^{page 1 note 1} B.M. Parthenon, Pl. 14.4, No. 19. Casson, , Acropolis Catalogue, vol. ii. p. 69Google Scholar, No. 1223. Unrestored. Pentclic marble.

^{page 1 note 2} For instance, the measurements of the neck of the so-called Pandrosos of the West pediment (I suppose, judging by the ‘Carrey’ drawings and the actual remains, the smallest of the women in the pediments) are ·152 m. side to side; ·155 m. back to front: as against the ·13 m.; ·135 m. of the Acropolis fragment. Two centimetres of difference. The scale of heads like the Laborde and the West pediment Athena is larger still. The necks of the figures in the metopes average not more than ·10 m. in diameter.

It will be seen in the course of the argument that the Acropolis fragment differs also in style from the Parthenon sculptures.

^{page 1 note 3} Museo delle Terme, Helbig³, 1341.

^{page 1 note 4} Jahrbuch, XIX. (1904), p. 55 ff. (= Curtius).

^{page 1 note 5} Curtius, p. 66. “Aber er ist eine Kopie, wenn aucli eine der vorzüglichsten, die wir besitzen. Zu einem Original fehlt noch ein gewisser Hauch, die Leichtigkeit der ersten Hand, der Reiz des eben erst Fertigen, eine gewisse gcistreiche Unmittel-barkeit. Das Original muss in der Weichheit der Ubergänge, in dem Duft der schwellenden Einzelform noch viel mehr gegeben haben. … Hier ist alles überlegt, gar zu deutlich fertig. Die Mundwinkel sind gebohrt, die Unterlider setzen etwas hart ab. Bei einem Werk, das so abgetönt ist, spürt man das kleinste Zuviel; vielleicht kommt eine gewisse Strenge stärker zum Ausdruck, als sie dem Original eigen war.”

^{page 2 note 1} In the following lists details of measurement and marble are given where they supplement published descriptions. The head quoted in Art and Archaeology, XXII. No. 4 (Oct. 1926), p. 147, as a replica of the type, turns out not to be; so Dr. Shear has kindly informed me: (see now his article in A.J.A. XXX. (1926), p. 462Google Scholar, pl. VI.). As this goes to press Dr. Curtius has been good enough to send me photographs of (q), and of another replica in Petrograd brought to his notice by Dr. Waldhauer. From these it seems that (q) may be of full size. The other looks about as large as (r), and of like proportions, but rougher, and much simplified.

^{page 2 note 2} See, however, ib., p. 156.

^{page 5 note 1} I can find no part of the body of the statue among the marbles from the Acropolis in the British Museum, and have not been able to search for fragments of it in Athens itself.

^{page 5 note 2} Cf. Lippold, Umbildungen, p. 45. The finding in Greek lands of even a full-sized copy in the same city as the original is not uncommon: cf. note 2, p. 6 below, where it is clear that the original of the Asclepius mentioned was in Athens, by its appearance on Athenian coins. The fragment in the British Museum (Cat. Sculpt. ii. p. 208, No. 1314), which seems to be a copy of the Cnidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles, comes from the sanctuary of Demeter at Cnidus.

^{page 5 note 3} It is improbable that a copy in one city in Greece which had replaced an original carried of f to Rome would be cast in order that it might be copied in another Greek city. Nor is it likely that a cast of the original then in Rome would be sent back to the bereaved city or to any other part of Greece in order that other copies might be made for ordinary trade purposes.

From this it seems to follow that when one finds an unfinished copy in Greece the original was in Greek lands at the time of the making of the copy.

Can one further deduce that when an unfinished copy is found in Athens the original was in Athens? Not necessarily, since Athens was probably a centre for the copying of works of art from almost anywhere in the Greek world. But the present case offers other premises, since this unfinished statuette copy seems to have been found on the Acropolis. This surely indicates that the original was on the Acropolis; one can hardly imagine any other reason for a copyist working there. To-day one often sees small copies, but naturally never full-sized ones, being made from large statues in museums.

It is, however, possible that copies of copies were made in Athens, as they well may have been in Rome. One might suppose that sometimes in Athens the original had been removed and replaced by a copy; and that that copy may have itself been copied, in the absence of the original.

