OF ARKOW-RELEASE. 177 



care in matching the tints of the new })ieces as almost to 

 deceive a practiced eye. He was frequently asked by vis- 

 itors to the Atelier whicii were the restored parts. *I can- 

 not say,' he would reply hiughing; 'I neglected to mark 

 them, and I no longer remember. Find them out for 

 yourself if you can'" (p. 56). Of these restorations, 

 however, it is possible that Mr. Hansard was not aware, 

 though if he had ever attempted drawing a bow in the 

 manner represented in these figures, he would have seen 

 the absurdity as well as the impossibility of the attitude; 

 and, furtliermore, had he been at all familiar with the 

 Mongolian release he would have seen that there was 

 reall}'' no approach to the form as employed by the Man- 

 chu, Korean, Japanese, or Turk. The following figure 

 (Fig. 42) is sketched fiom the set of casts in the Mu- 

 seum of Fine Arts in Boston. An examination of these 



Fig. 42. ThovaUlsen's restoration of haml. 



figures will show that the angle made by the shaft-liand in 

 relation to the bow-hand is also inaccurate. A release that 

 might at first sight suggest the Mongolian form is shown in 

 the accompanying figure (Fig. 43) representing an Amazon 

 archer, which is painted on a Greek vase of the 4th cen- 

 tury B.C. The forefinger seems to be holding the end of 

 the thumb, l)ut the thumb is not hooked over the string as 

 it ought to be. If the hand l)e correctly drawn it repre- 

 sents quite well the tertiary release; and this supposition 

 is borne out by two sculptures, one from the Temple of 

 Apollo Epicurius at Piiigalia (Fig. 44), and another from 



KSSKX INST. BULLETIN, VOL. XVII 'J3 



