previous next

The Mausoleum Sculptors

The only detailed descriptions of the Mausoleum are by Vitruvius and Pliny:

“Satyrus and Pytheus wrote a book on the Mausoleum. On these men good fortune conferred the greatest and highest tribute. For their works of art are judged to possess merits renowned for all time and unfading for eternity, and from their deliberations were produced works of high distinction. For example, individual artists undertook one side each, competing against each other in embellishing and scrutinizing the work: Leochares, Bryaxis, Scopas, and Praxiteles, while some add Timotheus. The outstanding quality of their art caused the fame of the building to be included among the Seven Wonders of the World.

Vitruvius 7. Praef. 12-13

“The rivals and contemporaries of Scopas were Bryaxis, Timotheus, and Leochares, whom we must discuss together because they all worked on the carvings for the Mausoleum. This was the tomb built by Artemisia for her husband Mausolus, the satrap of Caria, who died in the 2nd year of the 107th Olympiad [351; he actually died in 353]. These artists were chiefly responsible for the work's inclusion among the Seven Wonders of the World. On the North and South sides it extends for 63 feet [actually 120 feet] but the length of the facades is less, giving a total circumference of 440 feet. It rises to a height of 25 cubits [probably the colonnade alone] and is enclosed by 36 columns . . . Scopas carved the east side, Bryaxis the north, Timotheus the south, and Leochares the west, but before they had finished, the queen died [351]. However, they refused to stop working until it was complete, since they had decided that it would be a monument both to their own glory and to that of their art, and even today their rivalry persists. A fifth artist also joined them. For above the colonnade is a pyramid that equals the building's podium in height, tapering in 24 steps to its peak; at the top is a marble chariot-and-four that Pythis made. With this added, the building's total height comes to 140 feet.

Pliny, N.H. 36.30-1
The information given in these passages has been endlessly disputed, though recent excavation has resolved some problems; for a conjectural restoration of the building and a selection of the sculpture see Stewart 1990, figs. 524-38: head of Apollo (London 1058), bearded male (London 1054), Persian rider (London 1045), panther (London 1095), Amazon frieze (London 1014), Amazon frieze (London 1020), Carian lady and nobleman (London 1000) (London 1001), lion (London 1075), horse from the chariot group (London 1002); for earlier attempts, see the sketches in Pollitt 1990, 197 fig. 7.

As to personalities, Pytheos of Priene (a noted theorist of the Ionic order) was clearly the building's architect and carved the great four-horsed chariot that crowned its summit; according to Vitruvius 1.12 and 7 Praef. 12, he later went on to design the temple of Athena Polias at Priene, which was still under construction when Alexander passed through in 334.

Select bibliography: RE 24: 372-459 (Riemann, 1963); Waywell 1978, 79-84; Carter 1990.

Satyros, who co-authored the book on the building (T 107), was surely the Satyros son of Isotimos of Paros who made statues of Maussolos's successors, Ada and Idrieus, at Delphi around 345 (Marcadé 1953, 93); he may have been Maussolos's court sculptor. Timotheos has received attention above (T 88-90). This leaves Bryaxis, Leochares, and Skopas.

Bryaxis (I) of Athens


After Fraser's work on the Sarapis cult (Fraser 1972, 246-76) it now seems quite clear that two sculptors named Bryaxis were active between 370 and 270; this is supported by T 149, which distinguishes an Athenian Bryaxis — presumably the sculptor of T 107-08, active ca. 353-351 — from the maker of the Sarapis, installed in the Alexandrian Serapeion around 286-278. This later Bryaxis was probably the one responsible for the Apollo at Daphne around 300-281 (T 147-8, below), and perhaps the portrait of Seleukos mentioned along with an Asklepios by Pliny, N.H. 34.73. Not to separate the two in this way entails that the Bryaxis born ca. 390 (for the Mausoleum was begun in the 360s) would be almost a centenarian when hired by the Seleukids and Ptolemies.

