¹ I have founded in the main on: an analysis of authorities in A.J.A. (1911): Collignon's, Le Parthénon (1910)Google Scholar which has full references: Dr.Farnell's, Cults of the Greek States (vol. i. 1896)Google Scholar, a good general discussion: Mr.Jones's, H. StuartSelect Passages (1895)Google Scholar. The Berlin Jahrbuch, 1907, has an account of the Basis by Winter and an article by Puchstein in 1891 (vol. v.); see also Die Athena Parthenos, Schreiber, J., 1883Google Scholar. The small Varvakeion figure I shall call the statuette.

² Mr.Zimmern, A. E. has some computations as to the cost of the Parthenon and the Parthenos in his Greek Commonwealth (1915, p. 410)Google Scholar. He estimates the temple at £840,000 and the image at £1,200,000, but goes on to state that the average expenditure between 447 and 438 was about 350 talents and the average between 438 and 431 was 650 talents. That is 3150 for the earlier period and 4550 for the second. As it is generally accepted that the statue was dedicated in 438 and that then most of the structure was also completed there is something wrong or unexplained. How the figures are obtained is not stated. Forty talents of gold are usually supposed to be about equal to the gold of 96,000 English sovereigns. According to Michaelis ‘we know from ancient testimony that the chryselephantine statue had been put in position in 438, when the building must have been practically finished.’

³ Collignon states that the total height was 15 m. But the relative height of the Nike shows that this is wrong, and the interior height of the cella was not mere than 13 or 14 metres. Furtwängler estimates the statue and base as 12 m. in a cella of 14 m.

⁴ Since writing so far I have found a careful study of the dimensions by Miss Perry in A.J.A. vol. xi. with which I have been in close agreement. It is argued that the 26 cubits included the Basis, that the great image was five times life size and that the statuette was half the scale of life. The size of the statuette is given as 1·035 m. high including the basis of 0·103 m. Wishing to make the image without, accessories the round dimension of 30 Greek feet, Miss Perry put the life size at 5 feet 10 inches, English. The Basis of the Zeus at Olympia was only about 3½ feet high. My final estimate for the Parthenos would be: Basis 4 feet: figure and shoes 28 feet crest 5 feet: total 37 feet = about 26 Greek cubits.

⁵ See diagram given by Winter and compare with that given by Schreiber.

⁶ The Aphrodite of Cnidos had a support contrived in a more sophisticated manner.

⁷ About 15 feet high. Miss Harrison speaks of ‘the countless dedicatory columns lately found on the Acropolis.’

⁸ The Zeus of Olympia and Hera of Argos and Nemesis of Rhamnus and Lemnian Athene were also signed.

⁹ In the Inscription Hall of the B. M. is a small fragment of an inscribed fluted stele of early date and probably about 14 or 15 inches in diameter. In A.J.A. (vol. ii.) an account is given of ‘an inscribed Doric stele’ from Assos. Puehstein illustrated a small inscribed Doric capital (Fig. 39) from a similar early stele. A great number of Ionic form are known; indeed I have ventured to suggest that the Ionic type of capital was first developed in these ‘steles.’

¹⁰ Separate curls, but of lead, seem to have been applied to the Aegina statues. The Caryatids of the Erechtheum, which closely followed the Parthenos in many respects, had long curls falling free although cut in the marble. Spiral curls are found on some bronze heads. The hair of the Zeus of Olympia also fell freely around his neck, for according to Lucian single locks weighed six minae (Fig. 2).

¹¹ According to Pliny, Polygnotos the painter was the first to open mouths and let the teeth be seen. Slightly open mouths were general in the next generation. One fine head from the Heraeum has the mouth open and teeth showing: Waldstein, Argos, Pl. XXXII.

¹² The marble of this head is of a particularly fine ivory-like texture, highly polished, and the hair was applied in a separate material—doubtless gilt bronze. This work is described in the Catalogue as—‘Head worked to fit a socket, the hair or helmet was also separate. The eyes have inlaid eye-balls surrounded by thin plates of bronze which may have represented eyelashes. The pupils were of inlaid stones or glass paste.’ This head is called male; but from the form of the hair line on the forehead, which begins high in the middle thus and passes close above the eyebrows and in front of the ears, over which the hair swept in projecting masses, it appears. rather to be female; the sharp eyebrows, oval face, delicate ears, and rounded neck, confirm this view. Indeed it seems to me to be a version of the Velletri Athene. Since coming to this conclusion I have found that a head of the Velletri type was found at Cyrene, and by a curious chance it is illustrated by Smith and Porcher on the same plate as the ‘male head.’ They look little alike because one is set looking down and the other is looking rather upwards. Note, however, the similarity of the cutting below the throat for insertion into the drapery. For marbles imitating ivory see a head of Athene illustrated in Farnell's, C.G.S. i. p. 368Google Scholar. In these we get the technique of the acroliths. The fragments of the arm of the Athene of Priene in the B.M. still show high polish and the statue must have been acrolithic.

