No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Establishment of the Classical Type in Geeek Art1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
Extract
It is hardly necessary to attempt a definition of what is meant by ‘the classical type’ in the body or in the face. Ordinary people know what they mean when they speak of a ‘classical face,’ ‘regular features,’ or ‘a perfectly made man or woman’ as regards the nude figure. Even though such people may have but a slight familiarity with Greek or Graeco-Roman statues and busts, or have never even actually perceived, themselves, the distinctive characteristics of the classical type, they have had it conveyed to them indirectly through the work of modern artists and illustrators of books or advertisements, or even in the attenuated and vulgarised renderings on chocolate boxes. No doubt we are now living in revolt and reaction against this type of beauty and normality, as in the past there have been periodic reactions against the dominance of the classic types, whether in ‘realistic’ or ‘romantic’ movements, throughout the historical development of art since the classical age. The fact, however, remains, that the standards of proportion and inter-relation between the parts of the body and between the features of the human head, as embodied in the classic type, still determine the taste of, at least, the Western world.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1924
References
2 See my Essayas on the Art of Pheidias (1885), Essay II.
3 I call the type of body ‘Minoan’ without reference to its existence in Egypt and the East or in the Hellenic world.
4 I wish at once to state here that in the present enquiry I am limiting myself to three characteristic features, which will bet dealt with in turn. These are: (i) The body, the step from the narrow waist to the anatomically and physiologically normal treatment of the torso, (ii) The head, the supersession of the non-Hellenic (? Oriental) facial angle, (iii) The eye and its naturalistic treatment (especially in the profile view). When these three features together have been developed into the forms manifested in all classical works, Greek and Graeco-Roman, in conformity with the classic type, this main achievement of Hellenic art has been consummated.
5 It is also possible that in ‘Minoan’ surroundings and before the introduction of athletic and ephebic standards in Greece, such androgynous characteristics appealed to taste.
6 I here merely give the latest specimen of Minoan wall-painting, kindly sent me by Sir Arthur Evans. The same type from numerous scenes with ‘acrobats,’ etc., from Crete, Tiryns, Vaphio, etc., is well known and readily accessible.
7 For the further development of this influence of the Palaestra I must refer the reader to my monograph, published in 1883.
8 We might also point to analogous developments as regards the female figure. All these characteristics again being based upon, and knit up with, the social, political and moral development of these different ages. In our own days, Oriential rulers visiting the West are known to have con sidered the dancers at our balls as paid entertainers to amuse the exalted spectators.
9 I. 18, 7.
10 VIII. 40, 1.
11 I must repeat that I do not propose to deal here with the wider question of direct Egyptian influences through the Cretan Daidalides, the Samian and other Ionian schools on the art of the mainland of Greece. I use the term Minoan as manifesting a type familiar in many Cretan works which have come down to us.
12 The wasp-like waist persists, not only in the works of the black-figured vasepainters, but even in those of some of the more perfect red-figured masters. von Lücken, G. (‘Archaische griechische Vasenmalerei und Plastik,’ Ath. Mitt., Band xliv., 1918, p. 93)Google Scholar observes that even in a perfect vase of Euthymides (Furtwängler-Reichhold, Pl. XIV., 81): ‘Nur um die Taille findet man hier wie dort noch eine Einschnürung.’ The same applies to a bronze statuette in the National Museum at Athens (Ridder, , Catal. des bronzes trouvés sur l'Acropole, Pls. III. and IV.).Google Scholar As regards ancient coins, besides those we shall note below, attention may be drawn to the beautiful and instructive series of Tarentine coins given by Vlasto, M. T., Taras Oikistes, 1923.Google Scholar In the full series of plates presenting Taras, it will be seen how the narrow waist persists, though the modelling of the torso Eind legs in a variety of poses shows exquisite drawing and relief of the later types and counteracts the ‘wasp-like’ narrowness of waist of earlier times.
