Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T03:12:53.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II. Masters, Hands and Freestanding Sculpture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Get access

Extract

Both in sculpture and in vase-painting, the identity and personality of individual craftsmen still exert a strong attraction. The cult of the creative artist is too deeply ingrained in our own thinking to be jettisoned totally in favour of other, more impersonal considerations, and so there is much scholarship still carried out from the point of view of the individual. The name of the artist may be known to us through the historical tradition as preserved in the literary sources or through the random discovery of names in inscriptions. The absence of a name says nothing about the quality of a work, its presence may tell us much about the posthumous standing of the artist. It is good to be reminded that working with the names of artists that we know, is a very restricting method of proceeding, it is as if we possessed a complete list of sculptors actually at work and had only to pick a name from the list. Connoisseurship has shown that the name may be an unnecessary addition, the very workmanship declares the hand, and with aesthetic sensitivity and stylistic analysis scholars can create lost personalities. Some studies widen the point of view and consider the stylistic elements that go to make up a region, others prefer to think in terms of works, not artists and to consider sculpture as a manifesto that needs to be set against its historical background.

Type
Research Article
Information
New Surveys in the Classics , Volume 22: Greek Art , 1991 , pp. 10 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Bruneau, P., ‘Sur l’origine supposée délienne des bronzes du Pirée, BCH 111 (1987), 342 Google Scholar. Cf. what A. M. Snodgrass says about our acceptance of known settlement destructions (‘positivist fallacy’) in An Archaeology of Greece (California, 1987), pp. 37-8Google Scholar. For the study of Greek sculpture as the product of an anonymous craft, see Carpenter, R., Greek Sculpture (Chicago, 1960)Google Scholar.

2. For general works on Archaic sculpture, see Ridgway, B. S., The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture (Princeton, 1977)Google Scholar and Boardman GSAP.

3. Kouroi, Archaic Greek Youths (3rd edition, London, 1970 Google Scholar; reprinted by Hakker, 1988) and Korai, , Archaic Greek Maidens (London, 1968)Google Scholar.

4. AJA 82 (1978), 461-72 (proportions of kouroi); 85 (1981), 269-80 (proportions of korai); 86 (1982), 173-82 (profiles of korai); 89 (1985), 399-409 (profiles of kouroi); 91 (1987), 287 (modern Olympics). For another close analysis, see Kleeman, I., Frühe Bewegung I Grundzüge der Anlage von Bewegung (Mainz, 1984)Google Scholar.

5. Snodgrass, A. M., Archaic Greece, the age of experiment (London, 1980), p. 179 Google Scholar.

6. ‘When is a kouros not an Apollo? The Tenea “Apollo” revisited’, Corinthiaca, , Studies in honor of Darrell A. Amyx, ed. Chiaro, Mario A. Del (Columbia, 1986), pp. 54–70 Google Scholar; and review of AKGP, AJA 92 (1988), 610-11CrossRefGoogle Scholar (quotations from 60 and 610). See also on patronage Schneider, L. A., Zu sozialen Bedeutung der archaischen Korenstatuen (Hamburg, 1975)Google Scholar.

7. ‘Of kouroi and korai, Attic variety’, Hesperia Supplement 20 (1982), 118-27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. See Pedley, J. G., Greek Sculpture of the Archaic Period: the Island Workshops (Mainz, 1976)Google Scholar and ‘Cycladic influence in the sixth century sculpture of Attica’, Athens Comes of Age: from Solon to Salamis, ed. Childs, W. A. P. (Princeton, 1978), pp. 53–71 Google Scholar. See also ‘A group of early sixth century korai and the workshop of Chios’, AJA 86 (1982), 183-91CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pls. 22-5, and Sheedy, K., ‘The Delian Nike and the search for Chian sculpture’, AJA 89 (1985), 619-26CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. 67, 3-4 (a mirage). See also Chios, a conference at the Homereion in Chios 1984 , edd. Boardman, J. and Vaphopoulou-Richardson, C. E. (Oxford, 1986)Google Scholar. AKGP I has many contributions on the subject of regional origins and characteristics.

