Pliny, in
describing
the temple of Artemis determining which of them, or whether any of
at Ephesus (H.
at Ephesus (H.
William Smith - 1844 - Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities - c
27, 62, v.
11).
The
and Sciron the command in war (Paus. i. 39. § 5). next year (218) he was sent by Dorimachus (who
Other traditions called this Sciron the husband had succeeded him in the supreme command) with
of Chariclo, and father of Endeis. (Plut. Thes. a mercenary force to the assistance of the Eleans
10. )
(L. S. ) (Id. v. 3), but we have no farther account of his
ŚCIRON or SCYRON (Exlpwv or Exupwv), a operations in that year, or during the remainder of
Messenian who enjoyed a high estimation among the Social War. His name does not again occur
his countrymen, and held the office of Ephor at the until the year B. C. 211, when we find liim again
time of the unprincipled aggression of the Aetolian holding the office of general, and in that capacity
Dorimachus [DORIMACHUS). He strongly urged presiding in the assembly of the Aetolians, which
his countrymen to exact reparation from the Aeto- concluded the alliance with the Roman praetor,
lians, and, by his conduct in the assembly on this M. Valerius Laevinus. The conquest of Acarnania
occasion, incurred the mortal enmity of Dorimachus. was the bait held out to allure the Aetolians into
(Polyb. iv. 4. )
(E. H. B. ) this league, and Scopas immediately assembled his
SCIRONIDES (Exipwvídns), an Athenian, was forces for the invasion of that country. But the
joined with Phrynichus and Onomacles in the com- determined resistance of the Acarnanians them-
mand of an Athenian and Argive force, which was selves, and the advance of Philip to their relief,
Bent out to the coast of Asia Minor in B. C. 412. rendered his efforts abortive.
The next year
After a successful engagement with the Milesians, ( B. C. 210) we find him co-operating with Lae-
they prepared to besiege Miletus ; but, on the vinus in the siege of Anticyra, which, after its
arrival of a Peloponnesian and Sicilian fleet, they capture, was given up to the Aetolians (Liv. xxvi.
sailed away to Samos, by the advice of Phryni- 24-26). After the close of the war with Philip,
chus, without risking a battle In the same year we are told that the Aetolians were distracted
3 c
a
VOL, LI,
## p. 754 (#770) ############################################
754
SCOPAS.
SCOPAS
with civil dissensions, and in order to appease half of the fourth century B. C. Pliny, indeed, places
these disorders, and provide some remedy against him, with Polycleitus, Phradmon, Myron, Pytha-
the burden of debts with which the chief persons / goras, and Perelius, at Ol. 90, B. C. 420 (11. N.
in the country were oppressed, Scopas and Dori- xxxiv. 8. . 19, Sillig's edition, the common edi-
machus were appointed to reform the constitution, tions place these artists with those of the preceding
B. C. 204. They were certainly not well qualified period, Ol. 87). It will be seen presently that
for legislators, and Scopas had only undertaken the this cannot possibly be true. The source of Pliny's
cbarge from motives of personal ambition ; on error herc, as in other such cases, is no doubt in
finding himself disappointed in which, he with the manner in which he constructed his lists of
drew to Alexandria Here he was received with artists, arranging the groups according to some
the utmost favour by the ministers who ruled particular epoch, and placing in each group artists
during the minority of the young king, Ptolemy V. , who were in part contemporary with each other,
and appointed to the chief command of the army although the earliest may have lived quite before,
in Coele-Syria, where he had to make head against and the latest quite after the date specified. Other
the ambitious designs of Antiochus the Great. At explanations of the difficulty have been attempted,
first he was completely successful, and reduced the of which it can only be said here that that of
whole province of Judaea into subjection to Pto- Sillig (Cat. Art. s. v. ) is too far-fetched, and that
lemy, but was afterwards defeated by Antiochus at the more usual plan of imagining a second artist of
Panium, and reduced to shut himself up within the name, a native of Elis, of whom nothing is
the walls of Sidon, where (after an ineffectual at- known from any other source, is a vulgar uncritical
tempt by Ptolemy to relieve him) he was ulti- expedient, which we have several times had occasion
mately compelled by famine to surrender (Polyb. to condemn.
xiii. 1, 2, xvi. 18, 19, 39; Joseph. Ant. xii. 3. $ 3; The indications which we possess of the true
Hieronym. ad Daniel. xi. 15, 16). Notwith time of Scopas, in the dates of some of his works,
standing this ill success he appears to have con- and in the period at which the school of art he be-
tinued in high favour at the Egyptian court, and longed to flourished, are sufficiently definite. He
m B. C. 200 he was sent to Greece with a large was engaged in the rebuilding of the temple of
Buni of money to raise a mercenary force for the Athena in Arcadia, which must have been com-
service of Ptolemy, a task which he performed menced soon after Ol. 96. 2, B. c. 394, the year in
80 successfully as to carry back with him to Alex- which the former temple was burnt (Paus. viii. 45.
andria a body of above 6000 of the flower of the $ 1). The part ascribed to him in the temple of
Aetolian youth (Liv. xxxi. 43). His confidence in Artemis at Ephesus, on the authority of Pliny
the support of so large a forcé, united to his own (H. N. xxxvi. 14. &. 21), is a matter of some
abilities, and the vast wealth which he had accu- doubt; but the period to which this testimony
mulated in the service of the Egyptian king, would extend his career is established by the un-
appears to have inflamed his ambition, and led him doubted evidence of his share in the sculptures of
to conceive the design of seizing by force on the the Mausoleum in Ol. 107, about B. c. 350, or even
chief administration of the kingdom. But his a little later. The date cannot be assigned with
projects were discovered before they were ripe for exactness to a year ; but, as Mausolus died in Ol.