13 As I shall show, this does not apply to satyrs, barbarians, etc.
14 When we consider the variety of athletic subjects on which rested the fame of this sculptor in antiquity, we can understand the puzzling passage in Pliny, (N.H. xxxiv. 57)Google Scholar for which various emendations have been suggested, ‘primus hie multiplicasse veritatem videtur, numerosior in arte quam Polyclitus et in symmetria diligentior …’; especially when we take it in connection with the passage from Quintilian, (Inst. orat. ii. 13, 8)Google Scholar referring to the variety of attitudes in ancient statues and ending up with Myron, ‘quid tam distortum et elaboratum, quam est ille discobolos Myronis?’ and, furthermore with a passage from Pliny, (N.H. xxxiv. 56)Google Scholar which conveys the impression of a certain limitation in the choice of subjects pertaining to Polycleitos. For this latter point see my commentary on Polycleitos in The Argive Heraeum, Vol. I. pp. 162–176.Google Scholar
15 Pliny, , N.H. xxxiv. 59Google Scholar: ‘Syracusis autem claudicantem, cuius ulceris dolorem sentire etiam spectantes videntur.’
16 Cicero, , N.D. i. 30.Google Scholar Valer. Maxim. viii. 11. ext. 3.
17 Pliny, , N.H. xxxiv. 72.Google Scholar
18 Even here we must note anticipations, especially in such works as the Vaphio cups and in some early metopes or vase-pictures where definite scenes are presented; but the dominant form is the picture-writing ‘narrative’ scheme in ‘succession,’ not a definite and fixed incident convincingly conveyed to the eye in one definite scene in space.
19 The same subject and treatment are shown in the contest of boxers on the vase figured in my article on Pythagoras of Rhegion, etc. (J.H.S. i. p. 183, Pl. VI., fig. 2; where Laborde, , Vases de Lamberg, i, Pl. LXXIV.Google Scholar, and Gerhard, , Antike Bildwerke, Pl. VII., Nos. 787, 497Google Scholar, are referred to). Mr. C. D. Bicknell has since traced this vase to the Kunsthistorische Museum of Vienna, and recommends that it should be republished. The same form of composition is applied to mythical subjects in whifch divinities take the place of Gymnasiarch and Ephedros; in innumerable instances mythical or heroic contests are illustrated, such as the wrestling of Atalanta and Peleus (Baumeister, 158), Heracles and the Lion, etc., as well as Thesean contests, Achilles, and Penthesilea, (B.M. B 323)Google Scholar, the Flight of Aeneas (Baumeister, Pl. XXXII.), etc. Cf. for instance, Gerhard, , A.V. 206Google Scholar; Pfuhl, , Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen, iii. Pls. LXXXVI., LXXXVII.Google Scholar, Nos. 313, 314.
20 I have elsewhere (Pythagoras of Rhegion, loc. cit., in The Influence of the Palaestra on Greek Art, loc. cit., and the Historical Congress in London, 1913, North American Review, June 1913, p. 798) endeavoured to show how, especially in athlete vases, the type of the game or contest from real life is supplemented by corresponding incidents (especially the Thesean and Heraclean cycle) from the mythical world, showing the same incidents of the contest on one and the same vase. I have also endeavoured to show how the Attic vases especially served definite political purposes bearing upon the events of the day, almost corresponding to political pamphlets and fly-sheets in modern times.
