MR

Thofls ('0'? {Eu am“ 6%
2141mm

Mei-136 M S? ME

:32 air“; cia 13» R22“

4 967

  
      

  

‘J LIBRARY

Michigan State:
University

31—18515

‘ IllllllilllllllllllllllllllllHIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

3 1293 10473 6537

 

ABSTRACT

INFLUENCES OF THE PERSIAN WARS
ON FREE-STANDING GREEK SCULPTURE

by Patricia B. Hull

The purpose of this study is to point out the
influences upon free-standing Greek sculpture which mani-
fested themselves as a result of the Persian Wars. The
Persian Wars enabled Greece, and particularly Athens, to
become mature states. Athens' hegemony after the Persian
Wars enabled her to provide the stimulating and free
environment necessary to the production of mature works
of art.

The various conclusions reached by this study
were achieved through an analysis of the Ptoon—ZO group of
515-h85 3.0. and various related sculptural pieces following
this period. The analysis is concerned with the examination
of the advancing anatomical developments which produced the
Early Classical style of Greek sculpture.

The main problems which concerned the Early
Classical sculptors were: the correct representation of
human anatomy, the problem of ”rhythm”, or inter-relating
parts, ”living balance”, and that of giving tri-dimensional
appeal to the figure.

Patricia B. Hull

In the discussion of the Ptoon-ZO group the
problem of correct anatomical representation is found to be
solved. The advancing progression of anatomical perfection
is implied in the order of the objects discussed as well as
through comparisons with previously discussed pieces.

The problems of ”rhythm”, ”living balance“, and
tri-dimensionality are resolved in the pieces relating to
the Ptoon-ZO group, which are discussed in order of
virtuosity of the artists' approach to these problems.

The conclusions reached by this study indicate
that the Persian Wars had a maturing effect on the states
of Hellas, particularly Athens, enabling the matured state
to produce matured art.

That the mature male nude figure appeared for the
first time after the Persian Wars indicated that in the
face of the Persian threat, the Greeks became increasingly
aware of that which saved Hellas from destruction-~the Greek
manhood. Also, mature men-~and not youths--defended Hellas

so nobly as to embody a heroic ideal worthy of sculpture.

INFLUENCES OF THE PERSIAN WARS
ON FREE-STANDING GREEK SCULPTURE

BY

Patricia B. Hull

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State university
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Art

1967

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My sincere thanks to Professor Robert H. Bough for his
interest, assistance, and encouragement throughout the

course of my studies.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACMOWLEWEMENTS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 1
INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1

Chapter
I. THE PERSIAN WARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II. RESULTS OF THE PERSIAN WARS . . . . . . . . . 11
III. ART AFTER THE PERSIAN WARS . . . . . . . . . 21
IV. THE PTOON-ZO GROUP-~515-h85 B.C. . . . . . . 26
V. DEMOCRACY AND THE ART OF GREECE . . . . . . 38

VI. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
EARLY CLASSICAL SCULPTURE . . . . . . . . . 41

VII. THE FLOWERING OF EARLY CLASSICAL SCULPTURE . 44
VIII. CONCLUSION O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 57
SELECT B IBLIWRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6 1

iii

INTRODUCTION

The Persian Wars of #90 and “80-79 B.C. had a
great influence on social, economic, and political develop-
ments in Greece. It is the intention of the study to point
out the influences that these wars had on free-standing
Greek sculpture.

The main result of the Persian Wars was the
ascendency of Athens as the leading nation of the Medi-
terranean world. The elimination of the Persian threat
gave Athens the freedom to improve her form of democratic
government, to re-evaluate and to change her social struc-
ture, to become the world's leading economic power and
cultural center of the world.

Previous to the Persian Wars and the eXpulsion of
the last Pisistratid tyrant, Hippias, free—standing Greek
sculpture was mainly concerned with religious votive
figures as seen in the youthful and immature kouroi and
korai figures.

After the Persian Wars, the representation of the
mature nude male becomes the predominant concern of the
sculptors. The mature Athenian male had not only saved
Athens from Persian domination, but had also made Athens

the leader of the Mediterranean world--economically, polit-

ically, and culturally, and was properly recognized as the
focal point of the Athenian human ideal.

Athens had reached maturity through the maturing
eXperiences the Persian Wars had given her citizens; the
sculptors participated in these eXperiences also, and as a
consequence cast off the immature kouroi and korai figures
and began to depict the first mature nude male figures in

Greek sculpture.

CHAPTER I

THE PERSIAN WARS

This study will begin with a discussion of the
historical background that led to the Persian Wars, the
Wars themselves, and the social, economic, and political
results of the Wars.1

The leading economic powers of the Aegean world
in the sixth century B.C. were the Asiatic Greek states.
These states, however, were politically unstable, due to
the ever-eXpanding Persian Empire. Eventually, Persia
conquered the Asiatic Greek states and placed them under
the rule of tyrants, who were political puppets of Persia.

Philip Myers tells us that the conquests of Cyrus
the Great and his successor Cambyses extended the boundaries
of the Persian Empire from Asia Minor to Egypt. By the

destruction of the fleet of Polycrates, Tyrant of Samos in

552 B.C., Persia became mistress of the Mediterranean.

 

1This section is primarily dependent on the

following works: Philip Van Ness Myers, The Eastern Na-
Eions and Greece (Boston: Ginn and Company, 19175, George
Rawlinson, A Manual of Ancient History_(New York: Harper &
Brothers, Publishers, 188I7, Mikail Rostovtzeff, A History
gf_the Ancient World (2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1945f vol. II, and S. C. Kaines Smith, Greek Art and
National Life (London: James Nesbit & Co., Limited, 191HTT

 

 

L;

Darius of Persia (521-h86 B.C.) intensified the
anxiety of the mainland Greeks by campaigning further to
the north and west, conquering lands across the BoSphorus,
thus penetrating Greece's protective barrier of mountains.
This Persian Dranggngch Westen synchronized with the rise
of the Phoenician colony of Carthage in the west.

In 501 B.C., Aristagoras of Miletus urged the
Asiatic Greeks into a series of actions that eventually
provided ample excuse for Darius' invasion of the Greek
mainland. George Rawlinson states that this revolt of the
Asiatic Greeks was begun by the murder and/or eXpulsion of
the Persian-controlled tyrants. A

In 500 B.C., the Asiatic Greeks burned the
satrapial capital of Sardis, with the help of twenty ships
sent by Athens and Eretria. The invaders were overtaken
and beaten by the Persians at Ephesus, whereupon the
Athenians and Eretrians deserted their Asiatic countrymen
and returned to the mainland. The revolt continued until
“9% B.C., when the last stronghold of the Asiatic Greeks,
Miletus, fell. The Persians punished the rebellious states
severely.

Darius was determined to avenge the intervention
of the mainland Greeks in the Ionian Revolt, and in 492
B.C. he sent envoys to the Greek states, some of whom sub-
mitted peacefully to Persian domination.

When the Persian envoys asked Athens and Sparta

for the ancient symbols of submission, earth and water,

they were slain. This affront enraged Darius, who then
sent a large land and sea force under his son-in-law,
Mardonius, to subdue the Greek mainland.

This ill-fated expedition met with disaster. The
land force, marching through northern Greece, was attacked
by the fierce Thracian Brygi and suffered heavy losses.

The fleet was wrecked in a violent storm off Mt. Athos, and
the crippled eXpedition then returned to Persia, where
Darius, now fully determined to conquer Greece, began to
assemble a large land army in Persia.

Athens was placed in a very bad position: Mikail
Rostovtzeff tells us that Athens' two most powerful allies,
Corinth and Sparta, had grudgingly promised aid and were
characteristically slow to act and hardly conscious of the
impending danger. Aegina and Boeotia, close neighbors of
Athens were both dangerous rivals and openly hostile to
Athens, leaving only the Phocians, the Plataiai, and the
Thespai loyal to Athens.

In Athens itself, her army and fleet were small
and poor: the newly installed democratic forms were being
vigorously opposed by the aristocracy, and the bloody Tyrant
of Athens, Hippias, who was expelled from Athens in 510
B.C., defected to the Persians, hoping to regain his posi-
tion by helping the Persians conquer Greece, who would in
turn reinstate and protect him as Tyrant of Athens.

The First Persian War of M90 B.C. consisted of

one clash at the Bay of Marathon where the Athenian general

Miltiades and his trOOps pushed the Persians back to their
ships. The Persian generals Datis and Artaphernes and
their tr00ps retreated to their ships and sailed for Athens,
hoping to capture the city while the Athenians were still
at Marathon. Miltiades received word of this, and marched
his troops back to Athens. The Persians, seeing Athens
defended by the very men who had dealt them such a stinging
defeat, retreated and sailed back to Persia.

The effects of the First Persian War were far-
reaching and lasting, for the other conflicts between Persia
and Greece were but repetitions of this initial lesson:
that the deepotism of the East, suppressing all individual
action, and ruling the masses in an absolute manner could
not compete with the disciplined individualism of the West.
This was the first check of Persian power; it destroyed the
Persian prestige of arms and broke the Spell of her name as
the greatest of all conquering nations.