This leaves precious little for Bryaxis I. For not only is it not clear which of the other attested works (five colossal bronze divinities in Rhodes, a Zeus, Apollo and lions at Patara in Lykia, a marble Dionysos at Knidos (T 95), an Asklepios at Megara, and a Pasiphae later in Rome) belong to which sculptor, but the finds from the North side of the Mausoleum are too heterogeneous to provide a firm base for attributions. Only a tripod-base from Athens with three horsemen in relief, signed by Bryaxis in a mid fourth-century script, can be securely attributed to him; its powerfully-built horses have (predictably) been seized upon by those anxious to discover him in he extant slabs of the Amazon frieze: most favored is B.M. 1019. Finally, a base from Rome, now lost, bore the words "the work of Bryaxis" in Latin, clearly a renewal.

Select bibliography (excluding works attributable to Bryaxis II): Overbeck 1868/1959, nos. 1316-27; Löwy 1885/1976 no. 492; Imhoof-Blumer 1887/1964, 5-6; Stuart-Jones 1895/1966, 175-76; RE 3: 916-20 (Robert, 1899); ThB 5: 164-66 (Amelung, 1911); Lacroix 1949, 318-20; Lippold 1950, 257-60; Picard 1935-1971 (vol. 4): (Picard/Manuel) 1-108; EAA 2: 196-99 (Vlad Borelli 1959); Picard 1963, 854-915; Boardman 1967, 442-43; Pharaklas 1969 (tripod-base); Richter 1970d, 217-19; Coarelli 1971-72: 99-106; M. Robertson 1975, 457-59; Waywell 1978, 79-84; Hornblower 1982, 240-44; Gallet de Santerre 1983, 39, 82, 245; Jeppesen 1986; Pollitt 1990, 91-92, 196-98; Ridgway 1990a, 95-97; Stewart 1990, 180-182, 282.

Leochares of Athens


Also an Athenian, Leochares is the best documented of this entire group except for Skopas. Even though Pliny includes him not within his informative `Xenokratic' chapters but — like Bryaxis and Demetrios — in a dry alphabetical catalogue of uncertain origin (N.H. 34.79: cf. T 110), others remark upon his work, and no fewer than 10 signed bases survive. His attested output is as follows:

    • Zeus Brontaios in bronze, later in Rome (T 110
    • Zeus Polieus on the Akropolis
    • Zeus and Demos in Piraeus
    • Apollo outside the temple of Apollo Patroos in the Agora (T 118
    • Apollo with a diadem, in bronze (T 110
    • The eagle of Zeus abducting Ganymede, in bronze (T 110
    • Alexander and family in the Philippeion at Olympia, in chryselephantine (T 93, 111)
    • Alexander and Krateros hunting lions in the royal Persian park at Sidon, at Delphi, in bronze (with Lysippos; T 123, 124)
    • The pankratiast Autolykos in bronze, in the Prytaneion at Athens (T 110
    • Isokrates, dedicated at Eleusis by the Athenian general Timotheos
    • Lysippe, Pandaites, Myron, Pasikles, Timostrate, and Aristomache in bronze, dedicated on the Akropolis by Pandaites and Pasikles of Potamos (with Sthennis)
    • The priest Charmides, later in Rome
    Uncertain subjects
    • Dedication by a son of Amphilochos to Asklepios, in the Athenian Asklepieion
    • Dedication by Archeneos and 9 others, in the Agora
    • Dedication by a priest (?) in the Agora
    • Dedication by Hippiskos son of Aischylos, on the Akropolis
    • Dedication by a man from Oion, on the Akropolis
    • Dedication on the Akropolis
    • Dedication by Thrasylochos son of Kephisodoros, at Oropos
    Architectural sculpture
    • West side of the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos (T 107-8
    Disputed and problematic works
    • Two Apollos, allegedly bought by Plato for Dionysios II of Syracuse (T 109
    • Ares at Halikarnassos, an akrolith (given by some to Timotheos)
    • The slave 'Lango' in bronze, probably by Lykiskos
Though with the partial exception of (20) none of these works survives in the original, several of them can be dated and furnish unusually full information as to Leochares' career. The first date is given by Pliny (T 1), who places his floruit very early, in 372-369; some try to connect this with (1), arguing on circumstantial grounds that it was perhaps made for Megalopolis, founded after the Spartan defeat at Leuktra in 371. A remark in a letter purportedly sent by Plato to Dionysios II of Syracuse in 365/4 also stresses his youth, in connection with (21):

“About the things you wrote asking me to send you, I bought the Apollo and Leptines is bringing it; it is by a fine young artist named Leochares. There was another work there by him that I thought very elegant, so I bought it to give to your wife.