21 Hesych. s.v. σκία, Plut, de Glor. Athen. 2; Schol. Il. x. 265, No. 4.
22 Bossert's ‘Altkreta,’ Pl. XL., fig. 63.
23 Mosso, ‘Palaces of Crete,’ p. 213, fig. 94.
24 Schliemann's ‘Tiryns,’ Pl. XIII.
25 Perrot and Chipiez, vi. p. 187, fig. 370, and Mosso, op. cit., p. 225, fig. 104.
26 Monthly Review, March 1901, p. 124, fig. 6.
27 Mosso, op. cit., pp. 77–8, figs. 33–4.
28 Dussaud, ‘Les Civilisations Préhelléniques,’ p. 50, fig. 32.
29 Schuchardt's, ‘Schliemann's Excavations,’ p. 229, fig. 227.
30 B.S.A. Annual, ix. (1902–3), p. 77, fig. 56.
31 For a good selection of these, see Bossert's ‘Altkreta’ (2nd ed.), Pls. CCXXXI. to CCXXXIV.
32 J.H.S. xxi. (1901), p. 126, fig. 16.
33 Bossert, op. cit., figs. 250–1.)
34 Curtius, G., Historische u. Philologische Aufsätze, Pl. IV.Google Scholar
35 Ath. Mitt. iii. Pl. XIV. (Gazette Archéologique, 1878, Pl. XXIX.).
36 Brunn-Bruckmann, 286, or Benndorf Pls. I., II.
37 Poulsen's ‘Delphi,’ p. 110, fig. 36 (from ‘Fouilles de Delphes,’ pls. XVI., XVII.).
38 Ibid. p. 174, fig. 70 (from ‘Fouilles de Delphes,’ pls. XLIV., XLV.).
39 Cf. W. Deonna, Les Apollons Archaiques.
40 The Tenean statue has here been placed first for reasons of group-composition, in style it is second. In this case, as well as in the illustrations given hereafter, the fact is to be noted that the works referring to the treatment of the body illustrate also the points to be subsequently dealt with concerning the facial angle and the treatment of the eye.
41 Arch. Zeit., 1882, Pl. IV.
42 In the black-figured vase figured by Hoppin, (Handb. Bl.-Fig. Vases, III., 1924) on p. 7Google Scholar, the reminiscence of the triangular body of the geometric period is most marked. Cf. aleo, Gerhard, Etr. u. Kamp. Vb. Pl. II.; Rayet and Collignon, Pl. VII.; J.H.S. xxvii. Pl. XVIII.
43 Other striking instances can be seen in that remarkable collection of photographs of Greek vases made by Mr. Beazley, which he has generously put at my disposal; in Vol. I. No. 3 at Berlin, 2159 and F.R. Pl. CXXXIII.; No. 10 from New York, 210, 18; 47 Vase from St. Andrews; 83 Achilles and Penthesilea; 84 Vase in Louvre; 75 Vase from Würzburg; Vol. II. 23. To these must also be added from Pfuhl's, E. recent publication (Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen, Munich, 1923)Google Scholar among earlier black-figured vases a Protocorinthian jug, (Vol. iii., Pl. 13), an Exekiasvase (iii. Pl. 58, No. 230), while of later red-figured vases, iii. 107, 366 (in which the older athletic composition is retained), a vase by Euthymides, as also in his Theseus and Korone amphora (iii. Pl. 109, No. 369, Vol. i., p. 464), especially in the body of Peirithoos; while in the vase attributed to the Kleophrades-painter (iii. Pl. 113, No. 377) he sees a further development of the style of Euthymides (Vol. i. p. 436, § 466); in the Leagroskrater at Berlin (iii. Pl. 124, Nos. 396–7) he holds this ‘palaestric’ subject marks in Euphronios a transition in the Panaitios style; in the well-known boy with the hare (iii. Pl. 133, No. 413) Pfuhl believes that this Leagrosschale of developed style (entwickelte Styles) a certain grandeur is added to the ‘Epiktetan medallion type’ and to the playful subject (‘gewinnt sogar der epiktetischen Rundbildtypik und dem harmlosen Spiele mit dem Hasen eine gewisse Grösse ab’) (I. p. 451, § 413).
44 The fornale head from the Heraeum has, without any justification in fact, been proclaimed to be Attic. Its provenance and style absolutely confirm its attribution to Polycleitan art.
45 The persistence of such an influence of schools, in spite of a great variety of individual deviations from a fixed type in the subsequent full development of art throughout the Hellenic world, may perhaps show itself in that the ‘square’ outline of the head in the Argive canon, more than a century later, shows itself in the smaller round heads of Lysippus (the circle completely fitting into a square); while the more elongated pear-shaped head of the Praxitelean type is related to the pre-Pheidian Attic type.
46 See for this element in aesthetics my Harmonism and Conscious Evolution (1923), Part II. chaps, ii. and iii, but especially pp. 172 seq.
47 See types of Athene, Pfuhl, op. cit. iii. pls. LXXXI., LXXXII., LXXXIII., LXXXIV., Nos. 300–309.
48 For the exposition of these fundamental principles I must refer the reader to the chapter on Aesthetics (Part II. chaps. ii. and iii.) in my book, Harmonism, etc., 1923.
49 Poet. ii.: 
50 Inst. orat. xii. 10, 7.
51 Restoration of Myron, Athene and Marsyas, Arch. Anz. 1908, facing p. 341Google Scholar; Athene from Marsyas group, Frankfort, , Jahreshefte, 1909, Pl. II.Google Scholar; Brit. Mus. bronze Marsyas, Collignon's Sculpt. Grecque, Fig. 244.