The confidence in the strength and ability of her
manhood that Greece gained through this first clash with
Persia enabled her to withstand the ten tense years of
preparation for another onslaught. She also successfully
eliminated the Carthaginian threat to her Western colonies
in Italy and Sicily in #80 B.C. at the Battle of Himera.2

Darius' preparations for the next invasion were

 

2Gisela M. A. Richter, The Sculpture and Sculp-
tors of the Greeks (hth ed. rev.; New Haven, Connecticut:
Yale University Press, 1950), p. 7.

suspended only briefly by his death in #86 B.C. His son,
Xerxes, continued with his father's plans. Philip Myers'
tells us that Herodotus noted a force of 2,317,000 warriors
and 2,000,000 slAves, while Eduard Meyer estimated about
100,000 warriors and 150,000 to 200,000 seamen. Xerxes'
land forces marched overland and the fleet sailed as close
as possible to them. The army marched south through Greece,
until they reached the pass at Thermopylae.

The Greeks finally united as a result of the
Congress at Corinth and under Spartan leadership, decided
to check the Persian advance by defending the pass at
Thermopylae. King Leonidas of Sparta, with three hundred
of his countrymen and six thousand allies held the pass
against impossible odds. They held the pass for two days,
until the Greek traitor Ephialtes showed the Persians
another pass by which they surrounded the Greeks and
massacred them to a man.

While this battle was being fought, the Athenian
and Persian fleets were engaged off Cape Artemisium for
three days, when the Athenians received word that the pass
had fallen. There was no decisive victory at Artemisium;
the Greek fleet withdrew to the Gulf of Salamis, followed
closely by the Persian fleet.

Panic reigned in the cities of Attica as the
Persians advanced southward. The Delphic oracle alluded to
the Athenians seeking refuge "behind their wooden walls”,

which they interpreted as being an allusion to their fleet.

They abandoned Athens and took to their ships. The
Peloponnesians, finally made aware of the seriousness of
the situation, threw up defenses at the Isthmus of Corinth,
as they had originally planned. The Persians then sacked
the Akropolis, destroying many treasured works of art.

Upon their return to their ravaged city, the Athenians
buried these works of art on the Akropolis.

The Greek fleet was in the Straits of Salamis
when Themistocles sent a counter-spy to Xerxes advocating
immediate attack. (The real reason for Themistocles'
actions was to start the battle before the inevitable
splits occurred between the various Greek factions.) Xerxes
was deceived and ordered his fleet to attack on September
23, #80 B.C., whereupon the Greeks closed the Straits and
proceeded to out-manoeuver and destroy a majority of the
Persian warships.

Xerxes, sensing the danger to which he had
eXposed himself, retreated with one hundred ships to protect
the Hellespontine supply lines, and returned to Persia,
leaving Mardonius with a large land force to winter in
Greece and to take up the campaign in the spring.

Mardonius spent the winter in Thessaly with a
picked army and resumed the campaign in #79 B.C. He tried
to split the Spartan-Athenian alliance by trying to bribe
Athens to Join with him and conquer Sparta. Athans refused,
so Mardonius sacked Athens and Attica once more and with-

drew to Boeotia.

Sparta, realizing that Athens was nearing the end
of her patience with a ”do-nothing” ally, decided to take
the offensive, and, gathering the largest Greek force of
the war, (110,000-70,000), and with the Spartan Pausanias
in command, marched to Plataea. On September 25, #79 B.C.,
the Greeks routed the Persians, killed Mardonius, and put
the entire Persian army of some 350,000 to flight.

On the same day, the Greek fleet, under the
command of Leotychides, destroyed the remnants of the
Persian fleet at Mycalé, thus ending the supremacy of
Persia by sea.

Immediately after, Athens took the offensive in
the war by pushing the Persians back and gaining control of
the Levant and the Littoral Islands, including Cyprus.
Athens also punished severely those Greek cities who had
allied with Persia. Athens then laid siege to Byzantium
which fell, as well as a siege on Eion, which surrendered
in #77 B.C. The Athenians ravaged the coast of Asia Minor
for twelve years, the conflict between Greece and Persia
culminating in #66 B.C. at the Battle of Eurymedon, where
the Athenian fleet put a final end to the meager Persian
fleet, thus freeing the Eastern Greek cities as well as
Miletus.3

The Persian Wars were of far-reaching historical

significance in the respect that a smaller nation emerged

 

3Ibid.

10

triumphant over the world's largest empire of that time.
During the period of the Wars, the Greeks had ample time
and occasion to recognize the superiority of that Greek

manhood which had repeatedly saved them from destruction

and despotism.

CHAPTER II
RESULTS OF THE PERSIAN WARS

As seen in Chapter I, the major result of the
Persian Wars was the triumphant emergence of Athens as un-
challenged leader of all Hellas. The results of the Wars
were manifold, but first let us examine the types of train-
ing, both physical and mental, which helped the Athenians
to withstand and overcome the trying times of the Persian
Wars.

The Athenians realized that their most precious
commodities were their children, and began to instill in
them from an early age, the ideals by which they lived their
daily lives. Their children were trained physically,
psychologically, and spiritually to be Athenians.

The body was trained (and maintained) daily at the
palaestra and at the gymnasium where the Athenian boys and
men deve10ped the vigor and stamina which stood them in
such good stead at Marathon, Thermopylae, and Plataea.“

Their Spiritual and intellectual training was
accomplished through the study of their Greek classics and

 

 

”Lucy M. Mitchell, A History_of Ancient Soul ture
(2 vols.; New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 18885, I,
283.

11

12

music.5 Lucy Mitchell states that:
"The Homeric gpgg awakened the heroic sense of a
love of great deeds; while hymns and lyric verse,
with their pious aspirations and rich fund of holy
legend, aroused the religious sentiment in the
breast of each free-born Athenian boy.”

The parents also had a great responsibility in
the upbringing of the future citizens of Athens. In the
home, obedience as a religious duty was taught, and any
parent or guardian who neglected the welfare of their
children were called before the AreOpagus and publicly
censured.7

As a result of this training, public-minded
citizens who could think and act for themselves were pro-
duced. They were broad in the scope of their character,
broad in their interests, and, most important, were Athen-
ian citizens first, and after that artists, merchants,
farmers, etc.8

The Athenian's attitude toward religion also had
great influence on their character. They adhered to their
old gods, believing that they were directly influential in

the victories of the Persian Wars. The patron gods and

heroes of.Athens were Athena, Pan, Theseus, and the heroes

 

5lbid., p. 28#.
6IPAQA

7;Qid., p. 283.
8;§i§., p. 28h.

13

Marathon and Echetlos.9

The social structure as well as customs changed
with the Persian Wars. The old aristrocratic basis of
society shifted, along with the governmental changes, to a
more democratic basis.10 The Athenian dress and style of
life were modified to be more compatible with the activity
and bustle of a city bursting with new life and growth.11
Even the dress of the time lost its aristocratic associa-
tions: men's long, ceremonious linen robes were succeeded
by the short chiton, while capes were the functional himaton
and chalmys; men no longer wore their hair long and bound
with a golden cicade, but had it cropped short or braided
and fastened close to the head; and beards were not as
scrupulously trimmed or groomed.12 The mode of walking
with a slow, dignified, solemn step or in a slave-carried
sedan chair was passé.13

The Persian Wars were also responsible for trig-
gering a vast amount of activity and change in the arts.
Themistocles' new law which exempted from taxation those

'workmen and artisans who were engaged in re-fortifying, re-

 

9Ibid.

10J. Barron, Greek Sculpture (New York: E. P.
Dutton and Co., Inc., 19557: p. 57.

111b1d.
12Ibid.

131bid.

1h

building, and beautifying Athens most certainly encouraged
artistic endeavor.1n Artists, orators, poets, and play-
wrights hastened to record this turning point in Greek
history. Simonides of Ceos wrote couplets honoring the
dead of Thermopylae and Salamis; Aeschylus, who fought at
Marathon and perhaps at Salamis and Plataea wrote Th3
Persians, Pindar contributed poems, and Polygnotus painted
the Battle of Marathon on the walls of a public porch in
Athens.15

Many individuals and states erected war monuments,
some of which were made out of bronze melted from Persian
weapons; the most noted of this type was a COIOSSal bronze
Athena on the AkrOpolis.16 Monuments in other media were
erected all over Greece. Miltaides, victorious general of
Marathon, dedicated a goat-footed Pan on the Akropolis, and
Themistocles dedicated a water-carrying maiden.17 One-tenth
of the spoils of the wars were pledged to the temple of
Apollo at Delphi, and this tithe took the form of a colossal
golden tripod and a bronze column of twisted snakes engraved
with the names of the dedicatory states.18 Several colossal

statues were dedicated throughout Hellas; a Poseidon at the

 

luMitchell, op. cit., p. 285.
15Myers, op. cit., p. 205.
16Ibid., p. 206.

17Mitchell, op. cit., p. 287.
18Myers, loc. cit.

15

Isthmus of Corinth commemorating the Battle of Plataea, an
eighteen-foot female carrying the prow of a ship, cele-
brating the naval victories of Salamis and Artemisium, a
colossal Zeus at Olympia,19 a Nike on the Akropolis dedi-
cated for the Battle of Marathon,20 a Nike by Paionios at

21 and, three years after the Battle of Salamis,

Olympia,
the archons of Athens dedicated a Hermes Agoraios, a work
which was so admired that it eventually turned black from
the numerous molds and casts taken from it by later
artists.22
Flushed with triumph over the world's largest
empire, Athens tried to establish an empire of her own.
The first step was taken by a general of the Battle of
Plataea, Aristides, who founded the Delian League, the
purpose of which was to wrest the remaining Greek cities
from Persian control.23 At the end of the twelve-year
campaign against Persia, the Battle of Eurymedon (see page
9) won by Cimon of Athens, pushed Persia out of the Aegean

Sea and left Persia with maritime bases on the coasts of

 

19Mitchell, loc. cit.

