C
O
R
IN
T
H
RESULTS OF
EXCAVATIONS
CONDUCTED
BY
THE
AMERICAN SCHOOL
OF CLASSICAL
STUDIES
AT ATHENS
VOLUME
IX
SCULPTURE
1896-1923
13BY
FRANKLIN
P.
JOHNSON
PUBLISHED
FOR
THE
AMERICAN
SCHOOL
OF
CLASSICAL
STUDIES AT

ATHENS
HARVARD
UNIVERSITY
PRESS
CAMBRIDGE,
MASSACHUSETTS
1931
COPYRIGHT,
1931
BY THE
TRUSTEES
OF
THE
AMERICAN SCHOOL
OF CLASSICAL
STUDIES
AT
ATHENS
ALL
RIGHTS
RESERVED
PRINTED
AT THE
HARVARD
UNIVERSITY
PRESS
CAMBRIDGE,
MASS.,
U.S.
A.

THIS
publication
of
the
results of the
excavations
carried on
at
Corinth
by
the
American
School of
Classical
Studies
at Athens
is
in
charge
of
the
Publication Committee of
the School.
The
general
editor
is
Professor
Harold
North

Fowler.
Opinions
expressed
are those
of
the individual
contributors.
GEORGE
H.
CHASE
HAROLD
N. FOWLER
DAVID
M.
ROBINSON
Publication Committee
PREFACE
WHILE
a
member
of the American School
in
1922 and 1923,
I
made a
catalogue
of
the
sculptures
in

the
museum at Old Corinth.
In
November, 1924,
Professor
Fowler
asked me
to
prepare,
on
the
basis of that
catalogue,
the volume
dealing
with
sculpture
in
the
general
publication
of
the excavations at
Corinth. He
observed
that
the
material
could
not well be

published
until the excavation
should
be
at an
end,
since
I
was
expected
to include the
sculptures
found
in
the later
campaigns
as well as
those
that
I
had
catalogued.
In
Feb-
ruary, 1927,
he
asked
me
to
proceed

with the
publication
of the
sculptures
found before
1923,
the
rest to
be
dealt with
otherwise.
In
August,
1926,
I
had
sent to
the
School
a
request
for
photographs,
and after
various
developments
the first and
principal
batch
arrived

in
the autumn
of
1928. With
the aid of these
photographs,
the
revised
and
expanded
version
was
prepared
in
the summer
of
1929,
and has
undergone
little
alteration
since
then.
Through
the
kindness
of
Professor
Leroy
Waterman

of the
University
of
Michigan,
I
had
an
unexpected
opportunity
for a
very
brief
visit to
Greece
in
the
latter
part
of that
sum-
mer,
and
spent
about
twenty-four
hours at Corinth.
The
original
catalogue
embraced

many sculptures
that were not found
in
the excava-
tions.
Of
course
they
have
no
proper
place
here,
but
a
few
of them have been retained
for
one reason
or another.
It was
sometimes
impossible
to ascertain whether
sculptures
that
were
not
in
the

inventory
had
come from the
excavated
area
or
not.
Presumably
none of
them
was found
in
the
regular
course
of
a
campaign,
but new
fragments
are
likely
to become
visible
in
the
trenches
after
any
rain.

The
inventory
number
is
placed
in
parentheses
after each title. Where no such num-
ber
appears,
the
piece
had not been
entered
in
the
inventory
before 1923.
In
the
text,
"No.
100" means
the
sculpture
so numbered
in
this
volume;
"100" means the

sculpture
numbered
100
in
the
inventory;
but where
any
confusion seemed
possible,
the
inventory
numbers
are
preceded
by
"Inv."
In the
original catalogue
there was
usually
no indication
of
the
places
in
which the
sculptures
were
found. It

would
be a difficult task to
find
such indications
in
the note-
books
and
to
state them
in
terms
which
would be clear
as
applying
to
the excavated area
as
it
is at
present.
In
the official
publication,
however,
the lack
of
information
on this

point
is
a
grave
defect.
I
have had
no
opportunity
to mend
it
except
during
my
day
at
Corinth
in
the
summer
of 1929.
At
that
time
I
copied
from the
inventory
the notes
to

be
found
there
in
regard
to the
places
of
discovery
of
the
more
important
pieces.
These
notes
now
appear
almost
word
for word as
in the
inventory.
In
some
instances
it
has been
possi-
ble

to
reproduce
statements
that
appeared
in
previous publications.
A
"Martyr"
is of
course
a
column
of earth left
standing
to show the
original
surface
of
the
ground.
"
Simadi"
has
the
same
meaning.
Some
of the
photographs

were
printed
from
plates
made
years
ago
as
the
sculptures
were
found,
but the
great majority
are
newly
made.
The
heavy
task
of
finding
the
sculptures
and
supervising
the
photography
was
performed

by
Dr. F.
J. DeWaele.
Ade-
quate
illustrations
are the
really
essential
part
of such
a
publication
as
this;
and
since
viii
PREFACE
Dr. DeWaele's name
does
not
appear
on the
title-page,
I
wish to
make it clear
that he
deserves

credit
for
a
great
portion
of
the
work.
It
is
regrettable
that additional views of
some
of
the more
important
statues could
not be
presented.
Some
of
them
are
so
placed
in
the
museum that
they
can

be
photographed
from
only
one
angle.
In two
sections
of
the excavated
area,
the
theatre
and
the "Julian
Basilica,"
the
frag-
ments
belong
to a
relatively
small number
of
figures, joins
are found
frequently,
and future
excavations
will

unquestionably go
far to
complete
many sculptures
that now are
frag-
mentary.
In
most
of
the
area,
however, fragments
that
belong
together
-
even
fragments
that can
possibly
belong
together
-
are
comparatively
few.
It
is
planned

that all the
sculptures
found at
any
time
in
the
theatre will be
published
eventually
by
Edward
Capps,
Jr.
In
general,
however,
those that were
included
in
my
cata-
logue
are
included
here
also;
but
two series
of

reliefs,
a
Gigantomachia
and
an Amazono-
machia,
have been omitted. Both
have been
greatly
increased
by
the
recent
campaigns,
and it
seemed
useless to
publish
a
study
based on
only
a
part
of
the known
material.
Pausanias found
in
Corinth few works of

art
belonging
to
the
period
before
Mummius,
and the excavators have not been more
fortunate. Not a
single
piece
of
sculpture
in
any
sort
of
preservation
remains
from
the
great
Greek
period.
There
are,
however,
valuable
copies
from several

noteworthy
originals:
Nos.
4-11, 13, 53, 96,
83
(the
last a
tantalizingly
small
fragment which,
we
may
hope,
will be
completed by
continued work in
the
theatre).
The
portraits
from
the
"Julian Basilica"
present interesting
problems
in
iconography,
but
others,
as Nos.

168,
169,
and
182,
have
greater
intrinsic
value. The
"Miscellaneous
Re-
liefs"
include a number
of
puzzles
that I
have
not
solved.
The
great
majority
of
the
sculptures
belong
to
the
first
three
centuries

after
Christ,
with
a
sprinkling
of
fragments
from
the classical
Greek
period;
but
the
really
remarkable
things
are earlier
or
later. The
Mycenaean
face,
No.
2,
whose
character was
discerned
by
Blegen,
is a
unique

monument. The
magnificent portrait
of
the
fourth
century
after
Christ,
No.
321,
is
very poorly
illustrated,
but will
not
be
forgotten
by
anyone
who
has seen it. In
figure
sculpture
of
the fifth and sixth
centuries after
Christ,
the
little
building

at
Old
Corinth
has
an assured
place
among
the world's
great
museums.
In
conclusion
I
wish
to
express my
gratitude
to the
General
Editor
and to
the
other
members
of
the
Publication
Committee.
They
have

chosen the
illustrations
to be
included
and determined the size of
the cuts.
Furthermore
they
have
all
read
the
proofs
and
made
many
suggestions
of
great
value.
I
cannot evade
responsibility,
however,
for
anything
in
the
text
except

the
spelling
of
proper
names and
similar
formal details.
FRANKLIN P.
JOHNSON
UNIVERSITY OF
CHICAGO,
January
22,
1931
CONTENTS
SCULPTURE
SCULPTURES EARLIER
THAN
THE
CLASSICAL
PERIOD,
NOS.
1-3 3
THE
CLASSICAL
PERIOD,
Nos. 4-320
Sculptures
Other
than

Portraits,
Nos. 4-133

7
Portraits
from the "Julian
Basilica,"
Nos. 134-158

70
Other
Portraits,
Nos. 159-202
.
.
. .
.
85
Animals,
Attributes, etc.,
Nos.
203-216
.
.
. .
. 98
Sculptures
from
the
Stoa of the Colossal

Figures,
Nos.
217-226
. .
101
Other
Decorative
Sculptures,
in
the Round
and
in
High
Relief,
Nos.
227-237
.
107
Sarcophagi,
Nos.
238-244
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.111
Grave

Stelae,
Nos. 245-262
.
.
120
Votive
Reliefs,
Nos.
263-274
.
.
.
.
.
126
Miscellaneous
Reliefs,
Nos.
275-320
. .
.

