The Archaic Period
Daidalos, Son of Eupalamos or Metion, of Athens
DaedalusThough the place-name dadarejode or daidaleonde is known from the Knossian Linear B tablets (ca. 1400 B.C.), the first mention of the artist Daidalos ("Cunning-Worker") is in Homer's description of the Shield of Achilles:
Thereafter, the sources are silent till the fifth century, when an Aeschylean satyr-chorus describes a lifelike series of masks on a temple, "wrought by superhuman skill":
“And the renowned smith of the strong arms made elaborate on it
A dancing floor, like that which once in the wide spaces of Knossos
Daidalos built for Ariadne of the lovely tresses.
tr. Richmond Lattimore”
Many classical and later authors elaborate upon this theme, and a few offer other (sometimes conflicting) judgments and miscellaneous information about his innovations:
“Look and see if possibly
This image could be more like me.
Wrought by Daidalos, it only lacks a voice!
”Aeschylus, POxy 2162, lines 5-7
“The sanctuary of Athena Chalinitis is by the theater [of Corinth], and near it is a naked wooden image of Herakles, said to be by Daidalos. All the works of this artist, though somewhat uncouth to look at, nevertheless have a touch of the divine in them.”
Though the "Daedalic" style in Greek seventh-century sculpture owes its name wholly to nineteenth-century wishful thinking, Pausanias lists several more of Daidalos' supposed works, and other sources added others as the desire to attribute obviously primitive statues to the legendary virtuoso took hold:
“Daedalus invented carpentry, and with it the saw, axe, plumb-line, drill, glue, and isinglass; but Theodorus of Samos discovered the square, plummet, lathe, and lever.”Pliny, N.H. 7.198
Elsewhere, Pausanias mentions Dipoinos and Skyllis of Crete and Endoios of Athens as his pupils (Paus. 2.15.1; T 28), disregarding the chronological impossibility this entails; other genealogically inclined writers compound the confusion by adding yet more dates and names. These and other sources enable one to trace Daidalos' supposed career in broad outline. The grandson of the legendary king Erechtheus of Athens, maker of extraordinarily lifelike statues, architect, woodworker, and inventor, Daidalos fled after killing his nephew to Knossos where among other achievements he built the Labyrinth for king Minos. After aiding Theseus' escape, however, he and his son Ikaros were imprisoned, but escaped after Daidalos made waxen wings for both of them. While Ikaros flew too close to the sun and crashed, his father was able to reach Sicily, and worked there under the protection of king Kokalos till his death. This historically-intractable farrago of "evidence", heavily tinged with Athenian cultural chauvinism, has prompted a structuralist analysis by Frontisi-Ducroux 1975; critique in Gnomon 51 (1979): 42-8. Philipp 1970 seeks a kernel of historical truth, arguing from the fifth-century sources and their later imitators:
“Of the works of Daidalos there are two in Boeotia, a Herakles in Thebes and the Trophonios at Lebadeia. There are also two other xoana in Crete, a Britomartis at Olous and an Athena at Knossos. There too is also Ariadne's Dance, mentioned by Homer in the Iliad, carved in relief on white stone. At Delos, too, there is a small xoanon of Aphrodite, its right hand damaged by time, and instead of feet its lower part is square. I am persuaded that Ariadne got this image from Daidalos ... I know of no other extant works of Daidalos; for those dedicated by the Argives in the Heraion and those brought to Gela in Sicily from Omphake have disappeared in the course of time.”
“Nothing to get scared about, old man:
Daidalos' works all seem to move about
And his statues to speak; clever chap, that one!
”Euripides, Eurystheus Satyrikos fr. 372 ed. Nauck (2nd ed.)
“It is said about Daidalos that he made statues that walked of their own accord. This seems impossible to me, that statues should move about spontaneously. The truth is this: in those days the sculptors of gods and men made the feet joined together and the arms hanging by the sides. Daidalos first made one foot striding forward, which is why men said, Daidalos has made this statue walk ...”Palaiphatos, De Incredibilibus 21 (ed. Festa)
Philipp suggests two possible explanations. Either the connection of Daidalos with the invention of "walking" statues is preclassical, and T 11 offers a rationalistic critique developed in the fifth to fourth centuries, or T 10-12 echo an original fifth-century observation about changes of posture in "primitive" sculpture, which was soon grafted onto the vaguer legend of Daidalos' seemingly alive mimemata (T 6) without regard to chronological niceties. Marginally favoring her second hypothesis are the well-known Greek love of attaching major advances in techne to famous names (cf. T 8), and more specifically, the fact that the conservative Pindar describes the invention of walking statues as Athena's gift to the children of Helios (Pind. O. 7.50-53, 464 B.C.) : if Daidalos were already accepted as their inventor by his time, Pindar would probably have credited him instead. Perhaps, then, this aspect of the Daidalos legend offers further testimony of a burgeoning historical consciousness about art in fifth-century Greece, presumably sparked by the creation of the classical style itself. Plato, (Plat. Meno 97d and Plat. Hipp. Maj. 282a also suggests as much, and a late source even reports Aischylos as saying that "the old statues, though simply made, are thought divine; while the new, though superbly wrought, have less of the divine in them" (in Porphyry, de Abstinentia 2.18). Most recently, Boardman has suggested a more specific explanation still: that "it was the memory of the role of travelling Cretan artists at this decisive point in the history of Greek sculpture that determined that it was to a Cretan Daidalos that these innovations should be attributed" (Boardman 1980b, 47). Though this is certainly compatible with the scheme outlined above, and the emigration of several of the Daidalidai to Greece was definitely remembered (T 15), Daidalos the legendary virtuoso was in any case the obvious candidate regardless of historical truth; furthermore, this theory disregards the pro-Athenian and anti-Cretan bias of the sources on Daidalos himself, which as earlier remarked, prefer an Attic ancestry and send him to Sicily, not Greece, from Crete.