20Gisela M. A. Richter, A Handbook of Greek Art
(New York: Phaidon Publishers, Inc., 1965), p. 77.

21Smith, op. cit., p. 236.
22Mitchell, loo. cit.
23Rostovtzerr, o . cit., p. 265.

16

Palestine, Syria, Phoenecia, and Egypt.2u

Although the Delian League freed the remaining
Ionian Greek states, it led directly to the formation of an
empire.25 As soon as Athens was certain of her hegemony,
she started making rules and regulations, as well as man-
ipulating the other member-states in a very cavalier
manner. .A few of the restrictions placed on the members by
Athens were: (1) a state could not withdraw from the League,
(2) the treasury was moved from the sacred island of Delos
to Athens "for administrative convenience", (3) the meetings
of the administrative congress at Delos were discontinued,
(h) the member-states were compelled to model their govern-
ments after Athens and were obliged to submit all important
law cases to an Athenian judgement.26

Other events, such as the League's treasury and
the Athenian treasury gradually merging, the money and
ships of the members being used at Athens' discretion with
no explanation or justification given, and the treatment of
all but the most powerful members as vassals nurtured feel-
ings of distrust and malcontent among the League members
which introduced an element of internal weakness which was

sure to be Athens' vulnerable Spot, if not her eventual ruhn.27

 

2n;2id., p. 266.

25311.4.-

26Rawlinson, op. cit., p. 199.
27%.

17

A paraphrase of Thucydides i, 70, gives us a good
idea of the Athenian character as described by a Corinthian
delegation which was urging Sparta to declare war against
Athens:

”You have no idea what sort of people these Athenians
are, how totally different from yourselves. They are
always thinking of new schemes, and are quick to make
their plans and to carry them out: you are content
with what you have, and are reluctant to do even what
is necessary. They are bold, adventurous, sanguine:
you are cautious, and trust neither to your power nor
to your judgment. They love foreign adventure, you
hate it: for they think they stand to gain, you that
you stand to lose something. When victorious they
make the most of it: when defeated, they fall back
less than anyone. They give their bodies to Athens
as if they were public property: they use their minds
for Athens in the most individual way possible. They
make a plan: if it fails, they think they have lost
something: if it succeeds, this success is nothing
in comparison with what they are going to do next.

It is impossible for them either to enjoy peace and
quiet themselves or allow anyone else to." 8

Governmental changes during and after the Persian
Wars made the government progressively democratic, and the
decision-making power was put more and more into the hands
of the Assembly, which was composed of every adult male
Athenian,29 any one of whom was made eligible for any
office, while the power of the AreOpagus and the archons
declined.30 The power wielded by the military stratfigoi

increased, giving an aura of stability to a government

 

28H. D. F. Kitto, ghe Greeks (Baltimore: Penguin
Books, 1951), pp. 122-123.

291bid., p. 125.
30Rawlinson, loc. cit.

18

which changed hands ten times a year, the prerequisite of
owning property in order to be eligible for some governmental
offices was abolished; certain conservative alterations
provided a system of checks and balances, and the expedient
institution of ostracism diminished the violence of party
struggles by honorably banishing any dangerous man from
Athens for ten years.31

The economy of Greece during the Persian Wars was
booming, partly due to the discovery of a very rich vein of
silver near Sunium between the two wars.32 The Asiatic
Greeks had developed their economy to a large extent by
following the Persian method of improving roads and pro-
tecting their sea-lanes.33 Eventually the Greek fleets
edged the Phoenecians out of the competition, and their
large fishing industry changed their eating habits. Their
staple meat-producing animal, the sheep, was then raised
mainly for milk and wool and their meat diet changed to one

of fish.3“

Also, having large tracts of arable land avail-
able, corn and other grains were a large export item for
the Asiatic Greeks; especially since the Greek mainland was

not suited for raising grains.35

 

31Ippp,, pp. 199-200.

32Kitto, op. cit., p. 113.
33Rostovtzeff, 0p. cit., p. 197.
3“;ppg., p. 198.

3522i9:. pp. 198-199.

19

The Greek mainland-~rocky, hilly, and with very
spare soil--was best suited for the growing of vines and
trees--the grape and the olive--which could be made to grow
up hilly slopes, freeing the few level areas for a small
amount of grain-growing.36 Athens, being a maritime state,
also had a massive fishing industry, thus the mainland ex-
ported wine and olive oil to the Asiatic Greeks and other
nations, while the Asiatic Greeks supplied them with staples
such as corn and other grains, and wool. With such re-
ciprocal trade being carried on, it is no wonder that
Persia cast covetous eyes on Greece.

Another result of the Persian Wars was, of course,
the elimination of the Persian threat to the Aegean world.
After the Persian Wars, the Persian Empire began to sink
into dissolution, intrigue, and corruption of the grossest
nature. Persia, however, could not be completely dismissed
as a world power, for in 450 B.C., when Cimon was sent from
Athens to lay siege to Citium and was unsuccessful, Persia
then dictated the terms of peace--not.Athens.37 At this
time, the Athenian Empire was beginning to fail, due to her
unwilling members, and Athens was forced to relinquish its
domination of Cyprus and Egypt, while Persia merely re-
affirmed the independence of her Asiatic Greek cities.38

 

36Ibid., p. 199.
37Rawlinson, op. cit., p. 202.
381bid.

20

Nor was Persia quite finished with humiliating
Athens, for, with Persian aid, Sparta won the twenty-four
year long Peloponnesian War (431-40h B.C.), and in 386 B.C.,
Persia regained the possession of the Ionian Greek cities
until her conquest fifty years later by Alexander the
Great.39

The rigorous training that the.Athenians under-
went, their unlimited energy, their competitive nature, and
the realization of their superiority over other nations led
not only to cultural and artistic achievements, but also to
the imperialistic concept of an Athenian Empire, based on
Athens' great sea-power, which was used both for economic
and also aggressive purposes. Eventually, through the
internal weakness due to the unwilling members of her

Empire, the Athenian Empire came to an end.

 

39Cise1a M. A. Richter, Archaic Greek Art (New
York: Oxford University Press, 19 9 , p. 133.

CHAPTER III
ART AFTER THE PERSIAN WARS

During the Persian Wars, the production of works
of art was almost entirely suspended in order to concen-
trate on the military preparations necessary to rebuff the
Persians. After the Wars, however, a great influx of
artistic production followed. During this period the last
transitions from the Archaic style to the Early Classical
style are made.

To trace effectively the changes in art produced
by the Persian Wars we must first examine archaic Greek
sculpture and the changes it underwent prior to the Wars.

Archaic Greek sculpture in the sixth century was
more influenced by the Ionian Greeks than the mainland
Greeks, due to their cultural and economic importance. The
sculpture of that period was mostly concerned with votive
offerings; and the Asiatic Greeks, in close contact with
Persian ornamental standards, became preoccupied with the
draped female votive figure, the koré. This gave the
sculptor free reign in eXperimenting with ornamental folds,
ornate embroidery effects, decorative curls, frills, etc.
without confronting the annoying problem of anatomy. For
this reason, nude male sculpture was not prevalent in the

21

22

sixth century B.C.

The strict formulization and adherence to the
"rule", rather than using the principles that the sculptors
discovered was another cause for the stiff conventionality
of archaic sculpture. S. C. Kaines Smith characterizes
archaic sculpture by saying: ”The laws of social, politi-
cal, and religious life were few, simple, and rigid, those
of sculpture were the same.”0

The decline of archaic Greek sculpture came about
for many reasons; in his book, The Esthep;g_Basis of Greek
Apt, Rhys Carpenter gives a very fundamental cause:

"In all these periods archaism dies the same death.
Its final over-refinement forces a realization that
it is flagrantly and fundamentally untrue to flitual
appearances. A period of simplicity ensues.”

The biggest change from archaic sculpture to the
sculpture of the Persian War era was the decline of the
religious motive in sculpture. The real aim of the work
was to attain a perfect representation of the body, free
from all hieratic connections and connotations.“2

”This abandonment of the old view that art is valuable
and intelligible only as a weapon in the struggle for
life, in favor of a new attitude which treats it as

mere play of line and color, mere rhythm and harmony,
mere imitation or interpretation of reality--this is

 

“Genith, op. cit., p. 215.

“1C. A. Robinson, Jr., ”Development of Archaic
Greek Sculpture,” American Journal of Archaeolo , XLII
(October, 1938), pp. 4541h55.

uzArnold Hauser, The Social History_of Art (h
vols.; New York: Vintage Books, 1960), I, 76.

