The Date of the Nike of SamothraceAuthor(s): A. W. LawrenceReviewed work(s):Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 46, Part 2 (1926), pp. 213-218Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/625309 .Accessed: 21/05/2012 07:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

THE DATE OF THE NIKE OF SAMOTHRACE1

(PLATE XI).

THE problem of the Nike 2 has long been confused by Benndorf's theory that it is the Victory represented on the coin of Demetrius Poliorcetes of c. 306. ' But,' it has been said,3 'the statue has no connection with the coin, for a detailed study of the neck and fragments of the right shoulder reveals the impossibility of the trumpet-blowing attitude. The right hand and arm are raised high and backwards, probably with a victor's wreath.' It may be objected that the condition of the statue does not admit of absolute proof; while the fact that the coin does not show a mantle such as the statue had is poor evidence against the identity of the figures, for small variations must be expected in coins of Hellenic period. A more valid argument 4 against the connexion with Demetrius lies in the circumstance that Samothrace belonged to Lysimachus, who was a bitter personal enemy and would not have allowed the setting up of a trophy on his ground. Benndorf's interpretation must accordingly be given up. Klein produced a theory 5 that the statue was of the time of Mithradates, and then he changed his views on the development of 'ancient rococo art' and said 6 it was a Rhodian memorial for the Battle of Actium; but a gigantic Rhodian monument for a Roman civil war would hardly be met with on a distant island, and when Augustus himself wanted a good Nike he had to use an old one from Tarentum.7 The supposed signature of a Rhodian artist supposedly found with the statue (and immediately lost) 8

is a very weak foundation for such a theory. Sieveking and Buschor 9 com- promised and cited the Nike as the perfect example of Pergamene drapery, and Krahmer 10 too dates it with the Priene frieze, which is of c. 158 B.c. A figure on the frieze 11 certainly resembles it in pose; but it must be remem- bered that the Pergamene sculptures are full of reminiscences of the Old Masters, and I consider that this is one of them; the style of the frieze is totally different to my eyes. And there is, in fact, a statue from Pergamon

I I am indebted for valuable criticisms to Prof. E. A. Gardner, Mr. A. J. B. Wace and Mr. Roger Hinks.

2 Bulle, 139, Dickins, Hell. Sculpt. Fig. 34; Brunn-Bruckm., Denkm. P1. 85, and Er8atz ; Rayet, Mon. de I'Art Ant. ii. P1. 52; Collignon, Histoire, ii. Pl. X. at p. 464; Cultrera, Saggi sull' Arte Ellenistica, p. 124, on it and Niobe; Studniczka, Siege8sgttin, p. 23.

3 S. Reinach, Gaz. des Beaux Arts,3 v.

1891, p. 89; summarised by Dickins, Hell. Sculpt. p. 46; restoration republished, Jahrb. xxxviii-ix., 1923-4, p. 125, Fig. 21.

4 Hatzfeld, Rev. Arch., 1910, i. p. 132. 5 Gr. Kunstge8ch., iii. p. 293. SVomn antiken Rokoko, p. 106. 7 Dio Cassius, li. 22. 8 C.R. Acad. Insc. 1891, p. 269. 9 Miinch. Jahrb. vii. 1912, p. 123.

10 Rdm. Mitt. xxxviii-ix., 1923-4, p. 151. 11 Br.-Br. 79; Krahmer's Fig. 3.

213

214 A. W. LAWRENCE

(P1. XI, 1) 12 of the same type and equally different in style. Moreover, there is a scarcity of naval battles at that period of the death of Greek independence in the Aegean region.

We must trace the Nike's line of descent if we wish to find its date. For this purpose I shall treat a batch of fourth-century sculptures as though they formed a school, although it cannot be localised. I begin with the Epidaurus statuettes (Fig. 1),13 Timotheus' contract for some of which can be dated about 375. The Mounted Amazon at Boston 14 is another product of the same group of sculptors in the first half of the century, and so is a headless

FIG. 1.-NEREID FROM EPIDAURUS.

statue at Munich of a girl in fluttering garments.15 Timotheus was employed again on the Mausoleum and it is suggested that he was the author of the colossal equestrian fragment; 16 I am not concerned with the accuracy of the attribution, but only with the fact that the statue resembles the Epidaurus sculptures. A figure with similar drapery may be noted, the Berlin example of the girl playing knuckle-bones; 17 the one in Dresden 18 has drapery like

12 Ath. Mitt. xxxv. 1910, p. 495, P1. XXIII. 4.

13 Br.-Br. 19, 20. 14 Amelung, Ausonia, iii. 1908, p. 98,

Figs. 5, 6; Caskey, Cat. No. 40; Br.-Br. 674; Chase, Sculp. in America, Fig. 109.