“The composition (rhythmos) of the ancient statues of Egypt is the same as those made by Daidalos among the Greeks.”Diodoros 1.97.5
Select bibliography: Overbeck 1868/1959 nos. 67-142; Stuart-Jones 1895/1966, 3-7; RE 4:1994-2007 (Robert, 1901); ThB 8: 280-3 (Amelung, Thiersch, 1913); Schweitzer 1932/1963, 127-41; Picard 1935-1971 (vol. 1): (Picard/Manuel) 77-84; Lippold 1950, 18-20; EAA 3: 16-17 (de Franciscis, 1960); EWA 7: 34-5 (Amandry, 1963); EWA 11: 140ff (Paribeni, 1966); Philipp 1968, 50-54, etc.; Philipp 1970; Davaras 1972, 41-3; Frontisi-Ducroux 1975; M. Robertson 1975, 34, 59, 107; Boardman 1978a, 26, 76, 82, 170; Boardman 1980b; Papadopoulos 1980; Donohue 1988, 179-88, 194-96, and passim; Pollitt 1990, 13-15; Stewart 1990, 106-08, 240-43.
Contemporaries of Daidalos and the Daidalidai
Smilis, son of Eukleides, of Aegina
SmilisSmilis is almost as problematical as Daidalos. His name was primarily associated with the ancient wooden statue of Hera in Samos; as usual, Pausanias gives the fullest account:
The form and rich kosmesis of this statue is certified by the Samian temple inventories and attested by representations in other media (Stewart 1990, figs. 14-15). In addition:
“Some say that the men who sailed in the Argo built the sanctuary of Hera in Samos, and that they brought the image from Argos. But the Samians themselves think that the goddess was born on the island by the river Imbrasos, and under the willow which even in my time still grew in the Heraion. That this sanctuary at all events is among the very oldest might be inferred not least from the image: for it is the work of Aeginetan Smilis, son of Eukleides. This Smilis was a contemporary of Daidalos, though less famous than he ... and it is not clear if he visited other places than Samos and Elis. But he did travel to these, and it was he who made the image of Hera in Samos.”
Aethlios of Samos (FGH , 536 F 3) probably wrote in the fifth century B.C., and is thus a source to be reckoned with, while Olympichos (FGH, 537 F 1) lived a century or two later. As to dates, Pausanias (Paus. 7.4.2-3) says that Prokles took Samos at the end of the heroic age, though a later "ruler" called Prokles is theoretically possible any time down to the early sixth century, when the Aiakes-Polykrates family became preeminent. Yet two other writers contradict this otherwise neat package. First, around 270 Kallimachos (fr. 100 Loeb) calls the ancient plank-idol "not yet a well-carved Skelmian work"; and second, Pliny, N.H. 36.90 lists Smilis, together with the mid sixth-century architects and sculptors Rhoikos and Theodoros (see below) as one of the makers of the "Lemnian labyrinth", evidently a misunderstanding of the Samian temple's location en limnais, "in the marsh"; so neither nomenclature nor chronology tally. As to names, since Smilis and Skelmis are both derived from the Greek and Thracian words (respectively) for "chisel", both are often dismissed as fictions. Yet programmatic names and nicknames are common throughout Greek art, and Kallimachos may simply have been indulging in his usual word-games; furthermore, for what it is worth, the following other works were attributed to Smilis: Overbeck 1868/1959, nos. 283, 331, 340-44; Stuart-Jones 1895/1966, 15; RE 3.A.1: 469, 722-23 (Lippold, 1927); ThB 31: 163 (Bieber, 1937); Lacroix 1949, 206-16; Lippold 1950, 34; FGH 3.b.2: 271 (1955); EAA 7: 363 (Zuffa, 1966); Boardman 1978a, 26; Romano 1980, 250-71; Papadopoulos 1980, 91-95; Pollitt 1990, 20-21; Stewart 1990, 13, 104-05, 241-42.
“The statue of Samian Hera, as Aethilos says, was a wooden beam at first, but afterwards, when Prokles was ruler, it was humanized in form... Olympichos in his Samian History relates that the xoanon of Hera in Samos was made by Smilis son of Eukleides.”Aethlios and Olympichos, ap. Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus 40, 41
The DaidalidaiWhether Daidalos existed or not, a number of pupils from Crete, Greece, and South Italy, all of whom apparently belong to the sixth century, were attributed to him:
“The very first men to become famous as marble sculptors were Dipoenus and Scyllis, born in Crete while the Median empire still existed and before Cyrus began to rule in Persia. This was approximately in the 50th Olympiad [580-577]. They moved to Sicyon, which had long been the home of all such industries. The Sicyonians had given them a state contract to make statues of the gods, but before they had finished, the artists, complaining of an injustice, retired to Aetolia. A famine immediately struck Sicyon, as well as barrenness and dire sorrow. When the people sought Pythian Apollo for relief, he replied,only if Dipoenus and Scyllis finish the images of the gods. This was accomplished only at great expense and with much flattery. The statues, incidentally, were of Apollo, Diana, Hercules, and Minerva, the last of which was later struck by lightning.”Pliny, N.H. 36.9-10
“In the temple of Hera [at Olympia] is an image of Zeus, and the image of Hera is sitting on a throne, with Zeus standing by her, bearded and with a helmet on his head; they are simple works. Next to them are the Seasons, sitting on thrones, made by Smilis of Aegina. Beside them stands an image of Themis, the mother of the Seasons, the work of Dorykleidas, a Spartan and a pupil of Dipoinos and Skyllis. Theokles made the Hesperides, five in number; he was a Spartan too, the son of Hegylos, and is said to have studied under Dipoinos and Skyllis. The Athena wearing a helmet and carrying a spear and shield is reputed to be the work of Medon of Sparta, brother of Dorykleidas and a pupil of the same masters. Then come Kore, Demeter, Apollo, and Artemis; the first two sit opposite each other, the second two stand opposite one another. Also dedicated here are Leto, Tyche, Dionysos and a winged Nike; I cannot say who made them, but in my opinion all are extremely ancient. All these are of ivory and gold, but later on others were dedicated in the Heraion ...”