execution, and a force was sent by Aristomenes, 106. 4, B. c. 352, and the edifice seems to hare
the chief minister of Ptolemy, to arrest him. been commenced almost immediately, and, upon
Scopas was taken by surprise, and unable to offer the death of Artemisia, two years after that of her
any resistance. He was at once led before the husband, the artists engaged on the work con-
council of the young king, condemned to death, and tinued their labours voluntarily, it would follow
executed in prison the next night, B. C. 296. Ac- that they were working at the sculptures both be
cording to Polybius he had well deserved his fate fore and after B. c. 350 (Plin. H. N. xxxvi. 5. &
by the reckless and insatiable rapacity which he had 4. $ 9 ; Vitruv, vii. praef. $ 12). On these grounds
displayed during the whole period of his residence the period of Scopas may be assigned as from B. C.
in Egypt. (Polyb. xviii. 36-38). [E. H. B. ] 395 to B. c. 350, and perhaps a little earlier and
SCOPAS (Ekomas), one of the most distin- later. He was probably somewhat older than
guished sculptors of the later Attic school, was a PRAXITELES, with whom he stands at the head of
native of Paros, which was then subject to Athens that second period of perfected art which is called
(Strab. xiii. p. 604 ; Paus. viii. 45. § 4); and he the later Attic school (in contradistinction to the
appears to have belonged to a family of artists in earlier Attic school of Pheidias), and which arose
that island. There is an inscription of a much later at Athens after the Peloponnesian War. The dis-
period (probably the first century B. c. ), in which tinctive character of this school is described under
a certain Aristander, the son of Scopas of Paros, PRAXITELES, p. 519, b.
is mentioned as the restorer of a statue of C. Bil- Like most of the other great artists of antiquity,
lienus, by Agasias, the son of Menophilus of Ephe Scopas is hardly known to us except by the very
bus ; and we also know that there was a sculptor, scanty and obscure notices which Pliny and other
Aristander of Paros, who lived during the latter writers give us of his works. Happily, however,
part of the Peloponnesian War [ARISTANDER). we possess remains of those works of the highest
These facts, taken in connection with one another, excellence, though, unfortunately, not altogether of
and with the well-known alternate succession of doubted genuineness ; we refer especially to the
names in a Greek family, make the inference ex- Niobe group, to various other statues, and the Bu-
tremely probable that the father of Scopas was that drum Marbles. We proceed to enumerate the
very Aristander who flourished about B. C. 405, works which he executed as an architect, a sculptor,
and that his family continued to flourish as artists and a statuary.
in their native island, almost or quite down to the 1. His architectural works. 1. He was the
Christian era (Böckh, C. I. No. 2285, b. , vol. ii. architect of the temple of Athena Alea, at Teger,
Pp. 236, 237). Scopas flourished during the first in Arcadia, the date of which has already been re
## p. 755 (#771) ############################################
SCOPAS.
755
SCOPAS.
ferred to (Paus. viii. 45. 88 3, 4. 8. 4—7). This , finding, in his Greek authoritics, Chersiphron men-
teniple was the largest and most magnificent in the tioned as the architect of the one, and Scopas as
Peloponnesus, and is remarkable for the arrange- the architect of the other, he confused the two to-
ment of its columns, which were of the Ionic order gether. In no other passage is Scopas mentioned
on the outside of the temple, and in the inside of as the architect of this temple: it is generally
the Doric and Corinthian orders, the latter above ascribed to DEINOCRATES : but the variations in
the former. From the way in which Pausanias the name of the architect warrant the conclusion,
speaks of the sculptures in the pediments, it appears which might be drawn à priori from the magnitude
evident that the sculptural decorations of the temple, of the work, that more than one architect superin-
as well as the building itself, were executed under tended its erection. The idea that Scopas may
the direction of Scopas ; the sculptures were pro- have been one of these architects, receives some
bably by his own hand, since Pausanias mentions confirmation from the reference of Pausanias, al-
no other artist as having wrought upon them. ready quoted, to his works in lonia and Caria ;
The subject represented in the pediment of the and the fact of his share in the temple not being
front portico was the chase of the Calydonian boar, referred to by any other writer, may be explained
and, from the description of Pausanins, this must by his architectural labours having been eclipsed
have been a most animated composition. In the by his greater fame as a sculptor, and by the re-
centre was the wild beast himself, pursued on the nown of Deinocrates as an architect, especially if
one side by Atalante, Meleager, Theseus, Telamon, the latter finished the work. The absence of any
Peleus, Pollux, lolaüs, Prothous, and Cometes ; on mention of Deinocrates by Pliny is another reason
the other side, Ancaeus was seen mortally wounded, for retaining the name of Scopas in the passage. It
having dropped his axe, and supported in the arms is to be hoped that some critic may be able to cast
of Epochus, while standing by him were Castor, some further light on a question which is so in-
Amphiaraüb, Hippothous, and Peirithous. The teresting as connected with the character of Scopas
subject of the hinder pediment was the battle of as an architect.
