scenes οη both sarcophagi is whetherthey depict the hunting of wild animalsor αη attempt to capture them. Thelatter was doιre by skilled << cowboys >>

with the help of α net as shorvn οη οιιεof the Vapheio cups or armed withspears" as οη the ivory pyxis from Κα-tsampas. Οη both sarcophagi the

srvords have pierced the animals τητhßΙε

the spears jut out of their backs. Itsee ms that this is α proper hunt of wildanimals which could be dangerous,as the fallen hunter οη the Armenoisarcophagus indicates. The ritualaspect of this scene is emphasized bythe man holding α double axe. Thecombination of animal hunt with bullcapture οη α sarcophagus from Ταηα-gra ßη Boeotia, α1 aιea showing strong

, ΣΚΙΝΔΑΛΑΜοΙ 323

Μßηοαη influence observed not οηΙγ

οη sarcophagi but also οη LMIIIBsherds from Thebes is characteristic.

The importance of the bull ßη ritualand burial customs is very strong αΙ-

ready ßη the LMIIIAl sarcophagusfrom Aghia Triada. The bis bullsaccompanied by horns of consecrationand double axes οη another sarcopha-gus from Armenoi illustrates the same

point, and so does the corv sucklingher calf οη α sarcophagus from Ρα-

chyammos, α product of the same

workshop as the famous Episcopisarcophagus referred to above.

Both the Maroulas and Armenoisarcophagi should be dated early ßηthe LMIIIB.

Α. ΚΑΝΤΑ

ΕΥΦΡΑΝΟΡΟΣ ΤΕΧΝΗ

The attempts to fix the position ofthe Athena of Piraeus (f ig, l ) ßηthe development of 4th cent, art have

concentrated οη showing its affinityto α school that either anticipated or

emulated Praxiteles1. Papadimitriou

l. First published ßη -Εργον, 1959, ρρ, 163 ff,,

and subsequently ßη AJA 64 ( Ι960), ρρ,265 - 6,

BCH 84 ( Ι960 ), ρ. 649, JHS Aroh, Reports for'58, ρ. 23 and for'59 - 'Φ, ρ. 7, Α. Α, Ραραγαηηο-

poulos-Palaios ΠολÝμων Ζ' (Ι958/59), ρρ,

26 fi Μ. Paraskevaidis, Εßη wiederentdeckter

Kunstraub der Antike, Ι966, ρρ. 32 - 6, ΚαΙΙßρο-

litis ΑΑΑ Ιν ( 1971 ), ρ. 49, Κ, Sohefold, DieAntike Kunst 14 (1,971), ρρ. 37 ff, G, Β, Way,

well BSA 66 (19'71), ρρ. 373 ff.

already assigned it to the Attic school

of the time of Praxiteles 2. The cir-cumstances of its discovery have be-

come familiar : it was found awaitingshipping (presumably to Rome ) withother statues ßη α warehouse ßη Piraeus,yrhich was apparently destroyed some-

time ßη the early lst cent. B.C. Oneought to remember, however, that the

evidence οf stratigraphy was challengedas early as Ι959. Α.Α, Ραραγαηηορου-los, οη obviously impossible grounds 3,

2. -Εργον, Ι959, ρ. lü5.3. Ορ. cit., ρ.57. One could not expect five

statuΘs to be arranged for display ßη α room of

ΕΥΦΡΑΝοΡΟΣ ΤΕΧß\τΗ ß ο. PALAGIA)

Fig. 1, The Athena of Piraeus, National Museum

5.70 χ 2.30 m.; besides, as ηο objeot later thanthe lst cent. B.C. ryas found,the building musthave been destroyed ßη that oentury.

maintained that the Athena rvas foundßη situ ßη the sanctuary of Zeusand Athena mentioned by Pausanias( Ι, Ι, 3 ), and consequently, theAthena must be the creation of Cephi-sodotos the Elder, ιvhich, accorιlingto ΡΙßηγ (ΧΧΧΙν 74 ) stood ßη theport. Although the original argumentcould not be maintained, the identi-fication of the Athena was retained οηthe meagre evidence supplied by ourtτηΖο above menιioned sources, and thefact that the Athena was found ßη Ρßraeus, which implied that it must havestood somerηrhere ßη Attica since ßt rηrasgoing to be shipped away from its mainport α. Waywell has tried to accountfor the assumption that the Athena ofCephisodotos was lost to the ancientworld ßη the lstcent. B.C. and yet seenby Pausanias ßη the 2nd cent. A.D.,by presuming that the original hadbeen by then replaced by α copy δ.

The safest vray to judge is to com-pare tlre Athena to the οηΙγ attestedcopy of α ιητοτΚ of Cephisodotos, theEirene holding the infant Ploutos 6.

As far as one can judge from α copy,the Eirene is still close to thework οf the last twenty years of the5th cent., attesting α transition of therich style into α sober monumental_

4. Waywell, ορ. oit., ρ. 378, dates the Athenato ò. 375, presumably to make it fit \ryith the dateof the Eirene ιηzith Ploutos. Schefold, ορ, cit.,ρ. 40, suggests c. 350 - 340 οη the evidence offigures οη the Kertsoh vases.