Of these, T 15 opens a series of six chapters on early marble sculpture (continuation, T 18), presumably derived from some anecdotally-inclined Hellenistic connoisseur (see commentary to T 18-19, for a possible candidate). Of his two absolute dates (the only ones extant for the period), that for Dipoinos and Skyllis coincides exactly with the historians' date for Sikyon's pre-eminence under its tyrant Kleisthenes (581/0-576), so may be a pure fabrication; furthermore, at least their works at Argos (A.3 below: Paus. 2.22.5) were not in marble but wood, which suggests an armchair compiler at work at some stage. No statues by the Daidalidai have been recovered (cf. Ridgway 1977, 297 for possible reasons), though a list gives a good conspectus of the thematic and technical range of this early archaic sculpture:
“On the right of the Lady of the Bronze House [at Sparta] has been set up an image of Zeus Most High, the oldest image of bronze in existence. It is not wrought in one piece. Each of the limbs has been hammered separately; these are fitted together, being prevented from coming apart by nails. They say that the artist was Klearchos of Rhegion, who is said by some to have been a pupil of Dipoinos and Skyllis, by others of Daidalos himself.”
- Dipoinos and Skyllis, sons of Daidalos (?), of Crete
- Pausanias (T 28) also calls Endoios a pupil of Daidalos
- Pupils of Dipoinos and Skyllis
- Themis by Dorykleidas of Sparta, in the Heraion at Olympia; chryselephantine (T 16）
- Atlas supporting the heavens, Herakles, the apple tree, and the Hesperides (later moved to the Heraion, T 16), by Theokles of Sparta and his son, for the Epidamnian treasury at Olympia; cedarwood
- Herakles fighting Acheloos, with Deianeira, Athena (later moved to the Heraion, T 16), Zeus, and Ares, by Medon or Dontas of Sparta, for the Megarians at Olympia; cedar inlaid with gold. Small (statuettes?)
- Zeus Hypatos by Klearchos of Rhegion, at Sparta; sphyrelaton bronze (T 17, cf. T 40）
- Apollo and Artemis, by Tektaios and Anghelion, at Delos; the former of gold (sphyrelaton?)
Ripe Archaic (1) The Cyclades and East GreeceThe most comprehensive account of ripe archaic sculptors is by Lippold 1950; Ridgway 1977, 283-302 reviews the preserved signatures. Almost two-thirds of the total of both inscriptions and names (about 40) are Attic: see here esp.Raubitschek 1949 and Deyhle 1969. The other major sculptural centers have provided at most only two or three apiece, while the West is a virtual blank. The literary sources are much more even-handed; with the honorable exception of Pausanias (who diligently records some of the major names, and describes a few monuments at length), they ignore the period almost entirely, though the rare occasions when their interest is engaged (e.g. T 19, T 21, T 29) are worth their weight in gold. Despite the early prominence of the Cyclades in the archaeological record, including the earliest sculptor's signature of all, by Euthykartides of Naxos (Stewart 1990, fig. 40), only Aristion of Paros emerges as a personality and that only because his kore survives (Stewart 1990, figs. 121-22). The Chiot and Samian sculptors, however, have fared a little better.
Archermos, son of Mikkiades, of Chios, and his family
ArchermosArchermos is among only three archaic sculptors known from both literary and epigraphical sources, plus (probably) a preserved statue: Stewart 1990, fig. 92. He was apparently active ca. 550-500, and like Dipoinos and Skyllis (T 15) appears to have attracted enough attention from some later connoisseur to arouse Pliny's curiosity:
Pliny's source evidently knew the verses on the base of Archermos' Delian statue, still preserved today, but erroneously included Melas, the mythical founder of Chios mentioned in line 3, in the genealogy. The reading of the inscription is uncertain: the latest study, Scherrer 1983, even denies that Mikkiades and Archermos sign as sculptors at all, making them the dedicators of the statue. Since the lower part of the Nike found nearby (Stewart 1990, fig. 92) is lost, its attribution to this base will never be completely certain: supporting the connection, however, are its scale and a scholiast's note:
“Before the time of Dipoenus and Scyllis the sculptor Melas already lived on the island of Chios, followed by his son Micciades and grandson Archermus. His sons Bupalus and Athenis were quite the most eminent in this craft at the time of the poet Hipponax, who was certainly alive in the 60th Olympiad [540-537]. Now if we trace their lineage back to their great-grandfather, we find that the beginnings of this art coincided with the beginning of the Olympiads . Hipponax had a notoriously ugly face, and because of this they exhibited his portrait and made dirty jokes about it to their circles of fun-loving companions. Whereupon the indignant Hipponax rebuked them so bitterly in his poems that some believe he drove them to hang themselves. This is false, for they later made many statues in the neighbouring islands, for example on Delos, to which they attached verses saying that Chios is esteemed not merely for its vines, but also for the works of the sons of Archermus. Furthermore, the Iasians exhibit a Diana made by their hands. In Chios itself there is said to be a face of Diana which is also their work; it is set on high, and appears sad to those entering, cheerful to those departing. At Rome there are statues of theirs on the gable of the temple of Apollo on the Palatine and on almost all the buildings erected by the deified Augustus. There were works by their father too at Delos and on the island of Lesbos.”Pliny, N.H. 36.11-14
Münzer 1895, 522-25 proposed that the otherwise obscure "Karystios of Pergamon" could be the Hellenistic connoisseur Antigonos of Karystos (T 78, T 145), who made Pergamon his base, and further suggested him as Pliny's authority for both T 15 and T 18. Yet though the range of interests there displayed coincides exactly with his, Pliny only includes him in his source list for books 34-35 (cf. T 145), and not in that for book 36. Since T 78 certifies him as a competent epigrapher and no "armchair archaeologist" (cf. the commentary to T 15), Pliny may be relying upon a Latin intermediary here, like Varro or the (none too careful) Mucianus, both cited by him as prime sources for book 36. Sheedy 1985, 625 dismisses Pliny's account as largely fiction based on the Romans' desire for tidy genealogies and famous names, but overlooks the inscribed base found in Rome (no. 9, below). Aside from the Delian statue and Pliny's vague mention of Lesbos, the only hard evidence as to Archermos' career is a signed column from the Akropolis (Raubitschek 1949 no. 3; Marcadé 1957, 21(v)-22: later sixth century); for another (?), see also Raubitschek 1949 no. 9. His sons, active from ca. 540 (T 18) are hardly less shadowy, though their oeuvre is far more extensive. In addition to the five works listed in T 18, Boupalos alone is given the following:
“Only more recently have Nike and Eros acquired wings. For some say that it was Archennos [sic] the father of Boupalos and Athenis, others that it was Aglaophon the Thasian painter who made Nike winged, as Karystios of Pergamon relates.”Scholium to Aristophanes, Birds 573
- Tyche, at Smyrna
- Three Graces, under the image of Nemesis, at Smyrna; gold
- Three Graces, later in the palace of the Attalids at Pergamon; cf:
- Part of a base from Pergamon bearing a Chiot sculptor's signature