15 Glypt. No. 472. 16 B.M. Cat. II. Pl. XIX; Br.-Br. 71. 17 Beschreibung, 494; Kekul6, Gr. Skulp.3

p. 292. 18 Herrmann, 396; Collignon, Stat.funer.,

Fig. 187.

THE DATE OF THE NIKE OF SAMOTHRACE 215

the Maenad of Scopas and the Amazon Frieze of the Mausoleum. The girdle is placed low in all the copies I know of.19 I imagine that the motive was a favourite one at this time when the Tanagra genre-types were becoming popular, and it was utilised by more than one of the great artists of the day. Then too a statue of Aphrodite which went from Rome to the museum at Mantua is ascribed by Amelung 20 to the school of Timotheus ; it is an imitation of the Genetrix but has a high girdle. I only know it from an indistinct photograph and I cannot place it to my satisfaction. A mirror-relief in the Louvre 21 shows the Timotheus influence, and the well-known Ephedrismos group goes back to something in his manner, although it is plain that the marble

FIG. 2.-ARTEMIS AND IPHRIGENIA (COPENHAGEN).

version in the Conservatori 22 is not earlier than Late Hellenistic, and is not a copy but a variation from the original small object.

A contemporary work of another school is the Artemis and Iphigenia of Copenhagen (Fig. 2).23 It used to be described as Pergamene, which is certainly a mistake (the breast drapery alone is clear testimony), and Stud- niczka 24 has recently attributed the group to the latter half or last third of

19 List in B.M. Cat. III. No. 1710. The Hanover copy is Einz. 1073.

20 Aus. iii. 1908, p. 101 and Fig. 7. 21 Mon. Piot. i. 1894, P1. XX. 22 Bull. Comm. Arch. xxxv. 1907, p. 34, P1.

VI.; Lippold, Kopien, p. 154. 23 Ny C.G. Cat. No. 83, Billedtavler, P1.

VII; Iphigenia alone, Bull. Comm. Arch.

xiv. 1886, Pls. XIV-XV. Photo by courtesy of Mr. Harold Ingholt and the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.

24 In the Danish version of his restoration, Fra Ny C. G. Samlinger, ii, 1922, p. 60; in his Artemis und Iphigenie, published since this article was written, the date suggested is the decade 340-330.

216 A. W. LAWRENCE

the fourth century, this being the period when sculpture was becoming tridimensional according to Rodenwaldt.25 I should prefer to label it as a

copy from the period 350-330, for its resemblance to the Atalanta of Tegea (P1. XI, 3) 26 and draped fragments of the pediments (e.g. Fig. 3) 27 is so striking that the original must be ascribed to Scopas or one of his pupils, and in my opinion its place lies between the Tegea sculptures, the Mausoleum frieze and the Alexander Sarcophagus.

The style of Timotheus is still living in the Artemis Rospigliosi 28 and a better copy of the torso in the Lateran (P1. XI, 2).29 The latter should be care-

fully compared, especially for the treatment of the drapery blown round the groin and between the legs, with the draped figures of the Alexander Sarcophagus; 30

it is also the statue which comes closest to the Nike of Samothrace. The

similarity is unmistakable and the Nike cannot be discussed without reference to it and to Timotheus : the date thus a priori indicated is not so late in the fourth century. Studniczka 31 classes the Nike with the Samothrace pediments of c. 270, but their tricky drapery stamps them as the work of a Hellenistic virtuoso who borrowed his general conception from the great classic prototype on the same site.

I am much indebted to Prof. Wilhelm for calling my attention to a naval battle in the Hellespont, the importance of which' cannot be over-estimated.' 32

I refer to an event in the war that broke out in 323, when the Athenians were

fighting Antipater and the Macedonians. It was apparently before the end of 323 that the decisive engagement took place (perhaps in the neighbourhood of Abydus), the result being that Athens lost the command of the sea for ever. The fleet put back to Piraeus to refit, came out again and got as far as

Amorgos, where it was completely demolished, and henceforth no more is heard of Athens as a sea-power. I suggest that the Nike of Samothrace was intended to commemorate this very notable battle, and so was placed at the nearest important sanctuary on an island which can be seen from the Hellespont. The gods sat on the peak of Samothrace to watch the Trojan War,33 they may have sat there again to watch the end of the Athenian fleet and have sent Nike to crown the victors. As a matter of fact, she was high up on the slope behind the sanctuary,34 not facing the Hellespont but going straight out to sea towards Thrace. This may be taken as a weak point in the argument, but what else could she do ? There was a ridge between the temenos and the