Telephus with Achilles, in the plain of Caïcus, 3. The part which Scopas took in the decoration
the details of which Pausanias does not describe. of the Mausoleum has been already referred to. It
Only some insignificant ruins of the temple now is now scarcely possible to doubt, either that, by
remain. (Dodwell
, Tour, vol. ii. p. 419 ; Klenze, the sculptures mentioned by Pliny and Vitruvius,
Aphorist. Bemerk. auf einer Reise nach Griechen on the four faces of the edifice, we are to under-
land, p. 647 ; Müller, Archäol. d. Kunst, § 109, stand the bas-reliefs of the frieze of the peristyle
D. ii. 13. )
which surrounded it, or that the slabs brought
In his account of this temple, Pausanias takes from Budrum (the ancient Halicarnassus), and now
occasion to mention that Scopas made statues in deposited in the British Museum, are portions of
many places of Greece Proper (as doxalas 'Ená that frieze (see Dict. of Ant. 2nd ed. art. Mausa
dos), besides those in Ionia and Caria ; an impor- leum). These slabs are thought, by competent
tant testimony to the extent of the sphere of the judges, to show traces of different bands, and
artist's labours.
unfortunately we have no means whatever of
2.
Pliny, in describing the temple of Artemis determining which of them, or whether any of
at Ephesus (H. N. xxxvi. 14. s. 21), says that them, were the work of Scopas ; since, of the
thirty-six of its sixty columns were sculptured whole frieze we possess only enough to make up a
(caelatae ; perhaps Caryatids), and then adds quarter, or one side of the peristyle, and these
words which, according to the common editions, pieces are not all continuous, nor were they
affirm that one of these columns was sculptured found in their places in the building, but in the
by Scopas ; rather a curious circumstance, that walls of the citadel of Budrum, into which they
just one of the thirty-six should be ascribed had been built by the knights of Rhodes. In
to so great an artist, and nothing be said of consequence of an opinion that the reliefs are hardly
the makers of the other thirty-five ; and rather worthy of the fame of Scopas, it has been suggested
surprising, also, that Scopas should have been en- that the slabs which we possess may have been all
gaged on what was more properly the work of a the productions of the other three artists ; but a
stone-mason. The fact is, that in the common supposition so perfectly gratuitous cannot be ad.
reading-ex üs XXXVI. caelatae, una a Scopa ; mitted until some proof of it shall be furnished ;
operi praefuit Chersiphron, fic: ---the a is a conjec- nor do we think it required by the case itself. A
tural insertion of Salmasius (who, however, with bas-relief on the frieze of a building must not be
greater consistency, also changes una into uno), and compared with such statues as those of the Niobe
it is wanting in all the MSS. The case is one of group. The artist was somewhat fettered by the
those in which we can hardly hope to clear up the nature of the work, and still more by the character
difficulty quite satisfactorily, but we are inclined to of his subject, the battle of the Amazons, which
accept as the most probable solution that proposed belongs to a class from which, as may be seen in
by Sillig (Cat. Art. s. v. ), namely, to follow the the Phigaleian frieze, and even in the metopes of
reading of the MSS. , pointing it thus : -ex iżs the Parthenon, the conventionalities of the archaic
XXXVI. caelatae. Una Scopa operi praefuit style were never entirely banished. These remarks,
Chersiphron architectus, i. e. “Together with Sco- however, are only intended to apply to the com-
pas, Chersiphron the architect superintended the parison between these marbles and the separate
work ;" for una, like simul, may be used as a statues, upon which the artist, free from all restraint,
preposition with an ablative. It is known that lavished his utmost skill; for in truth, considered
Chersiphron was the architect, not of this temple, by themselves, they do not seem to us to need
but of its predecessor, which was burnt by Hero- any apology. Allowance being made for the great
stratus (CHERSIPURON). But it is clear enough corrosion of the surface in most parts, they are
from Pliny's whole description, that he confounded beautiful works of art, and they exhibit exactly tho
the two temples ; and therefore we may infer that, characteristics of the later Attic school, as described
:
3 c 2
## p. 756 (#772) ############################################
756
SCOPAS.
SCOPAS.
;
Ly ancient writers, and as still visible in a very at Megara was Scopas's group of marble statnes of
siinilar and nearly contemporaneous work of the Eros, Himeros, and Pothos, in which he showed
very same school, the frieze of the choragic monu- the perfection of his art by the distinct and charac-
ment of Lysicrates, which is also preserved in the teristic personified expression of ideas so nearly the
ndjoining room (the Elgin Room *) in the British same (Paus. i. 43. & 6). The celebrated statue of
Museum. The decided inferiority of both these Aphrodite as victorious (Venus l'ictrix), in the
works to the Panathenaic frieze of the Parthenon Museum at Paris, known as the Venus of Milo
only proves the inferiority of the later Attic artists (Melos), is ascribed, by Waagen and others, to
to those of the school of Pheidias ; an inferiority Scopas, and is quite worthy of his chisel. It is
which was not likely to be properly appreciated by one of the most beautiful remains of ancient art.
judges who, in the kindred art of dmmatic poetry, | (Wangen, Kunstwerke u. Künstler in Paris ;
preferred Euripides to Sophocles. The part of the Nagler, Künstler. Lexicon ; Müller, Denkmäler d.
frieze of the Mausoleum executed by Scopas was alten Kunst, vol. ii. pl. xxv. No. 270. )
that of the eastern front; the sculptors of the 2. Subjects from the Mythology of Dionysus. —
other three sides were Bryaxis, Leochares, and Müller thinks that Scopas was one of the first who
Timotheus (or, as others said, Praxiteles), all of ventured to attempt in sculpture a free unfettered
them Athenians ; and Pliny tells us that the works display of Bacchic enthusiasm (Archaöl d. K’unst,
were in his time considered to vie in excellence $ 125). His statue of Dionysus is mentioned by
with each other :- hodieque certant manus (II. N. Pliny (II. N. xxxvi. 5. 6. 4. 8 5); and his Maenad,
xxxvi. 5. 8. 4. $ 9).
with flowing hair, as xwaipopóvos, is celebrated
11. Having thus noticed the works of Scopns in by several writers (Callist. Imag. 2; Glaucus, Ep.
architecture and architectural sculpture, we proceed 3, ap. Brunck. Anal. vol. ii. p. 347, Anth. Pai. ix.
to the single statues and groups which are ascribed 774 ; Simonides, Ep. 81, ap. Brunck. Anal. vol.
to him, classifying them according to their connec-i. p. 142, Anth. Plunud. iv. 60, Append. in Anth.
tion with the Greek mythology. The kinds Pal. vol. ii. p. 642, Jacobs). There are several
mythological subjects, which Scopas and the other reliefs which are supposed to be copied from the
artists of his school naturally chose, have already work of Scopas ; one of them in the British Mu-
been mentioned under Praxiteles, p. 519, b. seum. (Müller, Arch. l. c. n. 2, Denkmäler, rol. i.