131
FOURTH
CENTURY
AFTER
CHRIST
AND
LATER,
NOS. 321-332


.
148
TABLES
.
.
.
. . . .
.
. . .
.
. .

157
INDEX
.
. . .
.
.
.
. . .
. . .
. .
.
.
. . .

159
ABBREVIATIONS
A.

J.
A
American
Journal
of
Archaeology.
Amelung,
Fuhrer
durch Florenz

Amelung,
Walther:
Fuhrer
durch
die
Antiken in Florenz.
Munich,
1897.
Amelung,
Skulpt.
d. Vat.
Mus

Amelung,
Walther:
Die
Skulpturen
des
Vaticanischen
Museums.

Berlin,
1903-1908.
Ann. Scuol.
It.
At. Annuario della
Regia
Scuola
Archeologica
di
Atene.
Antike Plastik:
Walther
Amelung

Antike Plastik:
Walther
Amelung
zum
sechzigsten
Geburts-
tag.
Berlin and
Leipzig,
1928.
'Apx.
AEr7


'ApXatoXo'yLKov
AEXTrov.

'Apx.
'E
.

'ApXaLoXoytLK
'E
%4
epLs.
Arndt-Bruckmann

Griechische und
rcmische
Portrats,
nach
Auswahl und
Anord-
nung
von
Heinrich Brunn
und
Paul
Arndt.
Munich,
1891
Art Bull.

Art
Bulletin.
Ath. Mitt.


Mitteilungen
des
deutschen
archaeologischen
Instituts,
Athen-
ische
Abteilung.
B.
C.
H

Bulletin de
Correspondance
Hellenique.
B. Corn. Rom.

Bulletino
della
Commissione
Archeologica
Comunale
di
Roma.
Boll.
Arte

Bollettino d'Arte.
Brunn-Bruckmann


Denkmaler der
griechischen
und
romischen
Skulptur,
heraus-
gegeben
von
H.
Brunn,
fortgesetzt
von P.
Arndt.
Munich,
1888
B.
S.
A

Annual
of
the
British
School
at
Athens.
Carpenter,
Guide

Carpenter, Rhys:

Ancient
Corinth:
A
Guide
to the
Excava-
tions and Museum.
1928.
C.
I.
L.
Corpus Inscriptionum
Latinarum.
Cumont,
Musees
Royaux

Cumont,
Franz:
Musees
Royaux:
Catalogue
des
sculptures
et
inscriptions
antiques.
Brussels,
1913.
Daremberg-Saglio


Daremberg, Saglio,
Pottier:
Dictionnaire
des
antiquites
grecques
et romaines.
Paris,
1877-1918.
Diitschke

Dutschke,
H.:
Antike Bildwerke in
Oberitalien.
Leipzig,
1874-1882.
Einzelaufnahmen

Arndt, Paul,
and
Amelung,
Walther:
Photographische
Ein-
zelaufnahmen
antiker
Skulpturen. Munich,
1893

Esperandieu,
Recueil
General

Esperandieu:
Recueil
general
des
bas-reliefs,
statues et
bustes
de
la
Gaule romaine.
Paris,
1907-1929.
xii
ABBREVIATIONS
Hekler,
Romische
weibliche
Gewand- This is
contained
in: Minchener
archdologische
Studien
statuen
dem
Andenken
Adolf

Furtwdnglers
gewidmet.
Munich,
1909.
Helbig,
Fuhrer

Helbig,
Wolfgang:
Fuhrer durch
die
offentlichen
Samm-
lungen
klassischer
Altertumer
in Rom.
3rd
edition,
Leipzig,
1912-1913.
Imhoof-Blumer
and
Gardner

Imhoof-Blumer, F.,
and
Gardner,
P.: Numismatic
Com-

mentary
on Pausanias.
Reprinted
from
J.
H. S. VI-
VIII.
London,
1885-1887.
Jb. Arch.
I
Jahrbuch
des kaiserlich
deuttschen
archaeologischen
Instituts.
Jh. Oest. Arch.
I.
Jahreshefte
des oesterreichischen
archaeologischen
Institutes
in Wien.
J.
H. S
.

Journal
of
Hellenic Studies.

J. Int.
Arch. Num.
Journal
international
d'archeologie
numismatique.
Lippold,
Antike
Skulpturen

Lippold,
Georg:
Antike
Skulpturen
der
Glyptothek
Ny
Carlsberg.
Leipzig,
1924.
Lippold,
Kopien

Lippold, Georg:
Kopien
und
Umbildungen
griechischer
Statuen.
Munich,

1923.
Marbres
Antiques

Catalogue
sommaire des marbres
antiques
(in
the
Louvre).
Paris,
1918.
Michaelis,
Ancient
Marbles

Michaelis,
Adolph:
Ancient
Marbles
in
Great
Britain.
Cambridge,
1882.
Mon. Ant.

Monumenti
Antichi
publicati

per
cura della
Reale
Accademia
dei Lincei.
Not. Scav Notizie
degli
Scavi
di Antichitd comunicate alla Reale
Accademia dei Lincei.
Pauly-Wissowa

Pauly's
Real-Encyclopadie
der klassischen Altertumswis-
senschaft.
Neue
Bearbeitung.
Unter
Mitwirkung
zahl-
reicher
Fachgenossen
herausgegeben
von
Georg
Wissowa
und
Wilhelm
Kroll.

Stuttgart,
1894
Poulsen,
Portratstudien
Poulsen,
Frederik:
Portratstudien
in Norditalienischen
Pro-
vinzmuseen.
(Historisk-Filologiske
Meddelelser
udgivne
af
det
Kgl.
Danske
Videnskabernes
Selskab, XV,
4).
Copenhagen,
1928.
R.
Arch .
Revue
archeologique.
Reinach,
Recueil
Reinach,
Salomon: Recueil

de tetes
antiques
ideales ou
idealisees.
Paris,
1903.
Reinach, Repertoire

Reinach,
Salomon:
Repertoire
de
la
statuaire
grecque
et
romaine.
Paris,
1897-1924.
R. Et. Anc

Revue
des etudes anciennes.
Rev. de 1'hist. des
religions
Revue de l'histoire des
religions.
Robert

Robert,

Carl: Die antiken
Sarcophagreliefs.
Berlin,
1890-
1904.
ABBREVIATIONS
xiii
Rom.
Mitt
Mitteilungen
des deutschen
archaeologischen
Instituts,
Rom-
ische
Abteilung.
Roscher,
Lexikon

Roscher,
W.
H.:
Ausfilhrliches
Lexikon
der
griechischen
und
romischen
Mythologie.
Leipzig,

1884
Ruesch,
Guida

Guida Illustrata
del Museo
Nazionale di
Napoli,
compilata
per
cura
di A.
Ruesch.
2nd
edition.
Naples,
no
date.
Springer-Wolters

Springer,
Anton:
Die Kunst des
Altertums.
12th
edition,
revised
by
Paul
Wolters.