^{page 5 note 4} See Figs. 1–15 and 17–19. In the Acropolis head the folds and edges of the hair-band are rendered with greater decision, and the hair under it is well suggested, as by one who was accustomed to seeing it worn so. Throughout, one is reminded strongly of the qualities postulated by Curtius for he lost original (see note 5, p. 1). In order to realise what the copy has lost while preserving the main measurements and design, one has only to compare the rendering of the eye, lid, brow, and surroundings. No trace in the Acropolis fragment of the drill-holes which disfigure, however slightly, the ends of he mouth in the Palatine head.

^{page 6 note 1} I can find no representation of this statue either on the New Style tetradrachms or on the Imperial bronze coins of Athens. This negative evidence does not weaken the claim here put forward, since only a small proportion of the statues in Athens appear on coins. The evidence of copies, derivative (No. (1), p. 3), and reliefs (cf. note 2) all points to an original in Athens even if not on the Acropolis.

One serious objection to the Acropolis theory is that the fragment, though battered, does not show such signs of weathering as, for example, the exposed parts of the Parthenon pediments. Seven hundred years or so is the minimum period, on our hypothesis of where it stood, during which this head must have been exposed to the weather; and there was probably no shelter of any kind. It is true, however, that many of the figures on the Parthenon have been exposed (perhaps less to rain but more to wind) for over two thousand years. The resistant quality of polished Pentelic marble is high. The polish plays an important part, and deterioration takes place more quickly when the surface is gone.

^{page 6 note 2} Michaelis, Ancient Marbles, p. 249, No. 16. Another relief at Athens reproduces the same Asclepius with what may be the same Hygieia (Walter, Beschreibung d. Reliefs im kleinen Akropolismuseum, p. 52, no. 88). With torso (f bis), too,was found a torso of the same Asclepius (Arndt-Amelung, Einzelaufnahmen, No. 717/8). This juxtaposition can hardly be more than a coincidence due to arbitrary choice by copyists.

^{page 6 note 3} Pausanias, i. 23. 4. The explanation of Hygieia's parentage, as well as the avowed intention of a moment before to mention only the notable statues, puts out of court any supposition that Pausanias is here speaking of the statue, probably an empress deified, which once stood on the still surviving base inscribed Σϵβαστη Υϒϵια (sic). Such honorary statues of late date and great commonness would hardly have interested the antiquarian Pausanias.

Plutarch, Vit. x Orat. p. 839d, also mentions the statue. The following paragraphs are drawn almost verbatim from Frazer, 's Pausanias, vol. ii. p. 277Google Scholar ff., and Weller's Athens and its Monuments, p. 252 ff., which also furnishes, by kind permission of the author and of the Macmillan Company, the plan of the precinct of Hygieia (Fig. 34).

^{page 7 note 1} Whether we identify it with the Farnese type or not: (Naples, Guida Ruesch, p. 41, no. 133). It was of bronz (Plutarch, l.c. infra).

^{page 7 note 2} Pericles, 13.

^{page 7 note 3} Aristides, , Or. ii. (vol. i. p. 22, ed. Dindorf, )Google Scholar. One might suggest that the dedication of a statue of Health independent both of Asclepius and of Athena came some years later than the introduction of the cult of Asclepius and Health to the southern slope from Epidaurus in 420 B.C. If so, it was a characteristic act of early fourth-century Athens, which set up a group of Wealth in the arms of Peace. Thinly-veiled materialistic gods, these. It is suggested below, on other grounds, that the Hope Hygieia type dates from the first quarter of the fourth century.

^{page 8 note 1} Remembering that it is a copy, and its date as a copy.

^{page 8 note 2} For convenience I use here an illustration of the New York copy of Eirene. The comparison, of course, holds good with the Munich copy (Fig. 37).

^{page 8 note 3} Compare, for example, the Dresden Artemis and the type of the bronze Athena of the Archaeological Museum at Florence.

^{page 9 note 1} The art of about a century before this produced a number of renderings, observed directly from nature, of the female body clad in the Doric peplos. The progress of the fifth century saw successive refinements of the motive until, at the end of it and the beginning of the next, the peplos becomes a trans parent garment revealing more than it conceals of the form beneath. With Cephisodotus comes a reaction to the earlier ideal, accompanied by a certain loss of spontaneity. The statue is no longer an inspired representation, largely from memory, of a woman wearing clothes and moving freely and naturally in them, but a careful study of carefully placed drapery on a posed model.

^{page 9 note 2} Amelung has already shown, in his article on the Mantinean Basis, how certain of the types created now—for example, this Kore type of the Eleusis relief—were used afterwards in the Praxitelean school.

^{page 11 note 1} Of that we shall be better able to judge when an original by Cephisodotus is discovered.