9. Kane, S., ‘An archaic kore from Cyrene’, AJA 84 (1980), 182-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pls. 27-8; Barletta, B. A., ‘The draped kouros type and the workshop of the Syracuse youth’, AJA 91 (1987), 233-46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. ‘Couroi argiens à Delphes’, BCH Supplement 4 (1977), 13–22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Monuments votifs de Delphes. V. Les couroi d’Argos’, BCH 106 (1982), 509-25CrossRefGoogle Scholar (quotation from 524). The sculptors are read as Polymedes and Theodotos, Argives.

11. Marszal, J. R., ‘An architectural function for the Lyons kore’, Hesperia 57 (1988), 203-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. 56.

12. Hurwit, J. M., ‘The Kritios boy: discovery, reconstruction and date’, AJA 93 (1989), 41–80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. GettyMJ 14 (1986), 179-80 and True, M., ‘A kouros at the Getty Museum’, Burlington Magazine 129 (1987), 3–11 Google Scholar. Now illustrated in Stewart, Greek Sculpture (see I, n. 8), figs. 133 and 135. See the Connoisseur May 1987 and The Burlington Magazine September 1990 for the case against authenticity. Cf. also the archaic grave relief which has been thought not to be original, Frei, J., Death of a Hero (Malibu, 1984)Google Scholar. Richter’s, G. M. A. Archaic Gravestones of Attica (London, 1961)Google Scholar was reprinted in 1988 by the Bristol Classical Press.

14. Kyrieleis, H., Führer durch das Heraion von Samos (Athens, 1981), 45 Google Scholar, fig. 32 and ‘Neue archaische Skulpturen aus dem Heraion von Samos’, AKGP I, pp. 35–45 Google Scholar, pls. 14-22. The kore and kouros are now illustrated in Stewart, Greek Sculpture (I, n. 8), figs. 94 and 96, and 100 and 102. The Louvre Cheramyes: Boardman GSAP fig. 87.

15. Stewart in Corinthiaca (n. 6 above), p. 64, n. 48, suggests that the kouros makes a pair with the fragments, Richter, Kouroi (n. 3 above), nos. 24, 25 and 79, all from one kouros.

16. Payne, H. and Young, G. M., Archaic Marble Sculpture from the Acropolis (London, 1936), pp. 4-9Google Scholar, 18-21. See Boardman GSAPfigs. 114-5.

17. Stewart, A. F., ‘Aristion’, AAA 9 (1976), 257-66Google Scholar. The initial publication of Phrasikleia was by Mastrokostas, E., AAA 5 (1972), 298–324 Google Scholar; a full publication is still awaited. For the Anavyssos kouros, Phrasikleia, and Theseus and Antiope, see Boardman GSAP figs. 107, 108a, and 205.2.

18. For Antenor’s kore, see Boardman GSAP fig. 141, and for a figure from the east pediment of the Apollo temple at Delphi, and for a Victory akroterion, see figs. 142 and 204. E. Touloupa (III, n. 5) connects the Eretria pediment with him. Dörig, J., ‘La tête Webb, l’Harmodios d’Anténor et le problème des copies romaines d’après des chefs-d’oeuvre archaïques’, AK 12 (1969), 41–50 Google Scholar, pls. 25-8, has suggested that the Webb head in the British Museuem (Boardman GSAP fig. 143), a rare Roman copy of an archaic piece, is from Antenor’s Tyrantslayers group.

19. ‘Alkamenes at Olympia’, BICS 31 (1984), 199–211 Google Scholar, pls. 10-12. It is based on Ashmole’s, B. work in JHS 56 (1936), 249 Google Scholar and PBA 48 (1962), 213-33, esp. 216. For Euthydikos’ kore and the Blond Boy, see Boardman GSAP figs. 160 and 148, and for the Olympia material and a copy of the Hermes before the Gates, see Boardman GSCP fig. 21 (west pediment) and 189. For a recent discussion of Hermes as herm, see Osborne, R.. ‘The erection and mutilation of the Hermai’, PCPS 211 (1985), 47—73 Google Scholar.