¹³ See also J.H.S. 1916, vol. xxxvi, p. 375 for eyelashes and eyebrows. Many statues of the great time have projecting ridges along the eyebrows which must frequently have been painted. The fine bronze head of Augustus recently added to the B.M. collections has eyebrows and eyelashes and eyes of white stone with dark irises aud pupils of a different material. For imitative eyes see J.H.S. 1915, p. 272, and Dar., and Saglio, Google Scholar, Statuaria. The iris was probably crystal painted at the back.

¹⁴ Still scholars hold out against this identification, which seems proved to me by considerations beyond Furtwängler's reasons: the likeness of this girlish type of figure and face to the seated Athene of the east frieze; the close resemblance to the Athene of the western gable with her diagonally worn aegis; and an affinity with Myron's Athene. Fig. 5 is from a drawing by Stuart at the B.M. of the now much injured stone vase at Athens which shows a diagonal aegis. It is, I think, sure that Furtwängler's Lemnian was at Athens and was a work of the time of Pheidias. Fig. 6 is enlarged from what seems to have been an especially clear rendering of the Promaehos on a coin illustrated in Leake's Athens. Comp. Fig. 4.

¹⁵ See Fig. 28 in Miss Harrison's Mythology and Monuments, where A. carries one in her hand, and an article on Athene's Owl in J.H.S. xxxii. 1912.

¹⁶ This is curiously parallel to the Zodiacs and labours of the year in chief places in mediaeval churches.

¹⁷ This stele has a base but yet the roughly indicated capital is not Ionic. It suggests something more like a Corinthian capital and may indeed have had stele-like foliage at the top of delicate leaves and spirals.

¹⁸ Ath. Mitth. v. pp. 377–8.

¹⁹ Köhler, in Ath. Mitth. v. p. 96Google Scholar. A battle of the Centaurs was executed by the celebrated silver chaser Mys on the shield of the Promachos, , Sellers, Pliny's Chapters on Art, p. 3Google Scholar.

²⁰ Sir Cecil Smith, B.S.A. vol. iii. Cf. Dar. and Saglio, Clipeus; a shield painted inside also appears on the Alexander sarcophagus. See also our Fig. 4. Pliny, , N.H. 36. 18Google Scholar, refers directly to the shield of the Parthenos as painted by Pheidias.

²¹ While writing this I have come to the conclusion that our national impersonation Britannia which we have on our pence comes to us from the Parthenos herself. The first step was on the coin of Lysimachus (c. 300) where is a seated version of the Parthenos holding the Nike in her right hand, her left leaning on her shield and her spear resting against her shoulder. The next step was the Britannia of the Roman coins which was as evidently adopted from the coin just mentioned or from some later one of the same type. Finally the Britannia of the coins of Charles II. was obviously, as Forrer points out, taken from the Roman coins.

²² The identification of two of the figures with Pheidias and Pericles falls in with a common tendency to form myths of explanation. On the throne of Zeus at Olympia a figure binding his hair with a fillet who must have been specially charming (and the prototype of the statue by Polycleitos?) was said to have been a boy beloved by Pheidias. A figure in the painting of the Taking of Troy by Polygnotus was said to be a sister of Cimon beloved by the painter.

²³ A similar scheme is clearly brought out in the larger Niobe disc at the British Museum where ‘the figures are irregularly disposed in four tiers on the rocky background.’ This resemblance, indeed, proves that the Niobe disc is not a modern forgery as Overbeck thought. Furtwängler, on the contrary, thought that some of the figures showed echoes of Pheidian types. My own view is that the Niobe disc is similar hack work to the Strangford shield produced by arranging some famous Niobe elements on the plan of the Parthenon Shield and perhaps as a companion to a larger copy of that work.

²⁴ If the best known of the Ephesus wounded Amazons was inspired by the shield of the Parthenos, that would seem to be a point against the former being a work of the great Polycleitos. Some writers have supposed that the story of the competition applied to projects for one Amazon, but that is obviously impossible as they are so much alike. To explain the striking resemblances of the four members of the group Furtwängler supposed that four artists ‘came to some agreement.’ It is much more likely that the statues were done in one shop as a group of attendants on Artemis and probably in Ephesus itself for the new temple. Or Polycleitos followed Pheidias closely; see note 32.