23
the most tremendous change that has ever happened in
the whole history of art."“3
This completely new conception of art in which
objects may be considered as autonomous also took place in
science, theoretical research and debate.uu
Why this momentous change from the concrete to the
abstract took place is linked with the growing self-aware-
ness of the Greeks brought about by their flourishing and
proSperous colonization program.”5 This self-discovery and
its accompanying self-assertion inevitably led the Greeks
to the idea of Spontaneity and autonomy.46 Another cause
of this change was the practice of trading for money, an
abstract value.“7 The Greek economy was a proSperous one,
and the Specialization of work that grows out of a moneyed
trading economy, many proSperous colonies, a wealthy state,
the surplus leisure time, and the unabounding energy of the
Greeks themselves all led to the development of abstract
thought and creativity.“8
‘ When Hippias, the cruel and hated Tyrant of Athens
was expelled in 510 B.C., and fled to Persia, thus precip-

itating the Persian Wars, Greek sculpture underwent many

 

“31b1d., p. 78.
““Ibid.

4:-

5 id., p. 80.

2n

changes.“9

The most important change was the focusing of the
attention on the male nude, rather than on the draped fe-
male koré.5O The Ionian elegance and ornamental quality of
the figure--particularly in the drapery--was simplified by
simpler folds, the elimination of ruffles and embroidered
patterns, while the heavier and much simpler Doric peplos
came into fashion.51 The hair as well as the attitudes of
the figures were also simplified, but still retained their
expressive character.52

Another important change is noticed in the charac-
ter represented in the face; it is no longer subtle or
sentimental, but sober and dignified, yet fundamentally
human. ”Art has adopted dignified and worthy ideals.”53

The Greeks also turned from the rule of the tyrants
to democracy, which was then firmly established by the con-
stitution of Cleisthenes and which was adhered to with a
vengeance.5)+ H. H. Powers states:

”Athens owes much to the bloody rule of Hippias--she

 

“9H. H. Powers, The Message of Greek.Art (New
York: The MacMillan Company, 19257, p. 96:

5°Ibid., p. 98.

51:21 .
52 1

3Ibid., pp. 98, 100.

81
p.

UiU‘

“Ibid., p. 98.

25

might have been much less certain of her own mind."55

The change in free-standing sculpture from a
decorative, religious purpose to one of democratic, digni—
fied ideals was an important one in the development of the
Early Classical style. Linked with this change was the
beginning of more accurate observation of anatomy which was
aided by the decline of religious formulization. Now the
aim of the sculptor was to create a perfect representation
of the nude male body, free from all hieratic connections
and connotations.

The growing self-awareness of the Greeks, mani-
fested to them through their prosPerous economic and
colonial systems, reinforced their concept of their intel-
lectual and physical superiority, and was also manifested

in their studies of the male nude.

 

55 id.

CHAPTER IV
THE PTOON—ZO GROUP: 515-h85 B.C.

Now that the prevalent changes in Greek sculpture
have been observed, let us examine the Ptoon-ZO group of
sculpture which dates from 515-485 B.C. to discern any
changes in these fragmentary pieces that correspond with
the growing maturity of the Greek states. In my discussion
I will make use of Miss Richter's physical descriptions
taken from her book, Kouroi.56

The first male nude which we will discuss is the
well-known Strangford Apollo from Anaphe (Plate II),

Number Bh75 in the British Museum. This torso has many
archaic traits; the modeling is very hard and stony and the
stiff regularity of the pose is quite archaic. The level
buttocks, the more primitive underdevelOped and stylized
external obligue where it bulges over the iliac cpgst are
some archaic conventions that will be rendered pr0perly in
following figures of the Ptoon-ZO group.

As seen from the side, the greatest protrusion of
the frontal plane is level with that of the back. Modeling

is discernable in places on the back in the erector spinae,

 

56Gisela M. A. Richter, Kouroi (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1942), p. 228-2u8.

26

27

spinal furrow, and shoulder blades. Although the left leg
and flank are advanced, the buttocks remain level, with
only a slight indication of the depression over the great
Epochanter.

Viewing the Strangford Apollo frontally, we notice
the advanced traits of the indication of the swelling of
the tra ezium, and the double curve of the clavicles. We
also find that the thorax is well deveIOped, with the lower
boundary approaching the shape of a semicircle and placed
directly under the pectorals. The transverse and longi-
tudinal divisions of the rectus abdominus are correct in
number and placement, but are indicated by archaic grooves
instead of being modeled shapes. However, the five
digitations of the serratus magnus are indicated and inter-
linked with the digitations of the external obligue. The
lower boundary of the rectus abdominus approaches that of a
semicircle.

In the Strangford Apollo, we are able to see the
attempt of the sculptor to break away from archaic conven-
tions, and his partial success. Let us keep in mind, how-
ever, that the sculptor is still exploring the traits and
proportions of the immature, boyish figure, and will not
proceed to the full-grown, mature male nude until the
majority of technical problems have been solved: both
sculpturally and politically.

Our second torso, Number 692 from the Akropolis

in the Akropolis Museum (Plate III), shows a marked advance

28

in the treatment of the stone. The Strangford Apollo and
the Akropolis torso Number 692 are both out from Parian
Marble, but the modeling of Number 692 is much more “flesh-
like" and has a more sensuous, tactile appeal than the
Strangford Apollo. The planar transitions of this torso are
much more subtlely achieved.

From the side, the greatest protrusion of the
front is level with that of the back, which is weakly con-
structed. The Spinal furrow and exector spinae are somewhat
modeled, but the shoulder blades are not separately indicated,
which leads us to doubt the_scu1ptor's powers of observa-
tion and virtuosity. Another indication of this lack of
observation is seen in the lower areas of the torso: where
the left leg advances, its flank does not, and the right
buttock, rather than the left, is rendered as being lower
than the left. However, the depression of the great
trochanter is more accurately and volumetrically rendered
than in our Strangford Apollo.

Frontally, we are first struck by the over-all
impression of the soft, ”fleshy“ feeling of the torso, and
the use of modeling rather than the more archaic grooves.
The swelling of the trapezium and the double curve of the
clavicles are correctly rendered, but the high placement of
the pectorals and the flat arch instead of the semicircular
foundary of the thorax throws our visual impression off
balance. The divisions of the rectus abdomig3§_are modeled

instead of grooved, improving the volumetric feeling, but

29

the high placement of the bulges of the external obligggg
makes the lower boundary of the rectus abdominus more
angular-looking, instead of assuming a gentle semicircular
shape.

The soft, immature, and slender prOportions of
this figure, even in comparison with the Strangford Apollo,
indicate to us that the sculptors previous to the expulsion
of Hippias were as immature in technique as their works
were in age.

A very fragmented torso, found near Athens,
Number 3370 in the National Museum in Athens (Plate IV),
reverts to the more "stoney' treatment of the Parian
marble, but shows advances over our Akropolis torso 692.

The side view shows the interlinking of the
serratus maggus digitations with the external oblique.

From all indications, the greatest protrusions of front and
back would be level with one another.

The back view indicates that the left leg and
flank were advanced, with the left buttock being placed
lower than the right, with the depression over the great
trochanter being modeled. The depression of the spinal
column is a rather deep, crudely modeled groove.

From the front, we are able to note no significant
progress in the semicircular arch of the thorax, which
remains here, as in Akropolis Number 692, a flattened
arch. The median line is marked by a groove, while the two

transverse divisions are modeled. The external_obligue

30

bulges over the iliac crest in a more linear than volumetric
manner, reminding one more of the Strangford Apollo than of
Akropolis Number 692. The lower boundary of the rectus
abdominus, however, approaches the semicircle.

This torso, because of its very ”solid" and
massive appearance, seems more mature in comparison with
.Akropolis Number 692, which was extremely youthful in
appearance, yet we cannot classify this torso as being a
mature type, due to the narrow waist and as yet under-devel-
oped chest area.

In a small bronze statuette from the Akropolis,
(Plates V, VI) Number 6hh5 in the National Musium, Athens,
there is quite an advance in the volumetric feeling of the
torso. The treatment of the flesh here relates more to our
,AkrOpolis torso Number 692 in its feeling for the soft,
tactile qualities of flesh.

This figure, viewed from the side, shows that the
greatest protrusion of the front is the most correctly
deve10ped that we have seen so far. There is more variation
in the modeling of the spinal furrow, the shoulder blades
are powerfully rendered, and the §£30§9£k§213§8 is modeled.
We find the left flank higher and more advanced than the
right, and the left buttock correSpondingly lower. The
great trochanter depression is slightly modeled.

When we consider the frontal view of our statuette,
we find that the correct line of the clavicles in the

shoulder line is lost. The swelling of the trapezium is

31

indicated, and the boundary of the thorax forms a semi-
circular arch. The two transverse divisions of the rectus
abdominus are modeled, as well as is the pronounced bulging
of the external obligues over the iliac crests. The lower
boundary of the pectus abdominus, instead of being angular
or approaching the semicircular, descends in fairly straight
lines to the groin.

Two features--one advanced, and one regressive--
characterize this piece: its animation and its poor pro-
portion. This youth, presumably carrying two spears, is
leaning forward in his lengthened stance, and the animated,
alert, and lively expression of his face signals the
awakening of Greek humanism. However, the sculptor was not
aware of his bodily proportions and tended to revert to the
archaic system of modeling each part without inter-relating
them to the whole.