20. For the origin and essence of the Classical style, see Ashmole, B.. The Classical Ideal in Greek Sculpture (Cincinnati, 1962)Google Scholar and Hallett, C. H., ‘The origins of the classical style in sculpture’, JHS 106 (1986), 71–84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pls. 4-6. For recent general works on Classical sculpture, see Ridgway, B. S., The Severe Style in Greek Sculpture (Princeton, 1970)Google Scholar and Fifth-Century Styles in Greek Sculpture (Princeton, 1981), and Boardman GSCP. See also Polliti, J. J., ‘Early Classical Greek art in a Platonic universe’, Greek Art. Archaic into Classical, a Symposium held at the University of Cincinnati April 2-3, 1982, ed. Boulter, C. G. (Leiden, 1985), pp. 96–111 Google Scholar, pls. 79-96.

21. On bronzes, see Mattusch, C. C., Bronze Workers in the Athenian Agora (Princeton, 1982)Google Scholar; Houser, C. and Finn, D., Greek Monumental Bronze Sculpture (London, 1983)Google Scholar; Bol, P. C., Antike Bronzetechnik, Kunst und Handwerk antiker Erzbilder (Munich, 1985)Google Scholar; Rolley, C., Greek Bronzes, trans. Roger Howell (London, 1986)Google Scholar; Mattusch, C. C., Greek Bronze Statuary, from the beginnings through the fifth century (Cornell University Press, 1988)Google Scholar. See also Sparkes, B. A.,‘Greek Bronzes’, Greece & Rome 34 (1987), 152-68CrossRefGoogle Scholar. C. Rolley has published a running critique of recent publications in RA 1983, 325-36; 1985, 277-96; 1986, 377-91; 1987, 335-60; 1988, 341-55; 1989, 343-56. Close study of well-established pieces sometimes shows them to be different from what they had seemed. The Piombino statue, long considered a masterpiece of the early fifth century, has been shown by Ridgway to be a late pastiche, see AntPl 7 (Berlin, 1967), 43-75, pls. 24-34.

22. Landwehr, C., Die antiken Gypsabgüsse aus Baiae (Archäologische Forschungen 14, Berlin, 1985)Google Scholar. See also Schuchhardt, W.-H. and Landwehr, C., ‘Statuenkopien der Tyrannenmörder-Gruppe’, JDAI 101 (1986), 82–126 Google Scholar on copies of the Tyrantslayers.

23. It is the Marmor Parium that gives 477/6 B.C for the later group - not an unimpeachable source.

24. For the Piraeus Apollo, see Boardman GSAP fig. 150. Dontas, G., , AKGP I, pp. 181-92Google Scholar, pls. 77-79. For the Delos connection, see ‘La grande Artemis du Pirée: une oeuvre d’Euphranor’, AK 25 (1982), 15–34 Google Scholar, pls. 3-6.

25. For the Delphi Charioteer and inscription, see Boardman GSCP fig. 34.

26. For the Motya youth, see Tusa, V., ‘Il Giovane di Mozia’, AKGP II, pp. 1–11 Google Scholar, pls. 82-5; Bonacasa, N. and Buttitta, A. (edd.), La statua marmorea di Mozia e la scultura di stile severo in Sicilia, Atti della Giornata di Studio, Marsala, 1 Giugno, 1986 (Instituto di Archeologia, Universita di Palermo, Studi e Materiali 8, Rome, 1988)Google Scholar; R. J. A. Wilson in Archaeological Reports 1987-88, 149-50; Moscati, S. (ed.), The Phoenicians (Milan, 1988), pp. 538-41Google Scholar, with three colour illustrations.

27. For the Zeus of Artemisium, see Boardman GSCP fig. 35. Wünsche, R., ‘Ergänzungsversuche am “Gott aus dem Meer”’, AK 21 (1978), 107 Google Scholar, pl. 31 and ‘Der “Gott aus dem Meer”’, JDAI 94 (1979), 77–111 Google Scholar. For a study of the female figures, see Tölle-Kastenbein, R., Frühklassische Peplosfiguren : Originale (Mainz, 1980)Google Scholar and Frühklassische Peplosfiguren : Typen und Repliken (AntPl 20, Berlin, 1986).

