*

ancient artists, there are only about three, in the inscriptions of which the preterite tense has been employed; if it be true that Pliny has even distinguished these three works by name, then we must come to the conclusion that Athenodorus, who did not execute any one of these three works, and who yet employed the perfect tense in his inscriptions, cannot have been of the number of those ancient sculptors. He cannot have been a contemporary of Apelles and Lysippus, but must be considered as belonging to a later period.

In short, I look upon it as certain that all artists who have employed the word soos, flourished long after the time of Alexander the Great, and shortly before, or even under, the emperors. Of Cleomenes, this is undeniable; of Archelaus it is highly probable; and of Salpion it is at least impossible to show the contrary. The same thing may be said of the others, not excepting Athenodorus.

I am now content to leave this question to

See Note 55, end of volume.

U

the judgment of Winkelmann himself.

But I must first protest against adopting the inverse proposition. If it were quite certain that all those artists who employed the phrase Tomos belonged to the later periods, it would by no means follow that all who wrote T belonged to the more ancient. Even among the more modern sculptors, some may really have possessed that feeling of modesty so becoming in a great man, while others, who wanted it, may have affected to possess it.

TWENTY-EIGHTH SECTION.

Conjecture regarding the Subject of the Statue commonly known by the Name of the Gladiator.

Next to the Laocoon, I was most curious to know what Winkelmann would say of the figure known by the name of the Gladiator. I flatter myself I have made a discovery regarding this statue, and I was afraid that Winkelmann might have anticipated me in it. But I find nothing of the sort in his work; and if anything could make me doubtful of its correctness, it would be the circumstance of my being disappointed my fear.

in

"Some persons," says Winkelmann, * "look upon this statue as a Discobolus, that is, a man throwing the disk, or circular metal plate, and

* Gesch. d. k., pa. ii., p. 394.

this was the opinion of the celebrated Stosch, as expressed in a letter to myself, but without due consideration of the position necessary for such an action. For, when a man is about to throw anything, he finds it necessary to draw his body back, and at the moment of throwing, the whole force falls on the nearest leg, while the left remains inactive; here, however, it is quite the contrary. The whole figure is thrown forward, and rests on the left leg, while the right limb is stretched backwards to its fullest extent. * The right arm is modern, and the hand has been represented grasping part of a lance; on the left arm is seen the strap of the

* It is singular enough that so gross a mistake as is contained in the above passage should have been made by Winkelmann, and it is almost equally surprising that it should have escaped the observation of Lessing. The Gladiator does not rest on the left leg, but on the right, while it is the left which is stretched backwards to its fullest extent. Notwithstanding the intended antithesis, I thought at first the error might be owing to the transcriber, but on reference to the large Italian edition of the "History of Art "—not having a copy of the original at hand—I found the blunder corrected in a note by the translator, which makes it evident that it is attributable to Winkelmann himself.—Note of the Translator.

buckler. When it is considered that the head and eyes are turned upwards, and that the figure appears to be warding off with the shield something which is coming from above, this statue might with more propriety be regarded as the representation of some warrior who had particularly distinguished himself in some perilous situation. It is probable that the honor of a statue was never among the Greeks awarded to the public Gladiators; and, moreover, this work seems to be of more ancient date than that of the introduction of Gladiators among the Greeks."

Nothing can be more correct than these observations. This statue has just as little reason to be called a Gladiator as a Discobolus; it is in fact the representation of a warrior in the attitude of defence. But how does it happen that Winkelmann has stopped short in the pursuit of an idea so judiciously formed? How is it that the name of that warrior did not occur to him, who in this very position saved the army from a total rout, and to whose honor his grateful countrymen erected a statue ?—In one