Yet philosophers dispute this letter's authenticity, and indeed the transaction is hardly conceivable before the Hellenistic period. More securely, (10) must predate Timotheos' exile in 356/5, while (20) belongs around 368-350. The mention of Asklepios' priest Teisias puts (13) in 338/7, overlapping (7), begun just after the battle of Chaironeia in 338 and still unfinished at Philip's murder in 336 (T 111); (11) can hardly pre-date ca. 330, for Pandaites was born ca. 351 (cf. J.K. Davies 1971 no. 643); and finally, though the hunt commemorated by (8) occurred either in 333 or when Alexander was campaigning in central Asia in 331-327, its inscription (T 123) records that Krateros died before its dedication. Since he was killed in 320, and Plutarch, Alexander 40 records that Lysippos made some of the figures, it is arguable that Leochares also died at around this time, and Lysippos was hired to complete the work.

When one scans his oeuvre, Leochares emerges as something of a complementary figure to Praxiteles, albeit at a rather lesser level of achievement. For while selecting the same genres (divinities and portraits) as Praxiteles, he now concentrated upon male gods, specialized in bronze, and worked mainly in Attica. There are hints of a distinctive political strategy too, for while from ca. 340 Praxiteles' sons were busy sustaining Athens' navy and working for the patriot Lykourgos and his circle (cf. T 134-36, below), he cultivated the Macedonians and their partisans (7, 8, perhaps 13) — sympathies perhaps prefigured in the commission for the panhellenist and eventually pro-Macedonian Isokrates (12).

If only his sculpture had survived in like measure to the testimonia. Nothing significant was found in situ on the West side of the Mausoleum (Waywell 1978, 11-12), and repeated attempts at speculative attribution have never gained universal support, even though Pliny's account seems unusually full (caution: no. 22 and T 4):

“Leochares made an eagle which is aware of just what it is abducting in Ganymede and for whom it is carrying him, and therefore refrains from injuring the boy with its claws, even through his clothing; [he also made] the pancratiast victor Autolycus, in whose honor Xenophon wrote his Symposium , a Jove the Thunderer now on the Capitol, praised above all others, a diademed Apollo, Lyciscus, Lango, a boy with the crafty cringing look of a household slave.

Pliny N.H. 34.79
The description of the Ganymede (6), probably based on a Hellenistic epigram (cf. Anth. Pal. 12.221: Hadrianic) has led many to see this in a heavily restored Vatican statuette, The Zeus (1) is pictured on Roman coins (most recently, Zanker 1988, 108, fig. 89a), and has been recognized in a series of fine Roman bronze statuettes (most recently, Kozloff-Mitten 1988, no. 30, correcting the attribution to Lysippos favored in Stewart 1990, 190-91, fig. 568). Unfortunately the Autolykos (often gratuitously given to Lykios son of Myron: but see Gallet de Santerre 1983, 257) and the diademed Apollo (cf. Paus. 1.8.4) seem lost forever.

Of the others, (4) — cf. T 118 — is regularly identified with the Belvedere Apollo (Vatican 1015; Stewart 1990, fig. 573). Two points are at issue here: the status of the Belvedere copy, and the attribution itself. As to the first, a statuette in Arezzo certifies the motif (Bocci Pacini, P., and Nocentini Sbolci, S., Museo Nazionale di Arezzo. Catalogo di Sculture Romane [Rome 1983]: no. 17: contra, Deubner 1979, 225 n. 6), while plaster fragments from Baiae (Landwehr 1985, 104-111 nos. 64-76) establish its classical pedigree. Concerning the attribution, Hedrick 1984 conclusively identifies Leochares' statue (T 118) as an Apollo Pythios, which helps to support the traditional view, since the Baiae casts prove that the type was indeed prepubescent, and the epithet derives from his boyhood battle against the Pythoness at Delphi, when "the lord Apollo, the far-shooter / shot a strong arrow at her / and she lay there, torn with terrible pain" (Homeric Hymn to Pythian Apollo 356-59). Though the Versailles Artemis type is often attributed to the same hand, Pfrommer 1984 has shown that her sandals are late Hellenistic, and argues strongly for a date ca. 100.