The kouros from Piombino (Plates VII, VIII) in
the Louvre is a curious piece indeed. Although it is con-
ceived plastically, it is more archaic in many ways than
our Akropolis statuette. From the side, for instance, the
farthest protrusion of the front is lower than that of the
back. The back is well modeled amid the shoulder blades
and erector Spinae, but the Spinal furrow is indicated only
by a shallow groove.

The left leg is quite advanced, but the left flank
is placed higher than the right and the high-set buttocks

are level, with the depression over the great Epochanter

32

modeled.

The torso is quite heavy and block-like in for-
mation with the clavicles sloping upwards and backwards,
with no indication of the trapezium. The lower boundary of
the thorax forms a semicircle, and the two divisions of the
pectus abdominus above the navel are indicated by shallow,
archaic grooves. The external obligues bulge over the
iliac crests. The lower boundary of the pectus abdgpinus
like our Akropolis statuette, descends in straight, rather
than semicircular grooves, forming approximately a right
angle.

The Piombino kouros is closely related to the
smaller Akropolis statuette, in the fact that the sculptor
conceived it in parts, rather than as a whole. However,
animation and flesh-like appearance of the bronze attest
to the growing capability of the sculptor's command of his
medium, although his powers of observation are not yet
fully deve10ped.

A.torso from Leontinoi in the Syracuse Musium
(Plate IX) is unique in presenting a well-developed
rendering of the in uinal li aments, which we will not see
again until about 477 B.C. in the Tyrannicides group. .
However, the general impression given by the torso is an
archaic one, due to the broad shoulders, thin waist, and
narrow hips.

Like our kouros from Piombino, the Leontinoi

torso protrudes higher in back than in front, and there is

33

no indication of the serratus magnus.

The back is strongly modeled, with the spinal
furrow being wide and deep, ending quite abruptly. The
shoulder blades, ppectgp_sp;nae, and even the latissimus
dpp§;_are indicated. The left leg and flank are advanced,
and the right buttock remains slightly higher than the left.

The frontal view shows the swelling of the
tra ezium, the double-curved clavpcles, and the lower
boundary of the pectps abdomippp approaches a semicircle,
being made up of strongly indicated inguinal ligaments.

This torso is, as previously mentioned, still
archaic in feeling and although the sculptor was becoming
much more aware of anatomical detail, he tended to emphasize
relatively unimportant parts.

.A torso from Grammichele (Plate X) in the Syra-
cuse Museum, shows a better interrelation of parts, but
with the enlarged buttocks and block-like torso, it too has
an archaic appeal.

The side view shows us the protrusions of front
and back being level, with no indication of the serratus
magnus. The back is strongly modeled, with the deep, wide
spinal groove ending less abruptly than in our torso from
Leontinoi, and the erector s inae, shoulder blades, and
latissimus dorsi being indicated by modeled shapes. The
left leg was advanced, with lowered flank and left buttock.
The depression over the great ppochanter is clearly indicated.

From the front, we notice that the pectorals are

3#

set rather high, and the lower boundary of the thorax forms
a flat, rather than semicircular arch. The external obligue
bulges slightly over the gliac cpest, and the two transverse
divisions of the rectps abdomipp§_are modeled, and its
lower boundary approaches a semicircular form.

The Grammichele torso still possesses many archaic
traits; the heavy thighs and buttocks, the slender waist
and undeveloped torso, but it, like the.Akropolis torso
(Plate III), the.Akropolis statuette (Plates V, VI), and
the kouros from Piombino (Plates VII, VIII), has the same
soft, fleshy, tactile appeal of these pieces, despite its
anatomical inaccuracies.

Nearing the period of the Persian Wars, the
sculptors were becoming more thoroughly acquainted with
anatomy and the relation of the parts of the figure to the
whole, as seen in a figure from Agrigento in the Museo
Civico, Agrigento, (Plate XI).

The pose of this figure is unusual in the reSpect
that the right leg rather than the left is advanced, but
the figure appears in such a way that one gets the
impression that the left leg is placed behind the figure,
making the right leg appear more vertically oriented.

The sculptor, however, modeled the left flank as
being higher than the right, therefore making the left
buttock higher than the right, an accurate rendering if we
interpret the position of the left leg as ”dragging" behind
the right leg. .A slight depression over the great trochanter

35

is indicated.

The frontal view of the torso is very well
rendered, with the swelling of the trapezium and clavicles
being correctly represented, and the lower boundary of the
thorax forming a semicircular arch. The transverse and
vertical divisions of the rectus abdominp§_are correctly
modeled, and its lower boundary forms a deep curve. The
external obliqueg bulge convincingly over the iliac cpests.

Our youth from Agrigento, although possessing
many advanced features, still has not completely forsaken
his archaic fore-runners. The static, rigid pose, the
pronounced curvature of the Spinal column, the over-develOp-
ed buttocks, the heavy thighs, knees and ankles all reflect
an archaic tradition yet to be completely left behind.

The next torso, from Eretria, (Plate XII) in the
Chalkis Museum, is a very interesting one, in that Miss
Richter places it early in her analysis of the Ptoon-ZO
group, and I think that it should be placed near the end of
my discussion, due to its advanced modeling and the presence
of so many advanced characteristics in one piece.

From the side, we notice that the greatest front
and back protrusions are level, and that the five digita-
tions of the serratus magpus are indicated. The back is
beautifully and powerfully modeled, with the spinal groove
making a smooth transition into the sacros inalis, and the
shoulder blades are indicated. The erectpp_8plnae is

modeled with considerable depth, giving the back a powerful

36

feeling. The left leg and flank are advanced, thus bring-
ing the left buttock lower. The depression over the great
ppgchanter is also modeled.

Frontally, we see the bulge of the trapezium
being indicated, the clappcles being correctly rendered,
and the lower boundary of the thorax forming a semicircular
‘arch, as does the lower boundary of the rectus abdominus.
The transverse divisions of the pectus abdominus are
modeled, and the bulge of the external oblippp is well
developed over the iliac crest, however slightly misplaced
in angle.

The main reason I think this torso is later than
Miss Richter places it is the "fleshy” modeling and a
greater number of correctly rendered and inter~related
advancements, particularly in the curve of the spine and
the previously discussed enlarged buttocks. Although from
the front the waist looks rather constricted, the side and
back views indicate the growing muscular develOpment of the
torso and the advancing age and maturity of the models. We
see that the sculptor has almost mastered human anatomy,
and is ready to free his figures from the block and let
them move about.

In the Ptoon-ZO group, gathered from all parts of
Hellas, it is difficult to trace any logical anatomical
progression, for a school located far from the cultural hub
of Athens might be perpetuating certain archaic elements

while at the same time making advances in other anatomical

37

features that even more ”sophisticated" schools had not
heard of.

In this group it is apparent that the sculptor
has almost completely mastered human anatomy, and now is
ready to solve the problems of muscle relaxation and
tension, as well as the freeing of his figures from the

block and causing them to move in a tri-dimensional Space.

CHAPTER V
DEMOCRACY AND THE ART OF GREECE

At this point, let us leave the Ptoon-ZO group
and discuss the effects of the Persian Wars and the Greek
democracy on the art of Greece.

After the conclusion of the Persian Wars, the
position of Athens as the leading cultural and economic
power of Hellas was undeniable. After Marathon, Salamis
and Plataea, the Greeks reached the acme of self-discovery
and awareness; they realized the true superiority of the
Greek over the "barbarian".57 Athens' great wealth and the
patriotic aggressiveness of her citizens produced the ideal
conditions for a resurgence of creativity in every field of
endeavor. The clarity of critical inquity to which the
Athenians subjected each old and new problem gave way to a
new view of life--a secular and rational one, free from the
superstition and religious conservatism which characterized
all Greece in the fifth century.

The basic dichotomy of the Athenian democracy,
that of individualism versus collectivism, finds a corres-

ponding one in Greek sculpture. The Greek democracy was

 

57Ernest A. Gardner, A Handbook of Greek
Sculpture (London: MacMillan & Co., Limited, 1920), p. 2&2.

38

39

simultaneously individualistic in that it ' ... gives free
reign to competition and the different forces in society,
rates each person at his own individual value and Spurs
him on to the utmost exertions ... ”58 while it was anti-
individualistic in that it ' ... levels off differences of
class and abolishes the privileges of birth."59

In Greek sculpture, the dichotomy appears in the
desire for naturalism as well as for pr0portion and order.
Hence, ' ... naturalism and stylization are inseparably
linked in almost every work,”60 and it is this very trait
that removes it both from the "natural” and from the
”stylized", and makes them "Classical“.

Both the legislation (see pages 17 and 18) and
the leaders of Athens--Themistocles, Cimon, and Pericles--
encouraged the production of art as well as giving aid and
support to artists in order to assure the continuity and
steady development of the art of Athens.

The art immediately following the Persian Wars
showed little religious idealism compared with the previous
pre-occupation with korai and votive figures. The rational
Greek mind, in a state of exultation after Plataea, tended
to glorify that which they felt had won the wars for them--

the Greek manhood, as represented by the mature figure of

 

58Hauser, o . cit., p. 82.
59Ibid.

6° id., p. 90.

#0

the idealized athlete. However, after the first flush of
victory had subsided, the Greeks realized that they had
conquered with the aid of the gods, and the sculpture
turned more to the religious as well as retaining the
original nationalistic and patriotic expression.