Nearly all these works were in marble, the usual pl. xxxij. No. 140 ; - Townley Gallery, vol. ii. p.
material employed by the school to which Scopas 103. ) Respecting his Puniscus, see Cicero de
belonged, and that also which, as a native of Paros, | Div. i. 13).
he may be supposed to have preferred and to have 3. Subjects from the Mythology of Apollo and
been most familiar with. Only one bronze statue Artemis. Scopas embodied the ideal of the Py-
of his is mentioned ; and some critics would erase thian Apollo playing on the lyre in a statue, which
his name from Pliny's list of statuaries in bronze Augustus placed in the temple which he built to
(II. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19).
Apollo on the Palatine, in thanksgiving for his
1. Subjects from the Mythology of Aphrodite. – victory at Actium ; whence it is called by Pliny
Pliny (H. N. xxxvi. 5. s. 4. $7), after mentioning Apollo Palatinus, and on various Roman coins
Scopas as rival of Praxiteles and Cephisodotus, Apollo Actius or Palatinus (Eckhel, Doct. Num.
tells us of his statues of Venus, Pothos (Desire), vol. vi. pp. 94, 107, vol. vii. p. 124; comp. Tac.
and Phaëthon, which were worshipped with most Ann, xiv. 14 ; Suet. Nerr. 25). Propertius de
solemn rites at Samothrace. (Respecting the true scribes the statue in the following lines (ii. 31, 10
reading of the passage, and the mythological con- | -14): –
nection of Phaethon with Aphrodite, see Sillig's
“ Deinde inter matrem deus ipse interque sororem
edition of Pliny ; Hesiod. Theog. 986—991 ; and
Pythius in longa carmina veste sonat.
Welcker, in the Kunstblatt, 1827, p. 326).
Hic equidem Phoebo visus mihi pulchrior ipso
A little further on, Pliny mentions a naked statue
Marmoreus tacita carmen hiare lyra. "
of Venus, in the temple of Brutus Callaicus, at Rome,
as Praxiteliam illan antecedens, which most critics These lines, and the representations of the statue
suppose to mean preceding it in order of time; but on the coins, enable us easily to recognise a copy
Pliny appears really to mean surpassing it in excel- of it in the splendid statue in the Vatican, which
lence. It would, he adds, confer renown on any was found in the villa of Cassius (Mus. Pio-Clem.
other city, but at Rome the immense number of vol. i. pl. 16 ; Musée Franç. vol. i. pl. 5 ; Müller,
works of art, and the bustle of daily life in a great Archäol. $ 125, n. 4, Denkmäler, vol. i. pl. xxxii.
city, distracted the attention of men ; and for this No. 141). There was also a statue of Apollo
reason also, there was a doubt respecting the artist Smintheus by him, at Chrysa in the Troad (Simb.
of another statue of Venus, which was dedicated viii. p. 604 ; Eustath. ad Il. i. 39). Two statues
by Vespasian in the Temple of Peace, and which of Artemis are ascribed to Scopas ; the one by
was worthy of the fame of the ancient artists. Pausanias (ix. 17. § 1), the other by Lucian
Another work mentioned by Pliny as doubtful, is (Leriph. 12, vol. ii. p. 339).
the Cupid holding a thunderbolt, in the Curia of But of all his works in this department, by far
Octavia. Pausanias (vi. 25 & 2) mentions a bronze the most interesting is the celebrated group, or
group by Scopas, of Aphrodite Pandemos, sitting rather series, of figures, representing the destruc-
on a goat, which stood at Elis, in the same temple tion of the sons and daughters of Niobe. In
with Pheidias's chryselephantine statue of Aphro. Pliny's time the statues stood in the temple of
dite Urania. The juxtaposition of these works of Apollo Sosianus, at Rome, and it was a disputed
the two Attic schools must have furnished an in- point whether they were the work of Scopas or of
teresting comparison. In the temple of Aphrodite Praxiteles. The remaining statues of this group,
or copies of them, are all in the Florence Gallery,
The Budrum Marbles are in the Phigaleian with the exception of the so-called Ilioneus, at
Room, perhaps only temporarily.
Munich, which some suppose to have belonged to
## p. 757 (#773) ############################################
SCOPAS.
757
SCRIBONIA.
1
!