As to the portraits, (7) is described by Pausanias:

“[The Philippeion at Olympia] was built by Philip after the fall of Greece at Chaironeia [338]. Here are displayed statues of Philip and Alexander, and with them is Philip's father Amyntas. These works too are by Leochares, and are of ivory and gold, like the portraits of Olympias and Eurydike.

Cf. T 93; though hard evidence is lacking, the so-called 'Alkibiades'/Philip and Akropolis-Erbach Alexander (Athens, Acropolis 1331; Stewart 1990, fig. 560; Stewart 1993, figs. 4-5) are often considered replicas of this group, though opinion is divided upon whether the Akropolis head is fourth century (but recut), late Hellenistic, or even Roman. I incline to a fourth-century date. (8) is apparently reflected in a relief from Elis, now in Paris, while the Isokrates preserved in a single poor copy in the Villa Albani could equally reproduce (10) or the statue set up after his death in 338 (Paus. 1.18.8; Plut. Mor. 839B; cf. Richter 1965, 208-10). Finally, of the numerous attempts to resurrect Leochares from the debris of the Mausoleum (20), perhaps the most attractive is still Ashmole's (Ashmole 1951a), who establishes a relatively tight association between B.M. slabs London 1013, London 1014, London 1015, London 1037 (now stripped of its lower part: Cook 1976, 53-4), the Akropolis Alexander (Athens, Acropolis 1331), and the Demeter of Knidos, London 1300 (Stewart 1990, figs. 529-31, 560, 572). None of these seems incompatible with the Belvedere Apollo, discussed above.

If all this is not fantasy, then it reveals a sculptor who is compositionally daring yet in other respects costively conservative: an unorthodox but strangely appealing address that first surprises then reassures the spectator. Whether attributable to Leochares or not, the combination can hardly have failed to be a winner.

Select bibliography: (A) General: RE 12: 1992-98 (Lippold, 1925); ThB 23: 66-8 (Bieber, 1929); Lippold 1950, 268-72; Picard 1954, 1-108; EAA 4: 565-6 (Arias, 1961); Bieber 1961b, 62-3; Picard 1935-1971 (vol. 4): (Picard/Manuel) 754-854; Richter 1970d, 220-22; M. Robertson 1975, 460-63); Ridgway 1990a, 93-95; Stewart 1990, 179, 180-82, 189, 191, 237, 282-84.

(B) Sources: Overbeck 1868/1959, nos. 1301-1315; Löwy 1885/1976 nos. 77-83, 505; Stuart-Jones 1895/1966, 172-75; Jex-Blake 1896, lxx, lxxii; Donnay 1959; J.K. Davies 1971 no. 643; Peppa-Delmouzou 1980, 430-33; Gallet de Santerre 1983, 256-58; Jeppesen 1986; Pollitt 1990, 90-91, 196-98.

(C) Individual works: Imhoof-Blumer 1887/1964, 137-38; Rodenwaldt 1943 (Apollo); Ashmole 1951a (Mausoleum, Demeter, Alexander); Bieber 1964, 24-25 (Alexander); Richter 1965, 105-07, 208-10, 255 (`Alkibiades'/Philip, Isokrates, Alexander); Künzl 1968, 27-31 (Ganymede); Arnold 1969, 210 (chronology); Borbein 1973, 91-97, 143-45, 150-53 (Krateros, Apollo); Graeve 1974 (Alexander); Moreno 1974, 14-15, 33-37, 86-105 (Krateros); Waywell 1978, 79-84 (Mausoleum); Vierneisel-Schlorb 1979, 343 n. 41-42, 373, 378 n. 29 (Demeter and Kore, Alexander); Deubner 1979 (Apollo); Haskell 1981, 148-51 (Apollo); Hornblower 1982, 243-44 (Mausoleum); Daltrop 1983 (Apollo); Hedrick 1984 (Apollo); LIMC 2.1: 198 no. 79, 381 no. 57 (Palagia, Simon 1984, Apollo); Pfrommer 1984 (Artemis); Landwehr 1985, 104-11 nos. 64-76 (Apollo); Kozloff-Mitten 1988, no. 30 (Zeus); Ridgway 1990a, 135 (Alexander); Stewart 1993, Chapters 4.2, 9.3 (Alexander and 'Alkibiades'; Krateros group).