- Base from Rome with his signature (a renewal)
- Animals in clay
- Paintings at Klazomenai
- The Samian Hera, later in the Lauseion at Constantinople; supposedly in collaboration with Lysippos. Misattribution (cf. T 13, 128 and Lysippos no.47)
Rhoikos, Telekles, and Theodoros of Samos
TheodorosThe surviving ancient accounts of these three sculptors' achievements are the product of two quite different Greek historical traditions, whose contradictions are sometimes misunderstood as evidence for two Theodoroi, not one (e.g. Bieber in ThB 1934 and 1938 — see select bibliography below). Writing around 450, Herodotos knew of Rhoikos (son of Philes) only as "first" architect of the great temple of Hera on Samos, and describes Theodoros (son of Telekles) as the maker of the tyrant Polykrates' famous ring, of two massive silver kraters dedicated by Croesus at Delphi, and of a golden vine for the Lydian Pythios, which he later gave to Darius (Hdt. 1.51; Hdt. 3.41; Hdt. 3.60; Hdt. 7.27); the temple was begun ca. 560, while Polykrates ruled from ca. 533 to 522, and Croesus from ca. 560-547/6. Six hundred years later, Herodotos' admirer Pausanias accepted this testimony, adding that Theodoros also built the "Skias" (an assembly-place) in Sparta and that:
In addition, Vitruvius 7 praef. 12 records a book by Theodoros on the "Doric" (sic) Heraion, while Pliny lists Smilis, Rhoikos, and him (in that order) as architects of the "Lemnian Labyrinth" (see above, to T 14) with its lathe-turned columns, describes the two Samians as inventors of clay modelling (!), and Theodoros alone as inventor of certain tools, the lathe included (N.H. 35.152; 36.90; T 8). In fact, the columns of the mid sixth-century Heraion were indeed lathe-turned, apparently a 'first' in Greek architecture. Finally, Diogenes Laertius credits Theodoros with designing the foundations for the Ephesian Artemision (begun by 547/6), but remarks that he was Rhoikos' son (2.103, cf. N.H. 36.95). All this information clearly derives from a common source, perhaps a Hellenistic writer who had Theodoros' original text. Along with Diogenes' variant geneology, this brings us to the second historical tradition, which is both more problematic and in some ways more interesting. The crucial witness here is Diodoros:
“These two Samians were the first to discover the art of founding the bronze to perfection, and the first to cast it in a mold. I have found no surviving work of Theodoros, at least in bronze.”
Now most of Diodoros' first book was lifted wholesale from an early Alexandrian historian, Hekataios of Abdera (FGH , 264 F 25), whose declared aims were to discredit Greek writers on Egypt, particularly Herodotos (cf. Diod. Sic. 1.69.7) in favor of Egyptian priestly traditions, and to show that everything worthwhile in Greek culture came from Egypt. Hence the different family tree, which surely reflects the received opinion that Theodoros was somehow a "junior partner" to Rhoikos on the Heraion, and the author's clear preference for the absolute perfection of Egyptian sculpture over the subjectivity or phantasia of the Greek. In fact, Egyptologists have long recognized that Hekataios is describing — and misunderstanding — the traditional Egyptian workshop practice of having apprentices make canonical trial pieces (chiefly heads, hands, and feet) as a part of their training; the grid he describes is the revised one current from the seventh century. As Lippold 1950, 59 suggests, a double signature of Rhoikos and Theodoros may have prompted the whole fantastic anecdote (for another explanation, Davaras 1972, 22-3). For since East Greek sculptors normally cut inscriptions into the legs of their kouroi, the two perhaps signed one leg each. Of course, none of this disqualifies them from possessing the firsthand knowledge of Egyptian methods that Hekataios attributes to them: the Egyptian canon was used on the New York kouros around 600-580 (New York 32.11.1; Stewart 1990, figs. 49-55), Samos had close artistic, commercial, and political ties with Egypt, and an early sixth-century cup dedicated by one Rhoikos (a rare name) to Aphrodite was even found at Naukratis in the 1880s: see most recently Samos, 7: 113-4, pl. 122; Boardman 1980a, 131-2. Finally, Theodoros' self-portrait, for which Pliny is the only source:
“The most distinguished of the ancient sculptors, namely Telekles and Theodoros, the sons of Rhoikos, spent time in Egypt. They made the xoanon of Pythian Apollo for the Samians, and it is said that one half of it was carved by Telekles in Samos, the other half by his brother Theodoros in Ephesos; and when the parts were brought together, they fitted so well that the whole statue seemed to have been made by one man. This sort of technique is practised nowhere among the Greeks, but it is especially common among the Egyptians. For with them the commensurability (symmetria) of statues is not calculated according to the appearance (phantasia) presented to the eye, as among the Greeks, but when they have laid out the stones and divided them up, they begin work on them by taking the proportions from the smallest parts to the largest; for, dividing the layout of the whole body into twenty-one parts and an additional quarter, they produce the entire symmetria of the figure. Consequently, as soon as the artisans have agreed upon the size of the figure, they split up and make the parts to the agreed size so accurately as to cause amazement at this peculiar system of theirs. The xoanon in Samos, in accordance with the Egyptian technique, is divided into two parts from the crown of the head through the middle to the groin, each part exactly matching the other at every point. And they say that for the most part this statue is rather like those of the Egyptians, having the arms suspended at the sides and the legs separated in a stride.”Diodoros 1.98
On the likely extent of this "realism" see Metzler 1971, 175-9, with comments on the growing self-assertiveness of the artist and the use of realism as a differentiating device (though to see it in Marxist terms, as a working-class riposte to the aristocratic beauty of the kouroi, is surely anachronistic). Pliny's use of similitudo or "likeness" here links Theodoros with Demetrios of Alopeke (T 3, 91) and Lysistratos, brother of Lysippos (T 133); Pollitt 1974, 430-34 discusses the Hellenistic background to all this, including the neo-classic distaste revealed in T 3 for "likeness" as opposed to "beauty". If one is to credit the sources, then, Theodoros was a kind of archaic Cellini, inventive and versatile as none other, and particularly expert in metalwork; one only wishes that something had survived to confirm his stellar reputation. Select bibliography: Overbeck 1868/1959 nos. 225, 262, 273-93; Stuart-Jones 1895/1966, 22-5; RE 1.A.1: 1003 (Lippold, 1914); 5.A.2: 1917-20 (Lippold, 1934); ThB 28: 224-25 (Weickert and Bieber, 1934); Picard 1935-1971 (vol. 1): (Picard/Manuel) 167-69, 179-80, 542-43; ThB 33: 599 (Bieber 1938); FGH 3.a.2: 76-77, 80 (1943); Lippold 1950, 58-59; EAA 6: 672-73 (Moreno, 1965); 7: 811-12 (Moreno, 1966); Metzler 1971, 175-79; Davaras 1972, 20-23; Pollitt 1974, 430-34, 441-44; M. Robertson 1975, 140, 148, 180-81; Boardman 1978a, 20, 72, 170; Boardman 1980a, 131-32, 144; Gallet de Santerre 1983, 263-64; Furtwängler 1984; Mattusch 1988, 46-50, 104-07; Pollitt 1990, 27-28; Stewart 1990, 21, 34, 35, 37, 39, 64, 68, 109, 116, 117, 125, 242, 244-46.