28. For the Porticello head, see Boardman GSCP fig. 37. For a discussion, see Ridgway, B. S., ‘The Bronzes from the Porticello Wreck’, AKGP II, pp. 59–69 Google Scholar, pls. 100-101 and for the wreck and its contents, Eiseman, C. J. and Ridgway, B. S., The Porticello Shipwreck: a Mediterranean merchant vessel of 415-385 B.C. (Texas A&M University Press, 1987)Google Scholar; quotations from p. 106. The date of the wreck should be earlier, ca. 430 B.c., see Gill, D. W. J., ‘The date of the Porticello shipwreck: some observations on the Attic boisais’, IJNA 16 (1987), 31-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29. For the Themistokles head, see Boardman GSCP fig. 246. For discussion, see Linfert, A., AntPl 7 (Berlin, 1967), 87–94 Google Scholar, pls. 39-46; Robertson HGA, pp. 187-8; Ridgway, B. S., The Severe Style in Greek Sculpture (Princeton, 1970), p. 105 Google Scholar and Fifth-Century Styles in Greek Sculpture (Princeton, 1981), p. 179. And see M. I. Finley’s comments, ‘In lieblicher Bläue’, Arion n.s. 3 (1976), 86-8.

For portraits in general, see Richter, G. M. A., Portraits of the Greeks, 2nd ed., abridged and revised by Smith, R. R. R. (Oxford, 1984)Google Scholar; Frei, J., Greek Portraits (Malibu, 1981)Google Scholar; J. Dörig, ‘Quelques remarques sur l’origine ionienne du portrait grec’, Eikones, 89-95; K. Schefold, ‘Die Überlieferung der griechischen Bildniskunst’, Praestant Interna, 79-90; Sparkes, B. A., So few people look like themselves (Southampton, 1987)Google Scholar; Fittschen, K. (ed.), Griechische Porträts (Darmstadt, 1988)Google Scholar. For some recent discussions about sixth century realism, see Sinn, U., ‘Beobachtungen zum “Realismus” in der Grossplastik des 6. Jhs v. Chr.’, AM 98 (1983), 25–43 Google Scholar, pls. 5-10; Eckstein, F., , AJA 89 (1985), 613-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. 67, 1-2; Akurgal, E., ‘Neue Archaische Skulpturen aus Anatolien’, AKGP I, pp. 9–14 Google Scholar, pls. 4-5 (? a satrap head from Herakleia Pontica, ca. 530 B.C.; cf. the well known Sabouroff head, Boardman, GSAP figs. 113 and 133).

30. For the Riace bronzes, see Boardman GSCP figs. 38-9. See also Busignani, A., Gli Eroi di Riace (Florence, 1981)Google Scholar; Bollettino d’Arte, 3 series speciale, Due Bronzi di Riace: Rinvenimento, restauro, analisi ed ipotesi di interpretazione (1985) - see the review by Marcad, J.é, ‘Rapports techniques et publications archéologiques: à propos des bronzes de Riace’, RA 1986, 89–100 Google Scholar.

31. For Kresilas, see Busignani (n. 30 above); for Myron and Alkamenes, see G. Dontas, ‘Considerazioni sui bronzi di Riace: proposte sui maestri e sulla provenienza dell statue’, Bollettino d’Arte (n. 30 above), 277-96; for Onatas, see Deubner, O., ‘Die Statuen von Riace’, JDAI 103 (1988), 127-53Google Scholar.

32. See Fuchs, W., ‘Zu den Grossbronzen von Riace’, Boreas 4 (1981), 25–28 Google Scholar and ‘Zu den Grossbronzen von Riace’, Protestant Interna, 34-40. J. Barron is working on the Riace bronzes and Pheidias (see next note).

33. For the Athena Lemnia, see Boardman GSCP fig. 183 and p. 84 for a mention of Barren’s theory. For Pheidias’ Athenas, see Linfert, A., ‘Athenen des Pheidias’, AM 97 (1982), 57–77 Google Scholar, pls. 17-21.

34. ‘Lemnia and Lemnos: sidelights on a Pheidian Athena’, Kanon, 101-7, pls. 29-30. Harrison chooses the Athena Medici for the Lemnia. For other discussion of the Furtwängler Lemnia, see Hartwick, K. J., ‘The Athena Lemnia reconsidered’, AJA 87 (1983), 336-46Google Scholar, pls. 42-6 and Palagia, O.,‘ ’ -in defence of Furtwängler’s Athena Lemnia’,AJA 91 (1987), 81-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35. ‘Two Pheidian heads: Nike and Amazon’, Eye of Greece, pp. 53-65, pls. 14-16.