52 For this character of Polygnotos as ἠθογράφος in connexion with the passages in Aristotle (Poet. 2 and 6) on ἦθος, cf. Brunn, , Gesch. d. Griech. Künstler, ii, pp. 41–46.Google Scholar
53 Dionysos and Maenads by Amasis, , Wiener Vorlegeblätter, 1889, Pl. IV., 2, p. 472Google Scholar; Busiris hydria, Furtwängler-Reichhold, Pl. 51; Brit. Mus. kylix signed Epiktetos, Furtw.-Reich. Pl. 73; Memnon and niggers, (B.-F.) Gerhard, Auserlesene Vasenbilder, Pl. CCVII.Google Scholar; Thiasos, red-figured amphora in Munich, Furtw.-Reich. Pl. 44; Iris, Hera and Silenoi by Brygos, Furtw.-Reich. Pl. 47; Return of Dionysos to Olympus by Oltos, , Mon. d. I., X. pls. XXIII., XXIV.Google Scholar
54 From Mr.Beazley, , Black-Fig. Album, p. 52Google Scholar, Corneto, Bruschi Coll., amphora, Dionysos in ship, Moscioni's photo 9095; p. 53, B.M. B. 302, hydria, Mansell's photo 3076; p. 54, vase in Bonn; as to type, Berlin 1890 is something like; p. 63, B.M. B. 296, Nikosthenes; p. 64, B.M., fragment of kantharos signed by Nikosthenes, and Petrograd, an alabastron; p. 75, Vienna, Masner 217, the ‘Busiris Hydria,’ F.R. 51; Red-Fig. Album, Vol. I., p. 18, Hoppin Collection, inside of kylix by the ‘Nikoxenos Painter’; p. 22, B.M. E. 253, Hoppin's Euthymides, Pl. XXXVII.; p. 42, Petrograd 624, shoulder of hydria; p. 48, pelike in Syracuse with ephebic scenes; p. 49, Würzburg kelebe, Dionysos between two Silenoi; p. 71, B.M. E. 511, J.H.S. xxxiii., Pl. VIII.; p. 77, Munich 2311, ‘Berlin Painter,’ J.H.S. xlii., Pl. V., Hearst Coll., New York, J.H.S. xlii., Pl. II.; p. 78, Selection of vases by ‘Berlin Painter’ including the bell-krater, Louvre G. 175 (C.V.A., France, ii. pls. XII. 5, 7, XIV. 4); p. 86, Berlin 2160, ‘the Berlin Amphora,’ J.H.S. xxxi., pls. XV., XVI.; p. 98, Munich 2428, F.R. 73, 2; Vol. II. p. 5, Munich 2344, by Kleophrades, , F.R. 44, 45Google Scholar; p. 6, Louvre G. 162 by Kleophrades, details C.V.A., France, Pt. II., pls. LXXXIV. 6, LXXXVI. 1–3, and Leyden, shoulder of hydria, Centauromachy, Roulez, , Vases de Leyde, Pl. XI. 1; p. 42Google Scholar, Munich, F.R. 49, and fragment of outside of another similar at Castle Ashby.
54a At the same time Mr. Hoppin informs me that these vases will be published in the forthcoming fascicule of Mr. Pottier's Corpus. I have therefore only given the upper part of the figures, showing the characteristic differences betweea the heads of Dionysos and Bacchants contrasted with those of satyrs, two from a kylix of Duris (Hoppin, 59), the other from one of the stamnoi corresponding to the vase in the Hope Collection (No. 18) published by Mr. Tillyard.
55 This limitation also includes portraits and caricatures, such, e.g., as in the Euphronios type of vase (cf. the later period of that artist) given in Pfuhl, op. cit., 166, Nos. 470 and 471.
56 ‘Archaische Griechische Vasenmalerei und Plastik,’ Ath. Mitt. Vol. XXXXIII. pp. 47–174, pls. I. to V. This interesting article, the point of which is the important relation between vase-painting and sculpture, contains much valuable information. Naturally one cannot agree with all the conclusions or even comparisons, e.g., the similarity which the author intends to establish between the head of the so-called statue of Apollo at Athens (No. 1558: after Deonna, Les Apollons archaiques, fig. 202) and the early amphora at Munich (No. 837: Furtw.-Reich., Griech. Vas. Pl. XXI.) appears to me markedly to show contrast rather than similarity. The head of the statue in its general oblong outline seems rather to be of the nature of an anticipation of the ‘Argive outline’ while the female head from the amphora is a marked, almost caricatured, instance of the non-classical triangular outline.