5. ορ. cit., ρ. 380. He discusses extensively therelation ofthe Athena to its οηΙγ surviving copy,the Athena Mattei ßη the Louvre.

6, The most oomplete version ßη Munich Glv_ptothek.

,ΞÞ

Fig. 2. The Athena οf

ity. The drapery is

the peploforos type

Piraeus, right profile

αη adaptation ofof the Karyatids,

which affiliates itsdian school. The

ΣΚΙΝΔΑΛΑΜΟΙ 325

creator to the Phei-hair style is reminis-

326 ΕΥΦΡΑΝοΡοΣ ΤΕΧΝΗ (ο. PALAGIA)

Fig, 3. The ΑροΙΙο Patroos,Agora Museum

Fig. 4. The ΑροΙΙο Patroos, roman copy, Vatι-can Museum

cent of that of α Maenad from theso-called Maenad base (MetropolitanMuseum, Catalogue Νο 5Β ). The struc-ture underlying Eirene's posture hasnot advanced from the traditional clas-sical contraposto.The οηΙγ stylistic simi-larity to the Athena is offered by theposition, of the bent leg not οηΙγ drawnback but also set to the side, and bythe folds of the skirt ιιuhich form bandsinsτead of flutirigs; The Aτhena is of α

more advanced style, different ßη con-ception and execution from the Eirene.Their difference ßη outlook can beillustrated by the variation ßη purposeand treatment of the upper part of thepeplos ?. The peplos of the Eirene isloosely girdled, ιvith α short overfallcurving above the arch of the kolpos,meant as α tectonic accent of the frontalcomposition, while the overfall of theAthena falls obliquely hiding αlΙ tracesof the girdle at the front and follorηrs

closely the modelling of the body ßηorder to emphasize the transition of thefrontal skirt to the slightly rotatingtorso. The modelling of the bodythrough the drapery is also different.The overfall of the peplos of the Eireneforms serrated ν - shaped folds betweenthe breasts and is comparativelysmooth above the waist, except for α

ferv ridges curving to the left followingthe direction of the body; that of theAthena is forming catenaries οη herleft side above the thigh and α seriesof ridges curving to the left ßη orderto emphasize the turn of the torso tothat side.

7. Theτe has been some disagreement as tothe gaτment of the Athena. According to Sohe-

fold, ορ. cit., ρ. 38, she is wearing α girdled chitonand α peplos ryith overfall over it. According toKallipolitis, Bronzes of the National Museum,ρ. 24, she is rvearing α girdled chiton τηΖßth α

himation passing oyer her shoulders. I don't see

ινhγ it should be as complicated as that; sheseems to me to be rvearing the normal Athenapeplos, girdled at the waist but with the overfallover the girdle. Ιη fact, the high - girdled rvaistis οηΙγ evident at the back, where the overfallis folded over the shoulders suggesting that thegoddess has just landed after flying dorvn fromheaven.

ΣΚΙΝΔΑΛΑΜοΙ 321

Ι take αΙΙ evidence for the modellingof the skirt οη the copy of the Eireneto be unreliable, judging by the νναγ

the copyists tended to blur the orig-ßηαΙ rendering 8. The basic differenceof the two works, however, lies ßη thestance. The Athena is ηο longer α re-petition of the classical contrapostobut α conscious adaptation ofthe ρο-

8. This is particularly evident ßη the trans-formation of the skirt of the Athena ßη theMatiei copy.

Fig. 5. The ΑροΙΙο Patroos, right profile

328 ΕΥΦΡΑΝοΡοΣ ΤΕΧl{Η ( ο, PALAGIA )

lykleitan structure. Ιnstead of bendingboth arm and leg at the same side,she bents left leg and right arm. Thisdisrupts the effect of chiastic diffe-rentiation betlveen muscular contrac-tion and expansion; it makes thepose more dignified ßη α way but stillnot rigid, Γοτ, despite the frontalityof the skirt, the torso as modelledthrough the drapery is rotating fromright το left, τlτhßΙε the head is ßη-clined forlyard and to the right.This torsion is mostly evident at theback of the statue, and so is the thrustof the hip to the right; ßη fact, the backof the Athena forms α pronouncedS - curve which is obscured by theoverfall at the front. Tlre Athena leansbackward; this is obvious ßη αηγ pro-file view but at the front it is οηΙγillustrated by the tapering effect ofthe skirt (f ß g. 2 ).

