CHAPTER VII

.

THE MATERIALS OF OLYMPIC VICTOR MONUMENTS, AND THE OLDEST DATED VICTOR STATUE.[2172]

FIGURES 78-80.

It has been assumed pretty generally by archæologists that the victor statues set up in the Altis at Olympia were uniformly of bronze. Scherer, in his inaugural dissertation _de olympionicarum Statuis_, which appeared in 1885, was the first to discuss the question fully,[2173] and his arguments and conclusions have been followed, for the most part, by later investigators. Thus Dittenberger and Purgold state unequivocally that these statues were “_ausnahmslos aus Bronze_”,[2174] while more recently Hitzig and Bluemner, in their great commentary on Pausanias, have again pronounced the dictum that “_die Siegerstatuen waren durchweg von Erz_”.[2175] Others, however, have not been quite so sweeping in their generalization. Thus Wolters believes that these statues, because they were set up in the open, were “_der Regel nach_” of bronze,[2176] and Furtwaengler and Urlichs assume that they were “_fast ausschliesslich aus Bronze_”.[2177]

THE CASE FOR BRONZE.

The arguments adduced by Scherer and others in defense of the contention seem at first sight, although inferential in character, quite conclusive. In the first place, it has been pointed out that all the statuaries mentioned by Pausanias in his victor _periegesis_,[2178] if recorded at all in Pliny’s _Historia Naturalis_, appear there in the catalogue of bronze founders as workers in bronze κατ’ ἐξοχήν, while none of them is known exclusively as a sculptor in marble. As Hagelaïdas is the first in point of time, who flourished from the third quarter of the sixth century B. C. to the second quarter of the fifth,[2179] Scherer believed that all statues from his date down—_posteriorum temporum_—were of bronze; and as Rhoikos and Theodoros, the inventors of bronze founding, flourished about Ols. 50 to 60 (= 580 to 540 B. C.),[2180] he believed that bronze might have been used up to their date. In the next place, the excavated bases, which have been identified as those of victor monuments, show footprints of bronze statues. Thirdly, actual bronze fragments, indubitably belonging to victor statues (of which two are attested by inscriptions), were found during the excavations of the Altis. These consist of the following:

(_a_) An inscribed convex piece of bronze of imperial times, “_anscheinend vom Schenkel einer Bronzestatue herruehrend_.”[2181]

(_b_) A similar inscribed fragment of the same period.[2182]

(_c_) The remarkable life-size portrait head of a boxer or pancratiast, which we have already discussed and reproduced (Fig. 61 A and B).[2183]

(_d_) A foot of masterly workmanship (Fig. 62) ascribed by Furtwaengler[2184] to the end of the third century B. C. Its position shows that the statue of which it was a part was represented in motion, and consequently it has been assigned to a victor statue.

(_e_) A beautifully modeled right arm, somewhat under life-size, supposedly from the statue of a boy victor.[2185]

(_f_) A right lower leg of excellent workmanship, assigned by Furtwaengler to the same period as fragment _e_.[2186]

Still other bronze fragments of statues found at Olympia may have belonged to statues of victors, especially to those of boys.[2187] The small number of such fragments recovered—Scherer wrongly thought there was none—is explained by assuming that all of these statues were of bronze, and consequently were destroyed by the barbarians in their inroads into Greece during the early Middle Ages, when this metal was much prized.[2188] Another argument for believing that these statues were of bronze is the silence of Pausanias concerning the materials employed in them; for, in his enumeration of 192 such monuments, he mentions the material of only two statues, those of the boxer Praxidamas of Aegina[2189] and of the Opuntian pancratiast Rhexibios,[2190] and he mentions these because of their great antiquity, peculiar position in the Altis apart from the others (near the column of Oinomaos), and the fact that they were made of wood.[2191] Furthermore, in his book on _Achaia_ there occurs this passage in reference to the statue of the victor Promachos, which was set up in the Gymnasion of Pellene: καὶ αὐτοῦ [Προμάχου] καὶ εἰκόνας ποιήσαντες οἱ Πελληνεῖς τὴν μὲν ἐς Ὀλυμπίαν ἀνέθεσαν, τὴν δὲ ἐν τῷ γυμνασίῳ, λίθου ταύτην καὶ οὐ χαλκοῦ.[2192] Most critics have inferred from these last words, “_the one in the Gymnasion being of stone and not of bronze_,” that, although Pausanias says nothing about the material of statues of victors in the Altis (barring the two just mentioned), by implication all these statues were of bronze; and they point out the fact that other writers furnish no evidence concerning the material used in them—an argument _ex silentio_ to the same effect. Besides these arguments many others have been urged on purely a priori grounds; _e. g._, that, since these statues stood in the open air, subject to all kinds of weathering, they must have been made of bronze;[2193] that metal statues would have been cheaper and more easily prepared than those of marble;[2194] that the later Peloponnesian schools of athletic sculpture, which were characterized by their predilection for bronze-founding, would nowhere have been more prominently in evidence than at Olympia; etc.

Thus the case for the use of metal in these statues seems very well substantiated, and, for the reasons given, it can not be reasonably doubted that the vast majority of these monuments were made of bronze. But that they were not exclusively of metal, and that there were many exceptions to the general rule, not only can be conjectured on good grounds, but can be proved by discoveries made at the excavations. We shall briefly consider, then, each of the foregoing arguments in turn, and see whether, in the light of the accumulated evidence, they are really as well founded as they appear to be.

THE CASE FOR STONE.