57 Dickins, , Cat. Acr. Mus., p. 244.Google Scholar
58 Brunn-Bruckman, 457B.
59 B.-B. 41, A. and B.
60 Svoronos, , Das Athener National-museum I., Pl. XXIV.Google Scholar
61 Gardner, E., Greek Sculpture, p. 131Google Scholar, fig. 17.
62 Lechat, , Mon. Piot. III, 1896, Pl. I.Google Scholar See also Dickins, op. cit. I. p. 260.
62a Cf. also the recently published volume of Hoppin, , Handbook Bl.-Fig. Vases, Paris, 1924Google Scholar: from Aristonothos onwards, especially illustrations on p. 7. Amasis, p. 40; Exekias, p. 93; Hermogenes, pp. 127, 129; Klitios, François Vase; Nikosthenes, pp. 197, 202, 209, 215, 235; Phrynos, pp. 313, 315; Sakonides, pp. 320, 322; Sophilos, 337. Note also the treatment of the eye in these vases.
63 Beazley, , Red-Fig. Album, Vol. I.: p. 13Google Scholar, B.M. E. 34; Hoppin, ii. p. 16; p. 14, B.M. E. 256; Catalogue, iii. Pl. X.; p. 16, Boston; Beazley, , V.A., p. 5Google Scholar, fig. 1; p. 17, B.M. E. 256, six details, including two heads; p. 20, Selection of vases by the ‘Nikoxenos Painter,’ including B.M. E. 160 and Munich 2304, B.S.A. Annual, XIX. pls. XVIII., XIX.; p. 21; Berlin 2265, ‘Euergides Painter,’ J.H.S. xxxiii, p. 351, fig. 3 (inside) and Jahrbuch, vi. p. 253, lower figure (one side of outside); p. 22, B.M. E. 253, Hoppin's ‘Euthymides,’ Pl. XXXVII. p. 23, Berlin 2180, ‘the Leagros Krater,’ Pfuhl, Pl. CXXIV.; p. 25, Munich 2306, Panel Amphora, Heracles and Cerberus; p. 30, Munich 2421, shoulder of hydria, Furt.-Reich. 71; p. 31, Munich 2590 and 2421, F.R. 32, 71; p. 32, Corneto, F.R. 91 and Louvre G. 42, F.R. 112—Phintias; p. 33, B.M. E. 159, J.H.S. xii, pls. XX., XXI. and Boston, Antike Denkmäler, ii. Pl. XX.; p. 34, Louvre G. 103, F.R. 92, 93—Euphronios; p. 36, Munich 3620, F.R. 22—Euphronios; p. 37, Berlin 2278, F.R. 123, the Sosias kylix; p. 38, Berlin 2279, Hartwig, Pl. XXIV.—Peithinos; p. 39, Munich 2307, 2308, F.R. 14, 81; p. 40, Munich 2309, F.R. 33; p. 41, Boston, ‘the Hestiaios Plate,’ Beazley, , V.A., p. 31Google Scholar, fig. 15, and Vienna, Masner 333, F.R. 72; Vol. II. p. 6, Louvre (Kleophrades painter), kalyx-krater, G. 162, Monumenti d. I., suppl. Pl. XXIV, and Corpus, 25. Louvre, Pl. XII. 8, Pl. XIII, 2, 5, Pl. XIV., 1 and 6, Pl. XVI., 1–3. See also, p. 8, Hydria, Rouen, unpublished and Hydria Leyden, (Kleophrades) Roulez, , Vases de Leyde, Pl. XI. 1Google Scholar; New York, fragmentary kalyx-krater, for details see Beazley, , V.A., p. 41Google Scholar, fig. 23; p. 9, Paris, Bib. Nat. 535, fragments signed by Kleophrades, Hartwig, Pl. XXXVII; p. 13, Leyden, , J.H.S. xxx. Pl. VI.Google Scholar; p. 65, Munich (Satyr and Maenad); Hoppin collection, style of Duris, also Munich Jahrbuch, 31, pp. 84–5; Vol. IV., Maenad and Dionysos, stamnos, Hoppin collection, unpublished. To these might be added from Pfuhl's recent work, Malerei und Zeichnung, etc., the following illustrative vases: Vol. III., Pl. 70, No. 267, Andokides; Pl. 91, No. 321; pls. 115 and 116, Nos. 379 and 280, Kleophrades; Pl. 117, No. 381, Phintias, pls. 121, 122, Euphronios.
