The Ancient Library

Scanned text contains errors.



sentations of the gods, however, were by no means regarded as the gods themselves or even as images of them, but only as symbols of their presence ; and as the imagination of a pious primitive age does not require much to be reminded of the pre­sence of the deity, the simplest symbols were sometimes sufficient to produce this effect. Hence we find that in many places the presence of a god was indicated by the simplest and most shape­less symbols, such as unhewn blocks of stone (A/-Boi'dpyoi, Pans. ix. 27. § 1, 35. § 1, vii. 22. § 3), and by simple pillars or pieces of wood. (Paus. vii. 22. §3.; Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p.418, and p. 348, ed. Sylburg; docana and daedala.) Many such symbolic representations of gods were held in the greatest esteem, even in the historical ages, as sacred inheritances of former times, and remained the conventional representations of the gods notwithstanding the progress which the arts had made. The general name for a representation of a god not consisting of such a rude symbol was a.ya.Xp.0,. (Ruhnken,.ad Tim. p. 2.)

In the Homeric poems, although the shield of Achilles, the gold and silver dogs which kept watch at the palace of Alcinous, and other similar things may be pure fictions, there are sufficient traces of the existence of statues of the gods ; but it would seem that, as the ideas of tlie gods were yet gigantic and undefined, the representations of several superhuman beings were more calculated to inspire awe than to display any artistic beauty. (II. xi. 36V&C.; Hesiod, Scut. Here. 144, 156, 248, &c.) This was however not always the case. Temples are mentioned in several places (//. i. 397 vii. 83, &c.), and temples presuppose the existence of representations of the gods. A statue of Athena is mentioned at Ilion, upon whose knees the queen places a magnificent peplus. (//. vi. 92 ; comp. 273.) The statue thus appears to have been in a sitting position like the statues of Athena among the lonians in general. (Strab. xiii. p. 601.) The existence of a statue of Apollo must be inferred from Iliad i. 28, for the oTe'jitjua $eo?o can only mean the wreath or diadem with which his statue itself used to be adorned. This statue must more­over have been represented carrying a bow, for at­tributes like dpyvporol-os could have no meaning unless they referred to something existing and well-known. Other proofs of representations of the gods in human form may be found in Iliad ii. 478, &c. iii. 396. &c. These statues were un­doubtedly all £oaVa, and, as we must infer from the expressions of Homer, were far more perfect than they are said to have been previously to the time of Daedalus. A work still extant, which is cer­tainly as old as the time of Homer, if not much older, is the relief above the ancient gate of Myce­nae, representing two lions standing on their hind legs, with a sort of pillar between them. (Pans. ii. 16. § 4; Sir W. Gell, Argol^l. 8—10; Gottlirig in the Rlieiniscli. Mus. 1841. part 2: wood-cut under Munus.) These facts justify us in sup­posing that, at the time of Homer, the Greeks, but more especially the lonians of Asia Minor, had made great progress in sculpture. The lonians appear to have been far in advance of the Greeks of the mother-country. The cause of this must probably be sought in the influence which some of the nations of western Asia, such as the Lydians, Lycians, and Phoenicians, had upon the Ionian colonists, for that these nations excelled the Greeks


in various branches of the arts is abundantly at­tested by numerous passages in the Homeric poems. We must not however attribute too much to this foreign influence, for there were many other causes at work besides, by which the Greek colo­nies, not only of Asia, but of Sicily and Italy also, were carried forward in advance of the mother-country. The ancient coins of the Italian Greeks too are much more beautiful and show more indi­viduality than those of Greece proper; we also find that Learchus of Rhegium came to Sparta at a very early period, and formed there the ear­liest bronze statue of Zeus, which consisted of several pieces nailed together. (Paus. iii. 17. § 6.) About the same time, as some think, Gitiadas of Sparta made a bronze statue of Athena. (Pans, iii. 17. § 13.) There is, however, very great un­certainty respecting the true dates of these artists. (See Diet, of Biog. s. vv. Gitiadas, Learchus.) Another great work in bronze belonging to this period is the colossal statue of Zeus which was dedicated at Olympia by Cypselus or Periarider of Corinth, and for which the wealthy Corinthians were obliged to sacrifice a considerable part of their property. (Strab. viii. pp. 353, 378 ; Phot, and Suid. s. v. KirtJ/eAi8<wi>.) About 650 b. c. Myron of Sicyon dedicated two &d\ajjLoi of bronze at Olympia, which were still there in the days of Pausanias (vi. 19. §2).

The time which elapsed between the composition of the Homeric poems and the beginning of the fifth century before our aera may be termed the age of discovery; for nearly all the inventions, upon the application of which the developement of the arts is dependent, are assigned to this period, which may at the same time be regarded as the first historical period in the history of art. Glaucus of Chios or Samos is said to have invented the art of soldering metal (ffiSijpov /coAATjtns, Herod, i. 25). The two artists most celebrated for their discoveries were the two brothers Telecles and Theodoras of Samos, about the time of Polycrates. The most important of their inventions was the art of casting-figures of metal. It is a singular circumstance, that the very two artists to whom this invention is ascribed, are said to have made their studies in Egypt; and the curious story of the two brothers executing a %6a,vov of the Pythian Apollo in such manner, that while Telecles made the one half of the statue at Delos, the other half was made by Theodoras at Ephesus, and that when the two halves were put together, they tallied as accurately as if the whole had been the work of one artist (Diodor. i. 98), has been thought to support the Egyptian tradition that these artists were greatly assisted in the exercise of their art by what they had learnt in Egypt. But, in the first place, the whole story has a very fabulous appearance, and even admitting that the artists, as the Egyptians asserted, had actually been in their country, no­body will on this ground maintain that they learnt their art there: the utmost they could have learnt might have been some mechanical processes: the art itself must be vindicated for the Greeks. In the second place, Telecles and Theodoras are called by Diodorus sons of Rhoecus, and Pausanias him­self, who was unable to discover a bronze work of Theodoras, saw at Ephesus a bronze statue which was the work of Rhoecus (x. 38. § 3.) Hence we have reason to suppose that Telecles and Theodoras learnt at any rate the art of casting metal from

About | First | English Index | Classified Index | Latin Index | Greek Index



page #  
Search this site
All non-public domain material, including introductions, markup, and OCR © 2005 Tim Spalding.
Ancient Library was developed and hosted by Tim Spalding of