Skopas of Paros


First-century Delian inscriptions record restoration work by Aristandros of Paros, son of Skopas; if the sequence holds, the Aristandros of Paros active around 400 (T 86) thus becomes the great Skopas' father. Skopas' recorded works, all marbles but for no. 1, are:

    • Aphrodite Pandemos riding a goat, at Elis
    • Aphrodite and Pothos, in Samothrace (T 112
    • Aphrodite, later in Rome (T 112
    • Apollo Kitharoidos at Rhamnous, taken to Rome by Augustus
    • Apollo Smintheus and a mouse, at Chryse in the Troad
    • Ares, seated and colossal, later in Rome (T 112
    • Artemis Eukleia at Thebes
    • Asklepios and Hygieia at Gortys in Arkadia
    • Asklepios and Hygieia at Tegea (T 113
    • Athena at Knidos (T 95
    • Athena Pronaos at Thebes
    • Dionysos at Knidos (T 95
    • Hekate at Argos
    • Hermes (a herm)
    • Hestia, later in Rome (T 112
    • Leto and Ortygia with the babies Apollo and Artemis, at Ephesos
    • Two Erinyes (Furies) flanking another by Kalamis, at Athens
    • Eros, Himeros and Pothos, grouped with the Peitho and Paregoros of Praxiteles around the ancient Aphrodite Praxis at Megara
    • Herakles at Sikyon
    • Basket-bearer ('kanephoros') and two pillars, later in Rome (T 112
    • A Maenad (T 114
    Architectural sculpture
    • Poseidon, Thetis, Achilles, and their train, later in the Circus Flaminius at Rome (T 112
    • Reliefs on one of the columns of the temple of Artemis at Ephesos
    • East side of the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos (T 107-8
    • Temple of Alea Athena at Tegea (architect: T 113
    Uncertain or spurious
    • The dying children of Niobe, later in Rome (also given to Praxiteles)
    • 'Janus' taken by Augustus from Alexandria to Rome (ditto)
    • Eros/Alkibiades with a thunderbolt, later in Rome (ditto)
    • Artemis, supposedly in an Athenian private collection ca. A.D. 150
The Mausoleum apart (24), none of these is exactly datable, and the floruit of T 1 is clearly wrong. What other information we have tends to cluster in the 340s and 330s. The old temple at Tegea (25) was burnt in 395 (T 113), but it now seems that Skopas's replacement postdates the Mausoleum (Norman 1986), with which it shares the same foot-module. A relief with Ada, Idrieus, and Zeus Stratios found at the site and dated to 345 was presumably dedicated by a worker he brought back with him from Halikarnassos. The Temenos at Samothrace, probably the location of (2) and provided with coffer reliefs in the style of the Tegea heads (25) was built in the 330s. (7) and (11), on the other hand, must predate the destruction of Thebes in 335. Finally, (23) was also begun around 340, to replace the temple burnt in 356.

Skopas' career is thus only documented from ca. 360 to ca. 335, though most studies assume that it began in the 370s, and make him an exact contemporary of Praxiteles (T 112). In fact, Praxiteles apparently collaborated on (18) and was a rival candidate for (26)-(28); elsewhere, the two are often paired by Greek and Roman writers, Pliny included:

“Scopas rivals these [Praxiteles and his sons] in merit. He made the Venus and Pothos which are worshipped with the most solemn ritual in Samothrace, also the Palatine Apollo, the seated and much-praised Vesta in the Gardens of Servilius, two turning-posts beside her (duplicated in Asinius [Pollio's] collection, where his Basket-bearer is also to be found). But most highly esteemed are those works in the shrine of Cn. Domitius in the Circus Flaminius: Neptune himself, Thetis, Achilles, Nereids seated on dolphins, sea-dragons, or sea-horses, Tritons, the chorus of Phorcys, swordfish and many other sea-creatures, all carved by the same hand, a magnificent achievement, even if it had taken his whole life. As it is, apart from the works just mentioned and those unknown to us, there is furthermore the colossal seated Mars by the same artist in the temple of Brutus Callaecus, also in the Circus, and especially a nude Venus, that surpasses the one by Praxiteles and would have brought fame to anywhere else but Rome.