1
the group. There is a bead of Niobe in the col- Pliny of any work in bronze by Scopns, although
lection of Lord Yarborough, which has some claim his name appears in the chronological list of sta-
to be considered as the original. Our space forbids tuaries at the beginning of the chapter. But even
our entering on the various questions which have been that passage is, as has been seen, involved in dif-
raised respecting this group, such as the genuineness ficulty, and one proposed emendation, that of
or originality of the figures, the manner of grouping Thiersch, would banish the name of Scopas from it
them, and the aesthetic character of the whole com altogether, substituting Onalas. The only work in
position : on these matters the reader is referred to bronze expressly ascribed to Scopas is the Aphro-
the works now quoted.
and Sciron the command in war (Paus. i. 39. § 5). next year (218) he was sent by Dorimachus (who
Other traditions called this Sciron the husband had succeeded him in the supreme command) with
of Chariclo, and father of Endeis. (Plut. Thes. a mercenary force to the assistance of the Eleans
10. )
(L. S. ) (Id. v. 3), but we have no farther account of his
ŚCIRON or SCYRON (Exlpwv or Exupwv), a operations in that year, or during the remainder of
Messenian who enjoyed a high estimation among the Social War. His name does not again occur
his countrymen, and held the office of Ephor at the until the year B. C. 211, when we find liim again
time of the unprincipled aggression of the Aetolian holding the office of general, and in that capacity
Dorimachus [DORIMACHUS). He strongly urged presiding in the assembly of the Aetolians, which
his countrymen to exact reparation from the Aeto- concluded the alliance with the Roman praetor,
lians, and, by his conduct in the assembly on this M. Valerius Laevinus. The conquest of Acarnania
occasion, incurred the mortal enmity of Dorimachus. was the bait held out to allure the Aetolians into
(Polyb. iv. 4. )
(E. H. B. ) this league, and Scopas immediately assembled his
SCIRONIDES (Exipwvídns), an Athenian, was forces for the invasion of that country. But the
joined with Phrynichus and Onomacles in the com- determined resistance of the Acarnanians them-
mand of an Athenian and Argive force, which was selves, and the advance of Philip to their relief,
Bent out to the coast of Asia Minor in B. C. 412. rendered his efforts abortive.
The next year
After a successful engagement with the Milesians, ( B. C. 210) we find him co-operating with Lae-
they prepared to besiege Miletus ; but, on the vinus in the siege of Anticyra, which, after its
arrival of a Peloponnesian and Sicilian fleet, they capture, was given up to the Aetolians (Liv. xxvi.
sailed away to Samos, by the advice of Phryni- 24-26). After the close of the war with Philip,
chus, without risking a battle In the same year we are told that the Aetolians were distracted
3 c
a
VOL, LI,
## p. 754 (#770) ############################################
754
SCOPAS.
SCOPAS
with civil dissensions, and in order to appease half of the fourth century B. C. Pliny, indeed, places
these disorders, and provide some remedy against him, with Polycleitus, Phradmon, Myron, Pytha-
the burden of debts with which the chief persons / goras, and Perelius, at Ol. 90, B. C. 420 (11. N.
in the country were oppressed, Scopas and Dori- xxxiv. 8. . 19, Sillig's edition, the common edi-
machus were appointed to reform the constitution, tions place these artists with those of the preceding
B. C. 204. They were certainly not well qualified period, Ol. 87). It will be seen presently that
for legislators, and Scopas had only undertaken the this cannot possibly be true. The source of Pliny's
cbarge from motives of personal ambition ; on error herc, as in other such cases, is no doubt in
finding himself disappointed in which, he with the manner in which he constructed his lists of
drew to Alexandria Here he was received with artists, arranging the groups according to some
the utmost favour by the ministers who ruled particular epoch, and placing in each group artists
during the minority of the young king, Ptolemy V. , who were in part contemporary with each other,
and appointed to the chief command of the army although the earliest may have lived quite before,
in Coele-Syria, where he had to make head against and the latest quite after the date specified. Other
the ambitious designs of Antiochus the Great. At explanations of the difficulty have been attempted,
first he was completely successful, and reduced the of which it can only be said here that that of
whole province of Judaea into subjection to Pto- Sillig (Cat. Art. s. v. ) is too far-fetched, and that
lemy, but was afterwards defeated by Antiochus at the more usual plan of imagining a second artist of
Panium, and reduced to shut himself up within the name, a native of Elis, of whom nothing is
the walls of Sidon, where (after an ineffectual at- known from any other source, is a vulgar uncritical
tempt by Ptolemy to relieve him) he was ulti- expedient, which we have several times had occasion
mately compelled by famine to surrender (Polyb. to condemn.
xiii. 1, 2, xvi. 18, 19, 39; Joseph. Ant. xii. 3. $ 3; The indications which we possess of the true
Hieronym. ad Daniel. xi. 15, 16). Notwith time of Scopas, in the dates of some of his works,
standing this ill success he appears to have con- and in the period at which the school of art he be-
tinued in high favour at the Egyptian court, and longed to flourished, are sufficiently definite. He
m B. C. 200 he was sent to Greece with a large was engaged in the rebuilding of the temple of
Buni of money to raise a mercenary force for the Athena in Arcadia, which must have been com-
service of Ptolemy, a task which he performed menced soon after Ol. 96. 2, B. c. 394, the year in
80 successfully as to carry back with him to Alex- which the former temple was burnt (Paus. viii. 45.
andria a body of above 6000 of the flower of the $ 1). The part ascribed to him in the temple of
Aetolian youth (Liv. xxxi. 43). His confidence in Artemis at Ephesus, on the authority of Pliny
the support of so large a forcé, united to his own (H. N. xxxvi. 14. &. 21), is a matter of some
abilities, and the vast wealth which he had accu- doubt; but the period to which this testimony
mulated in the service of the Egyptian king, would extend his career is established by the un-
appears to have inflamed his ambition, and led him doubted evidence of his share in the sculptures of
to conceive the design of seizing by force on the the Mausoleum in Ol. 107, about B. c. 350, or even
chief administration of the kingdom. But his a little later. The date cannot be assigned with
projects were discovered before they were ripe for exactness to a year ; but, as Mausolus died in Ol.
