310 TWO MARBLE HEADS FROM VICTOR. STATUES, 
flesh on either side of the mouth, together with the soft, dimpled chin, 
have little in common with the massive strength and remarkable ani- 
mation of the Tegea heads. As Dr. Caskey has intimated, if we had 
only the lower portion of the face for comparison, we should be inclined 
to ascribe it to the influence of Praxiteles. If we considered the upper 
part only, resemblances to Skopaic work seem well marked; but if we 
take into account the expression of the face as a whole, we see that it lacks 
the most essential of Skopaic features, the look of passionate intensity. 
Consequently we shall find it difficult to bring the head into such close 
relation to that artist; for here there is little analogy to the vigorous 
warrior types of the Tegea pediments. For its quieter mien it might be 
better to compare it with the head of Atalanta,! though none of the gentle 
pathos or eagerness of the Sparta head is there visible. ‘The Atalanta, 
though full of vigorous life, utterly lacks the unrestrained passion so 
characteristic of her brothers; her eyes are not so deeply set, nor so wide- 
open; they are narrower and longer, and are not over-hung at the outer 
corners by heavy masses of flesh.? In speaking of the absence of these 
rolls of muscle, E. A. Gardner notes a curious peculiarity: ‘“‘ This is 
a clearly marked, though delicately rounded, roll of flesh between the 
brow and the upper eyelid, which is continued right round above the 
inner corner of the eye, to join the swelling at the side of the nose, — 
which itself passes on into the cheek.’’® He detects this same peculi- 
1B. G: Has SAN, LOOT, Plea ly—vV- 
The same overhanging masses of flesh, which we see in the male heads, are, however, visible in 
several other female heads attributed to Skopas: e. g., in the colossal one called Artemisia from 
the Eastern pediment of the Mausoleion: Gardner, Sculpt., Pl. LLX; in the head of an Aphro- 
dite found in the sea off Laurion: J. H. S., XV, 1895, pp. 194f. and fig. (Aphrodite ?); in the 
head of a goddess found south of the Akropolis (and in the copy of it in Berlin): Gardner, Hbk., 
p. 457, fig. 119; and in the Dresden statuette of a Menad: Treu, Mélanges Perrot, Pl. V; Gard- 
ner, Sculpi., Pl. LII; etc.; they are also plainly visible in the Demeter of Knidos: Gardner, 
Sculpt., Pl. LIII; etc. These heads are discussed by Gardner, Sculpt., pp. 190f., and are ascribed 
by him to Skopas. 
3]. H. S., XXVI, 1906, p. 174. Gardner (ibid.) does not explain this contrast in expression 
between the Atalanta and the surrounding heroes on the analogy of the contrast in the calmness of 
Apollo among the struggling Lapiths from the Olympia pediment, since the action in the torso of 
Atalanta shows that she was no mere spectator. He finds the explanation rather inthe sex and youth 
of the heroine; for this reason he thinks that the sculptor did not represent her as sharing equally 
with the others the passion of the combat. He finds a truer analogy in the contrast between calm 
and passion in the Lapiths and Centaurs of the Parthenon metopes, where the human and bestial 
are thus distinguished; just so the heroine-goddess is here distinguished from her human compan- 
ions. He also supposes that Skopas was not ready thus early in his career (just after 395 B.C., 
when the temple of Athena Alea was destroyed by fire) to apply his new extreme of expression to 
female heads. However, it must not be overlooked that these male heads—because of their 
marked individuality—presuppose a more mature genius, and so can just as well be assigned to 
the period of the Arkadian revival of 370 B.C. It has recently been seriously disputed whether 
the Atalanta should be assigned at all to the Eastern pediment, where the French excavators placed 
it thus Cultrera has looked upon it as an akroterion figure, while Thiersch and Neugebauer 
have identified it with a single figure representing Nike. See Cultrera, Atti dell’ Accad. dei 
Lincei, 1910, pp. 22 f.; H. Thiersch, Zum Problem des Tegeatempels, /b., XXVIII, 1913, p. 
270; Neugebauer, Studien ueber Skopas, Leipsic, 1913; the latter has argued that the head and 
torso do not belong together, while Dugas has maintained the older view, that the turn and 
position of the neck fit the torso: Rev. de l’art anc. et mod., 1911, pp. 9 f. ; 