The democracy of Athens, appealing to both the
individual and the collective spirit of its peOple produced
a like dichotomy in its sculpture: the desire for natural-
ism was set in Opposition to the desire for prOportion and
order which produced stylization.

The upsurge of nationalistic pride and enthusiasm
after the Persian Wars manifested itself in the cultural

activity encouraged by men like Pericles and Cimon.

CHAPTER VI

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
EARLY CLASSICAL SCULPTURE

Having already been given some characteristics of
Early Classical sculpture, let us examine the general
characteristics in greater detail, starting with the elements
that were rejected or changed by the Early Classical
sculptors.

The elements which the sculptors rejected cor-
reSpond directly with the sculptural rejections after the
reign of Hippias, namely: the rejection of the archaic
smile, ornate drapery, elaborate or long hair fashions, and
the stiff pose. The new characteristics included: the
development of the mature male nude; the decline of female
draped sculpture which, when depicted, favored the heavier,
simpler Doric peplos; and the adOption of a somber expres-
sion of the face which eventually became animated (along
with the rest of the figure) Showing fear, exultation, pain,
surprise and other emotions.

The sculptors then discovered that the symmetry
of archaic sculpture, although a necessary precedent, would
not adequately express the new-found animation of the face.

The body parts must have “rhythm”--that is, they must have

#1

#2

a free-flowing dynamic interaction between themselves, con-
trolled by the mind.61 The sculptors also discovered that
their statues, in order to be acceptable must maintain
balance; not only of their physical mass, but, most impor-
tantly, they must maintain the kind of ”living balance”
that the living creature possesses in order to be accepted
as anatomically stable and alive.62 The first statue to
attain the quality of ”living balance" is the AkrOpolis
torso Number 692, (see page 27), and the final realization
of this principle is seen in the Omphalos Apollo, dis-
cussed below.63
The depiction of gods and athletes underwent
sculptural changes to further separate the religious from
the secular. The gods, who previously had been formulized,
cold, cult statues now gained an extraordinary depth of
character and vitality while still preserving their exalted
and divine nature.6u
The beautifully muscled athletic figure repre-
sented the ennobling athletic life. These athlete statues
were still formulized as in the past, and did not bear any
61Smith, op. cit., p. 219.

62Rhys Carpenter, Greek Sculpture (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1965): p. 105.

63Richter, A Handbook of Greek Art, p. 88.
6uA. Furtwangler and H. L. Urlichs, Greek and

Roman Sculpture, trans. Horace Taylor (London: J. M. Dent
& Sons Ltd; 191“, p. 18.

“3

personal resemblance to the athletes depicted. They were
' ... motives and models from the palaestra transformed and
exalted to the highest ideals of physical beauty and
strength.“65

Finally, the sculptor discovered and perfected a
series of devices to encourage the viewer to perceive
pieces of sculpture in a three-dimensional manner. These
devices were: (1) the perfectly rendered rotation of the
axes of the body--ears, shoulders, hips, knees, ankles--
eSpecially that of the torso on the pelvis; (2) the sug-
gestion of mass by the use of modeling lines on the figure;
and (3) the use of an intelligible pose, with each form
rendered in its proper place, thus leading the eye from
plane to plane, enhancing its tri-dimensionality and
solidity.66

Having learned to utilize these new elements of
”rhythm” and "living balance", and tri-dimensionality, the
sculptors went on to apply these new devices to their

figures of athletes and gods.

 

651bid., p. 119.

66Florence H. Robinson, 'Tridimensional Problem
in Greek Sculpture”, Memoirs of the American Academy in
Rome, VII, (1929), pp. 120, 13E.

CHAPTER VI

THE FLOWERING OF EARLY
CLASSICAL SCULPTURE

The flowering of Early Classical sculpture is
seen in the group of sculpture related to the Ptoon-ZO
group. The first of these pieces, the Kritias Boy,

(Plate XIII) Number 698 in the Akropolis Museum is the
earliest piece known to us today which utilizes the new
devices of “rhythm“, ”living balance”, and tri-dimension-
ality. Rhys Carpenter dates the Kritias Boy about 470
B.C., because of the statue's close relationship to the
Delphi Charioteer and the ”Blond Boy”, which could not have
been executed before 470 B.C., and due to the fact that the
repair of the head was done in ancient times (something the
Greeks did not bother with after the Persian sack of the
Akropolis) and that the statue was not found in the same
burial trench with the other pieces destroyed by the
Persians.67

In the figure itself, the modeling and placement
of the anatomical details are correctly rendered, but the

rotation of the body on its axes and the resulting ana-

 

67Carpenter, Greek Sculpture, pp. 96-97.

#4

1&5

tomical manipulations are quite awkward and unnatural. For
example, in the attempt to depict a ”free” and ”weight” leg,
the Sculptor has taken his quadrangular block in greater
thickness from back to front, forcing the upper part of the
figure to absorb the excess weight by curving the lower
part of the torso forward from groin to chest and bending
the upper body backward to the shoulder blades which
produces a pelvic tilt that is totally inappropriate to the
male skeleton.68

Although the curve of the spinal column and the
position of the right flank and buttock are correctly
executed, there is no correSponding tilting of axes from
the waist upwards. However, the attempt to give the figure
a vivacity and animation never before attempted in free-
standing sculpture is a remarkable advance in itself. The
sculptor's knowledge and utilization of light and shadow
areas, the turning of the head, the feeling of ”living
balance” all make this figure an extremely noteworthy piece
in the development of Greek sculpture.

It is interesting to note, however, that although
the male figures of this period were depicted as mature
men, the Kritias Boy is obviously quite immature in age.
This nostalgic and evocative backward glance might also be

interpreted that the sculptor was probably much more

familiar with the composition and features of the youthful

 

68Rhys Carpenter, Greek Art (Philadelphia: Uni-
versity of Philadelphia Press, 1961), p. 139.

 

#6

figure, this having been the ancient tradition, and felt
more ”comfortable” in dealing with the youthful rather than
the mature male figure when experimenting with some of the
first axial tilts and rotations.

A bronze statuette (with a right leg which in
ancient times was accidentally bent) from Tegea, now in the
art collection of Mount Holyoke College (Plate XIV), perhaps
a miniature of a larger, lost work, shows the further
progression of rotating axes and animation; this time
develOped on a mature, athletic figure.

The statuette's obvious relation to the Kritias
Boy is immediately apparent: the graceful rhythm and easy
stance, characteristic of figures immediately prior to
Myron's Spatial ”break-through”, discussed below.

Anatomically, we note the more archaic grooves of
this pectus abdominus, the heavy legs and block-like torso,
the small head and broad, level shoulders with thin waist
and hips. However, the relationship of the ”free” and
”weight” leg at the corresponding flank, hip, and buttock
is correctly rendered, as is the flexion of the deltoid
muscle of the out-stretched arm.69

This statuette forms a transition between the
rather inaccurate Kritias Boy and the Omphalos Apollo
(Plate XV) in the National Museum, Athens. In this marble

 

69Caroline M. Galt, ”A Bronze Statuette” Amer-
ipan Journal of Archaeology, XXXIII (January, 1929 , p. 43.

47

copy of a bronze original, the upper part of the torso
rotates, and the right shoulder dips so that the distance
from the shoulder to the hip of the ”weight” leg is prop-
erly shortened.7O The knee of the relaxed leg is lower
than the ”weight” leg, which causes the vertebral column to
curve sideways towards the ”weight” leg. No longer do we
find the axes parallel to one another, but slanting upwards
and downwards in an alternating rhythm. These rhythmic

and animated relationships of the parts of the body indi-
cate that the sculptured figure has reached the final and
most complete expression of ”living balance” up to that‘
time.

Let us now examine a sculptural group which was
one of the most famous in Athens; the ”Tyrannicides”,
copies of which are now at the Museo Nazionale, Naples.
(Plates XVI, XVII). When Xerxes sacked the Akropolis in
#79 B.C., he carried off the first Tyrannicide group by
Antenor, which was later restored to Athens, but, most
surprisingly, (since the Athenians buried or forgot about
all other damaged sculpture) they commissioned Kritios and
Nesiotes to execute a copy of the group that symbolized the
sacrifices that the Athenians underwent to obtain their
democracy. It was dedicated in u77-76 B.C.71

The style of the figures here is very different

 

70Richter, Kouroi, p. 2A7.
71Richter, A Handbook of Greek Art, p. 89.

#8

from the soft, fleshy, sensuous appeal of the Omphalos
Apollo, and they have more associations with the hard,
athletic Aegina pediments and the PelOponnesian school of
sculpture than the more ”fleshy” Attic school. Lucian
characterized the style of the Tyrannicides as being
” ... concise and sinewy and hard, and exact and strained
in their lines ....'72

Some of the outstanding features of this group
are that for the first time in Greek free-standing sculp-
ture, figures are depicted in violent action, and also that
the figures were conceived three-dimensionally, and must be
viewed in that manner. The three-dimensionality of the
figures is achieved through other means than the rotation
of axes as we have seen previously; namely through the vigor
of the pose, with the arms and legs projecting into Space,
and the directed gaze of the pair which turns the attention
of the Spectator to views other than the full frontal
view.73 The full effect of this group can only be gained
by viewing it from several different points, as a completely
bi-dimensional view of the group is impossible.7u

The violently lunging figure of Aristogeiton, the

older of the pair of men is positioned so his center of

 

72Gardner, op. cit., p. 209.