Leipzig,
1923.
Statuenkopien

Furtwangler,
Adolf: Ueber
Statuenkopien
im Alterthum
(Abhandlungen
der
bayerischen
Akademie
der
Wissen-
schaften
zu
Miinchen,
XX,
1896).
Tod
and
Wace, Catalogue

Tod
T
,
M.
Tod
N.,
and

Wace,
N,
and
Wace,
A.
J.
B.:
A
Catalogue
of
the
Sparta
Musetnum.
Oxford,
1906.
SCULPTURE
SCULPTURES EARLIER THAN
THE
CLASSICAL
PERIOD
1.
Female
figurine
(786).
Found
1 m.
southwest of
Martyr
VI,
0.40

m.
above
virgin soil;
May
1,
1907.
Height,
0.121
m.;
width,
0.055 m.
The
arm
is
represented
by
a rounded
projection;
the
foot
is
not
represented
at
all,
though
the
flat
bottom
of the

left
leg
is
original.
Grooves
in-
dicate
the knee and
ankle.
A
huge
scratched
triangle
represents
the
pudenda.
The breasts
and
buttocks are
shown in
approximately
their natural
proportions;
otherwise the
figure
is
virtually
unmodelled. The
head,
the

stump
of the left
arm,
and
most of
the
right
leg
are
lost.
The
material
is
a
white stone not
marble;
the
surface
is
slightly
polished.
Close
parallels
are not known to
me;
a certain
similarity,
however,
to
Thessalian

fig-
urines of
the third
period
is
discernible.
A
figure
found
at
Sesklo
(Tsundas,
AL
lIpoiaroptKatl
'AKpoTro6XEiS
AL/?tloV
Kal
oe-KXoV, pl. 34, 3;
cf.
Wace-Thompson,
Prehistoric
Thessaly,
p.
69)
shows
arm-stumps
similar
to those of
our
figure,

the breasts in
approximately
natural
pro-
portions,
and
a
great
triangle
for the
pudenda;
on the other hand it
is
markedly steatopy-
gous
and
ends
in
a
round,
flaring
base.
In
a
figurine
from
Dimini
(Tsundas,
op.
cit., pl.

35,
8;
Wace-Thompson,
op.
cit.,
p.
83)
the
hips
are treated
more
as
in
our
figure,
and
the
lower
part
is
lost.
Tsundas,
op.
cit., pl.
36,
7
is
a
pair
of

legs ending
much
as in our
figure;
cf.
for
this
feature
also
Wace-Thompson,
p.
147,
fig.
91b, though
in
other
respects
that
figure,
of
the
second
Thessalian
period,
shows little
likeness to
ours. Numerous
other
figurines
which

resemble
this
in
their
roughly
normal
proportions
and
in
the
arm-stumps may
be found
in
the two
works
cited;
but in no case is
the resemblance
so close as
in
the
figurines
mentioned.
All
of
these
figures
are
of terracotta:
the

contemporary
stone
figures
are
different
and
more
primitive
in
form
(Tsundas,
op.
cit., pls.
37-38).
Among
finds
from
other
regions,
the
only
one known to
me
that
suggests
a
comparison
with
our
figure

was
found at Tchukurkend
in southwestern
Asia Minor
(Ormerod
in
B.
S.
A.
XIX,
1912-13,
pp.
48
ff.,
and
fig.
la;
Reinach,
Repertoire,
V,
173,
10).
Here
the
legs
end
in
surfaces
flat
or

nearly
so,
the knees
are
indicated
by
grooves,
and the
pudenda
by
a
large
triangle.
The
proportions
also,
as
seen
from
the
side,
are
quite
suggestive
of our
figure.
On
the other
hand,
the

hips
are
very
broad
across
the front and the
arms
are
shown, though
very
rudely,
crossing
the
chest;
while
the
breasts
apparently
are
not
shown
at
all.
This
figurine
does
not
fit into
any
known

class,
and
its
relations
are not determined.
Ormerod
1. c.
mentions
"
a
figurine
of
almost
similar
form
except
that
it is
not
steatopygous,
and shows
differences
of
the
head
"
in
the
Liverpool
Public Museum.

This
figure,
which was
bought
in
4 CORINTH
Athens,
should be
closer to
ours
than
the one from
Tchukurkend;
but still
by
no means
of
identical
type.
Pottery
related
to
Thessalian ware
of the second
period
has
been
found at
Corinth,
where

it is
accompanied
and
succeeded
by Early
Helladic wares.
Pottery
of the third
Thessalian
period
is not found
in the
Corinthia. Thessalian
figurines
of the
second
period
are,
in
general,
different from
those
of
the
third
period
and
from our
figure,
and

Early
Helladic
figurines
are
equally
dissimilar.
I
am
told
that
no
pottery
was
found
in
close
asso-
ciation
with
the
figurine,
and it is difficult
to
assign
to it a
place
in the
prehistoric
period.
:'!:?

x
~
'
.

No.
1
But
unless it
is
an
importation
from outside
Greece,
it seems
best to
regard
it
as a
product
of
Thessalian culture
with
influence from
some other
quarter.
This influence
might
come
from the

Cyclades;
the use
of
stone
for
such
figures
was usual
in
the
islands
and
not
in
Thessaly, though
in
general
the
Cycladic figurines
are
of
wholly
different
type.
A
figurine resembling
this to
some extent is said
to have
been

found
by
Miss Walker
(now
Mrs.
Kosmopoulou)
in
her
excavation on the
temple
hill;
I
have
not seen
it.
2.
Mycenaean
face
(343).
Apparently
found
in
1901.
Soft
brown
stone.
Height
of
fragment,
0.30m.; width,

0.28m.;
thickness,
0.03m.;
height
of
face,
0.23
m.;
relief
height,
0.04 m. Back
roughly
shaped.
The
top edge
is
original,
the
edge
at the
spectator's
left is
broken;
the
other
two are
doubtful
because
of the
rough-

ness of the work.
The
end of
the nose
is
broken,
and
the
mouth, chin,
and
lower
part
of
the
left cheek are lost.
SCULPTURE
5
Two arched
grooves,
containing
traces
of black
pigment, represent
the
eyebrows.
Small
holes
indicate
the
pupils

of
the
eyes,
and dark
circles for the irises
around
them are
per-
ceptible.
There was
also
a
mustache
represented by grooves
containing
dark
color;
such
a
groove
remains
at
the
right
end of the
mustache and below
the
left side of the
nose,
but

is
broken
away
elsewhere.
All the
grooves
are
partly
filled
with
a
white substance in the nature
of
plaster,
which
also
covers
much
of the
surface
of the face and
presumably
covered
it all
originally.
Where
this
plaster
remains
in

the
grooves
it conceals
the black
pigment.
Since
lg}
.} t .8. * . -



.
No.
2
time over the
original painted
surface.
Probably
the
new white surface was
painted also,
a few
traces of red
color,buttheseareappat.ea ,
origin
.
The character
of this
piece
was

pointed
out
to
me
by
Mr.
Blegen,
who
wrote: It is
exactly
thews
sort
stone mould on
which
gold
masks,
like those from
Mycenae,
were
shaped.
But it is more than a
mould;
it
was intended as a
piece
of
sculpture
for exhibition
I do
not hesitate at all to

ascribe it
to
early Mycenaean
date
(L.
H.
I
or
so)::
Pernier considered
it
Mycenaean
-
a mould."
Large
sculpture
of the
Mycenaean
period
is rare.
The obvious
analogy
is offered
by
the
familiar head
in
painted plaster
which
Tsundas found

at
Mycenae.
Compare
also
a terra-
cotta
head,
about
six
inches
high,
found
at Asine
(Ill.
London
News,
Sept.
25,
1926, p.
548).
"'~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~&:
No 2::-
th~_B_i3iJe':
time over the original painted surface. Probably the new white surface
was painted also,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2S : '
a
f e w t r a c e s of red clor u heeaeapaetyo externa
oign
Th caace o hi ieewa oitd u t e

yMr lee, whowrot'
" I
t
i
notheitae t
al o acrbe t o erl
Myenea da-te
(L,.H.
Ioo Prircniee
6
CORINTH
Both of these
heads are
painted
but not
incised.
Incision would be familiar from
work
in
metal and
ivory;
it is used
for
details
in
the
stelae from
the
grave-circle
at