Pliny N.H. 36.25-6
Given the limitations of ancient connoisseurship (T 4), some caution is necessary, but such a consistent pattern of association may shed unexpected light on Skopas' style, at least in those genres where their work overlapped: see Stewart 1977a, 2-3, 104, and further below.

Of the 25 secure works, fragments of only (25) and perhaps (9) and (22) can be recognized in the original, thanks to unusually detailed accounts in the literature (cf. T 112):

“(45) [The old temple at Tegea] was completely destroyed by a sudden fire when Diophantos was archon at Athens, in the 2nd year of the 96th Olympiad, when Eupolemos of Elis won the foot-race [395]. The present temple is far superior to all other temples in the Peloponnese on many grounds, but particularly as regards its embellishment and size. The first colonnade is Doric, and the one after that is Corinthian; also [in]side the temple stand Ionic columns. I learnt that its architect was Skopas of Paros, who made the images in many places in ancient Greece, and some besides in Ionia and Caria.

Concerning the pedimental sculptures, on the front is the Hunt of the Kalydonian Boar. The boar stands right in the center, and on one side are Atalante, Meleager, Theseus, Telamon and Peleus, Polydeukes, and Iolaos — Herakles' companion in most of his Labors — and the sons of Thestios and brothers of Althaia, Prothoos and Kometes. On the other side of the boar comes [. . . lacuna? . . .], Epochos supporting Ankaios who is now wounded and has dropped his axe, then Kastor, Amphiaraos son of Oikles, then Hippothous son of Kerkyon, son of Agamedes, son of Stymphalos. The last figure is Peirithous. On the rear pediment is the battle between Telephos and Achilles on the plain of Kaikos.

(46) The ancient image of Alea Athena was carried off by the Roman emperor Augustus, together with the tusks of the Kalydonian boar, after he defeated Antony and his allies [31], among whom were all the Arcadians except the Mantineans . . . . It is in the Forum of Augustus, right in the entrance, . . . made throughout of ivory, the work of Endoios.

(47) The present image at Tegea was brought from the deme of Manthyrenses, and was surnamed by them "Hippia" . . . On one side of it stands Asklepios, on the other Hygieia, works of Skopas of Paros in Pentelic marble. Of the votives in the temple the following are the most notable....

On the Tegea sculptures see Stewart 1977a and Stewart 1990, figs. 540-45: head of Telephos (Tegea Museum 60), head of a warrior from the west pediment (Athens, NM 180), head supposedly from Tegea (Malibu 79.AA.1); the Getty head (Stewart 1982b; Hafner 1984) is a fake. The Grimani Triton in Berlin is a likely survivor from (22), whose base is often thought to be the so-called 'Ahenobarbus Ara' (marriage of Poseidon and Amphitrite (Munich 239), census, with Mars looking on (Louvre MA 975; Stewart 1990, figs. 843-46), though the arguments deployed in support are both tortuous and ultimately unconvincing. P.W. Lehmann 1973 and P.W. Lehmann1982 adds the Samothracian coffer reliefs (cf. no. 2), together with the architecture of the propylon to the Temenos itself.

As to copies, replicas of (2) or (18), (4) — cf. T 90 (Timotheos no. 2) — (19), and (21) have been identified with varying degrees of certainty, and the Lansdowne-type Herakles (Malibu 70.AA.109) and Meleager (Vatican 490) added to the list (Stewart 1990, figs. 546-49). Most secure among these is the Maenad (21), thanks once again to an extended description:

“Skopas, as if moved by some inspiration, imparted to the making of his statue the divine frenzy that possessed him. Why should I not describe to you from the beginning the inspiration of this work of art?

