us upon the exploits of Penthesilea and her
Amazons, 16 b ,-quoted, 25 note 8; 88 note 8;
34 note 9.

Rivets of the dorsal γύαλον of a Greek cuirass, 15 note 1.

Scholz'ast, of Aristophanes, quoted, 16 note 3; of Sophokles,
quoted, 28 Μ.

Sculpture in Bronze met with great encouragement in the
time of Alexander, and Why, 37 a.

Serpents, six, imitated on the pectoral γύαλον of the
cuirass of Agamemnon, 14 b,- 45 6.

Shield, the, (ἅσπις, σάκος, &c.), 8 Μ ; the great importance
of, 9 a ; distinctive symbols of, ib.

Σίδηρος, see Iron. αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐφέλκεται ἄνδρα σίδηρος in
Homer, how to be explained, 44 b and 45 a.

Siebelis, quoted, 43 I).

Sillz'g, Julius, his Catalogus artificum, &c. quoted, 40
note 4.

Siris, river in Lucania, 2 a b ; the first battle of Pyrrhos,
King of Epiros, against the Romans was fought
near that river, 39 6.

Society, of Dilettanti, their publication of Select Speci-
mens, &c. quoted, 4 note 6; Royal, of Literature,
their Transactions quoted, 3 note 5.

Σόλος αὐτοχόωνος, of iron, proposed by Achilles as the
prize at the discos, 45 a.

Sopholtles quoted, 1; 25 note 1; 26 note 2; had written
an Αἴας Λοκρός, 47 m.

Σφυρἠλατα (ἔργα), What, 2; 44.

Σφυρἡλατος, used to express moral relations, and why, 44 b.

Stallion, games of the, how indicated on Greek coins and
terra-cotta vases, 3 note 5.

Statue of the young Marcus Aurelius, how decorated, 15 a ,-
colossal, of Adrian, in the Villa Albani at Rome,
15 m.

Στεφἀνη, a kind of helmet, 42 b. .

Styles of Art, three distinct, observable in ancient Greek
monuments, 35 and 36.

Σὕγχυσις, or confusion of the national feelings and tradi-
tions, when begun among the Greeks, 34 note 5.

Sword, the, (ξίφος, &c.), how suspended, 8 m.

Tabnla Iliaca, 49 note 4.

θώραξ, see Cuirass.

Thorwaldsen, A. 6 b and 7 a b.
Tryplu'odoros quoted, 16 b; 19 a.

 

Tzetzes quoted, 16 b,- 19 (2.

Types, determined, of the Greek heroes, 22 a; the forms
and outlines of these types were almost universal
in Greece, ib. m; these types had been furnished
by the most ancient national poetry, and had been
individualized by the early aid of the arts of
design, ib. b; the Greeks never confounded nor
misunderstood the types of their heroic ancestors,
or the mythological bearings of their national art,
and why, 23 a; amongst the classical Greek writers
few afford any elucidations upon the various heroic
types preserved by the arts, and why, 23 m,-
οἳ the two Ajaces confirmed by other monuments,
29 a and b.

Ulysses, wore a purple woollen mantle (χλαῖνα) fastened
with a περόνη of Gold, 12 b.

Valerias Maximus quoted, 38 note 7.

Villa Albani, colossal statue of Adrian at, 15 m.

Viscontz', E. Q. quoted, 23 b; 24 note 4; 26 note 5; 28
note 5; 29 b; 30 passim; his opinion on some
ancient groups refuted, 30 and foll.; his just
remarks on the fine fragments in the Vatican
representing the body of Patroklos, &c. 32 note 4;
quoted, 33; 34.

Wheel, a, in ancient monuments, signifies What, 3 b.

Wincltelmann quoted, 2 note 4; 3; 6 note 1; 23 b,- 28
note 5; mistook the figure on the casque of the
standing hero in the group of Pasquino, 33 b,-
35 I); 36 note 1; 42 m; 47 m; his explanation
of the Piombino-gem, 50 b.

Winds, the, daughters of Boreas; inform Ares of the fate
of Penthesilea his daughter, 18 Μ.

Wolfj F. A. his acute researches on the Homeric epos, ᾽
45 a.

Xenophon quoted, 12 a; 25 note 1; 26 note 3.
΄Ὑποπ'τυχἵς, what, 11 note 8.

Zo'z‘los, an artist from Cypros; two steel cuirasses of extra-
ordinary hardness presented by him to Demetrios
Polyorcetes, 45 a.

Ζὠννυσθαι and ζώσασθαι, what, 42 m.

Ζωστηρι’α (Athene) ib.

Ζώνη, ἡ, different from the μίτρα, and how, 42 m.

 

 

ERRATA

Page 6, line 11 ; and note 9, for κἀνονες read κανόνες.

 

 

8,

14, for ἅσπις read ἀσπὶς.

—- 13, —- 10, for ἕνεται read ἐνε-ταὶ.

—— 43, —--- 6, for καταίτυξ read καταἷτυξ.

 

LONDONZ PRINTED BY WlLI.IAM NICOL,
51, FALL-MALL.

 

 

AklES

UC EEEEEEEEEEEE

ΧΜΝΜΜΧἌΜΜΜΜ

 

ζΠΞΙΞΒΐΞΞΙ

 

 

3 31 113.1 3.331..

..͵. ͵