Hellespont, and it was not fitting that she should be represented flying uphill

25 R6m. Mitt. xxxiv, 1919, p. 65. 26 B.C.H. xxv. 1901, P1. VI; Dugas-

Berchmans-Clemmensen, Sanctuaire a

Tigde, Pls. XCVI.-XOVIII. 27 Ibid., P1. CVII. c.(10). They give

380-350 as the date of the temple, p. 127. 28 Reinach, Rep. ii. 310, 6; Einz. 112;

Klein, Praxiteles, p. 336, note 1, compares Nike of Samothrace; Mahler, Rev. Arch.4 i. 1903, i. p. 383; Sauciuc, Andros (Sonderschriften d. Osterr. Inst. viii), p. 45,

Fig. 56.

29 Klein, Rokcoo, p. 114, Fig. 48, and Prax. Stud. p. 55, Fig. 15.

30 Mendel, Cat. I. pp. 171, 197 (biblio- graphy); Hamdy-Reinach, Niicrop., Pls. XXIII-XXXVII.

31 Jahrb. xxxviii-ix., 1923-4, p. 124, Fig. 20 (pediment fragments).

32 Johnson, A.J.A.2 xvii, 1913, p. 515. 33 Iliad, XIII, ii; Kinglake, Eothen,

chap. iv. 34 Map in Conze and Benndorf, Samothr.,

ii, P1. I.

THE DATE OF THE NIKE OF SAMOTHRACE 217

when her purpose was to reach the sea; the actual position is the logical one, once it is realised that she has to start from the wrong side of the island, since harbour and sanctuary and city all lie there. And we do not know that the north really is the wrong direction, for the action may not have terminated in the Hellespont, and in any case the route to the Macedonian base passed round the north side.

This theory will, of course, be combated on the ground of stylistic improba- bility. The pose is late according to Krahmer,35 but in this respect an excep- tional artist need not be bound by the conventions of the more timid (the celebrated example is Correggio), and the bold composition of contemporary reliefs may some- times have strayed into the round; it must be remembered too that this was an age when painting flourished and sculpture would be the freer therefor. The high girdle is a point on which too much stress has been laid: it really

FIG. 3.-FRAGMENT FROM THE PEDIMENTAL SCULPTURES, TEGEA.

FIG. 4.--STATUE FROM CYRENE.

seems to occur all through the second half of the fourth century,36 and it is found very high on an Attic votive relief which can be plausibly dated towards 325.37 It is also worn high on the Cyrene statue (Fig. 7),38 which Lippold triumphantly produces as showing the prototype of the Nike, but that is an eclectic type of the late first century A.D., and does not represent a fourth-century original of which the Nike is a further development. As to

35 Rdm. Mitt. xxxviii-ix., 1923-4, p. 151. 36 Studniczka, Jahrb. xxxiv., 1919, p. 112,

note 4; Artemi8 u. Iph., p. 90, no example certainly previous to 336.

37 Bears an inscription of Mnesimachus, who is probably the Diaetetes of a list of 325/4. v. Duhn, Ath. Mitt. ii. 1877, P1. XVI. p. 220; Svoronos, Nat.-Mu8. P1. 36, 4, No.

1335; Einz. 1231, where Lawy says the date suits excellently.

38 Lippold, R6m. Mitt. xxxiii, 1918, p. 95, Fig. 10; Kopien, p. 25; Bull. of Arch. Inst. of Amer. ii, 1911, p. 161, and P1. LXXV, from which my photo is copied. Cf. the Chiaramonti Niobid for the position of the girdle.

218 A. W. LAWRENCE

the treatment of detail in the Samothrace statue, I have already pointed out that the closest analogies are in works of a date not far from the one I suggest, i.e. soon after 323. And above all the spirit of the statue is undeniably classic, it is the perfected expression of the classical ideal which worked in Paeonius, the Nereid Monument 39 and Timotheus, and it should naturally follow them in time as closely as in artistic development: I fail to understand why it should be attributed to a Greek Bernini of the second century, still less why it should be attributed to a Canova of the Augustan Age.

A. W. LAWRENCE.

39 Br.-Br. 211-213 (statues), 214-219 (frieze).

1. TORSO FROM PERGAMON 2 TORSO IN THE LATERAN MUSEUM 3. THE ATLANTA OF TEGEA

I:

0 r

r

r