COMPARISON OF TEGEA HEADS AND HEAD FROM SPARTA. 309 
nent chin, gives an element of squareness to the whole.! On the other 
hand, the head from Sparta has a long, narrow face whose sides softly 
converge toward the middle in beautiful curves about the cheeks; its 
cheek-bones are not so high nor so prominent as those of the other; it 
ends in a delicate, almost effeminate chin, which slightly retreats and 
gives the whole lower part of the face an oval structure, thus recalling 
Praxiteles and fourth-century Attic works. The length of the face is 
accentuated by the considerable height to which the head rises above 
the forehead, in contrast with the flatness of the skull in the example 
from Tegea. ‘The eyes are not so wide-open; they are longer and not 
so swollen nor compressed toward the centre; if we view the two heads 
from the side, we see that the eye-socket in the Tegea head is larger and 
appreciably deeper than in the one from Sparta. 
Apart from these surface differences in the structure of the head and 
face, it is in the resultant expression that we see the greatest divergence 
from the Skopaic type. ‘This seems to me to be fundamentally differ- 
ent in the Sparta head. Inthe Herakles, as in all the other Tegea male 
heads, and even in those of the boar and the dogs, the really charac- 
teristic feature, which differentiates them from all other works of Greek 
sculpture, is the passionate intensity of their expression. The one 
unforgettable impression left on the spectator by them all is this 
expression of violent and unrestrained passion, which the sculptor has 
succeeded in imparting to the marble. ‘This is what marks him as the 
master of passion and the originator of the dramatic tendencies carried 
to such lengths in the Hellenistic schools of sculpture; it is this which 
explains Kallistratos’ characterization of his works as being xatoxa kal 
MeoTa pavias.2 The head from Sparta shows only a little of this intensity. 
Notwithstanding the similar upward gaze and slightly parted lips, the 
intention of the artist seems to have been to portray the hero in an atti- 
tude of expectancy, tempered by a look almost of calmness. ‘The look 
is deeply earnest, but not violent; it is even melancholy. It is this last 
feature, the delicate and compelling melancholy of the face, which 
impressed me most on first viewing it. ‘This is further enhanced by 
the full, soft modeling of the lower face, that gives to the whole a deli- 
cate, almost effeminate character, which strongly reminds us of Praxi- 
telean heads. In fact, the shape of the lips and the modeling of the 
1Tt was chiefly the preponderance of the lower part of the face over the upper, in consequence 
of thelarge chin and strongly marked cheek-bones, that led Treu to predicate Peloponnesian rather 
than Attic influence in the Tegea heads: 4. M., VI, 1881, p. 408. He found them Polykleitan 
in character, as did also Graef, /. c., p. 210, Furtwaengler, Mp., p. 523, and Collignon, II, p 
238. L.R. Farnell, however, long ago combated the theory of Peloponnesian influence, and 
found analogies in fifth-century Attic works of the time of Pheidias, as well as in works from the 
beginning of the fourth century B. C.: see J. H. S., VII, 1886, pp. 114 f. 
*Descriptiones stat., B (in Philostrati opera, ed. Kayser, p. 891). He also says (ibid.) that Skopas 
wWoTEp EK TLWos Extmvolas Ki Oels Eis THY TOD AyaduaTos SnuLloupylay Thy Deopopiay éyjxe. The words 
with which Diodoros (Fragm. 1, Bk. X XVI) characterized Praxiteles, as 6 katapltas axpws Tots 
ArOivots Epyots Ta THS Wuxis 740, apply much better to Skopas, for Praxiteles’ “emotions of the 
soul” are mood and temperament rather than emotion and passion. 