It is finally obvious that the Athenais the rηlork of α sculptor τηΖhο lvas fami-liar not οηΙγ with the rvork οf ΡοΙγ-kleitos but of Praxiteles also, rvithwhom he seems to coincide, althoughhe arrives at different conclusions. Hisrηrork is α compromise ι,vith both.Actually there is αη artist recordedas the contemporary and rival of Pra-xiteles, and that is Euphranorg. ΡΙßηγrecords that he was the first rηrho at-tempted to make αη adaptation of thepolykleitan canon r0. We are luckyenough to possess part of his originalΑροΙΙο Patroos vrhich can be recon-siructed fairly well οη the evidence of

9. ΡΙßηγ ΧΧΧΙν 50. He worked ßη Athens,although οΓ Corinthian origin.

10. ΡΙßηγ ΧΧΧν 128 : « hio primus videtur . , .

usurpasse symmetrian ».

copies 11. Compare the Athena to theΑροΙΙο and γου get the same stance,Same treatment ofdrapery, Same adap-tation of polykleitan models 12. Sincethe lower part of the ΑροΙΙο survives, itis advisable to begin ιyith that (f ß s,3 ). There is α striking similarity ßη therendering of the skirts : οη both, thebent leg is modelled by the draperyand set - off from the next fold by αlarge pocket of shadow; it is exactlyoutlining the skirt 13; next to the bentleg the frontal view of the skirt con-sisιs ßη Γουτ band - Iike almost verticalfolds separated by deep irregularchannels; each band has been cut byshallow grooves to achieve the samepictorial effect; the foot of the straightleg is slightly protruding behind oneof the central folds ( ßη the Athenathe foot is less obvious ) to interruptthe columnar eΓΓect οΓ r,erιical Γolds;the chiaroscuro effect due to variationsßη depth among the folds is equallypronounced ßη both works; it is alsointeresting to observe α regular dis-tribution οΓ crease marks οη the peplosοf the Athena, while those οη theΑροΙΙο ale more abundant and irregu-

11. Η. Α. Thompson, ΕΑ 1953, ρρ. 30 - 44 ff.,dates the ΑροΙΙο ßη the third qualter of the 4thcent. Full - scale and fairly approximate to theoriginal is the Vatioan òοργ, sala α oroce grecaΝο 582. Lippold, Die Skulpturen des Vatika-nischen Museums ΙΙΙr, Tafel 51 (5S2).

12. Ιt is interesting to note that Lippold hadobserved stylistic affinity bet\yeen the AthenaMattei and the ΑροΙΙο Patroos, ßη Die Skulpturendes Vatikanischen Museums ΙΙΙr, ρ. 185.

13. This is not immediately apparent ßη theΑροΙΙο because he is framed by the large hima-ßßοη falling at the back and sides.

lar, probably due to the differenceof material ßη the tιιιο statues.

The rest of the evidence is suppliedby the ΑροΙΙο copies (fis.a); his

stance is α variation οη the theme ofthe Doryphoros related to the Athenaas the negative is to the positive; he

has right leg - left arm bent disruptingthe contrasting effect between tense

and relaxed; his torso rotates to the left;

he keeps his head turned to the right.

Οη the evidence of the original, itseems that the hip is thrust to the leΓt

as ιvell, because the ν - shaped folds

οη the breast are not aligned to those

formed under the girdle but are placedto their right; besides, the overfall isshorter above the left thigh. The skirtof the ΑροΙΙο has the same taperingeffect as that of the Athena, for he

is also leaning backrvard ßη α praxite-leian manner, but this imbalance is

disguised by the abundantly fallinghimation (f is.5). Αηγ comparisonof the head of the Athena to that dryand mechanical head of the Vaticancopy would be hopeless. Nevertheless,Ι would like to remark that the Vati-òαη head has unusually full cheeks forα Rornan copy, which must have been

αη unmistakable feature of the ori-ginal, since the Athena has also α re-

markably full face. As for proportions,

ΣΚΙΝΔΑΛΑΜοΙ 329

αη effect of long limbs is due to the

high - girdled waist Ια.

Το summarize briefly the similar-ities of stance betr.yeen the trryo stat-

ιιεs : they adapt the polykleitanposture of the Doryphoros ßη α similarrvay of not bending the arm and leg ofthe same side, and of combining α

frontal tapering skirt to α body rotat-

ing to the left and leaning backwardlvith α side thrust of the hip; they make

α similar gesture ( hands reversed

though ), and persistently incline the

head to the right ιvhich is α polykleitanfeature. They both seem to be created

by the same artist who rηras consciouslyemulating Polykleitos, and still α con-

temporary and rival of Praxiteles. TheAthena must have stood ßη α sanctuary

somewhere ßη Attica; since it r,ηras lost ßηthe lst cent. B.C., it lvas not mentionedßη the sources and is of course not ßη-cluded ßη Pliny's catalogue of the

bronzes by Euphranor 15.

OLG¶ PALAGIASt. Hugh's CoIIege, Oxford

Ι4. ΡΙßηγ ΧΧΧν 128 : ( Euphranor ) « fuit ßηuniversitate corporum exilior et capitibus arti-

culisque grandior »; but the head of the Athena

ßη proportion to the body does not illustrate

this,15. ΡΙßηγ ΧΧΧΙν "Ι1 -'78.