execution, and a force was sent by Aristomenes, 106. 4, B. c. 352, and the edifice seems to hare
the chief minister of Ptolemy, to arrest him. been commenced almost immediately, and, upon
Scopas was taken by surprise, and unable to offer the death of Artemisia, two years after that of her
any resistance. He was at once led before the husband, the artists engaged on the work con-
council of the young king, condemned to death, and tinued their labours voluntarily, it would follow
executed in prison the next night, B. C. 296. Ac- that they were working at the sculptures both be
cording to Polybius he had well deserved his fate fore and after B. c. 350 (Plin. H. N. xxxvi. 5. &
by the reckless and insatiable rapacity which he had 4. $ 9 ; Vitruv, vii. praef. $ 12). On these grounds
displayed during the whole period of his residence the period of Scopas may be assigned as from B. C.
in Egypt. (Polyb. xviii. 36-38). [E. H. B. ] 395 to B. c. 350, and perhaps a little earlier and
SCOPAS (Ekomas), one of the most distin- later. He was probably somewhat older than
guished sculptors of the later Attic school, was a PRAXITELES, with whom he stands at the head of
native of Paros, which was then subject to Athens that second period of perfected art which is called
(Strab. xiii. p. 604 ; Paus. viii. 45. § 4); and he the later Attic school (in contradistinction to the
appears to have belonged to a family of artists in earlier Attic school of Pheidias), and which arose
that island. There is an inscription of a much later at Athens after the Peloponnesian War. The dis-
period (probably the first century B. c. ), in which tinctive character of this school is described under
a certain Aristander, the son of Scopas of Paros, PRAXITELES, p. 519, b.
is mentioned as the restorer of a statue of C. Bil- Like most of the other great artists of antiquity,
lienus, by Agasias, the son of Menophilus of Ephe Scopas is hardly known to us except by the very
bus ; and we also know that there was a sculptor, scanty and obscure notices which Pliny and other
Aristander of Paros, who lived during the latter writers give us of his works. Happily, however,
part of the Peloponnesian War [ARISTANDER). we possess remains of those works of the highest
These facts, taken in connection with one another, excellence, though, unfortunately, not altogether of
and with the well-known alternate succession of doubted genuineness ; we refer especially to the
names in a Greek family, make the inference ex- Niobe group, to various other statues, and the Bu-
tremely probable that the father of Scopas was that drum Marbles. We proceed to enumerate the
very Aristander who flourished about B. C. 405, works which he executed as an architect, a sculptor,
and that his family continued to flourish as artists and a statuary.
in their native island, almost or quite down to the 1. His architectural works. 1. He was the
Christian era (Böckh, C. I. No. 2285, b. , vol. ii. architect of the temple of Athena Alea, at Teger,
Pp. 236, 237). Scopas flourished during the first in Arcadia, the date of which has already been re
## p. 755 (#771) ############################################
SCOPAS.
755
SCOPAS.
ferred to (Paus. viii. 45. 88 3, 4. 8. 4—7). This , finding, in his Greek authoritics, Chersiphron men-
teniple was the largest and most magnificent in the tioned as the architect of the one, and Scopas as
Peloponnesus, and is remarkable for the arrange- the architect of the other, he confused the two to-
ment of its columns, which were of the Ionic order gether. In no other passage is Scopas mentioned
on the outside of the temple, and in the inside of as the architect of this temple: it is generally
the Doric and Corinthian orders, the latter above ascribed to DEINOCRATES : but the variations in
the former. From the way in which Pausanias the name of the architect warrant the conclusion,
speaks of the sculptures in the pediments, it appears which might be drawn à priori from the magnitude
evident that the sculptural decorations of the temple, of the work, that more than one architect superin-
as well as the building itself, were executed under tended its erection. The idea that Scopas may
the direction of Scopas ; the sculptures were pro- have been one of these architects, receives some
bably by his own hand, since Pausanias mentions confirmation from the reference of Pausanias, al-
no other artist as having wrought upon them. ready quoted, to his works in lonia and Caria ;
The subject represented in the pediment of the and the fact of his share in the temple not being
front portico was the chase of the Calydonian boar, referred to by any other writer, may be explained
and, from the description of Pausanins, this must by his architectural labours having been eclipsed
have been a most animated composition. In the by his greater fame as a sculptor, and by the re-
centre was the wild beast himself, pursued on the nown of Deinocrates as an architect, especially if
one side by Atalante, Meleager, Theseus, Telamon, the latter finished the work. The absence of any
Peleus, Pollux, lolaüs, Prothous, and Cometes ; on mention of Deinocrates by Pliny is another reason
the other side, Ancaeus was seen mortally wounded, for retaining the name of Scopas in the passage. It
having dropped his axe, and supported in the arms is to be hoped that some critic may be able to cast
of Epochus, while standing by him were Castor, some further light on a question which is so in-
Amphiaraüb, Hippothous, and Peirithous. The teresting as connected with the character of Scopas
subject of the hinder pediment was the battle of as an architect.
Telephus with Achilles, in the plain of Caïcus, 3. The part which Scopas took in the decoration
the details of which Pausanias does not describe. of the Mausoleum has been already referred to. It
Only some insignificant ruins of the temple now is now scarcely possible to doubt, either that, by
remain. (Dodwell
, Tour, vol. ii. p. 419 ; Klenze, the sculptures mentioned by Pliny and Vitruvius,
Aphorist. Bemerk. auf einer Reise nach Griechen on the four faces of the edifice, we are to under-
land, p. 647 ; Müller, Archäol. d. Kunst, § 109, stand the bas-reliefs of the frieze of the peristyle
D. ii. 13. )
which surrounded it, or that the slabs brought
In his account of this temple, Pausanias takes from Budrum (the ancient Halicarnassus), and now
occasion to mention that Scopas made statues in deposited in the British Museum, are portions of
many places of Greece Proper (as doxalas 'Ená that frieze (see Dict. of Ant. 2nd ed. art. Mausa
dos), besides those in Ionia and Caria ; an impor- leum). These slabs are thought, by competent
tant testimony to the extent of the sphere of the judges, to show traces of different bands, and
artist's labours.
unfortunately we have no means whatever of
2.
Pliny, in describing the temple of Artemis determining which of them, or whether any of
at Ephesus (H. N. xxxvi. 14. s. 21), says that them, were the work of Scopas ; since, of the
thirty-six of its sixty columns were sculptured whole frieze we possess only enough to make up a
(caelatae ; perhaps Caryatids), and then adds quarter, or one side of the peristyle, and these
words which, according to the common editions, pieces are not all continuous, nor were they
affirm that one of these columns was sculptured found in their places in the building, but in the
by Scopas ; rather a curious circumstance, that walls of the citadel of Budrum, into which they
just one of the thirty-six should be ascribed had been built by the knights of Rhodes. In
to so great an artist, and nothing be said of consequence of an opinion that the reliefs are hardly
the makers of the other thirty-five ; and rather worthy of the fame of Scopas, it has been suggested
surprising, also, that Scopas should have been en- that the slabs which we possess may have been all
gaged on what was more properly the work of a the productions of the other three artists ; but a
stone-mason. The fact is, that in the common supposition so perfectly gratuitous cannot be ad.
reading-ex üs XXXVI. caelatae, una a Scopa ; mitted until some proof of it shall be furnished ;
operi praefuit Chersiphron, fic: ---the a is a conjec- nor do we think it required by the case itself. A
tural insertion of Salmasius (who, however, with bas-relief on the frieze of a building must not be
greater consistency, also changes una into uno), and compared with such statues as those of the Niobe
it is wanting in all the MSS. The case is one of group. The artist was somewhat fettered by the
those in which we can hardly hope to clear up the nature of the work, and still more by the character
difficulty quite satisfactorily, but we are inclined to of his subject, the battle of the Amazons, which
accept as the most probable solution that proposed belongs to a class from which, as may be seen in
by Sillig (Cat. Art. s. v. ), namely, to follow the the Phigaleian frieze, and even in the metopes of
reading of the MSS. , pointing it thus : -ex iżs the Parthenon, the conventionalities of the archaic
XXXVI. caelatae. Una Scopa operi praefuit style were never entirely banished. These remarks,
Chersiphron architectus, i. e. “Together with Sco- however, are only intended to apply to the com-
pas, Chersiphron the architect superintended the parison between these marbles and the separate
work ;" for una, like simul, may be used as a statues, upon which the artist, free from all restraint,
preposition with an ablative. It is known that lavished his utmost skill; for in truth, considered
Chersiphron was the architect, not of this temple, by themselves, they do not seem to us to need
but of its predecessor, which was burnt by Hero- any apology. Allowance being made for the great
stratus (CHERSIPURON). But it is clear enough corrosion of the surface in most parts, they are
from Pliny's whole description, that he confounded beautiful works of art, and they exhibit exactly tho
the two temples ; and therefore we may infer that, characteristics of the later Attic school, as described
:
3 c 2
## p. 756 (#772) ############################################
756
SCOPAS.
SCOPAS.
;
Ly ancient writers, and as still visible in a very at Megara was Scopas's group of marble statnes of
siinilar and nearly contemporaneous work of the Eros, Himeros, and Pothos, in which he showed
very same school, the frieze of the choragic monu- the perfection of his art by the distinct and charac-
ment of Lysicrates, which is also preserved in the teristic personified expression of ideas so nearly the
ndjoining room (the Elgin Room *) in the British same (Paus. i. 43. & 6). The celebrated statue of
Museum. The decided inferiority of both these Aphrodite as victorious (Venus l'ictrix), in the
works to the Panathenaic frieze of the Parthenon Museum at Paris, known as the Venus of Milo
only proves the inferiority of the later Attic artists (Melos), is ascribed, by Waagen and others, to
to those of the school of Pheidias ; an inferiority Scopas, and is quite worthy of his chisel. It is
which was not likely to be properly appreciated by one of the most beautiful remains of ancient art.
judges who, in the kindred art of dmmatic poetry, | (Wangen, Kunstwerke u. Künstler in Paris ;
preferred Euripides to Sophocles. The part of the Nagler, Künstler. Lexicon ; Müller, Denkmäler d.
frieze of the Mausoleum executed by Scopas was alten Kunst, vol. ii. pl. xxv. No. 270. )
that of the eastern front; the sculptors of the 2. Subjects from the Mythology of Dionysus. —
other three sides were Bryaxis, Leochares, and Müller thinks that Scopas was one of the first who
Timotheus (or, as others said, Praxiteles), all of ventured to attempt in sculpture a free unfettered
them Athenians ; and Pliny tells us that the works display of Bacchic enthusiasm (Archaöl d. K’unst,
were in his time considered to vie in excellence $ 125). His statue of Dionysus is mentioned by
with each other :- hodieque certant manus (II. N. Pliny (II. N. xxxvi. 5. 6. 4. 8 5); and his Maenad,
xxxvi. 5. 8. 4. $ 9).
with flowing hair, as xwaipopóvos, is celebrated
11. Having thus noticed the works of Scopns in by several writers (Callist. Imag. 2; Glaucus, Ep.
architecture and architectural sculpture, we proceed 3, ap. Brunck. Anal. vol. ii. p. 347, Anth. Pai. ix.
to the single statues and groups which are ascribed 774 ; Simonides, Ep. 81, ap. Brunck. Anal. vol.
to him, classifying them according to their connec-i. p. 142, Anth. Plunud. iv. 60, Append. in Anth.
tion with the Greek mythology. The kinds Pal. vol. ii. p. 642, Jacobs). There are several
mythological subjects, which Scopas and the other reliefs which are supposed to be copied from the
artists of his school naturally chose, have already work of Scopas ; one of them in the British Mu-
been mentioned under Praxiteles, p. 519, b. seum. (Müller, Arch. l. c. n. 2, Denkmäler, rol. i.