Mycenae
and
in
the
gold
masks.
In four
of
the masks the brows
are
marked
by
rows
of
parallel
incisions,
and
in
the
two that
have
mustaches
these
are
similarly
treated. In
our head there is
a
single
groove,

approximately
horizontal,
for each
eyebrow,
and
apparently
a similar one for
each
side
of the mustache.
The
treatment
is
analogous
in
the fifth
mask
from
Mycenae
(No.
253
in the
museum),
which
is
poorer
than the
others and
possibly
somewhat

earlier,
although
two
of
the other
masks
were
found
in
the same
grave.
A
painted
stele
found
at
Mycenae
affords
a
parallel
for
the
redecoration
of the
head:
the
stele was at first
ornamented with
engraved
designs,

then
these
were
covered
by
a
layer
of lime
on which new
decorations
were
painted (Stais,
Collection
Mycenienne,
p.
187,
No.
3256;
'E+.
'ApX.
1896,
pls. I-II).
_ _ .

iE
Ne.
3
3. Head
(342).
Apparently

found
in
1901.
Brown
stone,
but not
exactly
the same as
in
No.
2.
Height,
0.20 m. The
nose
and
mouth
are
indicated
by
incisions.
Although
the
surface
is
battered,
it seems
improbable
that
the
eyes

were
ever
represented.
The back is
rounded.
I
have
thought
it as well to
keep
this
piece
together
with
No.
2, though
there is
little reason
for
assigning
it to
one
period
rather
than
to another.
In so
far as it is
sculpture
at

all,
it is
in the
round,
and that is
evidence
against
a
Mycenaean
origin. Probably
it
was
not
seriously
intended
as
sculpture.
THE
CLASSICAL
PERIOD
SCULPTURES
OTHER THAN
PORTRAITS
4.
Head of
youth (425).
Found
May
20,
1902,

in the
Theatre.
Almost all the neck is
preserved.
Height,
0.27
m.;
width,
0.18
m.;
depth,
0.22
m.
The
nose is
mostly
lost,
also
a
little above the
right eye;
otherwise
the
preservation
is
excellent.
Howard
and
Amelung recognized
in

a
statue in
Cleveland
a
copy
from the same
original.
The
statue
(Bull.
Cleveland
Museum
of Art,
Nov., 1924;
Jb.
Arch.
I.
XLI, 1926, pls.
VI-VII)
is
almost
perfectly preserved, lacking only
the
right
hand.
Its
position
is
nearly
that

of the
"Apollo
on
the
Omphalos":
the
weight
rests
on the
right
leg,
so that
the
right
hip projects
somewhat,
but
not so much
as
in
Polyclitan
statues;
the
left foot is
equally
advanced
and
the
head
is turned

to the
right;
but the
left arm
hangs
and
the
right
forearm is raised
and
extended
to the
front,
while
in
the
Apollo
this
is
reversed. In
this
point
our
type
agrees
with
the
Polyclitan
bronze
in the

Louvre
(Furtwangler, Masterpieces,
pl.
XIII; Hyde,
Olympic
Victor
Monuments,
p.
139)
and related works
(see Anti,
in Mon.
Ant.
XXVI,
1920, pp.
561
ff.);
the Idolino
also
is
similar,
though
freer. Another
copy, considerably
better
in
quality
but
not so well
preserved,

was identified
by
Amelung:
it
is
a
statue
formerly
owned
by
the
sculptor
Monteverde
and
now
in the
Museo
Nazionale
in
Rome
(Boll.
Arte, III,
1923-24,
p. 549,
good
illustration;
Einzelaufnahmen,
Nos.
135-137;
Jb. Arch.

I.
XLI,
1926, figs.
20-26
on
pp.
263-265;
cast of
statue in Rome
with Corinth
head, ibid.,
figs.
34-35
on
p.
271).
The
copy
to
which our
head
belonged
was much
the best of the three.
Amelung
has
pointed
out the
resemblance
in

posture, proportion,
and
the
rendering
of
bodily
structure
between
our
type
and the
"Apollo
on
the
Omphalos."
There
are,
however,
differences
of some
significance:
the torso
is
more
strongly
modelled,
the structure
made
more
conspicuous,

in
the Monteverde
statue than in
the
Apollo,
and there
is a
much clearer
horizontal
groove
at
the level of
the
navel. In these
points
the Monteverde statue
suggests
the Conservatori
charioteer
(Jones,
Palazzo
dei
Conservatori,
p. 211,
No.
4,
pl.
LXXX;
Beazley
has called

attention to the
virtually
nude
charioteer on
the
Euphronius
cylix,
Hoppin,
Red-Figured
Vases,
I,
p.
389,
and to
the
completely
nude
figure mounting
a
chariot,
J.
H.
S.
XLVII, 1927,
pl.
XIII;
here,
however,
the
real charioteer

is
evidently
the
man
wearing
the
long
chiton).
This
statue
has
always
been
recognized
as
closely
related
to
the
Apollo,
but
is
earlier,
suggesting comparison
even
with
such works as
the
torso
in

the
Louvre
from Miletus
(Bulle,
Der
schone
Mensch,2
pl.
CIII; Brunn-Bruckmann,
text
to
pls. 601-604,
fig.
15),
while
the Monteverde statue
is
evidently
later
than
the
Apollo.
If
the
sculptor
of
the
Apollo
was
Calamis,

a nd
others
following
Furtwangler
think
probable,
it is
not
likely
that he had a
style
original
with or
peculiar
to
himself in
the treatment of the
8
CORINTH
body,
because Calamis
was
not
primarily
a
sculptor
of
athletes.
In
any

case
it
is
out
of
the
question
to
assign
our
type
to
the
artist of the
Apollo,
or to
any
one
strongly
influenced
by
him,
because,
as
Amelung
observed
(p.
270),
the
heads

are
totally
different.
The well-known
head from
Perinthus,
now in
Dresden
(Hyde,
Olympic
Victor
Monu-
ments,
p.
179,
with
references)
closely
resembles our
head
in
the
shape
of
the face
and of
the
skull.
"It has
the

same
long
face and the
same
high
round
cranium,
the
line
over the
top
from front
to rear
being
almost
an
unbroken
curve"
(Richardson).
The
Perinthus
head
is
of course
considerably
earlier.
The
hair of
our head
is in some

degree
Polyclitan,
suggesting
the
Diadumenus,
but
the locks
are less
regularly
curved;
and
over
the
forehead
they
are
treated
in
a
distinctive
way,
being
comparatively
long
and
separate
from one
another.
No.
4

In
regard
to the
hair
the
best
parallel,
as
was shown
by
Mahler,
is
a
head
in the
Louvre
(R.
Arch.
IV,
1904, pp.
106-108;
Reinach,
Recueil,
pls.
XXVII-XXVIII);
Mahler indeed
suggested
that
the
two

heads
were
derived from one
original,
but
Amelung
(Jb.
Arch.
I.
XLI,
1926, pp.
269
f., figs.
37-38)
more
reasonably regards
them
as derived from two
works
Einzelaufnhmen,
Nos.
505506).
Here
the
locks curl somewhat
as
in the Perinthus
head.
It
may

be noted
that some
of the
hair above the
centre
of the forehead
in
the
Perinthus head
has
been
chiseled
away
at
some
time,
so that
the
manner
of
its treatment
is not
accurately
known
(Herrmann,
in
Ath.
Mitt.
XVI,
1891, pp.

314
f.).
There
must
have
been
an interval
of
thirty years
at
least
between
the
originals
of
the
Naples
head
and
of
ours,
and
in this
interval comes
the Perinthus
head.
A
cast
in
Copenhagen

from
a lost
original
may
belong
here,
but
the
illustration
is
inadequate
(Arndt,
Glyptothque
Ny Carlsberg,
p.
61).
The
Naples
and
Perinthus
heads
have been
associated
with
Myron,
the
latter
also
with
Pythagoras.

With
the
Perinthus
head
certainly
belongs
a bearded
head
in
Leningrad;
in-
Pythagoras.
With
the
erinthus
head
certaily
belongs
a
bearded
ead
in
Leningrad;?in
SCULPTURE
9
deed
Curtius
has
asserted
that

both
are from the same
original
and
that
the
copyist merely
left
the beard
off
in
one
instance
(Brunn-Bruckmann,
text
to
pls. 601-604,
p.
8,
figs.
8-10),
while
Sieveking
and
Lippold
(Rom.
Mitt.
XXXII,
1917,
p.