36. For the moulds and workshop, see Mallwitz, A. and Schiering, W., Die Werkstatt des Pheidias in Olympia (Olymplsche Forschungen 5, Berlin, 1964)Google Scholar and Mallwitz, A., Olympia und seine Bauten (Munich, 1972), 255-66Google Scholar. For the late fifth-century vase, see B. B. Shefton, ‘The krater from Baksy’, Eye of Greece, pp. 149-81, pls. 41-48. For the Niobids, see Vogelpohl, C., ‘Die Niobiden vom Thron des Zeus in Olympia’, JDAI 95 (1980), 197–226 Google Scholar.

37. Dörig, J., La Frise est de l’Héphaisteion (Mainz, 1985)Google Scholar gives the work to Myron. There has been discussion about the Athena and Marsyas group, see Daltrop, G., Il gruppo mironiano di Atene e Marsia nei Musei Vaticani (Vatican, 1980)Google Scholar and Daltrop, G. and Bol, P. C., Athena des Myron (Frankfurt, 1983)Google Scholar. For a critical look at the group, see Weis, H. A., ‘The “Marsyas” of Myron: old problems and new evidence’, AJA 83 (1979), 214-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pls. 30-31.

38. For one copy of the Perikles head, see Boardman GSCP fig. 188. Pandermalis, D., Untersuchungen zu den klassischen Strategenköpfen (Freiburg, 1969)Google Scholar; E. B. Harrison, Eye of Greece, pp. 82-4. See also Ridgway, B., Roman Copies (I, n. 11), pp. 55-6Google Scholar.

39. Vermeule, C. C., Polykleitos (Boston, 1969)Google Scholar; Lorenz, T., Polyklet (Wiesbaden, 1972)Google Scholar; Steuben, H. von, Der Kanon des Polyklet (Tübingen, 1973)Google Scholar; Tobin, R., ‘The canon of Polykleitos’, AJA 79 (1975), 307-21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stewart, A. F., ‘The canon of Polykleitos: a question of evidence’, JHS 98 (1978), 122-31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berger, E., ‘Zum von Plinius (N.H. 34, 55) überlieferten “nudus talo incessens” des Polyklet’, AK 21 (1978), 55–62 Google Scholar. Amazons: Ridgway, B. S., ‘The story of five Amazons’, AJA 78 (1974), 1–17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pls. 1-4; Weber, M., ‘Die Amazonen von Ephesos I’, JDAI 91 (1976), 28–96 Google Scholar; ‘Die Amazonen von Ephesos II’, JDAI 99 (1984), 75–126 Google Scholar; ‘Klassische Amazonen als Gemmenbilder’, Kanon, 134-9, pls. 39-40; E. B. Harrison, Eye of Greece, pp. 65-88, pls. 17-22; Hartwick, K. J., ‘The so-called Ephesus Amazon’, JDAI 101 (1986), 127-36Google Scholar.

40. For the Prokne and Itys, see Boardman GSCP fig. 135 and Bruskari, M. S., The Acropolis Museum, a descriptive catalogue (Athens, 1974), pp. 165-6Google Scholar, fig. 351. See also Knell, H., AntPl 17 (Berlin, 1978), 9–19 Google Scholar, pls. 1-9; Rocca, E. La, ‘Prokne ed Itys sull’Acropolis: una motivazione per la Dedica’, AM 101 (1986), 153-66Google Scholar. For a general treatment of Alkamenes, see Schuchhardt, W.-H., Alkamenes (Berlin, 1977)Google Scholar.

41. Carter, J., ‘Prokne and Sophokles’ AJA 85 (1981), 189 Google Scholar, picking up a suggestion by Robertson HGA, pp. 286-7. See also E. B. Harrison’s investigation of the evidence for the cultstatues Alkamenes made for the Hephaisteion (not the temple we know by that name), ‘Alkamenes’ sculptures for the Hephaisteion’, AJA 81 (1977), 137-78Google Scholar, 265-87, 411-26.