“Theodorus, who made the Labyrinth at Samos, cast a portrait of himself in bronze. Besides its remarkable fame as a likeness, it is celebrated for its great finesse; the right hand holds a file, and the three fingers of the left a little chariot and four, but this has been taken away to the Praeneste as a marvel of miniaturization: if it were reproduced in a drawing, together with its charioteer, the fly which Theodorus made at the same time would cover it with its wings.”Pliny, N.H. 34.83
Bathykles of Magnesia
BathyklesNothing is known of Bathykles apart from Pausanias' description of his "throne" for Apollo at Spartan Amyklai, with its encyclopedic compendium of reliefs, and the (expensive) votives he set up upon its conclusion:
The architectural fragments, which seem late sixth century, mix Doric and Ionic; nothing survives of the reliefs, which from Pausanias seem to have been chosen almost by free association (compare archaic epic poetry: e.g. M.L. West, Hesiod: Works and Days [Oxford 1978]: 41-59) and occasionally make direct reference to Sparta. On the reconstruction of the "throne" see Romano 1980, 99-114, with DeVries 1982; Pollitt 1990, 24 fig. 1. Select bibliography: Overbeck 1868/1959 no. 360; RE 3: 124-37 (Robert, 1899); ThB 3: 31-34 (Amelung, 1909); Picard 1935-1971 (vol. 1): (Picard/Manuel) 462-5; Lippold 1950, 55-6; EAA 1: 322-23 (Bermond Montanari, 1958); 2: 17-18 (Amorelli, 1959); M. Robertson 1975, 80, 114-15; Boardman 1978a, 76; Romano 1980, 99-114; DeVries 1982; Pollitt 1990, 23-26; Stewart 1990, 118, 127, 246-47, 272.
“Bathykles of Magnesia, who made the Amyklaian throne, dedicated votives on its completion: the Graces and an image of Artemis Leukophryene. Whose pupil this Bathykles was, and who was king in Sparta when he made the throne, I will pass over, but I did see the throne and will describe its details. Two Graces and two Seasons support in front, and in the same manner, at the back. On the left stand Echidna and Typhos, on the right Tritons. To describe the reliefs one by one in detail would only bore my readers; but to give a brief description (since many of them are not unfamiliar), Poseidon and Zeus are carrying Taygete, daughter of Atlas, and her sister Alkyone. There are also reliefs of Atlas, Herakles' duel with Kyknos, and the centaur battle at the cave of Pholos. I do not know why Bathykles represented the so-called Minotaur bound and led away by Theseus; the dance of the Phaiakians is represented on the throne, with Demodokos singing; and the exploit of Perseus against Medusa is also depicted. Passing over the fight between Herakles and the giant Thourios and that of Tyndareus with Eurytos, one comes to the rape of the daughters of Leukippos. Here are Dionysos, too, and Herakles; Hermes is carrying the former, still a child, to heaven, while Athena is leading Herakles to live henceforth among the gods. Peleus is handing over Achilles to be brought up by Cheiron, who is also said to have been his teacher. Kephalos is being abducted by Day because of his beauty, and the gods are bringing gifts to the wedding of Harmonia. The duel between Achilles and Memnon is represented, and so is Herakles revenging himself upon Diomedes the Thracian and upon Nessos at the river Euenos. Hermes is leading the goddesses to be judged by Paris, Adrastos and Tydeus are staying the fight between Amphiaraos and Lykourgos the son of Pronax. Hera is gazing at Io, the daughter of Inachos, who is already a cow, and Athena is fleeing Hephaistos, who pursues her. Next to these are depicted, from the Labors of Herakles, the Hydra and how he led up the dog from Hades. There are Anaxias and Mnasinous, each on horseback, but only one horse is carrying Megapenthes son of Menelaos and Nikostratos. Bellerophon is killing the beast in Lycia, and Herakles is driving off Geryon's cattle. On the upper edges of the throne are placed, one on each side, the sons of Tyndareus on horseback; there are sphinxes beneath the horses, and wild beasts running upwards, on one side a leopard, by Polydeukes a lioness. On the very top of the throne is wrought a band of dancers, the Magnesians who helped Bathykles make the throne. Beneath the throne on the inside, away from the Tritons, is the hunt of the Kalydonian boar, and Herakles killing Aktor's children; Kalais and Zetes are driving the Harpies away from Phineus; Peirithoos and Theseus have abducted Helen, and Herakles is strangling the lion; Apollo and Artemis are shooting Tityos; also represented is Herakles' fight with Oreios the Centaur and Theseus' battle with the Minotaur. In addition are represented Herakles wrestling Acheloos, the fabled binding of Hephaistos, the games Akastos held for his father, and the story of Menelaos and Egyptian Proteus from the Odyssey. And finally there is Admetos yoking a boar and a lion to his chariot and the Trojans are bringing libations to Hektor. The part of the throne where the god would sit is not continuous. There are several seats, and by the side of each seat is left a wide empty space; that in the middle is widest, and it is there that the image stands. I know of no-one who has measured its height, but at a guess it must be about thirty cubits [45 feet]. It is not the work of Bathykles, but is primitive and crude, for though it has a face, feet and hands, the rest resembles a bronze column. On its head is a helmet, and in its hands a spear and bow.”