103)
think
that the
original
was
beardless and
that
one
copyist
added the
beard. Neither
of these
hypotheses
is
easily
credible. Whether
these
two and others with
them
are to
be
removed from the
circle
of
Myron,
and
whether,
if
so,
they

can
be
assigned
to
Pythagoras,
are
very
doubtful
questions.
A
parallel
for the
Monteverde
statue
in
regard
to
bodily
structure,
better than
the
"Apollo
on
the
Omphalos,"
is found
in the
Myronic
athlete
brilliantly

recovered
by
Ame-
lung
in his
last
days
(Jb.
Arch.
I.
XLII,
1927,
pp.
152-157).
The
head does not
permit
the
ascription
of
our
type
to the
author
of that
statue,
who was
almost
certainly
Myron

him-
self.
However,
it
may
be
concluded
that
the
original,
made about
440,
was the work
of
a
sculptor who,
while
acquainted
with
the
style
of
Polyclitus,
was influenced
primarily by
Myron
or
somebody
very
like

Myron.
Ath.
Mitt.
XXVIII, 1903, pp.
451-460 and
pl.
VI,
with
comparative
illustrations of
this
and the
Perinthus
heads
(Richardson);
Lechat,
Pythagoras
de
Rhegion,
p. 114;
Jb.
Arch.
I.
XLI,
1926,
pp.
264-268
(Amelung);
Carpenter,
Guide,

pp.
72
f.,
No.
8.
5. Female
figure
(67).
Found
May
17,
1899,
"back of the
north
apse
of
Peirene."
Lacks
head
and left
hand,
which
were
inserted,
and
most of the
right
arm.
Height,
1.92 m.

The
figure
wears
an
Ionic
chiton with
buttoned
sleeves
and
a
heavy
himation
that
reaches
the
ankles. The
weight
rests
on
the
left
leg;
the
right
foot
is
drawn
back
slightly.
The

left
arm is bent
at
a
right
angle
at
the
elbow,
and
the forearm
extends
straight
forward;
the
right
arm
apparently
hung straight
down.
The
himation covers
the
left
shoulder
and
passes
behind
the
back;

the
top
of
it crosses
the
body
in
a
heavy
fold
just
below
the breasts
and
falls over the
left
arm.
The
difference
in
texture
between
the
two
garments
is not
successfully
indicated.
On
the

feet
are
sandals.
There
is another
copy
from
the same
original,
with
its
head,
in the Palazzo
dei Con-
servatori
(Jones,
Palazzo
dei
Conservatori, p.
108,
No.
56,
pl.
XXXVIII;
Reinach,
Reper-
toire, IV,
408,
9;
Bocconi,

Musei
Capitolini,
fig.
6;
Mariani,
B. Corn.
Rom.
XXXII,
1904,
pp.
299-316;
Lehmann-Hartleben,
Die
Antike, V,
1929,
pls.
VII-XII
and
pp.
85-97,
good
illustrations).
This
figure
was
put together
from a
large
number
of

fragments
with some
restoration;
because
of this the fold of
the chiton
that
appears
outside
of the
himation
on
the
right
side
in our
copy,
and
undoubtedly
in
the
original,
is
lacking
in
the
example
at
Rome.
The

figure
at Corinth was
made
by
a
workman
of
individuality
and
considerable
ability,
but
the Conservatori
copy
apparently
follows
the
original
more
closely.
Jones
mentions
also
"a
statuette-replica
in
the
possession
of
Sig.

Bassanti."
As freer imitations
may
be mentioned
a statue
in
Naples (Reinach,
Repertoire,
I,
207,
1),
another
at
Delphi
(Repertoire,
III,
200,
9
and
IV, 417,
1),
and
a third
in
Leyden
(Repertoire,
II, 675,
10).
A
10 CORINTH

statue
found
at
Cyrene (Repertoire,
V,
103,
5
and
389,
3)
is
perhaps remotely
related;
still
more
remotely,
the
"Artemisia" of the
Mausoleum
and
its descendants
(Lippold, Kopien,
p. 213;
cf.
Antike
Plastik:
Walther
Amelung,
p.
50).

There
is a
good
copy
of the head
in
Boston
(Caskey,
Catalogue,
pp.
129-131,
No.
62;
Die
Antike, V, 1929, p. 93,
fig.
6;
A.
J.
A.
XXI,
1917, pp.
102
f.),
and
an
exceedingly poor
one
in
Venice

(B.
Com.
Rom.
XXXII,
1904, pls.
XI-XII;
Einzelaufnahmen,
No.
2485;
Guida
Pellegrini,
No.
17, pl. IX;
Die
Antike,
V,
1929,
p.
92,
fig.
4).
Another
copy
of
the
head,
on the
Palatine,
is
mentioned

by
Anti
(Ann.
Scuol.
It.
At.
IV-V,
1921-22, p.
75).
A
Greek
relief in Eleusis
(Buschor,
Die
Skulpturen
des Zeus-
tempels,
text,
fig.
27;
Kjellberg,
Studien
zu den
attischen
Reliefs,
p.
35)
is
regarded by
Anti

(article
cited, pp.
82-84
and
pl.
III)
and
apparently by
Leh-
mann-Hartleben
as
a
fairly
accurate
copy
of a statue
earlier than
the
original
of our
type;
but the relief
is
probably
a
free
imitation of that
original
itself,
though

the head
apparently
is
quite
different.
There
is
certainly
no
intimate
connection between
the
relief,
the
type
represented
by
the
following
entry,
and the bronze in Vienna
(Jh.
Oest.
Arch. I.
XIV,
1911,
p. 46,
fig.
51;
Roscher,

Lexikon,
article
Kora,
col.
1355, fig. 6;
Schmidt,
in
Antike
Plastik: Walther
Amelung, p. 225),
all
of
which
Anti
would derive
from a
single prototype.
Any
statue the
garments
of
which
are
arranged
somewhat
as these are will show
folds
more
or less
similar:

so the
Albani
"Core,"
the Dresden
Zeus,
the Athena of
Velletri.
A
genuine
and close
analogy
is
found
in the "Nemesis"
(No.
6).
A
comparison
between the two
figures
at
Corinth is
risky,
since
the
copyist
was
certainly
the
same in

both
instances;
but
in
comparing
the
Torlonia
copy
of the
"Nemesis"
with
the Conservatori statue of
this
type,
one
finds
the same
broad,
shallow
folds with
sharp edges
in
almost the same
places
in
the
himation;
the
character
of the

drapery
in
the lower
part
of
the
two
figures
is
identical
so far
as the
himation
is
concerned,
and
there is
similarity
also
in
the chiton
at
the
ankles.
A statue
in
Venice
(see
under
No.

6)
shows
equal
similarity
in the himation and
more
in
the
bottom of the
chiton;
and
in
the
heavy
cross-fold
of
the
himation at
the
waist
there
are
folds of the same
sort,
divided
by
narrow
grooves,
that occur in our
type,

more
clearly
in
the
Conservatori
copy.
The statue
in
Venice
is a Greek
variant of
a
type
more or less ac-
curately
represented by
several Roman
statues
(Lippold, Kopien,
pp.
10
f.).
One
of
these,
/F I
No.
5
SCULPTURE
11

in the Lateran
(Hekler,
Romische
weibliche
Gewandstatuen,
fig.
12;
Helbig,
Fiihrer,3
II,
p.
14,
No.
1168)
is more severe
in
style
than
the others and
probably
closer to the
original,
and
it
resembles
the
Conservatori
statue
in
the folds

of
the chiton
not
only
at the
ankles,
but
also
on the
chest;
the likeness
in
the
himation
is
not
so close. The
examples
of this
type
that
have
heads
are
portraits.
The
"Nemesis"
has
the same
position

of
the feet
as
our
type,
while
the
Lateran
statue
and
its fellows
have
the
right
foot drawn
back;
in
the
figure
in
Venice
it is
drawn
back
only
slightly,
but
more than
in this
type.

