^{page 6 note 1} For Byzantine references see Unger, F. W., Quellen der byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte, pp. 317 ffGoogle Scholar. For an account which may be taken as generally reliable of the statues taken from Greece and erected in the Baths of Zeuxippos see the description by Christodoros of Egyptian Thebes of seventy-two various works in bronze and stone. The descriptions are in florid and inexact language, but definitely refer to existing works of art: they are collected as Book II of the Palatine Anthology.

^{page 6 note 2} See Archaeologia, vol. lxxxi, p. 63Google Scholar (Excavations at the Golden Gate).

^{page 6 note 3} Vasari in his introduction dates the change to as early as 1250.

^{page 7 note 1} Vasari mentions the sarcophagi brought back by the Pisan fleet which had influenced the style of Niccola, who ‘applied such diligence in imitating that style and other excellent sculptures on the other antique sarcophagi that before long he was considered the best sculptor of his time’.

^{page 7 note 2} von Schlosser, J., Lorenzo Ghibertis Denkwürdigkeiten. Berlin, 1912.Google Scholar Ghiberti himself had a collection of antiques which was seen by Cyriac of Ancona about 1437.

^{page 7 note 3} Gore, W. Ormsby, Florentine Sculptors of the Fifteenth Century (1930), p. 45.Google Scholar The direct antique influence in the David seems to have been derived from works in the Praxitelean manner. One such, now in the Palazzo Vecchio at Florence, a rather poor copy, badly restored, may have been the actual source used by Donatello. See Siren, O., Essentials in Art, p. 114.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 1} The opening of Etruscan tombs might have been thought to have had some effect upon contemporary painting, but little can be found unless it be a drawing by Michelangelo which is certainly traceable to an Etruscan painting. There is also some reason for thinking that the traditional type of devil in early Renaissance Italian iconography is derived from the type of an Etruscan underworld demon common in Etruscan tomb paintings from the fourth century onwards. (For the Michelangelo drawing see Poulsen, F., Etruscan Tomb Painting, p. 51, fig. 38.)Google Scholar The failure to discover or record early Greek work is the more extraordinary since it was there in the soil to be found. I need only quote the Ludovisi throne or a recent discovery made on the Palatine of a fine Attic work of the fifth century b.c., a running figure with flowing drapery. And these are but two instances of much early Greek work which had, in fact, been collected by Romans.

^{page 8 note 2} Vasari is perfectly clear in his definition of the antique; he says: ‘That the distinction I have made between ‘old’ and ‘ancient’ may be better understood I will explain that I call ancient the things produced before Constantine at Corinth, Athens, Rome, and other renowned cities until the days of Nero, Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus. The old works are those which are due to the surviving Greeks’ (he means the Byzantine).

^{page 9 note 1} Cyriac of Ancona is, of course, a notable exception at an earlier date. A typical humanist of the Renaissance he was largely self-educated. He travelled in the Levant in the early fifteenth century, noting, drawing, and collecting.

^{page 9 note 2} Michaelis, A., Ancient Marbles in Great Britain, pp. 184 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 3} Sir Thomas Roe in conjunction with Mr. Petty was also buying for the Duke of Buckingham and for the accomplished Lucy, Duchess of Bedford. Among the other places to which Roe sent agents were Ephesus, Pergamum, Athens, Corinth, Argos, Sparta, Thasos, Kavalla, and even distant Sinope.

^{page 10 note 1} Report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Earl of Elgin's Collection of Sculptured Marbles, &c., 1816.

^{page 10 note 2} Ib., p. 92 (Mr. Richard Payne Knight).

^{page 10 note 3} The artists who so expressed themselves were Joseph Nollekens, John Flaxman, Richard Westmacott, Charles Rossi, Sir Thomas Lawrence.

^{page 11 note 1} Stuart-Jones, H., Select Passages from Ancient Writers Illustrative of the History of Greek Sculpture, p. xxx ff.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 1} As for instance Nos. 674, 675, and 679, to select three typical examples of the period 550–10 b.c.

^{page 15 note 2} Nos. 3, 4, and 35 in the Museum.

^{page 16 note 1} The inadequacy of this criticism is best demonstrated by the sculpture itself. This particular part of the group is of superlative quality. See Plate II c.

^{page 16 note 2} εἰκασία in Plato usually has the meaning of ‘conjecture’. In Xenophon it means ‘representation’, a more concrete development of the Platonic meaning. But both terms differ fundamentally from μίμησις which means ‘direct copying’; it is important to note that μίμησις is here carefully avoided.

^{page 17 note 1} How like the dictum of Mr. Fazakerly on the Aeginetan sculptures: ‘they were rather curious from the age of which they were specimens’.