Ripe Archaic (2) The MainlandBathykles conveniently returns us to the mainland: Almost no signed works are known outside Attica, though Peloponnesian (but not Boeotian) sculpture did catch Pausanias' eye, and receives scattered comments from others. For Athens, this situation is all but reversed. As already indicated, by far the fullest crop of names comes from here: 24 in all, including foreigners like Aristion and Archermos, though only a few can be connected with extant sculpture, and fewer still attracted notice from later writers. As usual, too, some of the most striking personalities that emerge from the monuments themselves, like the Rampin master (Athens, Acropolis 590 and Louvre MA 3104, the Rampin Rider; Stewart 1990, 120, figs. 125, 127-28) remain completely anonymous. Of those whose names we know, Endoios and Antenor (the only two attested by both signatures and texts) will receive further attention below.
Gitiadas of Sparta
GitiadasPausanias is our only authority here:
Elsewhere (T 86 and Paus. 4.14.2) Pausanias connects Gitiadas with the first Messenian war (supposedly ca. 736-716) and the late sixth century sculptor Kallon of Aegina (variant chronology, T 1, but cf. T 13 and Raubitschek 1949, 90 no. 85, 508-9). In fact, the remains of the Brazen House are datable to ca. 550. The cult image, a columnar statue brandishing spear and shield, is depicted on Roman coins, while the reliefs were embossed and nailed to the wall. Archaic Laconian shield-bands use the same technique and many of the same themes, but in miniature: Kunze 1950, passim. Select bibliography: Overbeck 1868/1959 nos. 357-59; Imhoof-Blumer 1887/1964, 58-59; RE 7: 1371-72 (Robert, 1912); ThB 14: 201-202 (Amelung, 1921); Picard 1935-1971 (vol. 1): (Picard/Manuel) 461-62; Lacroix 1949, 217-20; Lippold 1950, 52; EAA 3: 915-16 (Pesce, 1950); Ridgway 1970, 88; Borbein 1973, 200-202 (tripod supports); M. Robertson 1975, 145-46; Boardman 1978a, 76, 81; Romano 1980, 128-35; Pollitt 1990, 26; Stewart 1990, 127, 247, 272.
“The builder [of the Brazen House at Sparta] was Gitiadas, a local man, who also composed Dorian lyrics, including a hymn to the goddess [Athena]. On the bronze are wrought in relief many of Herakles' Labors, and many of his voluntary exploits, together with the rape of the daughter of Leukippos and other achievements of the sons of Tyndareus. There is also Hephaistos releasing his mother from her fetters ... There too are the Nymphs giving gifts to Perseus as he sets out against Medusa in Libya, a cap and the shoes that would bear him through the sky. Also wrought there are the birth of Athena, and Amphitrite and Poseidon too — the largest figures and in my opinion the best worth seeing.”
Hageladas of Argos
HageladasBefore Hageladas, the only known Argive sculptor is [Aga]medes, who signed the twins at Delphi ca. 580 (Delphi, Kleobis and Biton; Stewart 1990, figs. 56-57). Hageladas himself is dated to 432-29 by Pliny, but see commentary on T 1. More helpful is Pausanias' mention of his bronzes of victors in the Olympics of 520 and 516 (1, 2 below: Paus. 6.10.6, Paus. 6.14.11), and of another killed at Athens in 507 (3 below, cf. 6.8.6 and Hdt. 5.72). His known works, probably all bronzes, are:
- The runner Anochos of Tarentum, at Olympia
- Kleosthenes of Epidamnos, in his chariot, at Olympia
- The pankratiast Timasitheos of Delphi, at Olympia
- Zeus Ithomatas, on Mt. Ithome in Messenia
- Zeus and Herakles as children, at Aigion.
- Herakles Alexikakos ("Averter of Evil") at Athens
- A Muse, with two others by Kanachos and Aristokles (see below)
- Captive Messapian women and horses, dedicated by the Tarentines at Delphi; in bronze:
The two statues of Zeus may be those reproduced on later Messenian and Achaean coins, which strongly recall the Zeus of Ugento (Stewart 1990, figs. 184-85), while the Herakles was apparently rededicated during the plague of 430-427; for the Tarentine monument, dedicated before 473, see esp. G. Schalles 1981 and Beschi 1982; for its location, Stewart 1990, fig. 186. Hageladas was obviously a vigorous and versatile sculptor, and through his sons and pupils (among whom a late — and untrustworthy — source numbers Pheidias) was clearly the founder of the Argive school of bronzeworking, which reached its acme with Polykleitos (T 62-71) and continued to flourish, in association with Sikyon, through the fourth century. Select bibliography: Overbeck 1868/1959 nos. 389-99, 419, 422, 533, 622, 929, 1016; Löwy 1885/1976 no. 30; Imhoof-Blumer 1887/1964, 67-68, 84-85; Stuart-Jones 1895/1966, 33-35; RE 7: 2189-99 (Pfuhl, 1912); ThB 15: 454-57 (Amelung, 1922); Lacroix 1949, 227-32; Lippold 1950, 88-89; Moretti 1957, nos. 130-31, 140, 141, 146; EAA 3: 1085-86 (Orlandini, 1960); Ridgway 1970, 88; M. Robertson 1975, 197, 339; Woodford 1976; Boardman 1978a, 89; G. Schalles 1981; Beschi 1982; Gallet de Santerre 1983, 198-99; Pollitt 1990, 32-33; Stewart 1990, 48, 53, 138, 237-38, 247, 252, 256, 257.