The
"
Nemesis
"
is on
the
whole
more
archaic,
while
the others
might
well
be
contemporary
with
this
type,
and
either
might
be derived
from
the same
sculptor,
so far
as the
treatment
of
the

body
is
concerned.
The
three
copies
of
the
head
that
have been
illustrated
differ
considerably
from one
an-
other.
In
the
Conservatori
copy
many
observers
have
seen
a resemblance
to heads
of
the
style

called
"Calamidian"
by
Furtwangler
and
others
(Mrs.
Strong,
in
Strena
Helbigiana,
pp.
293-298).
This
resemblance
is
genuine;
it is discernible
in the treatment
of
the hair
and
in
the
type
of
features; compare
particularly
the
"Aspasia,"

the
Spinario,
and
the
delightful
Ward
head.
But with
none
of them
is the
relationship
close
enough
to
justify
the
assump-
tion
of
common
authorship.
Although
the
wavy
hair
above
the
forehead
suggests

the
"Aspasia,"
a still
closer
analogy
is
found
in the Demeter
of Cherchell
(illustrations
in
Schrader,
Pheidias,
pp.
48
f.);
and
the Boston
copy
of
the
head,
which
in itself
is
better
than
the
Conservatori
copy,

resembles
the Demeter
in
general
character
rather
than
the
"Calamidian"
works.
Yet here
again
the
analogy
is
far from
complete:
the
proportionate
height
of
the
head
above
the
eyes
is
decidedly greater
in the
Boston

head
than
in
the
Demeter.
It
is difficult
to decide
which
of
the
two
heads
is closer
to
the
original.
The
pre-
sumption
is in favor
of
the Conservatori
copy,
since
reason
has been
found
for
considering

it
trustworthy
in the
body.
On
the other
hand,
the
curls
in the
Boston
head
may
be
re-
garded
as
reflecting
more
clearly
the bronze
technique
of
the
original;
bronze
curls
are
not
necessarily

like
them,
but
no
marble
curl would
naturally
assume
such
a
form.
Further-
more
the
Boston
head
is loftier
in
expression
than
the
other,
and
this
quality
is not
likely
to be
contributed
by

the
copyist.
The
miserable
head
in Venice
throws
little
light
on
the
question:
it
agrees
with
the
Conservatori
copy
in
showing
less
fullness
in the
lower
part
of
the
face,
while
in

the
hair on
the head
the treatment
is
broader,
as
in
the
Boston
head.
The
head
more
or less
certainly
connected
with
the
statue
in
Venice
bears
no sort
of
resemblance
to
any
of
the

heads
of
this
type,
and we
know
nothing
of
the head
that
belonged
to
the
original
of
the
Lateran
statue.
Mariani
suggested
an
attribution
to
Calamis,
Lehmann-Hartleben
to
Polyclitus,
Caskey
to
Phidias;

Buschor
considers
the
original
Argive
(Die
Skulpturen
des
Zeustempels,
text,
p.
35).
There is
very
little to
be said
for the attribution
to
Polyclitus;
against
it
there
is
the relief
in
Eleusis, probably
indicating
that
the
original

was
in
Attica,
and
the
right
foot
flat on
the
ground
and
virtually
as far
advanced
as
the
left,
which
some
scholars
seem
to
regard
as
a
strong
indication
of
Attic
origin

(Lippold,
Kopien,
pp.
10
f.).
As
for
Calamis,
192
CORINTH
there
is less
xapis
and
more
loftiness,
even in the
head
of
the
Conservatori
copy,
than
in
any
of
the heads
called
Calamidian;
and the

figure
as
a
whole
possesses
an
imposing
majesty
that
is
vastly
different from the modest
dignity
of the
Hestia Giustiniani.
The
grandeur
of
Phidian
style,
as known from the
sculptures
of the
Parthenon and from
descriptions
of the Zeus and Athena
Parthenos, may
be resolved
into
three

qualities:
state-
liness
and
ease
and
opulence.
It
is
the third
that was
most
distinctly
an
innovation,
and it
is
scarcely
present
in this
type.
There
is no
other
example
of
the
severe
style, however,
which

so
effectively
combines
stateliness and
ease
in
posture;
and even
the
drapery,
when
compared
with
the
"Nemesis,"
the
"Aspasia,"
and
many
others,
is seen
to
look forward
toward
the
new
style.
An
attribution
to

the
young
Phidias
is
altogether
reasonable.
His
teacher
Hegias,
suggested by
Anti
as the
author of
the
imaginary
predecessor
of
this
type,
would also
be a
possibility.
There
is
nothing
that
justifies
an
attempt
to

date the
original
work
closely.
The
Lateran
type,
which
ought
to
be
contemporary
with
it,
seems to
be
earlier
than the
Albani
"Core,"
which is
surely
earlier
than
the
Parthenon;
460-55 is
about
the
right period.

The
copy
probably
belongs
to the
first
century
after
Christ. Since the
head was
inserted,
it
probably
was
a
portrait.
In
the absence of attributes it
is
uncertain
who
was
represented
by
the
original.
The
figure
in
the

relief
at Eleusis
is
probably Core,
since the
garment
slipping
from
the
shoulder
is
surely
more
suitable to her
than to
Demeter;
and Anti
has
shown that
the
two
goddesses
were not
always
clearly
distinguished
in art.
On the
other
hand the

matronly
figure
is
more
suitable
to
Demeter.
If this
type
and No.
7
were
originally
a
pair,
this
was
certainly
Demeter and the other
Persephone;
see under
No. 7.
A.
J.
A.
VI,
1902, pp.
430-431 and
pl.
XV

(Tucker);
Reinach,
Repertoire,
III,
192,
10
(not
8);
Carpenter,
Guide,
p.
73,
No.
9;
Einzelaufnahmen,
Nos.
2485-2487
(cited
byBuschor).
6.
Nemesis
or
Tyche
(427).
Found
May 28,
1902,
in
trench
dug

to find
west
end of
South
Stoa.
From
waist down. The
plinth,
of
irregular
shape,
is
complete;
height,
0.06
m.;
width,
0.70
m.; depth,
0.47
m.
Height
of
figure,
0.97
m. The Ionic
chiton
and
himation
are

worn.
The
weight
rests on the
right
leg;
the
left
is
set
slightly
forward and
turned
to
the
side.
On
the
plinth
beside the
right
foot
is
part
of a
wheel,
and above it
are
traces of
an

attachment
on
the
figure,
doubtless
for
the
upper
part
of
the wheel.
Traces of
the end
of
the
himation,
which
hung
from the left
shoulder,
are
perceptible
at the
top
of
the
fragment.
The wheel
is
usually

an
attribute of
Nemesis
in
art,
though
in
literature
the
wheel
of
Tyche-Fortuna
is
familiar
(Cook,
Zeus,
I, pp.
268
ff.;
Perdrizet,
in
B.
C. H.
XXXVIII,
1914, pp.
89-100).
Pausanias
mentions no
Nemesis
in

Corinth,
while the
statue of
Tyche
in
a
temple
was erect
and
made
of
Parian
marble
(ii,
2,
8).
It is
just
possible
that
our
frag-
ment
belongs
to
that
statue;
(the
marble
does

not
appear
to
be
Parian,
but
Pausanias
SCULPTURE 13
might easily
be mistaken about
that);
but
in the absence
of
satisfactory
parallels
it
is
better
called Nemesis.
There
is another
copy
from
the same
original
in
the Museo
Torlonia
(Reinach,

Reper-
toire, II, 658,
10;
Museo
Torlonia,
No.
495, pl.
CXXVII;
Antike Plastik: Walther
Amelung,
p.
222,
fig. 1),
a second
was seen at
Hierapytna
in Crete
(ibid., pp.
223
f.,
figs
3-4),
and
a
third is
in
the
Antiquarium
Comunale
in

Rome
(ibid., p.
223, fig.
2).
The
drapery
of
the
last is
much
elaborated,
and no
attributes are
preserved;
the
copy
in Crete
shows
changes
in
the character of
the folds and
has a
quiver-strap,
which
indicates
that it
represented
.
.


