¹ Amelung, , Skulpturen des Vatikans II, 3 (1908), 539Google Scholar; Hekler, A., ‘Römische weibliche Gewandstatuen’ (Münchener Archäologische Stud. A. Furtwängler gewidmet, 1909), 134 f.Google Scholar; Mustilli, D., Museo Mussolini (1939), 95Google Scholar. Cf. Lippold, G., Kopien und Umbildungen, 271, n. 167, and 207Google Scholar.

^1a Rome, Terme, nos. 23893 (Cabrol-Leclercq, , Dict. d'Arch. chrét., XII, 2306, fig. 9084Google Scholar), and 113226, and a sarcophagus at Saragossa (Cabrol-Leclercq, XII, 2314, fig. 9092).

² Hekler, op. cit., gives the fullest discussion. Blümel, C., Röm. Bildnisse (1933), 23Google Scholar, and Mustilli, , Mus. Mussolini (1939), 95Google Scholar, propose a date at the end of the fifth century. Süsserott, H., Griech. Plastik des 4. Jahrh. (1938), 175Google Scholar, dates the prototype to ca. 340–330.

³ Hepding, H., AM XXXV, 519Google Scholar.

⁴ JdI XXVII, pl. 2A; R. Horn, Stehende weibl. Gewandstatuen, pl. 22, 2; Schede, M., Meisterwerke d. türk. Museen IGoogle Scholar pl. 30

⁵ JdI, loc. cit., pl. 2B.

⁶ Brunn-Bruckmann, 476, Horn, op. cit., pl. 6. 3.

⁷ Fouilles de Delphes IV, pl. 72.

⁸ Einzelaufnahmen, 4715.

⁹ H. Diepolder, Attische Grabreliefs, pl. 43. 1; the date is Siisserott's, op. cit., 118, n. 121.

¹⁰ von Lorentz, F., ‘Maussollos’ und die Quadriga auf dem Maussolleion (Diss. Leipzig 1931)Google Scholar has demonstrated that the names ‘Artemisia’ and ‘Mausolus’ for the two well-known statues are arbitrary. Neugebauer, , JdI LVIII 84Google Scholar, rightly emphasises that the statue of ‘Mausolus’, not standing at the front of the monument, cannot have represented Mausolus; its (missing) attribute, presumably a sceptre, indicates a ruler, and Neugebauer suggests either Hecatomnus or Idrieus. As, however, the present paper maintains that the Idrieus was different in type (though he held a sceptre similarly), it is most probable that the ‘Mausolus’ represents his father Hecatomnus. For the sake of clearness I retain the traditional names.

¹¹ The right arm had a different attitude, the mantle did not envelop the right elbow, etc.

¹² Only D. Mustilli, op. cit., 96, appears to have noticed it; Smith, A. H., JHS XXXVI, 69Google Scholar, noted Ada's resemblance to the Artemisia.

¹³ Now in the British Museum: Smith, A. H., JHS XXXVI, 65Google Scholar; the relief has been fully discussed by Foucart, P., Mon. Piot XVIII (1910), 145 f.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Carian princes never have titles: Robert, L., Le sanctuaire de Sinuris I, (1945), 102Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Richter, G. M. A., Sculpture and Sculptors², 269, n. 107Google Scholar.

¹⁶ G. M. A. Richter, op. cit., 269.

¹⁷ Arkaeologiske og Kunsthist. Afhandlinger til. Fr. Poulsen (1941), 18 and 20Google Scholar: from the earlier forties to well into the thirties.

¹⁸ It was begun after Mausolus' death (352), and, according to Pliny, , NH XXXVI, 30Google Scholar, was not completed at Artemisia's (351). Though it has been disputed, Ada and Idrieus reigned together till the latter's death in 344 B.C.: Robert, op. cit., 96 f.

¹⁹ The fully draped portrait statue is Asiatic: Laurenzi, L., Critica d'Arte IV, 1939, I, 33Google Scholar.

²⁰ The Ada of the relief was some 21 cm. high.

²¹ The forearms of the Vatican replica (no. 1) appear to have been restored correctly.

²² In this connexion it should be noted that none of the replicas had its original head.

²³ Reproduced in Ausonia III, pl. 4; van Breen, J., Reconstructieplan voor het Mausoleum (1942)Google Scholar, fig. 74, reproduces by mistake B.M. Sculpt. 1151, the head from Priene.

²⁴ It is, however, damaged at this point.

²⁵ Similar folds occur on Attic grave reliefs, it is true, but only when the figure is three-quarters facing, and then it is a correct perspective rendering of an ordinary fold.

²⁶ Hekler, op. cit., p. 136; Apellas made adornantes (not adorantes) se feminas, of course.

²⁷ Furtwängler, , Meisterwerke, 348 f.Google Scholar; Six, J., JdI XXIV, 7 f.Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf. Vitruvius VII, 159, 12 and 13.

²⁹ Neugebauer, , JdI LVIII, 46 f.Google Scholar, cf. 87. As everyone knows, this cannot be said of the other fragments.

³⁰ Müller, Val., Art Bulletin XX (1938), 369Google Scholar; Susserott, op. cit., p. 173. Von Lorentz, op. cit., p. 56, thinks that both statues are by one sculptor, and this is strongly emphasised by Neugebauer, op. cit., p. 86.

³¹ I have the impression that more than one hand worked on the Artemisia; it seems difficult to reconcile stylistically the chiton covering the breasts (for which the closest analogy is provided by the same detail on the amazon no 20 of B.M. Sculpt. 1006) with the lower part of the chiton (JHS XXX, 156, fig. 9Google Scholar); Artemisia's himation may, however, well be compared with Mausolus' mantle.