The statue of a Maenad, wrought from Parian marble, has been transformed into a real Maenad. For the stone, while retaining its own nature, yet seemed to depart from the law which governs stone; what one saw was really an image, but art carried imitation over into actual reality. You would have seen that, hard as it was, it became soft to resemble the feminine, though its vigor corrected the femininity, and that, though it lacked the power to move, it knew how to dance in Bacchic frenzy, responding to the god as he entered within.

When we saw her face we stood speechless, so clear upon it was the evidence of sense perception, though perception was not present; so clear was the intimation of Bacchic divine possession stirring Bacchic frenzy, though no such possession aroused it; and as many signs of passion that a soul goaded by divine madness displays, these blazed out from it, fashioned by art in fashion indescribable. The hair fell free to be tossed by the wind, and was divided to show the glory of each strand; this most of all transcended reason, since, stone though the material was, it obeyed the lightness of hair and yielded to imitation of its tresses, and though void of life's vitality it was vital withal.

Indeed you might say that art has harnessed the impulses of growth, so unbelievable is what you see, so visible is what you do not believe. It actually even showed hands in motion — for it was not waving the Bacchic thyrsos, but carried a victim as if crying "Euoi"! — sign of a more poignant madness. And the figure of the kid was livid in color, and the stone took on the appearance of dead flesh; and though the material was one and the same, it severally imitated life and death . . . .

Kallistratos, Descriptions 2.1-4 (selections)
Finally, as well as (19), (1) and perhaps (5) are pictured on coins.

Now Hellenistic critics recognized Skopas' forte to be statues of the gods (agalmata), a genre unfortunately very poorly represented among the surviving monuments:

“Sculptors of gods (agalmatopoioi ): Pheidias, Praxiteles, Skopas.
Sculptors of men (andriantopoioi ): Myron, Lysippos, Polykleitos, Phryomachos.

Laterculi Alexandrini 7.3-9
Yet it is here if anywhere that the heroic manner of the extant marbles would be most muted and his rivalry with Praxiteles would be most intense. Together, T 112 and the copies of the Pothos might confirm this if only we could be sure that his work in this most Praxitelean of subjects was typical. His major concerns — and with them, his relationship to the great Athenian — still remain tantalizingly beyond our grasp.

Select bibliography: (A) General: RE 3.A: 569-79 (Lippold, 1927); ThB 31: 115-19 (Bieber, 1937); Picard 1935-1971 (vol. 3): (Picard/Manuel) 633-780, (vol. 4) 1-236; Lippold 1950, 249-54; EWA 13: 57-62 (Ashmole, 1958); Bieber 1961b, 23-9; EAA 7: 364-69 (Arias, 1966); Boardman 1967, 439-42; Richter 1970d, 207-13; M. Robertson 1975, 452-57; Stewart 1977a; Ridgway 1990a, 82-90; Stewart 1990, 182-85, 284-86, and index, s.v. 'Skopas'.

(B) Sources: Overbeck 1868/1959, nos. 1149-89; Stuart-Jones 1895/1966, 166-72; Stewart 1977a, 126-35, 151; Jeppesen 1986; Pollitt 1990, 94-98, 182, 196-98.

(C) Individual works: Imhoof-Blumer 1887/1964, 30, 72-73; Lacroix 1949, 316-18; Hanfmann 1964 (Meleager); Lattimore 1973 (Meleager); Delivorrias 1973 (Tegea); P.W. Lehmann 1973 (Samothrace); S. Lattimore 1976 (Thiasos); P.W. Lehmann 1978 (archaistic); Waywell 1978, 79-84 (Mausoleum); Haskell 1981, 263-65 (Meleager); Stewart 1982b (Tegea, heroes); P.W. Lehmann 1982 (Samothrace); Knigge 1982 (Pandemos) - but see E.B. Harrison 1984, 383 n. 21; Delivorrias 1983 (Tegea); Raeder 1983, 53 no. 34, 226-28 (Lansdowne Herakles); Hafner 1984 (Tegea); Palagia 1984b (Hope Herakles); Marcadé 1986 (Tegea); Norman 1986 (Tegea); Zanker 1988, 240-41, fig. 186 (Apollo).

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: