Sie MATERIALS OF OLYMPIC VICTOR MONUMENTS. 
all these statues, whose dates extend over a period of many centuries, 
we note the same technical characteristics which are observable in the 
Greek “‘Apollos,”’ with the exception that the latter are always nude 
and lifelike. ‘These characteristics may be summarized thus: long 
hair falling down over the shoulders in a mass;! shoulders broad in com- 
parison with the hips; arms hanging down stiffly by the sides? or crooked 
at the elbows;? hands closed, with the thumbs facing forward and 
touching the ends of the index fingers; the left leg slightly advanced 
and the soles placed flat on the ground; high ears,* and the upper body 
and head turned straight to the front. Only minor differences in the 
two types appear. ‘Thus the left foot is always further advanced in 
the Egyptian than in the Greek statues, so that the former appear to 
have less movement and life. Since there is no trace of this type in 
Mycenzan art it seems impossible not to conclude that in some way, 
doubtless through Ionian sources, it was originally borrowed from 
Egypt. The imitation of the Egyptian models, however, was never 
slavishly done. The Greek artist immediately rendered the type his own 
by making it nude,’ and by transmuting the abstract lifeless schema 
of the Egyptians into a highly individualized one characterized by life 
and vigor.® This Egyptian influence, it must be remarked, was oper- 
ative only in the initial stage of Greek sculpture; it was soon lost, as the 
Greek artist came to rely upon himself. F. A. Lange has truly said: 
“Die wahre Unabhaengigkeit der hellenischen Kultur ruht in threr Vol- 
lendung, nicht in thren Anfaengen”.° 
After this digression we will return to the statue of Arrhachion. Dr. 
Frazer was unable to decipher the inscription upon the breast with 
1We see the Egyptian treatment of the hair especially marked in the upper part of a stone 
“Apollo” discovered at Eleutherna in Crete, which is now in the Candia Museum: Rendiconti 
della R. Accad. dei Lincei, 1891, p. 599 (Loewy); Rev. Arch., 1893, Pls. III-IV (Joubin); Gardner, 
Hbk., p. 147, fig. 21; Perrot-Chipiez, p. 431, fig. 208; etc. 
2F. g.. in the statue of Ra-nefer. 
3F. g., in the statue of the Shetk-el-Beled. 
4High-placed ears are common to many archaic Greek works other than the “Apollos.” They 
persist even in some of the figures on the Parthenon frieze. 
On these common characteristics, see Richardson, p. 39; cf. H. N. Fowler, History of Sculpture, 
1916, pp. 59-60; etc. 
6Pottier, op. cit., p. 414, assumes a religious reason for the left foot being advanced in both 
types. For another, natural explanation, see Homolle, de antiquiss. Dianae Simul., p. 95, 
quoted by Collignon, I, p. 118, n. 3. 
™The Greeks first copied the type in statuettes: ¢. g., alabaster figurines from Naukratis: W. 
Flinders Petrie, Naukratis?, 1888, I, Pls. 1, 3,4; G. Kieseritzky, Jb., VII, 1892, Pl. VI (with head, 
three views); ibid. p. 189 (figure in Boston). Pottier, op. cit., p. 409, cites two alabaster examples 
from Egypt (probably from Naukratis) which are nude, and on Pl. XVII, he reproduces four terra- 
cotta draped figurines in the Louvre, of Phoenician manufacture, similar to Egyptian works. 
The nudity of the “Apollos”? marks the distinction between Greek and barbarian art. 
’Brunn, in his Kunst bei Homer, 1868, quoted by Gardner, Hbk., p. 47, showed by a very true 
analogy the way in which the Greek artist became an imitator. The Greeks borrowed their alphabet 
from Phoenicia, but wrote Greek and not Pheenician with it; just so the Greek artist. borrowed 
the alphabet of art from Egypt, but with it wrote his own language of art. — 
*Gesch. des Materialismus,' I, p. 127 (quoted by F. W., on p. 12). 
