i. e. among the ancient works of the periods of Apelles, Polycletus, Nicias or Lysippus. But if so, the statement which Winkelmann maintains, that Athenodorus and his fellow sculptors were contemporaries of Apelles and Lysippus must be incorrect. At this conclusion we are compelled to arrive; for if it is true that among the works of the ancient artists, of Apelles, and Polycletus, and the rest of this class, only three were to be found, in the inscriptions on which a perfect tense was used; if again it is true that Pliny himself has mentioned these three works by name(54); it necessarily follows that Athanadorus, to whom neither of these three pieces is attributed, and who yet uses a perfect tense in the inscription on his work, could not have belonged to these ancient artists. He could not have been a contemporary of Apelles or Lysippus, but must have lived at a later period.

In short, I believe it may be admitted as a very safe criterion, that all artists who have made use of the eroinσe flourished long after the time of Alexander the Great, shortly before, or under, the Cæsars. Of Cleomenes it is indisputable; of Archelaus it is highly probable; and of Salpion the contrary at any rate cannot in any way be proved. The same may be said of the rest, without excepting Athenodorus.

Winkelmann himself may act as judge in this question, but I protest in anticipation against the

converse of my position. If all the artists who have made use of noiŋσe belonged to a late period, it does not follow that all who used eroíe belonged to an early one. Even among the later artists there may have been some who really felt this modesty so becoming to a great man, and more still who

affected it.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

NEXT to the Laocoon, I was most curious to see what Winkelmann would say of the so-called Borghese gladiator. I believe that I have made a discovery about this statue, to which I attach all the importance we usually attribute to such discoveries.

I was afraid that Winkelmann might have anticipated me. I do not however find any intimation of it in his work; and if anything could render me distrustful of the correctness of my conjectures, it would be the fact that my fears are not realised.

"Some," says Winkelmann," "take this to be the "statue of a discobolus, i. e. of one who is throwing “a discus, or round plate of metal; and this was "the opinion expressed by the celebrated Von Stosch, "in a letter to me, but formed, I think, without suf"ficient consideration of the attitude in which such a

ઃઃ

figure would stand. For a man, who is just going "to throw, draws his body backwards, and lets the "whole of his weight fall upon his right leg, while "the left remains idle; but here it is just the reverse; "the whole frame is thrown forwards, and leans upon "the left leg, whilst the right is extended backwards History of Art, vol. ii. p. 394.

a

ઃઃ

as far as it can be. The right arm is new, and a "piece of a lance has been placed in its hand; on "the left arm may be seen the strap of the shield "which he bore. If they are closely observed, it "will be found that the head and the eyes are di"rected upwards, and that the figure appears to be 'guarding with the shield against something which "threatens it from above; and so this statue might "with more justice be taken to represent a soldier "who had especially distinguished himself in a situa"tion of danger. It is probable that among the "Greeks a statue was never erected in honour of a "gladiator at the public shows; and, besides, this "work seems older than the introduction of such "spectacles into Greece."

No decision can be juster. This statue is no more that of a gladiator than of a discobolus; it really represents a warrior, who in such a posture distinguished himself at some perilous crisis. But since Winkelmann divined this so happily, how came he to stop short at that period? How was it that the warrior did not occur to his mind, who in precisely this posture averted the overthrow of an entire army, and to whom his grateful country had a statue erected in a similar attitude?

In a word, the statue is Chabrias.

This is proved by the following passage from Nepos' life of this general.b "Hic quoque in summis

"habitus est ducibus; resque multas memoria dignas "gessit. Sed ex his elucet maxime, inventum ejus in "prælio, quod apud Thebas fecit quum Boeotiis "subsidio venisset. Namque in eo victoriæ fidente "summo duce Agesilao, fugatis jam ab eo conduc"titiis catervis, reliquam phalangem loco vetuit cedere, "obnixoque genu scuto, projectaque hasta impetum

ઃઃ

excipere hostium docuit. Id novum Agesilaus con"tuens, progredi non est ausus, suosque jam incurren"tes tuba revocavit. Hoc usque eo tota Græcia fama "celebratum est, ut illo statu Chabrias sibi statuam "fieri voluerit quæ publice ei ab Atheniensibus in foro "constituta est. Ex quo factum est, ut postea ath"letæ, ceterique artifices his statibus in statuis ponen"dis uterentur, in quibus victoriam essent adepti.”

ઃઃ

I know the reader will pause an instant before he bestows his applause, but I hope it will only be for an instant. The attitude of Chabrias does not appear to have been precisely the same as that of the Borghese statue. The lance thrown forwards, (projecta hasta) is common to both; but commentators explain "obnixo genu scuto" by "obnixo in scutum"-" obfirmato genu ad scutum :" Chabrias shewed his men how to lean with their knees against their shields, and await the enemy behind them; the statue, on the contrary, raises its shield on high. But is it not possible that the commentators may be wrong? Is it not possible that the words "obnixo genu scuto," ought not to be connected, but that "obnixo genu,”