²⁵ Reinach's, Reliefs, iii. 58Google Scholar, and ii. 1, and ii. 138. The last also has the motive of the flying sleeve derived from the Alexander sarcophagus. Compare a Lycian tomb in the B. M.

²⁶ Köhler, , Ath. Mitth. vol. v. p. 91Google Scholar.

²⁷ The Basis at Olympia was of dark grey marble about 3 feet 7 inches high with mouldings above and below. The latter showed where small figures of metal had been attached. Olympia ii. p. 13. Fig. 11 is from a drawing of a vase, in a collection at the V. and A. Museum, made about a century since. It shows how low these bases were and incidentaly gives an interesting type of Artemis.

²⁸ The evidence for the necklace seems not to have been noticed. It has been said that Hephaistos is lowering a diadem by a string but that must be the other end of the necklace which he has just made. The golden diadem is already on her head. He has his hammer in his hand. Certainly this is the Adorning of Pandora. Pandora's drapery is spotted over with little crosses, so is the dress of the Aphrodite of the swan on another white cylix which must, I think, be by the same master.

²⁹ On the whole I suppose this must be accepted, but I am drawn to see in it a copy of the Basis. There is a sculptural quality about the drawing of Hephaistos which suggests this and the whole work is perfectly mature, the gilding on raised work also suggests a later rather than an earlier date. On the other hand it is very like some fragments in the Louvre which have been attributed to Euphronios (Gérard, , La Peinture Antique, p. 185)Google Scholar ‘I do not think that one may dream of purer drawing or nearer to the style of Polygnotos,’ The types of heads and hair dressing are strikingly similar in the two works. Polygnotos was still working when the Parthenon works were begun in 447. According to Furtwängler the Aphrodite and swan cup was probably painted by Sotades. I doubt if it is necessary to date the Pandora cup earlier than c. 450. In the style of these white-ground vases we see some of the influences which went to the forming of the immaculate freshness and noble gaiety of the style of Pheidias.

³⁰ According to Winter it was probably ordered by Eumenes II. and carved at Athens.

³¹ Winter and Collignon are agreed as to the Pheidian style.

³² Persephone of the Ephestis column is also dressed in this way and I may say here that I have come to the conclusion that this figure was holding the ends of her girdle: cf. some vase paintings: it is a variation of the boy and fillet mentioned above.

³³ The figure of Triptolemus on the noble relief from Eleusis holds his mantle in this way. With other Pheidian characteristics it makes me think that this was indeed an original work by the master. The whole motive is like that of the central group of the Olympia basis and also like the Anesidora cup.

³⁴ Mr. Cook lately brought forward an Aphrodite as a claimant to a place on the east Pediment, but, if Plieidian, there is no reason why it should not have been on the Basis, where doubtless some of the figures were seated for variety as on the frieze.

³⁵ One of these is Gandy-Deering's beautiful relief which appears to be lost (Ionian Antiquities, vol. v. note on title page vignette). That this relief indeed came from Rhamnus is made sure by similar reliefs, one of which is at Munich. The Hermes on the Oxford Pandora vase who is nearly repeated on the second B.M. vase may be an echo from the Basis.

³⁶ This more fluttering drapery seems to have been a good deal like that of a relief of three nymphs led by Hermes now at Berlin (Farnell, vol. i. Pl. XXI.).

³⁷ On the basis of the cult statue of Nemesis at Rhamnus was a similar messenger figure. Here it was Leda bringing in Helen. Yet another is on the stage front of the theatre of Dionysos, a work which has many echoes of the Basis.

³⁸ Reinach's, Reliefs, vol. i. p. 92Google Scholar.

³⁹ Murray, i. p. 112.

⁴⁰ Caryatid figures were an ancient Ionian invention and were probably at first Charites and Hours as on the throne of Apollo at Amyklae. Those of the Treasury of Cnidos at the Apollo Sanctuary at Delphi were also probably Hours or Charites and such also may have been those at the angles of later sarcophagi. The Caryatides of the Erechtheum while following the general Ionian tradition gave the ‘Maidens’ a local meaning. Dr. Murray's description of the three figures bearing gifts on the Harpy Tomb quite convinces me that they must be Charites or Hours. Comparing them again with other groups on the Thasos Relief and a vase figured by Daremberg and Saglio under Horae the probability seems to be turned to proof.

⁴¹ Zeus and Hera, Poseidon and Amphitrite, were opposite pairs on the Basis at Olympia.

⁴² He takes no notice of a fourth female in front of the ‘Graces,’ but separated from them by being seated. I would read this left-hand section as Dione, Eros, Aphrodite, the Charites and Persuasion. (There is a good later examination of the frieze in Petersen's, Athen (1908), p. 84)Google Scholar.