73F. H. Robinson, Memoirs of the American Academy
in Rome, VII, p. 161.

7“Ibid.

49

gravity is midway between his feet, while his left Shoulder
swings forward, with the right foot placed slightly inward
to compensate for the thrust, with the right shoulder and
deltoid seemingly level and not moving in sympathy with the
left arm. The almost parallel positions of his right arm
and right leg emphasize the dynamic thrust of the figure.

The most obvious flaw in both figures is the
dichotomy of the violent animation of the limbs versus the
complete lack of animation of the torsos. In the figure of
Aristogeiton, for instance, the torso is not twisted in
sympathy with the direction in which the figure is moving,
and the muscles are represented in a static, frontal view.

In the torso of Harmodios, only the pgctorals Show
any stress as a result of his violent gesture. The rectus
abdominus remains stationary. His left arm and left leg
perform the same function of stressing the onward rush of
his figure, as does his partners'.

Both figures also exhibit divergencies in the
angling of their axes, thus showing a loosening of the
severe athletic scheme, to be completely broken by our next
sculptor, Myron.

Myron of Boeotia was ranked along with Praxiteles
and Phidias as one of the greatest sculptors of his time,
and was the earliest Greek sculptor to challenge comparison
with all who followed him. He was a great experimenter,

innovator, and naturalist, whose main interests lay in

50

representing motion through dynamic suggestion,75 develop-
ing the new concept of ”living balance”,76 and representing
the figure in life-like rhythmical positions.

The basic characteristics of Myron's style,
according to Pliny were: that he was the first to extend
the range of observation of nature and the representation
of life-like forms; that he was more versatile than Poly—
cleitos (having executed pieces ranging from animals to
athletes to gods, as well as being one of the most superb
toreutae of antique times), and that he was more studious
of symmetry and rhythm than Polycleitos; that he concerned
himself only with the body, and made no attempt to repre-
sent the emotions of the mind, and finally, that he made no
advance in his depiction of hair from archaic times.77

Myron's most famous human figure (discounting the
Pynx cow), was his pentathlete, the Diskobolos. (Plate
XVIII). S. C. Kaines Smith tells us that Myron ” ... un-
consciously summed up in a single statue the dramatic and
historic force of the day of Salamis and of the sacrifice
of Athens.”78

Although debts to Myron's teacher Ageladas and

 

75Carpenter, Greek Scul ture, p. 8h.
76$mith, op. cit., p. 231.

77H. B. Walters, The Apt of the Greeks (London:
Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1922), p. 212.

78$mith, loc. cit.

51

his Peloponnesian school and the Aegina pediments are
recognizable, this statue really has no antecedents,
particularly in pose. In fact, Emanuel Loewy ” ... con-
siders Myron's Diskobolos as the most daring of all the
isolated attempts to break up the uniformity of the front
plane ....”79

This figure, depicted at a precise moment in the
course of violent action, possesses a new unity and con-
centration of composition that captures the Spectator's
attention and will not allow it to wander anywhere else,
unlike the Tyrannicides, whose poses, gestures, and gazes
direct the Spectator's attention away from the group itself.
However, like the Tyrannicides, the Diskobolos' face seems
to express no emotion corresponding to his violent physi-
cal action.

Examining this figure more closely, faults can
be detected which were previously hidden by its unity of
composition. The main fault of this piece of sculpture is
the lack of muscular flexion and relaxation although this
figure exhibits vigorous action. The thigh and calf of the
”weight” leg, for instance, Show no more contraction or
stress than the ”free” leg. Also, the arm holding the
discus, stretched to its limit by the swinging weight of

the five-pound discus shows no outstanding projections

 

79F. H. Robinson, Memoirs of the American Academy
in Rome, VII, p. 125.

52

caused by straining muscles—-it is as if uninvolved in the
action. Rhys Carpenter states that: ”Unquestionably the
original statue showed no attempt to reproduce the depend-
ence of bodily action on muscular contraction and
control.”80

Another feature which Myron had not completely
mastered was the correct rendering of the twist of the
torso, particularly evidenced by the abrupt joint in the
vertical axis at the navel, and his inability to render
correctly the accompanying twisting of the muscles of the
pectps abdgplnus. However, from the back, the rotation is
correctly handled.

After analyzing the faults of the Diskobolos, it
would not be fair if it was not pointed out that this piece
of sculpture finally freed the human figure from all re-
strictions of movement, and from this point on, Greek
sculpture attains a new vitality and realism never before
known. In the Diskobolos the ” ... energies of body and
mind are concentrated in one dominating movement.”81

In Myron's Marsyas (Plates XIX, XX) from Patras,
now in the British Museum, we find another example of
Myron's originality in presenting a figure in such a pre-

carious position, which also had no antecedent. As the

 

80Carpenter, GpeekpSculpture, p. 106.

I
, 81A. Furtwangler, Masterpieces of GreekpScul ture,
ed. Eugenie Sellers (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1895), p. 180.

53

Diskobolos was rendered in that brief pause in a continuum
of violent action, the Marsyas is rendered in that moment
of pause immediately following a violent action. Just
previous to the momentary position in which he is now
frozen, Marsyas had been st00ping to pick up the cast-off
flutes of Athena, but, checked by a gesture from the
goddess, he recoiled violently, almost to the point of
losing his balance.

It was at this point Myron chose to depict
Marsyas. He now correctly models the extreme tension of
the left leg, which received Marsyas' weight, and throws
the arms out to make more realistic the satyr's struggle
for balance. The long diagonal movement of the piece is
checked by the bent head, also a counter-movement to main-
tain his balance.

In the Marsyas, the transitions between the
different masses of muscle are dealt with in a much more
realistic manner than the somewhat ”archaistic” harsh
transitions of the Diskobolos.

Many observers notice a striking difference in
these two nearly contemporary works by Myron in the vivid
expression of surprise evinced by Marsyas and the absolute
absence of expression of the Diskobolos. The way in which
Myron expressed these two characters is evidence of the
clarity of perception of the Greek mind and a great artist.

The Diskobolos, possessing the refined features

of a well-bred youth who was groomed and trained in the

5h

alaestra, is in the process of executing a complicated and
studied movement (i.e., the throwing of the discus) with
graceful precision, as he was taught to do.82 Therefore,
his expression is full of undeviating concentration, inter-
preted by many as being void of expression.

In the Marsyas, his vivid expression of unsup-
pressed surprise is fully acceptable, coming from a wild,
”barbaric”, sinewy creature of the forests, accustomed to
leaping and Springing about.83 He has had no refinements
or training, and the classic satyric ”type” was of a
creature tormented by unbridled passions. At this moment,
Marsyas is struggling between feelings of fear and curiosity
alike, therefore Myron was both capable and free to express
these emotions without conflicting with the basic feeling
and ethic of the piece.

Let us now turn to what I feel is the most out-
standing example of Early Classical sculpture known today--
the bronze Poseidon-~Zeus from Cape Artemisium (Plate XXI)
in the National Museum, Athens. I think Max Wegner
accurately describes this work by saying: ” ... this work
expresses a sublimity that transcends all concepts of the

human being.”8)+

 

321bid., p. 181.
831bid.

8("Max Wegner, Greek Masterworks of Art, trans.
Charlotte LaRue (New York: George Braziller, 1961), p. 34.

55

Here we see complete mastery of anatomy coupled
with complete mastery of action; all the parts are inte-
grated into a perfectly rhythmic whole.

The god is in the act of throwing a trident or a
thunderbolt (the determination of which instrument will
resolve many an intellectual battle) and is captured in
the moment immediately before he hurls his instrument of
destruction. His weight is more on his right leg, having
drawn his weapon back with that arm, causing the toes of
his left foot to be raised ever so Slightly. His left arm
points to his target, tensed and straightened for balance,
while his right arm is in that moment of semi-relaxation
before hurling its burden. His gaze is fierce and intent;
the strain Showing in taut neck muscles and pectorals.

The erect torso and the backward thrust of the
right leg indicate a need for a slight bending of the
torso, most clearly seen in the gently curving linea alba.
The muscles of the pectus abdopinus move in sympathy with
the torsion of the figure, and the inguinal ligaments are
subtlely indicated.

The massive torso and full beard indicate the
virile strength of the god. He is at the peak of his
manhood, a fully-develOped male.

The grandeur of stance and carriage, as well as
the assured treatment of volume and mass add to the dignity
of the piece, illustrating the new context in which the

Greeks viewed their gods after the Persian Wars. The

56

figures of the gods were now clearly differentiated from
those of the idealized athletes and mere mortals. This

new-found maturity placed Greek sculpture on the threshold

of her ”Golden Age.”

CHAPTER VIII
CONCLUSION

Prior to the Persian Wars the Greek mainland was
as yet an undeveloped nation, struggling under the rule of
her tyrants towards democracy. Their fleets were small,
and trade was slow. The art of the time was influenced by
Asiatic Greek traditions, and was elegant, fussy,
mannered, traditional and formulized. Traditional for-
mulization is not an artistically stimulating environment,
and as a consequence, the art as a perfect representation
of the human form was immature.

After the expulsion of the tyrant Hippias, the
Athenian democracy began to flourish, and Athens built up
her trading economy and began colonizing; her first steps
towards the great period of self-awareness and assertion
during and after the Persian Wars.