³² The Mausolus was first attributed to Bryaxis by Amelung, , Ausonia III (1908) 123Google Scholar; in this he was followed by von Lorentz, op. cit., p. 63, and Neugebauer, , JdI LVIII, 87Google Scholar.

³³ Lippold, , Festschrift Arndt, pp. 115 f.Google Scholar; and see below, On the replica at Alexandria cf. Bull. Soc. R. d'Arch. d'Alexandrie X (1939), 65Google Scholar. Miss Gisela Richter kindly points out to me that Clement's story that the Sarapis originally came from Sinope is considered untrustworthy; cf. Nock, A. D., Conversion (1933), 278Google Scholar, and Amelung, R.A. 1903, II, 179 f.

³⁴ C. S. Ponger, Kat. der Steinskulpt., no. 103, pl. 24; the statuette came from Egypt, and is 19 cm. high.

³⁵ Virtual equality; but Scopas, who decorated the front of the monument, was apparently regarded as the best of the four sculptors.

³⁶ A head in the Vatican (Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Sculture del Mag. del Mus. Vat., no. 231, pl. 42) may, however, have come from a replica of the Idrieus; Sarapis would only be more likely if there were traces of a kalathos.

³⁷ BMC Ionia, pl. 38. 4; cf. Alexandrine coins: G. Dattari, Numi Alexandrini, pl. 22, nos. 4357, 5745–5613, etc.

³⁸ On this type of Sarapis see Michaelis, , JHS VI, 296 f.Google Scholar; the Florence statuette: ibid., 297, Reinach, , Répertoire I, pl. 399 673Google Scholar; Amelung, Führer, no. 265.

³⁸ Ridder, De, Bronzes du Louvre, I, no. 511Google Scholar. It may well be that the colossal statue in the Vatican, of which only the lower half survives (Amelung, , Sculpt, des Vatikans II, 1, p. 21, no. 4, pl. 4, height 150 m.Google Scholar) was a replica of this Sarapis; its style is that of the Mausolus. Other possible replicas: Von Sieglin Exped. II, 1, B, pl. 30 (colossal head); ibid., II, 2, pl. 4. 1 (terracotta, right arm raised?); Le Arti IV, 1942, 341 f.Google Scholar; RA XXVII, 12, fig. 2.

⁴⁰ Clemens Alex., Protrept. IV (43 P.); Lippold, , Festschr. Arndt, 119Google Scholar, rightly demonstrates that the gist of the statement must be true.

⁴¹ Amelung, , Ausonia III (1908), 120 f.Google Scholar; Lippold, loc. cit.

⁴² There may have been a third Sarapis, represented by a replica at Geneva: Déonna, , Choix de monuments de l'art ant. (1923)Google Scholar, no. 18, Cat. des sculptures ant. (1924), no. 71.

⁴³ The Zeus Stratios of the relief, that of the Carian coins, and the head from Mylasa (possibly from the statue copied on the coins: Brunn-Bruckmann, 573) all wear a taenia.

⁴⁴ Amelung, , Ausonia 1908, 124 f.Google Scholar; Arndt in Arndt- Bruckmann, ad pl. 977–8.

⁴⁵ J. van Breen, op. cit., p. 237, n. 1.

⁴⁶ B.M. Sculpt., 1055.

⁴⁷ It appears from the relief and from head 1051 that he Ada belonged to the smaller series, to which the Artemisia (height 2·66 m.) belonged; the replicas of the Ada are something more than 2·10 m. in height.

⁴⁸ E.g., the style, the fold in the border of the chiton of the seated Sarapis, the entire pose of the standing Sarapis which is identical with that of the Idrieus.

⁴⁹ Lippold, , Festschr. Arndt, 120Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Hekler, op. cit., 137.

⁵¹ BCH XVI, pl. 3 and 7; Svoronos, Das Athener Nat.- Mus., pl. 26 and 27. The base is dated on epigraphical grounds to the middle of the fourth century (Svoronos, op. cit., p. 163); according to Svoronos (p. 166), this is confirmed by prosopographical arguments

⁵² Reproduced in Antike Denkm. II, pl. 17, XVII, and elsewhere. For the attribution see Wolters-Sieveking, , JdI XXIV, 171 f.Google Scholar, Pfuhl, , JdI XLIII, 50Google Scholar, Byvanck, , Bulletin Antieke Beschaving XVIII, 24Google Scholar.

⁵³ His close relation to Scopas is also suggested by Pliny, , NH XXXVI, 22Google Scholar, who mentions both sculptors in one breath as having worked at Cnidos.

⁵⁴ That Bryaxis worked in Greece is also proved by his Asklepios and Hygieia at Megara: Paus. I, 40, 6.

⁵⁵ It is possible that the statues were made in Asia Minor and afterwards transported to Egypt: Lippold, , Festschr. Arndt, 117Google Scholar, Richter, G., Sculpture and Sculptors², 281Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ G. Richter, op. cit., figs. 731 f.

⁵⁷ Lippold, , Kopien und Umbildungen, 208Google Scholar, Gnomon X, 190 fGoogle Scholar. This suggestion was adopted (without reference) both by Blümel, , Röm. Bildnisse, ad R 54Google Scholar, and Mustilli, , Mus. Mussolini, 95Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Conze, pl. 67, 289, Diepolder, op. cit., pl. 9.