As for the first point, that the statuaries mentioned by Pausanias appear only in Pliny’s catalogue of bronze founders, we must remember that Pausanias himself says[2195] that he is making only a selection of the victor monuments in the Altis, those of the more famous athletes. Therefore, the 192 monuments (of 187 victors)[2196] which he does mention must be only a fraction of the multitude of such monuments which once stood at Olympia. Pliny, to be sure, says that it was the custom for all victors to set up statues in the Altis;[2197] but this refers only to the privilege, of which many victors could not or did not avail themselves on account of poverty, early death, or for other reasons.[2198] Still, the number of such dedications must have been very great. Manifestly, therefore, we should not base an argument on the number mentioned. There must, then, have been many other artists employed at Olympia, some of whom may well have been workers in marble. Besides, of the statuaries actually named by Pausanias, many do not appear at all in Pliny’s work, and many of these may have been sculptors exclusively in stone. Of the names found in Pliny, six at least—Kalamis, Kanachos, Eutychides, Myron, Polykles, and Timarchides—appear both in the list of bronze-workers and in that of marble-sculptors.[2199] Similarly, in answer to the second argument that the excavated bases show footprints of bronze statues, we must admit that only a fraction of the bases which once supported statues in the Altis have been recovered. Not one-fifth of the victors mentioned by Pausanias are known to us through these bases.[2200]

The fact that actual remains of bronze statues have been excavated at Olympia is matched by the fact that remnants of marble statues have also been found; and it does not seem reasonable, in the light of the evidence adduced by Treu, Furtwaengler, and others, to reject these as fragments of actual victor statues. These fragments include the following:[2201]

(_a_, _b_) The two life-size archaic helmeted heads (Fig. 30) which we have ascribed to hoplite victors.[2202]

(_c_, _d_, _e_) Fragments of statues of boy victors: _c_ = trunk with left upper leg, three-fifths life-size (Fig. 78);[2203] _d_ = breast, one-half life-size;[2204]

_e_ = upper part of legs of a statue, two-thirds life-size.[2205] Besides these Treu also adduces fragments of four different boy statues, all of which are less than life-size.[2206]

The reticence of Pausanias as to the material used in these statues is merely in accord with his custom, for he very rarely mentions the materials of monuments, and apparently only where monuments of bronze and stone or other materials stand close together in a circumscribed area, as for instance, in enumerating the various monuments in the Heraion at Olympia.[2207] The only inference, therefore, to be drawn from Pausanias’ statement about the statue of Promachos mentioned is that this particular statue of a victor at Olympia was of bronze. We are not justified in going any further. Besides this stone statue at Pellene we have other actual notices of marble statues of Olympic victors outside Olympia, as those of Arrhachion at Phigalia[2208] (Fig. 79) and of Agias by Lysippos at Delphi (Pl. 28 and Fig. 68). If they existed outside Olympia, there is no reason why they should not have existed in the Altis also, _e. g._, the Lysippan marble head found there, which we assigned in the preceding chapter to the Akarnanian victor Philandridas (Frontispiece, and Fig. 69). Many of the older statues, like that of Arrhachion, conformed with the “Apollo” type, as we have shown in Ch. III,[5] and doubtless many such at Olympia were of marble.

[Illustration: FIG. 78.—Small Marble Torso of a Boy Victor, from Olympia. Museum of Olympia.]

Reinach’s argument that stone statues in Greece, because of their patina of color, were intended to be placed under cover in the porticoes or cellas of temples and elsewhere, while bronze ones were meant to stand in the open air, has been sufficiently combatted by H. Lechat,[2209] who argues that the use of paint in Greek architecture and on temple sculptures proves the contrary. As the paint was burnt in, it was reasonably durable, and if it did not prove so it was readily renewed. At Olympia, among several examples, we may cite the marble _Nike_ of Paionios, which stood in the open in the space to the east of the temple of Zeus[2210] (see Plans A and B), while, on the other hand, a bronze statue of Aphrodite stood within the Heraion.[2211] The argument that metal statues were cheaper than marble must also be questioned.[2212] In the earlier part of the present work we saw that, for economy’s sake, many victors set up small bronze statuettes instead of statues at Olympia, numbers of which have been recovered. That such dedications were common elsewhere is shown by the countless athlete statuettes—especially diskoboloi—which are to be found in all European museums.[2213] For similar reasons victors would choose in place of bronze the less durable and cheaper stone, as in the cases of Arrhachion and Promachos cited, or even wood, as in those of Rhexibios and Praxidamas. Still others, especially boy victors, would set up small marble statues, two-fifths to two-thirds life-size, as the fragments of the seven examples collected by Treu and already enumerated above show.

Thus we see that the contention that the victor statues at Olympia were exclusively of bronze, in the light of the evidence adduced, is untenable.

THE STATUE OF ARRHACHION AT PHIGALIA.

In his description of Arkadia, Pausanias mentions seeing the stone statue of the pancratiast Arrhachion in the market-place of Phigalia. He describes it as archaic, especially in pose, the feet being close together and the arms hanging by the sides to the hips; and adds that he was told that it once bore an inscription which had become illegible in his day.[2214] This Arrhachion won three victories at Olympia in the pankration in Ols. 52-54 (= 572-564 B. C.).[2215] Therefore his statue is one of the oldest victor monuments of which we have record. At so early a date, before individual types of victor statues had been developed, we should expect, in harmony with the description of Pausanias, that this statue would conform in style with the well-known archaic “Apollo” type, the most characteristic of early Greek sculpture, which, as we saw in