“The bronze horses and captive women were offered by the Tarentines from spoils taken from the Messapians, barbarian neighbors of the Tarentines, and are works of Hageladas of Argos.”
Kanachos and Aristokles of Sikyon
AristoklesKanachos and his shadowy brother Aristokles are dated only by their collaboration with Hageladas (above, work no. 7), and the removal of Kanachos' bronze Apollo Philesios from Didyma, either by Darius in 494 (cf. Hdt. 6.19) or, less likely, by Xerxes (so Paus. 1.16.3, Paus. 7.46.3). Their floruit should therefore lie around 500. Aside from their Muses and Kanachos' chryselephantine Aphrodite for Sikyon, we hear only of the Apollo and its wooden replica — or archetype — at Thebes:
“The image [of Ismenian Apollo] is equal in size to that at Branchidai (Didyma) and is exactly like it in form; whoever has seen one of these two images and has learnt who the artist was needs no great skill to discern, when he looks at the other, that it is the work of Kanachos. The only difference is this: that the one at Branchidai is of bronze, the Ismenian of cedar-wood.”
For copies and comments see Romano 1980, 221-35; Stewart 1990, fig. 167. Kanachos, who also worked in marble (Pliny, N.H. 36.42) is placed first in Cicero's "hardness" scale (T 2), and the two brothers were recognized by Pausanias as founders of the Sikyonian bronzeworking school, linking it to the Argive from its very outset. They also taught sculptors from Aegina and Chios. Select bibliography: Overbeck 1868/1959 nos. 395, 403-10, 418, 477, 527, 796; Stuart-Jones 1895/1966, 38-40; RE 10.2: 1846-48 (Lippold, 1919); ThB 19: 512-13 (Lippold, 1926); Lippold 1950, 86-87; EAA 4: 308-9 (Carettoni, 1961); Ridgway 1970, 88; M. Robertson 1975, 182, 197; Boardman 1978a, 89; Gallet de Santerre 1983, 248-50; Pollitt 1990, 33-34, 223; Stewart 1990, 126, 127, 138, 202, 237-38, 248, 262, 324.
“Canachus did the nude Apollo, surnamed Philesius, at Didyma, made of Aeginetan bronze, and with it a stag suspended in its tracks in such a way that a thread can be passed under its feet, with the heel and toe alternately retaining their grip, for a "tooth" on each part is so geared that when one is dislodged by pressure the other in turn springs into place.”Pliny, N.H. 34.75
Endoios of Athens
EndoiosEndoios' father remains unknown, though Pausanias describes his alleged origins:
Yet since the anecdote is clearly a fabrication, the ethnic may be too. As for Kallias' Athena, the dedicator should be Peisistratos' opponent Kallias son of Hipponikos, who lived around 570-520, unless (since the piece evidently survived the sack of 480) Pausanias was looking at a rededication by Kallias II, his grandson and a leading politician of the 460s: M. Robertson 1975, 107. The Athena (Athens, Acropolis 625), found on the slope below the Erechtheion is commonly identified with this statue because of its very weathered state; contra, Bundgaard 1974, 16: "The conclusion seems unwarranted. Kore 671, found built into the North citadel wall, was heavily weathered on the right side which...was turned inside the wall. In this case the weathering had obviously taken place before the wall was built. On the other hand, if the figure comes from the [destruction debris] in the corner, which seems likely, it may very well have lain exposed in the breach for a long time before tumbling down." The Athena being problematic, more recent studies have preferred to start with Raubitschek's restoration of the signature on the potter relief, Athens, Acropolis 1332, as Ἐν[δοιος εποιεσ]εν (Raubitschek 1949, no. 70; cf. Stewart 1990, fig. 161), and Jeffery's independent observation that the stylistically-related Ballplayer base Athens, NM 3476 (Stewart 1990, figs. 138-40) was possibly one of a trio including a base originally bearing a painted scene and signed "and Endoios made this too" (Jeffery 1962, 127); yet if so, the third base, carved with hoplites and hockey-players, is by a different hand — an apprentice? Also a school-piece, if one accepts the Athena, is the little kore Athens, Acropolis 602, stylistically dependent upon it and thus often connected to the second of Endoios' Akropolis signatures, on a column co-signed by (his pupil?) Philergos (not "Philermos", as Raubitschek 1949, no. 7: cf. AM 84 : pl. 6). These pieces, with the addition of the Rayet head (with possible body-fragments, AM 84 : pls. 29-37), a little bronze jumper from the Akropolis, and the Athena from the Gigantomachy pediment, are now generally accepted as constituting the core of Endoios' oeuvre and immediate following (Stewart 1990, figs. 136-37, 205-06; cf. e.g. Deyhle 1969, 12-27; M. Robertson 1975, 106-8; Boardman 1978a, 82-83). They date between ca. 530 and 500. The seated Athena is the only link — and a weak one — between this group and the texts, which naturally concentrate upon the all-important genre of cult images, listing the following statues:
“Endoios was an Athenian by birth and a pupil of Daidalos, who even followed Daidalos to Crete when he was exiled for the death of Kalos; he made the seated image of Athena, with an inscription saying that Kallias dedicated it, but Endoios made it. There is also the building called the Erechtheion ...”
- Artemis at Ephesos; wood (type disputed)
- "Old" Athena; olivewood
- Seated Athena: same as that of Kallias?