No. 6
Artemis.
The
Torlonia and Corinth
copies correspond
closely,
so far
as the
latter
is
pre-
served, except
that the
Torlonia
example
has no
wheel
and,
so far as
I
know,
no
traces of
attachments. The head
that
it
now wears
does
not

belong
to
it,
and
neither
of the
others
has
its
head.
There is
a relief
in
Athens,
from
Megara (ibid.,
p.
224,
fig.
5; Svoronos,
'EOv'cKV
MovO.e.ov,
pl.
CXXII, p.
440;
museum
No.
1442),
a work of the
fifth

century,
in
which the
original
of
this
type may
be
reflected. The
figure
in the relief
holds a bird and
is
probably
Aphrodite.
The
profile
of
the face is
markedly
similar to
that of
the head
of a Greek statue in
Venice
(Furtwhngler,
Griechische
Originalstatuen
in
Venedig,

Abh.
Bayer.
Akad.
XXI,
pls.
I-II;
Hekler,
R6mische
weibliche
Gewandstatuen, fig.
11; Ruesch,
Guida,2 p. 67,
fig.24),
which in
the
lower
part
of the
body
distinctly
resembles
this
type.
It has been
questioned
whether
the head
belongs
to the
statue

(Lippold,
Kopien,
pp.
10
f.; Einzelaufnahmen,
IX,
p.
48),
but
Furtwangler
felt sure of it. As
he
pointed out,
the head has
Peloponnesian
connections:
it
resembles the
heads of
certain
figurines
used
as
mirror-handles,
of the kind said to
have
been found in
the
vicinity
of

Corinth,
and looks forward
to
the
Doryphorus.
14
CORINTH
The
relief
suggests
that the
original
of
the
type
may
have
represented Aphrodite.
In
our
copy
it
became
a Nemesis
or a
Tyche,
and
in
the Cretan
copy

an
Artemis;
the other two
examples
have
nothing
to
aid in identification. The
original
resembled
in costume
the
Albani
"Core,"
but
does
not
appear
to
be
in
any
definite sense a
precursor
of
it.
This
fragment
and
the statue described under

No. 5
were
unquestionably
made
by
the
same
copyist:
this is
evident
particularly
from
the curious
wide,
flat
folds of the
chiton.
A
consideration of the other
examples
of both
types
shows that there was
a
close relation
also
between the
two
originals.
They

could
hardly
proceed
from one
artist;
but the
"Nem-
esis
"
could well
be the work of
a
sculptor
in
whose studio
the artist
of
the
"Demeter"
began
his
career.
7. Female
figure (68).
Found
May 18,
1899,
"back of the north
apse
of

Peirene,"
about
six
feet
from No. 5.
Lacks
head,
which was
inserted,
and
arms
below
elbows,
which were dowelled on.
Height,
2.025 m.
The left forearm extended
straight
forward
from
the
elbow;
the
right
apparently
hung down,
a
little forward
and to the side. The
weight

rests on the
right
leg;
the left
foot
is
equally advanced,
but turned out. The
figure
wears
an Ionic chiton with buttoned
sleeves,
which
reaches the
ground
in
the
back,
but not
quite
in
the
front,
and a Doric
peplus
with
overfold,
which
passes
under the left

arm and across the left breast and
is
clasped
on the
right
shoulder. The overfold ends somewhat above
the
knees,
and the
lower
fold
halfway
between the knees and the ankles. The
peplus
is
girt
with
a
doubled
cord
higher
than the
natural
waist-line;
no
kolpos
is
formed.
On
the

feet are sandals.
There is another
copy
from
the same
original,
preserved
only
from the shoulders to the
waist,
in
the
Giardino
della
Pigna
of
the
Vatican
(Amelung,
Sculpt.
d.
Vat.
Mus.
I, p. 825,
No.
28, pl.
XCI; Reinach,
Repertoire, III, 284,
5).
There

are
no
significant
differences be-
tween the
two
copies.
Jones (Palazzo
dei
Conservatori, p.
109)
mentions
a statuette of this
type
"in
the
possession
of
Sig.
Sangiorgi
in Rome,"
which
has
by
the
right
foot the
head of
a
horse

springing
from
a
calyx
of
acanthus.
The
preservation
is not
stated;
I
suppose
that
the head at least is
lacking.
The Doric
peplus
is
usually
clasped
on
both
shoulders,
reaches
the ankles
and has
many
vertical folds in its
lower
part.

For
the costume
as
it
appears
here there seems to be no
satisfactory parallel
in
sculpture.
The
peplus
is
clasped
on
only
one
shoulder
in a
statue at
Eleusis
(Reinach,
Repertoire,
II,
426,
5;
Furtwangler, Statuenkopien,
pp.
12
f.),
which is

somewhat similar
to ours
in
other
respects;
and
it
is
obviously archaistic,
a
work
of
the
fourth
century.
Somewhat
similar
also
is
the
Caryatid
of the
Tralles
type (Lawrence,
Later
Greek
Sculpture,
pp.
43
and

96, pl.
LXX;
Mendel,
Musees
Imperiaux
Ottomans, II,
p.
257,
No.
541;
cf.
Fowler,
in The
Erechtheum,
pp.
233
f.),
which seems
unquestionably
to
be archaistic.
Amelung
regarded
our
type
also as
archaistic,
and Buschor
(Die
Skulpturen

des
Zeustempels,
p.
31)
says
that it
"gibt
kaum ein
strenges
Werk
getreu
wieder."
SCULPTURE
15
However,
the
garment
is
entirely
reasonable
and
practical,
and
analogies, except
for
the
girdle,
may
be
found on

Greek vases
(amphora
in
Boston:
A.
J.
A.
XXVI,
1922,
p.
416;
compare
also the
relief
on the
Acropolis:
Dickins, Acropolis
Museum,
p.
117,
No.
577;
good
illustration in
Melanges Perrot, p.
261;
Ann. Scuol.
It.
At.
IV-V,

1921-22,
pp.
86
f.).
Archaistic
style
is
usually
not
hard
to
recognize,
and
it
does
not
strike
the
eye
here.
For
the
flat
surface
of
the
lower
part
of
the

peplus
compare,
e.
g.,
the
Atlas
metope
at
Olympia.
In
attitude
and
general
effect the
figure
is
similar
to
peplus-statues
of normal
type;
and
the
drapery,
both
the
heavy
peplus
with its
simple

folds and
the
chitoh
with its
fine
folds,
finds an
analogy
in
the
"Aspasia."
It
seems
on
the whole
probable
that
the
statue
is
a
copy,
accurate in
essentials,
from
an
original
of
about
460.

Neither
our
statue nor the Vatican
copy
has
any
attribute to
aid
in
identification,
but
Amelung
and
Jones
have
pointed
out that the horse's head with
the
Sangiorgi
statuette indicates that the
figure
is
Demeter
or
Core:
more
probably Demeter,
so
far as this evidence
is

concerned
(Roscher, Lexikon,
article
Kora,
1299
f.;
Pauly-Wissowa,
article
Demeter,
2733
f.).
The some-
what
similar
archaistic
figure
at
Eleusis,
though
itself
a
canephorus,
may suggest
that
the
original
of
this
type
stood

there.
Now this
statue and
No. 5 were found
together;
and
although
both
were
probably
portraits
and
there is no definite indication that
they
were
set
up
as
a
pair,
it
may
be
that
the
originals belonged
to-
gether;
No.
5

also
appears
to be
Demeter
or
Persephone,
and
probably
its
original
stood
in
Eleusis.
If
this is
so,
No. 5 is
certainly
Demeter
and
this
type
Persephone,
since
it
is
dis-
tinctly
the
more

youthful
of the two.
The two
originals
were
surely
not made
by
the
same
sculptor,
but
they belonged
to
about
the
same
time,
whether
associated
or not.
To
judge
from
the best
discoverable
analo-
gies,
the
original

of
this
type
was
Attic.
A.
J.
A.
VI,
1902, pp.
431-436 and
pl.
XVI
(Tucker);
Reinach,
Repertoire, III,
281,
12;
Art
and
Archaeology,
XIV,
1922,
p.
199
(Fowler);
Carpenter,
Guide, pp.
73
f.,

No. 10.
8.
Artemis
(812,
820).
812
was
found
1
m. north of
the
Byzantine
foundation
wall
of
St.
John's;
820
was
built
into a
Roman wall
continuing
the line
of
the
"
Boudroumi
"
shops.

