360 AECH^OLOGY [CLASSICAL : THLRD Bcopas. Inscript. Grccc. No. 160). In the British Museum, besides part of this inscription, are several specimens of the archi tectural decoration, and one of the Caryatides (or draped female figures who supported the portico), in which the simplicity of the drapery and the dignity of the pose are quite in the spirit of the Parthenon sculptures. The temple of Apollo Epicurius at Phigalia, in Arcadia, the work of Ictinus, the architect of the Parthenon, necessarily belongs also to this period (Cockerell, Temples of Jupiter at JEyina and Apollo at Phigalia}. The great temples at Olympia and Delphi, though begun earlier, may also be reckoned among the works of this period, to which also belongs a large series of Doric temples in the Greek towns of Sicily and Magna GraBcia, particularly those of Syracuse, Agrigentum, Selinus, Egesta, and Metapontum. Of these the most remarkable are the southern temple in the lower town of Selinus, and the somewhat more recent temple of Zeus at Agrigentum. Fourth Period, Since the beginning of our last period, the political and social circumstances of Greece have suffered a marked change. More or less it was then accepted as a dogma that, provided the state Avas nourishing, the prosperity of individuals mattered little. All were for the state, and by their union in the state s emergency had achieved a glorious freedom, the sense of which filled the national rnind, and prepared it to respond with a fostering sympathy to the efforts of artists, whom it also inspired. Yet, con scious as they must have been of their own services, the men of that generation turned rather in pride to the deeds of their ancestral heroes, and in humility to the assistance of the gods. They sought to frame their conduct on the traditions of the past. They were rigorous and strong in thought. Passion was a thing to deplore, not to study, analyse, and represent. The national history was still imchequered. Nor was the house of Hellas as yet to any degree openly divided against itself. There was no need of artists whether poet, as ^Eschylus, or sculptor, as Phidias to depict the struggles of passion or other condi tions of the mind. Now this is all changed. The nation has lost its unity, and the Peloponnesiau war has made havoc of its resources. ^Eschylus has given way to Sophocles and Euripides, Phidias to Scopas and Praxiteles. Poets and sculptors of the new generation have chosen as their theme the representation of pathos and of the condi tions of the mind generally. That such was the character of what is called the second Attic school of sculpture is known principally from the records of artists. Of works directly from the hand of any of the masters of this school there is no example in existence, so far as we know at present. On the other hand, there are many copies of their works, from which, with the aid of records, some idea may be formed of their style. The first of the artists of this school was Scopas, a native of Parus, and, as it would seem, the son and pupil of Aristandrus, a worker in bronze, in which material the son appears to have commenced his career as a sculptor. An example of his work in bronze was the statue of Aphrodite sitting on a goat, in Elis (Pausanius, vi. 25, 2). This subject occurs on a fragmentary cameo in the British Museum. Marble, however, was a material more congenial to his style. The first years of his activity were spent in the Peloponnesus, and particularly at Tegea in Arcadia, where the erection of a temple, in honour of Athene Alea, in the place of one that had been burned 395 B.C., was under his direction as regards both the architecture and the sculpture. About 380 B.C. he settled in Athens, where for nearly thirty years he maintained a reputation for an unparalleled power of rendering the human or divine figure, not imposing, but attractive by the charm of bearing, and the expression of that feeling which for the moment the person was most sensitive to. Sometimes this feeling was one of excited pas sion accompanied by great bodily agitation, as for example, in the case of his statue of a Mjenad at Athens, in the attitude of rushing with head thrown back and streaming hair, and holding a slain kid in her hand. At other times the passion he sought to express was one of peace ful inspiration, as in the statue of Apollo Citharocdus, with long flowing robe and head thrown back as in a dreamy enjoyment of the strains from Iris lyre. When considerably advanced in life, possibly over sixty years of age, Scopas was invited by Artemisia, the queen of Caria, to assist or direct the sculptures for a monument which she was erecting at Halicarnassus in memory of her hus band Mausolus. Accompanied by Bryaxis, Leochares, and Timotheus (or Praxiteles, as others said), he pro ceeded thither, but as to what part he had in the work we have no information. The site of the Mausoleum was discovered and excavated by Mr C. T. Newton in 1856-7, the result being the recovery of an important part of the sculptures, which, with the slabs of the frieze previously knoATn, now constitutes the principal illustration of the arto of that time (Newton, Discoveries at Halicarnassus, Cnidiut, and JSranchidce, 1862). While occupied on the Mausoleum, or after its completion, Scopas executed several sculptures for other towns in Asia Minor, as at Cnidus, Ephesus, and Chryse in the Troad. In a temple of Neptune, erected in Rome by Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, "was a large com position by Scopas, representing Poseidon, Thetis, and Achilles, attended by nereids riding on dolphins and hippocamps, and by tritons and other marvellous creatures of the sea. Not as a copy of this work, but as reflecting vividly the manner of this sculptor, has been accepted the large marble relief in Munich (O. Jahn, Berichte der Sachs. Ges. d. Wiss., 1854, pis. 3-8), representing the marriage of Poseidon and Amphitrite. How far the merit belongs to Scopas of having introduced into. Greek art the ideal type.s of those marine beings who personified the element of the sea, is unknown. In a temple of Apollo at Rome there was further a large composition, representing the slaughter of the children of Niobe, about the authorship of which there were two opinions, the one ascribing it to Scopas, the other to Praxiteles. While this dubiety is itself proof that the two artists were rivals in the power of expressing pathos and suffering, there is a considerable probability that the composition in question was more adapted, of the two, to the genius of Scopas. Of this work there exists what is believed to be a more or less complete copy in the series of marble statues in the gallery of the Uffizi at Florence. The work is very uneven throughout, as might be expected in Roman copies; but the dramatic character of the action, and the powerful rendering of pain and suffering in the faces, still bespeak the style of the original sculptor, who, whether Scopas, Praxiteles, or another, was certainly an Athenian artist of the first half of the 4th century B.C. (Friederichs, Bausteine, i. pp. 230- 246). Another example of the style of this period, in the combination of beauty with a lovable and touching expres sion of face, is the so-called statue of Leucothea, in the Glyptotheke of Munich, which there are grounds for assigning to Cephisodotus, the father, it would seem, of Praxiteles, who is recorded to have made for Athens a statue of Irene with the boy Plutus in her arms, which, aa it appears on the coins of Athens, closely resembles the Leucothea. This Cephisodotus, standing as he did in the period between the old and the new Attic schools, seems to have shared the qualities of both, but to have inclined rather to the latter.
That Praxiteles was directly a pupil of Scopas is not Traxitelc