- Colossal Athena Polias at Erythrai (Ionia); wood
- Graces and Seasons, in the forecourt of the temple at Erythrai; white stone
- Athena Alea at Tegea, taken to Rome by Augustus; ivory
[T 30]: see T 113 below, under Skopas. On Mucianus' authority, Pliny also attributes the Ephesian Artemis (1) to Endoios (N.H. 16.213-15): cf. Stewart 1990, fig. 174. Perhaps the most widely-copied and influential cult-image of antiquity, its material and original form are equally uncertain, though its many "breasts" may be an ancient Anatolian feature. The Ephesian temple was begun by 547/6 and still remained incomplete ca. 500: see Romano 1980, 236-49 for a useful resumé. As for (2) and (3), since Athenagoras (writing in A.D. 177) was an Athenian he is surely referring to statues familiar to him and his readers, namely, the olivewood Athena Polias of the Akropolis and Kallias' dedication. The former's history has been brilliantly pieced together by Kroll 1982, who identifies coin-pictures and shows that Endoios, like Smilis (T 14) was apparently responsible for "humanizing" the original plank-idol with face, arms, and feet. If one accepts the attributions, Endoios emerges as a strong and innovative personality. He seems to bestride the ripe and late archaic, drawing strength from the mature Attic style of the later sixth century but vigorously pursuing new directions, and heavily influencing the early fifth century. Select bibliography: Overbeck 1868/1959 nos. 348-53; Imhoof-Blumer 1887/1964, 108; Stuart-Jones 1895/1966, 7-8; RE 5: 2553-55 (Robert, 1905); ThB 10: 521-23 (Amelung, 1914); Picard 1935-1971 (vol. 1): (Picard/Manuel) 638-41; Raubitschek 1949, 491-95; Lippold 1950, 74-5; Herington 1955, 41; EAA 3: 337-39 (Orlandini, 1960); Jeffery 1962, 127-28, 130; Deyhle 1969, 12-27, 59; M. Robertson 1975, 105-9, 142, 157, 226-27; Boardman 1978a, 26, 74, 82-83, 158; Romano 1980, 42-57, 236-49; Kroll 1982; LIMC 2.1: 755-63 (Fleischer, 1984, Artemis); Pollitt 1990, 20; Stewart 1990, 13, 104, 122-23, 126, 128, 132, 153, 167, 184, 240, 248-49.
“Endoios, a pupil of Daidalos, made the Artemis in Ephesos, the ancient olivewood statue of Athena ... and the seated Athena.”Athenagoras, Embassy for the Christians 17.3
Antenor, son of Eumares, of Athens
AntenorAntenor's father, who made a dedication on the Akropolis ca. 525 (Raubitschek 1949, no. 244) may have been the painter "Eumarus of Athens, the first to distinguish the male from the female sex in painting (!), venturing to render every sort of figure, whose inventions were improved upon by Cimon of Cleonae. He first discovered katagrapha, or three-quarter images...." (Pliny, N.H. 35.56). The latter first appear on vases ca. 510 (cf. Stewart 1990, fig. 142) making "Eumarus" contemporary with Eumares. Antenor's brother [...]andr[os] was also a sculptor: Raubitschek 1949, no. 51. Antenor's oeuvre reads like a microcosm of Endoios'. The giant kore Athens, Acropolis 681 most probably stood on a high base signed by him and dedicated by the potter Nearchos (Stewart 1990, fig. 154); the Delphi pediments are probably from his workshop (Delphi, Temple of Apollo, East Pediment and Delphi, Temple of Apollo, West Pediment; Stewart 1990, figs. 199-204); and Pausanias names him as author of the bronze Tyrannicides stolen by Xerxes in 480 but returned by Alexander or the Seleukids (T 31). Dörig 1969 plausibly suggests a Roman marble head, stylistically similar to the kore's, as a copy of the Harmodios. The pattern, then, is depressingly familiar: surviving works by leading artists are likely to be minor ones in marble, ignored by the sources and only occasionally certified by signatures, while their attested masterpieces, in more vulnerable media, have vanished; as for replicas, even when complete these never bear the original master's name, so attribution is at best tentative, at worst mere fantasy. For Antenor's conservative and monumental style, see Stewart 1990, 86-89, 124. It remains only to quote the major sources and to note that if one adheres to the generally-accepted dating of the Tyrannicides to 510/9 (cf. T 32; contra Raubitschek 1949, 481-82; Landwehr 1985, 27-47, preferring the years after 488; but see now Weber 1983), then he becomes an exact contemporary of Endoios.
“Not far away [in the Agora] stand Harmodios and Aristogeiton, who killed Hipparchos [514/13]. Their motive and method of execution of the deed have been told by others. Of the figures some are the works of Kritios, the old ones of Antenor. When Xerxes took Athens after the Athenians had abandoned it  he carried the latter off as spoils, but Antiochos [I of Syria, reigned 281-261] later sent them back to the Athenians.”
And on the Delphi temple:
“I rather believe that the very first portrait statues officially erected at Athens were those of the tyrannicides Harmodius and Aristogiton. This happened in the same year that the kings were expelled from Rome .”Pliny, N.H. 34.70
“When Hippias was tyrant and bitter against the Athenians on account of the death of Hipparchos [514/13], the Alkmeonids (an Athenian family banished by the Peisistratids) tried together with the other Athenian exiles to return by force, but were unsuccessful and suffered greatly in their attempt to free Athens. They then fortified Leipsydrion, north of Paionia, and (using every means to fight the Peisistratids) made a contract with the Amphiktyons to build the temple at Delphi, the one that exists now but was not there then. Being both wealthy and men of reputation, they made the temple more beautiful than its model, for among other things whereas they had agreed to build it of poros limestone, they finished its facade in Parian marble.”
Select bibliography: Overbeck 1868/1959 nos. 443-47; RE 1: 2354-55 (Robert, 1894); ThB 1: 547-48 (Amelung, 1907); Picard 1935-1971 (vol. 1): (Picard/Manuel) 634-38; Payne 1936, 31-34, 63-65; Schrader 1939 no. 38; Raubitschek 1949, 232 no. 197, 481-83; Lippold 1950, 80-1; EAA 1: 408-09 (Orlandini, 1958); Dörig 1969; Deyhle 1969, 39-46; Kleine 1973, 46-51, 67-77; M. Robertson 1975, 103-4, 130, 162, 176, 183, 185-86, 227; Boardman 1978a, 83, 156; Weber 1983; Gallet de Santerre 1983, 180, 241, 271; Landwehr 1985, 27-47; Pollitt 1990, 41-42; Stewart 1990, 86-89, 124, 249-50, and index, s.v. 'Antenor'.
“It is said that when the Pythian temple was burned , some say by the Peisistratids, the Alkmeonids (driven into exile by the Peisistratids) undertook to rebuild it, and receiving money and gathering their power, they attacked the Peisistratids; when they were victorious [510/09] they rebuilt the temple to the god with greater gratitude, as Philochoros observes, fulfilling their earlier vow to him.”Philochoros, FGH 328 F 115