.$
\~~~~~~~~~~~0
No.
7
16
CORINTH
820
from
shoulders
to
knees,
812
the rest
of
the
figure
and
plinth;
the
two
pieces
join by
contact.
Lacking:
head,
left
arm,
almost all of
the
right

arm,
part
of the
plinth,
and
all
the
toes of
the left foot
except
part
of the first.
The
right
shoulder,
broken
off
when
found,
has
been
replaced.
Height
of
plinth,
0.08
m.;
width,
0.53
m.;

depth,
0.45
m.;
height
of
figure,
1.49
m.
On
the
back of the left
shoulder,
over
an area
ca.
0.40 m.
X
0.20
m.,
the surface
is
lost
to
a
depth
of
ca. 0.04
m.
The
goddess

wears
the Doric
peplus, clasped
on
both
shoulders
and
sewn
on
the
right
side. The
kolpos
and
overfall are of
almost
equal
length,
reaching
nearly
to the
waist
in
front
and lower
on
the
sides.
From the
right

shoulder
a
quiver-strap
crosses the
body,
dis-
appearing
under a fold of
the
garment
just
below the left
breast.
Behind
the
right
shoulder
the
quiver-strap
leads to
the
top
of
a
diagonal
break,
obviously resulting
from
the
breaking

away
of
the
quiver;
apparently
the bottom
of
the
quiver
was
in
the
bottom
of the
large
break
on the back
of
the left
shoulder.
The
weight
rests
on
the
right
leg;
the
left
foot is

drawn
back.
A
marble
support
on
the front of
the
right
shoulder
indicates
that
the
right
arm
was
bent at
the
elbow
and
turned
upward,
the
hand
approaching
the
quiver;
it could
not
have

reached
the
quiver,
because
the arm
is
not
sufficiently
raised.
The left
arm
must
have
been bent at
a
right
angle;
a
triangular
scar
on
the
fold
that
covers
the
quiver-strap
shows
where the
forearm,

just
below
the
elbow,
touched;
below
the
shoulder is
a
trace to
indicate that the
upper
arm
extended
backward
slightly.
The
hand,
apparently
supported
by
a
piece
of
which
there is a
remnant
just
below
the

point
at which
the
quiver-strap
dis-
appears
under the
garment,
held
some
object
of
which
a
trace
remains,
0.15 m.
long
and
0.015
m.
wide,:
on
the
left
side
of
the
overfall near
the

bottom.
This
trace,
if
continued
upward,
would
pass
about
0.15
m.
in
front
of
the
support
below the
strap.
Probably
a
Scythian
bow was
held
by
the
middle.
For
the
position
of

the
arms
compare
Reinach,
Repertoire,
II,
319,
3,
and
many
other
statues
of
Artemis.
Buschor
(Antike
Plastik:
Walther
Amelung,
pp.
54
f.)
has
pointed
out
that a
statue
in
the
Uffizi

(Reinach,
Repertoire,
II,
241,
4;
Diitschke,
III, p.
107,
No.
187;
Einzelaufnahmen,
No.
91)
is derived
from
the
same
original.
A
third
copy
was
included
in
the
sale of
the
Lans-
downe
marbles

in
1930
(catalogue
of
the
auction,
p.
69,
No.
106,
with
illustration;
Michaelis,
Ancient
Marbles, p.
445,
No.
33;
Reinach,
Repertoire,
I,
224,
7).
Here the
left hand
holds a
cornucopia,
which
is
in

large part
antique
and
justifies
the
name
Fortuna.
It
may
have been
a
Roman
lady
as
Fortuna,
though
the
Trajanic portrait
head that
the
statue now wears
does not
belong
to
it,
according
to
Poulsen
(text
to

Einzelaufnahmen,
No.
3056,
which
illus-
trates the
head).
The
position
of
the
left
arm
is
not
very
different
from that
indicated for
our
statue;
but
the
right
arm, preserved
to
the
wrist,
comes
straight

down;
the
rudder that
the
hand now holds
may
well
be
correctly
restored.
The
copy
in
the
Uffizi,
restored
as Hera
and
usually supposed
to
represent
Hera
or
Demeter,
has
no
attributes
preserved.
The head
and

both
arms are
modern;
I
do
not
know
whether there
were
traces
to
indicate
the
posi-
tions
of
the arms.
SCULPTURE
17
The
garment
of
this
figure
is
larger
and the
drapery
richer than
in the Artemis. In

both
respects
the Fortuna is 6loser to
the Artemis than
to
the
Hera.
In
some
details,
notably
in
the
long
folds
between
the
legs
that are drawn toward the
"
Spielbein,"
the Artemis and
the
Hera stand
together
against
the
Fortuna.
One
of the Grimani

figures
in
Venice
(Furtwangler,
Griechische
Originalstatuen,
p. 299,
pl.
VI,
2;
text to
Einzelaufnahmen,
Nos.
2594-2595,
which
is
the
head; Reinach,
Repertoire,
III, 185,
6 and
I,
292,
8;
Lippold,
Kopien,
p. 11,
where
the
note

wrongly
refers
to
Furtwaiingler's plate VI, 5; Richter, Sculpture
and
Sculptors, fig.
324)
resembles this
type enough
to
suggest
that it was influenced
by
the
original.
The
upper
part
of
the
right
arm is
antique
and starts down
close
to the
body;
on
the
right

shoulder
there
is
a
hole
for
a
bronze
peg.
Here
the
garment
is
full,
but
in
several
points,
particularly
the
folds
just
below
the
kolpos,
it
resembles the Corinth
and Lansdowne
copies
rather

than
that in
the
Uffizi.
I
am
inclined to
believe also
that
a
Greek
relief
in
Athens
(No.
1597;
Svoronos,
To
'EOvtKcov
MovaeZov,
pl.
129)
is
directly
influenced
by
the
original.
The
specific

like-
nesses
are
in
the
upper
part; compare
with the other two
copies
rather than
with
the Artemis.
The
right
arm
is about
as
in the
Lansdowne
copy;
the
left
hand is
raised
and
holds
a
long
sceptre.
Since

there is no
trace
of
a
quiver-strap
in
any
of
the related
sculptures,
it
was
evidently
added
by
the
copyist
of our
figure.
Because of
this addition
the
character of the
original
in
this
part
is
obscured
in

the
Artemis;
it
is
to be seen
rather
in
the
Fortuna,
though
it is
poor,
than
in
the
elaborated
Hera.
The
right
arm
of
the
original
came
down,
close
to
the
body;
it is

probable
that the
left
arm was
bent
at
the
elbow,
somewhat
as
in
the
Artemis
and
the
Fortuna,
though
it
may
have
held
a
long
sceptre.
There is
little basis for
conjecture
as
regards
the

attributes of
the
original.
The
style
of
the
type,
broadly
considered,
is
that of
a
great
many
statues of
the later
fifth
century.
Among
its
smaller
features
may
be noted: the folds
that
radiate
from the
right
breast and

form one
triangle
with its
long
side
parallel
to the
strap
and
another
with
its
long upper
side about
horizontal;
the
transverse folds
descending
from
the left
breast;
the
place
near the
right
side where
the
edge
of
the

overfall turns
up;
and
in
general
the ir-
regularity
and
ridge-like
character of
the
folds
of
the overfall.
In
the lower
part
the
left
leg
is
clearly
modelled
beneath
the
garment,
but folds
occur
in
the

garment
everywhere
except
near
the
knee;
the
columnar
folds
of
the
right
side are
in some
cases
divided
by
shallow
vertical
furrows;
more
distinct
bifurcations are
visible
just
below the
kolpos;
the last of
the
heavy

folds
toward the left
begins
at
the knee
and
grows
wider
downward,
being
drawn
toward
the left
leg
without
other
change.
This
last is the most unusual
feature.
For
the
lower
part
of the
figure
excellent
analogies
may
be found in

the
"Ceres"
of the
No.
8