42. For the Sosianus temple, see III, nn. 38-40.

43. Eye of Greece, pp. 53-65, pls. 14-15.

44. Despinis, G., (Athens, 1971)Google Scholar and Ergon 1977, 12-14. Petrakos, B., ‘La base de la Nemesis d’Agorakrite’, BCH 105 (1981), 227-53CrossRefGoogle Scholar and AKGP II, pp. 89-107, pls. 111-16. For a later copy of the cult statue that can be recognized, see Boardman GSCP fig. 122. For a possible original late fifth-century cult statue of a goddess (South Italy?), see GettyMJ 17 (1989), 110 (2 metres high, of marble and limestone). For a brief general statement on cult idols, see Romano, I. B., ‘Early Greek idols’, Expedition 24 (1982), 3–13 Google Scholar.

45. Waywell, G. B., ‘Athena Mattei’, BSA 66 (1971), 373-82Google Scholar, pls. 66-72.

46. Adam, S., The Technique of Greek Sculpture (London, 1966), 124-8Google Scholar, pls. 70-72.

47. ‘Pausanias and Praxiteles’, Hesperia Supplement 20 (1982), 182-91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48. Morrow, K. D., Greek Footwear and the Dating of Sculpture (The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), pp. 83-4Google Scholar.

49. For the Dancing Maidens, see Robertson HGA, pp. 406-7 and 691, n. 122.

50. C. Vatin, ‘Les danseuses de Delphes’, CRAI 1983, 26-40; Robert, L., ‘Bulletin épigra-phique’, REG 97 (1984), 44, no. 214 Google Scholar; Cartledge, P., ‘In their own write: literacy in ancient Greece’, Pegasus 31 (1988), 23-8Google Scholar, esp. 27. Dating of the monument has varied: Ridgway, B. S., Roman Copies (I, n. 11), 39 Google Scholar and 46, n. 11 dated it after the earthquake of 373 B.c. and J. Frei, ‘Le sculpteur des danseuses’, Getty’MJ 6/7 (1978-79), 75-82, put the figures in the 330s.

51. Stewart, A. F., Skopas of Paros (Park Ridge, 1977)Google Scholar.

52. Stewart, A. F., Skopas in Malibu (Malibu, 1982)Google Scholar. Stewart now considers the head a modern forgery (see Greek Sculpture (I, n. 8), p. 345).

53. Lattimore, R., ‘Two statues of Herakles’, GettyMJ 2 (1975), 17–26 Google Scholar; ‘Skopas and the Pothos’, AJA 91 (1987), 411-20CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Tegea, see recently Delivorrias, A. and Linfert, A., ‘ ΣΚΟΠΑΔΙΚΑ II: la statue d’Hygie dans la temple d’Alea à Tégée’, BCH 107 (1983), 277-88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Norman, N. J., ‘The temple of Athena Alea at Tegea’, AJA 88 (1984), 169-94CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pls. 29-31 and ‘Asklepios and Hygieia and the cult statue at Tegea’, AJA 90 (1986), 425-30CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Palagia, O., ‘The Hope Herakles reconsidered’, OJA 3 (1984), 107-26Google Scholar (a pastiche, not a Roman copy of a Skopas statue). For Skopas on Samothrace, see Lehmann, P. W., Skopas in Samothrace (Northampton, 1973)Google Scholar. For the Mausoleum, see pp. 35-37.

54. , AAA 6 (1973), 323-9 and Euphranor (Leiden, 1980).

55. Dontas, G., ‘La grande Artemis du Pirée: une oeuvre d’Euphranor’, AK 25 (1982), 15–34 Google Scholar, pls. 3-6, and ‘Ein verkanntes Meisterwerk im Nationalmuseum von Athen. Der Marmorkopf I. 177 und Überlegungen zum Stil Euphranors’, Himmelmann Festschrift, pp. 143-50, pls. 27-8.

56. Frel, J., The Getty Bronze (2nd edition, Malibu, 1982)Google Scholar.

57. Sjöqvist, E., Lysippos (Cincinnati, 1966)Google Scholar; Moreno, P., Testimonianze per le teoria artistica di Lisippo (Treviso, 1973)Google Scholar and Lisippo I (Bari, 1974); Stewart, A. F., ‘Lysippos and Hellenistic sculpture’, AJA 87 (1983), 262 Google Scholar. For the Hellenistic period, see now Pollitt, J. J., Art in the Hellenistic Age (Cambridge, 1986)Google Scholar.