The events after the eXpulsion of Hippias were of
direct importance to the development of Greek sculpture.
When Hippias fled to the Persians in h0pe of regaining his
position under Persian protection after their impending
conquest, the Greeks rejected the more ”ornamental” and
”Eastern” influences in their sculpture in favor of their

native Doric style, and adopted a simpler, more serious

57

58

form of art, concerned with ideals, not decorativeness.
They became more aware of that which saved Hellas from
destruction-~the Greek manhood. Their sculpture from this
time on will deal primarily with the develOpment and per-
fection of the nude male form, as seen in the progressions
of the Ptoon-20 group.

After the First Persian War in #90 B.C., the
Greek defeat of the huge Persian army at Marathon was one
of the first indications of the Greek superiority over the
”barbarian”. In the ten intervening years before Xerxes'
mammoth invasion, the Athenian economy grew and prOSpered
at a rapid rate. The discovery of a silver vein, a rapidly
growing fleet and colonial system contributed to the glory
of Athens, making the PerSians even more anxious to conquer
this small but wealthy nation that had dealt them such a
stinging defeat.

The Persians, however, were destined to meet with
another defeat, for the Greeks united in the face of this
threat, and their unshakeable belief in the superiority of
their culture over a ”barbaric” one and the superiority of
their democratic system enabled them to repel the Persians
a second time.

The Second Persian War left Attica and particu-
larly Athens physically ruined, but the Persian threat was
banished forever. The energetic Athenians having emerged
as cultural and economic leaders of all Hellas after the

war, started an Empire and began a tremendous rebuilding

59

campaign that provided the cultural leadership and stimu-
lating environment for the production of mature works of
art.

Immediately after the Persian Wars, the mature
male nude appears for the first time in Greek Sculpture.
In the face of the Persian threat, the Greeks became in-
creasingly aware that mature men-~not youths--were to save
Hellas. When this actually was accomplished, the
sculptors, with the clarity typical of the Greek mind,
realized that the era of the depiction of Greek ideals as
expressed in the youthful votive figure was at an end. The
mature Greek states now had to look for a mature human
ideal, which they found in the mature nude male.

It was during this period immediately following
the Persian Wars that the sculptor was able to free his
figure from the block, and let arms and legs project into
Space thus animating his sculpture. The new problem was
to render the figures three-dimensionally through various
techniques. The most common of these techniques were the
progressive rotation of body axes, an intelligible pose
which enhances the tri-dimensionality of the piece, and the
use of modeling lines to clarify and emphasize the objects'
tri-dimensional appeal. Next, the sculptor learned to
depict the correct muscular tension and relaxation, first

attempted in the Omphalos Apollo, finally resolved by
Myron's Marsyas and brought to perfection in the Poseidon-

Zeus from Cape Artemesium.

60

The mature Greek male had not only saved Athens
from the Persians, but also had made Athens the leader of
the Mediterranean world--economically, politically, and
culturally, and the mature male was also recognized as the
focal point of the Athenian human ideal. Athens had
reached maturity through the maturing eXperiences the
Persian Wars had given her citizens. The art had matured
along with the state, and now the Sculptors recognized the
importance of and were concerned with the development of
the mature male nude. Thus we find the results of the
Persian Wars instrumental in bringing about the maturity
of the Greek nation necessary for the production of mature

art.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books

Barron, John. Greek Sculpture. New York: E. P. Dutton
and Co. Inc., 1965.

Beazley, J. D., and Ashmole, B. Greek Sculpture and Paint-
ing. Cambridge: At the University Press, 1966:

Bowra, C. M. The Greek Experience. New York: The New
American Library, 1957.

Carpenter, Rhys. Greek ;Sculpture. Chicago: The Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1960.

. Greek Art. Philadelphia: University of Phila-
delphia Press, 1962.

Parnell, Lewis R. Epeece and Babylpn. Edinburgh: T & T.
Clark, 1911.

Furtwangler, A., and Urlichs, H. L. Greekpand Roman
Sculpture. trans. Horace Taylor. London: J. M.
Dent and Sons Ltd., 191#.

. Masterpieces of Greek78culpture. ed. Eugenie
Sellers. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,

1895.

Gardner, Ernest Arthur. A Handbook of Greek Sculpture.
London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1920.

. Six Greek Sculptors. London: Duckworth and
Co., 1909.

Godard, Andre. The Art of Iran. trans. Michael Heron,
ed. Michael Rogers. New York: Frederick A.
Praeger, Publishers, 1965.

Hamann, Richard. Griechische Kunst. Munich: Droemersche
_ Verlagsanstalt, 19h9.

Hamilton, Edith. The Greek W_1. New York: The New
American Library, 1960.

61

62

Hauser, Arnold. The Social History of Art. A vols. New
York: Vintage Books, 1960.

Kitto, H. D. F. The Greeks. Baltimore: Penguin Books,
1951.

Lawrence, A. W. Classical Sculpture. London: Jonathan
Cape, 1929.

Mach, E. von. Qpeek Sculpture. Boston: Ginn & Company,
Publishers, 1903.

Mitchell, Lucy M. A History of Ancient Sculpture. 2 vols.
New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1888.

Myers, Philip Van Ness. The Eastern Nations and Greece.
Boston: Ginn and Company, 1917.

Powers, H. H. The Message of Greek Art. New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1925.

Rawlinson, George. ATManual of AncTent Histopy. New York:
Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1 1.

Richardson, R. B. A History of Greek Sculpture. New
York: American Book Company, 1911.

Richter, Gisela M. A. Archaic Greek Art. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1959.

. A Handbook of Greek Art. New York: Phaidon
Publishers Inc., 41965.

. Kouroi. New York: Oxford University Press,
1952.

. The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks.
nth ed. revised. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1950.

Rostovtzeff, Mikail. A History of the Ancient World.
2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 19h5.

Schoder, R. V. Masterpieces of Greek Art. Greenwich,
Connecticut: New York Graphic Society, 1960.

Smith, S. C. Kaines. Greek Art and National Life. London:
James Nesbit & Co., Limited, 1915'.

Tarbell, F. B. A History of Greek Art. New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1923.

63

Walters, H. B. The Art of the Greeks. London: Methuen &
Co. Ltd., 1922.

Wegner, Max. GreekpMastepworks of Art. trans. Charlotte
La Rue. New York: George Braziller, 1961.

Articles and Periodicals

Galt, Caroline M. ”A Bronze Statuette,‘ American Journal
of Apchaeology, XXXIII (January, 1929), E1-52.

Robinson, C. A. ”The Development of Archaic Greek
Sculpture,” American Journal of Archaeolo ,

XLII (Octoberi‘19—F53 , E51465.

Robinson, Florence H. “The Tridimensional Problem in Greek
Sculpture,” Memoirs of the American Academy in
Rome, VII (1929}, 119-168.

‘

~
u
U
L
a
c

R
E
D
L
U
0
H
5

BLADE

L
A
R
m.
T
n
V

EREC TOR SPINAE

 

GPEA r TROCHA N TE 9

PERONEAL
nuscLes

 

  

NALLEOLUS EXTERNUS

 

    
   

Plate I

HH opmHm

 

 

H
H
H
0
...)
«3
H
m

 

136

2.
Z n

 

 

,7 fl
.— _—_,.._,_._

 

Plate VI

 

Plate VII

 

Plate VIII

 

N 09.93

 

H
N
0
.p
«5
H
‘1.

 

HHN madam

.- a.‘l.-'4o .

 

 

HHHN 096.3

 

>HN odem

 

.3“...
.. ...

.A.
.N..
. cut

«(fun

‘0

.‘I

O

.443...
. . 4.0

v'.
. . .W
I

......
n. WWW

.. ..
Mix .
L

Q
I
O

.1

..‘~s
. .h.

. o . . u . v. ..
. . x, A We. . .
Mu$fi§.£h

I .

~

-

 

. . A,
. he... ...Ph:

 

Plate XV

_‘- _’:;\ ,_."
Ilka - -3 o l!"
c' ’ | . .‘ ll
‘ ~. 4- .4~.~e-...-. .
_ ‘ . ‘.~‘?’ <4" .

0
”IV

 

Fig. 571. Group of the Tyrannicides Flg. 8:2. Hawaii:
° ' Hun We, e
um? 610:,“ Eff; A ark: (019.200)

 

Plate XVI

 

Plate XVII

 

Plate XVIII

Plate XIX

 

 

Plate XX

I. .

1r?

'1
vs.
5" .-

VI _,

A".
A

r
'3
Q \'

.4

:{a f
’ off

'-

I

5.

. ’0 o

b C

b in;
C'

O. .

Q‘
3
.0
C
o

i
-1
7"!

d

I}.
'3;

-b

II} .

~
I

,l

I 0
v‘
. 0" ‘1.
I K..

l A

V\

a
u

C

‘v

‘v' 0' -—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....

In;

,.. seem.

.‘

35.2.1 ‘

slink?

M4.

VL‘n-t’ic'o 1‘ ‘ .\

(3%“...
V .

 

Plate XXI

HE 0965

 

 

.If .. .«p...
.....4.Y.$4...\.

 

e
s' INN-W

 

Nu .
w
31L

  

 

Plate XXIII

HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES

 

IN IN HHII ll“
9

312 310473

"IIIHI ll
65

37