Nearly all these works were in marble, the usual pl. xxxij. No. 140 ; - Townley Gallery, vol. ii. p.
material employed by the school to which Scopas 103. ) Respecting his Puniscus, see Cicero de
belonged, and that also which, as a native of Paros, | Div. i. 13).
he may be supposed to have preferred and to have 3. Subjects from the Mythology of Apollo and
been most familiar with. Only one bronze statue Artemis. Scopas embodied the ideal of the Py-
of his is mentioned ; and some critics would erase thian Apollo playing on the lyre in a statue, which
his name from Pliny's list of statuaries in bronze Augustus placed in the temple which he built to
(II. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19).
Apollo on the Palatine, in thanksgiving for his
1. Subjects from the Mythology of Aphrodite. – victory at Actium ; whence it is called by Pliny
Pliny (H. N. xxxvi. 5. s. 4. $7), after mentioning Apollo Palatinus, and on various Roman coins
Scopas as rival of Praxiteles and Cephisodotus, Apollo Actius or Palatinus (Eckhel, Doct. Num.
tells us of his statues of Venus, Pothos (Desire), vol. vi. pp. 94, 107, vol. vii. p. 124; comp. Tac.
and Phaëthon, which were worshipped with most Ann, xiv. 14 ; Suet. Nerr. 25). Propertius de
solemn rites at Samothrace. (Respecting the true scribes the statue in the following lines (ii. 31, 10
reading of the passage, and the mythological con- | -14): –
nection of Phaethon with Aphrodite, see Sillig's
“ Deinde inter matrem deus ipse interque sororem
edition of Pliny ; Hesiod. Theog. 986—991 ; and
Pythius in longa carmina veste sonat.
Welcker, in the Kunstblatt, 1827, p. 326).
Hic equidem Phoebo visus mihi pulchrior ipso
A little further on, Pliny mentions a naked statue
Marmoreus tacita carmen hiare lyra. "
of Venus, in the temple of Brutus Callaicus, at Rome,
as Praxiteliam illan antecedens, which most critics These lines, and the representations of the statue
suppose to mean preceding it in order of time; but on the coins, enable us easily to recognise a copy
Pliny appears really to mean surpassing it in excel- of it in the splendid statue in the Vatican, which
lence. It would, he adds, confer renown on any was found in the villa of Cassius (Mus. Pio-Clem.
other city, but at Rome the immense number of vol. i. pl. 16 ; Musée Franç. vol. i. pl. 5 ; Müller,
works of art, and the bustle of daily life in a great Archäol. $ 125, n. 4, Denkmäler, vol. i. pl. xxxii.
city, distracted the attention of men ; and for this No. 141). There was also a statue of Apollo
reason also, there was a doubt respecting the artist Smintheus by him, at Chrysa in the Troad (Simb.
of another statue of Venus, which was dedicated viii. p. 604 ; Eustath. ad Il. i. 39). Two statues
by Vespasian in the Temple of Peace, and which of Artemis are ascribed to Scopas ; the one by
was worthy of the fame of the ancient artists. Pausanias (ix. 17. § 1), the other by Lucian
Another work mentioned by Pliny as doubtful, is (Leriph. 12, vol. ii. p. 339).
the Cupid holding a thunderbolt, in the Curia of But of all his works in this department, by far
Octavia. Pausanias (vi. 25 & 2) mentions a bronze the most interesting is the celebrated group, or
group by Scopas, of Aphrodite Pandemos, sitting rather series, of figures, representing the destruc-
on a goat, which stood at Elis, in the same temple tion of the sons and daughters of Niobe. In
with Pheidias's chryselephantine statue of Aphro. Pliny's time the statues stood in the temple of
dite Urania. The juxtaposition of these works of Apollo Sosianus, at Rome, and it was a disputed
the two Attic schools must have furnished an in- point whether they were the work of Scopas or of
teresting comparison. In the temple of Aphrodite Praxiteles. The remaining statues of this group,
or copies of them, are all in the Florence Gallery,
The Budrum Marbles are in the Phigaleian with the exception of the so-called Ilioneus, at
Room, perhaps only temporarily.
Munich, which some suppose to have belonged to
## p. 757 (#773) ############################################
SCOPAS.
757
SCRIBONIA.
1
!
1
the group. There is a bead of Niobe in the col- Pliny of any work in bronze by Scopns, although
lection of Lord Yarborough, which has some claim his name appears in the chronological list of sta-
to be considered as the original. Our space forbids tuaries at the beginning of the chapter. But even
our entering on the various questions which have been that passage is, as has been seen, involved in dif-
raised respecting this group, such as the genuineness ficulty, and one proposed emendation, that of
or originality of the figures, the manner of grouping Thiersch, would banish the name of Scopas from it
them, and the aesthetic character of the whole com altogether, substituting Onalas. The only work in
position : on these matters the reader is referred to bronze expressly ascribed to Scopas is the Aphro-
the works now quoted.