64 In the progress of our exposition of this enquiry I have come to realise that limitations of space will not admit of my dealing exhaustively with the part concerning the eye on the same scale as has hitherto been adopted. It was even my intention to add to the text lists of vases made in various museums (especially the British Museum) at various times, as well as from the chief vase publications (such as Furtwängler-Reichhold, supplemented recently by Pfuhl and others). Finally, Mr. Beazley generously placed at my disposal his invaluable collection of photographs from vase paintings, so that the points under discussion could there be tabulated. I must defer the publication of such lists (which may be of some value to special students) to a future occasion. I have also omitted drawings of a long series of eyes from vases of different periods and have limited myself to a series of eyes by Euphronios only.
65 The flat marble Lysias, stele (Antike Denkm. iii. pls. XXXII., XXXIII.Google Scholar; Anzeiger 1922, Beilage i.; Pfuhl, Vol. III, Pl. 177, No. 487) had no relief, but was completely painted. I remember that in 1878, when this stele, together with other works of sculpture, were temporarily deposited at Athens, before the building of the museum, I tried the experiment on a number of similar flat stelae (unsculptured and with no traces of painting) of carefully washing the surface, and, in several cases, detecting such traces of colouring and drawing. We may safely conclude that all these flat stelae, without relief, were provided with painted figures. This also shows the close relationship between the crafts of painting and sculpture in this period.
66 Pliny, , N.H. xxxv. 56.Google Scholar
67 Riezler, , Weissgrundige Attische Lekythen, Pl. XXXVI.Google Scholar; Pfuhl, op. cit. iii. Pl. 209, No. 543.
68 This whole question as regards sculpture will be dealt with more fully elsewhere.
69 I pointed out this characteristic and its importance as a chronological landmark in Greek art in 1884, when comparing a later modification of the Hesperido from one of the metopes of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia with a marble head in the Museum of Madrid, (J.H.S. v. pp. 171seq., Pl. XLV.).Google Scholar In the Olympian head the eyeball is more prominent and the eyelids join on the same plane at the outer angle, while in the Madrid head the upper lid projects and is prolonged over the under lid. ‘All the heads from the Temple of Zeus at Olympia have the same characteristic treatment. In fact this detail seems to mark the line between the works before and after about the year 450 before our era. So far as I have been able to examine the point at present, the heads from the metopes of the Parthenon have the same early treatment of the eye as the Olympian sculptures; while the extant heads from the frieze of the Parthenon have the later treatment of the eye. (This detail may prove of some importance in determining the chronological relation between the sculptures of the Olympian pediment and those of the Parthenon, as well as in determining the exact chronology between the Parthenon sculptures among each other.)’ I must add that, while at that time carrying on this special enquiry, I was much perturbed in finding that one of the heads among the casts of the pediments of the Aegina Temple also had jthis marked projection of the upper lid; but, on examining the originals at Munich, I found that the head had been restored by Thorwaldsen.
70 Still a progressive survey of the coins of Athens, as now published by Svoronos (Lee Monnaies d' Athènes, Munich, 1923) is instructive as regards the treatment of the eye: from the time of Peisistratos and Solon (pls. II., IV., V.) and the Peisistratidae (Pl. VI). to the battle of Marathon (Pl. VII.), to Themistocles and Kimon (Pl. VIII.)—in which Nos. 26 and 27 show some advance—to Pericles (Pl. IX.); through the Peloponnesian War, 429, to Peace of Nicias, 412 (Pl. XII., except No. 1) to (Pl. XIII.) the Sicilian Expedition (except Nos. 2 and 3), to the Fall of the Thirty and the victory of Sames, 403–365 (pls. XV., XVI.) to Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great, when the eye is properly drawn.
71 In the same coin struck by Euainetos after 450 B.C. the eye is more properly rendered.
71a Who died in 467.
71b Alive in 433.
72 Greek Vase Painting, p. 138.
73 Cf. Pfuhl, op. cit. pp. 446 seq.
74 There is a strange analogy between this group on the vase and the large Eleusinian relief, on the mixed archaism of which I dwelt in an earlier part of this paper.